This commentary is by Dan Jones, a resident of Montpelier.
For just about everyone who lives in small Vermont cities, like Montpelier, recently devastated by floods, it’s clear that the climate crisis has revealed stark choices. We must now choose whether to rebuild our once-bustling downtown as it once was, or to start creating a different kind of valley city, adapted to a climate-changed present and future.
The long-predicted climate emergency has arrived, well ahead of schedule, rendering even the most stolid climate deniers mute. Instead, what divides us now is a division on the speed and scope of the challenge.
Following the flood, the immediate, and most socially acceptable position, seems to be a kind of conviction that we can all just get back to business of rebuilding our downtown as it was before, because lightning doesn’t strike twice in the same place — a view that, of course, is a form of denial. I have heard several shopkeepers state that they assume it will be another 10 or 12 years before they get hit with another flood, and of course, since it’s tourist season, they need to get back to business now.
But even as they rebuild, they harbor a fear that all their efforts could be washed away again sooner than that.
Certainly, we need to continue working toward some sort of “Net Zero” future. However, it is difficult to imagine a comfortable transition out of the worst-case scenarios that rely on driving EVs and installing heat pumps, because such approaches rely on belief in a magical universal commitment to such virtuous consumer behaviors. Certainly it is less demanding to hope and believe that virtuous behavior changes might make a real difference in the course of the growing crisis by 2030.
Those of us on the more realistic but admittedly gloomy side know that these virtuous changes in behavior won’t help us much right now. If we believe what climate science is telling us, future disasters will be coming much faster and with more force than we’ve ever dreamed of.
Weather patterns are becoming less predictable, more chaotic and destructive. NASA is predicting that 2024 will be hotter than this year. Another super-hot summer out West will then send more waves of saturated air our way. In fact, we can expect 20% more rain with the next great inundation. More disastrous flooding could happen later this fall or in the next couple of years.
One of the hardest parts of addressing our current situation is that, without agreement on the imminence of the local climate effects, we will continue failing to address the speed and scope of what is heading our way. Such failures of response creates paralysis in our political decision-making.
In our supposedly liberal state, it is always easier to sell a “nice” story of steady incremental change, especially when compared to the level of sacrifice and disruption that will actually be required. No wonder our political leaders, afraid to demand any sacrifice from a frightened electorate, continue to dither. It is safer for them to continue with optimistic but ineffective energy and economic responses.
It is time to admit that we have run out of time to change the course of the climate collapse. To build some sort of humane and manageable local future, we must rapidly prepare for floods, heat and fires that will be hurtling our way. For us students of history, we also see massive disruptions, so we should also prepare for economic emergencies and continued social disintegration.
Preparing for a more chaotic future will require adaptation in ways that will be uncomfortable and demanding. But time is running out.
We need to ask serious questions now: Is keeping our downtown business district in a dangerous floodplain a good idea? Where I live, we need to consider Montpelier’s many downtown parking lots returned to a more natural, floodplain state.
In our haste to rebuild, does it make sense to continue using current materials? How about “hardening” the downtown buildings to let the future floodwaters run through? What is the responsibility of our rural neighboring towns to manage their water runoff such that they don’t amplify a larger flooding problem in the valley-based downtowns? What kind of substantial investments must we make toward replacing aging and failing infrastructure?
Floods are not our only needed area of adaptation. How about heat domes? Do we have cooling centers and drought protection services? If we have a really hot and dry year, do we have forest firefighting capacity? The recent failures of local emergency preparedness and flood response in places like Montpelier demand serious attention
Once you start doing a hard-headed, systematic analysis of these issues, the more you realize that we need new leadership and new thinking. If we keep pandering to the nice but ineffective policies that have gotten us into such a vulnerable condition, our options will be more and more limited. I wish it were easier, but it won’t be.
Still, the good news is this: We have a strong and educated community. We responded quickly, immediately, following the flood. Now we all need to build on, and amplify, the recent post-flood conversations to ensure a relatively healthy and supportive future — one that’s more-adaptation focused than what we’re assuming right now.
