Climate Change Preparedness Faces Political and Practical Challenges 

By Cincade Drudge

As extreme weather events grow more and more frequent and devastating, the question shifts from how to prevent climate disasters to how to prepare for when they strike.  

Around the world, weather-related disasters have already affected more than 2.5 billion people, caused 2 million deaths, and resulted in over $4 trillion in economic losses the last fifty years.  

Floods, droughts, and heat waves are intensifying, and their effects are rarely consistent. A region may face drought one year and flash flooding the next. These unpredictable swings make preparedness one of the most complex challenges in the fight against climate change. 
Preparation for climate change may be complex, but it is not an optional venture; it is vital. Because climate change cannot be fully prevented, adaptation and resilience efforts are now a core part of protecting at-risk communities. Preparedness now means developing plans, strengthening infrastructure, and improving response systems before disaster hits. 

These actions can take many forms: updating stormwater systems, building cooling centers, restoring wetlands, expanding urban tree cover, or ensuring emergency alerts reach residents in multiple languages. The question then becomes, where will the money to fund all this come from?  

The cost of funding preparedness is a frequent complaint of opponents. However, it has been found that every dollar spent on climate preparedness yields a $13 return in avoided damages and cleanup costs. In other words, investing in resilience pays off even if a disaster never occurs. 

Federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have all developed adaptation plans that integrate climate data into their operations and emergency planning. 

Funding programs such as FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance and the EPA’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants help turn these plans into reality, supporting states and cities with the resources to build resilience.  

Federal legislation like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act further bolsters clean energy and climate resilience investments, helping to fund clean energy projects and develop a federal climate planning strategy.  

But these positive efforts have not been without political friction. The current administration has signaled its intent to scale back environmental regulations and limit the authority of federal agencies, threatening to undo years of progress.

Some of the agencies that lead on preparedness have even faced existential threats through budget cuts, workforce reductions, and policy rollbacks. In addition, the administration has imposed new limitations on scientific bodies such as NOAA, restricting data collection and suppressing climate-related research. These moves have extended even to the political policing of language; agencies were reportedly discouraged or outright banned from using terms like ‘climate change’ in official documents.

That tension is especially visible at the state level, where climate preparedness can depend heavily on politics. In Indiana, for example, climate planning has faced major obstacles.  

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) recently created a Priority Climate Action Plan under an EPA grant, identifying vulnerabilities like flooding, extreme heat, and agricultural disruption. 

However, that work came to an abrupt halt. Governor Mike Braun ordered the agency to cease developing federal climate plans without his or the legislature’s approval—effectively freezing the project. IDEM returned the remaining federal funds, leaving no clear path forward. 

Regional organizations, like the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC), have tried to fill the gap with localized climate documents and community engagement. Yet, without state-level backing, these efforts often lack the resources and authority to create widespread change. 

This leaves much of the responsibility to local governments, who often face the steepest challenges and the greatest need, with fewer resources.  

Leaders have tried to step up here locally in Fort Wayne; under the Sustaining Fort Wayne Initiative, the city developed its Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), a blueprint for both emissions reduction and resilience.  

The plan outlines practical steps such as improving stormwater management, expanding urban forestry to combat extreme heat, and protecting waterways from contamination during severe storms. 

Inclusion is a core focus of Fort Wayne’s strategy. Emergency communications are being adapted to reach non-English-speaking residents, and the city uses the Hoosier Resilience Index to measure progress and identify vulnerable populations.  

These actions demonstrated that meaningful preparedness can happen from the ground up, even when higher levels of government falter. 

However, while these efforts marked meaningful groundwork, movement appears to have slowed in recent years. Since the second Trump administration began, there have been few visible updates or expansions to the city’s climate plans, raising concerns that momentum has stalled at a time when local leadership is increasingly critical.

Still, the road ahead is anything but simple. Many local governments lack the funding, staffing, and expertise to carry out large-scale adaptation projects. Federal support fluctuates with each election cycle, and state politics can either bolster or block local action. 

The result is a patchwork of preparedness across the country; some regions are building up preparedness and resilience with strong leadership and investment, while others remain dangerously unprepared. 

The stakes could not be higher. Climate preparedness isn’t about distant future threats; it’s about protecting lives, homes, and communities right now. Investing in preparedness saves money, prevents loss, and ensures a safer, more stable future for everyone. 

While Fort Wayne has already made a meaningful attempt at preparedness, we can always push for more support for these efforts and encourage similar preparedness efforts in surrounding communities and on a federal level.  

Cincade Drudge is a student journalist at Purdue University Fort Wayne and a Waterfield Environmental Intern at the Environmental Resources Center on campus. 

Environmental Disinformation Poses Growing Threat

By Cincade Drudge

Part of the challenge of protecting our planet today is not just the very real effects of the changing climate itself, but the flood of false and misleading information regarding it. 

Environmental disinformation, which is the intentional effort to mislead the public about environmental issues, has become one of the biggest barriers to meaningful action. It often comes from industries or political actors with a financial stake in delaying change. 

Climate misinformation has surged in recent years, with multiple studies showing that misleading posts from unreliable sources often attract two to three times more engagement than accurate information on platforms like Facebook and Instagram. 

We’ve seen this playbook of purposeful falsehoods before. Tobacco companies once funded doubt about the dangers of smoking, delaying public health reforms and costing countless lives. 

Take the myth ​of plastic recycling. For decades, the plastics industry​ ​has promoted recycling as a solution to environmental damage caused by plastic waste​, even though only about 5% of plastic in the U.S. is actually recycled.

The result? People blame themselves for not recycling enough instead of asking why so much single-use plastic is produced in the first place. 

Or consider “clean coal.” Despite the name, coal remains one of the dirtiest energy sources on Earth, responsible for air pollution and millions of dollars in public health costs. Marketing it as “clean” allows companies to appear responsible while avoiding meaningful reform. 

Perhaps most crucially, the fossil fuel industry has taken this same strategy to a global scale, using misinformation to question the reality of climate change and the science behind it. The goal is the same across industries: to confuse, divide, and stall progress. 

Why should you care? Because disinformation doesn’t only distort the debate around climate change, it changes real material outcomes. When the public is unsure what to believe, it’s easier for policymakers to do nothing.  

Every year that passes without decisive climate action adds to the cost, environmentally, economically, and socially. Before long, we will find ourselves in a world of hurt, with a destroyed climate and a population too steeped in disinformation to do anything about it. 

These stories are not isolated; they form a pattern of deception that benefits a few while harming many. And now, with social media, this misinformation spreads faster than ever.  

Influencers, podcasts, and partisan outlets amplify misleading claims, often without fact-checking or accountability. Consider this: eight of the top 10 online shows are spreading climate misinformation.  

So what can be done? Transparency would be a start. When corporations, politicians, and media outlets are required to disclose who funds their messages, the public can make informed decisions about credibility.  

Media literacy is another key step: teaching people how to recognize biased sources and understand how scientific consensus is built. 

This scientific consensus concept leads to another important point: Scientists, too, must meet the public halfway by communicating clearly and openly, without the technical jargon that can alienate audiences.  

The need for scientific clarity doesn’t erase the blame we as individuals face. We must take steps (no matter how small) toward reaching climate accuracy via verifying info before sharing, supporting credible journalism, and challenging falsehoods when we see them. 

The battle for truth is part of the fight for a livable planet. If we allow disinformation to shape public understanding, the consequences will be very real.  

Take voting, for example; U.S. voters’ opinion on climate change has been found to have swayed enough voters in 2020 to account for a 3% swing in the popular vote. This shift, if reversed by disinformation, could have switched the winner of the presidential election, dramatically shifting U.S. Climate policy.  

This shows that holding powerful actors accountable and demanding honesty in environmental communication isn’t optional; it’s vital to securing a bright future for both us and hopefully those long after us. We can’t allow misinformation to affect the outcomes of our elections, our policies, or our future.  

If you encounter misleading environmental claims or wish to learn how to identify them, consider using resources such as Science Feedback, Media Bias/Fact Check, and Hot Air, each of which provides accessible tools for fact-checking and misinformation reporting. 

We all have a role in protecting not just our environment, but the truth that helps us defend it. 

Cincade Drudge is a student journalist at Purdue University Fort Wayne and a Waterfield Environmental Intern at the Environmental Resources Center on campus.