Fresh Air - Rising Floods, Cuts To FEMA And Future Chaos

Episode Date: July 16, 2025

ProPublica Editor-at-Large Abrahm Lustgarten says the deadly flooding in Central Texas — which has killed over 130 people — underscores the dangers of a more volatile climate. Despite clear scientific evidence, the federal government has made cuts to research and forecasting, even threatening to dismantle FEMA. "We could talk about the floods in Texas as being an early warning sign of policy degradation to come," he says. "And we can expect to be more on our own and unsupported by those policies when these disasters continue to happen in the future. Also, film critic Justin Chang reviews Sorry, Baby.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Most people have some album, some movie, some book from when they were young that helped shape how they came to see the world. That's no less true for the Code Switch crew. It's still really touching and I cried re-reading it. So there. Listen as we revisit some of our old faves on Code Switch from NPR or wherever you get your podcast. This is Fresh Air. I'm Tonya Mosley. Right now, crews in central Texas are wading through debris and on and off rain in the search for those still missing

after catastrophic floods. In the early morning hours of July 4th, while the country was preparing to celebrate, the Guadalupe River rose in some places between 30 and 40 feet, killing more than 130 people, including dozens of children at a summer camp, with another hundred or more still missing. In the days that followed, FEMA reportedly failed to answer nearly two-thirds of the

urgent calls for help. Local officials relied on spotty cell phone alerts that came too late, and now they're under intense scrutiny for those delays. Meanwhile, with the National Weather Service hit by budget cuts, there's real concern this disaster could have been better predicted and that more lives might have been saved. My guest today is investigative journalist Abram Lustgarten. In his latest article for ProPublica, he writes about the horrifying details of this latest catastrophe and the broader story about America's shaky relationship with climate change, highlighting how unprepared we really are. He writes that

the floodwaters didn't just wash away cabins and homes, they exposed dangerous gaps in our warning systems and local infrastructure and federal policy. Over the weekend, President Trump visited Texas offering condolences and praising first responders, but he deflected questions about local alert failures and the federal cuts to disaster response and climate research. Abram Lustgarten is an editor-at-large at ProPublica, where he leads their coverage of climate change. He also writes for the New York Times Magazine, the Atlantic, and PBS Frontline. And his latest book is On the Move, the Overheating Earth and the Uprooting of America.

Abraham Lustgarten, welcome back to Fresh Air. It's great to be here. Thank you. Abraham, first off, I want to acknowledge the tremendous loss of life and suffering in Texas. I was just thinking about this. This has to be one of the worst in recent history for Texas and the nation. Yeah, absolutely.

And it's particularly disturbing, heart-wrenching to read about so many children perishing in these disasters. And it's certainly underscoring the intensification of the loss of perishing in these disasters. It's certainly underscoring the intensification of the loss of human life as these disasters get more and more intense. There are several investigations that are underway right now, but I want to break down exactly what happened and what didn't so that we can understand this larger story that these floods are telling us about our changing climate and our ability to respond to those threats. So first off, the Guadalupe River.

I was reading how it's known to flood, but this flood in particular is in line with what we're seeing with climate and human caused warming. And I'd love if you could elaborate on the differences in weather patterns, not just in Texas, but really the severity overall of flash floods. We're seeing them in places like New York and other parts of the country as we speak. Yeah, I mean flooding is the deadliest of disasters in the United States and floods are growing in intensity and in frequency just like all climate disasters. And one of the main drivers of that

is that warmer atmosphere holds greater amounts of moisture. And so as the climate changes, more water is being sucked out of bodies of water, like the Gulf of Mexico, carried through the clouds and dropped in intense episodes of rainfall. In the northern Midwest, they developed a phrase for this called mega rain events, where parts of Wisconsin a number of years ago would see 16 inches of rainfall,

then unheard of, now more common, happening all at once. And it was breaking dams and so forth. And it was sort of similar to what we saw during Superstorm Sandy in the New York area and what we saw in Hurricane Harvey in Texas in 2017, and now in Texas this past July 4th weekend. This is a fact that I wasn't even aware of as someone who's a layman, of course. I mean, heat can actually, as you said, build up moisture and move as far as a place like

Kansas all the way to the UK and cause flooding just around the world. Like, this is a really interesting development that gives us an understanding of the impacts of this climate warming. Yeah, I mean, globally what we're seeing is a total interruption of the systems that we probably all have grown accustomed to seeing as normal. And so moisture and the transit of moisture

is one major facet of that. Last summer, we had those horrific floods and rainstorms in Spain that many people probably remember and there was research at the time that connected the movement of that moisture to the loss of moisture in Kansas in the United States which at the time was undergoing an extraordinary drought. And so that's an example of you know the pulling of moisture out of one place and the dropping of that moisture in another place. And globally, the Earth is getting drier. The extremes are intensifying.

So we're seeing more rain in places that are wetter. But those wetter places are getting smaller, while larger parts of the planet's surface are generally getting drier and experiencing greater droughts and prolonged droughts. And this is all really an interrupted atmospheric cycle, not transporting and delivering rain in the kind of steady and predictable way that it has for most of our lives. Okay. I want to get into our ability to respond to these changes. A big question on all of our minds. Did President Trump's cuts to FEMA or the National Weather Service affect our ability to respond in Texas?

I think that's an outstanding question. We can't quite put our finger on yet. There's a lot of worrying signs. The National Weather Service, of course, is responsible for long-range and short-range forecasts in issuing these urgent flood warnings. There's a lot of indications that the local National Weather Service did its job before the floods in Texas, but there's been some substantial investigations also that more senior officials were understaffed, the big

decision makers, those plotting the science agenda for how that agency is interpreting climate models and kind of creating the big picture in places like Texas. So that's a worrying indication. And I think it's really unclear still how that affected the particular forecast for Texas and whether that would have had an impact on the speed of communication of the urgency of those floods to those people. But I think what we can know for sure right now is that long term, the kind of changes that we're seeing to FEMA,

to the National Weather Service, to the support for science and all of the policies and programs that are dependent on it will have an impact. So we can expect, you know, we could talk about the floods in Texas as being an early warning sign of policy degradation to come. And we can expect to be more on our own and unsupported by those policies

when these disasters continue to happen in the future. Can you break this down just a little bit more for us? How worried should these cuts make us? Because I'm reading about a quarter of its full-time staff, FEMA's full-time staff, was cut, including, as you said, some of its most experienced staff. There were reports over the last few days that in the days after the flood, FEMA did not answer nearly two-thirds of calls to its disaster assistance line.

How worried should this make us? Oh, pretty worried, I think, from the perspective of the staff that I'm speaking with at these agencies from the policy experts that I talked to. I mean, not to be overly apocalyptic about the circumstances, but we have a confluence of two very worrying trends. And the first, of course, is climate change, which is reaching a point of a loud enough signal that it's obvious to us. We're seeing it in daily disasters and in changing trends and in heat waves. And the urgency to deal with that is ever more apparent. And that's coinciding with a deliberate undermining

of capability to address that other emergency. And so that is what the people I speak with now warn should be extraordinarily concerning. And that is coming in many forms, like an absolute undermining of the science and erasure of the science an absolute undermining of the science and erasure of the science and an undermining of our ability to react to events when they happen. And that's where FEMA comes in.

And there's cuts across the board, and we could talk about any of them, but the cuts to FEMA, it serves a vital role in funding and supporting state and local disaster response and also in preventing the scale of those disasters in localities across the country. Well, you know, one of the arguments that the Trump administration has made regarding these cuts and federal disaster response overall is that states and cities should handle disasters independently. The administration makes this point that FEMA's role in particular sometimes overlaps with

state agencies. So there's redundancy. Is that true? Well, it's partially true, but it's partially a misrepresentation of how this system works. I mean, FEMA in many cases provides funding to those local agencies to do the work that they do. So they might do it separately, but they depend on FEMA to be able to carry it out. And they depend on FEMA for a lot of the expert guidance, the scientific guidance, the management guidance, and also the coordination across regions. I mean, you can't ask a local municipality to coordinate a response across a state the size of Texas, for example, let alone across a region like the American Southwest or the entire country. And FEMA, just to remind people, is also responsible for emergencies like terrorism response.

So there is a very broad role that FEMA plays that's being undermined. Very few people, if any, that I talk to would deny that FEMA is in need of reform. There are serious concerns about bureaucracy, about the way and efficiency that money is spent in about the direction that some of its programs have been going in.

It is in need of reform, but it is not in need of eradication. And we are headed in the direction of absolutely getting rid of that agency in its entirety. States like Texas depend on FEMA funding for upwards of 75% of their disaster response funding. Other states as much as 90% or 100%. So I hear an argument sometimes that states do rely on the federal government too much for their disaster response that perhaps if they weren't receiving such funding from FEMA that they might develop and evolve over time a stronger internal or localized disaster response agency.

And I think that that's true. And I think that that's important. It's not a light switch that you can just flip on and off. You can't remove FEMA funding one year as disasters continue to mount annually and expect those states to be able to protect and serve the people who live in them. Well, during his visit to Texas, President Trump actually did walk back slightly, this idea of doing away completely with FEMA. I think he used the word remaking FEMA instead of getting rid of it altogether. How do you assess that move, that statement that maybe he's walking back now that he's seen that the damage that

has happened in a place like Texas. It's really difficult to interpret you know what President Trump means when when he says that about FEMA or what you see from FEMA's leadership in Kristi Noem. Rhetorically it sounds like the right thing and again it sounds like the kind of reform that you know FEMA's been in need of for a long time but I'm not seeing yet that the money is there, for example. And one crucial role that FEMA has played since Congress mandated it in 2018 is the providing of grants, this program called Building Resilience Infrastructure and Communities Program. It's shorthand for BRIC, and it's to build community resilience before these disasters happen, to install infrastructure and fund infrastructure

that would prevent disastrous results from flooding, like we saw in Texas, or prevent wildfires in California or across the Southwest. So that program has been completely defunded. Something like $880 million are being returned to the Treasury. That is a core function that FEMA serves that will protect US communities from the changes of climate change in the future so that we're not always kind of on our heels and responding after the disaster happens, but actually saving some lives and

preventing communities from being destroyed before they happen. And I'm not hearing anything about the preservation of programs like that. And there are others, there's extensive grant programs that FEMA provides and extensive funding for flood mitigation specifically, which appears to all be on hold and is not moving forward. So while we're hearing on one hand, oh, we're just going to remake FEMA or we're going to reorganize it,

you know, the legs that support the agency and the money that flows to make the functions it's supposed to provide reality are disappearing. You know what happened in Texas, I mean it's so catastrophic, so devastating, and local leaders and forecasters there, they're under fire right now for these delayed alerts and confusing warnings. I wanted to just talk with you for a moment about some of the reporting that's come out of there that perhaps agencies have made cuts and what really happened on the ground?

If everything had gone right, what should that response have looked like? I mean, this is a hard question to answer. I think there's a lot of little components to this system that each have added up to, you know, to make a big difference, but alone might not have been foreseen to be as critical as they are. But it appears that there was not a cohesive warning system, especially along the Guadalupe River. There was not a heathens to the actual physical risk that is present on that river. The children's camp that has been the site of so much loss

was located inside a federal floodway designated by FEMA. And a floodway is not just a floodplain. It is not just a place where water may spread in the unusual event of a flood. It is the designated location where deep water moving at high velocity is projected to go. It is like the most critical, the most dangerous disaster zone.

And so I think we're all asking really significant questions about why a camp is located there in the first place, why any structures or habitation are located within or near these floodways, let alone flood zones. What kind of warning systems, you know, would functionally protect people in those places, but they probably include better communications, like the presence of consistent, you know, cell phone and internet towers. At Camp Mystic, for example, I believe the power loss was one of the first effects of the rising floodwater. So there's questions about if you

are going to locate people and structures inside something as dangerous as a floodway, then why would you not, at least at a very minimum, raise your electrical infrastructure to higher ground? The same way we had a conversation after Sandy in New York about infrastructure and buildings being located in the basement level where they flood first. So that's one of dozens, if not hundreds of examples of small steps that can be taken to both protect people, but also to make communities more resilient. There seems to have been an

enormous amount of communication breakdown around the emergency unfolding in Texas. Local officials, the mayor of Kerrville, not being aware of the flooding that was happening. No middle of the night wake-up calls, no middle of the night warning sirens, no adequate, you know, cell phone communication or internet communication to move people out of harm's way. So these are all systems that we now can see how clearly, how obviously important they are, and they're important in any disaster and then you add the climate component on top of it which we should say is an exacerbator not a cause of this

flood. This is a place that has always flooded and so there's a responsibility to be prepared for what has always happened there and then there's an added responsibility to understand how it might be worse than can be forecasted or predicted, or how limited our ability to understand how much worse it could be, you know, to even imagine that worst case scenario is being enhanced by climate change. And so you pile all those things together, and I think there's a real added burden for having tight policies and procedures in place to respond as an emergency is unfolding. Abraham, what has your reporting revealed to you about this tension between

local budget priorities and the sheer cost of climate-related disasters for local officials? There's a big picture answer to that, which is that, you know, most of us remain in denial about the severity of climate change, which means that we're in denial about the potential for worst case disaster, for the loss of lives in particular from a disaster. And that's coupled with a near constant pressure in every place that I've reported across the country, not just in Texas, around, you know, budget priorities. So there's a reluctance to believe in the threat and not just in a denialism kind of way, but in understanding the severity of the risk kind of way. And there isn't a lot of money available to do the things that are necessary. Something I want to go back to that you mentioned about the tragedy at Camp Mystic where those young girl campers

were killed. You mentioned that the camp was located inside of a federal designated floodway and I was wondering how common is that for people all over the United States living in flood and hurricane and fire zones which are expanding in real time? I can't quantifiably answer that but I think it's the right question for journalists to be asking and looking at right now across the country. What we know about FEMA and its floodplains in general over the last, you know, two decades is that it is an imperfect system and also deserving some reform. So generally, you know,

I tend to think of FEMA's flood maps and their designation of flood risk areas across the country as an approximation of where flood risk is present, but it has routinely been influenced and corrupted in some ways by local interests and business interests across the country. So what you see, for example, is if a floodplain designation is expanded, it can have an impact on commercial development in an area. floodplain designation is expanded, it can have an impact on commercial development in an area. It can increase insurance rates, or it can lower property values.

And so there's always been pressure on FEMA to balance its flood designations with that economic interest of a local place. And what we know about the Guadalupe River and the region right around Camp Mystic is that FEMA was petitioned in recent years to exempt the locating of structures in that floodway and in that larger floodplain and that it granted those exemptions. And the exempting of certain areas in itself is not as unusual as

perhaps it sounds or as perhaps it should be. But because of the designation of a floodway in that Camp Mystic location, to me, that says this was an especially hazardous area and especially high risk for people, let alone children, and let alone to be sleeping in. And many places, and perhaps Camp Mystic included, are grandfathered into these systems. So if the regulations or the understanding of flood risk improves over time, but a business or a camp or residence was located in a high-risk area, historically and long before those policies

evolved, they're often granted an exemption or grandfathered into an old system, and perhaps that's another loophole or point of vulnerability that needs to be really carefully examined at this point. Our guest today is investigative reporter and editor-at-large Abram Lustgarten, here to talk about his latest article for ProPublica, The Texas Flash Flood is a preview of the chaos to come. We'll be right back after a short break. I'm Tonya Mosley and this is Fresh Air. On this week's Wild Card podcast, comedian Mark Maron reflects on being content-ish. I can honestly say there's never been a better time in my life.

And I'm not even sure this one is that great. I'm Rachel Martin, Mark Maron's on Wild Card, the show where cards control the conversation. These days there's so much news, it can be hard to keep up with what it all means for you, your family, and your community. The Consider This podcast from NPR features our award-winning journalism. Six days a week, we bring you a deep dive on a news story and provide the context and analysis that helps you make sense of the news. We get behind the headlines. We get to the truth. Listen to the Consider This podcast from NPR.

Abram, I want to talk to you about the Office of Global Change, which leads our country's participation in global climate negotiations. So most of that staff left voluntarily after Trump took office, but the rest of them, about a dozen or so, were fired this past Friday and the office was closed. What does that mean for our country to lose its core team of? What were career climate diplomats? It means that the United States is not participating in any aspect of global efforts to address climate change it means that we're not going to be a Negotiator or a player in making commitments to change the trajectory of that climate change,

to lessen the severity of that climate change. It means that we're not going to be a significant player in global efforts to decide how to fund and support countries around the world as they face their own disasters or mega disasters. And it means that we're not going to play much of a role at all in preparing ourselves or the world for the change that's going to come. And so it's delegating that responsibility to other parts of the world, which will surely continue it and it is relegating the United States to the role of a bystander and probably in the long term to a role of follower and I think my reporting suggests you know a role of being somewhat economically disadvantaged.

Say more about that, the economic disadvantages. Climate change in one way or another is stacking up to be the most expensive and the most economically significant challenge that humanity has faced. It will cost the United States, according to the experts and economists that I speak with, you know, upwards of one to three percent of its annual GDP per degree of Celsius of warming. And then there's the response and adaptation side that's so relevant to the flooding in Texas, which is really a question of how much is invested in things like flood protection, in coastal resilience, in raising the height of homes along coastal areas, in resettling communities, in building sewer and electrical

systems that can adapt to high temperatures or wildfire risk or rising coastlines and all of these things. And they cost an incredible amount of money and they cost an incredible amount of money globally. So we're a wealthy country and if we chose to invest that money, we could do that and much of Europe and wealthier countries in Asia could also do that, but many countries cannot. And so there is going to be, you know, sort of macro and micro effects of this. In the United States, the researchers

that I talked to warn of really extraordinary economic impacts in the American states that stand to be most affected by climate change, particularly in the South, where the costs of climate change are expected to outpace the economic growth in those places. In some places, substantially outpace that growth, so that, for example, certain counties in Florida

are projected by the Rhodium Group, an environmental and economic research firm, economically to be moving backwards within a couple of decades, to be shrinking by 50% GDP annually. Globally, there's going to be a weight on the global economy. It will ultimately affect the pace of trade, the cost of goods, the resiliency of governments, the security questions that result from governments becoming less resilient, growing conflict associated with instability

in places that are struck by disaster. And all of those are threats to our global economy, to Western civilization, to the United States. One tangible impact I've heard you talk about is our food supply because so much of our food is exported. Can you talk about is our food supply because so much of our food is Exported can you talk a little bit about that? Where does this fit into not only our ability to grow and feed but also? export Yeah, I mean the world's population has been substantially growing for a number of decades now And it may plateau soon or is plateauing but the demand for food globally is still forecast to increase substantially.

And that forecast for increase is happening at the same time that globally the planet is becoming drier. Many places that grow food, whether in the United States or in Russia or Eastern Europe or elsewhere, are less and less able to produce large scale crops the way they used to, or at least they'll be challenged to do so in the future. So it's a constricting environment

where we're hoping on one hand that technology that improves yields will make up for the difference. But the availability of water is a real global constraint that I think we're just beginning to face in terms of producing enough food to support the global population. In the United States, you can see that tension in a number of different ways. When we use the high plains of the United States

to produce large industrial crops that both are a huge engine of our economy, something like $35 or $40 billion a year in product, but also to export a lot of that grain, both for food and for energy, to places like North Africa, which have traditionally been hugely reliant on American food production. So that's a part of the United States that faces great water pressures. It relies on the Ogallala Aquifer, which is being swiftly depleted. It has faced drought consistently over the past couple of years.

Kansas, for example, has been in a level of extreme drought for most of last year. And then there's the question of the food that we grow domestically for American consumption, and the fact that much of that growth happens in the American Southwest and in California, which are also extraordinarily water stressed. So most of the country's winter fruits and vegetables, carrots,

lettuce, things like that, are grown in southern Arizona or the Imperial Valley in California. And they're dependent on the Colorado River. And the Colorado River's flow has decreased by 20% over the past couple of decades. And about 10% of that decrease is directly attributable to climate change. And very few, if any, of

the people that I speak to expect it to get anything but worse. So that's a situation that's not going to improve and is going to force some really difficult decisions for food growth and distribution inside the United States. Let's take a short break. If you're just joining us, my guest today is Abram Luskarten, an editor at large and environmental reporter for ProPublica. We'll continue our conversation after a short break. This is Fresh Air.

This message comes from the Kresge Foundation. Established 100 years ago, the Kresge Foundation works to expand equity and opportunity in cities across America. A century of impact, a future of opportunity. More at kresge.org. I want to delve a little bit deeper into the reasons that we're seeing such wild swings in weather. So in your writing, you use this word discontinuity.

Basically climate change is in a straight line of warming days, but we're in an age of discontinuity with wild swings between extremes. What does that actually look like, for instance? Yeah, I mean, it basically means that we don't know what's coming next. It means that the weather that we experience on a daily basis is erratic and our seasons are erratic and the scale and scope of our storms or droughts or heat waves are reaching unprecedented extremes and because they're unprecedented our past data and which includes our past modeling climate modeling as well as

you know weather forecast modeling have a difficult time predicting what's happening so we're kind of moving into an age of the unknown. I live in Northern California. And throughout this spring, it was 50 degrees one day and 90 degrees the next. And I think that that's been a shared experience for a lot of people around the country. We were talking about flooding.

And we're talking about extreme rainfall driven by extraordinarily warm temperatures. And yet in parts of Mexico, the next day, they were experiencing snowfall and hail storms so great it was blanketing the streets in ice. And that is in roughly the same region in the same part of the world happening roughly at the same time.

And so that's what this sense of climate chaos might mean. It might mean that wintertime suddenly feels much, much warmer than it's supposed to for parts of the country that are accustomed to blowing snow and freezing cold. And then spring comes along and all of a sudden they find themselves in the deep freeze that they might have expected in February. And so the patterns that we're comfortable with, the patterns that, you know, not that seasons are going to change, but the patterns that we associate with, you know, our annual cycles are not reliable and we're basically going off script. You know, in your book, On the Move, you wrote this several years ago. It came out last year, but you write about Americans relocating because of all types of things, sea level rise, wildfires, extreme heat. I'm just wondering when you look at the devastation in Texas,

it feels like these internal migrations might accelerate even faster than we expect. I'm also thinking about the wildfires. I live in Los Angeles and just a few months ago that devastating wildfires have completely changed the topography And where people are living? so climate migration generally is you know logically supported by you know the association of discomfort and risk like these disasters and the opportunity to be in a safer place and so the consensus is and the opportunity to be in a safer place. And so the consensus is broadly that people

will respond to these disasters, or they'll respond to extreme heat in Arizona or wildfires in Los Angeles by moving away. But it turns out that there's a lot of very complicating factors that intermingle with that decision that make it really difficult to predict. And so the short answer is anecdotally, we hear of more and more people moving

and a demographic shift happening in the country. I hear anecdotal stories almost every day of somebody writing me and saying, I moved to Michigan, or I moved to Wisconsin because I was just tired of the heat in Arizona. But from a broader data perspective or something that's sort of scientifically estimable, it's still very difficult to capture that demographic change because a decision to move

is always intertwined with a family's sense of risk, for example, in a place like Texas, coupled with perhaps family ties in a different place or economic opportunity or a new job in a different place. And so there's no one clear signal. It's a whole bunch of signals. But one philosophical premise that I've arrived at through a lot of reporting on this question is that Americans in particular, but I really think people around the world, will move,

will undertake what we might be calling climate migration in response to economic change, not just in response to these sort of physical climatic changes. And so that's always been a driver of demographic change in the United States, and we can expect it to continue to be. So it means that it's not the heat, unbearable heat, in Phoenix, Arizona, that makes somebody move,

or the tragedy of a flood in Texas, but it's the compounding effect of that over time when insurance rates rise or home electricity rates rise or electricity bills increase because it's higher temperature and air conditioners being run more often or the local community experiences an economic decline because it had to pass a bond measure to restore the places devastated by flooding.

And that meant that there was less funding for the school system. And so the quality of education went down. And so some families moved away because of that. So there's these follow-on ripple effects that drive an economic shift. And that's what I believe will drive long-term demographic change in the United States

in response to climate change. Anecdotally, are there places in our country that people are migrating to the most? So beyond Michigan, where you've heard from people saying, I've moved from the West Coast to Michigan. Are there other states that are considered maybe climate havens? Does that even exist in the United United States an ideal location that people are moving to? Yeah, I mean with the caveat that no place is perfect right every every single place Even a climate haven will face climate risks as we saw, you know with the flooding, you know in Vermont I broke that question down into a database question if you look at you know specific climate risks by county across the United States, and what that all suggests

to be very general about it is that the North, and particularly the Northeast, is an attractive place for potential climate migrants. And in reality, I'm hearing a lot of both analysis and anecdotal data that supports that idea of people moving to Minnesota and Wisconsin and every place around the Great Lakes, which by the way is the world's largest remaining supply of fresh surface water. So it has an incredible bank of resiliency built in as well as being somewhat insulated from direct climate impacts like sea level rise or hurricanes.

So there's really robust conversations in a lot of those communities at the official level, the policy level in cities like Cincinnati or places like Ann Arbor, Michigan and Buffalo, New York about how to build that into their budgets, how to size a new water treatment or sewage treatment plant for projected future population instead of current population. So that's beginning to happen in places like Ann Arbor or across Michigan.

And those places are responding to that change by planning for it and investing in it. So there's certainly climate havens and places that people will go. But another fundamental aspect of this idea of climate migration is not necessarily that people will move across continents, but that people will move short distances, maybe the shortest distance that they possibly can to find the prosperity and safety that they need to continue. And so a lot of the projections that I see call for a rapid urbanization, or we've been urbanizing in the United States for a very long time,

but that the pace of that urbanization will increase substantially. Are there any nations that are making encouraging or promising steps forward in tackling this issue of climate warming and keeping people safe? I think you can answer that in a bunch of different ways, but if you slice it in all the ways, I'd say almost every other nation is making some forward strides in this direction. So you can look at how countries in Europe, Norway, France, are recruiting American scientists

and American academics and supporting their research or pledging new funding for climate research or how their scientific institutions have really bolstered their own weather forecasting capabilities to exceed the capabilities that the United States had a year ago and then certainly to carry the mantle as United States capabilities for weather forecasting wane. So those are really positive steps from a scientific perspective. I think politically there is generally more support for addressing climate change globally among the countries that participate in the Paris Accords or the annual COP meetings than there is resistance at this point. I mean even Middle Eastern countries and the oil economies there are paying some form of lip service to the

issue. And then you can see leadership in different forms in places like China, which is, you know, ascending to be the global economic leader is shifting rapidly. The amount of energy that it produces from renewable energy and the technologies that support that and the lifestyle changes like electric vehicles, which are technologically advancing substantially, or even the deployment of nuclear technology and new nuclear reactors, really investing that money that we talked about being so important, and seeing results from it and seeing rapid technological change and a rapid shift in an economy that's towards a greener economy that will have an important impact because the faster that global emissions are reduced, the slower and the less extreme and radical the actual climate change and the actual warming will be. So all of those are really solid examples of leadership that we're seeing around the world. Abram Lustgarten, thank you so much for your investigation, your reporting,

and for taking the time. Justin Chang Thank you for giving so much consideration to these issues. Lauren Henry Abram Lustgarten is an editor at large at ProPublica and covers climate change. Coming up, film critic Justin Chang reviews the new film Sorry Baby! This is Fresh Air. The new movie Sorry Baby was one of the standouts at this year's Sundance Film Festival where it won a screenwriting award. It's the first feature film written and directed by Ava

Victor who also stars in the film as a woman navigating the trauma of an assault. Sorry Baby is now playing in select theaters. Film critic Justin Chang has this review. In 2019, Ava Victor began starring in a series of online comedy videos, short absurdist rifts and rants, with titles like When My Husband Gets Me a Peloton for Christmas and Me Explaining to My Boyfriend Why Equal Pay makes actually no sense at all. In these videos, several of which went viral, Victor played hilariously loopy characters who in their fits of anxiety and anger cleverly dismantled stereotypes about women. Now Victor, who uses both she and they pronouns, has written, directed, and starred in a thoughtful and tender first feature,

Sorry Baby. And although it's very much a drama, their offbeat comic smarts are all over it. That's all the more remarkable, considering that Victor's character, Agnes, is a woman trying to make sense of life after experiencing a sexual assault. The movie consists of several chapters told out of chronological sequence. Each one unfolds during a different year of Agnes's life. When we first meet Agnes, she's an English Lit professor at a small New England university, living in a house in a woodsy area near campus. She's visited by her friend Liddy, a terrific Naomi Ackie, who lived with her in this house years ago when they were grad

students. Liddy now lives in New York and is expecting a baby with her partner. But she and Agnes are still super close, and beneath their bubbly and sometimes bawdy banter, we can sense unspoken depths of trust, but also tremors of unease. They don't talk much about the past, but it's there in almost every conversation, every hug, and every lingering pause. We learn what happened in the next chapter, which is set four years earlier during their grad school days. Agnes is a brilliant student, and her mentor, Preston Decker, effusively praises the thesis she's writing. But then one afternoon, Decker asks Agnes to meet him at his home. Victor keeps the assault off-screen, parking the camera outside Decker's house, and letting the darkening sky tell

the story. From this point on, Sorry Baby remains minutely focused on Agnes, and how she responds in the immediate and long-term aftermath. Right after it happens, Agnes tells Liddy about the assault in unsparing detail. Liddy accompanies Agnes to a medical exam, where they wryly push back against an insensitive doctor in a sequence laced with acid humor. It's not the only time Victor will coax rueful laughs from painful situations, like when two administrators inform Agnes that Decker has already left the school for

another job, and so there's nothing they can do. Adding insult to injury, they tell her they know what she's going through because they're women, one of a few instances in which Victor lampoons faux-feminist solidarity. One night, Agnes impulsively decides to burn down Decker's office, and hits up her neighbour Gavin for some lighter fluid. Gavin is played by a goofily appealing Lucas Hedges. Hi. Hi. You're my neighbour, right? Oh yeah, I live here.

What's your name? Oh, uh, Gavin. Gavin., I live here. What's your name? Oh, Gavin. Gavin, nice to meet you. You too. I'm Agnes. Lamb of God. What? That's nothing, it's all good.

I'm just, what are you up to this fine evening? Oh, I was wondering, do you have stuff that makes a fire? Oh, matches? No, like a liquid, is that a thing? Oh, yes, lighter fluid. Yes, do you have that? Yes. Why do you need it?

Um, my friends and I, we're gonna make like hot dogs. Oh, hot dogs sounds good. I'm sorry, we only bought two hot dogs. Oh no, that's no problem. I have dinner plans with my mom. That's not true. I'm sorry, I just wanted to close myself off from the possibility of being rejected. Agnes wisely doesn't burn down Decker's office, and she and Gavin eventually become friends with Benefits. Their scenes together are funny and poignant, and they beautifully dismantle assumptions about how Agnes might or might not experience sexual

desire. Sorry Baby dismantles a lot of other assumptions too. Victor knows how often trauma is exploited and trivialized in movies, and in Agnes they've given us a character who sidesteps the cliches of trauma at every turn. Victor's performance is a marvel, full of delacy and nuance, yet firmly rooted in comedy. Humor is Agnes' natural way of engaging with the world. Even when good things happen, like when she lands a coveted teaching job, or learns that Lydia's pregnant, she can't help but punctuate her excitement with a joke. The other defining aspect of Agnes is her brilliant literary mind, which, the movie suggests, gives her a unique perspective. In one pointed scene, Agnes calmly teaches Lolita, a book that seems to trouble her students

far more than it troubles her. They're disturbed by the content. She understands but asks them what they think of the writing specifically. It's a question you could also ask of the movie, which is itself superbly written. Victor knows that when it comes to confronting a difficult subject, language has its limitations, but narrative still has unexplored possibilities. If Sorry Baby has a thesis of its own, it's that pain and healing come in many different forms. Our stories should, also.

Justin Chang is a film critic for The New Yorker. He reviewed Sorry Baby. Tomorrow on Fresh Air, the company that told the world what to buy, what to value, what to wear, what to eat, even what to think. That's how our guest Michael Grinbaum describes Conde Nast, whose publications include Vanity Fair, Vogue, GQ, and The New Yorker. His new book is about how they cultivated a mystique that captivated subscribers. I hope you can join us. To keep up with what's on the show and get highlights of our interviews, follow us on Instagram at NPR Fresh Air. Fresh Air's executive

producer is Danny Miller. Our senior producer today was Teresa Matten. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Our managing producer is Sam Brigger. With Cherry Gross, I'm Tanya Mosley.