Climate change adaptation funds keep getting diverted to disaster relief instead of long-term preparation, based on what I've seen in coastal projects near my hometown. We build seawalls after the storm, not before, and the same neighborhoods flood again the next year. Is it realistic to expect governments to prioritize resilience when voters reward quick fixes over slow infrastructure? A friend who works in city planning says the funding cycles simply don't match the timescales needed, but I wonder if that's just an excuse for short-termism. Could shifting even 10% of emergency budgets toward proactive measures make a measurable difference, or would that simply increase bureaucratic waste?