FEMA to States: No Climate Planning, No Money

[Suzanimal]

Governors seeking billions of dollars in U.S. preparedness funds will have to sign off on plans to mitigate effects of climate change.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard mitigation plans that address climate change.

This may put several Republican governors who maintain the earth isn't warming due to human activities, or prefer to do nothing about it, into a political bind. Their position may block their states' access to hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds. Over the past five years, the agency has awarded an average $1 billion a year in grants to states and territories for taking steps to mitigate the effects of disasters.

"If a state has a climate denier governor that doesn't want to accept a plan, that would risk mitigation work not getting done because of politics," said Becky Hammer, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council's water program. "The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state" because of his climate beliefs.

The policy doesn't affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood or other disaster. Specifically, beginning in March 2016, states seeking preparedness money will have to assess how climate change threatens their communities. Governors will have to sign off on hazard mitigation plans. While some states, including New York, have already started incorporating climate risks in their plans, most haven’t because FEMA's old 2008 guidelines didn't require it.

"This could potentially become a major conflict for several Republican governors," said Barry Rabe, an expert on the politics of climate change at the University of Michigan. "We aren't just talking about coastal states." Climate change affects droughts, rainfall and tornado activity. Fracking is being linked to more earthquakes, he said. "This could affect state leaders across the country."

...

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18032015/fema-states-no-climate-planning-no-money

 

[donnay]

They are always dangling the carrot over the states. I wish the states would tell the FED's to pound sand--their money is worthless anyway!

 

[Stratovarious]

This is 'Soft Extortion' , it should be against the law, they are using our money for all of their programs, if they give
money to any state for anything they should give the same to all other states equally adjusted for proportions
collected.

 

[Stratovarious]

They are always dangling the carrot over the states. I wish the states would tell the FED's to pound sand--their money is worthless anyway!

I'm hoping to see some states succeeding from the union, before long, well hopefully before the Northern Union is announced.

, ,
.

 

[FunkBuddha]

Dear FedGov,

The Citizens of the State of X will no longer be paying income tax.

K thx, bye
The Governor of the State of X

 

[acptulsa]

This is 'Soft Extortion' , it should be against the law, they are using our money for all of their programs, if they give
money to any state for anything they should give the same to all other states equally adjusted for proportions
collected.

They should. But they're really not conflicted by taking our money at the point of a gun and giving it back to our states according to our willingness to jump through their hoops. Not any more than they are conflicted by passing laws sight unseen which were written by huge corporations.

 

[Anti Federalist]

And there you go.

Not a single state will stand up to the Feds on this either.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Regulation without Representation.

 

[Henry Rogue]

Good thing there's a drought of tornadoes.

 

[ifthenwouldi]

Regulation without Representation.

And this is why I don't care about federal politics. Until states (or better yet, municipalities) are willing to secede, it's a losing battle.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

This is 'Soft Extortion' , it should be against the law, they are using our money for all of their programs, if they give
money to any state for anything they should give the same to all other states equally adjusted for proportions
collected.

At first that was my reaction, FEMA is not created under the constitution ya' know. Then I read in their this regulation had no effect on disaster relief.

Then I decided to look up what "mitigation" consists of.

Climate Change Mitigation refers to efforts to reduce or prevent emission of greenhouse gases. Mitigation can mean using new technologies and renewable energies, making older equipment more energy efficient, or changing management practices or consumer behavior. It can be as complex as a plan for a new city, or as a simple as improvements to a cook stove design. Efforts underway around the world range from high-tech subway systems to bicycling paths and walkways. Protecting natural carbon sinks like forests and oceans, or creating new sinks through silviculture or green agriculture are also elements of mitigation. UNEP takes a multifaceted approach towards climate change mitigation in its efforts to help countries move towards a low-carbon society.

Then I realized that we really need to start on this sometime, how come we are so slow at adaption we gotta have gov slapping states around to get us to do what is needed?

Can't we see that the toxic aspects of all the systems producing carbon are actually more dangerous in the shorter term than global warming? That is provided it actually exists OR is man made.