h/t TriplePundit – FEMA, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, has issued draft guidance which demands that states include an assessment of climate risk in their 5 year disaster plan, or risk losing federal funding.
According to the FEMA draft guidance;
“Key concepts under consideration include strengthening specific requirements for:
…assessing future risk in light of a changing climate and changes in land use and development. This will ensure that the mitigation strategy addresses risks and takes into consideration possible future conditions in order to identify, prioritize, and implement actions to increase statewide resilience;
supporting states in fulfilling mitigation commitments, including FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants management performance, throughout the five-year plan approval period. FEMA seeks opportunities to build and maintain mitigation capabilities and advance hazard mitigation proactively during plan implementation, and not solely at plan update and review;
clarifying that “formally adopted by the state” means plan adoption by the highest elected official to reflect the importance of plan implementation as a means to demonstrate risk reduction as a statewide priority;
and
coordinating and integrating the mitigation planning process with the whole community, including agencies and stakeholders with mitigation capabilities that are responsible for economic development; land use and development; housing; infrastructure; natural and cultural resource management; and health and human services. Engaging agencies and stakeholders with data and authority early in the planning process facilitates both successful plan development and implementation.”
The section on hazard assessment contains the following injunction;
“The risk assessment must provide a summary of the probability of future hazard events that includes projected changes in occurrences for each natural hazard in terms of location, extent, intensity, frequency, and/or duration. Probability must include considerations of changing future conditions, including the effects of climate change on the identified hazards.”
There is a threat of funding sanction against states which fail to fulfil the key requirements, the first of which is an assessment of the risk of “future climate change”;
“If FEMA determines that the State is not maintaining the mitigation plan and, therefore, not meeting mitigation commitments, FEMA may take corrective action, such as revoking or suspending the plan approval status. Corrective action may impact eligibility for certain FEMA assistance until such time as FEMA determines that the plan meets the requirements and restores plan approval status.”
With the threat of a lethal global Ebola pandemic looming, and an elevated risk of a repeat this year of last year’s brutal winter, if Great Lakes temperatures are any guide http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/water-temperature-of-the-great-lakes-is-over-6-degrees-colder-than-normal/ , it’s a comfort to know that Federal agencies have prioritised states devoting time and resources, to determining what they will do if the world warms a little.
Thanks to Eric Worrall for this story.
On the face of it, this seems to me to be little more than blackmail.
Ahh yes, govt extortion. HEY FEMA GO blank YOURSELVES!
In the game of pure politics, this is meaningless because the states will just prop up puppet GW programs to satisfy the requirement.
I thought FEMA was supposed to have the plans for emergency management.
I think their homework is due tomorrow, and they’re just threatening the smart kids on the playground to come up with something for them to turn in… or else.
Meanwhile, you wouldn’t believe how good some of those FEMA people are at online solitaire and Sudoku. I’d put ’em up against any bureaucracy on the planet ;o)
“The risk assessment must provide a summary of the probability of future hazard”, put in a negative risk assessment for probable Global Cooling (near future) and a positive assessment for the possible moderate warming (as observered in the past).
Colorado plan: require lifeboats on all office buildings.
You know what would be really fun is if republican controlled states assessed the primary risk was cooling & not warming & mitigation issues associated with cooling. That would give the Obama FEMA people fits !
I like it! Provide lots of graphs and figures and statistics (infilled, adjusted, spliced, and curve ‘fitted’, of course!) as needed to illustrate the imminent global cooling threat. Provide pictures of polar bears, seals and penguins on ice floes in Lake Superior and Lake Michigan, just for good measure.
Make it a three ring circus comedy that leaves everyone laughing at the mere mention of ‘Climate Change Mitigation’!
Laughter IS the best medicine!
It would be interesting. For the short time that CO2 remains as a climate driver (warming) the government could begin burning fossil fuels at an increased rate to save the world. Just think all the nations forests would be set ablaze to save the world. FEMA then gets credit for saving the day!
@Danny Thomas October 20, 2014 at 10:33 am; “By most indications climate change is occurring, “, Danny boy let me correct you, that should read “By all accounts climate change is always occurring, ” sooooo I don’t get your point?
@Danny Thomas October 20, 2014 at 11:10 am; “I don’t understand the perspective that I’m receiving from your post”, Danny; the perspective is nothing alarming is happening so why do you want to think that something alarming is happening? Why does the EPA want to think something alarming is happening?
Maybe its all about the money.
Hi Sunspot,
Correction noted and well received. Poor wording on my part.
Who said I’m alarmed. I’m firmly on the fence. I can see both sides of the discussion and I see where both sides feel the human need to “win”. My point is (and I believe we agree) that the climate is changing (as always), so why not prudently plan for the changes we can document? I just see no harm.
Maybe we read this request differently. I read this:” assessing future risk in light of a changing climate and changes in land use and development. This will ensure that the mitigation strategy addresses risks and takes into consideration possible future conditions in order to identify, prioritize, and implement actions to increase statewide resilience;”.
As a fence sitter and not an alarmist (poor term) or (and I despise this term) a denier, I’m without a bias, I see zero harm in gathering input. To the contrary, I can imagine the rhetoric if this request isn’t made and something happens in the future. The outcry would be deafening. From either side.
There is nothing wrong with gathering input. It is the policies that are being implemented around the globe based on preconceived notions, which they label as settled science. This is wrong. Science is rarely if ever settled. They are setting up a “mitigation strategy” based on the belief that co2 has caused the recent spate of global warming. Yet Nature has proven all of their projections/predictions/forecasts wrong for almost 2 decades as of now. If you continue to read here at this site, you will see that many good scientists are also disproving the settled science of co2 causing catastrophic global warming.
Then there is the political side to this story. As much of the push to immediately implement global warming strategies is coming from political activists along with some political figures who continually push for policies to combat perceived future global warming that will lead to supposed severe hardships. Even though there is no indication in long term historical studies of the past climate to indicate the veracity of their claim. In fact history shows us that mankind benefited greatly from the warmer clime. We, here today, are living proof of that.
Goldminor,
How do we KNOW that to be true? I read nothing in this article that says CO2 and mitigation.
I have a CAGW buddy that has shared much of that side of the discussion, but I don’t buy it. But I do believe in prudent planning. Did I misread the article? Did it say CO2?
I read:”assessing future risk in light of a changing climate and changes in land use and development. This will ensure that the mitigation strategy addresses risks and takes into consideration possible future conditions in order to identify, prioritize, and implement actions to increase statewide resilience;”
Climate change could be cooler, warmer, more ice, less ice, higher sea levels, lower and so on. I’ll go further and say that it would be imprudent to not do this analysis and planning.
I don’t come to this site with a predisposition towards some unknown (that it’s about CO2). It may well be, but how is one to know that? All I did was read the article and using my own mind came to the conclusion that ‘huh, might be prudent. What can it hurt to do that research and plan based on the findings”. What am I missing? I understand the undercurrents, but they’re assumed from what I see.
I’ve been tasked many times to come in to various scenarios with “fresh eyes” so I ask for your appreciation of my perspective in arriving here in that manner.
@Danny Thomas. Everyone seems to “see both sides” except for you. If you could you would see that the AGW side is wrong.
Danny says:
I see zero harm in gathering input.
I see zero harm in your paying for it.
Do we have a deal?
@Danny Thomas..””I don’t come to this site with a predisposition towards some unknown (that it’s about CO2).””…””I’ve been tasked many times to come in to various scenarios with “fresh eyes” so I ask for your appreciation of my perspective in arriving here in that manner.””
=======================================================================
The basic issue is that I do not believe your words to be true. Your comments from the beginning belie your stated intent in the words above or anywhere else. You certainly have some level of preconceived thought. You have not come here with “fresh eyes” to listen to the thoughts of others. You like to play elaborate word games, and you like to twist the intent of others into imagined forms of your making. That sums up your interactions on WUWT.
Interesting.
When I say I “believe” something I’m asked to prove it.
So, goldminor, prove it!
You guys just want to “gang up” on me. Fine. I said up front I’m not a scientist. I’ve never been one, and will never be one.
But those of you who say you are scientist don’t think you’re talking out of “both sides of your mouths” when you say you “believe” something based on assuming you know what I (or anyone else) is thinking.
Put up, or shut up.
This is not science, it’s being a hypocrite!
five year plans….really?
They just dont care anymore. Here!, in your face, a five year plan. Obey or else…
They should file plans for two contingencies:
A) nothing happens and therefore nothing is needed.
B) a severe ice age erupts and therefore we have to build massive numbers of coal/nuclear plants and start burning tires to stay alive.
No one said which direction the plans had to be skewed towards…
This edict is not about real planning for ‘climate change’. It is all about propoganda and public indoctrination that leads to more Climate Change funding and bureaucracy justification.
The states that submit their plans for AGW mitigation …. er, Climate Change mitigation can trumpet their efforts to ‘save the world’ and why they need more money to ‘save it’. FEMA, in like kind, will provide some matching funds for the state kleptocracies, trumpet their ‘achievements’ at Progressive Climate Change management, and demand even more money to ‘save the planet’. The various in-the-pocket NGOs (ex.: Sierra Club, etc) will file law suits to assist black mailing (‘green’ mailing?) states into compliance with the FEMA dictats.
Every hurricane, tornado, heavy rain, drought, mud slide, brush fire, and blustery day that causes property damage or causes human deaths becomes further evidence of “Why We Must Act Now!”
Does FEMA say what risk scenario is to be used, so we will know what outlook is THE legally defining position facing the American people?
Each State’s “exposure” is subject to the range of change that might occur, but which one is the one that MUST be prepared for?
This is an intriguing line to follow as we will learn what level of micromanagement by the Feds is considered legal by the Feds and acceptable to the State.
Big Brother, or the individual? So much for the American principles of personal power these days. But the Founding Fathers were designing for a Nation of adults ruling themselves. It seems under the Democrats these days the idea is America as a Nation of children beseeching Dad to decide on their behalf as they are incapable of figuring things iur for themselves.
Danny Thomas at 10:33.
Brilliant! But is there the option of recognizing positive changes for the State? Would a longer growing season mean the State would have to present possible increase in population, increased need for infrastructure and estimates for increased GDP and tax revenue, to reflect the social impact of an improved life for its citizens?
Interesting position possible for a skeptical legislative, or at least a setback for the warmists who claim no good will come of a wsrming planet.
Hi Doug,
From my perspective, why not? Extremism isn’t a good approach to either the prudent planning or the discussion. Based on our understanding of CO2 increases (documented) would there not be benefits to ag production? What then would be the results? We should plan for that. Water levels may rise which might offset some of our droughts (if the water’s near enough to the location in need). Now the loss of glaciers may have negative impacts and we should evaluate that equally. And is it possible that man is having some impact on the rate of change? Worth talking about.
Thanks for thinking about this in an open fashion. I think we need more of that than the “they’re dumb” thinking that I see as being of no benefit to the discussion. The pros should be addressed as well as the cons, and on an equal footing. If we take the politics out of this analysis I just see this request as prudent and appropriate responses should be valid, no matter from what angle they come.
I drive my CAGW buddy nuts as I speak with him the same and I cannot seem to get him to even consider that we don’t have all the information. I thank you for the discussion as I have to assume that most here are anti GW,AGW and certainly CAGW. But isn’t the point of effective communication to achieve something and not just throw out nonsense?
Danny, I have read a number of your comments, and you refer a number of times to “glaciers melting” being a problem we must pan for. I am interested in what US state does melting glaciers pose any serious, or even a moderate problem? I am aware Alaska has several glaciers, Washington three, Montana, and California each have one, but I am unaware that the melting of any of them poses any problem whatsoever. Are you aware of any such problems?
Hi Bert,
I didn’t want to disrespect you by not responding, but I’ve been so disrespected here (not by you) that I’m not going to expend much further energy.
It was one example, and like many of the others is regional in nature. I’m not aware of glaciers in Texas (LOL). But Greenland is a concern (I know it’s not a state).
Growing seasons have changed, etc.
I’m a little disturbed and exhausted by the treatment I’ve received here and will expend my energy elsewhere. Just didn’t want to leave you hanging.
Best,
Yes Danny, glaciers melting? – are you aware of Hubbard Glacier in Alaska the largest tidewater glacier in North America – advancing. Also Taku Glacier (Recognized as the deepest and thickest glacier known in the world), the largest glacier in the Juneau Icefield (Alaska), also advancing.
Hi J. Phillip,
And in Alaska, Exit Glacier and Mendenhall are retreating as well as many that I don’t recall the name of in Glacier Bay. Greenland has much ice melt occurring. Arctic has reduced ice, and Antarctica has some advancing ice.
Those are exactly my point. I didn’t say GW. Neither did FEMA. It said CC. So what is imprudent about gathering data and analyzing and planning based on the results? Is it being suggested that we no longer do that? We gather data about all kinds of issues in all kinds of ways in our “information age” so I just don’t see the harm in doing so here.
I’m being leaned on heavily on this thread as if I’m some sort of pariah, when I’m speaking of what I believe to be a prudent request (if heavy handed) by FEMA. Other than for political reasons I’ve not had but one person that agrees, and I’m not seeking political views as that just leads to more of the same that we can generate on any political topic. Please provide an apolitical reason for just ignoring CC, if you’re aware of one.
What would be the response you’d expect if our government ignored potentially beneficial or potentially harmful occurrences? I think there would be an outcry. Therefore, I see no harm in a prudent investigation of states expectations and responses as they relate to climate change. No matter on which side of whatever political aisle one may perceive themselves. I think that to ignore it may actually be worse. And please note , I said CC and not GW as I’m not convinced that any GW that’s occurring will be catastrophic in nature. I also don’t by that we’re headed towards an Ice Age as there is no more valid evidence to that. I only mention this so I’m not being painted as AGW or CAGW as I’m just not.
Antarctica has “some advancing ice” ????
In June 2015, only six months ago, just the “excess” Antarctic sea ice at 2.05 million sq kilometers was as large as the ENTIRE area of Greenland’s 2.16 million sq kilometers.
Your administration IS using their hyped CAGW “crisis” to kill millions and destroy the economic freedom of billions. Yes, they ARE ignoring the positive benefits of greater warmth, and funding their catastro-physicsists and the bureaucrats that feed the government-academic-bureaucratic complex to create just the energy control they seek.
And they are well aware they are using you to do it.
.
Danny Thomas,
You post the same talking points that we see here ad nauseum. There is a better way to convince people of your point of view.
Simply post verifiable, empirical, testable measurements that back up your baseless assertions.
I don’t think you have any such measurements. Prove me wrong.
As for your claim to want a “prudent investigation”, that has been done for more than thirty years now. If there was any harm from the rise in CO2, it would have been trumpeted throughout the media. But not one measurement indicating any global harm has ever been found.
So prove me wrong, “Danny Thomas”. Post those measurements.
If you can.
I’ve responded to one previous nonsensical post of yours but I do not like to conduct business on such a low class level.
I apologize openly to this forum for my bit of a temper tantrum in the previous post although I fully stand by the words.
I have no need for any sort of discourse with such as you. You got me to bite last time, but I will no longer as I know of and about your kind and wish no further dealings with your ilk.
Have a great day.
So. No measurements.
Why am I not surprised?
Danny boy, you seem willfully ignorant of climate science and don’t seem to differentiate between imprudent and prudent either in planning or action. I suggest you quietly read every article at this site for the next six months, follow the science then come back and comment when you have been informed.
Well spottie boy!
I’ve done a fair amount of reading, and I do not appreciate the disrespect and belittling commentary.
I will return when you show the ability to act like an adult. Which apparently will be never for you.
I thought I picked a reasonable site to post questions, feedback, and learn. What I’ve learned is that if one is not OF THE BORG, One must be assimilated or destroyed.
I will look for adult conversation elsewhere.
“Spottie boy”??
^That^ from the same guy who whines about being ‘belittled’ because he can’t show a simple measurement to support his assertions.
You say:
I thought I picked a reasonable site to post questions, feedback, and learn.
That you did, but the failure is entirely on your part. You have no interest in learning anything. Rather, you want to preach.
When feedback amounts to asking for simple corroboration of your assertions, you cry about being belittled, disrespected, etc. That is simply deflecting from what was asked.
If you want to learn, then you need to start at the beginning: with the Scientific Method, and it’s corrollary, the Null Hypothesis.
Every physical process can be measured. Measurement is only difficult if the effect being measured is so far below the error bars that it is indistinguishable from noise. But of course, that means that man-made global warming is so minuscule that it does not matter at all.
So you are stuck, Danny Thomas. Either post a measurement showing the amount of global warming attributable to human CO2 emissions — or admit that there are no such measurements that you can find.
A third choice is to complain that people aren’t being enough kissy-face for you. Well, that is bound to happen here when someone makes baseless assertions, which they cannot back up.
You want respect? Then admit that you have no scientific evidence to support your beliefs. Otherwise, post it. But your comments about your hurt feelings are getting tedious. Let’s stick to science, ‘K? Thx bye.
Doesn’t the P/A act (that’s “passive/aggressive”, in case you feign ignorance of that, too) get old, Dan? dbstealy asked for a link, too hard, eh? How ’bout this-give us a link to an AGW site where you posted your fence-sitting position up against your “CAGW buddy”, nuts or otherwise. Show us how you wore ’em out.
‘Danny Thomas’ says:
…we don’t have all the information.
After studying the issue for well over thirty years, there is zero scientific evidence showing that CO2 is a problem.
We will never have “all” the information. But after 30+ years, with thousands of scientists studying the question, if there was a problem they surely would have found it by now. But no one can identify or quantify even one problem due to the rise in CO2.
You are trying to influence readers with vague, inconclusive comments. If you start to cite specifics, you will get respect here. Take a stand, don’t be so namby-pamby! You get respect by taking a stand and defending it, not by making the same shallow statements.
If you continue to just parrot what you hear on the media, there are probably places where you will get a better reception. But if you want respect here, take a stand. Defend it. If you’re right, people will agree with you. If you are corrected, then be a stand-up guy and acknowledge it. That’s the scientific method in action.
I’ll not respond directly to this note as I’m awaiting your response, and the associated research from my questions on my previous reply. This is only to acknowledge that this note was received but because the basis for your comment is off there is no reason to do more with this at this time.
Danny Thomas,
So don’t respond. I am happy to comment without you:
You certainly don’t follow the scientific method, do you? Skeptics have no conjecture to defend. The alarmist cult has promoted the belief that CO2 is bad. Evil! They have demonized “carbon” incessantly.
You have bought into that scare. Deny it if you want, but all your comments imply that we had better keep investigating CO2 — even though it has been investigated thoroughly for more than 30 years. The verdict? CO2 is harmless, at current and projected concentrations. More is, in fact, better for the biosphere.
CO2 is, after all, just a tiny trace gas, that has risen from 3 parts in 10,000 to only 4 parts in 10,000 — over a century and a half. Since the biosphere is starving for more CO2, it is gobbled up as soon as it’s produced.
You probably don’t believe that. That’s OK. Just so everyone understands that scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] have nothing to prove. That onus is entirely on the side of the alarmist crowd. But as usual, you are trying to put skeptics into a box, where they mjust prove something. Science doesn’t work that way. The proof is your burden.
Taking the CO2 situation at face value, there is nothing to be alarmed about. The ‘carbon’ scare is a false alarm: not one alarming prediction has ever happened. Climate alarmist predictions were all wrong; 100.0% of them.
When one side is completely wrong in all its predictions, then rational people will decide not to listen to them any more. That is the situation with your alarmist pals. They have cried “Wolf!!” far too often. Now, no one believes them any more. They lied too much. Now they have no credibility.
Why? So you can puff out your chest as the big know it all bully haven beaten me up.
You, and others, started off on me so I’m willing to stay and finish it.
Have you not read where I said I agreed that the current levels of CO2 are not alarming to me? Have you not read where I said the levels and some increase is beneficial? Yes, I said some level because pure CO2 would make it a bit challenging for this conversation to continue, can we not agree?
Should we continue to study our atmosphere?Heck no. No reason to worry about anyone anywhere on this planet injecting bad stuff of some kind (sarcasm). Is CO2 a component of our atmosphere? Fact?
You are choosing to read so much in to what I’m saying that you are being completely ridiculous!
I told you I just started investigating this site so I’m not aware (and frankly don’t care) what else you’ve posted elsewhere. I’m only referring to the nonsense you’ve posted to me and about me. With NO BASIS IN FACT. If my actions are on display here, are yours not?
I don’t need to try to put you in a box as you’ve already done that. I chose to investigate for myself and as of right now I’m firmly on the fence and since I see that there is a raging debate with both sides being equally outrageous (you included) and nonsensical and superpolitical I doubt both. If you “believe” that to be wrong, fine. I’m okay with that.
But I’m still hoping you’ll “prove” the BS you’re spewing. You’re no better than the CAGW side. You have an agenda, have already made up your mind, and require no input from anyone outside of your sphere. And to me, that’s sad.
I have had discussion with my CAGW buddy and his spewing is the same as yours only from the other side.
Dr. Brown said it well in his discussion about debates in science. At least he based his assertions in fact. You make assumptions about me with zero fact, but only your bias and predisposition.
1. The only ‘agenda’ skeptics have is to tear down any scientific conjecture, like CO2=cAGW, that raises it’s head. That is the duty of scientific skeptics.
2. Skeptics have nothing to prove. So please stop with the demands that we have something to prove. We don’t. You do.
3. You started this. But you seem to forget that.
Look, there are a million things you can get excited about, from collapsing fisheries to incoming asteroids. Most of them matter a lot more than “climate change” <–[the code word for the ‘carbon’ scare].
Why don't you expend your energy on those other things? The reason is obvious: you have bought into the media scare. You're a True Believer in a climate crisis, but you do it like a chameleon. Like Chicken Little, you're trying to stir up some concern, at the least.
Well, baloney. There is nothing occurring now that has not happened in the past, and to a much greater degree — and when humans were emitting no CO2. So you barge in saying we have to ‘investigate’ CO2 some more, as if it hasn’t been investigated to death already. If there was anything to find, they would have found it a long time ago.
To be honest, you sound like a government worker who is surrounded by other gov’t bureaucrats, and all of them sing the same company song. Well, here it’s different. Here, it’s ‘put up or shut up’. I’ve asked you repeatedly to produce any evidence you can, showing that CO2 is a problem. Produce one simple measurement. But you haven’t.
Why don’t you either step up to the plate, or admit you have zero evidence? Then everyone will know exactly where you stand. Not everyone knows where a chameleon stands.
Where I stand is obvious. I wear my heart on my sleeve: CO2 is completely harmless, and it is a beneficial trace gas. More is better. Falsify that, if you can.
You’re just being a jerk.
You’ve made assumptions about me, and you’re wrong. Period. Either Prove it or just shut up. Everyone, whether they have the gumption to admit it, knows that you cannot prove it so you just deflect and deny.
You spew your politics and me under the guise of science. Pshaw!
All I “started” was to disagree with the slant of many unreasoned on this thread by using my voice. Apparently free speech is disallowed here. I’m allowed an opinion, am subject to learning, and may or may not change that opinion. That is not for you to dictate.
Evidence for what? You’ve lost all credibility. CC is happening, CO2 is increasing. Get over it.
There are plenty of reasonable folks in this world with whom I’ve had and with whom I will have good conversation. There is no further need to expend any energy on YOUR KIND. Take that however you wish.
Wow, the lunatics are in charge of the asylum in the US. What would North Dakota’s plan entail? Trying not to smile at the prospect of a slightly less brutal winter?
How about Montana…will they decide to delay putting on the winter tires one whole week or just a couple days.
Pretty smart by the warmists – now there will be race among states to vie to have the most alarming outlook. This is exactly what has already been happening in the military and elsewhere.
Because I am psychic, I will now predict the next phase…
Federal Government: We’ll give you $100 million to study the dangers of climate change if you will write a piece on how climate change threatens you.
Heartland Institute: Okay, we’ll take your $100 million, Uncle Sucker.
Press: Heartland Institute reverses course, says climate change dangerous, inevitable.
If you are talking about disaster preparedness, I would agree to have stuff in place:
Have enough snow plows. Have enough icebreakers. Have enough salt for the roads. Have enough 24/7 (power on demand) power plants in place. Don’t build on a flood plain (this would include New Orleans).
Just be prepared for disasters that have been happening since the beginning of time {tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes, floods (you forgot not to build on a flood plain), and tsunamis}.
Oh, and most importantly – DON’T drive on the railroad tracks!
As illustrated here – “you make choices, and you live with them”
It would be easy for any intelligently-led state government to comply. “Our climate change plan is as follows: we plan to not waste money trying to guess about weather further out than a week, nor waste more money taking ineffectual action intended to prevent such events. Our citizens will be able to pocket those savings, thus strengthening our private economy and government’s fiscal health. As such, when inevitable unpredictable weather events do occur, we will be in a better position to get through it.
Sure’ climate change – the risks of another Little Ice Age are greater than any carbon related butterfly wing buffet.
What all totalitarian governments, no matter the philosophy behind them, is bureaucracies. Sometimes the take over is quick and bureaucracies are set up afterward. Sometimes elected officials delegate authority to bureaucracies.
OOPS! Typo of omission.
“What all totalitarian governments, no matter the philosophy behind them, is bureaucracies”
Should be:
“What all totalitarian governments, no matter the philosophy behind them, have in common is bureaucracies”
“There is a threat of funding sanction against states which fail to fulfil the key requirements, the first of which is an assessment of the risk of “future climate change”;
“If FEMA determines that the State is not maintaining the mitigation plan and, therefore, not meeting mitigation commitments, FEMA may take corrective action, such as revoking or suspending the plan approval status. Corrective action may impact eligibility for ”
FEMA’s illiterate bureaucrats spelled ‘fulfill’ wrong, used ‘which’ when they should have used ‘that,’ and then iced the cake by using ‘impact’ as a verb.
We should make government pensions conditional.
In English English, “Fulfil” is correctly spelt. The double ‘l’ comes in inflections such as “fulfilling” and “fulfilled”, but not in “fulfilment”.
They tried to do this under ObamaCare, saying that any state that failed to expand Medicaid would lose ALL federal Medicaid dollars, but the Supreme Court struck it down. They should not be allowed to make unrelated federal funds contingent upon following capricious regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats.
When the federal government establishes a pattern of using coercive tactics, using federal tax dollars as a weapon to force states to comply with arbitrary rules, it’s time to take that money away and return it to local authorities. FEMA funding could be returned back to 50 state emergency agencies tomorrow, and nobody would miss it for a second.
KTM:
Your statement: “When the federal government establishes a pattern of using coercive tactics…” took place many decades ago when the national speed limit of 55 MPH was forced upon all 50 states with the threat of cutting highway funding.
That ship, as they say, has already sailed. I predict this trend will continue to get more aggressive until chaos reins.
Oh, and you must accept Common Core (UN agenda 21 education) or we will hold back your education funding…
They want risk assessments. Give em risk assessments. Risk management is just as much a pseudoscience as Astrology.
I can write a climate risk assessment in five minutes.
I can write your horoscope in six minutes.
All you need to do is pull facts and numbers out of your ass and be generous with fashionable buzzwords. In Risk management, there’s no backlash or consequences for saying things could happen but don’t. There’s just no feedback.
By “climate plan” I think they mean “weather plan”. That means plan for everything; floods, droughts, colder, hotter, more snow, less snow. Oh the absurdity.
Just another federally mandated waste of tax payer money.
Requiring the 57 states to predict/project what they, with all their super models, are incapable of (correctly) predicting; what’s not to like?
I think the states risk assessment plans should be formulated based on what has actually happened over the past 100 years. The plan should also specifically state “As climate models have not been validated and have demonstrated no predictive skills, they will NOT be used in preparation of our plan.”