From Inside Climate News:
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.
Full story: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18032015/fema-states-no-climate-planning-no-money
h/t to WUWT reader Susan Olsen
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So the official state sponsored religion of the USA is AGW. I am glad that FEMA confirmed this, for I will now know where to direct my tithe.
but only because the democrats are in charge
The blue color indicates the temperature below 0 ° C (1000 hPa level). Current temperature.
http://oi60.tinypic.com/2n64qk0.jpg
With FEMA’s stellar handling of the Katrina disaster, the repercussions for deliberately not providing assistance to American citizens in peril can only be described as stupendous.
So, everybody pays into this Federal insurance fund, but only those with a certain belief system are covered? I guess the lives of “deniers” are worthless.
Yes, because while we are all equal, some are more equal than others.
Skeptic lives matter!
I wonder if FEMA will mitigate our impending catastrophic climate carbon taxes?
NO NEED TO FOR WOULD BE TERRORISTS TO JOIN ISIS. JUST, SECURE A JOB WITH EPA.
The government is populated with morons. These clowns forget “Man Made Climate Change” is driven by Global Warming. Problem, no warming for over 15 years and recent studies have concluded ocean not heat sink.
The “ship of state” is piloted by fools.
How long will “We The Peopl”e tolerate fools making 6 figure salaries crippling the nation with policies doing more damage than terrorist
1789 — remember? George Washington AND the French revolution: “les aristocrats, on les pendra” might be replaced by “politiciens”, although I doubt that true american citizens will ever sing in french…
FEMA obviously became a sub-division of the department of dirty tricks.
… which is a sub-division of the department of dirty laundry.
… which might explain why FEMA is on the skids.
was hoping you would highlight this, posted in tip line on 21
http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-3/#comment-1888412
this is…troubling to say the least.
Sue
So the progressive left using the power of government to enforce their beliefs. There’s something you don’t see every… oh wait, yes you do.
This has become the default method of governing by the feds. Lower the speed limit, or lose your highway money, feed you kids what we tell you or lose your school lunch money. Enforce these quotas or lose your education money. Enforce these green laws or lose your [insert federal program] money.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rhammer/fema_promises_to_revise_state.html
Who put them up to it and who made the ‘donation’?
Green Blob subversion would be more like it. Here is what appears to have prompted this latest warmist media merry-go-round. Note …
What else did they *ask*? Who put them up to it and who made the ‘donation’?
Here’s our plan: We plan to do nothing, and address issues as they happen, since it’s cheaper than trying to pretend like we know what climate/weather will be like in the future. So there’s your plan, now give us our money back please.
I agree with William R. Stop trying to fight climate change and just roll with the punches. It’s a better plan than wrecking the economy.
Come on now, it’s not really “wrecking” it, it’s just fundamentally transforming it…
>>Quote:
>>If a state has a climate denier governor…
Who on this planet denies there is such a thing as climate?
.
>>Quote:
>>that would risk mitigation work not getting done
Mitigation for what? Since there has been no Global Warming for 18 years, what are they mitigating against? Is this something to do with the bizarre philosophy that a static, unchanging temperature somehow makes the climate change? In truth, anyone who subscribes to that argument should be removed from office, as being mentally unstable and unfit for public office.
Ralph
“If a state has a climate denier governor” … “The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state” because of his climate beliefs.
No, no, no, Becky Hammer. If FEMA chooses to withhold needed help to a state because of a political position held by its governor, then it is FEMA which is increasing the risk to the citizens of that state because of the administration’s climate beliefs. To claim otherwise is fallacious.
http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1425915308555-aba3a873bc5f1140f7320d1ebebd18c6/State_Mitigation_Plan_Review_Guide_2015.pdf
Is this how all those scientific institutions and academies came to adopt climate change as a reality – through coercion by the federal government?
Yes.
Warren Buffett:
“The effects of climate change, “if any,” have not affected the insurance market, billionaire Warren Buffett told CNBC on Monday—adding he’s not calculating the probabilities of catastrophes any differently.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101460458
It’s really adverse weather risk planning and mitigation efforts dressed up in the language of climate change. Coastal erosion in the Northeast is a problem regardless of sea level being 9 cm higher in 2100 or not, for example. So do the sensible thing and plan for the next hurricane.
Can someone explain how freezing cold = global warming? Or how global warming causes extreme cold.
I was under the impression that winters would become warmer and wetter and summers hotter and drier.
Now we have incredibly cold winters, somehow caused by rising CO2 levels.
As there are many AGW believers reading this blog, perhaps one of them could enlighten me. laymans terms will do, as long as the explanation is clear.
Mitigating cAGW is simple: unplug the computer used for modeling. Done.
Where’s my FEMA check?
Brilliant LOL
You know how many times I have heard that working at FEMA? Call after all, day after day, month after month LOLOL
The real problem here is not the climate change mandate but the unquestioned assumption that the Federal Government has a right to be giving out that money in the first place. Preparedness is a routine State responsibility and should be paid for entirely out of State funds. There is no reason to take from Delaware taxpayers just to give to Maryland bureaucrats (or vice versa).
There is a valid argument for cross-funding for disaster response – the affected state may be unable to raise the needed funds while in the middle of the disaster. That logic does not apply to planning, though. If Delaware needs more money for planning, let them raise their own taxes in their own time. This is not a proper role for the Federal government.
So, a governor who realistically knows that his state is not in danger from “climate change”, will lose billions of dollars for his constituents unless he writes an assessment of how his state could be affected by weather and switches the word weather for climate. Is that blackmail or bribery? It would be nice to see some govs show enough integrity to tell them to stuff it, but I’ll not hold my breath.
All the guvnor needs to do is make no risk statement and back it up with data.
If disaster assistance can be withheld then so can the bill of rights. Enjoy. There is no end to that slippery slope.
This winter, still a lot of snow will fall in the Northeast US.
Suppose the policy was reversed. Suppose we had a President that instructed FEMA “Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard mitigation plans that refute climate change.”
Would this be acceptable?
The next presidential election is coming…..
The science doesn’t support that. We want our politicians to be intelligent dont we?
If you are asking them to lie (or be willfully ignorant) for money, thats another thing.
And current data does support and increase in the frequency or severity of weather related disasters due to increased global surface temperatures.
There should be a “not” between does and support at 1:23 pm.
I read the articles and now I’ve read the guidance I linked to above. Guidance says states need to consider climate change, historic data and many other factors in analyzing risks. It doesn’t say anything about the thoughts of any particular state’s chief executive.
@BrianK now two of you have actually read the article!
@Mac – No matter what, somebody somewhere is benefiting from the policies. what If it was the republicans trying to incentivize an increase in burning coal so as to hasten the onset of the next glaciation period? (well, you’d have to believe the variation of GW that we trigger an ice age by blocking out too much sun with soot, never mind the GHGs). Point being, there are no innocent parties to any angle of this, no matter what your take on it is.
And yes, we are in an Ice Age. The existence of ice sheets and permafrost are part of how we define an Ice Age. However we are in an inter-glaciation period. Hope someone stops misappropriating the term Ice Age now.
FEMA is NOT engaging in science based planning, with this venal new policy. It is engaging in political punishment and corruption based planning, and even a fool should be able to see that.
Your attempts to defend the indefensible do not reflect well on your ethics or character.
my response to you is above, i would like to add that FEMA is asking the States to do the science based planning. If a state can adequately show that they have nothing to fear from climate change in their planning, the evidence should support them to refute the requirement.
Problem is that they (FEMA) won’t accept the planning; they want one thing but they say another. They will say it (the planning) is not complete. They will say it does not go far enough. They will want changes throughout.
Problem is that the people putting the planning studies together do not have unlimited funding or time to deal with the requested verifications or changes. States that do as you suggest, as a simple solution, will be treated differently.
You either live in a fantasy world, or you are completely full of it.
Of course I may be biased. But that is O.K., because you can always submit evidence (to me, for my sole review) that I am wrong. If I am wrong then you will obviously and easily be able to refute my claim with your supporting evidence.
Ridiculous. It’s not possible to prove a negative.
It’s up to FEMA to prove that “climate change” WILL be dangerous. At the moment, except in the fevered minds of religious zealots, no evidence of such exists.
Somethingless,
My response remains the same. Circular and specious arguments change it not a whit.
FEMA is NOT engaging in science based planning, with this venal new policy. It is engaging in political punishment and corruption based planning, and even a fool should be able to see that.
From your response, it appears my statement about fools was incorrect.
True, but almost all the Democrats in the house voted against a bill requiring the EPA to publish all scientific findings that accompany any proposed rule making. I wonder why?
Perhaps ethics is just a nice way of saying that your price is higher than anybody else’s.
“The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state because of his climate beliefs.” says Becky Hammer, an attorney (for goodness sake). But further confirmation that AGW is a pseudo-religion, not science.