Is the administration playing politics with federal money?

[Fear_Itself]

It’s about time:

[URL" Daily Kos "] FEMA to governors: If you want funding, act on climate change now

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 that the Earth isn’t warming due to human activities, or prefer to take no action, in a political bind. Their position may block their states’ access to hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds. In the last 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.

I approve of this.

[adaher]

I don’t, but I don’t consider that “politicization” per se.

[Shodan]

@Fear_Itself

It’s about time:

FEMA to governors: If you want funding, act on climate change nowI approve of this.

Do you have a better cite for this? I would prefer not to take DailyKos’ word at face value.

Regards,
Shodan

[adaher]

Kos was linking to the Philly Inquirer, but that paper took the story down. If it’s wrong, it’s not Kos’s fault.

It looks like the ideological media on both sides is reporting this, but so far nothing from the mainstream media that I can find:

Google

[Fear_Itself]

@adaher

Kos was linking to the Philly Inquirer, but that paper took the story down. If it’s wrong, it’s not Kos’s fault.

Philly Inquirer didn’t take it down, they just moved it:

FEMA to deny funds to warming deniers

[adaher]

The article is well sourced too. Got quotes from experts and everything. I still think it’s bad policy, but it’s out in the open. No attempt to deceive the public.

[jayjay]

@iiandyiiii

adaher, please put “(Obama personal hatred thread)” in the thread title when you start a thread that inevitably goes like this. That way I can avoid the ones that provide zero in terms of reasonable analysis and nothing beyond your extreme personal vitriolic disdain.

To be fair, that would generally be all of them. Well, except for the ones that consist entirely of incredibly wrong predictions. Those are fun.

[adaher]

Like my 2014 thread, which no one bumped after the election, like they would have had I been really far off? Actually, looking at that thread, I had the closest predictions in the thread. Another reason it’s been flushed down the memory hole. Selective memory much?

[Ravenman]

@adaher

I don’t, but I don’t consider that “politicization” per se.

Interesting. Back when everyone was talking about bailouts for industry, there were lots of conservatives (and liberals too, to be fair) talking about moral hazard, culminating in Mitt Romney suggesting that Detroit should just die.

Now we have states who are acting recklessly by ignoring the impacts of climate change, but you think it is bad policy for FEMA not to take that under account? Can you explain your views a little more?

[adaher]

It is hard to distinguish between disasters that occur because of climate change and those that would have occurred anyway. Regardless of the cause of disasters, states should prepare for them. A tornado is a tornado, a wildfire is a wildfire, a hurricane is a hurricane, an earthquake is an earthquake. I’m not sure that denying funds to states that don’t implement climate change policies of some sort does any good.

Besides, I’d love to know what climate change policy is more effective than hurricane preparedness.

[Ravenman]

Well, it’s probably like the Great Homeland Security Money Grab of last decade. In the 1990s, cops on the street were described as a crime reduction effort. Post-2001, they were homeland security activities.

I’m sure that things like fixing eroding beaches used to be “disaster preparedness,” and now it is “climate change response” or something. If Rick Scott doesn’t want to pay state funds fix eroding beaches because “climate change” is a dirty word, he shouldn’t be able to pass the bill to the Feds.

[Fear_Itself]

@adaher

It is hard to distinguish between disasters that occur because of climate change and those that would have occurred anyway. Regardless of the cause of disasters, states should prepare for them. A tornado is a tornado, a wildfire is a wildfire, a hurricane is a hurricane, an earthquake is an earthquake. I’m not sure that denying funds to states that don’t implement climate change policies of some sort does any good.

This policy does not reduce disaster relief.

[adaher]

Sorry, disaster preparedness. Although really I think states should be doing that, not the feds. THe federal government should limit itself to problems that are too overwhelming for states. Preparing for disaster is a routine expense. Actual disasters that are historically bad are not.

FEMA has experienced too much mission creep. We now have what, 200 federal disasters a year? This word “disaster” doesn’t mean what they think it means. Rhose Island even tried to get disaster funds for a club burning down.