FEMA to deny funds to warming deniers

[Drsolders]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/na...g_deniers.html

Oh that's cool, just go ahead and throw us under the fucking bus for what politicians say. You will come help us after a disaster? That's great, we will just drown in a hurricane because we can't fund our fucking storm shelters. If anything, our state should stop paying federal taxes that fund FEMA if they are going to try to extort us like this. I am for climate change, but Hurricanes were a serious threat before it, and are still a serious threat now. Sad enough that FEMA is such a failure of an organization that they weren't ready to help Katrina, but even worse that the politicians, especially from places with few disasters are going to play with our lives. Good thing all those idiots up in the NE got funding for their thunderstorm sandy that came, maybe they should come down when an actual hurricane hits them.

Oh and before any of you say, "well you elected them" it's almost as if politicians lie and gerrymandering exist. Also, some of our leaders are great in almost everything they do with the state but don't believe in global warming.

[Blueobelisk]

I mean. I find it hilarious at first glance, but on second glance it's more about the money being properly allocated to also protect in conjunction with the thought of climate change.

[Drsolders]

I mean. I find it hilarious at first glance, but on second glance it's more about the money being properly allocated to also protect in conjunction with the thought of climate change.

Ok so they want it spent a certain way, and I can understand that perfectly. But if your governer said he didn't believe climate change, would it be suddenly ok for FEMA to cut off all preparatory aid to New York for blizzards and subsidies for Home Owners/Renters insurance?

I'm ok with putting pressure on them in other ways, but saying we will just let your citizens (who happen to fund FEMA) die to make that point is sickening.

[Poopymonster]

Ok so they want it spent a certain way, and I can understand that perfectly. But if your governer said he didn't believe climate change, would it be suddenly ok for FEMA to cut off all preparatory aid to New York for blizzards and subsidies for Home Owners/Renters insurance?

If the FEMA money is allocated to a state for X purpose, and said state's ruling body said "X doesn't exist" then it stands to reason you don't need the money.

When the disaster happens, FEMA money comes into play. After the fact. Which if the ruling body had said could happen the damage wouldn't be so catastrophic.

Next election cycle, get rid of the nutjobs.

[Tragedia]

Welcome to Reagan's New Federalism. If the state will not cooperate then why should FEMA give them money?

[Zenfoldor]

This could backfire deep in the ass of whoever came up with this policy.

[Deleted]

If you don't believe that there is global warming (man made or not) then you don't understand how environmental physics and meteorology work at a very basic level.

Giving money to people like that with the aim of secureing their state/county/etc. against extreme weather conditions would be a complete waste of tax dollars.

Since, clearly they wouldn't listen to experts advising them on how to spend it correctly.

[Drsolders]

This could backfire deep in the ass of whoever came up with this policy.

Well FEMA is under control of the Executive branch, so If a hurricane happens before elections this year or next year, the Dems will have 0 chance to win the presidency. It will backfire even harder than Bush with Katrina.

- - - Updated - - -

If you don't believe that there is global warming (man made or not) then you don't understand how environmental physics and meteorology work at a very basic level.

Giving money to people like that with the aim of secureing their state/county/etc. against extreme weather conditions would be a complete waste of tax dollars.

Since, clearly they wouldn't listen to experts advising them on how to spend it correctly.

Well Hurricanes existed before global warming, and we still get them. I agree, we shouldn't have idiots representing us, but saying because you elected someone wrong we will take your money and then deny you the preventative aid later is sickening. Hurricanes aren't caused by global warming, they are made worse by it, but they aren't caused by it. Therefore, denying aid for hurricanes because they denied it is retarded.

Also if they weren't trying to make a political power play at the cost of lives, FEMA would bypass the state and build the things themselves. This administration would rather people die then try to do the right thing. Hurricane season is starting soon, so they better fix this or it will cost them this next election.

[Blueobelisk]

I agree, we shouldn't have idiots representing us, but saying because you elected someone wrong we will take your money and then deny you the preventative aid later is sickening. Hurricanes aren't caused by global warming, they are made worse by it, but they aren't caused by it. Therefore, denying aid for hurricanes because they denied it is retarded.

All that has to happen is the current gov has to learn about global warming, see how it affects disasters and how to factor that into budgeting preparation, and they'll get the money. Is it so hard to ask for that?

You don't give money to someone and let them do as they please because of their personal beliefs that contradict science. THAT would be irresponsible.

[Deleted]

Well Hurricanes existed before global warming, and we still get them. I agree, we shouldn't have idiots representing us, but saying because you elected someone wrong we will take your money and then deny you the preventative aid later is sickening. Hurricanes aren't caused by global warming, they are made worse by it, but they aren't caused by it. Therefore, denying aid for hurricanes because they denied it is retarded.

The point is that if you don't listen to the scientists telling you that there is global warming then why would you listen to them telling you how to battle severe weather conditions? (And yes those are the same guys.)

So then how do you decide to spend the money when all your experts are clearly paid off left wing liars?

[Pterodactylus]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/na...g_deniers.html

Oh that's cool, just go ahead and throw us under the fucking bus for what politicians say. You will come help us after a disaster? That's great, we will just drown in a hurricane because we can't fund our fucking storm shelters. If anything, our state should stop paying federal taxes that fund FEMA if they are going to try to extort us like this. I am for climate change, but Hurricanes were a serious threat before it, and are still a serious threat now. Sad enough that FEMA is such a failure of an organization that they weren't ready to help Katrina, but even worse that the politicians, especially from places with few disasters are going to play with our lives. Good thing all those idiots up in the NE got funding for their thunderstorm sandy that came, maybe they should come down when an actual hurricane hits them.

Oh and before any of you say, "well you elected them" it's almost as if politicians lie and gerrymandering exist. Also, some of our leaders are great in almost everything they do with the state but don't believe in global warming.

The article says that FEMA will still give money for disaster relief. There are just stipulations on preparedness money to mitigate threats related to climate change (e.g. grant money to build a seawall to mitigate sea level rise). This is an issue that will change VERY fast as it will become more and more difficult for the politicians to deny anthropogenic climate change.

[Kakera]

Your fault for voting idiots into power. Don't like it? Go vote and make a difference. If you already vote, then this comment does not apply to you. Move to a state that suits your lifestyle choices.

[Drsolders]

All that has to happen is the current gov has to learn about global warming, see how it affects disasters and how to factor that into budgeting preparation, and they'll get the money. Is it so hard to ask for that?

You don't give money to someone and let them do as they please because of their personal beliefs that contradict science. THAT would be irresponsible.

Except, while seas rising and the like are serious problems, hurricanes are a much more serious and immediate problem. Look at Sandy, a mild storm that wasn't even a hurricane that damaged New York. Again if FEMA wasn't willing to play with lives they would just build what they want, but since they are taking OUR money to do so, we do get a say in how it is used. A sea wall would be very useful, but not more useful than a hurricane shelter.

[chazus]

While I see it as a terrible idea... I also see it as a method to strong-arm politicians to stop being idiots.

Simple solution, replace your politicians with people who aren't flat-earth society types.

[ringpriest]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/na...g_deniers.html

Oh that's cool, just go ahead and throw us under the fucking bus for what politicians say. You will come help us after a disaster? That's great, we will just drown in a hurricane because we can't fund our fucking storm shelters. If anything, our state should stop paying federal taxes that fund FEMA if they are going to try to extort us like this. I am for climate change, but Hurricanes were a serious threat before it, and are still a serious threat now. Sad enough that FEMA is such a failure of an organization that they weren't ready to help Katrina, but even worse that the politicians, especially from places with few disasters are going to play with our lives. Good thing all those idiots up in the NE got funding for their thunderstorm sandy that came, maybe they should come down when an actual hurricane hits them.

Oh and before any of you say, "well you elected them" it's almost as if politicians lie and gerrymandering exist. Also, some of our leaders are great in almost everything they do with the state but don't believe in global warming.

Good. My fellow Americans need to learn that rampant stupidity has consequences. I have no more problem with this than telling a (hypothetical, I think) state government that insists the world is flat that they don't get NOAA satellite forecasting data. This is an excellent step in publicly driving home that climate denial is not a skeptical but well-meaning belief but rather out and out conspiracy-theorist, tinfoil-hat wearing nuttery of the first (and most dangerous) order. (Deniers make birthers and truthers look good by comparison.)

And its not quite as bad as you make it sound - from the article, "The policy doesn't affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood, or other disaster."

Edited to add: Also, saying " some of our leaders are great in almost everything they do with the state but don't believe in global warming" is basically equivalent to saying, " some of our leaders are great in almost everything they do with the state but like roasting babies in giant flaming pits". (With the attached implication that you don't see why their habit of mass-murdering small children should be held against them, because, after all, they're so darn good at getting potholes filled.)

[Drsolders]

Good. My fellow Americans need to learn that rampant stupidity has consequences. I have no more problem with this than telling a (hypothetical, I think) state government that insists the world is flat that they don't get NOAA satellite forecasting data. This is an excellent step in publicly driving home that climate denial is not a skeptical but well-meaning belief but rather out and out conspiracy-theorist, tinfoil-hat wearing nuttery of the first (and most dangerous) order. (Deniers make birthers and truthers look good by comparison.)

And its not quite as bad as you make it sound - from the article, "The policy doesn't affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood, or other disaster."

Reading comprehension, AFTER doesn't do shit but help those that lived through it.

- - - Updated - - -

While I see it as a terrible idea... I also see it as a method to strong-arm politicians to stop being idiots.

Simple solution, replace your politicians with people who aren't flat-earth society types.

Gerrymandering exist, and it WILL backfire that I can promise you.

[Laila]

Well FEMA is under control of the Executive branch, so If a hurricane happens before elections this year or next year, the Dems will have 0 chance to win the presidency. It will backfire even harder than Bush with Katrina.

Except the fact that FEMA is actually working extremely well these days. The problem with FEMA under Bush was that republicans don't want stuff like FEMA to work. It's a really simple system: claim that government just fucks everything up, so when you control the government, fuck everything up, ta-da you've proved that the government just fucks everything up.

Pretty easy to accomplish, just do shit like making the 12-year "Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association" your FEMA director. Don't forget to tell him he's doing a heckuva job when he starts royally fucking things up, too.


Anyway yeah, as to your OP, it's not "If you don't believe in climate change we won't fund you." It's "If you won't use those funds the way we direct, which includes preparations for disasters caused by climate change, then you don't get those funds."

[NYC17]

Still trying to find the actual problem within this issue...

[Drsolders]

Except the fact that FEMA is actually working extremely well these days. The problem with FEMA under Bush was that republicans don't want stuff like FEMA to work. It's a really simple system: claim that government just fucks everything up, so when you control the government, fuck everything up, ta-da you've proved that the government just fucks everything up.

Pretty easy to accomplish, just do shit like making the 12-year "Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association" your FEMA director.


Anyway yeah, as to your OP, it's not "If you don't believe in climate change we won't fund you." It's "If you won't use those funds the way we direct, which includes preparations for disasters caused by climate change, then you don't get those funds."

Then we can withhold our own taxes and redirect it to the state right? I understand they want it used in a certain way, which is important but we have immediate threats that need attention as well.

I would love to see a republican say something along the lines of "If you use your money to fund abortion we will cut social services to your state." Would it suddenly be because we told you to use the money in a certain way and you wouldn't we can just cut it?

Another example would be if they told Oklahoma if you won't build solar panels we will cut all funding for tornado shelters and tornado sirens and we will cut subsidies to homeowners insurance that covers wind.

[Wilian]

Then we can withhold our own taxes and redirect it to the state right? I understand they want it used in a certain way, which is important but we have immediate threats that need attention as well.

The largest immediate threats you have is your own bought out politicians.