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.

"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 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."

Among those who could face a difficult decision are New Jersey's Gov. Christie and fellow Republican Govs. Rick Scott of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Greg Abbott of Texas, and Pat McCrory of North Carolina - all of whom have denied man-made climate change or refused to take action. The states they lead face immediate threats from climate change.

The five governors' offices did not return requests for comment by press time.

Environmentalists have been pressing FEMA to include global warming in its hazard-mitigation guidelines for almost three years. FEMA told the Natural Resources Defense Council in early 2014 that it would revise the guidelines. It issued draft rules in October and officially released the new procedures last week as partisan politics around climate change have been intensifying.

On March 8, the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting said Scott instituted an unwritten ban on the use of the phrases climate change or global warming" by Florida officials. Also this month, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.) took a snowball to the Senate floor as evidence against warming, highlighting GOP leaders' climate views.

"The challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding, and higher sea levels, could significantly alter the types and magnitudes of hazards impacting states in the future," FEMA wrote in its new procedures.

FEMA's disaster-preparedness program has been granting money to states since the 1980s for projects as diverse as raising buildings out of floodplains and building safe rooms. States are required to update their plans every five years to be eligible for the agency's mitigation funding. Since 2010, FEMA has doled out more than $4.6 billion to states and territories as part of this program.

Republican-led regions constitute eight of the top 10 recipients of this category of FEMA money between 2010 and 2014. Louisiana was No. 1, having received almost $1.1 billion from FEMA for hazard mitigation. New Jersey was third with nearly $379 million, and Texas fourth with almost $343 million.

The gubernatorial approval clause was included in the new guidelines to "raise awareness and support for implementing the actions in the mitigation strategy and increasing statewide resilience to natural hazards," FEMA spokeswoman Susan Hendrick said.

The new federal rules don't require public involvement in the creation of states' disaster-preparedness plans, eliminating the opportunity for environmental groups and concerned citizens to submit comments or concerns about the assessments.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 23, 2015, 12:29:01 PM

Relatively harmless budget restrictions like withholding highway funds for states refusing to raise the drinking age to 21 is one thing, but this is literally holding peoples' lives hostage.

...and being a climate change denier isn't?

Quote from: Mad Max on March 23, 2015, 12:33:54 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 23, 2015, 12:29:01 PM

Relatively harmless budget restrictions like withholding highway funds for states refusing to raise the drinking age to 21 is one thing, but this is literally holding peoples' lives hostage.

...and being a climate change denier isn't?

Sorry, how is pandering to your political base and being an idiot even half as dangerous as withholding funds preparing for disasters. It's like withholding funding for flood defences because a specific governor doesn't believe a hurricane will occur.

Give them the money, legally require them to spend it in a certain way and let them throw their hissy fit. Don't punish the citizens by only helping them after they've been maimed.

Are you fucking kidding me?

So it's fine for liberals (not necessarily you) to call for things like federal legislation striking down state laws blocking gay marriage, despite the fact that such would be a direct result of electing a specific governor,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

but when it begins to trespass on climate change you're willing to say "que sera sera"? What about when the interests of representatives, senators and governors clash, which takes precedence? And why should you be allowed to dictate the electorate's priorities? What about the 47pc of Floridians who didn't vote for Rick Scott?

You're being short-sighted, and you probably know it.

Quote from: Mad Max on March 23, 2015, 11:59:39 AM

I don't see why this is bad. Someone needs to put their foot down on these idiots.

Only a liberal like you could think this is a good thing.

"They don't agree with my views... Let's withhold valuable disaster funding that could effect many lives! Yeah, that'll teach 'em! They'll really change their minds now!"

Quote from: Mad Max on March 23, 2015, 11:59:39 AM

I don't see why this is bad. Someone needs to put their foot down on these idiots.

Only a liberal like you could think this is a good thing.

"They don't agree with my views... Let's withhold valuable disaster funding that could effect many lives! Yeah, that'll teach 'em! They'll really change their minds now!"

Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 23, 2015, 03:44:45 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on March 23, 2015, 03:41:00 PM

It has nothing to do with my views. Climate change is a real thing, not some liberal ploy.

He's criticising your view that the vindication of climate change is worth the deaths of innocent citizens. Not that you believe in climate change in the first place.

Yes, he is.

Quote from: Verbatim wird verzögert on March 23, 2015, 03:33:59 PM

"They don't agree with my views... Let's withhold valuable disaster funding that could effect many lives! Yeah, that'll teach 'em! They'll really change their minds now!"

His post is saying that someone like a climate-change-denying governor doesn't agree with my "view" that climate change is real.

Quote from: Kupo on March 23, 2015, 03:45:50 PM

Quote from: Verbatim wird verzögert on March 23, 2015, 03:33:59 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on March 23, 2015, 11:59:39 AM

I don't see why this is bad. Someone needs to put their foot down on these idiots.

Only a liberal like you could think this is a good thing.

"They don't agree with my views... Let's withhold valuable disaster funding that could effect many lives! Yeah, that'll teach 'em! They'll really change their minds now!"

As if "let's use public education to deny climate science that will affect everybody" is any better? How dare they get a taste of their own medicine!

>Implying education and disaster funding are on the same level of effecting people's lives directly

Yeah, let's just take their disaster funding so they die in the next natural disaster! The best medicine is the kind that kills you!

Quote from: Verbatim wird verzögert on March 23, 2015, 03:55:51 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 23, 2015, 03:45:50 PM

Quote from: Verbatim wird verzögert on March 23, 2015, 03:33:59 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on March 23, 2015, 11:59:39 AM

I don't see why this is bad. Someone needs to put their foot down on these idiots.

Only a liberal like you could think this is a good thing.

"They don't agree with my views... Let's withhold valuable disaster funding that could effect many lives! Yeah, that'll teach 'em! They'll really change their minds now!"

As if "let's use public education to deny climate science that will affect everybody" is any better? How dare they get a taste of their own medicine!

>Implying education and disaster funding are on the same level of effecting people's lives directly

Yeah, let's just take their disaster funding so they die in the next natural disaster! The best medicine is the kind that kills you!

The next natural disaster is only going to be worse because of climate change...

Quote from: Kupo on March 23, 2015, 03:45:50 PM

Quote from: Verbatim wird verzögert on March 23, 2015, 03:33:59 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on March 23, 2015, 11:59:39 AM

I don't see why this is bad. Someone needs to put their foot down on these idiots.

Only a liberal like you could think this is a good thing.

"They don't agree with my views... Let's withhold valuable disaster funding that could effect many lives! Yeah, that'll teach 'em! They'll really change their minds now!"

As if "let's use public education to deny climate science that will affect everybody" is any better? How dare they get a taste of their own medicine!

>Implying education and disaster funding are on the same level of effecting people's lives directly

Yeah, let's just take their disaster funding so they die in the next natural disaster! The best medicine is the kind that kills you!

Quote from: Mad Max on March 23, 2015, 04:01:37 PM

Alright, if denying FEMA funding to them isn't the answer, what is?

Mad Max, I know you can be liberally retarded, but if you seriously think denying valuable funding to a cause meant to help save people's lives in the event of a disaster is a good (and apparently the ONLY) action to take, you should rethink your fucking platform. It's disgusting to think people would advocate to let others die JUST to make a point or because someone disagrees.

Alright, if denying FEMA funding to them isn't the answer, what is?

Quote from: Verbatim wird verzögert on March 23, 2015, 03:55:51 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 23, 2015, 03:45:50 PM

Quote from: Verbatim wird verzögert on March 23, 2015, 03:33:59 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on March 23, 2015, 11:59:39 AM

I don't see why this is bad. Someone needs to put their foot down on these idiots.

Only a liberal like you could think this is a good thing.

"They don't agree with my views... Let's withhold valuable disaster funding that could effect many lives! Yeah, that'll teach 'em! They'll really change their minds now!"

As if "let's use public education to deny climate science that will affect everybody" is any better? How dare they get a taste of their own medicine!

>Implying education and disaster funding are on the same level of effecting people's lives directly

Yeah, let's just take their disaster funding so they die in the next natural disaster! The best medicine is the kind that kills you!

gtfo midge, get banned from Serious

By giving false information about climate change, they're setting up another generation to shill for them while making the kids scientifically illiterate at the same time. And because these kids won't believe in climate change, they'll downplay its effects and not give it the proper funding it needs, thus endangering everybody.

The end result is the same.