At NPR, the concern is not whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency is prepared to respond to the next big storm but whether it has the words “climate change” in its strategic planning document.
In “FEMA Drops ‘Climate Change’ From Its Strategic Plan,” Richard Gonzalez writes that the agency, the nation’s first responder for floods, hurricanes and other national disasters, has eliminated climate change from its strategic planning document for the next four years.
He then quotes the relevant section:
“Disaster costs are expected to continue to increase due to rising natural hazard risk, decaying critical infrastructure, and economic pressures that limit investments in risk resilience. As good stewards of taxpayer dollars, FEMA must ensure that our programs are fiscally sound. Additionally, we will consider new pathways to long-term disaster risk reduction, including increased investments in pre-disaster mitigation.”
“The document does not say what could be contributing to ‘rising natural hazard risk’ or what conditions could require the ‘increased investments in pre-disaster mitigation,’” which insinuates the administration is playing word games just to avoid having to use the phrase “climate change.”
But both terms also are associated with increased costs in terms of disaster response of coastal development.
The section on “emerging threats” mentions cybersecurity and terrorism, Gonzalez writes, but not global warming. In fact, “there are no references to global warming, rising sea levels, extreme weather events or any other term related to the potential impact of rising surface temperatures.”
Perhaps the Trump administration has ceased talking about global warming in connection with FEMA for other reasons. For one, FEMA’s job is to plan and executive emergency response. When it talks about pre-disaster mitigation, it means reservoirs for flood waters, improving transportation out of endangered areas and prepositioning medical and other supplies.
This is a blow to mainstream media because the case for changing laws and enacting taxes and other laws to curb global warming turns on the theory it is driven or accelerated by CO2 concentration.
Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, now at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, analyzed 90 of those climate models against surface and satellite temperature data and found almost all of them had “over-forecast the warming trend since 1979”
If more CO2 doesn’t equal more warming – and it now seems empirically true that is the case – then the “consensus” that this results from man’s activities is wrong and should not form the basis for legislation. And FEMA should not be weighing it into its strategic plans.
Since 2012, ice cover has increased at both poles – by 50 percent at the North Pole – and sea level rise has been limited to historical trends, augmented none by alleged global warming.
As for hurricanes, scientists say we may be doing things to the atmosphere we can’t yet measure that will increase frequency and/or severity of big storms, but “In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.”
But according to NPR, it’s not the evidence temperatures are not rising, sea levels are rising only as much as they have historically and the poles are not melting away that caused FEMA to rethink the role of global warming in its plan — it’s the guy President Trump put in charge.