Posted on 05/03/2016 4:42:12 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
ISLE DE JEAN CHARLES, La. - A $48 million grant for Isle de Jean Charles, La., is the first allocation of federal tax dollars to move an entire community struggling with the effects of climate change.
With a first-of-its-kind "climate resilience" grant to resettle the island's native residents, Washington is ready to help.
"Yes, this is our grandpa's land," Ms. Bourg said. "But it's going under one way or another."
In January, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced grants totaling $1 billion in 13 states to help communities adapt to climate change, by building stronger levees, dams and drainage systems.
One of those grants, $48 million for Isle de Jean Charles, is something new: the first allocation of federal tax dollars to move an entire community struggling with the impacts of climate change. The divisions the effort has exposed and the logistical and moral dilemmas it has presented point up in microcosm the massive problems the world could face in the coming decades as it confronts a new category of displaced people who have become known as climate refugees.
A vast majority of the $1 billion disaster-resilience grant program is spent on projects to improve infrastructure, like stronger roads, bridges, dams, levees and drainage systems, to withstand rising seas and stronger storms.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
My eyes are deceiving me; the NY TImes are actually allowing truth in the comment section!!!! I guess the Mods are at Starbucks
Yep...I know of a beach house 1 street back from the beach...it is built on SAND...gee...betcha the ocean used to be there
Using the language of the people who are attempting to engineer the language to suit their needs is something to be avoided. If we let them define the terms, they will win.
The left takes perfectly good and descriptive words such as “homosexual” (use “gay” instead) and “thug” (you are a racist if you use this word) and tries to engineer by instilling negative connotations with them so people “self-censor”.
In this case, nobody is using the words “polluter” or “spew” except you in your use of the word “emitter”.
The issue, many of us would agree, is not that there is or isn’t warming of the climate.
It might well be warming. Or cooling. Or stable, it all depends on the data you view and the window you are viewing it in.
The REAL questions are, is there man-caused climate change, and if so, what has man done to cause it?
If the people who are pushing Anthropogenic Global Warming (man caused) can show proof that any changes in climate have been caused by man (and not by naturally occurring cycles in the climate patterns) then they can be taken seriously.
But so far, what we have seen is intentional misinterpretation and outright falsification of any “proof”. That, coupled with the religious fervor and the calls to persecute “deniers” should make any thinking person reject it out of hand.
Brand new free houses for everyone!!! Because they built right on the water. Paid for by the US taxpayer.
Has nothing to do with alleged global warming!
America has become the world’s largest “refugee” camp. A big shout out to everyone who voted for Obonzo! Jerks!
Global warming itself doesn’t really have “fixing the climate” as its goal. It is all about power and control.
It is about reining back 1st world economies and transferring wealth to smaller (2nd/3rd world economies) either directly through taxation/fees/fines, or indirectly by diminishing the ability of the 1st world economies to obtain or produce energy or industrial manufacturing.
And the real goal is to reduce the sovereignty of individual countries, and increase the sovereignty of organizations like the UN and the World Court, both of which should be antithetical to any Freeper or Conservative.
This particular issue which falls under the category of coastal protection and restoration sometimes called coastal mitigation was set in motion by the GOP.
One of the last acts of the republican controlled congress in DEC 2006 was GOMESA in which Texas, LA, MS, and AL were given Royalty Sharing in which they are given half of the federal royalty for their coastal mitigation. Then congress saw to it that these same states plus florida would get the BP fine money for coastal mitigation.
Look carefully at VA, NC, and GA. The premise of their willingness to allow drilling off their coast is predicated on receiving royalty sharing.
Coastal mitigation is not a left vs right issue. It is a coastal state vs interior state issue and has been since Truman proclaimed the shelf as belonging to the feds..
If the coastal states receive this benefit, the interior state want their cut, which they get from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and PILT(payment in lieu of taxes). Part of the shared royalty goes into the Land and Water Conservation Fund to benefit the interior ststes. Also, recall that the Ryan Budget/GOP budget from last December extended the Land and Water Conservation fund for 5 more years, along with extending for 5 more years the renewable energy tax credits.
Nice try at changing the subject. You are quite the weasel on this thread. The position of most on this thread is that belief in AGW is a left-wing position, and now you change the matter to coastal mitigation.
But that is not how the New York Times story is written, which is the ENTIRE point of this thread, that these people have to be moved, and global warming is the culprit. The very first line states: "...ISLE DE JEAN CHARLES, La. - A $48 million grant for Isle de Jean Charles, La., is the first allocation of federal tax dollars to move an entire community struggling with the effects of climate change..."
Let's stick to the point of this thread and the article. Many of us disagree with the fundamental premise: that there is man-caused global warming, that it is causing problems on this island, and that the government is rightfully responsible for providing money to relocate them.
Do you agree with the people who think man-caused global warming caused this problem and it is the government's responsibility to bail them out?
That's because you can't tell the difference between republican rhetoric and reality.
Reality is not what gets posted on this thread. It is the acts and appropriations of the Congress.
Renewable energy benefits republican states and districts a lot more than it does the dems.
This coming from someone who dodges multiple direct questions from several posters about whether he believes in AGW.
And renewable energy to date has been a wasteful boondoggle. Boy, you are just wrapping all kinds of left wing garbage over your shoulders and pretending it doesn't stink.
That is exactly what I would expect to read from one of my liberal Facebook friends. I rarely bother debating it with them as they are just as obtuse as you have been on this thread.
I've already answered that question, look it up.
If you actually examine the issue, what happens on this LA island is very minor. Most of the money will be spent to mitigate places that can't be picked up and moved. That's why I pointed out the numerous articles written a month ago about south florida.
Not on this thread, you haven't. And don't demand that we go rootin' around your posting history looking for such.
Simple question - do you agree with the theory of AGW? Yes or no.
I’m thinking your primary concern around here ought not be carbon emissions nor erosion, but the rapid creation of OZONE, ifyaknowwhatImean.
One of the biggest reasons for it is the efforts we've made in flood control. To keep the La delta built up, you have to have massive flooding to bring the silt in from upstream. The issues Louisiana is facing have little to nothing to do with any "climate change", and everything to do with our development of the coast, and along the Mississippi River.
I also wish the govt would get out of the way and let the private sector build the interstate windlines, so that wind states can export windpower. I think that the multi-billion dollar windlines in Texas was a good investment.
Still won’t answer with a simple yes or no. I guess you think you are being slick, but your lack of a yes/no answer pretty much answers it anyway. Especially with your earlier comments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.