Lawmakers demand answers over FEMA’s omission of climate change from key document – ThinkProgress

[ad_1]

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) says its decision to omit any mention of climate change from the agency’s strategic plan was essentially an oversight. Lawmakers want to know if any experts were consulted in drawing up the document itself, which is meant to guide the agency’s work over the next four years.

In a letter sent Wednesday to FEMA Director Brock Long, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) asked for more information regarding the agency’s 2018-2022 Strategic Plan. FEMA has come under fire for the document, which did not contain a single reference to climate change despite the agency being responsible for overseeing recovery from hurricanes and wildfires, both of which are being affected more and more by rising temperatures.

“What statistical, scientific, or mathematical analyses were used in formulating the plan?” asked Ellison. “What scientific frameworks were used to identify the strategic goals and strategic objectives?”

“What individuals or offices within FEMA or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were involved in the plan?” he continued, going on to inquire about White House involvement as well as any input from outside organizations or other individuals who may have consulted on the document.

“Did FEMA consult with any scientists or climate experts on the strategic plan?” he underscored.

The congressman requested a response to the queries by May 14.

Ellison’s Wednesday letter is the latest move in an ongoing back-and-forth. FEMA released its strategic plan on March 15 with no mention of climate change contained anywhere in the 37-page document. In an initial March 29 letter to FEMA, Ellison queried the agency tasked with coordinating disaster responses and mitigating such occurrences about why references to climate change did not appear in its strategic plan.

“Given the extraordinary devastation caused by natural disasters last year, I was surprised to find that FEMA removed all mentions of climate change from its 2018-2022 Strategic Plan,” Ellison wrote, going on to call the shift “inexplicable” in light of devastating catastrophes linked to climate change in 2017.

“It is puzzling to understand how FEMA could meet the emerging challenges of 21st century disasters while ignoring the mounting evidence of the link between climate change and weather events,” he continued.

FEMA director Long responded on April 12, essentially informing the congressman that the agency had simply forgotten to include any mention of the phenomenon, according to the Huffington Post.

“There was no decision, and no direction, to deliberately avoid or omit any particular term in the writing of the 2018-2022 Strategic Plan,” Long replied to Ellison.

Last year was the most expensive year on record for U.S. natural disasters since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) first began monitoring such trends in 1980. In 2017, natural disasters racked up $306 billion in costs across the country.

Virtually every region in the United States suffered some form of natural disaster in 2017, ranging from hailstorms and drought in the Midwest to blazing fires on the West Coast. A series of devastating hurricanes also left numerous islands and the Gulf Coast reeling last fall.

Texas is still recovering from Hurricane Harvey and the island of Puerto Rico has endured the longest blackout in U.S. history. Puerto Ricans still do not have full access to electricity or many basic necessities following Hurricane Maria, which struck the island as a Category 4 hurricane on September 20 last year.

Scientists and climate experts have said that hurricanes like Maria and Harvey were likely made worse by climate change. They say warming waters allowed for the storms to gain power quickly, exacerbating the damage they caused. An onslaught of pouring rain, flooding cities, and destroying dams, has also been directly linked to climate change.

“While hurricanes are a natural part of our climate system, recent research suggests that there has been an increase in intense hurricane activity in the North Atlantic since the 1970s,” wrote the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) last December. “In the future, there may not necessarily be more hurricanes, but there will likely be more intense hurricanes that carry higher wind speeds and more precipitation as a result of global warming.”

The White House has downplayed the extent of the damage caused by hurricanes last fall, especially with regards to Puerto Rico. Before a month had even passed after Hurricane Maria, President Trump emphasized that FEMA’s workers could not stay “forever” to help the island recover. Traditionally, parts of the United States far more equipped to deal with hurricanes than Puerto Rico have taken many years to rebound after hurricanes less powerful than Maria.

FEMA has already faced considerable criticism over its handling of post-disaster relief in Puerto Rico. Island residents have slammed FEMA over food shortages as well as back-and-forth over food and water aid, which the agency indicated it would end in January only to walk back that decision after public outcry. In March, Puerto Ricans rallied at FEMA headquarters demanding increased aid to the island and accountability over the agency’s failures.

But the agency does seem to have acknowledged that flooding is a national problem. In April, FEMA asked Congress to make national flood insurance more affordable, addressing a large income gap prevalent in communities vulnerable to flooding. Of those areas in Texas hardest hit by Harvey, upwards of 80 percent of residents lacked flood insurance.

FEMA’s flood insurance request to Congress notably contained no reference to climate change, going only so far as to note that disaster costs are expected to rise in coming years due to “rising natural hazard risk, decaying critical infrastructure, and economic pressures that limit investments in risk resilience.”

Climate change skepticism is a theme which runs deep throughout the Trump administration. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt has repeatedly denied and downplayed climate science, as has Sec. of the Interior Ryan Zinke. Newly-appointed Sec. of State Mike Pompeo has called the Paris climate agreement a “costly burden” and is himself a climate skeptic.

References to climate change have also disappeared from a number of government websites. A report released last month indicated that one EPA website has removed mentions of the phenomenon from its international priorities page. An EPA spokesperson told ThinkProgress at the time that the move was in keeping with “the current administration’s priorities” and that information from prior presidencies is still available through an archive on the website.

Congressional Democrats have also called on the Department of the Interior’s inspector general to look into whether the National Park Service (NPS) has violated its scientific integrity in removing mentions of climate change from a report on sea level rise. Zinke has claimed his department does not change so much as “a comma” in such reports.

[ad_2]

Source link

Arizona lawmakers pass teacher raises, but budget falls short of teacher demands – ThinkProgress

[ad_1]

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed a portion of the budget bill that helps fund teacher raises on Thursday morning, after House lawmakers debated the bill into the early morning hours. Teachers watched the session all of Wednesday night and camped out outside the Capitol building.

Teachers will get an average raise of 9 percent and then 5 percent for the next two years. Teachers also won $400 million in education funding to partially make up for recession-era cuts, according to the Associated Press. Although the raises were lower than what teachers wanted, they are an improvement over the 1 percent raises Ducey originally proposed.

Candles and glow sticks coming out at the AZ state capitol #RedforEd #abc15 pic.twitter.com/R53V6nTG5J

— Kim Tobin (@KimABC15) May 3, 2018

Thursday is the sixth day teachers have been out of school. Although teachers said they would end the walkout on Wednesday if the budget passed, the session stretched into the night and morning, which meant many large school districts closed school on Thursday.

Striking teachers’ demands had included a 20 percent raise, no new tax cuts until per pupil funding reaches the national average, competitive pay for educational support staff, and restoration of education funding to 2008 levels. Lawmakers have slashed education funding in the state since the Great Recession. State funding per student fell by 36.6 percent between 2008 and 2015, more than any other state. Teachers have also left the state for smaller class sizes and higher salaries.

On Thursday, House Democrats voted against the K-12 budget bill, which addressed teachers’ pay, because they said it didn’t go far enough to fund schools and pay raises, according to the Arizona Republic. Teachers watching the session reportedly approved of their vote by making jazz hands.

In a Facebook video on the Arizona Educators United page, which belongs to organizers of the walkout, kindergarten teacher Kelley Fisher assured teachers they were voting to support teachers.

“Their voting no has nothing to do with not wanting to give us a raise,” she said. “It has everything to do with this budget not taking care of our students.”

There are hundreds of #Red4Ed folks outside #azleg. The overflow rooms are full. On a typical budget night, this mall would be mostly empty, save for some lobbyists. @azcentral pic.twitter.com/64ZiWQET4N

— Rachel Leingang (@rachelleingang) May 3, 2018

During the session, state Senator Steve Farley (D) said he had never seen so many people in the gallery during the early morning hours of budget debate in the 12 years he has spent in the statehouse, according to Arizona Republic. To keep lawmakers accountable, teachers took photos of the vote count screen revealing how many lawmakers voted to increase funding for private prisons or voting against expanding the definition of a teacher.

Democrats offered a number of amendments that were supported by teachers, such as limiting classroom size to 25 students and setting a maximum student-to-counselor ratio. Another amendment widened the definition of a teacher to include librarians and counselors. All of the Democrats’ amendments failed.

Republicans offered amendments in response to the walkouts, which included an amendment from Rep. Kelly Townsend, which would have prohibited teachers in public schools from talking about or showing their political views during classroom time, and fined those who did. She also proposed an amendment to make it illegal to close schools with the exception of natural disasters and other dangers, according to the Arizona Republic. Both amendments failed.

Although Arizona Educated United, the coalition of teachers who have been organizing the walkouts, said the walkout would end after the budget passes, Phoenix New Times reports some teachers had reservations about that decision. Teachers told the publication that leaders caved into pressure from parents and other stakeholders too soon and that there wasn’t a vote similar to the one held to decide whether to walk out of classrooms.

[ad_2]

Source link

Oklahoma lawmakers try to dismantle unions, weeks after teachers strike for education funding – ThinkProgress

[ad_1]

Weeks after tens of thousands of Oklahoma teachers ended their nine-day strike after securing major wins, including teacher raises and additional education funding, legislators introduced a bill that aims to hamper membership in the teachers unions that helped organized the walkouts.

The measure, Senate Bill 1150, began as a bill tackling child abuse, but was completely rewritten this week thanks to an amendment by state Rep. Todd Russ (R). The current version of the bill would require a majority vote by teachers every five years in order to keep their collective bargaining unit. It would also prohibit school districts from automatically subtracting union dues from teacher paychecks, leaving teachers to make their own plans with the union to make the payments.

“There’s teachers that have been there for 20, 30 years and never had the opportunity to retain their union or change representation, or quit paying the dues and not have representation,” said Russ, according to The Oklahoman.

But Ed Allen, president of the Oklahoma City chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, told The Oklahoman that the legislation “seems like a revenge bill to come back after teachers, after the walkout.”

Katherine Bishop, vice president of the Oklahoma Education Association (OEA), agreed, criticizing lawmakers for “singl[ing] the unions out.” Bishop called the bill a “clear attack for teachers taking a stand and schools shutting down their doors and their voices being heard at the Capitol.”

Teachers discussed the measure in the Oklahoma Teacher Walkout private Facebook group, with one individual pointing out Wednesday that “OEA doesn’t even have any bargaining locals in Rep. Russ’s district. This is strictly about targeting teachers and education support professionals!”

While the legislation is not likely to become law, the attempt to diminish union membership is troubling for Oklahoma teachers, who often feel it is their only source of protection.

“All an attempt to weaken unions by strangling their ability to fight by cutting into their money,” one person said in the Facebook group.

Meanwhile, teachers are simultaneously fighting back against a potential ballot initiative that would put the state revenue bill — the one containing the education funding provisions promised to teachers following their strike — up for a veto referendum. Oklahoma Taxpayers Unite strongly opposes the legislation and is seeking 40,000 signatures on a petition to convince lawmakers to put the issue up for a vote. The deadline for the collecting signatures is July 18.

“I find myself unable to sleep at night because I simply don’t understand why funding education is such a struggle!” Alberto Morejon, one of the strike organizers, wrote on Facebook. “Why do teachers have to fight in order to make a livable wage? Why wouldn’t we want to fund education, giving our kids everything they deserve and every tool possible to give them the best chance to succeed in life?”

[ad_2]

Source link

Republican lawmakers nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize using mistranslated phrase – ThinkProgress

[ad_1]

A group of Republican lawmakers has sent a formal letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, officially nominating President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, for his “work to end the Korean War.”

The letter was signed by 18 members of Congress, including Reps. Diane Black, Marsha Blackburn, and Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee, as well as Reps. Steve King (R-IA), Ralph Norman (R-SC), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen (R-American Samoa), Mark Meadows (R-NC), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Jim Renacci (R-OH), and Evan Jenkins (R-WV). Texas Reps. Michael C. Burgess, Pete Olson, and Brian Babin also signed the letter.

Screenshot of the letter sent to the Nobel Committee

“Since taking office, President Trump has worked tirelessly to apply maximum pressure to North Korea to end its illicit weapons programs and bring peace to the region,” the letter read. “His Administration successfully united the international community, including China, to impose one of the most successful international sanctions regimes in history. The sanctions have decimated the North Korean economy and have been largely credited for bringing North Korea to the negotiating table.”

The lawmakers also cited in their letter a poorly translated phrase originally attributed to South Korean President Moon Jae-in, claiming Moon had suggested Trump be awarded the peace prize for his efforts.

“President Moon Jae-in of South Korea has consistently praised the Administration’s work, and recently said ‘President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize,'” the lawmakers wrote.

That phrase, however, was recently debunked as a mistranslation: Reuters originally attributed the information to a Blue House official (or South Korean presidential spokesperson) who addressed the media following a meeting between Moon and his senior secretaries. “President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize. What we need is only peace,” the outlet quoted the official as saying.

The phrase has since been translated in full by NPR Korean interpreter Se Eun Gong, who confirmed its accuracy with the Blue House itself.

The true translation reveals instead that Moon was simply declining the honor of a Nobel Peace Prize himself and suggesting that the bigger prize for South Korea would be peace with its northern neighbor. “It’s President Trump who should receive the Nobel Prize,” he said. “We only need to take peace.”

The comment reportedly came in response to a letter from Lee Hui-ho, wife of the late South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, who wrote to Moon saying that he deserved the prize for his attempts to broker peace with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

Last week, following months of tension between the two nations and ballistic missile tests by the North Korean military, Moon and Kim sat down for a landmark summit to discuss denuclearization efforts and an end to the decades-long conflict, as well as pose for a photo op. The two leaders subsequently signed a new peace agreement, the Panmunjeom Declaration, promising to reunite families, establish a “joint liaison office,” and “swiftly resolve the humanitarian issues that resulted from the division of the nation.” The two men also agreed to end all “hostile acts” against one another, with Kim claiming he would shutter the North Korean nuclear test site at Punggye-ri.

The meeting, while historic, still drew heavy skepticism from experts, who cited similar meetings in 2000 and 2007, both of which resulted in more of the same aggression and hostility that had existed prior to each summit. Kim’s claim about closing down the Punggye-ri test site was also panned as largely symbolic, as most analysts have said the site has already collapsed and is mostly unusable anyway.

Trump and his supporters have been quick to take credit for the shallow win regardless, with conservative media personalities and politicians alike boasting about the president’s part in the peace talks.

“Following this historic announcement, President Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize,” Rep. Luke Messer (R-IN) said in a statement on Friday. “Our peace through strength strategy is delivering never before seen results.”

Notwithstanding the president’s personal comments, the Trump administration is taking a slightly more cautious tone on the peace talks.

“[We’re] not going to take the North Koreans at their word,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on Monday. “We’re not naive in this process. We’ve seen some steps in the right direction, but we have a long way to go.”

Trump notably has a history of antagonizing North Korea over its nuclear efforts, nicknaming Kim “Little Rocket Man” and threatening last summer to meet any future nuclear threats with “fire and the fury like the world has never seen.” In October, the president directly contradicted then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who had offered a diplomatic channel to to North Korea, tweeting, “I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man. Save your energy Rex, we’ll do what has to be done!”

I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 1, 2017

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2018

In January, Trump responded to rumors that North Korea was planning another missile test by tweeting that he had a nuclear button on his desk that was “much bigger & more powerful” than the one Kim claimed to have.

“Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” he wrote.

Trump is scheduled to meet with Kim for a separate summit in the coming weeks, to discuss nuclear disarmament and the nation’s missile program. The discussions will reportedly be held at the demilitarized zone on separating North and South Korea, CNN reported on Tuesday. According to the outlet, “skeptics worry holding the meeting at the DMZ will appear conciliatory toward Kim.”

[ad_2]

Source link