Recently, Bryan Koon, the director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, tried to discuss climate change at a Senate budget meeting. However, there was one stipulation he had to follow: He could not use the term “climate change.”
Talk about counterintuitive.
Alas, one could only imagine the plight of a man attempting to discuss environmental policy without being able to use the term “global warming.” This crutch certainly led to hilarity within the Senate hearing, and many laughed as Koon attempted his impossible task.
However, Koon is not alone. There are many others who can relate to his situation. In fact, every person employed by the state knows exactly how Koon feels.
Government officials in Florida have recently been banned from using the terms “global warming” and “climate change.” Even officials working at the Department of Environmental Protection are unable to use these terms.
This ban has certainly led to laughable moments, but its future implications are nothing to chuckle about. Gov. Rick Scott’s ban could put Floridians in danger.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency recently announced that by March 2016, any state that doesn’t actively combat the effects of global warming will not receive disaster preparedness money.
Our governor faces an interesting predicament: Is he to bow to the wishes of the federal government and accept climate change is real? Or is he to risk the well-being of his constituents when hurricane season comes around?
Whatever his decision, I believe this situation has startling implications. It appears human lives and the well-being of individuals living in a state can be utilized to push certain policy. Within this federal v. state standoff, it seems the lives of Floridians have become nothing more than mere bargaining chips.
FEMA dangles our disaster relief money over Scott’s head and dares him to reject it.
And of course, many, including myself, think he should change his policy. After all, it is absolutely absurd to ban the use of terminology. Scott’s decree has already led to inefficiency that has stunted our environmental policy. It is ridiculous and far too authoritative, and it has made Florida a laughing stock in the national news.
However, FEMA shouldn’t be threatening to withhold disaster preparedness funds.
All people living in Florida should not be punished for Scott’s actions. We did not ban the term “climate change.” In fact, most of us actually disagree with Scott and acknowledge the effect greenhouse gases have on our planet.
I understand the motive behind FEMA’s actions, but it is misguided. It puts Floridians at an unnecessary risk
FEMA’s policy is also counterintuitive. Its new rule suggests states only deserve preparedness money if they actively plan for climate hazards. This policy seems to promote safety, as it encourages states to adopt adequate environmental regulations. However, it refuses to give money to states that would need it the most — states that are especially ill-prepared for an environmental disaster facilitated by climate change. With this in mind, it is obvious Florida would actually need more FEMA money than other states, because it is less prepared than states that acknowledge climate change.
But if disaster does occur, Floridians will suffer the consequences.
Threatening the well-being of Florida’s constituents is completely unacceptable. Scott’s ban might be outrageous, but FEMA’s policy is dangerous. It’s time to stop playing with people’s lives.
Dennis Fiore III is a UF political science freshman. His column appears on Wednesdays.
[A version of this story ran on page 6 on 4/1/2015 under the headline “Gov. Scott wrong, but FEMA’s policy misguided”]
