Last month was the warmest January on record. It isn’t shocking. Here in Ohio we had days in the 60’s and sickness was high (myself included). Now we just got through below 0 days. I know people will rush to say “well then everything averages out”, but one effect of global warming is the huge swings in weather patterns just like what is happening.
While on this subject, an interesting article has appeared by the AP which talks about 4 states possibly diverting conservation funds.
Four lucky states were slated to share billions in potential royalties courtesy of an offshore drilling expansion signed into law last year, money that could help reverse decades of environmental damage from coastal industry. But as budget planning gets under way, the states are beginning to realize that Congress gave them far more freedom in spending the windfall than the political rhetoric in Washington suggested.
Particularly, one little-noticed sentence in the legislation allows the states to use their money on “onshore infrastructure projects” to mitigate outer continental shelf activities. Translation: They can use it to pave roads, erect bridges, lay water lines or finish just about any other public works projects they can link to the coast.
The article goes on to say that Louisiana has already passed legislation preventing this, yet Alabama, Mississippi and Texas may use the money for things besides conservation. Isn’t it ironic that three states, which have been recently hit hard by hurricanes, may divert funds meant for conservation?
I remember after Katrina hit and how so many wingnuts put the blame on the people that lived in the Gulf Coast region, saying “they should have been prepared”. Well prevention is a big part of preparation. So these states want to use money, which could help prevent hurricanes, to engage in activities which could result in more frequent/stronger hurricanes?
Perhaps new contracts with these oil companies should remove the money going to the states and instead be used strictly for conservation and green initiatives. They are drilling on federal land, which is leased to them. Adding such stipulations on their leases would not be that hard.
Incidentally, this is a key reason we need Al Gore in 2008. Global Warming has been coined the “biggest threat to mankind”, not terrorism. We need a President that understands global warming, and believes in it. We need a President who will restructure the executive branch to handle global warming. There should be a cabinet level position assigned to this already, but if Bush did it then you can bet it would be filled by some oil executive. Gore would make sure it was taken seriously and was effective.
Please run in 2008 Al. Your country not only needs you – the entire planet needs you!