I posted on this issue about six weeks ago to help sound the alarm, but now the NWF is telling us that their warnings are going unheeded by our leadership in the House:
Critical Sea Turtle Habitat at Risk
Vote Expected This Week
Dear [...],
Sea turtles have been through enough during the BP oil spill.
Now to make matters worse, this week Congress will be voting on a bill that could result in the destruction of critical sea turtle habitats in Florida, as well as other sensitive wildlife habitat areas throughout the country.
NWF action alert continued...
Tell your U.S. Representative to vote against the Multiple Peril Insurance Act.
Construction on top of fragile ecosystems is eroding beaches and destroying the habitat of 90% of U.S. sea turtles, which nest on Florida beaches that are under threat by the Multiple Peril Insurance Act.
This bill would expand a federal program that masks the true cost of this development and will hasten destruction of habitat in Florida and across the country.
Urge your representative to vote against this dangerous bill and make sure important nesting habitat is preserved.
Oiled beaches, tar balls and oil slicks have disastrous consequences for endangered sea turtle eggs, hatchlings and migrating adults.
The last thing that sea turtles need is more of their habitat destroyed.
Don't make it easy for developers to destroy beach habitats--speak up to protect them for sea turtles and future generations.
Sincerely,
Sue Brown
Executive Director
NWF Action Fund
info@nwa.org
Twitter: @wildlifeaction
Friend us on Facebook
Here is the link to the NWF action center:
https://online.nwf.org/...
Please do whatever you can to get the word out -- before our representatives take actions that only make things worse...
Update:
I've been trying to find some information on the budget impact of this latest bill. Evidently the CBO has said that it will have no net impact, but this is dependent on the assumption of "actuarially sound" rates.
It looks like NWF and others are suspicious of this assumption, and expect that it will amount to a subsidy for coastal development projects. Based on real-life experience with similar insurance programs, they have good reason to be skeptical.
Here is some House testimony from an insurance actuary that paints an equally skeptical picture:
http://www.house.gov/...
If this goes through, we're looking a huge, economically regressive subsidy (for coastal property owners), that will basically make it impossible for us to address a problem that is "Worse than the Oilpocalypse," as our front-page diary puts it.