Oh but the Republicans have acted upon it in sorts, particularly with the 2014 Republican-sponsored, wool-possibly-pulled-over-their-eyes conservationists-backed initiative to use public money to purchase soon to be flooded private lands.
It was my very first "environmental" bill I ever voted against, because, given as we now have the science on the impending doom to the coasts and, that great River of Grass, the Everglades, the only sense I could make of pouring money into land soon to be covered by rising tides was that this was less of an environmental issue and more of a money grab.
The measure passed 75% to 25 and sets aside 33% of "existing excise tax on documents" in part for the purchase of private tracts of low lying lands
(how convenient) purportedly "to acquire and improve conservation easements, wildlife management areas, wetlands
by definition), forests, fish and wildlife habitats, beaches and shores
(also low lying
), recreational trails and parks, urban open space, rural landscapes, working farms and ranches (oh, you mean those low lying
sugar properties out by the Everglades), historical and geological sites, lands protecting water and drinking water resources and lands in the Everglades (cough, low lying
, cough) Agricultural Areas and the Everglades Protection Area (low lying
, cough cough)
What sort of money is involved, you ask? "The state revenue restricted to the purposes specified in the amendment is estimated to be $648 million in Fiscal Year 2015-16 and grows to $1.268 billion by the twentieth year."**
So as you can see, while they deny it, they very much have their hands in it.
Now, granted, I might be overly skeptical on this one. We know the shit's rising. But we don't know precisely how much or how fast or even if there might be technology in the future to stop it.
So then if you are an absolute optimist, you'd want to take some measures now to protect, wildlife, water supplies, etc., otherwise later would be too late.
Assuming there is a later, which just seems so questionable at this point that I thought it would have been wiser to gather more data, home in on this, so that we know what the fuck we're doing. There seems to be some flying by the seat of pants now as held evident by this initiative. Because if we do believe or know that the water is rising, then why pour money there?
And here's one of the latest budgeted items to make the point:http://www.lehighacrescitizen.com/page/content.detail/id/533541/Land-buy-critical-for-Everglades-restoration.html?nav=5096
During the 2015 Florida legislative session, the legislature has a unique and unprecedented opportunity to restore the Florida Everglades and coastal estuaries on the west and east coast of south Florida...
While Governor Scott and key legislative leaders including Senator Joe Negron (R), Senate Appropriations Committee, Representative Steve Crisafulli (R), Speaker of the House and Representative Matt Caldwell (R), House Appropriations Committee continue to support the expenditure of billions of dollars of taxpayers money under the current capital improvement program of water resource projects to the west and east of Lake Okeechobee, there is a critical need to purchase additional land south of the lake for storage, treatment and conveyance of water to the Everglades.
So this is a real weird situation for Florida. If the environment can be fixed, or if a "soft landing" can be engineered, how do you risk the Everglades? Or if they are doomed, why are we pouring in billions in part to purchase large tracts of low lying lands from major land owners who later wouldn't be able to sell?