The House Republicans' attempt to significantly weaken the Clean Air Act's scope through the budgetary process was recently thwarted in the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate, but environmentalists can ill afford to breathe easier. An assault on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) enforcement authority is sure to continue, and no small wonder. Consider whom you are dealing with.
Of the 238 Republicans constituting a majority in our House of Representatives, 237 could not even bring themselves to vote for an amendment that would merely have required them to acknowledge that global warming was a reality, human activity had something to do with it, and there was a possible risk to public health. This unanimous certitude about the dubious nature of global warming was quite remarkable given that not a single one of them was a climatologist and they were at odds with a global scientific consensus, the conviction of every other nation, and the overwhelming weight of physical evidence.
Mind you, this amendment introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, did not obligate any specific remedial action or define the degree of risk and what to do about it. The idea was just to put Congress on record that there was a problem that warranted attention.
No dice. The Republicans made clear that if there were any climate change threat at all, it was overblown. Some of them made no bones about their ideologically-driven belief that the entire problem was a giant hoax, concocted by liberal Democrats as a subterfuge to empower big government and transform the nation into a socialist republic.
During the debate on the amendment, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, rose to declare, "Democrats think we have more impact on the climate and the world than God does, and we don't."
Shades of Galileo! If the famed 16th-century scientist could have been transported back to life to hear congresswoman Foxx, he would have felt right at home. After all, he was condemned by the Catholic Church for blasphemy and permanently confined to his quarters in an anti-science hissy-fit because of his contention that the earth revolved around the sun rather than vice versa.
Galileo's response to that injustice was to insist that the Scriptures should not be taken literally when science uncovered contradictory facts in the physical world. It's wisdom that holds true to this day, although you would never know it on occasion in the U.S. Capitol during the spring of 2011.
Galileo was the EPA of his day and was rewarded by being placed under house arrest and removed from the public eye for his trouble. Hopefully, the EPA won't end up as the Galileo of our day, courtesy of the Republican Party.
Follow Edward Flattau on Twitter: www.twitter.com/greenmorality
The 30 plus year rant of blaming government for everything wrong in the country is way long in tooth, and false. An idea that soon will be gone.
Understanding climate science takes some reading- however once you fit the pieces together, it reveals a frightening future- that is not decades away, but here now.
And they don't even charge us. Will wonders never cease?
No regulations or reducing them? That is what the economic implosion of 2008-2009- Your out of touch out of reality visions trouble me- its a severe case of total denial of everything- endemic to the far right. Just ignore everything- and things will be ok.
No one can say with absolute certainty how global climate will trend in the future, but there is a substantial and increasing body of evidence that we would be foolish to ignore. A doctor cannot ordinarily predict how long you will live with any certainly, but if certain kinds of conditions such as high blood pressure are present, it is prudent to correct them. We seem to be increasingly swayed by what one party or another claims without examining (as Galileo did) the credibility of their evidence.
Members of Congress don’t need to be climate scientists, nor do we, to look for the quality of documentary evidence that supports political claims (for example, did Obama propose anything remotely resembling “death panels”?) The are ambiguous issues about which sincere and reasonable will naturally disagree, but there is also such a thing as evidence, and if look carefully far enough and carefully enough, the geocentric model of the Solar System does hold up, no matter how convincing this may seem at “sunrise” and “sunset”.
Where are they?
Anything else?
I understand why they're so many Climate Change Deniers. Our biggest left leaning environmental groups demand we cut CO2 emissions but are at best mute on the topic of CO2 emissions from the fast developing nations or worse defending their growing CO2 emissions with terms of per capita or changing the subject about our past usage.
This sounds to the Right as Transfer of Wealth! And they logically conclude if man-made climate change is real then American CO2 is no better or worse than the CO2 from fast developing nations. And if the environmental left is defending fast developing nations ever increasing CO2 emissions then logically Man-Made Climate Change is a farce and a New Climate Change Denier is made!
As the job market has eroded because of developing nations using cheap dirty fossil fuel energy the numbers OF Climate Change Deniers has increase. The Republicans have reaped the rewards and we will be Lucky if the EPA only is put in House Arrest!
The solution is easy. If the Democrats would propose a tax or tariff based on the environmental footprint of manufacturing, transportation, and sustainability of products sold here, it would break the coalition of manufactures and fossil fuel suppliers. Manufactures here feel because of the EPA they would have a competitive edge.
More importantly this is a world solution to a world problem.
Otherwise it is a wealth transfer!
But if you accept the science to be reasonable, then something must be done to globally decrease CO2 emissions and that means you need a global compromise, or at least a consent among the G20 nations. Anything else is not logically and just a chicken race.
And of course the size of population is a factor in that. If one would suggest that every nation only emmits as much CO2 as Malta does, the US would quite certainly point out that 300mn cannot have a footprint as small as 600k. The same goes for 1.xbn Chinese or Indian people which cannot have a footprint as small as the US.
And you cannot simply tell them not to use the very same technology (cars, coal plants, natural gas) than the US does. They have the same right to pursuit (economic/ lifestyle) happiness as do Americans.
So, if they don't like the current proposals, what's their plan, what are they willing to sacrifice in order to reach a compromise?
I never said nations like China and India have to have a lower emissions level than the U.S. it is product specific. It forces all manufactures world wide to reduce emissions to be competitive.
The Europeans may or may not have a competitive advantage it's always a product to product comparison.
Besides, it's exactly that kind of thinking that the US seeks to use the climate negotiations not as a means to solve an environmental problem but to gain an economic edge over the emerging economies that is frustrating everyone.
The only ones with even more ridiculous proposals are some OPEC nations which want a financial compensation for oil they cannot sell because people would need less oil/ fossils.
I hear the Economics Professors argument for free trade so I look at the results then I look at history. There was a huge debate in this nation in the 20's and 30's that's 1820's & 1830's between Senator Daniel Webster and slave owning plantation owning Senator John C. Calhoun. Senator Webster had the votes and the U.S. became a protectionist country for almost 170 years we did very well! I look at the lost manufacturing jobs since the 90's. From my view point Free Trade has made Wall Street rich but has destroyed Main Street. This destruction can be seen in our cities deficits and our states deficits!
Ask yourself do you have more job security now than you had in the 90's? If you lost your job today would you have a new job next week like in the 90's?
If you said yes then you most likely are a Wall Street Trader!
You don't even know the story of Galileo and yet you are prepared to advertise your lack of knowledge so stridently, that I suppose we should not be surprised at your equivalent misinformation with respect to climate change. I am a professional climatologist with 30 years experience, and I can say categorically that global warming is bunk, just like the 1990's theory of "global cooling" and a thousand other scientific fads--Y2K, phlogiston, epicycles, punctuated equilibrium, etc. Most of mycolleagues are afraid for their jobs and can't disagree with ideologues like yourself. They have to go along. So I will have to disagree for them.
But the truth is there are plenty of reasons to reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuel!
And let's say that the Climatologist are right and man is a cause of climate change.
This issue is to big to be wrong on so I try and reduce my carbon footprint!
"just like the 1990's theory of "global cooling""
Now anyone even familiar with climate would know there was no 1990s theory of global cooling. Who are you trying to kid mr "I am a professional climatologist with 30 years experience"? Let me guess, you bought a thermometer for your garage and consider yourself a climatologist.
"punctuated equilibrium"
hmm possible creationist too?