House Votes To Officially Deny Climate Change-- Really
>
This morning we started the day with a look at the irreversible catastrophe Global Warming has in store for Florida-- and how Florida congressmembers from districts that will wind up entirely under the sea-- like Dennis Ross, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart, Patrick Murphy, Bill Posey and Vern Buchanan-- have consistently voted against policies that would save their own constituents and for an agenda that will utterly destroy the very districts they represent. All of them are Republicans, although Murphy calls himself a Democrat and is one of the up-and-comers in the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.
Last Thursday West Virginia Republican David McKinley, one of King Coal's most abject servants in Congress, proposed and passed an amendment to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act (H.R.4923)-- "an amendment to prohibit use of funds to design, implement, administer or carry out specified assessments regarding climate change." Every single Florida Republican voted for the amendment-- which could have been called, "The Orlando Beach Front Property Amendment," and every Florida Democrat voted against it. It passed 229-188, the GOP's one moderate, Chris Gibson (R-NY), voting with the Democrats and 5 of the worst Big Energy whores from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party crossing the aisle and voting with the GOP (and against humanity and the Planet Earth):
• John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)Back in West Virginia, yesterday's Gazette-Mail explained McKinley's amendment as one to prohibit the U.S. Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers from carrying out any policies related to climate change and climate science.
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog- UT)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV)
Those “specified assessments” include the two most comprehensive reports on climate change, the U.S. government’s National Climate Assessment, five years in the making, and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Perhaps Rahall was talking with Florida teabagger Dennis Ross, an enthusiastic Climate Change denier, almost all of whose Tampa Bay area district will be inundated in the deluge scientists are promising. Blue America has endorsed progressive Democrat Alan Cohn as an ideal replacement for Ross. Yesterday Cohn marveled at Ross' incredibly backward posture towards Climate Change:
The amendment would prohibit the agencies from participating in future versions of those reports and also prohibit them from acting on any of the recommendations contained in those reports.
The amendment was added to a $34 billion appropriations bill that would fund the two agencies, as well as parts of the Department of the Interior and other agencies. It also would apply to $80 million in funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission, which funds projects to improve job opportunities and infrastructure in the region.
“Spending precious resources to pursue a dubious climate change agenda compromises our clean-energy research and America’s infrastructure,” McKinley said on the House floor. “Congress should not be spending money pursuing ideologically driven experiments.”
Speaking against the amendment, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, said it disregards the research of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.
“The Republicans, in general, don’t seem to trust the scientists,” Kaptur said. “This amendment requires the Department of Energy to assume that carbon pollution isn’t harmful and that climate change won’t cost a thing. That’s nothing but a fantasy.”
Parts of the missions of the Department of Energy and the Corps of Engineers would seem to be inextricable from climate change and climate science. For instance, the bill authorizes $1.7 billion for the Corps of Engineers to spend on river and harbor construction, flood- and storm-damage reduction and shore protection.
Meanwhile, the National Climate Assessment reports that the global sea level has risen by eight inches since 1880 and is projected to rise another one to four feet by 2100. The global sea level rose about twice as fast in the years since 1992 as it did in the previous century, the report said.
The Department of Energy also is heavily involved with efforts to address climate change.
“We develop new technologies and reduce the costs of renewables, new nuclear, environmental protection in natural gas production, carbon capture and sequestration, really across the board,” Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said in a May teleconference, describing his agency’s actions on climate change.
“Addressing the effects of climate change is a top priority of the Energy Department,” the agency’s website says. “As global temperature rise, wildfires, drought and high electricity demand put stress on the nation’s energy infrastructure. And severe weather-- the leading cause of power outages and fuel supply disruption in the United States-- is projected to worsen.”
Rahall was one of only five Democrats to support the amendment.
Asked why the Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers should not be able to consider climate change, Rahall emailed a statement saying that he supported the amendment to help block actions by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Rahall did not respond when asked what the amendment had to do with the EPA.
"There is a simple explanation," he told us, "why Dennis Ross would vote to prohibit the use of federal funds to assess the impact of climate change in this appropriations bill. It’s because he’s pledged his allegiance to the crazies who deny science and he doesn’t give a damn what the impact is on his constituents, his community, the economy, our state, and our planet. It’s no shock. Ross puts the interests of that small, belligerent group holding Congress hostage ahead of the rest of us when it comes to immigration reform, minimum wage, health care and countless other issues. When it comes to climate change, Ross recently told Think Progress 'I am not accepting all the theories that are out there that say climate change is what it is because of us.' Well, according to a recent study at the University of Florida (Ross’s alma mater) 'With a high degree of certainty, science tells us that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere, increasing the levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.' The University of Florida says the science, in this case, includes the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a Nobel Peace Prize winner for 2006, and included more than 2,000 scientists 'to provide... an objective source of information about climate change' based on 'the latest scientific, technical, and socio-economic literature produced worldwide.' According to the study 'Specifically for Florida, warming climate could raise sea level by one to three feet (or 12 to 36 inches) over the next century.' It goes on to says it will destroy our aquifers (our drinking water) flood our farm land, and destroy tourism, and wreck our economy. Dennis Ross says it’s all-good though. He says taking action on climate change is a matter of personal responsibility that can’t be legislated like gun control. Wow!"
The DCCC isn't going after many of the real villains in the Climate Change wars-- particularly not Steve Israel crony and House Energy Committee chair Fred Upton (MI-06). They are trying to defeat Chris Gibson though, the one Republican who votes with the Democrats on Global Warming. And much of their resources are spent on anti-EPA Climate Change denier incumbents like Nick Rahall and John Barrow. Needless to say, Israel has nixed helping Alan Cohn against Dennis Ross. That's part of reason Blue America is asking our supporters to step in and contribute to Cohn's grassroots campaign.
Every inch of land on this map will be underwater or uninhabitable before the end of the century
|
Labels: Al Cohn, Clawson, climate change, Dennis Ross, FL-15, Florida, global warming, McKinley, Rahall, West Virginia
2 Comments:
Well no, not really. Rather they have decided to ignore predictions of change based on unproven theorizing - no matter how enthusiastic its promotion or august its promoters. In this case, verifiable facts have trumped prophecy.
It leaves me wondering: (1) how long property values will stay afloat under such circumstances? (2) how the designation 'conservative' can be applied to people who deny what's in front of them for the sake of having a party with their money now? It certainly isn't fiscally conservative considering how much more disaster recovery costs than planning. It certainly isn't conservative in terms of the protection of property values or the environment, or infrastructure, or water supply. Covering your ears and shouting Na Na Na I want a private jet hardly seems like part of any conservative ethos I remember. Sounds pretty radical to me. Pretty stupid too.
Post a Comment
<< Home