While Sarah Palin might be able to see Russia from her front porch, evidently Representative Joe Barton can’t see the polar ice cap from his. Throwing aside the adage that politics ends at the water’s edge, Barton and some Republican global warming denying colleagues traveled to Copenhagen to try to undermine the COP15 talks.
As reported, Barton’s comments underlined the shallowly ignorant arrogance of this ‘delegation’.
We don’t have an icecap in Texas.
Out of sight is evidently out of relevance for Texans? What Texans have had is severe droughts and severe storms and increasing average temperatures (with more highs than lows set, on average, as time goes on) with the reality of extensive low-lying coastal areas (Galveston) threatened by rising seas. Joe, it is “global” not Texan warming, even as Texas suffers from it.
No, Joe, Texans don’t have many ice caps even if they have at least one Representative meriting a dunce cap.
“We’re not going to let jobs be destroyed in America for some esoteric environmental benefit 100 years from now,” U.S. House of Representatives member Joe Barton
If one is unconcerned about being truthful, having strong debating skills is so much easier — a game to win points rather than a serious discussion to uncover and understand truth. In fact, at issue are far from just “esoteric environment benefit[s] 100 years from now”, even if there are some “esoteric” benefits. While China is rapidly turning to massive investments in the clean energy sector, investments that could secure it key advantages in the 21st century, Barton wishes to reinforce 20th and 19th century energy systems.
Pursuing a clean energy future would have multiple near term “wins”, being almost immediately, from jobs to increased international competitiveness to improved energy security to reducing (potential) adversaries’ funding streams to improving Americans’ health. Barton is far more concerned, it seems, with executive bonuses at fossil fuel companies than the health, wealth, and security of America and Americans.
Barton said he does not believe industrial emissions of carbon dioxide contribute to global warming and fears capping them would hobble the economy.
Said in the face of the conclusions reached by every major relevant scientific institution and academy around the globe. And, well, even most major self-proclaimed “skeptics” do not deny a role of human activity even as they seek to argue against humanity being the driving factor in current warming.
“If I am chairman two years from now, I’m going to repeal” measures such as U.S. funding to help developing countries battle climate change… the conservative Texas congressman boasted.
Well, why should we even consider giving aid? Putting aside any moral or ethical issues, the increased national security threats driving demands on American military forces and the potential boost of refugees seeking access to the United States evidently don’t merit consideration according to Joe.
Barton and five of his House colleagues traveled to Copenhagen to publicize their belief that carbon pollution should not be blamed for melting ice, rising sea levels and increasing chances of devastating flooding and drought.
“We don’t have an icecap in Texas,” Barton quipped to reporters.
The Republicans’ message was a reminder to Obama and his negotiators that anything they agree to in Copenhagen will have to be reviewed by Congress and that a Democratic majority in the House and Senate does not guarantee Obama can have his way.
Barton, who told reporters “there has really never been an independent assessment of the methodology or of the data” that underpin U.N. efforts to counter global warming, said he would welcome one and mentioned the U.S. National Academy of Sciences as one possibility.
Huh …
Joe, the National Academy of Sciences has been signatory to multiple statements about humanity’s role in driving climate change and the necessity for rapid action. For example, in June 2009, this multi-institutional appeal for action which began:
Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change
In September, the NAS released a report that concluded that burning fossil fuels costs Americans over $120 billion a year.
The damages that the committee was able to quantify were an estimated $120 billion in the United States in 2005, a number that reflects damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation relying on fossil fuels, motor vehicle transportation, and heat generation. The report also considers other effects that are not included in the figure, such as damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security
In fact, perhaps Joe should spend some time with the NAS’s climate change basics. And, perhaps he could be tested against the teacher guide on understanding and responding to climate change which explains:
The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon, but because of human activities, like burning
fossil fuels, the greenhouse effect has been amplified and the Earth’s surface is warming at a faster rate than ever before in recorded history
As Joe calls on the NAS as the authority to turn to, perhaps he could actually listen to them so that he could reach a basic understanding of the realities of the challenges, opportunities, and necessities before us in tackling climate change.
I