US Senator excoriates US climate change political deadlock
Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse last week delivered a speech condemning the US Senate’s lack of action on climate change. He lambasted industrial interests’ influence on politics, delivered a run-down of the benefits derived from existing environmental regulation, and gave a roundup of the long-standing scientific consensus on climate change.
Here are excerpts from the transcript published this week on Climate Progress:
“Mr. President, I am here to speak about what is currently an unpopular topic in this town. It has become no longer politically correct in certain circles in Washington to speak about climate change or carbon pollution or how carbon pollution is causing our climate to change.”
Whitehouse argued that Washington is a “peculiar place” where “polluters rule in certain circles”. Despite deep concern in other parts of the government, civil society and in the scientific community, the conclusions of the majority of climate scientist are getting “very little traction”
“This is a peculiar condition of Washington. If you go out into, say, our military and intelligence communities, they understand and are planning for the effects of carbon pollution on climate change. They see it as a national security risk. If you go out into our nonpolluting business and financial communities, they see this as a real and important problem. And, of course, it goes without saying our scientific community is all over this concern.”
Why is this? The short answer’s money.
“Here in Washington we feel the dark hand of the polluters tapping so many shoulders. And where there is power and money behind that dark hand, therefore, a lot of attention is paid to that little tap on the shoulder.”
But Whitehouse warned that climate change won’t go away if we ignore it.
“What we overlook is that nature – God’s Earth – is also tapping us all on the shoulder, with messages we ignore at our peril.”
He also warned against industrial interests riding on the coattails of the recession, using it to give credence to their “outright false” claims.
“They are propagating two big lies. One is that environmental regulations are a burden to the economy and we need to lift those burdens to spur our economic recovery. The second is the jury is still out on climate changes caused by carbon pollution, so we don’t need to worry about it or even take precautions.”
First, regulation. Whitehouse argued that polluters have consistently exaggerated the costs of environmental regulation, drawing attention to the Edison Electric Institute prediction in 1990 that compliance with acid rain rules would cost $4-5 billion. In fact, Whitehouse said, they cost one sixth of that, according to the Energy information Administration.
Actually, it’s good for the economy, he said. After the US phaseout of CFCs, the ” American refrigeration industry innovated and created new export markets for its environmentally friendly products.”
He added:
“Anyway, the real point is we are not just in this Chamber to represent the polluters. We are supposed to be here to represent all Americans, and Americans benefit from environmental regulation big time. Over the lifetime of the Clean Air Act, for instance, for every $1 it costs to add pollution controls, Americans have received about $30 in health and other benefits.”
Polluters’ other main tactic is sowing doubt about the science of climate change, a phenomenon others have also documented.
“Their other big lie the jury is still out on is whether human-made carbon pollution causes dangerous climate change and oceanic change.”
It’s not the majority view, Whitehouse said, citing a 2009 letter to the US Congress signed by 20 of the US’s top scientific bodies – “highly esteemed organisations” – adding “observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring” and that human activity is the “primary driver”.
Whitehouse pointed out that the science is much older than we think.
“A 1955 textbook, “Our Astonishing Atmosphere,” notes that nearly a century ago the scientist, John Tyndall, suggested that a fall in the atmospheric carbon dioxide could allow the Earth to cool, whereas a rise in carbon dioxide would make it warmer.”
Finally, he called on senators to recognise climate change is happening no matter what they do, saying they “bear a duty [to future generations] to shun the siren song of well-paying polluters,” pointing out that the chamber it is “failing in that duty.”
He wound up:
“There is no wizard’s hat and wand with which to wish this away. These laws of nature are known; the Earth’s message to us is clear; our failure is blameworthy; its consequences are profound; and the costs will be very high.”
It’s not the first time the senator has spoken out on climate change inaction, but his comments consistently fail to make the news.
In June, he took the Senate to task on its failure to take notice of the National Research Council’s report, America’s Climate Choices. Edward Flattau wrote at the time in the Huffington Post that Whitehouse’s wake-up call had gone unnoticed by the US press, which is far more interested in covering Republican presidential candidates’ race to renounce any hint that they recognised man-made global warming or endorsed mitigation policies in the past.