Daily Local News (West Chester, PA)
The reality of climate change
“I’ve not read any scientific studies that would lead me to conclude there are adverse impacts to human beings, animals, or plant life at this small level of climate change.” So said the former head of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
Sounds accurate.
Except, maybe, for things like significant human health problems; melting polar ice caps; warming oceans; rising sea levels; species that have gone extinct; animals appearing in regions where they’ve never been before; and extreme weather patterns resulting in record storms, floods and droughts, all associated with climate change.
Shocking as that mentality is, it’s not an isolated one. Numerous Republican leaders echo similar sentiments, often decrying global warming as a “hoax” based on “junk science.”
By virtually all accounts, the Earth is warming; the big questions are why, and what’s behind that change. Is it a cyclical phenomenon occurring, say, every 1,000 years or so? Maybe, but difficult to ascertain since accurate record keeping didn’t begin until relatively recently.
Or is it because human activity has pumped hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere?
The rational answer is both. So why not err on the side of caution by continuing to find innovative solutions to reducing emissions, while protecting American jobs and economic competitiveness?
Logical, but not easy when both sides cling to extreme positions, whether it’s espousing job-killing proposals or claiming adverse impacts don’t exist.
It’s in our interest to solve these problems, so here’s how we can:
1) Change our trade policies. The United States has made stellar progress over the last several decades in reducing pollution. That effort continues, but it’s not without cost.
By definition, it’s more expensive to operate a factory when adhering to strict environmental regulations – an issue compounded when many foreign companies do not follow such laws (or their governments don’t enforce them).
We can’t physically force sovereign nations to decrease pollution and institute environmental regulations on par with ours, but we can force their hand by leveraging our position as the world’s largest economy. But to do that, we must scrap trade policies that sell out America and leave our companies at a major disadvantage. Free and fair trade sound nice, but we have neither, and that must change.
2) Never sign treaties or agreements that restrict America’s carbon emissions while giving “developing” nations a free pass. In addition to the devastating impact on American jobs, accords such as the Paris and Kyoto agreements are only fingers in the dike. The United States is not the unchecked polluter, and in fact becomes “greener” every day, so why penalize Americans for doing the right thing? Signing meaningless agreements don’t make nations more environmentally friendly. Action does. And more than any other nation, America puts its money where its mouth is.
3) No unfunded government mandates. Sure, reducing a factory’s emissions is important, but a government mandate requiring a billion-dollar scrubber be installed in a finite time period results in job loss, reduced hiring, lack of growth, and, for some companies, a oneway ticket out of America. Tax credits and market-based incentives for such pollution control initiatives are an infinitely better solution.
4) Use more natural gas – a lot more – while mandating the safest fracking techniques. America sits atop a virtually limitless supply of gas – a product, by the way, which produces a mere fraction of oil’s emissions. From power plants to vehicles, the use of natural gas would not only substantially reduce greenhouse gases, but bolster America’s national security, reducing dependence on Middle Eastern oil barons.
The GOP should take a lesson from Teddy Roosevelt, as he successfully epitomized what a true Republican should be: a capitalist not afraid to take on big business, which, left unchecked, would run rampant over the environment; a leader who prioritized preservation and responsible stewardship of the land; and a politician who, above all, carried a big stick.
And if Teddy were alive, he’d use that stick on those who think climate change is just hot air.