So, it should be no surprise, but my congressman, Representative Don Young of Alaska, is a climate change denier.
I just received a letter from him in response to my letter about the EPA and the regulation of carbon dioxide.
I know, I know, it is a waste of time to write a letter to my very conservative and Republican congressman because he won't listen to a thing I say. And, when he thanks me for the 'benefit of my thoughts,' I should know that it's a load of baloney. But I can't help it and I do it anyway.
I received a long reply which included the statement:
While I have serious doubts as to the validity of man-made global warming, at the very least, Congress should be responsible for imposing such potentially life altering regulations rather than a few nameless and faceless bureaucrats within a federal agency.
I would love to know how you would reply... I've about run out of ideas.
My representative, Don Young, has been in office ever since I started voting over 20 years ago. I've voted for so many candidates running against him, I've lost track of who they all are. And I end up with this cretin again and again. I'm a good citizen... I write my letters and I vote but I won't change his thinking unless I can get enough Alaskans to write this guy and help convince him that his next election is on the line. Seriously. I know enough of us must think this is a load of baloney:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Endangerment Finding. I appreciate having the benefit of your thoughts.
On February 17, 2009, the EPA formally declared CO2 and five other greenhouse gases as pollutants as defined under the Clean Air Act, which endanger public health and welfare because of their perceived responsibility for global warming. The EPA alleges CO2 threatens public health because global warming increases drought, heavy downpours, and flooding; causes more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires; a greater sea level rise; more intense storms; and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.
The significance of this decision cannot be understated because it will lead to regulation of these gases for the first time in the U.S. and may fundamentally change life in America. New requirements may be imposed on vehicles, power plants, raising livestock, and manufacturing.
While I have serious doubts as to the validity of man-made global warming, at the very least, Congress should be responsible for imposing such potentially life altering regulations rather than a few nameless and faceless bureaucrats within a federal agency. An action such as this circumvents our Constitution by marginalizing the U.S. Congress and the system of representational democracy it created. To a certain extent, the "cap and trade" debate currently occurring in Congress is unnecessary because even if that legislation is defeated, the EPA can still administratively impose carbon rationing and restrictions should they wish.
Most egregiously, it has come to light that EPA employees who disagreed with the EPA's alleged scientific findings and the Obama administration's position were muzzled. Those employees were restricted from communicating their findings with anyone outside of the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), because the Administration feared dissent from within the Agency would weaken their position. A number of emails, written by the Director of the NCEE, have been discovered that show the extent of the censorship. For example, in one email, the Director wrote,
"There should be no meetings, emails, written statements, phone calls etc. [about endangerment.] ... The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed. The administrator and administration has decided to move forward on endangerment and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."
The EPA's actions are significantly troubling for a multitude of reasons. First, they unilaterally came to the conclusion that global warming is caused by man-made emissions, and that it causes such things as droughts, flooding, and other natural disasters. These are two conclusions that have not garnered a scientific consensus nor been proven. Second, suppressing the dissenting views of the very individuals that are supposed to be crafting the Agency's position is nothing short of shocking and undermines the scientific reliability of the conclusion. The only conclusion that one can be left with is that the Agency wasn't concerned with science at all, but rather in "proving" a predetermined Administration position.
In order to prevent this misguided extension of the EPA's jurisdiction I have cosponsored H.R. 391 to amend the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to the Act. This bill is currently in the House committee on Energy and Commerce. There is a discharge petition, which I have signed, to enable the bill to bypass the committee phase of the legislative process. If this bill reaches the House floor I can guarantee my support for it.
On January 21, 2010, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) introduced a bipartisan disapproval resolution, S.J.Res.26, to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Senator Murkowski's resolution was co-sponsored by 37 Republicans and 3 Democrats but was unfortunately defeated on the Senate floor on a vote of 47-53. A House version of the resolution, H.J.Res.77, sponsored by Representative Joe Barton was introduced on March 2, 2009. I cosponsored this resolution, along with 129 of my congressional colleagues, and it has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce where it awaits action. While I do not sit on this committee, please know that I will support this legislation should it come to the house floor for a vote.
I guess when I'm left with faceless bureaucrats because I can never trust a Representative that can't look at the scientific facts, that increase every year, and come to the conclusion that climate change is actually happening. It makes it worse that he believes that employees of the EPA feel like their views have been repressed... doesn't that sound like the our own complaints about employees of the EPA (and other branches of the government) under President Bush?
This is an issue with zero compromise. Emissions need to be regulated or they don't. We can't choose to regulate half-way. If Don Young has his way, his bill will pass and we'll be worse off than we are today; we will have no chance at regulating green house gases for years to come.
Part of me wants simple answers - suggestions from all of you on how to deal with Don Young.
But deep down inside, I know there isn't a damn thing I can do by myself to change this. I need other Alaskans to express their displeasure, not only with Don Young, but with Murkowski and Begich, and let them know that the time to deny climate change is long past. That solutions for our future lie not in denying the change or in preventing the EPA in regulating green house gases, but by embracing solutions that will both help our climate and our economy.