Republicans Hold yet another Hearing Attempting to Dismiss the Scientific Evidence behind Climate Change
(Washington, DC) – Today, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing ostensibly to discuss the President’s recent announcement of the U.S. commitment to the United Nations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the face of the growing threat of climate change. The intended target of the U.S. is to reduce GHG emissions 26 to 28% by 2025, through cost-effective measures achievable under current laws. However, the Republican Majority failed to invite a witness from the Administration to testify at the hearing.
Democratic Members expressed serious concern about the negative impact climate change can have on the environment, public health, and long-term economic security. Conversely, Majority Members focused their questions and comments on criticizing the commitment without offering any clear alternative approach to dealing with climate change and continued to question the validity of widely-accepted climate science research. These comments ignored the history of strong economic growth that has followed environmental regulations, such as the Clean Air Act.
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said, “Some may say that the Administration’s carbon reduction goal is unrealistic or unwarranted; that addressing climate change will cause irreparable harm to the nation’s economy or that it is based on ‘unsettled’ science. I disagree with such sentiments. I think the target put forward by the President is justified. It appears to strike the right balance between ambition and achievability. And perhaps, most importantly, it sends a strong and much needed signal to the rest of the world about the seriousness of the United States in addressing the impacts of climate change. Such a position is critical to meaningful international engagement.”
Republicans invited one scientist to testify on the panel, Dr. Judith Curry, who they have called on in the past and who has denied the significant role human-activity has played in climate change. Congressman Don Beyer (D-VA) said, “I would like to thank Dr. Curry for taking the time to provide her testimony to the Committee today. The testimony offered though was troubling and filled with conflicting facts and opinions that disagree with everything I’ve read the past 15 years on climate science.”
Dr. Curry’s testimony alleged that there is a lack of consensus on anthropogenic climate change and questioned the validity of the overwhelming independent research and evidence produced by the world’s leading scientific institutions and experts.
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said, “Welcome to the Science Committee, the last place on the planet where we question whether climate change is being caused by human activity. It seems to me that the reality of anthropogenic climate change is impossible to deny. All over the world, people are facing new challenges resulting from the rapid increase of greenhouse gas emissions: heavier precipitation events, consistently higher than average global temperatures, a warming ocean, rising sea levels, increased incidents of extreme weather, severe droughts, changes in the spread of infectious disease, changes in ocean chemistry, and other ecological and public health impacts. The scientific consensus about the contribution of humans to climate change is overwhelming. And yet here we are, once again debating – in the Science Committee nonetheless – whether established science is actually real. The irony is inescapable.”
Rep. Lofgren entered into the record summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society, presenting the imminent threat of climate change, the role humans have played in this phenomenon, and the consequences of inaction.
In the conclusion of her opening statement, Ranking Member Johnson said, “Allowing partisan politics to distort the scientific understanding of climate change is cynical and short-sighted. We, as a nation, must act today to address climate change if we are to preserve our quality of life for our children and grandchildren. The negative consequences of climate change are not abstract scientific predictions for the far-off future. We are facing some of these consequences now and they are affecting every American.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article