Rep. McCollum Issues Statement on Ex-Gov. Whitman’s Op-Ed in New York Times
I have been worried about how the
As a Republican appointed by President
The E.P.A.'s recent attack on a reporter for The Associated Press and the installation of a political appointee to ferret out grants containing "the double C-word" are only the latest manifestations of my fears, which mounted with
All of that is bad enough. But
The red-team approach makes sense in the military and in consumer and technology companies, where assumptions about enemy strategy or a competitor's plans are rooted in unknowable human choices. But the basic physics of the climate are well understood. Burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. There is no debate about that. The link is as certain as the link between smoking and cancer.
A broad consensus of scientists also warn of the influence of the warming climate on extreme weather events. Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the enormous wildfires in the
As a Republican like
There are two sides, at least, to most political questions, and a politician's impulse may be to believe that the same holds true for science. Certainly, there are disputes in science. But on the question of climate change, the divide is stark. On one side is the overwhelming consensus of thousands of scientists at universities, research centers and the government who publish in peer-reviewed literature, are cited regularly by fellow scientists and are certain that humans are contributing to climate change.
On the other side is a tiny minority of contrarians who publish very little by comparison, are rarely cited in the scientific literature and are often funded by fossil fuel interests, and whose books are published, most often, by special interest groups. That
The red-team idea is a waste of the government's time, energy and resources, and a slap in the face to fiscal responsibility and responsible governance. Sending scientists on a wild-goose chase so that
Policy should always be rooted in unbiased science. The E.P.A. is too important to treat like a reality TV show. People's lives and our country's resources are at stake.
If this project goes forward, it should be treated for what it is: a shameful attempt to confuse the public into accepting the false premise that there is no need to regulate fossil fuels.
Ranking Member Murray Urges Focus on Common Ground at Health Care Hearing: ‘Goal is Making Care More Affordable, Not Less’
Like Harvey, Retirement Plans Can Make Loans, Hardship Distributions to Victims of Hurricane Irma
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News