A Little History
In summer 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Democrats in 2010 tried to pass legislation that would have capped greenhouse gas emissions, but the bills died as a result of Republican filibusters. So President Obama followed up on the Supreme Court ruling and authorized the EPA to use its regulatory authority to control greenhouse gas emissions, starting in January 2011.
On Tuesday, March 15, 2011, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 34-19 on a bill to permanently block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Every Republican on the committee plus three Democrats – Reps. Mike Ross (Ark.), Jim Matheson (Utah) and John Barrow (Ga.) – supported the bill. The full House of Representatives is expected the vote on the bill before the Easter recess. And the Senate is considering parallel legislation now, as well.The House bill, by the way, is titled “H.R. 910: The Energy Tax Prevention Act.” Proponents are framing the bill as a “tax” that would “prevent” the economy from recovering.
Not so coincidentally, all of the representatives who voted for the bill have received thousands of dollars in donations from the billionaire Koch (pronounced “coke”) brothers, who own the largest privately owned company in the United States. According to www.sourcewatch.org, Koch Industries’ operations “include refining, chemicals, process and pollution control equipment, technologies, fibers and polymers, commodity and financial trading and consumer products. The company operates crude gathering systems and pipelines across North America. One subsidiary processes 800,000 barrels of crude oil daily in its three refineries.”
Follow the Money
Why do I single out the Kochs? Because the climate-change-denial campaign has a lot to do with “following the money.” Who benefits from legislation that would allow unregulated emissions of greenhouse gases, which scientists have proved affects global warming? Is it the people who suffer from asthma caused by air pollution, or is it the residents of “cancer alley” in Louisiana who suffer higher than “normal” levels of cancer? No, it’s the oil, gas and coal industries – and the people who support them – that believe they have much to lose in the short term from stricter regulations of air pollution. In the long term, however, it’s in the industries’ best interests to retrofit their businesses and invest big time in clean energies necessary for the future of human life as we have known it.
For more information about the Kochs, check Jane Mayer’s piece in The New Yorker magazine: “Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.” .
For the Koch Industries side of the story, check here.
Impact of H.R. 910
Back to my story. According to Ashley Braun’s post at DeSmogblog.com, H.R. 910, if passed, would be:
· “Prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide and six others) in connection with climate change.
· “Repealing previous EPA actions and rules on climate, overturning the EPA's science-based endangerment finding stating that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, threaten public health and therefore are ‘air pollutants’ which must be regulated.
· “Prohibiting Clean Air Act standards for improving vehicle fuel efficiency after 2016.
· “Preventing the EPA from allowing ambitious states, such as California, to set tougher vehicle emissions standards for greenhouse gases.”
Framing the Issue
On the FOXNews.com website, conservative pundit Phil Kerpen opines that senators who vote against a Senate version of the House bill would have to explain to their constituents “why they want to outsource our energy and economic future to unelected bureaucrats in the EPA – especially at a time when the economy remains weak and EPA regulations threaten to destroy millions of more American jobs. If the Senate refuses to stop the EPA, the biggest winners will be our global competitors like China and India.”
Democrats, on the other hand, are framing the bills as a threat to human health and welfare and as an affront to science.
House Democrats offered three amendments to H.R. 910 that, as Braun wrote, were “designed to get Republicans on the record on climate science.” The amendments called on Congress to agree that:
1. Climate change is occurring – amendment offered by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
2. Climate change is caused largely by humans – amendment offered by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)
3. Climate change endangers human health and welfare – amendment offered by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.)
In contrast to FOXNews.com, Lucy Madison wrote on the CBSNews.com website that “The global scientific community is largely unified in the belief that the climate is warming as a result of human actions, among them the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.” Madison quoted Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) as saying that “the Republicans’ rejection of Waxman’s amendment showed ‘what it means to be on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of science.’”
While some Republican legislators are still publicly arguing that “the science is not settled” and that the climate crisis is not real, others are taking the more cautious approach by arguing that the issue isn’t about science; it’s about whether the EPA should have the authority to do what Congress should be doing.
House Republicans and Democrats finally agreed upon a weaker “sense of Congress” amendment proposed by Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) that says there is “scientific concern over warming of the climate system.” Concern – but not proof. Waxman, understandably, is upset with this “better lame than nothing” amendment.
John M. Broder reported in the New York Times that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Republican Minority Leader, has attached an amendment to a small-business bill currently being considered in the Senate that has almost identical wording to that in H.R. 910. In his article, Broder quoted portions of a statement McConnell released to the press: “[Democrats] are attempting to do through regulation what they couldn’t do through legislation – regardless of whether the American people want it or not. … This is an insult to the millions of Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet or find a job.”
Broder added that “A vote on the McConnell amendment will be a test of anti-E.P.A. sentiment in the Senate, where a bill similar to the House measure has the support of most Republicans and one Democrat, Joe Manchin III, of West Virginia.” The major industry in West Virginia, by the way, is coal mining.
How Will the Chapter End?
So as historians write the chapter about what our politicians did in spring 2011 regarding the EPA, what will they say “we,” the people, did? Did we sit back and let history unfold? Or did we contact our legislators, demanding that they vote to support the EPA, improve vehicle fuel efficiency and allow states to pass their own stronger environmental laws?
What will history say YOU did?
If you want to send an e-mail to Florida’s two U.S. senators and the U.S. representative from our district, complete the contact forms available at these sites:
Rep. Steve Sutherland II (R-Fla.)
You simply fill in the forms, include your message, and hit "send." You can send three messages in less than 10 minutes.
So the end of the story is up to you. You can either be the difference, or you can be indifferent. The choice is yours.
Dr. D,
ReplyDeleteI found this blog post to be extremely interesting. I have an interest in public policy and after participating in your class I have developed a small interest in the climate crisis and how it affects me. Reading this post I immediately began to recall the lyrics of Michael Jacksons’ “Earth Song”. I am a huge fan. He encourages us to love the earth and the earth would love us back.
Obama making the decision to have the EPA regulate gas emissions by using its regulatory authority after the bill died from republican filibusters was a good follow-up. I do think that there is a divide between the passing of legislation and the scientific understanding of how climate change is affecting the country and its citizens. Knowing how many asthmatics are being affected by pollution in the air and the cancer cases in Louisiana’s “cancer alley” is disturbing. I would encourage people to become active in their local politics and write letters. State officials should be aware of their constituent’s position on certain legislation.
H.R. 910 would seemingly render the Environmental Protection Agency powerless. Passing the bill would eliminate much of the EPA’s purpose and would possibly lead to its demise. What is really sad, though, is the part of the bill prohibiting the allowance of “ambitious states, like California, to set tougher vehicle emissions standards for greenhouse gases,” according to Ashley Braun’s post as quoted in your blog. So, now every state must be lazy in the amount of smart eco-friendly legislation produced?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, much of our country’s legislation is directly influenced by the amount of money contributed, or not contributed, toward a particular issue. I do, however, see the difficulty many of our industries are facing and the fear they have of restructuring their less-than-ideal mechanisms for product production. Making the investment now in more environmentally friendly technology would be both an extremely expensive burden and an inconvenience. But, beyond that, it is somewhat lazy to not make some sort of effort at exploring their options. On the other hand, it is really disgusting that many of our political leaders are pretending that our industries do not play a huge role in the global climate crisis.
Worse, many of our political leaders are pretending the global climate crisis is not something human behavior has contributed to when so many horrible natural disasters and extreme temperature changes have occurred. The least they can do is be honest. I’m not asking or expecting any person or company to change overnight, I know that I haven’t been able (or wanted) to instantly paint myself green, but I am asking that some effort be made in respecting Americans’ right to the truth. If we are exposed to the facts and want to make a lazy decision about being environmentally friendly, then shame on us. However, if we are in the middle of a tug-of-war game between corporations’ and politicians’ denial of human involvement in the global climate change and scientists’ extremely disparaging cries that the end of the world is near and we’re at fault not fate, then we can’t really make a meaningful decision about where to go from here.
Dr. D,
ReplyDeleteThis post is one of my new found favorites. As we know, we're living in an experiment with the Earth's parts per million being more than 91 over what it historically has been; 300 parts per million.
It's scary that so many people can hear the message and not care and/or not believe it's real. I'm sure this is just history repeating itself. For instance, when Paul Revere rode his horse warning the people that the British was coming and to prepare for what will happen. Many people believed what he said, so they did what was necessary to prepare and protect themselves and their families. On the other hand, William Dawes warned people also, but not one believed him. They did what they wanted to do. And so the American Revolution began. Some were prepared and some weren't. If this story is actually true. If not, the concept is the same.
I believe the Global Climate Crisis is something that is new and different to many people. So they are hesitant to believe that it's real. Especially political officers. You would think they would rather be "safe than sorry" and heed the warning from scientists.
Also, when the history books are being written about the Global Climate Crisis, it will be a "we" stated in the books, not "some Americans." I'm not sure if it will be that we were collectively prepared for it, or that we all stood by and waited to see.
I do know that I do my part and trying to prepare for what ever the Climate Crisis will do. My motto is "one person can touch everybody, but many people can reach a lot of people."
Dr. D,
ReplyDeleteThis post is a very interesting perspective. I often wonder how further generations will think of us when they are reading about this time period in their history classes. I sometimes believe that they will think that we were too complacent and stubborn to accept change and scientific reason.
Granted I am no professional on public policy nor do I have all the knowledge in the world of the climate crisis, but I can accept what seems to be truth to scientific reason. H.R. 910 is a prime example of such stubborn American view. How is it that the Koch brothers cannot understand, or refuse to accept, what science is telling us? In essence, this legislation will eventually kill off the Environmental Protection Agency. Why would the country need such an agency when money can buy legislation would do such a thing as, “Repeal[ing]previous EPA actions and rules on climate, overturning the EPA's science-based endangerment finding stating that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, threaten public health and therefore are ‘air pollutants’ which must be regulated.”
It will take Americans to investigate on their own and seek the truth in this matter before any major change can take place. It’s up to us to educate ourselves. How network and political parties are framing this issue will only lead to a nation divided. In fact, its borderline ridiculous that the individuals we elect to so what is best for us can only do what is best for is if the money is right.
It is time for us to speak for ourselves again instead of having some elected officials speak for us. I support an effort to write to our senators and representatives. I think it will take the individual voices of the constituents they serve in order to start the change. Maybe one voice can be strong enough to plant the seed of stopping “for-pay legislation” and influence someone to take in those scientific truths.
If not, in years to come, scientists may be saying, “I told you so,” to the Koch brothers and those who supported H.R. 910; and even more so, future generations will be asking, “what have we done?” and “what were we thinking?”
Dr. D,
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. Passing the H.R. 910 could be detrimental for the Environmental Protection Agency and ultimately harmful to human life. Our responsibility for the climate crisis is obvious yet ignored by most people. My group project deals with the corporate response to the climate crisis, which in many cases is slim to none. Most citizens don't realize that although large corporations are physically causing the problems, we are supporting these powerhouses.
Mathematically there are more citizens of this country than businesses. If we were to vote properly and rally support against the companies causing the most pollution, legislators would have a lot less work to do.
We must understand that people will naturally follow the money, especially business oriented individuals. I cannot blame anyone for forgoing initiatives that will not immediately affect them today, for less expensive initiatives that reap large instant monetary benefits.
The best thing we can do is continue to support green business and rally for all things sustainable. Our country is filled with people who don't act unless something directly and quickly affects them. With this in mind it is no surprise that most Americans care about "going green" but do little to support the issue.
When historians write the chapter on Spring 2011, I will stand with the masses. I support sustainability. But clearly my support does not mean much. Governmental intervention is key. Without it we will continue down this path of environmental destruction.
Jared Floyd
Wow! Great Post Dr. D!
ReplyDeleteFirst I hope we still have a livable environment by 2021, and that we have started to seriously change our negative impact on the Earth.
In response to what Courtney said, the Koch brothers probably do understand, but they understand money more. Everything in this world revolves around money, and who's pockets will it benefit.
Take all of these companies who are now "going green", you have to realize that 75% of these companies don’t necessary care about their "carbon footprint", but rather how can they retain business from their customers. None of these businesses are refusing what science is telling us, but they are going after the big buck.
I believe that the idea of global warming is starting to become "real" to people. When the lectures and warnings become tangible (i.e. earthquake in Japan), people realize that this is not just some grassroots agenda frenzy-its happening.
Anjelica Rembert
Hats off Dr. D,
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point about history. It is my belief that history is often selectively taught, and it will be quite interesting to see how it will be portrayed in the coming decades.
It is interesting to learn about Kochs. The fact that there are evidently ill-intentioned companies with power and money to persuade my elected officials is scary. It makes a citizen wonder if democracy is being compromised in order to please a few people's pockets. I wonder if these individuals will ever learn that “following the money” won't bring back Earth. The fact that our lawmakers are focusing on personal vendettas instead of thinking of the children with "asthma caused by air pollution," or "the residents of 'cancer alley' in Louisiana" proves how off the world has spun.
The supposed remedy to this bad behavior is to hold people in power accountable. If we rally together under the state of mind that there are more of us than them, and that we can have our issues heard, we can move forward accordingly.
History will say that I have contacted my legislators in regards to environmental laws. I may not be as radical about it as others, but I know what I will teach my family, friends and future publics.
Dr. D, I'm not going to lie... For me, trying to understand this blog is like trying to teach a seven-year-old how to drive a stick shift. I had to read this about three times and I'm still not sure if I fully understand the whole concept.
ReplyDeleteHere is what I think is going on:
1. A privately owned company is "paying" people to vote for the Energy Tax Prevention Act.
2. The Republicans don't like the bill, so the Democrats offered amendments to try to get them on board.
I hope that may be somewhat close to the point. My biggest issue is trying to take all the jargon and make it relative. As long as I can parallel the information to something that I make a connection to, then I should be all right.
Our political leaders should acknowledge the fact that global warming is threatening our planet. However, we as a people should stand up and raise more awareness about the global climate crisis that affects us all. Society must stand up and demand action from their political leaders. Although the government has taken some steps to make sure that our environment is protected, we still need more action! Making the investment in protecting our environment should be priceless. Money should not alter the decisions that can ultimately cause damage to our planet.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to "framing," I think it goes to show the importance of how you present your message. The Energy Tax Prevention Act” was framed to be presented as a bill that would use “tax” funding and would “prevent” the economy from recovering. If this bill was "framed" in another light, the outcome and decision on the bill may have been different.
-Javon Lloyd
Dr. D, I'm honestly trying to understand how people still don't see the climate crisis as something real. To me it is live and well and I am waiting for someone else to understand that. Science to me would never agree with legislation and vice versa. I have never been a environment, savvy type person but I recycle when I can. Being informed about environmental issues should be a definite priority and it is a shame that people have not made it so. So this post made me understand that we need to be more informative, we have to spread the word somewhere. Besides the scientist, or "go green gurus," we need to learn more.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDr. D,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the information and enlightenment on the history of the Global Climate Crisis. This is definitely a topic that is sweep under the rug and not given enough insight on.
I can't believe that H.R. 910 is trying to hinder the initiatives the EPA. The bill would essentially leave EPA powerless.
I believe that people are not as aware of the topic as they should because it is not directly effecting them.
Also, the sad truth is that everything in the government revolves around how much money is or isn't being spent. Case in point, Koches.
It will be interesting to see what the historians have to say about this epidemic. I believe it will take something drastic to happen for educators and historians to talk about the issue.
Very interesting post Dr. D. I think this is one of my favorites. I agree that the climate crisis is an issue that society is just learning to accept. However, I disagree with the government's "better lame than nothing" amendment. If we allow our government to sweep the climate crisis issue under the rug, we are equally at fault.
ReplyDeleteOften times in history, young adults have been on the forefront of change. Young adults were on the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement. Young adults were on the forefront of President Barack Obama's presidential campaign. I believe it is my generation's duty to now lead the climate crisis movement. This issue will not only affect our lives, but also our children's and generations to come. I, admittedly, did not know much about the climate crisis before this class. Now, I am informed and inspired to make a difference. I will do my part and write Florida's two senators and the representative. I wholeheartedly believe "you must be the change you want to see".
Dr. D,
ReplyDeleteThis post exposes the influence that businesses have on the government and its policy making proceedures. Despite the efforts of many environmental activists, the language of money seems to speak louder than the earth's cries.
I have found more information about how Koch Industries have corrupted the government at the following site:
http://planetsave.com/2011/03/08/koch-industries-makes-billions-corrupting-government/
Dr. D,
ReplyDeleteThis post is very thought provoking. I love how you tied everything back to the aspect of framing and how it really effects they way people think. Looking at global warming from the viewpoint of the historians is interesting because you posed a thoughtful question then followed through using research. The government plays a major part in global warming and how to help put an end to it. The bottom line is money. Money is the driving force in all this.I thought that the Koch's having such a strong hand in this situation was interesting, especially the fact that they donated money to each congressman that voted for the "H.R 910 Bill". I would think that there would be some type of law against coercion, but somehow money and power supersede laws. The way that the news is framing laws concerning "green" initiatives is that they aren't important and eventually there will have to be a change in how we treat our environment or we will be paying for it in the long run.
I believe that this log post is so creative. The post uses the ideas, it is teaching in its structure and words. The framing of the post is spectacular. The section about framing reminds me of two articles I read and posted on my blog. The First “A Question of Trust”, discussed the role of climate scientist in this new age. The public must trust the source of the information being given…the the fact is that many people do not. The author says, “Those who seek to sow doubt about the solid and widespread evidence for global warming must be countered with facts as a matter, of course. But legitimate, fears and scientific skepticism must be welcomed into the discussion” (p. 7).
ReplyDeleteIn the second article “Appeal to the Heart,” the author discussed the same issue — trust. The author believes that the reason for the doubt behind climate change is because of the lack of public relations professional leading the campaign. I strongly agree with the author to effect public relations professionals must lead the fight.
Dr. D,
ReplyDeleteThank you for such a good read. This blog post helped me to understand the mindset of our political leaders when it comes to the climate crisis. It's bewildering to realize that as long as money remains as the top issue, we will continue to see minimal legislation and results from our elected officials.
It's sad to say, but we will probably have to witness extreme conditions and undeniable evidence that the "every day" person can notice before we see a change. But by then will it be too late?
I think President Obama is doing his best to move our nation towards a sustainable lifestyle but it takes much more than his efforts. For once, I challenge legislatures to forget about corporate "big wigs" and possible monetary gains, and instead weigh the possibility health risks, less natural resources and extreme/destructive weather. The long-term consequences far outweigh the short-term.
I believe that in 2021, when everyone has finally jumped on board the eco-friendly train, historians will write about how 2011 politicians nearly cost us everything. Lets not be ignorant to the facts and what is going on around us.
I found your views on the EPA issue very insightful. I believe that is foolish that many people on the Energy and Commerce Committee voted to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions because it does effect climate warming. At the end of the day, people should not take the effects on environment lightly because human existence is not guaranteed. One of the main points that I agree with you on would be on how that those who voted on this bill are supporters of Koch. I feel that republicans that hold positions in politics sometimes only pass bills that are beneficial to themselves and not society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteDr. D, your view of the EPA is one that is interesting. I found this information helpful because it shed light on a subject that I lack awareness in. I feel the way the Energy and Commerce Committee did not allow the EPA to have sanctions for greenhouse gas was counterproductive. Just because the emissions don't affect the climate and global warming doesn't mean it is any less harmful. The environment should always be a priority that has vested interest when it comes to rules and regulations. The supporters of Koch who voted on this bill should not have been able to influence the sole outcome of this issue for the time being. They seem to have separate interests that only benefit what they find just.
ReplyDeleteDr. D,
ReplyDeleteIn reading this blog post, I find myself quite alarmed. The reason i'm alarmed is because I feel as though the majority of the government may be as nonchalant about the global climate crisis as some of the uninformed citizens. This is scary because most of the people who rejected the bill have direct information showing them the importance of the bill. I see that President Obama is trying his hardest to support the initiative, but what can he do if the rest of the senate won't do the same. This just goes to show that we, as citizens, have a duty to educate all of the uninformed people and come together to make bills like this pass. A lot of times people forget that the government was originally made for the people and by the people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs always it is an enjoyment reading your post, they keep me up to date with the latest energy news. This article I found alarming but not at all shocking. It is a shame the slow initiative the government is taking on green energy and saving our environment. President Obama's instructions to have the EPA regulate gas emissions after the bill died from republican filibusters was a great follow up. The divide between scientific understanding the affects of climate change and legislation is a problem that needs to quickly be resolved before it is to late and the crisis heightens. It is no secret that legislators are not putting this at the top of their list, and I fear they will not until its too late. President Obama is trying his hardest to keep the issue in discussion but he has a lack of support. It has now fallen into the responsibility of the people to become active in their local politics and communities.
ReplyDeleteSociety takes advantage of the Earth. We treat the Earth and its environment like it will always be here only because we’ve never experienced it any other way. We take the environment for granted in our own lifetimes and are not taking the steps to make sure that our children’s, children’s children have a healthy environment to live in. The Clean Air Act’s purpose made things look so promising.
ReplyDeleteBut what’s more disturbing is that our society’s leaders are just a bad as we are. And they know more about the situation than the rest of us because they have more access to information that the masses do not. Democrats tried to pass legislation that would have capped greenhouse gases in 2010, but Republican filibusters put a stop to it. Knowing that this happened makes me think that Republicans are just opposed to the Democrats for the sake of fighting them not for legitimate reasons.
While Republicans are busy fighting Democrats, they are hurting themselves too. Because both, future Democrats and Republicans have to share the world and neither of them will have anything to share if both of them are living in an environment that’s not worth living in.
Political theorist Goran Therborn stated that there are three ways to keep people apathetic about a problem: (1) argue that the issues don’t exist; (2) argue that it’s actually a good thing rather than a problem; and argue that even if it is a problem, there’s nothing.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest global warming deniers are often trained to keep the people indifferent about global warming. Big oil and gas companies often put together the best PR front groups to spread false and undocumented information.
Climate change denying is big money if you are a scientist, PR professional, or journalist who is willing to sell out the interest of the people to line their pockets. Big businesses and their shareholders all benefit from legislation that allows unregulated emissions of greenhouse gases without remedy.
Scientists have proven the affects global warming, however, the money of those who want to deny it is much stronger. Citizens of this earth must not be passive about greenhouse gases and global warming because it’s the average, not so rich citizens, who will be affected.
There are some deniers who believe that global warming is caused by humans and not big businesses. Citizens, don’t be fooled by framing and other tactics that are being used to make it appear that Global warming is not real.