[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 25, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3413-H3414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SEE NO CLIMATE CHANGE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to work on
issues of reduction of greenhouse gases for over 25 years. I was
Portland's commissioner of public works when we became the first
American city with a comprehensive approach to deal with greenhouse
gases. For 4 years I was pleased to serve on Speaker Pelosi's Select
Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence, where we had an
opportunity to work with people around the world looking at climate
impacts, dealing with dozens of hearings, hundreds of experts concerned
with the challenge, the even greater problems that we are facing in the
future.
Yet, I would say that in the years that I have been working on this
issue, I have never seen a better, more effective statement than what
appeared in yesterday's Washington Post, an essay by Bill McKibben
entitled ``See no climate change.'' He said, you should not wonder, is
this somehow related to the tornado outbreak 3 weeks ago in Tuscaloosa,
or the enormous outbreak a couple weeks before with the most active
tornado season in America's history. You should not connect in your
mind the fires burning across Texas, fires that have burned more of
America at this point this year than any wildfires in previous years.
Or that the adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico are drier now
than they have ever been, much worse than during the Dust Bowl. You
should not wonder whether this year's record snowfalls and rainfalls
across the Midwest, resulting in record flooding along the Mississippi,
could somehow be related.
There have been tornadoes before. There will be tornadoes again.
That's the important thing. Be careful to make sure you don't let
yourself wonder while all these record-breaking events are happening in
such proximity. Wondering why there have been unprecedented megafloods
in Australia, New Zealand, and Pakistan in the last year. Why it's just
now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of
years.
He goes on, because if you ask yourself what it meant that the Amazon
has just gone through its second hundred-year flood in 5 years, or that
the pine forests across the West of this continent have been
obliterated by bark beetles, you might have to ask other questions.
It's better to join with the U.S. House of Representatives, who voted
240-184 this spring to defeat a resolution saying simply that climate
change is occurring, caused largely by human activities, and poses
significant risks for human welfare.
Propose your own physics. Ignore physics altogether. Just don't start
asking yourself whether there might be some relationship among last
year's failed grain harvest in the Russian heat wave and Queensland's
failed grain harvest from its second flood, and Germany and France's
current drought-related crop failures. It's important, Bill says, to
remain calm. If the worst ever did come to worst, it's reassuring to
remember that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told the Environmental
Protection Agency in recent filings that there's no need to worry
because populations can acclimate to warmer climates via a range of
behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations. Bill says,
I'm sure that's what the residents in Joplin, Missouri, are telling
themselves today.
Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more. It is important for Americans to
think about how these pieces fit together. And Members of Congress
should ask themselves two questions. First, even if you don't believe
the experts on the danger of climate change, shouldn't we be taking
extraordinary steps to stop wasting more energy than anybody in the
world and exporting billions of dollars overseas to other countries for
our
[[Page H3414]]
energy? That's question one. The second question that I hope Members of
Congress will ask themselves, what if 99.9 percent of the scientists
are right and we are doing it to ourselves?
[From the Washington Post]
See No Climate Change
(By Bill McKibben)
Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections.
When you see pictures of rubble like this week's shots from
Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related
to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala.,
or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that
(which, together, comprised the most active April for
tornadoes in U.S. history). No, that doesn't mean a thing.
It is far better to think of these as isolated,
unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advisable to try to
connect them in your mind with, say, the fires burning across
Texas--fires that have burned more of America at this point
this year than any wildfires have in previous years. Texas,
and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier
than they've ever been--the drought is worse than that of the
Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if they're somehow connected.
If you did wonder, you see, you would also have to wonder
about whether this year's record snowfalls and rainfalls
across the Midwest--resulting in record flooding along the
Mississippi--could somehow be related. And then you might
find your thoughts wandering to, oh, global warming, and to
the fact that climatologists have been predicting for years
that as we flood the atmosphere with carbon we will also
start both drying and flooding the planet, since warm air
holds more water vapor than cold air.
It's far smarter to repeat to yourself the comforting
mantra that no single weather event can ever be directly tied
to climate change. There have been tornadoes before, and
floods--that's the important thing. Just be careful to make
sure you don't let yourself wonder why all these record-
breaking events are happening in such proximity--that is, why
there have been unprecedented megafloods in Australia, New
Zealand and Pakistan in the past year. Why it's just now that
the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of
year. No, better to focus on the immediate casualties, watch
the videotape from the store cameras as the shelves are blown
over. Look at the news anchorman standing in his waders in
the rising river as the water approaches his chest.
Because if you asked yourself what it meant that the Amazon
has just come through its second hundred-year drought in the
past five years, or that the pine forests across the western
part of this continent have been obliterated by a beetle in
the past decade--well, you might have to ask other questions.
Such as: Should President Obama really just have opened a
huge swath of Wyoming to new coal mining? Should Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton sign a permit this summer allowing a
huge new pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta?
You might also have to ask yourself: Do we have a bigger
problem than $4-a-gallon gasoline?
Better to join with the U.S. House of Representatives,
which voted 240 to 184 this spring to defeat a resolution
saying simply that ``climate change is occurring, is caused
largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for
public health and welfare.'' Propose your own physics; ignore
physics altogether. Just don't start asking yourself whether
there might be some relation among last year's failed grain
harvest from the Russian heat wave, and Queensland's failed
grain harvest from its record flood, and France's and
Germany's current drought-related crop failures, and the
death of the winter wheat crop in Texas, and the inability of
Midwestern farmers to get corn planted in their sodden
fields. Surely the record food prices are just freak
outliers, not signs of anything systemic.
It's very important to stay calm. If you got upset about
any of this, you might forget how important it is not to
disrupt the record profits of our fossil fuel companies. If
worst ever did come to worst, it's reassuring to remember
what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told the Environmental
Protection Agency in a recent filing: that there's no need to
worry because ``populations can acclimatize to warmer
climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and
technological adaptations.'' I'm pretty sure that's what
residents are telling themselves in Joplin today.
____________________