Twenty Years of Republican Obstruction on Climate Change

By SAM URETSKY

In December 2018, SSRN (Social Science Research Network published a paper titled “The naked truth about US climate policy.” Eschewing pedantry, the authors offered an anthem for the climate change deniers:

There is no climate change, It’s all a lie.
And even if there’s change, no blame for us.
And if it’s us, the cost to stop’s too high.
Some change would not be bad, so what’s the fuss?
And if climatic losses start to bind,
A tech solution we will surely find.

President George W. Bush (43) began his presidency by saying that the United States should take the lead in cutting back in both air pollution and greenhouse gases, but swiveled in favor of economic growth over either aim. In 2001, the Bush administration pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases. In 2008, President Bush left office with the world economy facing a meltdown caused in large part by the housing bubble. While President Obama tried to deal with both the economic disaster and global warming, his programs were blocked, or later reversed, by Republican intransigence. Sen. McConnell (R-Ky.) famously said “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” First the Republicans cut back on President Obama’s fiscal stimulus program, then claimed that the economy was growing too slowly.

Now, all the warnings that scientists gave about the effects of global warming are coming true – intense storms, droughts, rising sea levels – and the Republicans oppose President Biden’s plans to reverse the coming disaster because it’s too expensive and will increase the national debt. So do the so-called “moderate” Democrats, notably Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.). The New York Times reported that Sinema has told colleagues she will not accept any corporate or income tax rate increases. These, and a few Democrats in the House. seem to think it’s business as usual. They oppose tax increases on corporations, oppose letting Medicare negotiate prescription drug prices, and think that Hurricane Ida was a late arriving April shower. They claim to favor climate legislation and the infrastructure bill as long as their contributors have no objection.

Meanwhile, Climate Week 2021 was marked by a series of programs designed to educate the public, mostly through virtual programs because of the COVID 19 pandemic. The United Nations Climate Change Conference began on Nov. 1 and ended on the 12th. Another UN meeting, COP 26 (Conference of the Parties) will be held in Glasgow from Oct 31 to Nov 12. It was postponed for about a year because of the pandemic. But UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa said “COVID-19 is the most urgent threat facing humanity today, but we cannot forget that climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity over the long term.” She’s right – if there really is a long term.

In a way, the highlight of Climate Week 2021 was on Sept. 15, when seven late night comedians devoted part of their shows to the issue of climate change. Stephen Colbert had a good line with “Hundreds of world leaders are meeting with climate activists to attempt the one thing to fight climate change that no industrialized nation has done before: anything.” Seth Meyers said “This is how bad climate change is getting: wildfires in the West, floods in the East, freezing cold in Texas. Billy Joel’s going to have to write an update for 2021 and call it, ‘Actually, We Did Start the Fire.’”

On Nov. 27, 2007, the New York Times headlined, “UN releases a new dire global warming report.” March 31, 2014, the paper reported “Threat from global warming heightened in latest UN report.” BBC News 6/1/17 reported “Paris climate deal: Trump announces US will withdraw.” The then-president said ‘’I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.” He seems not to have understood that they’re on the same planet.

In order to avoid the worst, the world is going to have to achieve net carbon zero – removing as much carbon from the atmosphere as we put into it, by 2030 – and start turning the balance back by 2050. And apparently we have to do it without tax increases. Could we please start now?

Sam Uretsky is a writer and pharmacist living in Louisville, Ky. Email sdu01@outlook.com.

From The Progressive Populist, November 1, 2021

Populist.com