Over the last two days, I have posted diaries exploring in some detail Reichert's positions in Congress on important energy issues.
On Monday, I discussed how he claims to support reducing the nation's dependence on oil, but voted against doing so at the urging of the White House. On Tuesday, I documented how Reichert decided to support giving President Bush unfettered discretion to provide public lands in Washington to big oil companies.
Today's diary is about his position on global warming. And as you examine each of these topics, you will see one dominant theme. While Reichert takes positions that are way out of the mainstream, they are consistent with the views of one person: George W. Bush.
Yesterday,
Darcy Burner blogged about global warming. She wrote on her blog (my emphasis):
I believe the scientific debate on global warming is over. The overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community has determined that global warming is real, it poses a significant risk to civilization, and it is caused primarily by greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels for energy. This view is supported by the national science academies of all of the G8 countries - including the United States - as well as those of China, India, and Brazil. For the sake of ourselves and future generations, we must make an immediate and lasting commitment to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
Compare this to Reichert's recent "clarification" on his position about global warming:
The question I have and am investigating is whether global warming is caused by man's activity or if global warming is one of the natural temperature fluctuations we've seen over the course of the earth's history.
The difference is obvious. Burner's statement reflects the scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet. Reichert is unsure whether humans have anything to do with it.
Why is this important? Because once you start to acknowledge the problem, you are morally bound to seek solutions. If human emissions are warming the planet, we'd be duty bound to find solutions that reduce emissions. Those solutions may be challenging, but we ignore the issue at our own peril and the peril of our children. For example, one recent study puts the price tag of inaction at $20 trillion. On a side note, today, Seattle City Light hits the DC press to explain their support for fighting global warming.
Still, it wouldn't make sense to ignore the question if, in fact, there are legitimate question about whether humans are responsible for global warming. Wouldn't we want our representatives to seek scientific answers? Yes. Unfortunately, the jury is in and there is no longer any scientific question about it.
Recently, the National Academy of Sciences, the premiere scientific institution in the United States, issued a joint statement with its comparable institutions in the UK, France, Italy, Russia, China, Brazil, Canada, India and Germany. They state in their careful scientific way (emphasis mine):
there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
If you believe that this must be some kind of international conspiracy (then I pity you), you can check out the statement of the staid American Geophysical Union:
Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
They are not exactly Earth First!
The reality is that you cannot find a credible scientist that doubts human activity is warming the planet. So this begs the question. Who is Reichert listening to about global warming?
Well, there is one person who saying the same things that Reichert is. Here it is from George W. Bush:
I think we have a problem on global warming. I think there is a debate about whether it's caused by mankind or whether it's caused naturally, but it's a worthy debate.
On issue after issue, Reichert is following the Bush line - even when it is completely inconsistent with our scientific understanding or the best interests of Washington. When you look at what's gone wrong in the U.S. Congress, Dave Reichert is part of the problem.
Here is the solution: Darcy Burner.