AD

And yet Republicans from Texas (both U.S. senators and a slew of congressmen), Florida (most especially Gov. Rick Scott and Sen. Marco Rubio), Alabama and Louisiana, among other locales, refuse to acknowledge the clear cause of rising sea levels and temperatures that add to the destructiveness of hurricanes that devastate their states. The GOP pols like to dodge the question by saying they are not climate scientists — and then refuse to accept the findings of 97 percent of the scientific community. Bluntly put, they’d rather cling to their know-nothingism than take steps to abate a known danger to their states. How is that any different from refusing to build levees and pumps or update building standards? (Of course, the climate-change denier in chief did cancel a flood regulation that took account of global warming, something he should be asked about when he goes for his next photo op.)

AD

Perhaps these lawmakers will never change their minds, given how afflicted they are with the tribalism of the GOP. Apparently, they have no future in a party if they think clearly and dispassionately about the subject. But the voters of the states they represent shouldn’t tolerate such recklessness. If Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) refused to vote for Harvey hurricane relief, he’d surely lose reelection in 2018, yet he plans to stand for reelection firmly opposed to the science and remedial action that could save lives and property. It’s remarkable that Cruz and others can look voters in the eye and refuse to take measures that would ameliorate their suffering and the suffering of generations to come.

In 2015, former secretary of state George Shultz reviewed a batch of data about warming waters, sea levels and melting snow caps and glaciers. He wrote: “These are simple and clear observations, so I conclude that the globe is warming and that carbon dioxide has something to do with that fact. Those who say otherwise will wind up being mugged by reality.” He reasoned, “We all know there are those who have doubts about the problems presented by climate change. But if these doubters are wrong, the evidence is clear that the consequences, while varied, will be mostly bad, some catastrophic.” So why not, he figured, take out an “insurance policy”? Move to clean energy, invest in more R&D and consider a carbon tax. And, I would add, return to the voluntary restrictions the United States agreed to as part of the Paris climate agreement. (It’s not as though coal is coming back, no matter what Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency does.)

AD