The Politico.com ran a story a few days ago that's interesting in the context of the debate over offshore drilling for oil. Without commenting on the merits of drilling offshore, they noted that a number of proponents of drilling like to make the claim that facilities in the Gulf of Mexico went through Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without any damage and without "one drop of oil spilt," according to Senator Trent Lott (R-MS).

So, if the oil rigs could survive hurricanes without any environmental damage, obviously offshore drilling is completely safe, and environmentalists who oppose it are being unreasonable.

The problem with these assertions? Well, they're wrong. As the Politico explains:

The U.S. Minerals Management Service, however, did a study of the damage Katrina and Rita did to offshore oil wells and came to a different conclusion. It found that the two storms caused a combined 124 spills with a volume of 17,700 barrels—or roughly 750,000 gallons. That's no Exxon Valdez -- in fact, the MMS had kind words for the rigs' performances -- but it's not nothing either.

The article also cites pieces by CBS News and Media Matters which debunk the claim.

Among the proponents of drilling that the Politico mentions? Congressman Tim Walberg:

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) said on Friday that the Gulf rigs went "through Katrina with no spills -- with derricks being washed up on shore and yet the environment has not been hurt and we've been benefited by it."

(Emphasis added.)

The problem here isn't the policy Walberg supports. There are a lot of reasons not to support his oil-company-give-away policy, but in this case, 750,000 gallons of oil spilled during Katrina and Rita aren't going to convince many voters.

Instead, the problem is what the story indicates about Tim Walberg as a person and as a politician. He's basing his policies and his rhetoric on what he wishes was true, not based on the actual facts. Rather than taking positions based on what's happening, he's following his rigid ideology and creating for himself a world that fits it. His hard line, conservative positions make perfect sense in the fantasy world he's constructed.

Offshore drilling is a lot easier to support if you pretend that there's no environmental risk and if you pretend the Chinese are drilling for oil off the coast of Florida.

Continuing the war in Iraq is a lot easier if you pretend that Iraq is as safe as Detroit.

Going to war to begin with makes more sense if you pretend that Iraq was behind September 11.

Environmental issues are a lot easier if you pretend that global climate change isn't real.

Unfortunately, Tim Walberg's facts don't quite match the ones the rest of us have to live with.

Labels: Energy, Global Warming, Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg

I'm leaving in a little while for Chicago and far more important things than politics, so posting is going to be light for a few days. To tide you over, here are a few significant items.

Fundraising

Senator Mark Schauer's pre-primary fundraising report can be found here. The numbers?

Raised (2Q+16 days): $427,714.16
Raised (Cycle-To-Date): $1,331,557.22
Contributions From Individuals: $262,844.48
Cash-On-Hand: $928,686.45

I will do a more complete post next week.

Housing

From the comments, we get a link to this story:

A sweeping housing bill passed the House yesterday that will aide people across the country trying to keep their homes, it also includes a $7,500 tax credit for first-time home buyers and allow the Treasury department to extend a line of credit to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg voted against the bill.

Of course he did. I'll write more about that next week, too.

Iraq

From the Lansing State Journal, we get this passage from an article on Mark Schauer and Sharon Renier:

Both candidates said they oppose the Iraq war. Schauer said he would use the congressional power of the purse to change what he called a failed strategy from the Bush administration.

Renier, meanwhile, said she would demand that generals adopt her plan for Iraq and would vote to withhold funds if they don't. Pressed to reveal more details of that plan, Renier declined, saying, "If it's going to be on the front page, you might as well tell the enemy."

So... Sharon Renier has a secret plan to end the war. It's possible she was misquoted or misrepresented, but that sounds a little Nixonian to me.

Party Unity

Also from that Lansing State Journal article:

And while Schauer said he'd support Renier if he loses, Renier emphatically declined to return the favor.

"Hell no," she said when asked if she'd support Schauer against Walberg. "They're both about the same. They've not done anything for the state."

"I voted for Sharon Renier against Tim Walberg in 2006, so I have nothing against her personally," Schauer replied. "I don't think Sharon Renier knows me very well and I think she has a fundamental misunderstanding about me. I would hope she would have an open mind."

This I find troubling. Of all people, Sharon Renier should understand why almost anyone would be better than Tim Walberg.

Walberg Watch Video of the Week

For your enjoyment:



As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: Affordable Housing, Democratic Party, Environment, Fundraising, Global Warming, Iraq, Mark Schauer, Sharon Renier, Tim Walberg, Video

It's the moment we've all been waiting for... Congressman Tim Walberg, self-proclaimed environmentalist, share's his thoughts on global warming and climate change. At a town hall in Hillsdale on Monday, Congressman Walberg got a question on what the federal government should do to combat global climate change. This was reported first by Eric B. at Michigan Liberal, and audio is available here.

I've tried to transcribe it from the very low quality audio file, with some assistance from the transcription Eric already had. My version and his version differ slightly, and both of them are probably slightly different from what was actually said. That's just what happens when you have a low-quality recording.

Still, I'm confident that both of us have captured the essence of what Congressman Walberg is trying to say.

Question: What do you think is the role of the federal government in combating global climate change?

Walberg: In combating global climate change?

Question: [garbled, presumably "Yes."]

Walberg: Well, I think the federal government ought to give incentives to business, industry, and more importantly research institutions to do what's necessary to find out if warming is taking place. I don't think it can be just people like Al Gore [garbled] other side. I think it needs to be people who are doing significant research to find out if, indeed, we are warming. There are a lot of people in Michigan that are saying, "If this is warming, I don't want any more of it." [Laughter] Or, "If this isn't warming, give me more warming!" [garbled] What I'm saying is, when I read science, I read scientists, editors, who police equal on both sides that say there’s a cycle that significant warming that’s produced by human involvement and not just simple matter of fact natural currents that take place in the cycle then I read on the other side an equal number at the very least that say just the very opposite that this something that’s gone on for eons, that we go through these cycles.

The Czech, the president of the Czech Republic, who's spoken here in Hillsdale several times, [garbled] I don't want to hide anything from you guys, this guy is a conservative, he's a free market person, a capitalist. Um, he understands Putin, he understands Russia. But, he may say that we were in Prague dealing with the missile defense initiative. But over the course of the meeting with him the question came up about global warming and climate change. And he says, well, he says, I as you know I’ve written a book about that. Right now we are having it translated into English and I hope you would buy [garbled] and he said I was just in Nigeria for meetings last week, he said, in the process of less than 48 hours I went through two occasions, going and coming, of degree changes of over 30 degrees. Of course, that was Celsius. And then he smiled and he says, once I got back I realized it hadn't hurt me at all! Now, we've seen less than two degree changes in the last hundred years. So I think if you're asking that question, I'm saying we ought to do significant research where we let the private sector in research entities whether it be public institutions like Michigan State or U of M nonetheless the private sector area of government do those research and come up with a decision. I’m not sure the taxpayers ought to pay significantly for things like that.

Where do I begin? Let's start by figuring out what Walberg is actually saying, without his obviously hilarious jokes about cold weather in Michigan.

• "I think the federal government ought to give incentives to business, industry, and more importantly research institutions to do what's necessary to find out if warming is taking place."
• It can't just be political figures like Al Gore that inform us on this issue.
• Walberg has seen an equal number of scientists, if not more, that say global warming is part of a natural cycle and not a result of human activity.
• The president of the Czech Republic says that he's flown places where it's warm, then flown places where it's cold, and he feels fine. Therefore, maybe global warming isn't an issue.
• A two degree change in 100 years isn't that bad.
• The only research on this issue should be conducted by the private sector, and taxpayers should not pay for it.

I actually do agree with Congressman Walberg on one part. It should just be political figures like Al Gore that inform us on this issue. Gore is great for publicity, but all the real decisions should be made based on what actual scientists have to say.

Unfortunately, all of Walberg's evidence against global warming comes from, well, a political figure. And if you think Al Gore is biased, wait until you learn more about Václav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic.

For starters, the anecdote Walberg shares about Klaus's trip to Nigeria is, quite simply, stupid. We're talking about climate change, not the impact of a warm day versus a cold day on the body. Klaus was fine after his trip to Nigeria, and that's not surprising. Now, if the average temperature of the Czech Republic were to rise 30 degrees Celsius, that would be something else entirely. That kind of a change, which Klaus as an individual can withstand with no trouble, would give Prague an average temperature of 40 degrees Celsius, or about 104 degrees Farenheit. Since the average temperature of Death Valley in July is only 46 degrees Celsius, I feel that such a climate change would be significant.

But, as Klaus correctly points out, he can stand it just fine. Any agriculture in his country might not survive, but that's an entirely different problem.

Obviously, even the most pessimistic predictions of global warming don't come close to a world-wide increase of 30 degrees Celsius, and Prague isn't going to turn into Death Valley. But it's Václav Klaus and Tim Walberg that suggested such a change wouldn't be that big of a deal.

Václav Klaus has been very vocal in denouncing global warming. In a piece for the Financial Times in London, Klaus writes:

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

(Emphasis added.)

I don't know about you, but I'm a little worried when I see that my congressman is getting his scientific data from a man that says environmentalism is worse than communism.

Where does Klaus get this kind of expertise when it comes to scientific data? Why, he used to be a free market economist! Obviously, he's qualified to make this kind of judgment, and it won't be clouded at all by other interests!

I'll make a deal with you, Congressman Walberg. I'll never cite former Vice President Al Gore, if you promise to never again cite Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic. Let's stick to actual scientists, who we can agree aren't nearly as biased.

Let's recall also that Congressman Walberg is against funding actual scientific research, saying "I’m not sure the taxpayers ought to pay significantly for things like that." Never mind that science is so important, and has been for the entire history of the country, that Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution specifically lists one power of Congress as:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

That primarily addresses patent law, but there is nonetheless a precedent for funding scientific research.

Still, I'm willing to let that slide as a difference of politics. We all agree that it's the scientists that should be making judgments about the science of global warming. So what do the scientists actually say? Here's Congressman Walberg's claim:

What I'm saying is, when I read science, I read scientists, editors, who police equal on both sides that say there’s a cycle that significant warming that’s produced by human involvement and not just simple matter of fact natural currents that take place in the cycle then I read on the other side an equal number at the very least that say just the very opposite that this something that’s gone on for eons, that we go through these cycles.

In other words, Walberg says that he's seen an equal number of scientists at the very least who say that global warming is just a natural phenomenon, not the result of human activity.

I had no idea that Congressman Walberg reads peer-reviewed scientific journals so regularly, nor did I realize that the minister was qualified to interpret the data presented. I, a mere math major, freely admit that I don't read those sorts of scientific journals, nor would I be able to interpret them if I did. Obviously, Walberg is much more in-touch with the scientific community than I am.

Either that, or he's full of crap.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been releasing reports every now and then on the issue. The IPCC describes itself as:

a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :

• The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.
• The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
• The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals

When they released a report last year, this is what the New York Times reported:

The report is the panel’s fourth assessment since 1990 on the causes and consequences of climate change, but it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming in the past half century.

But, of course, the New York Times is a biased, liberal media source, and the IPCC is made up of a bunch of America-hating countries, so they can't be trusted. So instead, let's look and see what the actual scientists say. These, by the way, are the real scientists whose work Tim Walberg claims to be reading.

In science, the only research you take seriously is research that has been peer reviewed. That is, it's been examined by other experts in the field, who look for flaws and check to make sure that your methodology is sound. If it all checks out, it gets published in a respected journal.

Is it perfect? No. Mistakes still get made. But this way, it keeps the crackpots who don't have any idea what they're talking about from getting mixed in with serious scientific thinkers. If it isn't peer-reviewed, don't trust it.

Naomi Oreskes, a professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, sought in 2004 to find out if there really was a scientific consensus on global warming by examining such peer-reviewed articles. She published her result in the journal Science. Here's what she found:

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [...] Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

[...]

The drafting of such reports [as the IPCC reports] and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "[global] climate change".

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

(Emphasis added.)

Let us review.

Congressman Walberg does not believe we should rely on biased figures like Al Gore, yet has no problem relying on a man that says environmentalism is worse than communism.

Congressman Walberg does not believe that taxpayers should be funding scientific research like this, instead believing that private industry-- famous for their lack of bias in areas which could have an impact on their profits-- should take the lead on climate research.

Congressman Walberg claims to read the research of many scientists, and says that he finds many of them, if not a majority, reject the consensus view that human activities are causing a global warming and climate change. This, despite reports by organizations like the IPCC and a survey of peer-edited scientific articles which flatly contradicts Walberg's claim.

Congressman Walberg, what scientists are you relying on? Other than President Klaus, can you name a single reputable scientist whose peer-reviewed research contradicts the consensus on climate change?

Do you have any evidence to support your position?

I would welcome any response from Congressman Walberg, his staff, or his supporters. Until then, I offer these potential conclusions:

• Congressman Tim Walberg does not read scientific journals, nor does he rely on peer-reviewed research.
• His claim that he reads science that offers contradictory positions on climate change is either a lie or a misrepresentation of his reading of biased media reports or material supplied by lobbyists.
• His anecdote about President Klaus shows that he does not fully understand the issue, nor does he understand the value of actual scientific research.
• His position that scientific research into global climate change is primarily motivated by either a general mistrust of science, a general opposition to government spending, or arguments presented to him by lobbyists with an agenda of their own.

Congressman Walberg, this is a serious problem facing the planet. If you're not willing to take the time to make an informed judgment, don't pretend to know what you're talking about, and don't offer absolutely ridiculous anecdotes about trips from the Czech Republic to Nigeria.

I'm not a scientist, and I don't claim to fully understand climate science. But I can spot someone who's just trying to fake his way through the issue and sound smart. Believe me, Congressman, you're not fooling anyone.

Labels: Environment, Global Warming, Issues, Naomi Oreskes, Tim Walberg, Vaclav Klaus

The House of Representatives recently addressed two related pieces of legislation. I'll cover them in one post.

First up is HR 3221, the "New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act." It wins the prize for having the longest title I've seen lately, but it looks like it does a lot of good things. It's self-description:

Moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure.

I'll admit, I haven't read the bill, but you can feel free to do so. It's 700 pages long. From a Washington Post editorial:

We've lauded the good things in this bill before. The investments in renewable energy, the incentives for manufacturers to make and for taxpayers to purchase appliances and vehicles that "push the boundaries of efficiency," and the federal government leading by example in the drive to cut carbon emissions are all good. What's especially good are the funds made available to demonstrate the commercial viability of carbon capture and sequestration. The United States sits atop the world's largest reserves of coal, a chief source of greenhouse gases. Finding a way to pump and lock the heat-trapping gas underground would not only be an enormous environmental breakthrough, but it would also be a technological advance that could then be sold overseas, particularly to China, which is overtaking the United States as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide.

The Post notes, however, that fuel efficiency standards are not increased, calling that omission the bill's major flaw.

HR 3221 passed, 241 to 172.

Now, will the self-proclaimed environmentalist Congressman Tim Walberg support this bill?

Well, no. Tim Walberg voted No. Michigan Republicans Vern Ehlers, Joe Knollenberg, and Fred Upton joined a united Democratic delegation in support of the bill.

With that bill passed, the House then addressed HR 2776, the "Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007." Having passed the first bill, this one will provide the funding.

Think Tim Walberg will support this one?

Democrats moved forward with their energy tax bill (HR 2776) despite concerns from oil-state Democrats upset about treatment of the oil and gas industry. The $16.1 billion package would raise taxes on the oil and gas industry and redirect the proceeds to tax breaks for renewable energy sources; no amendments to the tax portion will be considered Saturday.

The bill passed, 221 to 189.

Tim Walberg predictably voted No. All of Michigan's Republicans opposed the second bill, while all Michigan Democrats supported it (minus Congresswoman Kilpatrick, who did not vote).

Meanwhile, as is so often the case, the White House has threatened to veto the legislation.

Labels: 110th Congress, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Issues, Oil, Taxes, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

An anonymous commenter shared this:

Fitzy,

Here is a simple resolution the House passed on April 17th. It supports the ideals of World Water Day, encourages the administration, through appropriate agencies, to continue to ensure our poor have access to clean drinking water, and encourages the American people to observe the day. It passed 393-22.

With widespread support like that, it would be appropriate to label any opposition as fringe and out-of-touch. What does our Congressman have against World Water Day? Those who voted "no" correlate pretty close with the Club for Growth members. Our state is surrounded by water, why not take a day and encourage everyone to learn more about it. Here is the text of the bill:


H. Res. 196

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

April 17, 2007.
Whereas the global celebration of World Water Day is an initiative that grew out of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro;

Whereas the United Nations General Assembly, via resolution, designated March 22 of each year as World Water Day;

Whereas although water is the most widely occurring substance on earth, only 2.53 percent of all water is freshwater and the remainder is salt water;

Whereas freshwater resources are further impaired by various forms of industrial, chemical, human, and agricultural pollution;

Whereas climate change will increasingly pose a challenge for ensuring the availability of sufficient water supplies at the appropriate times;

Whereas approximately one in six people in the world lack access to safe drinking water and approximately two in every five people lack access to basic sanitation services;

Whereas water-related diseases are among the most common causes of illness and death, afflicting primarily the poor and very poor in developing countries;

Whereas up to five million people die each year from preventable water and sanitation related diseases, including one out of every five children in the poorest countries;

Whereas every $1 invested in safe drinking water and sanitation yields an economic return of between $3 and $34, depending on the region;

Whereas increasing access to safe drinking water and sanitation advances efforts towards other United States development objectives including fighting poverty and hunger, promoting primary education and gender equality, reducing child mortality, promoting environmental stability, improving the lives of slum dwellers, and strengthening national security;

Whereas the participants in the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, including the United States, agreed to the Plan of Implementation which included an agreement to work to reduce by one-half from the baseline year 1990 `the proportion of people who are unable to reach or to afford safe drinking water,' and `the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation' by 2015; and

Whereas Congress passed and the President signed into law the `Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005' (Public Law 109-121) which was intended to `elevate the role of water and sanitation policy in the development of U.S. foreign policy and improve the effectiveness of U.S. official programs': Now, therefore, be it


Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) supports the goals and ideals of World Water Day;

(2) recognizes the importance of increasing access to safe drinking water and sanitation, as well as the conservation and sustainable management of water resources, to human health and quality of life across the globe;

(3) urges an increased effort and the investment of greater resources by the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, and all relevant Federal departments and agencies towards providing sustainable and equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation for the poor and very poor; and

(4) encourages the people of the United States to observe World Water Day with appropriate recognition, ceremonies, activities, and programs to demonstrate the importance of water to humanity.

That resolution can be found here. The vote was, indeed, 393-22, with Congressman Walberg casting one of the very few No votes. He and Congressman Pete Hoekstra, also a Republican, were the only members of Michigan's House delegation to vote against the bill.

Seriously, Congressman Walberg, what was wrong with this? It's a symbolic resolution saying, basically, that the United States House of Representatives thinks that it's a good idea to have safe, clean drinking water.

Congressman Walberg, why do you oppose clean drinking water?

I'm going to engage in some baseless speculation, and suggest that maybe this line had something to do with it:

Whereas climate change will increasingly pose a challenge for ensuring the availability of sufficient water supplies at the appropriate times;

Walberg has remained silent on the issue of global climate change-- the most significant environmental issue facing the planet today. Odd, considering that he has even gone so far as to label himself "an environmentalist" when speaking about his efforts on behalf of the Great Lakes.

Congressman Walberg, did you vote against recognizing World Water Day because you don't believe developing countries should have clean drinking water, or because you deny the threat of global warming?

Labels: 110th Congress, Environment, Global Warming, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

We all know about the Club for Growth's support of Tim Walberg, presumably for his "business-friendly" positions. Ordinarily, that kind of friendliness isn't associated with environmentalism. We always hear stories of the little guy standing up to the chemical company, or the oil company, or the lumber company, in defense of natural beauty.

Could it be that the "pro-growth" Walberg is actually an environmentalist? That's what his Weekly Wrap-Up seems to imply:

Washington, Mar 2 - Many of the fondest memories my wife Sue and I have of the childhood days of our three now-adult children involve our family spending time together in the Michigan great outdoors.

As campers, hikers, hunters and nature lovers, Michiganders cherish the beauty of our great two peninsulas, and we understand and respect the environment whose stewardship has been entrusted to us as citizens of this great state.

Currently, Michigan faces a pressing environmental problem that threatens both recreational activities our families have enjoyed for generations and our state’s economic and cultural identity.

Walberg continues:

Sadly, our lakes suffer damage every day through untreated sewage, toxic pollutants and aquatic invasive species. The ecosystem surrounding the lakes is breaking down.

I recently learned that every 28 weeks a new non-native species is discovered in the Great Lakes and 23 billion gallons of raw sewage has been dumped into the lakes by antiquated wastewater treatment facilities.

More than two-thirds of the wetlands that serve to cleanse water, prevent erosion and provide a home for fish and wildlife have been lost along the Great Lakes.

Populations of aquatic life, such as perch and white fish, are disappearing in areas these species formerly thrived.

While this problem may seem overwhelmingly vast and unsalvageable, manageable solutions to the problem exist.

Yes! Manageable solutions do exist for environmental problems, even those on a global scale. He proceeds to describe his support for the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, which will hopefully solve some of the problems. I admit, I'm not as knowledgeable on environmental issues as I should be, but I applaud Congressman Walberg for trying to do something.

Now that he's joined the environmentalists, would he consider working on behalf of a few new causes?

Environmental and energy policy: Candidates were asked whether they support tax breaks and incentives for alternative fuels like ethanol, and whether they support drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.

WALBERG: Says he supports tax breaks for alternative fuels, saying “I’m committed to giving tax breaks to all citizens, including business.” Supports drilling in ANWR and says it can be done “discreetly and safely.”

Hmm... Well, maybe he'll change his mind. And I'm sure he recognizes that the oil companies have a long record of polluting the environment, and that it's ridiculous that they have record profits and charge high prices while doing so. He'd certainly stand up to the oil companies on this one, right?

...

In short, the bill reduces oil industry subsidies (Steny Hoyer, D-MD says: "The oil industry doesn't need the taxpayers' help. ... There is not an American that goes to a gas pump that doesn't know that.") and seeks to fix an error that allowed oil companies to keep over $1 billion in royalties that would otherwise have gone to the government. It passed the House, 264-163.

Tim Walberg voted No.

Well. Maybe not. But what about global warming? It may be the defining environmental issue of our time, and what we do today will have an enormous impact on the future of our planet. Now, he's just a freshman in the House, I don't expect him to have a solution in place. But as a reliable Republican member, surely his party would try to help fight the man-made causes of global warming. We've known that it would be a problem for decades, and Republicans have controlled Congress since 1994. Surely, by now, they've recognized the need for action.

It's a poll by National Journal, asking members of Congress the question, "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" What are the results?

Democrats: Yes - 95%. No - 2%
Republicans: Yes - 13%. No - 84%

I see. You know, I'm getting the feeling that they might not be as firmly committed to environmental causes as I thought...

If Walberg's work benefits the Great Lakes, I'll almost, for a moment, be proud to have him as my representative. Almost. But there's so much more that can and needs to be done to protect our environment, and I hope he'll consider doing more. There are plenty of issues he could get involved with.

Contact Congressman Walberg, and urge him to become an environmental leader in the House, and to start with global warming. His contact page is here, and you can submit messages electronically here


Some useful links:
ClimateCrisis.org - Web site of Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.
The League of Conservation Voters
Michigan LCV
Black Bear Speaks blog
Among the Trees blog

Labels: Environment, Global Warming, Great Lakes, Issues, Tim Walberg

By now, I'm sure everyone has heard something about the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (news coverage here, for instance).

Global warming is a real, serious problem, and Al Gore isn't the only one saying it. The key item from the report:

The report is the panel’s fourth assessment since 1990 on the causes and consequences of climate change, but it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming in the past half century.

What does this have to do with Tim Walberg? After all, this is a political website, so it's not the place to debate the science of it, nor is it the place to discuss potential consequences. Frankly, I'm not qualifed for that sort of discussion, and I'm guessing most readers aren't either.

However, if the most serious consequences of global warming can be averted, it will take governmental action to change the human activities which have caused the build-up in greenhouse gases. Congressional Democratic leaders have promised to make the issue a priority. What will Republicans in Congress-- especially Tim Walberg-- do?

I wasn't able to find any statements by Walberg on the subject, but I read something today that was somewhat disturbing. It's a poll by National Journal, asking members of Congress the question, "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" What are the results?

Democrats: Yes - 95%. No - 2%
Republicans: Yes - 13%. No - 84%

(Thanks to Think Progress)

Comments offered by Republicans that took part in the poll ranged from bashing Al Gore to discussing the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt." Congressman Mike Rogers and Congressman Peter Hoekstra were both part of the sample group.

So what does Congressman Walberg think? Does he feel that 90 percent cconfidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt"? I've sent him an e-mail asking, and will post his response if and when I receive one. Feel free to ask him about it yourself (or about anything else, for that matter-- he works for us).

Though, this isn't an encouraging sign: Walberg's Issues page (a work-in-progress, so far with little substance) lists subjects like "Life" and "Second Amendment," but does not include "Environment." To his credit, "Energy" is listed.

UPDATE: 13 Feb. 2007-- I don't know if my little post here had anything to do with it, but it looks like Walberg's website has a few new issue pages, including one on the environment. Still no content, but it's a start.

Labels: 110th Congress, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Issues, Tim Walberg