Tag Archives: house

Watch John Boehner React to What Obama Said About Gay Marriage

by ChristenaFortun Posted on January 21, 2015

Mother Jones

When President Obama celebrated the rapid advances of marriage equality across the country during his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, House majority leader John Boehner, the highest-ranking Republican in Congress, remained seated, unamused.

Here’s what Obama said: “I’ve watched Americans beat back adversity from the Gulf Coast to the Great Plains; from Midwest assembly lines to the Mid-Atlantic seaboard. I’ve seen something like gay marriage go from a wedge issue used to drive us apart to a story of freedom across our country, a civil right now legal in states that seven in ten Americans call home.”

Here’s how Boehner reacted:

Share your favorite Boehner reactions in the comments below.

View article:

Watch John Boehner React to What Obama Said About Gay Marriage

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch John Boehner React to What Obama Said About Gay Marriage

Obama on Climate Change: “No Challenge Poses a Greater Threat to Future Generations”

by MildredUnwin Posted on January 21, 2015

Mother Jones

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama issued a direct rebuke to climate change deniers and to members of Congress who seek to block action to slow global warming.

“I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act,” he said, referring to talking points that are popular among Republican politicians. “Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But…I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate.”

The president referenced a report issued last week by NASA and NOAA that officially designated 2014 as the hottest year on record. He also cited the country’s ongoing clean energy boom, his bilateral climate agreement with China, and warnings from the Pentagon the global warming poses a national security threat.

Obama also took a shot at supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline. Republicans in Congress, along with some Democrats, have made approving the pipeline a top priority. The Senate is set to vote on a bill to approve the project later this week, but Obama has promised to veto it should it pass. “Let’s set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline,” he said. “Let’s pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan that could create more than 30 times as many jobs per year.”

The president walked a fine line between calling for bipartisan action and castigating his opponents on climate issues, said Elgie Holstein, senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund.

“I didn’t see the president’s remarks as defiance, so much as resolve,” Holstein said. “Sending a very clear message to Congress that he is resolved to stand by his position.”

The speech tended toward broad themes rather than specific policy proposals. For example, no mention was made of a new plan to cut back on emissions of methane from oil and gas operations that the White House announced last week. Still, Holstein said he thought the environmental community got what it was hoping for tonight.

Here are Obama’s full remarks on climate and energy issues, as prepared for delivery and released a few minutes before the speech began.

We believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect our planet. And today, America is number one in oil and gas. America is number one in wind power. Every three weeks, we bring online as much solar power as we did in all of 2008. And thanks to lower gas prices and higher fuel standards, the typical family this year should save $750 at the pump…

So let’s set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline. Let’s pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan that could create more than thirty times as many jobs per year, and make this country stronger for decades to come…

And no challenge—no challenge—poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.

2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record. Now, one year doesn’t make a trend, but this does—14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.

I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what—I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.

That’s why, over the past six years, we’ve done more than ever before to combat climate change, from the way we produce energy, to the way we use it. That’s why we’ve set aside more public lands and waters than any administration in history. And that’s why I will not let this Congress endanger the health of our children by turning back the clock on our efforts. I am determined to make sure American leadership drives international action. In Beijing, we made an historic announcement—the United States will double the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions. And because the world’s two largest economies came together, other nations are now stepping up, and offering hope that, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to protect the one planet we’ve got.

This story has been updated.

Link to original:  

Obama on Climate Change: “No Challenge Poses a Greater Threat to Future Generations”

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama on Climate Change: “No Challenge Poses a Greater Threat to Future Generations”

Obama’s Crackdown on Methane Emissions Is a Really Big Deal

by Velma36Gqylkyuhv Posted on January 14, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This morning the White House announced a new plan to crack down on the oil and gas industry’s emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The move is the last major piece of President Obama’s domestic climate agenda, following in the footsteps of tougher standards for vehicle emissions and a sweeping plan to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Like the power plant plan, the methane standards will rely on the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate pollution under the Clean Air Act. The new rules will regulate the amount of methane that oil and gas producers are allow vent or leak from their wells, pipelines, and other equipment. Ultimately, according to the White House, the rules will slash methane emissions 40 to 45 percent by 2025. The proposal announced today is intended to be finalized before Obama leaves office, but it’s certain to take a battering along the way from congressional Republicans and fossil fuel interest groups.

Methane makes up a much smaller slice of America’s greenhouse gas footprint than carbon dioxide—the volume of methane released in a year is roughly 10 times smaller than the volume of CO2—so the proposal might seem like small potatoes. But it’s actually a pretty huge deal, for a few reasons.

Locking in climate protection: An underlying assumption of Obama’s carbon emissions plan is that many power plants will switch from burning coal to burning natural gas. That’s great, if your only concern is carbon dioxide. But methane, the principal emission of natural gas consumption, is 20 times more powerful than CO2 over a 100-year timespan. The problem is less with natural gas-burning power plants themselves, but with the infrastructure (pipes, compressors, etc.) needed to get gas from where it’s drilled to where it’s burned—and also with venting, the burning of excess gas from wells. So far, those bits and pieces have proven to be exceptionally leaky—some studies have found up to 7.9 percent of the methane from natural gas production simply escapes into the air.

So if we replace our coal with natural gas but let methane go unchecked, we won’t be much closer to meaningfully mitigating climate change, said Mark Brownstein of the Environmental Defense Fund. “Leak rates as low as 1 to 3 percent undo much of the benefit of going from coal to gas,” he added. (Some climate scientists disagree with this assessment, arguing that CO2 from coal is significantly more damaging over the long run than methane leaks from natural gas operations.) The plan proposed today will focus on plugging leaks and will help ensure that the quest to curb carbon emissions doesn’t simply shift our climate impact to another gas.

Saving money and energy: Methane leaks aren’t just bad for the climate, they’re also bad for business. Every year, according to a recent New York University analysis, between 1 and 3 percent of all US natural gas production is lost to leaks and venting, enough to heat more 6 million homes. A separate study from the World Resources Institute put the price tag for all that lost gas at $1.5 billion per year. Plugging leaks and limiting venting from drilling sites would keep more gas on the market.

The industry doesn’t deny that leaks are a problem for its bottom line; the dispute is over whether intervention from the federal government is required and whether the cost to fix the leaks is worth it. Today the president of the American Petroleum Institute called the methane proposal “another layer of burdensome requirements that could actually slow down industry progress to reduce methane emissions.” While it’s true that overall methane emissions have been on a modest decline over the past several years, Brownstein said much more is needed to meet the nation’s climate goals. And the oil and gas sector is the single biggest source of methane.

Cleaning up fracking: Behind any conversation about natural gas is always the specter of fracking. Of course, there are many concerns about fracking that have nothing to do with methane emissions: Public health issues related to water contamination, for example, or earthquakes. But stringent methane rules could alleviate some of the climate-related concerns about the fracking boom and could help refocus the debate around local pollution and land rights issues. These rules are also an opportunity, Brownstein said, for the gas industry to show good faith. “If the industry resists basic regulation for a relatively simple issue to solve, what is the public to think about the industry’s willingness to solve more complex issues,” he said. “This is a moment of truth.”

View original article:  

Obama’s Crackdown on Methane Emissions Is a Really Big Deal

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama’s Crackdown on Methane Emissions Is a Really Big Deal

The Senate will vote to decide if climate change is real

by BarryWickens Posted on January 14, 2015

may the eyes have it!

The Senate will vote to decide if climate change is real

By on 14 Jan 2015 6:24 amcommentsShare

Senate Majority Leader and honorary fifth ninja turtle Mitch McConnell announced yesterday that he will graciously allow the Senate to vote on climate change. Specifically: thing or not a thing?

Here at Grist, we understand that plenty of things that seem real might not be real (Drake, cake pops), and vice versa (ghosts). And we agree with our nation’s House of Lords: The most important part of fighting existential threats is determining if they are real, preferably by simple majority. “Evidence” means jack until you put it to a vote.

Like climate change, there are lots of other societal bugaboos we’re just not sure we buy. Since we can’t DO anything about them until we decide, let’s look at the evidence for and against a few of the big ones — and then vote on them, Senate, we beg of you.

Shutterstock

1. Time

For: The inexorable ravages of age; sand.

Against: The Rolling Stones; this broken Swatch; Interstellar; R.E.M.

Shutterstock

2. The Moon

For: Neil Armstrong; R.E.M.; werewolves; tides.

Against: Investigative journalism; clouds.

YouTube

3. Adnan Syed

For: Sarah Koenig.

Against: Sarah Koenig.

Shutterstock

4. Vegetables

For: Your mom’s lying word; lying farmers.

Against: Fruits.

YouTube

5. Jean Claude Van Damme

For: Footage of devastation via roundhouses and crotch punches; the 90s.

Against: This CGI nightmare fever dream; the 2000s.

Honestly, I see where Mitch is coming from: You don’t want to deal with a thing? Pretend it doesn’t exist; get your friends to agree with you. In that vein, I have one more item for this list:

Gage Skidmore

6. Mitch McConnell himself

For: This disappointed hare; this empty pizza box.

Against: There were only ever four teenage mutant ninja turtles, and you know it.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

sponsored post

In 2015, make a New Year’s resolution that will actually change the world

How the power of positive energy turns you into a climate superhero.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Jump to original: 

The Senate will vote to decide if climate change is real

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Senate will vote to decide if climate change is real

Kentucky Makes It Almost Impossible for Felons to Vote. Rand Paul Wants to Change That.

by StefanieMercado Posted on January 14, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sen. Rand Paul began the new year by lobbying for one of his favorite causes: criminal-justice reform. Last week, Paul issued a press release urging the Kentucky Legislature to act on a bill that would let state voters decide whether or not to create a path back to voting rights for nonviolent felons who have completed their sentences. “Restoring voting rights for those who have repaid their debt to society is simply the right thing to do,” Paul said in the release.

In 2014, the Democratic-controlled Kentucky House approved a bill that would put a constitutional amendment on ballots in the fall—if voters approved the measure, it would have automatically restored the voting rights of nonviolent felons who have served their time. But the Republican-controlled Senate passed a substitute that proposed several tough restrictions, including a mandatory five-year waiting period after prison before felons could reapply to vote. The two chambers couldn’t agree, and the issue has stalled. Paul, who favors the less-restrictive House bill, is trying to give the issue CPR. (His office declined to comment for this article.)

Kentucky has some of the harshest restrictions on felon voting rights in the country: Felons who wish to get their voting rights back—regardless of offense—must submit a request directly to the governor, who has the sole authority to approve or deny them. Most states offer some type of path to reenfranchisement. For example, in Washington state, all felons who have completed their sentences, probation, and/or parole are allowed to reregister to vote.

According Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, a political, social, and economic advocacy group, only three states—Florida, Iowa, and Virginia—have paths to reenfranchisement that are as difficult as Kentucky’s. In a state with roughly 3.1 million registered voters, more than 180,000 Kentucky ex-felons do not have the right to vote, and they come overwhelmingly from low-income and minority communities. Not surprisingly, studies have found that felony disenfranchisement disproportionately benefits Republicans.

This isn’t the first time that Paul has pushed to ease restrictions on felons’ voting rights. In 2013, speaking to a predominantly minority audience in Kentucky, Paul said, “I am in favor of letting felons get their rights back, the right to vote…Second Amendment rights, all your rights to come back.” This was not an especially popular stance within the GOP back then. A year earlier, Rick Santorum attacked Mitt Romney over his opposition to felon enfranchisement.

Stephen Voss, a state politics expert at the University of Kentucky, says he doesn’t think Paul holds enough sway in Kentucky to move reform through the statehouse. But with this issue, Paul has the chance to bolster his unorthodox approach to criminal-justice policy ahead of the 2016 primaries. “Paul is very interested in expanding the Republican coalition to include voters that have been difficult to reach in the past, but he clearly wants to do it within the bounds of small government ideology,” Voss says. “This issue of treatment of people who have served out sentences is a prime opportunity.”

Enfranchising felons may not be good for GOP electoral prospects, but Paul might not be alone among Republican 2016 contenders in the reform camp. Jeb Bush restored voting rights for over 150,000 ex-felons while governor of Florida, and Gov. Bobby Jindal signed a bill in 2008 making it easier for Louisiana felons to earn their voting rights back. “If Paul gets in trouble with Republicans, I doubt it’ll be on this issue,” Voss says. He suggests other Republicans might join Paul in what he calls a viable way of improving the GOP’s perception among minorities. “It’s not a small number of Republicans that appreciate the benefit of expanding their constituency.”

Read More: 

Kentucky Makes It Almost Impossible for Felons to Vote. Rand Paul Wants to Change That.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Kentucky Makes It Almost Impossible for Felons to Vote. Rand Paul Wants to Change That.

I Have Some Advice for Mitt Romney

by MonaPenington Posted on January 13, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The political media world has been in a tizzy these past few days due to the news that Mitt Romney is serious about taking a third stab at a presidential run. On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Romney had told a group of Republican fat-cat funders—who else?—that he was pondering a 2016 bid. On Monday, the Washington Post revealed that Romney was trying to get the band back together, calling former aides and donors and informing them he was almost ready to jump in. With Jeb Bush, another GOP prince with a business career open to political attacks, plotting his own 2016 moves, Romney’s actions raised the possibility of a dynasty-versus-dynasty clash that would cause awkward conversations in country clubs and corporate boardrooms across the land, with the two tussling to win the hearts, minds, and mega-dollars of the GOP establishment. Given that the voting base of the Republican Party will likely be motivated by tea party passions, not centrism or concerns about electability, a Romney-Bush primary battle might be akin to a contest to make the best salad at a cannibals’ convention. Nevertheless, it promises to be a bitter and bare-knuckled brawl, as each camp has already begun shooting spitballs at the other.

For Romney, the key question is this: What would he do differently than last time? In 2012, he did manage to win the GOP nomination, but he achieved that within a profoundly weak Republican field. Rick Perry opposed his way into inconsequence. And Romney only had to vanquish Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, and Michele Bachmann—none of them serious contenders. In the general election, he was widely panned—even by Republicans and conservatives—as a less-than-stellar campaigner who could not fully exploit the external factors (a still-sluggish economy, low approval numbers for President Barack Obama) that afforded the Republicans a good chance of seizing the White House. And, of course, there was that 47 percent moment—for which Romney has been offering contradictory and factually-challenged explanations ever since.

Continue Reading »

Link:

I Have Some Advice for Mitt Romney

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on I Have Some Advice for Mitt Romney

The House Just Voted to Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline

by Oliver9602 Posted on January 9, 2015

Mother Jones

The House of Representative voted overwhelmingly Friday to approve construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. But even with 28 Democrats joining nearly all Republicans in voting “yea,” supporters of the project still fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to override President Barack Obama’s promised veto.

The State Department, which has jurisdiction over the proposed pipeline because it would cross an international boundary, is currently in the process of determining whether the project is in the national interest. The House bill would circumvent that process and force approval of the pipeline. In a statement today reiterating its veto threat, the White House said Obama opposes the bill because it “conflicts with longstanding Executive branch procedures…and prevents the thorough consideration of complex issues that could bear on U.S. national interests.”

The debate will now shift to the US Senate, which is planning to vote on the pipeline next week. Late last year, Senate Republicans came within one vote of the 60 needed to pass a bill to approve the project. With Republicans now in control of the Senate, the Keystone bill will likely pass next week. But as in the House, pipeline supporters will struggle to attract sufficient Democratic votes to override a presidential veto.

Continued here:  

The House Just Voted to Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The House Just Voted to Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline

Nebraska Supreme Court clears the way for a Keystone decision

by DavidKitchen Posted on January 9, 2015

Nebraska Supreme Court clears the way for a Keystone decision

By on 9 Jan 2015 11:06 amcommentsShare

President Obama recently cited a pending court case in Nebraska as a reason for delaying his final decision on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. The court has now ruled in the case, so that excuse for inaction is gone.

From The New York Times:

The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for the Keystone XL pipeline to be built through the state, removing President Obama’s chief reason for delaying a decision on the project.

Gov. Dave Heineman had approved the Keystone project after the pipeline company, TransCanada, proposed a route that avoided Nebraska’s ecologically delicate Sandhills region. In making their decision, the Nebraska justices effectively overturned a lower court’s ruling that had blocked a state law giving the governor the right to approve the pipeline project.

Both opponents and supporters of the proposed pipeline are now calling on Obama to make a damn decision already.

Oil-loving Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), new head of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: “Today’s court decision wipes out President Obama’s last excuse. He’s had six years to approve a project that will increase U.S. energy supplies and create closer ties with our nearest ally and neighbor, and he’s refused to act.”

350.org Executive Director May Boeve: “President Obama is now free to act and reject Keystone XL outright. No matter the route, as long as the pipeline is carrying tar sands oil it is a global warming disaster and fails the President’s climate test.”

More immediately, though, the Nebraska decision puts Secretary of State John Kerry in the hot seat. From Politico:

Friday’s ruling will let the State Department resume its almost-completed review of the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline, which the department halted in April amid uncertainty about the Nebraska case.

State Department officials have indicated it could still take months for Secretary John Kerry to offer his own judgment on whether building Keystone would be in the interests of the United States.

Meanwhile, the House is gearing up to approve a bill today that would push through Keystone, and the Senate is expected to do the same next week — even though Obama has already threatened to veto the measure.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

sponsored post

In 2015, make a New Year’s resolution that will actually change the world

How the power of positive energy turns you into a climate superhero.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Read this article – 

Nebraska Supreme Court clears the way for a Keystone decision

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Nebraska Supreme Court clears the way for a Keystone decision

Could the GOP-controlled Congress actually raise the gas tax?

by Jonathan Davidson Posted on January 6, 2015

Could the GOP-controlled Congress actually raise the gas tax?

By on 6 Jan 2015commentsShare

Thanks to low gasoline prices, the average American family is expected to spend at least $550 less on gasoline this year than in 2014. Meanwhile, our country’s transportation infrastructure is crumbling after years of underfunding. Why not use some of Americans’ savings on gas to make repairs to the roads they’re using that cheap gas to drive on?

That’s the idea behind raising the federal gas tax, a concept being cautiously floated by a few politicians of both parties and a number of advocacy groups on the left and right. America hasn’t raised it since 1993, when it was set at 18.4 cents a gallon and not pegged to inflation. The tax is supposed to fund the U.S. Highway Trust Fund, but it isn’t bringing in enough money, so general treasury funds have been used to partially plug the hole while tens of billions of dollars of needed maintenance work has gone undone. Right now, infrastructure is funded through a short-term fix, implemented last summer, which expires in May.

Republican Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) is proposing to increase the tax by 12 cents a gallon over two years, and then index it to inflation. The tax hike would be offset by a decrease in income taxes, or some other means to make the change “revenue-neutral.” Sen. Jim Thune (R-S.D.) told Fox News Sunday that he’s open to at least considering the idea: “I don’t favor increasing any tax. But I think we have to look at all options. … It is important that we fund infrastructure.”

Many business-friendly groups, like the conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce, favor a gas-tax increase to pay for infrastructure. The Chamber’s Janet Kavinoky told The New York Times that many in Congress are closeted supporters of the tax, but fear retribution if they come out and support the policy publicly.

As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman put it last month, raising the gas tax would be “a hard political choice” but “a win for the climate, our country and our kids.” There’s increasing talk about raising gas taxes at the state level too.

The president isn’t anxious to raise the federal gas tax, though, as USA Today reports:

The White House is declining to endorse calls for gas tax hikes to pay for new road and bridge construction, but will look at anything Congress approves.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest says the administration wants to stick with its original plan to finance new infrastructure spending with revenue to be gained by closing tax loopholes that favor the wealthy.

And some politicians on the right continue to vehemently oppose a gas-tax hike, whether it’s offset or not. They say it would be fine to let the Highway Trust Fund go bankrupt, arguing that infrastructure maintenance should be left up to state and local governments, not the feds.

So a gas-tax increase might be more likely now than it was a few months ago, but not a lot more likely.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Read more: 

Could the GOP-controlled Congress actually raise the gas tax?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Could the GOP-controlled Congress actually raise the gas tax?

We Finally Found a GOP Congressman Who Believes in Science. Too Bad He’s a Felon Who Just Resigned.

by MohammeLemberg Posted on January 6, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As the new Congress is sworn in today, New York’s 11th district, comprising Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn, has been left without a lawmaker in the House of Representatives. The missing member: Republican Michael Grimm. The disgraced politician announced his resignation last month after pleading guilty to tax evasion—a federal felony. He officially left Congress yesterday and will be sentenced in June.

If New York’s tabloid headline writers are anything to go by (“Good Riddance!” said the Daily News), the city won’t muster much sympathy for a man who cheated on his taxes when he ran a restaurant (before running for Congress). Nor will it miss his aggressive style: “I’ll break you in half. Like a boy,” he once told a television reporter.

Oh yeah, and there was that time he allegedly waved a gun around at a nightclub in Queens when he was an F.B.I. agent. (Grimm has denied doing this.)

But there is one lesser known fact about Michael Grimm worth taking a moment to mourn as he leaves office: He was one of a precious few Republican politicians who actually accepted the science of climate change.

That wasn’t always the case. During a campaign debate in 2010, Grimm told the audience that “the jury is obviously still out on it. We see nothing but conflicting reports from across the globe.” He added, “I’m not sure, I’m not a scientist”—that now-familiar line deployed by a number of Republican politicians.

But then Grimm had his come-to-science moment, which was documented in last year’s award-winning Showtime docu-series, Years of Living Dangerously. In a segment exploring the impacts of Superstorm Sandy on Grimm’s New York district (you can watch part of it above), the congressman recounted how his thinking had changed. Here’s a transcript (via The Huffington Post), featuring interviewer Chris Hayes, from MSNBC:

HAYES: Last time you and I spoke, you said the jury was still out on climate science. Do you still feel that way?
GRIMM: After speaking with Bob Inglis, it made me do some of my own research, you know, I looked at some of the stuff that he sent over, my staff looked at it. But the vast majority of respected scientists say that it’s conclusive, the evidence is clear. So I don’t think the jury is out.
HAYES: The basic story of—we’re putting carbon in the atmosphere, the planet’s getting warmer, that’s gonna make the sea levels rise—like, the basic story of that, you pretty much agree with, right?
GRIMM: Sure, I mean there’s no question that, um, you know, the oceans have risen, right? And the climate change part is, is a real part of it. The problem that we’re gonna have right now—there’s no oxygen left in the room in Washington for another big debate, that’s the reality.

It’s an otherwise pretty depressing interview, in which Grimm says that science is “irrelevant” when it comes to politics on the Hill.

In a separate segment below, Grimm elaborated on the intractable political divides that prevent lawmakers from discussing climate change. He’s speaking here to former GOP Rep. Bob Inglis, who experienced first-hand the negative impact that believing in science can have on a Republican’s career: Inglis lost his seat in South Carolina after a tea party revolt in 2010, in part because he wouldn’t publicly deny that humans were causing the globe to warm. This exchange is representative of what Years of Living Dangerously did so well in this episode. It revealed something that you or I rarely see: a frank discussion between politicians about the risk on taking on the establishment:

Republicans now control both houses of Congress for the first time since 2007, and incoming GOP lawmakers largely fall into the climate skeptic camp, as my Climate Desk colleague Tim McDonnell recently illustrated. James Inhofe, the party’s climate denial standard barer from Oklahoma, will likely be the chair of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works committee, for example.

In the House, there are a few Republicans who provide a modicum of hope, including Chris Gibson (R-NY), who assumed office in 2013, and who said last month that he plans to introduce a resolution to rally Congress to “recognize the reality” of climate change.

But for the moment, what Grimm tells Inglis in the clip above seems to be the rule among Republicans on Capitol Hill: “Let’s say that they did agree with the science, and they were bold enough, and had the political courage…and then they lose?” he said. “They’re not all lemmings. Okay? They’re not just going to go right off that cliff. So the political constraints I think are a lot bigger than most people would understand, and they’re very real.”

View article:

We Finally Found a GOP Congressman Who Believes in Science. Too Bad He’s a Felon Who Just Resigned.

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Finally Found a GOP Congressman Who Believes in Science. Too Bad He’s a Felon Who Just Resigned.