Year 2, Month 8, Day 18: They Would, However, Vote To Burn Environmentalists.

The August 1 edition of Grist notes that Henry Waxman and Ed Markey have been keeping track of the Republican anti-environment pathology:

Reps. Henry Waxman (Calif.) and Edward Markey (Mass.), of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, have been keeping tabs on Republican votes to undermine environmental legislation. They say that since taking over the majority in January, Republicans have voted 110 times to block or weaken legislation intended to protect the environment.

Waxman says of the findings that “the new Republican majority seems intent on restoring the robber-baron era,” and Markey compared the GOP agenda to a rifle “pointed right at the heart of America’s clean energy future.” This is fairly colorful, but the thing is, you don’t have to take their word for it — they have a chart with all the votes! Nothing like solid data to confirm your notion that you should be under the couch crying about the future of the country.

What would Theodore Roosevelt think of the Republican Party today? The man who created our world-renowned national park system and helped bring today’s environmental movement into being would be justifiably outraged at the behavior of modern Republicans. It’s not just anti-environment legislation, though. The current crop of tea-party zealots are anti-science, anti-math, and anti-reality, as well as anti-Democrat. What this means is that even eminently sensible and desirable bills are doomed if they’re introduced by the GOP’s political enemies, as witness their steady opposition to anything addressing our country’s energy future with anything more nuanced than “drill, baby, drill.” While Teddy is no doubt spinning in his grave as members of the GOP eviscerate environmental protections, we can’t use the power he’s generating: since it would reduce profits for the multinational corporations who own American politics lock, stock and barrel, the bill would die in committee.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 7, Day 21: Yecchh.

US News and World Report’s Jessica Rettig notes on July 5 that when it comes to the planet’s climate, the American political climate is, um, not so good:

Still shunned as fringe ideologues, or worse, by Democrats and much of the formal scientific community, skeptics of global warming were nonetheless celebratory as they gathered in Washington last week for the conservative Heartland Institute’s annual climate change conference. And for good reason. Climate change legislation has been on the back burner since 2009 and an increasing number of Republican lawmakers now call themselves skeptics as well. Indeed, the tide of the debate—at least politically—has turned in their favor.

Political experts say that with the economy at the forefront of the nation’s focus, concerns over global warming won’t carry much weight in the 2012 election. At most, climate change will be just another place for candidates, especially those in the GOP, to distinguish themselves from their opponents, if they dare. “[Climate change is] part of an undercurrent. The race is going to be about the economy and the fiscal crisis. So to the degree that one or several of the candidates can work the story line that some of these concerns are having an impact on the economy, that will be a marginal help,” says pollster Scott Rasmussen. “But it’s not a central issue by any stretch of the imagination.”

Sociopaths is what they are. Sent July 5:

The politicizing of science has never been as egregious as it is today, with essentially the entire GOP rejecting expert evidence based on nothing more than a set of ideological preconceptions. Do the facts show a clear pattern of steadily increasing global temperatures? Impugn the scientists. Do the physical principles underpinning the greenhouse effect run counter to conservative shibboleths? Glorify ignorance. Is the worldwide scientific consensus on climate change essentially universal? A few oil-funded contrarians can give the impression that “the science isn’t settled.” Eventually, of course, the laws of physics and chemistry will decide, and unless we stop treating climate science as a political football, the verdict will not come down in humanity’s favor. The Republican party has long had a history of ignoring inconvenient facts, but when it comes to climate change, they have gleefully replaced a reality-based science policy with the ugliest sort of petulant, destructive, nihilism.

Warren Senders