Congress needs more scientists

New reality feels like the beginning of `The Handmaid’s Tale’

The Front Page

Morning Update

Monday, July 4, 2022

By Ken Tingley

It was over 100 degrees in San Antonio this weekend. My son, who often works outside for the National Park Service, has learned to check the heat index so he knows how hot it really feels to the average human body. He told us the heat index on Saturday was 107.

Any time the heat index exceeds 90 degrees, heat stroke or heat exhaustion is possible. The experts say that a heat index of 103 degrees or hotter means heat exhaustion is likely. San Antonio regularly exceeds 103.

We spent much of the previous week in New Orleans where the heat index was regularly in the 90s and even a short cloudburst can lead to street flooding.

When my son told us last month he had accepted a job in New Orleans, I did some research about climate change and its affect on the city. While billions were spent rebuilding the levies after Hurricane Katrina and the state continues to invest billions more to protect it in the future, there were some stark predictions.

The city is sinking. It continues to lose hundreds of square miles of coastline to the rising Atlantic Ocean. It was then I came across this one stark prediction: New Orleans would be under water by 2040 -18 years from now. My son will be 44 and might still be working in New Orleans.

Other projections said 2050 or 2060, but it seemed inevitable.

This was the personal backdrop to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to curb the Environmental Protection Agency’s powers in issuing broad regulations to reduce climate-warming pollution.

The Supreme Court concluded Congress had not given the EPA that authority.

If that is true, Congress needs to immediately clarify the EPA’s broad authority and enact legislation to save New Orleans and other coastal communities.

The problem is that Republicans generally don’t believe in climate change - or at least that it is a problem - and Democrats do. But the folks at the EPA generally believe it is a big problem and its actions certainly could be the difference in saving the planet.

Too strong? I don’t think so.

Unfortunately, it now appears the majority on the Supreme Court has its doubts about climate change as well, and maybe worse, blind to the paralysis in Congress to address the issue.

The vote was 6-3 and Justice Elena Kagan wrote this in dissent:

“Whatever else this court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decision maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

The ruling reminded me of a moment in an editorial board meeting with Rep. Elise Stefanik when she was first running for Congress. She as asked about the climate change issue and responded that she was “not a scientist.”

Exactly. There are few scientists in Congress and none on the Supreme Court. So in their effort to interpret the Constitution, the conservative majority has put the lives of hundreds of thousands at risk. In their lifetimes, they may see a heat index in Washington, D.C. that rivals San Antonio.

Analysis of the ruling characterized the decision as a blow to our country’s ability to fight climate change, but not a worst-case scenario. Still, it slows the ability to address this enormous threat.

We see it every day on the news with extreme storms, heat waves, drought and wildfires becoming more and more common. Many species of animals are facing extinction and it has been documented over and over again that the glaciers are melting and sea levels are rising.

President Biden’s election provided hope the problem would finally be addressed after the previous Republican administration spent four years denying there was even a problem.

The good news is that EPA can still regulate power plants to be more efficient, but it cannot shut them down. That would be a far more effective way to address the problem.

The forecast is for a high of 97 degrees in San Antonio today. The heat index will again top 100. I wonder if any of the Supreme Court justices have visited San Antonio or New Orleans lately?

Divisions

The divisions in our country are not just between red and blue states. Within the states there is a growing divide between folks in the city and those in rural areas.

It was reported this week that more than a third of the district attorneys representing the 25 most populous counties in states that have banned or are set to ban abortion have publicly vowed not to prosecute abortion cases, according to a CNN review.

In Texas, it is already being proposed that district attorneys in different counties be allowed to cross county lines to prosecute cases.

A Pew Research Center study conducted in March found that men, white evangelicals and Republicans are among the most likely to believe that a woman should be punished if she has an abortion. One in three American adults believe a woman who has an abortion should serve jail time.

I feel like I’m watching the beginning of “The Handmaid’s Tale” where the women of Gilead are treated as property.

Tweet of the Day

Jeffrey Levin 🇺🇦 @jilevin

Right to life. Really?