The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionHouse receives failing marks from environmental group
by Brian Roewe on Feb. 08, 2012
In its 2011 National Environmental Scorecard, the League of Conservation Voters labeled the first session of the 112th Congress in the House of Representatives as “the most anti-environmental session in [its] history.”
The League rates every member of Congress on how they voted on environmental bills and legislation over the past Congressional session, basing this year’s rankings on 11 Senate votes and 35 votes in the House, a sample from the more than 200 votes on environmental-related issues put before its 435 members.
[Full report for the LCV National Environmental 2011 Scorecard]
For states, the highest marks went to Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island, all ranking among the top House and Senate scores. At the other end of the spectrum, Kansas ranked among the least environmentally-active legislators in both the Senate and the House.
High Marks: Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, received a perfect score from the League of Conservation Voters for her environmental voting record in 2011. (Flikr/Senator Boxer)
Individually, 31 senators and 24 representatives earned a perfect score of 100, while 13 senators and four House members received a score of zero. Sen. Barbara Boxer D-Calif., Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver, D-Mo. and Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Co., were among the members of Congress receiving perfect scores.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., Trent Franks, R-Ariz. and Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., were among the lowest scorers.
But for LCV, the story over the past year portrayed a House of Representatives intent on ignoring environmental concerns and public health, stemming from its leaders. The average score among House chairs on committees related to the environment was 10, contrasted with 95 for leaders on similar committees in the Senate. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., received a score of 11.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
“In 2011,
the House Republican leadership unleashed a truly breathtaking and unprecedented assault on the environment and public health, the breadth and depth of which have made the current U.S. House of Representatives the most anti-environmental in our nation’s history,” said LCV President Gene Karpinski in a press release.
The House assault began with H.R. 1, the much-debated spending bill required to provide a budget and avoid a government shut down. In what the LCV called “at the time the most anti-environmental bill ever,” House representatives voted against amendments that would have prevented free drilling for oil companies on public lands, while proposing riders to the bill that would:
- block the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing new water standards for Florida waters and continuing to regulate under the Clean Water Act;
- cut allocations by 90 percent to the Land and Water Conservation Fund;
- block cleanup of Chesapeake Bay;
- allow off-road vehicles in national parks;
- eliminate presidential power to designate protect lands as national monuments
Other House bills during the session sought to further limit the EPA’s regulative powers on pesticides and greenhouse gases and limit its ability to enforce the Clean Water Act; lift President Obama’s moratorium on off-shore drilling while rejecting off-shore drilling safety reforms for the Gulf of Mexico; bar the Department of Agriculture from implementing a climate change adaptation plan; eliminate energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs and other related programs; and expedite a decision to construct the Keystone XL pipeline across six states.
Much of the anti-environmental legislation approved by the House failed to pass in the Senate, with the Obama administration taking a firm stand for the environment on several key issues. LCV is quick to point out that the Senate and Obama administration did not have perfect environmental records for the year, but their shortcomings paled in comparison to the House.
“LCV is grateful to the Obama administration, allies in the Senate and House, and the millions of people across the country who helped to ensure that the House leadership did not succeed in gutting our nation’s cornerstone environmental and public health protections in 2011,” said Karpinski.
Editor's Note:
Subscribe to the Eco Catholic email alert to get weekly highlights from the blog. If you already receive email alerts from NCR, add Eco Catholic to your profile.
Learn more.
How about a scorecard for the
How about a scorecard for the scaremongering global warmists?
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/08/earths-polar-ice-melting-...
Glad to hear that this
Glad to hear that this Congress is the most "anti-environmental". Thanks for reporting this, since it inspires me to work even harder to make sure that Republicans keep control of the House and gain control of the Senate.
Now, I think I'll sit down and send a campaign contribution to my Congressman, a staunch Republican. In the letter, I think I'll compliment him on being part of this "anti-environmental" Congressional session and urge him to continue to be part of it. Any politician who angers or alienates the environmentalist wacko left is okay in my book!
The Republicans in Congress
The Republicans in Congress are attempting to balance the drive by Eco-Marxist to control every aspect of life in the U.S. With record numbers of Americans on welfare and without jobs, we need to re-balance the debate over jobs and the environment.
THe lame link to a repub
THe lame link to a repub newsweekly uncovering some supposed big error in global warming theory, namecalling like "scaremongering", "eco-marxist", and "environmentalist wacko". Meanwhile, the absorption spectra of CO2 and the rest of physics hasn't changed. I guess it helps to be scientifically ignorant. You repubs have to start thinking outside the box because you guys have a very small box in the first place.
Apparently you did not read
Apparently you did not read the article. It stated that the polar ice caps did melt, but 30% less than predicted because new technology is providing better results.
There was no name calling in the article, though there were some in the comments section from readers.
So, you reject new findings based on upon improved technology driven research because it refutes your pre-conceived notions, and you have the hubris to call Republicans scientifically ignorant.
Wow, what a maroon.
You apparently did not bother
You apparently did not bother to read the article. It was about the fact that while the Artic ice was melting, it was at a rate that was 30% lower than predicted by the models. This is because new technology has developed that allows more precise data collection.
The doom and gloom of the AGW alarmists was based on older technology, including a lot of guesses and estimating. It is not science to stick with old ways of doing things if the new and more accurate ways results in data that makes your previous predictions wrong.
You should not call others scientifically ignorant, when it is painfully obvious that you cannot even comprehend what a simple article is saying.
There were no negative comments in the article, as you claimed. Perhaps the voices in your head were saying them for you.
Man-made climate change is
Man-made climate change is without na doubt happening, the consensus has gotten stronger, not weaker, and the consequences on human life and the economy will be very large. What is most amazing is how many Americans, who have no training or understanding of climate science, have fallen hook, line, and sinker to somplistics counter-campaigns funded by the fossil fuel industry, notably big oil companies. Industries worth billions and billions of dollars. But according to many, they have no chance vs the vested interests of Al Gore and a world-wide scientific conspiracy, decades in the making, in which evil scientists plan to reap huge profits out of wind farms and solar panels!! :)
Of course this speaks to a larger "anti-science", fear-mongering swing of the right wing in this country. Which is extremely frustrating.
Climate change is happening,
Climate change is happening, as it has ever since the Earth was formed. We disagree that this is all man made. If you removed all humans from the Earth, there would be no impact on the climate change. It would still be happening.
What we vehemently disagree with is your proposed solutions, which would be futile, ruinously expensive and probable cause some other yet unforeseen problem.
And what we really dislike about people like you are the ad hominem attacks against people who are skeptical of your claims.
People who study climate
People who study climate science agree that climate change has always occured. That's not a counter argument. The thrust of the argument is that man-made activities are contributing to changes that otherwise wouldn't be occuring at the rate they are occuring . .not that man-made activities account for all of global warming. The evidence for that incremental increase caused by human activities to otherwise natural phenomena is strong and getting stronger (just slight increases from what would otherwise naturally occur has huge implications).
As for solutions, there are numerous ways we can become a less carbon intensive society that won't propel us into the stone age or economic ruin. The public health and sustainibility benefits ALONE (nevermind the negative effects of global warming) will provide far more economic positives than living in denial and pumping as much GHGs in the atmosphere as quickly as possible without regard to the future. One component of that solution, nuclear energy, is a fear liberals need to get over even more than conservatives.
QUOTE:We can only guess what
QUOTE:We can only guess what the Earth was like in the millions of years before mankind made its presence known on this planet, but even the rudimentary records we can interpret from long ago show the climate has never stayed the same for very long over the course of the planet’s history. Certainly we may have warm, cold, rainy, or dry spells for a few years or even a decade or two, but it’s just as presumptuous to assume that the era we live in has the optimum climate as it is to believe that mankind has a thing to do with changing things over the long term. Scientists are loathe to admit this, but most of the rest of us know that weather patterns will ebb and flow on this third rock from the Sun long after our SUVs turn to rust and humanity as we know it ceases to exist. We’re just along for the ride.QUOTE
Yes, presumptuous is the right word for the alarmists who told me in the 70's that we were facing global cooling, in the 90's told me that we were facing global warming, and now telling me that we are facing climate chaos that will be both cooling and warming. But in any event, the solution to all of this will cost me a lot of money to keep these concerned citizen scientists in work so they can afford to insult me. I would prefer to spend my money on learning how to adapt to the climate change, not control it. That is how humans have survived over the millenia. Or have you guys also given up Darwin and evolution in your efforts to extort money from me?
Post new comment