House Republicans Attack the Environment

Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, spoke to BBC News at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in Washington, D.C. Holdren said that the Obama administration “will have to look to a future Congress for the more comprehensive approach that climate change will require.” Unfortunately, Holdren is right. The Republican lead House has no intention of passing climate change legislation.

A Think Progress analysis last fall found that 50 percent of the incoming Republican congressional members deny the existence of human-caused climate change, and 86 percent are opposed to any climate change legislation that increases government revenue. Ironically, 46 percent want a balanced budget amendment. 

It should come as no surprise that last week the House passed legislation last week to trim $61 billion from government’s budget, which included decreasing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget by almost one-third. Legislation was also passed that would protect fossil fuel companies from federal greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations. 

The actions of the House stand in opposition to several recent reports, including a report by University of Massachusetts researchers. The EPA’s air pollution rules for the electric power sector will lead companies to invest, according to recent estimates, almost $200 billion in capital improvements over the next five years. The report estimates that the total employment created by the investments to be 1.46 million jobs, or 290,000 jobs a year.

Tougher European Union (EU) GHG emissions reductions would increase the EU’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth by 0.6 percent a year, six percent over all by 2020, and create up to six million jobs by 2020, according to a report. The current emission reduction goal is 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and the report’s estimations considered a 30 percent reduction goal.

Investing two percent of global GDP into key sectors now until 2050 to transition to a green economy would create jobs and boost the economy, a U.N. Environment Program report titled Towards a Green Economy stated.


Dan B.
Dan Brook7 years ago

The regressive Republican Party of No is mean-spirited, thuggish, religiously fanatical, scientifically ignorant, corrupt, hypocritical, xenophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, evolution and global warming denying, authoritarian, selfish, greedy, lacking compassion, warmongering, and otherwise dangerous.

NEVER vote for Republicans.

Carol Z.
Carol Z.7 years ago

"The Republican lead house...." You mean led. The verb lead (lead a horse to water) becomes led in this context. Lead, the metal, is the spelling you used. English is confusing. You guys really need an editor.... No offense, but these goofs diminish the impact of you message.

Ian C.
Ian C.7 years ago

well guys its a pane in the ass to do this job at least we will get rewarded after wards

Ian C.
Ian C.7 years ago

your write thats when we come in

Kate Reynolds
Kate Reynolds7 years ago

Who voted for these clowns?

Josh Townsend
Josh Townsend7 years ago

Time to get with the program guys...

Eliza B.
Eliza B7 years ago

The handwriting is on the wall, but our system doesn't allow for any long-term projects. If a policy doesn't yield results before the next election, it doesn't happen. Our news system is very flawed, and important and truthful information doesn't get out.

John S.
Past Member 7 years ago

The writer is convinced AGW is irrefutable and that anyone who disagrees must on the take from Big Oil — that still doesn’t give him license to misrepresent the beliefs of those who disagree. Recent polls show barely five percent of Americans citing climate change among their top national priorities. A similar polling shows only 20 percent of Europeans listing this threat as a top priority.

Economists have concluded that the cost of rolling back GHG emissions to 1990 levels or 10 percent below the 1990 levels by 2020 to 2030 would result in an average worldwide reduction in the global GDP of roughly 0.2 percent to 2.5 percent, with most estimates in the middle of this range. And The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the economic effect of the GHG reductions proposed (i.e., a 60 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050) would reduce U.S. GDP by between 0.6 percent and 1.6 percent U.S. GDP annually in 2030 ($146 billion to $419 billion) and 1.1 percent and 3.2 percent annually ($457 billion to $1,332 billion) in 2050.

Louise Duthie
Louise D7 years ago

The whole Republican agenda has been that of unmittigated hubris. The past two years has been less about getting out of the mess left by George W Bush and more about making sure that Barrack Obama is the next Jimmy Carter. The whole climate debate is based on lies look at the climategate was blown out of a ten year old email and was about making statistics easier for the layman to understand. In jumps a journalist who has no experience or background in the subject and screams "Foul!" on a blog and all the mess started. Having seen him being interviewed he is a total prat who got caught out with a question a 12 year old could ask and he was like That Woman from Wasilla when she was asked what Newspapers she reads.

May Howie
may Howie7 years ago