Climate Change, the EPA, and the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

“Climate change is a hoax, and the earth is flat.” Though it’s true that we create our own reality, the government should not be in the business of creating an alternate reality for its citizens – especially by censoring scientific evidence in order to do so. In this case, officials at the U.S. National Park service have attempted to alter reality by deleting every reference to the role of humans in causing climate change, in the draft of a report by scientist Maria Caffrey.

Caffrey, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado, worked as a contractor for the National Park Service. Drawing from years of research, she created the report for the agency when she realized that they were relying on data compiled from inconsistent sources and research methods. The report examines sea level rise and storm surge, and projects the future risks from both for 118 coastal national parks. The intent of the report is to protect parks, their employees, and their visitors from the effects of climate change.

The climate change risk report, created during the summer of 2016, has yet to be released. Though it acknowledges natural as well as human contributions to climate change, the report focuses on the human component, because that, to a large extent, is what is under our control. According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, however, all mentions of human activities contributing to climate change were deleted. Included in the deletions were all instances of the word, “anthropogenic,” meaning “originating from human activity.”

Climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck, Dean of the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability, said, “To remove a very critical part of the scientific understanding is nothing short of political censorship, and has no place in science. Censorship of this kind is something you’d see in Russia or some totalitarian regime. It has no place in America.”

Though current EPA head Scott Pruitt says he believes in climate change, he has questioned the impact that humans have had on it. Pruitt has resisted the science linking the effects of climate change to human activities, as the EPA attempts to reverse a long list of environmental regulations. Shortly after his confirmation as head of the EPA, Pruitt approved a number of EPA website changes, deleting references to climate change.

If it’s true that humans have not contributed to climate change, why not bring that scientific evidence to the forefront to back up (or disprove) government policy? Why is the Trump administration and its various agencies instead working so hard to present a reality in which the concept of climate change, and words like “anthropogenic,” don’t even exist?

National Park Service officials delete references to humans’ role in causing climate change from draft report | Climate Change News [2018-04-08]

Human Role in Climate Change Removed From Federal Science Report | Black Bear News [2018-04-08]

Paul Ryan to Retire

After serving since 1998 in Washington, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has announced that he will be retiring in January. Though a certain amount of House turnover should be considered normal (the average is 22 members during each cycle), Paul Ryan joins an unusually large current number of Republicans who will not be running again.

To date, at least 43 Republicans in the House have announced that they will not run for re-election. Though there is speculation about the “real” reason Paul Ryan is retiring, Ryan cites wanting to spend more time with his children as his reason for stepping down.

But some speculate that Paul Ryan is afraid he’ll lose if he runs again in November. Recent polls show dissatisfaction with the current state of the Republican party. In a Newsweek poll, for example, only two-thirds of Trump voters said they would definitely vote for a Republican representative in the next election.

On today’s spectrum, “conservative” is a relative term. Though Paul Ryan, a “classic Conservative,” may be seen as too conservative by many, he is not conservative enough for others, such as members of the Freedom Caucus. Many will see Paul Ryan’s departure as a positive, but for varying reasons. Though Democrats may applaud the fact that Paul Ryan is stepping down, his exit and subsequent replacement is likely to turn on the faucet of Trumpism full-force.

“This party is the party of Trump now…This is the bloodletting of classic conservatives (like Paul Ryan),” said Meghan McCain, on ABC’s The View.

McCain speculates that one reason for Paul Ryan’s retirement now is that “He doesn’t want to deal with it any more. He doesn’t want to go home to his constituents in Wisconsin and try to explain some of the tweeting, and some of the more incendiary things that Trump is doing right now.”

Indeed, of the 43 House Republicans who have made the choice to leave office, some are leaving in the wake of various scandals, others are running for a different office, but several, such as Senator Jeff Flake and Rep. Charlie Dent, have openly stated that they are doing so because they can no longer support the “dysfunction, disorder, and chaos” (Dent) in the Trump administration.

Paul Ryan likely has more than one reason for not seeking re-election, and we can only continue to speculate. All of us would like to believe that it is because he wants to be there for his children. Many of us would also like to believe that it’s at least in part because he can no longer stomach the current political climate in Washington. No matter what the full truth is, though, Paul Ryan’s departure leaves our government at risk of being thrown even farther off balance than it already is.

Paul Ryan Won’t Run For Re-Election | The View [2018-04-11]

Paul Ryan retiring over trouble with Trump? | Fox Business [2018-04-11]