Keywords of Terms: US Congress; Attitudinal change; Bi-Partisanship; Stalled Climate Change
Bill; Advocacy Groups; Congressional Hearings and Testimonies; New Beginnings
How can Congress
know whether or not we have issues with climate change? How can congress weigh scientific against
non-scientific information on climate change when several bills are sitting on
congressional docket without attention? How were water quality issues impacting
fish kills in many watershed traced to phosphate discharges from several point and
non-point sources, if setback regulations on water waste systems were not in
place; regulations, traceable to the act of congress? How can congress identify
the specific risk factors of climate change if it refuses to open communication
to body of proofs? How can Americans have the information on the risk factors specific
to climate change; and probably quality of life that will reduce medical costs?
How can advocacy groups tender their justification for policy enactment or
regulations to combat potential human activities impacting climate change? How
can congress know whether to fund some parts of the climate change bill or all?
How can we resolve this long gridlock? For most of us, it’s simply not
practical to assume that opposing views on the subject of climate change are
incredulous; thus, congress will not look more carefully to the opposing views
coming from several interest groups.
In 1969, the
United States manned mission moon landing, opened up the benefits of today’s
information age or society. Over several decades, we invested human and
non-human capital in space travels, advanced science to a degree never before
imagined, solidified lunar advances to the envy of the rest of the world. Our
investments in pioneer and ranger space missions not only afforded us to read
and understand our solar environment, they made our understanding of air
(winds), land and water movements around the globe, less of a guess work. For
starters, there are some of us who believe there are enough data in the nation’s
kitty from space experiments, either from Lyman-alpha telescope, rubidium-vapor
magnetometer or particle detectors, to junk or support a case for climate
change, period. United States Congress nonpartisan 1965 NASA budget appropriation
not only landed a manned Apollo rocket on the moon, it laid the foundation for Ranger
8 and 9 successes. All through these successes, it took a non-partisan congress
to act and attain the dream of a President and the ordinary American.
The debate
over whether man landed on the moon or not, emanating from conspirators’ theorists,
were put to rest through empirical evidence garnered from dialogues and conversations.
The resolution pictures of NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance orbiter were not only
mind blowing, they essentially made a believer even of astute hoax theorist;
and if that was not enough, when the conspirators’ theorists saw the astronaut’s
walking paths in the lunar dust in the 2009 pictures, many probably blamed themselves
of ignorance. And, as the saying goes, Time of ignorance God overlooks! In the
same light, if US Congress opens up debate over climate change, empirical and
non-empirical evidence will likely open up our minds or make us junk the
advances. Shutting the door against dialogues and debates only muddle up the
whole process and issues.
Holding series
of congressional hearings and testimonies helped the nation continue conversations
and dialogue over whether we take the route of manned space or robot-based
space program. Congressional hearings and testimonies have a way of exposing
the truth about proposals, advances or heated debates. The US Space program has
been successful so far, because there is a constant congressional updates over
the developments on the programs and funding for the program has remained
mostly nonpartisan. We have built the bridge to far away galaxies through
experimental explorations and empirical evidence, including heated debates among
our scientists. Despite the fact that we realize how challenging some of our
endeavors or explorations are for the limits of human body, despite the fact
that some of the empirical evidence called to question our initial
misconceptions or position, we have remained open to robbing our minds against
each other, to deliver truth. That is why the hold up on many of the bills on
climate change in congress, hardly serves the interest of the people
.
With congressional
acquiescence, the climate change bills that are lagging in congress may be
tabled. Yes, the Senate defeat of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of
2009, after passing the House on a vote of 219 to 212 in the 111th
US Congress (H.R. 2454) was a blow to some interest groups on emissions
standards; Yes, there are biologists and ecologists against legislation set to
destroy wildlife habitat by setting aside US environmental laws protecting Yosemite
National Park and National Forests; Yes,
the American meteorological society believes that global temperature will rise
in the next one hundred years by about 7 degrees Fahrenheit’s, and this shift
in temperature may trigger widespread disasters for rising sea levels, violent
and volatile weather patterns, water shortage and desertification, among
others; and, Yes, Australia, a country with probably similar dynamics with
carbon-based burning to the US has been able to pass a bill through their lower
and upper house of parliament that curtails carbon emissions. Getting into tit-for-tat
dynamics with President Obama’s choice to use executive power to reverse the
new coal-fired powered plants guideline of US EPA that was rolled back by the
Republican led US House Energy and Commerce Committee vote of 29-19, is
essentially, not the way out of this quagmires.
We must remember
that most of our accomplishments and successes in the space program have been through
dialogues and conversations. Holding fastidious to one’s position is often not
a characteristic of a team player. Offering opportunities to testify by those
who know more about the issue of climate change, in a transparent congressional
hearing and testimony, is probably the best standard, to avert mistrust and
misconceptions of many interest groups on the debate over climate change. There
has to been room for us to look at issues in a nonpartisan way, whether those
issues are in agreement with our beliefs or not; however, with the
Republican/Tea party controlled House of Representatives, it has been difficult
for us to confront our fears, lately. There is room for us to give each other
the benefit of doubt on the debate over climate change; we owe ourselves the
opportunity to talk over our doubts with those holding opposing views to our
position. The choice now is not to continue in the soloist flight of my way or
the highway.
Attitudes
have to change; lawmaking and debates in congress need to take a new tune and turn; things
in congress have to change. The nation needs to begin the debate somehow,
congressional lawmakers who are the proxy for the will of the people, need to
take action on the floods of climate change bill on congressional docket. Funding
is not the only issue on several congressional dockets on climate change. So,
with this appeal and pleading for bipartisanship in United States Congress,
there has to be a new movement to do the work of the people, not only with
climate change! We need a new start, beginning once again, with the climate
change bills.
No comments:
Post a Comment