Regarding the Hub’s June 18 editorial, “GOP could seize climate, stay true,” I wish to comment on several of the points and comments.
First, the Green New Deal is a resolution outlining one Congress person’s view of future economic and environmental programs. The Hub erroneously states that the Green New Deal resolution will “Reduce greenhouse gases by eliminating cattle ranching.” The resolution does not say that. What it does say is that one of the goals is: “(G) working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including: (i) by supporting family farming; (ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and (iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food;
One can interpret “technologically feasible” in a variety of ways, but the Hub’s choice to go directly to the scariest and most politically charged interpretation is unfortunate, divisive and continues to spread this bit of political bait. Perhaps a more thoughtful perspective would be less inflammatory.
Second, the Hub suggests that the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act is an attractive proposal and reflects the general Republican values of private sector involvement and strong economic principles. I am in complete agreement with the Hub’s position. The act, if given the chance, may well represent the core of future bipartisan legislation that can effectively address our climate issues.
But I also believe it is important to note that the EICD Act was introduced in the House in late January 2019 by Rep. Theodore Deutch, R-Fla., and referred to the Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Foreign Affairs Committee. The bill currently has 46 cosponsors: 45 Democrats and one Republican. Seems there might be a bit of work to do for the Hub’s high hopes for Republican leadership on climate change. Perhaps the Hub could ask our Nebraska congressional delegation — three representatives and two senators — how they will take leadership roles on climate change legislation and what their view of the EICD Act is.
It is unfortunate that the Hub’s perspective on the means that are necessary for us to move forward in the climate debate are dependent on solutions proposed and supported by a specific political party. What we must have are effective actions and policies, independent of political static, to mitigate and reduce climate change — period! Climate change is not political. It is not a spitting contest. Who cares which party’s leadership realizes that they have a moral obligation to the future and begin acting like grown-ups and do the right thing?
Stan Dart, Kearney