This is the second week of U.S. Senate hearings on President-elect
Donald Trump’s nominees to his Cabinet. Most, if not all, of the
nominees are expected to win confirmation, which requires just 51 votes.
Science Insider is keeping a watch to see
whether scientific issues—such as climate change—get much discussion,
and what kind of reaction any comments draw.
Today, senators are hearing from Representative Ryan Zinke (R–MT),
his nominee to head the Department of the Interior (DOI), and Betsy
DeVos, his nominee for education secretary. Last week, they questioned
several nominees, including Representative Mike Pompeo (R–KS), Trump's
nominee to run the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), retired
Marine General James Mattis, nominated for secretary of defense, and
former Exonn CEO Rex Tillerson, the nominee for secretary of state. We’ll
be updating periodically as new hearings occur, with the most recent
news at the top, so come back to see what’s happening.
Highlights from Zinke's testimony:
Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) suggested that it was hypocritical for
environmentalists to oppose burning coal, while allowing dead trees in
forests to rot. Manchin asked Zinke about forest management and the
management of dead trees. Zinke said he believed most management was
done through forest fires; earlier, he said he believed fires are a
major contributor to climate change. Senator Manchin reiterated his
belief that rotting dead lumber was a major contributor to climate
change. “Lots of C02 here,” Manchin said referencing his wooden desk.
Asked by Manchin if he could work with environmentalists, Zinke said “there’s extremists on both sides.”
No one size fits all stream rules
Stream protection policies should be different in different parts of
the country, because not all environments are the same, said Zinke.
(Editor's note: Some Republicans have complained that Obama
administration stream protection policies are too rigid and not
responsive to geographic differences and the needs of different kinds of
land uses. Environmentalists have argued such arguments are aimed at
weakening regulatory protections.)
A spotlight on access to water
“Clean water is a right not a privilege,” said Zinke. He highlighted
investments in infrastructure as a way to preserve access to water,
especially in Western states and isolated areas.
Logging could help with climate change by curbing fires
Zinke suggested harvesting more timber will help with climate change,
saying that forest fires contributed more to climate change than coal.
“The statistics I have from a single summer of forest fires in Rosebud
County, [Montana]... [they] emitted more particulate in the air in that
single season than 3,000 years of coal strip,” Zinke said.
Declines to stand by letter he signed suggesting climate change a threat to national security
Senator Al Franken (D–MN) asked Zinke about a letter he had signed as
a Montana state legislator in 2010. In it, Zinke called climate change a
“threat multiplier” in respect to the United States’s national
security. Zinke declined to state whether he still agreed with his
stance in the letter. He said he wasn’t an “expert” and that there was
“no model today that can predict tomorrow … we need objective science to
figure a model out.”
"The war on coal is real"
“The war on coal is real,” Zinke said, in response to a question by
Senator John Barrasso (R–WY). He called for more research and
development into “clean coal,” saying that coal was part of his
all-of-the-above approach to energy.
A vow to advocate for science funding and information sharing
In response to a question from Senator Debbie Stabenow (D–MI), Zinke
committed to advocating for maintaining funding levels for science and
scientists within DOI, without respect to ideology. “Management
decisions should be based on objective science,” he said. He also said
there should be more research sharing between different public agencies
and private institutions.
Still "debate over human role in climate change," and nod to "all-of-the-above" energy strategy
Senator Bernie Sanders (I–VT) asked Zinke whether President-elect Donald Trump was correct in calling climate change a “hoax.”
Zinke acknowledged climate is changing and humans have had an
influence, but claimed there is a lot of “debate” over how much of a
role humans have played and what can or should be done to combat climate
change. He also said he would listen to scientists from the United
States Geological Survey, which is a part of DOI, on climate issues.
In response to another question from Sanders, Zinke said he supported
extracting fossil fuel from public lands along with supporting wind and
solar power, calling for an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy
production.
Highlights from Pompeo's testimony:
Pompeo ducks on climate
“Frankly, as the director of CIA, I would prefer today not to get
into the details of climate debate,” he said in response to a question
from Senator Kamala Harris (D–CA) about whether he accepted climate
science. (She referred specifically to findings by NASA’s Earth Science
division.) As head of CIA, Pompeo said his role would be “different.”
Previously, Pompeo has
said
that scientists think “lots of different things” about climate change
and called President Barack Obama’s climate policies “radical.”
(In a
speech
last November, John Brennan, the outgoing CIA director, called climate
change one of the “deeper causes of this rising instability” in places
like Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.)
Mattis on Department of Defense research and the “active” Arctic
Mattis was not asked directly about climate change, but his answer to
a question about competition with Russia in the Arctic suggests he
believes climate change is having an impact on national security. Noting
that melting sea ice is opening new shipping lanes, Mattis said the
Arctic is now an “active area” where the United States will need to
assert its sovereignty.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D–MA) asked Mattis about how the Department
of Defense (DOD) should dole out its research funding, noting that her
state hosts one of the nation’s top research universities, the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mattis agreed with Warren’s
assertion that DOD should “assess the intellectual resources” of an area
when deciding which organizations the military partners with for
scientific research.
Highlights from Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson's confirmation hearing to be secretary of state:
Climate change not "imminent national security threat"
“I don’t see [climate change] as the imminent national security
threat as others do,” former Exxon chief Rex Tillerson said. He also
declined to make any direct links between an increase in natural
disasters and climate change, calling the scientific literature
“inconclusive.”
When asked by Jeff Merkley (D–OR) whether the United States should
step up in combatting climate change, to match major efforts in
countries including India and China, Tillerson said, “I think we have
stepped up.”
Breaks with Trump on nuclear proliferation
Tillerson “does not agree” with Trump's statements suggesting that
countries like Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia should get nuclear
weapons.
Ebola outbreak exposed "deficiency" at World Health Organization
In response to questions by Senator Johnny Isakson (R–GA) about the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tillerson praised the U.S.
response to disease outbreaks, but suggested the ebola outbreak “exposed
deficiency in the World Health Organization and how they responded.”
United States would be "better served" by staying in Paris pact
Senator Tom Udall (D–NM) asked Tillerson directly whether he supports the Paris climate agreement.
The United States would be “better served by being at that table,” Tillerson replied.
For context: Trump has called climate change a “hoax” and said during
the campaign that he would “cancel” the Paris Agreement. More recently,
Trump has suggested he would have an “open mind” about the accord.
Paris Agreement "looks like a treaty"
Senator Ron Johnson (R–WI) asked Tillerson about the executive branch
making treaties without proper legislative input citing the Paris
climate accord (which is not technically a treaty, so did not need
Senate ratification), among other treaties.
Tillerson said he “respects the proper roles of both branches of
government. He also said the Paris climate accord “looks like a
treaty.”
It’s still unclear exactly where Tillerson stands on withdrawing, or not withdrawing from the agreement.
Ducks question about oil lobbying group
Senator Cory Booker (D–NJ) asks Tillerson whether Exxon was part of
USA*Engage, an oil lobbying group who has lobbied against government
sanctions in the past.
Tillerson refused to answer and referred the question to Exxon.
Exxon appears to have been part of USA*Engage. A press release from
USA*Engage suggests that Exxon’s Robert W. Haines, the manager of
international relations for the company, was chairman of the lobbying
organization in 2003. He served until 2007.
Green think tank: Tillerson’s comments don’t go far enough
“It’s encouraging that Tillerson recognizes that climate change
requires a global response and that the U.S. must be at the table. But
he must go further,” David Waskow, director of International Climate
Initiatives at the World Resources Institute, a Washington, D.C., think
tank, said in a statement responding to some of Tillerson’s comments.
“As the country’s potential top diplomat, Tillerson should understand
that the U.S. needs to be a leader on climate change and honor its
international commitments. The Paris Agreement is one of the singular
achievements in international diplomacy in recent years, and the U.S.
must continue to cooperate with the rest of the world in driving forward
strong action on this urgent challenge. The vast majority of Americans
want the U.S. to support the Paris Agreement and the international
community expects the country to be a productive participant. This
leadership is critical to U.S. diplomatic, economic, and security
interests. Senators should continue to press Tillerson to ensure the
U.S. maintains its key role in tackling this issue.”
United States will review funding for United Nations climate fund
Senator John Barrasso (R–WY) asked: “Will you commit that no funding will go to the U.N. Green Climate Fund?”
The new administration will “look at things from the bottom up,” Tillerson responded.
Barrasso also advocated for more coal energy, especially in
developing countries. Tillerson said he supported delivering electricity
to developing areas in whatever way was the most efficient use of U.S.
dollars.
Paris climate deal could put United States at a “disadvantage”
The nominee refused to commit to honoring the Paris climate
agreement, when asked by Senator Ed Markey (D–MA). Tillerson suggested
that although he would share his opinion about the reality of climate
change with senators, the president-elect’s “priority in campaigning was
America first,” and the Paris Agreement could put us at a
“disadvantage.”
No plan to recuse himself from decisions involving Exxon after 1 year
Tillerson refused to commit to recusing himself from decisions about
Exxon as secretary of state, outside of an initial 1-year period
required by law. Instead, he suggested that it would be enough to
solicit and follow the advice of the Office of Government Ethics when it
came to potential conflicts of interests.
United States should keep seat at climate negotiation table
Asked by Senator Ben Cardin (D–MD), the ranking member of Senate foreign relations committee, whether the
United States should “continue in international leadership on climate
change,” Tillerson suggested he wanted the United States to continue to
have a seat at the table.
No retaliation against State Department climate experts
Senator Tom Udall (D–NM) asked Tillerson about reports that
President-elect Trump’s transition team had asked the Department of
Energy for names of staffers who had worked on climate change. Tillerson
said he wouldn’t retaliate against Department of State staffers who had
worked on climate issues, calling it “unhelpful.”
Declines to answer questions about Exxon’s role in climate science
Tillerson refused to answer questions from Senator Tim Kaine (D–VA)
about Exxon’s past and current relationship with climate change science.
Citing reporting by the Los Angeles Times and InsideClimate
News, Kaine asked about documents that showed Exxon concluded in the
1970s that carbon dioxide affected climate, then for years after
publicly cast doubt on the science. Kaine also asked about Exxon’s past
funding of climate denial groups and current lesser funding of these
groups.
Tillerson refused to answer the questions because he no longer worked for Exxon and didn’t want to speak for them.
“Do you lack the knowledge to answer my question or are you refusing to answer my question?” Kaine asked.
“A little of both,” Tillerson said.
Kaine said he didn’t believe Tillerson didn’t have the knowledge to answer after nearly 40 years working for Exxon.
Later,
Kaine tweeted :
"It's shameful Tillerson refused to answer my questions on his
company's role in funding phony climate science. Bottom line:
#ExxonKnew”
No climate questions early
In his own opening statement, Tillerson, Trump’s nominee to be the
nation’s chief diplomat and run the Department of State, didn’t mention
climate change, instead focusing more on issues including relations with
China and fighting the Islamic State group.
The first mention of science and climate change came nearly 40
minutes into the hearing. In an opening statement, Cardin pointed out
that climate change was causing irreparable harm to our world and also
that business and government interests were different. “Having a view
from the C-Suite at Exxon is not at all the same as the view from the
seventh floor of the Department of State,” Cardin said.
Tuesday's hearing on Senator Jeff Sessions to be attorney general: Climate and Krispy Kreme
In response, Sessions said:
“I don't deny that we have global warming. In fact, the theory of it
always struck me as plausible, and it's the question of how much is
happening and what the reaction would be to it. So, that's what I would
hope we could see occur."
WHITEHOUSE: You may be in a position as attorney
general to either enforce laws or bring actions that relate to the
problem of carbon emissions and the changes that are taking place both
physically and chemically in our atmosphere and oceans as a result of
the flood of carbon emissions that we've had.
It is the political position of the Republican Party in the Senate,
as I have seen it, that this is not a problem, that we don't need to do
anything about it, that the facts aren't real, and that we should all do
nothing whatsoever. That's the Senate.
You as attorney general of the United States may be asked to make
decisions for our nation that require a factual predicate that you
determine as the basis for making your decision. In making a decision
about the facts of climate change, to whom will you turn? Will you, for
instance, trust the military, all of whose branches agree that climate
change is a serious problem of real import for them?
Will you trust our national laboratories, all of whom say the same?
Will you trust our national science agencies—by the way, NASA is driving
a rover around on the surface of mars right now. So, they're [sic]
scientists, I think, are pretty good.
I don't think there is a single scientific society, I don't think
there is a single credited university, I don't think there is a single
nation that denies this basic set of facts.
And, so, if that situation is presented to you and you have to make a
decision based on the facts, what can give us any assurance that you
will make those facts based on real facts and real science?
SESSIONS: That's a good and fair question, and
honesty and integrity in that process is required. And if the facts
justify a position on one side or the other on a case, I would try to
utilize those facts in an honest and appropriate way.
I've not—I don't deny that we have global warming. In fact, the
theory of it always struck me as plausible, and it's the question of how
much is happening and what the reaction would be to it. So, that's what
I would hope we could see occur.
WHITEHOUSE: Indeed, I'll bet you dollars against
those lovely Krispy Kreme donuts we have out back that if you went down
to the University of Alabama and if you talked to the people who fish
out of mobile, they had already seen the changes in the ocean. They'd be
able to measure the PH changes and they'd know the acidification is
happening, and there's no actual dispute about that except in the
politics of Washington, D.C.
SESSIONS: I recognize the great interest in time and you've committed to the issue and I value your opinion.
WHITEHOUSE: I do come from an ocean state, and we do
measure the rise in the sea level and we measure the warming of
Narragansett Bay and we measure the change in PH. It's serious for us,
Senator. Thank you. My time has expired.
SOURCE:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/tracker-we-re-letting-you-know-when-trump-s-cabinet-nominees-talk-about-science-and?utm_campaign=news_daily_2017-01-17&et_rid=17104893&et_cid=1110824
source: http://epaper.jagran.com/ePaperArticle/09-sep-2016-edition-Delhi-City-page_14-3615-3364-4.html
World Economic Forum's (WEF's) global competitiveness index (GCI), released Ahmedabad doesn't figure among top 100 world inn...
No comments:
Post a Comment