Recently, House Republicansโconstantly trying to frustrate all manner of climate change measures by the administrationโtook a clear step too far. Hereโs the June 2 story, from E&Eย News:
The House voted today to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from participating in the Obama administrationโs Interagency Task Force on Climate Change Adaptation.
The amendment by Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) was added to the Houseโs fiscal 2012 Department of Homeland Security spending bill. The vote was 242-180.
The Carter amendment would likely prohibit DHS staff from coordinating with staff from other agencies to assess the risks climate change poses to domestic security and to find ways to adapt to it, an administration aideย said.
The alleged justification for this measure is to save a few bucks. But honestly, if climate change is a potential threat to our homeland security, do Republicans really want to prevent the department of Homeland Security from assessing that risk?
Letโs go to the debate on the House floor over this amendment. Hereโs Rep. Norman Dicks, (D-WA), explaining why hobbling the DHS is such a badย idea:
This is a national security issue.
The Navy is now looking at the coastal areas. As the seas rise, itโs going to affect Navy installations all over this country. I brought in the Park Service when I was chairman of the Interior. I brought in the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service. They all see the effects. We have a longer fireย season.
This is something you canโt ignore. This is a national issue that is significant, so to have a Department of Homeland Security that isnโt going to look at the consequences of climate change after what weโve seen this year is just ridiculous on the face ofย it.
Ridiculousโand very contrary to Republican values. Still, this hobbling of DHS is not the only such case. Recently, the CIA opened a Center on Climate Change and National Security.ย Yet it, too, is threatened by indiscriminate budgetย cutters.ย
I cannot believe that Republicans will continue to be successful if they go down this road. For in doing so, they are putting two of their core values into opposition to oneย another.
Republicans believe strongly in โnational security,โ and thus are chief supporters of the military and intelligence agencies, and their big federal budgets. At the same time, the party also supports โindividualismโโkeeping the government from interfering with the free market, which is the lens through which Republicans generally justify their resistance to climateย action.
On the national security implications of climate change, however, these values are in obvious conflictโand not in a way that will look good to average Americans who are wondering about the role of global warming in various weather-relatedย disasters.
