GOP’s Most Dangerous Climate Advocate Is Going to UN Talks in Glasgow

On Friday, the Washington Post reported a list of Republicans in Congress who might be attending United Nations local weather talks in Glasgow later this month. Per the Post, the group contains Rep. Garret Graves of Louisiana, the rating GOP member on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis; Rep. John Curtis of Utah, who formed the new Conservative Climate Caucus earlier this yr, and Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas.

Sorry, I’m simply… sorry. Did I hear that proper? Dan Crenshaw? That man?

After many years of GOP members of Congress flat-out going to struggle in opposition to local weather science, a Republican who accepts local weather science remains to be someway thought of a Big Deal. (Big outlets, like clockwork, still love to profile these types.) At first look, Crenshaw would appear to suit this invoice: Last yr, he authored an op-ed within the conservative outlet National Review final yr titled “It’s Time for Conservatives to Own the Climate-Change Issue.” One might argue that his journey to the talks, often called COP26, is merely a method to try to convey the remainder of the GOP in control.

But a better take a look at how Crenshaw has positioned himself on local weather in latest months makes it clear that in Glasgow, he’s going to be a fox within the henhouse. Sure, he won’t query the truth that local weather change is taking place, however he’s not precisely following the science on how severe the issue truly is.

In one wildly misleading video revealed in May of this yr on Facebook (after all), Crenshaw cherry-picks “data and science” from the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, misreading the report’s textual and scientific conclusions to downplay the seriousness of the specter of local weather change.

“I’m not arguing that climate change isn’t real, or that it’s not caused by manmade emissions,” he says. “What I am saying is that we don’t need to be scaring our children to death.”

He’s additionally brazenly mocked renewable vitality, calling wind and solar “silly solutions” and falsely claimed that wind generators had been chargeable for the Texas blackouts. (Crenshaw is considered one of a number of Texas Republicans funded by oil and fuel pursuits who used the blackouts as a method to bash wind.) Not solely did he vote in opposition to the Build Back Better Act—which accommodates key local weather provisions that align with the Biden administration’s Paris Agreement commitment—however he’s blasted banning oil and fuel manufacturing as each costing jobs and in addition, someway, hurting the atmosphere (?).

So if Crenshaw thinks local weather change is going on, however isn’t such an enormous deal, and wind and photo voltaic suck, and fossil gas cash is simply effective to simply accept, what kinds of options might he presumably be going to Glasgow to suggest? One potential avenue: We’re simply going to should get used to this entire local weather change factor.

“Adaptation can solve this problem,” Crenshaw says in his Facebook video, regardless of all proof on the contrary. This angle dovetails intently with what we’ve seen just lately from different GOP leaders like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. It’s basically a plan to throw cash on the multibillion-dollar disasters placing with rising regularity whereas doing nothing to cut back the chance.

Another thought he could possibly be going to the talks to advertise is, someway, extra fossil gas funding. In that very same National Review op-ed, Crenshaw advocated closely for carbon-capture know-how (which is nice by itself, however must be a part of a a lot bigger resolution), extolled “the massive carbon-reducing effect of natural gas” (higher than coal however nonetheless wildly problematic), and trotted out fossil-fuel-funded speaking factors on how the world’s demand for fossil fuels goes to maintain rising.

“Even if we were to implement a carbon tax, such a policy might inadvertently increase emissions as our cleaner, better-regulated American oil-and-gas industry potentially cedes market share to less clean Russian and Saudi producers,” he wrote. “At the risk of stating the obvious, the developing world won’t stop demanding energy just because we decide to tax ourselves more.”

Crenshaw’s entire place on local weather is one thing way more harmful than simply ignoring the issue. By positioning himself as somebody who accepts the science (I exploit “accepts” very loosely right here), he’s in a position to leap over Democrats’ common level that the GOP is crammed with deniers. In doing so, it means he’s being taken severely–even when his proposals aren’t in good religion.

“You aren’t, you liar,” he tweeted in May in response to Sen. Ed Markey’s tweet about negotiating a invoice with “climate deniers,” in reference to the Build Back Better Act. “We aren’t denying climate change, we are just pointing out that your ‘solutions’ will hurt people, and do nothing to prevent climate change.”

In truth, it’s Crenshaw’s supposed options of extra oil and fuel and hand waving at adaptation that may put extra lives on the road. What the overwhelming majority of analysis has proven is that the world wants to vary course utterly and finish fossil gas use reasonably than hope unproven applied sciences to seize carbon will save the local weather—and us.

“It is still possible to forestall many of the most dire impacts, but it really requires unprecedented transformational change—the rapid and immediate reduction of greenhouse gases,” Ko Barrett, the vice chair of the IPCC, mentioned on a press name when the group launched its newest report earlier this yr.

We requested Crenshaw’s workplace if he accepts science from the IPCC and the International Energy Agency’s report this yr exhibiting we have to dial down coal, oil, and fuel use and cease new fossil gas exploration subsequent yr. We additionally requested if he’s proposed or is engaged on different laws in place of the reconciliation invoice he voted in opposition to that will meaningfully cut back greenhouse fuel emissions and enhance the U.S. negotiating place at Glasgow. We’ll replace this submit if we hear again.