Advanced Search
January 21, 2020
Throughout 2019, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcommittee on Environment held a series of four hearings on climate change. These hearings, conducted by the House’s primary investigative committee, provided insights into the development of climate change as a political issue, explored the health and economic impacts of climate change, and proposed ideas to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and increase resilience. Witness testimony and questions by subcommittee members indicated a desire for bipartisan cooperation on climate policy at the federal level. Furthermore, subcommittee Chairman Harley Rouda (D-CA) indicated that climate change would be the subcommittee’s top priority in 2020, and that it would hold future hearings to evaluate policy solutions.
The first hearing, The History of a Consensus and the Causes of Inaction, was held on April 9, 2019. The purpose of the hearing was to “examine the historic scientific consensus about climate change, the role of the fossil fuel industry in denying climate science, and the economic consequences of policy inaction.”
Jeffrey Sachs, a professor at Columbia University, condemned the “scandalous inaction of the U.S. Congress” in light of a scientific consensus on climate change and the technical and economic feasibility of decarbonizing the global energy system. Sachs recommended a federal decarbonization plan featuring a shift in electricity production toward renewable, zero-carbon sources; electrification of transportation and heating systems; and the provision of other energy needs by synthetic fuels produced through zero-carbon processes. Former Colorado Senator and Vice Chairman of the United Nations Foundation Tim Wirth and Princeton University’s Michael Oppenheimer stated that the scientific community has long understood the reality of climate change, and that developments since the 1980s have primarily provided more detailed knowledge.
Sachs, Wirth, and Oppenheimer stated their disappointment with the lack of federal action against climate change, and identified industry influence as a cause for the breakdown of bipartisan cooperation on climate legislation. Many representatives agreed with this stance, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who stated that climate change “is not just an environmental issue. It is also a crisis created by massive corporate corruption and misconduct.” Policy recommendations included a reduction of the influence of money in the political process.
Nicholas Loris, of the Heritage Foundation, agreed that a consensus exists on the reality of climate change, but raised concern about scientific uncertainties that remain unresolved. Noting Loris’s position, Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) highlighted the Heritage Foundation’s funding from sources in the petroleum industry such as the Koch Brothers. The Heritage Foundation has also received criticism for its work in spreading misinformation with the goal of raising public doubt on the existence of climate change. Loris did, however, suggest that federal subsidies on all forms of energy should be eliminated, that regulations on renewable energy sources should be reduced, and that infrastructure should be made more resilient, perhaps signaling a shift at this historically staunch anti-climate action group.
The second hearing, The Public Health Effects, was held on April 30, 2019, and focused on the effects of climate change on public health with a particular focus on vulnerable populations and the role of the federal government.
Subcommittee Chairman Harley Rouda (D-CA) opened the hearing by citing evidence indicating the current and potential future effects of climate change on public health. He criticized the Trump Administration’s rollbacks of clean air and water regulations, and called for rapid action to avoid the public health effects of climate change. Ranking Member James Comer (R-KY) acknowledged findings by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that climate change would negatively affect public health, particularly in developing countries, but raised concerns that climate change legislation would prevent these countries from developing fossil fuel economies to fund basic public health services. This sentiment was shared by Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition, Caleb S. Rossiter, Ph.D., who testified in support of encouraging fossil fuel development in emerging regions like Africa.
The other witnesses at the hearing focused on the negative effects of climate change on public health. Bernard D. Goldstein, M.D., Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, and Harvard University’s Aaron Bernstein, M.D., testified that climate change would negatively affect public health by increasing rates of asthma, respiratory diseases, natural disasters, obesity, and mental illnesses.
Co-Chair of Florida Clinicians for Climate Action Cheryl L. Holder, M.D., testified that physicians are already reporting effects of climate change on patients’ health. Goldstein, Bernstein, and Holder also emphasized the disproportionate health effects felt by vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, people of color, and the poor. Representative Jimmy Gomez (D-CA) took note of this increased vulnerability and recommended that any climate policy action “prioritize the working class, the underserved, the underpaid, the struggling, those struggling against racial ineq
Advancing science-based climate solutions
Top-Rated Climate Nonprofit – 4-Star Charity