Herseth: Global warming bad.
Crystal Lindell of the Pierre Capitol Journal is reporting today that Congresswoman Herseth now backs the Kyoto treaty, a document she had rejected earlier:
To start with - the rumor about Herseth's Chief of staff going along on the trip - it wasn't true. Apparently she was on a personal vacation, and not part of the ice melt tour. (Stop sending me that kind of stuff guys).
Otherwise, can anyone tell me how this trip appeals at all to the Congresswomans' constituency - a red state concerned more about economic development than the climate in Greenland?
You know Greenland. The place that used to be green, and was settled by Vikings about 1000 years ago. Until it got cold, which must have been because of global cooling caused by Viking bonfires. But it's ok now. The climate is returning to a previosu state
And speaking of those red state farmers Herseth represents.... What are they going to think of what her change of heart is going to do to them? (Hat tip to SDP). Is she going to rush in and say "Hey guys - I know you have it tough, what with the weather and all. But, that 50% cut in your income - we need to do it for Greenland. So suck it up boys."
Actually this brings up a good point - Didn't she send out a press release in 2006 that brought up the drought? (you know, right before the election).
How soon they forget. The drought was important then, but 8 months later, it's all about global warming in Greenland.
The best drought quote in that article?
As I noted previously, we're still waiting for the Herseth sponsored Pelosi tour of the Conanta basin. And it might even be possible that paying attention to the trouble of South Dakotans would resonate more strongly with the South Dakota electorate.
U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., said she thinks global warming is real and President George Bush needs to do more to acknowledge the problem.Read it all here.
Herseth Sandlin recently completed a tour of four nations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and said the evidence is easy to see.
"From the scientific evidence that's been presented in Washington , from the observations and experiences of the native people, as well as witnessing first hand the melting and what's happened, it confirms even more in my mind that global warming is happening," she said.
and...
"We've got to fill in the detail and keep sort of the pressure on to move forward with the immediacy that I think this deserves," she said.
Herseth Sandlin originally was against the Kyoto Treaty - which assigns emissions limits to reduce greenhouse gasses - because China and India were not a part of the framework. However, now she recognizes the need for the U.S. to join.
"I do think that so long as the United States doesn't participate in the multilateral negotiations, that it makes it too easy for China and India to go ahead and say 'Why should we participate when the United States isn't participating,' she said.
To start with - the rumor about Herseth's Chief of staff going along on the trip - it wasn't true. Apparently she was on a personal vacation, and not part of the ice melt tour. (Stop sending me that kind of stuff guys).
Otherwise, can anyone tell me how this trip appeals at all to the Congresswomans' constituency - a red state concerned more about economic development than the climate in Greenland?
You know Greenland. The place that used to be green, and was settled by Vikings about 1000 years ago. Until it got cold, which must have been because of global cooling caused by Viking bonfires. But it's ok now. The climate is returning to a previosu state
And speaking of those red state farmers Herseth represents.... What are they going to think of what her change of heart is going to do to them? (Hat tip to SDP). Is she going to rush in and say "Hey guys - I know you have it tough, what with the weather and all. But, that 50% cut in your income - we need to do it for Greenland. So suck it up boys."
Actually this brings up a good point - Didn't she send out a press release in 2006 that brought up the drought? (you know, right before the election).
How soon they forget. The drought was important then, but 8 months later, it's all about global warming in Greenland.
The best drought quote in that article?
Herseth wrote, "It is particularly important that rural Americans know they will be treated equitably. The deafening silence by the House of Representatives is sending a powerful message that Congress is not committed to helping those rural Americans affected by this natural disaster."And 8 months later, it's about melting ice in Greenland.
As I noted previously, we're still waiting for the Herseth sponsored Pelosi tour of the Conanta basin. And it might even be possible that paying attention to the trouble of South Dakotans would resonate more strongly with the South Dakota electorate.
Comments
As a farmer, for me the bottom line on global warming is whether Hyde County South Dakota gets warmer and wetter or warmer and drier. Does it turn into Iowa or does it turn into Utah? Iowa good, Utah bad. It's that simple. And in the grand scheme of things that's more important than prairie dogs.
Oh and by the way a trip to Greenland for a few days to study a problem with potentially catastrophic consequences doesn't preclude Rep. Herseth from also working on the prairie dog issue. Makes about as much sense as saying John Thune shouldn't go to the Howard Wood Relays because there are prairie dogs in the badlands.
What I'm saying is Herseth's trip to Greenland seems to be an incredible political blunder as far as South Dakotans are concerned.
And, if she were serious about making her new found concern for the environment relevant to her constituency, she'd bring her buddy Nancy Pelosi to the state and show her what South Dakotans experience.
Absent that, the comments about melting glaciers are making even the people who voted for her scratch their heads.
A trip that isn't on the radar of 98% of SD voters is certainly not "an incredible political blunder as far as South Dakotans are concerned." It's pretty kmuch meaningless.
Maybe PP's just mad because he didn't get to go, and he's because he's tired of herding prairie blogs.
BF
Pelosi's and Gore's alleged hypocrisy has nothing to do with the science of global warming. Their actions do not invalidate the truth about what is happening to the climate. Criticize Pelosi and Gore all you want, but it's extremely bad logic to ignore the science just because a few people live hypocritic lives. I'm not defending Gore or Pelosi--I'm equally distraught over their personal actions. But the facts are wholly separate from the lifestyles of two people.
"[C]an anyone tell me how this trip appeals at all to the Congresswomans' constituency[?]"
She's responsible for setting federal policy. Most of her actions as US Rep do not directly concern South Dakotans. This is American Government 101.
Of course, you know this, but you'd rather try to score a few silly political points because you realize that most people, especially readers of this lowbrow blog, do not understand the principles of American Government.
I have not seen any facts that prove humans are causing global warming. I have seen just as many facts that it is caused by solar activity or natural swings in temperature that occur over hundreds of years.
When I was in high school the world was worrying about global cooling and a new ice age, so maybe I'll just wait another thirty years and see what the temperature is.
The Kyoto treaty will do to much damage to the global economy to be taken on lightly without incontrovertible evidence of human causation of permanent global warming.
drj
The problem with herding prairie dogs is the little bastards always go down their holes. Now if you can catch one while he is in transit to a new town... yeee haww we is gonna have some fun now.
Indeed, the challenge for all responsible politicians is how to balance the present needs of their constituents with the future needs of their constiuents' great-grandchildren.
Such is the case with climate change.
Global warming at this point is not so much a "myth" or an "impending catastrophe" as it is a highly probable, very risky proposition. We don't know the future. But we do know the earth's history, and every time carbon dioxide levels get above a certain threshold, the polar ice caps melt.
Why is that a big deal? If Greenland melts, sea levels around the world rise almost 24 feet. It is almost inconceivable how much freshwater is frozen in the mile-thick sheet of ice over Greenland.
(By the way, PP, Greenland gets its name because the southern most tip is actually quite lush and ice-free....and that was the only part of the island on the minds of the settlers at the time it was named. The ice sheet has been there pretty much as long as humans have been around in modern history.)
Why is a 24 foot rise in sea level a big deal for a farmer in Lake County or a rancher from Midland?
Economic disruption and climate disruption, at the local level, and at the global level.
Nearly all of the world lives near the ocean...South Dakotans and Chicagoans are a rare minority in the grand scheme of world settlement. Which means most of the world's consumers and producers live near the coastline, and face massive relocation (and production and consumption) issues if sea levels rise.
In addition, Europe's mild climate is a result of ocean currents which are quite likely to be disrupted if Greenland melts into the north Atlantic. Ironically, then, a warmer planet means a much colder Europe...and if Europe sinks into another Ice Age, the world economy, including Presho and Parkston and Platte, is at risk for serious economic consequences.
Higher temperatures in South Dakota might make us more like Utah, or, alternatively, more like Missouri. We don't know which one. We can, however, expect more frequent and stronger weather events...because severe weather of all kinds exponentially increases with warmer temperatures. Warmer air can hold exponentially more moisture, and warmer, moister air is much more volatile. Alternatively, warmer, drier air dries out cropland much much faster. In addition, warmer weather generally means more bugs, pests, and vermin.
And of course, a climate change will bring new plant species to South Dakota we don't have right now.
Given all the risks, permitting climate change to occur is not a safe bet. Neither is burying our heads in the sand. However, it is also not a safe bet to go out today and turn off all the lights, shut down all the gas stations, and stop breathing in order to avert catastrophe.
There is balance somewhere between these extremes that permits us to study the problem, begin taking steps to solve it, and harness market forces which can improve our chances, while creating new and more jobs along the way. That is the balance I support, and PP, I think you should, too.
Nick, I've chased both prairie dogs and prairie blogs in my day. And you're right, "Little bastards" is a good way to describe 'em (present company excluded of course.)
How looking for a solution to climate change and pushing for renwable energy is bad for South Dakota is lost on me.
We'll probably see 10 more posts saying essentially the same thing: There's no such thing as global warming, and shame on Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin for taking on EXTRA WORK and getting on the ENERGY INDEPENDENCE and global warming committee.
Even if PP writes 20 more posts on this same topic, I predict he still won't generate any traction for his GOP lackeys.
If these libs really believed what they were saying, they'd actually be doing something about it. But, like John Edwards and poverty, its one of those things the "middle class" will have to take care of while rich libs keep living large.
The largest construction projects in the last 50 years, Big Stone II and the DME project, could both be affected in many ways by new climate change regulations and accords.
Anyone who doesn't believe environmental legislation doesn't affect us here needs to get their heads out of the sand.
9:33, Excellent, well-reasoned response!
All of our economic development problems are solved!
I am also a life long resedent of this fine state, a green Republican from SD....LOL
That's an interesting tent you've got there.
Perhaps the 'greenest' president in history was Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican.
Conservatives, by definition, should be conserving things, including God's values and God's earth.
That's a tent big enough for greenpublicans.
No, he's not.
A multiplying factor is refineries are not getting built in the US.
Remember 30 years ago we were supposed to be entering into an ice age.
In the mean time China and India will party on whether South Dakota becomes like Missouri or Utah.
It doesn't surprise me to see Pelosi scratching behind Sandlin's ears. Anything to politically assinate President Bush.