Rabid Devotee of Fossil Fuels To Lead the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality
If you think Trump’s picks to develop and implement environmental policy couldn’t get worse, looks like you were wrong.
If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Kathleen Hartnett White will lead the Council on Environmental Quality, which helps create and implement national policy.
Hartnett White says that the conditions supporting life on Earth have improved as a result of human-caused CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. That this notion is roundly rejected by science doesn’t put her off in the least. Why should it?
My personal fave is her belief that solar and wind energy “disfigure the country.”
It’s easy to be sickened by this, but it’s really hard to be surprised.
Craig,
It seems apparent rational and constructive debate on the environment or political policy has become increasingly impossible in American public life.
Not just in the US, for some years debate and discourse in the Western world has been polarizing into mere abuse, with everyone yelling, and no one listening.
Courtesy, objectivity and respect have disappeared in a welter of “blame ” and intolerant rhetoric.
The media no longer seeks to provide factually accurate reportage and objective analysis. The contributions made by dissenters are no longer considered valuable balance to increasing public debate and advancing knowledge.
Discourse has degenerated to mere abuse or shouting opponents down. “Opinions” are accepted as fact, while reporting has become tainted with bias and sensationalism.
Worse still, analysis is no longer used as an impartial and objective method of arriving at an accurate explanation, instead corrupted by distortions and omissions to support preconceived conclusions.
The Trump Presidency is not not the cause, merely a symptom of this malaise.
A large part of the problem has been panic among traditional media outlets struggling to remain relevant in an era of social media and audiences dumbed down by technology like Twitter.
Dr Harnett-White is a controversial appointment, but why ?
Does she lack suitable qualifications or experience?
Dr Harnett-White’s is academically more than qualified. Her lengthy experience in public service positions over many years establishes her ability as an outstandingly competent administrator.
So why all the controversy ?
It would appear Dr Harnett-White’s opponent’s object to her dissent from claims by Climate Change alarmists.
The attack has never focused on why her opinions are inaccurate, in fact one of the most remarkable aspects is the media seldom quotes directly from Dr Harnett-White, but instead quotes other media reports, who in turn quote opinions of what she said from other media outlets.
The best example of this sad lapse in journalistic integrity is a columnist writing Guardian, who boasted, “it’s not important if I check the authenticity of my sources, as long as I’m satisfied it’s the sort of thing they might have said !”
So what about Dr Harnett-White ?
If you are an ardent climate change advocate, especially if you hold leftist ideological convictions, it’s completely understandable the appointment of Dr Harnett-White would seem a disaster, even a defeat.
What is so wrong with her claim that fossil fuels have improved human life on the planet ? That not something to be sickened by, it’s an indisputable fact !
Likewise Solar and Wind can disfigure the natural beauty of the country side, while creating considerable negative environmental impact.
Even Siemens would find that hard to dispute !
If we are to get back to a more productive and respectful discourse in public life, it’s imperative we cease disdainfully refusing to debate our claims, dismissing all objectors as “deniers” or “alarmists”.
Demonizing Oil Companies while enjoying the products they produce is unhelpful and hypocritical. Real solutions based on advanced technology is what the planet needs, not bitter political infighting.
It’s pointless blaming one side or the other for “polarizing” the debate when each is as bad as the other.
The media no longer fulfills (if it ever did) any role in moderating or improving the standard of public discourse, instead it rewards and encourages the worst sort of behavior in public life.
The hatred that now abodes is palpable, with each side no longer listening to what the speaker means, but cynically monitoring each word or phrase for something that can be used out of context, or distorted, to pretend sensationalized outrage for political advantage.
In such an atmosphere how can any progress be made ? In such a bitter, “winner take all” atmosphere how can any rational discourse take place ?
IMHO, we must all share the blame, for this unpleasant “Gotcha!’ mentality. Any improvement must start with the one thing we can control, ourselves and our own behavior.
If we all moderate our rhetoric and refuse to be drawn into angry, intolerant or dismissive contempt for other opinions, if we all respect and seek to understand the best of each others ideas and experience, the attraction of fiery, bitter recriminations could no longer be exploited by a lazy and sensationalized press.
If we stopped being professionally “outraged” and started listening, we might find there’s nothing to be outraged about !
A miracle might occur, as Martin Luther King jnr preached, we might find our enemies and opponents stopped being afraid and started to listen also.
In the words of the late, great Phil Orchs;
“Oh, I know you’re set for fighting, but what are you fighting for? “