This post was originally published at the National Journal’s Energy & Environmental Experts blog as a response to the question: Does global warming increase the risk of extreme weather? The science is clear: Warmer temperatures accommodate more water vapor in the atmosphere. This in turn leads to more instability and increased risk of extreme storms [...]
Very early yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee released the detailed spending bill, H.R. 1473, that implements the three-way agreement among President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But what does this mean for U.S. commitments to international climate finance?
Stopping EPA from taking action would send a terrible signal to the rest of the world, signaling that the U.S. is backpedaling on climate change, even as China, Brazil and other countries are speeding ahead. This will adversely affect not only the United States’ standing in the world, but our economy.
Some in Congress are threatening to reverse the progress EPA has made in fighting carbon pollution. On Wednesday, the Senate is expected to consider amendments to a small business bill that would handcuff EPA in its ability to make forward progress on climate change.
H.R. 1 would slash U.S. direct foreign assistance and support for multilateral institutions. The total funding of these programs amounts to less than 1 percent of the federal budget, but they play a critical role in protecting U.S. security, contributing to a strong economy, providing stability in many countries, and preserving the U.S. as a strong global partner.
This current warm Arctic-cold continents pattern is likened to leaving the refrigerator door open. The room gets colder but the fridge warms up.