Back to Top

The Environment

Yes, it will be an adjustment to certain industries and will require coordination with foreign countries, but inaction is worse.  All the economic research I’ve seen (much of it this past summer!) indicates that economic productivity is negatively impacted by excessive heat.  Plant growth and survival is predicated on a certain temperature range.  Existing infrastructure will be at risk if sea levels rise and/or agriculture has to move.  If millions of climate refugees contemplate leaving the Middle East, south Asia and Africa and coming to the U.S., Canada and Europe because it’s too hot, it will be easier politically to say no to them if we’ve been responsible about the problem.

Without federal action, businesses will be fighting numerous piecemeal efforts by various coalitions (states, countries, EPA, etc.) and ESG efforts to accomplish this via other means.  That's inefficient and we need to harness the free market to solve this.

I know that poor countries will try to shame us into bribing them to cooperate.  While there may be some legitimate situations where we could pay them for certain actions, we should push back by reminding them that our historical emissions created the modern world they now enjoy with cars, air conditioning, electricity and air travel.

Some say we should just adapt to hotter temperatures.  Think back to 1970 when the EPA was created.  If anybody had suggested then that we should adapt to pollution by wearing hazmat suits rather than eliminating the pollution, they would have been laughed out of the room.  We should do the same now.


Citizens for Jim Hemenway
Powered by CampaignPartner.com - Political Campaign Websites
Close Menu