Garrett's Recent Votes

With the focus so much on health care these days, it's easy to forget that the House has other business. Representative Scott Garrett has had a number of votes recently that should interest folks here in the Fifth District. Here's a sampling:

H.R. 3221 Garrett and most Republicans voted no on fully funding Pell Grants.

H.R.3246 To provide for a program of research, development, demonstration and commercial application in vehicle technologies at the Department of Energy. Only member of the NJ Delegation to vote no.

H.R. 22 To reduce the amount that the United States Postal Service is required to pay into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund by the end of fiscal year 2009. This was approved, with Garrett's support, by a landslide.

H.R. 965 This one is aimed at providing funding to those preserving the Chesapeake Bay. Once again, Garrett was the only one from NJ to vote no.

Shulman on Mr. 8%

The campaign of Dennis Shulman released a statement regarding Representative Scott Garrett scoring 75 percentage points below our Congressional Delegation's environmental average. My personal favorite part of the release was this:

As illustrated by the admirable scores of Garrett's Republican colleagues, what matters is not whether an idea is Democratic or Republican, but whether it is good for the country.

Obviously, looking to your right, this is a big part of my personal beliefs.

You have to contrast Shulman's sentiment with the one Garrett offered after the State of the Union; as well as his verbally assaulting moderate Republicans for putting the nation above partisanship; or the fact Garrett refuses to recognize bi-partisan support for bills backing things from AIDS prevention in Africa or health insurance for low income children that he doesn't like.

Shulman is still considered by all the pundits to be a long shot, however one can only imagine what it would be like to go back to the days of Marge Roukema; where a certain amount of partisanship was present, but where it took a backseat to good policy.

Garrett: Mr. 8% Environment

After Representative Scott Garrett openly chastised those concerned about the environment, this report should come as no surprise: Garrett gets an 8% pro-environment grade from Environment New Jersey. This is a 7% drop from his score in 2007.

Garrett being labelled outside of the mainstream by his opponents is nothing new, and hard to quantify at times. That point is often raised by his supporters as well as the traditional press. This provides such a quantifiable example.

The entire NJ Delegation, with Garrett's score included, averaged 83% of the reviewed votes. To make matters more interesting, with a larger sample, the national average is 58%. Garrett is a full 50 percentage points below the average.

I find it hard to believe that somebody who grew up in Sussex County could have such a horrendous environmental voting record. However, that's what we've got. There was an impassioned plea over on Blue Jersey not to cede the environmental issues to Garrett. How could the Shulman campaign with results like this?

Thanks to Teddy Roosevelt's understanding that in order to protect hunting and fishing for both sustenance and sport, you need to protect the environment, the modern conservation and environmental protection movement was started. Environmentalism used to be a Republican ideal. However, like so many things, the Conservative mold from which Garrett comes apparently is no longer concerned with supporting such things.

Shulman Hits Garrett on Warming

Dennis Shulman has ratcheted up his criticism of Representative Scott Garrett on the environment. The Shulman campaign started a new website in an effort to get Garrett to acknowledge global warming is a threat. They also put up a video of Garrett, apparently at the State Fair, being asked why he voted to remove language from a bill saying global warming is a problem.



Back in December, Garrett was quoted by the Record regarding his view on global warming:

Asked if Tuesday's recommendations seemed feasible, Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, would say only that he will "consider all sources" in the global warming debate.

For a guy that went to law school to be an environmental lawyer, one would hope he'd have more discerning research habits. "All sources" includes the fantasy "Day After Tomorrow" on one side and reports from scientists that have been paid to dispute global warming on the other. Even President Bush has acknowledged climate change is a problem, two years ago, before Garrett voted to strip the language.

It will be interesting to see how Garrett's campaign spins this challenge, if they even acknowledge it.

Garrett and Ringwood

Who says Representative Scott Garrett doesn't pay attention to the District? Well, at least his press office does.

After I pointed out that it was Representative Frank Pallone, and not Garrett, who started the effort to get the Ringwood Superfund site relisted; followed by Dennis Shulman saying the plight of the Ramapoughs reinforced his desire to run; Garrett put out the following today as part of his Garrett Gazette:

IMPORTANT NOTICE: RINGWOOD SUPERFUND SITE

As you may know, I have been actively involved with efforts to re-list the Ringwood, New Jersey site on the National Priorities List (NPL),also known as the National Superfund list. The site had been de-listed initially by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1994, but in 2006 it became the first EPA Superfund site to be re-listed.

Since entering office, I have been actively involved in working to resolve this situation.

That's not entirely true.

Garrett was first elected in 2002. According to the Bergen Record, Garrett's first demand of a report of the status of the clean-up came only after their award winning series "Toxic Legacy" debuted. The series broke in late 2005, so Garrett was in office almost 3 years before making serious comment on the situation.

Garrett also was not part of the letter to the EPA Inspector General from Pallone, as well as Senators Bob Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, demanding an investigation into why the site was de-listed in the first place. Whether or not Garrett was invited to participate, and therefore, whether or not he declined to call for the investigation is not clear.

To his credit, the New York Times says Garrett did urge the EPA to relist the site, which I don't think anyone questions. It's more of how committed he was to it before being shown up by other members in the Congressional Delegation.

"Since entering office" is quite a stretch.

The Shrinking Lake Superior

About a month ago, I read this story about the declining water levels in Lake Superior. The water has been going down for years, and as noted in the article, locals believe the government is stealing the water to aid in the expansion in the southwest. This view seems to be held by locals in Canada as well. Scientists and the Army Corps. of Engineers dispute this theory.

However, the water keeps going down as reported by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) yesterday:

NOAA hydrologists indicate that Lake Superior is nearing record lows for the month of August, a trend that if continued could break past record lows for the months of September and October.

The big lake they call Gitche Gumee going dry? How can this be? Well, the NOAA provides their answer:

The lake has been decreasing by a rate of 10 mm every year since 1978, and has dropped a dramatic two feet during the last decade. The Great Lakes region has been experiencing warmer winters since 1997, and the combination of warmer air temperatures and less ice cover leads to increased evaporation rates during the winter. Also, with less snow pack, there is less spring runoff to replenish the lakes.

[snip]

Lake Superior’s record low of 182.69 meters was set in April 1926, the same year the lake reached an averaged annual record low of 182.90 meters as a result of a major climatic event that led to the dust bowl. Sellinger said that dramatic water level changes are generally caused by major climatic events.

The dust bowl caused the widespread economic and environmental hardship that inspired both The Grapes of Wrath and the song "My Oklahoma Home", which was recently covered by Bruce Springsteen and the Seeger Sessions Band. Not a pleasant time by any stretch of the imagination.

A few years ago, NASA scientists published their findings about how the "major climatic event" causing the dust bowl and drop in Superior happened.

The study found cooler than normal tropical Pacific Ocean surface temperatures combined with warmer tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures to create conditions in the atmosphere that turned America's breadbasket into a dust bowl from 1931 to 1939.

[snip]

"The 1930s drought was the major climatic event in the nation's history," Schubert said. "Just beginning to understand what occurred is really critical to understanding future droughts and the links to global climate change issues we're experiencing today."

Part of those global climate change issues the folks at NASA are talking about is not just the evaporation of Lake Superior, but the melting ice caps. Yesterday, the AP reported that Arctic Ice is about to set a record low as well.

Sea ice is particularly low in the East Siberian side of the Arctic and the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska, the center reported

Yep, that's basically the Pacific Ocean side. Anyone who has ever stuck their finger in a glass of ice water knows, by it's very nature, the ice cools the water it melts into. This poses a pretty serious question, are we as a nation capable of dealing with another dust bowl type event?

Whether you believe Al Gore and the vast majority of the scientific community, or the well funded deniers campaign, when it comes to severe climate change we have to be prepared for the consequences. We weren't prepared for Katrina, even though we knew she was coming and thought she would be stronger than she was, and we still haven't recovered.

Lake Superior's previous record low happened four years before the dust bowl. Is that enough of a warning? While the signs are there that we may be heading into another situation like the dust bowl, as a public it doesn't seem like we're talking about preparing for it. We should be, as a nation. There's no excuse not to.

Live Earth - Now What?

So the show is over, the bands and fans have gone home, and there were some 1,800 articles listed on Google News about the whole thing. So what does it really mean? What happens next? Will it make a difference?

Probably the most blistering speech given was by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr at the New Jersey show. His point was basically that all of us can and should do all of the little things they recommend to reduce our individual impact; however national public policy can only change when the politicians in Washington do it.

For those of us here in the Fifth, we already know Representative Scott Garrett is against Congress taking action on climate change. Garrett recently was the only Representative from New Jersey to vote to strip the following language from an appropriations bill (h/t Scott in NJ):

SEC. 501. (a) The Congress finds that--

(1) greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability and are posing a substantial risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity of floods, droughts, and wildfires;

(2) there is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere; and

(3) mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. (b) It is the sense of the Congress that there should be enacted a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a manner that (1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and (2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions.

I'm not sure why Garrett opposed this language, maybe he read one of the reports written by the scientists hired by the Exxon backed American Enterprise Institute to dispute global warming and is confused. Fortunately, the rest of New Jersey's delegation (Republicans and Democrats) understood the importance of putting this in writing.

The debate over acid rain went roughly the same way. Scientists, those impacted, and those that read about what was going on were screaming for help; while opponents of regulation painted the scientists as idiots, the activists as fringe, and rolled out their own "experts" to confuse the issue.

However, in that case the government went ahead and implemented regulation with stunning success in achieving reductions. The economy didn't collapse, there was a tangible reduction in the release of acid rain causing chemicals and the environment has begun to recover. Now, faced with over $4 billion a year in crop losses, among other things, China has started to close their coal fired plants to combat their own acid rain issue.

So now, we have a choice to make: do we as a District accept the fact that we have a Representative who would rather have us sit on our hands and do nothing about climate change; or do we get a new Representative. This isn't a partisan issue, as the rest of our delegation proved. This is a big beefy issue that needs people up to the challenge, and by all appearances it seems we don't have that kind of Representative at the moment.

Live Earth - Update 3

I'm watching the replay of the Foo Fighters in London at the moment and checking out the media reports on the event. Of note, considering my earlier post, is that Zach Braff once again showed his love of his roots. From USA Today:

During the concert, most of the artists were giving shout outs to being in New York City. When Scrubs' Zach Braff stepped on stage, the New Jersey native said, "People keep saying this is New York, and I'm sick of it and tired of it. We're in the beautiful state of New Jersey!" The crowd screamed and cheered.

Live Earth - Update 2

So, watching the London show I've enjoyed the intentional set design of having something recycled as the light fixtures. Australia had tires, London has oil drum lids. While one is a product of petroleum, the other is what's used to deliver it. Looks good.

I suppose as I'm getting ready to go pay almost $3 a gallon to fill my car, one of my continuing frustrations with the naysayers on climate change is their complete lack of economic patriotism. Oil prices have been cited as hurting small business, who Inc. Magazine cited as creating 60% of the new jobs in the nation last month. Don't believe in global warming, fine, then take a look at our sagging GDP growth and rising inflation.

Implementing these measures reduces oil consumption and saves money for families and businesses. The oil industry has told us time and again that they're not gouging because prices are based on supply and demand. More recently they've said they're not going to increase supply, so our only recourse is to reduce demand. Kind of like my doing the South Beach Diet, it's not about changing yourself for a short time (ex. drilling off the Jersey Coast), it's about changing your mindset. Individually, as families, and as a nation changing our mindset only has benefits.

There's a lot each of us can do in our own lives to save a few bucks here and a few bucks there, and it will add up. On a government level, any elected representative opposing implementing many of these measures is wasting taxpayer money making taxes higher than they need to be and our national debt worse. I don't know why that's not said more often, but it's the truth.

Live Earth - Update

Ok, Missy Higgins just finished her set and she's good.

I'm less interested in seeing the crowd in between sets and seeing the films they're showing. However, I'm done for the night.

In the event I don't get back on here tomorrow, here's the things they're asking people to pledge to help improve the environment. Environmentalists seem to be particularly verbose, so for the naysayers out there let's put this another way; here are 10 ways you can save yourself a good amount of money.


Courtesy of Conservation International

Do your part to ensure a healthy planet by incorporating these ten simple actions into your everyday life.

1) Replace your incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent lights (CFLs). Look closely at labels when buying light bulbs. Those marked as CFLs last 10 times longer and use 66 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs while delivering the same light levels. As a result, CFLs accrue net savings between $30 and $45 over their lifetimes, depending on your cost of electricity, the wattage size of the CFL, and the lamp's lifespan (manufacturers make CFLs that last 6,000, 8,000, or 10,000 hours). The return on investment is 15 times higher than leaving your money in a bank account or the average return on Dows-Jones stock investments. CFLs also reduce the release of greenhouse gas emissions and are safer because they burn at a lower temperature (160° F or less) than incandescent and halogen lights, which can burn at temperatures up to 500° F.

2) Turn down the thermostat just three degrees in the winter and up three degrees in the summer. You can prevent the emission of nearly 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide annually.

3) Inflate your car tires. When walking or biking isn't feasible, you can do something to better protect the Earth while driving. Take a step in the right direction by inflating your car tires. Pumping them up can improve your gas mileage by about 3.3 percent -- a savings of about 7 cents per gallon. It's the right thing to do for your wallet and the right thing to do for the Earth.

4) Turn down the hot water heater. Set your water heater to 130° F. While you're at it, turn down your house thermostat during the winter to 55° F when you go to bed or leave home. These simple actions can have enormous positive consequences, preventing the emission of more than 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide over the course of the year, while cutting your energy bill by more than 10 percent. And that's just from you! Get your friends on board, and the benefits will multiply.

5) Choose your seafood wisely. We can't afford to wait until 2008. The world's seafood will be entirely depleted by 2048, according to an early November report in the journal Science. That means the moment to shape up is now. By buying and eating certain types of seafood, you can discourage harmful fishing practices and avoid the more depleted or threatened species. Take a look at Seafood Choices Alliance or Seafood Watch to make smart choices.

6) Purchase EnergyStar-labeled appliances. EnergyStar products are among the top 25 percent most efficient and can provide a 30 percent return or better through lower utility bills.

7) Wash and rinse in cold water. If everyone in the United States alone switched to cold water with their washing machines, we could save about 30 million tons of carbon dioxide each year -- and more than $3 billion in energy costs, collectively. And what's more? Cold water cleans your laundry just as well as hot water.

8) Buy locally produced meats and produce. Sounds like a good idea, but you don't know where to start? Just type in your zip code on Local Harvest's website to see a list of farms and farmers' markets close to home, as well as nearby restaurants committed to supporting their neighbors. Buying locally produced food cuts out the middlemen and the vast amounts of energy required to get your products onto store shelves. Most produce in U.S. supermarkets travels an average 1,500 miles before it is sold!

9) Drink more water from reusable glassware. It's great for your bank account, your health, and your planet. The average American consumed more than 400 beverage bottles and cans in 2006, leaving behind wasted glass, plastic, steel, and aluminum. That adds up to excessive amounts of fossil fuels and hydropower for mining, processing, refining, shaping, shipping, storing, refrigerating, and disposing of those materials. Of course, changing your drinking habits both at home and at work is applicable to just about every other habit, as well. You've heard it before and you'll hear it again: Reduce, reuse, and recycle.

10) Walk, bike, and carpool. In the United States, the car represents one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. However, you don't have to give up your car for a healthier planet, just expand your transportation options. You can significantly reduce your emissions by commuting to work. Try combining trips to minimize emissions, which are greatest at the beginning of a journey before the engine has reached optimum temperature and efficiency. When purchasing your next car, make it a fuel-efficient one. Hybrid cars can get twice the fuel efficiency of the average new car, cut greenhouse gas emissions by half or more, and reduce urban air pollutants. Carpooling saves energy, cuts on additional pollution, and allows you to take a turn as a passenger instead of driving everyday. Car-sharing (not pooling) is available in numerous U.S. cities. Car-sharing enables you to rent a car just when you need it. Each car-share vehicle displaces four to eight privately held cars, requiring less parking area and creating less road congestion. If you live within an hour's bicycle ride to the office (~10 miles), consider biking to work one or more days a week

Live Earth - It's in NJ

So, I'm watching/listening to the Live Earth show from Australia while I'm working on another project. The band playing at the moment is Eskimo Joe. They're really good musicians and absolutely not helping me stay up as they're rather slow. There's no shot of me staying up for Wolfmother, which is what I could use at the moment.

MSN has the show times and line-ups here. Last time I checked, there are tickets still available to the show at Giants Stadium if you have a minimum of $200+ to blow per ticket (all the $100 variety are gone).

On another note, you can count me among those that's annoyed they refer to it as being Live Earth New York. Today, Corzine signed what many consider the toughest green house gas reduction bill in the United States, if not the world, with enforceable targets. Love the bill or hate the bill, it's New Jersey's bill and not New York's.

It was nice of Al Gore to show up at Corzine's signing, my guess is he might have noticed the signing wasn't in Flushing Meadows; or the Bronx; or Coney Island; or Staten Island; or Randall's Island; or Jones Beach; but in East Rutherford, which is in Bergen County, which is in New Jersey.

A little respect would be nice.

Garrett "improves" on Environment

Here's an interesting story from the Courier News about a grassroots Republican group's ratings of Republicans on conservation. In its annual report card, the Republicans for Environmental Protection gave Representative Scott Garrett a 33 for his environmental record, which is twice his score from the previous year. The average score was 83 for the New Jersey Republican delegation, with Mike Ferguson & Frank LoBiondo getting perfect 100's and Jim Saxton getting extra-credit for a 104. Needless to say, Garrett was an average killer.

It's good to see there's an organization within the Republican Party keeping true to the legacy of conservationism handed down to them by Teddy Roosevelt. Just to see how their rank compared to others, I checked against the League of Conservation Voters, who gave Garrett a 25 for 2006. Considering the LCV gave Garrett a 10 back in 2003, taken at face value, it appears he's getting ever so slightly better.

However, the Courier News's story pointed this little tidbit out about the REP's scorecard:

The average score of House Republicans was 30 for last year, up from 14 in 2005.

So basically, Garrett maintained his practice of voting the party line and the Republicans as a whole improved ever so slightly. That being pointed out, I'm sure Garrett will highlight the entire delegation's pro-environmental record, as he did when touting the passage of the earmark reform that he voted against.

We're fortunate in NJ to have the delegation we have, on both sides of the aisle, when it comes to their commitment to the environment. As I try to explain to people, being from the state that's home to more Superfund sites than anywhere else in the nation, our Representatives should have an understanding of what a lack of environmental protection looks like. With the exception of Garrett, they seem to get it.

In an overwhelmingly pro-environment Congressional Delegation, including LoBiondo and Saxton who comprised 25% of the House Republicans endorsed by the Sierra Club last year, Garrett sticks out like rotten thumb.