Amy Coney Barrett is taking so much heat for her evasive non-answers about health care and reproductive rights that it’s easy to overlook her horrific remarks about climate change. And given the urgency of that existential threat, the last thing we need – but what we’re apparently fated to get – is a climate change denier in RBG’s chair.
That’s very 2020. When Barrett was asked yesterday whether she believed that climate change was happening, threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink, she refused to comment on what she called “a very contentious matter of public debate.” But in truth, as we all know, climate change is a “debate” only in the sense that right-wing cranks and people bought by the fossil fuel industry refuse to accept the well-documented scientific consensus.
And on Tuesday, when Barrett was first asked about climate change, she said she didn’t have any “firm views” because “I’m certainly not a scientist.”
Ah, there it was. That fatuous Republican dodge has been in heavy rotation for years. Circa 2014, when then-House Speaker John Boehner was asked whether he agreed with the scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by humans, he replied: “I’m not qualified to debate the science.” When Sen. Marco Rubio was asked the same question, he replied: “I’m not a scientist.” When fellow Floridian Rick Scott (at a time when Miami was already dealing with coastal flooding) was asked the same question, he replied: “Well, I’m not a scientist.”
Let’s play that out. If you’re not an expert on something, wouldn’t you at least heed the advice of the people who are experts? For instance, if a consensus of medical experts say that you need surgery, do you stiff their advice by saying “I’m not a doctor”? If car mechanics say that a major oil leak has damaged your vehicle’s pistons, do you refuse to authorize repairs by saying “I’m not a car mechanic”? If your dog’s vet says the pooch needs pills to control a thyroid condition, do you walk away saying “I’m not a dog vet”?
What Barrett has signaled, with her artless bobbing and weaving, is that she’s in the tank for the corporate powers that have invested heavily in climate change denialism. Charles Koch and other right-wing fat cats, long hostile to climate policies, are major bankrollers of the Federalist Society – where right-wing jurists (including Barrett) are nurtured. The Olin Foundation, which is funded by the Olin chemical empire, paid for Barrett’s fellowship gig at the George Washington University Law School.
So Obamacare and Roe v. Wade aren’t the sole marquee issues in the crosshairs. Climate change will be on the docket, too. In fact, a climate change case is due for a ruling in 2021. The high court will hear a case brought by the city of Baltimore, which is suing several oil firms, including Dutch Royal Shell, seeking to hold them financially accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions. Take a wild guess whose father was a longtime lawyer for Shell.
If Barrett gets the chance to weigh in on climate and environmental policy, brace yourselves. The Supreme Court has already ruled that human-caused climate change is real (not a “debate”), and that the federal government has the right and the authority to curb greenhouse gases, but if Barrett cements a 6-3 majority, we’ll see whether conservatives’ purported respect for judicial precedent outweighs ideological zealotry.
Alas, it’s clear that Barrett what signaling at her confirmation hearing. She’s virtually singing Edie Brickell’s 1988 pop hit, which begins: “I’m not aware of too many things / I know what I know, if you know what I mean…”
Most importantly, it’s clear she’s in sync with her sponsor, Donald Trump, who, while recently riffing on whether climate change is real, crafted this gem: “I don’t think science knows.”
So once again, I have a question for all the people who voted for Jill Stein in 2016, or stayed home because they thought Hillary was meh:
Happy now?