Your Opinion: Congressman twisted the facts

Dear Editor:

In his March 21 column, "Fairness and transparency," Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer's attack on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would have more credibility if he would stick to facts and offer up some non-regulatory solutions to our environmental challenges.

Luetkemeyer implies that EPA uses "secret science" to advance its climate agenda. As an example he refers to emails between scientists who manipulated climate data. He must be referring to the hacked emails at the University of East Anglia in Britain.

Eight committees investigated these emails and didn't find any evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. As a constituent, I'm outraged at this attempt to discredit climate science based on innuendo when our future is at risk.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments are among the most critically reviewed documents in the history of peer-reviewed science. Most major scientific organizations have climate change statements that agree with the IPCC stating that global warming is happening, is mostly caused by human activity and that we need to drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels. Not a single scientific organization in the world disagrees.

There are about 40 individual scientists who disagree that humans are the primary cause of global warming. By contrast, 197 worldwide scientific organizations agree that humans are the cause.

Luetkemeyer says a Secret Science Reform Act would give "independent" scientists a fair chance to validate the studies EPA uses to make regulations. Do we really need legislation that will provide every last industry funded scientist an opportunity to delay climate action or any environmental policy indefinitely?

In a February poll commissioned by Reuters, 66 percent of the respondents said world leaders are morally obligated to reduce CO2 emissions. Other polls show most Americans support Obama's clean power plan. Any effort to reduce fossil-fuel emissions will also improve our health with cleaner air and water.

More than half of America's rivers, lakes and streams aren't safe for fishing or swimming. As "onerous" as regulations may be, this isn't the time to defund science or close down the EPA.

Rather than constantly sponsoring legislation that makes EPA's job more challenging - and endangering our future with delay - Congress could enact a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend that would so effectively reduce emissions that EPA regulation of CO2 wouldn't be needed. The carbon dividend, distributed evenly to all households, would be a welcome boost to our economy. Visit http://citizensclimatelobby.org for details.