In the last few days, I've seen a number of articles on the web (like this one) where someone says, "This is not the time to discuss whether Climate Change was responsible for what happened in Houston." This, of course, comes from people who think there's never a good time to discuss Climate Change and especially not when there's so much evidence on all our screens of what could happen more and more if most of the folks they call "alarmists" are right.
In the linked article, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said the "left-wing media" is trying "to make this seem like it's climate change, that climate change is responsible, it's actually America's fossil fuel consumption that's caused this tropical storm." It's a shame he feels that way. Before he was brought in to gut the E.P.A., Mr. Pruitt's income came from coordinating with the oil and gas industry to roll back consumer protections. If only he'd come out for taking Climate Change seriously, he could have lost both his careers at the same time.
It seems like every time I see Marco Rubio talking about Climate Change, he says that obviously something is happening there but it will cost so much to start fighting it that it's not cost-effective. Will someone ask that man how cost-effective it is to have to rebuild Houston every few years? Even if you set aside the costs of human lives and misery and people losing everything including their livelihoods…leave all that aside and just focus on what it costs to repair the damage, how is that any sort of bargain?