RSS
Home
U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Global Warming: A modern-day 'monkey trial'?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Just when it seems we're moving ahead on the issue of global warming, along comes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce threatening to put the science of climate change on trial.
The chamber has reasons of its own -- potential federal emissions regulations that it believes would hurt the economy -- in pushing the EPA to hold a public hearing that chamber officials say would be the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st century, complete with witnesses, cross-examination and a judge.
"It would be evolution versus creationism," William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president, is quoted as saying. If the EPA denies the request, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.
Why would the chamber want another Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, especially since it did little to settle that contentious issue? The trial showcased famed lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a carnival-type contest over whether a Tennesee science teacher taught evolution illegally. John Scopes, the 24-year-old public high school teacher, agreed to be a test case for a new state law against teaching evolution or any other theory that would deny the biblical account of the creation of man.
The jury found Scopes guilty of violating the law and fined him $100. Although Bryan won the case, science is said to have won the argument because the public became swayed by the scientific evidence that was presented. Two years later the Tennesee Supreme Court reversed the decision on a technicality. The issue still stirs strong passions because it pits traditional religious views against modern day science.
The chamber already had its opportunity to air any concerns when the EPA held a 60-day comment period on its finding that global warming poses a threat to our health and welfare, says Mary Anne Hitt, of the Sierra Club. "Where was the chamber then?" she wants to know.
"It seems the chamber is siding with a minority of polluting energy companies, even though it is now clear that reducing global warming emissions is good for the economy and the environment," she writes in a press release.
I've read some comments on the Internet that suggest the EPA should not shy away from this type of examination, but it's been a long, hard road for environmentalists to finally reach this point. A "trial" will only waste precious time, money and involve needless court actions. Now is the time to step up, not fall behind.
To read related articles, click the links below.
Related Articles:
Comments
