One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results. -Milton Friedman
Politics determine who has the power, not who has the truth. -Paul Krugman
Last Friday, I attended the Natural Resources Committee meeting of the Utah Congress. I took the train up to Salt Lake to support House Concurrent Resolution 5 (HCR5), sponsored by Representative Ray Ward. The resolution is entitled, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION URGING POLICIES THAT REDUCE DAMAGE FROM WILDFIRES. After five whereas statements about the causes and consequences of wildfire in Utah, HCR5 has three resolutions:
- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah, the Governor concurring therein, urges the federal government to pursue policies that allow for common sense fuel load reductions in Utah's forests, including easier permitting of prescribed burns during times of the year with low fire risk and allowing for appropriate salvage logging to occur before timber loses its economic value.
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah, the Governor concurring therein, urges the federal government to minimize additional climate change by pursuing policies that will lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be sent to the members of Utah's federal delegation, the chief of the United States Forest Service, and the director of the United States Bureau of Land Management.
Friday, February 15th. A stormy day on Utah's Capitol Hill.
Representative Keven Stratton chaired the meeting, sitting at the head of a large curved bench with six representatives on each side. I was really impressed with how Stratton led the meeting with a personable mix of poise, warmth, and professionalism. I felt he was sincerely interested in the opinions of all the representatives and grateful for the members of the public who had showed up.
There were three bills and one resolution on the meeting agenda before HCR5, ranging from recycling regulations to a commemoration of the Golden Spike National Historic Park. The first issue elicited a detailed discussion about the tire recycling fee. Several representatives questioned the sponsor and his expert about the functioning of the recycling industry in Utah and the specifics of the fee.
As the meeting progressed, I organized my thoughts into a few bullet points:
- Fire is a natural and necessary part of healthy Utah ecosystems. Among other things it is critical for aspen forest regeneration, wildlife habitat, soil health, and aquatic ecosystems.
- What can be damaging are intense and large megafires, which endanger communities, wildlife, water security, and air quality.
- Since the 1970s in the southwestern us, wildfire extent has doubled primarily because of climate change (longer burn seasons, dryer fuel, and higher temperature) and secondarily the legacy of aggressive fire suppression for much of the early 20th century
- Returning to a more natural fire regime, with frequent, small burns, and mitigating climate change are the two actions that could reduce the risk of megafire in Utah
I wasn't the only one "multi-tasking" in the room. Many of the representatives were reading or writing, and several had to step out of the chamber temporarily to make appearances in other meetings or hearings.
One of the findings on the link between climate change and wildfire from the Trump Administration's National Climate Assessment.
Finally, Ward was up. He passed out a summary sheet with the details of HCR5 and then gave a five-minute pitch about how fire suppression in the past has increased fuel loads and how climate change was making burn seasons longer and fires larger and more intense. Stratton asked if there was anyone in the chamber who wanted to make a public comment.
A physicist from Weber State spoke first, explaining the basic science of climate change. I spoke next, talking through the points above linking climate change with wildfire in Utah. A woman from Ogden spoke last, describing how reducing greenhouse emissions was important for human and ecosystem health. Stratton graciously thanked us for our comments and opened discussion in the committee.
Representative Timothy Hawkes pushed his button first, and proposed an amendment to strip all mention of climate change from the bill. He reasoned that establishing the causes of climate change was complicated at best and that because climate change was only tangentially related to wildfire, it would make for a "cleaner" bill to only address the forest management portion of the resolution. There was a debate on this point with representatives making claims about what we knew and didn't know about climate change and whether it made sense to encourage relatively vague federal action. After a few minutes, Hawkes amendment was passed and the committee passed the revised version of HCR5 with a large majority. Stratton was one of the few opponents of the amendment and the revised bill, but I couldn't tell if that was because he didn't want it debated on the floor at all, or if he opposed the idea of making an appeal to the federal government.
What surprised me most about the meeting was the clear separation of information from decision making. After the presentation of the resolution and the science supporting it, there was a total break or change of gears. As the discussion and vote went forward with no reference to the scientific information presented before, I felt like a child trying to weigh in on an upcoming family vacation. "Thanks for your input, now the adults are going to decide what to do."
Maybe this gulf between information and policy was only surprising because I am so used to scientific discourse. At a conference or after you publish a paper, you are often confronted with new information that may not fit your hypothesis. Your methods and conclusions are almost always questioned and investigated, but there is a shared commitment to reproducible results. You can want to believe in whatever you choose, but at the end of the day, it's only science if someone else can independently demonstrate the same thing. At the committee meeting, I didn't get the feeling that anyone was disputing what I had said, I felt like they thought it was completely immaterial. My evidence was so distant from their decisions that it didn't have any standing at all.
Even my meager experience with politics reveals that things aren't always so dire. After all, why was there such a fruitful discussion about a $1 tire recycling fee but not a single question about the specifics of climate change, an issue that threatens our ability to grow food and find clean water? How could we improve the information content in our debates about issues that depend on thoughtful consideration of both evidence and values? I would love to know how many of the representatives accept the science of climate change but voted against the resolution because of its policy implications versus how many truly do not believe.
I don't have answers to these questions, so I guess I'll just have to keep walking back up Capitol Hill until I do.
