The unimaginable tragedy in Lahaina, Hawaii, was heartbreaking. More than 1,000 people are missing or have been confirmed dead due to the wildfires.
The world for these Americans has changed forever. There were plenty of human errors behind this tragedy. Global warming, however, should not be one of them. We should not use it as a scapegoat. These folks would have blamed the flood that pushed Noah to build his Ark on climate change if they were around then.
The whole argument for the scientific validity of global warming may be undeniable, but at one time so was the "science" on the world being flat. And we all know how that turned out. The scientists were right until they "weren't." We would not be here today in America had folks not "challenged" the science.
I think I was one of the original environmentalists, I say facetiously. As an elementary student, I was selected to lead my class and represent my school for "Rid Litter Day." Our goal was to stop people from making the earth and our communities trash-ridden. In the 1960s, people frequently could be seen throwing empty cans, paper products, bottles, half-eaten food, and other debris out the window of their cars. If they were walking, they would throw trash onto the sidewalk or grass - anywhere other than in a trash can. We wanted to keep our environment clean.
For the most part, efforts to stop littering have worked over the years. If you litter, you face fines or at least social shaming (or both).
Also, as a child, one summer, I spent a few days in Los Angeles. I was surprised that in sunny California, I was not able to see the sun. Every day it seemed cloudy. How unlucky we were, I thought. Then I added a new word to my vocabulary - smog. I understood fog but had never experienced smog.
Smog, to varying degrees, was a significant problem in big cities due to the growing number of cars on the roads. These cities were also home to robust manufacturing facilities that often emitted smoke. For instance, my hometown, Waterbury, became known as the "brass center of the world." Factories, some employing thousands of millworkers, produced bullet shells, buttons, and bomb casings, among other supplies, primarily to supply the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. The region also had factories that converted rubber into tires and footwear.
These products were not only causing air pollution, but the manufacturing that went into them was responsible for polluting rivers and endangering our water supply.
After the war, the munitions factories ceased production. The companies producing tires and footwear relocated to foreign soil where they could find cheap labor.
The federal government created a "Superfund" account to address the cleanup of toxic waste that had seeped into the ground and waterways during that period of heavy industrialization in America.
Years later as a freshman Congressman, I successfully fought to get the House of Representatives to approve a $20 million earmark to clean up one of those sites in my hometown to allow for the construction of a large commercial mall.
At the beginning of my political career, when I was the president pro-tempore of the Waterbury Board of Aldermen, one of the immediate challenges involved a landfill that was about to overflow. With the population growing in the region, what were we going to do about the rapid increase in garbage?
The solution at the time was waste-to-energy plants. It sounded good, but nobody wanted such a plant in their backyard. The smell was unbearable, and the smoke was unhealthy.
A new solution came about. We would separate garbage, which later became known as recycling. When I first heard about this concept, I was skeptical. "We were going to ask people to put bottles, cans, plastic, and paper products into separate containers?" I queried. Yeah, right.
Recyclable items would not go to the landfills. In fact, recycling them would bring economic incentives for others as the items could be used again in a different manner.
Everyone nationwide saw the wisdom of this approach.
Clean air, clean water, clean environment - the results of recycling.
There is a significant difference between being an environmentalist back in those days versus being one today. We did not necessarily need science. We simply needed to use our senses - our eyes to see, mouth to taste, and nose to smell - to tell we had a problem.
Unlike the 21st-century theory of global warming, back in the day, we had 100% proof that the aforementioned environmental concerns could and would kill us - and not in five, 10, or 25 years, but in a matter of months if we did not fix it. What we did locally to correct our environmental problems would protect us locally.
Climate change, on the other hand, is a global problem. We need China, India (the most populist nations), and other industrialized countries to be "all in" when it comes to confronting this problem, but unfortunately, they are not. Taking unilateral measures on climate change is like trying to heat your house with all your windows open during a New England winter. It simply would not be effective and would be incredibly expensive.
Hawaii, we pray for those who lost their lives, for the missing to be found, for lives to be put back together, and for lessons to be learned. But global warming?
I don't think so.
Gary Franks served three terms as U.S. representative for Connecticut's 5th District. He was the first Black Republican elected to the House in nearly 60 years and New England's first Black member of the House. Host: podcast "We Speak Frankly." Author: "With God, For God, and For Country." @GaryFranks
Join the conversation as a VIP Member