Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
(Scott Sommerdorf | Tribune file photo) Utah Rep. Chris Stewart, among the skeptics of climate change science and President Barack Obama’s attempts to use federal regulations to curb carbon emissions, is the new chairman of the House environmental subcommittee charged with overseeing the politically charged debate.
Utah’s Stewart skeptical about climate change threat

First Published Mar 19 2013 02:32 pm • Last Updated Mar 21 2013 07:55 am

Washington » Count Utah Rep. Chris Stewart among the skeptics of climate change science and President Barack Obama’s attempts to use federal regulations to curb carbon emissions.

That position puts freshman House member Stewart well within the mainstream of Republican politics, but his views now hold more weight than those of many of his colleagues.

At a glance

To listen in

The subcommittee on Environment will hold a hearing Wednesday on “Improving EPA’s Scientific Advisory Processes.” Beginning at 8 a.m. MDT the hearing will be available on live webcast at: http://1.usa.gov/WTHniH

Utah Committee posts

All of Utah’s Republican members of Congress lead or are the ranking member of at least a subcommittee. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, is the exception, though he does have a coveted spot on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has an expansive jurisdiction.

Rep. Rob Bishop » Chairman of the public lands subcommittee on the House Natural Resources Committee, overseeing National Parks and issues pertaining to wilderness.

Rep. Jason Chaffez » Chairman of the national security subcommittee on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, overseeing military and international programs.

Rep. Chris Stewart » Chairman of the environment subcommittee on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, overseeing climate change and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Sen. Orrin Hatch » Ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, overseeing tax policy, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security

Sen. Mike Lee » Ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee on the Senate Judiciary Committee, overseeing major business mergers

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

He’s the new chairman of the House environmental subcommittee charged with overseeing the politically charged debate. Stewart leads his first hearing Wednesday focused on the Environmental Protection Agency and he has plans for more that will delve into potential federal actions in the name of climate science — actions he worries may be too drastic and costly.

"I’m not as convinced as a lot of people are that man-made climate change is the threat they think it is," he told The Salt Lake Tribune. "I think it is probably not as immediate as some people do."

Stewart doesn’t deny that the world’s climate is warming, but he believes more research is needed to determine why.

He also believes policymakers need to examine the issue through a fiscal lens. He thinks Congress should take a three-step approach before taking action in the name of climate change, starting with a look at the science.

"What is the real threat? What are the economic impacts of those threats? And what are the economic impacts of those remedies?" he asked, explaining his approach. "Some of the remedies are more expensive to our economy than the threat may turn out to be."

Stewart points to Obama’s failed plan to cap carbon emissions for businesses and let them sell credits to bigger polluters. The House rejected the cap-and-trade plan in his first term, partly because estimates said it would result in a spike in utility bills for families.

EPA actions » Congress is no more likely to pass a major climate change bill now, though Obama has made it clear that he will use his power as president to fight to reduce carbon emission, largely through the EPA. Any such actions would likely come before Stewart’s subcommittee.

story continues below
story continues below

Before joining Congress, Stewart ran the Shipley Group, a company that conducted environmental training and assessments to meet federal guidelines. He said that didn’t make him an expert on environmental policy but did give him a unique perspective into federal regulations that hampered businesses and regulations that protected vital lands.

Stewart’s position on climate change didn’t surprise Tim Wagner, of the Sierra Club of Utah, but it did irritate him.

"If he is overseeing a committee that is supposed to be based on science, but ignoring the science, it doesn’t do much for his credibility," said Wagner. "Unless he’s trying to appeal to a specific industry, which is fossil fuels."

Stewart’s 2nd Congressional District includes the oil refineries in south Davis County. Donors associated with oil and gas contributed more than $40,000 to his 2012 campaign, his second highest total behind contributions from Republican officials, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

"I was elected based on my values, and I work to represent my constituents in all that I do," said Stewart, who dismissed any suggestion that he bases policy decisions on campaign contributions.

A large majority of climate scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change, which is melting the polar ice caps and leading to a spike in volatile weather, from more dangerous hurricanes to vast wildfires.

Wagner argues that if Stewart wants to examine the economic impacts he should start by looking at the damage Hurricane Sandy inflicted in New York and New Jersey or the fires that devoured homes in Colorado and Utah last summer.

"Those are real costs and if you ignore those, then you are ignoring your constituents," he said.

Political fight » Stewart says that the issue has become overly politicized with environmentalists using climate change as a justification for blocking projects that have little environmental downsides but big economic upsides. As an example, he points to the proposed Keystone pipeline that would bring oil from Canada through the United States to refineries in the Gulf Coast. The federal government’s own study found minimal environmental impacts, but groups like the Sierra Club fight the pipeline because they want to speed a move away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy sources to combat a warming climate.

"Look, that oil is going to go somewhere. It is going to go to market. Isn’t it better that the oil would be refined in the U.S. where we have stricter environmental rules than in China or India?" Stewart asked.

Next Page >

Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment

About Reader Comments

Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.