Where does he place his bets?
We, as voters, want to believe that the representatives we elect will sincerely pursue our collective interest. Candidates for elective office are really good at letting us think their intentions and background are the same as our own. But are they? Among the examples, we are often left to guess if they factor into their decisions the growing risks to our lives, property, and health from global heating and environmental contamination—or do they—at their core—deny these risks as valid concerns?
The modern-day Republican Party’s stance on these issues is blatantly clear. Donald Trump is on record declaring that “Climate change is a hoax” and says that, if re-elected, he will “drill, drill, drill.” The Heritage Foundation’s Presidential Transition Project known as “Project 2025” and the (U.S.) House Republican Study Committee (RSC) both openly declare full-on climate change denial while advocating to roll back everything currently in place to address the issue.
The earlier brand of supposedly more moderate, middle-of-the-road Republicans like our now-retiring U.S. Representative from eastern Washington, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, would never, ever have let “climate change is a hoax” pass their lips. Instead, as adept politicians do, any mention of climate change within earshot of McMorris Rodgers immediately triggers a pivot. She pivots to “saving the dams” and “energy independence.” You have to extrapolate slightly to understand those words are code for drilling, digging up, and burning more carbon. A closer look at McMorris Rodgers’ background reveals a Fundamentalist Christian who is doctrinally and educationally incapable of understanding the science of human-caused climate change.
Like McMorris Rodgers, business-oriented Republican Spokane County Commissioner Al French is far too adept a politician to publicly state that he simply does not believe the science of global heating—or to publicly state that his thinks the health risks of drinking PFAS-laden well water are overblown. As voters we are left having to guess at the belief system that guides Mr. French in approaching these issues.
Mostly out of the consciousness of the general public, Spokane County Commissioner Al French, from his seat on the State Building Code Council, has staunchly opposed the adoption of updated energy efficiency standards. These new standards would encourage installation of heat pumps over fossil fuel burning heat sources—and save home owners and renters money in the long run. Not incidentally, these standards would also reduce that burning of carbon fuels necessary to heat and cool these homes for the entire life of the house. Mr. French’s publicly expressed reason for opposing the new code? Concern “for the poor.”
This “concern for the poor” rings hollow from a man who quietly blocked Spokane County from even considering administration of a grant to research the extent of PFAS contamination of private wells on the West Plains. His “concern” apparently didn’t extend to his constituents and their children, as well as their cattle, horses, chickens, and garden produce all of whom have been absorbing PFAS from these wells? Where is his actual, practical concern for these people (as opposed to a public face of support for the investigation once he could no longer block it)? Does he quietly and personally judge the health risks of PFAS well water contamination to be overblown?
Since neither Rep. McMorris Rodgers and Commissioner French will ever answer a head-on question about their underlying convictions about climate change and the dangers of PFAS, we are left to consider other lines of evidence.
Our Washington State Public Disclosure Commission is required by law to collect and make available “Financial Affairs Statements” from candidates for public office. It is a little recognized and little used resource.
Commissioner French’s financial affairs statement for calendar year 2022discloses (among other investments) his holdings of individual stocks of fourteen companies. Among those fourteen companies are the fossil fuel companies Phillips 66, Conoco-Phillips, and Chevron that would seem to speak of Mr. French’s judgement regarding carbon burning and global heating. Others of his stock holdings include Chemours, DuPont and Corteva, three of four chemical companies (3M is the fourth) that have reached billion dollar agreements to settle claims concerning PFAS contamination. Just for good measure Mr. French also holds Dow Chemical stock another flagship chemical industry.
Those seven companies make up fully half of the individual stock positions in his financial affairs statement. While these holdings are not definitive evidence of climate denial and denial of the health risks of PFAS, they certainly are suggestive—and that suggestion is entirely in line with the blatant climate denial and condemnation of environmental regulation that pervades the modern-day Republican Party.
In the months leading to this fall’s elections pay attention to not only to what Republicans say about these issues—but to what they do and invest in when out of the limelight. The latter two are more likely indicative of the underlying beliefs than their statements.
To be clear, I don’t believe that most Republicans have evil intent on these issues. They have strongly held convictions—and those convictions guide their actions, even while they understand the political advantages of not making those convictions clear to the voting public. Beware.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. Stocks held within a mutual fund or an ETF (“exchange traded fund”) are more easily dismissed as indicators of one’s values than are individual stock holdings, unless, of course, the mutual fund or ETF is strongly specialized in a particular segment of the market—e.g. petroleum stocks.