I PROPOSE TO DELVE FURTHER into the responsibilities and deeper ramifications of our compact with our descendants’ futures. Before moving to the major news on that front, I thought to touch on several lighter but related bulletins, including a brief update on the state of the Republican Party and its compact with the nation’s present and future.

First from a piece in Time titled “Bill Me Later” by Joel Stein (Aug. 12) on the progress of Congress. “As it heads off to recess until September, Congress has put only 22 bills on President Obama’s desk. … Those 22 bills are way below the 453 measures that the Do-Nothing Congress averaged each year during Harry Truman’s first term. In fact, Congress is on track to crush its record of fewest bills passed per year, which was 88 in 1995.”

In short, those who most fear a Congress interfering with the lives of citizens and the affairs of the nation can rest very comfortably indeed! Besides the strenuous efforts of the House of Representatives to obliterate the voices of the president and those strange folk who prefer a slightly more active Congress, little movement has been observed.

And for those who fear that the GOP might be losing its hold on reality, fear not. Consider only the following: However tardy the pace of Congressional action, from HoffPost Religion we learned last November that most Republicans (68 percent) believe in demonic possession, thus possibly establishing a rationale and motivation for the cautions of the GOP. Ample cause for stepping carefully! However, while the difference is significant, it is also true that 49 percent of Democrats said they believe it is possible to be possessed by demons, and overall only 35 percent of the 1,200 registered voters polled — including independents and others — said demonic possession is an impossibility. Those who have feared that the modern world had completely expunged our grip on fundamental reality can be reassured that faith in the devil and his powers continues in this land of the (provisionally) free and home of the (sorta) brave.

And under the circumstances and notwithstanding the cautions taken, the plaint that “the devil made me do it” lurks in the background as an encompassing rationale and potentially irresistible basis for whatever action is taken, or not taken, by the House of Representatives.

In another closely related piece tying our current biggest issue with religion, Rep. Steve King, Republican of Iowa, has brought a sense of reality, proportion and creativity to the global warming debate. We read in a Think Progress piece by Annie-Rose Strasser dated Aug. 7 that “At an event sponsored by the climate-denying, Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity … King reportedly told the audience that climate change ‘is not proven, it’s not science. It’s more of a religion than a science.’ He also argued that an increase in carbon in the atmosphere might actually be a good thing.

“He said that even if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm, environmentalists only look at the bad from that, not the good. ‘Everything that might result from a warmer planet is always bad in (environmentalists’) analysis. … There will be more photosynthesis going on if the Earth gets warmer. … And if sea levels go up 4 or 6 inches, I don’t know if we’d know that.’”

Why can we never get that kind of clarity and creative thought from the scientists? First King makes it clear that the whole global warming scare is essentially a matter of religious belief. Second, even if we grant those scientific bible thumpers their pathetic beliefs, why would we assume a little heat is a bad thing? Look folks, when do we grow our crops? In the wintertime?! And the plants need CO2 for survival — King’s point exactly! Case closed.

King, by the way, left college for construction without finishing, and founded King Construction, an earth-moving company, obviously giving him the kind of down-to-earth perspective that has been invaluable in shaping his views.

Next we hear that all the fuss and furor about the Keystone XL pipeline is just that — much ado about nothing. Or, what is far more crucial for the conscious, and our fate, we learn that the term “independent” has acquired a new meaning when applied to the field of big oil.

“On Thursday, an industry research firm announced a new study predicting that construction of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would have ‘no material impact’ (on) greenhouse gas emissions,” Josh Israel wrote Aug. 9 for Climate Progress. “But while proponents and media outlets quickly reported on this ‘independent study,’ the for-profit energy research firm behind the report is anything but independent. The findings contradict a July study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which found that over its 50-year life, the pipeline would add 1.2 billion metric tons more carbon pollution than if it carried conventional crude — more than every car in the United States releases into the air annually.”

I note that the “independent study” is further contradicted by an exhaustive EPA report, authored by Cynthia Giles, that found that “oil sands crude is significantly more greenhouse gas intensive than other crudes, and therefore has potentially large impacts. Lifecycle emissions from oil sands crude could be 81 percent greater than the average crude refined in the U.S.” — a difference that can grow “depending on the assumptions made.”

Back to Israel and his read on the authors of the new “independent” report: “IHS is an information company that provides research for a variety of companies, at a fee. Its Cambridge Energy Research Associates division calls itself ‘a leading advisor to international energy companies, governments, financial institutions, and technology providers.’”

There is a great deal more in Israel’s analysis, the bulk of which documents the cozy in-house relationship between this “information” company and virtually every oil company and related interest in the business. A small sampling: “Among the stakeholders participating in the company’s 2012 focus group on greenhouse emissions from oil sands … were several oil companies and trade associations — many with a direct stake in the pipeline. These included the American Petroleum Institute, BP Canada, Canadian Oil Sands Limited, Chevron Canada Resources, ConocoPhillips In Situ Oil Sands Alliance, Shell Canada, Suncor Energy Inc., and even the pipeline’s owner, the TransCanada Corporation. In addition to consulting heavily with industry sources, the company relies on payments from these same companies.”

There is much, much more in this piece about the incestuous relationships between all parties in this “independent study,” but the above representative sample provides the flavor of the enterprise.

The sense of security and relief engendered by this “study” is obviously great, if surely anticipated. It is whose security and relief, of course, that is — or should be — at issue! And the significance of that issue is not only profound but extends far beyond the lifetimes of the huge bonuses, dividends and share values that will further enrich the obscenely wealthy at an unfathomable and potentially catastrophic future cost to humankind.

Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.