Sustainability Policy and Events, Law for Sustainability, Purpose and Context
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/. “This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning".
In 2009 climate activist Bill McKibben’s group 350.org had a day of action with rallies all around the world – sending the message that we need to keep the level of carbon dioxide lower than 350 ppm. It’s now approaching 420.
As a lifelong environmentalist people sometimes tell me that they really care about the environment but don’t know what they can do. This leads to discussions about flying less, buying less-polluting machines and products, recycling, eating less meat. But nothing compares to the good every American citizen can do this Fall. This is not a political blog. There have been many Republicans we should respect for their environmental commitment. But at this historic moment the environmental citizen must take sides and must vote to save the world. If we vote wrong, we can expect more descent into the abyss.
A National Academy of Sciences study just found that the number of people exposed to “extreme heat” in cities will sharply increase (by a factor of 12.7–29.5 by 2100) if we continue to fail to restrict greenhouse gases.[1] We are seeing the West in wildfire emergencies every summer now.[2] Hurricane Laura just caused from $8 – 12 billion in damage,[3] but the fire at the Biolab plant in Lake Charles, Louisiana should make us think about all those facilities refining oil and producing chemicals on the Gulf Coast.[4] It’s one thing to have your house flooded, it’s another when the flood waters and the air are toxic. Global warming is not just about Greenland melting. It’s about all hell breaking loose.
I was recently asked if there is a real difference between the current presidential nominees, or if they really aren’t all the same in being beholden to corporate interests. As an educator I strive very hard to avoid partisanship. I do not consider my role as helping a political party. I believe fervently that liberals need to understand honest conservative concerns about proposed changes, and that conservatives need to respect the hopes for greater justice that liberals express. I have spent my life trying to mediate between extremes – and have been successful an astonishing number of times. I believe in the vital center. But at this particular point in history, it is necessary to see and say that the very survival of life itself depends on people opening their eyes and voting this current Administration out of office. Trump is a wrecking ball and Biden offers a chance to save what’s left. I am a partisan in defense of the Earth and I call on all of Nature’s children to stand up for her, and themselves, as well. We have the vote and we can use it to save the world.
As a lifelong environmentalist people sometimes tell me that they really care about the environment but don’t know what they can do. This leads to discussions about flying less, buying less-polluting machines and products, recycling, eating less meat. But nothing compares to the good every American citizen can do this Fall. This is not a political blog. There have been many Republicans we should respect for their environmental commitment. But at this historic moment the environmental citizen must take sides and must vote to save the world. If we vote wrong, we can expect more descent into the abyss.
A National Academy of Sciences study just found that the number of people exposed to “extreme heat” in cities will sharply increase (by a factor of 12.7–29.5 by 2100) if we continue to fail to restrict greenhouse gases.[1] We are seeing the West in wildfire emergencies every summer now.[2] Hurricane Laura just caused from $8 – 12 billion in damage,[3] but the fire at the Biolab plant in Lake Charles, Louisiana should make us think about all those facilities refining oil and producing chemicals on the Gulf Coast.[4] It’s one thing to have your house flooded, it’s another when the flood waters and the air are toxic. Global warming is not just about Greenland melting. It’s about all hell breaking loose.
I was recently asked if there is a real difference between the current presidential nominees, or if they really aren’t all the same in being beholden to corporate interests. As an educator I strive very hard to avoid partisanship. I do not consider my role as helping a political party. I believe fervently that liberals need to understand honest conservative concerns about proposed changes, and that conservatives need to respect the hopes for greater justice that liberals express. I have spent my life trying to mediate between extremes – and have been successful an astonishing number of times. I believe in the vital center. But at this particular point in history, it is necessary to see and say that the very survival of life itself depends on people opening their eyes and voting this current Administration out of office. Trump is a wrecking ball and Biden offers a chance to save what’s left. I am a partisan in defense of the Earth and I call on all of Nature’s children to stand up for her, and themselves, as well. We have the vote and we can use it to save the world.
I have many criticisms of Democrats. As a party they have failed to sufficiently control corporate damage to the environment. There has recently been concern because the Democratic National Committee dropped the part of their platform that reflected candidate Biden and Harris’ promises to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.[5] I can understand their wanting to shore up votes in certain states like Texas, but I would rather see them go all-in on the plan to generate jobs with investments in wind, solar, net-zero buildings, clean transportation, and local food. I would rather see them continue to fill out the vision of a healthy country with strong local economies powered by clean local energy. I would rather see them more fully articulate the possibilities, and not hedge their bets. The time for weak defense of the planet is over. To turn a phrase around, the best offense now is a strong defense.
But even though I would wish the Democrats to be stronger in defense of what must now be done, and even though I seek to avoid politics in this educational blog, this is no time to mince words: there is no comparison between the parties and anyone who says it makes no difference ignores reality. The reality is that the Republicans have not only catered to the fossil fuel interests to generate campaign contributions but they have been complicit in the pernicious campaigns of falsehood that have delayed the action we need. Because of the hundreds of millions spent to foster denial of climate change[6] many Americans either believe climate change is a hoax, as the President has stated, or that it’s not clear humans have caused it, or that we should do anything about it. The fossil fuel industry has outspent the renewables industry 13 to 1,[7] and the vast bulk of their money has gone to Republicans. In just the last year the President has received nearly $1.5 million from oil and gas interests, and 17 of the top twenty recipients, each receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars, were all Republicans.[8] Meanwhile Democrats have sworn they won’t accept such donations.
In the summer of 2019 the Washington Post reported that many Democrats did in fact receive money from interests they said they opposed.[9] According to the Center for Responsive Politics, our top Democrat contenders were among the top twenty recipients of oil and gas money in the 2019-20 election cycle. Joe Biden accepted nearly $400,000 and Bernie Sanders accepted nearly $241,000.[10] Although Democrats have generally been able to claim that the donations they’ve received have not violated narrowly defined pledges, as many are from individuals and not registered lobbyists, and some returns have been made, anyone who wants to claim that they are hypocritical or tainted can find evidence to tar them. But is the question whether our representatives are pure? We live in a time when they are forced to raise money to reach people with their messages. The question is which candidate will try to help save the world.
One Will, One Won’t
The candidate who supports investment in clean energy is the one who will give our planet a chance. That candidate is Joe Biden. He knows that the transition to clean energy will generate many more jobs than are kept by maintaining the status quo.[11] The president is willing to increase the risks of climate change – and every other environmental emergency we face – in order to benefit those that contribute to his campaign.[12] We can expect if he is reelected that we will be led down into the abyss of ever hotter, more furious, more hellish weather, His encouragement of magical thinking, denying the reality of what is happening so that we can avoid having to reckon with it, is an irresponsibility that will go down in history to our everlasting shame.[13] Joe Biden was a key player in the Administration that worked to improve fuel economy standards, to address methane emissions from drilling (methane is an extremely powerful global warmer), to preserve wildlands and wildlife, to promote solar, wind, and green building. For those who say the Obama Administration did not do enough, Biden’s recent support for the Green New Deal shows he is moving more assertively. In addition to rejoining the world effort to fight climate change, he has promised to invest hundreds of billions in clean energy and to undo the damage Trump has done to environmental laws, and to do this in a way that will not cost people their livelihood but create 10 million jobs.[14] He picked Kamala Harris, who started an environmental justice unit in the California Attorney General’s Office, fought oil and chemical companies,[15] and was the lead sponsor on the Senate’s Climate Equity bill.[16] Mr. Trump makes no such promises. He has remained obstinately defiant, refusing responsibility for the pandemic, the economy, democratic processes, truth, ethics, and respect, and most unfortunately for all life forms, the environment. To say that these candidates are the same is to assume that both mean exactly the opposite of what they say, and that neither will continue to act as they have.
Because Democrats sometimes support corporations, needing their support to get elected, and knowing that they make up most of our current economy, some think they are just as bad as the Republicans. But that’s like saying that getting a little dirt on your face is the same as being drowned in a mudslide. The current administration has worked harder than any previous one to lift all restraints on businesses, and has created a vast swamp of corruption after promising to drain it.[17] As just one example, look at how much has been done to help Robert Murray, until recently head of the failing Murray Energy coal company: Murray gave Trump hundreds of thousands of dollars and a list of actions Trump should take to make life easier for the coal industry, which Trump then worked hard to do.[18]
Tearing Down the System
But Trump has done much worse than simple everyday corruption. He has worked hard to tear down the entire environmental protection system that could keep us from destroying nature, the source of all our wealth and prospects for happiness.
There are a number of “regulatory rollback trackers” that concerned citizens can use to keep up with the damage the current administration is wreaking: the New York Times tracks 95, Harvard Law School tracks about 80 rollbacks of environmental and energy law.[19] Columbia University Law School counts 158 actions the administration has taken to weaken climate law.[20] Nothing like this has ever happened before. The Institute for Policy Integrity tracks the monetary estimates of the benefits we are losing with the weakening of environmental and public health law.[21] Just one example tells the story: Obama’s signature climate action, the Clean Power Plan, which Trump voided as one of his first acts, would have given us an estimated NET Benefit (taking costs into account) of $49 billion, and that doesn’t include the benefits they didn’t calculate in terms of money: health benefits from reductions in ambient nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), health benefits from reductions of mercury deposition, ecosystem benefits associated with emissions reductions, reduced visibility impairment. These would have been in addition to fighting climate change. Because of Trump, we have now not only dropped out of the world effort to save our atmosphere and keep us from unbearable heat, disastrous wildfires, frighteningly powerful storms, destroyed coral reefs, melting ice sheets, lost coastal zones, and accelerating extinctions, but we also have a far bigger load of contaminants like mercury poured into the air by coal plants, which gets into everything and makes us sicker. That wasn’t even included in the official quantitative estimate, nor was our shame or disgust.
Losing Balance
Contrast this analysis with the 2017 Commerce Department report on streamlining regulation that estimated the costs that regulations impose on businesses. The report estimated that regulations (mostly environmental) are costing American businesses $136 billion a year.[22] Look hard for any mention that these regulations have any purpose, or provide any benefits – you won’t find it. They want you to think that government just hobbles good old job-providing businesses for no reason. Since Nixon, Republicans have promoted strict cost-benefit analysis to slow down or prevent regulations that couldn’t be said to provide more benefit than cost. Democratic administrations also used cost-benefit analysis, but with a key difference: they might allow a regulation to go forward even if it did impose significant costs, because they recognized the limits of putting a dollar figure on the value of life. They also recognized that it’s morally wrong to equate costs a dirty business has to bear with the cost of ordinary people being poisoned. But the Trump Administration has dispensed completely with balancing costs and benefits. The Commerce Report is only concerned with reducing costs to businesses, without regard to whether they are making money from polluting our world.[23]
Losing Science
The Trump Administration is not just rolling back specific rules that protect public health and the environment we need to prosper and survive, but it is making it harder to get the science right – stacking science panels with industry members, making it harder to do scientific studies, pressuring scientists to keep their mouths shut, relocating employees (forcing some to quit).[24] Columbia University’s Sabin Center has set up a “Silencing Science” tracker, which currently lists 200 actions to frustrate public health and environmental science.[25] Destroying the ability to do science that can be trusted is a crippling blow to our ability to manage our lives.
Losing Protection
Trump has suspended environmental enforcement,[26] after bringing about a steep drop in enforcement actions,[27] and his proposed budget indicates that the destruction of environmental protection will continue if he is re-elected. It includes a 26% cut to EPA and 16% cut to Interior.[28] In contrast, Joe Biden will not just fight climate change but boost enforcement in hard-hit environmental justice areas, work to slow extinction rates, conserve land and water, protect parks and wilderness areas, and promote reforestation.[29]
Regaining Balance, Science, Protection
Just recently, Biden came out against uranium mining near the Grand Canyon and the proposed gold mine in Bristol Bay Alaska, which could destroy the last great salmon ground, both projects that Trump is pushing. The Sierra Club is pledging double the amount to campaign for Biden than it committed to Clinton in 2016.[30] Biden is not perfect. The League of Conservation Voters only gives him an 83% lifetime score.[31] But his record makes clear he is not in the pocket of dirty energy. The League rates Congresspeople, but gives a “year-one” rating for presidents. Trump received an F.[32]
Loyalty
Once you start looking into this, there is no end to the stark contrast that you see. If you feel loyal to the Republican party, you can show that loyalty by helping it to remember the values it once upheld. It may feel hard to vote against your team, but by doing so you will vote for everything else.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/08/12/2005492117
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/19/us/wildfires-in-the-us-by-state/index.html
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/28/hurricane-laura-leaves-damage-in-louisiana-weakens-to-tropical-depression.html
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/climate/hurricane-laura-fire-pollution.html
[5] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democratic-national-committee-climate_n_5f3c2907c5b6d8a9173f0268
[6] Now that climate change has become harder to deny, “The most common tactics employed are drawing attention to low carbon, positioning the company as a climate expert and acknowledging climate concern while ignoring solutions. The report said that the campaigns are misleading the public given that the companies listed continue to expand their oil and gas extraction activities with only 3% of spending directed to low carbon projects.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/#46f6ce7f7c4f – citing Influence Map research at https://influencemap.org/reports/Reports
[7] https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/01/fossil-fuel-political-giving-outdistances-renewables-13-to-one/
[8] https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01++
[9] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-swore-off-donations-from-lobbyists-and-fossil-fuel-execs-but-some-are-skirting-their-own-rules/2019/07/29/7ac49a3c-ae14-11e9-b071-94a3f4d59021_story.html
[10] Ibid. The CRP report is based on data from the Federal Elections Commission.
[11] “…decarbonisation of the global energy system can grow the global economy and create up to 28 million jobs in the sector by 2050”. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2018/05/08/clean-energy-sector-employs-more-than-10-million-for-the-first-time/#305e685cb500
[12] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19042017/fossil-fuels-oil-coal-gas-exxon-chevron-bp-donald-trump-inauguration-donations
[13] Some research, in contrast, shows that denialism can be addressed: "Based on our research, decreasing inefficacy—the belief that "I can't make a difference' – and promoting social norms, are some of the most effective ways to encourage action on climate." https://phys.org/news/2020-02-climate-denialism.html
[14] https://joebiden.com/9-key-elements-of-joe-bidens-plan-for-a-clean-energy-revolution/#
[15] Harris was a leader in beating back attempts to preempt state laws to protect citizens from toxic chemicals when changes were made to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
[16] https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-08-26/biden-harris-ticket-highlights-historic-stance-climate-and-environmental-justice
[17] https://prospect.org/power/mapping-corruption-donald-trump-executive-branch/
[18] See Frontline’s “War on EPA”: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/bob-murray-helped-shape-trumps-energy-policies-now-his-coal-company-is-facing-bankruptcy/
[19] https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2018/07/tracking-the-trackers/
[20] https://climate.law.columbia.edu/climate-deregulation-tracker
[21] https://policyintegrity.org/documents/Benefits_at_Stake.pdf
[22] https://www.commerce.gov/news/reports/streamlining-permitting-and-reducing-regulatory-burdens-domestic-manufacturing
[23] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/09/big-oil-trump-campaign-donations-fossil-fuel-industry
[24] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/climate/trump-administration-war-on-science.html
[25] https://climate.law.columbia.edu/Silencing-Science-Tracker
[26] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27032020/coronavirus-covid-19-EPA-API-environmental-enforcement
[27] https://truthout.org/articles/the-epa-has-backed-off-enforcement-under-trump-here-are-the-numbers/
[28] https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/482352-trump-budget-slashes-funding-for-epa-environmental-programs
[29] https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/#
[30] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/10/biden-wins-sierra-clubs-endorsement/
[31] https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-biden
[32] https://www.lcv.org/trumpyearone/
But even though I would wish the Democrats to be stronger in defense of what must now be done, and even though I seek to avoid politics in this educational blog, this is no time to mince words: there is no comparison between the parties and anyone who says it makes no difference ignores reality. The reality is that the Republicans have not only catered to the fossil fuel interests to generate campaign contributions but they have been complicit in the pernicious campaigns of falsehood that have delayed the action we need. Because of the hundreds of millions spent to foster denial of climate change[6] many Americans either believe climate change is a hoax, as the President has stated, or that it’s not clear humans have caused it, or that we should do anything about it. The fossil fuel industry has outspent the renewables industry 13 to 1,[7] and the vast bulk of their money has gone to Republicans. In just the last year the President has received nearly $1.5 million from oil and gas interests, and 17 of the top twenty recipients, each receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars, were all Republicans.[8] Meanwhile Democrats have sworn they won’t accept such donations.
In the summer of 2019 the Washington Post reported that many Democrats did in fact receive money from interests they said they opposed.[9] According to the Center for Responsive Politics, our top Democrat contenders were among the top twenty recipients of oil and gas money in the 2019-20 election cycle. Joe Biden accepted nearly $400,000 and Bernie Sanders accepted nearly $241,000.[10] Although Democrats have generally been able to claim that the donations they’ve received have not violated narrowly defined pledges, as many are from individuals and not registered lobbyists, and some returns have been made, anyone who wants to claim that they are hypocritical or tainted can find evidence to tar them. But is the question whether our representatives are pure? We live in a time when they are forced to raise money to reach people with their messages. The question is which candidate will try to help save the world.
One Will, One Won’t
The candidate who supports investment in clean energy is the one who will give our planet a chance. That candidate is Joe Biden. He knows that the transition to clean energy will generate many more jobs than are kept by maintaining the status quo.[11] The president is willing to increase the risks of climate change – and every other environmental emergency we face – in order to benefit those that contribute to his campaign.[12] We can expect if he is reelected that we will be led down into the abyss of ever hotter, more furious, more hellish weather, His encouragement of magical thinking, denying the reality of what is happening so that we can avoid having to reckon with it, is an irresponsibility that will go down in history to our everlasting shame.[13] Joe Biden was a key player in the Administration that worked to improve fuel economy standards, to address methane emissions from drilling (methane is an extremely powerful global warmer), to preserve wildlands and wildlife, to promote solar, wind, and green building. For those who say the Obama Administration did not do enough, Biden’s recent support for the Green New Deal shows he is moving more assertively. In addition to rejoining the world effort to fight climate change, he has promised to invest hundreds of billions in clean energy and to undo the damage Trump has done to environmental laws, and to do this in a way that will not cost people their livelihood but create 10 million jobs.[14] He picked Kamala Harris, who started an environmental justice unit in the California Attorney General’s Office, fought oil and chemical companies,[15] and was the lead sponsor on the Senate’s Climate Equity bill.[16] Mr. Trump makes no such promises. He has remained obstinately defiant, refusing responsibility for the pandemic, the economy, democratic processes, truth, ethics, and respect, and most unfortunately for all life forms, the environment. To say that these candidates are the same is to assume that both mean exactly the opposite of what they say, and that neither will continue to act as they have.
Because Democrats sometimes support corporations, needing their support to get elected, and knowing that they make up most of our current economy, some think they are just as bad as the Republicans. But that’s like saying that getting a little dirt on your face is the same as being drowned in a mudslide. The current administration has worked harder than any previous one to lift all restraints on businesses, and has created a vast swamp of corruption after promising to drain it.[17] As just one example, look at how much has been done to help Robert Murray, until recently head of the failing Murray Energy coal company: Murray gave Trump hundreds of thousands of dollars and a list of actions Trump should take to make life easier for the coal industry, which Trump then worked hard to do.[18]
Tearing Down the System
But Trump has done much worse than simple everyday corruption. He has worked hard to tear down the entire environmental protection system that could keep us from destroying nature, the source of all our wealth and prospects for happiness.
There are a number of “regulatory rollback trackers” that concerned citizens can use to keep up with the damage the current administration is wreaking: the New York Times tracks 95, Harvard Law School tracks about 80 rollbacks of environmental and energy law.[19] Columbia University Law School counts 158 actions the administration has taken to weaken climate law.[20] Nothing like this has ever happened before. The Institute for Policy Integrity tracks the monetary estimates of the benefits we are losing with the weakening of environmental and public health law.[21] Just one example tells the story: Obama’s signature climate action, the Clean Power Plan, which Trump voided as one of his first acts, would have given us an estimated NET Benefit (taking costs into account) of $49 billion, and that doesn’t include the benefits they didn’t calculate in terms of money: health benefits from reductions in ambient nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), health benefits from reductions of mercury deposition, ecosystem benefits associated with emissions reductions, reduced visibility impairment. These would have been in addition to fighting climate change. Because of Trump, we have now not only dropped out of the world effort to save our atmosphere and keep us from unbearable heat, disastrous wildfires, frighteningly powerful storms, destroyed coral reefs, melting ice sheets, lost coastal zones, and accelerating extinctions, but we also have a far bigger load of contaminants like mercury poured into the air by coal plants, which gets into everything and makes us sicker. That wasn’t even included in the official quantitative estimate, nor was our shame or disgust.
Losing Balance
Contrast this analysis with the 2017 Commerce Department report on streamlining regulation that estimated the costs that regulations impose on businesses. The report estimated that regulations (mostly environmental) are costing American businesses $136 billion a year.[22] Look hard for any mention that these regulations have any purpose, or provide any benefits – you won’t find it. They want you to think that government just hobbles good old job-providing businesses for no reason. Since Nixon, Republicans have promoted strict cost-benefit analysis to slow down or prevent regulations that couldn’t be said to provide more benefit than cost. Democratic administrations also used cost-benefit analysis, but with a key difference: they might allow a regulation to go forward even if it did impose significant costs, because they recognized the limits of putting a dollar figure on the value of life. They also recognized that it’s morally wrong to equate costs a dirty business has to bear with the cost of ordinary people being poisoned. But the Trump Administration has dispensed completely with balancing costs and benefits. The Commerce Report is only concerned with reducing costs to businesses, without regard to whether they are making money from polluting our world.[23]
Losing Science
The Trump Administration is not just rolling back specific rules that protect public health and the environment we need to prosper and survive, but it is making it harder to get the science right – stacking science panels with industry members, making it harder to do scientific studies, pressuring scientists to keep their mouths shut, relocating employees (forcing some to quit).[24] Columbia University’s Sabin Center has set up a “Silencing Science” tracker, which currently lists 200 actions to frustrate public health and environmental science.[25] Destroying the ability to do science that can be trusted is a crippling blow to our ability to manage our lives.
Losing Protection
Trump has suspended environmental enforcement,[26] after bringing about a steep drop in enforcement actions,[27] and his proposed budget indicates that the destruction of environmental protection will continue if he is re-elected. It includes a 26% cut to EPA and 16% cut to Interior.[28] In contrast, Joe Biden will not just fight climate change but boost enforcement in hard-hit environmental justice areas, work to slow extinction rates, conserve land and water, protect parks and wilderness areas, and promote reforestation.[29]
Regaining Balance, Science, Protection
Just recently, Biden came out against uranium mining near the Grand Canyon and the proposed gold mine in Bristol Bay Alaska, which could destroy the last great salmon ground, both projects that Trump is pushing. The Sierra Club is pledging double the amount to campaign for Biden than it committed to Clinton in 2016.[30] Biden is not perfect. The League of Conservation Voters only gives him an 83% lifetime score.[31] But his record makes clear he is not in the pocket of dirty energy. The League rates Congresspeople, but gives a “year-one” rating for presidents. Trump received an F.[32]
Loyalty
Once you start looking into this, there is no end to the stark contrast that you see. If you feel loyal to the Republican party, you can show that loyalty by helping it to remember the values it once upheld. It may feel hard to vote against your team, but by doing so you will vote for everything else.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/08/12/2005492117
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/19/us/wildfires-in-the-us-by-state/index.html
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/28/hurricane-laura-leaves-damage-in-louisiana-weakens-to-tropical-depression.html
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/climate/hurricane-laura-fire-pollution.html
[5] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democratic-national-committee-climate_n_5f3c2907c5b6d8a9173f0268
[6] Now that climate change has become harder to deny, “The most common tactics employed are drawing attention to low carbon, positioning the company as a climate expert and acknowledging climate concern while ignoring solutions. The report said that the campaigns are misleading the public given that the companies listed continue to expand their oil and gas extraction activities with only 3% of spending directed to low carbon projects.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/#46f6ce7f7c4f – citing Influence Map research at https://influencemap.org/reports/Reports
[7] https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/01/fossil-fuel-political-giving-outdistances-renewables-13-to-one/
[8] https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01++
[9] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-swore-off-donations-from-lobbyists-and-fossil-fuel-execs-but-some-are-skirting-their-own-rules/2019/07/29/7ac49a3c-ae14-11e9-b071-94a3f4d59021_story.html
[10] Ibid. The CRP report is based on data from the Federal Elections Commission.
[11] “…decarbonisation of the global energy system can grow the global economy and create up to 28 million jobs in the sector by 2050”. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2018/05/08/clean-energy-sector-employs-more-than-10-million-for-the-first-time/#305e685cb500
[12] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19042017/fossil-fuels-oil-coal-gas-exxon-chevron-bp-donald-trump-inauguration-donations
[13] Some research, in contrast, shows that denialism can be addressed: "Based on our research, decreasing inefficacy—the belief that "I can't make a difference' – and promoting social norms, are some of the most effective ways to encourage action on climate." https://phys.org/news/2020-02-climate-denialism.html
[14] https://joebiden.com/9-key-elements-of-joe-bidens-plan-for-a-clean-energy-revolution/#
[15] Harris was a leader in beating back attempts to preempt state laws to protect citizens from toxic chemicals when changes were made to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
[16] https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-08-26/biden-harris-ticket-highlights-historic-stance-climate-and-environmental-justice
[17] https://prospect.org/power/mapping-corruption-donald-trump-executive-branch/
[18] See Frontline’s “War on EPA”: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/bob-murray-helped-shape-trumps-energy-policies-now-his-coal-company-is-facing-bankruptcy/
[19] https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2018/07/tracking-the-trackers/
[20] https://climate.law.columbia.edu/climate-deregulation-tracker
[21] https://policyintegrity.org/documents/Benefits_at_Stake.pdf
[22] https://www.commerce.gov/news/reports/streamlining-permitting-and-reducing-regulatory-burdens-domestic-manufacturing
[23] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/09/big-oil-trump-campaign-donations-fossil-fuel-industry
[24] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/climate/trump-administration-war-on-science.html
[25] https://climate.law.columbia.edu/Silencing-Science-Tracker
[26] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27032020/coronavirus-covid-19-EPA-API-environmental-enforcement
[27] https://truthout.org/articles/the-epa-has-backed-off-enforcement-under-trump-here-are-the-numbers/
[28] https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/482352-trump-budget-slashes-funding-for-epa-environmental-programs
[29] https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/#
[30] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/10/biden-wins-sierra-clubs-endorsement/
[31] https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-biden
[32] https://www.lcv.org/trumpyearone/
Activity
Search the web for information about the environmental policies of each side. After you find something you think is on point, research the source. Does it seek objectivity or is it partisan? Go to the About section, look at the staff, the directors, the funders, the advisory board. Learn about them. Do they represent the point of view of money or are they trying to report the news, or science, or social conditions, accurately? Do they consider contrasting points? For example, Influence Watch claims to be fact-based but is funded by Capital Research Center and its advisors and trustees are long-time partisan conservatives who seek to show how liberal organizations are “undermining our freedoms”.[1] Contrast them with Influence Map, founded after the Paris climate accord to provide “for the first time, detailed measurement of how corporations influence the passage of critical policy needed to address climate change”. Influence Map does have a point of view: that corporations should be climate responsible, and it is used by investors who want to place their money with more responsible sources.[2] Learn about information sources.
Continue researching beyond your first impressions. For example, many sources claim that subsidies for renewable energy exceed those for fossil fuels. This is a snapshot in time ignoring the vast historic difference, and ignoring large indirect subsidies. It ignores the fact that those going to renewables have been intermittent, which makes it hard to invest in them. It also ignores the fact that they are justified, and the fact that they are slated for reduction. Seek the full picture.
Don’t simply reject information because it doesn’t conform to ideas you want to preserve. For example, it did not support my argument to write that Joe Biden has received money from the oil and gas industry. But this is what the Center for Responsive Politics found in the Federal Elections Commission data. Nevertheless, the amount is far less than what Trump received. Biden has advisors, such as former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who promotes carbon capture technology and believes we will still need some fossil fuel energy for a while (“fifteen years or so”).[3] The advocates for a more focused clean energy agenda are unhappy with this perspective, but as noted above, Biden’s environmental score was 83%, not 100. This must be compared with Trump’s zero. Practice how you would advocate voting to save the world to others, who will cite facts in opposition to your premise, without doing what too many do: without denying facts.
[1] https://capitalresearch.org/about/
[2] https://influencemap.org/page/About-Us
[3] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/liberals-try-to-block-obama-centrists-from-biden-climate-team
Search the web for information about the environmental policies of each side. After you find something you think is on point, research the source. Does it seek objectivity or is it partisan? Go to the About section, look at the staff, the directors, the funders, the advisory board. Learn about them. Do they represent the point of view of money or are they trying to report the news, or science, or social conditions, accurately? Do they consider contrasting points? For example, Influence Watch claims to be fact-based but is funded by Capital Research Center and its advisors and trustees are long-time partisan conservatives who seek to show how liberal organizations are “undermining our freedoms”.[1] Contrast them with Influence Map, founded after the Paris climate accord to provide “for the first time, detailed measurement of how corporations influence the passage of critical policy needed to address climate change”. Influence Map does have a point of view: that corporations should be climate responsible, and it is used by investors who want to place their money with more responsible sources.[2] Learn about information sources.
Continue researching beyond your first impressions. For example, many sources claim that subsidies for renewable energy exceed those for fossil fuels. This is a snapshot in time ignoring the vast historic difference, and ignoring large indirect subsidies. It ignores the fact that those going to renewables have been intermittent, which makes it hard to invest in them. It also ignores the fact that they are justified, and the fact that they are slated for reduction. Seek the full picture.
Don’t simply reject information because it doesn’t conform to ideas you want to preserve. For example, it did not support my argument to write that Joe Biden has received money from the oil and gas industry. But this is what the Center for Responsive Politics found in the Federal Elections Commission data. Nevertheless, the amount is far less than what Trump received. Biden has advisors, such as former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who promotes carbon capture technology and believes we will still need some fossil fuel energy for a while (“fifteen years or so”).[3] The advocates for a more focused clean energy agenda are unhappy with this perspective, but as noted above, Biden’s environmental score was 83%, not 100. This must be compared with Trump’s zero. Practice how you would advocate voting to save the world to others, who will cite facts in opposition to your premise, without doing what too many do: without denying facts.
[1] https://capitalresearch.org/about/
[2] https://influencemap.org/page/About-Us
[3] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/liberals-try-to-block-obama-centrists-from-biden-climate-team
RSS Feed
