The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Bernie Sanders Enters 2020 Race, Promises Own Version of Green New Deal
Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders announced Tuesday that he will run for president in 2020, becoming the latest candidate in a crowded Democratic primary field to promise a Green New Deal if elected, The Washington Post reported.
"I'm running for president because we need to make policy decisions based on science, not politics," Sanders wrote in an email to supporters announcing his decision. "We need a president who understands that climate change is real, is an existential threat to our country and the entire planet, and that we can generate massive job creation by transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy."
I'm Running For President www.youtube.com
In addition to a Green New Deal, Sanders is also running on a platform of Medicare for All, a $15-an-hour minimum wage, tuition-free college and university, criminal justice reform, paid family leave and gender pay equity and breaking up the largest Wall Street banks, among other proposals, aides to the senator told The Washington Post.
Sanders brought many of these ideas, including more aggressive climate action, to national attention when he ran against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary. However, since his first run, the ideas he championed have gained steam and many other 2020 Democratic candidates have embraced them, The Guardian noted.
His success may therefore hinge on whether or not he is still the best mouthpiece for the ideas he helped popularize, as The New York Times explained:
Victories in the 2018 midterm election by women, minorities and first-time candidates also suggest that many Democrats may prefer fresh energy, something that skeptics believe Mr. Sanders could struggle to deliver. A 77-year-old whose left-wing message has remained largely unchanged in his decades-long career, Mr. Sanders will also need to improve his support from black voters and quell the unease about his campaign's treatment of women that has been disclosed in recent news accounts, and that has prompted two public apologies.
When it comes to the environment specifically, 2020 contenders California Sen. Kamala Harris, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro have voiced support for a Green New Deal.
However, Sanders' proposal will be slightly different from the Green New Deal resolution developed by Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who worked as an organizer for Sanders' 2016 primary campaign. Sanders' full plan should be released in the next few months, The Washington Post reported, explaining the difference between the two:
The upcoming Sanders plan is expected to contain significantly more details on how a Green New Deal would move America's economy to one that zeroes out carbon emissions, according to aides to the Senator, while the Ocasio-Cortez resolution supported by the other 2020 candidates mostly laid out ambitious targets for carbon reduction.
In 2016, Sanders promoted a carbon tax and a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030, The Guardian reported at the time.
The re-election campaign for President Donald Trump is already planning to use the popularity of Sanders' democratic socialist platform as a rallying point, The Guardian reported.
"Bernie Sanders has already won the debate in the Democrat primary, because every candidate is embracing his brand of socialism," Trump 2020 campaign spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement reported by The Guardian. "But the American people will reject an agenda of sky-high tax rates, government-run health care and coddling dictators like those in Venezuela. Only President Trump will keep America free, prosperous and safe."
Sanders, for his part, roundly criticized Trump in his announcement, calling him the "most dangerous president in modern history." However, Sanders also noted that his campaign was larger than defeating one person.
"Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice," he wrote.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Global Banks, Led by JPMorgan Chase, Invested $1.9 Trillion in Fossil Fuels Since Paris Climate Pact
By Sharon Kelly
A report published Wednesday names the banks that have played the biggest recent role in funding fossil fuel projects, finding that since 2016, immediately following the Paris agreement's adoption, 33 global banks have poured $1.9 trillion into financing climate-changing projects worldwide.
By Patti Lynn
2018 was a groundbreaking year in the public conversation about climate change. Last February, The New York Times reported that a record percentage of Americans now believe that climate change is caused by humans, and there was a 20 percentage point rise in "the number of Americans who say they worry 'a great deal' about climate change."
England faces an "existential threat" if it does not change how it manages its water, the head of the country's Environment Agency warned Tuesday.
By Jessica Corbett
A new analysis revealed Tuesday that over the past two decades heat records across the U.S. have been broken twice as often as cold ones—underscoring experts' warnings about the increasingly dangerous consequences of failing to dramatically curb planet-warming emissions.
By Madison Dapcevich
Ask any resident of San Francisco about the waterfront parrots, and they will surely tell you a story of red-faced conures squawking or dive-bombing between building peaks. Ask a team of researchers from the University of Georgia, however, and they will tell you of a mysterious string of neurological poisonings impacting the naturalized flock for decades.
The initial cause of the fire was not yet known, but it has been driven by the strong wind and jumped the North Santiam River, The Salem Statesman Journal reported. As of Tuesday night, it threatened around 35 homes and 30 buildings, and was 20 percent contained.
The unanimous verdict was announced Tuesday in San Francisco in the first federal case to be brought against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, alleging that repeated use of the company's glyphosate-containing weedkiller caused the plaintiff's cancer. Seventy-year-old Edwin Hardeman of Santa Rosa, California said he used Roundup for almost 30 years on his properties before developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
"Today's verdict reinforces what another jury found last year, and what scientists with the state of California and the World Health Organization have concluded: Glyphosate causes cancer in people," Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said in a statement. "As similar lawsuits mount, the evidence will grow that Roundup is not safe, and that the company has tried to cover it up."
Judge Vince Chhabria has split Hardeman's trial into two phases. The first, decided Tuesday, focused exclusively on whether or not Roundup use caused the plaintiff's cancer. The second, to begin Wednesday, will assess if Bayer is liable for damages.
"We are disappointed with the jury's initial decision, but we continue to believe firmly that the science confirms glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer," Bayer spokesman Dan Childs said in a statement reported by The Guardian. "We are confident the evidence in phase two will show that Monsanto's conduct has been appropriate and the company should not be liable for Mr. Hardeman's cancer."
Some legal experts said that Chhabria's decision to split the trial was beneficial to Bayer, Reuters reported. The company had complained that the jury in Johnson's case had been distracted by the lawyers' claims that Monsanto had sought to mislead scientists and the public about Roundup's safety.
However, a remark made by Chhabria during the trial and reported by The Guardian was blatantly critical of the company.
"Although the evidence that Roundup causes cancer is quite equivocal, there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue," he said.
Many regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have ruled that glyphosate is safe for humans, but the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer found it was "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015. A university study earlier this year found that glyphosate use increased cancer risk by as much as 41 percent.
Hardeman's lawyers Jennifer Moore and Aimee Wagstaff said they would now reveal Monsanto's efforts to mislead the public about the safety of its product.
"Now we can focus on the evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of Roundup," they wrote in a statement reported by The Guardian.
Hardeman's case is considered a "bellwether" trial for the more than 760 glyphosate cases Chhabria is hearing. In total, there are around 11,200 such lawsuits pending in the U.S., according to Reuters.
University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias told Reuters that Tuesday's decision showed that the verdict in Johnson's case was not "an aberration," and could possibly predict how future juries in the thousands of pending cases would respond.