Corporate giants who were anonymously opposing the Washington state measure to mandate labeling of genetically modified ingredients through the Grocery Manufacturers Association were outed recently after the state attorney general filed a suit claiming violation of election disclosure laws.
Funneling money through a lobbying group is not the only way that Big Food can hide from consumers. A chart created by Phil Howard, a Michigan State University assistant professor, shows how large corporations gobbled up or allied with the organic food sector around the time the U.S. Department of Agriculture adopted standards for certified organic.
Very few of these large companies identify their ownership ties on product labels, noted Howard, who teaches in the university’s Department of Community Sustainability program.
Here is Howard's chart, which was updated in May.
Visit EcoWatch’s FOOD page for more related news on this topic.
Contribute
Actress Jessica Smith gets her make-up done at the Point De Vue Salon on March 1, 2006 in Los Angeles, California. Marsaili McGrath / Getty Images
California became the first state in the nation to ban two dozen toxic chemicals from cosmetics Wednesday when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill to that effect into law.
<p>The Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, or <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2762" target="_blank">Assembly Bill 2762</a>, targets 24 toxic chemicals including <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/mercury" target="_self">mercury</a> and formaldehyde that have been linked to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a>, birth defects, hormone disruption and other negative health impacts, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/california-first-state-ban-24-toxic-chemicals-personal-care-products-and-cosmetics?utm_campaign=EWG%20Content&utm_content=1601499406&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0RfuFMZMMoF3cHBcF-JY934c7B_X9MMDJUt-rKeSLJGkkn3S9o3un8uj4" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group (EWG) reported</a>. While these ingredients have been barred from cosmetics and personal care products in the EU, they are not regulated in the U.S. on the national level.</p><p>"Every day, Californians are exposed to hazardous chemicals hiding in their cosmetics and personal care products. Children, communities of color and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to these ingredients, which are not actively regulated by the federal government," Newsom said in a <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/30/governor-newsom-signs-legislation-making-california-first-in-the-nation-to-ban-toxic-chemicals-in-cosmetics/" target="_blank">press release</a>. "California is leading the nation by banning toxic ingredients from our cosmetics. This legislation will save lives and keep Californians and our environment safe."</p>
<p>The bill was introduced by Democratic Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi and will go into effect in 2025, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/california-legislation-cosmetics-gavin-newsom-e8895b4a711194f6f41b16622859cdef" target="_blank">The Associated Press reported</a>.</p><p>"The science is clear on the harmful nature of these chemicals and AB 2762 will provide Californians with the same consumer protections already provided in the European Union," Muratsuchi said in the press release.</p><p>Cosmetics regulations have not been significantly updated in the U.S. since <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/michelle-pfeiffer-safer-cosmetics-2638043856.html" target="_self">1938</a>. Currently, the makers of beauty products do not have to register their products with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), supply the government with an ingredients list, follow safe manufacturing standards or report safety records and any adverse health impacts.</p><p>This lack of regulation is an issue of health and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/environmental-justice" target="_self">environmental justice</a>, supporters of the California bill pointed out.</p>
<p>"Some of the most toxic ingredients are being aggressively marketed to Black women," <a href="https://www.bwwla.org/" target="_blank">Black Women for Wellness</a> policy director Nourbese Flint told EWG. "Levels of formaldehyde that could be used to embalm a body are being used in hair straighteners, and Black women who dye their hair are 60 percent more likely to develop breast cancer. That's why we demand safe cosmetics now. This law means we can finally protect women from the toxic exposures they currently face on every trip to the salon."</p><p>The law will also protect salon workers, who are 47 times more likely to develop fragrance skin allergies than people in other professions, the California government pointed out.</p>
<p>Also on Wednesday, Newsom signed <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB312" target="_blank">Senate Bill 312</a>, which mandates that cosmetics makers report any harmful fragrances or flavors to the California Department of Public Health Safe Cosmetics Program.</p><p>"I thank Governor Newsom for signing SB 312 which will ensure that consumers in California know what ingredients are in the beauty and personal care products they bring home to their families and use on their bodies," Democratic State Senator Connie Leyva, who introduced the bill, said in the press release. "This first-in-the-nation legislation empowers consumers and underscores the belief that no toxic ingredients should be kept secret."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Chemicals in Cosmetics Linked to Lung Damage in Children, New ... ›
- 33 Toxic Hair Straighteners Under International Recall Still Sold in US ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
The MoveOn political action committee memorializes coronavirus deaths in the U.S. on May 13, 2020 in Washington, DC. Tasos Katopodis / Getty Images for MoveOn
As the coronavirus has spread around the globe, so have the germs of misinformation and conspiracy theories about the new disease. Fake news about the virus is so prevalent that health professionals have started referring to it as an "infodemic."
<p>To better understand the problem, researchers at Cornell University and Cision Global Insights conducted the first <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/evanega-et-al-coronavirus-misinformation-submitted-07-23-20-1/080839ac0c22bca8/full.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">in-depth investigation</a> of false coronavirus information in online and print media. They looked at more than 38 million English-language articles published between Jan. 1 and May 26 and came to a surprising conclusion: 37.9 percent of articles dealing with coronavirus misinformation mentioned U.S. President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_self">Donald Trump</a>.</p>
<p>"We conclude that the President of the United States was likely the largest driver of the COVID-19 misinformation 'infodemic,'" the researchers wrote.</p><p>Trump has spread false information throughout the course of the pandemic. Early on, he downplayed the risks, going against the advice of his own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/coronavirus-infections-trump-2645393552.html" target="_self">saying</a> people with mild cases could continue to work. He also touted unproven cures and treatments, such as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/doctor-bright-coronavirus-trump-drug-2645811981.html" target="_self">anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine</a> and the use of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-coronavirus-medicine-science-2645823308.html" target="_self">bleach or UV light</a> to kill the virus inside the body.</p><p><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-coronavirus-woodward-tapes-2647565763.html" target="_self">New evidence</a> has revealed that Trump knew at least some of his claims were false when he made them. In tapes of interviews with journalist Bob Woodward, the president acknowledged the deadliness of the virus as early as February and March, but said he was downplaying it in order to prevent panic.</p>
<p>However, the researchers told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-misinformation.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR3XbjJZu9op3nZWb37KpXQihBgWD4EHODJ2qsLFy-dCueE4j66NNfw1GAk" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> they had expected the infodemic to be driven more by the many COVID-19 conspiracy theories than by mentions of the president and his statements.</p><p>"The biggest surprise was that the president of the United States was the single largest driver of misinformation around Covid," lead author and Cornell Alliance for Science director Sarah Evanega told The New York Times. "That's concerning in that there are real-world dire health implications."</p><p>The researchers found false information in more than 1.1 million of the more than 38 million articles they assessed, or just under three percent. They included in their count articles that mentioned coronavirus lies in order to fact-check them. However, they found that fact-checking only accounted for 16.4 percent of the "misinformation conversation."</p><p>This suggests that "the majority of COVID misinformation is conveyed by the media without question or correction," the researchers wrote.</p>
<p>They also identified 11 subtopics of misinformation, including miracle cures and various conspiracy theories such as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/coronavirus-conspiracy-video-plandemic-2645951410.html" target="_self">plandemic</a> or the idea that the pandemic was a hoax planned by the Democratic Party to coincide with Trump's impeachment. They found that miracle cures were by far the most reported topic of misinformation, appearing in more articles than all the other topics combined.</p><p>Trump and miracle cures were also tightly linked, as the media reported on Trump's promotion of hydroxychloroquine. These types of articles peaked April 24 after the president suggested the internal application of bleach and UV light.</p><p>The study, published Thursday, has not yet been peer reviewed because the process is time consuming and the researchers thought the information in their study was of great public importance, they told The New York Times.</p><p>"Misinformation about COVID-19 is a serious threat to global <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" target="_self">public health</a>," the researchers wrote. "If people are misled by unsubstantiated claims about the nature and treatment of the disease, they are less likely to observe official health advice and may thus contribute to the spread of the pandemic and pose a danger to themselves and others."<br></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Doctors Aren't Just Fighting a Pandemic, but Also an 'Infodemic ... ›
- Trump Orders Hospitals to Stop Sending COVID-19 Data to CDC ... ›
- Facebook, Twitter Remove Trump Posts Sharing False COVID-19 Info ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A Marathon Oil refinery in Melvindale, Michigan on June 9, 2020. The Federal Reserve bought $3 million in the company's bonds before they were downgraded, bringing taxpayers' total stake to $7 million. FracTracker Alliance
A new report shows the U.S. government bought more than $350 million in bonds issued by oil and gas companies and induced investors to loan the industry tens of billions more at artificially low rates since the coronavirus pandemic began, Bloomberg reported.
<p><br/></p><p>The Federal Reserve itself bought debt from 19 <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> companies, including 12 that have since been downgraded by independent credit-rating agencies, according to the <a href="https://prismic-io.s3.amazonaws.com/bailout/1b1e1458-bbff-49bc-a636-f6cbd47a88af_Big+Oils+Billion+Dollar+Bender.pdf?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=96461767&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9lkS8M1whibNfOIgBIeYw7xEHCmkaqbdzHnxpnmBv5tP-z0LtVPd2pfOUa1gzYCUpidv97oXiSUwzGyTu4Lq4Mjn46UA&utm_content=96461767&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">report</a>, released Wednesday by Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth and Bailout Watch. Since the Federal Reserve began bailing out corporate debt markets in March, a total of 56 oil and gas companies have issued $99.3 billion in debt, including some to companies that have said they may have failed without the cash. By announcing it would buy corporate debts, the reports authors write, the Fed effectively reduced the risk to investors who might otherwise not have purchased the oil and gas companies' debt. "The Treasury and Fed have provided a massive safety net for the oil industry, whose business model was failing before the pandemic," Alan Zibel, research director of Public Citizen's Corporate Presidency Project, told Bloomberg.</p><p>According to the report:</p><blockquote>"The bailouts engineered by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Fed Chairman Jerome Powell are just the latest example of how corporate-friendly <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> appointees have scrambled to help the fossil fuel industry. The dirty-energy sector has been a key source of support for Republicans as well as a consistent pipeline for Trump administration staffers."</blockquote><p><strong>For a deeper dive:<br/></strong><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-30/critics-see-bailout-in-federal-purchase-of-oil-companies-debt?sref=oUjKJw8m&utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=96461767&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_X9Yfkb87NtvhRiN7aifq0cuWRm5YtvWvoNUv99nbIDalbnG8LVA6gE3qevteWTuSLcEvCenYQSDvLeth5a1rOQJF2Qw&utm_content=96461767&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a><br/><em><br/>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Fed's Corporate Debt-Buying Could Mean Big Oil Bailout - EcoWatch ›
- Marathon Petroleum Takes Bailout Tax Breaks During Pandemic ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A September 17 report by the Rhodium Group calculates that 1.8 billion tons more greenhouse gases will be released over the next 15 years as a result of climate change rollbacks the Trump administration has achieved so far. Pete Linforth / Pixabay / CC0
By Karen Charman
When President Donald Trump visited California on September 14 and dismissed the state Secretary of Natural Resources Wade Crowfoot's plea to recognize the role of climate change in the midst of the Golden State's worst and most dangerous recorded fire season to date, he gaslighted the tens of millions of West Coast residents suffering through the ordeal.
<p>While Trump declared that the weather will just "start getting cooler" and that science is irrelevant to the wildfires, millions were <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/16/smoke-air-west/" target="_blank">struggling to breathe</a> through the toxic smoke that gave Portland the week-long distinction of having the most hazardous air on the planet, with pollution levels in Seattle and San Francisco close behind. Whole towns in California and Oregon have been destroyed by the wildfires.</p><p>A growing body of scientific evidence over the last several decades confirms that as atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases rise, so too will frequent, intense and increasingly deadly weather events. Strange new weather phenomena like fire tornadoes, "snowacanes" and "rain bombs" are now part of our experience and language. Droughts, unprecedented heat, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes and flooding are happening more often, becoming more severe, and occurring over larger and larger areas.</p><p>This year several strange and extreme weather conditions combined to create the perfect firestorm across the Western U.S. A prolonged <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-06/southern-california-weather-forecast-sunday-los-angeles-record-breaking-heat" target="_blank">record-breaking heatwave</a> saw temperatures reach 130 degrees Fahrenheit in Death Valley, California, on August 16, and 121 degrees Fahrenheit in the Los Angeles suburb of Woodland Hills three weeks later on September 6. In mid-August, more than 10,000 dry <a href="https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/" target="_blank">lightning strikes began igniting fires</a> in Northern California, Oregon and Washington, including all over the Bay Area where they were eerily close to heavily populated areas. Lightning-induced fires are also torching Idaho, Arizona, Utah, Montana, Colorado and New Mexico. Subsequent high winds in drought-stricken landscapes then turned the initial sparks into major conflagrations.</p><p>By the morning of Trump's California appearance, 28 major fires had incinerated more than 3 million acres just in California. Fires in California, Oregon and Washington had combined to create a hellscape of toxic smoke that turned the skies in those states <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/10/leah_stokes_west_coast_fires" target="_blank">orange, blood red and deep magenta</a> and was detected as far away as Europe. At least 35 people had died.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, Hurricane Sally, one of five named storms then swirling in the Atlantic, was just two days away from flooding coastal communities from the Florida Panhandle to Louisiana. Sally, which submerged downtown Pensacola in five feet of water, hit just three weeks after Hurricane Laura caused massive flooding and 10 deaths. Slamming into the Louisiana coast with 150-mile-an-hour winds, Laura was <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/live-blog/hurricane-laura-makes-landfall-category-4-early-thursday-live-updates-n1238373/ncrd1238385#liveBlogHeader" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">one of the strongest hurricanes to make landfall in U.S. history</a>.</p><p>So far, 2020 has been an extremely busy hurricane season with more than 20 named storms, seven of which formed in the first half of September. With two more months before the hurricane season officially ends, there could be several more. Meanwhile, many of the fires across the West are still burning.</p><p>Nor has catastrophic weather spared the middle of the country this summer. On August 10, a particularly strong derecho, a quick-forming massive wall of intense winds, blasted through Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana. The derecho cut a path 770 miles long, held its strength for 14 hours, and clocked winds up to 140 miles per hour. Four people died, and crops and buildings on some 10 million acres in Iowa — nearly a third of the state's farmland — were heavily damaged. This storm also caused significant damage to cars and homes, downed power lines and destroyed massive numbers of trees in Cedar Rapids, Des Moines and parts of Chicago.</p><p><span></span>In 2019, the <a href="https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/" target="_blank">Fourth National Climate Assessment</a>, a comprehensive report mandated by Congress to study the impacts of climate change, found that without substantial and sustained greenhouse gas reductions along with vast infrastructure upgrades, unabated climate change will threaten much that many Americans take for granted and lead to an unrecognizable, dystopian existence for large swaths of the population.</p>
<p>Among the report's findings: food will become harder to grow and be lower in quality but more expensive. Clean, safe water supplies will become scarce in many parts of the country. Human health will take a significant hit from worsening air and water pollution, greater exposure to disease-carrying insects, pests, foodborne and waterborne pathogens, as well as the <a href="https://harpers.org/archive/2020/10/perfect-storm-saipan-typhoon-yutu/" target="_blank">emotional strain of having to deal with the reality and uncertainty</a> of catastrophic weather events and their aftermath. Heat will kill more people. Energy supplies will become increasingly unstable and more costly (because most U.S. power plants need a steady supply of cooling water to operate).</p><p>Moreover, the report predicts that already compromised roads, bridges, and the safety of pipelines all over the country will be vulnerable to damage from violent storms and flooding. Whole communities, especially those facing rising sea levels along the coastline, will be forced to move. Increasing production and supply chain disruptions will cause significant damage to the economy as a whole. Areas and industries that depend on natural resources and good, stable weather will likely be hardest hit with annual losses in the hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century, an amount exceeding the current total economic output of many U.S. states.</p><p>Overall, the report predicts "substantial net damage to the U.S. economy throughout this century," though it notes that poor and disadvantaged communities will disproportionately bear the worst impacts.</p><p>A stark illustration of what current levels of greenhouse gas emissions will look like is provided in <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/" target="_blank">maps</a> by the Rhodium Group, a New York-based independent research organization, which forecasts a much harsher living environment for many parts of the U.S. over the next 20 to 40 years. Temperatures above 95 degrees Fahrenheit will become much more common, especially in the South and Southwest, with places like Phoenix, Arizona, much of interior Southern California and southern Texas likely sweltering in 95 degrees or hotter for half the year.</p>
<p>Along with rising temperatures, humidity is expected to dramatically increase, even in places like Arizona, Southern California and Nevada, which have long been known for their dry heat. When excessive humidity combines with extreme heat, it creates "wet bulb" temperatures where sweating fails to cool the body. Such conditions make it dangerous to work outside or for kids to play outside. According to Rhodium's projections, current emissions are on track to turn much of the Mississippi Valley, the above-mentioned areas in the Southwest, southern Texas, and coastal areas in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina into high wet bulb zones.</p><p>Despite all of these future threats — on top of the climate disasters we are already seeing — Trump, the ruling Republicans, the fossil fuel sector and their defenders in right-wing media continue to deny climate change.</p><p>"If we don't have a stable environment to live in, there's no way to have life, liberty, or pursue happiness," Jeffrey Potent, adjunct professor of sustainability at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, told <em>Truthout</em>, decrying the Trump administration's attack on the government's ability to oversee and protect our environment.</p><p>"This is completely different from anything I have encountered in Washington," said Tyson Slocum, director Public Citizen's energy program. "It's an all-out assault on everything for the public interest."</p>
Foxes Guarding the Henhouse
<p>Before he assumed power, Trump attacked regulations as unnecessary barriers to freedom and economic prosperity. Since taking office, he has targeted anything enacted by the administration of his predecessor, Barack Obama, and taken steps to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris agreement, the international effort to combat climate change. He has also staffed heads of key agencies with climate deniers of various stripes, forced out career public servants and created a hostile work environment for those who don't profess loyalty to his deregulatory agenda.</p><p>Like Trump himself, some of his cabinet choices displayed an audacious penchant for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage" target="_blank">self-dealing</a> and abusing their positions of authority. One example is Trump's first Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, Scott Pruitt, who aggressively worked to overturn Obama's climate regulations, spent most of his time in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-epa-head-steps-down-after-wave-of-ethics-management-scandals/2018/07/05/39f4251a-6813-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">private meetings</a> with fossil fuel and chemical company executives, sidelined career EPA staff and reconfigured independent scientific advisory boards to make them more supportive of the industries EPA is charged with regulating. Dubbed "<a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-pruitt-leaves-20180705-story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">one of the most scandal-plagued Cabinet officials in U.S. history</a>," Pruitt resigned in disgrace after revelations about his multiple brazen abuses, including using the agency as his personal concierge service and piggy bank.</p><p>Pruitt's deputy, Andrew Wheeler, a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-wheeler-acting-epa-administrator-former-number-two-before-scott-pruitt-resignation/" target="_blank">former coal industry lobbyist</a> and longtime Republican Washington insider, took over and has continued Trump's deregulatory agenda apace.</p><p>At the Department of Interior (DOI), a sprawling agency that oversees 75 percent of the country's public federal lands and includes the U.S. Geological Survey, which is tasked with evaluating natural hazards that threaten life and the health of our ecosystems, Trump installed another flamboyant anti-environmentalist to head the agency. Like Pruitt, Trump's first Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke aggressively attacked environmental regulations, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/07/epa-dismisses-half-of-its-scientific-advisers-on-key-board-citing-clean-break-with-obama-administration/" target="_blank">ditched more than 200 advisory panels</a>, and pushed to open up vast swaths of public land to oil and gas drilling. Described by one environmental group as "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/interior-secretary-zinke-resigns-amid-investigations/2018/12/15/481f9104-0077-11e9-ad40-cdfd0e0dd65a_story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the most anti-conservation Interior secretary in our nation's history</a>," Zinke was forced out after numerous highly publicized conflict-of-interest scandals.</p><p>The DOI is now run by Zinke's deputy secretary, David Bernhardt, another longtime Republican Washington insider and former oil industry lobbyist who has also been the subject of <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/this-is-still-happening-david-bernhardt-trump-lincoln.html" target="_blank">several government ethics complaints</a> for various violations favoring polluting industries.</p><p>More recently, longtime climate change denier David Legates, a climatologist at the University of Delaware previously <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19032015/u-delaware-refuses-disclose-funding-sources-its-climate-contrarian" target="_blank">funded by fossil fuel interests</a>, was hired for a <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/09/12/912301325/longtime-climate-science-denier-hired-at-noaa" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">top job</a> advancing weather modeling and prediction at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Legates has called for <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/18/noaa_david_legates_climate_crisis" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">increasing carbon emissions</a>.</p><p>The Trump administration has done much more than stack government agencies with fossil fuel industry proponents. It has removed or diluted discussion of climate change from as many government platforms as it can and decimated independent scientific advisory boards that provide unbiased, fact-based information the government needs to enact policies that protect the public. It has also <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/482352-trump-budget-slashes-funding-for-epa-environmental-programs" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">slashed environmental agency staffing and budgets</a>.</p>The Damage So Far
<p>A September 17 <a href="https://rhg.com/research/the-rollback-of-us-climate-policy/" target="_blank">report</a> by the Rhodium Group calculates that 1.8 billion tons more greenhouse gases will be released over the next 15 years as a result of climate change rollbacks the Trump administration has achieved so far. These include repealing Obama's main climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, which was intended to reduce dirty emissions from power plants; increasing pollution from cars by rolling back fuel economy standards and challenging California's longtime authority to set stricter emissions standards; targeting controls on hydrofluorocarbons, powerful greenhouse gases used mainly in refrigerators and air conditioners that also destroy the Earth's protective ozone layer; and allowing unreported and unregulated emissions of methane, another potent greenhouse gas, by oil and gas companies.</p><p>Besides these measures, Trump is also trying to gut core environmental statutes like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, all of which were enacted to protect human health and preserve a livable world.</p><p>The Paris agreement aims to keep the rise in average global temperatures at less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and hopefully cap it at 1.5 degrees C or lower. We are now at approximately 1.2 degrees C and counting.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump Admin Guts Endangered Species Act in the Midst of Climate ... ›
- Climate Change Purged From White House Website - EcoWatch ›
- California Burns Because of the Climate Crisis While Trump ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives on February 04, 2020 in Washington, DC. Mark Wilson / Getty Images
By Jan Ellen Spiegel
It wasn't so long ago that the issue of climate change was poised to play a huge – possibly even a decisive – role in the 2020 election, especially in the race for control of the U.S. Senate. Many people supporting Democratic candidates saw a possible Democratic majority as a hedge against a potential Trump re-election … a way to plug the firehose spray of more than 100 environmental regulation rollbacks and new anti-climate initiatives by the administration over its first term.
<p>Then came COVID-19.</p><p>Now coupled with the singular issue of "Trump" and recently compounded by the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, these matters may be sucking the air out of the room for 2020 election issues. So with weeks to go, will climate change manage to play any kind of specific role in the most competitive Senate races where policy details once upon a time counted?</p><p>The answer is – no, yes, maybe.</p><p>"Climate change does not seem to be a big issue in the key Senate races," says Kyle Kondik, via email. He is managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. "Even the weather disasters of this summer – hurricanes and fires – are not necessarily easy to connect to climate change for voters."</p><p>A Pew Research Center <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/" target="_blank">survey</a> of registered voters from late June through early August had climate change second from last among a dozen issues voters considered very important. That was actually 10 percentage points lower than a similar survey had found before the 2016 election.</p><p>A Quinnipiac University <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/south-carolina/release-detail?ReleaseID=3673" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">poll</a> of likely voters in the Maine, South Carolina, and Kentucky U.S. Senate races released September 16, two days before Ginsburg's death, showed climate change in single digits among the most important issue for voters. It was last or next to last in each of those state's Senate races.</p><blockquote>Climate change 'clearly a motivator' for some potential voters, with 'power to move swing voters.'<br></blockquote><p>That finding was underscored in a <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3674" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">national presidential poll</a> by Quinnipiac released September 23 in which climate change was next-to-last at 6% among likely voters as the most important issue.</p><p>So it would seem all the little details and nuances of each candidate's climate and environmental positions in the roughly 10 most competitive Senate races … nope, those really don't matter right now. But let's be clear – they DID matter, especially in a few Democratic primaries, most notably Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey's win over challenger Rep. Joe Kennedy III, in which Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D-NY) support for Markey got him a lot of cred with climate activists.</p><p>And it's clear from surveys that people absolutely do care about climate change broadly. So there are those who think the issue of climate change could be a motivating force for select groups that in past elections have been either less than reliable voters or more persuadable voters. Their participation, some feel, could help push a few candidates over the top even given the "You're-either-with-Trump-or-against-Trump" mentality of the elections.</p>
Potential Climate Voters
<p>In a September 1 memo on climate and the election, Andrew Baumann, vice president of the consultants Global Strategy Group, wrote: "Few issues have seen as dramatic a shift in public opinion as climate change has over the last few years. Only marriage equality and the recent shift in views around racial justice outpace the rapid growth in the salience of climate change as an issue."</p><p>Calling it a "winning political issue" the memo says: "First, it is clearly a motivator for both younger and Latinx voters. Second, it has the power to move swing voters, particularly center-right white women."</p><p>Baumann points to a finding that when a group of such women were asked generic ballot questions, Democrats trailed by nine percentage points. But when the question was revised as a choice between:</p><p>"A Democrat who supports taking strong government action to combat climate change.<br>A Republican who opposes taking strong government action to combat climate change."</p><p>… the result was a 29 percentage point shift, putting Democrats ahead by 20 percentage points among that same group.</p><p>"I think it is playing a role," says Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, a longtime outspoken climate activist who is on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and also on the Senate Democrats' Special Committee on the Climate Crisis. If Democrats win back the Senate, he stands to play an even more pivotal climate role as part of the majority. He is not up for re-election this year.</p><p><span></span>"I think from the Democratic side it's playing a role in generating enthusiasm – particularly making younger voters feel that they have a real stake in this election. On the Republican side, I think things have moved enough that candidates can no longer get away with simply scoffing about climate change."</p>Climate a Top Concern for Youths, Latinx
<p>So who's still thinking climate? Mostly young voters – 18 to 25 or 29 and Latinx voters.</p><p>Climate and the environment are the top concern among young voters, just above racism and healthcare according to <a href="https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/poll-young-people-believe-they-can-lead-change-unprecedented-election-cycle" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">CIRCLE</a>, the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University, which focuses on the political life of young people in the U.S. For Latinx youth, it drops a bit but remains in the top three.</p><p>The issues young people care about have an impact on how they volunteer their time, says Kristian Lundberg, an associate researcher at CIRCLE. He says that's played out most notably through the Sunrise Movement, which focuses on climate change and the environment along with other key activist groups such as Black Lives Matter and March for Our Lives.</p><p>He points to polling this summer that showed that 83% of 18-to-29-year-olds felt they had the power to change things. "Young people feel much more empowerment than in 2016 and 2018," Lundberg says. "It's intentional these movements are carving out space for young people. It's an important strategy."</p><p>In positions of power in these organizations, young people have developed peer-to-peer outreach on activism. And Lundberg says young people have made the leap that connects activism to voting as a lever for change. "In the past in very close races, young people breaking heavily have provided the margin of victory," he says.</p><p>CIRCLE is highlighting 10 U.S. Senate races as ones in which young voters can be decisive. Several of them have notable climate or environmental components – most prominently the Colorado and Montana races.</p><p>The Republican incumbents in each state – Cory Gardner in Colorado and Steve Daines in Montana – are running against a popular Democratic governor – John Hickenlooper in Colorado, now out of office — and Steve Bullock, still the governor of Montana. Both governors have had to balance their state's fossil fuel economic interests with supporting climate change solutions.</p><p>The Trump administration has given both GOP Senate incumbents some environmental gifts – the Great American Outdoors Act and establishment of an EPA Office of Mountains, Deserts and Plains in Colorado designed to help with cleanup of abandoned mines in both states. (There's some question of whether that can be done without congressional approval.)</p><p>While both moves are more about land use than climate change, they give the two vulnerable Republican senators a bone to throw to their sizable outdoors enthusiast constituencies.</p><p>"Bullock has been no climate champion by any means," says Emily LaShelle, a volunteer with Sunrise in Bozeman. But she's out there working to get him elected anyway.</p><p>She believes if Bullock were to make a hard pivot to go all-in on climate, "young people would really turn out."</p><p>The Trump administration has also thrown a gift to endangered Republican senators and swing states in the Southeast – a ban on offshore drilling from Florida through North Carolina; the latter state was added after the original ban through South Carolina was announced.</p><p>All those states had opposed offshore oil and gas drilling, which the Trump administration has advocated. Florida and North Carolina are considered presidential swing states and incumbent Republican senators in North and South Carolina and Georgia are facing hard-fought races. So there's clearly some recognition that climate activists could make a difference.</p>
Tying Climate Change to the Economy
<p>In August, Data for Progress, a progressive research think tank, released polling on climate change – including in the battleground Senate elections in Arizona, Iowa, Maine, and North Carolina – showing voters back a Senate candidate supporting strong climate action.</p><blockquote>Climate change as 'mobilizing issue … key persuasion issue.'<br></blockquote><p>It also showed that linking climate change to the economy may be key. That means talking about clean energy and jobs together, says Danielle Deiseroth, climate data analyst for <a href="https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/poll-young-people-believe-they-can-lead-change-unprecedented-election-cycle" target="_blank">Data for Progress</a>. She says that in addition to jobs, climate change issues include climate justice and economic equality – both of heightened interest because of fallout from western wildfires.</p><p>"Climate change, we've observed over the last year or so, is a key mobilizing issue and a key persuasion issue," she says. "Climate issues can only grow support for Democratic candidates.</p><p>"I think it's pretty naive to say climate is the key issue for voters. For a lot of voters it really exemplifies so many things that are wrong with the Trump presidency," Deiseroth says.</p><p>So a factor among others. Helpful, but pivotal only in narrow circumstances.</p><p>At the League of Conservations Voters, a progressive environmentalist organization putting a lot of money and effort into the 2020 races, Senior Director of Political Affairs Craig Auster says: "I'll push back that climate change doesn't matter or isn't registering."</p><p>"It's still showing up in several Senate races. It's been playing a role in almost all of them."</p><p>Candidates are still talking about it, he says, pointing to Colorado, Montana, Iowa, and other states where ads are addressing climate and environmental issues. That shows the candidates believe their opponent is vulnerable on the issue or they're strong on it, he says.</p><p>Like others, Auster calls climate a motivator.</p><p>"Climate change matters," he says. "We have proof point after proof point about what's happening, whether it's a hurricane, a superstorm, derechos in Iowa, or wildfires out west.</p><p>"Pre-COVID it was top tier for Democratic voters along with healthcare. If COVID didn't happen I think climate would be a big deal."</p>From Your Site Articles
- Green New Deal Champion Ed Markey Defeats Joe Kennedy III ... ›
- These Races Will Shape How U.S. Elections Affect Climate Progress ... ›
- Outdoor Brand Patagonia Wants You to 'Vote the A**holes Out ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less