If Senator Bennet Isn't a Climate Denier, Then Why Is He Acting Like One?
When U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat in swing-state Colorado, voted for the Keystone XL pipeline in November, prominent Associated Press reporter Nick Riccardi, who closely followed the 2014 Colorado elections, tweeted:
Of course, the Democratic Party base and environmental community in Colorado was outraged at Bennet’s vote. Activists flooded his office phone, his office in Denver and his office in Washington, DC, before, during and after the vote. A few got arrested in his office in Washington, DC. They held banners that said, “If you’re not a climate denier, don’t vote like one.”
As a response to all of that, here’s the statement that Bennet’s spokesperson released to the public and media:
He would prefer that instead of focusing our political debate on a narrow issue that we develop a broad and comprehensive energy strategy to reduce carbon pollution and support renewable energy. He believes we should take aggressive action to curb climate change and support the President’s Climate Action Plan.
A few days later, Senator Bennet was interviewed by the Denver Post about his positions on energy and fracking for oil and gas in Colorado. The Denver Post reported that Bennet said he supported an "'all of the above' approach to energy" that included "guarding Colorado’s booming liquid natural gas industry" to "make it easier for energy companies to export liquefied natural gas" and would be "pushing legislation to reduce taxes on liquefied natural gas."
So …, here we have a prominent U.S. Senator—who, in fact, was the Chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee for the 2014 election—who says we should take “aggressive action to curb climate change,” but yet he supports mining all of the Alberta tar sands via his Keystone XL vote, and supports mining and fracking for all of the oil and gas in Colorado and beyond.
Here are two statements from actual scientists that refute Senator Bennet:
- James Hansen, former NASA climate change scientist who helped start the climate movement in the U.S., has said that Keystone XL would accelerate tar sands mining in Alberta and would be “game over for the climate” due to the massive CO2 emissions associated with mining and burning the tar sands.
- Keywan Riahi, who is one of the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, was quoted in April 2014 as saying: “The [report] clearly shows that unabated fossil fuels need to be phased out [in] the long-term, and this is also the case for natural gas, including shale gas.”
In 2016, Senator Bennet is up for re-election in Colorado. Climate change activists like me are extremely concerned with Senator Bennet’s position on climate change policy. As we try to wrap our heads around Bennet’s votes and statements, we have these questions:
- Does Senator Bennet actually believe in climate change?
- Or, as suggested by the Associated Press reporter, is Senator Bennet so close to his former boss, the Denver energy industry, and their support of his 2016 re-election that he can’t vote against them?
- Or, defying 97 percent of all current science and scientists, does he actually think there is a scientific opportunity to mine all of the tar sands and frack all of the oil and gas and still have “aggressive action” to fight climate change?
We Colorado Democrats and climate change activists eagerly look forward to Senator Bennet’s future statements and positions on these issues. Of course, we will continue to respectfully work with Senator Bennet on these and other environmental issues in Colorado over the next two years. But in the meantime, we will "sleep with one eye open."
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Eleven peaceful activists from the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise have taken to the water in inflatable boats with handheld banners to oppose the Statoil Songa Enabler oil rig, 275 km North off the Norwegian coast, in the Arctic Barents sea.
The banners say: "People Vs. Arctic Oil" and are directed at Statoil and the Norwegian government, which has opened a new, aggressive search for oil in the waters of the Barents Sea.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) paved the way Friday for the 600-mile, 42-inch fracked gas Atlantic Coast Pipeline to proceed when it issued the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). A joint project of utility giants Duke Energy and Dominion Energy, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline would move fracked gas from West Virginia into Virginia and North Carolina.
In April, the Sierra Club submitted more than 500 pages of legal and technical comments on FERC's draft EIS, which were joined by more than 18,000 individual comments detailing opposition to the project. The pipeline has been met with widespread opposition, with more than 1,000 people participating in public hearings across the three affected states. The Sierra Club recently requested that FERC issue a new environmental review document analyzing information that came in after or late in, the public comment process.
By Jessica Corbett
"It's time Rex Tillerson step down or be removed," said Gigi Kellett of Corporate Accountability International, following an announcement on Thursday that ExxonMobil will pay $2 million for violating U.S. sanctions against Russian officials while the now-secretary of state was the company's CEO.
"ExxonMobil demonstrated reckless disregard for U.S. sanction requirements," according to enforcement filing released by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which issued the penalty. Though the fine is reportedly the maximum penalty allowed, it's pittance to one of the world's most profitable and powerful corporations, which last year reported a profit of $7.8 billion.
New analysis from Amory B. Lovins debunks the notion that highly unprofitable, economically distressed nuclear plants should be further subsidized to meet financial, security, reliability and climate goals. The analysis, which will appear shortly in The Electricity Journal, shows that closing costly-to-run nuclear plants and reinvesting their saved operating costs in energy efficiency provides cheaper electricity, increases grid reliability and security, reduces more carbon, and preserves (not distorts) market integrity—all without subsidies.
By Christian Detisch and Seth Gladstone
In the wake of Senate Republicans' ever-deepening debacle over their flailing attempts to strip health insurance from 22 million people, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is desperate to do something—anything—to show that he can get legislation passed. To this end, he's bypassing the standard committee review process to push a complex 850+ page energy bill straight to the full Senate floor. Perhaps not surprisingly, this legislation, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, would be a disaster for public health and our climate.
A new law passed this week in South Miami will require all new homes built in the city to install solar panels. The measure, which was inspired by a proposal from a teenage climate activist, will go into effect in September.
The text of the ordinance details the climate impacts facing South Miami.
By Ben Jervey
Just last week, we fact-checked and debunked every line of The Dirty Secrets of Electric Cars, a video produced by Fueling U.S. Forward, a Koch-funded campaign to push fossil fuels. That video represents the group's first public pivot from fossil fuel boosterism to electric vehicle (EV) attacks. More electric vehicle experts are also picking the video apart.
One effort is this video highlighting many of the same falsehoods we wrote about, and which adds key context about some of the video footage. Like, for instance, the fact that the photo that Fueling U.S. Forward claims is a lithium, cobalt or cerium mining operation is actually a copper mine.
By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
A recent series of articles by a Washington Post reporter could have some consumers questioning the value of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) organic seal. But are a few bad eggs representative of an entire industry?
Consumers are all for cracking down on the fraudulent few who, with the help of Big Food, big retail chains and questionable certifiers give organics a bad name. But they also want stronger standards, and better enforcement—not a plan to weaken standards to accommodate "Factory Farm Organic."