Today's large-scale industrial agriculture relies heavily on Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that house large numbers of livestock in cramped quarters. As has been well documented, violations and questionable—even illegal—practices seem to run rampant on factory farms, the consequences of which have a negative impact on public health and the environment.
Center for Food Safety (CFS) has worked for years to bring these issues to light and this week they released a digital map of the CAFOs in the state of Michigan. According to CFS, the map—which will serve as a model for other states—includes the location and size of animal factories, as well as environmental violations, type of manure storage, nearby rivers and waterways, nearby schools, federal subsidies and other information.
Click on the map to access the interactive feature.
“This map helps put these factories into the context of the communities they impact,” said Paige Tomaselli, senior attorney for CFS. “The industrial meat industry is trying to keep consumers in the dark, but these massive operations have significant impacts on the environment and overall health of a community. This map is designed to be a tool to help consumers and residents understand how these animal factories impact their lives.”
Massive amounts of excrement produced in these facilities have been found to contaminate drinking water and cause air pollution. Manure decomposition produces more than 160 gases—including pollutants and irritants like hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane and carbon monoxide. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognize that "the closer children live to a CAFO, the greater the risk of asthma symptoms," yet CAFO air emissions are largely unregulated.
Nitrogen and ammonia from excrement put both the environment and human health at risk. CFS points out that nitrogen can lead to blue baby syndrome (a serious heart condition in newborn babies), while other bacteria and viruses can cause public health crises. It is estimated that more than one million Americans access groundwater that is moderately to severely contaminated by nitrogen.
“We hope that this new tool allows more communities who have been adversely impacted by these behemoth operations to take a stand. Access to accurate information is a vital first step,” said Tomaselli.
CAFO water pollution can be toxic to fish and other wildlife. In the Gulf of Mexico, nutrient-rich water from the Mississippi River basin empties into the Gulf and causes toxic algal blooms. Nutrients, like nitrogen and phosphorus, are used to fertilize gardens and crops, but create aquatic "deadzones," in which excess nutrients choke out oxygen in the water and create an environment that does not support aquatic life. Last year the deadzone covered 5,840 square miles—an area the size of Connecticut.
--------
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
FDA Regulation of Antibiotic Use on Factory Farms Proves Worthless
Colorado Governor Under Fire for Backing Controversial Factory Farms
Too Big to Fail Organic? Horizon Factory Farm Accused of Skirting Laws
--------
Contribute
Reintroducing wolves is on the ballot in Colorado. Gunner Ries / Wikimedia Commons / CC by 3.0
By Tara Lohan
Maybe we can blame COVID-19 for making it hard to hit the streets and gather signatures to get initiatives on state ballots. But this year there are markedly fewer environmental issues up for vote than in 2018.
While the number of initiatives may be down, there's no less at stake. Voters will still have to make decisions about wildlife, renewable energy, oil companies and future elections.
Here's the rundown of what's happening where.
Return of an Apex Predator
<p>Wolves are on the ballot in Colorado. <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/reintroduction-and-management-gray-wolves" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Proposition 114</a> would require the state's Parks and Wildlife Commission to create a plan by 2023 for the reintroduction and management of gray wolves (<em>Canis lupus</em>) in areas west of the continental divide.</p><p>Gray wolves once roamed across the western United States but were mostly eradicated by the 1930s. Slowly efforts are being made to bring them back. The reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park in 1996 has been hailed as a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/25/yellowstone-wolf-project-25th-anniversary" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rewilding success</a>.</p><p>"The argument is that by putting back in wolves — an apex predator that has evolved alongside their prey species — we're putting things back into ecological balance," University of Colorado Boulder ecology professor Joanna Lambert <a href="https://therevelator.org/wolf-reintroduction-colorado/" target="_blank">told <em>The Revelator</em></a> in a February interview about the science behind wolf reintroductions.</p><p>The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Colorado Farm Bureau are two of the top donors to the opposition groups.</p><p>The measure does include compensation for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves.</p><p>"What we're all hoping for is a landscape where we can coexist with the species that were originally here, but also acknowledging that humans need to make a living and that the costs of this initiative will be felt by some folks more than others," Lambert said.</p>Confusion Over Clean Energy
<p>In Nevada voters will take a second swing at a constitutional amendment to require that electric utilities source 50% of their electricity from renewables by 2030. Voters passed the same measure, <a href="https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=8826" target="_blank">Question 6</a>, in 2018, but state law requires that constitutional amendments be passed in two consecutive even-numbered election years.</p><p>More clean energy for the state may seem good. But there's concern that enshrining 50% renewables by 2030 in the state's constitution isn't that ambitious and it will make it harder to continue the push for 100% renewables in the future. To do that would be another constitutional amendment that would again take four years and two consecutive ballot wins to move the needle.</p><p>Also, the state is already on its way to the same renewable goal.</p><p>A legislative effort to achieve 50% renewables by 2030 — but with a slightly different timeline for the increments to get there — was signed into law in April 2019 by Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak. Renewable advocates hope the state will do even better than that benchmark, but passing Question 6 would make it harder.</p>Paying a Fair Share
<p>If California's <a href="https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures/" target="_blank">Proposition 15</a> passes, commercial and industrial properties will need to start paying taxes based on their current market value, instead of paying based on the purchase price from decades prior (which stems from Proposition 13 passed back in 1978). The initiative would exempt agricultural land, small businesses, renters and homeowners.</p><p>Reassessing the worth of large commercial properties could bring in between $7.5 billion and $12 billion a year that would go toward supporting local governments, school districts and community colleges.</p><p>Most of the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020)" target="_blank">opposition</a> has come from big business and anti-taxation groups.</p><p>The California Teachers Association Issues PAC is the biggest supporter of the effort, but a number of <a href="https://www.yes15.org/endorsers-environment" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">environmental groups</a> have also endorsed the measure, which would likely see oil companies and other big industrial polluters having to kick in more money.</p><p>"The oil industry has used Prop. 13 loopholes to evade tens of millions of dollars in property taxes," <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/victoria-rome/nrdc-announces-support-californias-proposition-15" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrote Victoria Lome</a>, California legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Companies like Chevron, Exxon, Phillips 66, Shell and Tosco are paying taxes based on assessments taken prior to 2000. Prop. 15 would end this hidden subsidy to dirty energy."</p><p>Oil companies could stand to lose in Alaska, too. Voters there will weigh in on <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_1,_North_Slope_Oil_Production_Tax_Increase_Initiative_(2020)" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ballot Measure 1</a>, which would increase taxes on big oil producers (those that have produced more than 400 million barrels overall or 40,000 barrels a day in the past year) operating in three established oil fields in the North Slope.</p>Taking the Wind Out of the Sails of the Electoral College
<p>Colorado's <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/adopt-agreement-elect-us-president-national-popular-vote" target="_blank">Proposition 113</a> isn't about environmental issues directly but could cause big shifts in how presidential elections are run and what states and issues are considered important.</p><p>The initiative would add Colorado to the <a href="https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation" target="_blank">National Popular Vote Interstate Compact</a>. That effort is aimed at ensuring the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote wins the election. It doesn't eliminate the Electoral College, but it saps its power.</p><p>The compact needs states representing at least 270 Electoral College votes to go into effect. It's currently at 196.</p><p>If Colorado's proposition is passed, and if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact eventually gets enough votes to go into effect, then Colorado's nine electoral votes would go to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote, not to the one who gets the most votes in Colorado.</p>From Your Site Articles
- 5 Key Environmental Ballot Measures to Track at Your Election ... ›
- Trump Is Losing Farmer Support. Will They Swing the Election ... ›
- The Environment Is on the November Ballot — Here's Where and ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A health care worker holds a test for patients suspected of being infected with coronavirus at the Center Health Vicoso Jardim on April 30, 2020 in Niteroi, Brazil. Luis Alvarenga / Getty Images
By Alexander Freund
The World Health Organization, along with its global partners in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, has announced that it will provide 120 million rapid-diagnostic antigen tests to people in lower- and middle-income countries over the next six months. The tests represent a "massive increase" in testing worldwide, according to the Global Fund, a partnership that works to end epidemics.
<p>"We have an agreement, we have seed funding and now we need the full amount of funds to buy these tests," said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on Monday, without providing further details. The program will initially require $600 million and is planned to start as early as October.</p><p>This mass testing campaign is part of a <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_710" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">global initiative launched in April</a> by the WHO, the European Commission, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the French government. Additional partner organizations include the Global Fund, the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) and Unitaid.</p><p>The test manufacturers, South Korea's SD BioSensor and U.S.-based Abbott Laboratories, have agreed to provide 20% of their test kits to lower- and middle-income countries. The remainder will be made available to wealthier nations, some of whom are helping to finance the test drive. Germany, for example, has already ordered some 20 million test kits.</p>
Quick Test Can Break Infection Chains
<p>"These tests provide reliable results in approximately 15 to 30 minutes, rather than hours or days, at a lower price with less sophisticated equipment," said WHO head Tedros, adding that the tests would cost as little as $5 each, and could become cheaper still. He said the rapid tests would help expand testing to hard-to-reach areas which aren't as well-equipped, or which are lacking trained health workers.</p><p>"High-quality rapid tests show us where the virus is hiding, which is key to quickly tracing and isolating contacts and breaking the chains of transmission," said Tedros. "The tests are a critical tool for governments as they look to reopen economies and ultimately save both lives and livelihoods."</p><p>Catharina Boehme, head of FIND, also welcomed the widespread rollout of cheap test kits. "This really shows what can be achieved when the world and leading global health partners come together with a common priority," she said.</p>How Do COVID-19 Antigen Tests Work?
<p>There are currently three different types of coronavirus diagnostic tests on the market: antigen tests, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests and serology tests (ELISA). </p><p>Rapid antigen tests target virus proteins, and somewhat resemble pregnancy tests. They aren't yet available at pharmacies and can only be administered by trained medical personnel. With a nasal or throat swab, testers can find out within approximately 15 minutes whether a patient has contracted the SARS-CoV-2 virus and is infectious and must be quarantined.</p><p>The advantage of rapid antigen tests is that they can be conducted quickly and on the spot. <br></p><p>It's hoped that this will help save the lives of thousands of people and slow the spread of the pandemic in the world's poorest countries. Rapid antigen tests can be used to carry out mass screenings among health care workers in low-income countries, who are at greater risk of death from COVID-19. These tests could also be used in schools, in the workplace and in nursing and retirement homes.</p><p>The major disadvantage of rapid antigen tests is that they're less reliable than PCR tests, which are conducted in labs and designed to detect the virus' genetic material. Rapid antigen tests may also be less effective in detecting infections in the early stages.</p><p>Still, a growing number of medical experts are backing the mass rollout of antigen tests, as they allow infected people to be identified even before they show symptoms, when individuals have a high viral load and are especially infectious.</p>Not All Rapid Test Kits Are Reliable
<p>Hundreds of rapid COVID-19 test kits have come on the market recently. Many of them are reliable, but not all. In March, for example, Spain sent back two batches of unlicensed Chinese test kits because they were flawed.</p><p>The European Center for Disease Prevention and Control has pointed out that even though many tests have been approved for sale on the European market, very few clinical studies show whether they are actually effective.</p><p>The 120 million test kits set to be rolled out by the WHO are the first to meet all of the organization's standards; test makers SD BioSensor and Abbott were granted emergency approval by the WHO last week.</p><p>The manufacturers claim their tests are up to 97% reliable in lab conditions; in the real world, the tests are said to be between 80% and 90% reliable. While this is good, it also means some 20% of patients will receive negative results despite being infected, which could lead to further spread of the virus.</p>What Are the Alternatives to Antigen Tests?
<p>Rapid antigen tests are ideal to test scores of patients quickly, simply and cheaply. Lab-based PCR tests, however, are superior in terms of reliability.</p><p>The PCR test detects genetic material, or RNA, from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Patients are asked to provide a throat swab. One part of the person's genetic material is then synthesized, after which a biochemical process known as agarose gel electrophoresis is used to detect if the sample contains virus RNA. These tests are highly reliable but can only be conducted in specialized labs.</p><p>Serologic testing, on the other hand, detects antibodies in a person's blood that form when the immune system responds to a certain pathogen. This indicates that a person has already been exposed to the virus. While quick test kits are available for this method, these are mainly used for scientific studies.<br></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
U.S. President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden participate in the first presidential debate moderated by Fox News anchor Chris Wallace at the Health Education Campus of Case Western Reserve University on Sept. 29, 2020 in Cleveland, Ohio. Scott Olson / Getty Images
The first presidential debate seemed like it would end without a mention of the climate crisis when moderator Chris Wallace brought it up at the end of the night for a segment that lasted roughly 10 minutes.
<p>The raucous event in Cleveland, Ohio was notable for President Donald's Trump's constant interruptions and bullying behavior as he spoke over the Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, and Wallace. "Mr. Trump purposefully and repeatedly heckled and blurted over his rival and the moderator alike in a 90-minute melee that showcased the president's sense of urgency to upend a race," is how Shane Goldmacher of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/us/politics/presidential-debate-recap.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> summarized the night.</p><p>It was with that backdrop that Wallace said toward the end of the evening, "I'd like to talk about climate change." He then spoke about the forest fires in the West, turned toward Trump and noted that Trump said he doesn't believe that science knows if the climate crisis is triggering record-setting wildfires.</p>
<p>"Over your four years, you have pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord," Wallace said. "You have rolled back a number of Obama environmental records. What do you believe about the science of climate change, and what will you do over the next four years to confront it?"</p><p>"I want crystal clean water and air, we now have the lowest carbon … if you look at our numbers now we are doing phenomenally," Trump said in response. He then insisted that people are people are very happy he has started to withdraw the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord before turning the discussion to how states in the West need to improve their forest management.</p><p>That distraction from the question pushed Wallace to interrupt Trump. "What do you believe about the science of climate change, sir?" And then later in the segment, he asked, "Do you believe that human pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, contribute to the global warming of the planet?"</p><p>Trump said he did, to an extent, and then pivoted again to forest management.</p>
<p>As Trump spoke of the need to better manage the forests, Biden looked bemused, often laughing at the president's answers and shaking his head.</p><p>"But sir, if you believe in the science of climate change, why have you rolled back the Obama Clean Power Plan, which limited carbon emissions in power plants? Why have you relaxed fuel economy standards that are going to create more pollution from cars and trucks?" Wallace asked.</p><p>Trump dismissed that idea, insisting that more new cars will be bought which will make them safer.</p><p>When Biden had a chance to speak about his $2 trillion green energy plan, the former vice president spoke about his track record in bringing down the cost of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" target="_self">renewable energy</a> and said that coal-fired and oil-fired power plants were going extinct in America.</p>
<p>He also spoke of replacing the federal automotive fleet of vehicles with electrical vehicles. He mentioned a plan to weatherize millions of buildings and homes to reduce the need for both heating and air conditioning. He then insisted the country could reach net-zero emissions in 15 years while creating millions of jobs to overhaul the country's energy infrastructure.</p><p>When Trump tried to tie Biden to the yoke of the Green New Deal and erroneously labeled the price tag at $100 trillion, Biden insisted that his plan was not the Green New Deal, but his own.</p><p>Discussing the costs, Biden pointed to the steep price tag of ecological disaster.</p><p>"We spend billions of dollars now, billions of dollars, on floods, hurricanes, rising seas," he said. "We're in real trouble."</p>
<p>The pivot toward the climate crisis was a surprise. Before the debate, Wallace, a Fox News host, had said the debate would focus on a handful of topics: the Supreme Court, the coronavirus pandemic, the economy, election integrity and "race and violence in our cities," according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/29/energy-202-climate-change-left-off-debate-list-even-though-polls-show-it-growing-concern-among-voters/" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>.</p><p>The omission of the climate crisis was striking, as activists worried that debate moderators would ignore the number one issue today to young people, just as it was in the 2016 debates, according to The Washington Post.</p><p>The omission also raised the ire of Democratic lawmakers. Prior to the debate, 40 Democratic senators sent a letter to the debate commission insisting upon questions that address the climate crisis.</p><p>"Without these topics, any discussion on the economy, racial justice, public health, national security, democracy, or infrastructure would be incomplete," said the letter, as The Washington Post reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Green Groups Blast Debate Moderators for Asking Zero Climate ... ›
- 11 Times Trump Said 'Climate Change Is a Hoax' - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
The wildfires that roared through Eastern Washington in September had a devastating impact on an extremely endangered species of rabbit.
<p>The fast-moving Pearl Hill and Cold Springs fires scorched a habitat for Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits on Sept. 7, wiping out around half of the species' recovering population, <a href="https://www.hcn.org/articles/latest-endangered-pygmy-rabbit-population-halved-by-fast-moving-fire?fbclid=IwAR2pzH5M9FLQkGBEVPriSAyklH8Tej1B66EhCfPKYQbnAkSD9j3kEJT8chA" target="_blank">High Country News reported Monday</a>.</p><p>"The sun was blotted out, it was just red from the fire glare and the smoke and all you saw was rocks and sand and dust, there was just nothing," Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Biologist Jon Gallie told <a href="https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/paywalloff/fire-wipes-out-half-of-columbia-basin-pygmy-rabbit-population/article_8c20b63c-f475-11ea-b668-83235dc86d8a.html" target="_blank">The Wenatchee World</a> after the fire. "I have not seen a sagebrush fire that hot in my 13 years out here."</p>
<p>Gallie leads a recovery program for North America's smallest rabbits, which are about the size of a grapefruit, according to High Country News. Their population was devastated during the 20th century by development, agriculture and wildfires and, in 2001, the last 16 were gathered from the wild for a captive breeding program. Scientists bred the Washington rabbits with pygmy rabbits from the Great Basin of the intermountain West and began to reintroduce them to the wild in 2011, according to The Wenatchee World.</p><p>To defend against wildfires, the rabbits were released in three different locations: Jameson Lake, Beezley Hills and Sagebrush Flats. It was the Jameson Lake population that was lost to September's flames.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQ0Nzg4NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMjQ5MjQ3Mn0.D6_1M4ciX784XMASOHmBKtmQxkxB7aE4WDkiR6Z2MvI/img.jpg?width=980" id="edb37" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1d81accb8933f5bf30a885568b7bcc2c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
A pygmy rabbit rescued from a breeding site in Beezley Hills, Washington eats owl clover in its new enclosure. Kourtney Stonehouse, WDFW
<p>"We have pygmy rabbits well distributed on the landscape in two other areas, so not all is lost," Gallie told High Country News. "We will just have to chart a now more challenging path to recovery."</p><p>However, WDFW manager of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife" target="_self">wildlife</a> diversity Hannah Anderson told <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/endangered-wildlife-habitat-burned-in-wildfires/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Seattle Times</a> that the department had been focusing on the Jameson Lake population and had expected it to increase.</p><p>"It's devastating," Anderson said. "A catastrophic loss and a significant loss in recovery."</p>
<p>The rabbits aren't the only endangered species that were harmed by the fires. The Pearl Fire may also have reduced the state's sage grouse population by 30 to 70 percent, according to The Seattle Times.</p><p>The fires also damaged the sagebrush ecosystem these and other species depend upon. This unique, biodiverse shrub-steppe environment once covered 10.4 million acres of Washington state, but has declined by 80 percent since the mid-19th century. The fires wiped out thousands more acres within days.</p><p>While sagebrush ecosystems are used to fires, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/invasive-species" target="_self">invasive species</a> of weeds have taken root that dry out early and encourage hotter, larger fires. It takes sagebrush steppe 10 to 20 years to recover from such blazes.</p><p>"Truly, now preserving what we have left is going to be the challenge," WDFW habitat program director Margen Carlson told The Seattle Times.</p>The <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a> is also <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/wildfires-climate-fires-2647729127.html" target="_self">fueling</a> larger, more extreme fires in Washington and around the world.
From Your Site Articles
- 7 Devastating Photos of Wildfires in California, Oregon and ... ›
- California Wildfires Destroy Condor Sanctuary, at Least 4 Birds Still ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A protestor in NYC holds up a sign that reads, "November Is Coming" on June 14, 2020 in reference to voting in the 2020 presidential election. Ira L. Black / Corbis / Getty Images
By Mark Hertsgaard
What follows are not candidate endorsements. Rather, this nonpartisan guide aims to inform voters' choices, help journalists decide what races to follow, and explore what the 2020 elections could portend for climate action in the United States in 2021 and beyond.
Will the White House Turn Green?
<p>Whether the White House changes hands is the most important climate question of the 2020 elections. President Donald Trump rejects climate science, is withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement, and has accelerated fossil fuel development. His climate policy seems to be, as he tweeted in January when rejecting a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposal to protect New York City from storm surges, "Get your mops and buckets ready."</p><p>Joe Biden, who started the 2020 campaign with a climate position so weak that activists gave it an "F," called Trump a "climate arsonist" during California's recent wildfires. Biden backs a $2 trillion plan to create millions of jobs while slashing emissions—a Green New Deal in all but name. Equally striking, his running mate, California Senator Kamala Harris, has endorsed phasing out fossil fuel production—a politically explosive scientific imperative.</p><p>The race will be decided in a handful of battleground states, five of which already face grave climate dangers: Florida (hurricanes and sea-level rise), North Carolina (ditto), Texas (storms and drought), Michigan (floods), and Arizona (heat waves and drought). <a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/" target="_blank">Public concern is rising</a> in these states, but will that concern translate into votes?</p>Will Democrats Flip the Senate, and by Enough to Pass a Green New Deal?
<p>With Democrats all but certain to maintain their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate will determine whether a potential Biden administration can actually deliver climate progress. Democrats need to pick up three seats to flip the Senate if Biden wins, four if he doesn't. But since aggressive climate policy is shunned by some Democrats, notably Joe Manchin of coal-dependent West Virginia, Democrats probably need to gain five or six Senate seats to pass a Green New Deal.</p><p>Environmentalists, including the League of Conservation Voters, are targeting six Republicans who polls suggest are vulnerable.</p><ul><li>Steve Daines of Montana, who denies climate science</li><li>Martha McSally of Arizona</li><li>Thom Tillis of North Carolina</li><li>Susan Collins of Maine</li><li>Joni Ernst of Iowa (bankrolled by Charles Koch)</li><li>John James of Michigan (also a Koch beneficiary)</li></ul><p>Republican Senators are even at risk in conservative Kansas and Alaska. In both states, the Democratic candidates are physicians—not a bad credential amid a pandemic—who support climate action. In Kansas, Barbara Bollier faces an incumbent funded by Charles Koch. In Alaska, Al Gross urges a transition away from oil, though his openness to limited drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve dims his appeal to green groups. He faces incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan, who receives an 8 percent lifetime voting record from the League of Conservation Voters.</p><p>In the House, environmentalists are working to elect these candidates, in one case over an establishment Democrat:</p><ul><li>Beth Doglio of Washington state</li><li>Georgette Gómez of California</li><li>Marie Newman of Illinois</li><li>Cameron Webb of Virginia</li><li>Mike Siegel and Wendy Davis of Texas</li></ul><p>We rightfully focus on federal climate policy, but climate action must also be made at the state and local level—and there are plenty of races and initiatives to pay attention to.</p>
Will Local and State Races Advance Climate Progress?
<h4>THE CLIMATE HAWKS</h4><p>Under Democratic and Republican leadership alike, Washington has long been a graveyard for strong climate action. But governors can boost or block renewable energy; the Vermont and New Hampshire races are worth watching. Attorneys general can sue fossil fuel companies for lying about climate change; climate hawks are running for the top law enforcement seats in Montana and North Carolina. State legislatures can accelerate or delay climate progress, as the new Democratic majorities in Virginia have shown. Here, races to watch include Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Colorado.</p><h4>THE CLIMATE POLICY MAKERS</h4><p>Perhaps the most powerful, and most overlooked, climate policy makers are public utility commissions. They control whether pipelines and other energy infrastructure gets built; they regulate whether electric utilities expand solar and energy efficiency or stick with the carbon-heavy status quo. Regulatory capture and outright corruption are not uncommon.</p><p>A prime example is Arizona, where a former two-term commissioner known as the godfather of solar in the state is seeking a comeback. Bill Mundell argues that since Arizona law permits utilities to contribute to commissioners' electoral campaigns, the companies can buy their own regulators. Which may explain why super-sunny Arizona has so little installed solar capacity.</p><p>In South Dakota, Remi Bald Eagle, a Native American U.S. Army veteran, seeks a seat on the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, which rules on the Standing Rock oil pipeline. And in what <em>HuffPost</em> called "the most important environmental race in the country," Democrat Chrysta Castaneda, who favors phasing out oil production, is running for the Texas Railroad Commission, which despite its name decides what oil, gas, and electric companies in America's leading petro-state can build.</p>Will the Influencers Usher in a Green New Era?
<h4>THE UNCOUNTED</h4><p>The story that goes largely under-reported in every U.S. election is how few Americans vote. In 2016, some 90 million, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">roughly four out of every 10 eligible voters</a>, did not cast a ballot. Attorney Nathaniel Stinnett claims that 10 million of these nonvoters nevertheless identify as environmentalists: They support green policies, even donate to activist groups; they just don't vote. Stinnett's <a href="https://www.environmentalvoter.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Environmental Voter Project</a> works to awaken this sleeping giant.</p><h4>THE SUNRISE MOVEMENT</h4><p>Meanwhile, the young climate activists of the <a href="http://www.sunrisemovement.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sunrise Movement</a> are already winning elections with an unabashedly Green New Deal message. More than any other group, Sunrise pushed the Green New Deal into the national political conversation, helping Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey draft the eponymous congressional resolution. In 2020, Sunrise has helped Green New Deal champions defeat centrists in Democratic primaries, with Markey dealing Representative Joe Kennedy Jr. the first defeat a Kennedy has ever suffered in a Massachusetts election. But can Sunrise also be successful against Republicans in the general elections this fall?</p><h4>THE STARPOWER</h4><p>And an intriguing wild card: celebrity firepower, grassroots activism, and big-bucks marketing have converged behind a campaign to get Latina mothers to vote climate in 2020. Latinos have long been the U.S. demographic most concerned about climate change. Now, <a href="https://votelikeamadre.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Vote Like A Madre</a> aims to get 5 million Latina mothers in Florida, Texas, and Arizona to the polls. Jennifer Lopez, Salma Hayak, and Lin-Manuel Miranda are urging mothers to make a "pinky promise" to vote for their kids' climate future in November. Turning out even a quarter of those 5 million voters, though no easy task, could swing the results in three states Trump must win to remain president, which brings us back to the first category, "Will the White House Turn Green?"</p>From Your Site Articles
- Climate Activists Prepare for November Election - EcoWatch ›
- The Next Election Is About the Next 10,000 Years - EcoWatch ›
- Latino Voters Worried About Climate Change Could Swing 2020 ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less