States Blocking Climate Action Hold Residents Who Suffer the Most From Climate Impacts
29 October 2019
Politics
Floodwater near a house on the Kentucky River. Education Images / Universal Images Group via Getty Images
The states that do the most to discourage climate action and encourage dirty energy are the states whose residents are suffering the most from climate impacts, a Mother Jones and Center for Public Integrity investigation has found.
<p><br/></p>
<p>A CPI analysis found that nine of the 10 states that did the most to block the Clean Power Plan also emit the most carbon dioxide per person, while four of those nine were among the states that saw the most natural disasters over the past 10 years. The investigation focuses on Kentucky, where flash <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/flooding">floods</a>, that in some cases were worsened by improper mine cleanup, have devastated local communities.</p>
<p>As reported by <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/10/kentuckys-leaders-are-siding-with-the-coal-industry-and-its-poorest-residents-are-paying-a-price/" target="_blank">Mother Jones</a>:</p><blockquote>The choices that state leaders make now will have life-changing consequences for generations, experts warn. Michael Hendryx, a public health professor at Indiana University Bloomington who studies environmental justice, said he wonders whether officials promoting inaction truly think global warming is not an emergency or are simply making a cynical bet that they won't be harmed.</blockquote><blockquote>"They'll be the people who have the money and power to defend themselves as climate change gets worse," he said. "If we don't do something really powerful and really meaningful soon, then the people who live in vulnerable areas … will suffer the most."</blockquote>
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong></p><p><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/10/kentuckys-leaders-are-siding-with-the-coal-industry-and-its-poorest-residents-are-paying-a-price/" target="_blank">Mother Jones</a><br/></p><p> <em>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/" 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/" 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
- Poll: 96% of Democratic Voters Want 2020 Nominee to Prioritize ... ›
- Climate Change Is Already Driving Mass Migration Around the Globe ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
States and cities are suing the Trump administration over a power-plant emissions rule they argue does not do enough to fight climate change. Luke Sharrett / Bloomberg
Twenty-nine states and cities sued the Trump administration Tuesday to stop it from weakening the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which was the first regulation to set nationwide ceilings on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, The New York Times reported.
<p>The administration's replacement, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-power-plan-trump-epa-2638927020.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">Affordable Clean Energy Rule</a>, would allow states to decide whether or not to limit emissions. It would ultimately reduce climate-warming emissions by less than half of what is needed to keep global temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, according to figures cited by <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/epa-lawsuit-dirty-power_n_5d52de6ae4b0cfeed1a3e8a2" target="_blank">HuffPost</a>.</p><p>"Without significant course correction, we are careening towards a climate disaster," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement reported by HuffPost. "Rather than staying the course with policies aimed at fixing the problem and protecting people's health, safety, and the environment, the Trump Administration repealed the Clean Power Plan and replaced it with this 'Dirty Power' rule."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: We filed a lawsuit against the Trump Admin's <a href="https://twitter.com/EPA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EPA</a> over its Affordable Clean Energy rule.<br> <br>The science is indisputable; our climate is changing. Ice caps are melting. Sea levels are rising. Weather is becoming more and more extreme. <br><br>That’s why we are fighting back. <a href="https://t.co/jva7jxLQGX">pic.twitter.com/jva7jxLQGX</a></p>— NY AG James (@NewYorkStateAG) <a href="https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG/status/1161307288352804865?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 13, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>At stake in the lawsuit is how much authority the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) has to limit carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. The 22 states and six cities (plus Washington, DC) behind the suit argue that the replacement plan, finalized in June, does not use the "best system of emissions reduction," as the act requires. While the Clean Power Plan encouraged utilities to switch to cleaner energy sources, put a price on carbon or use carbon capture technologies, the Trump plan only focuses on improving efficiency at individual plants, The New York Times explained.<br></p><p>"The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to utilize the best system of emissions reduction that it can find. This rule does the opposite," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra told The New York Times.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BREAKING?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BREAKING</a>: We’re suing the Trump Admin over their <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CleanPowerPlan?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CleanPowerPlan</a> repeal.<br><br>.<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RealDonaldTrump</a>’s <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DirtyPowerPlan?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DirtyPowerPlan</a> fails everyone who stands for cleaner air.<br><br>It fails to help us fight the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/climatecrisis?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#climatecrisis</a>.<br><br>It fails our economy. <br><br>It fails our people.<br><br>And it’s going to fail in court. <a href="https://t.co/CmP2qEiY45">pic.twitter.com/CmP2qEiY45</a></p>— Xavier Becerra (@AGBecerra) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGBecerra/status/1161337194524508160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 13, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>But EPA administrator <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/andrew-wheeler" target="_self">Andrew Wheeler</a> argued that the Clean Power Plan overstepped the federal government's authority. That was also the argument made by the coalition of Republican-led states and industry groups that sued to stop the Obama-era plan in 2015. In 2016, the Supreme Court blocked the roll-out of the plan until its legal merits could be decided. However, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments in the fall of 2016, it had not issued a final ruling by the time President Donald Trump was elected, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/08/13/states-cities-sue-trump-epa-over-rollback-climate-regulations-aimed-coal-plants/" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>.</p><p>The Trump administration initially requested time to consider the plan, and then announced its intention to repeal it in 2017. If the current lawsuit reaches the Supreme Court, therefore, it could be the catalyst for determining how much authority the EPA has to fight the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate crisis</a> going forward.</p><p>"From a public policy perspective, we should hope that this case goes to the Supreme Court — so that everyone who cares about climate change will know the limits of what EPA can do under current law to reduce industrial CO2 emissions," Jeff Holmstead, who led the EPA's air and radiation office under President George W. Bush and is now a partner at Bracewell, told The Washington Post.</p><p>But New York University environmental law expert professor Richard L. Revesz warned a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Trump administration could have serious consequences.</p><p>"It would have a devastating effect on the ability of future administrations to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act," he told The New York Times.</p><p>The states behind the current suit are New York, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia. The cities are Boulder, Colorado, Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, South Miami and Philadelphia. They filed the suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trump?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Trump</a>’s EPA Is Changing Its Math to Make <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CleanPowerPlan?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CleanPowerPlan</a> Rollback Seem Less Deadly <a href="https://t.co/A9OIaBTDde">https://t.co/A9OIaBTDde</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/DeSmogBlog?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DeSmogBlog</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/greenpeaceusa?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@greenpeaceusa</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/1132783631150276608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Like many other plant-based foods and products, CBD oil is one dietary supplement where "organic" labels are very important to consumers. However, there are little to no regulations within the hemp industry when it comes to deeming a product as organic, which makes it increasingly difficult for shoppers to find the best CBD oil products available on the market.
<p>Here you can learn about the importance of organic hemp oil, why it's better for the environment, and which CBD companies actually make trustworthy products with sustainable farming processes. origins which weigh heavily on many consumers who want to buy a product that's produced in the best way possible for not only themselves to ingest, but for the environment as well through sustainable farming methods. </p><h2>What Is CBD Oil?</h2><p>First things first, CBD stands for cannabidiol, and it's a cannabinoid found within cannabis sativa plants. This plant compound is believed to have many potential benefits, and it is primarily derived from hemp plants via a CO2 extraction process. </p><p>Since CBD is extracted from industrial hemp, which contains only trace amounts of THC (the psychoactive component in cannabis plants), this means that CBD won't make you feel high like marijuana, which has much higher levels of THC that causes psychoactive effects. Instead, the effects of CBD are much more subtle and promote a general sense of calm and relaxation in most users.</p><h2>What Makes a CBD Oil Organic?</h2><p>In terms of organic labels, perhaps the most important (and prominent) certification comes from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This government organization has been labeling foods as "organic" for many years, but what exactly does this certification entail? Essentially, a label indicating that a product is "USDA Organic" or "Certified Organic" means that at least 95% of the ingredients are obtained from organic sources.</p><p>For a crop to be considered organic by the USDA, it must be grown without the use of industrial solvents, irradiation, genetic engineering (GMOs), synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizer. Instead, farmers rely on natural substances and <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mechanical, physical, or biologically based farming</a> techniques to cultivate healthy and organic crops.</p><p>Before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, no hemp-derived products could be dubbed as "certified organic" since the hemp plant and its extracts were still categorized as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. However, it's still difficult for CBD companies to obtain a USDA certified organic label for their products due to the legal grey area that still surrounds CBD extracts. </p><p>Because of these challenges, and due to the fact that industrial hemp has only recently become an agricultural crop, very few CBD oils are USDA certified organic. Rather, many CBD products contain hemp extracts from plants that were grown in organic conditions but may not be federally certified.</p><h2>What are the Best Organic CBD Oil Brands?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected by the writer. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p><em><br></em>
<h2>Why Organic Hemp Oil Matters</h2><p>Hemp is a unique plant, not only for its rich cannabinoid content, but also for its ability to absorb a wide variety of components in soil. But this trait poses great risks when it comes to the creation of CBD products derived from hemp.</p><p>Because hemp has a high capacity for compound uptake, this means that the plants can retain <a href="https://www.remedyreview.com/industry/lab-test-results/" target="_blank">harmful chemicals like pesticides</a>, heavy metals, and other residual solvents. This is especially true when it comes to synthetic chemicals that are more toxic to humans, and difficult to remove once they have been absorbed by the hemp plant.</p><p>Organic farming practices help reduce the risk of hemp crops absorbing harsh chemicals that may later end up in CBD oil after extraction. When you're taking CBD as a wellness supplement to help alleviate your symptoms or improve your overall well-being, the last thing you want is to ingest compounds that might negatively outweigh the benefits of CBD. This is an important reason to look for third party lab test results when shopping for CBD products since these certificates of analysis can show the full cannabinoid and terpene profile of a hemp extract, as well as test results that search for the presence of any residual solvents.</p><p>In addition to creating a better end product, organic farming practices are also better for the environment. Sustainable and organic farming methods may <a href="https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reduce pollution, conserve water, reduce soil erosion, increase soil fertility, and use less energy</a>. The use of natural pest deterrents as opposed to chemical pesticides is also better for nearby animal populations and ecosystems.</p><h3>Organic vs. Natural</h3><p>While there are only a select few companies offering certified organic ingredients in their products, almost every brand in the CBD market creates "natural" products. The term "all-natural" or "plant-based" does not mean that a product is organic, and since hemp oil is a natural derivative of hemp plants, these products are often referred to as all-natural. However, there are some synthetic CBD oils that should be avoided because they are chemically constructed and may produce unwanted side effects that are not caused by naturally derived CBD extracts.</p><h2>What are the Benefits of Organic CBD Oil?</h2><p>There's a long list of potential CBD oil health benefits, and some of the most common wellness advantages include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/" target="_blank">Chronic pain relief</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/" target="_blank">Anti-anxiety effects</a></li><li>Better sleep</li><li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inner-source/201901/cbd-oil-mental-health-should-you-take-it-too" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Improvements in mood</a></li><li>Internal balance and regulation</li></ul><p>When dealing with pain, inflammation, sleep issues, and mental health struggles, it can be hard to find sufficient treatment options. The use of certain prescriptions can cause unwanted side effects, yet they are often the only solution for patients with these medical conditions. In search of other therapies, people have started to flock towards CBD oil as an alternative remedy for a variety of conditions. However, it should be noted that CBD products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and you should seek your doctor's advice before using CBD if you have a serious medical condition.</p><h2>Look at the Labels Before You Buy CBD Oil</h2><p>When you go online to buy CBD oil, you'll quickly realize there is an overwhelming number of brands that are saturating the market. It can be difficult to determine which products are truly as good as they make themselves out to be. Always look for up-to-date third-party lab tests so you know you are getting a great product, and don't hesitate to contact the brand if you have any additional questions. And if you're intent on purchasing 100% organic CBD oil, it's best to look for certified products or brands that are held to strict regulatory standards.</p><p><strong>Melena Gurganus </strong>is the Reviews Editor at EcoWatch. She is passionate health and wellness and her writing aims to help others find products they can trust. Her work has been featured in publications such as Health, Shape, Huffington Post, Cannabis Business Times, and Bustle.<br></p>
Spruce
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjI3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTM2NzgzOX0.axY0HjeqRctJsR_KmDLctzDpUBLBN-oNIdqaXDb4caQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="774be" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8379f35b1ca8a86d0e61b7d4bfc8b46e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="spruce organic cbd oil" data-width="710" data-height="959" /><p>As one of the best brands in the business, Spruce CBD is well-known for its potent CBD oils that feature many additional beneficial phytocannabinoids. This brand works with two family-owned, sustainably focused farms in the USA (one located in Kentucky and one in North Carolina) to create its organic, small product batches. The max potency Spruce CBD oil contains 2400mg of full-spectrum CBD extract, but the brand also offers a lower strength tincture with 750mg of CBD in total.</p>
$89
CBDistillery
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjkzNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU4OTM4Nn0.ypRdeDSBcE87slYrFfVrRwtJ2qGIK6FD5jBB4pndTMo/img.jpg?width=980" id="b473b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9930b53c9d58cb49774640a61c3e3e75" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="cbdistillery cbd oil" data-width="1244" data-height="1244" /><p>All of the products from CBDistillery are <a href="https://ushempauthority.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Hemp Authority Certified</a>, and for good reason. The company only uses non-GMO and pesticide-free industrial hemp that's grown organically on Colorado farms. Its hemp oils are some of the most affordable CBD products on the market, yet they still maintain a high standard of quality. CBDistillery has a wide variety of CBD potencies across its product line (ranging from 500mg to 5000mg per bottle) and offers both full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD oils to give customers a completely thc-free option.</p>
$35
FAB CBD
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDIwOTEyMn0.MlTjz096FJ0ev_-soK7_Z-FeQeJczWoeh9Qi9SSkHsY/img.jpg?width=980" id="04b26" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76aa4862f44603242e318982acea6646" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fab cbd oil" data-width="800" data-height="800" /><p>For an organic CBD oil that has it all, FAB CBD offers plenty of variety for any type of consumer. All of its products are made with zero pesticides and extracted from organically grown Colorado industrial hemp. FAB CBD oil comes in five all-natural flavors (mint, vanilla, berry, citrus, and natural) and is also available in four strengths (300, 600, 1200, and 2400mg per bottle).</p>
$39
NuLeaf Naturals
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzExNTgyMX0.D6qMGYllKTsVhEkQ-L_GzpDHVu60a-tJKcio7M1Ssmc/img.jpg?width=980" id="94e4a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3609a52479675730893a45a82a03c71d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="nuleaf naturals organic cbd oil" data-width="600" data-height="600" /><p>As an industry-leading brand, it comes as no surprise that NuLeaf Naturals sources its CBD extract from organic hemp plants grown on licensed farms in Colorado. The comany's CBD oils only contain two ingredients: USDA certified organic hemp seed oil and full spectrum hemp extract.</p><p>NuLeaf Naturals uses one proprietary CBD oil formula for all of its products, so you will get the same CBD potency in each tincture (60mg per mL), but can purchase different bottle sizes depending on how much you intend to use.</p>
$38.50
Charlotte's Web
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjk3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzQ0NjM4N30.SaQ85SK10-MWjN3PwHo2RqpiUBdjhD0IRnHKTqKaU7Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="84700" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a2174067dcc0c4094be25b3472ce08c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="charlottes web cbd oil" data-width="1244" data-height="1244" /><p>Perhaps one of the most well-known brands in the CBD landscape, Charlotte's Web has been growing sustainable hemp plants for several years. The company is currently in the process of achieving official USDA Organic Certification, but it already practices organic and sustainable cultivation techniques to enhance the overall health of the soil and the hemp plants themselves, which creates some of the highest quality CBD extracts. Charlotte's Web offers CBD oils in a range of different concentration options, and some even come in a few flavor options such as chocolate mint, orange blossom, and lemon twist.</p>
$60
From Your Site Articles
- Best CBD Oils of 2020: Reviews & Buying Guide - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oil for Pain Management - Top 10 CBD Oil Review 2020 ... ›
- Best CBD for Dogs 2020 - Organic CBD Oil for Pets - EcoWatch ›
- Full Spectrum CBD Oil: What To Know - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Waters: Plus All You Need to Know - EcoWatch ›
- The Best Water Soluble CBD Available Online - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD for Sleep (Lab-Tested, Person-Tested Oils) - EcoWatch ›
- Strongest CBD Oils to Buy in 2021? - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oils For Pain: Top 3 Brands of 2021 - EcoWatch ›
- 8 Science-Based Benefits of CBD Oil - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Vape Pen: Top Brands of 2020 - EcoWatch ›
- Because Price Matters: Most Affordable CBD Oils of 2021 - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signs his replacement for the Clean Power Plan. Win McNamee / Getty Images
Former coal lobbyist and Trump-appointed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed a rule Wednesday that officially replaces the Obama-era Clean Power Plan with a new regulation that Wheeler said could lead to the opening of more coal plants, the Associated Press reported.
<p><br/></p>
<p>While the Obama administration plan would have established national limits on greenhouse gas emissions and mandated utilities move away from coal, the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule allows states to decide whether and how much to reduce emissions, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/climate/epa-coal-emissions.html" target="_blank">The New York Times explained</a>.</p><p>"I don't know who is going to invest in a new coal fired power plant, but we're leveling the playing field to allow that investment to occur," Wheeler said, as The New York Times reported.</p>
<div id="d232e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="NL5MW01576662053"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1141429205009408000" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">In Case You Missed It - Watch the major policy announcement made this morning where @EPAAWheeler EPA Administrator… https://t.co/jEqVxJuoWS</div> — U.S. EPA (@U.S. EPA)<a href="https://twitter.com/EPA/statuses/1141429205009408000">1560972903.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The announcement was roundly criticized by environmental groups, and the attorneys general of California, Oregon, Washington State, Iowa, Colorado and New York all vowed to sue to stop it. Opponents say the plan does not do enough to reduce emissions at a time of growing <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate crisis</a> and puts more Americans at risk from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" target="_self">air pollution</a>.</p><p>The new rule would reduce electricity emissions by less than half of what experts say is needed to stop global temperatures from rising above two degrees Celsius, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/trump-epa-finalizes-rollback-of-key-obama-climate-rule-that-targeted-coal-plants/2019/06/19/b8ff1702-8eeb-11e9-8f69-a2795fca3343_story.html?utm_term=.dd9fdbb36ff8" target="_blank">The Washington Post reported</a>. And the EPA's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-dirty-power-plan-2597804270.html" target="_self">own initial estimate</a> found the new rule would lead to between 470 and 1,400 premature deaths a year by 2030 due to increased particulate matter pollution. The new rule also comes as U.S. greenhouse gas emissions began to rise again in 2018 after a three-year decline, according to The New York Times. It was also signed a day after the Associated Press reported that U.S. progress on air pollution has stalled.</p><p>"This deadly rule rejects science in a groveling effort to satisfy the fossil fuel lobby," <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a> senior attorney Clare Lakewood said in a statement to EcoWatch. "Trump's EPA is hell-bent on propping up coal at the expense of human health, the survival of endangered species and a livable climate. But we're confident this attack on our lungs and our planet won't survive in the courts."</p>
<div id="201d8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="NQC2KG1576662053"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1141360494558744578" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: We intend to sue the Trump Admin's @EPA over their #DirtyPower rule.
This is yet another prime example o… https://t.co/zhTDIiqVnx</div> — NY AG James (@NY AG James)<a href="https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG/statuses/1141360494558744578">1560956522.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>However, some legal experts told The New York Times there is a danger in suing to stop the rule. The Obama administration's plan assumed that the EPA had the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions on the national level, while the Trump administration plan argues it can only regulate environmental violations at individual plants. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Trump administration plan and interpretation, it could restrict what future presidents are able to do to fight climate change under existing law.</p><p>"It could foreclose a new administration from doing something more ambitious," Harvard University environmental law professor and Obama administration legal counsel Jody Freeman told The New York Times.</p><p>The Clean Power Plan itself was suspended by the Supreme Court after it was challenged by hundreds of companies and 28 states.</p><p>Bracewell LLP partner Jeff Holmstead, who led the EPA's air office under President George W. Bush, recommended pushing Congress to pass climate legislation.</p><p>"If Trump isn't reelected and the next president makes climate change a priority, I think there's a good chance that we'll see a climate change bill enacted into law, even if Republicans control both houses of Congress," Holmstead told The Washington Post.</p><p>Some argued that the electricity sector is shifting away from coal despite the administration's attempts to boost the power source.</p><p><a href="https://www.beyondcarbon.org/" target="_blank">Beyond Carbon</a>, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/michael-bloomberg-beyond-carbon-2638731055.html" target="_self">new initiative</a> to shut down all U.S. coal plants by 2030, acknowledged the damage that could be done by the Trump administration's plan while also arguing that it could not stop the national shift away from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a>. Campaign manager Brynne Craig explained in a statement to EcoWatch:</p><blockquote>"Each passing month brings new evidence of the climate crisis and the Trump Administration continues to demonstrate its contempt for science and its subversion of fact-based environmental policies. By scrapping the Clean Power Plan, our country's first ever attempt to cut carbon pollution at the national level, President Trump has weakened climate and air pollution standards and threatened the health and safety of Americans.<br><br>"Yet the Trump Administration's attempts to revive obsolete industries like coal have proven futile: since he has taken office, over 50 coal plants have closed, putting us over halfway to retiring the U.S. coal fleet and showing the undeniable momentum among U.S. markets, organizations, and communities in moving off of dirty, deadly, and costly fossil fuels. American cities, states, and businesses are also inspiring great hope with their work to combat the climate crisis, regardless of the federal government. Beyond Carbon will accelerate these efforts and further the country's transition toward a clean energy future."</blockquote><p>DTE Chairman and CEO Gerry Anderson told The Washington Post the plan would not change his pledge to cut emissions 80 percent by 2040 and close 14 of 18 coal plants by 2030.</p><p>"The industry's in motion, and it's got its own life," Anderson told The Washington Post. "We're moving on, and the rest of the industry is in a similar direction."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Acting <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/EPA?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#EPA</a> Head Wheeler Downplays <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Climate?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Climate</a> Crisis at Confirmation Hearing <a href="https://t.co/oG02ul3l82">https://t.co/oG02ul3l82</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/DeSmogBlog?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DeSmogBlog</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/Public_Citizen?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Public_Citizen</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/1086111014733656064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's EPA Is Changing Its Math to Make Clean Power Plan ... ›
- Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Trump's Clean Air Rollback - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Trump’s EPA Is Changing Its Math to Make Clean Power Plan Rollback Seem Less Deadly
21 May 2019
Politics
Foto-Rabe / Pixabay
When Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan in August 2018, its own estimates said the reduced regulations could lead to 1,400 early deaths a year from air pollution by 2030.
Now, the EPA wants to change the way it calculates the risks posed by particulate matter pollution, using a model that would lower the death toll from the new plan, The New York Times reported Monday. Five current or former EPA officials familiar with the plan told The Times that the new method would assume there is no significant health gain by lowering air pollution levels below the legal limit. However, many public health experts say that there is no safe level of particulate matter exposure, which has long been linked to heart and lung disease.
<div id="05551" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="OWS3RM1576662059"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1130616719536545792" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">[email protected] is planning to hide thousands of air pollution-related deaths by changing its math.
Of course, the new math… https://t.co/2DdFp0QrXl</div> — Friends of the Earth (@Friends of the Earth)<a href="https://twitter.com/foe_us/statuses/1130616719536545792">1558395006.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"Using fake math to hide the death toll from dirty air at the behest of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" target="_self">coal</a> industry is sadly consistent with the Trump administration's complete disregard for public health," <a href="https://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a> (EWG) Senior Science Advisor for Children's Environmental Health Dr. Olga Naidenko <a href="https://www.ewg.org/energy/22653/trump-epa-s-fake-math-clean-air-doesn-t-save-lives-so-burn-more-coal" target="_blank">said in response</a> to the plan. "This sleight of hand means that more adults may die early and more children may become victims of asthma."</p><p>New York University environmental law expert Richard L. Revesz called the proposed change a "monumental departure" from how the agency has calculated air pollution risk under past administrations from both parties.</p><p>"Particulate matter is extremely harmful and it leads to a large number of premature deaths," Revesz said.</p><p>The new method will be used in the EPA's final version of the Clean Power Plan replacement, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, due to be released in June. The new rule would improve the efficiency of coal plants slightly while also allowing older plants to remain in operation longer, leading both to more <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate-change</a> causing emissions and more particulate matter pollution.</p><p>When asked if the new method would appear in the final plan, former chemical and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> lobbyist and current EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation William L. Wehrum said the final draft would include multiple approaches and that the agency had not officially changed its methodology.</p>
<p>However, Wehrum also called the focus on the 1,400 number "unfortunate" and said the agency was considering a number of alternative calculations that would lead to lower death tolls. He said the lower figure would be included to show that different assumptions could lead to different results, but said that any new method would be peer-reviewed before being used as the EPA's leading means of assessing air pollution risk.</p><p>EPA spokesman James Hewitt echoed that message in a statement to <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/20/politics/epa-air-pollution-deaths-estimates/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p><p>"No change to this scientific method will be made unless and until the new approach has been peer reviewed," he said.</p><p>The EPA is considering the new method as part of its regular review of air quality standards, which it aims to complete by 2020, CNN reported.</p><p>In recent years, studies have shown a growing number of health risks associated with particulate matter exposure, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/air-pollution-dementia-2602268931.html" target="_self">including dementia</a>. Colorado School of Public Health Dean Dr. Jonathan M. Samet told The New York Times that most new studies showed risks at levels of exposure below the EPA's legal limit of 12 micrograms per cubic meter on average per year.</p><p>"It's not a hard stop where we can say 'below that, air is safe.' That would not be supported by the scientific evidence," Samet said. "It would be very nice for public health if things worked that way, but they don't seem to."</p><p>Revesz worried the new method would be used to roll back other environmental regulations as well.</p><p>"It could be an enormously significant impact," he told The New York Times.</p>
<p><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- air pollution ›
- Trump EPA 'Cooks the Books' to Hide Benefits of Clean Power Plan ... ›
- Trump's Latest EPA Rollback Lets Polluters Spew More Lead, Arsenic, Mercury - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Pexels
There's no question that air pollution is bad for your body, from lung cancer to heart disease. Even President Trump's coal-friendly U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) admits that dirty air can increase adverse health effects and cause death.
Now, researchers from Arizona State University have determined another air pollution risk: dementia.
<p style="">
The new
<a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w24970" target="_blank">paper</a>, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, compared fifteen years of Medicare records for 6.9 million older adults with the EPA's air quality data. They tested whether these individuals' onset of dementia was correlated with long-term exposure to tiny pollution particles known as PM2.5.
</p><p>
<span></span>Indeed, the researchers found that a 1 microgram-per-cubic-meter (μg/m³) increase of PM2.5 over the course of a decade increases a person's odds of receiving a dementia diagnosis by 1.3 percentage points.
</p><p style="">
PM2.5, which is particulate matter with a length of 2.5 microns or less, is often a cocktail of toxins from power plants, automobiles and other industrial sources.
</p><p>
The World Health Organization has PM2.5 guidelines of 10 μg/m³—a threshold that
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/state-of-global-air-report-2018-2560935673.html" target="_blank">95 percent</a> of the world's population does not meet.
</p><p style="">
<span></span>The good news is that average PM2.5 concentrations have <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_service=data&_program=dataprog.aqplot_data_2017.sas&parm=88101&stat=WTDAM&styear=2000&endyear=2017&pre=val&region=99" target="_blank">decreased</a> in the U.S. from 13.5 μg/m³ in 2000 to 8.0 μg/m³ in 2017, thanks to the EPA's strict air pollution regulations.</p><p style="">
As the paper was authored by economists, they concluded that air pollution regulations have helped the U.S. save money to the tune of $150 billion since the year 2000, as
<a href="https://slate.com/business/2018/09/air-pollution-linked-to-alzheimers-study-suggests.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_ru" target="_blank">Slate</a> noted from the study.
</p><p style="">
The bad news is the Trump administration could roll back these protections. Last month, in efforts to replace the Obama-era <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-power-plan">Clean Power Plan</a> that regulates <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal">coal</a> plants, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler released the "Affordable Clean Energy Rule," which projects 470 and 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 due to increased rates of PM2.5.
</p><p style="">
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-air-pollution-alzheimers-20170131-story.html" target="_blank">Other studies</a> have found a link between air pollution and damage to the brain. A <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/air-pollution-brain-genes-2575718301.html" target="_blank">study</a> in May suggested that many heavy metals found in the air may make it into brain tissue, and those pollutants are activating genes that may lead to cancers or neurodegenerative disorders. Additionally, a China-based study <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/27/air-pollution-causes-huge-reduction-in-intelligence-study-reveals" target="_blank">published last month</a> found that high levels of toxic air "is equivalent to having lost a year of education."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="44f27" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="EKIMZW1576662703"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="986303443613732865" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">95% of World's Population Breathes Unsafe Air https://t.co/yxGtqUX5dt @WHO @CleanAirMoms @Greenpeace @foe_us… https://t.co/7Tyf2z2sU3</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/986303443613732865">1523988040.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Read More
Show Less
Coal-fired power plant near Becker, Minnesota. Tony Webster / Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled on Tuesday its long-anticipated replacement of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. The new coal pollution rules will increase planet-warming carbon pollution and could cost more than a thousand American lives each year, according to the EPA's own estimates.
EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler released the "Affordable Clean Energy Rule" today under President Trump's directive. The new plan encourages efficiency improvements at existing coal plants to ensure they operate longer and allows states to weaken, or even eliminate, coal emissions standards. That's a clear difference from former President Obama's plan, which was aimed at phasing out coal and transitioning to cleaner power sources to avoid dangerous climate change.
<p>
"We're ending intrusive EPA regulations that kill jobs," Trump said in a White House
<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-wants-reliable-affordable-energy-fuel-historic-economic-growth/" target="_blank">statement</a>.
</p><p>
Wheeler said in a
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-affordable-clean-energy-ace-rule" target="_blank">press release</a>, "Today's proposal provides the states and regulated community the certainty they need to continue environmental progress while fulfilling President Trump's goal of energy dominance."
</p><p>
<span></span>But in a damning report from <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>, the proposal's own fine print states, "implementing the proposed rule is expected to increase emissions of carbon dioxide and the level of emissions of certain pollutants in the atmosphere that adversely affect human health."
</p><p>
The proposal even has a section called "foregone" climate and human health benefits, according to the Times, and projects 470 and 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 due to increased rates of PM 2.5, which are microscopic toxins from power plants, automobiles and other sources that can cause lung and heart disease.
</p><p>
In contrast, as the Times pointed out, the Clean Power Plan was squarely designed at protecting the climate and human health. In 2015, the Obama EPA
<a href="https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-numbers_.html" target="_blank">estimated</a> that their plan could avoid between 1,500 to 3,600 premature deaths annually by 2030.
</p><p>
"This proposal would eliminate almost all the life-saving climate and health benefits that the Clean Power Plan provides. The Trump-Wheeler plan will mean millions of tons more air pollution endangering our kids' health, lives and future," said
<a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> president Fred Krupp in a statement.
</p><p>
<span></span>Environmentalists also said the Affordable Clean Energy Rule will not survive in court.
</p><p>
"Trump is doubling down on our dirtiest power sources and it's going to send polar bears, ice seals and other wildlife over the edge of extinction. But like most of his environmental rollbacks, this proposal mangles the facts, the law and the science, and won't survive in court," said Vera Pardee, senior counsel at the
<a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a> in a statement.
</p><p>
Similarly, Rhea Suh, president of the
<a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>, dubbed the proposal as the "Dirty Power Plan" and said the organization will fight the proposal "with every tool available."
</p><p>
"What America needs instead is an even stronger Clean Power Plan, one that will further accelerate the nation's shift to clean energy—that's how to truly protect public health, our children and future generations," she added.
</p><p>
The new measure, which President Trump will likely tout today at his rally in West Virginia, will be subject to a 60-day comment period.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="27f4d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="22R6ZK1576662712"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="978978020500361216" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Environmental Groups Sue #EPA Over Rule Change That Could Quadruple Toxic Emissions https://t.co/fmaIFXbVlI… https://t.co/ZXL7DcTROR</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/978978020500361216">1522241523.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Pxhere
The Trump administration is expected on Tuesday to propose a major rollback of the Clean Power Plan, President Obama's signature climate policy.
The replacement will relax rules for coal-fired plants and will very likely increase air pollution and planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions.
<p>
The new plan, as the
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-trump-power-plant-plan-would-release-hundreds-of-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-air/2018/08/18/be823078-a28e-11e8-83d2-70203b8d7b44_story.html" target="_blank">Washington Post</a> reported, would allow states to set their own coal emission standards or even opt-out altogether, and provides companies incentives to ensure coal plants operate longer. It's a clear contrast to the Obama plan, which was aimed at phasing out coal and transitioning to cleaner power sources to avoid dangerous climate change.
</p><p>
The Trump rule "is projected to release at least 12 times the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere compared with the Obama rule over the next decade," the Post reported. To illustrate how different the plans are, by 2030, the Trump proposal would cut carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 levels by 0.7 to 1.5 percent, or the equivalent of taking 2.7 million to 5.3 million cars off the road. In contrast, Obama's initiative had a goal of slashing CO2 emissions around 19 percent in the same time frame, or the equivalent of taking 75 million cars off the road.
</p><p>
"These numbers tell the story, that they really remain committed not to do anything to address greenhouse gas emissions. They show not merely indifference to climate change, but really, opposition to doing anything about climate change," Jose Goffman, executive director of Harvard Law School's Environmental Law Program and an architect of the Obama-era policy, told the Post.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="6b852" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8MBALE1576662714"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1030945597828882432" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Former coal lobbyist and @EPA leader Andrew Wheeler is giving his old bosses a big kiss with this Dirty Power Pla… https://t.co/V2psRosUah</div> — Ed Markey (@Ed Markey)<a href="https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/statuses/1030945597828882432">1534631559.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/us/politics/epa-coal-emissions-standards-william-wehrum.html" target="_blank">New York Times</a> reported Sunday that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>) air office head, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-epa-nominees-2487546138.html" target="_blank">William L. Wehrum</a>, was key in developing the power plant plan that would surely please his corporate clients. The former industry lawyer represented a host of coal, oil, gas and chemical companies, and was a George W. Bush-era EPA official.
</p><p>
"They basically found the most aggressive and knowledgeable fox and said, 'Here are the keys to the hen house,'" said Bruce Buckheit, an air pollution expert and the former EPA head of air pollution enforcement for Republican and Democratic administrations, to the Times.
</p><p>
<span></span>Meanwhile, Michelle Bloodworth, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which advocates on behalf of major U.S. coal producers, said the new rules would "provide the flexibility to states to develop emissions guidelines that recognize the important role that our nation's coal fleet plays," she told <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/df106312-a3b7-11e8-8ecf-a7ae1beff35b" target="_blank">Financial Times</a>.
</p><p>
<span></span>The new measure, which President Trump will reportedly announce Tuesday during a visit to West Virginia, will be subject to a 60-day comment period.
</p><p>
At a New York fundraiser last week, Trump said that coal was an "indestructible" form of energy and once again
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/scotland-wind-turbine-trump-2559323685.html">criticized windmills</a>, according to <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-says-windmills-are-bird-killers-he-tries-revive-coal-industry-1079910" target="_blank">Newsweek</a>. Saving the flagging coal industry and ending the so-called "war on coal" was a core component of his presidential campaign.
</p><p>
"Coal is indestructible. You can blow up a pipeline, you can blow up the windmills," Trump was heard saying in Utica.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="85fac" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="A4B6LU1576662714"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1031286767750664198" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Here's the transcript of Trump's remarks at a New York fundraiser last week about coal and windmills. https://t.co/ADckyr4IET</div> — Daniel Dale (@Daniel Dale)<a href="https://twitter.com/ddale8/statuses/1031286767750664198">1534712900.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
People's Climate March in New York City on Sept. 21, 2014. Elizabeth Stilwell / Flickr
Whether or not the Trump administration knows or cares, a majority of Americans wants government action on climate change.
For the past ten years, the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College have asked Americans their opinions on energy and climate policies in biannual National Surveys on Energy and Environment (NSEE).
<p>A March <a href="http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-10-year-federalism.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> on the past decade of surveys reveals that, in fall 2017, more Americans who believe in climate change answered that urgent government action is required to combat it than at any other point in the survey's history. </p><p>"For the past decade or so, and even last year, about 70 percent of Americans [who believe climate change is happening] say that the government needs to act urgently to address climate change," Sarah B. Mills, one of the report's authors and the senior project manager with the Center for Local, State and Urban Policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, told <a href="http://michiganradio.org/post/survey-majority-americans-want-government-step-action-climate-change" target="_blank">Michigan Radio </a> on Tuesday. "On the latest survey, in the fall, it was 76 percent. So that's where we've seen the biggest jump in recent times," she said.</p><p>Mills speculated that the jump in urgency might have been a response to Trump's decision to withdraw from the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement">Paris agreement</a>.</p><p>In the same Fall 2017 survey, 52 percent of all Americans said the federal government "has a great deal of responsibility … for taking actions to reduce global warming." Fewer numbers of Americans thought state and local governments had the same level of responsibility to act, with 41 percent assigning high responsibility to states and 34 percent to cities and counties. </p><p>Opinions did vary by party affiliation, with 69 percent of Democrats and only 30 percent of Republicans saying the federal government had a large role to play. </p><p>However, the report found that on individual climate issues Republicans were more receptive to government action than the rhetoric of their party often suggests. </p><p>When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>) was working on developing a policy for reducing industrial emissions in spring 2013, 51 percent of Republicans said they would want their state to work with the EPA to achieve that goal. In fall 2014, after the EPA had proposed the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-power-plan">Clean Power Plan</a> (CPP) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electrical power plants, 60 percent of Republicans said they approved of the measure. The EPA under <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt" target="_self">Scott Pruitt</a> has since <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-power-plan-repeal-2494810040.html" target="_self">initiated the process</a> of repealing the CPP. </p><p>The survey results also hint at how other environmental fights instigated by the Trump administration might play out in the public eye. Currently, Pruitt is in conflict with the state of California over the fate of Obama-era auto emissions standards. Pruitt's EPA looks likely to lower national standards, but California enjoys a waiver under the Clean Air Act that allows it to set higher standards than the nation. If the EPA does try to revoke that waiver, as some have speculated, the public would likely side with the state.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="48049" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="R3FXDD1576663202"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="974279063840940032" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Scott Pruitt: California Can’t 'Dictate' National Emissions Policy https://t.co/Xe5fcl295i @NRDC @SierraClub… https://t.co/waW9RYrPA7</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/974279063840940032">1521121204.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>According to the fall 2017 NSEE, 65 percent of Americans think their state has a responsibility to act on climate change if the federal government refuses to do so. Further, when the fall 2009 and 2010 surveys asked if states should be allowed to set stricter emissions standards than the national government, 75 percent and 64 percent, respectively, said they should. The spring 2017 NSEE asked about California's waiver specifically and found that 56 percent of Americans supported it. </p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
5 Environmental Catastrophes in the Trump Budget (and Who to Call to Stop Them)
10 March 2018
Popular
The EPA demolished a building at the Garfield Ground Water Contamination Superfund site in New Jersey in 2012.
By AnaChristina Arana
President Trump has released his 2019 budget proposal, and when it comes to environmental policy, it's full of bad ideas.
The proposal he sent to Congress on Feb. 12 threatens our health, safety and economic future through major cuts to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), essential environmental programs and our judicial rights. It would rob future generations of the chance to experience our nation's outdoors, gut clean air and water protections, and undermine toxic pollution cleanup programs that keep our children from being harmed by life-threatening pollution.
<p>This proposal is a statement of the administration's priorities and values, and it does not accurately reflect those of the American people. Congress, not Trump, will ultimately determine the funding allocated to each department and program, so there is still time to make your voice heard. Tell your members of Congress to reject any budget that weakens health and environmental protections for people living in the U.S.</p><p>The proposed budget is catastrophic for the environment. Learn about five pressing threats and who you can contact to stop them from going into effect.</p><p><strong>1.</strong> <strong>Reducing the overall EPA budget by 34 percent. </strong>Trump and his EPA Administrator <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt">Scott Pruitt</a> want to slash the EPA budget with deeper cuts than any other agency, chopping even some of the programs they claim to prioritize. They want to reduce last year's budget by a full third. This $2.8 billion decrease would eliminate more than 20 percent of the agency's workforce, as well as initiatives including climate change research, the efficiency benchmarks program Energy Star, and environmental education. It will also cut research and development in half and reduce the Superfund budget—money set aside for hazardous waste and pollution cleanup—by about 30 percent. This proposal is devastating for all Americans, as it endangers public health and the environment to serve polluting industries.</p><p>Take Action: The <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/committees/HSBU" target="_blank">House</a> and <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/committees/SSBU" target="_blank">Senate</a> Committees on the Budget are responsible for drafting a concurrent resolution on the budget. Urge House Budget Chair <a href="https://womack.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm" target="_blank">Steve Womack</a>, Ranking Member <a href="https://yarmuth.house.gov/contact-john2/" target="_blank">John Yarmuth</a>, Senate Budget Chair <a href="https://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-senator-enzi" target="_blank">Mike Enzi</a> and Ranking Member <a href="https://www.sanders.senate.gov/contact/comment" target="_blank">Bernie Sanders</a> to oppose these attacks on our health, clean air and water, and our efforts to preserve our environment for future generations.</p><p><strong>2. Reducing EPA state grants to protect clean air and water by 40 percent. </strong>A number of critical programs to protect clean air and water would be completely eliminated, limiting the effectiveness and scope of EPA, state, local and tribal programs that protect air and water from pollution. Cuts to state grants would weaken the states' ability to enforce water pollution laws and regulations, protect and clean up major polluted water bodies, improve water infrastructure, protect groundwater, restore beaches and coastal areas, oversee compliance with <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> standards, and provide assistance to water systems.</p><p>Take Action: Tell Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Chair <a href="https://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form" target="_blank">John Barrasso</a> and Ranking Member <a href="https://www.carper.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-senator-carper" target="_blank">Thomas Carper</a> to reject any budget that makes our communities more vulnerable to pollution.</p><p><strong>3. Eliminating funding to fight against climate change. </strong>The federal budget aims to dismantle the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-power-plan">Clean Power Plan</a>, which limits carbon pollution from power plants and is the largest single action the U.S. has ever taken to combat <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/">climate change</a>. The funding for the EPA's Office of Science and Technology would drop by more than a third, eliminating dozens of programs implemented by the Obama administration to fight climate change. A 65 percent reduction in the budget for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, paired with the elimination of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, increases the risk for communities across the country to be harmed by life-threatening pollutants.</p><p>Take Action: The Members of Congress with the most power over these decisions are House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chair <a href="https://walden.house.gov/contact-greg/email-me" target="_blank">Greg Walden</a>, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Chair <a href="https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/contact/email" target="_blank">Lisa Murkowski</a>, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Chair <a href="https://lamarsmith.house.gov/contact" target="_blank">Lamar Smith</a> and Vice Chair <a href="https://lucas.house.gov/contact-me/email-me" target="_blank">Frank Lucas</a>. Tell them that if Trump and Republicans truly want American energy dominance, they should invest in job-generating clean energy technologies rather than gutting the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable energy</a>, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/">science</a> and climate programs that move our economy forward.</p><p><strong>4. Slashing the Department of Interior's national parks funding. </strong>Trump's proposed 16 percent cut to the Department of the Interior's budget would sell out <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-lands">public lands</a> and severely undermine the booming outdoor recreation economy. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is designed to protect <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/national-parks">national parks</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/forests">forests</a>, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a> refuges and other protected sites, would lose 92 percent of its budget. The proposal eliminates programs for historic preservation, heritage and land acquisition and establishes a public lands infrastructure fund that relies on increased energy leasing and development. It would also cut funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by nearly 20 percent, including cuts to Endangered Species Act implementation, the National Wildlife Refuge System, grant programs, and wildlife trafficking prevention efforts that aid in protecting <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/elephants">elephants</a>, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rhino">rhinos</a>, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/tigers">tigers</a> and other <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species">endangered</a> wildlife.</p><p>Take Action: Tell House Committee on Natural Resources Chair <a href="https://robbishop.house.gov/contact/email" target="_blank">Rob Bishop</a> and Ranking Member <a href="https://grijalva.house.gov/email-raul" target="_blank">Raúl Grijalva</a> that you will not stand for this unacceptable assault on our public lands, endangered species and natural resources.</p><p><strong>5. Closing the Department of Justice's Office for Access to Justice. </strong>Amid Trump's attacks on public health and environmental justice, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is trying to close down the office dedicated to making legal aid accessible to all citizens. The administration is making cuts to the already small staff and reallocating resources to its own priorities. Gutting the Office for Access to Justice would restrict people's ability to use the courts to defend their civil rights, civil liberties, consumer protections, public health and safety, and the environment.</p><p>Take Action: Jeff Sessions cannot officially close down the office without Congressional support. Defend your judicial rights by contacting Senate Committee on the Judiciary Chair <a href="https://www.grassley.senate.gov/constituents/questions-and-comments" target="_blank">Chuck Grassley</a> and Ranking Member <a href="https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me" target="_blank">Dianne Feinstein</a>.</p><p>An overwhelming majority of Americans support a stronger and more expansive EPA, rather than massive budget cuts that threaten our rights to health and safety. The final budget should reflect the needs of the American people, rather than the greed of politicians and polluting industries. We resolve to do everything in our power to ensure Congress lives up to its responsibilities. Join us in this fight by telling your members of Congress to reject Trump's dangerous plan to sell out our future, and fight for a budget that chooses American families over corporate polluters. We need a budget that fully funds programs to protect our children's health and conserve our lands, waters, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oceans">oceans</a>, and wildlife for future generations.</p><p>We can send a message to President Trump and his allies in Congress that we reject any plan that weakens environmental protections in order to issue giveaways to industry. Contact members of congressional committees that play key roles in the budget decisions, and share your story about why this is personal to you. By sharing personal stories, we can send a message that people—not polluters—matter.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="07d78" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="WNFXVW1576663203"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="964150533010415617" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Trump Wants to Cut 355 National Weather Service Jobs Despite Record-Breaking Disasters in 2017… https://t.co/AODGYFXe5w</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/964150533010415617">1518706374.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://earthjustice.org/blog/2018-march/here-are-the-5-worst-environmental-catastrophes-in-the-trump-budget-and-who-to-call-to-stop-them" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
By Danna Smith
Over the last several years, study after study has documented why burning trees to produce electricity, known as "biomass," will accelerate climate change. More than 800 scientists from around the world recently signed a letter to the EU government warning that burning trees for electricity releases more carbon into the atmosphere than coal per unit of electricity generated, increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere at a critical time when we must be doing everything we can to reduce it.
<p>As some of the world's top climate scientists, like Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Bill Moomaw, wave a big warning flag, the biomass industry charges ahead, still insisting that burning trees for electricity is helping to solve the climate crisis. "Don't worry" they say. It's "carbon neutral" and "trees grow back."</p><p>If the mounting, independent scientific evidence hasn't been enough proof yet that burning trees to generate electricity is a climate disaster, the endorsement of biomass last month by <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt">Scott Pruitt</a>, the notorious <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier">climate denying</a> administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>), should be. </p><p>Pruitt doesn't believe that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing climate change, even though 99 percent of scientists agree that it is. Upon assuming his position as EPA administrator he declared "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/09/pruitt-tells-coal-miners-he-will-repeal-power-plan-rule-tuesday-the-war-on-coal-is-over/?utm_term=.dbb61488904b" target="_blank">The war on coal is over</a>" and vowed to dismantle the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-power-plan">Clean Power Plan</a> put into place by President Obama to reduce carbon emissions from coal burning power plants. He<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/02/07/scott-pruitt-asks-if-global-warming-necessarily-is-a-bad-thing/?utm_term=.56c025aebf7d" target="_blank"> recently asked</a> whether global warming is such a bad thing even if the climate is changing. <br></p><p>So when Scott Pruitt, a man who doesn't even believe in climate change and is intent on rolling back environmental regulation at every level, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/2.13.18_letter_from_pruitt_to_sununu_epa_programmatic_treatment_biomass_forest_products_industry.pdf" target="_blank">publicly sides with the biomass industry</a> in declaring that burning trees should be considered "carbon neutral" and seen as something that "benefits our <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/forests">forests</a>," we should be extremely skeptical. Essentially, he is attempting to group dirty biomass energy with true <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewables</a> like <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wind">wind</a> and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/solar">solar</a> power.</p><p>For an industry that claims it is helping to solve the climate crisis, an endorsement by Scott Pruitt should be the final proof that underneath all the green smoke is an industry that cares more about corporate profits than the climate.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="7a79e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="QQP0KF1576662774"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="969258703089295360" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Scott Pruitt Voted Worst Trump Minion, Ryan Zinke Runner-Up https://t.co/Z9jC5eJWkb @NRDC @UCSUSA @foe_us @greenpeaceusa</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/969258703089295360">1519924257.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Danna Smith is the executive director of <a href="https://www.dogwoodalliance.org/" target="_blank">Dogwood Alliance</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
By Henry Henderson
In the absence of federal leadership on climate change, America's cities have become the vanguard of the country's efforts to create a sustainable future. Recently, 233 mayors from 46 states and territories, representing 51 million residents across the country, have signed an open letter opposing the repeal of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the nation's most comprehensive strategy to combat climate change.
<p style="">Last year, after Trump announced the U.S. departure from the Paris agreement, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/katharine-mccormick/chicago-and-clarion-call-climate-change" target="_blank">mayors from across North America came together in Chicago</a> to affirm their commitment to the goals of the Paris agreement. Those goals—including improving energy efficiency of buildings and transportation systems, building sustainable infrastructure and securing more energy from renewable resources—not only combat climate change, but strengthen our economies, create jobs and make our communities more resilient.</p><p style="">Participating <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/shelley-poticha/cities-stand-united-paris-agreement-cop-23" target="_blank">mayors are making strides</a> to cut carbon pollution locally, including in Chicago, where the City reports a 19 percent reduction in carbon emissions in the last two years from buildings required to <a href="https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/progs/env/EnergyBenchmark/2017_Chicago_Energy_Benchmarking_Report.pdf" target="_blank">benchmark and report their energy use</a>. In Michigan<a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/ariana-gonzalez/calling-michigan-climate-and-clean-energy-mayors" target="_blank">, cities and their residents are calling on an electric utility</a> to rethink building a new natural gas plants and, instead, to invest those funds in cleaner, more cost-effective clean energy options, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy. But cities recognize that climate change must be addressed at all levels of governments, which is why an increasing number of American mayors are calling for federal action to combat this threat.</p><p style="">Last year alone brought more destructive storms, wildfires and yet another year of record-breaking heat. Here in Chicago, extreme storms are becoming the norm—even with massive additions to the region's stormwater system, infrastructure cannot keep up. When violent storms dump incredible volumes of rain in very short periods of time, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/henry-henderson/climate-change-making-chicago-river-run-backwards?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=tweet&utm_content=socialmedia" target="_blank">the Chicago River literally runs backwards</a>, flowing into Lake Michigan—the source of drinking water and quality of life for millions. Chicago's infrastructure—like most of the country's—was not built to deal with the changes brought by the changing climate.</p><p style="">Every community in every city whose mayor signed the letter in defense of the CPP has its own story that speaks to the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/issues/climate-change" target="_blank">urgent need for climate action</a>. The CPP has also garnered wide support based on the advantages created by a transition to clean energy. Even in public hearings held deep in coal country, the vast majority of the thousands of people that testified spoke in favor of the health, economic, and environmental benefits of the CPP.</p><p style="">The mayors' letter reflects the voices of communities across the country that are bearing the worst effects of climate change and are eager for solutions. It shows that cities are not going to sit on the sidelines while the Trump administration attempts to take away our country's best hope to cut carbon pollution and address climate change.</p><p style=""><em><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/henry-henderson" target="_blank">Henry Henderson</a> oversees NRDC's advocacy efforts as they relate to air, water, energy and sustainability in eight Midwestern states.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Gage Skidmore / Flickr
By Jeremy Deaton
All press is good press—except when it isn't.
For those who are happy about President Trump's attacks on climate science and policy, this will come as bad news. By shining a spotlight on the issue, Trump drove media coverage of climate change last year.
<p><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2018/02/12/how-broadcast-tv-networks-covered-climate-change-2017/219277" target="_blank">New analysis</a> from <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/" target="_blank">Media Matters for America</a> finds that, following a year of <a href="https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141567/media-essentially-stopped-covering-climate-change" target="_blank">lagging coverage</a> of climate change, 2017 saw network news programs scramble to report on Trump's full-scale assault on federal climate policy. The spike in coverage coincided with an increase in concern about climate change—Americans are now <a href="https://ecoamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ecoamerica-american-climate-perspectives-2017-annual-summary-1.pdf#page=4" target="_blank">more worried than ever</a> about the carbon crisis.</p><p>What's more, the heightened awareness comes in spite of the fact that broadcasters fell short in several key areas. "Even though corporate broadcast news coverage of climate change increased between 2016 and 2017, the quality of coverage remained poor across the board, primarily because the networks centered their climate coverage around Donald Trump while largely neglecting other important climate stories," said Lisa Hymas, director of climate and energy programs at Media Matters for America.</p><p>Here are the key takeaways from the report.</p><p><strong>Trump drove coverage of climate change in 2017.</strong></p><p>The nation's broadcasters didn't spend a lot of time on climate change last year, but when they did, it was almost always in response to Trump. Segments that dealt with his policies or featured statements from members of his administration accounted for 79 percent of the total time given over to climate change. Roughly half of all climate segments centered on his <a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/almost-everyone-opposes-trump-on-paris-video-b6351302e90d" target="_blank">decision</a> to pull out of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement">Paris agreement</a>.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzIwMjc0NS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NjkxMjI1OX0.XgKFoky_1MyvrxGTC0LlhSs6sfq2QfLYv_OCuuaOh-g/img.png?width=980" id="bb430" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0c7fe20fbc8a9eb27899699219ace225" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2018/02/12/how-broadcast-tv-networks-covered-climate-change-2017/219277" target="_blank">Media Matters</a></small></p>
<p>"The networks paid disproportionate attention to the political spectacle Trump made of rejecting the Paris climate agreement, while they largely overlooked crucial stories like the ongoing rollback of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-power-plan">Clean Power Plan</a> and the role of climate change in a year of record-setting weather disasters," Hymas said.<br></p><p>Broadcasters gave almost no time, for example, to the impact of climate change on public health, national security, infrastructure or the economy—not to mention numerous protests against Trump's climate policies. For example, broadcasters scarcely mentioned the <a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/scenes-from-the-peoples-climate-march-81064890391c" target="_blank">People's Climate March</a>, which drew 200,000 people to the National Mall in April.</p><p><strong>In a year of record storms, heat waves and wildfires, networks failed to explain how climate change is fueling extreme weather.</strong></p><p>2017 was a marquee year for climate change, as rising temperatures exacerbated <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/what-climate-change-did-and-didnt-have-to-do-with-the-socal-fires/547712/" target="_blank">wildfires</a> in California, <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23062017/deadly-heat-wave-southwest-climate-change" target="_blank">heatwaves</a> in the Southwest, and three <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-the-extreme-2017-hurricane-season-driven-by-climate-change/" target="_blank">devastating hurricanes</a>— <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/hurricane-harvey">Harvey</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/hurricane-irma">Irma</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/hurricane-maria">Maria</a>. Last year's weather disasters were the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/01/08/hurricanes-wildfires-made-2017-the-most-costly-u-s-disaster-year-on-record/?utm_term=.ac7065d21cb4" target="_blank">costliest</a> in U.S. history. And yet, broadcasters devoted just four segments in total to the influence of climate change on <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/extreme-weather">extreme weather</a>, including just two about <a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/abc-and-nbc-failed-to-explain-how-climate-change-fueled-hurricane-harvey-fcdb24c0477a" target="_blank">last year's hurricanes</a>.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzIwMjgxOC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3NTY1NzczNn0.LjCtaEaOVgWTPg_W3CnL19yWfYnHUyNvq-v4fNt1q8A/img.png?width=980" id="9b03e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b7afed7eb98c2d5a2e2a8e433b5bd67a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2018/02/12/how-broadcast-tv-networks-covered-climate-change-2017/219277" target="_blank">Media Matters</a></small></p>
<p>This is not to say the news outlets failed to cover natural disasters, just that they neglected to examine the influence of climate change. To be fair, it can take scientists weeks, months or longer to sift through the data to find the human fingerprint on a particular storm or <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildfires">wildfire</a>. But, amid a record-setting hurricane, for example, broadcasters can invite climate scientists to explain how climate change is contributing to extreme weather more generally. Per usual, PBS far outperformed its peers in this regard, while CBS came in at a distant second.<br></p><p><strong>News outlets gave an uncontested platform to climate deniers.</strong></p><p>Broadcasters gave a considerable amount of time to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier">climate deniers</a> in 2017, much of it unavoidable. The president of the U.S. has said human-caused climate change is a fiction, and reporters have to report on what he says. That doesn't mean, however, that they must do so uncritically.</p><p>Reporters have a responsibility to put the president's remarks in context, explaining that scientists <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/" target="_blank">overwhelmingly agree</a> that humans are causing climate change. Yet, in 37 percent of segments noting Trump has called climate change a "hoax," broadcasters did not challenge his claim. TV news anchors were similarly lax in pushing back on the fallacious claims of administration officials. The report highlighted this exchange between U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>) chief <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt">Scott Pruitt</a> and Chuck Todd, host of Meet the Press:</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzIwMjgxOS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzODI2MjM3NX0.WlhXQBlb9_1_QyLXguKdagzHKBxJwPj44110VSeNfjM/img.png?width=980" id="e3836" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c59c544ca679714710ef34403cb440d8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2018/02/12/how-broadcast-tv-networks-covered-climate-change-2017/219277" target="_blank">Media Matters</a></small></p>
<p>More generally, journalists charged with providing an objective account of the day's news often settle for a he-said-she-said roundup of political elites. The consequence is that reports from scientists or policymakers about the severity of climate change are often paired with statements from high-profile climate deniers.<br></p><p><strong>Americans are more worried than ever about climate change. Trump may have something to do with it.</strong></p><p>There's evidence the public uses the volume of coverage of a particular issue to gauge the <a href="https://www.utwente.nl/en/bms/communication-theories/sorted-by-cluster/Mass%20Media/Agenda-Setting_Theory/" target="_blank">importance</a> of that issue. And <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2012.694986" target="_blank">study</a> after <a href="https://web.stanford.edu/class/comm1a/readings/bennett-press-state.pdf" target="_blank">study</a> after <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1081180X99004003006" target="_blank">study</a> has found that elites drive what news outlets cover. A <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jason_Carmichael3/publication/311446538_Elite_cues_media_coverage_and_public_concern_an_integrated_path_analysis_of_public_opinion_on_climate_change_2001-2013/links/5a4d0d81458515a6bc6dc678/Elite-cues-media-coverage-and-public-concern-an-integrated-path-analysis-of-public-opinion-on-climate-change-2001-2013.pdf" target="_blank">2016 paper</a>, for example, found that "opinion on climate change is <em>directly</em> influenced by media coverage," and that "the most important driver of media remains elite cues from politicians and movement actors."</p><p>Trump is driving TV coverage of climate change, and as a result, he is raising the profile of the issue. Last year's spike in coverage of climate change corresponded with an uptick in public concern. Worry about climate change is now at an <a href="https://ecoamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ecoamerica-american-climate-perspectives-2017-annual-summary-1.pdf#page=4" target="_blank">all-time high</a> across several polls.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzIwMjgyMS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NTY3ODY3OX0.BLrz8Yy3SpyJfJ6ewlZ10JvWZZKbMYFJ_SwI5MrtglM/img.png?width=980" id="b9ce5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f7905a1d18280a6b5f17f6896cab21a2" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."><a href="https://ecoamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ecoamerica-american-climate-perspectives-2017-annual-summary-1.pdf" target="_blank">EcoAmerica</a></small></p>
<p>In this way, climate change mirrors several other issues. When this particular president takes a stance—that the press can't be trusted, or that immigrants are a threat—large numbers of Americans <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16408968/trump-midas-touch" target="_blank">run in the other direction</a>. Just as the public has grown more concerned about the climate, it has also become more trusting of the press and more supportive of immigration.<br></p><p>The retreat from Trump may reflect the president's habit of playing to his base while antagonizing Democrats and independents. Persuasion is a lost art in this White House. So far, the administration's repeated attacks on <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/">science</a> and policy have pushed broadcasters to cover an issue that, until recently, they were happy to ignore.</p><p>Going forward, Hymas argued, TV reporters should take their cues not just from political elites, but from the scientific community, which has made clear that climate change is an <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html" target="_blank">existential threat</a>. "As the climate crisis intensifies,<br>the broadcast networks must report on the real-world effects of climate change and climate policies rather than treating the issue as Trump's political football," she said.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="b1a74" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="USYJP71576663205"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="951160659433152512" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">100+ Candidates for Congress Want to Win in 2018 on a Platform of Decisive Climate Action https://t.co/qda6zRjXZ1… https://t.co/VfDCIcYHrL</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/951160659433152512">1515609347.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/the-trump-effect-on-climate-change-in-the-news-b56ab1e718bc" target="_blank">Nexus Media</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less