The 1.4-gigawatt coal-fired Kingston Steam Plant, just outside Kingston, Tennessee on the shore of Watts Bar Lake on March 31, 2019. In 2008, a coal ash pond at the plant collapsed, leading to the largest industrial spill in modern U.S. history and subsequent industry regulations in 2015. Paul Harris / Getty Images
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a rule change on Friday that will allow some coal power plants to ignore a court order to clean up coal ash ponds, which leech toxic materials into soil and groundwater. The rule change will allow some coal ash ponds to stay open for years while others that have no barrier to protect surrounding areas are allowed to stay open indefinitely, according to the AP.
<p>The arsenic-laced sludge that fills coal ash ponds is likely to leak when just a plastic barrier protects it. It is far more likely to pollute nearby soil and water when the pits have a clay barrier, according to researchers, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/521409-epa-may-violate-courts-with-new-rule-extending-life-of-unlined-coal" target="_blank">The Hill</a> reported.</p><p>A 2018 order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had forced the EPA to close coal ash ponds that did not have plastic lining and were likely to leak toxic chemicals, making Friday's rule change seem like a blatant move to undermine the court's authority, according to environmental groups who promised to sue to stop the rule change, as The Hill reported.</p>
<p>Environmentalists argue that the rule change is a favor to the coal industry, for which EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler served as a lobbyist prior to joining the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration. The move allows the industry to dump its byproducts inexpensively and irresponsibly.</p><p>"The reason the utilities are arguing to keep the ponds is because they have put in these unlined pits out the back door of the power plant that act as a catchall for their toxic waste," said Lisa Evans, an attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice, as the AP reported. "They don't want to get rid of them because they are cheap."</p>
<p>Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project commissioned a study on coal ash ponds and found that 91 percent of them were leaking toxic chemicals beyond what was permitted by EPA regulations, as The Hill reported. Their study found that heavy metals from the waste was polluting nearby drinking wells and groundwater.</p><p>Coal ash is produced when coal is burned to produce power. It is full of arsenic, mercury, lead and several other hazardous heavy metals. In the U.S., coal plants create nearly 100 million tons annually of ash and other waste, according to the AP.</p><p>"When ponds without lining leak, it's often more aggressive, faster and harder to control," said Evans, as The Hill reported. "Utilities are asking for favors and exemptions and EPA is willing to give them and is willing to rush to provide these exemptions."</p>
<p>The 2018 court decision found that clay lined coal ash ponds, or unlined ponds, are simply dangerous, as the AP reported.</p><p>Evans noted that the Obama-era Resource Conservation and Recovery Act required power plants to close unlined coal-ash ponds by April 2019, but the EPA keeps extending the deadline, as the AP reported.</p><p>By rewriting the rule, coal plants are able to get around the mandates of the 2015 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by simply showing that their coal ash ponds pose no threat to human health.</p><p>"The Trump EPA is flouting the court's decision," said Evans, as the AP reported. "I've never seen anything like this before."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 10 Ways Andrew Wheeler Has Decimated EPA Protections in Just ... ›
- What a Real Coal Ash Cleanup Looks Like - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
President Donald Trump prepares to sign an Executive Order to begin the roll-back of environmental regulations put in place by the Obama administration, on February 28, 2017 in the White House in Washington, D.C. Aude Guerrucci-Pool / Getty Images
By Brett Wilkins
With President Donald Trump's re-election very much in doubt, his administration is rushing to ram through regulatory rollbacks that could adversely affect millions of Americans, the environment, and the ability of Joe Biden—should he win—to pursue his agenda or even undo the damage done over the past four years.
<p>Reporting by the <em>New York Times</em> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/us/politics/regulatory-rush-federal-agencies-trump.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">details</a> how the administration is cutting corners as it scrambles to enact as much of its agenda as possible before ceding power on January 20 if Trump loses the election. Required public comment periods and detailed analyses, according to the <em>Times</em>, are being eschewed in favor of streamlined approval processes that have left even staunch deregulation defenders sounding the alarm. </p>
<div id="04704" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="89d490c741c2b7d2f95200298145c69b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1317147432002703361" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">JUST POSTED: Facing the prospect that President Trump could lose his re-election bid, his cabinet is scrambling to… https://t.co/hy6L5aOtdv</div> — Eric Lipton (@Eric Lipton)<a href="https://twitter.com/EricLiptonNYT/statuses/1317147432002703361">1602867393.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>"Two main hallmarks of a good regulation is sound analysis to support the alternatives chosen and extensive public comment to get broader opinion," Susan E. Dudley, director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center and formerly head of regulation in the George W. Bush White House, told the <em>Times</em>. "It is a concern if you are bypassing both of those."</p><p>Russell Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told the <em>Times</em> that the president has always "worked quickly... to grow the economy by removing the mountain of Obama-Biden job-killing regulations." </p><p>However, critics are warning that some of the proposed changes are being rushed through with insufficient regard to the harm they might cause. Some of the issues that are raising red flags include: </p><ul><li>Refusing to lower limits on dangerous particulate and ozone pollution, which cause <a href="https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201812-914OC" target="_blank">thousands</a> of annual premature deaths.</li><li>Allowing so-called <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/bomb-train-derailment-sparked-resistance-columbia-river-gorge" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">"bomb trains"</a> that transport highly combustible liquefied natural gas on freight trains.</li><li>Determining when workers can be classified as employees or independent contractors. </li><li>Exempting certain commercial drivers from mandatory hour limits and rest periods. </li><li>Placing limits on how science is used in the air pollution rule-making process.</li><li>Expanding regulation of immigrants by requiring citizenship applicants to submit biometric data, by forcing sponsors of immigrants to stay off welfare and prove their financial independence.</li></ul>
<p>In response to the reporting, critics of the administration like writer Matthew Kressel <a href="https://twitter.com/mattkressel/status/1317210213859155975" target="_blank">said</a> that it helps make clear that if the Republicans in the White House cannot win reelection, they'll "scorch the earth before they go."</p><p>And Matthew Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, tweeted: "I think people underestimate the amount of time and energy that is going to be needed just to climb out from under the mountain of shit this administration leaves behind."</p>
<div id="4f924" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="189304aaf1a15ae9bfdda6698bfb975b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1317167529362599938" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">I think people underestimate the amount of time and energy that is going to be needed just to climb out from under… https://t.co/FxEMRcMv1E</div> — Matthew Gertz (@Matthew Gertz)<a href="https://twitter.com/MattGertz/statuses/1317167529362599938">1602872185.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Many of the changes reflect the agendas of the powerful corporate and other business interests whose key players have donated generously to Trump, belying the president's oft-repeated claim that he is "draining the swamp." Other regulator rollbacks come despite <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/epas-scientific-advisers-warn-its-regulatory-rollbacks-clash-with-established-science/2019/12/31/a1994f5a-227b-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">warnings</a> from career officials within federal agencies about the harm they could cause. </p>
<div id="2e10f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f42c16794ddc25dcf8bf54a443854416"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1212091176091869184" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">EPA’s scientific advisers warn its regulatory rollbacks clash with established science https://t.co/RBdUsNvNEy</div> — Carl Zimmer (@Carl Zimmer)<a href="https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/statuses/1212091176091869184">1577820030.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Alarmed by the administration's rushed rate of regulatory rollbacks, a group of over 15 Democratic senators earlier this month sent a letter to Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia warning of "profound economic implications" for some 143 million U.S. workers that would result from curtailing public comment periods for the <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa/2020-independent-contractor-nprm" target="_blank">proposed rule change</a> regarding independent contractors.</p><p>"Workers across the country deserve a chance to fully examine and properly respond to these potentially radical changes, and a 30-day comment period is not nearly enough," the letter states. </p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's Hand-Picked Scientists Rebuke EPA Rollbacks - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Announces Final Rollback of Law That Gives Communities a ... ›
- New Report Details Dozens of Trump Rollbacks During Pandemic ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The 1.35 million-acre Bears Ears National Monument in southeastern Utah protects one of most significant cultural landscapes in the U.S. Bob Wick, BLM / Flickr / CC by 2.0
By James R. Skillen
Presidential elections are anxious times for federal land agencies and the people they serve. The Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service manage more than a quarter of the nation's land, which means that a new president can literally reshape the American landscape.
<p>Federal influence is particularly significant in the Western U.S. Across the 11 states from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Coast, the federal government owns <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf" target="_blank">more than 45% of all land</a>. In Alaska it owns over 60%.</p><p>Voters have a striking choice this year. President Donald Trump entered office committed to the "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/stephen-bannon-cpac-speech.html" target="_blank">deconstruction of the administrative state</a>." His administration raced to reduce environmental planning and regulations and expand private development in pursuit of "<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-unleashing-american-energy-dominance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">energy dominance</a>."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDUyNDIzMS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNDM2OTE4NX0.edZ411UlYP-lDeINNOv1tXGIU4oghV0A8pqIXCFSNnU/img.jpg?width=980" id="68601" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="33ba444b7b09dc7d9a504d3ac02ac018" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The U.S. government controls many types of protected land and subsurface minerals such as oil and gas, mainly in Western states. BLM/Wikipedia
<p>In contrast, Vice President Biden's campaign proposals for public lands remain fairly broad, but are largely consistent with the Obama administration's priorities. The most significant difference is Biden's pledge to <a href="https://joebiden.com/9-key-elements-of-joe-bidens-plan-for-a-clean-energy-revolution/#" target="_blank">end new fossil fuel leasing on public lands</a>.</p><p>How would each candidate fulfill these promises? As I explain in my new book, "<a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/this-land-is-my-land-9780197500699?cc=us&lang=en&" target="_blank">This Land Is My Land: Rebellion in the West</a>," public lands are a microcosm of today's polarized American politics.</p><p>On the right, mainstream conservatives and industrial corporations want <a href="https://theconversation.com/interior-secretary-zinke-invokes-teddy-roosevelt-as-model-but-his-public-land-policies-dont-84546" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reduced regulation and increased resource development</a>, while a more militantly anti-federal element of the Republican Party demands an <a href="https://theconversation.com/history-points-to-more-dangerous-malheur-style-standoffs-68134" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">end to public land ownership</a> altogether. On the left, mainstream Democrats want carefully regulated land management with <a href="https://www.outsideonline.com/2363781/what-election-meant-public-lands" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">increased margins of environmental protection</a>, but a vocal progressive wing is demanding that the federal government <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/beyond-green-new-deal-another-climate-cause-dividing-democrats-n996541" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">keep its fossil fuels in the ground</a>. These tensions raise questions about how far each candidate would go.</p>
<div id="b633c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6f5e4020e8a30cc88689ef4f8762e4f2"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1309336838549712896" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The Trump administration is expected on Friday to finalize its plan to open about 9 million acres of Alaska’s Tonga… https://t.co/dxx4Yf2KeV</div> — The New York Times (@The New York Times)<a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes/statuses/1309336838549712896">1601005203.0</a></blockquote></div>
Republicans: Less Regulation, More Development
<p>Since Ronald Reagan ran 40 years ago as a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/04/even-sagebrush-rebel-ronald-reagan-couldnt-change-federal-land-use-in-the-west/" target="_blank">self-proclaimed</a> "<a href="https://www.hcn.org/articles/a-look-back-at-the-first-sagebrush-rebellion" target="_blank">sagebrush rebel</a>" who supported turning control of public lands back to Western states, Republicans have coalesced around a set of <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-business" target="_blank">common public land priorities</a>. They include reducing federal regulation, limiting the scope of environmental reviews and increasing natural resource development.</p><p>This approach has drawn support from natural resource industries, resource-dependent communities and a growing body of <a href="https://mslegal.org/" target="_blank">public interest law firms</a>, <a href="https://www.perc.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">think tanks</a>, <a href="https://www.alec.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">advocacy groups</a>, <a href="https://www.charleskochfoundation.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">foundations</a> and <a href="https://www.freedomworks.org/about/about-freedomworks" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">political action committees</a>. Their core libertarian conviction is that reducing government leads to prosperity.</p><p>The Trump administration has championed these priorities through actions that include shrinking several national monuments to <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-plan-to-dismantle-national-monuments-comes-with-steep-cultural-and-ecological-costs-77075" target="_blank">expand oil leasing</a>; preparing to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/08/17/903239366/trump-administration-sets-plan-for-oil-drilling-in-arctic-refuge" target="_blank">open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil production</a>; and <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/nepa-modernization/" target="_blank">narrowing environmental reviews of major federal actions</a>. The full impact of these actions is hard to assess, since many face challenges in court, where the administration has <a href="https://policyintegrity.org/trump-court-roundup" target="_blank">fared poorly</a>. But their theme is clear: Public lands are <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-06/zinke-says-interior-should-be-a-partner-with-oil-companies" target="_blank">open for business</a>.</p><p>As part of this effort, the Trump administration <a href="https://theconversation.com/moving-bureau-of-land-management-headquarters-to-colorado-wont-be-good-for-public-lands-126990" target="_blank">moved the Bureau of Land Management's headquarters</a> from Washington, D.C., to Grand Junction, Colorado. The agency has <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1062289841" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">struggled to staff the new building</a>, which it shares with several oil and gas companies.</p><p>A vocal element of the Republican Party challenges the federal government's authority to own and manage public lands at all. Some advocates have engaged in <a href="https://www.hcn.org/articles/malheur-occupation-oregon-ammon-bundy-public-lands-essay" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">armed confrontations</a> with federal authorities. Several Western states have <a href="http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/files/2014/10/Lawton.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">enacted legislation</a> over the past decade demanding that the federal government transfer ownership of public lands and mineral rights to them.</p><p>President Trump has catered to this extreme wing while stopping short of meeting its explicit demands. He signaled support by appointing conservative activist William Perry Pendley as the Bureau of Land Management's functional acting director in July 2019 – a step that a federal court in Montana recently <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/518376-court-removes-pendley-from-role-as-public-lands-chief" target="_blank">ruled was illegal</a> because it bypassed a confirmation hearing. Pendley was known for <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/author/william-perry-pendley/" target="_blank">staunch opposition to public land ownership</a> and years of litigation over public land management.</p><p>The president also has pardoned controversial figures who are embraced by opponents of public land authority, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/arpaio-pardon-could-encourage-more-civil-rights-violations-82813" target="_blank">former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio</a> and two <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/07/10/627653866/president-trump-pardons-ranchers-dwight-and-steven-hammond-over-arson" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oregon ranchers</a> convicted of arson on federal property.</p><p>Despite his administration's losses in court, I expect that if President Trump is reelected he will continue down this path of deregulation, resource development and deference to conservative Western interests, with occasional gestures of support to more radical conservatives.</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5ee2c683633d2e865d4454f07471dc99"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F5DJhO31Kzg?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Democrats: Scientific Management With Limited Development
<p>Recent Democratic presidents, from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama, have <a href="https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-2127-9.html" target="_blank">championed federal environmental laws</a> that guide public land management, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. Democratic administrations have emphasized scientific monitoring and regulatory oversight while still supporting energy development and other commercial resource uses of public lands.</p><p>Vice President Biden's long <a href="https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-biden" target="_blank">environmental record</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/politics/joe-biden-trump.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">campaign pledges</a> suggest that he will continue this approach. Biden has promised to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-biden-square-off-over-environmental-regulations-11594917709" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reverse the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts</a>, <a href="https://www.backpacker.com/news-and-events/heres-how-the-presidential-candidates-public-lands-plans-stack-up" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">restore national monument boundaries</a> and manage energy development on public lands in ways that <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060477457" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">promote wind and solar energy</a> and gradually <a href="https://joebiden.com/9-key-elements-of-joe-bidens-plan-for-a-clean-energy-revolution/#" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">phase out fossil fuel development</a>.</p><p>But a Biden administration would face tensions within the Democratic Party as well. Progressives are calling for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-questions-answers.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">more dramatic action to slow climate change</a>, including <a href="https://soto.house.gov/media/press-releases/soto-ocasio-cortez-sanders-merkley-unveil-bill-ban-fracking-nationwide" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bans on hydraulic fracturing</a> for oil and gas production and on new oil, gas and coal leases on public lands. Biden has signaled <a href="https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">strong support</a> for this agenda, but insists that hydraulic fracturing and fossil fuel development <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-biden-fracking/u-s-presidential-hopeful-biden-says-he-would-not-ban-fracking-idUSKBN25R2NI" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">will continue on existing leases</a>.</p><p>A Biden administration, then, would likely seek to <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/clean_energy_record.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">restore President Obama's public lands legacy</a> and push beyond it with tighter limits on fossil fuel production.</p><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2ffd5396eda23b233575b6b9b1926bb2"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cCoxP79QYxM?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Everybody Loves the Outdoors
<p>These sharply different visions can obscure the fact that there is substantial commitment to public lands, especially as places for hunting, fishing, camping and other recreational uses. This consensus was evident when Congress passed the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Outdoors_Act" target="_blank">Great American Outdoors Act of 2020</a> in July with strong bipartisan support. With an eye on election polls, President Trump bragged that signing the bill made him the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-environmental-accomplishments-people-florida-jupiter-fl/" target="_blank">greatest environmental president since George Washington</a>.</p><p>As I see it, this bill was popular because it did not address controversial questions like regulation or energy development. Instead it provided billions of dollars for maintaining roads, trails, visitor centers and other public land infrastructure. It also guaranteed permanent funding for the <a href="https://www.lwcfcoalition.com/about-lwcf" target="_blank">Land and Water Conservation Fund</a>, which uses money from federal fossil fuel royalties to protect valuable lands and waters from development.</p><p>That pairing suggests that public land ownership and fossil fuel development will both be part of the next administration. But the election will determine how these resources will be managed, and who will have the most influence over this process.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump to Shrink Utah National Monuments to Allow Drilling, Mining ... ›
- Trump Advances Fracking on Colorado Public Land - EcoWatch ›
- Republicans Move to Sell Off 3.3 Million Acres of Public Land ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
Golf cart remains burned by the Glass Fire sit next to a vineyard at Calistoga Ranch in Napa Valley, California on September 30, 2020. Samuel Corum / AFP / Getty Images
The Trump administration rejected California's federal relief request to help recover from six recent wildfires, The Los Angeles Times reported.
<p>California Governor Gavin Newsom's office requested a presidential disaster declaration for federal relief funds to help with cleanup efforts, including the Creek Fire, the largest in the state's history, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/politics/trump-california-fire-disaster-assistance/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported. The relief would have also assisted recovery efforts from the Bobcat Fire in Los Angeles County and the El Dorado Fire, which resulted from a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/california-wildfire-gender-reveal-partyty-2647518193.html" target="_self">gender-reveal party mishap</a>.</p><p>"The request for a Major Presidential Disaster Declaration for early September fires has been denied by the federal administration," Brian Ferguson, a spokesperson for the Governor's Office of Emergency Services told CNN. </p><p>Ferguson told the The Los Angeles Times that he could not provide a reason for the denial.</p>
<p><br>Newsom wrote a letter to President Trump on September 28 asking for federal assistance, during which time the August Complex Fire continued to grow; it has since <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/california-gigafire-august-complex-2648125953.html" target="_self">burned more than one million acres</a>. </p><p>"The severity and magnitude of these fires continue to cause significant impacts to the State and to the affected local jurisdictions, such that the recovery efforts remain beyond the State's capabilities," <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-rejects-californias-request-wildfire-disaster-assistance/story?id=73650086" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">ABC News</a> reported Newsom wrote in September. "Many of the counties impacted by these wildfires are still recovering from previous devastating wildfires, storms, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic."</p><p>The state plans to appeal the decision. In the meantime, "officials are looking for other avenues for federal assistance" to help wildfire victims, a spokesperson for the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services told ABC News.</p>
<p>The state did not request a specific dollar amount, though Newsom did ballpark the figure around $346 million, ABC News reported. Ferguson, however, said the figure could easily pass that number.</p><p>"The true cost won't be known for months or years afterward," Ferguson told The Los Angeles Times. "What the state is looking for is the highest level of federal support, which requires the highest bars be cleared. But we feel our case for those requirements has been met."</p><p>In his letter, Newsom emphasized the state's dire need. "Federal assistance is critical to support physical and economic recovery of California and its communities," ABC News reported. "The longer it takes for California and its communities to recover, the more severe, devastating, and irreversible the economic impacts will be."</p>
<p>The rejected request is not entirely surprising. In a pattern of disdain toward Democratic states, Trump said in 2019 that he would deny federal assistance requests unless state officials "get their act together, which is unlikely," The Los Angeles Times reported. Trump has also blamed Newsom for the fires, ABC News reported, claiming that Newsom has done a terrible job managing forests — even though a majority of California forests are on federal land.</p><p>So far in 2020, more than 8,500 wildfires have burned over 4.1 million acres. The fires have also killed 31 people and damaged more than 9,200 structures, CNN reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump Admin Proposes Fossil Fuel Lease Sales in California ... ›
- Trump Denies Climate Science in California, Biden Labels Him a ... ›
- Trump Wanted to Withhold Wildfire Aid to California Over Political ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court Confirmation 'Would Be a Catastrophe for the Climate'
14 October
Insights + Opinion
Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifies on the third day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on October 14, 2020 in Washington, DC. Erin Schaff / Pool / AFP/ Getty Images
By Andy Rowell
This week, President Trump's highly controversial pick for the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, answers questions in front of the Senate Judiciary committee as part of her nomination hearings for the top legal job.
<p>Coney Barrett's nomination to the vacant seat on the Supreme court vacated by the death Ruth Bader Ginsburg has prompted concern from experts and activists working on a plethora of issues, from abortion, the Affordable Care Act, climate change, and wider environmental policy to which her appointment would spell disaster.</p><p>The hypocrisy cannot be understated. In 2016, the Republican Party and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to allow hearings on President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, as it was February of an election year. Now, with less than one month until the next presidential election, the GOP unabashedly intends to ram this nomination through.</p><p>The future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Roe v. Wade precedent, and even any court cases around the upcoming election are very much uncertain moving forward.</p><p>If she is confirmed, which appears likely, she will tip the Supreme Court to a 6-3 conservative majority. Barrett's mentor was the arch conservative <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/21/magazine/the-lives-they-lived-antonin-scalia.html" target="_blank">Antonin Scalia</a>, who was similarly idolized by President Donald Trump.</p>
<p>"Barrett's conservative legal views and her closeness to her former boss and mentor, the conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia, have raised concerns that she will push the court further to the right in ways that could be difficult to reverse for years or even decades," noted the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/barrett-supreme-court-trump/2020/09/26/20863794-feac-11ea-830c-a160b331ca62_story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Washington Post</em></a> last month.</p><p>If confirmed, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/20/us/politics/supreme-court-barrett.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Barrett,</a> who is 48 years old, would be the youngest Justice on the Supreme Court, who could shape a generation of American law.</p><p>Although her environmental <a href="https://www.salon.com/2020/10/04/amy-coney-barretts-environmental-track-record-is-parse--but-concerning_partner/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">record is sparse,</a> there are deep alarm bells ringing.</p><p>An article in <em>Slate</em> magazine noted last month, that "Barrett and her conservative colleagues would also take a machete to the thicket of laws that protect the health and safety of millions of Americans," including limiting pollution, monitoring Wall Street, and protecting consumers from predatory practices.</p>
<p>Our colleagues at <a href="https://earthjustice.org/blog/2020-september/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-environment-science-politics" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a> have been fighting in the courts on behalf of our planet and its people for decades. They have expressed "deep concerned that the rush to confirm Amy Coney Barrett could threaten our shared future."</p><p>Earthjustice also argues that "Judge Barrett <a href="https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2020/09/19/stories/1063714169" target="_blank">appears willing</a> to undermine our environmental laws" and that her "record demonstrates her willingness to interpret environmental laws like the Clean Water Act narrowly in favor of industry interests."</p><p>Finally, they say that "Amy Coney Barrett's record suggests that she may be willing to strip government agencies of the power to protect the environment and to further close the courthouse doors to those seeking justice."</p><p>And justice may be denied on what, to many, is the biggest issue of them all: climate change. Yesterday, Barrett was asked about her views on climate change and took the skeptical line that she could not comment because she was not a scientist.</p>
<div id="76884" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="77420428135283f65982a5ecd6a823dc"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1316166400839487488" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Amy Coney Barrett just said she does "not have firm views" on climate change because she's "not a scientist." What… https://t.co/degGDy7eXI</div> — DJ Koessler (@DJ Koessler)<a href="https://twitter.com/DJKoessler/statuses/1316166400839487488">1602633497.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>This is a deeply worrying sign. Many climate fights in the U.S. right now, focused on trying to hold the government and companies accountable, could end up in the Supreme Court.</p><p><a href="https://www.salon.com/2020/10/04/amy-coney-barretts-environmental-track-record-is-parse--but-concerning_partner/" target="_blank"><em>Salon</em></a> argues her appointment might "tip the scales of justice rightward, opening up a Pandora's box of climate hostility."</p><p>They are not the only ones concerned. "Barrett's confirmation would be a catastrophe for the climate," argues <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/amy-coney-barrett-ginsburg-scotus-future.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Slate</em> </a>magazine. "She may well overrule the landmark 5–4 2006 EPA emissions reporting <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">decision</a>, long despised by conservatives, that compels the federal government to regulate carbon emissions."</p><p>And even "if Congress passes new legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the court's conservative supermajority may strike it down, much as the Republican-appointed justices <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-supreme-court-blocks-obama-s-clean-power-plan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">blocked</a> the Clean Power Plan in 2016," argues Slate.</p>
<p>One of the landmark legal cases that could be affected is <em>Juliana v. U.S.,</em> the lawsuit brought by 21 youth plaintiffs against the U.S. government in 2015 for taking insufficient action on climate change. As an article in <a href="https://earther.gizmodo.com/what-amy-coney-barrett-would-mean-for-the-youth-climate-1845346697" target="_blank"><em>Earther</em></a>, "Barrett's approach to constitutional law doesn't necessarily look like a promising source of support for the youth plaintiffs."</p><p>Legal experts are worried too. Harvard law professor and former Obama administration official Jody Freeman told <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/10/07/921322803/how-nomination-of-amy-coney-barrett-to-supreme-court-might-affect-u-s-climate-ac?t=1602603057213" target="_blank"><em>NPR Radio</em></a> that with the appointment of Barrett, "it's going to be a corporate court, good for business, good for corporations."</p><p>And that can only be bad for climate, and bad for all of us. <a href="https://earthjustice.org/blog/2020-september/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-environment-science-politics" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">EarthJustice</a> argues that "we need Justices who recognize the government's obligation to protect the environment and public lands for all people and who know the difference between science and politics." And by all accounts that person is not Amy Coney Barrett.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="http://priceofoil.org/2020/10/14/amy-coney-barretts-confirmation-to-the-supreme-court-would-be-a-catastrophe-for-the-climate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+OilChange+(Oil+Change)" target="_blank">Oil Change International.</a></em><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2648206122#/" target="_self"></a></p>
Read More
Show Less
Criminal prosecutions for polluting the environment in violation of the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act have dropped to their lowest levels in decades under the Trump administration. Charles Cook / Lonely Planet Images / Getty Images Plus
A new report finds that criminal prosecutions for polluting the environment in violation of the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act have dropped to their lowest levels in decades under the Trump administration, as The New York Times reported.
<p>The <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3710109" target="_blank">report</a> was written by David Uhlmann, a law professor at the University of Michigan who worked for the Department of Justice for 17 years and served as its top environmental prosecutor from 2000 to 2007.</p><p>In the paper, the career prosecutor-turned-professor analyzed 14 years of cases and found that in the first two years of the Trump administration, criminal prosecutions for violations of the Clean Water Act dropped 70 percent. Similarly, prosecutions for violations of the Clean Air Act dropped 50 percent in the first two years since Trump took office.</p><p>"No matter what the future holds, the data from the first two years under President Trump reveals a dramatic departure from the non-partisan support for pollution prosecutions that had existed across administrations, which leaves Americans less safe and the environment less protected," Uhlmann wrote.</p>
<p>Uhlmann presented the paper at the American Bar Association's fall environmental conference. While the paper is available online now, it will be published in the Michigan Journal of Environmental and Administrative Law, according to The New York Times.</p><p>The paper noted that there were only nine criminal prosecutions under the Clean Water Act in 2018. "Under President Donald J. Trump the bottom fell out," Uhlmann wrote, as The New York Times reported.</p><p>Uhlmann told The New York Times that the numbers show a dramatic decline in both the quantity and the quality of the prosecutions that the administration is pursuing.</p>
<p>While the study looked at the first two years of the Trump administration and found a pattern that shattered the author's perception that law enforcement operated independently of political influence, recent data has shown the trend continued through 2019.</p><p>According to Justice Department <a href="https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/581/" target="_blank">data</a> analyzed by Syracuse University's <a href="https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/581/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse </a>(TRAC), the total number of environmental prosecutions in fiscal year 2019 was lower than any year during the administrations of the previous three presidents, which dates back to 1993, as <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/environmental-prosecutions-drop-to-lowest-level-in-decades/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Courthouse News</a> reported.</p><p>For that year, the percent of prosecutions for environmental violations was 64.5 percent lower than it was two decades earlier.</p><p>"There's a risk that unenforced violations could lead to fires, leaks, spills, and contamination," said Ethan Elkind, climate program director at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, as Courthouse News reported.</p>
<p>While criminal prosecutions have plummeted under Trump, so have civil prosecutions, according to The New York Times. Civil settlements are a powerful tool to ensure that polluters pay to clean up past mistakes and implement safeguards against future pollution issues.</p><p>A <a href="https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SEPs-Complaint-10.8.20.pdf" target="_blank">lawsuit filed last week in Massachusetts</a> by the Conservation Law Foundation named Attorney General William Barr and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a> Administrator Andrew Wheeler as defendants for ending the practice that forces polluters to clean up for their actions and implement protections. The lawsuit notes that those violations tend to affect low-income and minority communities disproportionally, and the decision to abandon civil prosecutions and settlements, "runs directly counter to Congress' design when passing laws such as the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act."</p><p>Judith Enck, a former regional administrator at the EPA, told The New York Times that Uhlmann's paper is an accurate portrayal of an administration that "acts like our bedrock environmental laws are simply suggestions. This approach will result in more pollution and more damage to health."</p><p>She added that what the administration has done is "unconscionable."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Founder of Fridays For Future Greta Thunberg in Washington to discuss the climate crisis with lawmakers on September 18, 2019 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Alex Wong / Getty Images
Climate emergency activist Greta Thunberg on Saturday endorsed Democrat Joe Biden, urging climate voters to make their voices heard in the U.S. presidential election.
<p>"Fridays For Future and the youth climate movement are striking again around the world, in a safe way and following Covid-19 guidelines, to demand those in power treat this like the urgent crisis it is," <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/09/25/new-wave-gobal-climate-strikes-takes-place-150-countries" target="_blank">said</a> Greta Thunberg, the 17-year-old Swede whose solitary school strikes launched a global movement.</p><p>Thunberg said in a tweet that she "never engages in party politics. But the upcoming U.S. elections is above and beyond all that."</p><p>"From a climate perspective it's very far from enough and many of you of course supported other candidates. But, I mean... you know... damn! Just get organized and get everyone to vote #Biden," she tweeted.</p><p>Thunberg, whose Fridays For Future strikes sparked a global climate protest movement after striking outside the Swedish parliament in 2018, could encourage participation among younger voters who are typically less likely to vote than older Americans.</p>
<div id="61f98" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0ba6c990dea24959356d2cc93869298b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1314900271332458496" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">I never engage in party politics. But the upcoming US elections is above and beyond all that. From a climate perspe… https://t.co/eoXSbUVDGY</div> — Greta Thunberg (@Greta Thunberg)<a href="https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/statuses/1314900271332458496">1602331629.0</a></blockquote></div><p>After Thunberg was named Time Magazine's Person of the Year in 2019, Donald Trump tweeted: 'So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!"</p>
<div id="2b028" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="969b0b5498916117fbd031b77b3bb0a9"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1205154117867462662" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">President Trump called Time Magazine's choice to name Greta Thunberg its person of the year "ridiculous" and said t… https://t.co/ZcQuKbkEC3</div> — The New York Times (@The New York Times)<a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes/statuses/1205154117867462662">1576166107.0</a></blockquote></div>
From Your Site Articles
- Greta Thunberg Chastises European Parliament for Prioritizing ... ›
- Greta Thunberg: Covid-19 Should Be Climate Crisis Wake-Up Call ... ›
- Greta Thunberg Kicks Off Third Year of Fridays for Future Protests ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
This month's bookshelf highlights 12 titles that uncover the roots and explain the dynamics of this critical moment in American politics.
By Michael Svoboda, Ph.D
Like the amplifying effects of climate change, which is already delivering once-in-a-century storms every four or five years, America's increasingly divided politics have created three once-in-a-lifetime elections in just the past 20 years. But the stakes in 2020 seem another order larger than in 2000, 2008, or 2016. And who Americans choose in November will dramatically affect what the world does – or doesn't do – on climate in the critical decade that follows.
This month's bookshelf highlights 12 titles that uncover the roots and explain the dynamics of this critical moment in American politics.
<p>The first three titles focus on President Trump – appropriately, given that the election is widely seen as a referendum on his administration. How did he gain power? Why does he appeal so strongly to so many Americans? And what norms can be restored in the wake of his disruptions?</p><p>The next three titles profile three distinct subsets of the American electorate: Trump's most dedicated supporters, the Black and allied protestors who created the Black Lives Matter movement now aligned against Trump, and the diverse groups of women who together organized the first and still the largest protest against the Trump presidency – the day after he was sworn into office.</p><p>The last six titles step back to place these groups and their concerns in broader social and historical contexts.</p>
<p>A new Gallup/Knight Foundation report details the deepening divide in Americans' assessments of the news media. Then an economist explains why national debts and deficits don't mean what we think they do, a reassuring message for a country that has just spent $3 trillion on the coronavirus pandemic and has yet to get serious about climate change.</p><p>The last four titles reach back into history to explore previous times when Americans faced, and surmounted, crises. Two of these historic "moments" – the New Deal and World War II – have figured prominently in calls for action on climate change; they reappeared again this year when cities and states pressed for more aggressive federal action on the coronavirus crisis. Americans did rise to the occasion in the Great Depression and World War II, but, as the last two titles detail, the nation is still struggling to fulfill the promise it showed then.</p><p>The next chance to make good on those promissory notes comes over the next month. These 12 titles can prepare readers to make their choices on November 3rd – and then help them understand the consequences of the nation's choice afterwards.</p><p><span></span>As always, the descriptions of the titles in this list are drawn from copy provided by the publishers. If two dates of publication are offered, the second is for the paperback edition of the title.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/What-Were-We-Thinking/Carlos-Lozada/9781982145620" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">What Were We Thinking? A Brief Intellectual History of the Trump Era</a>, by Carlos Lozada (Simon & Schuster 2020, 272 pages, $28.00)</p><p><em>Washington Post book critic Carlos Lozada has read some 150 volumes that explain why Trump was elected and what his presidency reveals about our nation. Many of these, he's found, are more righteous than right. In What Were We Thinking, Lozada uses these books to tell the story of how we understand ourselves in the Trump era. Lozada's argument is provocative: many of these books – whether written by Trump's true believers or his harshest critics – are vulnerable to the same blind spots, resentments, and failures that gave us his presidency. But Lozada also highlights books that illuminate how America is changing. What Were We Thinking helps us transcend the battles of the moment and see ourselves for who we really are.</em></p><p><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/trump-and-us/512B965B35BF73FEFF7DCD936C0E3C12" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Trump and Us: What He Says and Why We Listen</a>, by Roderick P. Hart (Cambridge University Press 2020, 280 pages, $24.95 paperback)</p><p><em></em><em>Why did 62 million Americans vote for Donald Trump? An expert in political language, Roderick P. Hart turns to Trump's words, voters' remarks, and media commentary for insight. The book offers the first systematic rhetorical analysis of Trump's 2016 campaign and early presidency, using text analysis and archives of earlier presidential campaigns to uncover deep emotional undercurrents in the country and to provide historical comparison. Hart pays close attention to the emotional dimensions of politics, above and beyond cognition and ideology. He argues it was not partisanship, policy, or economic factors that landed Trump in the Oval Office but rather how Trump made people feel.</em></p><p><em></em>See also <a href="https://www.tamupress.com/book/9781623499068/demagogue-for-president/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump</a> by Jennifer Mercieca (Texas A&M University Press 2020, 320 pages, $28.00)</p><p><a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-strange-case-of-donald-j-trump-9780197507445" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Strange Case of Donald J. Trump: A Psychological Reckoning</a>, by Dan P. McAdams (Oxford University Press 2020, 305 pages, $35.00)</p><p><em>The Strange Case of Donald J. Trump provides a coherent and nuanced psychological portrait of Donald Trump, drawing upon biographical events in the subject's life and contemporary scientific research and theory in personality, developmental, and social psychology. The book's central thesis is that Donald Trump is the episodic man. The chapters, written as stand-alone essays, build on each other to present a portrait of a person who compulsively lives in the moment. McAdams shows that Trump's utter lack of an inner life story is truly exceptional. This book is a remarkable case study, which should aid readers trying to reckon with the often confounding behavior and temperament of the 45th President of the United States.</em></p>
<p><a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-securitarian-personality-9780190096489" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Securitarian Personality: What Really Motivates Trump's Base and Why It Matters for the Post-Trump Era</a>, by John R. Hibbing (Oxford University Press 2020, 304 pages, $29.95)</p><p><em>In The Securitarian Personality, John R. Hibbing argues that an intense desire for authority is not central to those constituting Trump's base. Drawing from participant observation, focus groups, and a nationwide survey, Hibbing demonstrates that what Trump's base really craves is actually a specific form of security: threats they perceive to be emanating from human outsiders, defined broadly to include welfare cheats, unpatriotic athletes, norm violators, non-English speakers, religious and racial minorities, and certainly people from other countries. The central objective of these "securitarians" is to strive for protection for themselves, their families, and their dominant cultural group from these embodied outsider threats. In The Securitarian Personality, Hibbing radically reinterprets a political movement that will continue to influence American politics.</em></p><p><em></em><a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520292710/making-all-black-lives-matter" target="_blank">Making All Black Lives Matter: Reimagining Freedom in the 21st Century</a>, by Barbara Ransby (University of California Press 2018, 240 pages, $18.95 paperback)</p><p><em>The breadth and impact of Black Lives Matter in the United States has been extraordinary. What began as outrage over the 2012 murder of Trayvon Martin and the exoneration of his killer, and accelerated during the Ferguson uprising of 2014, has evolved into a resurgent Black Freedom Movement, which includes a network of more than fifty organizations. In Making All Black Lives Matter, award-winning historian and longtime activist Barbara Ransby outlines the scope and genealogy of this movement, documenting its roots in Black feminist politics and situating it squarely in a Black radical tradition. Ransby maps the movement, profiles many of its lesser-known leaders, measures its impact, outlines its challenges, and looks toward its future.</em></p><p><em></em><a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520301528/how-to-read-a-protest" target="_blank">How to Read a Protest: The Art of Organizing and Resistance</a>, by L.A. Kauffman (University of California Press 2018, 152 pages, $22.95)</p><p><em>When millions of people took to the streets for the 2017 Women's Marches, there was an unmistakable air of uprising. But what exactly do protests do, and how do they help movements win? In this original and richly illustrated account, organizer and journalist L.A. Kauffman delves into the history of America's major demonstrations, beginning with the legendary 1963 March on Washington, to reveal the ways protests work and how their character has shifted over time. Using the signs that demonstrators carry as clues to how protests are organized, Kauffman sheds new light on the catalytic power of collective action and the decentralized, bottom-up, women-led model that has transformed what movements look like and what they can accomplish.</em></p>
<p><a href="https://knightfoundation.org/reports/american-views-2020-trust-media-and-democracy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">American Views 2020: Trust, Media, and Democracy: A Deepening Divide</a>, a Gallup/Knight Foundation Survey (Gallup/Knight Foundation 2020, 63 pages, free download available <a href="https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/American-Views-2020-Trust-Media-and-Democracy.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>)</p><p><em>There is a widening gulf between American aspirations for and assessments of the news media. With each study, the American people render increasingly polarized judgments. For the 2020 American Views survey, Gallup and Knight polled more than 20,000 U.S. adults and found further partisan entrenchment about how the news media delivers on its democratic mandate for factual, trustworthy information. Republicans express more negative sentiments on every aspect of media performance compared to Democrats and independents. This report is based on data collected just before the coronavirus became a global pandemic and the movement for racial justice swept the nation. This update offers new insights into how the public is responding to these challenges in their own media consumption and their thoughts about how to address them.</em></p><p><em></em><a href="https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/stephanie-kelton/the-deficit-myth/9781541736184/" target="_blank">The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy</a>, by Stephanie Kelton (Public Affairs Books 2020, 336 pages, $30.00)</p><p><em>Any ambitious proposal to deal with crucial issues – poverty, inequality, health care, infrastructure, climate change – inevitably runs into the buzz saw of how to find the money to pay for it, rooted in myths about how deficits are hobbling us as a country. Economist Stephanie Kelton busts those myths: that the federal government should budget like a household, that deficits will harm the next generation, crowd out private investment, and undermine long-term growth, and that entitlements are propelling us toward a grave fiscal crisis. With its important new ways of understanding money, taxes, and the critical role of deficit spending, Modern Monetary Theory redefines how to responsibly use our resources so that we can maximize our potential as a society. MMT gives us the power to imagine a new politics and to move from a narrative of scarcity to one of opportunity.</em></p><p><em></em><a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250244420" target="_blank">Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy</a>, by Suzanne Mettler and Robert C. Lieberman (St. Martin's Press 2020, 304 pages, $28.99)</p><p><em>In Four Threats, Suzanne Mettler and Robert C. Lieberman explore five moments in history when democracy in the U.S. was under siege: the 1790s, the Civil War, the Gilded Age, the Depression, and Watergate. These episodes risked profound – even fatal – damage to the American democratic experiment. From this history, four distinct characteristics of disruption emerge. Political polarization, racism and nativism, economic inequality, and excessive executive power – alone or in combination – have threatened the survival of the republic. What is alarming about the present moment is that all four conditions exists at once. But by revisiting how earlier generations of Americans faced threats to the principles enshrined in the Constitution, we can chart a path toward repairing our civic fabric and renewing democracy.</em></p>
<p><a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Upswing/Robert-D-Putnam/9781982129149" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again</a>, by Robert Putnam (Simon & Schuster 2020, 480 pages, $32.50)</p><p><em>Deep and accelerating inequality; unprecedented political polarization; vitriolic public discourse; a fraying social fabric; public and private narcissism – Americans today seem to agree on only one thing: This is the worst of times. But we've been here before. During the Gilded Age of the late 1800s, America was highly individualistic, starkly unequal, fiercely polarized, and deeply fragmented. In a sweeping overview, drawing on his inimitable combination of statistical analysis and storytelling, Robert Putnam (author of the groundbreaking Bowling Alone) analyzes the confluence of trends that brought us from an "I" society to a "We" society and then back again. Drawing inspiring lessons from an earlier era, when a dedicated group of reformers righted the ship, Putnam charts a path to becoming a society once again based on community.</em></p><p><a href="https://groveatlantic.com/book/the-black-cabinet/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Black Cabinet: The Untold Story of African Americans and Politics During the Age of Roosevelt</a>, by Jill Watts (Grove Press 2020, 560 pages, $30)</p><p><em></em><em>In 1932 in the midst of the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt won the presidency with the help of key African American defectors from the Republican Party. At the time, most African Americans lived in poverty, were denied citizenship rights, and were terrorized by white violence. As the New Deal began, a "black Brain Trust" joined the administration and began documenting and addressing the economic hardship and systemic inequalities African Americans faced, even in FDR's own administration. They became known as the Black Cabinet. Masterfully researched and dramatically told, The Black Cabinet brings to life a forgotten generation of leaders who fought post-Reconstruction racial apartheid and whose work served as a bridge that Civil Rights activists crossed to achieve the victories of the 1950s and '60s.</em></p><p><a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300233780/year-peril" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Year of Peril: America in 1942</a>, by Tracy Campbell (Yale University Press 2020, 408 pages, $30)</p><p><em>The Second World War exists in the American historical imagination as a time of unity and optimism. In 1942, however, America seemed to be on the brink of defeat and was beginning to splinter from within. Historian Tracy Campbell portrays the social, economic, and political fault lines that pitted factions of citizens against each other after Pearl Harbor was attacked, even as the nation mobilized, government-aided industrial infrastructure blossomed, and parents sent their sons off to war. This captivating look at how American society responded to the greatest stress experienced since the Civil War reveals the various ways, both good and bad, that the trauma of 1942 forced Americans to redefine their relationship with democracy.</em></p><p><em></em>See also <a href="https://www.hbgacademic.com/titles/martha-s-jones/vanguard/9781549190155/" target="_blank">Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All</a>, by Martha S. Jones (Basic Books 2020, 352 pages, $30).</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/10/12-books-to-help-voters-think-climate-change-through-elections-prisms/" target="_blank">Yale Climate Connections</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- 18 Great New Books About Climate Change, Sustainability and ... ›
- New and Recent Books About Hope in a Time of Climate Change ... ›
- 10 Best Books On Climate Change, According to Activists - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
The USDA killed 62,000 coyotes in 2019. Steve Krave, TD / DOE
By Andrea Germanos
Days after federal data revealed taxpayers funded the killing of 1.2 million native animal species in 2019, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services program was sued Thursday over what conservation advocates decry as a cruel and misguided annual extermination spree.
<p>"Wildlife Services is infamous for the scope and cruelty of its killing campaigns across the nation," Chris Smith, southern Rockies wildlife advocate for WildEarth Guardians, said in a <a href="https://wildearthguardians.org/press-releases/lawsuit-filed-over-antiquated-federal-wildlife-killing-program-in-new-mexico/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">statement</a>.</p><p>"To carry out such a horrific onslaught on native wildlife in the midst of a mass extinction event and a climate crisis, without any real knowledge of the impact," added Smith, "is utterly outrageous."</p><p>The <a href="http://pdf.wildearthguardians.org/support_docs/NM-WS-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">lawsuit</a> was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico by WildEarth Guardians and accuses Wildlife Services (WS) of running afoul of various federal regulations stipulated by the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality regulations, and Administrative Procedure Act.</p><p>According to the court filing, the program has failed to provide an Environmental Impact Statement on the program's impact on key ecosytems, nor has it provided timely supplemental analysis mandated by law. As such, the document states, WS is disregarding "new scientific publications on the ineffectiveness of lethal predator control and the negative cascading ecological consequences of removing keystone species from their native ecosystems," according to the filing.</p>
<p>WS purportedly exists "to resolve wildlife conflicts to allow people and wildlife to coexist." But Smith explains the agency's raison d'etre quite differently. "They are good at one thing—killing animals," Smith told<em> Common Dreams</em>, adding that the program is "still operating on data and science and ideas that are 20, 30, 40 years old."</p><p>The lawsuit explains WS in this way:</p><blockquote>Every year, Wildlife Services—a program within the USDA—poisons, traps, and guns down several of our nation's most majestic animals, including wolves, bears, coyotes, and mountain lions in a futile attempt to save livestock and other "resources." Funded with millions of taxpayer dollars, and without modern scientific support, this program uses cruel and often archaic methods to capture and kill wildlife from their native ecosystems, largely at the behest of livestock producers. Across New Mexico, Wildlife Services uses fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters to aerially shoot coyotes; body-gripping traps, neck snares and leg-hold traps to kill mountain lions, black bears, bobcats, badgers, coyotes, skunks, and swift and gray foxes; gas cartridges and poisons to exterminate coyotes, foxes, and prairie dogs in their dens; sodium cyanide M-44 devices to kill canines like foxes and coyotes; and other poisons to eliminate native birds like ravens. Family pets and federally-protected endangered and threatened species have been and will continue to be accidentally injured or killed by the agency's indiscriminate killing methods.<br></blockquote><p>The latest annual <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage/pdr/?file=PDR-G_Report&p=2019:INDEX:" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">tally</a> of the animals killed by WS—including 1,258,738 native species— drew condemnation from WildEarth Guardians, with Samantha Bruegger, the group's Wildlife Coexistence Campaigner, saying in a <a href="https://wildearthguardians.org/press-releases/federal-government-admits-killing-over-1-2-million-native-animals-in-2019/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">statement</a> Wednesday: "This mass slaughter is carried out in our backyards, on public lands, and in beloved parks; there is no limit to the program's reach."</p><p>A tweet from New York-based Wolf Conservation Center breaks down a portion of the vast death toll detailed in the WS analysis:</p>
<div id="40246" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="efe7c2e0245773da7c3ddfbb0e96890a"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1313992296753442817" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING In 2019, USDA’s Wildlife Services KILLED: ▪ 62,002 coyotes ▪ 24,543 beavers ▪ 800 bobcats ▪1362 gray… https://t.co/KUwjcNLslM</div> — Wolf Conservation Center (@Wolf Conservation Center)<a href="https://twitter.com/nywolforg/statuses/1313992296753442817">1602115150.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The deaths often came painfully. A statement from WildEarth Guardians says, "Preferred methods include leg-hold traps, strangulation snares, aerial gunning from helicopters and planes, poison gases, and sodium cyanide bombs [M44s] placed on the landscape."</p><p>The lawsuit portrays the annual killing deaths as folly—especially in light of the climate and ecological catastrophes as well water shortages affecting the U.S. West. Regarding beavers, Smith said the agency is "removing the very animals that will save us from these crises." </p><p>They "act as ecosystem engineers, increasing biodiversity and ecosystem function—including filtering drinking water and removing water-borne pollutants—where they are native," the filing states, adding:</p><blockquote>Beavers, due to their beneficial engineering of ecosystems provide outsized ecosystem services. One study, conducted in southern Utah, a landscape analogous to much of New Mexico, found that in terms of wetland habitat only, a mere 2,560 beavers in the lower Escalante River basin would provide $275.5 million dollars per year in wetland habitat services. If riparian and aquatic habitat services are added to that number, it becomes nearly $450 million dollars per year. [...] Beavers particularly can have remarkable impacts on reforestation in areas affected by wildfires.<br></blockquote>
<p>Benefits from other animals further prove the misguided annual kills, the filing states.</p><blockquote>For example, it is now well established that killing predators such as coyotes, mountain lions, and bears create conditions favorable for pandemics to emerge, diminish ecosystem functions, reduce carbon sequestration, and increase instances of irruptions of invasive species, and cost taxpayers millions—and perhaps billions—of dollars in lost ecosystem services... In an arid region such as New Mexico, which is undergoing rapid ecological changes from climate disruption, it is more important than ever that Wildlife Services takes a hard look at the environmental consequences of removing so many animals critical to regulating ecosystems.<br></blockquote><p>Another conservation group, the Center for Biological Diversity, <a href="https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/agriculture-departments-wildlife-services-killed-approximately-12-million-native-animals-in-2019-2020-10-07/" target="_blank">offered</a> similar condemnation Wednesday, characterizing the program as both barbaric and needless.</p><p>"Year after year Wildlife Services continues to needlessly kill wildlife, even though effective tools exist to prevent most conflicts," said Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center.</p><p>"The scientific consensus is that killing carnivores like coyotes to benefit the livestock industry just leads to more conflicts and more killing," she said, adding, "This taxpayer-funded slaughter needs to stop."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/10/08/trumps-usda-sued-over-program-allowing-horrific-mass-slaughter-native-wildlife?cd-origin=rss" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Being Outdoors Doesn’t Mean You’re Safe From COVID-19 – A White House Event Showed What Not to Do
09 October
Health + Wellness
Guests watch as U.S. President Donald Trump introduces 7th U.S. Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court in the Rose Garden at the White House September 26, 2020 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
By Thomas A. Russo
If you think you're safe from the coronavirus just because you're outdoors, think again.
<p>While the wind and the large volume of air make the outdoors less risky than being indoors, circumstances matter.</p><p>Someone who is infectious can cough or sneeze, or just talk and, if you happen to inhale those respiratory droplets or they plop into your eye, you can get infected. If you shake hands with an infected person and then touch your eyes, nose or mouth, you also run a chance of getting infected. You don't have to be inhaling an infected person's air for very long. What matters is the dose.</p><p>As an <a href="http://medicine.buffalo.edu/faculty/profile.html?ubit=trusso" target="_blank">infectious disease doctor</a>, I get a lot of questions from patients about COVID-19 risks. Here are some answers about the risks outdoors.</p>
Doesn’t Wind Make Outside Safer Than Inside?
<p>It's true that the <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc6197" target="_blank">wind helps disperse respiratory droplets</a> that can carry viruses.</p><p>When you're indoors, one of the big concerns about how the coronavirus spreads is aerosols – tiny, light droplets people emit along with larger droplets when they breathe. These particles can <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-covid-19-superspreaders-are-talking-where-you-sit-in-the-room-matters-145966" target="_blank">linger in the air</a>, and the concentration can build up in enclosed, poorly ventilated spaces. There's less of a risk in open outdoor settings because of the sheer volume of air and available space to physically distance.</p><p>At least one study, not yet peer reviewed, found COVID-19 patients were <a href="https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.28.20029272" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">nearly 20 times more likely</a> to have been infected indoors than outdoors.</p><p>But that doesn't mean you're in a protective bubble when outdoors.</p>What Behaviors Could Put You at Risk Outside?
<p>To get a sense of how easy it is to put yourself at risk outdoors, look at crowd photos from the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/the-interactions-of-rose-garden-ceremony-attendees-who-tested-positive-for-coronavirus/2020/10/03/b7564938-61a3-44f1-83c6-0c1551f0a518_video.html" target="_blank">White House Rose Garden event</a> on Sept. 26. About 200 people attended that ceremony, and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/02/us/politics/trump-contact-tracing-covid.html" target="_blank">at least 12</a> tested positive for the virus within days, including President Donald Trump and <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/04/15/833692377/how-the-coronavirus-has-affected-individual-members-of-congress" target="_blank">two senators</a>. When and where each person was infected isn't known, but several behaviors at the Rose Garden ceremony raised the risk of getting or sharing the virus.</p><p>The first problem with this scene: Very few people were <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html" target="_blank">wearing face masks</a>.</p><p>With no mask, infectious people can be shedding the virus when they talk and there is nothing to stop the respiratory droplets. For people not yet infected, no mask means the virus has several ways to enter their bodies – nose and mouth as well as eyes. The lack of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">masks</a> also raises the risk of getting a larger dose, and a higher viral load may mean a higher <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30196-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">likelihood of severe disease</a>.</p><p>People were also seated <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html" target="_blank">close together</a>. And before and after the ceremony, they mingled – indoors and outdoors – shaking hands, leaning in for close conversations and hugging each other.</p><p>Remember that just breathing expels respiratory droplets, and <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm" target="_blank">loud, animated speech</a> like laughing or shouting expels more. We don't yet know how much virus is needed to trigger symptoms, but those doses add up. So, you might get a small dose from a person sitting next to you, but if that person later gives you a big hug or shakes your hand, they could give you another dose. Or you might talk to someone else who is infectious for several minutes and inhale more virus particles.</p><p>All it takes is one person in the peak infectious period – the 24 to 48 hours before and after symptoms start – to spark a superspreader event.</p>When Do I Have to Wear a Mask Outdoors?
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Face masks lower your risk</a> of getting infected, and they also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0376" target="_blank">reduce the amount of virus</a> you're spreading if you're infected.</p><p>If you're running or walking, carry a mask with you. When you're near other people, put it on.</p><p>If you're sitting at an outdoor café, try to mask up between bites and sips, especially if your age or health or weight make you vulnerable to severe COVID-19.</p><p>The likelihood of a passing interaction from someone walking by a table is small, but it's still possible. The safest spot when eating outdoors is a table away from high-traffic areas and upwind of everyone else.</p>Is Six Feet of Social Distancing Enough?
<p>Depending on where you are, maximize the distance between yourself and others. There's <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-lower-your-coronavirus-risk-while-eating-out-restaurant-advice-from-an-infectious-disease-expert-138925" target="_blank">nothing magic about staying six feet apart</a>. Particles <a href="http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.4756" target="_blank">generated by sneezes</a> can travel a lot farther than that.</p><p>Twelve or 15 feet is safer.</p><p>It's all about minimizing risk. You can never drive that risk to zero when you're in public.</p>Can I Still Have People Over for an Outside Party?
<p>Think of the coronavirus like a sexually transmitted disease – everyone claims to behave safely, but do you really know where they've been? <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/the-virus-didnt-stop-a-washington-socialite-from-throwing-a-backyard-soiree-then-the-tests-came-back-positive/2020/07/01/841041ba-ba19-11ea-bdaf-a129f921026f_story.html" target="_blank">It just takes one</a> infected person. Rapid COVID-19 tests <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02661-2" target="_blank">aren't 100% accurate</a>, either, and are presently unavailable for most people.</p><p>To keep things safe for an outdoor gathering, set up tables for each social bubble – a family, for example. Keep the tables at least 15 to 20 feet apart. Set up food on individual plates in a central location and have people or each bubble go up separately. Don't share utensils or food or glasses. Wear masks as much as possible, and don't forget physical distancing.</p><p>There is a lot we still don't know about the coronavirus, including what the long-term damage is. Regardless of how old you are or how healthy, do what you can to avoid the virus until there's a vaccine. Even if you get over the illness quickly, we don't know what the long-term consequences will be.</p>From Your Site Articles
- COVID-19: What Experts Think About Reopening Schools - EcoWatch ›
- These Are Some of the Highest-Risk Places for COVID-19 - EcoWatch ›
- Here's Why COVID-19 Can Spread So Easily at Gyms and Fitness ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A resident of Springdale, Pennsylvania looks out her front window at the smoke stack of the Cheswick coal-fired power plant on Oct. 27, 2017. Robert Nickelsberg / Getty Images
A three judge panel in the Court of Appeals in Washington, DC listened to arguments Thursday on a Trump administration rollback of regulations that limit the emissions that power plants are allowed to spew into the atmosphere, as The New York Times reported.
<p>Health and environmental activists sued the government, arguing that the new regulations inadequately address the threat of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis" target="_self">climate crisis</a>. The American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association first filed the suit. Then dozens of other groups signed on and more than 170 amicus briefs were filed in the case revolving around the Trump administration's move to scrap the Clean Power Plan, as <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/health-environment-groups-clash-with-feds-over-clean-power/" target="_blank">Courthouse News</a> reported.</p><p>The new Trump rule, touted as the Affordable Clean Energy rule, "will result in some <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> plants running more often and delaying their retirement, which would mean increased emissions of dangerous pollution as compared to the Clean Power Plan," according to the American Lung Association, as Courthouse News reported.</p>
<p>In arguments held virtually that went all day, the panel of judges — two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee — fired questions at the lawyers on a range of topics from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) jurisdiction to how coal turns into electricity, as <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/d-c-circuit-goes-into-overtime-exploring-epas-climate-rules" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Bloomberg Law</a> reported.</p><p>The plaintiffs contend that the administration's Affordable Clean Energy rule will not only allow power plants to make no effort to reduce carbon emissions, but will also allow them to increase other toxic pollutants emitted into the atmosphere. That consequence betrays the EPA's mandate and legal obligations, they argue, as The New York Times reported.</p>
<p>New York Deputy Solicitor General Steven C. Wu said the Affordable Clean Energy plan is unjustified and inadequate to make any significant impact in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.</p><p>The case may have far-reaching implications as the Trump administration is arguing that the EPA has an extremely limited amount of authority in the Clean Air Act. That limited scope, the administration argues, means the federal government has neither the authority to set national limits on greenhouse gas emissions, nor the jurisdiction to mandate that states move away from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal">coal</a> power, according to The New York Times.</p>
<p>The plaintiffs in the case argued that the Trump administration's rollbacks were irresponsible.</p><p>"It's like choosing a squirt gun to put out a five alarm fire. EPA provides no reasoned explanation of how such a paltry remedy is appropriate given a record showing such an urgent problem," said Sean Donahue, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, in his argument for the health and environmental petitioners, as Courthouse News reported.</p><p>If the Trump administration is successful in the case, it will limit the scope that any future administration has to curtail the emissions from power plants, which are the nation's second largest source of greenhouse gases after transportation. If the administration loses the case, it's expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, making the potential appointment of Amy Coney Barrett high-stakes for environmental policy, according to The New York Times.</p><p>"The Trump administration has really taken a go-for-broke approach," said Joseph Goffman, executive director of Harvard University Law School's Environmental & Energy Law Program and a former EPA official under Obama, to The New York Times. He added that if the Trump administration wins, "Then they've really advanced a broader project that the Trump administration has been pursuing to not only repeal individual rules, but to narrow the foundation of the federal government in doing any kind of regulation."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's Latest EPA Rollback Lets Polluters Spew More Lead ... ›
- Blowing the Cover off the 'Cleanest Air' Illusion of the Trump ... ›
- Trump's EPA Signs 'Deadly' Clean Power Plan Replacement ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Senator Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence participate in the vice presidential debate in Salt Lake City, Utah on Oct. 9, 2020. PBS NewsHour / YouTube
The climate crisis was discussed for roughly 10 minutes at Wednesday night's vice-presidential debate in Salt Lake City, Utah between Senator Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence.
<p>The first question about the climate crisis came about 40 minutes into the debate when moderator Susan Page turned to Pence and brought up the record number of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/hurricanes" target="_self">hurricanes</a> and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildfires" target="_self">wildfires</a> in 2020. She then asked if he agreed with the scientific consensus that man-made climate change is making hurricanes and fires larger and more dangerous.</p><p>Pence did acknowledge that the climate is changing, but he would not say that human activity is causing it. He insisted that the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" target="_self">Trump</a> administration would listen to the science before pivoting to attack both the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" target="_self">Paris agreement</a> and the Green New Deal.</p><p>In her reply, Harris insisted that Joe Biden believes in <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/">science</a>. She drew a contrast with President Trump who has questioned science.</p><p>"We have seen a pattern with this administration, which is they don't believe in science," Harris said while looking straight at the camera.</p><p>She brought up that when Trump met with California Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, Trump said about global warming, "I don't think science knows, actually," as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-california-biden-climate-science-2647658093.html">EcoWatch</a> reported at the time.</p>
<p>Pence argued that the country has lowered CO2 emissions through hydraulic fracturing, or <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fracking/">fracking</a>, and through innovation. Pence then claimed that Biden and Harris wanted to ban fracking.</p><p>"I will repeat, and the American people know, that Joe Biden will not ban fracking," Harris said in her reply. "That is a fact."</p><p>The issue of fracking is something Pence glommed on to in what analysts see as a direct plea to voters in Pennsylvania where the oil and natural gas industry is prominent, as <a href="https://time.com/5897789/vp-debate-climate-change/" target="_blank">TIME</a> reported.</p><p>Harris, in her rebuttal, noted that clean energy infrastructure is actually part and parcel of an economic recovery, pointing out that Moody's said Biden's plan will create 7 million more jobs than Trump's plan.</p><p>"Joe Biden has been very clear that he thinks about growing jobs," she said. "Part of those jobs that will be created by Joe Biden are going to be about clean energy and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable energy</a>."</p>
<p>Pence also refused to attribute the wildfires and the increased moisture and slow movements of hurricanes to human activity. As the moderator attempted to enforce Pence's time limit, he argued that there are no more hurricanes than there were 100 years ago. Prior to that, he addressed the wildfires.</p><p>"With regard to wildfires, President Trump and I believe that forest management has to be front and center, and even Gov. Gavin Newsom from your state has agreed, we have to work on forest management," Pence said.</p><p>He neglected to mention that nearly 60 percent of California's forests are on federal land, as <a href="https://abc7news.com/politics/sen-kamala-harris-vp-mike-pence-spar-on-california-wildfires-during-debate/6854295/" target="_blank">KGO</a>, San Francisco's ABC affiliate, reported.</p><p>When Harris replied, she brought up the wildfires currently burning, the plight of the Gulf Coast as Hurricane Delta approaches, and the Iowa farmers whose fields were flooded by a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/derecho-storm-midwest-2646947250.html" target="_self">derecho storm</a>.</p><p>She segued from there to attack the Trump administration's hostile attitude towards science, noting that the terms "science" and "climate change" were removed from a government website about energy and the environment.</p><p>"Let's talk about who is prepared to lead our country over the course of the next four years on what is an existential threat to us as human beings," she emphasized.</p><p>When asked directly by Page if the climate crisis is an existential threat, Pence dodged the question and started to discuss taxes.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- How the Global Climate Fight Could Be Lost If Trump Is Re-Elected ›
- As Biden Embraces More Ambitious Climate Plan, Fossil Fuel Execs ... ›
- Trump Denies Climate Science in California, Biden Labels Him a ... ›
- Trump Wanted to Withhold Wildfire Aid to California Over Political ... ›
- The Environmental Legacy of Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's Newly ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is seen speaking at SXSW in 2019. nrkbeta / Wikimedia Commons / CC by 2.0
By Jon Queally
Even as Vice President Mike Pence was busy "polluting the atmosphere with lies" about the climate crisis during Wednesday night's vice presidential debate, Democratic nominee Sen. Kamala Harris came under considerable criticism of her own after repeatedly highlighting Joe Biden's commitment to "not ban fracking" and an overall lackluster defense of the Green New Deal—the signature framework put forth by progressives and the scientific community to combat the threat of a rapidly warming world.
<p>"Fracking is bad, actually," <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1314018453192409102" target="_blank">tweeted</a> Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) after Harris repeatedly proclaimed, in response to Pence's charge that Democrats want to "abolish fossil fuels," that a Biden administration would not ban hydraulic fracturing.</p><p>Watch:</p>
<div id="c6c03" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4df2df029885ac2e1787b12e595872b5"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1314020385113944065" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Sen. Kamala Harris: "Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact. That is a fact." #VPDebate https://t.co/xVlwfapwUO</div> — The Hill (@The Hill)<a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/statuses/1314020385113944065">1602121847.0</a></blockquote></div><p>While Pence attacked Harris' support for the Green New Deal, which she co-sponsored in the U.S. Senate, backers of the proposal—a plan that would combat the existential planetary emergency by making major investments in renewable energy infrastructure projects that would create millions of jobs—pointed out that ending destructive fossil fuel extraction, including fracking, is a policy to embrace not run away from.</p>
<div id="41ed8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b487ad0d2f2e66ca9343d06d593e203b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1314036806233583616" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">So what IS the Green New Deal, anyway? https://t.co/hqjMSpgxDg</div> — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)<a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/statuses/1314036806233583616">1602125762.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Outside observers also offered advice to the Biden campaign to step up its game if the Trump-Pence ticket is going to make attacking the Green New Deal part of its re-election strategy.</p>
<div id="bb369" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="67e28dde200063168ff78e7d2e198723"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1314018966302584832" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">THE GREEN NEW DEAL IS A JOBS PROGRAM. IT WOULD CREATE 20 MILLION JOBS. IT IS A GOOD THING. #Debates2020</div> — 💀🎃Briahna Joy Co-pay 🕸👻 (@💀🎃Briahna Joy Co-pay 🕸👻)<a href="https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/statuses/1314018966302584832">1602121509.0</a></blockquote></div><p>And as Ocasio-Cortez subsequently tweeted, the Green New Deal remains not only popular, but essential:</p>
<div id="74e28" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c17c18328bf659cbff10a638f3f67ad8"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1314019700549001218" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The Green New Deal is and has been lied about nonstop, and yet is STILL popular. It’s a massive job-creation and i… https://t.co/8ICC1ukQZA</div> — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)<a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/statuses/1314019700549001218">1602121684.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"Kamala is doing well," said Jamie Henn, co-founder of 350.org and director of Fossil Free Media, "but she'd be on even stronger ground if Biden had *endorsed* the Green New Deal. Far better to play offense than having to do this in-between approach."</p>
<div id="0f851" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9d8adad02bbbeeada523afd1783c4a9d"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1314019134427062272" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Majority of Pennsylvanians oppose fracking. Biden-Harris are pandering to a minority of voters here https://t.co/EmlNtRAmgv</div> — Mike Elk (@Mike Elk)<a href="https://twitter.com/MikeElk/statuses/1314019134427062272">1602121549.0</a></blockquote></div>
<div id="a99fa" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="eed4ac10228c61c8cecc2907603f1a46"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1314019183437455360" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Fracking sucks. It poisons people. It generates earthquakes. It destroys the land. #BanFracking #VPDebate2020</div> — Peter Daou (@Peter Daou)<a href="https://twitter.com/peterdaou/statuses/1314019183437455360">1602121561.0</a></blockquote></div><p><a href="https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1314024215566311424" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According</a> to Waleed Shahid of the Justice Democrats, "I feel like Kamala Harris over-corrected way too much after being being attacked as the 'liberal Senator of California' on her climate crisis responses."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Kamala Harris Becomes Latest 2020 Dem to Support a Green New ... ›
- 81% of Voters Support a Green New Deal, Survey Finds - EcoWatch ›
- How Joe Biden's Climate Plan Compares to the Green New Deal ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less