breitbart--2019-09-05--Environmental Group Urges Joe Biden to Cancel Fundraiser with Oil Executive

The Sunrise Movement, one of the premier climate change groups advocating liberal policies like the Green New Deal, issued a statement calling on Biden to cancel a $2,800-a-head fundraiser scheduled for Thursday to be hosted by Andrew Goldman, the founder of a natural gas production company.  “If Biden is serious about taking on the power of the fossil fuel lobby, why is he going to a fundraiser hosted by the co-founder of a natural gas company?” Varshini Prakash, the group’s president executive director, asked. “We know how this works: Fossil fuel millionaires drive us towards an uninhabitable future, then host fundraisers and expect the next president to take their advice on policy.”  Prakash added such tactics in the past had contributed to the status quo.  “That corruption got us into the crisis our world faces today,” she said. “And that corruption needs to end if we’re going to have chance at securing a livable future.”  As CNBC reported, Biden is scheduled to appear at two New York City fundraisers hosted by top Wall Street executives with ties to oil and gas interests on Thursday.  One of the fundraisers will be hosted by Jack Rosen, the CEO of Rosen Partners LLC and well known Democrat mega donor. Rosen also has business ties to Mikhail Fridman, a Russian oligarch who controls one of his country’s largest privately-owned financial consortiums. Fridman is known for making his multibillion dollar fortune from telecommunications as well as oil and gas interests.  The second fundraiser will be hosted by Goldman and David F. Solomon, an investment banker who runs the private equity giant Hildred Capital Partners. As the Intercept noted, Goldman, a one-time aide to Biden, is the co-founder of a Texas-based natural gas production company called Western LNG.  “Western’s major project is a floating production facility off the northern coast of British Columbia designed to provide Canadian gas to markets in northeast Asia,” the outlet reported.  According to the Sunrise Movement, the fundraiser organized by Goldman “clearly violates the spirit of the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge” Biden signed in June. The pledge, a byproduct of the liberal group Oil Change USA, has become an environmental litmus test for Democrat presidential candidates and other elected officials. By signing, Biden promised to refuse campaign donations totaling more than $200 from executives, PACs, and lobbyists representing companies “whose primary business is the extraction, processing, distribution, or sale of oil, gas, or coal.”  Biden defended both his decision to attend the fundraisers and his relationship with Goldman when pushed on the topic at CNN’s climate change town hall on Wednesday. The former vice president claimed it wasn’t fair to characterize Goldman as a “fossil fuel executive,” saying he no longer had anything to do with Western LNG.  “He’s not a fossil fuel executive, I’m told,” Biden said, arguing no one could question his commitment to fighting climate change. “The fact of the matter is…I’ve argued and pushed for us suing those executives, who are engaged in pollution, those companies that are engaged in pollution.”  When pushed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the extent of Goldman’s ties to Western LNG as well as the oil and gas industry, Biden said he would reconsider the fundraiser if the record was “accurate.”  For some environmental activists, like Prakash and the Sunrise Movement, however, that was not good enough.  “If Biden wants to be taken seriously on climate change, he needs to cancel this fundraiser,” Prakash said on Wednesday.


breitbart--2019-09-05--Julian Castro Climate Plan Addresses Environmental Injustice and Racism

Julian Castro Climate Plan Addresses 'Environmental Injustice and Racism'

“You all know that oftentimes the first folks that get flooded out are the poorest communities. They’re often communities of color. They’re the ones who can least afford to deal with the climate crisis,” he said during the CNN town hall.  “We know that this climate crisis is going to affect all Americans and all folks around the world, [but] we also know that it’s going to hit some people particularly hard — people that are the first people to get affected,” he said.  Castro said that after he announced his campaign, he first went to San Juan, Puerto Rico, to make sure that they could recover from Hurricane Maria.  “I think about poor communities along the east coast,” he said. “Frankly, I connect the dot to places like Flint, Michigan, and I know that too oftentimes, it’s people who are poor, communities of color, who take the brunt of storms that are getting more frequent and powerful.”  He said his climate plan calls for “new civil rights legislation” to address “environmental injustice,” including making sure people could file lawsuits against polluters.  “We need to invest in these communities and their ability to withstand storms and other natural disasters and their ability to have something as simple as clean water or breathe clean air,” he said.  He said as former Housing and Urban Development secretary in the Obama administration, he found out that 70 percent of HUD-funded public or subsidized housing was within a mile of a superfund site.  “That’s the environmental injustice and racism that we’re dealing with, and my plan would equip Americans with the tools to fight back and also make investments so that we can bring justice to what is right now a tremendous injustice,” he said.  He said to pay for his plan, he would create a “carbon pollution fee” on corporations who are “industrial-scale polluters.”


breitbart--2019-11-12--Environmentalists in California Take Aim at Kitchens to Save the Planet

Environmentalists in California are willing to let the state dictate how they cook in their own kitchens in an attempt to save the planet.  Thirteen cities and one county in California have put in place zoning codes encouraging or requiring all-electric new construction, virtually banning builders from running natural gas lines into homes and apartments to fuel appliances, including stoves and ovens.  USA Today reported that people believe the move is necessary to fight climate change “with an eye toward creating fewer legacy gas hookups as the nation shifts to carbon-neutral energy sources.”  For natural gas companies, it’s a threat to their existence. And for some cooks who love to prepare food with flame, it’s an unthinkable loss. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, mostly methane, and produces 33% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas causing climate change.  “There’s no pathway to stabilizing the climate without phasing gas out of our homes and buildings,” Rachel Golden of the Sierra Club’s building electrification campaign, said. “This is a must-do for the climate and a livable planet.”  But the page linked to on the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) website is referring, ironically, to CO2 emissions from the U.S. electric power sector by source for 2018. The new codes call for replacing gas with electricity.  The federal website reports on the benefits of using natural gas as an energy source:  Burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2) than burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy. About 117 pounds of carbon dioxide are produced per million British thermal units (MMBtu) equivalent of natural gas compared with more than 200 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu of coal and more than 160 pounds per MMBtu of distillate fuel oil. The clean burning properties of natural gas have contributed to increased natural gas use for electricity generation and as a transportation fuel for fleet vehicles in the United States.  “Probably the biggest stumbling block for most pondering an all-electric home is the prospect of not having a gas stove,” USA Today reported.  “It’s the only thing that people ever ask about,” Bruce Nilles, who directs the building electrification program of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a Colorado-based think tank that focuses on energy and resource efficiency, said in the USA Today report.  According to a 2017 kitchen study by the NPD Group, 35 percent of U.S. households have a gas stove, while 55 percent have electric.  “But the number of natural gas customers is also rising,” USA Today reported. “The American Gas Association, which represents more than 200 local energy companies, says an average of one new customer is added every minute.”  “That’s exactly the wrong direction,” Nilles said.  “The idea that denying access to natural gas in new homes is necessary to meet emissions reduction goals is false,” American Gas Association President and CEO Karen Harbert. “In fact, denying access to natural gas could make meeting emissions goals harder and more expensive.”  “They also say it’s more expensive to run an all-electric home,” USA Today reported. “A study by AGA released last year suggested that all-electric homes would pay $750 to $910 a year more for energy-related costs, as well as amortized appliance and upgrade costs.”  USA Today also pointed out that California is not the only place where people want more government regulation. New York, Hawaii, Colorado, and Maine have carbon-neutrality goals, and as many as 140 U.S. cities have similar plans.


cbsnews--2019-05-30--Greenpeace gives Biden a low grade on environmental issues

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden ranks near bottom of the field of 2020 hopefuls on environmental issues, according to the left-leaning environmental group Greenpeace USA.  In a newly released climate scorecard, Greenpeace USA gave Biden a "D-", the second-worst among Democrats. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee received the highest score, an "A-", followed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who both were awarded "B+".  "Even though Biden introduced the first-ever climate bill in Congress back in 1987, he has yet to release a plan that tackles the climate crisis if elected in 2020," Greenpeace said. "Biden has not endorsed the Green New Deal, nor committed to phase out fossil fuels. He has also not taken the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge. All candidates must pledge to make bold climate action a Day One priority in office."  The group scored the field of candidates based on based on their commitment to ending the use of fossil fuels, as well as their voting records, proposals and public statements on climate issues. Some candidates also answered the organization's 29-question survey, which factored into their scores.  "If he wants to translate his frontrunner status in the polls to actual leadership on climate, we need him to come out with a bold, concrete plan in line with the scale of the crisis we're facing," Greenpeace USA Climate Campaign Director Janet Redman said in a statement.  In his stump speech, Biden often refers to climate change as an "existential threat." But earlier this month the former vice president came under fire from environmental groups after Reuters reported he would propose a "middle ground" approach that would include continued use of fossil fuels like natural gas.  The Biden campaign refuted that report, but the article caught the attention of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who appeared to take a shot at Biden during a rally supporting the Green New Deal.  "I will be damned if the same politicians who refused to act then are going to try to come back today and say we need a middle-of-the-road approach to save our lives," she said.  Biden rejected Ocasio-Cortez's criticisms, telling reporters, "I've never been middle of the road on climate. And tell her to look at the statements I made and look at my record. She'll find that nobody has been more consistent about our environment and the green revolution than I have."


channel4uk--2019-10-05--Green Party to campaign for ecocide ban on environmentally damaging human activity

Green Party to campaign for ‘ecocide’ ban on environmentally damaging human activity

With climate change soaring up the political agenda, thanks to the campaigns of Greta Thunberg and others, there’s been plenty to discuss at the Green Party’s annual conference this weekend.  Among its policies: scrapping HS2 and spending the money on local transport instead – and a pledge to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2030. But the party’s also been grappling with what a No Deal Brexit might mean for the environment.


chicagosuntimes--2019-02-18--Enyia vows to establish Department of Environmental Justice

Mayoral candidate Amara Enyia vowed Monday to establish a Department of Environmental Justice to reverse “weak and negligent” city policies that “amount to systemic racism” because they have allowed businesses to pollute black and brown neighborhoods.  Shortly after taking office, Mayor Rahm Emanuel abolished the city’s Department of Environment.  At the time, the mayor argued it wasn’t so much as a cost-saving measure as it was an attempt to ensure environmental policy was embedded in every city department.  She accused City Hall of prioritizing business interests over public health, leaving residents of the city’s Far Southeast Side, for example, to fight a lonely and never-ending battle against the dangers of petcoke and release of potentially harmful manganese dust.  “It harkens back to what happened in Flint, Michigan where it affected largely low-income communities of color and nothing was done until it became a severe crisis,” Enyia told the Sun-Times.  “Many of these communities — like Englewood, like in Austin, like in Pill Hill and Hegewisch — are experiencing pretty significant environmental hazards and the city has not really done anything to address them head on. It perpetuates systemic racism, which is not just the word racism. It’s how it plays out in our policies as a city and how that negatively impacts communities.”  If elected mayor, Enyia vowed to establish a Department of Environmental Justice with a far broader mandate than its predecessor ever had.  The new department would be charged with establishing “special environmental zoning districts” to enforce what she called “equitable and restorative zoning parameters.”  “If a company is deciding to locate, for example, on the Far Southeast Side, there should be a protective measure the city can enact that will prevent that company from locating in that area,” Enyia said.  “People are living in areas that were primarily industrial before. We have to update our zoning laws. And until we update our zoning laws, we should have these special, designated areas that protect residents from additional environmental hazards. That’s something the city needs to lead on.”  By pooling the resources of the city and county Departments of Public Health, Enyia promised to hire “environmental medical personnel” to work with heavily impacted communities to “mitigate long-term health risks” tied to lead, manganese, pet coke and other toxic materials.  “That’s something that the city has really been slow in moving on,” she said.  Besides spearheading a local version of the “Green New Deal,” Enyia talked about a “Blue New Deal.” That is, removing lead from Chicago’s water system.  As for the cost of replacing lead service lines carrying water from the mains to an estimated 360,000 Chicago homes, Enyia proposed the city share the $2 billion cost with individual homeowners. Kind of like the 50-50 sidewalk program.  But Enyia offered no specifics when asked where the money would come from at a time when the city is also facing a $1 billion spike in pension payments.  “We have to create a program where we can subsidize homeowners if they take on the cost of updating their lead lines. We could do that through a reallocation of TIF dollars. We could create a rebate program similar to what we did when the city raised property taxes,” she said.  “Those are some shorter-term revenue strategies. But in the long-term, we’ve got to shift to having our own bank where we can actually finance our own infrastructure projects.”  Last year, the Emanuel administration came under fire for failing to notify owners of all 165,000 homes with water meters last summer that a “small subset” of metered homes had tested positive for elevated lead levels.  In June, the city found out that 15 metered homes or homes or 11 percent of those tested had elevated lead levels that exceeded the EPA standard of 15 parts-per-billion. Only those homeowners were notified.  In late October, City Hall found out the figure was 17.2 percent of 51 homeowners.  Then and only then was the decision made to notify the owners of all 165,000 metered homes and offer those homeowners homeowners $60 filtration systems free of charge, while continuing to install meters.  Last year, the City Council prohibited new facilities from storing or handling materials containing more than trace amounts of manganese.  It did not apply to facilities where manganese has been stored for at least a year. But it did prohibit those companies from expanding operations that involve the heavy metal.  Last month, monitoring requirements were strengthened for all bulk solid material facilities and strict new rules were put in place for facilities handling “unpackaged manganese bearing materials.”


chicagosuntimes--2019-02-22--Under Mayor Rahm Emanuel city has sharply scaled back environmental enforcement

Under Mayor Rahm Emanuel, city has sharply scaled back environmental enforcement

Even as Mayor Rahm Emanuel has criticized state and federal officials for rolling back environmental protections and played up his own green credentials, City Hall has cut back sharply on environmental oversight.  That’s according to an analysis of city data by the Better Government Association and Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism that found:  After years of environmental staff cuts, Emanuel reversed course in his 2018 budget. Not mentioning the city’s own cuts while he was mayor, his office boasted: “Mayor Emanuel’s expansion of environmental protection staff comes at the same time state and federal officials have rolled back efforts to protect residents from pollution.”  City officials say enforcement is just part of Emanuel’s environmental agenda and that he deserves credit for other efforts to prevent pollution, for instance, by promoting clean energy and greater use of monitors to detect air pollution.  “It would be unfair to look at these numbers as our only commitment to the environment,” says Dr. Julie Morita, Emanuel’s public health commissioner.  To cut costs, Emanuel’s first city budget, for 2012, did away with the Department of Environment, which Daley created. The mayor gave its responsibilities for environmental permitting and enforcement primarily to the Department of Public Health, saying the previous setup detracted from a green focus throughout city government.  • Judge OKs CPS paying $4M to family of autistic teen who, unwatched, drowned   • Chicago cop’s pension sweetened while under investigation for molesting teenager   • Rahm’s agency heads could outlast him thanks to golden parachute contracts   • City official testified Ald. Harry Osterman was part of Daley’s hiring scandal  Cheryl Johnson, a South Side environmental activist, is critical of Emanuel’s environmental efforts, saying, “I would give him a D-minus for enforcement.”  On the Far South Side, around the Altgeld Gardens public housing complex, where Johnson lives and works, there are “No dumping” signs all over, and the air is thick with the smells of chemicals, garbage and sewage. The once-flat landscape is dotted with hills that were once active landfills. The area, now a magnet for illegal dumping, is one of the most environmentally burdened neighborhoods in the city.  Johnson, executive director of People for Community Recovery, says shutting down the environment department sent a message that people are on their own to fight pollution. To address foul smells from a nearby sewage-treatment plant, residents have bypassed the city in recent years, instead complaining to the operator, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.  “You get tired of beating on a dead horse,” says Johnson, who says the strategy has gotten better results.  In Pilsen, people have complained for years about dust from a car-shredding operation run by Sims Metal Management.  In 2012, Emanuel’s inspectors cited the business for two air-quality violations but didn’t assess any fines. This past December, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded a two-year investigation of the Sims facility with a fine of $225,000 for air-quality violations.  While the EPA was looking at Sims, records show that city inspectors visited the site more than a dozen times, including at least five visits that followed complaints. But city inspectors didn’t find any violations, records show, concluding on one occasion that any smells “were not excessive or pungent.”  Sims says the odor complaints from last year were “unsubstantiated” and separate from the EPA case and that “we diligently work with regulators to ensure that we are fully current with federal, state and local regulations.”  According to Morita, the recent additions to the inspection staff came because “we identified that need.” She also points to the department’s work in recent years to strengthen city rules on handling harmful materials such as manganese and petroleum coke that posed a health threat on the Southeast Side.  The BGA-Medill analysis was based on the health department’s environmental violations database which includes enforcement actions by the old Department of Environment.  In 2010, the old environment department was budgeted for an 18-member staff to handle permits and inspections and carried out 11,571 inspections that year.  By 2014, the budgeted headcount of the permit and inspections team, by this time part of the health department, had been cut to just nine. That shrunken squad did 5,907 environmental inspections.  The budget for the inspections staff grew to 23 by 2018 after the additions. Still, the number of inspections last year was 5,469 — fewer than there’d been in 2014, when the staff was nearly one-third the size.  One cut that’s gotten a particularly bad reception has been the elimination of the environmental hotline.  “It’s hard to explain to a 311 operator who is dealing with a situation they are totally unfamiliar with,” says Peggy Salazar, director of a group called the Southeast Environmental Task Force.  Records show 311 operators sometimes rout pollution complaints to city departments that don’t handle them. For instance, there have been air-pollution complaints about the Three Brothers industrial laundry, in the 2600 block of West 19th Street in Pilsen, that got routed to the buildings department. But the buildings department doesn’t enforce outdoor air-quality issues.  City records show there were more than 600 complaints to 311 about Three Brothers Laundry in 2017, many about chemical smells and other foul odors.  Marguerita and Mark Breihan live across an alley from Three Brothers. Marguerita Breihan says the smells sometimes are so bad they’ve made her vomit. A neighbor, Bonfilio Reyes, says that when it’s bad, his face swells, he gets headaches and he has to leave his house.  Records show city inspectors have visited the laundry at least 30 times since 2016 as a result of hundreds of complaints but reported not smelling anything unusual and found no air-quality violations.  Mark Breihan says one city official asked whether he’d considered moving.  In December, U.S. EPA officials inspected Three Brothers following air-quality complaints. That review continues.  “It’s just basic soap,” Nayan Patel, Three Brothers’ general manager, says of the odor.  But the EPA inspection found that Three Brothers began a dry-cleaning operation last summer that used the chemical perchloroethylene. Exposure to the chemical, known as PCE, can cause headaches, nausea and irritation and in extreme cases can pose a cancer risk, according to U.S. health officials.  Nearly all of the big field of candidates running to succeed Emanuel as mayor have said they want to toughen environmental oversight. Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, former Chicago Police Board President Lori Lightfoot and community activist Amara Enyia have called for restoring an environment department.  Brett Chase, Madison Hopkins, Ashley Hackett and AnnMarie Hilton report for the Better Government Association. Mary Hall is a Medill student.  Click to hear Kimberly Wasserman, a Little Village community activist, on the Emanuel administration’s doing away with the city’s environmental complaints hotline.

Brett Chase, Madison Hopkins, Ashley Hackett and AnnMarie Hilton | BGA


clashdaily--2019-11-18--Pope Francis May Codify A New Kind Of ‘Environmental Sin’

While we still wait for him to sort out the various scandals that have shaken the public trust even in the highest ranks of the clergy, he’s considering the recognition of a new class of environmental sins.  It seems like a bad idea to us, but maybe our Catholic readers will see it differently.  This came up in the same speech that raised eyebrows for what the Pope said about politicians denouncing homosexuality being like Hitler.  Pope Francis, who has made the environment a signature cause of his pontificate, said he was strongly considering adding the category of “ecological sin” to the Catholic Church’s official compendium of teachings.  Trending: Hilarious: Anderson Cooper Gets Blasted By Seb Gorka … On His Own Show! (Video)  “We must introduce—we are thinking—into the Catechism of the Catholic Church the sin against ecology, the ecological sin against the common home, because it’s a duty,” the pope said at the Vatican Friday.  He noted that ecological sin would be defined as an “action or omission against God, against others, the community and the environment. It is a sin against future generations and is manifested in the acts and habits of pollution and destruction of the harmony of the environment.”  In the same speech he said that developments in politics and business remind him of dark episodes from humanity’s past, including Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich.  “It is not coincidental that at times there is a resurgence of symbols typical of Nazism,” Francis said as he decried the “culture of waste and hate” represented by contemporary politicians who spew derogatory and racists attacks against homosexuals, gypsies, Jewish people, and others. “I must confess to you,” he continued, “that when I hear a speech (by) someone responsible for order or for a government, I think of speeches by Hitler in 1934, 1936.”  Francis also blamed global capitalism for ‘plundering the earth’ at the expense of the poor and future generations.  “Global financial capital is at the origin of serious crimes not only against property but also against people and the environment,” Francis said, comparing capitalism to “organized crime” committing “ecocide.” Francis added that such crimes committed by corporations should be punished.   Source: SummitNews  He’s downplaying, for example, the sexual morality explicitly laid out in scripture, while elevating a new basis of morality that ‘just happens’ to express the very moral values currently on the ascendant in the irreligious left.  Watch: Literal Pagan Idols Were Removed From Catholic Church And Chucked Into The Tiber  Say WHAT? Pope Opens Amazon Synod With A REALLY Weird Ritual  Pope Francis To Gay Man, ‘God Made You Like That’ – The Apostle Paul Disagrees  Pope Francis Gives A Friendly Welcome To Bono AFTER His Campaign For Abortion In Ireland


cnn--2019-03-20--EPA head says clean-water access is biggest environmental threat

EPA head says clean-water access is 'biggest environmental threat' -- despite regulation rollbacks

(CNN) EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said access to clean drinking water worldwide is "the biggest environmental threat," while climate change threats are "50 to 75 years out" in an interview with CBS on Wednesday.  While speaking at the Wilson Center later that day, Wheeler said he has become frustrated with the "current dialogue around environmental issues" because water issues often "take a back seat."  "Up to 2.5 billion people around the world lack access to safe drinking water and, as a result, proper sanitation. This fact leads to anywhere from 1 to 3 million deaths every year," he said in his remarks at the Wilson Center.  Wheeler pledged to "do more to address these issues" and said he believes the administration can focus on the clean water crisis "while still addressing other challenges that loom on the horizon."  While Wheeler's speech focused on American interventions in countries around the world to improve water conditions, the Trump administration over the past two years has rolled back EPA regulations that environmental advocates say protected US access to clean and safe drinking water.  "Administrator Wheeler is not even getting his own house in order to protect people in the US," the Sierra Club's deputy legislative director, Dalal Aboulhosn, told CNN.  "We are elevating this work to address global water security to a new level under President Trump," he said.  In the past few months, the EPA announced two significant policy changes that weaken regulatory protections for water in the US, according to Aboulhosn. In December, Wheeler changed the definition of waters that are protected under the Clean Water Act, ultimately putting fewer waterways under federal protection. This reversed a definition established during the Obama administration.  Environmental groups said the new definition protects fewer small waterways and that could result in more pollution and put people at risk. The policy change was favored by manufacturers and farmers. Critics of then-President Barack Obama's 2015 rule complained that his policy restricted how they could use their land and hurt their business.  In February, Wheeler announced a new plan for regulating nonstick PFAS chemicals in water, saying the agency would develop and set a limit for two of the chemicals. During the announcement, he said he believes the agency's 70 part per trillion health advisory level for the chemicals is "a safe level for drinking water."  The 70 part per trillion level is seven to 10 times higher than is considered safe by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an arm of the Department of Health and Human Services. Several states have set lower levels or are considering lower levels.  The water supplies for nearly 110 million Americans may be contaminated with PFAS chemicals, according to the Environmental Working Group.  "There are all these threads that they are just pulling that will make our waters less safe and less reliable," Aboulhosn said. "It's sad and ironic that he goes on this interview to talk about the world crisis that he's not addressing for safe and reliable drinking water."  The EPA declined to comment on the record for this story.


cnn--2019-10-09--Elizabeth Warren unveils environmental justice plan

"Our crisis of environmental injustice is the result of decades of discrimination and environmental racism compounding in communities that have been overlooked for too long," Warren writes in a Medium post.  Warren's Wednesday release offers new insight into how she would use presidential powers to orchestrate what climate activists often call a "just transition" toward a green energy economy. While covering a broad range of policy issues, the post is primarily focused on what her administration would do to prioritize neighborhoods, cities and entire regions with heavy minority populations -- many of them still suffering from the effects of racist policies like redlining, which often placed families of color in harm's way.  Throughout her campaign, Warren has frequently sought to weave in detailed proposals directed specifically at communities of color. Here, she warns that "'one-size-fits-all' solutions," though often well-intentioned, open up space for the exploitation of those minorities and the poor. Because of that, Warren argues, more narrowly "targeted" policies are required.  "The same communities that have borne the brunt of industrial pollution are now on the front lines of climate change, often getting hit first and worst," writes Warren, an early supporter of the sweeping Green New Deal proposal . Warren on Tuesday tweeted a video filmed during a recent visit to Detroit, where she and Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib walk around a zip code that Tlaib refers to as the "most polluted" in the state. If elected president, Warren writes she would mandate all federal agencies to consider climate impacts in their permitting and rulemaking processes. When tribal nations are involved, Warren writes, projects would not proceed unless "developers have obtained the free, prior and informed consent of the tribal governments concerned." Warren also would prioritize environmental justice at the presidential level, and transform the Council on Environmental Quality into a Council on Climate Action, which would have a more broad mandate. She writes that a Warren administration would aggressively pursue cases of environmental discrimination, and would fully fund the Centers for Disease Control's environmental health programs. Warren last month embraced former 2020 opponent Washington Gov. Jay Inslee's 10-year climate plan , while also expanding on his blueprint with a series of additional investments to offer additional protections to workers and help fund a radical transition of American infrastructure and industry away from fossil fuels. In the plan, the senator commits to providing job training and guaranteed wage and benefit parity for workers transitioning into new industries. "Coal miners, oil rig workers, pipeline builders and millions of other workers have given their life's blood to build the infrastructure that powered the American economy throughout the 20th century. In return, they deserve more than platitudes," Warren writes. Warren writes she would defend worker pensions, benefits, and a secure retirement. She would reinstate the work safety rules and regulations that President Donald Trump's administration eliminated. Additionally, her plan would fund access to clean water, increase and enforce water quality standards, and invest in the US's public water systems. "Our clean drinking water challenge goes beyond lead, and beyond Flint and Newark," Warren writes. The senator says she would refurbish old water infrastructure, support ongoing water treatment operations and prioritize communities most heavily impacted by inadequate water infrastructure. Further, Warren's plan would make it easier for residents to move out of flood-prone properties, and reform post-disaster housing assistance to better protect renters. She pledges to put strong protections in place to ensure federal tax dollars go toward community recovery, "not to line the pockets of contractors." Warren says in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, "disaster scammers and profiteers swarmed," trying to make money off of the disaster. Warren would reinstitute the Superfund Waste Tax. "Polluters must pay for the consequences of their actions -- not leave them for the communities to clean up," she writes. Her plan also would hold the financial industry accountable for its role in the climate crisis. Her Climate Risk Disclosure Act would, according to the plan, "require banks and other companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and price their exposure to climate risk into their valuations, raising public awareness of just how dependent our economy is on fossil fuels."


cnn--2019-12-30--The Trump administration's environmental stocking stuffers

Washington (CNN) While Americans were buying and opening their Christmas presents, the Trump administration's environmental regulators were wrapping up their work on some controversial issues, including some proposed rollbacks of Bush and Obama-era regulations.  Their gifts -- which you might have missed amidst the holidays -- include policies on energy efficient lightbulbs, water contamination and pesticides.  Here are the details:  The Energy Department blocked stricter efficiency requirements for many common types of lightbulbs that would have taken effect in the new year.  The government, consumer groups and environmentalists have disputed how much the standards, developed under the Obama administration and based on a Bush-era law, would cost or save  The Trump administration said the cost of more efficient incandescent bulbs "could cost consumers more than 300 percent" more, and therefore "the benefits of more stringent standards do not outweigh the cost to the American people." But outside groups said the cost of switching to alternatives like LEDs is reasonable and that the reduced energy consumption means financial savings, as well as the environmental benefits.  The program will, for 12 months, allow oil and natural gas explorers and producers to report and fix Clean Air Act violations and waive fines, which can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  EPA already allows new owners of such facilities to voluntarily report and address deficiencies. The temporary program will grant a reprieve to current owners. The agency's Assistant Administrator Susan Bodine said the program "will provide additional public health and environmental protection in the surrounding communities."  EPA proposed granting Georgia the authority to regulate in its state the handling of coal ash, a toxic byproduct of coal-burning power plants. Coal ash , containing dangerous metals including arsenic and mercury, has typically been mixed with water to form a sludge and stored in unlined pits, which environmentalists say in many cases are leaking into groundwater.  In November , EPA proposed easing an Obama-era rule regulating coal ash because of the discovery that "more surface impoundments regardless of liner type are leaking," making compliance with the regulations for utility companies more expensive.  EPA proposed increasing the allowable levels of the herbicide Atrazine, which is used by professionals to kill weeds on crops and lawns. It said the proposal is one of several that would "ensure a strong and vibrant agricultural market."  The Centers for Disease Control says the chemical does not break down if it is washed into into groundwater or nearby streams, and that it has been linked to reproductive abnormalities including premature birth. The Center for Biological Diversity , an environmental group, says 35 countries have banned or are phasing out their use of Atrazine and called EPA's proposal a "disgusting backward step."  The Justice Department sided with Monsanto in a lawsuit over Roundup claiming the company did not warn consumers of the product's cancer risks. The government wrote in an appeals court brief that a cancer warning on the product under California law would have been illegal under federal law, because "EPA has for decades concluded science does not support" cancer risks. (The company has also argued its product does not cause cancer.) Several juries, however, have awarded plaintiffs large sums in damages -- including a $2 billion award in May.


cnsnews--2019-02-11--Green New Deal Is Little More Than Socialism Masked as Environmental Policy

Democrats unveiled their latest version of the Green New Deal last Thursday, but despite some concessions to reality, this version is still little more than socialism masked as environmental policy.  It’s a modern rehash of the original New Deal of the 1930s, which, despite its success in increasing the size of government and distending the Constitution, had its excesses contained by the Supreme Court.  President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal also failed to turn the economy around.  The Green New Deal, introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., is a little less aggressive in its calls to abolish the carbon economy than previous proposals. However, their nonbinding resolution still demands “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions” by 2030, among many other measures that ultimately would lead to a complete government takeover of the energy sector.  According to the climate activist website Generation Yes, net-zero emissions means “reducing the volume of greenhouse gas emissions that human activity releases into the atmosphere until our total output is no greater than the emissions we remove, through activities like planting carbon forests, reducing deforestation and using technologies like carbon capture and storage. So no more goes out than goes in = net zero.”  But how, exactly, we are to get to a net-zero emission economy when that goal is so far beyond the limits of current technology remains unexplained.  In the FAQ section of the resolution, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey address this problem with an, um, bizarre line: “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”  Despite some trepidations about feasibility, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey will still try to abolish greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, by making air travel obsolete.  Are we really to believe that high-speed rail is going to grow to “a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary” within 10 years as the plan suggests?  Given the incredible cost and total failure of California’s “bullet train to nowhere,” a project that even the far-left website Mother Jones called “officially insane,” does it really seem likely that this idea will lead to a national panacea?  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., even threw shade at the vague and dreamy nature of the proposal, which seems in some way more like a far-left piety test than serious policy.  At this time, the Green New Deal polls pretty well, even among Republicans, as Ocasio-Cortez is fond of pointing out. Yet, as with so many other issues, Americans tend to change their minds quickly when they learn how much a government program will cost them.  It’s important to note that, according to a report by NBC, polls show that Americans say they want to combat climate change, but aren’t willing to pay even $10 a month to do so.  The truth is, the Green New Deal is still quite radical, and despite growing support within the ranks of the Democrat Party, it likely would be unpalatable to the American people once they figure out exactly what it is.  And it would be costly.  The Green New Deal’s aggressive agenda to “green” every building in America, provide health care for all, and guarantee a job for every American will cost taxpayers tens of trillions of dollars and require an exponential enlargement of the federal budget, which already relies heavily on borrowing and piling up debt.  In just the past decade alone, the national debt has more than doubled—from $10 trillion to just under $22 trillion today. This adds up to about $70,000 per person, according to USA Today. The median household income in 2018 was just over $60,000, to put that in perspective.  This is clearly not just a proposal to reduce carbon emissions. If it were, it wouldn’t include the proposal to completely “transition off of nuclear” energy. If the world is going to end because of climate change, one would think nuclear energy would be one of the solutions to that problem.  On top of that, the Green New Deal aims at bludgeoning the fossil fuel industry, which, despite pie-in-the-sky promises that wind and solar energy will fix everything, still provides for the vast majority of our energy needs.  Of course, the Green New Dealers are completely unconcerned with these little details. Mere trivialities when utopia is around the corner.  The proposal actually contains this howler when addressing the costs: “At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity.”  So the message is: Don’t worry your little heads, embrace the Green New Deal and all of your dreams will come true.  Though Ocasio-Cortez and other far-left proponents of the plan love to talk a good game about how the rich are going to pay for everything, the Green New Deal would fall disproportionately on poor, working-class, and middle-class Americans.  Philip Rossetti, director of energy at the American Action Forum, writes:  A 100 percent renewable electricity grid would require Americans to pay between 43 and 286 percent more on their electric bills. In 2017, the average monthly electric bill was $111, so a 43-286 percent increase would translate to an average of between $576 and $3,882 more spent on electricity per year per residence.  Needless to say, these are costs that many Americans can’t afford.  Craig Richardson, president of the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute, writes in the Washington Examiner that the “ugly truth” is that these policies “would serve as a regressive tax on the poor.” Richardson continues:  Ironically, it would be minorities and the poorest of the poor who would be disproportionately harmed. Low-income households already pay 7.2 percent of household income on home energy costs, more than three times the proportion paid by higher-income households on average, according to an American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy report.  Not only are there not enough billionaires to soak to pay for the awesomely expensive plan, but the economic harm ultimately would fall most heavily on average Americans who would see their energy costs skyrocket and their jobs eliminated.  Oh, but don’t worry, if you lose your job, you will be put on welfare. That’s the American dream right there!  One provision in the Green New Deal stipulates that you will get economic security even if you are “unable or unwilling” to work. Out with the self-made man, in with the unrepentant mooch, I guess.  The Green New Deal is just the latest and most aggressive attempt by the left to move the American economy toward top-down government control.  It preys on the wild claims of the environmentalist movement—such as telling us that the world will end in 12 years—to foist socialist ideas on a country that has consistently rejected them.  Almost as bad is the fact that after immense cost and curtailment of liberty there would be little positive impact in changing the trajectory of climate change, even if the doomsday predictions are true.  According to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s own numbers, if the United States cut carbon dioxide emissions by 100 percent, that would decrease temperatures by less than 0.2 degrees by the year 2100.  In the end, the Green New Deal is likely to be little more than a rehash of the corrupt, crony capitalist, green energy schemes of the past few decades, producing scores of new Solyndras and other boondoggles that enrich backers and impoverish everyone else.  Solyndra, a taxpayer-subsidized manufacturer of solar panels, was only the tip of the iceberg under President Barack Obama’s aggressive climate initiatives. According to a study by Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank associated with George Mason University, “federal subsidies for solar energy alone increased by about 500 percent, from $1.1 billion to $5.3 billion,” between 2010 and 2013.  But even with this surge in money, it didn’t mean those green energy companies succeeded in any way.  “[Subsidies] didn’t stop the largest U.S. solar panel manufacturer, SolarWorld, from filing for bankruptcy earlier this year despite $115 million in federal and state grants and tax subsidies since 2012, along with $91 million in federal loan guarantees,” Mercatus noted.  Ocasio-Cortez once attacked Amazon for cronyism and targeted subsidies, so why not the green industry?  In addition to the wasteful and obnoxious corporate cronyism, there is a greater threat at stake here.  As I wrote in January: “It’s no exaggeration to say that if implemented, the Green New Deal would upend our way of life and destroy the liberty and prosperity that Americans, of all backgrounds, currently enjoy.”  President Donald Trump said in his State of the Union address that “America will never be a socialist country.”  If we embrace the ideas of the Green New Deal, though, we will be.  Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of "The Right Side of History" podcast. Send an email to Jarrett.  : This piece was originally published by The Daily Signal.


cnsnews--2019-07-01--Alaska Senator We Cant Build a Simple Road Without Radical Extreme Environmental Groups Suing

Alaska Senator: We Can’t Build ‘a Simple Road’ Without ‘Radical Extreme Environmental Groups’ Suing Us

Members of Congress who claim that building “a simple road” in his state will harm wildlife, like the porcupine caribou, “don’t know what they’re talking about,” Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan (R) told CNSNews.com in an exclusive interview last Wednesday.  “No offense to my colleagues here, but they don’t know what they’re talking about,” Sen. Sullivan said. “There was this notion that the porcupine caribou herd was going to be hurt by a road - that’s literally absurd. That was the big thing that everyone was saying when we built the trans-Atlantic pipeline system and the caribou herd increased four-fold.”  “So, a lot of this, unfortunately, I think is driven by their desire to fundraise and environmental groups’ desire to fundraise off this kind of stuff, so it’s a never-ending battle,” Sullivan said.  “These issues pop up on a regular basis, where you have, you know, my colleagues, but to be honest, most of my Democratic colleagues who take a lot of interest in what I think is shutting down building infrastructure, resource development in my state,” Sullivan told CNSNews.com. “It frustrates me and it’s kind of across-the-board in a number of issues.”  “The irony, of course, is that Alaska has the highest environmental standards of literally, probably anyplace in the world - for resource development, for oil and gas development, for mining, for building roads. And yet, as I like to say, we’re a resource-rich, but infrastructure-poor state,” Sullivan said.  “Whenever you try to just build a simple road in Alaska - most Americans just take that for granted - but we’ll have, several what I would consider radical extreme environmental groups sue to stop it. Happens all the time.”  In June, Sen. Sullivan shared a Twitter video from a meeting of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee highlighting his frustration with how environmental activists and some of his colleagues’ attempt to obstruct construction of infrastructure in his state.  During the hearing, Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass.) claimed that a proposed plan to build a road in Alaska would have “a huge impact” on the migration of the western Arctic caribou and told Sullivan he expected him to “work with us to make sure that damage does not occur.”  Committee member Sullivan responded by saying he was astounded that the Massachusetts senator singled out Alaska when Markey’s home state is much smaller, but still has three times as many roads.  “Unfortunately, radical environmental groups always do this ‘Oh, my God, everything’s going to die,’ when you build a road, a damn road,” Sullivan said, “In most states, you can build a road anywhere you want. You don’t have 80 environmental groups suing to stop it, but in my state, you try to build one damn road, and you’ll have so many outside groups that don’t care about my constituents suing to stop the road.”  The state of Alaska has some unique infrastructure challenges. It is the largest state in the nation, two and a half times the size of the second-largest state (Texas), and almost 500 times the size of Rhode Island, the smallest state. Most of the state is wilderness, and its major cities tend to be far apart. Its largest city, Anchorage, is almost 600 miles away from its capital of Juneau and over 350 miles from Fairbank. In spite of this distance, or perhaps, because of it, there are very few roads connecting the major population centers.


cnsnews--2019-08-08--Tony Perkins Environmental Hypocrites Jet Set to Google Camp in Sicily for Climate Meeting

Tony Perkins: Environmental Hypocrites Jet Set to Google Camp in Sicily for Climate Meeting

They may be driving hybrid cars and outlawing straws – but for all the anti-pollution celebrities, there seem to be even more environmental hypocrites. At this week's “Google Camp,” a who's who guest list is all converging on Sicily to talk about fighting climate change – completely ignoring the damage they did to the environment just to get there!  When Barack Obama, Prince Harry, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Katy Perry hopped on a plane, you can bet it wasn't commercial. According to the Post, the celebrities “were expected to show up in 114 private jets,” spewing, one estimate said, 784,000 kilograms of CO2 in the air. Those who didn't fly, the reports announced, sailed – on their gigantic personal yachts. “Haven't these people heard of tele-conferencing?” PJ Media's Jim Treacher jabbed. “How much carbon do they need to spew into the atmosphere, just to lecture the rest of us peons about leaving the phone charger plugged in?”  And of course, this was just hours after the Democratic candidates ate up minute after minute on the debate stage insisting that in 12 years the earth will be toast. But if liberals actually believed that, do you think any of them would be living the kind of double-standard existence they are? Of course not. Here they are, asking to be put in power so they can pass laws that take away your pick-up truck, raise your utility rates, and ship off our cows, and all the while, they're continuing their jet-setting ways.  If what they're proposing was actually good for America and supportive of true freedom, why haven't they already adopted what they want to impose on everyone else? Because climate change – like a lot of the liberal agenda – is about power. The left can make all kinds of claims about America saving the planet and changing the weather patterns. But do you really think any government is capable of that? Sure, we can have either a positive or negative impact on the environment, air quality, or water quality – and we should keep moving toward those positive environmental advancements. But when it comes to climate change, you could give liberals all the power they are asking for – and maybe more – and we'll still never be able to measure the effects of their policies.  And they want it that way! It means they make all of these promises, and no one will be able to verify if their actions ever actually led to any positive outcome. And if they're challenged, they'll just say they need more authority to restrict the freedoms of others.  If climate change were the existential threat the left scares people into thinking that it is, then the tech gurus of Google could've easily saved the planet lots of carbon by doing their confab online. Be leery of those who want to adopt policies that they themselves are not currently willing to live by. If something is good for America, then the people who are advocating should be practicing it now.  Tony Perkins' Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.  : This piece was originally published by the Family Research Council.


conservativehome--2019-01-21--Kevin Hollinrake High environmental standards boost economic growth

Kevin Hollinrake: High environmental standards boost economic growth

Kevin Hollinrake is MP for Thirsk and Malton, and is co-Chair of the APPG for Fair Business Banking.  British voters overwhelming support high environmental standards – 80 per cent, for example, want the UK to maintain after we leave the European Union.  This is unsurprising – high environmental standards in agriculture keep our livestock healthy and our food safe to eat, and in product design they cut our energy bills by improving the efficiency of our ovens and toasters.  A sensible, long term framework of environmental rules spurs investment and innovation from business.  Many businesses of course face examples of vexatious red tape – and Brexit does provide us with the opportunity to cut some of the bureaucracy that has impeded business and made our lives more difficult. From the baffling small print on radio adverts, to compelling pharmacists to scan every medicine in front of their customers, there are plenty of nonsensical EU regulations that add unnecessary costs to businesses and should be scrapped.  Yet the desire to trim unnecessary red tape can sit comfortably alongside support for a long term, sensible framework of high environmental standards that, if properly enforced by an independent watchdog, will restore our countryside, clean up our air, and boost British business.  BuroHappold Engineering  between environmental regulations and competitiveness  in particular the impact of the implementation of the London Plan in the construction sector, the Landfill Tax in the waste sector, and the passenger car emission regulations in the car industry.  In all three cases their analysis found that the upfront costs of complying with regulations were outweighed by the economic benefits they triggered through increased business investment in innovation and skills, better-quality products and infrastructure, greater business competitiveness, and job creation.  For example, there was an overwhelming consensus that despite flaws in the testing methodology, passenger car CO2 emission regulations have been a success story for the UK and EU car industry. The regulations have provided certainty, scale, and a clear framework to meet targets, without any negative impacts on competitiveness. The relatively stable and consistent regulatory framework has allowed for a long-term and broader view of managing the costs of compliance.  This commitment to a stable and consistent framework underpins the UK’s Climate Change Act – which, through its long-term approach to tackling global warming, has delivered certainty to businesses and deep reductions in CO2 emissions. Since 1990, we have cut emissions by 42 per cent , while our economy has grown by two-thirds. This means that we have reduced emissions faster than any other G7 nation, while leading the G7 in growth in national income over this period.  The same principle – that businesses benefit from a clear and consistent regulatory framework – underpins the Government’s Environment Bill. The Bill will set out clear goals and targets to reverse the damage done to the British countryside over previous decades and clean up our toxic air.  Businesses welcome the clarity provided by these targets. Anglian Water, for example, “when targets are too vague, it’s almost impossible to assess whether government is on track to hit them. In order for real progress to be made on the environment, goals within the Environment Bill must be carefully established with robust timetables.”  Businesses will then only invest if they have the confidence that these targets will be properly enforced: hence why the independence of the statutory body – the “watchdog” – is so crucial. Firms need to know that whoever is in government, their investments in things such as new technology to improve air quality will pay off.  The UK is a world leader in clean growth, with over 400,000 jobs in the low carbon economy: one in five electric vehicles sold in Europe in are made in Britain; our offshore wind sector is second to none; and the City of London is the home of green finance. This is in large part down to investment decisions that have been driven by our Climate Change Act – and the certainly provided to business by the existence of an independent Committee on Climate Change that will make sure standards are upheld.  We now have the opportunity to set the gold standard with a world-leading Environment Bill, and achieve similar results for British nature, while providing the certainty British businesses need about the direction of travel to a cleaner, more prosperous future.


conservativehome--2019-08-27--Johnsons very active environmentalist administration wont please some green campaigners

Johnson’s “very active environmentalist administration” won’t please some green campaigners

In a press conference in Biarritz yesterday, the Prime Minister said something which piqued my interest. Challenged on his green credentials, he replied by pledging:  It’s not a surprise to hear him speak of biodiversity – on the very same day, he raised concerns with Shinzo Abe about Japan’s resumption of whaling, for example. And the protection of habitats is a good example of the type of green message which Eric Kaufman wrote about in his recent Sunday Times appeal for environmentalism to address the interests and concerns of small-c conservatives in order to build a broader coalition.  Johnson’s comment about “reducing CO2 and climate change emissions through technological progress” is likely to set a cat among the pigeons, though – in a good way. It wasn’t adorned with any policy announcements, and it was swiftly supplanted by his quote from Audi’s famous slogan, but it could be quite significant.  The left’s green politics – the dominant form of the genre, thus far – tends to frame reducing emissions in direct conflict with growth and economic activity. Vast restrictions and reductions of all sorts of production, consumption, and transportation are supposed to be required for an essential and swift crash reduction in emissions. (A cynic might think that for some campaigners this is a set of answers which were in search of a question, but that’s by the by.)  Alongside economic activity and emissions, however, the largely undiscussed third movable part in the equation is technological innovation. As Johnson once told this site: “I believe in the Promethean power of the human race to solve its problems – and Britain can be in the lead in coming up with the answers. When I was mayor of London we saw huge growth in population and GDP, and yet cut CO2 by 14 per cent.” If the Prime Minister intends to make that his focus, not the previously dominant command-and-control, sin taxing greenery, expect a big row in short order.


crikey--2019-02-14--Against hope the global environmental catastrophe has already occurred

Against hope: the global environmental catastrophe has already occurred

We have already reached catastrophic system collapse. Recognising that is the first step to fighting it.  Well I was wrong. Two days ago, there was a news story suggesting that the world’s system of insect populations was heading for collapse. I thought that it would disappear by next week. It has disappeared already. To a degree, that’s understandable. C Northcote Parkinson, inventor of Parkinson’s Law,* noted a corollary: an issue will be discussed in inverse proportion to its importance.  Approving a new nuclear reactor will be waved through, Parkinson noted, because it is simply too big for anyone to venture an opinion on. Managing the tea and coffee money will then attract endless discussion, because everyone has views. Parkinson, writing in the 1950s, had the luxury of being flippant. Now we’re talking about the systems that underlie the capacity of human life on the planet.


crikey--2019-08-27--How bad reporting on environmental crises is setting us up for bad politics

The 'incorrect apocalypticism' of reporting on environmental crises — such as that seen in the Amazon — is a mirror of denialism. It's designed to get clicks and feeds anti-democratic politics.  First by ice, then by fire. The Amazon forest fires -- spread across three countries, but largely in Brazil -- have inspired the same sort of "wrong apocalypticism" as Greenland’s early high ice melt did two months ago.  Greenland will melt in 150 years. Alarming enough, but not tomorrow, as was portrayed. The Amazon is burning, but not all of it. This year it’s happening faster, earlier, but -- as this NASA graph shows -- not vastly out of line with the shape of earlier burns.


dailykos--2019-11-26--Environmental Disasters Loom Large but Remain Unnoticed

These are hard and exhausting times. Impeachment issues and the president’s continual bombardment of lies and insults that call for correction are wearing us out, remaining front and center both in the media and our minds. As a result of our fatigue and alarm, and because media is abrogating its duty to report essential news outside of Trump’s tantrums, it’s not surprising that disastrous decisions by the president, and their consequences, have gone unnoticed. None of the actions and policy changes of the current administration is more urgently in need of increased awareness, and resistance, than those that relate to environmental degradation and destruction posing serious threats to our health and safety.  Among the most egregious decisions of the Trump administration is the recent “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” proposal promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This terribly dangerous idea would require scientists to disclose all their raw data, including confidential medical records, before the EPA would consider academic studies as valid. Scientific and medical research would be severely limited leading to Draconian public health regulations as well as environmental crises. EPA officials call the plan a step toward transparency, but it is clearly designed to limit important scientific information that should drive policy related to clean air and water, among other health-related environmental impacts.  As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump pledged to roll back government regulations as part of his pro-business “America First Energy Plan.” Once in the White House he immediately signed executive orders approving two controversial oil pipelines and a federal review of the Clean Water Rule and Clean Power Plan. Shortly thereafter, the Clean Water Rule was repealed.  The administration is allowing drilling in national parks and other treasured venues and opening up more federal land for energy development while the Department of the Interior plans to allow drilling in nearly all U.S. waters, opening up the largest expansion of offshore oil and gas leasing ever proposed. This year the administration completed plans for allowing the entire coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be made available for oil and gas drilling as well.  You have only to look at who Mr. Trump turned to or appointed to head key agencies that deal with energy and environmental policy. For example, three of four members of a transition team mandated to come up with proposals guiding Native American policies had links to the oil industry and his first head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, challenged EPA regulations in court more than a dozen times. Pruitt also hired a disgraced banker with no experience with environmental issues to head the Superfund program, responsible for cleaning up the nation’s most contaminated land.  Other departmental gems include Andrew Wheeler, who replaced Pruitt. He was a coal industry lobbyist and a critic of limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Then there’s Rick Perry who was tasked with developing more efficient energy sources and improving energy education. At Interior, Ryan Zinke who didn’t last long. He was followed by an attorney and oil industry lobbyist who put his personal energy into deregulation and increased fossil fuel sales on public lands. At the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a scientific agency that warns of dangerous weather, monitors atmospheric changes, oceans, and more, Trump’s guy was a lawyer and businessman who had advocated against NOAA.  In August, Mr. Trump instructed Sonny Perdue, Agricultural Secretary, to exempt Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the world’s largest intact temperate rain forest, from logging restrictions and mining projects. The president had already told the Department of the Interior to review more than two dozen monuments with a view to reducing the size of Bears Ears National Monument and other sacred land.  National Geographic has been tracking how the administration’s decisions influence air, water, and wildlife. Here are just some of the ways environmental policies have changed since Trump became president. The U.S. has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, loosened regulations on toxic air pollution, rolled back the Clean Power Act, revoked flood standards accounting for sea-level rise, green-lighted seismic air guns for oil and gas drilling that disorient marine mammals and kill plankton, and altered the Endangered Species Act.  A recent New York Times analysis counts more than 80 environmental rules and regulations “on the way out under Mr. Trump.” So far 53 rollbacks have been completed and 32 are in progress. The Trump strategy, the Times points out, relies on a “one-two punch” in which rules are first delayed, then overridden by final substantive rules. It packs a big punch any way you look at it.  Not long ago I visited Walden Pond in Concord, Massachusetts where the philosopher, writer and transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau lived for two years in a solitary cabin in the mid-19th century. Often credited with starting the environmental movement, he articulated a philosophy based on environmental and social responsibility, resource efficiency, and living simply. He believed fervently that we must keep the wild intact. “What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?” he asked.  It’s a question we should all contemplate in the runup to November 2020.  Elayne Clift writes about women, health, politics and social issues from Saxtons River, Vt. www.elayne-clift.com


democracynow--2019-11-08--"We Can't Afford to Wait for the DNC": Why Black Lawmakers Organized an Environmental Justice Forum

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.  AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. We’re broadcasting from South Carolina State University, here in Orangeburg, where tonight, on this very stage, the first-ever Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice will be held. Democracy Now! will be broadcasting and live-streaming beginning at 6 p.m. Eastern. I’ll be co-moderating with former EPA official Mustafa Ali, who is still with us, a former EPA official, formerly with the Hip Hop Caucus, now vice president of the National Wildlife Fund. And we’re joined by South Carolina state Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter, who represents the city of Orangeburg in South Carolina. She’s also the president of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators. And Melanie Campbell joins us, president of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation and the convener of the Black Women’s Roundtable.  We welcome you all to Democracy Now!  AMY GOODMAN: So, Representative Cobb-Hunter, you are a first. You’re the first woman to represent Orangeburg in the South Carolina state Legislature, and you are representing black state legislators around the country. Talk about why environmental justice is important to you, and why you are hosting tonight’s event, tonight’s first-ever forum.  REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: Well, thanks, Amy, for having us. And we really appreciate the support of Democracy Now!  It’s important to NBCSL for a variety of reasons. We have total dysfunction, in the opinion of state legislators, at the federal level. And so, when we talk about the issue of environmental justice, climate change, all politics is local. And when we can’t get action on the federal level, that leaves us as state legislators to make sure that whatever remedies, whatever mitigation is there, that we are in a position to try to get that done. NBCSL, along with the Hispanic Caucus — and we will be joined tonight by the president of the National Hispanic Caucus — what we recognize is that the issue of environmental justice impacts black and brown communities. And so we represent these communities. We think it’s important for us not to wait on Congress, not to wait on a president, but for us to use the power we have as state legislators and take action.  And I would just echo Mustafa’s point. We are very pleased that six of these candidates who want to be president thought this issue was important enough to not just talk the talk, but to walk the walk. And we welcome them to South Carolina’s only state-supported historic black college and university at South Carolina State. Welcome to Bulldog Country.  AMY GOODMAN: And, Gilda Cobb-Hunter, how does it work in a state legislature around issues of environmental justice? I mean, we know about ALEC, the right-wing organization, that writes legislation, particularly in state legislatures —  AMY GOODMAN: — for state legislatures, and one by one, following a trend in the country to cut back on regulations. How do you deal, as the head of the NBCSL, the national caucus of black legislators, in responding?  REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: Well, a part of it is what we’ll do here tonight. My role as president, in my view, is increasing members’ awareness of issues that impact our constituents. We all know the routine issues that all of us care about and all of us are working on. But when it comes to an issue like environmental justice, the awareness of black legislators, in our view, is not what it should be. And so, a part of our goal and a part of what we think is important is increasing our awareness. ALEC has a very strong footprint here in the South Carolina Legislature. They spend money. We have members who are in the national leadership of that organization.  AMY GOODMAN: This is the American Legislative Exchange Council —  REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: Present — and in some cases, in some states in our group, we’ve had people who didn’t even remove the name ALEC, just kind of came in, dropped it. And so, we’ve got to be vigilant. And we’ve got to stay focused on this issue. And so, a part of what I see us needing to do — and that’s why this forum is so important, because I’m told from the frontline communities that there has never been this kind of event, which makes it even more appropriate that it’s here at South Carolina State. We’ve got to just — the way you deal with ALEC, I believe, the best way to eat an elephant — pun intended — is one small bite at a time.  AMY GOODMAN: And, Mustafa Ali, how do you see ALEC playing out in legislatures around the country?  MUSTAFA ALI: Well, they have a particular view that they’re trying to push. And that’s why it’s so important for us to really educate folks and engage them in the civic process and in the legislative process, so that they understand that they have power and that they can help to frame out. So, environmental justice organizations, public health organizations, civil rights organizations, all coming together to deal with these impacts that are happening inside of our communities, can balance out those who might not necessarily have the best intention for our communities.  AMY GOODMAN: Melanie Campbell, you represent the largest voting bloc within the black community, and that’s African-American women. Talk about your organization, both the roundtable as well as the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, and what you’re trying to accomplish.  MELANIE CAMPBELL: Well, first of all, thank you, Amy, and thank you to my colleagues here. And it’s good to be back on this campus. I was on this campus in 2008 on a rainy day in February working on getting out the vote with our Black Youth Vote! program. And so, it’s always good to be back here in Orangeburg; in South Carolina, but haven’t been in Orangeburg in a little while. But so, thank you all for the invitation to work with you all on this project.  Well, the national coalition has been around for almost 44 years. It’s a coalition of national organizations, not just African-American, but labor and other kinds of civil rights and social justice organizations. Black Women’s Roundtable is our women and girls power-building arm, and it’s really like the glue for the organization. And I say that because when you talk about the black vote, black women, we’re the secret sauce to move the black vote. And that’s because of our voting strength and the fact that we influence our families and all of our significant others. So, when you say there’s a big surge in the black vote, that’s because black women didn’t just show up, because we’re going to show up, but we’re going to also encourage our families and our communities to do that. We also are, many times, leading a lot of the work and becoming more unapologetic about demanding respect for that, whether it’s the Democratic Party or progressive community, to understand that we’re not just a voting bloc, we are also leaders in this space. This issue around — and so I appreciate Mustafa and — I was going to say “Congresswoman.” I’m channeling that.  REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: No, please, don’t start that.  MELANIE CAMPBELL: My sister friend Gilda, for what they’re doing here. This issue, we see, when it comes to environmental justice, is critical when you talk about issues impacting health and issues impacting economic justice, because of the impact it has on our communities. And so, our young people — who are just a little bit younger than us, right? — who demand that this be a critical issue in this election.  AMY GOODMAN: Why is environmental justice so critical, especially for people in the —  MELANIE CAMPBELL: I grew up in Florida. I grew up along the coast of the Atlantic, big, big city called Mims, Florida. And so, growing up around — we knew we had hurricanes, growing up. You know, you didn’t have to leave home. My mother passed away three years ago. And we would always have to worry. Now they have to — most of the time, they have to leave. I have a brother that’s still there, who, most of the time, he has to get on a plane and fly up there in Virginia and get away. You can’t stay anymore, because it’s so much — it’s very different from what had happened 30 years ago or 40 years ago. What’s happening now is real impact in our communities. I can remember growing up where orange groves were beautiful. Everybody had orange groves. It was a part of the economy. If you couldn’t — if you didn’t have a job, you can go pick oranges and make a living. Right? You can’t do that. Those things have been destroyed by the climate change and other kinds of things. Damu Smith — I’m going to channel —  MELANIE CAMPBELL: — was one of my best buddies — right? — who really educated me down in Cancer Alley, Louisiana.  AMY GOODMAN: Damu Smith was an early — it’s, in fact, where I met him —  MELANIE CAMPBELL: Right. OK, yes, yeah.  AMY GOODMAN: — at one of the first conferences.  MELANIE CAMPBELL: He took us on the bus.  MELANIE CAMPBELL: And back in the day, so I’ve been around this for a while. Connie Tucker, who’s another sister. I lived in Atlanta for 20 years. My current sister who keeps me on this is Felicia Davis with HBCU Green Fund, understanding that this issue is not a side issue. It’s very much intricately a part of what’s dealing with even issues around wealth building and how that impacts our communities.  AMY GOODMAN: And do you feel like the candidates are addressing these issues? How do you get them to focus?  MELANIE CAMPBELL: I will say that we are — our Black Youth Vote! young people are having these debate watch parties, and they’ve been doing these polls. And they look for who they want — who won, which I won’t get into that, but they also say what are they not hearing. And environmental justice and climate change are key. They’re not the number one, but they’re high, like number three or something like that. Consistently, every month, they host these things. And that’s what they’re telling us. And so, young people are saying — demanding that. And so, the candidates that don’t get that are going to miss getting that Generation Z vote and that millennial vote this year.  AMY GOODMAN: Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter, Regenesis, explain what that project is, because South Carolina is not only ground zero for the problems but also for solutions.  REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: Right. And before I talk about Regenesis, if I could, Amy, just pick up on the point that Melanie made about the young people and what candidates — which candidates are speaking to the vote, to this issue. That’s a part of why NBCSL is here sponsoring this event, because we can’t afford to wait for the DNC or the RNC to bless this and say, “OK, we’re going have a debate.” This issue impacts our communities. We thought it important to step up and say, “You know what? DNC, RNC, y’all don’t want to talk about climate change? Guess what. We don’t need your permission to talk about climate change. We’ve got a vehicle that we can use to talk about this issue.” And it is important that these Democratic candidates understand how this issue resonates with young voters, with progressive voters, with seasoned voters. This is an issue whose time has come, and it’s not going away.  The one candidate that consistently spoke to the issue is no longer in the race, and that’s Governor Jay Inslee. All of them do the photo ops. All of them talk the talk. They all have the talking points. But whether or not there’s specificity in how they can get it done, which is what Regenesis is doing here in South Carolina, has done — we’ve got a lot of people who are academic who talk about environmental justice. But we have in Spartanburg, South Carolina, under the leadership of my former colleague Harold Mitchell, a project called Regenesis, that has reclaimed and revitalized that entire community. And he’s done that in spite of, I would add —  AMY GOODMAN: So, he got $20,000, EPA environmental justice grant —  REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: And leveraged it, yes. Yes.  AMY GOODMAN: —to help clean up these contaminated sites.  REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: Yes. Leveraged $20,000 into several million, has a community that has now — that once was a wasteland, that once was the home of a fertilizer plant. He is working —  AMY GOODMAN: This was called Devil’s Triangle because it was so polluted.  REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: Exactly, exactly. And again, what is important to understand is, what we need to be lifting up are people who are on the ground working, not people theorizing about it, not people who are just — well, I’ll just say Regenesis is a project that is the role model. And to pass on just a tidbit I don’t think a lot of people know, because heroes are very rarely recognized in their own hometown, Regenesis and its founder — Harold Mitchell has gone to Taiwan. He is known internationally as, again, somebody who doesn’t just talk about it, but who actually does something. And that’s the point of the platform that will be the point of your questions and Mustafa’s questions tonight to these candidates who are showing up: What are you going to do specifically?  AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Mustafa Ali, I mean, you have South Carolina. It’s the — you’ve got the primaries and caucuses first in New Hampshire and in Iowa. These are two of the whitest states.  AMY GOODMAN: And then you have a large African-American community in South Carolina, why this is so significant. I mean, so much attention is paid to the whitest states in this country simply because they’re first in the primary system. It means all the candidates are gearing their plans to those states.  MUSTAFA ALI: Well, you can’t take our vote for granted.  MUSTAFA ALI: If you want our vote, you better show up. So, it sends a signal to folks. People want to see you and touch you and hear firsthand what you have to share. So, if you are willing to spend time in New Hampshire and in Iowa sitting down with folks, I appreciate that. You need to be in the South. You know that there are folks who are going to vote, and you need to actually solidify that vote by sharing with them the realness of what your vision is. What is your policies? Talk to them about their kitchen table issues and how it’s going to be addressed. So, if you are not sitting down with Mrs. Ramirez in her kitchen or Mr. Johnson on his back porch having some conversations, as well, then people may not think that you’re as serious as you say you are.  AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you all for being with us. This is only the beginning, as we, tonight, hold this forum. Mustafa Ali, former head of the environmental justice program at the Environmental Protection Agency, former leader of the Hip Hop Caucus, now vice president of the National Wildlife Federation; Gilda Cobb-Hunter, president of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators; and Melanie Campbell, president of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, also convener of the Black Women’s Roundtable.  Mustafa Ali and I will be co-moderating the first-ever Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice here at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg tonight. If you have questions for the candidates, please write to us at Democracy Now!'s Twitter, Instagram, Facebook. We'd love to hear from you. Again, we’ll be live-streaming and broadcasting on stations around the country starting at 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Our website is democracynow.org.  When we come back, the Orangeburg massacre. It was February 8, 1968, that South Carolina Highway Patrol officers opened fire on black students here at South Carolina State University who were protesting a segregated bowling alley. The patrolmen killed three and wounded 28. We’ll hear more. Stay with us.


democracynow--2019-11-08--Warren, Booker & Steyer to Take Part in First-Ever Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.  AMY GOODMAN: We’re broadcasting from South Carolina State University here in Orangeburg, where tonight, on this very stage, the first-ever Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice will be held. I’ll be co-moderating with former EPA official Mustafa Ali. All Democratic and Republican candidates were invited. Those that accepted and are coming to this forum are Senators Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, Tom Steyer, Marianne Williamson, John Delaney and Joe Sestak. The forum will be hosted by the National Black Caucus of State Legislators and leaders from frontline communities.  South Carolina is a crucial state for the 2020 presidential race and one of the first that will have a Democratic primary following the New Hampshire primary and the caucuses in Iowa and Nevada. It will be the first measure of Democratic candidates’ strengths with black voters. In 2007, a Democratic presidential primary debate also took place right here on this stage.  South Carolina is a state where African-American communities and people of color are on the frontlines of fighting for justice in the face of extreme environmental racism for years. South Carolina has repeatedly been pummeled by climate-fueled hurricanes, including Florence, which swept through the South in 2018, causing epic floods. Its black residents have faced disproportionate air and water pollution, exposure to environmental hazards.  But South Carolina is also home to some of the most successful responses to environmental racism. The town of Spartanburg was once known as the Devil’s Triangle for its two abandoned industrial sites and a 30-acre dump. But it’s now being hailed as a model for environmental justice, after the community worked with the Environmental Protection Agency to invest in health centers and revitalize formerly devastated neighborhoods.  Well, we’re joined right here in Orangeburg, South Carolina, by Mustafa Ali, who I’ll be moderating the forum with tonight. He’s the former head of the environmental justice program at the Environmental Protection Agency. He’s a former leader in the Hip Hop Caucus and is now the vice president of the National Wildlife Federation.  Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to be with you here in Orangeburg.  MUSTAFA ALI: Thank you, Amy, for having me.  AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about why you’ve chosen this site. Later in the broadcast, we’re going to talk about this moment in history 51 years ago when state troopers opened fire on students, before Kent State, before Jackson State. But right now we’re talking about this moment in history, in 2020, when there are a record number of candidates running for president. Why have you chosen this forum in South Carolina? And why the first Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice? What does that mean, environmental justice?  MUSTAFA ALI: Yeah. Well, it was important, one, to have it at a HBCU or a minority-serving institution, to make sure that folks understood that the students who go to school here care about what’s happening. They are voters, along with all of the community residents.  Also here in South Carolina, it’s ground zero. It’s ground zero for the pollution that folks are dealing with, with housing issues, transportation issues, and also the impacts from climate change. The floods that have happened, you know, have played a devastating role in people’s lives, in farmers’ lives. All these different folks are coming together. But also, as you sort of shared with folks, there are also these incredible leaders who are also helping to make real change happen.  So we have the environmental injustices that are happening that folks are focusing on, but we also have the change that’s happening, how people are revitalizing communities — Reverend Leo Woodberry, Harold Mitchell, Omar Muhammad — so many incredible leaders who are here, right now, making change happen.  AMY GOODMAN: So, this issue of environmental justice — I mean, CNN held a public town hall with the candidates on climate change. What is the difference?  MUSTAFA ALI: Well, environmental justice is dealing with these disproportionate impacts that are happening inside of communities. So, it’s important that we have these conversations about climate change, but those are the symptoms of a disease. And the disease has been the racism, the structural inequality that continues to happen inside of communities of color. So, disproportionately, those fossil fuel facilities are located in communities of color, lower-income communities and on indigenous lands. And people have, for decades, been dealing with the public health impacts, but also now those emissions are also a driver in warming up our oceans and warming up the planet. We also know that the transportation routes that have been used to extract wealth from certain communities and bring wealth into other communities and also drop pollution off plays a big role also in what’s going on with climate change. And then, the last thing is, we’ve got 2.2 million miles of pipeline. Most of that pipeline runs through indigenous land, low-income white land, runs through farmers’ land and ends up on the Gulf Coast in communities of color. All of these play a role in what’s going on with climate change. But there’s so much more in the environmental justice paradigm.  AMY GOODMAN: So, Mustafa, talk about the connection between environmental justice and health, the health impacts.  MUSTAFA ALI: Well, we have 100,000 people in our country who are dying prematurely from air pollution. That’s more than is dying from gun violence. Gun violence is extremely important for us to focus on, but when we’ve got this many people who are dying, then we need to be paying attention to the decisions that folks in Washington and and in statehouses are making. We’ve got 1.1 million kids in our country who have been lead poisoned. And primarily those are African-American and Latinx communities and lower-income white communities who are the ones who are being impacted. We’ve got 25 million people who have asthma. We’ve got 7 million kids, and disproportionately it’s African-American and Latino children who are the ones who are going to the emergency rooms and the ones who are losing their lives. So, these health impacts that are going on actually extract wealth from communities who can least afford to have that wealth extracted, because in many times they are underinsured or uninsured and folks who have to carry that cost.  AMY GOODMAN: And what is your assessment of the presidential candidates addressing this issue with their plans?  MUSTAFA ALI: Well, it’s great to see that folks have finally, after 40 years, have begun to actually have environmental justice platforms, climate justice platforms. And it’s great to see that some of the candidates are actually visiting these communities, frontline communities, sitting down with leaders. But there’s so much more that needs to happen, because a part of this forum is about accountability. Folks want to hear: What’s your vision? What are the actions you’re going to do? How are you going to build an administration that has expertise from frontline communities, indigenous leaders also in that? So, it’s great to see people saying the words; we need action behind the words.  AMY GOODMAN: And, I mean, we’re talking about both the Democrats and the Republicans. What’s happened under the Trump administration?  MUSTAFA ALI: Well, under the Trump administration, it has been deadly for many of our communities, because they have rolled back over 85 regulations, that, in many instances, just had the bare minimum of protections inside of our most vulnerable communities, everything from pulling out of the Clean Power Plan and replacing it with the ACE rule; the car rule, the clean car rule, which we know, again, those transportation routes having so much more pollution go off in those communities. You know, removing yourself from the Paris climate accord makes no sense, and it’s going to have huge impacts in our most vulnerable communities and communities across our country, in general. So, you know, we need to have leadership who is actually focused on helping to protect people’s lives and living up to when you take that oath.  AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to go to break and come back, and we’ll be joined by several of the people who are participating in tonight’s forum. Again, we’re here at South Carolina State University. It’s a historically black college, one of the HBCUs, college and universities. It is the site of the Orangeburg massacre 51 years ago. And it is going to be the site tonight, on this very stage, of a Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice, the very first. We are joined by Mustafa Ali, who is formerly with Hip Hop Caucus, before that, for years with the Environmental Protection Agency. Now he’s vice president of the National Wildlife Federation. And he will be co-moderating the forum tonight with me. Yes, Democracy Now! is here, and we’ll be live-streaming this forum tonight at 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time around the world. Many stations, radio and television stations, will also be broadcasting this forum. So we hope you do tune in at democracynow.org or on your local station. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.