Connect with us

Politics

How Much Does The Climate Change Issue Actually Matter In The 2020 Elections?

Steven Li

Published

on

voting

As 23 Democrats and two Republicans (including President Trump) have announced their bid for president in 2020, various candidates are coming out with their own flagship policies. For Washington Governor Jay Inslee, climate change is front and center; so much so, he’s made it his platform.

Now, the climate debate has risen to the point where it’s finally an issue that’s being discussed. For instance, we look at the Green New Deal, The Evergreen Economy, etc. – there’s no question that the climate debate is becoming increasingly mainstream. But the New York Times published an article on how climate change is catching on but Jay Inslee isn’t.

That brings to light a very important question: How much does the climate debate actually matter in the 2020 elections? That is, there’s no doubt politicians should be talking about the environment, but will a platform like Inslee’s move the needle for voters or get him the Democratic nomination?

Some influential politicians don’t think so. In late 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown said of the climate change issue: “It’s too remote. It’s not today…Climate change is not jobs, not taxes, it’s not violent crime. It’s not sex. And it’s not immigration.” And he might’ve been right at the time. But statistics show that times may be different now.

Statistics on Voter Appeal

CNN polls showed that some 82% of young voting Democrats saw climate change as a “top priority”, ahead of other more mainstream issues including healthcare and gun reform.

A POLITICO poll took a less partisan look at the numbers. Remember Trump’s climate change report? Its dire results worried some two-thirds of voters according to the said poll. To break it down further, some 47% of Republicans are worried about the report; some 87% of Democrats and 65% of independents agree.

Yale and George Mason University found through three survey cycles that 84% of its respondents voiced a directional shift towards being more concerned about the climate change issue.

Remember the Paris Agreement? Some 70% of Americans believe that the United States should participate in it, according to Yale.

In short, it’s starting to look like climate change is starting to become a more mainstream issue that voters are looking to capitalize on in 2020. Governor Inslee, who has made his platform mainly on the environment, might be onto something. Especially because registered Democrats are particularly keen on climate policy.

Republican Presidential Candidates On Climate Change

No doubt, moving the needle when it comes to climate change requires an effort from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Altogether, an issue like climate change is one that, in theory, should be bipartisan.

Donald J. Trump

Trump announced that he’d pull the United States from the Paris Agreement in June 2017. More recently, Trump’s administration is looking to roll back critical greenhouse gas emissions regulations initiated during the Obama White House. It’s been no surprise that Trump doesn’t like at climate change as a critical issue. What he believes has echoed through Congress – he’s not solely to blame.

Bill Weld

The little-known Republican Presidential Candidate, Trump’s only competitor, is currently a Partner at the Mintz Levin Law Firm and was formerly on the Gary Johnson ticket as Vice-President in 2016. He, unlike Trump, if elected, looks to have the United States rejoin the Paris Agreement, per Axios. According to E&E News, Weld’s friends describe him to be a ‘great environmentalist’. Although that much is unclear. His campaign website doesn’t cite his stance or policy proposals with respect to climate change.

Conclusions

Undoubtedly, the climate debate is going to be incredibly important in 2020. Statistics show that voters care about the environment more than they ever have, and that’s going to show through in our next presidential election. But like many other issues, tackling them requires bipartisan support.

Oil and gas lobbying makes that difficult sometimes. We’ll have to see how the election plays out, but it won’t be surprising to see more candidates announce their thoughts on climate policy.

Politics

Europe’s Ambitious Green Deal: A Plan To Neutralize Its Carbon Footprint By 2050

Grit Daily

Published

on

Through a new Green Deal, the EU plans to neutralize Europe’s carbon footprint by as early as 2050. While the plan is ambitious, it highlights the need for world leaders to work together. After all, it will take extensive collaboration to fight against climate change once and for all.

What Does The Green Deal Encompass?

The Green Deal encompasses everything from plastic bans to tightening restrictions on carbon emitting industries like oil and gas. At the same time, it will limit trade deals with countries that are not part of the Paris Agreement.

Europe is already leading the world in climate change efforts. And the Green Deal will jumpstart its position as one of the greatest initiatives for climate change thus far.

The ultimate goal for the Green Deal is to create a global response, particularly with the looming threat of trade embargo’s and restrictions on trade with countries that are not making an effort to combat climate change.

This turns attention toward places like the United States, which motioned to withdraw from the Paris Agreement in 2017.

In other countries, particularly in places like Indonesia and throughout the undeveloped world, the needed infrastructure for the level of change has not been set up.

Things like adequate waste management and access to clean drinking water mean that beaches and oceans are often littered with plastics, while carbon emissions are high due to a lack of regulations. (Though these numbers are in-line with emissions from more developed countries as well.)

The Details of the New Green Deal

The new Green Deal unveiled at the annual climate conference in Madrid earlier this month will unite most European countries to neutralize carbon emissions by 2050.

The union hopes to reach this goal by focusing its efforts on investing in industries that want to cut their emissions significantly.

This means new innovations for the steel industries, as well as vehicle and renewable energy.

These new laws could also see tighter restrictions on goods that are imported from places that don’t put heavy restrictions on carbon emissions.

Places like China, which are leading suppliers of consumer goods worldwide, are also one of the biggest carbon emissions culprits in the world.

The EU hopes to leverage its Green Deal restrictions to incentivize other countries to make smarter climate decisions.

What The Green Deal Means For Transportation and Shipping Companies

The reality of this Green Deal is that many transportation and shipping companies will have to acquire special permits in order to operate within the EU.

Maritime shipping companies, for example, will likely need to register their vessels and acquire permits in order to dock.

The EU could limit how many vessels operate in an effort to cut back on carbon emissions.

But the new Green Deal does not stop there. The EU also plans to invest greater efforts into plants and the preservation of nature.

Initiatives to plant more trees and stop deforestation throughout Europe will begin in the near future. Recently, the EU banned all pesticides that could negatively impact native bee populations.

Meanwhile in Germany, the country is working to convert its local train operations to more eco-friendly options than coal burning.

In France, the country’s recent single-use plastic ban will see a significant change in consumer habits over the next couple of decades. By 2025, the country hopes to use at least 60% biodegradable materials instead of plastics.

Hoping To Create a Domino Effect

Europe may be ahead of the curve when it comes to adjustments for climate change. But it has grander visions.

Now, it hopes to begin a domino effect by uniting governments around the world for a greater cause.

Note: This article was originally posted at Grit Daily by Julia Sachs and edited and syndicated with permission.

Continue Reading

Politics

Climate Inaction: Prime Minister Morrison’s Negligence Sparks Backlash As Bushfires Rage

Rich Bowden

Published

on

Australia gets flamed for its climate inaction

The smoke blanketing the NSW capital of Sydney has highlighted the severity of the state’s bushfires — and climate inaction isn’t helping.

With the city’s air pollution reaching eleven times the hazardous level, and over 700 homes destroyed in the state, public pressure has mounted on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to link the bushfire emergency and climate change.

The Prime Minister is also facing a barrage of criticism from his ruling party.

NSW Liberal Energy Minister Matt Kean told the Smart Energy Summit that the bushfire tragedy had been foretold by scientists and fire emergency professionals.

In a strong rebuke of his own party’s climate policies, Kean told attendees weather conditions were abnormal. Yet at the same time, climate inaction continues to rage on.

“Not Normal” Weather, Yet No Action Taken By Prime Minister Morrison

“Longer drier periods, resulting in more drought and bushfire,” he said. “If this is not a catalyst for change, then I don’t know what is. This is not normal and doing nothing is not a solution.”

“We need to reduce our carbon emissions immediately, and we need to adapt our practices to deal with this kind of weather becoming the new normal.”

Kean elaborated on his extraordinary broadside on the ABC’s Radio National the next day.

“We’ve got a problem. [The emergency] is not changing my view – before the bushfires, my view was a very strong one… we need to be doing our bit to protect our environment.”

Viral Blog Post Signals Dissatisfaction With Morrison’s Climate Inaction

As well as causing divisions in his own party, Morrison has taken heat from ordinary Australians. It is partially due to climate inaction. But additionally, his refusal to assist volunteer firefighters has struck outrage among Australians.

An example of the outrage was the reaction to a powerful and engaging blog post written by author-educator Meg McGowan. In the post, she criticizes the PM’s statement that volunteer firefighters “want to be there” and therefore wouldn’t receive government assistance.

Meg’s husband Graham King is Deputy Captain in the local Central Coast brigade. He has been fighting fires in the region while making do with poor protective equipment to battle the thick smoke.

Such was the power, elegance, and timing of the article that it went viral with hundreds of thousands of views. This prompted national TV show The Project to ask Meg and Graham to film a segment with them.

Author Meg McGowan Shares That Morrison Adds To List Of Leaders Who Exhibit Climate Action

I asked Meg on behalf of theRising what she thought caused the post’s incredible popularity. Meg conceded that the answer wasn’t straightforward. She added that “Morrison is just the most recent in a long line of leaders that have failed to act”.

“Small changes two decades ago could have had a huge impact by now. The problem is now so severe that we need urgent action on a much larger scale.” 

Climate Action Fueled By Governmental Arrogance

She added that people are upset at the government’s arrogance towards firefighters and its inability to enact meaningful climate policies.

“Based on the comments I’m reading his seeming lack of empathy made a lot of people very angry, so I would say it was a major contributor, but you can never really know. It might be that people’s general frustration with the lack of action over climate change was the driver, or their frustrations at [environmental party] The Greens being blamed, or their sudden realization that firefighters are not superheroes but ordinary people doing a tough job,” she told me.

The bushfire crisis will continue as the Bureau of Meteorology predicts more dry weather over the next few months. And climate inaction won’t make that any better.

Continue Reading

Politics

30 States Cut Their Environmental Budget This Decade. Did Yours?

Ari Kelo

Published

on

Climate refugee

A new report from the Environmental Integrity Project found that 30 US states have cut their environmental budget since 2008. Another 40 states have also reduced the size of their environmental agency’s staff. These cuts come as a great shock, considering the rising threat of the climate crisis in the past decade. And, with every state that slashes their environmental budget, the consequences sky-rise even more. We encourage you find out if your state is one of the culprits.

The Consequences Of A Reduced Environmental Budget

The consequences of reduced spending on environmental protections seem limitless. These state agencies protect public health, limit the harms of pollution, and even enact pollution control programs. They are vital to the health of both our communities and our planet at large.

And although many states have chosen to limit funding for environmental agencies, the demand for them has only grown. With sea levels on the rise, pollution expanding by the hour, and extreme weather events becoming more and more frequent, environmental protection programs have never been more needed.

Sadly, this trend of reduced funding goes beyond state-wide environmental agencies. In the same decade, Washington cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s work on pollution control and science by 16%. They reduced the EPA’s staff size by 16% as well.

The consequences of inadequate environmental funding go on and on. Understanding these future threats, it becomes even more necessary to know where your state stands.

So without further ado, here are the statistics regarding US environmental agencies between fiscal years 2008 and 2018. (Warning: they’re infuriating.)

The report shows that from 2008 and 2018:

  • 31 states cut funding for pollution control programs. In 25 of these states, those cuts amounted to at least 10%. And 16 states imposed cuts above 20%.
  • 40 states reduced the workforce of their environmental agency. Of these, 21 states cut their workforce by at least 10%. In 9 states, their environmental agencies lost at least 20% of their workforce.
  • Combined, the US lost 4,400 positions at environmental agencies from these budget cuts. (Excluding the 2,700 positions lost at the EPA.)
  • Arizona, Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin cut the most funding from their environmental agencies.
  • In terms of cutting their agency workforce, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee did the most damage.
  • 3 states in particular cut far deeper into their funding. Texas cut its agency’s funding by a whopping 35%. North Carolina follows closely with 34% cuts and Illinois trails behind with a still alarming 25%. These states ironically cut environmental funding despite allowing general government spending to grow.
  • Alaska and Hawai’i were not included in this report.

To see where you state stands, check out this map, or access the full report here.

It goes without saying that apathy towards the environment plagues the United States’ governmental institutions. What’s worse, this chronic lack of concern for our planet within US politics will have disastrous impacts on the whole globe. It’s time to ensure better environmental policies across the US. A good first step? Starting with your own state.

Continue Reading

Trending

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap