The Rising staff writer Emily Dao recently covered where all of the 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates stand on climate policy. Some Democrats do seem to be focused on releasing detailed policy proposals to combat climate change. But where do the Republicans stand?
So far, there are two Republican candidates for president: the incumbent, President Donald Trump, and businessman William Weld, who also happens to be a former Governor of Massachusetts and VP candidate on the Gary Johnson ballot in 2016.
Starting with Trump’s most recent statements, it is clear that he doesn’t really believe that there is a climate crisis. This is a clear a point of contention he would have with Democrats including Inslee and O’Rourke. Specifically, during an interview with Piers Morgan, when asked if he believed in climate change, Trump responded: “I believe there’s a change in weather, and I think it changes both ways.”
VICE News climate change contributor Alex Lubben was critical on this idea of the weather changing both ways. Evidence published by NASA seems to support Lubben’s criticism. It seems unequivocal that carbon emissions levels are rising and global warming is happening.
Knowing where Trump stands on climate makes evaluating his policy a lot easier. Because Trump has rolled back some 84 environmental rules, it’s most feasible to cover the more critical ones. Here are some of the key rollbacks he’s made:
- In June of 2017, Trump announced that he would have the United States stop its participation in the Paris Agreement. The withdrawal would be finalized in 2020, at the earliest.
- Make it unnecessary for oil and gas corporations to report methane emissions statistics.
- Un-ban the use of chlorofluorocarbons in ACs and refrigerators.
- Stop using Obama-era “social cost of carbon” calculations that let legislators effectively predict the ramifications of emissions.
- Reduce water pollution regulations pertaining to lands belonging to Indians.
- Completely roll back regulations passed in the Obama administration to mandate governments to make infrastructural considerations to account for rises in sea level.
- Open new land in habitats of endangered species for drilling purposes.
- Repeal rules for coal companies to dump rubbish into rivers.
- Reduce American funding to the United Nations’s Green Climate Fund, an initiative looking to help poorer countries mitigate the ramifications of carbon emissions.
To get a fuller picture, feel free to check out the New York Times’s coverage on all 84 rollbacks.
Altogether though, Trump clearly doesn’t see climate change as a mainstream problem, at least not one his administration looks to solve. It will be interesting to see if he will introduce ‘cleaner’ policy proposals for the 2020 elections as voter concern about climate change continues to mount.
Unlike Trump, Weld agrees with 70% of Americans who believe the United States should participate in the Paris Agreement. Based on Axios’s reporting, Weld has promised to have the United States rejoin the Paris Agreement.
Additionally, he told reporters at Hill.TV that “The burden of climate change is going to fall on you all if nothing is done.” A step further, Weld cited climate change as one of the two crucial reasons he’s running for President in 2020.
On a separate occasion, Weld told NHPR radio host that he disagreed with Trump’s sentiment on oil and gas. “You know fossil fuels are the past…not the future,” said Weld. Currently, there is no reason to believe he would support renewable energy. At the same time, it is too early to rule that possibility out either.
There is, so far, no evidence to suggest Weld would help big oil and gas legislatively if elected President. But some would argue that being moderate on climate isn’t enough.
Weld has yet to release climate policy on his campaign website. What he would do for the environment as President remains to be seen. What we can expect though is something between AOC and Trump, to cast a wide net.
The Republican field isn’t homogenous across the board. Not every politician lets lobbyists of big oil and gas firms buy them out. And that’s exactly why it’s important to follow the money.
We’ll be sure to let you know who’s who when it comes to climate in 2020 so you can make your own informed decision.
The Rising staff will update this developing story as more candidates develop their own climate policy or existing candidates add to theirs.
Europe’s Ambitious Green Deal: A Plan To Neutralize Its Carbon Footprint By 2050
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.
Climate Inaction: Prime Minister Morrison’s Negligence Sparks Backlash As Bushfires Rage
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.
30 States Cut Their Environmental Budget This Decade. Did Yours?
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.
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.
Subscribe for the most important sustainability stories sent to your email every morning!
Thank you for subscribing.
Something went wrong.
Politics1 week ago
New Zealand Steps Up To The Plate On Climate Action As Australia Lags Further Behind
Sustainability1 week ago
Bad Move: 31 States Significantly Reduce Funding To Environmental Protection Efforts
Energy5 days ago
Here’s How European Homes Are Curbing Energy Emissions
Politics3 days ago
30 States Cut Their Environmental Budget This Decade. Did Yours?
Sustainability4 days ago
Latest IUCN Report Shows Ocean Deoxygenation Is Happening At An Alarming Rate