The GOP has long denied the effects of global warming, with President Donald Trump at the helm of its anti-climate change platform. However, after major pushes against the crisis from crucial voting groups, some Republicans have been switching positions on the issue. Republican consultant Whit Ayers said, “Denying the basic existence of climate change is no longer a credible position.” More notably, Louisiana Congressman Garret Graves believes that the Republican outlook on the climate crisis needs to change. Most have likely never heard of him, so let’s dive into who he is.
Who is Garret Graves?
Graves currently serves as the top Republican on a Democrat-led select panel on climate change. The committee was created last winter after a group of 150 teenage activists staged a sit-in at Nancy Pelosi’s office.
Backed with a detailed PowerPoint presentation, Graves urged Republican House Leader Kevin McCarthy to take advantage of the panel. Specifically, he insisted there was “a better way to apply Republican principles to this issue of climate change.”
Considering Graves’ home state, his care for the matter makes sense. According to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a football field of land is lost to the Gulf of Mexico every 100 minutes in coastal Louisiana. Devastating floods and hurricanes have caused mass destruction to the state, not to mention rising sea levels have also caused crippling damage to the state’s economy.
“We’ve lost 2,000 square miles of our coast,” Graves said. “If the state of Rhode Island lost 2,000 square miles, we’d have 49 states today.”
The EDF supported Graves’ selection on the climate committee. An outdoorsman with a deep love for nature, Graves rides an eco-friendly electric motorbike and loves climbing mountains. He even named his three children after his favorite peaks.
During his career, Graves co-sponsored a wetlands conservation bill and called for recognition of Louisiana Cajuns as an endangered species. Additionally, he implored the Trump administration to grant Louisiana flooding victims with relief aid, among other efforts.
Though Graves seemingly looks like a man with a passion for environmentalism, some are skeptical about his intentions.
Graves’ Track Record Calls For Skepticism
Years ago, Graves told The Guardian: “Years ago I said that I thought the Republican position on climate change is unsustainable.”
He adds: “Just sitting around totally denying science is an unsustainable position.”
But even still, Democrats and environmentalists are still skeptical of Graves’ motives. The third-term representative only received a three percent lifetime rating by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) on his environmental record. In 2018, the LCV scored Graves a 0%. This means of all 2018 legislation the LCV believed to be vital in environmental conservation, Graves voted in opposition.
The New Yorker reported Graves accepted twice as many donations from contributors in the oil and gas industry than any other in the last election cycle. In total, the congressman has received upwards of $515,600 of contributions from the industry over the last 5 years, as found by nonpartisan, nonprofit research team Open Secrets.
It’s also important to know Louisiana’s huge contributions to the fossil fuel industry. An analysis by the federal government cited Louisiana as one of the top 10 states in crude oil reserves and annual crude oil production. The profile also recognized the state’s total energy consumption and per capita energy consumption as one of the highest in the country, due to its booming petroleum, chemical, and natural gas industry.
So, although Graves has been the GOP’s advocate for climate change, he hasn’t held the fossil fuel industry accountable. Though several other party members hold a similar view, chances of stifling Trump’s push to become the most energy dominant nation are slim.
While Graves isn’t jumping on board with any left-wing climate policies any time soon, his recognition of climate change and still guides many conservative politicians out of the dark on this issue. Now, there’s just hope his voting record will start aligning more with his call for action.
Emily is a Writer at The Rising, a Copywriter for 7SecondMedia, a Business student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and a former writer for the Daily Illini. For any inquiries or story pitches, reach out to email@example.com.
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