Tag Archives: climate change

Resistance And The Environment

If even a small percentage of Project 2025’s proposals–or Trump’s fever dreams– are implemented, Americans will suffer. Times will be very dark, and very unAmerican. So it may seem Panglossian to predict that we can and will emerge from those dark times, not unscathed, but essentially intact.

That said, however, there is one element of the coming assault on reason and evidence that poses a truly existential threat, and that is the denial of climate change– the likely withdrawal from global efforts to combat it, the resumption of reliance on fossil fuels, and the termination of federal green energy incentives. We humans can recover from bad governance. We can (and undoubtedly will) learn from the experience of being governed by corrupt and profoundly ignorant people.

But we are unlikely to survive a failure to take climate change seriously.

I find it hard to understand people who deny the reality of a warming planet–the captains of the fossil fuel industries who place a higher priority on their bottom lines than their grandchildren’s lives, the religious fundamentalists who are sure God will protect us (or perhaps is punishing us for our sins), the people who simply choose not to believe facts that might inconvenience them. In my own lifetime (and yes, I’m old) I’ve seen spring come earlier and earlier, and summer last far longer than it used to. As I write this, we are nearing the end of November, yet temperatures are in the 50s and 60s, flowers are still blooming and the leaves remain on most trees. When I was young, it was much colder at this time of year, and we’d typically already had snowstorms.

The rejection of science and evidence by Washington’s clown show is depressing, but those who have chosen climate as their resistance focus need to recognize how much impact is possible–and for that matter, necessary– at the local level, through actions both by local governments and the private sector.

Time Magazine recently had a story about the ways in which small business enterprises (SME’s) can fight climate change. The author reminded us that there are numerous ways to focus on “tackling climate change from the ground up—from cities cutting their own footprints to grassroots activists making changes in their backyards.”

Approximately 90% of the world’s businesses are SMEs; those firms are responsible for a significant share of global emissions. News headlines at the intersection of business and climate often focus on big companies with household names, but to achieve global climate ambitions, small firms need to be engaged….

For the small companies that engage, decarbonization can be rewarding. It helps them access new markets as Europe and many Asian markets have begun to impose sustainability requirements for imported products. Greener products appeal to consumers who are looking for sustainable products, too. And sustainability efforts make SMEs more resilient to climate risks like extreme weather.

The article noted a report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that identified emerging mechanisms—from green loans to supply chain finance—intended to facilitate green practices at small businesses.

Local governments also have a number of initiatives they can employ to combat climate change–everything from installing new technologies to improve their own energy efficiency, to encouraging the construction of energy efficient buildings (including rooftop solar and/or green roofs), moving public transportation systems to clean energy and promoting other kinds of low-carbon transportation, creating pedestrian and bicycle-only zones  and enhancing urban green spaces…the list goes on.

Many of these projects also enhance the quality of urban and suburban life. Planting trees and expanding public parks are environmentally important steps that also provide recreation for citizens, for example.

There is an argument to be made that –if sufficient numbers of local jurisdictions engage in these efforts–the impact would equal or exceed the mechanisms currently employed (and endangered) at the federal level. In any event, most of the actions available to local businesses and governments cannot be stymied by the know-nothings in Washington.

As a recent article from the University of California explained,

Local government can play a unique and critical role addressing the climate crisis. Local governments have immediate impact on the daily lives of community members and personal connections to constituents. We have a clear line of sight to understand how climate change is impacting people on a daily basis. If leveraged correctly, local governments have the power to bring people together across party lines to address local issues with creativity and agility.

The article listed a number of successful efforts already underway. Consider them a “road map” for resisting Project 2025’s prescription for planetary disaster.

Comments

The Climate-Denial Party

How, I wonder, do climate-denying Americans manage to ignore the mounting evidence of climate change? I suppose I can understand that people might once have dismissed the overwhelming majority of scientists who’ve been warning us for many years. After all, the changes we actually have experienced until recently–things like spring coming earlier each year–have been subtle. But you’d think our recent episodes of weather disasters, the fires following unusual droughts, and the hurricanes made more powerful and destructive thanks to their paths over warming oceans, would have convinced them.

Evidently not. At least not Hoosier Republicans.

Not only did Mike Braun and Jim Banks vote against added funding for FEMA, Braun and Rokita have opposed Indiana utilities plans to phase out their dependence on coal. According to the Capital Chronicle, Braun just sent a letter to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) opposing a coal plant’s proposed conversion to natural gas.

He urged commissioners to deny the conversion, and encouraged collaboration with policymakers to preserve coal’s role — “the most reliable baseload fuel” — while “looking to the future.”

Todd Rokita, Indiana’s embarrassing Attorney General, has been an even more avid protector of the fossil fuel. As another article from the Chronicle has reported, the Attorney general has urged utility regulators to deny early coal plant retirements.

Coal plants have historically had 50-year lifespans, according to a 2019 article published in Nature Communications. But they can last longer with fixes and upgrades.

U.S. coal plants are about 44 years old, in a capacity-weighted average, according to an analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Plants scheduled for retirement this year averaged 54 years of age: almost a decade older.

But coal plants decommissioned amid their expected decades-long lives have become a political flashpoint.

The IURC says it lacks the authority to prevent a utility from converting from coal–that the agency’s jurisdiction is limited to assessing the reasonableness of rates and other tasks spelled out in the legislation that established it. Rokita, however, argues that the IURC doesn’t need explicit authority. Meanwhile, Indiana’s Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill that would grant the IURC that specific authority. The article noted that the legislature might also require that such action be made mandatory and not discretionary.

House Bill 1382, introduced last session, would’ve spelled that out. It also laid out conditions utilities would’ve had to meet in order to apply for permission to close any “fossil fuel fired” plant. The proposal never got a hearing and died.

The Hoosier Environmental Council said that bill would slow Indiana’s transition away from coal, a dirty fossil fuel, to greener energy sources.

“Besides adding an unnecessary burden to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, this bill encourages our public utilities to keep their current energy generation sources running as long as possible, which are majority fossil fuels,” the council said on its website.

Indiana’s GOP characterizes concern for the environment as an attribute of “far Left liberalism.” 

The digitally-altered Braun attack ad against Jennifer McCormick is telling. (It was also illegal…) That altered ad was intended to demonstrate to Hoosier voters that McCormick is “unacceptably liberal.” The evidence for that assertion included her prior support for Hillary Clinton and her current support for Joe Biden, a purported attack on gas stoves, and her intention to create a state office that would focus on environmental issues.

The altered ad was visually and textually dishonest. McCormick had never even mentioned gas stoves, and has made it clear that she’s concerned with weightier matters–like women’s reproductive rights. But that accusation was clearly intended to buttress the case for her “unacceptable liberalism.”

What is truly notable about that bit of egregious dishonesty is the obvious assumption that voters will agree with its premise: the only Americans who take climate change seriously are “far Left”–  that people who care about the environment are by definition “too liberal” for public office.

According to Indiana’s GOP, basic scientific literacy–not to mention common sense–is disqualifying. 

I don’t understand when climate change became a culture war issue. I don’t understand people who dismiss knowledge and expertise as some sort of phony elitism. And I really don’t understand how anyone even remotely aware of Hurricanes Helene and Norman can continue to ignore the evidence of their senses.

The Republicans’ rejection of fact, science and evidence does explain the party’s animosity toward education, and GOP support for the vouchers that encourage parents to send their children to schools that will “protect” them from “theories” like evolution and climate change.

It’s just another example of Republicans’ rejection of reality. Hoosiers need to vote Blue.

Comments

There’s More….

Yesterday, I shared some of the disturbing proposals of Project 2025, but of course, a document of nearly 1000 pages includes many other terrifying “ideas.”  The New Republic has listed several, gleaned from an advance copy of the book by Kevin Roberts, who captained the Project for the Heritage Foundation.

There’s good reason publication of the book has been delayed until after the election.

Dawn’s Early Light has all the misplaced confidence of a movement that’s mistaken a 6–3 Supreme Court and an easily played New York Times op-ed page for some kind of mandate. The party that has won the popular vote in a presidential election exactly once in the last 35 years is not popular, and people do not want what they’re selling. When your only path to power consists in gerrymandering and shaving tight victories in a few key swing states while the opposition runs up the margins nearly everywhere else, you might try for some soul-searching about why people don’t like you, but Roberts and his Heritage Foundation have instead opted for violent threats, claiming a “second American revolution” is coming that will remain “bloodless” only “if the left allows it to be.”

The book details the Project’s enemies: public schools, China, godlessness, and government regulations are prominent, but the Project proposes widespread destruction of numerous other American institutions.

“Every Ivy League college, the FBI, the New York Times, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Department of Education, 80 percent of ‘Catholic’ higher education, BlackRock, the Loudoun County Public School System, the Boy Scouts of America, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, the Chinese Communist Party, and the National Endowment for Democracy.”

What is the plan to enact this bloodletting? While there are sops to Ronald Reagan throughout, Dawn’s Early Light is clear that the era of small government is over; Roberts thinks government should be the change he wants to see in the world. The New Conservative Movement, as he terms it, will use the federal government as a bludgeon against any and all of its cultural and economic foes, while the small-minded small government folk are derided throughout as “wax-museum conservatives.”

Roberts wants government to force American to embrace his vision of “Faith, Family, Community, and Work.” And–not surprisingly–“Faith” means Christianity.

Policies that encourage religious observance, such as Sabbath laws and voucher programs that include religious schools, should be encouraged. American society is rooted in the Christian faith—certainly public institutions should not establish anything offensive to Christian morals under the guise of “religious freedom” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

As I noted yesterday, Roberts reserves special animus for reproductive freedom, especially the birth control pill–which he wants to outlaw.

“The birth control pill,” he tells us, “was the product of a decades-long research agenda paid for by the Rockefeller Foundation and other eugenicist and population control-oriented groups.” These eugenicist-sponsored technologies, Roberts believes, are the true culprits, for they “shift norms, incentives, and choices, often invisibly and involuntarily,” making us think we want something that we in fact don’t.

Even a thing you might think the pro-birth crowd might like, like in vitro fertilization—which produces babies!—is not good in Roberts’s view….

This technological conspiracy, where every modern convenience from the Pill to the Playstation is keeping us from our God-given duty to be fruitful and multiply, must be fought at every level—from government tax policy and regulation (to encourage stay-at-home mothers) to pro-family technologies (like Tinder rival “Keeper,” a dating app whose mission is to “end human loneliness by giving everyone the opportunity to start a happy, healthy family”).

The article has much more of this insane world-view. (I just learned that Heritage wants to end government’s hard-won new ability to negotiate drug prices, something that just saved seniors and government billions!) But you might also be wondering how these lunatics plan to sell their vision to an American public unlikely to favor their version of utopia.

Pro Publica has answered that. It’s reporters uncovered “training videos” produced for Project 2025’s proponents/salespersons.

“Eradicate climate change references”; only talk to conservative media; don’t leave a paper trail for watchdogs to discover. In a series of never-before-published videos, Project 2025 details how a second Trump administration would operate.

The videos have strategies for avoiding Freedom of Information Act disclosures, for ensuring that conservative policies aren’t struck down by “left-wing judges,” and for “radically changing how the federal government works and what it does.”

This entire enterprise is delusional. It entirely ignores the existence of a robust contemporary culture that would resist a U-turn to the 1950s (or, really, the 1850’s).

Project 2025 accurately reflects the MAGA worldview. Sane people must defeat it in November.

Comments

Appalling..And Telling

Wow. Just…wow.

I have repeatedly attributed America’s polarization to my perception that MAGA folks occupy an alternate reality–an environment where Democrats drink kids’ blood in a pizza parlor’s (non-existent) basement and a mysterious figure known as “Q” will emerge to save the world from a nefarious (non-existent) “deep state.” But recently, the Guardian reported on an even more troubling refusal to confront a reality that is rapidly becoming too obvious for sane folks to ignore.

According to that report, nearly one in four members of Congress dismiss the reality of climate change. The paper identified a total of 123 elected federal representatives – 100 in the House of Representatives and 23 US senators – who continue to deny the existence of human-caused climate change.

You will not be surprised to learn that they are all Republicans. Every single one.

According to a Center for American Progress report, those climate-change-denying lawmakers have been rewarded with a combined $52m in lifetime campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry, so it is difficult to tell whether they are profoundly anti-science (and, arguably, intellectually unfit to hold elective office) or simply corrupt.(Ethically unfit.)

Meanwhile, rational folks–especially those with children and grandchildren who will have to navagate an increasingly hostile environment–want government to take measures to ameliorate the threat.

And that threat–despite GOP insanity–is very real. In the same issue of the Guardian that contained the report on Republican climate denial, there was a brief story about photos taken by British tourists at the same spot in the Swiss Alps. The photos were taken almost exactly 15 years apart and highlighted the speed with which global heating is melting glaciers.

i talk a lot about culture war on this blog. Because I’m a recovering lawyer and a past Executive Director of Indiana’s ACLU, those discussions have disproportionately focused on the threat culture warriors like Micah Beckwith and Jim Banks pose to civil liberties, especially (but certainly not exclusively) the threat that these American theocrats pose to genuine religious liberty. That threat is very real, but–as the Guardian report makes abundantly clear–adherence to a worldview that excludes empirical evidence isn’t just an affront to the Constitution. It’s suicidal.

Over the past few years, we’ve read headlines like this one from the Telegraph: “Congressman says God will save us from climate change.” (At least he admitted that climate change exists, so I suppose that’s a point in his favor…)

A Republican congressman who believes that global warming is not a threat because God has promised not to destroy the Earth has put himself forward as chairman of a powerful committee that deals with energy policy and its effect on the environment.

John Shimkus, an evangelical Christian representing Illinois, quoted the Bible in a congressional hearing last year on a proposed “cap and trade” legislation designed to limit carbon emissions…

Shimkus isn’t the only Republican culture warrior who relies on God to fix those pesky climate problems. That reliancee is nothing new, either–in 2017, Time Magazine reported

A Republican congressman told his constituents that he believes God will “take care of” climate change if it proves to be a “real problem.”

Michigan Rep. Tim Walberg said during a town hall in Coldwater, Mich., on Friday that while he believes climate change is real, it is not something for humans to solve.

Subsequent evidence of intensifying bad weather hasn’t challenged Walberg’s belief that God will take care of the problem, so mankind need not bother. Not long after then-President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, Walberg told his constituents that if it turned into a “real” problem, God would “take care of” climate change.

So here we are, with an entire political party that rejects science and empirical evidence  (including the evidence of their own “lying eyes”) in favor of fundamentalist religious dogma. (It should go without saying that such dogma is hotly contested by more rational religious figures–the Pope, for one, has issued an Encyclical urging action on climate change.) 

This rejection of evidence–this wholesale dismissal of science and logic and expertise– is an underappreciated threat posed by MAGA culture warriors. Fully one-fourth of currently-serving American legislators have opted to live in–and defend–an alternate reality. These people shouldn’t be in government. To a significant extent, they owe their elections to Republican gerrymandering, but voter apathy has also been a contributor.

A Blue wave would sweep at least some of these people out of office, and would facilitate government action on the environment. By humans.

Another reason to vote Blue…..

Comments

The Price Of Ideology

In posts to this blog, I often criticize ideological rigidity. Hopefully, those criticisms come in a context that makes the meaning of “ideological” clear, but it may be worthwhile to focus on just what it means to be “ideological” rather than simply convinced of the likelihood that some phenomenon is true.

Ideology has a lot in common with prejudice, which means “pre-judging.” (We all know people who firmly believe that “those people” [insert your chosen group here] are lazy, unintelligent, shifty…whatever–and who dismiss any inconvenient evidence to the contrary.)

Ideology extends beyond such categorizing of one’s fellow humans, of course, and its most obvious characteristic is a stubborn refusal to adapt belief to evidence, and to change or at least modify one’s opinion when that evidence is too persuasive to ignore.

The problem, of course, is that persistent rejection of an unwanted reality usually prevents people from coping with very real problems.

The situation in Florida is an excellent illustration of the foregoing, somewhat abstract discussion. A while back, I came across a discussion of the impact of climate change on Florida residents and businesses. It began by focusing on the closure of assisted living facilities in that state as a result of huge increases in the cost of property insurance–not to mention the growing inability to even find a property insurer willing to write such coverage in Florida.

The state of Florida is incredibly vulnerable to climate change and to the newly numerous and severe weather events that change is triggering. Thanks to its shape and location, it is also uniquely vulnerable to rising sea waters–the Miami airport has spent some seven billion dollars “modernizing” and raising the elevation of the facility due to the speed at which Florida’s sea level is now rising. (Currently, by as much as 1 inch every 3 years.)

Right now, the most obvious effect of climate change on the state is the crisis of property insurance rates and availability.

It is not just business that is taking it on the chin. Floridians pay the highest home insurance rates in the country. The good old gator boys love to point out how expensive the Socialist Republic of New York is. But like all conservative rhetoric, it is vacuous self-congratulation with no foundation in reality.

Homeowners in the Sunshine State do not pay state income tax. But, while a married New Yorker earning $70,000 p.a. pays c.$2,726 in state income tax, a married Floridian living in a $300,000 house will pay c.$4,733 more ($6,366 vs. $1,633) than the NYer for home insurance.

Any effort to solve that crisis runs into DeSantis’ ideology–which denies the evidence every sensible Floridian can see.

Global warming denial is a state religion in Florida. As early as 2014, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection bosses banned their subordinates from saying “climate change” and “global warming.” Because, as everyone knows, the most effective way to tackle a problem is to deny it.

In March 2015, The Miami Herald reported what DEP employees had to say on the matter:

“We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or ‘sustainability,’” said Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP’s Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013.

“That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel.” Kristina Trotta, another former DEP employee who worked in Miami, said her supervisor told her not to use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in a 2014 staff meeting. “We were told that we were not allowed to discuss anything that was not a true fact,” she said….

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation deleting even the mention of climate change from state laws. It gets worse. As CNN reported:

The wide-ranging law makes several changes to the state’s energy policy – in some cases deleting entire sections of state law that talk about the importance of cutting planet-warming pollution. The bill would also give preferential treatment to natural gas and ban offshore wind energy, even though there are no wind farms planned off Florida’s coast.

The bill deletes the phrase ‘climate’ eight times – often in reference to reducing the impacts of global climate change through its energy policy or directing state agencies to buy ‘climate friendly’ products when they are cost-effective and available. The bill also gets rid of a requirement that state-purchased vehicles should be fuel efficient.

I’m not sure when ideology morphs into insanity…

A popular cartoon posed the question: what if there isn’t climate change and we made the world more livable for nothing?

Comments