Climate crisis

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I want to work with everyone’: Alaska’s history-making new congresswoman

      by

      Interview‘I want to work with everyone’: Alaska’s history-making new congresswomanMaanvi Singh in Anchorage Mary Peltola, the first Alaska Native elected to Congress, having defeated former vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, is a relentless coalition builderAhead of her astonishing victory this week in a special election to fill Alaska’s sole congressional seat, Mary Peltola was delighted to get recognized at Costco. “I was approached by some people to do a selfie,” she laughed.It seemed like months of traversing the state for meet-and greets was paying off. “I am getting recognized more.”Wind in Democrats’ sails as Sarah Palin humbled in Alaska special electionRead moreNow, people all over the US are learning her name. Peltola, who is Yup’ik Eskimo, will make history as the first Alaska Native to represent the state in Congress, and as the first Democrat to hold the seat in nearly 50 years.On Wednesday, she prevailed over the Trump-endorsed former vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin and Republican party-backed Nick Begich III – in a state that favoured Trump by 10 points in 2020. She will serve out the remainder of the late Republican congressman Don Young’s term.A former state legislator and fisheries manager, Peltola campaigned as a relentlessly amicable coalition builder. “I want to work with everyone and anyone who is a reasonable person to find solutions to Alaska’s challenges,” she said.In a race where Palin’s celebrity – and her self-described “right-winging, bitter-clinging” attack dog energy – loomed large in the media and in voters’ minds, Peltola would often bring up her warm relationship with Palin. She’d talk about how both she and Palin were pregnant at the same time, while Peltola was serving as a legislator and Palin was governor. “Our teenagers are just a month apart,” she said. Before Palin left to campaign as Republican John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 elections, she bequeathed Peltola her backyard trampoline.Resolute nicenessPeltola was born in 1973, the year that Young was elected to office, and her father was a friend of the late congressman. While Young – a bombastic character with a taxidermy-stuffed office, a reputation for making racist and sexist jokes and a zeal for oil – was very much a contrast to Peltola, in demeanour and philosophy, voters in Anchorage nonetheless said they shared a sense of pragmatic bipartisanship.In 2010, Peltola helped to run the write-in campaign for Lisa Murkowski, the Republican senator with an independent streak now fighting for her political life after she voted for Trump’s impeachment.First elected to the state legislature in 1998, Peltola built a reputation for resolute niceness. She helped build the Bush Caucus – a bipartisan group of legislators representing the most rural and remote parts of the state – and showed a knack for winning over even her most conservative colleagues to advance policies on natural resource management and infrastructure.Peltola’s own politics diverge from the Republicans she is often willing to work with. In the US House race, she was the only candidate who endorsed abortion rights. “Alaska Natives have a history of forced sterilisation against their knowledge or consent,” she said. “People should have to build their families the way, when and how they choose. And for that to be infringed on is very troubling.”A majority of Alaskans support the right to choose – and after the supreme court decision to revoke the constitutional right to abortion access, the issue has energized voters in the Last Frontier as it has in other parts of the country.Peltola’s policies on climate adaptation also reflect the nuanced realities of Alaska – a state whose economy is intricately entwined with the oil and gas industry and whose people live at the Arctic edge of the climate crisis. Alaska is losing glacier ice faster than anywhere else in the world. “In the near term, we are tied to oil and gas. And in the near term, that is how we are paying our bills as Alaskans,” Peltola said. But “I have seen firsthand the effects of climate change across Alaska. We had over 250 wildfires this summer before June, we had the largest tundra fire we’ve ever seen in May.” Fisheries and salmon stock, which many Alaskans depend on for sustenance, are suffering, she added.Her platform focused on investment in renewable energy and a gradual transition for Alaska’s economy.A focus on bipartisanship could pay offIt remains unclear if Peltola’s moderate way will pave her path to victory in November when she’ll be running again in the race to serve the next full, two-year term in Congress. Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system, which the state tried for the first time with the special election, could be shaped as much by Alaskans’ scepticism about Palin as their support for Peltola.But in a state that tends to elect a Republican but where the majority of voters declare no party preference, her focus on bipartisanship could pay off.“We all have to help each other out if we’re going to survive. That’s the fundamental nature of Alaskans,” said Ivan Moore, an Anchorage-based pollster who has been tracking Peltola’s rise in Alaska politics. “We can be political assholes, just like everywhere else. But when push comes to shove, when it’s life and death, Alaskans will help each other. And I think Mary tapped into that.”“She speaks in a language that connects people,” said Shirley Mae Springer Staten, 76, an Anchorage-based arts educator who supported Peltola. “There’s a new wave of unkindness in politics these days, and I like that Mary Peltola pushes against that.”News of her victory this week came on Peltola’s 49th birthday – a “GOOD DAY”, she tweeted shortly after the elections division released preliminary results.Now more people know who she is. But she’s sticking with what works. “Support a regular Alaskan,” is the slogan.TopicsAlaskaDemocratsUS politicsSarah PalinClimate crisisinterviewsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Polling shows that US voters favor climate bills – yet assume fellow Americans don’t | Adrienne Matei

      by

      Polling shows that US voters favor climate bills – yet assume fellow Americans don’tAdrienne MateiPart of the key to collective action may be to overcome the ‘false social reality’ that makes us assume no one else cares about the climate America is polarized, but a new study has revealed one issue on which the nation is surprisingly united: mitigating climate change.Yet Americans themselves underestimate the US population’s concern for the state of the climate and support for major climate mitigation policies – by a whopping 80–90%, according to researchers from Boston College, Princeton University and Indiana University Bloomington.In a peer-reviewed article, researchers shared the results of a nationwide survey of 6,000 Americans, for which participants were asked to estimate the percentage of Americans who were “at least somewhat concerned about climate change”. Participants also estimated the percentage of Americans they thought supported specific climate policies including carbon taxes for fossil fuel companies, renewable energy mandates, building renewable energy projects on public lands, and a Green New Deal.Regardless of political orientation, education, age, race, media preferences and income, the study found all Americans vastly underestimate how much their compatriots care about climate change and support green policies.“Climate policy and concern about climate change are much more prevalent than you think in the US,” one of the study’s authors, Gregg Sparkman, told Scientific American. “And virtually everyone in the country seems to greatly underestimate how popular climate policy is and to underestimate how concerned their fellow Americans are about climate change.”Despite polls by Yale’s Program on Climate Change Communication showing that a “supermajority” of 66–80% of Americans support these climate policies, the average American estimates that only a minority of 37–43% of the public are down for the eco cause. Republicans proved especially pessimistic about how much people care about climate change, though virtually half of Republicans are pro-climate policies, says Sparkman. In truth, the issue of securing a livable future appears to enjoy bipartisan support.It turns out that the feeling of being alienated in one’s concern for the environment is as widespread as it is unfounded. In fact, this study captures a phenomenon known as “pluralistic ignorance”, a shared misconception of the thoughts and behaviors of others. In this case, pluralistic ignorance results in what the authors call a “false social reality” in which many of us perceive that others aren’t willing to take action on climate issues, and overestimate how many Americans are indifferent to, or in denial of, climate change.Ending the misconception that most Americans don’t care about climate change and truly appreciating how popular eco-friendly policies are could give such measures valuable momentum and support, and encourage politicians to pursue greener agendas. Moreover, understanding that there’s nothing fringe about caring about the environment could help people feel more confident discussing their green politics with peers. The perception that people are unified in the desire for pro-climate legislation is a powerful thing – it becomes easier to take action when we know that people actually support collective solutions.The reassurance that we are all on the same side when it comes to reducing the effects of climate change could also help us manage climate anxiety and feel more optimistic about the future. Young people are especially struggling with the latter; a 2021 Bath University survey of more than 10,000 teens and young adults across 10 countries found that 75% believe “the future is frightening”, with researchers linking youth psychological distress to government inaction on climate change.Published in the wake of Democrats’ passing of the landmark Inflation Reduction Act, a $369bn investment in renewable energy and emissions reduction, this research suggests Americans are united in the fight against climate change, and that’s a good thing. Have no misconceptions about it: mitigating climate change will require a collective effort.
      Adrienne Matei is a freelance journalist
      TopicsEnvironmentOpinionClimate crisisUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      How a top US business lobby promised climate action – but worked to block efforts

      by

      How a top US business lobby promised climate action – but worked to block efforts Business Roundtable aims to weaken efforts that would enable investors to hold companies accountable for their climate promisesThree years ago today, in a statement that would be described as “historic”, “monumental” and “revolutionary”, America’s most powerful and politically connected corporations promised to “protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses”.The “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation” came from the Business Roundtable, an influential Washington DC lobbying group whose 200-plus members include the chief executives of some of the world’s biggest companies, including Apple, Pepsi, Walmart and Google.Today, on the statement’s third anniversary, the Business Roundtable and its member CEOs continue to issue earnest statements about the climate crisis. But the organization is also working diligently – and spending liberally – to weaken efforts that would enable investors to hold companies accountable for their climate promises.An analysis by the Guardian found the lobby group has worked hard to protect a status quo in which corporations:
      Generate goodwill and positive PR by publishing bold climate goals, with little fear of being held accountable or legally liable for achieving those goals.
      Can choose to selectively disclose certain parts of their carbon footprint, or none at all.
      Are not required to reveal the greenhouse gas emissions generated throughout their supply chains – which, for most companies, make up the majority of their emissions.
      Make high-profile pledges to fight climate change, while paying to maintain memberships in the Business Roundtable and other trade associations that spend millions of dollars to lobby governments against meaningful climate action.
      In public the Business Roundtable’s leaders are still committed to change. Doug McMillon, the CEO of Walmart and previous chair of the Business Roundtable, has called the climate crisis “one of the greatest challenges facing the planet today”. In a statement on the group’s website, Mary Barra, the CEO of GM and the Roundtable’s current chair, declared that “we must act” to tackle climate change. “Meeting the scope of this challenge will require collective global action – business and government,” Barra said.The challenge “isn’t the lack of business commitment” said Johnson Controls CEO George Oliver in a video published by the Business Roundtable in January. “What we need is to be aligned with the public sector to make sure that we’ve got the proper policies in place that will enable us to do what we do so well.”Yet when the US government has tried to put the “proper policies” in place, the Business Roundtable has worked to undermine those efforts.In 2021, the organization spent millions of dollars to stop the Biden administration’s Build Back Better agenda, which included significant efforts to reduce carbon emissions and promote clean energy.And this year, after the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a long-anticipated rule that would require publicly held companies to disclose their carbon emissions and the risks that climate change poses to their business models, the Business Roundtable declared its opposition to central aspects of the SEC proposal, including provisions that experts say are vital for the rule to give investors comparable and consistent information about corporations’ climate risks.Before releasing the proposed rules in March, the SEC had asked the public what such rules might look like. In its response, the Business Roundtable acknowledged that “climate challenges are creating growing risks in many parts of the economy” and deemed it “appropriate” for the SEC to regulate climate disclosures.The group noted that the present system of corporate climate reporting, in which some companies issue voluntary climate-related disclosures, has proven inadequate. “There are many conflicting demands on companies to provide disclosures under different frameworks, which is unnecessarily costly and time-consuming for companies,” the Business Roundtable’s comments read.But when the SEC shifted from requesting voluntary input to proposing mandatory requirements for climate disclosures, the organization appeared to change its tune. In a 17-page letter, the CEO lobby announced its opposition to the proposal and asked the commission to “revise and repropose the rule.”In an email to the Guardian, the Business Roundtable denied that its perspective had changed. “[Business Roundtable] members are committed to combating climate change and are supportive of a rulemaking. Our goal is for a pragmatic, attainable, and successful rule,” the group said. “Our members believe it is worth the extra time on the front end to repropose the rule.”Since April 2021, according to meeting memoranda published by the SEC, the Business Roundtable has met at least three times with the SEC about climate disclosures. (GM’s Barra, the chair of the Business Roundtable, also met separately with SEC chair Gary Gensler.)In the first half of this year, the group spent more than $9.1m lobbying the federal government directly, according to reports compiled by Open Secrets. In its public disclosures, the Roundtable reported lobbying Congress, the White House and the SEC about the climate disclosure proposal. (In an email, the Business Roundtable said it “met with the SEC to directly communicate our concerns” and “shared our point of view with members of Congress and administration officials.”)Despite asking for a new, and thus delayed, proposal, the organization’s own members continue to assure the public that they see the climate crisis as an urgent challenge. “We’re out of time,” Cummins CEO and Business Roundtable member Tom Linebarger said in the organization’s January climate video. “We’re getting ready, to get ready, to get ready to do things. And the problem is that we have to move now.”But “now”, it seems, does not mean now.One provision the Business Roundtable has rejected as “unworkable” is a requirement for companies to measure and report the greenhouse gas emissions generated by suppliers and customers throughout their supply chains, or what are known as “Scope 3” emissions. The provision would apply only to companies that have published emissions targets that include Scope 3, or for which supply-chain emissions are considered “material”.Scope 3 includes all greenhouse gas emissions that companies neither generate directly (Scope 1) nor purchase for their own energy needs (Scope 2), which means everything from the raw materials that go into creating a product to the transportation that delivers that product to a consumer.For most companies, Scope 3 emissions represent the majority of their carbon output. As Addisu Lashitew, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, has pointed out, more than three-quarters of Amazon’s 2021 emissions were considered Scope 3.Diagram showing Scope 3 emissions are everything indirectly related to productionThe Business Roundtable supports mandating Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions disclosures, and many companies already report them, in part because these direct emissions are easier to calculate and easier to reduce (sometimes through the purchase of dubious carbon “offsets”).Perhaps more importantly, however, because most firms’ emissions are primarily Scope 3, limiting their reporting to Scopes 1 and 2 makes them appear greener.In its comments to the SEC, the Business Roundtable called the proposal to require companies to measure and report Scope 3 emissions “overly burdensome” because “many companies still have limited systems in place to identify and disclose Scope 3 emissions” and some aspects of reporting value-chain emissions “remain[] challenging”.But “if you don’t have Scope 3 as a requirement, then what you have effectively done is cut out most of the emissions from the top-emitting industries,” Allison Herren Lee, the former acting chair and commissioner of the SEC, told the Guardian. “With emissions arguably being the most important item of disclosure for investors, how is a rule without Scope 3 going to achieve what investors need?”“There is an inherent degree of uncertainty in some of the data the proposal would require companies to disclose, and much of it is largely outside their control,” the Business Roundtable said in an email.A number of experts familiar with the SEC’s climate disclosure rulemaking acknowledged that tracking and reporting Scope 3 emissions could indeed be difficult for some companies, or at least more difficult than not doing so.But they suggested that the more fundamental question was not whether complying with the SEC’s rules would be more difficult than doing nothing, but rather if doing so would provide investors with information that they have requested and that would help them make more informed investment decisions.This argument would appear to align with the stated position of the Business Roundtable, which has repeatedly expressed its support for “market-based” efforts to address climate change, a view it reiterated in its comments to the SEC.“Information is the lifeblood of the capital markets, and capital markets are a central institution of a capitalist market economy,” George S Georgiev, a professor at Emory University and an expert on securities law, told the Guardian. “Climate-related financial information is demanded by investors, not by environmentalists.”Moreover, “there is no unanimity that Scope 3 reporting is problematic”, Georgiev said, noting that Apple, whose CEO, Tim Cook, sits on the Business Roundtable’s board of directors, is among the companies that have endorsed the SEC’s Scope 3 requirement. Apple’s existing reporting “attest[s] to the feasibility of reasonably modeling, measuring, and reporting on all three scopes of emissions, including scope 3 emissions,” the company told the Commission.In its comments, the Business Roundtable said that its member companies had already set a “high bar…for voluntary ESG [environmental, social and governance] disclosures,” and that a voluntary approach to climate reporting was already “providing more valuable information for investors”.But many investors, analysts, academics, voters and experts – even companies themselves – disagree. “There is near-universal agreement among scholars that voluntary disclosure rules alone are not sufficient,” Emory’s Georgiev said. “The same logic applies to climate rules.”“Climate is one of the most significant risks facing companies and investors,” said Danielle Fugere, the president and chief counsel of As You Sow, a shareholder advocacy nonprofit. “For companies to say that it is too costly to gather Scope 1 through 3 data, we simply think that it shows signs of weak management.”In a March letter, a group of investors managing nearly $5tn of assets warned that failing to require companies to disclose their Scope 3 emissions would render the SEC rules doubly ineffective: insufficient for addressing the climate emergency, and inadequate for providing investors with useful information, because voluntary figures allow companies to publish only the information that paints them in the best light.“There is a great amount of confusion,” Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, said in a speech last year. “If we are really going to tackle this, if we want to have 100% participation, the easiest way you could do that is having unified standards.” Fink is also a member of the Business Roundtable.In an email, the Roundtable said it was “unlikely” that the proposed Scope 3 disclosure provisions “would result in comparable, investor-useful information”. The group “believes it’s important to have reliable climate risk and emissions data, and our companies are leaders when it comes to transparency.”The group’s objections to the SEC’s Scope 3 requirements are only one aspect of its multi-tiered opposition to the proposed climate disclosure rules. And its opposition to the proposed rules is, similarly, only one example of many in which it has rejected efforts to hold its member companies accountable for their social and environmental pledges.In the three years since the organization released the “purpose of a corporation” statement, a number of studies have shown that Business Roundtable companies have failed to follow through on their “fundamental commitment to all of [their] stakeholders”.One analysis from London Business School and Columbia Business School found that companies whose CEOs signed the 2019 statement subsequently received more federal environmental infractions and had higher carbon emissions than similar firms that did not sign the statement.In another study, two Harvard Law School professors reviewed more than 600 public documents filed by Business Roundtable companies since the statement’s publication. Time and time again, the researchers found that when firms were presented with an opportunity to formalize the pledge in their corporate governance, they declined.In addition, by advocating and lobbying against government action on issues like climate change, the Business Roundtable gives its members space to publicly endorse (and claim credit for endorsing) legislative and regulatory action – such as Apple’s support for mandatory Scope 3 reporting, or Cummins and GM’s support for Build Back Better –all while knowing that the Roundtable will work behind the scenes in opposition.“Some individual companies aren’t going to write in and rage against the proposal because they know that will raise concerns with their investors, so they let some of the trade groups do that work for them,” said Allison Herren Lee, the SEC’s former acting chair and commissioner.In its comments to the SEC, the Business Roundtable urged lawmakers to take the lead on tackling the climate crisis, arguing that “although important, disclosures simply will not solve the problem”.“These are complex issues that need to be solved through the legislative process,” the group wrote.But the Business Roundtable continues to oppose efforts to address the climate emergency through the legislative process. The latest effort to tackle the climate crisis, the Inflation Reduction Act, includes billions of dollars in clean energy tax incentives, paid for in part by making sure corporations pay at least a 15% tax rate on profits. The bill could cut America’s carbon emissions by 40% by 2030.Yet on 6 August, just shy of the third anniversary of the statement in which Business Roundtable CEOs committed to “protect[ing] the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses”, the group declared its opposition to the bill, citing “tax provisions that would undermine American economic growth and competitiveness”.“I’m just so worried that our planet can no longer suffer from us debating and debating and debating,” said Cummins CEO Tom Linebarger, who, like all the CEOs named in this article, signed the 2019 statement. “It’s the existential crisis of our time.”TopicsClimate crisisApplePepsicoGoogleUS politicsanalysisReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Biggest step forward on climate ever’: Biden signs Democrats’ landmark bill

      by

      ‘Biggest step forward on climate ever’: Biden signs Democrats’ landmark billParty leaders hope approval of Inflation Reduction Act will boost their prospects in the midterm elections this November Joe Biden signed Democrats’ healthcare, climate and tax package on Tuesday, putting the final seal of approval on a landmark bill that party leaders hope will boost their prospects in the midterm elections this November.During a bill-signing ceremony at the White House, the US president celebrated the bill as a historic piece of legislation that would reduce healthcare costs for millions of Americans and help address the climate crisis.“With this law, the American people won and the special interests lost,” Biden said. “Today offers further proof that the soul of America is vibrant, the future of America is bright and the promise of America is real and just beginning.”The signing came four days after the House passed the bill, formally known as the Inflation Reduction Act, in a party-line vote of 220 to 207. The bill had previously passed the Senate in a party-line vote of 51 to 50, with Vice-President Kamala Harris breaking the tie in the evenly divided chamber.The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act capped off more than a year of negotiations among Democrats, after the bill’s predecessor, the Build Back Better Act, stalled in the Senate due to opposition from one of the party’s centrist members, Joe Manchin.The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, spent months quietly negotiating with Manchin over a more narrow spending package, resulting in the Inflation Reduction Act.While the Build Back Better Act was much larger in scope, Democrats have still celebrated the climate and healthcare provisions included in their compromise bill.The law directs $369bn toward investing in renewable energy and reducing America’s planet-heating emissions, marking the country’s most significant effort yet to combat the climate crisis. Experts have estimated the bill could reduce US emissions by about 40% by 2030, compared with 2005 levels, close to Biden’s goal of cutting emissions in half by the end of the decade.“This bill is the biggest step forward on climate ever,” Biden said Tuesday. “It’s going to allow us to boldly take additional steps toward meeting all of my climate goals, the ones we set out when we ran.”In terms of healthcare provisions, the bill will allow Medicare to start negotiating the price of certain expensive drugs and will cap out-of-pocket prescription drug costs at $2,000 a year for those in the government insurance program for seniors and some with disability status. It will also alleviate premium hikes for those who receive insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace, the federal program informally known as Obamacare.The cost of the legislation is covered through a series of tax changes, which are expected to bring in hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue for the US government. Those changes include a new corporate minimum tax, a 1% excise tax on stock buybacks and enhanced enforcement from the Internal Revenue Service targeting high-income households.After the House passage of the bill last Friday, Democratic party leaders took to the airwaves to tout the benefits of the legislation, promising that it would help ease the financial burden for Americans struggling under the weight of record-high inflation.“It’s making sure that billionaires in corporate America are paying their fair share, making sure that the tax code is a little bit more fair,” the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, told ABC News on Sunday. “When you put it in its totality, you will see that it will lower the deficit, which will help fight inflation.”But Republicans have dismissed Democrats’ arguments that the bill will help ease inflation, accusing them of ramming through a reckless spending spree that will do little to aid working Americans.“[Democrats’] response to the runaway inflation they’ve created is a bill that experts say will not meaningfully cut inflation at all,” the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said earlier this month. “Democrats have proven over and over they simply do not care about middle-class families’ priorities.”According to a report issued by Moody’s Analytics, Democrats’ spending package will “modestly reduce inflation over the 10-year budget horizon”. But regardless of the bill’s impact, there have been some signs that inflation may be cooling off.US inflation hit an annual rate of 8.5% last month, which represented a slight decrease from the 40-year high of 9.1% recorded in June. If inflation does indeed start to taper off and Democrats can sell the passage of their spending package on the campaign trail, it could help them prevent widespread losses in the midterm elections this November.“I’ve been prepared to win the midterms all along. It depends on getting out the vote. This probably could be helpful,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said of the bill’s passage last week. “But I do know it will be helpful to America’s working families, and that’s our purpose.”TopicsJoe BidenUS politicsUS domestic policyClimate crisisUS healthcarenewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Biden’s green deal: leadership after Trump’s denialism | Editorial

      by

      The Guardian view on Biden’s green deal: leadership after Trump’s denialismEditorialThe first major climate law passed in the US comes not a moment too soon for a burning planet When the House of Representatives passed landmark climate legislation on Friday, Joe Biden chalked up one of the surprise successes of his presidency. Only last month his ambitious agenda appeared sunk after a conservative Democrat and coal baron, Joe Manchin, refused to back it. His vote is crucial in an evenly divided Senate. However, the climate proposals were largely resurrected in the form of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), co-authored by Mr Manchin, which Congress approved.The first major US climate law comes not a moment too soon. It is the country’s best and last opportunity to meet its goal of halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and, with it, a world where net zero by mid-century is possible. After Donald Trump, Mr Biden can reclaim the mantle of global climate leadership for the US. But the act reveals the limits of his power.The Democrats’ initial $3.5tn plan was to expand education, fight poverty, lower healthcare costs and tackle climate change. That was whittled down to a $1.75tn bill that the House passed last year. But it got nowhere in the Senate. Mr Manchin refused to back the social security programmes and his centrist colleague Kyrsten Sinema refused to back the tax rises. What was left was $490bn in climate and healthcare investments.This deserves a small cheer from progressives. Mr Biden is pursuing a muscular policy of state intervention in the economy. The act for the first time gives the federal government the power to negotiate lower drug prices. Significantly for the climate, it represents a new US industrial policy that subsidises zero-carbon power production via tax credits. It also recognises that the US is falling behind China in green technology – spending $152bn less on renewable investments last year – and focuses on ways to encourage clean-energy manufacturing.Politics in the US is unfortunately far too influenced by the power of vested interests. The US remains addicted to fossil fuels, which generate 61% of its electricity. Its shale gas industry is looking to replace Russia as the major energy supplier to Europe. The upshot was that fossil fuel lobbyists won concessions in the climate legislation. The compromise means linking renewable development to new oil and gas extraction for which many communities will bear the disproportionate cost.Nevertheless, for every one tonne of emissions caused by the act’s fossil fuel provisions, the non-partisan Energy Innovation thinktank says 24 tonnes of emissions are avoided by its green provisions. This ought to help energise Mr Biden’s base ahead of the midterm elections. Despite Republican antagonism, climate action enjoys broad support in the US. A Pew Research Center poll suggests that 58% of voters think the federal government is doing too little to “reduce the effects of global climate change, compared with just 18% who say it is doing too much”.To be a truly transformative president, Mr Biden will need to remake society. What the act demonstrates is that he does not have the votes – yet – in his own party for such a programme. Mr Biden’s climate plans may fall short because he is relying on the carrot of spending rather than the stick of taxes to underpin an energy transition. Yet the wasteful consumption of the wealthy will have to be reduced with progressive taxation to make resources available for socially-useful spending. Ultimately the climate emergency needs a fundamental economic restructuring. Mr Biden’s new environmental law is a good start, but there’s a very long way to go.TopicsClimate crisisOpinionUS politicsJoe BidenNancy PelosiDemocratsRepublicanseditorialsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Can Biden’s climate bill undo the fossil fuel industry’s decades of harm?

      by

      Can Biden’s climate bill undo the fossil fuel industry’s decades of harm?The US spent six decades losing the climate war as fossil fuel companies spread misinformation. It has finally gained significant ground The scientists’ warning to the US president on climate crisis was stark: the world’s countries were conducting a vast, dangerous experiment through their enormous release of planet-heating emissions, which threaten to be “deleterious from the point of view of human beings”. Some sort of remedial action was needed, they urged.This official alert was issued not to Joe Biden, who is poised to sign America’s first ever major legislation designed to tackle the climate crisis, but in a report given to his presidential predecessor Lyndon Johnson in 1965, a year when the now 79-year-old Biden was still in college.That it has taken nearly six decades for the US to tackle global heating in a significant way, despite being responsible for a quarter of all emissions that have heated the planet during modern civilization, is indicative of a lengthy climate war. Pernicious misinformation of the fossil fuel industry, cynicism and bungled political maneuvering have stymied any sort of action to avert catastrophic heatwaves, floods, drought and wildfires.If on Friday, as expected, the House of Representatives assents to the landmark $370bn in climate spending hashed out in the US Senate and sends it for Biden’s signature, it will be a watershed moment in a saga that can be measured in whole careers and lifetimes.Al Gore was a fresh-faced 33-year-old congressman from Tennessee when, in 1981, he organized an obscure hearing with fellow lawmakers to hear evidence on the greenhouse effect from Roger Revelle, his former professor at Harvard and one of the scientists who had cautioned Johnson 16 years earlier of a looming climate disaster.Gore is now 74, a former US vice-president and veteran climate advocate whose increasingly urgent warnings on the issue won him the Nobel peace prize when Greta Thunberg was barely four years old. “I never imagined I would end up devoting my life to this,” Gore said.“I thought, naively in retrospect, that when the facts were laid out so clearly we would be able to move much more quickly. I did not anticipate the fossil fuel industry would spend billions of dollars on an industrial scale program of lying and deception to prevent the body politic acting in a rational way. But here we are, we finally passed that threshold.”Gore considers the bill, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, as a “critical turning point in our struggle to confront the climate crisis” that will supercharge deployment of renewable energy such as wind and solar and push fossil fuels towards irrelevancy.Al Gore hails Biden’s historic climate bill as ‘a critical turning point’Read moreMany current Democratic lawmakers, who narrowly passed the bill through the Senate, also felt the weight of the moment, with many of them wearing the warming stripes colors showing the global heating trend. Some burst into tears as the legislation squeaked home on Sunday.“We’ve been fighting for this for decades, now I can look my kids in the eye and say we’re really doing something about climate,” said Brian Schatz, a senator from Hawaii and one of the tearful. “The Senate was where climate bills went to die and now it’s where the biggest climate action by any government ever has been taken.”The list of previous failures is lengthy. Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the roof of the White House, only for Ronald Reagan to rip them down. Bill Clinton attempted a new tax on pollutants only for a sharp backlash from industry to see the effort die. The US, under George W Bush’s presidency, declined to join the 1997 Kyoto climate accords and then, when Barack Obama was in the White House, botched climate legislation in 2009 despite strong Democratic majorities in Congress.Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, torched most of the modest measures in place to curb planet-heating gases and campaigned wearing a coalminer’s helmet. “I didn’t doubt we’d get there but there were times when the struggle became harder than I thought it would be, such as when Trump was elected,” Gore said.Climate change has inflicted increasingly severe wounds on Americans as their politicians have floundered or dissembled. Enormous wildfires are now a year-round threat to California, with the US west in the grip of possibly its worst drought in 12 centuries. Extreme rainfall now routinely drowns basements in New York, Appalachian towns, and Las Vegas casinos. The poorest fare worst from the roasting heatwaves and the continued air pollution from power plants, cars and trucks.James Hansen, the Nasa scientist, told Congress in a landmark 1988 hearing that “it is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here” and yet the escalating subsequent warnings appeared to make little difference. Shortly before a Senate deal was brokered, the climate scientist Drew Shindell said that the lack of action made him “want to scream” and that “I keep wondering what’s the point of producing all the science” if it’s only to be ignored.Much of the blame for this has been laid on the fossil fuel industry, which has known for decades the disastrous consequences of its business model only to fund an extensive network of operations that concealed this information and sought to sow doubt among the public over the science.“These forces have been far more active and effective in the United States than in other countries,” said Naomi Oreskes, an American historian of science who has written on the false information spread by industry on climate crisis.“For more than 20 years, American public opinion has been heavily influenced by the ‘merchants of doubt’, who sold disinformation designed to make people think that the science regarding climate change was far more uncertain than it actually was.”Industry lobbying and generous donations have ensured that the Republican party has fallen almost entirely in line with the demands of major oil and gas companies. As recently as 2008, a Republican running for president, John McCain, had a recognizable climate plan but the issue is now close to party heresy, despite rising concern among all Americans, including Republican voters, about climate-induced disasters.The strategy of misinformation “worked even more than its originators imagined”, Oreskes said, noting that every single Republican senator voted against the Inflation Reduction Act. Mitch McConnell, the GOP Senate leader, lambasted the bill as “Green New Deal nonsense” out of step with Americans’ priorities, even as much of his home state of Kentucky lay underwater from its worst flooding on record, killing dozens and inundating whole towns.The continued, staunch opposition to any meaningful climate action by Republicans means the climate wars in American politics are not likely to draw to a close anytime soon. But climate advocates hope the gathering pace of renewable energy and electric car adoption will soon be unstoppable, regardless of any attempted backsliding if Republicans regain power.The question will be how much damage to a livable climate will be done in the meantime. The climate bill is expected to help slash the emissions of the US, the world’s second largest carbon polluter, by about 40% this decade, which should prod other countries to do more. Crucial, upcoming UN climate talks in Egypt suddenly look a more welcoming prospect for the American delegation.“In the prior administration, I think the rest of the world lost faith in the United States in terms of our commitment to climate,” said Gina McCarthy, Biden’s top climate adviser. “This doesn’t just restore that faith in the United States, but it creates an opportunity zone that other countries can start thinking about.”But almost every country, including the US, is still not doing enough, quickly enough, to head off the prospect of catastrophic global heating. The climate wars helped enrich fossil fuel corporations but cost precious time that the new climate bill does not claw back.“It was a celebratory and joyful moment when the legislation finally passed but we can’t let this be a once in a lifetime moment,” Gore said. “The path to net zero (emissions) requires us to move forward and a lot of the hard work lies ahead.”TopicsClimate crisisAl GoreUS politicsBiden administrationTrump administrationObama administrationfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The Democrats’ climate bill is a historic victory. But we can’t stop here | Dan Sherrell

      by

      The Democrats’ climate bill is a historic victory. But we can’t stop hereDaniel SherrellPassage of the Inflation Reduction Act filled me with joy and rage, relief and apprehension, exhaustion and vigilance. We must celebrate, but also mourn, rage and organize I was at a Mets game when news broke that the climate bill had enough votes to pass in the Senate. It was the bottom of the eighth, and Edwin Díaz had just struck out the heart of the Braves’ lineup. The crowd at Citi Field was feeling good. Everyone could sense a win was at hand.I read the push notification then sat there stunned for several minutes, watching the Mets clinch the game, waiting for the world-shaping news to register. Then suddenly I was tearing up, rising from my seat in a daze, the man down the row giving me a look somewhere between embarrassment and admiration (Jesus, he probably thought. This guy really loves the Mets).Congress is about to pass a historic climate bill. So why are oil companies pleased? | Kate AronoffRead moreUp in the nosebleeds, moths were circling in the glare of the floodlights. The players looked like figurines, tiny and detailed, far below in their bright diamond. From where we were sitting, we could see tens of thousands of people, every one of whom would be affected – in some way, at some point – by the news that had just buzzed in my pocket. Over the whole scene loomed the logo of Citibank corporation. In the coming days, Citi – along with its peers in the Business Roundtable and US Chamber of Commerce – would abet an all-out blitz to kill the bill.In the week since the Senate voted 51-50 in favor of the Inflation Reduction Act, I’ve felt a rush of emotion unlike any I’ve experienced in my time as a climate organizer. Joy and rage, relief and apprehension, exhaustion and vigilance – a knot too tight to unravel.Joy because there is much in the bill that warrants it. According to multiple independent analyses, the bill’s $370bn worth of climate investments will reduce US emissions somewhere in the ballpark of 40% by 2030, equivalent to 4bn metric tons of CO2. According to one recent study, this level of carbon abatement will prevent millions of avoidable deaths, most of them in the global south. The investments are also predicted to generate about 9m domestic jobs, many of them in purple states, potentially creating new and lasting constituencies in support of climate action. And the bill invests $60bn to aid the low-income and communities of color who for decades have served as dumping grounds of our nation’s dirtiest and most dangerous fossil fuel infrastructure. This is an unprecedented increase in federal environmental justice funding – and a far cry from the climate reparations that are actually owed.Long the villain of global climate talks, passage of the bill will go a long way toward helping the US meet its obligations under the Paris climate agreement, and afford it newfound leverage in convincing other nations to do the same. Combined with recent climate policy breakthroughs everywhere from Chile, to Germany, to Australia, the bill makes it somewhat less likely (though still far from impossible) that we will breach a civilization-ending tipping point – and significantly more likely that the 2020s will witness a marked acceleration in renewable energy deployment.These moral goods are worthy of real celebration, especially given the bill’s almost miraculous resurrection: killed twice over by Joe Manchin before being passed at the last possible moment with the thinnest possible Senate majority.Like all historical inflection points, its passage was the product of a complex interchange between individuals and institutions, singular moments and longstanding movements. Thank Senator Chuck Schumer, sure, but also thank the staffers who sat in his office, demanding he restart negotiations on a bill most of Capitol Hill had left for dead. Thank President Biden, but also thank the legions of young people who transformed the mainstream Democratic consensus and forced the climate crisis to the top of his policy agenda. Thank the organizers, scientists, wonks and artists who have labored for decades to create the political conditions under which this bill could be passed. Thank the people who put their bodies on the line to block new fossil fuel infrastructure – without their grassroots embargo of the Mountain Valley pipeline, for instance, Schumer might not have had the leverage to finally coax Manchin on board.Already, public discourse around the IRA is ossifying deep contingency into settled history, transforming the incredibly precarious chain of events that resulted in its passage into the self-evident monolith of “what ultimately happened”. But it remains the case – and this seems vital to keep in mind – that it almost didn’t happen at all. Why? Because our democracy is under siege.As soon as Schumer announced the deal, much of corporate America mobilized to destroy it. The Business Roundtable and the US Chamber of Commerce penned letters and blanketed Arizona with ads, railing against its proposed 15% minimum corporate tax rate, and urging Kyrsten Sinema to vote no. Many of their members, including CEOs like Tim Cook of Apple and Andy Jassy of Amazon, have talked a big game on climate in recent years, burnishing their corporate reputations. But faced with the prospect of paying their fair share in taxes, they fought hard to derail the most important climate legislation in US history.The Republican party, likewise, did everything in its power to kill the bill. Every single Senate Republican voted no, including those few – Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski – who occasionally affect concern over soaring temperatures. This despite American voters supporting the IRA by a 51-point margin, despite Senate Republicans representing 40 million fewer Americans than Senate Democrats. There are various plausible articulations of what the Republican party has become: a protection racket for fossil fuel executives; a millenarian cult, too dug in to change course. Either way, the GOP has proved willing to undermine democracy itself, all to prevent the public from trying to avert disaster.And then there were Senators Sinema and Manchin, who took the bill hostage out of fealty to their corporate donors. Sinema, who since 2018 has received over $2m in Wall Street campaign donations, managed to preserve indefensible tax breaks for private equity executives, carve-outs that even Larry Summers found appalling. Manchin used his leverage to force through multiple handouts to the fossil fuel industry – an industry that was already one of the richest in world history, and that in recent months has made record profits gouging working people at the pump.The handouts will allow the industry to force new oil and gas infrastructure into communities that are already suffering the fallout of fossil fuel extraction: cancer clusters, lung disease, ecological devastation. The damage will be felt worst in low-income and non-white communities, particularly in Alaska and the Gulf – communities that the industry has spent decades sacrificing on the altar of their quarterly profits. Manchin, meanwhile, has made millions from his family’s coal business and is one of the biggest beneficiaries of oil and gas dollars in the Senate. No doubt he will make off handsomely.There is a certain strain of triumphalism that would have us believe these tragedies are necessary and normal: simply the compromise inherent in a democracy. But the grievous flaws in this bill represent a failure, not a triumph, of democracy. In both process and content, the IRA has demonstrated the extent to which our public policy is perverted by unelected corporate shareholders and the politicians they’ve purchased. Legally constituted to hoard profit and distribute risk, many large corporations continue to engage in a kind of normalized depravity, choosing – and this is difficult to overstate – modest tax breaks over the integrity of life on Earth. They are sociopaths in the Athenian forum, amassing power and deflecting accountability, masking their monomania with expensive public relations. Almost everyone suffers from their ruthlessness, but none more so than the communities where they site their drill rigs and pipelines. This is less a commentary on any individual executive than it is on the structure of the limited liability corporation. No entity with so little allegiance to the public should be granted such determinative control over its fate.When Senator Bernie Sanders tried to make this point on the floor of the Senate (before ultimately voting in favor of the IRA), he was effectively dismissed by Democratic colleagues. Their reluctance to engage was hardly surprising. With the thrill of victory comes the temptation to conflate the world that now is – the new world that has just come into being – with the world as it should be. Maintaining the gap between the two takes moral discipline and political imagination, the kind of cognitive load that few in Congress seem willing to take on. But maintain it we must, or we risk losing the only well from which progress has ever sprung.It makes sense to celebrate the enormous, hard-won, life-saving victories in this bill. As the longtime climate movement organizer Daniel Hunter reflected in a recent essay, celebrating achievements is crucial for the health of any social movement. “Who will want to join … if it’s all sadness and misery?” he asks. “Who will acknowledge our contributions if we fail to name them ourselves?” Cynicism, in other words, does not build power – only hope can do that.At the same time, it also makes sense to mourn, to rage, and above all, to organize. The IRA has made abundantly clear that we need to wrest the wheel of our democracy from those who would drive us all off a cliff. As the climate movement recalibrates post-IRA, a political program can be seen emerging from this fact.It goes back to the movement’s bread and butter: fighting fossil fuel infrastructure tooth and nail, starting with Manchin’s side deal to fast-track pipeline permitting. This struggle must involve everyone, but it should follow the lead of frontline communities who have been fighting pipelines, drill rigs and refineries for decades. It should use IRA-driven declines in fossil fuel demand to its advantage.There are many other worthy fronts emerging: passing state and local laws that close the still significant distance to our 2030 climate goals; ensuring all new clean energy jobs are also good union jobs; ensuring climate investment dollars flow into the hands of working families, not Wall Street middlemen; incubating a clean energy industry that is regenerative and respectful, not extractive and exploitative. Electorally, it will involve supporting candidates brave enough to channel waxing anti-corporate sentiment across the left and the right in order to discipline corporate overreach – up to and including nationalizing those industries not decarbonizing at the pace required by physics.All of this will require a new level of emotional acumen, a structure of feeling that permits both fierce jubilation and exacting critique, that sees the big picture without disguising the brush strokes, that can balance priorities when it needs to but also, sometimes, kick down the scales. This is work that never ends, but you can already see it beginning, incubated by the honest, searching debates taking place right now across the climate movement.As we question, grapple and experiment – as we lead, in other words – our opponents hold fast to their myopia. Blinkered, rigid, selfish to a fault, theirs is a losing ethic, a worldview in retreat. Ours, on the other hand, is advancing toward the helm. May we occupy every inch they concede. May the IRA be the floor, not the ceiling, of our ambition.
      Daniel Sherrell is a climate organizer and the author of Warmth: Coming of Age at the End of our World (Penguin Books)
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionClimate crisiscommentReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats celebrate ‘historic’ climate bill: Politics Weekly America

      by

      More ways to listen

      Apple Podcasts

      Google Podcasts

      Spotify

      RSS Feed

      Download

      Share on Facebook

      Share on Twitter

      Share via Email

      As the Inflation Reduction Act heads to the House floor, many Democrats are hoping the landmark legislation to tackle the climate crisis, which passed in the Senate last week, will result in more votes in the November midterm elections. Some experts aren’t convinced the bill goes far enough.
      Joan E Greve speaks to Leah Stokes, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, about what the bill – if passed into law – will mean for Americans, and for the planet

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      Archive: MSNBC, NBC, C-Span Listen to Thursday’s episode of Today in Focus, as Hugo Lowell and Michael Safi discuss the FBI raid of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort earlier this week. Send your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/supportpodcasts More