Climate crisis

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The 1977 White House climate memo that should have changed the world

      by

      The 1977 White House climate memo that should have changed the world Years before climate change was part of national discourse, this memo to the president predicted catastropheIn 1977 Star Wars hit movie theaters, New York City had a blackout that lasted 25 hours, and the Apple II personal computer went up for sale. It was also the year that a remarkable one-page memo was circulated at the very highest levels of US government.Years before climate change was part of national discourse, this memo outlined what was known – and feared – about climate change at the time. It was prescient in many ways. Did anyone listen?By July 1977, President Jimmy Carter had only been in office for seven months, but he had already built a reputation for being focused on environmental issues. For one, by installing solar panels on the White House. He had also announced a national renewable energy plan .“We must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century,” he said in an address to the nation outlining its main goals.The climate memo arrived on his desk a few days after the Independence Day celebrations on July 4. It has the ominous title “Release of Fossil CO2 and the Possibility of a Catastrophic Climate Change.”One of the first thing that stands out is the stamp at the top, partially elided, saying THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN.The memo’s author was Frank Press, Carter’s chief science adviser and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Press was a tall, serious, geophysicist who had grown up poor in a Jewish family in Brooklyn, and was described as “brilliant” by his colleagues. Before working with the Carter administration, he had been director of the Seismological Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology, and had consulted for federal agencies including the Navy and NASA.“Carter had a great respect for Frank [Press] and for science,” said Stu Eizenstat, who served as Carter’s chief domestic policy adviser from 1977 to 1981.Press starts the memo by laying out the science of climate change as it was understood at the time.
      Fossil fuel combustion has increased at an exponential rate over the last 100 years. As a result, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is now 12 percent above the pre-industrial revolution level and may grow to 1.5 to 2.0 times that level within 60 years. Because of the “greenhouse effect” of atmospheric CO2 the increased concentration will induce a global climatic warming of anywhere from 0.5 to 5°C.
      These far-sighted assertions were in line with the climate science that originated the previous decade, when the US government funded major science agencies focused on space, atmospheric and ocean science. Research produced for President Lyndon B Johnson in 1965 found that billions of tons of “carbon dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas”.Press’s memo was on the mark. In 2021, for the first time ever, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 reached 420PPM, the halfway point to the doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels that Press posited.
      The potential effect on the environment of a climatic fluctuation of such rapidity could be catastrophic and calls for an impact assessment of unprecedented importance and difficulty. A rapid climatic change may result in large scale crop failures at a time when an increased world population taxes agriculture to the limits of productivity.
      Press was right. We have indeed seen the catastrophic effects of a climatic fluctuation, in the form of increasingly severe weather events including droughts, heatwaves, and hurricanes of greater intensity. Meanwhile, in many parts of the world heating has already stemmed increases in agricultural productivity, and large-scale food production crises are thought to be possible.
      The urgency of the problem derives from our inability to shift rapidly to non-fossil fuel sources once the climatic effects become evident not long after the year 2000; the situation could grow out of control before alternate energy sources and other remedial actions become effective.
      This is correct. By the 2000s, the effects of climate change had become apparent in some regions in the form of more deadly heat waves and stronger floods and droughts.
      Natural dissipation of C02 would not occur for a millennium after fossil fuel combustion was markedly reduced.
      This prediction by Press was actually debunked at least a decade ago. Scientists used to believe that some warming was “baked in”, but scientists have since found that as soon as CO2 emissions stop rising, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 levels off and slowly falls.
      As you know this is not a new issue. What is new is the growing weight of scientific support which raises the CO2-climate impact from speculation to a serious hypothesis worthy of a response that is neither complacent nor panicky.
      But there were other currents mitigating against the sort of response Press calls for. “​​The story of climate policy in the US, generally, is one missed opportunities and unjustifiable delay,” said Jack Lienke, author of the book Struggling for Air: Power Plants and the “War on Coal.”Many other issues may have seemed more pressing, or simply better understood. As he writes in Struggling for Air, “At a time when Americans were still dying somewhat regularly in acute, inversion-related pollution episodes, it is unsurprising that legislators were more concerned with the known harms of sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide than the uncertain, seemingly distant threat of climate change.”
      The authoritative National Academy of Sciences has just alerted us that it will issue a public statement along these lines in a few weeks.
      That public statement, released later that month, emphasized the importance of shifting away from fossil fuel energy and highlighted the urgency of starting to transition to new energy sources as soon as possible: “With the end of the oil age in sight, we must make long-term decisions as to future energy policies. One lesson we have been learning is that the time required for transition from one major source to another is several decades.”So what happened? When Press’s memo made it to the president’s desk, Jim Schlesinger, America’s first secretary of energy, also attached his own note in response:
      ​​My view is that the policy implications of this issue are still too uncertain to warrant Presidential involvement and policy initiatives.
      Carter seems to have heeded this warning, and did not make much progress on climate change mitigation during his presidency. Yet he did sign some significant pieces of environmental legislation, including initiating the first federal toxic waste cleanups and creating the first fuel economy standards.A significant challenge facing Carter was his own contradictory energy aims. Despite his goal of encouraging alternative energy, he also felt there was a national security interest in boosting US oil production in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis.“We realized our dependence on foreign oil was dangerous and, very importantly, alternative energy was in its infancy,” Eizenstat said. “So Carter was both doing conservation and still encouraging more domestic oil and gas as a way of reducing dependence on foreign oil,” said Eizenstat. “As with all policy, you have conflicting goals.”Still, it seems possible that if Carter had been re-elected, the world might have been in a better position regarding climate impacts today. One of the first things Reagan did after winning the election in 1981 was take down the White House solar panels. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry – whose scientists were already studying the ways that fossil fuels were changing the climate – started spending tens of millions of dollars sowing doubt about climate science.Did the Press memo accomplish anything at all? For one person it was in fact a “transformational moment” – this was Eizenstat himself. He says it was instrumental in his own future work on climate change, including his decision in 1997 to serve as the United States’s principal negotiator for the Kyoto global warming protocols.Those protocols set the stage for the first international effort to tackle climate policy on a global level. So even if Press’s memo had a muted impact at the time, his warning wasn’t entirely ignored.TopicsClimate crisisClimate crimesJimmy CarterUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 225 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      New York has a chance to generate all its electricity from clean energy by 2030 | Ross Barkan

      by

      New York has a chance to generate all its electricity from clean energy by 2030Ross BarkanIf Democrats act, New Yorkers will begin to get the government they deserve. With climate cataclysms here, the political system can’t afford more delays It has been, for progressives in New York, a trying year.Major pieces of legislation that were supposed to reshape the state to safeguard the working class have stalled out. A bill to create a statewide single-payer healthcare system is no closer to passage than it was several years ago. A push to guarantee new protections for tenants as rents soar in New York City could not find the votes. And ambitious legislation to combat climate that did have the votes to go through the state legislature was halted by the speaker of the state assembly.Unlike in Washington, Democrats in New York have no one to blame but themselves. The party holds supermajorities in both chambers, the state senate and state assembly. Progressives have grown their clout in each. A handful of socialists occupy seats as well.The trouble is that institutional forces – those aligned with the real estate and fossil fuel industries in particular – have plenty of clout, too. The left is stronger, in numbers, than it’s ever been, but the state’s power brokers are centrists or those most hesitant to challenge entrenched power structures. This is true in other Democrat-run states too, but it’s been sobering in New York where progressives have nurtured such high hopes for change.The left, of course, has gotten much further in New York in the last few years than it had in the previous decades. In 2019, Democrats took control of the state senate and immediately passed a large number of bills that had been bottled up for years. Legislation to help tenants, reduce the use of cash bail, and protect voting rights and women’s health all easily passed the body and were signed into law. In 2020, the pandemic hit and ambitious legislating was put on hold. The 2021 session was more of the same.This year offered hope. The Build Public Renewables Act, or BPRA, would mandate that the state’s public power provider, the New York Power Authority (NYPA), generate all of its electricity from clean energy by 2030 and establish a process through which it can build and own renewables while closing down polluting infrastructure. The state itself could build out wind and solar energy. With its high bond rating, the NYPA could easily finance projects. Passage of the bill would have profound national implications. New York would be a leader in the fight against the climate crisis and inspire other states with Democratic governors to follow their lead. With Republicans poised to retake Congress, state-level action is crucial.Independent power producers, who fiercely oppose the BPRA, currently build out new power generation infrastructure beyond NYPA. Solar industry trade associations fought the bill bitterly. They have made inroads in the legislature.In turn, a strange thing happened: the BPRA amassed the votes to pass the state assembly – it had already passed the senate – but was never brought up for a vote before the end of the legislative session in early June. The speaker, Carl Heastie, claimed the votes were not there because, apparently, the more than 80 lawmakers who backed the bill did not inform him personally they would vote that way.Advocates and supporters, however, were certain they had the votes. At first glance, it would appear Heastie had a point, since it is theoretically true the speaker cannot know who will vote for what if he has not been told about the intentions of each lawmaker.But that’s not how lawmaking really works in Albany, the state capital. There are hundreds of bills and the speaker cannot personally hear from all legislators before one is put on the floor for a vote. Rather, most Democrats vote reflexively with the speaker unless the bill has an organized constituency in their districts that opposed it. There is no popular, grassroots outcry against the BPRA. Most New Yorkers don’t know what it is.Why did Heastie claim the votes were not there? Some moderate Democrats are wary of passing any far-reaching bills in an election year. Organized labor had opposed earlier versions of the bill, but the New York AFL-CIO had agreed to stay neutral this time. Governor Kathy Hochul may not support the BPRA either, but she would be hard-pressed to not sign the bill if it reached her desk, especially if New York’s large environmental movement and progressive infrastructure mobilized for it.The good news is that the legislation may not be dead for 2022. Though lawmakers depart Albany in June and typically don’t reconvene until the new year to pass bills, Heastie requested the chairs of the assembly’s committees on energy, corporations and environmental conservation convene a hearing on 28 July. A hearing may mean a special session – a chance to get the BPRA to Hochul’s desk before 2023.If the Democrats in Albany act as they should, New Yorkers will begin to get the government they deserve. With climate cataclysms here, the political system can’t afford any more delays.
      Ross Barkan is a journalist based in New York City. He is the author of Demolition Night, a novel, and The Prince: Andrew Cuomo, Coronavirus, and the Fall of New York
      TopicsEnvironmentOpinionEnergyRenewable energyUS politicsNew YorkClimate crisiscommentReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Us older people must fight for a better America, and world, for younger generations | Bill McKibben

      by

      Us older people must fight for a better America, and world, for younger generationsBill McKibbenBaby boomers were complicit in the decay of our civic life and cultural fabric – and we must play a serious role in fixing it I had the chance this month to spend a couple of weeks on an utterly wild and remote Alaskan shore – there was plenty of company, but all of it had fur, feathers or fins. And there was no way to hear from the outside world, which now may be the true mark of wilderness. So, bliss. But also, on returning, shock. If you’re not immersed in it daily, the tide of mass shootings, record heatwaves and corroded politicians spouting ugly conspiracies seems even more truly and impossibly crazy.Camping deep in the wild is not for everyone, but there’s another way to back up and look at our chaos with some perspective – and that’s to separate yourself in time instead of space.Until this past year it had never occurred to me to write anything like a memoir, because memoirs were for the exceptional: people who had overcome some great handicap, dealt with some revealing trauma, experienced something so remarkable that the rest of us could learn from the story.By contrast, I’d had as statistically normal an American childhood as was humanly possible. I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s in Lexington, Massachusetts, emblem of America, at a moment when the suburbs were cresting; I went to fine public schools, and to the kind of mainline Protestant church that then dominated civic life; my father worked at a completely middle-class job, and my mother stayed home with her two sons; my Scout troop raised the flag on the Battle Green to mark the bicentennial. Our house, literally, was on Middle Street. That seemed utterly normal at the time, even boring. But perhaps boring is the new exotic, and that harkening back to those days can provide some interesting lessons.It’s true that America was full of turmoil and clatter in those days, too: the turbulence of the 60s, the tragedy of Vietnam, the two-bit corruption of Watergate. Even so, the world seemed to have momentum, and it was carrying us in the right direction. Voting rights were expanding, thanks to the remarkable activists of the civil rights movement; in the wake of the first Earth Day, which brought 20 million Americans into the streets, we passed landmark legislation to clean our air and water. Women were winning new freedoms, including control over their bodies. If you watched TV at night, you got Walter Cronkite, which is to say we were working with a shared reality.I think it’s pretty clear that the seeds of our current disarray were also sown in those days and often in those suburban places. For one thing, as property values began to take off, those who had made it on the boat were propelled ever higher, and those who had not (often people of color) got left very far behind. Those suburbs helped breed a kind of hyperindividualism, as the Depression and second world war, with their common purpose, receded into the distance. The year I graduated from high school, 1978, was the year of the country’s first tax revolt (California’s Prop 13) and also the year when inequality reached its low point in this country; every decade since the wealth gap has widened. Lexington – which had voted for George McGovern in 1972 – cast its ballots for Ronald Reagan by 1980. We began to believe that government was the problem, that taxation was an imposition, that greed was good. And perhaps lulled by the progress of our early years, we let problems of race, poverty and the environment fester; in the new mythology, markets would somehow take care of them.Forty years later, many of those who remember those times are finally waking up to how much our civic life has decayed. I’ve spent the last year helping to start a coalition of people over 60 to work for progressive change – Third Act, it’s called – and, based on hundreds of conversations, I’d say “gobsmacked” is the operative word for how people feel. We had taken for granted the physical stability of our planet – and now its poles are melting. We had taken for granted the stability of our democracy and now people invade Congress to stop the counting of votes. We had taken for granted the slow but sure scientific progress of our society and now a third of the country does not want to take vaccines. (For those of us who can remember our polio jabs, that’s truly shocking.)Since we’re complicit in this decay (there’s a reason young people started saying “OK Boomer”) we need to play a serious role in fixing it up. It’s been inspiring to watch older people protesting outside fossil-fueled banks, or writing tens of thousands of postcards to high school seniors helping them register to vote or figuring out how to make sure Black voters have access to mail-in voting.But along with that kind of work we have another gift to offer: sufficient perspective to say, loudly and clearly, that what we are living through now is nuts. There’s another kind of society, within living memory, that more or less worked. It had institutions and norms that allowed some kind of common conversation to take place. And saying so is not nostalgia – it’s a highly useful act of witness.
      Bill McKibben is Schumann Distinguished Scholar in environmental studies at Middlebury College and the author most recently of The Flag, the Cross, and the Station Wagon: A Graying American Looks Back at His Suburban Boyhood and Wonders What the Hell Happened
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionClimate crisiscommentReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Jamie Raskin on the climate crisis: ‘We’ve got to save democracy in order to save our species’

      by

      InterviewJamie Raskin on the climate crisis: ‘We’ve got to save democracy in order to save our species’Ankita Rao Progressive congressman from Maryland believes that no other crisis, even the existential threat of the changing climate, can be solved without first protecting the fabric of American democracyWhen it comes to fighting for democracy and climate change – two of Jamie Raskin’s top priorities – the whole thing feels a bit like a game of chicken and egg to the Democratic congressman.On the one hand there is the planet, heating up quickly past the limit that is safe and necessary for human survival, while Congress stalls on a $555bn climate package. On the other, a pernicious movement, spurred by Donald Trump and other rightwing conspiracy theorists, to upend voting rights protections and cast doubt on the current election system.But Raskin, a progressive congressman from Maryland, is clear about which comes first: he said America can’t fix the planet without fixing its government.“We’ve got to save the democracy in order to save the climate and save our species,” he said in an interview with the Guardian in collaboration with Reuters and Climate One public radio, as part of the Covering Climate Now media collaboration.Later Raskin added: “We’re never going to be able to successfully deal with climate change if we’re spending all our time fighting the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers and Ku Klux Klan, and the Aryan nations and all of Steve Bannon’s alt-right nonsense.”In the past two years Raskin’s popularity has surged, picking up fuel after his closing remarks at Trump’s second impeachment trial in early 2021, which he led on behalf of House Democrats. “This trial is about who we are,” he said then, in video clips shared millions of times. His impassioned and meticulous rhetoric are a clear intersection of his past as a Harvard-trained constitutional law professor and son of a progressive activist.But it was an exceptional speech also because of the circumstances in which it was given, which both took place in the span of just a week. The first – the loss of Thomas (Tommy) Bloom Raskin, the congressman’s oldest son, who died by suicide at the tail end of 2020 after a long battle with depression. Just six days later Trump’s followers stormed the Capitol building in an attempt to decertify the election results.Raskin, who said Tommy “hated nothing more than fascism”, was moved to help lead the response to the insurrection through the House’s January 6 select committee.His fight to convict Trump is not only about holding the former president accountable. It’s about sending a message to the country that no other crisis, even the existential threat of the changing climate, can be solved without first protecting the fabric of American democracy.“I think for me the struggle to defend the truth is a precondition for defending our democracy, and the struggle to defend our democracy is a precondition for taking the effective action that needs to be taken in order to meet the climate crisis in a serious way and turn it around,” he said.This concept plays out clearly in the country’s uneven political representation. The majority of Americans think the government should be doing more to reduce the impacts of climate change, including taxing corporations based on their carbon emissions. But issues like partisan gerrymandering, where politicians manipulate voting district lines, often allow rightwing politicians to retain disproportionate power across state governments.“The key to understanding the collapse of civilizations is that you get a minority faction serving its own interests by dominating government,” he said, referencing Jared Diamond’s book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. “And then everything collapses, usually through the exploitation of natural resources to a point where it’s unsustainable and untenable. That fits pretty perfectly the situation that we’re in with the GOP and climate change today.”Raskin was an early adopter of the Green New Deal, and during the pandemic he sought to block his fellow representatives from using Covid relief money to further fossil fuel interests. His commitment extends to his personal life, where – inspired again by Tommy – he is a devout vegetarian, convinced that new science and technology will render a meat-centric diet unnecessary.But the stakes for protecting the Democratic party’s climate agenda are especially high right now. The climate protections in Joe Biden’s ambitious “Build Back Better” framework have been drastically whittled down. With the midterm elections revving up, and Republicans expected to dominate in state and local races, Democrats face a small window of opportunity to advance their promise of new jobs and tax credits to incentivize a shift to cleaner energy.Those same midterm races are rife with candidates who are following Trump’s “big lie” – that the 2020 election was not legitimate – and continue to hack away at voting rights protections, such as mail-in voting and weekend voting hours.Raskin remained optimistic about Congress passing climate legislation, noting last year’s climate-friendly infrastructure bill, but said the party must always “be realistic” about what that means, even if it denotes considering alternative energy legislation via Joe Manchin, the moderate Democrat from West Virginia who has stood in the way of several progressive bills in the Senate. (Manchin was also a critical roadblock in Raskin’s wife Sarah Bloom Raskin’s nomination to the Federal Reserve Board.)“The democratic governments and democratic parties and movements of the world have got to confront this reality. Nobody else is going to do it,” Raskin said.There isn’t much leeway when it comes to enacting change. Storms are getting stronger, people are being displaced from their homes, and anti-science politicians are gaining more ground. But Raskin, armed with his father’s message to “be the hope” and his children’s sense of urgency around climate change, is confident his side is going to win.“We should cut the deals that need to be cut but from a position of power and strength by mobilizing the commanding majorities of people across America that believe in climate change and know that we need to act.”TopicsClimate crisisUS Capitol attackUS politicsDemocratsinterviewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Gina McCarthy, White House climate adviser, reportedly to step down

      by

      Gina McCarthy, White House climate adviser, reportedly to step downTwo sources reported that she was planning to leave her job in the coming months, being ‘frustrated by the slow pace of climate progress’ White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy is planning to step down, according to two sources familiar with the deliberations, likely ending a tenure marked by ambitious emissions targets but failure in securing major US carbon-cutting legislation.McCarthy, 67, had initially planned to remain in the White House for about a year, hoping to help federal agencies implement President Joe Biden’s ambitious climate legislation, but those efforts stalled amid intraparty opposition from key Democratic senators, including Joe Manchin.Climate action has been ‘a calamity’, says Senate Democrat Sheldon WhitehouseRead moreMcCarthy has already delayed her departure, and told one Reuters source that she plans to leave as soon as next month.White House spokesman Vedant Patel said on Thursday: “This is not true and there are no such plans under way and no personnel announcements to make.”“Gina and her entire team continue to be laser focused on delivering on President Biden’s clean energy agenda,” he said in an email.Multiple news outlets, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, separately reported that McCarthy had told confidantes that she was planning to leave her job in the coming months, with the Times reporting that she had said she was “frustrated by the slow pace of climate progress”.A Politico poll from December found that 80% of Americans who labeled themselves left-leaning said that the Biden administration is doing too little to address climate change. McCarthy publicly responded to that sentiment in February, Politico reported, saying, “We understand people’s frustration. Would we all like to be running faster and faster? Yes, we would.”The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Guardian on the reports of McCarthy’s plans.McCarthy, a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator during the Obama administration, was selected by Biden to a new role leading domestic climate policy coordination at the White House. She serves as a domestic counterpart to John Kerry, who Biden appointed as his special international envoy on climate change.Her deputy, Ali Zaidi, who served as a climate policy adviser in the Obama White House, is seen as her likely replacement, the Washington Post reported.Biden came into office with an ambitious climate agenda, pegged to a $555bn plan to transition to cleaner energy in all aspects of American life. Before those policies stalled, McCarthy, a regulatory expert, was going to be tasked with implementing the plan across multiple agencies.Biden had promised to wean the nation off fossil fuels, but has now found himself looking for ways to increase global supply of oil and other carbon-rich energy products amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine and high gas prices that advisers see damaging his standing with voters.McCarthy’s position was a key demand by the liberal wing of the Democratic party and an illustration of Biden’s commitment to the cause. Not replacing her could be seen as a retreat by the environmental community.TopicsBiden administrationUS politicsClimate crisisnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Is the world’s most important climate legislation about to die in US Congress? | Daniel Sherrell

      by

      Is the world’s most important climate legislation about to die in US Congress?Daniel SherrellPassage of the bill would probably spell the difference between the US meeting its climate goals and blowing right past them On April 23, the day after Earth Day, a big tent coalition—climate activists, union workers, civil rights leaders, and increasingly desperate young people—will be gathering outside the White House. If you live on the eastern seaboard and are free that Saturday, you should sign up and join them. Here’s why:Tucked beneath the headlines on Covid and Ukraine, the most important climate legislation in US history – and thus, arguably, in world history – is still stuck in Congressional purgatory. You’d be forgiven if you weren’t fully aware. It is not trending on Twitter. President Biden has mostly stopped talking about it. The enormous moral stakes have been brutally ablated by a broken, farcical, and, above all, extremely boring legislative kludge known as budget reconciliation. The months-long saga has turned Biden’s original “Build Back Better” plan into the juridical equivalent of a Warhol soup can – a ubiquitous token evacuated of any original meaning. That the public has largely failed to track the world-historical implications of this process is an indictment of the way climate information gets filtered down to ordinary people: in dollar figures no one understands, in line graphs published by obscure wonks on Twitter, in front page headlines that exhaust the emotive potential of journalistic prose. Connecting any of this to, for example, insurance premiums in Miami Beach, or the fate of the world’s remaining sea turtles, or the prospect of your own grandchildren spending the bulk of their crypto-wages on potable drinking water requires an almost mimetic leap of imagination. And yet, the stakes remain what they are. Passage of the bill’s half-trillion dollars-worth of clean energy investments would likely spell the difference between the world’s largest economy meeting its climate goals and blowing right past them. It is not an exaggeration to say that in that balance—between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius of warming, between a government responsive to and avoidant of the greatest crisis of the 21st century – hang millions of human lives. The potential impact rivals that of nuclear war, except in this case the default is catastrophe. The fossil fuel industry has already fired its ICBM at the heart of our coastal cities. It’s up to the Democrats now to turn it around.And turn it around they still might. Joe Manchin, of his own volition, has returned to the bargaining table with a proposal that could retain most of the original climate investments from Build Back Better and potentially leave room for some investment in low-emission home and health care work. Biden and Schumer must stop at nothing to hold him to his word and land the deal. If they do, they could reverse the narrative of Biden’s presidency overnight. Not only would Biden finally be able to declare victory on his signature policy agenda, he would be offering a direct rejoinder to the crisis in Ukraine, pointing global energy markets toward wind and solar and undercutting fossil-fueled autocrats like Vladimir Putin. For a war-time president, the combination of crisis-response and long-term vision would earn him a place next to Churchill in the history textbooks. To be clear, I am profoundly angry that it’s all come to this. That not a single one of the Republican cowards who claim concern over climate change – Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham – is even considering voting for the bill. That it’s fate will be determined by a man who makes money hand over fist pumping carbon into the atmosphere. That President Biden had to dispatch the head of the National Economic Council to go zip-lining with Manchin in West Virginia last weekend. That the fate of organized human civilization would at least partially depend on two grown men donning intricate safety harnesses and skimming across a river gorge (though I’ll admit that, compared to your typical round of golf, there was something weird and almost endearing about this particular political mating ritual). All of which is to say: I won’t let my indignation die. I won’t succumb to the Stockholm Syndrome of the Beltway pundit, who would tell my generation that this is just how Washington works. The point is that Washington doesn’t work. Washington is broken. This process is proof.But to refuse cynicism is not to refuse strategy. That’s why, on April 23, thousands of people will be showing up in front of the White House – and in key Senate swing states – to make one last play at redemption. That’s why, at the risk of repeating myself, you really should join them. Democrats still have a chance to deliver big on climate. If they fail, we’ll lose far, far more than the midterms. We cannot allow them to fail.
      Daniel Sherrell is the author of Warmth: Coming of Age at the End of Our World (Penguin Books) and a climate activist
      TopicsClimate crisisOpinionUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Manchin ‘very reluctant’ on electric cars in ominous sign for Biden’s climate fight

      by

      Manchin ‘very reluctant’ on electric cars in ominous sign for Biden’s climate fight Centrist Democrat, who holds key swing vote in US Senate, has poured scorn on the idea of phasing out gasoline and diesel carsFaced with rising gasoline prices, many Americans are now looking to switch to an electric car. But the shift away from fossil fuel vehicles has been criticized by Senator Joe Manchin, who has said he is “very reluctant” to see the proliferation of battery-powered cars.There has been a surge in interest in buying electric vehicles (EVs) in the wake of the war in Ukraine, analysts say, with drivers in the US unnerved by gasoline prices that have surpassed $4.30 a gallon as a result of the conflict and the supply chain issues from the pandemic.‘A really bad deal’: Michigan awards GM $1bn in incentives for new electric carsRead moreJoe Biden has repeatedly championed the growth of the nascent EV market as a way to tackle the climate crisis, with America’s heavy dependency on polluting cars a major source of planet-heating emissions.But Manchin, the centrist Democrat who holds a key swing vote in the US Senate, has poured scorn on the idea of phasing out gasoline and diesel cars.“I’m very reluctant to go down the path of electric vehicles,” Manchin said at the energy conference CERAWeek, held in Houston. “I’m old enough to remember standing in line in 1974 trying to buy gas – I remember those days. I don’t want to have to be standing in line waiting for a battery for my vehicle, because we’re now dependent on a foreign supply chain, mostly China.”Manchin, who has taken more money in political donations from fossil fuel interests than any other senator, also said he has “a hard time understanding” why the federal government would invest in a network of electric car charging stations, as the Biden administration aims to do.“I’ve read history, and I remember Henry Ford inventing the Model-T, but I sure as hell don’t remember the US government building filling stations,” Manchin said to applause. “The market did that.”The West Virginia senator’s criticism is ominous for the White House’s hopes of passing major climate legislation this year. The climate elements of the Build Back Better Act, which Manchin’s opposition has so far stalled, included half a trillion dollars in clean energy tax credits as well as major rebates for electric car purchases to drive up their adoption.Manchin’s comments also come amid renewed consumer interest in EVs reported by car dealers as some Americans look to bypass the volatility of the global oil market altogether. The past month has seen a strong increase in the number of people searching online for hybrid and battery electric vehicles, according to Edmunds, a car shopping and industry analyst website.This is a continuation of the broader growth of EVs in recent years “but the major surge in interest of late is certainly more of a reaction to record gas prices sparked by the war in Ukraine”, according to Jessica Caldwell, executive director of insights at Edmunds.“Anecdotally we are hearing a lot about a greater interest in EVs because of what is going on in Ukraine, but the real test is whether that will last,” said Ed Kim, president of AutoPacific, an auto industry research firm.Kim said that gas-powered cars built in the US are already full of foreign-made parts. “Joe Manchin represents West Virginia which is dependent upon coal so I believe he has a vested interest in downplaying clean energy,” Kim said.“Look at what’s happening right now, we are seeing fuel prices we haven’t seen in years because of geopolitical issues. Any measures we take to reduce our reliance on petroleum is good for our economy, our environment and to ensure the country doesn’t come screeching to a halt.”Previous jumps in the price of gasoline, such as in 2008, saw a corresponding increase in sales of battery-powered and hybrid cars and analysts expect a similar spike as a result of the current crisis. Around half a million electric cars were sold in the US last year, up more than 80% on 2020, with consumers attracted to a slew of new models such Ford’s Mustang Mach-E and the Telsa Model Y.While traditional car makers such as Ford and GM are now making significant investments in the EV market, demand is now regularly outstripping pandemic-hit supply, meaning the ballooning interest in going electric may end in frustration. “Unfortunately, making an EV purchase is not particularly easy to do right now amid inventory shortages,” said Caldwell.Owning an electric car is far cheaper than a gas-powered one due to a lower cost of fuel and fewer mechanical problems but the up-front cost of most EVs is typically more than $40,000.This means they are often out of reach for many low-income Americans who are already forced, due to the car-centric design of US cities and suburbia, to spend a large amount of their money on running a vehicle to go to work and complete other routine trips.The Biden administration is aiming for 50% of new car sales to be electric by 2030 – last year the total share was around 3% – and industry experts say that major investments will need to be made to hit this target.“Dependence on oil is funding some of the most brutal regimes in the world today. There’s nothing to suggest any component of an EV would resemble the current national security, environmental and humanitarian cost of oil.” said Nick Nigro, founder of Atlas Public Policy.“The transition to EVs is inevitable at this point – the timeline is up to consumers and policymakers. The events in Ukraine are a reminder how volatile and destructive a dependence on oil is and that should only accelerate this timeline.”TopicsClimate crisisElectric, hybrid and low-emission carsJoe ManchinJoe BidenUS politicsDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘He’s a villain’: Joe Manchin attracts global anger over climate crisis

      by

      The West Virginia senator’s name is reviled on the streets of Bangladesh and other countries facing climate disaster as he blocks Biden’s effort to curb planet-heating gasesby Oliver MilmanWithin the brutal machinations of US politics, Joe Manchin has been elevated to a status of supreme decision-maker, the man who could make or break Joe Biden’s presidency.Internationally, however, the Democratic senator’s new fame has been received with puzzlement and growing bitterness, as countries already ravaged by the climate crisis brace themselves for the US – history’s largest ever emitter of planet-heating gases – again failing to pass major climate legislation.Joe Manchin: who gave you authority to decide the fate of the planet? | Daniel SherrellRead moreFor six months, Manchin has refused to support a sweeping bill to lower emissions, stymieing its progress in an evenly split US Senate where Republicans uniformly oppose climate action. Failure to pass the Build Back Better Act risks wounding Biden politically but the ramifications reverberate far beyond Washington, particularly in developing countries increasingly at the mercy of disastrous climate change.“He’s a villain, he’s a threat to the globe,” said Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development, based in Bangladesh. “If you talk to the average citizen in Dhaka, they will know who Joe Manchin is. The level of knowledge of American politics here is absolutely amazing, we know about the filibuster and the Senate and so on.“What the Americans do or don’t do on climate will impact the world and it’s incredible that this one coal lobbyist is holding things up. It will cause very bad consequences for us in Bangladesh, unfortunately.”The often tortuous negotiations between Manchin, the White House and Democratic leaders appeared doomed on 19 December when the West Virginia senator said he could not support the $1.75tn bill, citing concerns over inflation and the national debt. The latest twist caused anguish to those who see their futures being decided by a previously obscure politician located thousands of miles away.“I’ve been following the situation closely,” said Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, a low-lying Pacific nation that risks being wiped out by rising sea levels. “We have to halve emissions in this decade and can’t do it without strong, immediate action by the US.”Stege said the Marshall Islands was already suffering the impacts of the climate crisis and if the US doesn’t slash its emissions “the outcomes for countries like mine are unthinkable.”Even America’s closest allies have looked on in dismay as a single lawmaker from Biden’s own party has stalled what would be the biggest – and arguably first – piece of climate legislation in the US’s plodding, and often rancorous, history of dealing with escalating global heating.“Biden has done a fair bit in very challenging circumstances [but] in Canada we look on with bewilderment because it’s such a different political context. It’s very bizarre,” said Catherine McKenna, who was environment minister in Justin Trudeau’s government that introduced carbon pricing in 2019. “Politics is hard but I don’t think anyone has given up. We just really hope they are able to get a deal.”McKenna said she was vilified by some Canadian provincial premiers who “fought to the death” against carbon pricing but that there was now broader support for climate action across the country, including within industry, than in the US. “It’s unfortunate that it’s just one person that is holding up something that’s so critically important,” she said of Manchin.“Joe Manchin is a problem, and I think he needs to be called out,” said Ed Davey, a British MP who was previously the UK’s secretary of state for energy and climate change. “It’s in the US interest, in the interest of West Virginia and elsewhere, to take advantage of green zero-carbon technology, which is the future.”Davey, who is now leader of the Liberal Democrats, warned that the US risks ceding leadership in clean energy to China if it doesn’t act. “People will end up paying higher prices, jobs will go and not be created, the security of America will be reduced, Beijing will be laughing,” he said, adding that Manchin was in effect “working on behalf of the Chinese government” by not supporting the transition away from fossil fuels.China used last year’s Cop26 climate talks in Scotland to “insidiously point out to every country that US just can’t implement”, said Rachel Kyte, an expert in international affairs at Tufts University and a climate adviser to the UN secretary general. Kyte said many governments believe Biden is well-meaning but cannot follow through on his commitments, a frustration compounded by a lack of American action on related areas, such as climate finance for poorer countries.“There’s almost a resentment that the US just can’t deliver,” she added. “There’s this sinking feeling about the politics of America. You can’t turn your back on the US because it’s still the biggest economy, but what are countries supposed to do?”Much of this angst is now being channeled towards Manchin.After more than a decade in national politics, the 74-year-old senator has suddenly garnered a level of infamy far beyond his fiefdom of West Virginia, where the centrist Democrat has served as governor and senator while reaping millions of dollars through his personal investments and campaign contributions from a coal industry that continues to loom large in his state. It’s a situation that has caused bafflement overseas.“Who is Manchin, the Dem senator from West Virginia who betrayed Biden?” La Repubblica in Italy has demanded. Clarín, a newspaper in Argentina, has called Manchin a “rebelde” and a “tycoon with ties to the mining structure of West Virginia, the other Virginia of the USA”. Helsingin Sanomat, a Danish newspaper, also noted Manchin’s links to the fossil fuel industry and lamented that he has “disagreed with the most ambitious climate action” put forward by the US.The negotiations with Manchin involve stakes far greater than any normal political maneuvering in Washington. The world is already being strafed by wildfires, heatwaves, floods and societal instability wrought by the climate crisis and rising temperatures are on track to breach limits set by governments in the Paris climate accords, a situation that would push some parts of the world beyond human livability.Salvaging this situation will be virtually impossible without swift action by the US, the world’s second largest carbon polluter and a major oil and gas exporter. Analysts say the half a trillion dollars of support for renewable energy and electric cars in the Build Back Better bill would give the US a decent chance of cutting its emissions in half this decade, which Biden and scientists say is imperative to avoid climate breakdown.But Manchin’s opposition has already ensured the removal of a key element of the bill, a plan to force utilities to phase in clean energy over time, and the prospect of him joining Republicans to block the overall package has seen him come under intense criticism within the US.Climate activists have confronted Manchin in Washington and kayaked to his yacht to remonstrate with him. Some fellow Democrats say he has “failed the American people”. Even the Sunday Gazette, the local paper of Charleston, West Virginia, has run a headline of ‘We need this so bad’, in reference to the bill.All this has been to little effect, although Manchin did say earlier this month there could still be agreement on “the climate thing”, offering some vague hope to activists while not quite quelling their anger. “Senator Manchin is a fossil-fueled sociopath on a Maserati joyride while he lets the world burn,” said Janet Redman, climate campaign director at Greenpeace USA. “At the end of the day, Manchin cares less about his constituents than he does about the fossil fuel industry.”The current, floundering attempt to pass climate legislation is a grimly familiar episode in a lengthy record of American inadequacy. Donald Trump donned a coal miner’s helmet on the campaign trail and removed the US from the Paris climate deal. Barack Obama failed to get cap-and-trade legislation past a recalcitrant Congress. George W Bush rejected the Kyoto climate accords. In 1993, a previous Democratic senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd, blocked a Bill Clinton plan to tax carbon emissions.Manchin is, in some respects, a “fall guy” for a deeper American political dysfunction over the climate crisis, Kyte said. “If Republicans weren’t in the lock-grip of certain vested interests, if they had a policy on climate adaptation or green jobs for the future, Joe Manchin wouldn’t have the influence he has,” she said.“Joe Manchin has become the personification of a problem and removing him doesn’t solve it,” Kyte added. “It doesn’t give us a bipartisan agreement of the danger we are in. A political culture that allows you to enrich yourself and your family from industries you regulate and not declare a conflict of interest lies beyond Joe Manchin, it’s bigger than just him.”Even if American political inertia hasn’t changed, the world certainly has – the last seven years were the planet’s hottest on record, cataclysmic wildfires are now year-round events in the US west and deadly flooding swamps basements in New York, picturesque towns in Germany and subways in China. There is mounting fear that the world, including the US, does not have the time for yet another futile American effort to address the unraveling climate crisis.“Unfortunately, politicians getting fossil fuel money are standing in the way and sacrificing the rest of us once again,” said Vanessa Nakate, a climate justice activist from Uganda. Nakate pointed out that Africa was suffering from climate change even though it is responsible for just a small fraction of global emissions.“We are so reliant on the choices others make,” she said. “Our lives are literally in their hands.”TopicsClimate crisisUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More