Environment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘This was a terrible idea’: the incident that broke Republicans’ DeSantis fever

      by

      In the end, it wasn’t culture war feuding over restricting LGBTQ+ rights, thwarting Black voters or vilifying immigrants that finally broke Republicans’ DeSantis fever in Florida.Nor was it his rightwing takeover of higher education, the banning of books from school libraries, his restriction of drag shows, or passive assent of neo-Nazis parading outside Disney World waving flags bearing the extremist governor’s name that caused them to finally stand up to him.It was, instead, a love of vulnerable Florida scrub jays; a passion to preserve threatened gopher tortoises; and above all a unanimous desire to speak up for nature in defiance of Ron DeSantis’s mind-boggling plan to pave over thousands of unspoiled acres at nine state parks and erect 350-room hotels, golf courses and pickleball courts.The outcry when DeSantis’s department of environmental protection (DEP) unveiled its absurdly named Great Outdoors Initiative last week was immediate, overwhelming and unprecedented. The Republican Florida senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott penned a joint letter slamming an “absolutely ridiculous” proposal to build a golf course at Jonathan Dickinson state park in Martin county. The Republican congressman Brian Mast, usually a reliable DeSantis ally, said it would happen “over my dead body”.Scores of Republican state congress members and senators, whose achievements during the more than five years since DeSantis was elected governor have been largely limited to rubber-stamping his hard-right agenda, lined up to denounce the projects. Many noted the plans had been drawn up in secret, with no-bid contracts destined for mysteriously pre-chosen developers outside the requirements of Florida law.Thousands of environmental advocates and activists swamped multiple state parks on Tuesday in a day of action to protest against not only the ravaging of broad swathes of wildlife habitat, but DeSantis’s lack of transparency and intention to limit public comment to only one hour at each state park during meetings that would be held simultaneously.By Wednesday, DeSantis’s initiative was in effect dead, as the governor, clearly chastened by the unexpected all-quarters challenge to his previously unquestioned authority, furiously back-pedaled at an awkward press conference in Winter Haven.“They’re going back to the drawing board,” he said of plans he conceded were “half-baked” and “not ready for prime time”.Desperately trying to pin blame elsewhere for a misadventure that was very demonstrably his own, he continued: “This is something that was leaked. It was not approved by me, I never saw that. It was intentionally leaked to a leftwing group to try and create a narrative.”His implausible comment denying accountability hung out to dry his own inner circle, notably his communications director, Bryan Griffin, who barely a week earlier was enthusing on X about an “exciting new initiative of the State of Florida … expanding visitor capacity, lodging, and recreation options in state parks”.The volte-face did not go unnoticed. On Thursday, a headline in the Tampa Bay Times questioned: “Is DeSantis losing his grip on Florida?”, the newspaper citing his disastrous run for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination as one possible catalyst for the fast-growing revolt.“The DeSantis administration is very tightly controlled and micromanaged from the top down, so the thought that he wasn’t aware of this or didn’t support it, or that somehow the people in those agencies would have pushed a huge plan like that without the governor’s knowledge or support, it’s just ludicrous,” said Aubrey Jewett, political science professor at the University of Central Florida’s school of politics, security and international affairs.“People just don’t freelance and come up with these things on their own. This was a totally self-inflicted political wound, a political error by Governor DeSantis and his administration. There’s just no reason to pursue a policy where you pave over state parks to build golf courses and hotels, right? There’s no demand, nobody was asking for this, and they just decided they were going to do it anyway. It was politically tone deaf.”Jewett said the parks debacle hurt DeSantis on two fronts.“It shows how ill-conceived this plan was, that you not only have Democrats, progressives, environmentalists, objecting to these plans, you also have mainstream Republicans in the legislature and at federal level all saying that this was a terrible idea,” he said.“It also shows DeSantis has lost some of the grip he’s had on Florida politics for the last four years. It didn’t seem like anyone or anything could stand up to him, and nor did most Republicans want to. He hit home run after home run, right? He’d pick an issue, exploit it, push it, and Republican conservatives were like, ‘Yeah, let’s go get those liberals, let’s go get those woke people.’ He just seemed to be on a winning streak.“They also didn’t want to get on the wrong side of him because he showed time and again that if you crossed him, he would come after you, he’d be politically vindictive.“Well, now it’s totally changed. We have virtually every big-name Republican in the state coming out and saying this was a terrible idea. This incident really highlights perhaps how far DeSantis has fallen in terms of political control and impact on Florida.”DeSantis, meanwhile, denied he ever had such a grip. Pressed further on the state park humiliation at a Thursday press conference, the governor said anybody who thought he was dictating anything was “misunderstanding politics”.“I’ve never categorized [it] as me having a grip on anything,” he told reporters, according to Florida Politics, insisting he merely had “an ability to set an agenda and deliver the agenda” working with lawmakers.Delighted Florida Democrats, naturally, seized the moment. State party chair Nikki Fried retweeted the article and alluded to animosity during the Republican primary campaign between Donald Trump and the governor he repeatedly demeaned.“I don’t know who is having more fun: Trump watching DeSantis losing power, or DeSantis watching Trump losing this election,” she wrote.Jewett doubts DeSantis, who will be termed out of office in January 2027, can be quite so effective during his remaining months in the governor’s mansion – especially with the Republican-dominated Florida legislature rediscovering its spine.“Without a clear political path forward to something bigger, he really is just one more lame duck governor with two years to go. He can’t be re-elected, and it becomes a little more difficult to influence people because they know you’re going to be gone,” he said.“It’s entirely possible that the legislature may become a more coequal branch again and stand up for themselves. It’s still going to be dominated by Republican conservatives and DeSantis is still conservative, so on a lot of things they’ll be on the same page.“But right now, your normal allies on the Republican side are giving you just as much grief as anybody else, and it’s entirely self-inflicted. You step on a rake and boom, the handle comes up and hits you right on the nose.” More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr faces call for investigation into claim he chainsawed whale’s head off

      by

      His independent White House campaign has fizzled, but the flow of bizarre stories of Robert F Kennedy Jr’s unorthodox handling of the carcasses of wild mammals has experienced no similar suspension.An environmental group is calling for a federal investigation into the former presidential candidate for an episode in which he allegedly severed the head of a washed-up whale with a chainsaw – and drove home with it strapped to his car’s roof.The episode has parallels with another extraordinary tale reported earlier in August in which Kennedy confessed to dumping a dead bear cub in New York’s Central Park and attempted to make it look like the animal was killed by a bicyclist.The latest grisly revelation, about the whale head, is not particularly new – it stems from a 2012 interview Kennedy’s daughter Kick gave to Town & Country magazine, in which she talks about a visit to other family members of the political dynasty in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, more than two decades prior.But the story’s re-emergence, following the bear tale and other off-the-wall declarations – including claims that part of RFK Jr’s brain was eaten by worms and that he had an apparent fondness for barbecued dog – has angered activists at the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund. The group previously denounced Kennedy’s candidacy and endorsed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for president.In a letter to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) this week, Brett Hartl, the organization’s government affairs director and chief political strategist, demanded an inquiry.“Mr Kennedy’s apparent transport of the marine mammal skull from Massachusetts to New York, and therefore across state lines, also represented a felony violation of the Lacey Act, one of the earliest wildlife conservation laws enacted by [the] United States in 1900,” he wrote, adding that it was also illegal to possess part of any animal protected by the endangered species act.“Normally, an unverified anecdote would not provide sufficient evidence as the basis for conducting an investigation. The [bear] story made it seem like this was normal behavior for him, so he may also possess additional illegally collected wildlife parts.”The former Kennedy campaign’s press office did not respond to a request for comment. And Noaa has yet to publicly acknowledge receipt of Hartl’s letter.The somewhat unpleasant recounting by Kick Kennedy – granddaughter of Robert F Kennedy, the assassinated former US attorney general and Kennedy Jr’s father – remains the only documented account of the whale incident.Describing her father’s fascination with animal skulls and skeletons as “eccentric environmentalism”, she tells how the whale washed up on a beach near Hyannis Port and he sped to the scene.“[He] ran down to the beach with a chainsaw, cut off the whale’s head and then bungee-corded it to the roof of the family minivan for the five-hour haul back to Mount Kisco, New York,” she said.“Every time we accelerated on the highway, whale juice would pour into the windows of the car, and it was the rankest thing on the planet. We all had plastic bags over our heads with mouth holes cut out, and people on the highway were giving us the finger, but that was just normal day to day stuff for us.”Hartl, on X, called RFK Jr an “environmental criminal”. In his group’s denouncement of his candidacy, it said “his conspiracy theories go against the science-based foundation of all environmental protections”, and that he was no different from Donald Trump in terms of policy priorities “driven by what will benefit Big Oil and the greedy corporations that fund them”.Kennedy announced he was suspending his presidential campaign last Friday and immediately endorsed Trump. More

    • 200 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Environmental activists urge Kamala Harris to go big on climate: ‘She’s got to seize the moment’

      by

      As Donald Trump accuses Kamala Harris of waging “war on American energy”, some advocates are pressing the vice-president to embrace a bold climate message at the Democratic national convention this week.Harris will have a major opportunity to lay out her key platform as she accepts the Democratic party’s presidential nomination on Thursday evening. Some are hoping climate features heavily in her speech.“There’s a moment here and we think she’s got to seize it,” said Saul Levin, legislative and political director of the progressive advocacy group Green New Deal Network.Harris’s candidacy has excited much of the climate movement, with scores of green groups, including Levin’s, endorsing her presidential run. At a Wednesday meeting, influential climate hawks such as Ed Markey, the Massachusetts senator; Gina McCarthy, the former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator; and Robert Bullard, the esteemed environmental justice scholar and advocate encouraged climate voters to stand behind Harris.But Harris has yet to release an official plan to take on the climate crisis. Unlike Joe Biden, who placed climate at the heart of his 2020 presidential run, Harris has so far only mentioned the issue in passing on the campaign trail. And though the issue has been woven into Democratic national convention events, it has not yet been a central focus of the convention.“It’s a bit of a bummer that it hasn’t gotten more time,” said Cassidy DiPaola, spokesperson for the Make Polluters Pay Campaign, which focuses on climate accountability.Harris may find it difficult to make bold climate promises amid Trump’s attacks. At a campaign stop in Pennsylvania this week, the former president called Harris a “non-fracker”, though she has distanced herself from past support for a fracking ban, disappointing climate advocates.Trump has also repeatedly claimed Harris wants to ban red meat and “get rid of all cows”. In response, she said she enjoys eating the occasional cheeseburger but added that Americans should be incentivized to eat a lower-carbon, healthier diet.Amid this pressure from the right, some climate advocates have said they will stand behind Harris no matter how much she mentions climate.“Regardless of whether this issue is in the speech or not tomorrow night, we know Vice-President Harris is an environmental champion,” said Michelle Deatrick, who chairs the Democratic National Committee’ Council on the Environment and Climate Crisis. She said Harris’s record speaks for itself.Recent polling from progressive group Data for Progress and environmental organization Climate Power shows that a strong majority of US voters prefer Harris’s approach to climate.It’s an indicator that focusing on climate is “good politics”, said Stevie O’Hanlon, spokesperson for the youth-led environmental justice group the Sunrise Movement.“Climate is one of the issues where voters trust Harris the most over Trump,” she said. “To capitalize on that, she needs to talk about it.”An ‘existential threat’The 2024 Democratic party platform approved on Monday refers to the climate crisis as an “existential threat” and “a consequence of delay and destruction by people like Donald Trump and his friends in Big Oil”.It also includes a commitment to “making polluters pay”. It’s something DiPaola said she was “stoked” to see, though she added that she’d eventually like to see “less vague language about how they’re going to make climate accountability real”.Additionally, the platform underlines the creation of hundreds of thousands of clean-energy jobs and highlights the historic green investments spurred by the 2021 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).But Levin says he hopes Harris lays out plans to go beyond the IRA and increase investments in green jobs, public transit and renewable power. Though the bill constitutes the largest downpayment on climate policy in US history with hundreds of billions of dollars in green funding, experts say that is a fraction of what the US must ultimately spend.“We can’t just say, oh, we did the IRA, so we did climate and now let’s move to another issue,” said Levin. “The IRA made tremendous progress, but it was just a start.”He said some aspects of the platform, including pledges to double funding for public transit and cut down public subsidies for oil companies, inspired hope that a bolder climate platform will emerge.That platform and Harris’ rhetoric, said DiPaola, should lean “populist,” said DiPaola.“Voters are frustrated with corporate power and influence,” she said. “She can ultimately appeal to both climate-motivated voters as well as economically motivated voters … by highlighting the need to clamp down on big oil’s greed.”‘Big oil’s hold on our economy’Though the Democratic party platform rails against “big oil’s hold on our economy”, the Democratic convention itself has not been unfriendly to the industry. The American Petroleum Institute, the country’s largest fossil fuel lobby group, participated in several events this week.Oil major ExxonMobil sponsored two Wednesday panel discussions hosted by Punchbowl News on the sidelines of the convention, one of which featured the firm’s senior director of climate strategy and technology and a representative from gas lobby group the American Gas Association.Activists with environmental non-profits including Friends of the Earth, Oil Change International, and Climate Hawks Vote disrupted the event.“I am here because Exxon lied and people died,” chanted RL Miller, the Climate Hawks Vote founder and a former Democratic National Committee member, before being escorted from the room.Federal data shows Exxon has poured $111,500 into Republican congressional campaign committees. Collin Rees of Oil Change International, who took part in the protest, said if the party is looking to take on big oil, the company “should have no platform at the DNC”.War in GazaGaza solidarity protesters interrupted a meeting of the environment and climate crisis council at the convention on Wednesday, chanting “free, free Palestine”.“If you want to show some political courage, go and interrupt one of Donald Trump’s rallies,” responded Jamie Raskin, the Maryland representative, who had been speaking. “Anybody who interferes with that is objectively helping Donald Trump … so cut it out.”Some climate groups, however, are pushing for the Harris campaign to stop supporting Israel’s deadly war in Gaza by issuing an arms embargo. Among them is the Sunrise Movement.“Young people want a livable world for our generation and generations. We want everyone to have clean air and water and safe homes,” said O’Hanlon. “Everyone must have those rights and freedoms, including Palestinians.” More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Climate Change Is Not a Key Talking Point for Harris Campaign

      by

      In the 2020 presidential election, climate activists demanded that Democratic candidates explain, in detail, how they planned to tackle the planet’s greatest environmental threat.But in the weeks since Vice President Kamala Harris ascended the 2024 Democratic ticket, she has mentioned climate change only in passing, and offered no specifics on how she would curb dangerous levels of warming. Climate leaders say they are fine with that.“I am not concerned,” said Jay Inslee, the Democratic governor of Washington, who made climate change the centerpiece of his own 2019 bid for the presidency. Mr. Inslee said he believes it is more important for Ms. Harris to draw a distinction between her and her Republican rival, former President Donald J. Trump, than to drill down on policy nitty-gritty.“I am totally confident that when she is in a position to effect positive change, she will,” Gov. Inslee said.As Ms. Harris prepares to address the nation on Thursday at the Democratic National Convention, she faces the challenge of energizing party loyalists while also reaching out to disaffected Republicans and moderate voters. So far Ms. Harris and her running mate Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, have embraced a pragmatic agenda, calling for things like a minimum-wage increase and child-care funding.While President Biden has made climate change a signature issue, signing into law the largest clean energy investments in American history, Ms. Harris has yet to detail for voters her climate or clean-energy positions. Some analysts chalked that up to strategy and said new promises to slash greenhouse gas emissions or rein in fossil fuels could alienate voters particularly in the energy-rich swing state of Pennsylvania.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Greenpeace Tries a Novel Tactic in Lawsuit Over Dakota Access Pipeline

      by

      The environmental group, which is being sued by the pipeline company in North Dakota, threatened to use new European rules to try to limit potential damages.The NewsGreenpeace recently unveiled a new strategy for fighting a costly lawsuit by an energy company that the group contends is designed to silence critics of the oil industry.The suit, first filed in federal court in 2017, alleged that Greenpeace had incited the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017, and it sought $300 million in damages.Greenpeace disputes the claims. It says the lawsuit is designed to essentially force the environmental group to go out of business with an expensive legal fight.Its new tactic, led by Greenpeace International in Amsterdam, would use the European legal system to try to minimize the financial consequences of a potential loss in United States courts. In a letter to the company last month, lawyers for the group cited a new European Union directive aimed at curbing SLAPP suits, or Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. Those are defined as meritless suits that seek to shut down civil society groups.The letter called on the company suing it, Dallas-based Energy Transfer, to drop its suit against Greenpeace International, and to pay damages for its legal costs, or risk a countersuit under the new European rules.The BackgroundAfter the Dakota Access Pipeline was approved in 2016, it became the target of high-profile protests by Native American tribes and environmental groups. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe argued that the pipeline encroached on reservation land and endangered the water supply. Thousands of its supporters joined a nearly eight-month protest encampment near the reservation, and tribal leaders mounted their own legal challenge to the project.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘The dumbest climate conversation of all time’: experts on the Musk-Trump interview

      by

      Donald Trump and Elon Musk both made discursive, often fact-free assertions about global heating, including that rising sea levels would create “more oceanfront property” and that there was no urgent need to cut carbon emissions, during an event labeled “the dumbest climate conversation of all time” by one prominent activist.Trump, the Republican US presidential nominee, and Musk, the world’s richest person, dwelled on the problem of the climate crisis during their much-hyped conversation on X, formerly known as Twitter and owned by Musk, on Monday, agreeing that the world has plenty of time to move away from fossil fuels, if at all.“You sort of can’t get away from it at this moment,” Trump said of fossil fuels. “I think we have, you know, perhaps hundreds of years left. Nobody really knows.” The former US president added that rising sea levels, caused by melting glaciers, would have the benefit of creating “more oceanfront property”.Trump, who famously once called the climate crisis a “hoax”, also said it is a “disgrace” that Joe Biden’s administration did not open up a vast Arctic wilderness in Alaska to oil drilling, claimed baselessly that farmers are having to give up their cattle because of climate edicts and that a far greater threat is posed by the prospect of nuclear war.“The one thing that I don’t understand is that people talk about global warming or they talk about climate change, but they never talk about nuclear warming,” Trump pondered during the exchange.Musk, meanwhile, said it was wrong to “vilify” the oil and gas industry, the key driver of planet-heating pollution, and that the only imperative to ditch fossil fuels was that they will one day run dry.“If we were to stop using oil and gas right now, we would all be starving and the economy would collapse,” said Musk, who is also chief executive of the electric car company Tesla. “We do over time want to move to a sustainable energy economy because eventually you do run out of oil and gas.“We still have quite a bit of time … we don’t need to rush and we don’t need to like, you know, stop farmers from farming or, you know, prevent people from having steaks or basic stuff like that. Like, leave the farmers alone.”Musk said the main danger of allowing carbon dioxide to build up in the atmosphere was that at some point it will become difficult to breathe, causing “headaches and nausea” to people. This would occur with CO2 at about 1,000 parts per million of the Earth’s atmosphere, more than double the current record-breaking concentrations.Scientists have been clear that current global temperatures are hotter than at any point in human civilization, and probably long before this time too, which is causing mounting disastrous impacts in terms of heatwaves, droughts, floods and the destruction of the natural world.Governments have agreed to restrain the global temperatures rise to 1.5C above the preindustrial era, with researchers warning of cascading catastrophes beyond this point. The world faces the steep task of rapidly cutting emissions in half this decade, and then to net zero by 2050, to avoid these worst impacts.Despite Trump’s claims of new beaches, sea levels are rising faster along the US coastline than the global average, with up to 1ft of sea level rise expected in the next 30 years – an increase that equals the total rise seen over the past century, US government scientists have found.Instances of significant flooding have risen by 50% since the 1990s, with millions of Americans set to be affected as homes, highways and other infrastructure are inundated. In Florida, where Trump has his own coastal property at Mar-a-Lago, several insurers have decided to exit the state due to the increasing costs of flooding from the rising seas and fiercer storms.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump and Musk’s discussion on the climate crisis, therefore, “spelunked down into entirely new levels of stupidity”, according to Bill McKibben, a veteran climate activist and co-founder of 350.org. McKibben wrote it was “the dumbest climate conversation of all time”.“The damaging impacts of climate change, and in particular from more extreme weather events, such as wildfires, floods, heatwaves, more intense hurricanes, are actually in many respects exceeding the predictions made just a decade ago,” said Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist and author. “It is sad that Elon Musk has become a climate change denier, but that’s what he is. He’s literally denying what the science has to say here.”Mann said that if CO2 levels get so high breathing becomes difficult, then the impacts of the climate crisis “will be so devastating as to have already caused societal collapse. It’s actually Elon’s ill-informed and ill-premised statements that are causing headaches and nausea.”Mann added that Trump’s statement that sea level rise will lead to more oceanfront property “does not betray a lack of understanding of climate physics. It betrays a lack of understanding of grade school geometry.”During his election campaigning, Trump has routinely denigrated electric vehicles but has recently changed his stance towards them after an endorsement from Musk, who previously described himself as a moderate Democrat.Trump, the former president convicted of 34 felonies, has vowed to undo the “lunacy” of Biden’s climate policies should he return to the White House, with his presidency expected to unleash a glut of new oil and gas drilling, accelerate gas exports and remove the US, once again, from the Paris climate agreement. More

    • 225 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Harris helped pass one of the strongest climate laws. Her policies don’t stop there | Leah C Stokes

      by

      Two years ago this week, I watched as Kamala Harris cast the tie-breaking vote for the largest climate investment in American history. It was an emotional moment. After decades of inaction, the US had finally passed a climate law – one of the strongest climate laws in the world.I didn’t know it then, but a month later I would get a call asking if I would like to interview the vice-president about climate policy.When we spoke, Harris demonstrated a depth I didn’t expect – she geeked out over heat pumps, confessed her love of electric school buses and described the heavy burdens poorer communities face from air pollution. The more I learned about her background, the more I found a clear pattern: policy ideas that she championed became central to federal legislation. Our nation’s landmark climate law, which is turning two years old this month, has Harris’s signature all over it.You can trace her influence by looking at her earliest days as a politician, then following the bills she sponsored as a senator, and finally examining her 2020 presidential campaign platform. During the earliest days of the Biden-Harris administration, when the Build Back Better agenda was coming together, Harris made sure that her priorities stayed on the list: electric school buses, cleaner water and investments for communities.While she hasn’t been given the credit, as vice-president, Harris has worked behind the scenes to champion her climate policies. And she’s managed to get a long list of her ideas signed into law.Earlier this year, Harris announced a $20bn investment in green banks that will reduce pollution in communities across the country. This was no coincidence – she was a key advocate for the idea well before it was written into law. In 2020, she was just one of five senators who backed a national climate bank.Harris was also an early supporter of a plan to ensure clean energy workers had higher unionization rates. And sure enough, the climate law gives funding bonuses to projects that pay workers prevailing wages.Similarly, when she was running for president in 2020, Harris argued that electric vehicle incentives should be targeted to low- and middle-income families. Up to that point, it was overwhelmingly wealthier Americans who were using government incentives to buy an electric vehicle. Now, thanks to the climate law, low- and middle-income Americans can get up to $7,500 off a new electric vehicle, and $4,000 off a used one.Throughout her career, Harris has been a vocal advocate for environmental justice. Two decades ago, when she was district attorney for San Francisco, Harris set up the state’s first environmental crimes unit. As she said back in 2005: “Crimes against the environment are crimes against communities.”It’s not surprising, then, that Harris continued to focus on protecting communities. Back in 2011, when Harris was California’s attorney general, she filed a lawsuit against cargo terminals in the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports for polluting nearby communities through diesel exhaust. Months later, she reached a settlement, requiring the terminals to protect nearby communities. This idea also became part of the big federal climate law, with $3bn to cut pollution from ports. In total, that landmark law includes more than $40bn in investments for disadvantaged communities – the largest investment in environmental justice in American history.In policy after policy, Biden’s signature climate bill bears the marks of Harris’s influence.And it’s not just one climate law that Harris has shaped. The bipartisan infrastructure package also included billions in funding for programs she championed.As a senator, Harris introduced a bill in 2019 that would electrify school buses, and just two years later, Congress committed $5bn to the effort. Today, almost 200,000 kids are riding clean buses to school every day – a very fast change for a legislative body that’s known for taking decades to get policies passed.The water investments in the bipartisan package were also Harris’ ideas. She was the lead author on legislation that would replace lead pipes. Today, $15bn is being spent on this effort across the country, and the Biden-Harris administration is on track to replace 1.7m lead pipes. And she was particularly vocal on drought funding, traveling to Lake Mead to drum up media coverage and get the bill passed.If she hadn’t focused on these investments, making over 150 calls to legislators as they negotiated the bipartisan bill, they likely would have fallen out of the package. It’s not as if Republican senators had co-sponsored legislation with Harris on electric school buses or lead pipes.When it comes to protecting people and the planet, Harris has been ahead of her time. After decades of effort, her vision for a cleaner environment has slowly but surely made its way into law.Every single one of the last 13 months has broken a global heat record. The climate crisis isn’t stopping, and we can’t afford for federal climate policy to stop either. While the federal climate laws passed during the Biden-Harris administration will help us cut pollution at an unprecedented pace, they will not hit our goals without further action.Missing our climate goals is all but guaranteed if Trump wins. In his own words, Trump has said he would be a “dictator” on day one to “drill, drill, drill”.The planet will bear the scars of Trump’s first term for decades. And that was under a Republican administration that was ill prepared to govern. This time, there are extensive plans to dismantle federal climate policy if Republicans retake the White House. Project 2025 – a Republican manifesto authored by several Trump insiders – is a detailed vision to demolish the Environmental Protection Agency, eliminate the National Weather Service and roll back our federal climate laws.This year’s presidential election could not have higher stakes. Whoever wins will run the White House until early 2029. And scientists are clear: we have to cut carbon pollution in half by 2030 to meet our climate goals. The next president will hold power during these crucial years. It’s not surprising, then, that 350 climate leaders have come out in support of Harris.A couple weeks ago, when I learned that Harris would be running for president, I was out with my three-year-old daughters, picking raspberries on yet another unseasonably hot day. I thought back to my interview with the vice-president, remembered how her eyes lit up when she talked about climate action and felt something strange: hope. I knew that if Harris became president, the world would be safer for my daughters to grow up in.At the end of our conversation two years ago, I asked Harris about the future of climate action, and she surprised me by talking about her role heading up the National Space Council. She said that astronauts can see how fragile the Earth is when they see it from space. That perspective gives them a vision that we must protect the only planet we call home.“We must act with a sense of urgency. We must be swift,” Harris told me. “We still have so much more to do.”

      Leah C Stokes is an associate professor at University of California, Santa Barbara and the author of Short Circuiting Policy More