global warming

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis, Undaunted by Florida Storms, Shrugs Off Climate Change

      by

      The Florida governor, who has cast himself as a Teddy Roosevelt-style conservationist, sounds far different as a presidential candidate, pledging to expand fossil fuel production and fight electric-vehicle mandates.During his 2018 run for governor, Ron DeSantis not only pledged to protect Florida’s Everglades and waterways, he also acknowledged that humans played a role in exacerbating the climate change that threatened them.“I think that humans contribute to what goes on around us,” Mr. DeSantis told the editorial board of The Florida Times-Union, a Jacksonville newspaper, according to a recording obtained by The New York Times.“The resiliency and some of the sea-level rise, we have to deal with that,” he added, although he pointedly said he was “not Al Gore,” referring to the former Democratic vice president who reinvented himself as a climate change activist.Now running for president five years later, the Florida governor no longer repeats his previous view that humans affect the climate, even as scientists say that the hurricanes battering his state are being intensified by man-made global warming. Those storms include Hurricane Idalia, which killed three people this month, and last year’s catastrophic Hurricane Ian, which killed 150 Floridians.On the debate stage last month, Mr. DeSantis declined to raise his hand when a moderator asked the Republican candidates if they thought human behavior was causing climate change. His campaign and the governor’s office did not respond to requests for comment about his views.Instead, Mr. DeSantis has seemingly reverted to an old Republican Party line that climate change is happening naturally, without being accelerated by human behavior like the burning of fossil fuels. Decades of scientific research contradict that position. And it is also out of step with what polling shows many Americans believe.On the 2024 campaign trail, Mr. DeSantis has promised to ramp up domestic oil and gas production and fight against mandates on the introduction of electric vehicles — the kinds of steps that could worsen the sea-level rise that is flooding coastal cities in Florida and around the world. Mr. DeSantis says he is simply being realistic about the country’s economic and national security needs.Asked to describe his climate plan in an interview on Fox Business last month, Mr. DeSantis said: “It’s going to be to rip up Joe Biden’s Green New Deal.” (Mr. Biden’s policies do not actually go as far as the so-called Green New Deal, a wide-ranging climate proposal from progressives in Congress.)As the governor of a traditionally purple state on the front lines of climate change, Mr. DeSantis has been confronted with clear evidence that the environment is changing. But he has largely tried to treat global warming’s symptoms — funding local projects to address flooding and storm surge, for instance — rather than take steps to address what climate scientists say are the human-made underlying causes, such as by cutting back on the use of fossil fuels.Mr. DeSantis has also cast himself as a conservationist in the Teddy Roosevelt mold, embracing a brand of environmentally friendly outdoor-ism long pushed by Republicans in Florida — where swimming, boating, fishing and hunting are popular and profitable — as well as in Western states. That philosophy led him, especially early in his tenure, to attack the state’s powerful sugar industry, which contributes to water and air pollution.“In terms of environment, what I care about is the environment people enjoy,” Mr. DeSantis said in a radio interview this year. “I want to conserve Florida, leave it to God better than we found it.”More recently, however, he rejected roughly $350 million in federal funding for energy efficiency initiatives. And in a nod to the nation’s culture wars, he gave tax breaks to people who bought gas stoves.Florida environmentalists describe Mr. DeSantis’s mixed record as one that gave them optimism early on in his administration but has since left them feeling somewhat disappointed. Mr. DeSantis’s narrow but intense focus on Everglades restoration felt “very hopeful out of the gate,” said Eve Samples, executive director of Friends of the Everglades, a nonprofit advocacy group. “But the follow-through has been problematic and lacking.”The governor created a toxic algae task force, she noted, but the group’s scientific recommendations had mostly been ignored. And projects to lessen climate change’s impact have not taken a comprehensive approach, she said.“‘Resilience’ has become a euphemism for installing diesel-powered pumps at the shoreline to keep developed areas dry,” she said. “That approach is not going to serve Florida in the long term.”At the first Republican debate last month, Mr. DeSantis reacted angrily when a Fox News moderator asked the candidates onstage to raise their hands if they thought human behavior was causing climate change.“We’re not school children,” Mr. DeSantis said. “Let’s have the debate.”But he did not answer the question, instead jumping into an attack on the “corporate media” and President Biden’s response to the wildfires in Maui. One of the moderators, Bret Baier, followed up: “Is that a yes? Is that a hand raise?”Mr. DeSantis stared at the camera without speaking, allowing another candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, to jump in. “I think it was a hand raise for him,” Mr. Ramaswamy said.“No, no, no,” Mr. DeSantis replied. “I didn’t raise a hand.”In contrast, nearly half of Americans believe that climate change is “mostly” caused by human activity, according to a poll by Ipsos released in May. Roughly a quarter said climate change was mostly caused by natural patterns. (Smaller percentages said that it was “not really happening” or that they did not know its cause.)There is a clear partisan divide, however. Among Republicans, only 22 percent of people said climate change was mostly caused by human activity, compared with 75 percent of Democrats.Mr. Biden seemed to weigh in last weekend during a visit to Florida after Idalia. “Nobody intelligent can deny the impact of the climate crisis anymore,” he said.President Biden visiting a Florida community affected by Hurricane Idalia this month. Climate change has become a clearly partisan issue, with only 22 percent of Republicans saying in a recent poll that climate change was mostly caused by human activity, compared with 75 percent of Democrats.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesIn an interview with Fox News that aired on Wednesday, Mr. DeSantis shot back. “The idea that we’ve not had powerful storms until recently, that’s just not factually true,” he said, adding that Democrats were trying to “politicize the weather.”But scientists say that climate change is making hurricanes more powerful, though not more frequent, as warmer ocean waters strengthen and sustain those storms. The proportion of the most severe storms — Categories 4 and 5 — has increased since 1980, when satellite imagery began reliably tracking hurricanes.When Mr. DeSantis ran for governor in 2018, relations between Florida Republicans and environmentalists had hit a low point. Under Rick Scott, the Republican governor at the time, state officials said they had been warned against even using the phrases “climate change” or “global warming.” (Mr. Scott said there was no policy banning those terms.) Toxic algae blooms were choking many of Florida’s beautiful bays, canals and rivers.Mr. DeSantis made improving water quality one of his top campaign issues. Other Republicans, including Representatives Vern Buchanan and Brian J. Mast, whose districts were being harmed by the harmful algae, also campaigned on water quality. The G.O.P. had used the issue to attract independent and crossover Democratic voters at a time when Florida was still a true political battleground.The message, said Jacob Perry, who ran Mr. Mast’s 2016 campaign, was intended to be: “This isn’t your father’s Republican Party.”Mr. DeSantis appeared to embrace a similar approach.“The environment was a big reason he won that race,” said Stephen Lawson, Mr. DeSantis’s 2018 communications director, who added that it was one of the top reasons, if not the leading one, that he was able to appeal to swing voters.As a candidate in the 2018 Republican primary for governor, he criticized his party’s close ties to the sugar industry, which had supported his opponent. He said he backed “resiliency” but did not want to be a climate “alarmist.” Once elected, he seemed to relish signing off on billions of dollars to restore state waterways and the Everglades.During his first year in office, his environmental policies gave Mr. DeSantis the veneer of a center-right governor. He appointed the state’s first chief science officer and hired a “chief resilience officer,” whose job description included a mandate to prepare the state for the “impacts of climate change, especially sea-level rise.”He signed the first bill passed by the Republican-held Legislature that directly addressed climate change, after what a Republican state senator acknowledged had been a “lost decade” of inaction. This year, Mr. DeSantis vetoed legislation that would have allowed electric utilities to impose fees on property owners who install solar panels.But Mr. DeSantis has made other decisions that let down conservationists during his governorship. He limited local governments from making stringent environmental regulations. He backed the building of new rural highways known as the “roads to nowhere.”On the campaign trail, Mr. DeSantis does not often talk about what his environmental policies would be as president. But he has suggested in broad terms that reducing fossil fuel emissions would be a good thing, while saying that the free market is a more appropriate tool for doing so than government intervention.At a barbecue in New Hampshire last month, he laid out some of his positions on climate change in response to a voter’s question, taking the opportunity to criticize Democrats for pushing renewable energy in the United States while China and India continue to rely on oil and gas.“They’ve taken this position that you can never burn a fossil fuel,” Mr. DeSantis said. “That is not going to work for our economy.”But in a reflection of how divisive climate change — and science more generally — has become for Republicans, the governor almost did not get to answer the question. The man who asked it was bombarded with boos and catcalls from other members of the audience until the event’s host, former Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, asked for civility.“Science!” one woman in the crowd jeered sarcastically. “Facts!”Ruth Igielnik More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Vivek Ramaswamy Is Suddenly Part of Our Political Life

      by

      Gail Collins: Bret, we haven’t talked since the Republican debate. Can’t say I fell in love with any of the contenders, but your fave Nikki Haley was certainly the most moderate voice onstage.Bret Stephens: Moderate and sane, but also cutting and sharp, particularly when it came to her vivisection of Vivek Ramaswamy’s neo-isolationist, Putin-kowtowing foreign policy.Gail: But she did promise to continue supporting Donald Trump for president, even if he’s convicted in any of the multitudinous, frequently anti-American charges against him.Bret: She shouldn’t have raised her hand, but I don’t think it was a fair question. All the candidates, including Chris Christie, pledged to support the party’s eventual nominee as a condition of being onstage. The important thing to me was that Haley was prepared to criticize Trump’s record and not just as a matter of character and ethics.The other candidate who seems to have everyone’s attention is Ramaswamy. Your thoughts?Gail: Wow, is he irritating. Not many people I can think of who I’d rather have over for dinner less than Donald Trump, but this guy’s one of them.Bret: I mentioned last week that he came to my house two summers ago for a pleasant lunch. That was before he got into politics.Gail: He’s very young and rich and I assume he’s figuring on making a name for himself with the right while Trump finishes out his career, in order to turn himself into the neo-Don of the late 2020s.Bret: Remember the John Cusack romantic comedy from the 1980s, “Say Anything”? It could become the slogan for a cohort of ambitious young conservatives whose views are endlessly malleable because their only goal is to advance their personal brand. Ramaswamy, for instance, would probably prefer not to be reminded that in his book he called the Jan. 6 riots “a disgrace” and a “stain on our history” that made him “ashamed of our nation.”Switching from the understudy to the master, what was your reaction to the Trump mug shot?Gail: Sigh. So deeply the story of our era that a former president charged, in effect, with attempting to overthrow our democratic form of government, would respond by selling a mug shot T-shirt.How about you?Bret: What ought to be a sad moment for the United States — when a former president who abused his power and disgraced his office faces legal consequences — has become a terrifying one, when that same former president treats the law with so much contempt that it becomes the springboard for his re-election campaign, to the applause of tens of millions of Americans.Ron DeSantis was right when he said at the debate that America is a nation in decline and that decline is a choice. He just wasn’t right in the way he meant it. We’re in decline because a spirit of lawlessness, shamelessness and brainlessness have become leading features of a conservative movement that was supposed to be a bulwark against all three.Gail: Now a lot of the debaters seem to think we’re headed toward national disaster because of government overspending. You’re kinda with them on that one, right?Bret: Kinda.My bottom line on government spending, both state and federal, is that what matters isn’t the amount, it’s the return on investment. We spent a lot on World War II, but it was worth it to defeat fascism. I’d argue the same about Eisenhower’s interstate highways or Reagan’s arms buildup. My quarrel with some of my liberal friends is that funding for, say, California’s $113 billion high-speed rail project from nowhere to nowhere is a colossal waste of money, as is every cent we spend subsidizing ethanol.Now I’m sure you’re going to say the same thing about my beloved F-35s, B-21s, SSN-774s and so on.Gail: Well, the big difference is that cutting back on global warming is approximately a billion percent more important than keeping weapons suppliers happy. That high-speed rail project has indeed been hell to complete — you’re talking about clearing the way through 171 miles in the middle of California. But eventually, it’ll get done and when it does there’ll be a dramatic reduction in motor vehicle emissions at a time when Americans are realizing that global warming can ruin the future for their children and grandchildren.Bret: Hmm. When Californians approved it, they thought they’d spend around $30 billion. It’s now costing almost four times as much and it’s not clear why people will prefer to go by train instead of just hopping a quick flight from San Francisco or San Jose to L.A. or Burbank. Plus, the inputs of concrete, steel and electricity all put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, too.Gail: That reminds me — during the Republican debate, when the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they believed human activity causes climate change, nobody was brave enough to do it. Although Haley did at least seem to admit it had a role.I know you don’t agree with our friend Ramaswamy, who called the climate change agenda “a hoax.” But do you feel yourself moving toward our oh-lord-this-is-a-world-crisis side?Bret: I feel myself moving toward the we-need-two-real-sides-in-this-debate side. Conservatives could have something meaningful to contribute if they acknowledged that climate change was real and that big-government solutions aren’t the way to go. We could do a lot to facilitate the permitting and construction of smaller, safer, next-generation nuclear reactors. We could welcome mining for rare-earths and other critical minerals in the United States. We could fight to end the environmentally destructive subsidies for biodiesels and the morally hazardous subsidies for flood insurance. We could take a Teddy Roosevelt-inspired conservationist approach to our shorelines to discourage beachfront development. We could support more investment in basic science, particularly for carbon capture and battery storage. We could support a carbon tax and offset it with a reduction in income tax. And we could agree to outlaw cryptocurrencies on purely environmental grounds, never mind that they’re mostly Ponzi schemes.What am I missing?Gail: Hey, we can go right back to our California discussion — whether it’s easy or not, the nation — and the world — has to encourage mass transit as opposed to carbon-spewing cars. Push solar and wind power as opposed to coal and oil and gas.Bret: All of the above. Plus hydrogen, tidal and did I mention nuclear?Gail: I rally behind your mention of flood insurance subsidies. We must, must stop developers from throwing up waterside housing complexes that are just invitations for the next disaster.Let’s go … less intense for a minute. Seen any good movies lately?Bret: I have, though it’s neither “Barbie” nor “Oppenheimer.” It’s “Golda,” which stars Helen Mirren as Golda Meir, the Israeli prime minister during the Yom Kippur War of 1973. It’s a smart and haunting film about a pioneering woman caught in a moment of national and personal crisis. But the movie has itself been caught in an idiotic controversy because Mirren — who knows how to play an anxious Jewish mother even better than my own anxious Jewish mother — isn’t herself Jewish. I don’t know when it became a thing, culturally speaking, that only members of a given ethnicity could represent characters from the same ethnicity. But it’s the antithesis of what acting and art ought to be about.Also, I’ll definitely see “Equalizer 3” when it comes out later this week because who doesn’t love watching Denzel Washington kill lots of people? What about you?Gail: We’ve been to see “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer.” The nice part was just going out to actual movie theaters and seeing shows that everybody’s talking about. These days almost every movie seems like it’s made to go right to TV. It’s convenient, but the communal experience is lost.Can’t say “Barbie” is great art, but it was nice to go to listen to the audience — or at least the part of the audience composed of young women — cheering for a plot that doesn’t involve blowing things up.Bret: My daughters loved it. You’d have to drag me to it kicking and screaming.Gail: On the other hand, “Oppenheimer” is most definitely about blowing things up — I’m amazed by how many folks decided to go out and spend three hours watching the history of the atomic bomb.Bret: I’ll be sure to watch it on a big screen. Now, as soon as the writers strike is over, I’m hoping that someone produces a series about all of the atomic spies: Klaus Fuchs, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Ted Hall, David Greenglass, Morton Sobell. Many of them brilliant scientists and starry-eyed idealists who, in their political naïveté, put themselves in the service of a dreadful cause. I love stories about deception that are really stories about self-deception.Gail: Wow, as if the poor Hollywood writers don’t have enough dark clouds in their lives right now.Bret: Speaking of the “misguided but interesting” category, readers shouldn’t miss our colleague Clay Risen’s terrific obituary for Isabel Crook, an anthropologist who spent most of her life in China and died this month at 107. Crook was an ardent Communist and remained one even when her husband was imprisoned for six years during the Cultural Revolution. Can’t say I admire her politics, but it’s hard not to be awed by the sweep and romance of a long and storied life.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Fact-Checking Ramaswamy’s Claims on Campaign Trail, Including on Climate and Jan. 6

      by

      The upstart Republican candidate has made inaccurate claims about climate change as well as the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, while mischaracterizing his own positions and past comments.Vivek Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur and author, commanded considerable attention during the first Republican primary debate as his standing was rising in national polls.Railing against “wokeism” and the “climate cult,” Mr. Ramaswamy has staked out unorthodox positions on a number of issues and characterized himself as the candidate most likely to appeal to young and new conservative voters.Here’s a fact check of his recent remarks on the campaign trail and during the debate.Climate change denialWhat Mr. Ramaswamy Said“There was this Obama appointee, climate change activist, who also believes as part of this Gaia-centric worldview of the earth that water rights need to be protected, which led to a five- to six-hour delay in the critical window of getting waters to put out those fires. We will never know, although certain science points out to the fact that we very well could have avoided those catastrophic deaths, many of them, if water had made it to the site of the fires on time.”— at a conservative conference in Atlanta in AugustThis lacks evidence. Mr. Ramaswamy was referring to M. Kaleo Manuel, the deputy director for Hawaii’s Commission on Water Resource Management, and overstating his ties to President Barack Obama as well as the potential effect of the requested water diversion.First, Mr. Manuel is not an “Obama appointee” but rather participated in a leadership development program run by the Obama Foundation in 2019. Mr. Ramaswamy and other conservative personalities have derided comments Mr. Manuel made last year when he said that native Hawaiians like himself used to consider water something to “revere” and something that “gives us life.”On Aug. 8, the day wildfire engulfed a historic town in Hawaii, Mr. Manuel was contacted by the West Maui Land Company, a real estate developer that supplies water to areas southeast of the town of Lahaina on Maui island, The New York Times has reported. Noting high winds and drought, the company requested permission to fill a private reservoir for fire control, though the reservoir was not connected to fire hydrants. No fire was blazing in the area at the time.The water agency asked the company whether the fire department had made the request, received no answer and said that it needed the approval of a farmer who relied on the water for his crops. The company said that it could not reach the farmer, but that the agency approved the request hours later.Asked for evidence of Mr. Ramaswamy’s claim that filling the reservoir when initially requested would have prevented deaths from the fire, a spokeswoman said it was “common sense — if you can put out a fire faster using water, you can save lives.”But state officials have said it is unlikely that the delay would have changed the course of the fire that swallowed Lahaina, as high winds would have prevented firefighters from gaining access to the reservoir. In an Aug. 10 letter to the water agency, an executive at the West Maui Land Company acknowledged that there was no way to know whether “filling our reservoirs” when initially requested would have changed the outcome, but asked the agency to temporarily suspend existing water regulations. The executive, in another letter, also wrote that “we would never imply responsibility” on Mr. Manuel’s part.What Mr. Ramaswamy Said“The reality is more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change.”— in the first Republican debate on WednesdayFalse. There is no evidence to support this assertion. A spokeswoman for Mr. Ramaswamy cited a 2022 column in the libertarian publication “Reason” that argued that limiting the use of fossil fuels would hamper the ability to deliver power, heat homes and pump water during extreme weather events. But the campaign did not provide examples of climate change policies actually causing deaths. The World Meteorological Organization, a United Nations agency, estimated in May that extreme weather events, compounded by climate change, caused nearly 12,000 disasters and a death toll of 2 million between 1970 and 2021. Extreme heat causes about 600 deaths in the United States a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A 2021 study found that a third of heat-related deaths could be attributed to climate change. In campaign appearances and social media posts, Mr. Ramaswamy has also pointed to a decline in the number of disaster-related deaths in the past century, even as emissions have risenThat, experts have said, is largely because of technological advances in weather forecasting and communication, mitigation tools and building codes. The May study by the World Meteorological Organization, for example, noted that 90 percent of extreme weather deaths occur in developing countries — precisely because of the gap in technological advances. Disasters are occurring at increasing frequencies, the organization has said, even as fatalities decrease.Mr. Ramaswamy, a millennial, has described himself as the candidate most likely to appeal to young and new conservative voters.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesJan. 6 and the 2020 electionWhat Mr. Ramaswamy Said“What percentage of the people who were armed were federal law-enforcement officers? I think it was probably high, actually. Right? There’s very little evidence of people being arrested for being armed that day. Most of the people who were armed, I assume the federal officers who were out there were armed.”— in an interview with The Atlantic in JulyFalse. Mr. Ramaswamy has echoed the right-wing talking point that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol did not involve weapons and was largely peaceful. His spokeswoman argued that he was merely asking questions.But as early this month, 104 out of about 1,100 total defendants have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon, according to the Justice Department. At least 13 face gun charges.It is impossible to know just how many people in the crowd of 28,000 were armed, as some may have concealed their weapons or chosen to remain outside of magnetometers set up at the Ellipse, a sprawling park near the White House, where Mr. Trump held his rally. Still, through those magnetometers, Secret Service confiscated 242 canisters of pepper spray, 269 knives or blades, 18 brass knuckles, 18 stun guns, 30 batons or blunt instruments, and 17 miscellaneous items like scissors, needles or screwdrivers, according to the final report from the Jan. 6 committee.What was SaidChris Christie, former governor of New Jersey: “In your book, you had much different things to say about Donald Trump than you’re saying here tonight.”Mr. Ramaswamy: “That’s not true.”— in the Republican debateMr. Ramaswamy was wrong. During the debate, Mr. Ramaswamy vigorously defended Mr. Trump, calling him “ the best president of the 21st century.” Mr. Christie was correct that Mr. Ramaswamy was much more critical of Mr. Trump in his books.In his 2022 book, “Nation of Victims,” Mr. Ramaswamy wrote that despite voting for Mr. Trump in 2020, “what he delivered in the end was another tale of grievance, a persecution complex that swallowed much of the Republican Party whole.”Mr. Ramaswamy added that he was “especially disappointed when I saw President Trump take a page from the Stacey Abrams playbook,” referring to the Democratic candidate for Georgia governor who, after her 2018 defeat, sued the state over accusations of voter suppression. Moreover, he wrote, Mr. Trump’s claims of electoral fraud were “weak” and “weren’t grounded in fact.”In his 2021 book, “Woke Inc.,” Mr. Ramaswamy described the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol as a “a disgrace, and it was a stain on our history” that made him “ashamed of our nation.”And after the Jan. 6 attack, Mr. Ramaswamy wrote on Twitter, “What Trump did last week was wrong. Downright abhorrent. Plain and simple.”Foreign policyWhat Mr. RAMASWAMY said“Much of our military defense spending in the last several decades has not actually gone to national defense.”— in an interview on the Fox Business Network in AugustFalse. A spokeswoman for Mr. Ramaswamy said he was comparing military aid to foreign countries and “homeland defense.” But the amount the United States has spent on security assistance pales in comparison to general military spending and homeland security spending.According to the federal government’s foreign assistance portal, military aid to other countries ranged from $6 billion to $23 billion annually from the fiscal years 2000 to 2022, peaking in the fiscal years 2011 and 2012 when aid to Afghanistan alone topped $10 billion a year.In the past two decades, the Pentagon’s annual budget ranged from over $400 billion to over $800 billion. Operation and maintenance is the largest category of spending (36 percent) and includes money spent on fuel, supplies, facilities, recruiting and training, followed by compensation for military personnel (23 percent), procurement of new equipment and weapons (19 percent), and research and development (16 percent).The Department of Homeland Security itself has an annual budget that has increased from $40 billion in the 2004 fiscal year, when the agency was created, to over $100 billion in the 2023 fiscal year.Mr. Ramaswamy’s claim reflects a common misconception among American voters, who tend to overestimate the amount spent on foreign aid. Foreign aid of all categories — including military aid as well as assistance for health initiatives, economic development or democratic governance — makes up less than 1 percent of the total federal budget. In comparison, about one-sixth of federal spending goes to national defense, according to the Congressional Budget Office.Outside of official government figures, researchers at Brown University have estimated that since Sept. 11, military spending in the United States has exceeded $8 trillion. By that breakdown, the United States has spent $2.3 trillion in funding for overseas fighting versus $1.1 trillion in homeland security defenses. But that figure also includes spending that cannot be neatly categorized as overseas versus domestic defense spending: $1.3 trillion in general military spending increases and medical care, $1.1 trillion in interest payments and $2.2 trillion for future veterans care.What Was SaidNikki Haley, former United Nations ambassador: “You want to go and defund Israel, you want to give Taiwan to China. You want to go and give Ukraine to Russia.”Mr. Ramaswamy: “Let me address that. I’m glad you brought that up. I’m going to address each of those right now. This is the false lies of a professional politician.”— in the Republican debateBoth exaggerated. Ms. Haley omitted nuance in describing Mr. Ramaswamy’s foreign policy positions, but her characterizations are far from “lies.”In interviews and campaign appearances, Mr. Ramaswamy has said that he views the deal to provide Israel with $38 billion over 10 years for its security as “sacrosanct.” But he has said that by 2028, when the deal expires, he hopes that Israel “will not require and be dependent on that same level of historical aid or commitment from the U.S.”In a nearly hourlong speech at the Nixon Library this month, Mr. Ramaswamy said his administration would “defend Taiwan if China invades Taiwan before we have semiconductor independence in this country,” which he estimated he could achieve by 2028. But, he continued, “thereafter, we will be very clear that after the U.S. achieves semiconductor independence, our commitments to send our sons and daughters to put them in harm’s way will change.”On Russia’s war in Ukraine, Mr. Ramaswamy has said he would “freeze the current lines of control” — which includes several southeastern regions of Ukraine — and pledge to prohibit Ukraine from being admitted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization if Russia ended its “alliance” with China. (The two countries do not have a formal alliance.)Lisa Friedman contributed reporting.We welcome suggestions and tips from readers on what to fact-check on email and Twitter. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      European Climate Czar Steps Down to Take Part in Dutch Elections

      by

      Frans Timmermans is stepping down at a crucial time for European climate laws to become the lead candidate for a left-wing coalition in the Dutch elections in November.Frans Timmermans, the European Union’s climate chief, will leave his position in Brussels to become a candidate in coming elections in the Netherlands, the European Commission announced on Tuesday.Mr. Timmermans’s immediate departure comes as the European Union is focusing on meeting climate goals, reducing emissions on the continent as well as transitioning to clean energy.Mr. Timmermans served as the executive vice president for the European Green Deal, a set of proposals that aims to make the E.U.’s climate, energy, transport and taxation policies fit for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030, compared with 1990 levels.Last month, European lawmakers approved a key element of the Green Deal that would require member nations to restore 20 percent of natural areas within their borders on land and at sea.“Climate change is happening even faster than feared, battering our planet with no region left unaffected,” Mr. Timmermans said in a speech in July. “Radical, immediate, and transformative action must be taken by all of us.”Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, praised Mr. Timmermans in a statement, saying he helped make strides toward “meeting the E.U.’s objectives to become the first climate neutral continent.” She also said he helped raise “the levels of climate ambition globally.”Ms. von der Leyen has appointed Maroš Šefčovič, a member of the European Commission from Slovakia, to succeed Mr. Timmermans as the executive vice president for the European Green Deal. Ms. von der Leyen also temporarily assigned the responsibility for climate action policy to Mr. Šefčovič, until the appointment of a new member of the commission of Dutch nationality, according to an announcement.Maros Sefcovic will succeed Mr. Timmermans as the executive vice-president for the European Green Deal.Tt News Agency, via ReutersOn Tuesday, Mr. Timmermans became the lead candidate for a left-wing alliance of the Green Party and the Labor Party, which are forming one bloc in the Netherlands’s parliamentary elections scheduled for Nov. 22. In that role, Mr. Timmermans could possibly become the Dutch prime minister. Members of the two parties overwhelmingly chose Mr. Timmermans as the lead candidate on Tuesday, according to Dutch media.Mr. Timmermans was scheduled to address members of the left-wing parties on Tuesday night as leader for the first time, according to the parties.“He is the right person to face the big challenges we stand for: protecting social security, tackle the climate crisis and restore trust in politics,” Attje Kuiken, the leader of the Dutch Labor Party in the House of Representatives, wrote on X, formerly Twitter. Ms. Kuiken has, like multiple other politicians since the government collapsed last month, announced her departure from Dutch politics.It’s not Mr. Timmermans’s first foray into Dutch politics. He has served as a member of Parliament for the Dutch Labor Party, as well as minister of foreign affairs from 2012 to 2014.The Green Deal has angered farmers on the continent, including in Mr. Timmermans’s native Netherlands. Last year, Dutch farmers protested against new goals and an announcement that some of them would have to shutter their farms to reach the E.U.’s climate goals, saying that they felt disproportionately targeted.The Dutch government collapsed in July after the parties in its ruling coalition failed to reach an agreement on migration policy. Other issues had been adding stress to the fractured coalition, including climate goals that aim to drastically reduce nitrogen emissions in the country, goals that have been partially set by the European Union.The Netherlands will soon have its first new prime minister since 2010, when Mark Rutte came into power. Mr. Rutte decided not to run again and said he would leave politics once a new coalition is in place after the November elections.Mr. Rutte’s departure from Dutch politics raised questions for the Netherlands, as well as the European Union, where Mr. Rutte found a stage to advance his country’s agenda: rules-based free trade and commerce, fiscal prudence, liberal social values.Who will take Mr. Rutte’s place as prime minister uncertain. The Farmer Citizen Movement, a Dutch pro-farming party that swept local elections in March, has been ahead in the polls, an indication of people’s dissatisfaction with mainstream political parties.On Sunday, Pieter Omtzigt, a popular Dutch politician who has been critical of Mr. Rutte, announced the creation of his new party, New Social Contract. A Dutch poll from this summer predicted that Mr. Omtzigt’s party could win as many as 46 seats in the Netherlands’s 150-member House of Representatives. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      These Aren’t the Darkest Years in American History, but They Are Among the Weirdest

      by

      Bret Stephens: Before we get to Donald Trump’s indictment in Georgia or the upcoming G.O.P. debate, I want to take note of the appalling tragedy in Hawaii. The images from Maui are just heartbreaking. But I also get a sense that heartbreak will soon turn to outrage as we learn more about the cascade of policy failures that led to the disaster.Gail Collins: Maui is going to be hard for any of us to forget. Or, in some cases, forgive. There are certainly a heck of a lot of serious questions about whether the folks who were supposed to be responsible did their jobs.Bret: There’s a story in The Wall Street Journal that made me want to scream. It seems Hawaiian Electric knew four years ago that it needed to do more to keep power lines from emitting sparks, but it invested only $245,000 to try to do something about it. The state and private owners let old dams fall into disrepair and then allowed for them to be destroyed rather than restoring them, leading to less stored water and more dry land. And then there was the emergency chief who decided not to sound warning sirens. At least he had the good sense to resign.Gail: But let’s look at the way bigger issue, Bret. The weather’s been awful in all sorts of scary ways this summer, all around the planet. Pretty clear it’s because of global warming. You ready to rally around a big push toward environmental revolution?Bret: I’m opposed on principle to all big revolutions, Gail, beginning with the French. But I am in favor of 10,000 evolutions to deal with the climate. In Maui’s case, a push for more solar power plus reforestation of grasslands could have made a difference in managing the fire. I also think simple solutions can do a lot to help — like getting the federal government to finance states and utilities to cover the costs of burying power lines.Gail: Yep. Plus some more effortful projects to address climate change, like President Biden’s crusade to promote electric cars and an evolution away from coal and oil for heat.Bret: The more I read about the vast mineral inputs for electric cars — about 900 pounds of nickel, aluminum, cobalt and other minerals per car battery — the more I wonder about their wisdom. If you don’t believe me, just read Mr. Bean! (Or at least Rowan Atkinson, who studied electrical engineering at Oxford before his career took a … turn.) He made a solid environmental case in The Guardian for keeping your old gas-burning car instead of switching to electric.But I’m a big believer in adopting next-gen nuclear power to produce a larger share of our electric power needs. And I’m with you on moving away from coal.Gail: Hey, if we’ve found a point of consensus, let’s grab it and move on. After all, we’re on the cusp of a Republican presidential debate.Bret: With Trump as the apparent no-show. As a raw political calculation, I guess this makes sense given his commanding lead in the Republican primary polls, a lead that only seems to grow with each successive indictment.Gail: Yeah, I have to admit that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of possible gain for him in debating people who are way, way behind him in the polls and give them a chance to point out all his multitudinous defects.And I believe I speak for at least 90 percent of the population when I say posting a prerecorded interview with Tucker Carlson is not an acceptable substitute.Bret: I’m still going to watch the debate out of lurid fascination. I’m guessing this will devolve mainly into an argument between Chris Christie and Vivek Ramaswamy, with Ron DeSantis spending the time darting between them like a cornered lizard that doesn’t know where to turn. Christie will make the case for why Republicans need to turn against Trump, and Ramaswamy will make the case for why they need to favor him. That’s by way of Ramaswamy ultimately becoming Trump’s veep pick.Gail: You think so? Would that be a good idea? Strategically speaking that is — I can’t imagine you think Ramaswamy would lift the quality of the ticket.Bret: I met Ramaswamy a couple of years ago, when he was pitching a book on corporations going “woke.” He came to my house for lunch, where I made him a credible ratatouille. At the time, I was sympathetic to his message and impressed by his smarts. I’ve become a lot less sympathetic as he’s essentially promised to give Vladimir Putin what he wants in Ukraine, consider Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a potential running mate and reopen the investigation into 9/11. That said, his youth, wealth, verbal acuity, anti-woke message and minority background kinda makes him perfect for Donald, no?Gail: Nah, I don’t think our former president wants anybody that … interesting. Remember, this is the man who made Mike Pence his No. 2 back when he actually needed more attention.Bret: You may be right. In that case, it’s Tim Scott for veep.Gail: By the way, I like your prediction about DeSantis looking like a cornered lizard in this debate. Seems he’s the one who’s got the most to lose — he really does need to show potential Republican backers that he isn’t a dope. That’d be a challenge under any circumstances, but especially when he’s up against someone as capable of crushing the opposition as Christie.Bret: Our news-side colleagues Jonathan Swan, Shane Goldmacher and Maggie Haberman had a great scoop last week about memos from a pro-DeSantis PAC urging their man to “take a sledgehammer” to Ramaswamy and “defend Donald Trump” in response to Christie’s attacks. It’s terrible advice, since attacking Ramaswamy will only help elevate him as a serious contender while further diminishing DeSantis’s claim to be the best and most viable alternative to Trump.Gail: My dream scenario, by the way, is for Christie to take the debate crown, then go on to campaign in New Hampshire. If it looks like he could actually win there, sooner or later Trump is going to have to pay him some more attention, right? Just out of pure ego?Bret: Presumably by harping on his weight, as if Trump is a poster boy for SlimFast. I think Christie probably enjoys those attacks, because he parries them so skillfully and it consolidates his position as the only real Republican alternative to Trump. Something that might come in handy on the slight chance that Trump goes to prison.Gail: Amazing we’ve gotten this far without mentioning that the man we all regard as the very, very likely Republican nominee for president is facing multitudinous criminal indictments in Georgia, New York, Florida and at the federal level.Bret: Ninety-one counts in all. You could almost take ’em down and pass ’em around like bottles of beer on the wall.Gail: So far, many of his supporters seem pretty eager to accept his claims that everything is just an anti-Trump political conspiracy. Can that last? It’s still about a year until the Republican presidential nominating convention in Milwaukee. I can’t help feeling that something will come up that even his fans will find impossible to ignore.Bret: Gail, the truest thing Trump ever said is that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his base would stick with him. The proper way to understand his appeal isn’t by studying normal voter behavior. It’s by studying cults. In a cult, the leader is always, simultaneously, a savior of his people and a victim of a vast and shadowy conspiracy. Unfortunately, all of these prosecutions, however merited, do more to reinforce than undermine the thinking of his followers.The only thing that can truly defeat Trump is a thumping electoral defeat. My biggest worry about President Biden is that he is so much more vulnerable politically than many Democrats seem to realize.Gail: Bret, it’s sort of inspiring that you’re the one of us most worried about getting Biden re-elected. Presuming his health holds up, I’m pretty confident. Here’s a man whose biggest political drawback is being boring. Which doesn’t look all that bad when he’s compared with a guy whose biggest defects go beyond the 91 counts arrayed against him. Biden’s been a much, much better president than Trump was. I wish he wasn’t running again, because of the age issue. But as we’ve discussed, Trump is only three years younger and seems to be in much worse physical shape.Bret: I wish I were as sanguine, but my forebears inclined me to fret.Gail: Just for diversion, make believe that Trump drops out of the race. For any of a million reasonable reasons. The other options in his party look pretty appalling to me. Do you think you’d still wind up voting for Joe Biden or would you feel free to go back to your Republican roots?Bret: The only Republicans in the current field I could definitely vote for are Christie and Nikki Haley. Otherwise, I’ll be pulling the lever for Joe and lighting votive candles every night for his health.Gail: OK, one more quick “What if?” Suppose Biden dropped out of the race right now. Who would you vote for, Trump or Kamala Harris?Bret: Gail, I would never, ever vote for Trump. Then again, if that winds up being the choice, God help us.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      With National Monument Designation, Biden Tries to Balance Electoral Realities

      by

      The president has highlighted his climate actions as a way to spur domestic energy production and create blue-collar jobs, while nodding to environmental activists and tribal leaders.The president designated nearly a million acres of land in Red Butte, Ariz., as a national monument.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesAfter spending most of his appearance near the Grand Canyon describing how his fifth national monument designation would preserve sagebrush, bighorn sheep and 450 kinds of birds, President Biden said on Tuesday that protecting the land long held sacred by Native American leaders was not just a matter of the environment.“By creating this monument, we’re setting aside new spaces for families to bike, hunt, fish and camp, growing the tourism economy,” Mr. Biden said as he declared nearly a million acres near the Grand Canyon as a national monument, with the 300-million-year-old “majestic red cliffs” serving as his backdrop.“Preserving these lands is good not only for Arizona, but for the planet,” he said. “It’s good for the economy.”Mr. Biden has often framed his climate investments as a means to spur domestic energy production, one that would create thousands of jobs for blue-collar workers. But when he traveled to Arizona to announce a permanent ban on uranium mining in the area, he also nodded to other crucial constituencies: environmental activists and tribal leaders who have pressed the White House to make good on its ambitious campaign promises to protect the environment and ancestral homelands.The White House has presented Mr. Biden’s sales pitch for legislation aimed at cutting planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, the Inflation Reduction Act, as a job-growth machine to appeal to the middle class. But the administration knows that those who care about protecting the environment and preserving lands stripped from tribal nations are crucial voters, particularly in the battleground state of Arizona.The balancing act was reflected during Mr. Biden’s visit to the mountainous range of Red Butte near the Grand Canyon, where he spoke of job creation while also acknowledging environmental activists and tribal leaders.Indigenous people, Mr. Biden said, “fought for decades to be able to return to these lands to protect these lands from mining and development to clear them of contamination to preserve their shared legacy.”The Biden administration has argued that the Grand Canyon region contains just about 1.3 percent of the country’s uranium reserves.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesThe White House hopes Mr. Biden’s message is received by not just Native Americans but also young and climate-conscious voters, many of whom have yet to be fired up by his economy-first message.About 71 percent of Americans say they have heard “little” or “nothing at all” about the Inflation Reduction Act one year after it was signed, according to a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll. And most Americans — 57 percent — disapprove of Mr. Biden’s handling of climate change, according to the poll. Recent polls also show that voter sentiment on the economy continues to drive the president’s negative approval ratings.Mr. Biden has been inconsistent in his efforts to protect federal lands and waters. This year he approved the Willow project, a large oil-drilling development in the pristine Arctic wilderness. The administration also approved more oil and gas permits in its first two years than President Donald J. Trump did in his, and agreed to a series of compromises in the Inflation Reduction Act, Mr. Biden’s signature climate law, to allow offshore oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska’s Cook Inlet.“It’s a pick-your-battle environment,” said Joel Clement, a former policy director at the Interior Department.Mr. Clement, who is now a senior program officer at the Lemelson Foundation, a philanthropic group funding work on climate change, said he believed the Biden administration was intent on protecting Indigenous lands and culture, and also on blocking as much fossil fuel production as it could.But, he said, “The calculus revolves around how much damage they can weather from the right on each of these things.”The Biden administration needs to amp up its climate change messaging as campaign season heats up, said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, which has conducted surveys on Americans’ climate opinions since 2007.While the message about jobs and the economy might be a winning strategy in a general election, Mr. Leiserowitz said Mr. Biden’s base of climate-focused voters wanted to see the president use the bully pulpit to talk more about replacing fossil fuels, the burning of which is dangerously heating the planet.“They have more teachable moments to talk about climate change with the American people than any other president in history because we are getting hit every day by another two-by-four of climate extremes on steroids,” Mr. Leiserowitz said.Mr. Biden leaned into that message on Tuesday, describing his efforts to combat the effects of climate change, including investing $720 million for Native American communities to ease the impact of droughts and rising sea levels. Standing before an Arizona delegation as well as tribal leaders donning traditional attire, Mr. Biden framed the Inflation Reduction Act as the biggest investment in climate conservation and environmental justice on record.But his announcement also highlighted the risks Mr. Biden faces as he seeks to conserve lands while also promoting the expansion of clean energy. Uranium is a fuel most widely used for nuclear plants, a key source of energy that does not produce carbon dioxide emissions.As countries work to curb planet-warming greenhouse gasses, competition for uranium is expected to increase, according to experts. The United States imports the majority of its uranium, from Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia and Russia.Paul Goranson, the chief executive of enCore Energy, which has mining claims in the Grand Canyon area, said the uranium found there is of a higher grade than in other parts of the United States. Cutting off that supply, he said, will keep the United States reliant on imports, which could have an impact on national security and hurt the Biden administration’s ability to develop zero-emissions energy sources to fight climate change.“It seems the timing is a bit inconsistent with the president’s objectives for clean energy,” Mr. Goranson said. “It doesn’t seem to be aligning with his stated clean energy targets.”The Biden administration has argued that the Grand Canyon region contains just about 1.3 percent of the country’s uranium reserves. Environmental groups also noted that because the area was under a 20-year moratorium imposed during the Obama administration, no mining would have occurred for at least a decade anyway.Republicans blasted Mr. Biden’s decision this week. Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a supporter of nuclear energy, accused the president of “supporting our enemies” by blocking uranium production. American companies currently pay around $1 billion a year to Russia’s state-owned nuclear agency to buy uranium.The White House’s balancing act of framing its agenda as a boon to domestic investment and job growth, as well as a way to combat climate change and advance environmental justice, will continue throughout the re-election campaign, according to senior White House officials. After Mr. Biden was endorsed by the four largest environmental groups in the United States in June, the president celebrated days later at a rally for union workers.“The investment isn’t only going to help us save the planet, it’s going to create jobs — lots of jobs, tens of thousands of good-paying union jobs,” Mr. Biden reminded A.F.L.-C.I.O. members at the rally in Philadelphia.That strategy was evident on Tuesday. As Mr. Biden talked about the importance of protecting the country’s natural wonders, Vice President Kamala Harris joined Labor Department officials in Philadelphia to speak to construction workers about efforts to raise their wages.And after the event at the Grand Canyon, Mr. Biden traveled to Albuquerque, where he will describe how his signature climate and clean energy bill also creates manufacturing jobs in the clean energy sector.A group gathered to see President Biden.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesJohn Leshy, a public lands expert who served in the Interior Department during the Clinton and the Carter administrations, said trade-offs between developing renewable energy to fight climate change and conserving and protecting public lands will only increase in the years to come.“We’ve got a catastrophe in the offing if we don’t move rapidly to decarbonize,” Mr. Leshy said. “I don’t think that means opening up the Grand Canyon to uranium mining everywhere, but in some situations it does mean we’re going to have to grit our teeth” to allow for more minerals development, he said.For Carletta Tilousi, a member of the Havasupai Tribe, Mr. Biden’s monument designation means that her ancestors “are finally going to be feeling rested.”“A lot of these areas are in places where there were once gathering sites of tribal people and many years ago, hundred years ago, where our ancestors once roamed and we still roam today here,” she said. “But I believe those areas are very important to our existence.” More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      A Republican 2024 Climate Strategy: More Drilling, Less Clean Energy

      by

      Project 2025, a conservative “battle plan” for the next Republican president, would stop attempts to cut the pollution that is heating the planet and encourage more emissions.During a summer of scorching heat that has broken records and forced Americans to confront the reality of climate change, conservatives are laying the groundwork for future Republican administration that would dismantle efforts to slow global warming.The move is part of a sweeping strategy dubbed Project 2025 that Paul Dans of the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank organizing the effort, has called a “battle plan” for the first 180 days of a future Republican presidency.The climate and energy provisions would be among the most severe swings away from current federal policies.The plan calls for shredding regulations to curb greenhouse gas pollution from cars, oil and gas wells and power plants, dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government and boosting the production of fossil fuels — the burning of which is the chief cause of planetary warming.The New York Times asked the leading Republican presidential candidates whether they support the Project 2025 strategy but none of the campaigns responded. Still, several of the architects are veterans of the Trump administration, and their recommendations match positions held by former President Donald J. Trump, the current front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination.The $22 million project also includes personnel lists and a transition strategy in the event a Republican wins the 2024 election. The nearly 1,000-page plan, which would reshape the executive branch to place more power into the president’s hands, outlines changes for nearly every agency across the government.The Heritage Foundation worked on the plan with dozens of conservative groups ranging from the Heartland Institute, which has denied climate science, to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which says “climate change does not endanger the survival of civilization or the habitability of the planet.”Mr. Dans said the Heritage Foundation delivered the blueprint to every Republican presidential hopeful. While polls have found that young Republicans are worried about global warming, Mr. Dans said the feedback he has received confirms the blueprint reflects where the majority of party leaders stand.“We have gotten very good reception from this,” he said. “This is a plotting of points of where the conservative movement sits at this time.”Paul Dans of the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, in April.Leigh Vogel for The New York TimesThere is a pronounced partisan split in the country when it comes to climate change, surveys have shown. An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll conducted last month found that while 56 percent of respondents called climate change a major threat — including a majority of independents and nearly 90 percent of Democrats — about 70 percent of Republicans said global warming was either a minor threat or no threat at all.Project 2025 does not offer any proposals for curbing the greenhouse gas emissions that are dangerously heating the planet and which scientists have said must be sharply and quickly reduced to avoid the most catastrophic impacts.Asked what the country should do to combat climate change, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Heritage Foundation’s energy and climate center, said “I really hadn’t thought about it in those terms” and then offered that Americans should use more natural gas.Natural gas produces half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal when burned. But gas facilities frequently leak methane, a greenhouse gas that is much more powerful than carbon dioxide in the short term and has emerged as a growing concern among climate scientists.The blueprint said the next Republican president would help repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, the 2022 law that is offering $370 billion for wind, solar, nuclear, green hydrogen and electric vehicle technology, with most of the new investments taking place in Republican-led states.The plan calls for shuttering a Department of Energy office that has $400 billion in loan authority to help emerging green technologies. It would make it more difficult for solar, wind and other renewable power — the fastest growing energy source in the United States — to be added to the grid. Climate change would no longer be considered an issue worthy of discussion on the National Security Council, and allied nations would be encouraged to buy and use more fossil fuels rather than renewable energy.In July, Phoenix experienced a record-breaking streak of above-100-degree days. Ash Ponders for The New York TimesThe blueprint throws open the door to drilling inside the pristine Arctic wilderness, promises legal protections for energy companies that kill birds while extracting oil and gas and declares the federal government has an “obligation to develop vast oil and gas and coal resources” on America’s public lands.Notably, it also would restart a quest for something climate denialists have long considered their holy grail: reversal of a 2009 scientific finding at the Environmental Protection Agency that says carbon dioxide emissions are a danger to public health.Erasing that finding, conservatives have long believed, would essentially strip the federal government of the right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from most sources.In interviews, Mr. Dans and three of the top authors of the report agreed that the climate is changing. But they insisted that scientists are debating the extent to which human activity is responsible.On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the world agree that the burning of oil, gas and coal since the Industrial Age has led to an increase of the average global temperature of 1.2 degrees Celsius, or 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit.The plan calls on the government to stop trying to make automobiles more fuel efficient and to block states from adopting California’s stringent automobile pollution standards.Ms. Furchtgott-Roth said any measures the United States would take to cut carbon would be undermined by rising emissions in countries like China, currently the planet’s biggest polluter. It would be impossible to convince China, to cut its emissions, she said.Mandy Gunasekara was chief of staff at the E.P.A. during the Trump administration and considers herself the force behind Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris climate accord. She led the section outlining plans for that agency, and said that regarding whether carbon emissions pose a danger to human health “there’s a misconception that any of the science is a settled issue.”The plan does not offer any proposals for curbing the greenhouse gas emissions that are dangerously heating the planet.Leigh Vogel for The New York TimesBernard L. McNamee is a former Trump administration official who has worked as an adviser to fossil fuel companies as well as for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which spreads misinformation about climate change. He wrote the section of the strategy covering the Department of Energy, which said the national laboratories have been too focused on climate change and renewable energy. In an interview, Mr. McNamee said he believes the role of the agency is to make sure energy is affordable and reliable.Mr. Dans said a mandate of Project 2025 is to “investigate whether the dimensions of climate change exist and what can actually be done.” As for the influence of burning fossil fuels, he said, “I think the science is still out on that quite frankly.”In actuality, it is not.The top scientists in the United States concluded in an exhaustive study produced during the Trump administration that humans — the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to blame. “There is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence,” scientists wrote.Climate advocates said the Republican strategy would take the country in the wrong direction even as heat waves, drought and wildfires worsen because of emissions.“This agenda would be laughable if the consequences of it weren’t so dire,” said Christy Goldfuss, chief policy impact officer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.Republicans who have called for their party to accept climate change said they were disappointed by the blueprint and worried about the direction of the party.“I think its out-of-touch Beltway silliness and it’s not meeting Americans where they are,” said Sarah Hunt, president of the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, which works with Republican state officials on energy needs.Firefighters battling the Agua Fire in Soledad Canyon near Agua Dulce, Calif., last month.David Swanson/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesShe called efforts to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which is pouring money and jobs overwhelmingly into red states, particularly impractical.“Obviously as conservatives we’re concerned about fiscal responsibility, but if you look at what Republican voters think, a lot of Republicans in red states show strong support for provisions of the I.R.A.,” Ms. Hunt said.Representative John Curtis, Republican of Utah, who launched a conservative climate caucus, called it “vital that Republicans engage in supporting good energy and climate policy.”Without directly commenting on the G.O.P. blueprint, Mr. Curtis said “I look forward to seeing the solutions put forward by the various presidential candidates and hope there is a robust debate of ideas to ensure we have reliable, affordable and clean energy.”Benji Backer, executive chairman and founder of the American Conservation Coalition, a group of young Republicans who want climate action, said he felt Project 2025 was wrongheaded.“If they were smart about this issue they would have taken approach that said ‘the Biden administration has done things in a way they don’t agree with but here’s our vision’,” he said. “Instead they remove it from being a priority.”He noted climate change is a real concern among young Republicans. By a nearly two-to-one margin, polls have found, Republicans aged 18 to 39 years old are more likely to agree that “human activity contributes a great deal to climate change,” and that the federal government has a role to play in curbing it.Of Project 2025, he said, “This sort of approach on climate is not acceptable to the next generation.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Climate Activists and Steve King Unlikely Allies in Iowa Pipeline Fight

      by

      Liberal environmentalists and conservative landowners, led by the former congressman Steve King, are pressuring Republican candidates to oppose three Midwestern pipelines.Emma Schmidt, a lifelong environmental activist in Rockwell City, Iowa, had long searched for potent allies in her fight against a massive carbon dioxide pipeline planned for her state.But she never expected to find herself at former Representative Steve King’s house, making her case as she stared up at a pistol in the paw of a taxidermied raccoon in his home office.That meeting in June between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican who lost his seat in Congress in 2020 after incendiary racist comments was the beginning of a left-right alliance that is trying to push the debate of the pipeline to the forefront of the heated G.O.P. presidential caucuses.“We’re putting in a whole lot of money into pipelines that are not necessary, that bulldoze their way through some of the richest farmlands in the world, to sequester CO2,” said an incredulous Mr. King on Tuesday.Steve King, a former member of Congress who lost his seat after a series of racist comments, is an unlikely ally for liberal climate activists in Iowa. Joshua Lott/Getty ImagesThe $4.5 billion Summit, $3 billion Navigator and $630 million Wolf Carbon pipelines may not be front and center next month at the first Republican presidential debate. They probably won’t be featured in super PAC advertising or mentioned during Fox News appearances. But the pipelines capture a national debate with local consequences, and they will give candidates a chance to showcase their understanding of Iowa, the first state to weigh in on the Republican nominating fight — if they can navigate the issue.The Summit, Navigator and Wolf pipelines, fueled by federal tax credits embraced by both parties, would draw carbon dioxide from the factories that turn Iowa corn into ethanol. They would snake through 3,300 miles of farmland in Iowa and other Midwestern states, then pump the planet-warming gas into the bedrock beneath Illinois and North Dakota. And they are pitched as a climate protection measure, though some experts and environmentalists say it is only a partial solution at best.Earlier this month, an Iowa woman seemed to stump the front-runner, former President Donald J. Trump, when she asked how he would “help us in Iowa save our farmland from the CO2 pipelines.”Mr. Trump stammered that he was “working on that” and that he “had a plan to totally, uh, it’s such a ridiculous situation,” before reassuring the crowd, “if we win, that’s going to be taken care of.”The moment has been laughed off as a show of Mr. Trump’s ability to bluster his way through anything, but the issue is tricky: Several of the Republican candidates have cast doubt on the established climate science and would seem disinclined to back a project aimed at reducing carbon emissions. But opposing the pipeline also means opposing Iowa’s all-important ethanol industry.The state’s popular Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, has avoided taking a public position. Opponents believe she supports the deal, which is backed by some of her biggest political contributors, including Bruce Rastetter, founder of the Summit Agricultural Group. Ms. Reynolds’s office did not respond to requests for comment.The state’s popular Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, has avoided taking a public position on the pipeline, which is backed by one of her biggest political contributors. Kelsey Kremer/The Des Moines Register, via Associated PressPowerful figures from both parties have signed with the pipeline companies, including Terry Branstad, Ms. Reynolds’s predecessor, and Jess Vilsack, the son of another former Iowa governor and the current Democratic secretary of agriculture, Tom Vilsack. Agriculture giants like John Deere and A.D.M. have invested in the efforts.Presidential candidates have tried to skirt the issue; most campaigns declined to comment, including Mr. Trump’s. But campaign aides said this week that they knew a time for choosing was coming. The first public hearings on the Summit pipeline will begin on Aug. 22 in Fort Dodge, Iowa.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida is expecting questions later this week in a swing through the state, according to people familiar with the campaign.The left-right alliance is giving voice to Iowa landowners infuriated by the prospect that their land could be seized by eminent domain for the pipelines. Tim Baughman, who farms 330 acres with his sister in Crawford County, Iowa, brought his anti-pipeline sign to a Vivek Ramaswamy event in Dennison, eliciting a promise from the Republican entrepreneur to oppose the projects.“I’m fighting this to the end,” vowed Dan Wahl, who grows corn, soybeans and alfalfa on 160 acres near Spirit Lake, Iowa, and recently chased Summit surveyors off his land.The left-right alliance is giving voice to Iowa landowners concerned about the prospect that their land could be seized by eminent domain for the pipelines. Walker Pickering for The New York TimesSupporters — including agribusiness conglomerates and oil and gas tycoons — see the projects as a way to persuade liberal states like California it is possible to both continue ethanol production and fight global warming. If it works, so-called carbon capture and sequestration, the practice of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, could be expanded to oil and gas, extending the life of the fossil fuel economy.Dean Ferguson, president of the Canada-based Wolf Carbon Solutions’s American subsidiary, said in a statement that he was hopeful that the pipeline planned from Iowa to Illinois would be built through voluntary easements.“Our approach is to build lasting relationships with landowners, so we can work together for years to come,” he said.In a statement, Summit Carbon Solutions said 75 percent of Iowa landowners along the project route had signed voluntary easements “and more are signing every day.”To opponents, the pipelines are dangerous, taxpayer-subsidized boondoggles that will destroy farmland and do nothing to curb global warming. A carbon dioxide pipeline ruptured in tiny Satartia, Miss., in 2020, sending 40 people to the hospital, forcing the evacuation of more than 300 others and releasing more than 31,000 barrels of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.“Climate change money should be spent on things that are proven to actually work,” said Jessica Mazour, the conservation program coordinator of the Sierra Club in Iowa, who is helping to unite environmental activists with conservative farmers who doubt climate change is real.The unusual alliance can be strained. Sherri Webb, 73, who owns 40 acres of farmland in Shelby County, Iowa, said she had her doubts about climate change: “I don’t believe it’s as bad as some people are thinking.” If anything, she added, she worries more about taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and away from her crops.But it was the threat of eminent domain that got her involved in the fight against the Summit pipeline. Summit Carbon Solutions says the pipeline on her land would be buried four feet deep, covered with top soil and reseeded. But her climate-friendly, no-till farm has been in her family for 123 years and hasn’t had the soil turned in decades. The pipeline digging, she said, will bring heavy diesel-powered equipment onto her property, and may cause erosion and crop loss for years. .Sherri Webb, who owns 40 acres of farmland in Shelby County, Iowa, says it was worries about losing land to eminent domain that got her involved in the fight against the pipeline. Walker Pickering for The New York TimesMs. Schmidt is fine with climate skepticism. “A key tenet for change,” she said, “is to meet people where they’re at.”Mr. King was first ousted from his committee assignments, then defeated in a primary challenge, after a series of racist comments culminated in an interview with The New York Times in which he asked, “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”But Ms. Schmidt said that Mr. King, after 18 years in Congress, remained influential in conservative western Iowa.“I certainly never thought we’d be in a position to have a meeting where you have incredibly liberal socialists teaming with very right-wing QAnon believers,” she continued. “People have to open their minds a little bit, and sometimes they have to shut their mouths.”How Republican presidential candidates respond is, at this point, anyone’s guess. Despite Mr. Trump’s more recent comments, when he was president, his administration said it had no plan to stop the pipelines. In fact, a tax credit created in 2008 to incentivize carbon capture programs like Summit, Navigator and Wolf was expanded by a budget law in 2018 that Mr. Trump signed, and expanded again by a tax bill signed by Mr. Trump in 2020. The credit was expanded yet again by President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.Mr. Rastetter has donated around $10,000 to Mr. Trump’s campaigns since 2016, along with the hundreds of thousands he has donated to national and state Republican interests over the past 15 years.Officials at Navigator declined to comment.Critics say Mr. Trump has every reason to oppose the pipeline now. He has called climate change a “hoax” devised by China, so the pipelines are billed as a solution to a problem he does not recognize. Even better, he could use his stated opposition to continue a feud with Ms. Reynolds, whom he has blasted for refusing to endorse him, said Jane Kleeb, a Nebraska Democrat and anti-pipeline activist who has been pressing Mr. Trump to get involved.“There’s no downside for him,” she said.When Mr. Ramaswamy, who has called climate activism a cult, was asked about the issue last month in Davenport, Iowa, he dismissed the pipelines as a solution in search of a problem.But in an interview this week, Mr. Ramaswamy did not blame economic and political interests in Iowa. They are merely responding to incentives set by the federal government, large states like California, and even climate-conscious European nations, he said.“The debate in Iowa is just collateral damage,” he said.Other candidates might have a tougher time threading that needle. The companies backing the pipelines frame them as a salvation for ethanol, which Iowa corn farmers depend on, in a world increasingly hostile to internal combustion engines. One candidate, Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota, does not have the luxury of silence. He has already championed the Summit pipeline, which would end in his state, telling The Bismarck Tribune in May that two carbon dioxide pipelines have operated safely in the state for years.“And then now it’s like these are the most dangerous things in the world,” he scoffed. More