Tag: climate
Kevin Roberts

New York Times Invites Project 2025 Chief To Speak At 'Climate Week' Event

The New York Times announced the speakers for its September 25 “Climate Week NYC” discussion, an annual event coinciding with the United Nations General Assembly session in New York City that promises to “bring together some of the world’s most engaged climate voices as part of a community focused on change.” The event’s lineup notably includes Kevin Roberts, the president of right-wing think tank The Heritage Foundation who has led the Project 2025 initiative — the controversial conservative transition plan of policy and staffing proposals for a potential second Trump presidency.

As detailed in its nearly 900-page policy book, titled Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, Project 2025 rejects climate science and dismisses efforts to reduce planet-warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy in favor of serving the interests of the fossil fuel industry. Overseen by Roberts, who wrote the book’s foreword, the Heritage plan for a future GOP administration seeks to gut or hamstring federal agencies working on renewable energy deployment, climate science, and environmental safeguards while opening up state and federal public lands for oil and gas extraction.

In Project 2025’s policy book, Roberts attacked environmentalists, the U.N., and the Environmental Protection Agency, calling for the unfettered use of oil and gas

In the foreword of Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership policy book, Roberts sets the tone for the plan's hostility toward climate action and wholesale endorsement of fully extracting our oil and gas reserves, a path scientists have warned would be catastrophic.

  • Roberts calls environmentalism a “pseudo-religion meant to baptize liberals’ ruthless pursuit of absolute power in the holy water of environmental virtue.” He claims that those who suffer most from environmental policies are the “aged, poor, and vulnerable.” Roberts continues, “At its very heart, environmental extremism is decidedly anti-human” because it promotes “population control and economic regression” by “regarding human activity itself as fundamentally a threat to be sacrificed to the god of nature.” [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023]
  • Roberts attacks global elites and calls for abandoning international organizations like the United Nations. Claiming that “global elites” and organizations like the United Nations are making decisions on climate change that are insulated “from the sovereignty of national electorates,” Roberts argues, “International organizations and agreements that erode our Constitution, rule of law, or popular sovereignty should not be reformed: They should be abandoned.” Additionally, Project 2025 demands that “the next conservative Administration should withdraw the U.S. from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement.” [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023]
  • Roberts claims the EPA “quietly strangles domestic energy production,” later adding, “The next conservative President should go beyond merely defending America’s energy interests but go on offense, asserting them around the world.” Roberts goes on to claim that “America’s vast reserves of oil and natural gas are not an environmental problem; they are the lifeblood of economic growth. American dominance of the global energy market would be a good thing: for the world, and, more importantly, for ‘we the people.’” Under Roberts’ leadership, Project 2025’s section on energy production was reportedly written by the oil and gas industry and provides a blueprint for how the next president can turn “drill, baby, drill” into federal policy. Notably, the industry is already producing record amounts of oil and gas under the Biden-Harris administration, all while holding thousands of unused drilling permits. [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023; Media Matters, 8/8/24; Vox, 3/13/24; PolitiFact, 3/29/22]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

John Joyce

House Republicans Fighting To Promote Deadly Car Exhaust

Two hundred and fourteen House Republicans approved a bill by Pennsylvania Rep. John Joyce to restrict California’s authority to protect the environment.

Joyce, who represents a central Pennsylvania congressional district that includes Altoona, Chambersburg, and Johnstown, authored the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act with the support of 84 Republican co-sponsors. The bill, which passed the House 222-190, would change the federal Clean Air Act to prevent states from requiring that all new vehicles sold in the future be electric. Eight Democrats voted in favor, 190 voted against.

All eight Republicans representing Pennsylvania backed the bill.

Under current law, states can request a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to implement clean air restrictions that are stronger than federal standards. Because California had specific air quality challenges, the state enacted tougher emissions rules starting in the 1970s.

With climate change already causing record temperatures and unprecedented numbers of damaging storms in California and around the globe, the California Air Resources Board proposed in August 2022 that only zero-emission vehicles be sold in the state by 2035.

Although the state has not yet obtained a waiver to implement its plan, the fossil fuel industry and its GOP allies in Congress hope to block it from receiving one.

“California’s discriminatory waiver request would set a costly and dangerous precedent,” Joyce said as he introduced the bill in March. “One state should not be able to set national policy and Americans should not be coerced into making purchases they cannot afford. Congress must immediately pass the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act to stop this heavy-handed proposal that only takes away choices from American consumers.”

“Every American should be able to choose the type of car or truck they want to drive,” argued American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers president and CEO Chet Thompson in a March press release. “Restricting consumer choice by eliminating competition and banning entire vehicle power trains is the wrong path to achieving cleaner transportation or supporting U.S. energy security; in fact, it could undercut both.”

Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee opposed the bill, noting in the committee report that the vague restrictions in the legislation could also imperil other state clean air regulations:

This would put existing waivers dating back to 2013 in jeopardy, upend the entire clean vehicle supply chain, and create uncertainty for the U.S. automotive industry. This bill is a direct attack on over 50 years of Congress and EPA recognizing California’s ability to voluntarily adopt those standards to protect their citizens from dangerous air pollution and climate change. … Instead of joining Democrats in addressing dangerous air pollution, strengthening domestic vehicle manufacturing supply chains, and driving innovation, the Majority is choosing to help their polluter friends at the expensive of public health, technological innovation, states’ rights, and a stronger, cleaner economy for American families.

The bill is unlikely to come up in the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate, where only Republicans have backed it thus far.

In a statement of administration policy, the Biden administration said on Tuesday it strongly opposes the bill, warning, “H.R. 1435 would restrict the ability of California and its citizens to address its severe air pollution challenges.”

Reprinted with permission from American Independent.

At UN, Biden Spoke On Climate For Three Minutes -- And Enraged The Right

At UN, Biden Spoke On Climate For Three Minutes -- And Enraged The Right

Right-wing media are expressing outrage that President Joe Biden mentioned climate change during his September 21 speech at the United Nations General Assembly.

Biden’s nearly-30 minute speech, which focused mainly on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, also included calls for global cooperation on important issues including food insecurity, human rights, and climate change. The climate part of his speech lasted roughly 3 minutes and included celebrating the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. He also touched on recent climate disasters and the need for global emissions reductions, as well as promising billions of dollars in international climate finance.

Despite the relatively modest amount of time he spent on climate change, many in right-wing media were outraged that he even mentioned climate at all. Their comments included climate denial and falsehoods about the importance of climate change to the global community.

Right-wing media falsely claimed that the global population doesn’t care about climate change

Climate change is a serious concern around the world. For example, a January 2021 survey found that a majority of people around the globe want greater climate action. And a September 2021 Pew poll found that the world’s population increasingly views climate change as a personal threat. In August of this year, another Pew survey found that a “median of 75% across 19 countries in North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region label global climate change as a major threat.”

Additionally, people from the global south — those who have contributed the least to the climate crisis but disproportionately suffer its effects — are often some of the loudest voices for climate action. Around the same time that Biden gave his UN speech, indigenous peoples from around the world were protesting in New York for climate justice. The president of Kenya made climate change a key part of his UN speech, and the prime minister of Pakistan, a country that has seen over 30 million displaced due to climate-fueled monsoon flooding, thanked Biden for “highlighting the plight of the flood victims.”

Climate change and poverty, meanwhile, are inextricably linked, as are climate change and global hunger. These facts, however, were still not enough to convince right-wing commentators in the U.S. that climate change is a significant threat to the global population.

For example, on the September 22 edition of Newsmax’s Wake Up America, host Rob Finnerty stated that “there's 193 sovereign nations in that room right there. … And nobody cared about that part of the speech. They needed a lot more from the American president, with everything going on in the world right now, and they get climate change.”

On Fox News’ Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy insinuated that people living in poverty don’t care about climate change, stating, “Suddenly he’s talking about climate change. And, you know, there are 675 million people living in poverty around the world. And for the president of the United States to be talking about climate change rather than trying to figure out a way to feed them.”

Doocy also entirely missed the fact that Biden did discuss food in his speech; he mentioned the term “food insecurity” 6 times, while also mentioning “feeding the world.”

The editorial board of the right-wing New York Post also claimed that the world's poor don’t care about climate change. They referred to climate change as part of a “laundry list of left-liberal shout-outs,” before writing that the speech focused “on climate change, which Biden claimed lists first among the ‘challenges that matter most to people’s lives.’ The planet’s 674 million people living in abject poverty don’t agree, Joe.”

Right-wing media also dipped into one of their favorite overused talking points when it comes to climate change: U.S. action is worthless because China is the biggest polluter

There were also criticisms claiming China does not care about climate change. Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade remarked about Biden’s climate comments that “climate change is unbelievable. The fact is that China could not care less.” On Wake Up America, The Daily Caller’s Briana Lyman took this China criticism a step further, stating that if “you want to talk about climate change, then you need to talk about China because China is responsible for more than double the emissions of the United States. … I think it's a dereliction of duty when he doesn't tie China and climate change together.”

Kilmeade’s comments ignore the fact that China is by far the largest market for clean energy in the world, and that its pledge to become carbon neutral by 2060 came about a year before the U.S. passed major climate legislation. Yes, its coal plants (and emissions) are a huge problem, but to say that the country doesn’t care about climate change (especially when an unprecedented heat wave just hit the country) is absurd.

Regarding Lyman’s comments, Biden did mention that the United States “will work with every nation, including our competitors, to solve global problems like climate change.” Immediately after this, he referenced China and said the U.S. will not seek out conflict with them.

Lyman also touched on a longtime right-wing trope about climate change: that countries like China are the problem because they currently emit the most carbon, and because of this, it’s foolish to think that the U.S. should act on climate change. But the United States is the largest historical emitter; per capita emissions in the U.S. vastly outweigh those of China; and many of our products are manufactured in China.

Solely blaming China while absolving the U.S. for its own pollution problems and its outsized role in spreading climate denial does nothing for solving climate change in the long run.

Right-wing media also exaggerated the time Biden spent talking about climate change, and they threw in some good-old-fashioned climate denial

Three minutes out of 30 is arguably not enough time to devote to a problem that has led to a summer of destructive extreme weather across the globe. But it was still enough to annoy right-wing media figures.

Again on Wake Up America, host Rob Finnerty stated that “the president spent a lot of time talking about climate change during his speech. … This, of course, coming at a crucially important time. We’re seven months into the worst war in Europe that we've seen since World War II, and the president took the opportunity to campaign for Democrats and talk about climate change.” On the September 21 edition of Kudlow, guest Steve Moore falsely claimed that “he spent half the time talking about climate change.”

Perhaps the worst reaction came from Newsmax host Eric Bolling, who went on a climate denial rant on the September 21 edition of Eric Bolling The Balance. He called climate change “another made-up crisis lurking just around the corner,” adding, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” He then blamed Al Gore for supposedly inaccurate predictions about climate change and chastised former President Barack Obama for buying a house near the sea despite being concerned about rising sea levels.

The right-wing blow-up over Biden’s climate comments is not surprising. To these figures and outlets, any action on climate, big or small, is akin to a radical socialist takeover of the U.S. economy. In particular, the right has increased its climate denial and criticism of climate policies in recent months. As climate change worsens and global citizens come together to clamor for climate action, right-wing media will continue to double down on denial and lies to protect their polluting interests.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Britain's New Energy Minister Is An '18th-Century'  Climate Denier

Britain's New Energy Minister Is An '18th-Century'  Climate Denier

On Tuesday, Jacob Rees-Mogg, a U.K. Brexit minister of 12 years who is loyal to both Boris Johnson and new Prime Minister Liz Truss, got a fancy new title. Rees-Mogg will serve under Truss as the secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy. This is terrible news for anyone concerned about the climate crisis given Rees-Mogg has made his money as an oil and coal mining investor. He’s supportive of fracking, drilling for fossil fuels until the North Sea is tapped, and has frequently misconstrued climate science to suit his needs. His position may prove no different as Rees-Mogg is expected to once again work on his own betterment instead of the planet’s.

The Guardian offers a comprehensive writeup on the many ways that Rees-Mogg, who’s known as “the honorable gentleman from the 18th century,” will fail to meet the moment. Rees-Mogg’s nickname comes from his sartorial choices, though his devotion to fossil fuels certainly has an antiquated quality to it, as does his history of slamming IPCC reports and disinterest in reaching net zero. Though the U.K. has drastically slashed its emissions over the years—thanks, in part, to Rees-Mogg’s predecessor—it will be that much harder for the country to continue its course toward net zero if the person charged with leading that fight has no desire to even engage in it.

Greenpeace UK slammed the decision to appoint Rees-Mogg. “Rees-Mogg is the last person who should be in charge of the energy brief, at the worst possible moment,” Greenpeace UK Politics Head Rebecca Newsom told Bloomberg. “This will either be a massive own goal for Truss’s efforts to tackle the cost of living crisis or Rees-Mogg will have to do the steepest learning curve in history as he gets to grips with the issues facing our country.”

With the U.K. as a signee of the Paris Agreement and COP27 on the horizon, it’s anyone’s guess how obstructionist of a role Rees-Mogg may play in negotiations at the November conference. Nearly 200 countries will work to address a crisis that has only grown more pressing. It will certainly be a major change given that the last United Nations Climate Change Conference took place in Glasgow, where local leaders looked to position themselves as leaders in reaching net zero goals. But that’s simply not something Rees-Mogg is interested in, and that spells disaster for not just the U.K. but the entire planet.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World