Showing posts with label bad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad. Show all posts

Congressional Inaction on Climate and Energy Legislation in 2013 and Forecasts for 2014

While President Obama has been using his executive powers to move forward on efforts to address climate change, his legislative agenda was stymied by Republicans last year. In 2013 Congress set a record for doing nothing and the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the GOP. The Republican's ongoing campaign of obstructionism extends far beyond energy and climate legislation and puts political posturing ahead of the national interest. Congress passed a total of 64 bills in 2013, that is less legislation than any Congress in modern American history.

"It's a lot of wasted time," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, told CNN. "[The absence of legislative action is] ridiculous... It's exhausting... It's been getting worse and worse every year. Exponentially. There are so many issues we could be dealing with, and we're so discouraged."

"I think we've been working less, to be honest with you," Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said as he left the last Senate vote of the year. When asked about the increased hours in the Senate, he was quick to respond, "The number of hours doing nothing? Yes, absolutely."

In 2013 Republicans refused to pass popular bills like extending unemployment benefits. They also resisted any hint of legislative reforms to climate and energy policy. This position contradicts the will of Americans both Democrat and Republican. While House Republicans have staged farcical climate denial hearings, the American people in both political parties, accept the veracity of global warming and want the government to act.

The Republican controlled US House of Representatives voted for anti-environment positions a total of 109 times in 2013. These votes sought to protect the interests of the oil and gas industry, weaken the Clean Air Act, block or hinder federal carbon emissions regulations, cut clean energy and energy efficiency funding and block clean energy policies, and weaken the Clean Water Act and other regulatory efforts to improve water quality.

President Obama's efforts to address climate change in 2013 has met with serious opposition from Republicans.  The GOP reacted negatively to his mandate to increase renewable energy for federal projects, his climate change resilience Executive Order in November and the environmental action agreement he signed with Nordic countries earlier in the year. 

The President's climate action plan also met with derision from the GOP. The issue that garnered the most negativity was the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) climate-change rules aimed at reigning in carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants. In June 2014, the Obama administration is planning further emissions cuts which could close some coal plants.

Republicans plan to use these issues to support their candidates in the 2014 midterm elections, particularly in coal states. "I'm looking at data in competitive House races that shows that this sucker will be a loser," said Brock McCleary, a pollster for the National Republican Congressional Committee. "If in 2014, Obamacare will be the right jab, climate policy will be the left."

Jordan Davis, policy director of the National Republican Congressional Committee said, "the Obama administration is giving us a little bit of a gift by putting out these climate regulations so close to the election."

Republicans do not seem to care about climate change or air quality. Their official position is that the economy comes first. However, Obama and many Democrats argue that we can combat climate change, improve air quality, and grow the economy all at the same time. In the final analysis, it is hard to reasonably argue for carbon emissions that cause climate change and air pollution that causes Americans to get sick and die.

Republicans also oppose a carbon tax, despite the fact that it is widely recognized as the best way to decrease emissions. It is no secret that Republicans are in bed with fossil fuel companies, which is the most hated industry in America. The National Journal reports that the fossil fuel funded advocacy groups like the American Energy Alliance are going after those who support a carbon tax ahead of the 2014 midterms.

In the forthcoming midterms, the GOP strategy is to focus on Obama's policy impacts in coal states. Democrats will try to capitalize on the Republican's anti-science stance on climate change.

In the long run, the GOP position on climate change represents a problem for the party and for the nation. It would appear that Republicans have painted themselves into a corner on the issue.

They can either admit that they are wrong and change their position, or they can continue to bury their head in the sand and hope that voters won't notice. Sadly it is clear that they will continue with a policy position premised on climate denial.

Unless we see the Democrats take back the House and maintain their control of the Senate, the net result will be yet more Congressional inaction on much need energy and climate legislation.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
New Senate Climate Initiative in 2014
The US House of Representatives Anti-Environment Voting Record in 2013
House Republicans' Historic Anti-Environment Efforts in 2011 and 2012
Except for Republican Members of Congress Climate Deniers are a Dying Breed in the US
List of Climate Deniers in the US Congress
Gore on the Government Shutdown and Climate Change: Congress is Pathetic
Republicans Have Painted Themselves into a Corner on Climate Change
Republican Controlled Subcommittee on Energy to Hold Hearings on Climate Change
The Koch Brothers and the Government Shutdown

UN's Global Development Goals are Important for the US

Despite the resistance of many Americans, UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) should matter to the US. This is the conclusion of a report from the Center for Strategic & International Studies' (CSIS) Global Health Policy Center. This non-profit, non-partisan, research group released a report at the end of May 2013 titled “Do UN Goals matter to the United States?” This report is relevant because many Americans have questioned the effectiveness of the UN and the value of global development goals for the US. In recent years the US has has an increasingly ambivalent relationship with the UN and Congress even withheld its dues from the organization. In the last decade the UN has also figured less prominently in US foreign policy than in previous decades.

A March 2013 Gallup Poll indicates that two thirds of Americans believe the UN is needed. Resistance to the UN comes largely from Republicans and older Americans. Only 46 percent of Republicans indicated they believe the UN is necessary compared to 80 percent of Democrats. The split between older and younger Americans is less pronounced but there is still a 20 point spread. A total of 76 percent of young Americans (18 - 29 years of age) feel that the UN is necessary, while only 56 percent of Americans over 65 share that view.

A January 2013 Heart Reseach poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans (86 percent) believe it’s important for the US to maintain an active role within the UN.

According to Nellie Bristol, the CSIS report's author, UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) matter to the US because they are:

  • An effective tool for rallying resources for and attention to priority development issues worldwide. Donors and many developing countries explicitly use the goals as an organizing framework for foreign assistance delivery and application. 
  • The goals sometimes played a behind the scenes role in US funding decisions, (although US programs have retained their own identities). Recent examples of their influence in the US include Feed the Future, AIDS-Free Generation, and the Child Survival Call to Action. 
  • US development assistance feeds into progress on the MDGs, including goals 1 and 4 through 6, as they reflect long-standing US commitments to food security, maternal and child health, and combating infectious diseases.

Bristol goes on to say that going forward American input is critical to the future of global development:

"As the process gets under way to develop successor goals to the MDGs, U.S. involvement is critical to ensure UN goals continue to reflect U.S. strategies, to generate U.S. input into the future development agenda, and to foster political buy-in into growing development needs that are likely to go beyond traditional U.S. priorities."

To access to the full report click here.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Food Production and UN Millennium Development Goals
UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development
UN Secretary-General's Message for Business at the KPMG Sustainability Summit
UN Chief Asks G20 to Focus on a Sustainable Recovery
The Fifth Global Environmental Outlook Report (GEO-5)
Key Findings of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)
Biodiversity Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)

Using Trees to Generate Electricity is Not Green Energy

Despite the value of trees to human and planetary health, an increasing number of American companies are cutting down forests to convert trees into pellets for electricity. It is tragically ironic that trees are being destroyed in the name of renewable energy. It is often said that trees are the Earth's lungs, they sequester carbon, produce oxygen, prevent erosion and are one of nature's most aesthetic creations. While coal is widely understood to be environmentally destructive, many do not understand that burning wood for electricity is even more harmful.

According to a Dogwood Alliance article, "burning trees for electricity will actually result in increased carbon emissions, when compared to coal." While it is good that European utilities are transitioning away from coal, it is a travesty that they are adopting wood based biomass as a replacement. 

Four new mills in the US are now logging forests to turn trees into pellets to meet this burgeoning European demand. These companies may have green sounding names like “Enviva” and “Enova Energy,” however, wood based biomass for electricity is anything but green energy. This is the kind of greenwash that confuses the public and undermines efforts to stave off the worst impacts of climate change.

Even the European Environmental Protection Agency’s own Scientific Committee have warned that burning trees could actually accelerate climate change.

Forests reduce atmospheric CO2, protect drinking water, and provide habitat for countless species of plants and animals. Additionally well managed forests provide tremendous economic benefits. The fact that wood biomass is being touted as green energy adds insult to injury.

Related Articles
Study Shows Deforestation of Tropical Rainforest Decreases Precipitation
Study Shows that Climate Change is Killing Forests
The Economic and Employment Benefits of Forests
What The Business Community Can Do To Protect Forests
The Costs of Illegal Logging
The Lacey Act Combats Illegal Logging
Challenge to the Lacey Act
Scientists Defend the Lacey Act
Video: Reducing Emissions Through Forest Preservation with REDD
Arbor Day Business Partners

Newsweek's Dirtiest Companies in America

As reviewed in the Daily Beast in 2011, Newsweek ranked the most environmentally unfriendly companies based on ecological impact and corporate management. The companies with the lowest scores in Newsweek’s Green Rankings are in the energy, food and beverage, materials, and utilities sectors.

There are even a few financial services companies at the very bottom of the list. This reflects the fact that some of these companies have investment portfolios which include firms with environmentally damaging activities, such as coal mining or gas drilling. 

The 2011 ranking of the least green big companies in America excluded companies that scored lowest in Newsweek’s 2010 Green Rankings. This list compares the environmental footprint, management (policies, initiatives, controversies), and transparency of the largest 500 companies in the US. To compile this list Newsweek partnered with two leading environmental research organizations, Trucost and Sustainalytics, along with input from corporate sustainability experts.

Here is the list of the 20 least green companies in America:
  1. T. Rowe Price Group
  2. BlackRock
  3. Monsanto
  4. Invesco
  5. CONSOL Energy
  6. Archer-Daniels-Midland
  7. Ameren
  8. Bunge
  9. Peabody Energy
  10. Ralcorp Holdings
  11. FirstEnergy
  12. SCANA
  13. Mead Johnson Nutrition
  14. PPL
  15. Ameriprise Financial
  16. Tyson Foods
  17. AES
  18. Edison International
  19. Allegheny Technologies
  20. KeyCorp
Related Articles
How the Hell did Enbridge get on the 2012 - 2013 DJSI Leaders List?
Bill McGibben: The Planet Wreckers
The World “Connects the Dots”
Kodak Sustainability Journey: Fear of Corporate Death
Ruling Canadian Conservative Pass Budget Which Guts the Environment
Video: The Koch Brothers are Oil Billionaires
Cry Wolf: An Unethical Oil Story
Reigning in Irresponsible Oil Giants
Surveys of America's Greenest Brands Suggest that Redemption is Possible
Canada's Best and Worst Green Cities

Video on the Global Environment Outlook (GEO-5)

Video on the Hopeful Elements in the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)



The fifth edition of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5), assessed environmental goals and objectives. Despite the fact that nations have fallen far short of the pledges they have made, there are some glimmers of hope. GEO-5 also reveals which strategies work best and policies that offer real solutions. Some of the successes involve community based conservation efforts, biological corridors, new farming methods, recovery of degraded lands, market based mechanisms, wetlands conservation, marine protected areas, sustainable fishing, recycling, feed in tariffs, and adaptation strategies. If these initiatives were scaled up they could help put economic and social development on a sustainable footing.


Related Posts
The Fifth Global Environmental Outlook Report (GEO-5)
Key Findings of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)
Biodiversity Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)
GEO 5 Report on Water and Marine Pollution
Air Pollution in the Global Environmental Outlook Report (GEO-5)
Montreal Protocol - Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)

Montreal Protocol - Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)

The fifth edition of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5) was published on June 6, 2012. This United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report indicates that the Montreal Protocol has been very effective in elimination the use of Ozone depleting substances. The world has nearly eliminated the production and use of ozone depleting substances, under the Montreal Protocol.

It is estimated that implementation of the Protocol will result, in the United States alone, in 22 million fewer cases of cataracts in people born between 1985 and 2100, and 6.3 million fewer skin cancer deaths by mid-century.

While further expansion of the Antarctic ozone hole has been halted, full recovery is not expected until mid-century or later. One group of ozone replacement chemicals – hydroflurocarbons (HFCs) – still needs to be phased out due to the fact that they contribute to global warming.

The full report (pdf) is downloadable here.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
The Fifth Global Environmental Outlook Report (GEO-5)
Key Findings of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)
Biodiversity Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)
GEO 5 Report on Water and Marine Pollution
Air Pollution in the Global Environmental Outlook Report (GEO-5)
Video on the Hopeful Elements in the Global Environment Outlook (GEO-5)

Air Pollution in the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO 5)

The fifth edition of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5) was published on June 6, 2012. This United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report indicates there are major issues related to air pollution. Air pollution is among the main causes of premature deaths and health problems, especially in children.Indoor air pollution from particulate matter is responsible for nearly 2 million premature deaths annually - including 900,000 deaths in children under the age of five.

Out-door particulate matter may be responsible for around 3.7 million deaths annually. Ground-level ozone is responsible for 700,000 respiratory deaths, over 75 per cent of which occur in Asia.

Global economic losses due to reduced agricultural yields caused by air pollution are estimated at US $14-26 billion annually.

The full report (pdf) is downloadable here.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
The Fifth Global Environmental Outlook Report (GEO-5)
Key Findings of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)
Biodiversity Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)
GEO 5 Report on Water and Marine Pollution
Montreal Protocol - Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5)
Video on the Hopeful Elements in the Global Environment Outlook (GEO-5)