Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Top 10 Democratic Presidential Contenders Participate in Climate Town Halls

On September 4th, Democratic presidential contenders made history with their participation in back-to-back climate focused town halls in New York City. For seven hours, one after another, the ten Democrats vying for the party's presidential nomination spoke on the subject of the climate crisis. All ten of these candidates have put forth climate plans and this represents a historic shift for the party and the country. They all agree about the veracity of anthropogenic climate change and the need for consorted action. This is in stark contrast to the current president and most GOP legislators, who equivocate about the veracity or deny it outright.

Andrew Yang indicated he wants to re-calibrate gross domestic product (GDP) by incorporating metrics that assess environmental variables. "Let's upgrade it with a new score card that includes our environmental sustainability and our goals," Yang said. He also said, "You should not be stressed out about the water that you are drinking, the water your kids are drinking, this is again the problem of having the almighty dollar running our society, where people look up and say replacing the pipes is too expensive, using another substance is expensive, are you kidding me, you know what is expensiveness poisoning our kids."

Elizabeth Warren pulled no punches when it came to the fossil fuel industry and other corporate interests, saying these interests want us to focus on smaller issues like light bulbs and plastic straws to distract us from focusing on the real issue which is their contributions to the climate crisis. Warren explained, "You don't get to ruin the air for everyone else, the water for everyone else, the soil for everyone else, we don't, just to help giant corporations. They don't get to make our kids sick they don't get to shorten lifespans because it increases their profitability."

Kamala Harris said that if she were elected president she would direct the Department of Justice to go after oil and gas companies. They are causing harm and death in communities. And there has been no accountability." She also called out GOP legislators, "Every one of those [Republican members of Congress] need to look at the babies and grand-babies in their life and then look in the mirror and ask themselves why have they failed to act because on the issue of this climate crisis, I am going to tell you, I strongly believe this is a fight against powerful interests, and leaders need to lead, so lead, follow or get out the way, and get out the way starting with Donald Trump"

Bernie Sanders said, "we are the most powerful country on Earth we should be leading an energy transition and you have a president who thinks its not real that is idiotic".

Pete Buttigieg said, "Congress right now is like a room full of doctors arguing about what to do over a cancer patient and half of them are arguing whether medication or surgery is the best approach and the other half are saying cancer doesn't exist. Think of what a disservice, this is a life or death issue." He did not make light of the scale of the problem we face. Buttigieg said combating the climate crisis will be "more challenging than" winning WW II and the "hardest thing we will have done in my lifetime as a country."

Amy Klobuchar criticized the Trump administration's decision to kill methane regulations calling it "very dangerous". She also said, "We need environmental justice in this country."

Julián Castro also referred to the need to assist the economically disadvantaged especially people of color who bear the brunt of climate impacts. He argued for "new civil rights legislation" to address environmental racism in minority communities. Castro also said, "As we experience more storms with more intensity we will take the right steps to prevent climate change so that wont happen, but then when it does, if it does, to address it no matter who you are and make it affordable in part through that national flood insurance program"

Beto O'Rourke sounded fatalistic as his thoughts focused on climate adaptation, "In the year 2100...this planet will have warned 4.5 - 5 Celsius, as scientists say at that point we are screwed." He said he would spend federal dollars to help people move from flood prone areas.

Cory Booker said that while he will not try to change what people eat he will employ nuclear power in the fight against climate change. According to Booker people who reject nuclear, "just aren't looking at the facts". He also said "If you elect me your president I am going to ask more from you than any other president in your lifetime because I grew up from parents who taught me if there is not struggle there is no progress. We can ignite that moral imagination of this country and we can deal with this problem as big as it may seem it is not bigger than who we are as a people together."

Joe Biden's can-do message optimistically declared, "This is the United States of America there is not a damn thing we've not been able to accomplish once we set our mind to it"

Climate Focus at the April 14th Democratic Debate

Climate related issues were a major part of the Democratic Presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in Brooklyn, New York, on April 14, 2016. While the two candidates agree that climate change is an urgent issue, there are important distinctions between their respective policy positions.  Regardless of who wins the nomination, this debate establishes the Democratic party as the only choice for environmentally conscious voters.

Sanders is clearly the greener of the two, and he deserves credit for forcing Clinton to address these issues. However, intimating that his lofty climate agenda may be stymied by the legislature, Clinton pointed to his inability to actually pass climate focused legislation.

When Sanders was pressed on his intent to phase out nuclear power and the potential to have that energy shortfall replaced by greenhouse gas intensive alternatives, he said that "you certainly don't phase out nuclear tomorrow" and he pointed to his 10 million solar roofs program.

Here are excerpts related to climate, environment, clean energy, fossil fuels and COP21 from the debate.

Climate Change

CLINTON: Well, let me start by saying we need to talk about this issue and we should talk about it in terms of the extraordinary threats that climate change pose to our country and our world. And that's why for the last many years, both in the Senate and as secretary of State, it's been a big part of my commitment to see what could be done. SANDERS: Now, what I think is when we look at climate change now, we have got to realize that this is a global environmental crisis of unprecedented urgency...We have an enemy out there, and that enemy is going to cause drought and floods and extreme weather disturbances. There's going to be international conflict.

SANDERS: I am proud, Wolf, that I have introduced the most comprehensive climate change legislation...

CLINTON: Well, let's talk about the global environmental crisis. Starting in 2009 as your Secretary of State, I worked with President Obama to bring China and India to the table for the very first time, to get a commitment out of them that they would begin to address their own greenhouse gas emissions. I continued to work on that throughout the four years as Secretary of State...

CLINTON: ...because in order to deal with climate change, we have got to move as rapidly as we can.

SANDERS: All right, here is -- here is a real difference. This is a difference between understanding that we have a crisis of historical consequence here, and incrementalism and those little steps are not enough. Not right now. Not on climate change.

SANDERS: What I believe is that this country, if we stand together and not let the Trumps of the world divide us up...can lead the world in transforming our energy system and combating climate change...

Fossil Fuels

SANDERS: Now, the truth is, as secretary of state, Secretary Clinton actively supported fracking technology around the world. Second of all, right now, we have got to tell the fossil fuel industry that their short-term profits are not more important than the future of this planet.

CLINTON: ...well, I don't think I've changed my view on what we need to do to go from where we are, where the world is heavily dependent on coal and oil, but principally coal, to where we need to be, which is clean renewable energy, and one of the bridge fuels is natural gas. And so for both economic and environmental and strategic reasons, it was American policy to try to help countries get out from under the constant use of coal, building coal plants all the time, also to get out from under, especially if they were in Europe, the pressure from Russia, which has been incredibly intense. So we did say natural gas is a bridge. We want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible...

CLINTON: But there has never been any doubt that when I was a senator, I tried -- I joined with others to try to get rid of the subsidies for big oil. And I have proposed that again, because that's what I think needs to be done as we transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

SANDERS: It is not their fault [fossil fuel industry workers] that fossil fuels are destroying our climate. But we have got to stand up and say right now, as we would if we were attacked by some military force, we have got to move urgency -- urgently and boldly.

SANDERS: We have got to lead the world in transforming our energy system, not tomorrow, but yesterday. And, what that means, Wolf, it means having the guts to take on the fossil fuel industry. Now, I am on board legislation that says, you know what, we ain't going to excavate for fossil fuel on public land. That's not Secretary Clinton's position.

Carbon Tax

SANDERS: Let us support a tax on carbon...:Something I don't believe Secretary Clinton supports.

SANDERS: And that means -- and I would ask you to respond. Are you in favor of a tax on carbon so that we can transit away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy at the level and speed we need to do?

SANDERS: ... When you were Secretary of State, you also worked hard to expand fracking to countries all over the world.

Campaign Funding from the Fossil Fuel Industry

CLINTON: So, we both have relatively small amounts of contributions from people who work for fossil fuel companies. Best we can tell from the reports that are done. But, that is not being supported by big oil, and I think it's important to distinguish that.

SANDERS: But, as I understand it, 43 lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry maxed out, gave the maximum amount of money to Secretary Clinton's campaign.

Clean Energy

CLINTON: we have got to make a very firm but decisive move in the direction of clean energy...That's why I've set big goals. I want to see us deploy a half a billion more solar panels by the end of my first term and enough clean energy to provide electricity to every home in America within 10 years.

CLINTON: President Obama moved forward on gas mileage, he moved forward on the clean power plant. He has moved forward on so many of the fronts that he could given the executive actions that he was able to take.

COP21

CLINTON: And, I was surprised and disappointed when Senator Sanders attacked the agreement [Paris Climate Agreement], said it was not enough, it didn't go far enough. You know, at some point putting together 195 countries, I know a little bit about that, was a major accomplishment...

SANDERS: The issue here -- of course the agreement [Paris Climate Agreement] is a step forward, but you know agreements and I know agreements, there's a lot of paper there. We've got to get beyond paper right now.

CLINTON: Well, I'm a little bewildered about how to respond when you have an agreement [Paris Climate Agreement] which gives you the framework to actually take the action that would have only come about because under the Obama administration in the face of implacable hostility from the Republicans in Congress...

CLINTON: ...I was very proud that President Obama and America led the way to the agreement that was finally reached in Paris with 195 nations committing to take steps to actually make a difference in climate change.

See the climate positions of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

Related
Environmental Differences Between Hillary and Bernie in the Flint Presidential Debate
Republican Climate Avoidance and the Sixth GOP Debate
Climate and Energy Excerpts from the Fourth Democratic Primary Debate
Climate and Clean Energy in the Third Democratic Presidential Debate
Climate Excerpts from the CBS Democratic Democratic Presidential Debate
Climate Change all but Absent from the Republican CNBC Presidential Debate
Climate Change a No-Show in the First Republican Presidential Debate
Republican Presidential Candidates All Say the US Should Not Do Anything to Combat Climate Change
To Understand Republican Presidential Candidates you need to Follow the Money
Climate Change May Give Democrats the Edge in the 2016 Federal Election
Sanders the Best Presidential Candidate on Climate Change
Bernie Sanders Climate Leadership (Videos)
Trump is Unelectable so say the Koch Brothers

Environmental Differences Between Hillary and Bernie in the Flint Presidential Debate

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders faced off in a presidential primary debate at the University of Michigan in Flint, on March 6, 2016. During this substantive debate some salient differences emerged between the two remaining Democratic presidential contenders.

These differences included Sander's relatively stronger emphasis on combating climate change, and opposition to both fracking and campaign finance from the fossil fuel industry.

Both candidates pledged that they would reverse the Citizens United ruling (the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling allows powerful interests like the fossil fuel industry to disproportionately influence government. It also undermines climate legislation andfails to protect the planet from corporate influence).

Fracking

COOPER: The issue of climate change has been a major talking point for both of you. I wanted to bring in Sarah Bellaire, she’s a student at the University of Michigan at Dearborn who says she’s currently undecided.

Ms. Bellaire has a question on fracking, which, for viewers, is a process of oil and gas drilling that’s led to a significant increase in American energy production and jobs, but also raises serious environmental concerns.

Sarah, your question is for Secretary Clinton, but you’ll both be able to weigh in. Sarah?


QUESTION: Fracking can lead to environmental pollution including, but not limited to, the contamination of water supply. Do you support fracking?

COOPER: Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: You know, I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, number one. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — number three — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.

So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated. So first, we’ve got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking unless conditions like the ones that I just mentioned are met.

COOPER: Senator Sanders, you?

SANDERS: My answer — my answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking.

COOPER: Senator Sanders, though…to Secretary Clinton’s point, there are a number of Democratic governors in many states who say that fracking can be done safely, and that it’s helping their economies. Are they wrong?

SANDERS: Yes.

Climate Change

SANDERS: I’m glad you raised the issue of climate change, because the media doesn’t talk enough about what the scientists are telling us, and that is, if we don’t get our act together… the planet that we’re gonna leave our children may not be healthy and habitable. I have introduced the most comprehensive climate change legislation in the history of the Senate, which, among other things, calls for a tax on carbon, massive investments… in energy efficiency, wind, solar and other sustainable energy. This is a crisis we have got to deal with now.

I happen to be a member of the Environmental Committee. I have talked to scientists all over the world. And what they are telling me — if we don’t get our act together, this planet could be 5 to 10 degrees warmer by the end of this century — cataclysmic problems for this planet. This is a national crisis. And I talk to scientists who tell me that fracking is doing terrible things to water systems all over this country. We have gotta be bold now. We gotta transform our energy system to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. We’ve gotta do it yesterday.

CLINTON: Well, first, let me say I think I have the most comprehensive plan to combat climate change. It sets some very big goals, a half billion more solar panels deployed by the end of my first term, if I’m so fortunate to be president. And enough clean energy to power every home by the end of my second term.

What I am looking at is how we make the transition from where we are today to where are today to where we must be. I worked with President Obama during the four years I was secretary of state to begin to put pressure on China and India and other countries to join with us to have a global agreement which we finally got in Paris.

So I am committed to and focused on how we make that transition. I’ve already said we are taking away the subsidies for oil and gas, but it is important that people understand that a president can’t go ordering folks around. Our system doesn’t permit that. I am going to set the goals. I will push everybody as hard as I can to achieve those goals. We will make progress on clean renewable energy and create millions of jobs through that.

CLINTON: We need to do more to help create clean energy as a source of good jobs

Campaign Finance from the Fossil Fuel Industry

COOPER: Secretary Clinton’s gonna be able to respond. But, Senator Sanders, you’ve been very tough lately. Last week, you said this about Secretary Clinton.

Quote, “just as I believe you can’t take on Wall Street while taking their money, I don’t believe you can take on climate change effectively while taking money from those who would profit off the destruction of the planet.”

COOPER: Are you suggesting that she’s in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry?


SANDERS: No, what I am suggesting is that we have a corrupt campaign finance system. And instead of standing up to that finance system… And instead of standing up to that finance system, Secretary Clinton has super PAC, which is raising huge amounts — well, I hate to say the word “huge,” every time I say huge it…

SANDERS: A lot of money from Wall Street and from the fossil fuel industry. I am doing it a different way. I have 5 million individual contributors who have gone to BernieSanders.com to make a $27 contribution. I don’t take money from the fossil fuel industry.

COOPER: Senator Sanders, on the — on the campaign trail, Senator Sanders often refers to a fundraiser in January that was hosted by executives from a firm that has invested significantly in domestic fracking. Do you have any comment on that?

CLINTON: I don’t have any comment. I don’t know that. I don’t believe that there is any reason to be concerned about it. I admire what Senator Sanders has accomplished in his campaign. I have more than 850,000 donors, most of them give less than $100. I am very proud of that. And I just want to make one point. You know, we have our differences. And we get into vigorous debate about issues, but compare the substance of this debate with what you saw on the Republican stage last week.

SANDERS: But here’s the difference. Here is the difference. It’s not a personal difference. We just do things differently. All right. I honestly — look, we have a corrupt campaign finance system. And what Secretary Clinton is saying and what every candidate who receives from the fossil fuel industry or the drug companies or Wall Street say, not going to impact me. The question the American people have to ask is, why are these people putting millions of dollars into candidates if it’s not going to make a difference? 

Citizens United

SANDERS: And that is why, by the way, that is why one of my top priorities, if elected president will be to overturn this outrageous Citizens United Supreme Court.

CLINTON: And that is one of the many reasons we must all support President Obama’s right to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia and demand that the Senate hold hearings and a vote on that successor because there are so many issues at stake. On the first day of my campaign, I said, we are going to reverse Citizens United. And if we can’t get it done through the court, I will lead a constitutional amendment effort to reverse it that way.

See the climate positions of the remaining Democratic presidential candidates: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

Related
Republican Climate Avoidance and the Sixth GOP Debate
Climate and Energy Excerpts from the Fourth Democratic Primary Debate
Climate and Clean Energy in the Third Democratic Presidential Debate
Climate Excerpts from the CBS Democratic Democratic Presidential Debate
Climate Change all but Absent from the Republican CNBC Presidential Debate
Climate Change a No-Show in the First Republican Presidential Debate
Republican Presidential Candidates All Say the US Should Not Do Anything to Combat Climate Change
To Understand Republican Presidential Candidates you need to Follow the Money
Climate Change May Give Democrats the Edge in the 2016 Federal Election
Sanders the Best Presidential Candidate on Climate Change
Bernie Sanders Climate Leadership (Videos)
Trump is Unelectable so say the Koch Brothers

Hilary Maintains her Climate Silence as O'Malley Pushes his Green Agenda (Iowa Democratic Presidential Town Hall)

Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley are the three remaining candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president. On January 25th they fielded a barrage of questions from voters in a town hall meeting at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, The moderator was CNN anchor Chris Cuomo.

O'Malley emerged from the Iowa Town Hall as the greenest of the three candidates with Sanders trailing some distance behind. O'Malley bluntly stated that "this planet is worth saving," and Sanders reaffirmed his commitment to tackle climate change. Hilary remained silent on climate and clean energy and let her rivals steal the green thunder.

As in previous debates, Hilary did not mention climate change or the clean energy economy once. Perhaps she is taking her cues from Republican presidential hopefuls or perhaps she knows that this is one area where she cannot hope to compete with her Democratic rivals (see the climate positions of the Democratic presidential candidates: O'Malley, Sanders and Clinton).

Alternatively, Hilary's silence on green issues may be part of a clever strategy. According to a poll conducted towards the end of 2015, Americans do not think climate change is anywhere near as important a concern as the economy. Only 3 percent of Americans said that they thought global warming was the most important issue facing the country today.

Climate is not a priority issue for the vast majority of voters so Hilary has nothing to gain from being a climate champion. Conversely embracing climate action risks alienating voters who are worried about the economic costs.

By allowing O'Malley and Sanders to own the climate spotlight she may be trying to entrench herself as the most "moderate" Democratic candidate. Her campaign may be betting that this will appeal to independent voters or even soft conservatives. Hilary's shrewd politics may win a general election, but she must first secure the Democratic nomination. With her lead shrinking and Sanders ahead in some states, it remains to be seen whether Hilary's strategy will succeed in getting her through the primary process.

Climate Change

Both O'Malley and Sanders made it clear that there is no cause to doubt the scientific veracity of anthropogenic climate change. Early in the evening Sanders got in a good shot at Republicans when he said, "in terms of climate change, which everybody here knows - and apparently everybody in the world knows except Republican candidates for president, is one of the great environmental crises facing this nation." O'Malley followed up by reiterating that he thinks climate change is the single biggest issue we face.

Green Energy Economy

The emerging green energy economy will be worth trillions by the time it replaces fossil fuels. However of the three Democratic hopefuls, only O'Malley appears to understand the scale of the economic opportunity this transition represents. "Climate change is the greatest business opportunity to come to the United States in 100 years" O'Malley said. "And I am the first candidate in either party to put forward a plan to move us to a 100 percent clean electric energy grid by 2050, and create 5 million jobs along the way."

O'Malley, cited the fact that Iowa gets 30 percent of its electricity from wind power. He also pointed to the 5000 jobs the wind industry has created in that state. He indicated that he wants to manufacture cleantech components like wind turbines in America. He wants to train people to retrofit buildings and install distributed energy systems. He also said that he wants to put American cities at the center of the low carbon economy, or as he put it, be at the, "leading edge to this clean green environment."

O'Malley indicated that all three Democratic hopefuls aspire to do right by the planet, but he was quick to distinguish himself as the most focused on clean power. In a shot that appeared to be directed towards Hilary's moderate stance on green energy, O'Malley said:

"And we're not going to get to 100 percent clean electric grid with an "all of the above" strategy, any more than we got to the moon with an "all of the above" strategy. It was an engineering challenge. And we are up to this as Americans. But incrementalism, half steps, splitting the loaf, that's not going to get us. And that's not what your generation wants. You want the straight truth and you want us to face our challenges fearlessly and make this new reality ours."

Sustainable Agriculture

O'Malley was the only candidate who spoke to the importance of sustainable agriculture:
"The ability to consume and to grow, and to do that within the footprint of this place that we call home. So, I would like to work with congress, and I plan to work with congress, to do more in the Farm Bill to reduce the barriers of entry to new farmers as they start up. Huge capital costs that go into buying the land and buying the equipment. But it's also what's best for keeping our rural economies, and it's best for America. So I've seen in my own state a whole movement to the "buy local" movement and the sort of farming that you describe. We need to do more as a nation to encourage young farmers to go into farming to reduce those barriers and those capital costs, even at the same time that we push back against the concentration monopoly power in the agricultural sector. And that's what I intend to do."
Fossil Fuels

Sanders has repeatedly come out against fossil fuel pipelines. He spoke about his opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, the Bakken Pipeline and pipelines in Vermont and New Hampshire. "I think we've got to break our dependence on fossil fuel." Sanders said. He then asked the question, "Why did it take Hillary Clinton such a long time before she came into opposition to the Keystone Pipeline?"

Related
Climate and Energy Excerpts from the Fourth Democratic Primary Debate
Climate Excerpts from the CBS Democratic Primary Debate
Climate and Clean Energy in the Third Democratic Debate
Climate all but Absent from the Republican CNBC Presidential Debate
Climate Change a No-Show in the First Republican Debate
Republican Presidential Candidates Say the US Should Not Do Anything to Combat Climate Change
Opposition to Climate Action in the November Republican Primary Debate

Climate and Energy Excerpts from the Fourth Democratic Primary Debate

Three candidates met for the fourth Democratic debate hosted by NBC News and YouTube and moderated by anchor Lester Holt. The debate took place in Charleston, South Carolina, on Sunday January 17th. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley were present for the debate. However, except for a passing reference to renewables ("I would work quickly to present to the congress my plans for creating more...clean and renewable energy...") Clinton did not address climate change or energy issues. Hilary's silence on these importance issues in the fourth debate mirrors her strategy in the preceding debate.

Here are the climate and energy remarks made by Sanders and O'Malley during the fourth debate:

Climate Change

Sanders: The debate is over. Climate change is real. It is already causing major problems. And if we do not act boldly and decisively, a bad situation will become worse. It is amazing to me, and I think we’ll have agreement on this up here, that we have a major party called the Republican Party that is so owned by the fossil fuel industry, and their campaign contributions, that they don’t even have the courage, the decency to listen to the scientists. It is beyond my comprehension (APPLAUSE) how we can elect the president of the United States, somebody like Trump, who believes that climate change is a hoax, invented by the Chinese. (LAUGHTER)

Energy

O'Malley: I believe the greatest business opportunity to come to the United States of America in 100 years is climate change. And I put forward a plan to move us to a 100% clean electric energy grid by 2050 and create five million jobs along the way. (CHEERING) Thank you.

Sanders: Bottom line is, we need to be bold and decisive, we can create millions of jobs. We must, for the sake of our kids and grandchildren, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

O'Malley: ...we need a new agenda for America’s cities. We have not had a new agenda for America’s cities since Jimmy Carter. (APPLAUSE) We need a new agenda for America’s cities that will invest in the talents and the skills of our people, that will invest in CBBG, transportation, infrastructure and transit options and make our cities the leading edge in this move to a redesigned built, clean, green energy future that will employ our people.

O'Malley: Lester, on this stage tonight, this Democratic stage, where we actually believe in science, (LAUGHTER) I would like to challenge and invite my colleagues here on this stage to join me in putting forward a plan to move us to a 100% clean, electric energy grid by 2050. It can be done with solar, with wind, (APPLAUSE) with new technologies, with green buildings.

Related
Climate Excerpts from the CBS Democratic Primary Debate
Climate and Clean Energy in the Third Democratic Debate
Climate all but Absent from the Republican CNBC Presidential Debate
Republican Climate Avoidance and the 6th Primary Debate
Climate Change a No-Show in the First Republican Debate
Republican Presidential Candidates Say the US Should Not Do Anything to Combat Climate Change
Opposition to Climate Action in the November Republican Primary Debate
Climate Change May Give Democrats the Edge in the 2016 Federal Election
To Understand Republican Presidential Candidates you need to Follow the Money

Republican Climate Avoidance and the Sixth GOP Debate


Republican candidates for president seem to think that if you ignore the climate crisis American voters won't notice. During the sixth Republican debate there was no mention of climate change or global warming, the COP21 deal, renewable energy, cleantech, or the low carbon economy, and of course nary a word was uttered on emissions or greenhouse gases.

Climate change was a no show in the first Republican debate, the CNBC presidential debate and in the November debate they made their opposition to climate action clear. Republican presidential candidates have stated that they do not believe we should not do anything to combat climate change.

For their part the Democratic Presidential contenders have made their support for climate action clear in the CBS debate and the third debate. In fact the differences between the two parties on climate change have led some to conclude that it may give the Democrats the edge in the 2016 election.

The current slate of Republicans presidential contenders are vulnerable to criticism. Their anti-science policy positions will not stand up to scrutiny. Republicans have tried to kill the Clean Power Plan and they have worked to sabotage the COP21 deal.

Despite polls which show that American climate deniers are an increasingly rare breed, Republicans keep ignoring or undermining climate action.

Republicans are at odds with Americans on the subject of climate change and the Clean Power Plan. Even Pope Francis has condemned Republican climate denial in his address to Congress. To understand the Republican's seemingly irrational stance you need to follow the money to the fossil fuel industry.

In the sixth Republican debate closest anyone got to a discussion of anything green was when the it was used as a prefix to the word card in a xenophobic exchange on the horrors of immigration. Rubio even suggested that "radical jihadist" are somehow behind the issuance of green cards.

The only one of the candidates who mentioned energy and oil is Kasich. It came up when he was asked the following question:
"while everyone has been focusing on Iran’s provocations, I’m wondering what you make of what Saudi Arabia has been doing and its recent moves in the region, including its execution of a well-known Shi’ite cleric and its move to dramatically increase oil production, some say in an effort to drive down oil prices and force a lot of U.S. oil producers out of business. Sure enough, oil prices have tumbled. One brokerage house is predicting a third or more of American oil producers and those heavily invested in fracking will go bankrupt, and soon Saudi Arabia and OPEC will be back in the driver’s seat."
Kaisich replied saying:
"With Saudi Arabia and oil production, first of all, it’s so critical for us to be energy independent, and we’re getting there because of fracking and we ought to explore because, see, energy independence gives us leverage and flexibility, and secondly, if you want to bring jobs back to the United States of America in industry, low prices make the difference. We’re seeing it in my state and we’ll see it in this country. And that’s why we must make sure we continue to frack."
It is ironic that in Kasich's closing remarks he explained that his grandfather was a coal miner, who went blind and died of black lung.

Climate all but Absent from the Republican CNBC Presidential Debate
Climate Change a No-Show in the First Republican Debate
Republican Presidential Candidates Say the US Should Not Do Anything to Combat Climate Change
Opposition to Climate Action in the November Republican Primary Debate
Climate and Energy Excerpts from the Fourth Democratic Primary Debate
Climate Excerpts from the CBS Democratic Primary Debate
Climate and Clean Energy in the Third Democratic Debate
The Green Elements of the First 2012 Presidential Debate
Climate Change May Give Democrats the Edge in the 2016 Federal Election

Climate and Clean Energy in the Third Democratic Presidential Debate

Watching the third Democratic debate, the conspicuous absence of any questions on climate change could have led viewers to think they had tuned into a Republican debate. Although not a single question was asked about climate change, which is startling given the fact that the debate comes only a week after the COP21 agreement was announced, Sanders and O'Malley did manage to briefly mention climate change and clean energy. Clinton conspicuously ignored the topic altogether. She may think this is a good way to win over Republicans who are disillusioned with front running GOP candidate Donald Trump. However it is also a great way to alienate her base.
The debate took place on Saturday December 19th. ABC News hosted Democratic presidential candidates Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley. The 3 Democrats vying for the presidential nomination faced off on foreign policy and domestic issues at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire.

Here are excerpts of Sanders and O'Malley's climate and clean energy remarks made during the debate:

Sanders: I'm running for president because we have a campaign finance system which is corrupt, where billionaires are spending hundreds of millionaires of dollars to buy candidates who will represent their interests rather than the middle class and working families. I'm running because we need to address the planetary crisis of climate change and take on the fossil fuel industry and transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

O'Malley: We were the only state in American that went four years in a row without a penny increase in college tuition. We invested more in our infrastructure and we squared our shoulders to the great business opportunity of this era and that is moving our economy to a 100 percent clean electric energy future. We created 2,000 new jobs in the solar industry and we fought every single day to adopt more inclusive economic practices.

O'Malley: The other big challenge we have is climate change. The greatest business opportunity to come to the United States of America in 100 years. We need to embrace this. I have put forward a plan that does this, that moves us to 100 percent clean electric grid by 2050. Join this campaign for the future. New leadership is what our country needs to move us out of these divided and polarized times. Thank you.

See the climate positions of the original full slate of Democratic presidential candidates: Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, Hillary ClintonLincoln Chaffee, Larry Lessig and Jim Webb

Related
Climate Excerpts from the CBS Democratic Democratic Presidential Debate
Climate Change all but Absent from the Republican CNBC Presidential Debate
Climate Change a No-Show in the First Republican Presidential Debate
Republican Presidential Candidates All Say the US Should Not Do Anything to Combat Climate Change
To Understand Republican Presidential Candidates you need to Follow the Money
Climate Change May Give Democrats the Edge in the 2016 Federal Election
Sanders the Best Presidential Candidate on Climate Change
Bernie Sanders Climate Leadership (Videos)

Climate Excerpts from the CBS Democratic Primary Debate

The CBS Democratic Democratic primary debate took place in Des Moines, Iowa on Saturday November 14th. Here are the climate related excerpts from that debate. The moderator for the debate was CBS News political director John Dickerson. Hilary Clinton summarized the field of Democratic candidates for President when she said, "All of us believe climate change is real."

DICKERSON: Senator Sanders, you said you want to rid the planet of ISIS. In the previous debate you said the greatest threat to national security was climate change. Do you still believe that?

SANDERS: Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you're going to see countries all over the world -- this is what the CIA says -- they're going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops ask you're going to see all kinds of international conflict.

CORDES: Governor O'Malley, you also want to make public college debt-free. You want...

OMALLEY: That's right.

CORDES: ... states to freeze tuition. You've got your own family leave plan. How would you pay for it? In Maryland, you raised the sales tax, you raised the gas tax and you raised taxes on families making over $150,000 a year. Is that the blueprint?

OMALLEY: Nancy, the blueprint in Maryland that we followed was yes, we did in fact raise the sales tax by a penny and we made our public schools the best public schools in America for five years in a row with that investment. And yes, we did ask everyone -- the top 14 percent of earners in our state to pay more in their income tax and we were the only state to go four years in a row without a penny's increase to college tuitions.

So while other candidates will talk about the things they would like to do, I actually got these things done in a state that defended not only a AAA bond rating, but the highest median income in America. I believe that we pay for many of the things that we need to do again as a nation, investing in the skills of our people, our infrastructure, and research and development and also climate change by the elimination of one big entitlement that we can no longer afford as a people, and that is the entitlement that many of our super wealthiest citizens feel they are entitled to pay -- namely, a much lower income tax rate and a lower tax rate on capital gains.

Related
Climate and Energy Excerpts from the Fourth Democratic Primary Debate
Climate and Clean Energy in the Third Democratic Debate
The Green Elements of the First 2012 Presidential Debate
Republican Climate Avoidance and the 6th Primary Debate
Climate all but Absent from the Republican CNBC Presidential Debate
Climate Change a No-Show in the First Republican Debate
Republican Presidential Candidates Say the US Should Not Do Anything to Combat Climate Change
Opposition to Climate Action in the November Republican Primary Debate
Climate Change May Give Democrats the Edge in the 2016 Federal Election

Cantor's Loss to the Tea Party Kills Any Hope for Green Legislation

The defeat of Eric Cantor by Tea Party candidate David Brat in Virginia means that we can expect the deadlock in Congress to continue. This is particularly true with regard to energy, environment and climate legislation. While the GOP is well known for being anti-science and anti-environment, Tea Party Republicans are far more likely to be climate deniers than their mainstream Republican counterparts. Cantor is no friend of the environment but he has lost to someone that is far less likely to support even the most rudimentary green legislation.

When it comes to climate change there is a stark partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats, but the tendency towards denial is far more pronounced among Tea Party Republicans.

According to a 2013 Pew Research Center poll, 67 percent of Americans think climate change is real. Only 4 percent of Democrats think climate change is not happening and 13 percent of non-Tea Party Republicans share that view. Among supporters of the Tea Party the number who deny the veracity of climate change soars to 41 percent. To put it another way 61 percent of mainstream, non-Tea Party Republicans think there is solid evidence for global warming, while just 25 percent of Tea Party Republicans share that view.

Despite massively outspending his opponent ($5.2m compared to $120,000), Cantor suffered a humiliating loss. The results are a stunning upset as a House majority leader has not suffered a defeat in a primary in 115 years. Cantor was the second most senior Republican in the House and he was expected to replace John Boehner as the speaker. This loss represents a significant defeat for mainstream Republicans and a major victory for the climate denying fringe.
The grassroots movement that helped the GOP to gain ground has hijacked the Republican party and undermined national governance. Their extreme form of obstructionism has even succeeded in shutting down government.

Brat's campaign strategy focused on how Cantor had worked on bipartisan efforts including immigration reform and financial compromise efforts such as extending the debt ceiling and budget authority.

For the Tea Party, working in a bipartisan fashion is tantamount to selling your soul to the devil. This election result will no doubt send shock waves through the Republican party and push some to be even more obstructionist, anti-science, and anti-environment than they already were.

Brat's victory is an indication that Republicans have yet to cleanse their party of their Neanderthal brethren. While many had hoped that Republicans would succeed in ferreting out the anti-government Luddites that infect the party, the most recent results indicate that they are still alive and well. The net result is that no legislation will get through Congress in the foreseeable future, this is especially true for progressive energy and environment bills.

The Tea Party has broken the American legislative process and this definitively precludes all forms of green legislation. Unless Democrats can retain control of the Senate and take back the House in the 2014 midterms the legislative deadlock will continue.

© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Tea Party Bolsters Republican Commitment to Obstructionism
Tea Party's Climate Change Denial
Koch Industries and the Tea Party's Corporate "Grassroots"
Video Linking the Kochs' and the Tea Party
The Kochs' Tea Party
Sarah Palin: Tea Party Queen
House Republicans' Historic Anti-Environment Efforts in 2011 and 2012
Republicans Need a Serious Policy Review
Hurricane Sandy Underscores Republican's Anti-Science Climate Change Denial (Video)
The Stark Partisan Divide on Global Warming
Political "Heroes" and "Villains" on US Air Pollution
Big Oil's Influence on US Politicians
The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the Republicans
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Denialism
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance
Republican Obstructionism on the Debt Crisis and Implications for the Environment
Republican Cuts Target Green Jobs
Republican Gubernatorial Gains and Redistricting
Republican Assault on the Environment
What is Wrong with the Right
The Business of Climate Change Deception

The UK's Ruling Conservatives Abandon Climate Change Leadership

Despite recent historic flooding in the UK, the British government's March 19 budget confirmed that it is all but abandoning efforts to combat climate change. The writing was on the wall with the appointment of Owen Paterson as environment secretary in 2012.

Owen Paterson

UK Conservatives sent a powerful message when Owen William Paterson was appointed Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2012. Despite his moderate climate change voting record, he is a climate change skeptic, who is resistant to the science. He ignored David MacKay's offer of a briefing on climate change science.

Paterson stated on BBC Radio 4's "Any Questions?" in June 2013 that "the temperature has not changed in the last 17 years ...". In addition to his resistance to climate science, Paterson is known as a strong supporter of fracking and GMOs.

Paterson is not climate friendly. Overall there has been a 41 percent redution for domestic climate change initiatives. As Bob Ward, policy director at the London School of Economics' Grantham Research Institute, put it: 'These shocking figures should worry everyone in the UK. Defra [Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] is the lead government department for climate change adaptation and is primarily responsible for making the UK resilient to the impacts of global warming, such as increased flood risk.'

UK Budget

The reversal of the UK's ruling conservatives from champions of efforts to combat climate change to deniers is personified by Chancellor George Osborne. He once promised that his Treasury would be "at the heart of this historic fight against climate change", now he gives billions in tax concessions to the oil and gas industry, cuts the funds for onshore wind farms and strips the Green Investment Bank of the ability to borrow and lend.

On March 19, Osborne delivered the UK's 2014 budget which sidelined the government's energy and climate policies. His budget favors short term economic gain over long term benefits provided by curbing the emissions of manufacturers.

He froze the UK's top up carbon tax at £18 per tonne of carbon dioxide until the end of the decade. This may very well represent a lease on life for some old coal plants. Rather than make energy intensive industries pay the costs of two policies designed to support renewable energy generation Osborne provided the UK's dirtiest companies an additional compensation package worth £3 billion (this package is in addition to existing packages which amount to a total of £7 billion).

Mr Osborne has made himself clear with the comment that he wanted to squeeze “every drop of oil we can” from the North Sea. 

There was no mention of low carbon infrastructure projects like those in renewable energy. This comes on the heals of the cancellation of a number of high profile renewable energy projects in recent months. While Osborne did mention the continued development of renewable energy, he did so alongside expanded shale gas development.

Osborne does not appear to be listening to David Cameron who said climate change is “one of the most serious threats that this country and this world faces.” The Prime Minister told parliament that he "very much suspected" the floods were due to climate change, and that the UK could expect more of the same in coming years. Rather than addressing the problem of climate change through mitigation strategies, Osborne is spending £140 million on adaptation in the form of flood repairs and maintaining existing flood defenses. 

The new budget sends a message to voters and the rest of the world that the government of the UK has disengaged from its efforts to combat climate change. Instead of the greenest government ever in the UK we are seeing the same kind of myopic policy positions that created the climate crisis in the first place. While the current Conservative government in the UK warrants criticism, they are preparing for the next election cycle by pandering to the popular will.

British citizens, like so many others around the world still do not understand that focusing only on short term economic benefits imperils their own well being and condemns future generations.

Related Posts
UK Wind Energy
Mandatory Emissions Reporting on the UK Stock Exchange
UK Government Investments in Efficiency 
British Government to Lead the Low Carbon Economy
Global Green New Deal
Market Forces and the UK's Green Deal
Corporate Sustainability is Driving Green Businesses in the UK
UK Scientists Urge Government Action

Anti-Science Journalism Helped to End Progressive Climate Governance in Australia

The popular media's campaign of climate change subterfuge helped to bring down Julia Gillard's government in Australia. Anti-science propaganda has been rampant in the Australian press. A number of extreme weather events (droughts and floods) succeeded in drowning out the voices of those that oppose action on climate change and helped Gillard to get elected in 2010.  Subsequently a determined anti-science media campaign eroded Gillard's popularity and ultimately led to her downfall.

Popular media has flouted their journalistic responsibilities on climate change. A widespread campaign against Australia's carbon policy was adopted by the company that controls most Australian metropolitan newspapers. According to a 2013 study of climate science in newspapers,  the coverage of the Gillard government’s carbon policy was mostly negative (73 per cent to 27 per cent). Negative coverage (82 per cent) across News Ltd newspapers far outweighed positive (18 per cent) articles. The Daily Telegraph was the most negative (89 per cent). The Daily Telegraph has since continued its campaign against Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore and bike riders.

Rupert Murdoch's media empire pushes an editorial slant with an anti-environment agenda. Nowhere was this more evident than in Australia where Murdoch's tabloids regularly derided Gillard and her government's climate policy.

According to a 2011 report, Australia's climate change coverage is rife with anti-science skepticism.  This report indicates that there was considerable hostility to the Gillard government climate-change policy particularly in Murdoch's tabloids.

The impact of these media attacks adversely impacted the public's perception of carbon pricing and helped cause the ruling government's popularlity to plummit to historic lows. Ultimately the Gillard government fell.

The net result of this biased news coverage was that Australia's progressive climate policies were replaced by a climate denying government led by Tony Abbott.  

Anti-science media coverage contributes to climate change misinformation and prevent progressive governments from getting elected. As the fall of the Gillard government illustrates, they can also help unseat standing governments.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
New Australian PM Vows to Kill the Nation's Green Dream
Why Greens are Seeing Red in the 2013 Australian Elections
New Report on Extreme Weather in Australia
Sustainable Australia Report 2013
Australia's National Solar Schools
Clean Energy Week in Sydney Australia
Video: Putting a Price on Carbon in Australia
Popular Media is Distorting the Facts about Climate
Popular Media is to Blame for Inaction on Climate Change
The Persecution of EnvironmentalistsCambodian Environmentalist Murdered
Environmental Problems and Activists Struggling Against Abuse (Video)Environmental Advocacy Through Citizen Journalism

New Australian PM Vows to Kill the Nation's Green Dream

The new government of Australia has vowed to abandon efforts to combat climate change and they have also made it clear that they will increase the nation's exploitation of coal. Under the leadership of Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard Australia was working towards a low carbon future. However, the election of a new center-right government has killed the nation's green dream.

Coal exploitation has grown rapidly in Australia with production rising 80 percent since the early 1990s and its exports more than doubling in the past decade. Due largely to coal the nation currently has the world's largest per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Over the last 30 years Australia has exported more coal than any other nation on Earth.

Australia is currently the world's second largest exporter with the fourth largest coal reserves (estimated 76.4 billion tons, or nine percent of global reserves).  The newly elected climate denying Prime Minister Tony Abbott has vowed to make Austria the world's largest coal exporter and in the process he has brought an end to Australia's green dream. In addition to expediting approval for nine new mega-mines, Abbott has vowed to put an end to the nation's carbon tax scheme, and shut down a climate advisory body.

According to a government-commissioned report, the planned expansion of sea-ports to accommodate the planned increase in coal exports could seriously disturb the Great Barrier Reed. The increased sea traffic also risks accidents. The increased greenhouse gases generated by increased coal exports will also threaten the reef though global warming.

How did a Luddite like Abbott get elected? In part he won due to Labour party infighting, but mostly he won because of people's short term time horizons. Australians, like Canadians who also elected a climate denying government, put short term economic interests ahead of civilization changing global warming.

With its cities located on the coasts Australia is vulnerable to rising seas from climate change. Storms, floods, heat waves, wildfires and droughts are already more common in Australia. Going forward rising seas and extreme weather events like these will continue to remind Australians of their electoral folly.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Why Greens are Seeing Red in the 2013 Australian Elections
New Report on Extreme Weather in Australia
Sustainable Australia Report 2013
Australia's National Solar Schools
Clean Energy Week in Sydney Australia
Video: Putting a Price on Carbon in Australia
Luminos and Stella 2 Cars in the World Solar Challenge
September 2012 was the Warmest in Recorded History
Environmental Collaboration Transforming Government

Why Greens are Seeing Red in the 2013 Australian Elections

Hopes for a government serious about combating climate change in Australia were crushed by Labor party infighting. The election of a right of center coalition led by Tony Abbot spells the end of Australia's hope to play a leading role combating climate change. Kevin Rudd wrestled the leadership from Labor Prime Minister Julia Eileen Gillard after she demonstrated strong green leadership. Rudd ended Gillard's political career in a savage act of overt betrayal that may have cost labor the election and ended Australia's hopes for government leadership on climate change.

Kevin Rudd spent 3 years plotting Gillard's downfall he then proceeded to execute her politically as the nation watched. Gillard was the Leader of the Labor Party from 2010 to 2013 and she was the first female to be Prime Minister of Australia.

The Rudd Labor opposition promised to implement an emissions trading scheme (ETS) before the 2007 federal election which Labor won. Rudd, unable to secure support for his scheme in the Senate, dropped it.

In her 2010 election campaign, Gillard pledged to build a "national consensus" for a carbon price by creating a "citizens assembly", to examine "the evidence on climate change, the case for action and the possible consequences of introducing a market-based approach to limiting and reducing carbon emissions". The assembly was to be selected by an independent authority who would select people from the electoral roll using census data. The plan was never implemented.

After the 2010 Election, Gillard agreed to form a minority government with the Greens and Independents and replaced her "citizens assembly" plan with a climate change panel consisting of Labor, Greens and Independent members of Parliament. The panel ultimately announced backing for a temporary carbon tax, leading up to an Emissions Trading Scheme.

In the first hung parliament result in 70 years, the Gillard Government, with the support of the Australian Greens and some cross bench independents, negotiated the implementation of a carbon tax (the preferred policy of the Australian Greens), by which a fixed-price carbon tax would proceed to a floating-price ETS within a few years under the plans. The government proposed the Clean Energy Bill in February 2011, which the opposition claimed to be a broken election promise. The bill was passed by the Lower House in October 2011 and the Upper House in November 2011.

The Greens voted down Rudd’s first emissions trading scheme in 2009 because it “locked in” a low 5 percent emissions reduction target by 2020, and they insisted on leaving open the possibility of a tougher target on the advice of the authority before they agreed to Gillard’s scheme in 2011.

In his concession speech Rudd conceded defeat to Abbott but failed to acknowledge Gillard. The Coalition will have at least 90 seats in the new House of Representatives and Labor may hold more than 50.

Prior to the election Rudd said he was “terminating” the carbon tax in response to Abbott’s anti-carbon tax campaign. Frontbencher Mr Clare, who retained his Sydney seat, said Labor should not give up on its principles, including the need to have a price on carbon.

“I don't believe anyone in Labor is going to walk away from the issue of putting a price on carbon pollution. Because a failure to act on pollution is in fact just making the problem harder for our kids, and that's not the Labor way.”

Mr Bowen backed Labor's ongoing support for a carbon price.

“I don't think the Labor party should walk away from its core beliefs,” said Bill Shorten, the favorite to lead the Labor Party in opposition. “We believe climate change is real, we believe governments around the world should do something about it, we believe we should do something about it, and we believe a market mechanism is the right thing to do.”

The coalition crushed Labor by winning 88 seats to Labor's 57 in the 150-seat parliament. Rather than helping to increase Labor's support, Rudd's coup against Gillard hurt the party and the nation's green hopes. According to Sky News/Newspoll exit poll the two-party preferred vote was at 53-47, compared to 52-48 when the election was called, suggesting Rudd's campaign cost Labor votes.

The Coalition did not win the election, rather Labor lost it. Voters punished Labor for its mutinous disunity. Rudd not only murdered Gillard's political career, he destroyed Australia's best hope for responsible climate leadership.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related ArticlesNew Report on Extreme Weather in Australia
Sustainable Australia Report 2013
Australia's National Solar Schools
Clean Energy Week in Sydney Australia
Video: Putting a Price on Carbon in Australia
Luminos and Stella 2 Cars in the World Solar Challenge
September 2012 was the Warmest in Recorded History
Environmental Collaboration Transforming Government

Russia, Ukraine and Belarus Derail 2013 UN Climate Talks in Bonn

The United Nation's (UN) climate talks in Bonn, Germany have collapsed despite the fact that we have marched past the symbolic milestone of 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2. Russia, Ukraine and Belarus have rejected a compromise and effectively stalled discussions on climate compensation, adaptation and finance until the main summit in Warsaw in November.

The problems originated last year in Doha when Russia, Ukraine and Belarus expressed concern over the extension of the Kytoto Protoco, which is currently the world's only obligatory climate agreement. (Although the US and Canada are not signed on).

“We’re getting the impression these three countries are not interested in climate change,” said the Tuvalu delegate whose nation is one of those most vulnerable to sea level rise. The deep concern of delegates from Tuvalu and other vulnerable islands is justified. We have not seen these levels of atmospheric CO2 in more than 3 million years when sea levels were 80 feet higher than they are today.

Even though Island nations are most vulnerable, climate change will adversely impact every nation on earth. History will record the wreckless shortsightedness.

While Russia is questioning the process the reality is that they are using the process as leverage to politicize their point.

"Governments need to look up from their legal and procedural tricks and focus on the planetary emergency that is hitting Africa first and hardest," declared Mithika Mwenda, coordinator of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance. "Russia's shenanigans have set back critical work on loss and damage mechanisms and so now Poland, as host of the next summit, must find a way to ensure this issue is dealt with fully."

Some fatalistically believe the UN climate negotiations are doomed to fail. Many detractors of the UN process favor of action at local or regional level. However, they are fooling themselves if they think we can significantly impact emissions in the absence of an overarching global treaty.

While it is easy to point to yet another failure at UN climate talks it is important to understand that despite the position of the three holdouts, progress has been made. The highly destructive stance of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus have overshadowed progress on other aspects of the ongoing negotiations Negotiations of the UN climate process, including the new 2015 treaty.

Despite very serious obstacles we cannot give way to fatalism and despair. The UN process is the only shot we have and we need to stay at it until the job gets done.

As Tomasz Chruszczow, chair of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI)said, "it is up to the Parties to save the world.”

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Russia Lining Up Investors for Arctic Drilling
Copenhagen Accord: Global Emissions Cuts
Russia Contributes to the Failure of COP17
Greenpeace International Representative Kumi Naidoo on the Failure of COP 18 (Video)
Why We Did Not Make More Progress at COP 18: A Short History of Climate Change Negotiations (Video)
Achievements of COP 18: The Doha Climate Gateway
COP 18: Bridging the Gulf Between Science and Reality
COP 18: The History of Carbon and Respective Responsibilities
COP 18: WBCSD on Establishing a Global Carbon Market
Figueres on COP 18: We Need Domestic Legislation
Christiana Figueres on the Objectives of COP 18 (Video)

Canadian Minister Attacks Leading Climate Scientist

Canada's natural resources minister Joe Oliver is stepping up personal attacks against climate scientists. Oliver may be feeling insecure about the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline in the wake of the release of a recent EPA report that clearly outlines many concerns with the pipeline project which if completed will ferry unprecedented amounts of carbon-heavy tar sands bitumen from Alberta to Texas. In the face of a scientific consensus and growing popular support for efforts to combat global warming, Oliver appears to be pulling out all the stops to sell his government's support for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project.

During a visit to a Washington DC Thinktank, Oliver lambasted NASA climatologist James Hansen, saying he should be "ashamed" of his warnings about the dangers of the tar sands and his opposition to the Keystone XL.

For more than a quarter century Hansen has been raising public awareness about climate change, more recently he has been focusing his efforts on opposing the Keystone XL. However, Oliver told the audience at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, "this is exaggerated rhetoric. It's frankly nonsense. I don't know why he said it but he should be ashamed of having said it."

Oliver reflexively rejects criticisms of Alberta's tar sands. Last year he wrote an open letter in which he denounced tar sands critics as "radicals" in the pay of foreign special interest groups.

The climate change denial from Oliver and other members of the ruling Conservatives have prompted Hansen to refer to this Canadian government as "Neanderthals," while expressing the view that Canadians are far more advanced than their national leadership.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Canada Ruling Conservatives at Odds with US and China on Climate Change
Report Urges Canada's Federal Conservatives to Regulate Oil and Gas Sector to Meet GHG Targets
Canada Withdraws from UN Efforts to Combat Desertification
Canada Pulls out of Kyoto
Canada's Ruling Conservative Government is Trying to Silence American Scientists
Canada's Ruling Conservatives Muzzle Scientists
Canada is an Environmental Pariah at Rio+20
Canadian Government Spending on Dirty Projects
Conservative Budget Guts the Environment
Canada is a Dirty Energy Superpower
Canada's Hopes for an Environmentally Friendly Federal Leadership Now Rest with Justin Trudeau
Canada's Leader of the Official Opposition on the Keystone XL