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

Read More»

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

Read More»

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 Clinton,  Lincoln 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)

Read More»

Video: Newt Gingrich & Nancy Pelosi Ad to Combat Climate Change

Before Newt Gingrich was running for the GOP presidential nomination he was a leading advocate to combat climate change. This ad is part of the "We Can Solve It" global warming ad campaign sponsored by former Vice President Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Video: Newt Gingrich on Climate Change "The Evidence is Sufficient"
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change

Read More»

Video: Newt Gingrich on Climate Change "The Evidence is Sufficient"

Before running for President, Newt Gingrich was an advocate supporting efforts to combat climate change. In this video he is seen saying, "the evidence is sufficient...to move towards most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading." He even talked about the need for "green conservatives." He also addressed Republican concerns about big government but he went on to say that we need to discuss "whats the most effective way to solve it rather than get into a fight about whether or not to solve it."

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Video: Newt Gingrich & Nancy Pelosi Ad to Combat Climate Change
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change

Read More»

Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

Utah governor Jon Huntsman's Presidential campaign came to an end when he said, ‘I respect science.’ This is political suicide for anyone seeking the GOP presidential nomination.

Huntsman told Time Magazine in May of 2011: “All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer, we’d listen to them. I respect science.”

Huntsman is the only Republican candidate who professed his belief in anthropogenic climate change and he even aspired to create policy solutions to address it.

“In order to get to the heart and soul of carbon emission, which is a problem, because it leads to polluted skies and air quality problems and climate change, we must put a value on carbon,” Huntsman said Until we put a value on carbon we’re never going to be able to get serious about dealing with climate change longer term,” Huntsman said. “Putting a value on carbon either suggests that you go to a carbon tax or you get a cap-and-trade system underway.”

The Republican Party has no time for science and it is deeply offended by the suggestion that humans have contributed to climate change.

Huntsman once tweeted: “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”

Huntsman was anything but crazy, he was by far the most reasonable candidate in a field full of ignorant Luddites. Sadly, Huntsman was forced to drop out of the race because Republicans involved in the primary process want no part of reason.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change

Read More»

Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change

Republican's confusion on climate change is well known, but this ignorance is not only a defining feature of those left in the GOP presidential race, it also applies to those who dropped out. Here are the views of three Republican candidates who are not longer in the 2012 race. At one time these candidates were viewed as the most promising contenders for the Republican nomination for President. The list of failed popular contenders includes Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, and Herman Cain.

Rick Perry

Governor Perry dismissed climate change as a ‘contrived, phony mess.’ Perry said that the “theory” of climate change is a hoax concocted by data-manipulating scientists to keep research money coming in to their projects. On August 17th, 2011, Perry said: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects...Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed. But I do not buy into, that a group of scientists, who in some cases were found to be manipulating this data.” In 2007 after Rick Perry parted ways with his former boss Al Gore, he said: “I’ve heard Al Gore talk about man-made global warming so much that I’m starting to think that his mouth is the leading source of all that supposedly deadly carbon dioxide.” As an amusing side note Perry's nick-name used to be "crotch" because he wore tight fitting pants.

Michelle Bachmann

As the Chair of the Tea Party Caucus Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota knew that she could not even consider climate change science. She has made statements like “It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum…” In 2009, Bachmann said there’s no reason to worry about carbon dioxide because “Carbon dioxide is natural...It is not harmful. It is a part of earth’s life cycle. And yet we’re being told that we have to reduce this natural substance and reduce the American standard of living to create an arbitrary reduction that is naturally occurring." As a side note Bachman paid $30 each for 6OOO voting tickets in Iowa, she won with around 4000 votes, meaning that a third of those votes she paid for did not vote for her.

Herman Cain

Cain considers climate change to be "a scam." Cain derided Democrats for falling for the “scientifically manufactured results” that support the science of climate change. This is no longer a controversy. This is conclusive," he said. Cain also calls green energy a joke, declaring to a group of Iowans this spring, “I have studied it!” Cain claimed that solar and wind could provide at best “5 percent of our energy needs.” As a side note Cain was eventually forced to withdraw due to numerous allegations of sexual harrassment. He also was seriously challenged on economic and foreign policy issues, he once referred to Uzbekistan as "Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan."

In addition to their peccadilloes, these three failed GOP candidates for president share a common disdain for the facts on climate change.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

Read More»

In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2

As revealed in a Treehugger article titled Rick Santorum Has Absolutely No Idea What He is Talking About, Santorum has some convoluted ideas. Here is his response to a man in New Hampshire who questioned him about climate change:

"The question is on how do I get my policies with climate change science. I get asked this question a lot, and you look at the data and you can see some change in the climate. But then again, pick a point in history where you haven’t seen a change in the climate. The climate does change. The question is, what is causing the climate to change?

And I think most scientists, in fact, I assume all scientists would agree there are a variety of factors that cause the climate change. I don’t think any scientist in the world would suggest there isn’t a variety of factors, and I think the vast majority of scientists would say there’s probably a hundred factors that cause the climate to change.

And so why have we decided that this one particular factor, carbon dioxide, is in fact that tip of the tail that wags the entire dog. Why from a scientific point of view do we make the assertion that this is in fact what is the case when there is a whole lot of other factors out there that could be affecting it? So, that’s the question.

Some people have very strong feelings that it is that. There are a lot of other people who don’t. Here’s the question. Let’s even assume, for purposes of argument, not that I agree with it, but for purposes of argument, that they are right. Then what would be a rational response?

Well, if you have a problem and you want to craft something, what should that thing that you’re crafting do? Solve the problem. Do any of the proposed solutions put forward by Al Gore and his friends do anything to solve the problem? Even the scientists who support the theory will admit to you that it doesn’t do anything to solve the problem. So query, why support the solution, other than you may have some other agenda that may be in place here."

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
Rick Santorum's Anti-Environmental Theology
Foster Friess is the Climate Denying Money Man Behind Santorum
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

Read More»

In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has made a slew of absurd statements about climate change. Not only does he believe that climate change is a hoax, he refers to the large body of scientific evidence as "bogus" or "junk." Rather than rail against Santorum for his lack of understanding, here are a few examples that effectively illustrate his ignorance:

"The left is always looking for a way to control you. They’re always trying to make you feel guilty, so you’ll give them power so they can lord it over you. They do it on the environment all the time."

"The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is."

"[Climate change is] an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life."

"We have to have all sorts of government regulations now because of the threats of hydrofracking. It’s the new bogeyman. It’s the new way to try to scare you … And they’re preying on the Northeast, saying, “Look what’s going to happen. Ooh, all this bad stuff’s gonna happen, we don’t know all these chemicals and all this stuff, what’s gonna happen?” Let me tell you what’s going to happen: Nothing’s going to happen, except they will use this to raise money for the radical environmental groups so they can go out and continue to try to purvey their reign of environmental terror on the United States of America."

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
Rick Santorum's Anti-Environmental Theology
Foster Friess is the Climate Denying Money Man Behind Santorum
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

Read More»

Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science

Santorum has criticized President Obama for embracing climate science, but he has also offered similar criticisms to fellow Republicans. Santorum is unique amongst those vying for the Republican nomination in that, unlike his rivals, he has not had to change his views on climate change.

GOP presidential candidates like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have been accused of subscribing to a scientific view on climate change.

Santorum accurately portrays himself as the only candidate who has never believed in global warming. Santorum has said:

"I for one never bought the hoax… And yet we have politicians running to the ramparts — unfortunately politicians who happen to be running for the Republican nomination for president — who bought into man-made global warming and bought into cap-and-trade."

This position appeals to the so called values driven conservatives. Santorum may not understand economics or geopolitics but he does seem to enjoy strong support from uneducated rural conservative men. Part of that support comes from his tacit dismissal of the science of climate change.

The far right that dominates the Republican primary process demands that aspiring presidential nominees abandon climate change. While others have had to change their positions on climate, Santorum has been consistent. Unlike his rivals for the GOP presidential nomination, Rick has not had to dumb down his campaign. If nothing else Santorum's ignorance on climate change is authentic.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Rick Santorum's Anti-Environmental Theology
Foster Friess is the Climate Denying Money Man Behind Santorum
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

Read More»

GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s

Republicans seeking the presidential nomination have been forced to abandon their scientific assessments of Climate change. Republican flip flops on climate change are evidenced by the positions of the GOP presidential contenders. Here is a brief summary of the changing views of Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul.
\
Newt Gingrich

In 2008, Newt Gingrich did a PSA with then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) calling for action on climate change. He once said that “the evidence is sufficient,” but now that he is seeking the GOP presidential nomination Gingrich has asked for public hearings on climate change and a review of the National Academy of Science findings. Gingrich recently said, “Environmentalists, have been infiltrated over the last 40 years by people on the left who are against business and against local control and they use the environment as an excuse.”

Ron Paul

On the campaign trail in 2007, Ron Paul said that big emitters of CO2 should not be allowed to freely pollute the air because it is a violation of others’ property rights. Paul argued that big polluters should be taxed and he has even admitted to believing that human activity is at least partly responsible for global warming. More recently he has changed his position saying, “the greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming.”

Like Mitt Romney, both Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have to manufacture strong views against climate science to even be considered for the GOP nomination.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

Read More»

Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change

This video is about the changing views of Republicans. On the one hand you have the GOP presidential candidates on the other hand there are thinking Republicans. At the moment they appear to be moving in opposite directions. It is widely recognized that running for the GOP presidential nomination also involves running from climate change. However there is a group of Republicans who want to change the anti-scientific stance of the party. One such group is New Hampshire Republicans for Climate. They want their party leaders to adopt responsible policy positions that acknowledge the facts and respond to climate change.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Too Dirty to Fail: The GOP's Ongoing War with EPA Standards
Dems Seek Hearing on Climate to Educate GOP
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
The Foxes in the Henhouse: Republicans in Charge of Climate and Energy Committees
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance

Read More»

Video: The Republican War on Climate Science

Republicans and their corporate masters for years have been trying to keep the truth about climate change from reaching the American public. They work tirelessly to tell us that the earth isn't getting hotter; or that there is no scientific consensus that global climate change is real; or even that climate change is a good thing because its going to open up shipping routes in the arctic. Their latest efforts, however, go far beyond their usual tactics, as they're now trying to get their anti-science agenda taught in public schools. Mike Papantonio discusses this issue with Chris Mooney author of Republican War on Science.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Too Dirty to Fail: The GOP's Ongoing War with EPA Standards
Dems Seek Hearing on Climate to Educate GOP
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
The Foxes in the Henhouse: Republicans in Charge of Climate and Energy Committees
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance

Read More»

Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change

Newt Gingrich, once believed in climate change, but like others seeking the GOP presidential nomination, he has found religion on climate change and now dismisses it at every opportunity. The 2012 Republican presidential candidate claimed he was qualified to deny climate change science because he is an "amateur paleontologist". In this video, the Young Turks host Cenk Uygur makes fun of Gingrich's laughable justification for his denial of climate change.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
Rick Santorum's Anti-Environmental Theology
Foster Friess is the Climate Denying Money Man Behind Santorum
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming

Read More»

Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance

Here is an interview with Adam Lee in which he reviews how Republican presidential hopefuls all seem to have at least one thing in common -- they hate science. Although there are only four remaining GOP nominees vying for the nomination, the full slate of 2012 Republican presidential contenders shared a common disbelief in science. Being anti-science is de reiguer because this is what those participating in the GOP primary process are demanding from their presidential nominees. For an article by Adam Lee titled "Why the Anti-Science Creationist Movement Is So Dangerous," click here.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Too Dirty to Fail: The GOP's Ongoing War with EPA Standards
Dems Seek Hearing on Climate to Educate GOP
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
The Foxes in the Henhouse: Republicans in Charge of Climate and Energy Committees
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science

Read More»

Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change

As the rest of the world is coming to grips with some of the solutions to the difficult challenges posed by climate change, US Republicans are still denying the very existence of global warming.

According to a recent poll, the number of people in the US denying climate change has dropped to 26 percent, those who are left are are mostly intransigent Republicans.

The poll indicates that almost half (47 percent) of Republicans deny the evidence of global warming while four fifths (80 percent) of Democrats accept the facts.

Those who resist the truth about climate change tend to be very dogmatic in their views. This was revealed by the level of certainty each respondent associated with their answers.

The capacity of many Republicans to insulate themselves from the reality of global warming would be fascinating if it were not so detrimental to the passage of crucial energy and climate legislation.

To see the full report (pdf) from the Brookings Institution click here.

Related Posts
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Too Dirty to Fail: The GOP's Ongoing War with EPA Standards
Dems Seek Hearing on Climate to Educate GOP
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
The Foxes in the Henhouse: Republicans in Charge of Climate and Energy Committees
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance

Read More»

Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming

Republican front runner Mitt Romney seems to being getting more obtuse about climate change as his campaign goes forward. Speaking at a closed-door fundraiser in Pittsburgh, Romney told donors at the Consol Energy Center, "My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us."

This is far from the position that he put forward in his 2010 book, No Apology, Romney wrote, "I believe that climate change is occurring...I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor."

As recently as June 2011, Reuters reported that Romney said that the US should "reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

At a stop in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney said, “I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that.”

In August he again said, "I think the earth is getting warmer. ... I think humans contribute to that."

Even if he secretly believes in global warming it does not appear that he is willing to do anything about it. At the fundraiser, Romney was asked whether he would reject a cap-and-trade bill to limit carbon emissions linked to climate change. Romney replied, "I do not believe in a cap and trade program." He has also said, The U.S. “Cap and trade effectively constitutes an enormous, hidden tax on the American people and American businesses.”

Romney resists the green economy by alleging that it costs jobs. Contrary to Romney's assertion that clean energy "loses jobs for Americans," Republican governors are forced to acknowledge that green energy is a net creator of jobs.

"My view with regards to energy policy is pretty straightforward." Romney said, "And that means let's aggressively develop our oil, our gas, our coal, our nuclear power."

Romney's support for fossil fuels and skepticism about climate change plays well with conservatives, but it is a hard sell for thinking independents who are capable of rational thought. These independents may very well determine the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election. However, to win the Republican nomination, Romney has to play dumb on climate change.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

Read More»

Too Dirty to Fail: The GOP's Ongoing War with EPA Standards

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has a motto for industrial plants that would be spared from new pollution limits if Republicans have their way: They are "too dirty to fail." This comment was made by Jackson in response to the GOP who accuse the EPA of killing jobs with thier efforts to provide clean air and water for the American people.

"No credible economist links our current economic crisis -- or any economic crisis -- to tough clean-air and clean-water standards," Jackson wrote.

If indeed there are any job losses they would be offset by jobs gained elsewhere, including for the workers who install and maintain pollution control equipment. Not to mention the benefits of improved air and water quality.

"If these plants continue to operate without pollution limits, as a legislative wish list from [Cantor] would allow, there will be more cases of asthma, respiratory illness and premature deaths -- with no clear path to new jobs," Jackson wrote.

"The environment is not usually a top-tier issue in a presidential election," O'Donnell said. "But it has the potential to become one now, especially because a number of Republicans are calling for the end of EPA, or a significant cutback to it."

The electorate may very remember that the Republicans fought for dirty air and water rather than the promise of economic renewal offered by the green economy.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Dems Seek Hearing on Climate to Educate GOP
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
The Foxes in the Henhouse: Republicans in Charge of Climate and Energy Committees
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance

Read More»

Dems Seek Hearing on Climate to Educate GOP

To address the profound state of GOP's climate change ignorance, Democrats have repeatedly requested formal hearings on the subject. Since May 2011 at least seven attempts have been made by the Democrats to stage hearings. To date they have all been declined by the GOP.Most recently top Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Bobby Rush of Illinois cited data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the basis for their hearing request.

Waxman is the ranking Democrat on the Republican-majority energy committee and Rush is the ranking Democrat on the panel’s subcommittee on energy and power. They addressed the letter to their counterparts Chairman Fred Upton and Rep. Ed Whitfield. The letter cited Republican refusal to accept the scientific observation that the earth is warming.

Part of the NOAA data including temperature statistics for January which were the fourth warmest on record. In January the average temperature in the US (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) was 5.5 degrees above normal. NOAA reports also show that above-normal temperatures are part of a global trend. According to NOAA statistics the years between 2001-2011 are among the warmest years worldwide in recorded history.

In a Mach 7, 2012 letter to GOP committee leaders, Waxman and Rush wrote that a hearing to discuss these findings would “provide members with a more robust understanding of the scientific consensus around rising temperatures.” They went on to say, “Denial of basic science is a serious obstacle for action to understand and address global climate change,”

In the letter, the two Democrats also pointed to NOAA information which revealing that the first two months of this winter are the fourth warmest on record, with 22 states experiencing unusually high temperatures.

Some of the most anomalous warm weather this winter occurred in the Northern Plains where temperatures climbed to 71 degrees in Jackson County, on January 5. Minnesota temperatures in December and January were 10.1 degrees above average, the warmest such period on record for that state.

Thus far there has been no response from the GOP to the request for climate change hearings. It may very well be that in addition to serving the interests of their patrons in the old energy economy, Republicans enjoy their ignorance because it gives them a platform to resist the Democrats.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
The Republican Assault on the Environment
The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the Remaining GOP Presidential Candidates
The Koch Brother's Ties to GOP Presidential Candidates
Rick Santorum's Anti-Environmental Theology
Foster Friess is the Climate Denying Money Man Behind Santorum
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Climate Change
Gerry Connolly Video: Climate Disasters And GOP Denial
The Foxes in the Henhouse: GOP in Charge of Energy and Climate Committees
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Tea Party Bolsters Republican Commitment to Obstructionism
Science and Pernicious Ignorance of Climate Change Denial
How to get Through to Climate Change Deniers
Heartland Institute's Deniergate
US Consumer Attitudes on Green
What is Wrong with the Right

Read More»

The Green School In Bali

John Hardy and his wife Cynthia have lived in Bali for 30 years and in 2008 they established the Green School. The Green School provides a holistic international curriculum for students from preschool and kindergarten through year eight.

The Green School is also about to add International Baccalaureate (IB) accreditation to its degree programs. The IB Diploma is a two year Program designed to prepare students, normally aged 16 to 19, for success at university and life beyond.

The Green School strives to develop lifelong moral and intellectual growth. The Green School educates their students for the 21st century, including weaving environmental concerns into their philosophy and daily lives. They foster innovative and entrepreneurial learning, connected to environmental responsibility, and a deep respect for science, self and cultural diversity. The school’s original faculty and student body came from 16 countries around the world.

The school itself is a sustainable structure made of bamboo, mud, and local grass. The Green School has its own farm, a bicycling program, solar power, and an organic chocolate factory. It is located on the eight-hectare Kul-Kul Campus on the Ayung River in Sibang Kaja, Bali.

The Green School is developing green curriculums as well as green enterprises which are providing students with more exposure to the economy of environmental stewardship.
___________________________________

Related Posts
Green School Census
China’s Green School Project
The University of Hong Kong's Sustainable Development
China Europe International Business School's Green Campus Initiative
The Development of Sustainable Education at South China Normal University
China Turns to International Community to Learn about Green Buildings
Green Buildings Combat Climate Change
Green School in India: Shoolini University
Green School Rejuvenates Dying Town
Da Vinci Arts Middle School in Portland
Ferrum College's Climate Research Opportunities
Leading the Green Job Market with a Sustainable MBA
The University of Oregon's MBA and Green Chemistry
Marylhurst's MBA in Sustainable Business
MODUL University's Sustainable MSc
West Michigan's Green Academic Offerings
Arizona State University's Sustainable Business Curriculum
Arizona State University and Green Supply Chains
Penn State's Online B.A. in Energy and Sustainability Policy
CleanEdison Building and Design Courses
Commonground University's Online Environmental Classes
Walden University's PhD in Sustainability Online Degree
UBC`s PhD in Resource Management and Environmental Studies
Prescott College`s Ph.D in Sustainability
PhD in Innovation and Governance for Sustainable Development
Columbia University's PhD in Sustainable Development
NYC Public School's Green Initiatives
America`s Greenest School Contest 2010
LAUSD Green School Initiatives
California's Green Schools (Videos)
Hult International Business School Publication "Greenovate!"
Sierra's Top 100 Cool Schools
The Princeton Review Green Colleges Honor Role 2010

Read More»