NRDC Action Fund’s Weekly News Summary

Here’s what’s happening in politics and the environment:

Papah?naumoku?kea Marine National Monument is now larger than all the National Parks combined.

Hawaii’s new national monument is now larger than all the National Parks combined.

Top energy adviser says Donald Trump is solidly behind fracking- Donald Trump said he could support local bans on fracking. Then oil mogul Harold Hamm corrected the record. (Wall Street Journal)

Hawaii is now home to an ocean reserve twice the size of Texas- The National Park Service turned 100 this week, and President Obama celebrated by creating the biggest protected area on the planet. (National Geographic)

California lawmakers approve extension of climate change law- It’s the most aggressive climate change legislation in the country. (Fox Business)

Changing opinions on climate change, from a CNN meteorologist- A CNN meteorologist explains why climate change is an urgent problem, not a political football. (CNN)

America’s first offshore wind farm may power up a new industry- Five windmills off the coast of Rhode Island will power 17,000 New England homes. (New York Times)

Coal towns hit by layoffs to get job grants from U.S. gov’t- The Obama administration awarded nearly $39 million in grants to Appalachian communities. (ABC News)

Donald Trump should stop lying about coal

Trump coalOn Wednesday, the Obama Administration announced $38.8 million in federal grants for economic development projects in communities that are experiencing the toughest impacts of a declining coal industry. The awards are among the first of President Obama’s POWER+ plan which proposes $9 billion in investments to support economic development in regions that have for many decades relied on the coal industry for jobs and economic stability. Despite the GOP’s insistence that a Trump administration will bring about a resurgence of coal, the President is forging a more realistic path forward for coal country.

Earlier this year, we reported on the dangers of playing politics with this issue. As cheap natural gas undercuts demand for coal and the United States works to limit dangerous carbon pollution that destabilizes the climate, coal-mining communities will continue to face tough economic times. President Obama aims to make a real difference in the lives of folks impacted by the transition to cleaner energy sources.

Hillary Clinton does too. Secretary Clinton has proposed a $30 billion plan to revitalize America’s coal communities, ensuring coal miners and their families retain their rightful place in a 21st century economy. Building on President Obama’s progress, Clinton’s plan would invest in the economic diversification of coal communities, creating new high-skill jobs and ensuring access to much-needed healthcare. Hillary Clinton plans to help coal communities retrain and retool, emerging healthier and more prosperous than before.

Donald Trump, however, does not. Mr. Trump promises to reopen coal mines closed by failing coal companies, companies that irresponsibly banked on an industry they knew was, in a competitive market, destined for collapse (paying out huge CEO bonuses in the process). Mr. Trump claims to be“thinking about miners all over this country.” Clearly, he isn’t.

If he were, he’d stop making empty promises to hard-working Americans who have lost pensions they’ve counted on for decades. He’d develop a plan to help laid off coal miners learn the skills they need to succeed without relocating themselves and their families. If Mr. Trump cared about the miners, he’d admit that climate change isn’t a “hoax” invented by China but an urgent problem that is profoundly changing the way Americans produce and consume energy.

The next administration must build on President Obama’s economic redevelopment progress in the face of climate change. Every effort to undermine it will leave hardworking Americans and their communities less prepared for a 21st century economy. Donald Trump’s attempt to deny American families economic opportunities for his own political gain isn’t just bad policy?—?i
t’s bad character.

Kevin Curtis is executive director of the NRDC Action Fund.

Energy, Jobs and the Election

solar-panel-installerThe fossil fuel industry is betting big on the dirty energy sources of the past. They’re working furiously, and spending millions, to attack pro-environment candidates as Americans begin to turn our attention to the 2016 election. The same industry that bankrolled the climate denial conspiracy movement now wants us to believe that supporting clean energy solutions means putting people out of work. That’s not just silly, it’s dangerous.

Serious people, including the vast majority of American voters, understand taxpayers cannot afford to continue subsidizing the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our planet, its climate and our future. We can’t risk the mass disruption that will follow if we don’t put the brakes on runaway carbon pollution. And as scary as the consequences of climate inaction may be, there’s a huge economic upside to embracing the clean energy revolution that’s already well underway. Clean energy job creation is vastly outpacing jobs in the dirty fuels sectors, and smart public officials are creating policies to attract those good-paying jobs to their cities and states.

As Ohio’s governor, Ted Strickland helped create tens of thousands of advanced-energy manufacturing jobs and lowered electricity costs for Ohioans by working to pass ambitious renewable and advanced energy standards. Now in his campaign for Senate, Strickland is facing millions of dollars in negative ads run by a pro-fossil fuels group with ties to the Koch brothers. Ted Strickland worked to create energy jobs in Ohio, the kind that will help the state’s economy, its environment, and the health of Ohioans. But fossil fuel companies fear a clean energy economy will break our addiction to oil and gas. They’re focused on keeping us hooked, keeping their tax breaks and keeping the dangers of climate change under wraps.

Energy jobs are helping to power America’s future, but the vast majority of them will be in clean energy sectors like solar and wind power, energy efficiency and advanced transportation. We have to help coal communities and families who will be adversely impacted by the transition to cleaner energy sources, but it would be dangerous and foolish to turn our backs on a brighter future.

Big Oil is hoping we’ll buy the false argument that America can do no better than propping up old, dirty, and increasingly unprofitable industries. They’re spending big this election season betting voters will ignore the obvious and growing dangers of a rapidly warming planet. They’re doubling down on the lie that the only good energy jobs are dirty energy jobs.

It’s time to call their bluff.

Denis Dison is communications director at the NRDC Action Fund.

Kaine KOs Pence in Environmental Showdown

pence-kaineBy Wesley Warren

Olympic boxing is here but another matchup between Clinton-Kaine and Trump-Pence is coming this fall. With the conventions behind us, it’s a good time to do an autumn election debate preview. And because the records of the VP choices are less well known, let’s start with a head-to-head contest about their positions on the environment and clean energy.

So it’s Virginia Senator Tim Kaine versus Indiana Governor Mike Pence for vice president of the United States in a best of six rounds.

Round 1: Overall Environmental Record in Congress

A revealing and stark comparison between the two candidates is their lifetime League of Conservation Voters rating for their years in Congress. In his first four years Kaine has compiled a very high score of 91% as a U.S. senator. In fact LCV called his selection “awesome” when it was announced. Meanwhile Governor Mike Pence of Indiana barely scraped together a rating of 4% during his 12 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he cast an array of votes against cleaning up air and water, increasing safety for potentially hazardous chemicals, and reducing taxpayer subsidies for polluting industries.

Score Kaine 1/Pence 0

Round 2: Belief in the Science of Climate Change

One of the most fundamental measures of commitment on environmental policy is whether a candidate agrees that the science on climate shows it’s time to act. Pence has marked himself as a climate denier, seeking to avoid action by calling the science “mixed.” In contrast Kaine has clearly sided with the science, even calling out his opponent on the subject, former Virginia governor George Allen, during the 2012 race for the Senate. As Senator Kaine also helped convene a bipartisan conference in 2014 to address the effects of climate change in Virginia in an effort to persuade federal and local elected officials about the science behind the threat of sea-level rise.

Score Kaine 2/ Pence 0

Round 3: Support for Cleaning up Old, Dirty Coal-Fired Power Plants

Coal-fired power plants pump out over a quarter of the carbon pollution in the U.S. every year. The best indicator about whether a candidate is serious about this problem is whether he or she backs the Obama administration’s proposal to reduce this pollution, known as the Clean Power Plan. Senator Kaineendorsed it saying that it was “the biggest step” the U.S. has even taken to reduce carbon pollution, while Donald Trump, Mike Pence and the Republican Party platform have all called for reversing it.

Kaine 3/Pence 0

Round 4: Building the Keystone Pipeline

Last year President Obama disapproved construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that would have brought filthy tar sands from Canada into the U.S. Before the decision was made Kaine penned a Washington Post op-ed calling on the president to reject the pipeline because we need “to make energy tomorrow cleaner than it is today.” Governor Pence instead wrote the president in 2014 urging him to approve it.

Score Kaine 4/Pence 0

Round 5: Record as Governor

As governor Kaine showed real leadership on climate issues. In 2007 he created by executive order the Commission on Climate Change to help the state cope with the effects of climate change and to make recommendations for reducing carbon pollution even further than the 30% reduction goal in his existing Virginia Energy Plan. He also advanced measures to protect 400,000 acres of land and open space from development.

Unfortunately Pence led his state in the opposite direction when he had a chance. In March of 2014 he allowed the legislature to repeal Energizing Indiana, a program that had helped utility customers cost-effectively reduce their energy consumption while creating 19,000 jobs, according to an independent study.

Score Kaine 5/Pence 0

Round 6: Oil and Gas Development

As a member of Congress Pence was a staunch supporter of the oil and gas industry. His one-sided voting on these issues included (among many other items) such anti-environmental stances as: opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for development; expanding off-shore drilling, including in the Atlantic; increasing domestic natural gas production; providing taxpayer giveaways to industry; and opposing stricter safety controls on off-shore drilling after the giant Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Although Kaine has a clear history of supporting clean energy alternatives to oil and gas, his position on natural gas is complicated. He has supported greater regulation of the oil and gas industry, but he has been criticized y some environmnetalists for promoting natural gas export terminals and favoring fracking for greater natural gas production. Previously he had also been open to off-shore oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic, but earlier this week he came out in opposition to it, citing concerns voiced by the Department of Defense.

More should be expected from Kaine on issues like natural gas production, given his acceptance of the science on climate change, and environmentalists will need to continue to make the case for more action to the presidential tickets. Nevertheless, since it’s fair to say that Pence is worse than Kaine on any oil and gas issue environmentalists care about?—?Pence being unconstrained by any climate considerations?—?it would also be fair to award this round to Kaine all things considered. On a call closer than it should be, the final round also goes to Kaine.

Final Talley: Kaine 6/Pence 0

Both presidential candidates picked running mates they thought could help them in swing Midwestern coal states. Pence will argue hard for a return to the twentieth century model of heavy fossil-fuel dependency while Kaine will point forward to the vast potential of the clean energy economy using solar, wind and energy efficiency. Kaine no doubt believes he has the better case to make economically and politically based on his experience from 2014, when in an interview with the NRDC Action Fund he credited environmental issues and environmental groups as giving him an edge in his senate race.

With few differences the vice-presidential nominees closely mirror their presidential ticket-mate on energy and environmental issues. In this VP face-off it’s not even close on who offers the better choice for America or what’s at stake for our environmental future. It’s a knock-out for Tim Kaine.

Wesley Warren is a guest blogger for the NRDC Action Fund.  He previously worked as senior environmental official in the White House from 1994-2001 and before that as legislative staff on energy and environmental issues in the U.S. House of Representatives. A former Director of Policy Advocacy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, he now does private consulting.

Environmental Justice, Hillary Clinton, and the Rising American Electorate

By Ellice Ellis

Hillary in Flint

Hillary Clinton addresses the Flint water crisis during a presidential debate.

The water crisis in Flint, Michigan thrust environmental justice issues into the national spotlight during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.

The gap between the Democratic primary candidates’ positions on environmental justice and how to address the still unresolved Flint water crisis might not have been very wide, but in the general election, there is a deep gulf between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Flint remains in the middle of an almost 2-year long public health crisis. Earlier this year, we learned that thousands of children had been exposed to dangerous levels of lead in their drinking water. State and local officials failed Flint’s residents, who are 56.6 percent black, another 8 percent Latino or mixed race, and 41.5 percent living in poverty.

Hillary Clinton was the first presidential candidate to visit Flint, drawing further national attention to its plight. During an interview with Rachel Maddow back in January, she showed her outrage and frustration with the lack of response from the local government and called for widespread improvements to infrastructure. After all, Flint is far from the only example of failures to protect Americans’ drinking water: an NRDC analysis of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency records revealed that at least 18 million Americans could be exposed to lead in their tap water.

Clinton understands that everyone has a right to clean drinking water, regardless of race or income. In an MSNBC op-ed, Clinton pledged to “…make environmental justice a central part of [her] comprehensive commitment to low-income communities of color…”

In sharp contrast to Trump’s dangerous disregard for environmental protections and public health, Clinton’s positions and record on these issues is in line with the concerns of one of America’s most important electorates. Black Americans, Latinos, other peoples of color and millennials — collectively known as the Rising American Electorate (RAE) — have proven not only essential to winning national elections, as seen in 2012, but also fundamentally concerned about environmental issues.

Latinos are deeply culturally connected to the environment, according to Pamela Rivera, Partnership Engagement Advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “For many, the cultivation of the land is how they feed their families and support themselves,” she said, which makes the protecting the earth from climate change an important issue in their minds.

During the 2012 election, the RAE collectively made up 48 percent of the overall electorate.  This ratio helped to elect the nation’s first black president. And the RAE has continued to grow — all races except non-Hispanic whites have had more births than deaths between 2013 and 2014.

The groups that make up this politically essential electorate most acutely feel the impacts of climate change and other environmental issues. This could explain why, of registered voters, 63 percent of the RAE is concerned about climate change (compared to only 50 percent of other Americans).

Despite occurring more than a decade ago, Hurricane Katrina devastated Gulf states serving as a powerful reminder of low-income and minority communities’ vulnerability to weather events exacerbated by climate change. Rising sea levels primarily impact the coastal lands on which more African Americans are likely to live than any other minority group, according to this NAACP fact sheet.

The tragic effects Katrina had on the residents of New Orleans, a coastal city with a black population of 58.5 percent, were followed by the federal government’s slow response to help the victims. There are clear parallels in how the state of Michigan initially ignored warning signs of lead poisoning among Flint residents.

Latinos make up over half the population of urban areas such as East Los Angeles and San Antonio, Texas. They are 30 percent more likely to take trips to the hospital for asthma triggered by inner-city air pollution.

Clinton’s focus on environmental justice will likely hit home with these communities in the RAE. Her focus is in contrast to an avidly climate-denying GOP candidate who says that climate change is a hoax invented by China to cripple the U.S. economy and gain competitive advantage. Trump also says he wants to eliminate the ‘Department of Environment Protection,’ which presumably is what he thinks the EPA is called.

Trump’s plan to abolish the EPA would prevent the enforcement of bedrock environmental protections. This would leave vulnerable communities, especially those in the RAE, unprotected from environmental hazards.

Trump and the multitude of former GOP presidential candidates this election cycle have displayed the profound disconnect between the Republican Party in its current form and the issues the RAE care about.

The polarized political views on climate change across and the spotlight on the Flint water crisis have propelled environmental issues into higher focus ahead of November. The stark contrasts between the candidates on these issues could mean these issues play a more prominent role in encouraging voters to turn out.

In late July, Clinton became the first woman to accept the presidential nomination of a major U.S. political party. Her record as an environmental champion, underscored by her support from major environmental groups, prove that she’s well-positioned to protect and strengthen President Obama’s legacy on environmental protections and climate action. In a world where the six most influential positions at the global United Nations climate talks are all held by women, Clinton is poised to continue female environmental leadership and use her status to inspire members of America’s quickly growing Rising American Electorate.

This election cycle, climate draws an obvious distinction between Clinton and Trump. The current status of the Democratic Party platform sets Clinton up to run on the strongest climate change agenda ever. On the other hand, Trump’s running mate Mike Pence is a fellow climate-denier who has called global warming a myth. When RAE voters head to the polls in November, they will remember Clinton’s many endorsements from environmental groups, her awareness of environmental justice issues and commitment to tackling them, and her climate action plan.

Despite climate-denying politicians and the gulf in climate science acceptance across party lines, Americans want action on climate change. New polling tells us 7 in 10 voters support a role for the federal government in reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change.

If a Donald Trump presidency becomes our reality in November, very few in the White House will heed the concerns most Americans have for their families’ health and for years of American environmental progress.

Ellice Ellis is an intern at NRDC Action Fund through the Urban Alliance program, which pairs D.C.-area high school students with internships in potential career fields.