NRDC Action Fund’s Weekly News Summary


This is what the NRDC Action Fund has been reading this week:

Flint residents still can’t drink their tap water – Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) blocked a vote on a provision to provide funding to Flint, despite bipartisan support for providing the $250 million for repairs to the water lines and to address the public health effects from the crisis. (CNN)

Why stop with climate science? How far is too far? – GOP presidential candidates have rejected our shared reality of climate change, which is arguably a part of a larger trend of science denial. (NPR)

BILL BILL BILL BILL – Bill Nye doesn’t think Republicans have a shot at the White House as long as they keep denying climate change is real, thanks in part to millennials. (International Business Times)

Voters care about climate change – Precinct walkers and political spending are helping to make climate a salient issue for the November 2016 elections. (The American Prospect)

High stakes election – President Obama’s climate legacy, especially with the Paris climate agreement, will depend on who is elected as the next President. (International Business Times)

No really, it’s incredibly high stakes – This election will have a profound effect on one of the greatest risks facing the world right now — but people have a hard time grasping the dangers of climate change. (New York Times)

It’s not enough on its own – The next U.S. president will need to go further with climate action in order to meet commitments in the Paris agreement. (The Houston Chronicle)

NRDC Action Fund’s Weekly News Summary

This is what the NRDC Action Fund has been reading this week: 

Florida is Sinking, but Still Rubio Denies – “While panicking Miami policymakers are contemplating dire climate-related matters like the possibility of relocating people and infrastructure, Florida’s two presidential candidates are silent. Senator Marco Rubio and former Governor Jeb Bush have ignored the problem. Bush has no constituents to answer to anymore, but Rubio does. On the campaign trail, he brushes off questions about climate change by saying, “I’m not a scientist.” His silence is a stark contrast to the deeds of Florida’s senior senator, Bill Nelson, a Democrat and former astronaut. Last year, Nelson held a rare Senate field hearing in Miami Beach on sea level rise, and he frequently speaks about the issue on the Senate floor.” (Newsweek)

Christie Dropped the Ball – “At least $181 million was reserved for Sandy-damaged New York State, New York City and New Jersey to support resiliency against floods and disaster, as part of the National Disaster Resilience Competition. But New York state and city alone took home more than that for having strong applications.Meanwhile, the Garden State barely met the minimum score to receive any funding, according to U.S. Housing Secretary Julián Castro.” (WNYC)

UN Climate Chief: “Will Next U.S. President Lead on Climate? – In an interview with ClimateWire, Figueres brushed off questions about whether the landmark deal struck in December would be jeopardized if the United States elects a Republican president with a radically different stance on climate change than President Obama. She said she trusted that the current president had put forward a durable commitment, but also predicted the United States would keep its word if only out of self-interest. The world’s largest economy must decide “whether they want to be the leaders of the 21st century or whether they’re happy to be the leaders of the 20th century,” Figueres said. “Which century do you want to be in?” (E&E News)

From One GOP-er to Another: Republicans Needs to ‘Thaw’ on Global Warming – “Too many conservative politicians and pundit-entertainers tell us what we want to hear: We have problems, but climate change isn’t one of them. With the data now clearly overtaking the skeptics, the line from some leaders has softened to “I’m not a scientist.” Well, then, let’s listen to the actual scientists.” (USA Today)

Fact-checking Cruz’s Baloney Science – “Ted Cruz is decidedly at odds with the scientific consensus that Earth is warming because of human activity. A look at some of the Republican presidential contender’s claims on the subject in New Hampshire this week and how they compare with the facts: CRUZ: “The satellites that actually measure the temperature, that we’ve launched into the air to measure the temperature, they have recorded no significant warming whatsoever for the last 18 years.” THE FACTS: Scientists, including those who work with the very satellite measuring system that Cruz refers to, say he’s misusing the satellite data.” (Associated Press)

Denier Hall of Shame – “When federal scientists announced 2015 as the warmest year on record this week, Democrats and environmentalists responded by saying the new mark injected a sense of urgency into the fight against climate change. Republicans, including those running for president, mostly let the announcement slip by unmentioned. GOP candidates have ripped President Obama for his efforts to tackle climate change, arguing the president should be more focused on fighting international terrorism.” (The Hill)

Trump Blizzard of 2016 – “The GOP candidates for president missed the memo. They are too busy chasing Donald Trump…. Meanwhile, for Trump climate change is a problem to solve like walling off Mexico: “I will be the greatest negotiator with the weather the world has ever seen.” …And so, the Trump blizzard of 2016 is paradoxically more comforting than reality.” (Huffington Post)

Voters Grilling GOP on Climate Change – “Only a couple of weeks remain before the nation’s first presidential primary election in New Hampshire and Republican candidates are campaigning heavily in a vital effort to sway voters. On the stump, they are fielding questions from voters about climate change and energy policy. Here are a few of the questions voters are asking — and what a few of the candidates are saying.” (PRI)  

With This Congress, a GOP President Could Damage Environment

trump bushThroughout four Republican debates and plenty of campaign coverage, GOP presidential candidates have said little about how they would tackle climate change or protect the environment. Yet voters concerned about clean air, clean water and climate stability need only look to Congress to see what a Republican presidency could mean for public health and environmental protection.

Since gaining a majority, GOP lawmakers have tried to eviscerate the bedrock environmental laws that have protected America’s air, water and health for decades. The public doesn’t support these efforts. And the veto pen has killed any serious threats that have made it through the entire Congress. But proposing and passing dirty bills sends a powerful message (including to super PACs—many funded by polluting industries) that if a Republican is in the White House environmental laws will be gutted.

The Republican-led attacks in Congress have intensified as primary season nears. The Senate just passed a resolution that would kill the new Clean Water Rule, which restores protections for America’s streams, lakes and wetlands. That was followed by a vote this week on a resolution to wipe out the Clean Power Plan. And tensions are mounting over policy riders to funding bills that limit the federal government’s ability to safeguard against reckless fracking and conservation measures for endangered species.

Republicans will lose all of these battles. President Obama has promised to veto their anti-environmental bills and Republicans don’t have the votes to override those vetoes. Though they may slip a few riders through, their assault appears destined to fail this year—as it has in the past.

Yet many bills undercutting public health and environmental protections have garnered nearly 100 percent support from Republican lawmakers and less than 5 percent from Democrats. While some were blocked in the Senate, many of those bills would have become law if Obama had lost.

None of the leading Republican presidential candidates have offered a positive agenda for preserving the environment. Instead, they have embraced the party’s conservative hostility to any form of regulation—including those that keep pollution out of the air we breathe and the water we drink. When asked about the EPA, Donald Trump said simply, “What they do is a disgrace.” Even supposed “moderates” such as Jeb Bush and Chris Christie oppose the Clean Power Plan.

And yet, this return to darker, dirtier days is not what the vast majority of Americans want.

Voters of both parties want to provide their families with clean air and water, public lands to explore and home towns safe from extreme floods, drought and other hallmarks of climate change.

A full 94 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Republicans favor the Clean Water Rule protections for headwater streams and wetlands, according to a survey from Hart Research Associates. And 90 percent of Americans back the Endangered Species Act, according to a recent poll, and support stretches across the political spectrum.

Meanwhile, poll after poll after poll shows the vast majority of Americans want leaders to tackle climate change. And most Republican voters support clean energy. Seven in 10 conservative voters in early primary states want the next president to have a clean energy plan, and three-quarters of those voters want their state to submit a plan to comply with the Clean Power Plan, according to a survey by American Viewpoint.

The current GOP initiatives in Congress would block the very protections most voters support. But they would make life easier for polluting industries. Oil, gas and coal interests have spent billions of dollars in the past few years to elect and influence ideological lawmakers who will eviscerate our nation’s safeguards and halt climate action.

Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail are letting polluting companies know what they can expect from future GOP leadership. Americans should take note and vote for their own public interest—not dirty polluters.

Bush’s newly released energy policy looks backwards

Standing at a Pennsylvania oil and gas company with a history of more than one hundred environmental violations, presidential candidate and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced an energy plan just as fraught with failures. With today’s release of the plan, Bush has cemented his place among the many contenders for the White House who are keeping their heads firmly in the sand about climate change.

Bush’s proposed energy policies ignore the realities of climate change, as well as the will of his own voter base. A late August 2015 poll showed that a majority of Republicans believe climate change is real and that humans may be contributing to it. And 72 percent of GOP voters support developing and using clean energy.

Bush barely mentions clean energy technologies in his plan. Instead, he wants to cut regulations, build the Keystone XL pipeline, encourage drilling, and generally follow the agenda of big polluters that have given so generously to his campaign.

He says he wants to create jobs, but Bush’s plan will worsen climate change – costing jobs – and will undercut the booming clean energy economy in an ill-fated attempt to prop up big polluter industries. In contrast, clean energy industries have been adding hundreds of thousands of jobs each year. One NRDC study found that the Clean Power Plan could create more than 274,000 jobs and save consumers billions on their electricity bills, yet Bush’s plan seeks to scrap the plan altogether.

Fittingly, Bush chose Rice Energy as the setting for his energy plan announcement. While Rice Energy was racking up environmental violations, Pennsylvania’s clean energy economy has been growing and providing jobs for nearly 60,000 workers at more than 4,000 businesses with a strong employment growth rate of 8.5 percent.

Gov. Bush’s policy is so completely backwards facing that it’s hard to believe Gov. Bush is serious with this proposal. America needs a leader with a vision for a clean energy future, not a throwback to the big polluter agenda that got us into this mess.

American voters overwhelmingly favor serious action to protect the planet for their kids and grandkids, so Jeb Bush and the rest of the presidential candidates will have to do a lot better than this if they’re going to convince Americans they’re focused on the future rather than stuck in the past.

Climate Valentines: Time to Define the Relationship

February 14th is the day when Americans celebrate love with cards, flowers and chocolate. At my house, the kids are busy making paper hearts and cranking out scores of cards for their friends. Their handiwork inspired me to create a Valentine for members of Congress who need to have “the talk.”

Until just a few weeks ago, Republicans in Congress had largely denied or ignored the urgent need to act on climate change. Things have started to shift ever so slightly in the past few weeks: suddenly #DirtyDenier$ are getting real.

Maybe a climate cupid shot his arrows through the halls of the Senate, but at the end of last month, 53 GOP senators passed an amendment acknowledging the climate is changing, 15 approved an amendment saying humans have something to do with those changes, and 5 endorsed one saying human activity “significantly” contributes to climate change.

What do these votes mean? Is the GOP reconsidering its monogamous relationship with fossil fuel companies? Are they asking for an “open relationship” with the Koch Brothers? Is the GOP interested in seeing other voters?

It’s time for the talk: the “DTR” conversation that defines the relationship. That’s how we’ll know if the GOP is ready for that ultimate public declaration of love: the relationship status change on Facebook.

Voters are ready for a commitment. Two thirds of Americans favor the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to address climate change by limiting carbon pollution from power plants, according to a November survey by Harstad Strategic Research.

A New York Times/Stanford poll released last week found that a full 54 percent of Hispanics—that increasingly popular voting bloc—say climate change is extremely or very important to them personally, and 63 favor the federal government taking broad steps to address this crisis.

As Republican leaders try to define their relationship with climate change in advance of the 2016 election, the “it’s complicated” status will no longer suffice with the majority of voters.

GOP candidates who want to win in the next cycle have to get serious. It’s not enough to recognize that the climate is changing. They need to do something about it. They need to offer an action plan for confronting the biggest public health and environmental threat of our time. They need to put a ring on it.

My wish for this Valentine’s Day is for #DirtyDenier$ to truly define their relationship with climate change. And that they begin by ending their love affair with dirty polluters. Here’s what I would put on my Valentine:

Roses are red, the climate is hot. #RunningClean is cool, but #DirtyDenier$ are not.

Ok, so the makers of Sweethearts candies might not be hiring me anytime soon and the puns in the blog post may be a bit much. But my heart is in the right place: I truly hope the Republican Party will decide to act on our generations’ biggest challenge.