With the August 22nd meeting of the Democratic National
Committee fast approaching, DNC chair Tom
Perez has filed a resolution to
block
the establishment of a Democratic presidential debate focused on climate
change. Spurred by youth climate activists, nearly every
candidate
supports such a debate.
The Perez resolution argues that the climate town-hall forums scheduled
by
CNN
and
MSNBC
for September, in which candidates would be interviewed separately, are
a sufficient substitute for a debate.
The resolution concludes:
WHEREAS, Democratic candidates for President
of the United States are demonstrating their commitment to tackling
the issue of climate change, having already scheduled two televised
forums on CNN and
MSNBC to discuss the issue, and debating the
issue during each of the DNC-sanctioned
presidential primary debates;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, Democrats
will address the serious threat of climate change through bold and
inclusive solutions that grow the clean energy economy and expand
America’s middle class.
Perez was backed by Barack Obama to block environmental-justice leader
Keith Ellison from becoming chair.
In an encouraging sign for those seeking to make the vision of the Green
New Deal a reality, a coalition of mostly white environmental
organizations and predominantly black environmental justice
organizations have released the “Equitable & Just National Climate
Platform.”
The platform is a vision statement for American climate justice policy,
with signatories “committed to advancing a bold and equitable national
climate agenda and believe that all people and all communities have the
right to breathe clean air, live free of dangerous levels of toxic
pollution, access healthy food, and share the benefits of a prosperous
and vibrant clean economy.”
The Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources
Defense Council, and Union of Concerned Scientists are also members of
the BlueGreen Alliance which released a similar labor-focused
platform
in June.
Platform co-authors and inaugural signatories: Center for American
Progress, Center for Earth, Energy and Democracy, Center for the Urban
Environment, John S. Watson Institute for Public Policy, Thomas Edison
State University, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice,
Earthjustice, Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy
Reform, Harambee House–Citizens for Environmental Justice, League of
Conservation Voters, Little Village Environmental Justice Organization,
Los Jardines Institute, Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition,
Midwest Environmental Justice Network, Natural Resources Defense
Council, New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, ReGenesis Project,
Sierra Club, Tishman Environment and Design Center at the New School,
Union of Concerned Scientists, WE ACT for
Environmental Justice.
Environmental justice organization inaugural signatories: 2BRIDGE
CDX / BTB Coalition,
Agricultura Cooperative Network, Alaska Community Action on Toxics,
Black Environmental Collective-Pittsburgh, Black Millennials 4 Flint,
Black Youth Leadership Development Institute, Center on Race, Poverty
and the Environment, Citizens for Melia, Clean Power Lake County,
Coalition of Community Organizations, Community Housing and Empowerment
Connections, Community Members for Environmental Justice, Concerned
Citizens Coalition of Long Branch, Concerned Citizens of Wagon Mound and
Mora County, Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice, Dakota
Wicohan, Delaware Concerned Residents for Environmental Justice, Dr.
Cesar G. Abarca, Dr. Fatemeh Shafiei, Dr. Marisol Ruiz, Dr. Robert
Bullard, East Michigan Environmental Action Council, Eduardo Aguiar, El
Chante: Casa de Cultura, Farmworker Association of Florida, Flint
Rising, Georgia Statewide Network for Environmental Justice and Equity,
Greater Newark Conservancy, Green Door Initiative, Greenfaith, Ironbound
Community Corporation, Jesus People Against Pollution, Las Pistoleras
Instituto Cultural de Arte, Lenape Indian Tribe of Delaware, Louisiana
Democracy Project, Minority Workforce Development Coalition, Mossville
Community in Action, Native Justice Coalition, Organizacion en
California de Lideres Campesinas, Inc., Partnership for Southern Equity,
People Concerned About Chemical Safety, People for Community Recovery,
PODER, Reverend Canon Lloyd S. Casson,
Rubbertown Emergency ACTion, Tallahassee Food Network, Texas Coalition
of Black Democrats, Texas Drought Project, Texas Environmental Justice
Advocacy Services, The Wise Choice, Inc., Tradish “Traditional Real
Foods,” Tusconians for a Clean Environment, UrbanKind Institute, We the
People of Detroit, West County Toxics Coalition, Wisconsin Green
Muslims.
The climate-activist organization Bold Iowa has announced it plans to
host a climate debate in the fall among Democratic presidential
candidates, despite the Democratic National Committee’s refusal to
sanction such a debate. In the first two DNC
debates, each featuring ten candidates, a total of [fifteen minutes was
given to
climate](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28062019/democratic-debate-climate-change-candidate-policy-ideas-technology-agriculture-midwest-global-warming)
– less than a minute per candidate.
Volunteers with the organization have begun asking the candidates to
commit to participation in their debate.
Fifteen of the
candidates
have previously said they would be willing to participate in a climate
debate, though that was under the assumption it would be a
DNC-sanctioned debate. The
DNC has threatened that any candidate
participating in a non-sanctioned debate would be barred from future
DNC debates, though it is hard to see how they
would enforce that if the frontrunners agreed to participate in the
climate debate.
Press release:
DES MOINES, IOWA — Bold Iowa today announced
it will host a debate this fall specifically focused on the climate
crisis. Bold’s 270 Iowa Caucus volunteers, known as Climate Bird Dogs,
are shifting their focus to get Democratic presidential candidates to
commit to participate in the climate debate, even at the risk of being
barred from future DNC-sponsored debates.
“Like more and more people across the country, Democratic voters in
Iowa are tired of Party leaders who ignore the climate crisis that
threatens our very survival,” said Bold Iowa director, Ed Fallon. “No
doubt, the fact that the DNC reversed its
ban on accepting fossil-fuel donations and let the American Petroleum
Industry pony-up $700,000 for the Party’s 2016 national convention
explains why it won’t allow a climate debate. Well, Iowans have had
enough. If the DNC won’t host a climate
debate, we will. Starting today, we’re going to find out which
candidates are true climate champions and ready to debate the climate
crisis, regardless of what the DNC says.”
Climate Bird Dogs have been active across Iowa since the first of the
year. They’ve addressed the climate crisis with 20 presidential
candidates at over 100 events, questioning them on the Green New Deal,
the Dakota Access Pipeline, fossil-fuel donations, and more. Bold’s
Climate Bird Dogs have sometimes moved beyond simply asking questions
of candidates to bringing signs into events where signs weren’t
allowed, co-opting photo lines, and dressing as “climate refugee”
penguins. Five Bold Iowa members were recently arrested at a
fundraiser attended by Donald Trump, dressed in black and wearing
Depends while holding a banner that read, “Climate Denier in the White
House scare the S#*T outta you? IT DOES
US!”
Bold Iowa is happy to partner with other entities to organize this
debate, which will happen unless either (1) the
DNC relents and agrees to host a
climate-specific debate, or (2) other national entities step forward
to host such a debate.
On June 24th, the BlueGreen Alliance released “Solidarity for Climate
Action”,
a compendium of labor and environmental principles with the goal of
achieving net-zero carbon pollution by 2050 in line with the Green New
Deal vision.
Several union leaders associated with the fossil-fuel industry have
responded to the call for a Green New Deal with skepticism or hostility,
despite its emphasis on full employment and a unionized workforce; the
work of the BlueGreen Alliance represents the viewpoint of another side
of labor movement. The opening lines of the document emphasize the
importance of collaboration as much as the end result:
“The BlueGreen Alliance and its labor and environmental partners are
committed to the vision, principles, and policies outlined in this
document, and are committed to a process of working together to identify
concrete solutions to achieve these goals.”
The high-level vision document was unveiled at a presentation featuring
Mike Williams of the BlueGreen Alliance, Leo Gerard of the United
Steelworkers, and the National Wildlife Federation’s Collin O’Mara.
The members of the Alliance include the environmental organizations
Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned
Scientists, Environmental Defense Action Fund, League of Conservation
Voters, and the National Wildlife Federation; and the labor unions
United Steelworkers, Communication Workers of America, Service Employees
International Union, International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail
and Transportation Workers (SMART), Utility Workers Union of America,
American Federation of Teachers, United Association of Plumbers and
Pipefitters (UA), and the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied
Craftworkers (BAC).
Today, Joe Biden
[became](https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/breaking-biden-endorses-climate-debate-fossil-fuel-phaseout-at-iowa-campaign-stop/)
the 15th [Democratic candidate for president to call for a climate
debate](http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2019/06/10/spurred-by-youth-climate-activists-over-a-dozen-democratic-candidates-call-for-climate-debate-nixed-by-dnc),
making a mockery of Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez’s
[claim](https://medium.com/@TomPerezforDNC/on-debates-3f6956696e7e) such
a debate would be “at the request of one candidate.”
Perez was evidently singling out Jay Inslee, who has made climate action
a centerpiece of his campaign.
In fact, the demand for a presidential debate focused on climate began
with the youth climate activist groups U.S. Youth Climate Strike and
Sunrise Movement. Inslee was the first candidate to support their
campaign, though over a dozen fellow candidates soon followed suit.
Biden joined the calls for a climate debate in a conversation with a
climate activist following a rally today in Ottumwa, Iowa, Greenpeace
reports.
Biden is the ninth of the 13 candidates who have fully qualified for the
DNC debates to endorse a climate debate.
In a Medium
post,
Perez—handpicked as chair by Barack Obama to thwart the candidacy of
Keith Ellison—pushed back on the growing calls for a climate debate.
“If we change our guidelines at the request of one candidate who has
made climate change their campaign’s signature issue, how do we say no
to the numerous other requests we’ve had?”
Perez has not indicated specifically what other existential issue a
majority of the Democratic candidates for president, spurred by
activists, have requested to debate.
The New York
Times has for years also hosted a high-priced global summit for the
chieftains of Big Oil.
The Oil & Money summit,
which occurs each October in London, will meet for the fortieth time
this October 8th to 10th at the luxury Intercontinental London Park Lane
hotel. Top
speakers this
year include the CEOs of BP and Royal Dutch Shell, and the oil ministers
of Qatar and Iraq.
The theme,
“Strategies for the Energy Transition,” “reflects the crossroads at
which the energy industry now finds itself:”
Advances in technology, ranging from electric vehicles and battery
charging to solar and wind power promise extensive disruption to
existing patterns of energy usage and threaten the dominance of oil
and gas in areas like transportation and power generation. But at the
same time, technology breakthroughs in other fields have made the
exploration and development of petroleum resources cheaper, safer and
more efficient.
The overview politely avoids mention of fossil-fueled global warming,
referring only to how the oil and gas industry is “harnessing new
technologies” to “reduce its carbon footprint.”
The first
day’s focus is
the natural gas industry—two of the sessions do explicitly mention
climate change, in the context of environmentally conscious investors
and the promotion of natural gas “as a bridge fuel to a lower carbon
economy.”
The second day’s focus is on the geopolitics of the global oil market;
the third day discusses what’s needed to keep the U.S. fracking boom
going (“technology holds the key to sustaining US tight oil growth once
all the best sweet spots have been produced”) and the threat of electric
vehicles to the oil industry.
At no point does it appear that the threat of civilizational collapse
due to the continued combustion of fossil fuels, nor the industry’s
decades-long campaign to thwart government regulation of climate
pollution, will be discussed.
Tickets to the
summit are $4,195; for another $795 attendees get the
benefit of
“Toasting the Energy Intelligence Petroleum Executive of the Year with
colleagues and clients at the prestigious annual gala dinner.” This
year’s honoree is Ben van Beurden, CEO of
Royal Dutch Shell.
With about 500 attendees, this one conference raises over two million
dollars for the Times and its co-host, the industry publisher Energy
Intelligence.
A handful of young oil and gas professionals get to attend the
conference with the ironically named “Energy Leaders for
Tomorrow”
sponsorship.
The New York Times Company’s president of its international business,
Stephen
Dunbar-Johnson,
will be opening the summit. On Twitter, he has frequently professed
greatconcern about
the Trump administration’s attacks on climate policy. He has not
indicated how he will address the world’s lords of oil.
In a
statement
to DeSmog UK in 2018, a New York Times Company spokeswoman said the
conference would “address the transition to a low carbon economy, an
issue which has been covered extensively by The New York Times. That
transition is unlikely to occur without the participation of the world’s
largest energy companies.”
A newer addition to the New York Times
Conferences line-up is the New Rules
Summit, where the New York Times calls
on leaders “to create a boldly inclusive vision of the workplace— and
transform it into reality.” Its speakers reflect that mission- 29 of 34
are women, the majority non-white. The New York Times does not appear to
be calling on Oil & Money attendees to do the same—only two of the 53
speakers are women. There do not appear to be any black speakers.
Spurred
by teen-aged climate activists, a majority of the Democratic candidates
for president have called on the Democratic National Committee to hold a
debate focused on climate change.
This week, DNC chair Tom Perez
announced
no such debate would happen,
tweeting that
the DNC “will not be holding entire debates on
a single issue area – we want to make sure voters have the ability to
hear from candidates on all the issues.”
The U.S. Youth Climate Strike, led by a group of
teenagers inspired by
16-year-old activist Greta
Thunberg, has been bird-dogging
candidates since April 2019. With the support of MoveOn, the group
launched an online
petition to
the DNC that now has nearly 55,000 signatures.
A broad coalition of environmentalist and progressive groups followed
suit with a joint
petition
that now has over 191,000 signatures. A DailyKos
petition
has an additional 17,000 signatures and counting.
Below is a sourced listing of the 14 Democratic candidates for president
who have announced their support for a climate debate and when they did
so. Not only is that a majority of the 23 major
candidates
running for president, the list includes eight of the 14
candidates
who have passed the DNC threshold to qualify
for their debates (bold below).
Most of the announcements were in response to an in-person request from
a U.S. Youth Climate Strike activist, though some were in response to
reporter questions.
In their announcement of support for a climate debate, Gabbard and
Moulton campaigns called for another debate to focus on national
security.
Unlike the 2012 and 2016 elections, most of the Democratic candidates
have climate change a central theme of their campaigns, outlining
competing visions for transforming the United States toward
sustainability and climate justice.
Strangely, DNC spokesperson Xochitl Hinojosa
argued the DNC couldn’t host a climate debate
because it would favor Jay Inslee, who has made climate the central
theme of his presidential campaign. “Once we start allowing one
candidate to dictate what the debate is about, we have to say ‘yes’ to
all of them on their core issue,” Hinojosa told
HuffPost.
“Otherwise people would say we are benefiting one candidate. And if we
were to have issue-area debates, how do you pick 12 issue areas?”
On Sunday, Perez gave an even more incoherent excuse for refusing to
hold a climate debate, the Tampa Bay Times
reported.
Perez told activists at an event in Orlando: “It’s just not practical.
And as someone who worked for Barack Obama, the most remarkable thing
about him was his tenacity to multitask, and a president must be able to
multitask.”
Perez seems to be confused about the cross-cutting implications of
climate change despite his role as the head of the Democratic Party. The
2016 Democratic platform
claimed that “Democrats believe that climate change poses a real and
urgent threat to our economy, our national security, and our children’s
health and futures, and that Americans deserve the jobs and security
that come from becoming the clean energy superpower of the 21st
century,” and that “Democrats recognize the catastrophic consequences
facing our country, our planet, and civilization.”
Update 6/13 Updated to reflect that Kirsten Gillibrand had passed
both criteria (polling and contributors) for the debates on Monday.
Democratic presidential contenders Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren have
released climate plans. Warren’s plan appears somewhat more ambitious,
whereas Biden’s plan explicitly endorses carbon-capture technology.
“100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050”
“federal investment of $1.7 trillion over the next ten years”
“investing $400 billion over ten years” in “clean energy research and
innovation”
including “double down on federal investments and enhance tax
incentives for carbon capture, use and storage” and nuclear power
research
The Biden plan also notes: “If the global temperature continues to
increase at the current rate and surpasses 1.5°C, the existential threat
to life will not be limited to just ecological systems, but will extend
to human life as well.” However, the goals of the plan do not appear to
be in line with the global emissions reductions needed to keep warming
below 1.5°C.
In other newsmaking, it appears Joe Biden is accepting the aims of the
No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, if not yet having formally signed on:
“Biden for President will not accept contributions from oil, gas and
coal corporations or executives.”
”$400 billion in funding over the next ten years for clean energy
research and development”
”$1.5 trillion federal procurement commitment over the next ten years”
” a new federal office dedicated to selling American-made clean,
renewable, and emission-free energy technology abroad and a $100
billion commitment to assisting countries to purchase and deploy this
technology”
“we must cut projected global emissions by more than half by 2030”
The plans are surprisingly similar in terms of scope, especially in
terms of the budget expenditures, and in many of the details. Warren’s
plan calls for greater expenditure in federal procurement than Biden’s,
and appears more ambitious in terms of emissions targets. Notably,
Warren frequently refers to the Green New Deal, which she has endorsed,
whereas Biden praises the Green New Deal’s “framework” but does not
appear to follow its particulars closely.
Update: As first noticed by Credo Action’s Josh
Nelson, the
Biden plan cribbed some text directly from the labor-environmentalist
group Blue Green Alliance and from the fossil-fuel-industry Carbon
Capture Coalition. The Biden campaign has since directly credited those
organizations, which appear to be advising the campaign.
Experienced environmental lobbyists and former House colleagues Ana
Unruh Cohen and Alison Cassady have been tapped by Rep. Kathy Castor
(D-Fla.) to become the chief and deputy chief of staff respectively for
the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. Unruh Cohen had been the
deputy director of the committee’s predecessor, the Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming.
They previously worked directly together as staffers helping to craft
the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) for their bosses
Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) from 2007
until the bill’s demise in 2009.
Dr. Unruh Cohen was a long-time staffer for Markey, moving with him to
the U.S. Senate before becoming the top lobbyist for the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC); Cassady was a long-time staffer for
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) before becoming the head of Energy and
Environment Policy at the Center for American Progress—a role Unruh
Cohen originated in 2004.
Unruh Cohen’s Hill experience also includes working as the deputy staff
director of the Natural Resource Committee Democratic staff.
Unruh Cohen holds a bachelor’s in chemistry from Trinity University and
received her PhD in earth sciences from Oxford University, where she was
a Rhodes Scholar. She is based in NRDC’s
Washington, D.C., office.
As the managing director of Energy and Environment Policy at the Center
for American Progress, Cassady wrote reports on issues as varied as the
social cost of
carbon
and the power of corporate polluter
lobbyists.
Cassady joined CAP after working as a senior
professional staff member for Rep. Henry Waxman and the U.S. House of
Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, where she focused on
unconventional oil and gas development, climate change, air quality, and
nuclear issues.
As a House staffer, Cassady led an investigation into hydraulic
fracturing, uncovering the continued use of diesel fuel in hydraulic
fracturing and writing a first-of-its-kind report on the chemical
components of hydraulic fracturing
fluids.
Cassady developed additional expertise on offshore oil and gas
development as a key member of the Energy and Commerce Committee team
investigating the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in 2010.
She also served Rep. Waxman during his tenure as chairman of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and helped investigate the
events leading to the financial crisis in 2008. Before beginning her
time in the House, Cassady was research director for Environment America
and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. She is a graduate of the
Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.
The
Labor Network for Sustainability has released “18 Strategies for a
Green New Deal: How to Make a Climate Mobilization
Work,”
a paper intended to “stimulate discussion of the Green New Deal among
labor, environmental, progressive, policy, and justice constituencies.”
The paper, authored by LNS Research and Policy
Director Jeremy Brecher, details 18 strategies for implementing the
Green New Deal
resolution’s
broad goals, organized in three parts:
Part 1: Mobilize government
Establish Green New Deal mobilization agencies
Use regulatory powers to freeze, phase-out, and replace all fossil
fuel infrastructure
Use government to plan the transition
Establish Green New Deal agencies for reorganizing economic sectors
Use government to reshape the market
Use the tools of macroeconomic policy
Use the powers of government to rectify past and present injustices
Protect low-income energy consumers
Empower community-led initiatives
Democratize democracy
Part 2: Mobilize labor
Leave no worker behind
Guarantee jobs for all
Ensure workers rights and good union jobs
Part 3: Mobilize money and material resources
Capture the benefits of the transition to fossil free energy
Make the polluters pay
Cut wasteful and unnecessary spending
Mobilize investment
Support and fund a Global Green New Deal
The mission of the Labor Network for Sustainability is to engage workers
and communities in building a transition to a society that is
ecologically sustainable and economically just.
With the August 22nd meeting of the Democratic National
Committee fast approaching, DNC chair Tom
Perez has filed a resolution to
block
the establishment of a Democratic presidential debate focused on climate
change. Spurred by youth climate activists, nearly every
candidate
supports such a debate.
The climate-activist organization Bold Iowa has announced it plans to
host a climate debate in the fall among Democratic presidential
candidates, despite the Democratic National Committee’s refusal to
sanction such a debate. In the first two 
The New York
Times has for years also hosted a high-priced global summit for the
chieftains of Big Oil.
Spurred
by teen-aged climate activists, a majority of the Democratic candidates
for president have called on the Democratic National Committee to hold a
debate focused on climate change.