(China Dialogue) – The weeks after the Democratic Party won back control of the House of Representatives saw the longest government shutdown in US history, as President Trump unsuccessfully demanded money to pay for a wall on the Mexican border. Now that the shutdown is over, Democrats have started setting the agenda, and climate change is right at the top.

After delivering a storming victory in the midterm elections the new Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, was probably not expecting to be greeted with protests. But that’s what immediately faced her. Hordes of young activists sat outside her office demanding action on climate change. Newly elected members from the left-wing of the party, led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, increased the pressure, demanding that the party pursue a more radical agenda in line with the scale of the climate challenge and America’s responsibility to address it.

On February 7 they got their way. Ocasio-Cortez tabled a resolution calling for a Green New Deal, which, at the time of writing, has more than 60 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and is backed by most Democrat presidential candidates, including Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren.

Back on the table

Climate change has been off the table under Republican control of the House for the past eight years, so this has been a dramatic and unexpected change. Democrats are still a long way from being able to make laws – Republicans control the Senate and Donald Trump is still president – so the resolution is seen by many as symbolic, an opportunity for Democrats to make clear what they stand for. And the Green New Deal is an admirably clear articulation of a new climate agenda.

Those framing the Green New Deal take seriously the stark warnings set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the recent National Climate Assessment. The resolution calls for a 10-year national mobilisation “on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal” with the aim of getting to net zero emissions of greenhouse gases. Renewable energy, sustainable infrastructure and clean public transport are at the heart of the plan.

The Deal has brought climate change to the front of voters’ minds

The resolution avoids some of the more heated debates among activists and experts. There is no specific mention of nuclear energy, for example, only the aim to “meet 100% of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

Public awareness of the Green New Deal is low. Before its launch, only 17% of Americans had heard of it. But support for its contents, at this early stage, is surprisingly high: 81% of polled voters said they support the proposal.

Radical versus incremental

The resolution has sparked a fierce debate within the Democratic Party. Should the party be proposing such clear, radical ideas, in line with the scale of the problems the country faces? Or should it adopt a more incremental approach? And are big, simple ideas necessary to win elections? The Democrats have traditionally been cautious in their approach to climate, favouring incremental reforms, ideally with the backing of business. This approach has failed, been stymied or overturned by Republicans every time.

The Green New Deal is considerably more radical than the “Cap and Trade” bill which was passed by the House of Representatives before dying in the Senate in 2009, or President Obama’s subsequent Clean Power Plan. Both of these schemes had more modest targets, with significantly less government spending.

Ernie Moniz, energy secretary under former president Obama, who favours a more conciliatory approach, said, “It’s just impracticable… If we start putting out impracticable targets we may lose a lot of key constituencies that we need to bring along”.

The green dream?

Other critics of the plan point to different social policies it includes. Providing all members of society “with high-quality health care, affordable, safe and adequate housing, economic security” are laudable goals, but how will they be paid for? For her part, Speaker of the House Pelosi described it, somewhat dismissively, as the “green dream or whatever”.

Republicans have also sought to discredit the deal, deliberately mischaracterising its contents. President Trump sarcastically tweeted: “I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called ‘Carbon Footprint’ to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military – even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!”

While in the Senate, Republicans moved to force an immediate vote on the issue, with the aim of forcing more moderate Democrats to either vote for it, or oppose parts of their own voter base, weakening their chances of winning subsequent elections. A small minority of Republicans see this as an opportunity to advance their own, moderate climate proposals, including a small carbon tax.

Wherever it leads, it’s clear that the Green New Deal has brought climate change to the front of the minds of voters and politicians. Fierce public fights within and between political parties will now continue into the presidential campaign. In less than two months in office, Ocasio-Cortez has completely upended climate politics in the United States.

Via China Dialogue

Creative Commons License

——-

Bonus video added by Informed Comment:

Democrats push for a Green New Deal to combat climate change l Al Jazeera English

“Scott Pruitt is clinging on to his role as EPA Administrator following accusations of inappropriate dealings with lobbyists and unnecessary spending”

The Trump Administration has been marked by scandal after scandal. Controversies involving corruption, potential collusion with the Russian government, and hush-money paid to adult film actresses, have dominated news here in the United States.

Despite these salacious stories, Scott Pruitt, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has still managed to make headlines of his own. Now facing 12 separate investigations, it would seem a matter of time before he resigns or hears his boss’ famous catchphrase, “you’re fired”.

But President Trump and other Republican politicians are sticking with the embattled Pruitt. So why is he in trouble, what does it mean for climate change and the environment, and what’s likely to happen next?

While Pruitt has been keen to reduce the amount of money spent on environmental protection, he’s been less careful with his own spending, repeatedly billing the government for first-class travel, significantly increasing the size of his security detail on his first day as Administrator, and building a US$43,000 (274,000 yuan) secret phone booth as part of a concerted effort to avoid scrutiny and oversight of his behaviour.

The reasons for this obsession with secrecy and security have become clearer after a series of freedom of information requests made by journalists and environmental groups.

One of the more serious charges facing Pruitt is that he had inappropriate dealings with lobbyists for fossil fuel companies. These include renting a home owned by the wife of a lobbyist whose clients included major oil and gas companies, at below market rates.

One of the more serious charges facing Pruitt is that he had inappropriate dealings with lobbyists for fossil fuel companies.

Another lobbyist helped organise a trip for Pruitt to Morocco. During the trip Pruitt spent time promoting US liquefied natural gas, a highly unusual topic for the Administrator of the EPA. Months after helping plan the trip the lobbyist, Richard Smotkin, was hired by the government of Morocco as a US$40,000-a-month foreign agent.

Such behaviour by an EPA Administrator is odd, but it’s not unprecedented for Scott Pruitt. When he was a state senator in Oklahoma, he bought a home with yet another registered lobbyist, while also advancing their causes in the state legislature.

He also kept secret a meeting he had with Cardinal George Pell, a noted Australian climate change sceptic. Cardinal Pell is under investigation for sexual abuse of minors. Unsurprisingly, given his choice of dining companions, Pruitt is no great fan of science. He has attempted to limit the use of scientific studies in crafting legislation, while appointing noted climate change sceptics to key positions and ousting more qualified scientific advisors.

More recent scandals even have a Chinese connection. Acting against the guidance of EPA staff, Pruitt exempted Foxconn from federal air quality regulations despite evidence that smog levels in south-eastern Wisconsin, where Foxconn plans to build a new manufacturing facility, were already above federal standards. President Trump attended an announcement of Foxconn’s plans, and Pruitt’s actions are also seen as benefiting Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker who is facing a difficult election campaign.

Although Pruitt has been working to advance industry interests, his support has proved a mixed blessing. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which had lobbied aggressively to cut fuel-economy standards, is now worried that auto manufacturers are facing a “regulatory nightmare” as the EPA and other agencies have gone further than anticipated, creating new legal fights with California and at least 12 other states. The move could result in different standards for different parts of the country, cutting industry profits.

How has Pruitt survived so long? Under any other president, the steady flow of scandal would have ended his service. But Pruitt has made a lot of noise about how he is implementing Trump’s pro-fossil fuel, anti-government agenda, although many of his efforts to slash environmental regulations have subsequently been slowed by more legal challenges.

Under any other president, the steady flow of scandal would have ended his service.

His efforts have endeared him to President Trump and his voter base. Trump has dismissed some of the scandals as the product of an overzealous media and disgruntled environmental groups. A few congressional Republicans have now joined their Democratic colleagues in calling for Pruitt to resign, but for the most part they have stayed quiet.

Another explanation is that Trump has little to gain by firing Pruitt now. His deputy, Andrew Wheeler, is a former coal industry lobbyist, who also worked for Senator Jim Inhofe, another climate change sceptic. Wheeler is seen by insiders as having a similar agenda to Pruitt, but more Washington nous, and fewer scandals. If Pruitt manages to keep his job until the beginning of June, President Trump may be able to keep Wheeler as acting EPA Administrator without Senate confirmation until as late as March 2020.

By contrast, more immediate action would mean a difficult congressional confirmation hearing for Pruitt’s replacement. The recent, high profile resignations of three of Pruitt’s closest aides at the EPA may be a sign of a coming change. Whatever happens next, it’s unlikely to be great news for the environment.

Via China Dialogue

Creative Commons’ Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 England & Wales License and 2.5 China License.
—–

Bonus video added by Informed Comment:

EPA chief Scott Pruitt grilled by Senators over ethics scandals – Daily Mail