( The meme is courtesy of “NASA ranks 2017 the second-hottest year on Earth” )
Focused Read in 5 minutes,
a bit more if you choose to go deeper into the story
"How Trump’s climate
skeptics are changing the country ~
Agencies including the
USDA, CIA, DHS and HUD have leaders who have expressed sentiments at
odds with the warnings of the government's own climate researchers.
(By Emily Holden)"
Example 1
⬇
⬇
Example 2
⬇
⬇
"... Trump is
filling the upper ranks of his administration with appointees who
share his disbelief in the scientific evidence for climate change —
giving them an opportunity to impose their views on policies ranging
from disaster planning to national security to housing standards.
At the Interior
Department, decisions about Pacific island territories threatened by
rising seas are in the hands of an assistant secretary who has
criticized “climate alarmists” for “once again predicting the
end of the world as we know it.”
Agriculture Secretary Sonny
Perdue’s top advisers include a former talk radio host who has
dismissed much climate research as “junk science.”
Trump’s
nominee to head research and technology at the Department of
Transportation claimed three years ago that global warming had
“stopped” — a position at sharp odds with the findings of
federal agencies like NASA.
Trump has chosen at least
20 like-minded people to serve as agency leaders and advisers,
according to a POLITICO review of his appointees' past statements on
climate science.
And they are already having an impact in abandoning
former President Barack Obama’s attempt to help unite the world
against the threat of rising sea levels, worsening storms and
spreading droughts.
Most famously, the president and his team have
scrubbed mentions of climate change from government websites, kicked scientists off advisory boards, repudiated the Obama administration’s greenhouse gas regulations and made the U.S. the only nation on Earth to reject the 2015 Paris agreement on global warming.
More quietly, Trump’s
White House excluded rising temperatures from the list of threats in
its December national security strategy,
contradicting the
approach of both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations. Last
year, just before Hurricane Harvey drowned Houston, the White
House rescinded requirements that projects built with
federal dollars take into account the way warming temperatures might
intensify extreme weather.
People worried about the
consequences of climate change say a government that denies the
problem is courting danger.
... Aparna Mathur, a resident
scholar in economic policy at the conservative American Enterprise
Institute, found the trend worrying as well.
Many administration
officials “don’t seem to believe climate change is real, or if
they believe climate change is real, there’s this sort of attitude
that there’s not much to do about it or it’s not caused by human
actions,” said Mathur...
As a result, she
said, the U.S. is falling behind countries that
are taking action on
the problem.
The doubts are coming from
both prominent and little-known Trump appointees, in ways both
obscure and subtle.
Some have expressed doubt
that the Earth is warming at all, speculated that the trend might be
good for humans, or said it’s just impossible to know how much of a
role humans and their pollution are playing.
All these statements fly
in the face of findings by the government’s own research agencies
and the vast majority of climate scientists.
“There are scientists
that think lots of different things about climate change,”
then-Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), now Trump’s CIA director, said
on C-SPAN in 2013.
“There’s some who think we’re warming,
there’s some who think we’re cooling, there’s some who think
that the last 16 years have shown a pretty stable climate
environment.”
... When he was running for
president, HUD Secretary Ben Carson scoffed at the idea that strong
evidence for human-caused climate change even exists.
... Few have been as publicly
outspoken on the issue as Trump, who more than once has dismissed
human-caused climate change as a "hoax" and claimed in
January that polar ice isn’t melting.
The
White House sought to strike a somewhat more moderate tone in a
statement to POLITICO on Monday,
which said that “the climate has
changed and is always changing. The Administration supports rigorous
scientific analysis and debate." The statement from principal
deputy press secretary Raj Shah added that "the development of
modern and efficient infrastructure ... will reduce emissions and
enable us to address future risks,
including climate related risks.”
Some of the
administration's climate skeptics have already come and gone.
Former HHS Secretary Tom
Price, who had criticized the “allegedly ‘settled science’ of
global warming” as a member of Congress, resigned in September amid
criticism of his expensive travels on government and private
planes.
Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s pick to head the White
House Council on Environmental Quality, withdrew her
nomination earlier this year after she stirred criticism with a
long list of controversial statements, including calling the
human role in climate change “very uncertain.”
Another unsuccessful
nominee, former talk radio host and political science professor Sam
Clovis, had to pull out of the running to be USDA’s chief scientist
after critics noted that he has no science credentials — but he
remains a top adviser to Perdue.
Clovis dismissed much
climate research as “junk science” in a 2014 interview, adding
that “a lot of this global warming ... is really about income
redistribution from rich nations that are industrialized to nations
that are not.”
Brent Fewell...For whatever reason, it’s a lot easier to simply agree with the
prominent voices in the political party.”
The upshot is the same,
however:
a 180-degree reversal from Obama’s efforts to make the
U.S. a leader in addressing the causes and consequences of a warming
planet.
The EPA is leading the
charge by withdrawing or weakening a host of climate regulations,
including a 2015 rule that would have sped the electric power
industry’s shift away from coal-fired energy...approved tariffs for solar panel imports...sought
to cancel rules meant to limit the oil and gas industry's
methane pollution...and are
reconsidering tougher standards for vehicles, too.
The Energy Department has
proposed regulatory changes to prop up coal plants that can’t
compete in the market, while the White House is seeking buyers for
U.S. coal and gas exports.
When Trump’s critics
seek to challenge these actions in court, the government’s defense
will be run by the Justice Department —
an agency whose leader,
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, said during a 2015 Senate
hearing that carbon dioxide is “really not a pollutant.”
“It's a plant food, and
it doesn't harm anybody except that it might include temperature
increases,” Sessions said.
... Much of the alarm among
Trump’s critics focuses on EPA, which has replaced dozens of
scientists on its key advisory boards with industry or state
representatives, and has found other ways to keep researchers from
contradicting the administration’s message.
... “Right out of the gate …
the administration took any and all mention of climate change off of
the White House website,” said Jacob Carter, a research scientist
who has been tracking the administration's treatment of science for
the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“It seems like the
administration is really trying to undo a lot of the scientific
process as a whole and get experts out of the way.”
The Environmental Data and
Governance Initiative, which has studied the purging and rewording of
climate-related documents on government websites, reported at
the end of 2017 that it had found a “significant loss of public
access to information about climate change.”
The State Department’s
website took down links related to the Paris climate agreement,
EPA
removed a student’s guide to climate change,
and the Energy
Department got rid of the words “clean energy” on a page with
information for investors and businesses looking for projects with
national laboratories.
The Interior Department’s
Bureau of Land Management, which oversees energy development on
federal land, cut text about the effects of climate change.
... “It’s not alarming the
public because it’s very hard to see each incremental thing,”
said Andrew Bergman, a co-author of the report.
... But Trump’s actions have
reflected his views on the science.
For example, one of his early
executive orders in March 2017 eliminated a number of ways
agencies had been required to consider climate change, including in
environmental reviews for infrastructure projects.
Because so many of his
appointees have questioned the conclusions of climate scientists,
they are jettisoning climate change from routine processes.
Those
include EPA’s refusal to consider the global monetary
benefits of curbing rising temperatures when it rolled back Obama-era
rules for the power sector.
Still, some agencies have
continued to issue major reports that warn that climate change is a
real and growing problem — even as the president's staffers push
the message that the science is uncertain.
In November, the
government’s 13-agency National Climate Assessment concluded that
humans have pushed global temperatures to their highest level in
modern times.
In January, NASA published data showing that last
year was the second-warmest on record, and noted that temperature
rises are “driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other
human-made emissions into the atmosphere. ... "
You can see a graphic of “Trump's climate science doubters" here
( You can read the story in full here )
Focused Thought in 15 seconds
Focused Action in 2 minutes
* My top 5 favorite Women's History Tweets of the past week to RT...
FIVE
You can share my Tweet here
FOUR
You can share this get out and vote for our grandmothers Tweet here
THREE
You can share Scientific American's Tweet here
TWO
You can share this great Tweet on Betty Friedman here
ONE
You can read and share Hillary's celebratory thread on Twitter here
Focused Point of Interest in 3 minutes
"Can Millennial Women
Decide The Next Election?
A new collaboration
between the Hive, theSkimm, and SurveyMonkey traces the interest, and
likely impact, of female millennial voters in advance of the
consequential 2018 midterms.
( By Maya Kosoff )
If Donald Trump had looked out the Oval Office window on January 20, across the discolored expanse of the South Lawn, he would have taken in a terrifying image: tens of thousands of women, brandishing signs and bedecked in pink to protest the anniversary of his presidency and a year defined more than ever by the predations of powerful men.
Across the country, more than a million people again flooded the streets in New York, San Francisco, Oakland, Austin, Chicago, and other major cities, to send an unmistakable message: we’re here, and we vote.
“Last year, we had this excitement. It was new. We were doing something,” one New Yorker told Vanity Fair, adding, “This year, after all [we’ve] gone through, I feel like the anger . . . is just so prevalent.”
The energy and enthusiasm of the Women’s March seemed to mark a decisive turning point for a country in which young women are fast becoming one of the most powerful voting blocs.
During the 2016 presidential election, millennial women—those between the ages of 18 and 34—were 28 percent more engaged than four years prior, even as voter turnout slumped to its lowest level in two decades, according to CNN.
Now, after the jolt of Trump’s presidency, this group—everyone from recent high-school graduates to young women just entering the workforce to pre-middle-aged moms—is on the brink of re-writing the electoral map.
During the 2016 presidential election, millennial women—those between the ages of 18 and 34—were 28 percent more engaged than four years prior, even as voter turnout slumped to its lowest level in two decades, according to CNN.
Now, after the jolt of Trump’s presidency, this group—everyone from recent high-school graduates to young women just entering the workforce to pre-middle-aged moms—is on the brink of re-writing the electoral map.
These women receive information in ways their parents would have found inconceivable.
They’re at the forefront of a vast cultural upheaval that could change how new generations interact with the world.
They’re responsible for turning the tables on age-old notions of gender roles.
Yet their wants are distinct, and their vision of the future is nuanced—something that’s become increasingly evident following the 2016 election.
The Women’s March unites them, but additional data—data on who they are and what they want, which will ultimately prove crucial to candidates hoping to win their votes—is frustratingly scant.
They’re at the forefront of a vast cultural upheaval that could change how new generations interact with the world.
They’re responsible for turning the tables on age-old notions of gender roles.
Yet their wants are distinct, and their vision of the future is nuanced—something that’s become increasingly evident following the 2016 election.
The Women’s March unites them, but additional data—data on who they are and what they want, which will ultimately prove crucial to candidates hoping to win their votes—is frustratingly scant.
With this in mind, the Hive, theSkimm, and SurveyMonkey have teamed up to launch a new, year-long editorial project in advance of the midterm elections: Millennial Takeover 2018 will strive to better understand female millennials, what matters to them, and why."
SEE data re:
"How Millennial Women Engaged with the Women's March"
"How Millennial Women Describe their Political Orientation"
"How Millennial Women Say they will 'Absolutely' Vote in 2018"
⬇
.
.
.
→ Direct sources for Democrats:
* ( Personal favored and most informative follows are shared here with the understanding that readers will always apply their own critical thinking to any information provided anywhere by anyone. #StrongerTogether does not share sources of information lightly but -- no one is perfect! -- so always #DistrustAndVerify I am using a star rating that is strictly based on my situational experience with the work of the media personality specifically in relation to issues of interest to me. )
The Democratic Party Website
Also
C-SPAN (a good place for speeches & hearings direct source (s))
→ Fact checking organizations courtesy of the Society of Professional Journalists
in alphabetical order...
→ Some of my favorite, most informative
follows on Twitter include:
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ US Intelligence | Author | Navy Senior Chief | NBC/MSNBC
⭐⭐⭐ Federal Government Operations | Vanity Fair | Newsweek | MSNBC Contributor | Author
⭐⭐⭐⭐ Voting Rights/Voter Suppression | Author | Mother Jones
→ Some of the most credible media -- at the moment:
📰📰📰 Mother Jones
→ Some of the most credible Talking Heads -- at the moment -- and their Twitter handles:
( 📎 Interesting to note: Wallace, a former Republican (or an inactive Republican I believe she calls herself) is new to the job but for right now she has clearly put country over party and her work on Trump GOP has been credible, IMO... )
...for Networking for Democrats today!
g. (Unapologetic Democrat)
g. (Unapologetic Democrat)
📎 Note: I rarely get involved in primary races -- outside of those in my own area. And, unless there is a glaring reason that can not be ignored, I support Democratic Party nominees winning in general elections.
.
.
.
(Linked) "...is our 2016 platform...a declaration of how we plan to move America forward. Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls.
It’s a simple but powerful idea: We are stronger together."
*
Curated by Gail Mountain, with occasional personal commentary, Network For #StrongerTogether ! is not affiliated with The Democratic Party in any capacity. This is an independent blog and the hope is you will, at a glance, learn more about the Party and you will, with a click or two, also take action on its behalf as it is provided!
( You can also find me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GKMTNtwits )
*
See the League of Women Voters website:
Vote411 here
Thank you for focusing!
g., aka Focused Democrat
✊ Resisting "Fake News"
No comments:
Post a Comment