It started on a sultry day in Houston when hundreds of protesters, mostly oil company employees, were bused to a concert hall in their lunch hour to rally against a historic first step by Congress to reduce the pollution that causes climate change.
The event marked the start of a backlash by wealthy industry owners and conservative activists against US President Barack Obama’s green agenda. Now it has snowballed into what green campaigners say is the greatest assault on environmental protection that the US has ever seen.
Eighteen months after that Houston rally, the green agenda is under assault on multiple fronts, from cutbacks in recycling in Wisconsin to the loosening of regulations governing coal mining in West Virginia and a challenge to the authority of the White House and federal government to act on climate change.
“This is almost unprecedented in environmental history, in that they are moving in so many directions and in so many ways to effect the same results that even if they are only partly successful, it will still have a serious outcome,” said Bill Becker, secretary of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which monitors air pollution.
“It is as if they are trying to throw as much slop against a wall as they can and hoping some of it sticks in the end. The more they throw, the more they feel may stick, and they are throwing quite a bit,” he said.
On Thursday Republicans introduced bills in both houses of Congress to strip the Obama administration of its powers to act on climate change. The bill introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate would bar the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using existing air pollution laws to reduce carbon dioxide.
It would stop the EPA from regulating carbon emissions from power plants and factories. It would not strike down a deal, reached between the White House and car makers, to reduce car emissions, but, it would allow no further reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from cars once that deal runs out in 2016.
“The energy tax prevention act stops cap-and-trade regulations from taking effect once and for all,” said James Inhofe, the Republican who is the Senate’s most vocal climate change denier.
The bill is expected to pass easily in the House — where the Republicans are the majority, and where the bill has already gained support from a number of Democratic leaders. It will have a harder time in the Senate, where Democrats have a narrow majority.
However, the bill represents only one line of attack. Last month’s Republican spending proposal, which set out US$61 billion in cuts, reserved the biggest cut of any government agency for the EPA: US$3 billion, or 30 percent of its budget.
The brunt of the cuts are intended to starve the EPA of the funds it would need to begin regulating carbon dioxide.
However, the proposals would also do away with funds for protecting salmon in San Francisco bay, or treating sewage going into Florida’s lakes. It would weaken rules for mercury pollution from cement kilns, and allow wolf hunting once again. The proposals would also redirect US$900 million, raised from the proceeds of oil leases, which traditionally has been used to maintain state parks.
Campaigners say the cuts go far deeper than any enacted under former US president George W. Bush, who was notorious for blocking action on global warming and for a more general opposition to government regulation.
The cuts have even invaded the White House. The Republican proposal cut off funding for the post of Obama’s energy and climate adviser and the State Department envoy to the UN climate negotiations.
The White House downgraded the post of climate adviser this week, transferring the job to a section of the domestic policy council.
A number of Democratic senators are quietly complaining that — without a strong push back from Obama — the anti--environment campaign is in danger of doing lasting damage.
The anti-environment measures have spread beyond Washington. New Hampshire last week voted to leave a greenhouse gas reduction initiative, with several members of its house of representatives doubting climate science.
“Neither man nor cow is responsible for global warming,” said Shawn Jasper, a member of the state Republican leadership.
Tea Party governors in New Mexico and Maine have also moved to reverse air and water pollution laws, and efforts to promote alternative energy. In Pennsylvania the authorities have removed restrictions on natural gas drilling in state parks.
In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker, says he is cutting off funds to local recycling programs. City councils told reporters they would no longer be able to offer kerbside pick-up of newspapers and glass for recycling.
Florida and other states have taken aim at Obama’s pet project, the creation of a high-speed rail network, and shut down rail building projects in their areas.
“What we have seen most recently is folks just basically taking the debate over the budget and the financial situation and using it as cover to attack core environmental protections,” said Joe Mendelson, director of global warming policy at the National Wildlife Federation. “They are using the budget process as a costume to hide what they are doing — which is a full-on assault against our fundamental environmental protections.”
Much of the momentum for the anti-environment agenda was provided by the success of extremist Tea Party candidates in last November’s elections.
“Everything is about the next elections,” said Doug Scott, director of the Illinois environmental protection agency. “You have people voting against things they supported for years because it is on the talking points just now.”
Then there was the large infusion of cash from the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. The Kochs bankrolled the Tea Party group, Americans for Prosperity, which has said it spent US$40 million in the elections. Koch Industries and its employees donated US$2.2 million to candidates in last year’s elections, more than corporations like Exxon Mobil, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Their interest has not waned. Americans for Prosperity sees cutting environmental regulation — especially that related to climate change, which would cost the oil industry — as a key area.
“Energy policy is one of our top three priorities,” said Phil Kerpen, policy director of Americans for Prosperity. “For me personally it’s a top concern and major focus.”
“It is not that we are totally against environmental protection, but in the hierarchy of values, it has taken a back seat,” he said.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS