VOTE for the Environment

In these news posts we lean towards stories that show at least a glimmer of hope. Some are positive news about efforts that will make a real difference in the planetary health goal to protect the Earth to protect ourselves. We specifically try to stay away from gloom and doom. There are many news sources out there you can search to get a broader picture of the perils we face. We highlight some in our Groups and Websites page (but be careful of doom scrolling and clickbait, superficial, misleading treatments of issues either out of bias or to get attention) as well as other resources in our Bibliography page.

Sometimes though it is critical to be aware of what is happening, so that you can make sound choices when there are actions you can take, like voting and getting out the vote. Talking to your friends and neighbors, helping them vote.

We are six months from elections that will decide how environmental issues will be addressed over the next four years. Years we can’t afford to lose, for despite some great strides, we obviously have a long way to go to clean up our environment and prevent the worst-case climate change scenarios.  

This is not a partisan statement. We have highlighted bipartisan efforts, and were happy to invite a conservative on our podcast (episode 5) and enjoyed finding some common values. In our 6th podcast episode on ozone depletion, we gave Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher credit for taking a principled stand on protecting the environment in that specific case. They believed in the “precautionary principle,” which says that when there is sufficient evidence of an existential threat you deal with it even before you are 100% certain. You don’t wait until it is too late!

Any politician, right or left, who is in the pockets of Big Oil or other fossil fuel companies or polluters needs to be voted out.

One environmentally aware conservative who I respect and believe to be honest and thoughtful has suggested that the next presidential election may not be so very important regarding the environment. His point was that both major party candidates are essentially lame ducks who will have some limits to their power. I disagree. A lame duck can still do a lot of harm to the environment. Especially if their party controls Congress. We don’t have four years to lose. We are far enough behind as it is!

So, we will post some news stories that highlight the candidates’ positions regarding the environment. We will not engage with or discuss their other political stances and policies. This website is about planetary health, and we will stick to that.

The story that is steaming fresh right now are reports that at an event at Mar-a-Largo Trump suggested that a billion dollars to his campaign given by oil executives would assure that he will dismantle everything that has been done by the Biden administration in the last 3 years. The Inflation Reduction Act (which has included some money to fossil fuel companies to look into hydrogen and carbon capture!), as well as gutting the Environmental Protection Agency regulations and obstructing the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs).

The story was first broken by the Washington Post on May 9, 2024. 

From the Washington Post article:

“As Donald Trump sat with some of the country’s top oil executives at his Mar-a-Lago Club last month, one executive complained about how they continued to face burdensome environmental regulations despite spending $400 million to lobby the Biden administration in the last year.

“Trump’s response stunned several of the executives in the room overlooking the ocean: You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.

“Giving $1 billion would be a ‘deal,’ Trump said, because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him, according to the people…

 “The contrast between the two candidates on climate policy could not be more stark. Biden has called global warming an “existential threat,” and over the last three years, his administration has finalized more than 100 new environmental regulations aimed at cutting air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, restricting toxic chemicals, and conserving public lands and waters. In comparison, Trump has called climate change a ‘hoax,’ and his administration weakened or wiped out more than 125 environmental rules and policies over four years.

“In recent months, the Biden administration has raced to overturn Trump’s environmental actions and issue new ones before the November election. So far, Biden officials have overturned 27 Trump actions affecting the fossil fuel industry and completed at least 24 new actions affecting the sector, according to a Washington Post analysis. The Interior Department, for instance, recently blocked future oil drilling across 13 million acres of the Alaskan Arctic.

 “Despite the oil industry’s complaints about Biden’s policies, the United States is now producing more oil than any country ever has, pumping nearly 13 million barrels per day on average last year. ExxonMobil and Chevron, the largest U.S. energy companies, reported their biggest annual profits in a decade last year.”

The article also pointed out that some of what Trump proposed won’t sit well with American automakers, who are tooling up for EVs and hybrids and are looking for regulatory certainty and counting on help for people to buy these vehicles, but maybe they don’t have deep pockets or he will offer them some other dark deal.

It takes a lot to “stun” oil executives! Given Trump’s environmental record, perhaps Trump thought the billion dollars was more of a reward for previous service and an investment in what Trump has in mind to do in any case, rather than a shakedown. So maybe he wasn’t eliciting a bribe after all (he was), but just seeking what he sees as recognition for being willing to destroy the environment and discount the future for more profit than the obscene profits the fossil fuel companies already make.

He must figure enough money will buy his grandchildren’s future without suffering due to climate change and other forms of environmental degradation and the resulting global instability and economic and social disruption. It won’t of course. Or maybe he just doesn’t care.