After working for four decades as a journalist, I should know better than to pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel -- or enjoys unlimited bandwidth. But an uncommonly egregious case of biased reporting requires this public rebuke.
The offender is Environment and Energy Daily, a niche outlet in the cut-throat world of Washington journalism.
It was a conceptual "scoop" that eluded the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, all publications known for their astute political coverage. Even the Wilmington News Journal, which covered the Castle-O'Donnell race day-in and day-out, missed that "insight."
For good reason.
E&E's unfounded assertion that climate change played the key role in Congressman Castle's defeat was a canard.
Yes, O'Donnell hit Castle for his stance on limiting carbon pollution that causes global warming. But it was a combination of the dismal economy and a raging anti-incumbency fervor that led to Castle's downfall; he's been a towering figure in Delaware politics for more than a generation: nine terms in Congress and stints as governor and lieutenant governor.
"To say it was just climate change mischaracterizes that election,'' University of Delaware political scientist Jason Mycoff told me. "In this case, you can't pin the entire election on one issue.''
In other words, climate change was hardly a top-tier campaign issue.
Rather, O'Donnell was energized by the panoply of divisive social issues, including the evils of masturbation, according to today's New York Times.
Very little polling was done in the race, said Dr. Mycoff, who directs undergraduate studies in the university's political science department.
But here's what we do know. According to a Sept. 2 Rasmussen Reports survey of 500 likely Delaware voters, 51% rated the economy as their top concern, followed by fiscal issues (15%), domestic concerns (12%), national security (10%) and cultural matters (5%). Six percent said "not sure."
Cap and trade was nowhere to be found.
Covering environmental and energy issues is E&E's franchise. But casting the Castle-O'Donnell race as having turned on climate change legislation was more than a stretch. It gave tunnel vision a good name.
E&E would far better serve its readers by focusing on the real choices facing voters - namely, the extent to which O'Donnell and most of her fellow Republican candidates for U.S. Senate are woefully out of step with Mainstream America.
Look for yourself. A new poll done for NRDC by Infogroup/Opinion Research Corp. found overwhelming, bipartisan support for combating climate change and allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to do its job by curbing greenhouse gases.
E&E needs to do less opining and more basic research -- and then report the news fairly and with balance and an honest sense of proportionality.
BIO: Chen is the federal communications director at the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. He spent most of his career as a Washington-based political reporter, first at the Los Angeles Times and, more recently, at Bloomberg News as its senior White House correspondent. From 2009-2010, he was president of the White House Correspondents' Association.
I'll admit it. Although anyone who reads my bio knows that I have worked for Democrats, I was upset when Mike Castle, a Republican, lost last night in the Delaware primary. I may not have agreed with Castle on everything but he was a representative that was always open to listening, including on issues related to clean energy and climate change. It is a real shame and a loss for civility in politics.
Today is a new day and I personally think it is time that we all wake up.
The Tea Party has been successful throughout the primary season. Their candidates have come from behind and taken out what I would have previously described as ultra conservative incumbents, with what can only be described as radical right-wing rhetoric. Recently defeated Senator, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) received a cumulative 90% rating from the conservative, pro BIG business U.S Chamber of Commerce. Robert Bennet (R-UT), who lost to Tea Party son Michael Lee, had a 97%. By comparison, the Tea Party's beloved Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) only received an 83%. As someone who loves politics, I am mesmerized by this entire Tea Party exercise, but as someone who supports progressive policies and good government that serves the people, I am nervous.
If they can beat Castle in Delaware, Murkowski in Alaska, Bennet in Utah, to name a few, can they take over the Republican Party - and if that happens - could they take over Congress?
The Tea Party is screaming about jobs lost to other countries when their unresearched positions on clean energy legislation have actually hurt our economy. In fact, yesterday, the Small Business Majority, Main Street Alliance, and the American Businesses for Clean Energy released a report showing nearly two million jobs have been lost because of Senate inaction on a climate bill. The same report noted that China "gained more than $11 billion in job creating clean energy investments in the two months since the U.S. Senate abandoned climate legislation." The bottom line is that the Tea Party doesn't have any idea what they are talking about when it comes to clean energy - but unfortunately, that doesn't keep them from talking.
I get that folks are disappointed that Congress has failed to enact some progressive policies, like climate legislation. Last night, that all changed for me. If you think things can't get worse, try picturing Christine O'Donnell as a Senator with Jim DeMint as the Leader of the Senate.
Time to get energized. If you support environmental policies, the Tea Party must be defeated.
This is the sixth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Today, we examine Ohio's 15th Congressional District, which includes downtown Columbus and parts of neighboring Franklin, Madison and Union counties. Columbus is home to the Ohio State University and has the highest proportion of young professionals, aged 25-34, of any city in the country. In 2008, Mary Jo Kilroy became the first Democrat elected in the district since 1982, when she narrowly (by less than 2,500 votes) defeated Republican Steve Stivers. Kilroy and Stivers will be matched up again this fall.
Since coming to Washington, Rep. Kilroy has consistently voted for environmental protections and moving America to a clean energy economy. In her first year in the House, she received a perfect 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters, which means she voted the right way on every environmental vote. This includes voting for the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the first climate bill to ever pass in a chamber of Congress. In a statement following the vote, Kilroy said "The clean energy economy is the future of our country and of central Ohio...We are seeing the consequences of not investing in the next big idea with our auto industry. [ACES] secures Ohio's strong position to make the solar panels and wind turbines that will power our nation in the very near future. It will also benefit Ohio's agricultural sector, which can provide the plant material needed for the bio mass products that boost energy production." She added, "This bill puts the central consumers first and insulates them from shifts in prices. For less than a trip to the movie theater, Americans are going to create 1.7 million (jobs), end the stranglehold foreign countries have on energy and work to save our planet."
In sharp contrast, Steve Stivers falsely calls cap and trade a "job killer" that will lead to higher electricity bills for Ohio families. In reality, strong clean energy and climate legislation would create a net of 1.9 million jobs, according to in-depth study by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California. In Ohio, this would mean 61,000 new, good-paying jobs created over the next ten years. And, as analysis by the experts in the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows, the effect of ACES on electricity bills will be, as Rep. Kilroy said, less than going to the movies once a month.
Stivers doesn't just stop at opposing clean energy and climate legislation, he also "disagree[s]" with the statement, "Man-made global warming is a scientific fact and immediate action to lower CO2 emissions is necessary to prevent an environmental catastrophe." And, if denying the unassailable science behind climate change wasn't enough, Stivers also opposes our right to hold the government accountable in court for protecting our public health and environment.
Koch Industries is privately owned by Charles and David Koch, who, according to Greenpeace, have "quietly funneled [$50 million] to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming." Robert Murray, the head of Murray Energy, is an outspoken climate denier, who said in testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee that global warming is "one of the biggest con jobs in the history of the Republic." Murray continued to criticize the legacy of Rachel Carson, saying that "She and her environmental followers killed millions of human beings around the World with the ban on DDT." Murray concluded by claiming that climate change legislation will "result in no environmental benefit." Finally, the Texas Freedom PAC is headed by Joe Barton, who infamously apologized to BP, and who also called the BP escrow fund that will pay businesses that lost money because of the Gulf disaster a "$20 billion shakedown."
These are a few of Stivers' big donors, all major polluters or supporters of major polluters, which makes you wonder what they think they're getting for their large donations to the Steve Stivers for Congress campaign.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
I worked on Capitol Hill for a long time, and I do not consider myself naive about the inner workings of Washington. But even I was surprised by two revelations this week exposing the amount of money the oil industry is spending to buy political influence.
The first eye-opener came from recently released lobbying numbers. The OpenSecrets blog reported that the oil and gas industry poured $174 million into the political system in 2009. That's eight times more than the green groups.
What did the oil and gas industry get for its money? A handful of Senators who blocked all attempts by the Senate to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that would have made fossil fuel industries start cleaning up their global warming pollution.
This week's second revelation made that difference abundantly clear. Jane Mayer wrote an investigative piece in the New Yorker about the brothers David and Charles Koch who run Koch Industries -- the biggest corporation you've never heard of -- and who have spent more than $100 million on anti-government causes.
Koch Industries owns oil refineries and 4,000 miles of pipeline, and was named one of the top 10 air polluters in the nation in a 2010 UMass-Amherst report. The Kochs' political donations are often aimed at promoting their libertarian views, but they also directly benefit their own profit margins. They have donated millions of dollars to nonprofit groups that fight environmental regulation and seed doubt about climate science. In fact, a Greenpeace report called them a "kingpin of climate science denial." And though green groups tend to paint ExxonMobil as the worst of the worst when it comes to lobbying against climate legislation, Koch outspent even ExxonMobil.
One of David Koch's pet projects is the group Americans for Prosperity, a group he founded and funds but positions as a grassroots movement. An ad for one of its training sessions for Tea Party activists says, "The voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests. But you can do something about it."
But when Americans for Prosperity hosts at least 80 events protesting climate legislation, is it really acting in the interest of average Americans or the interest of oil industry donors?
When it funds an attack ad against Representative Betsey Markey from Colorado because she supported climate legislation last summer that would have brought 30,000 jobs to her state, who is it benefiting?
And when the group pledges to spend an additional $45 million before the midterm elections, is that money really coming from grassroots activists, or from deep corporate pockets? These fat cats pretend to fraternize with the ordinary folks who dangle tea bags from their tri-cornered hats, but, in fact, they are just using activists to put a populist face on their industry agenda.
Manipulating other people's fears about the economy when you are a billionaire -- I would call that the depth of cynicism. But considering those billionaires are getting in the way of climate solutions, clean energy and green jobs in America; I have to instead call it dangerous.
This is the third article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Today, we examine Ohio's 1st Congressional District, which encompasses Cincinnati and parts of nearby suburbs. Cincinnati is home to the Reds, but in the House it's represented by the self-described "raging moderate," Democrat Steve Driehaus. A longtime member of the Ohio legislature, in 2008, Driehaus won election to the House seat his father unsuccessfully sought 40 years ago. This November he is being challenged by former Republican Congressman Steve Chabot, whom Driehaus unseated in 2008 despite being outspent by nearly $1 million.
When a district is home to the company that makes products like "Mr. Clean," one would hope that its Congressional representative would champion clean energy. Rep. Driehaus has been a reliable environmental champion. In his first year in Congress, he received a perfect score from the League of Conservation Voters, meaning that he cast a pro-environmental vote at every opportunity. Most notably, Driehaus voted for the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the first global warming bill to ever pass a chamber of Congress. After the vote, Driehaus said, "Ohio has the resources and workforce to be at the cutting edge as we move our nation toward a clean energy economy, and [ACES] will promote investments that will bring the potential of clean energy development into our community...This bill will help us end our addiction to imported oil, which threatens our security and sends too much American money overseas. I'm proud to stand with my colleagues today to do the right thing for the future of America's economy and security."
In sharp contrast, in 2008 -- Chabot's last year in Congress -- the League of Conservation Voters gave him a bottom-of-the-barrel 8% rating on environmental issues. Chabot earned his low rating by voting against renewable energy, against removing oil and gas exploration subsidies, against keeping a moratorium on offshore oil drilling, against raising fuel economy standards for vehicles, against prohibiting oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and against implementing the Kyoto Protocol. In short, Steve Chabot voted against the environment at pretty much every opportunity.
Chabot's position hasn't changed since leaving Congress. On the campaign trail, he's said that he "strongly oppose[s] cap and trade," citing fuzzy math claiming that it will "cost the average American family an additional $1,770 a year in higher energy costs." The truth, according to the experts in the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is that the net economy-wide cost of the cap-and-trade program would be about $175 per household" -- or one-tenth of what Steve Chabot is claiming.
Furthermore, the CBO's estimate doesn't include the benefits of reducing global warming, such as mitigating the record-setting heat and drought conditions we're already seeing around the world.
And just as important, Chabot is ignoring the positive job impact of passing ACES, which would create an estimated 1.9 million jobs, according to a study by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California." In Ohio, this would mean 61,000 new good-paying jobs created over the next ten years.
Chabot doesn't just oppose legislation to move to clean energy, he mocks the unassailable science demonstrating global warming. On his blog, Chabot claims that the absence of hurricanes hitting the United States in 2009 represented an "inconvenient truth" to "environmental alarmists" on global warming. And he promotes conspiracy theories, such as "climategate" -- a non-scandal pushed by climate change deniers and fossil fuel interests, now completely debunked.
Chabot's fiercely anti-environmental views are not so surprising when you consider the sources of his campaign cash - Rep. Joe Barton's Texas Freedom PAC ($6,000) and oil and coal services giant Koch Industries ($5,000), for instance. Rep. Barton is one of big oil's best friends in Congress. You may remember his recent apology to BP when it set aside money to pay small businesses that have lost money because of the Gulf disaster. And Koch Industries is notorious for having "quietly funneled [$50 million] to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming is no joking matter."
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
This is the second article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Today we're looking at New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District, stretching from the Philadelphia suburbs in the west, across the undeveloped Pine Barrens (the country's first National Reserve) to the Jersey Shore. In 2008, longtime state Senator John Adler was elected to his first term in Congress, winning the seat vacated by retiring 12-term Republican Congressman Jim Saxton. In November, Adler will be challenged by Republican Jon Runyan, a former offensive lineman for the Philadelphia Eagles.
A number of current and former New Jersey Republican Congressmen have been environmental champions - including Jim Saxton - but Runyan seems unlikely to follow in their footsteps. Despite playing for one of the greenest teams in professional sports, Runyan has been taking anti-environmental stands on the campaign trail. He has voiced support for drilling off of New Jersey's shore, echoing Sarah Palin's "all-of-the-above" approach to energy policy. He has been repeating the right-wing Heritage Foundation's fuzzy math about the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Runyan claims that ACES will cost "$1,870 for a family of four," when in truth, according to the nonpartisan, unbiased experts at the Congressional Budget Office, it will cost "about $175 per household."
Rep. Adler, on the other hand, has a long history as an environmental champion. In the New Jersey Senate, he sponsored the state's Clean Cars Act and co-sponsored its landmark Global Warming Response Act.
In his first year in Congress, Adler received an impressive 93% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), which means he voted the right way at nearly every opportunity. Most notably, Adler voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) calling it "historic legislation" that will "spur the development of new sources of energy while confronting the threat of carbon pollution." He added, ACES "will lower energy costs and create new jobs for New Jersey families and small businesses....This bill will make America safer. It is time that we stop sending money to Middle Eastern countries that fund terrorist activities. Furthermore, by preserving God's earth, our children and grandchildren can continue to fish, enjoy the outdoors and breathe clean air."
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
Last week, the Labor Department reported that youth unemployment stands at 18.2%, nearly twice the national average of 9.8%. The percentage of young people without a job is a staggering 53.4 percent, the highest figure since World War II. Looking deeper, the statistics for youth of color are terrible and telling.
According to the most recent data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 40.7% of black youth between 16-19 are unemployed, almost double the amount of whites teenagers (23%). For Latinos the same age, the rate is nearly 30%. Get a little older and the gap grows wider. Unemployment for black Americans aged 20-24 is 27.1%, over twice that faced by white youth (13.1%) in the same age range.
The glaring differences indicate that unemployment is not only decidedly raced, but also that the current economic condition is wholly unforgiving for young people of color. Only a massive, well-funded set of green jobs programs explicitly designed to close those racial gaps can create a truly vital, full-employment economy.
Granholm's remarks on the rescue came after her announcement that state tax breaks for 20 business projects will net the state $2.3 billion in new investments.
That will ultimately produce 7,400 new jobs, directly and indirectly, according to the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC).
Among the ventures is a company that makes wind turbines and a firm that will make a lightweight bus that gets three times the gas mileage of conventional buses.
Such a vision might transform manufacturing in the midwest and bring new prosperity to the long suffering rust belt... Except that this initiatives is very close to failing, if... if... (more over the break)
Last night, on Bill Moyers Journal (transcript here), we saw both sides of Bill Moyers. We saw him, if not at his very best, then certainly very, very good, and better than most folks ever get on tv. He interviewed George Soros, and they covered a wide range of big topics in very straight-forward, demystifying terms.
Then in the second half, we saw his bad side. Not the worst, by any means, but the worst in terms of regular features, which is to say, Kathleen Hall Jamieson and her drum-beat "balanced" criticism of the presidential campaign. Jamieson actually does some very good work, and is sometimes extremely sharp. But she also gets lazy, sloppy and/or thoughtlessly conventional at times, and that was certainly the case last night. I'll deal with her segment in a second, briefer diary. But for now, I want to look at the good--not perfect, not spectacular, but definitely quite good side of what Moyers had to offer last night.
It's not really that amazing. But it's clearly stated, and it comes from a guy who's as rich as sin, so calling him a DFH just rolls off his back like water off a duck.
STATE BLOGS
