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.
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.
This is the first 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 Colorado's 4th Congressional District, covering the High Plains of northeast Colorado, plus growing cities like Greeley, Fort Collins and Loveland. Home to wheat and cattle farms, it's a traditionally rural and reliably Republican area -- John McCain carried the district in the last election. Democrat Betsy Markey bucked tradition in 2008, when she defeated three-term incumbent Republican Marilyn Musgrave. Markey is being challenged by Republican State Representative Cory Gardner, in what most describe as a tossup race.
As a freshman, Rep. Markey has been a solid environmental voter, receiving a 79% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), meaning she voted pro-environment on four out of every five opportunities. Markey voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), writing in the Denver Post, "Colorado is blessed with vast energy resources, and as the renewable energy sector is already thriving and growing in northern and eastern Colorado, this bill brings unique benefits to our region. In fact, our corner of Colorado stands to see greater benefits from this legislation than most other areas of the country." And Markey hasn't changed her tune on the campaign trail, writing on her website, "We have a unique opportunity at this time in our history to change the way we power our country and Colorado is poised to become a world leader in this effort....The future of renewable energy is vital to the future of our national security."
Pretty much everything in Cory Gardner's record in the Colorado legislature and in his campaigning suggest that he'd oppose clean energy measures and a healthy environment. According to Colorado Conservation Voters' 2010 scorecard, Gardner voted against legislation promoting clean energy production in Colorado; even against assistance to homeowners for energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades; and against creating new jobs in clean energy. On the campaign trail Gardner has spent his time attending a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser co-hosted by a BP lobbyist, collecting campaign cash from companies like Valero Energy, (one of the major forces behind the effort to repeal California's landmark clean energy and climate legislation), and lamenting that cap-and-trade legislation "will cost farmers and ranchers, industry in this country, more money than they can afford, and the result will be that they'll move overseas."
The truth, according the Department of Agriculture, is that the benefit of climate legislation to farmers "easily trump" the costs. The USDA analysis shows that ACES would create "annual net returns to farmers rang[ing] from $1 billion per year in 2015-20 to almost $15-20 billion in 2040-50." Gardner is refusing to recognize the huge opportunities that clean energy could provide to the citizens of the 4th district. In stark contrast, Rep. Markey gets it. Voters should be aware of the clear differences between these candidates.
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.
Congress is heading back home for the August recess this week. Apparently our Senators need to rest after they failed to take up both a clean energy and climate bill and an oil spill bill.
Legislative inaction must be more tiring than I realized.
Still, I don't view this month as a cooling off period. If anything, it's time to turn up the heat.
Over the next few weeks, Senators will be holding "town hall meetings" in their states. Last year, these meetings came to define the health care debate. This year, they could help us reshape America's energy policy.
If you are like me and you are still stunned that the Senate refused to pass a bill that would have created nearly 2 million new American jobs, put our nation at the forefront of the clean energy market and helped end our addiction to oil, then go to a town hall meeting and tell your lawmakers what you think.
Tell them that it is in America's best interest to embrace clean energy now.
And while you are at it, please tell them to block attempts by some Senators to weaken the Clean Air Act-the 40-year-old law that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives-in an effort to further delay reductions in global warming pollution.
Some naysayers claim that voting on visionary legislation is a risky proposition when we are this close to an election. They are wrong, and history proves it.
As I wrote in a recent blog post, 13 of the most powerful environmental laws were passed during the fall of an election year or in the lame duck sessions following elections.
We can pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall, but only if we demand it of our lawmakers.
Use this August to make your voices heard. You can find your Senators' schedules by checking their Senate websites, as well as their candidate websites - Republican or Democratic.
If you go to the website for the US Chamber of Commerce (USCOC), America's "voice of business" that claims to represent the interests of over 3 million businesses, it feels like you've found the site for a right wing advocacy group. There are clips from FOX News (that aren't making fun of them), attacks on healthcare and financial regulatory reform, and links to Wall Street Journal op-eds claiming that America has more to fear from the political influence of labor unions than from corporations with annual profits in the billions. The implication is clear -- American businesses have right wing values.
However, this assertion was challenged in 2009 when USCOC announced its opposition to attempts by the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. USCOC said that doing so would "strangle the economy", called for a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" as if human-caused climate change was yet to be proven, and threatened to sue the EPA if it decided to act without holding the trial. In response, Nike resigned from USCOC's board of directors, and major companies like Apple, Pacific Gas and Electric, PNM Resources and Exelon left USCOC completely.
It turns out that when it comes to climate change, US businesses aren't so conservative after all. That's why a group like American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE) is so important. And if you own a business and believe the US should be doing more to fight climate change and help support the clean energy economy (which is creating jobs at 2.5 times the rate as the rest of the economy), you should seriously consider joining ABCE.
ABCE represents over 2,500 businesses of all shapes and sizes, including big companies like Gap Inc. and Warner Music Group as well as small local businesses from Al's Painting in Ann Arbor, MI to Zoey's Pizza in Manchester, NH. You don't need to be a business that focuses on green products or services to join -- all are welcome. There are no fees or dues to pay, no meetings to attend, no further obligations, and ABCE will not engage in any lobbying on your behalf. You don't need to resign from any other business coalitions. All you have to do to join is visit ABCE's website and enter some basic information about your business.
That's it. You're done. But you will have done something incredibly important.
Sometimes it's hard to explain how the far-right and corporate lobbyists operate or how they view reality. It's much easier to understand their actions if you accept that first, they know the facts, but just choose, on the basis of business reasons, to completely ignore them and second, that they understand if they present, backed up with millions of dollars, absolute crap as fact, somewhere someone will believe them.
Traveling in excess of 220 mph, the new high speed rail system being proposed in California may be the answer to many of the Golden States transportation problems.
STATE BLOGS
