January, 09 2019, 11:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Andrea McGimsey, 703-477-4722, amcgimsey@environmentamerica.org
Mark Morgenstein, 303-573-5556, markm@publicinterestnewtork.org
Climate Solutions from Day One
New report touts 12 ways governors can lead on climate
WASHINGTON
As 20 new governors take the helm this month, they have the power and opportunity to lead their states in adopting solutions to the climate crisis. Today, Environment America Research & Policy Center released a new report, Climate Solutions from Day One: 12 Ways Governors Can Lead on Climate Now, detailing actions governors can take immediately to significantly reduce planet-warming carbon pollution and ensure a more stable climate for their states and the nation.
"To avoid a climate change-fueled future of more extreme weather, wildfires and rising sea levels, we need to do all we can to cut global warming pollution today," said Andrea McGimsey, senior director of Environment America's Global Warming Solutions program. "With the stroke of a pen, governors can increase renewable energy use, reduce transportation emissions and curb energy waste. These policies have proven effective and can bring immediate benefits to our health and environment."
While the federal government is headed in the wrong direction, pulling out of the international Paris Agreement and rolling back federal Clean Power Plan and Clean Car Standards, these 20 new governors -- and incumbent governors -- can demonstrate to their constituents, other states and the international community that the United States still cares about solving the climate crisis. Governors have many opportunities to lead on climate by making state government a positive example for climate action; setting goals around renewable energy deployment, electric vehicle adoption, and waste reduction; and creating or joining bipartisan, regional partnerships across state lines.
Over the past year, top climate scientists have issued reports with dire warnings about our future. Every ton of greenhouse gas emissions saved will help avert the worst impacts of global warming, and we have no time to delay. The latest update to the National Climate Assessment makes the stakes for regions across the country clear. Without urgent action to cut carbon pollution, we can expect droughts, storms, wildfires, flooding, and many more negative impacts of global warming to get much worse. We need rapid action by our elected leaders -- and the solutions are abundant.
"In dozens of states, governors of every political stripe have taken strong action to put their states on the path to a lower-emission future," said Gideon Weissman of Frontier Group, report co-author. "When you're facing a dire threat, you need to use every tool in the toolbox. It's just common sense to cut energy waste in state buildings and boost renewable energy, and governors can make a difference right away."
In Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Wolf issued an executive order this week to reduce 26 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and 80 percent by 2050. He also directed Pennsylvania state agencies to reduce energy consumption, shift to electric vehicles, and increase investment in renewable energy.
"We commend Gov. Wolf for helping Pennsylvania breathe easier," said David Masur, Executive Director of PennEnvironment. "Other states should follow Gov. Wolf's examples to increase clean energy and reduce climate pollution."
The report also highlighted the difference a year of climate leadership can make for states with climate-friendly governors. A year into Gov. Phil Murphy's term in New Jersey, Gov. Murphy has positioned New Jersey as returning to a national leader on clean, renewable energy through a set of executive orders and actions to make big investments in offshore wind, commit to 100% clean energy by 2050 and rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
"New Jersey is still suffering the impacts of Superstorm Sandy and we finally have a governor who both fully believes the climate science -- and is willing to act on it," said Doug O'Malley, director of Environment New Jersey. "Over the last year, New Jersey has vaulted back to become a top echelon state for clean, renewable energy with new leadership in Trenton."
"Americans understand that climate change is an existential issue, with growing threats to the health and well-being of their friends, family and neighbors," added McGimsey, "We look forward to leadership from our governors to ensure that Americans can pursue their lives, liberty and happiness with a stable climate."
With Environment America, you protect the places that all of us love and promote core environmental values, such as clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and clean energy to power our lives. We're a national network of 29 state environmental groups with members and supporters in every state. Together, we focus on timely, targeted action that wins tangible improvements in the quality of our environment and our lives.
(303) 801-0581LATEST NEWS
Citing Ethnic Cleansing, US Army Major Resigns Over Israel's Assault on Gaza
"As the descendant of European Jews, I was raised in a particularly unforgiving moral environment when it came to the topic of bearing responsibility for ethnic cleansing," wrote Maj. Harrison Mann.
May 13, 2024
An American Army officer on Monday described months of being increasingly disturbed by the images and news of Israel's U.S.-backed bombardment of Gaza, which culminated in his public resignation from his position at the Defense Intelligence Agency to avoid further complicity in Israel's "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians.
Army Maj. Harrison Mann published his resignation letter on LinkedIn, saying he had distributed it internally on April 16 to announce his resignation from the agency.
As an officer at the DIA, Mann said, he has been unable to escape the fact that his place of work "directly executes policy" for the Biden administration, including its "nearly unqualified support for the government of Israel, which has enabled and empowered the killing and starving of tens and thousands of innocent Palestinians."
"My work here—however administrative or marginal it appeared—unquestionably contributed to that support," wrote Mann.
He described wrestling with the question of whether he could continue working at the DIA, reasoning with himself that, "I don't make policy and it's not my place to question it."
"However, at some point it became difficult to defend the outcomes of this particular policy," Mann wrote. "At some point—whatever the justification—you're either advancing a policy that advances the mass starvation of children, or you're not."
At the time Mann sent his letter to his colleagues, Israel was conducting airstrikes and preparing its ground invasion of Rafah, the southern Gaza city that over 1 million Palestinians have been forcibly displaced to since October.
Israel has continued to block aid to Gaza even after saying in early April it would open a crossing and a port, and has now pushed the enclave into what the United Nations World Food Program chief said earlier this month was a "full-blown famine." Dozens of people have died of starvation. At least 35,091 people who have been killed in Israel's military assault—two-thirds of those killed have been women and children, despite Israel's claim it is targeting Hamas fighters.
Mann wrote that as the bombardment dragged on and U.S. President Joe Biden's defense and funding of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) continued, his mind turned to his European Jewish relatives.
"As the descendant of European Jews, I was raised in a particularly unforgiving moral environment when it came to the topic of bearing responsibility for ethnic cleansing—my grandfather refused to ever purchase products manufactured in Germany—where the paramount importance of 'never again' and the inadequacy of 'just following orders' were oft repeated," wrote Mann. "But I also have hope that my grandfather would afford me some grace; that he would still be proud of me for stepping away from this war, however belatedly."
Mann publicized his letter about six weeks after foreign affairs officer Annelle Sheline resigned from her position at the U.S. State Department, saying her work in the human rights realm in the Middle East had become "impossible" in light of Biden's material and political support for Israel's assault on Gaza.
Education Department official Tariq Habash, a Palestinian American, also resigned in protest earlier this year, and a top official who oversaw arms transfers at the State Department, Josh Paul, stepped down in October, citing the Biden administration's decision to send more arms to Israel as the war began.
In February, U.S. Air Force member Aaron Bushnell died after self-immolating in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., having said he was engaging "in an extreme act of protest" to avoid being complicit in genocide.
On LinkedIn, Mann wrote Monday that he "received an unexpected outpouring of support" when he distributed his letter internally, and appeared to address other federal employees who may be questioning their complicity in Biden's policies.
"I am sharing [the letter] now in the hope that you too will discover you are not alone, you are not voiceless, and you are not powerless," wrote Mann.
Feds United for Peace, which includes employees across 30 federal agencies who have advocated for a cease-fire in Gaza, called Mann's letter "incredibly significant."
The New York Timesreported that it is not known "whether other military officers have resigned in protest of U.S. foreign policy" since the Hamas-led attack on Israel in October and the IDF's deadly retaliation, "but the resignation of an active-duty officer in protest of U.S. foreign policy is likely uncommon—especially one in which the officer makes public the reasons for doing so."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Banks Have Funded Climate Crisis With Nearly $7 Trillion Since Paris Agreement
"Banks that profit from climate chaos invent new greenwash every year, but we have the receipts that show how much money they put into fossil fuels," said one report author.
May 13, 2024
The world's 60 biggest banks funded fossil fuels to the tune of $6.9 trillion in the eight years following the Paris agreement.
That's the conclusion of the 15th annual Banking on Climate Chaos report, which was published Monday and also found that the financial institutions lavished $705 billion on oil, gas, and coal in 2023—the hottest year on record.
"Financiers and investors of fossil fuels continue to light the flame of the climate crisis," Tom BK Goldtooth, report co-author and executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, said in a statement. "Paired with generations of colonialism, the fossil fuel industry and banking institutions' investment in false solutions create unlivable conditions for all living relatives and humanity on Mother Earth."
U.S. financial giants JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America topped the "dirty dozen" list of the banks that gave the most to fossil fuels since 2016, at $430.9 billion, $396.3 billion, and $333.2 billion respectively. In 2023, U.S. banks provided 30% of total fossil fuel finance, the largest share of any country. JPMorgan also topped the 2023 list at $40.88 billion, with Japanese bank Mizuho Financial overtaking the No. 2 spot with $37.04 billion, and Bank of America remaining in third place with $33.68 billion.
"The science shows that over half of fossil fuels in existing fields and mines must stay underground to limit global warming to 1.5°C, and our Big Oil Reality Check analysis finds that none of the major oil and gas companies we analyze plan to do anything even close to what is needed to hold global warming to 1.5°C," report-co-author David Tong, the global industry campaign manager at Oil Change International, said in a statement. "By injecting a staggering $70[5] billion into fossil fuel financing in 2023 alone, the world's largest banks fund the climate chaos fossil fuel companies wreck on communities worldwide."
The report also tracks how much the financial institutions spent on companies that had fossil fuel expansion plans, according to the Global Oil and Gas Exit List and the Global Coal Exit List. The banks spent $3.3 trillion since 2016 and $347.5 billion in 2023 alone on these companies, or nearly half of total expenditures. Report co-author April Merleaux, research and policy manager at Rainforest Action Network, called the 2023 expansion finance figure "dangerous and inconsistent with real climate commitments."
Overall, Citibank has spent the most on fossil fuel expansion since 2016 at $204 billion, while JPMorgan was the top funder of expansion in 2023 with $19.3 billion.
"As this report is worth nothing if it doesn't turn into action, we call on the banks to finally become fossil free banks, and on the wider climate justice movement to use this data to mobilize for a fossil free banking world."
The researchers also looked at what fossil fuel companies and activities the banks were financing. All told, they considered funding to 4,228 companies. Clients with major expansion plans in 2023 included the pipeline companies Enbridge, TC Energy Corp, and Sempra as well as NextDecade Corp and Rio Grande Valley LNG, which are developing new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity.
Fossil fuel financing did decrease in 2023, down from $778.7 billion in 2022.
"The trend of decreased financing from traditional banks to fossil fuel companies is good news, tempered by the reality that financing for fossil fuel expansion should be zero," the report authors wrote. "But there is little evidence that the decline is driven by voluntary commitments by the banks, especially given the policy rollbacks among major banks."
Indeed, in 2023, Bank of America rolled back commitments to not fund Arctic drilling, thermal coal, or coal-fired plants. Instead, the report authors suggested the downturn in finance was due to external economic and geopolitical factors.
"Unless banks take action to rule out finance for such clients, the decline may not be permanent," they warned.
When it came to the funding of individual high-risk fossil fuel activities, funding for overall expansion, fracking, tar sands, coal- and gas-power plants, and Amazon, Arctic, and deepwater oil and gas all declined. At the same time, funding for metallurgical coal, coal mining, and methane LNG all increased, with LNG funding rising from $116 billion in 2022 to $121 billion in 2023.
"In a year with record climate impacts, I am shocked to see financing for any category of fossil fuels increase. And yet in 2023 this report shows a big increase in financing to companies developing methane gas terminals and related infrastructure," Merleaux said. "Banks should be listening to those on the frontlines and stepping away from these projects."
This year the report—which is a collaboration between Rainforest Action Network; BankTrack; the Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development; Indigenous Environmental Network; Oil Change International; Reclaim Finance; Sierra Club; and Urgewald— features updated methodology that primary sources revealing the role of banks in corporate financial deals. The banks were given a chance to review the data and respond.
"Wall Street's top concern is its profit. Our top concerns are the climate and human rights. Banks that profit from climate chaos invent new greenwash every year, but we have the receipts that show how much money they put into fossil fuels," Merleaux said. "Our new methodology uncovers previously unreported details on banks' support for fossil fuels and gives campaigners new tools to hold them accountable."
Accountability is the report's main goal, according to co-author Diogo Silva, who leads the banks and climate campaign at BankTrack.
"As this report is worth nothing if it doesn't turn into action, we call on the banks to finally become fossil free banks, and on the wider climate justice movement to use this data to mobilize for a fossil free banking world," Silva said. "Later might just be too late. Fossil banks, no thanks!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Madness Is Taking Over the West': US Senator Suggests Israel Nuke Gaza
"A nuclear attack on Gaza would be catastrophic with unimaginable consequences," said the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, adding that casual talks of using such arms "shouldn't be normalized."
May 13, 2024
Anti-war voices on Monday fiercely condemned U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham's suggestion that Israel would be within its rights to drop nuclear weapons on the Gaza Strip, seven months into an assault that has killed at least 35,091 Palestinians and injured another 78,827.
"Why did we drop two bombs—nuclear bombs—on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? To end a war that we couldn't afford to lose. You don't understand apparently what Israel is facing," Graham (R-S.C.) toldNBC News' Kristen Welker on "Meet the Press" Sunday.
"So when we were faced with destruction as a nation after Pearl Harbor, fighting the Germans and the Japanese, we decided to end the war by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons. That was the right decision," Graham said of World War II. "Give Israel the bombs they need to end the war they can't afford to lose and work with them to minimize casualties."
As the pair discussed U.S. President Joe Biden's effort to use arms shipments to try to push Israel to more precisely target Hamas, Graham added: "Why is it okay for America to drop two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end their existential threat war? Why was it okay for us to do that? I thought it was okay. To Israel, do whatever you have to do to survive as a Jewish state."
Responding on social media Monday, Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis declared that "madness is taking over the West."
CodePink pointed to the pro-Palestine protests at U.S. colleges and universities and said that "it is despicable that a sitting senator can go on live TV to support nuclear bombing Gaza, but students protesting a genocide are made out to be a threat."
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) on Monday called out Graham's comments as "utterly unacceptable."
ICAN warned that "any use of nuclear weapons wouldn't 'end' a war; it would solely lead to mass murder, immense sufferings for hundreds of thousands of people that would last for decades and beyond generations, and cause devastating harm to the environment."
"A nuclear attack on Gaza would be catastrophic with unimaginable consequences, including for Israelis given how radioactive fallout is no respecter of borders," the group emphasized. "Statements like that by Lindsey Graham justifying these weapons plus suggesting they're used shouldn't be normalized."
"Nuclear weapons are illegal under international law, civilians and civilian infrastructure must never be targeted in warfare. This is a fundamental principle of international humanitarian law," ICAN added, also pointing to the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)—the passage of which led to the group receiving the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.
ICAN also highlighted that Graham has previously referenced Hiroshima and Nagasaki while discussing U.S. arms for Israel, including at a Senate hearing, which Japanese Foreign Minister Kamikawa Yōko was asked about last week.
"I believe those remarks about Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not appropriate. Japan is aware that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took so many precious lives and caused an extremely regrettable humanitarian situation in which people suffered indescribable hardships due to illness and disabilities," the foreign minister said.
"As the government has been saying for a long time, we believe the use of nuclear weapons does not match the spirit of humanitarianism, which is the ideological foundation of international law, because of their tremendous destructive and lethal power," she added.
Israel and the United States are two of the nine nations known to have nuclear weapons; the others are China, India, France, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia—which is currently waging war on Ukraine—and the United Kingdom. None of them support the TPNW.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular