Image at top via Flickr user Fintrvlr using a Creative Commons License.
From the September 1 edition of NBC's Nightly News:
Loading the player reg...
Two recent major analyses project a positive outlook for renewable energy, bolstering President Obama's recent initiative to implement more clean energy. But the media have largely ignored these reports -- and conservative media have instead seized upon an Inspector General report on Solyndra to cast doom on the future of renewable energy.
In July, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) released a report examining and applying methods for estimating the current and future economic potential of domestic renewable energy. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which recently crunched the numbers, NREL's analysis shows that renewable energy sources have the potential to supply anywhere from "35 percent to as much as 10 times the nation's current power needs." As UCS noted, NREL found that solar and wind power have the greatest economic potential.
On August 31, a joint report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) found that renewable energy sources "can produce electricity at close to or even below the cost of new fossil fuel-based power stations." The report stated that over the past five years, there has been a "significant drop in the price of solar and wind generation costs, especially for solar photovoltaic (PV) installations, as a result of sustained technological progress."
In the meantime, on August 24, President Obama announced new executive actions intended to support renewable energy and encourage energy efficiency in households nationwide. The actions included supporting projects to improve solar panel energy production, bringing solar energy to more homes, making it easier for residents to invest in clean energy technologies, and making $1 billion in additional loan guarantee authority available for clean energy ventures.
As expected, conservative media have been seizing upon defunct solar company Solyndra -- which received funding from the same loan guarantee program before going bankrupt -- to dismiss the president's clean energy actions and renewables as a whole.
This time, Solyndra mentions did not come out of the blue -- but they still don't work to cast doubt current or future renewable energy policies. The Department of Energy's (DOE) Inspector General released a report on August 24 finding that Solyndra officials misled DOE officials to receive its loan. The report found that DOE officials felt pressured to approve the loan, but the IG report stated that "the actions of the Solyndra officials were at the heart of this matter, and they effectively undermined the Department's efforts to manage the loan guarantee process." Further, a 2014 DOE audit found that the department has sufficiently implemented recommendations to improve oversight and management of the program.
But the new Solyndra report should not be used to cast doubt on the future of renewable energy as a whole.
Conservative media may never stop talking about Solyndra to smear other clean energy programs. But problematic Solyndra reporting has not been limited to the right-wing; mainstream media also have a history of uncritically reporting inaccuracies and airing one-sided coverage.
Hopefully, in coverage of Obama's clean energy actions, media will discuss the prominent forward-looking reports, which unequivocally show a bright future for renewable energy.
Image at the top via Flickr Creative Commons.
From the September 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report With Bret Baier:
Loading the player reg...
Ten years after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, environmental justice advocates feel the time is long overdue for the media to start connecting the dots between climate change and social justice.
There may be no clearer example of this intersection than in the impact and aftermath of 2005's Hurricane Katrina. Between the devastating effects of the storm itself, and the decade-long effort to restore destroyed communities afterwards, the region's African-American population has demonstrably suffered the most.
In media coverage of the storm's upcoming 10-year anniversary, a few reports have discussed how the hurricane's strength was exacerbated by climate change -- warmer seas lead to stronger storms, and global warming-driven sea level rise causes catastrophic storm surges. Others have looked at how African-American communities have suffered -- and continue to suffer -- disproportionately compared to white communities from the storm's impacts.
But rarely do media discuss the relation between the two.
There have been a handful of excellent exceptions, including a Guardian op-ed from Elizabeth Yeampierre, the executive director of Uprose, an organization that fights for environmental justice. Yeampierre wrote:
Those of us from low-income communities of color are on the frontlines of the climate crisis. US cities and towns that are predominantly made up of people of color are also home to a disproportionate share of the environmental burdens that are fueling the climate crisis and shortening our lives. One has only to recall the gut-wrenching images of Hurricane Katrina's aftermath to confirm this.
Yeampierre explained to Media Matters that "understanding the intersectionality" between climate change and social justice is "really important. We can't pick, we can't choose. It all matters to us, all of these issues." When asked why media should report on the connection between the two issues, Yeampierre said: "On top of generations and generations of struggling to have their human rights respected, now [communities of color] are dealing with climate change on top of that. That's the story for front-line communities all over the country."
Yeampierre also noted the problem with dealing with these issues in "silos," adding that climate change "is demanding something different":
Our communities have always known that there is an intersection, that's not new. We've always known that. ... The way that people usually solve problems is in silos, so because they think and provide resources and attention in a way that's siloed, it slows down the ability to really address our communities' needs in a holistic way. This is a problem that goes across issues.
Climate change is demanding something different. Climate change is demanding that we build just relationships. Climate change is demanding that, because we know that by 2040 people of color will be the majority in this country, at a time when climate change will have fully taken a hold, it's important that we are developing intergenerational indigenous relationships on the ground right now.
Yeampierre is not alone in her views. Tracey Ross, associate director of the Poverty to Prosperity Program at the Center for American Progress, told Media Matters that she hopes the Katrina anniversary will bring renewed media attention to "just how vulnerable low-income communities and communities of color are to extreme weather events":
Following Hurricane Katrina, news reports revealed to the country just how vulnerable low-income communities and communities of color are to extreme weather events. While days of hurt turned into years of struggle for families, news coverage largely shifted its focus away from the impacts of the tragedy. Today, low-income communities in New Orleans remain in disrepair, and the intersections of climate change, racial inequality, and poverty are more pressing for the country than ever before. We hope that the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina brings renewed attention to these important issues.
Vien Truong, the national director of Green for All -- which works to "make sure people of color have a place and a voice in the climate movement" -- told Media Matters that the real story of Katrina's devastation on low-income communities "has been under-reported":
Hurricane Katrina showed the country the devastating impacts extreme weather events have on us all -- and especially to low income communities. The impact of the storm -- the loss of homes, lives, and livelihood -- revealed the importance for all communities to engage in the conversation around environmental equity. This is a story, however, that has been under-reported.
She added: "As we remember the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, let us also reaffirm the importance of environmental justice."
Image at the top from Gulf South Rising, a movement created to highlight the impact of the global climate crisis on the Gulf South region.
It seems like a different study attacking the EPA's Clean Power Plan pops up in the media every other week. But many of these studies are riddled with flaws and funded by fossil fuel interests, so media should think twice before repeating their claims.
A new briefing from the Energy & Policy Institute (EPI) detailed the fossil fuel funding and methodological flaws of six reports attacking the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) carbon pollution standards. One of them, a study from NERA Economic Consulting, has been thoroughly debunked by multiple experts, who say the report is completely out of date, uses faulty efficiency cost assumptions and outdated renewable energy cost assumptions, and does not acknowledge any of the EPA plan's economic benefits, rendering its findings irrelevant.
The deeply flawed NERA study also forms the basis for a new analysis from the Institute for Energy Research (IER) (not included in EPI's briefing), which concluded that the Clean Power Plan will result in 14,000 premature deaths. IER's analysis led to horrific (and completely false) headlines like this, from the conservative news site Daily Caller:
To arrive at their conclusion, IER used NERA's GDP loss estimate and converted it directly into increased premature deaths. However, using that method doesn't make much sense, as NERA failed to acknowledge the Clean Power Plan's projected life-saving health and economic benefits. Thankfully, IER's conclusion has so far been confined to the conservative media fringe.
However, numerous groups have touted the public health benefits of pollution standards, and the EPA estimates that its plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants would prevent 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children. So how does IER's analysis arrive at such a drastically different conclusion? A look at the chain of fossil fuel-funding behind IER and the NERA study may provide the answer.
The cover page of the NERA study states that it was prepared for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the Association of American Railroads, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, Consumer Energy Alliance, and the National Mining Association. Combined, they're a who's who of fossil fuel industry trade groups and advocacy organizations. EPI put together a graphic showing many of the coal and oil companies that comprise these groups:
As for IER, the group lists former Koch lobbyist Thomas Pyle as its president and is partly funded by the oil billionaire Koch brothers and their political network. IER has also received funding from Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Koch-backed DonorsTrust and Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation.
The other reports detailed in EPI's briefing include one from the National Black Chamber of Commerce, another from the Beacon Hill Institute, two from Energy Ventures Analysis (one of which was funded directly by coal giant Peabody Energy), and one from IER. These reports are often publicized through coordinated media campaigns and newspaper op-eds across the country.
EPI's report illustrates how multiple industry-funded studies work in concert to simulate a chorus of diverse voices attacking the EPA's flagship climate plan. But really, it's just the industry protecting its bottom line.
Image at top via Flickr user Fintrvlr using a Creative Commons License.
A 2014 report from National Economic Research Associates (NERA), which claimed that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan will greatly increase electricity bills, has been roundly criticized as premature and reliant on faulty assumptions. But even after the EPA released the final version of their plan -- which has significant differences from the draft plan -- media have continued to uncritically cite NERA's report. Expert analysts explained to Media Matters the NERA report's many flaws, and why media should avoid broadcasting NERA's claims if they want to report the facts.
In coverage of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) newly-proposed standards to lower methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, several major media outlets uncritically quoted oil industry officials who claim that the new rules are unnecessary because the industry is already effectively limiting its emissions. By contrast, other outlets mentioned a new study by the Environmental Defense Fund showing that methane emissions are far higher than official estimates, part of a body of evidence that undercuts the industry's claim.
In recent weeks, The Hill has published at least six articles that quoted industry-funded front groups attacking the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan without disclosing the groups' fossil fuel ties. Many oil, coal and utility companies have a financial interest in opposing the Clean Power Plan, which establishes the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants, and readers of The Hill deserve to know whether groups criticizing the plan have taken money from fossil fuel companies.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board is echoing debunked oil industry claims that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) climate change plan will harm low-income families and people of color, while also denying the devastation that pollution is disproportionately inflicting on these communities.
In an August 12 editorial, The Journal attacked the EPA for including "new antipoverty transfer programs" in the Clean Power Plan, which will address climate change by limiting carbon pollution from power plants. According to The Journal, provisions to "ensure that all communities share in the benefits" of the plan -- referenced on page 1,317 of the final rule -- are proof that the plan will harm low-income and minority communities by increasing home electricity bills. The only other purported evidence The Journal cited in support of this conclusion came from the National Black Chamber of Commerce, an oil industry front group whose "study" on the Clean Power Plan is based on climate science denial and thoroughly debunked industry-linked reports.
The Journal went on to attack the environmental justice movement as a "political grievance school" and dispute that pollution causes "disproportionate damage to the poor and minorities":
The [EPA] orders states "to evaluate the effects of their plans on vulnerable communities and to take the steps necessary to ensure that all communities benefit from the implementation of this rule." These are the themes of "environmental justice," the political grievance school that argues for income redistribution to offset the allegedly disproportionate damage to the poor and minorities from pollution.
It is more accurate to say that any economic disparities arise from the rule itself. Regulations that artificially raise energy prices are regressive.
The Journal couldn't be more wrong here. While the EPA has worked with environmental justice organizations to take precautions that will protect vulnerable communities from any potential short-term electricity bill increases, independent analysts agree with the EPA that the plan will result in significantly lower electric bills once it is fully implemented. That will help Americans of all socioeconomic conditions, but particularly low-income families.
Meanwhile, the immense public health benefits that will arise from the EPA plan will be particularly important for low-income and minority communities, who do disproportionately suffer from pollution, despite The Journal's protestations.
According to a 2012 report by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the annual per capita income of people who live within three miles of a coal-fired power plant is more than $3,000 less than the national average. Moreover, in 2011 Earthjustice and the Environmental Justice Research Center found that the poverty rate for those who live near a coal plant is a full percentage point higher than the national average. The groups noted that the problem is particularly pronounced in southern states such as Alabama and Mississippi, where "the poverty rate near coal plants is more than twice the national average," and Tennessee, where "the number of people living below the poverty line near coal plants is 41% higher than would be expected from the national average."
People of color are also disproportionately impacted by pollution, and therefore stand to greatly benefit from the Clean Power Plan. For instance, the EPA estimates that its plan will result in 90,000 fewer asthma attacks every year once it is fully implemented. That is particularly important for African-Americans and Latinos, who are each much more likely than whites to die from asthma-related causes, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
These groups are also disproportionately affected by climate change. The NAACP has noted that African-Americans, who are more likely than whites to live in urban and coastal areas, are particularly at risk from climate impacts such as rising sea levels, food insecurity, and heat-related deaths. And the 2014 National Climate Assessment stated that new Hispanic immigrants are particularly "vulnerable to changes in climate," due to "[l]ow wages, unstable work, language barriers, and inadequate housing," all of which are "critical obstacles to managing climate risk."
The Wall Street Journal may wish to dismiss what it calls "the EPA's form of carbon justice," but the reality is that the disparate impacts of pollution are very real, regardless of what its editorial board chooses to think.
Image at top via Flickr user Rainforest Action Network using a Creative Commons License.
Investor's Business Daily published an Aug. 12 op-ed with the headline: "EPA Regulations Are 'Jim Crow' Laws Of 21st Century." The op-ed, written by a senior fellow at the oil-funded Heartland Institute, attacked the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan -- which places the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants -- as harmful to minorities. To make his case, the author cited a National Black Chamber of Commerce study that relies on several thoroughly debunked studies and climate science denial. The op-ed also cited conservative author Deneen Borelli, who called the EPA climate plan "the green movement's new Jim Crow."
From the op-ed:
EPA Regulations Are 'Jim Crow' Laws Of 21st Century
In announcing EPA's new so-called "Clean Power Plan" regulations, President Obama repeatedly told us that by restricting power plant emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the plan would "cut carbon pollution." But that repeated phrase "carbon pollution" reveals fundamental, disqualifying ignorance.
As a new report from the National Black Chamber of Commerce documents, EPA's new regulatory requirements will result in estimated job losses reaching 7 million for blacks and 12 million for Hispanics, with the poverty rate increasing by more than 23% for blacks and 26% for Hispanics.
That's because the rules will ultimately more than double the cost of natural gas and electricity, adding over $1 trillion to family and business energy bills.
"A lot of people on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum are going to die," says Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V. African-American author Dineen Borelli calls EPA's overregulation "the green movement's new Jim Crow." National Black Chamber of Commerce President Harry Alford calls the EPA's regulatory overkill "a slap in the face to poor and minority families."
If it seems like conservative media are relishing the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accidentally spilled toxic wastewater into the Animas River in Colorado while attempting to treat pollution from an abandoned gold mine, it's because they are. Many of the media figures who are most ferociously criticizing the EPA over the spill have a long history of opposing EPA efforts to reduce pollution, which suggests that they are conjuring up faux outrage about this pollution in an attempt to weaken the EPA and prevent it from fulfilling its mandate to protect Americans' air and water.
The Washington Times laid out this anti-EPA strategy quite clearly in an Aug. 10 article. The Times promoted the allegation from "critics" that the mine spill "threaten[s] the credibility of the Environmental Protection Agency at a crucial moment" and provides "ammunition" for opponents of the EPA's clean air and water protections, including the Clean Power Plan. The "critics" quoted in the article included Dan Kish, a senior vice president at the oil industry-funded Institute for Energy Research, and Michael McKenna, the president of MWR Strategies, a lobbying firm that represents polluting fossil fuel interests such as Koch Industries and Southern Company.
This is just the latest attempt by The Washington Times to use industry-funded "critics" to undermine the Clean Power Plan, which would address climate change by placing the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants. It follows two other Times articles that cherry-picked statements from fossil fuel industry-funded individuals and organizations to allege that the EPA climate plan "faces opposition from black [and] Hispanic leaders."
Then there's The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which revealed a newfound concern for pollution in an Aug. 11 editorial that lamented the "fiasco" in Colorado it blamed on "the green police." The Journal's stated worries about the "ecological ramifications" of the mine spill are hard to take seriously when they come from one of the most persistent critics of federal efforts to clean up pollution -- dating back to the Journal's claims about acid rain and ozone depletion in the 1970's and 1980's.
In the years since, the Journal's editorial page has consistently sided with polluting industries against EPA air and water protections. When the Supreme Court recently ruled against the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards on procedural grounds, jeopardizing a safeguard that reduces toxic air pollution linked to cancer, heart attacks, and premature death, the Journal called it "a welcome rebuke to EPA arrogance." When the EPA moved to reduce pollution by increasing fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, the Journal declared that automakers were being held as "hostages" to the EPA's "crushing" rule. And when the EPA moved to protect waterways that provide drinking water for 117 million Americans, the Journal described it as an "amphibious attack" by the "Washington water police."
Now the Journal is urging states to "refuse to comply" with the EPA's Clean Power Plan, so that power plants can continue to spew unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air, threatening public health and exacerbating climate change.
Fox News has also been all over the EPA's mishandling of the Colorado mine spill, including comparing it to the BP Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez oil spills. But Fox pundits vigorously defended BP in the wake of the 2010 spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and even claimed coverage of the Exxon Valdez spill was proof that "the press is horrible to business." They've also characterized the EPA's Clean Water Rule as a power grab, claimed that EPA officials are "job terrorists" for seeking to reduce smog, and enlisted fossil fuel industry allies to attack the EPA's carbon pollution standards.
For these conservative media outlets, pollution is only a problem when they can blame the EPA for it.
By now you're probably familiar with Koch-funded science denial. Now meet Coke-funded science denial.
Fox News host Shepard Smith compared the news that Coca-Cola is funding scientists who dispute the link between caloric intake and obesity to the fossil fuel industry money behind climate change deniers, in stark contrast with how right-wing media figures reacted.
The New York Times recently revealed how Coca-Cola is behind a new organization called the Global Energy Balance Network that is promoting exercise as "a solution to chronic disease and obesity while remaining largely silent on the role of food and nutrition." The group's vice president, Steven N. Blair, said in a video announcing the organization: "Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is ... blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks, and so on [for obesity]. And there's really virtually no compelling evidence that that in fact is the cause."
But the Times reported that health experts "say this message is misleading and part of an effort by Coke to deflect criticism about the role sugary drinks have played in the spread of obesity and Type 2 diabetes." The experts "contend that the company is using its new group to convince the public that physical activity can offset a bad diet despite scientific evidence that exercise has only minimal impact on weight compared with what people consume." Global nutrition professor Barry M. Popkin told the Times that "Coke's support of prominent health researchers was reminiscent of tactics used by the tobacco industry, which enlisted experts to become 'merchants of doubt' about the health hazards of smoking."
On the August 10 edition of Fox News' Shepard Smith Reporting, anchor Smith offered a similar analogy -- and extended it even further to climate change denial. Smith said the story "reminds you of exactly what the tobacco industry did back in day, and more recently, it also reminds you of what the climate deniers -- the climate change deniers -- are doing as well":
However, Fox contributor Lisa "Kennedy" Montgomery countered with rhetoric more in line with that of Fox News, claiming that "there's so much adulterated science out there that people are no longer going to trust the scientific method at all," and that it's "hard to figure out ... what is emotional rhetoric and what is fact" on climate change. (The facts undoubtedly show that climate change is real and that humans are causing it.)
And Rush Limbaugh came to the complete opposite conclusion as Smith. On the August 10 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh ranted that the Times' Coca-Cola story "undermine[s] the whole notion of a scientific consensus," because it "can be bought and paid for":
LIMBAUGH: If Coca-Cola can find scientists and get an opinion that they want from by paying them, do you think the same thing could happen to climate change scientists and a "consensus" of them? Do you think somebody could come along and offer those scientists enough money? I mean, the left, if anybody's paying attention, is writing their own obituary in this stuff.
They're undermining the whole notion of a scientific consensus. Now it can be bought and paid for by Coca-Cola.
The tobacco industry has used deceitful tactics for decades to deny and cast doubt upon the scientifically proven health impacts of cigarettes, and the fossil fuel industry has employed the same tactics on climate change. Now, the Coke-funded scientists agreeing with the industry's bottom line have been roundly criticized by independent scientists and health experts. Is Coke the new flavor of industry-funded science denial?
When it comes to covering climate change, it's not just The Wall Street Journal's editorial section that is problematic in the Rupert Murdoch era -- a new study shows the paper's newsroom has misinformed readers on the issue, too.
A new joint study from researchers at Rutgers University, the University of Michigan, and the University of Oslo appearing in the journal Public Understanding of Science (PUS) found major differences between the climate change reporting of The Wall Street Journal and other major U.S. newspapers. The July 30 study, titled "Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers' coverage of climate change," examined non-opinion-based climate change articles in The Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post from 2006 to 2011.
The study found some disturbing trends in The Wall Street Journal's news reporting on climate change, including that the Journal was less likely than the other newspapers to discuss the threats or impacts of climate change and more likely to frame climate action as ineffective or even harmful. The authors of the study concluded that, given the Journal's conservative readership, the negative nature of its climate reporting "could exacerbate ideological polarization on climate change."
Fox News Channel founder Rupert Murdoch purchased The Journal in 2007, so this flawed reporting largely happened on his watch.
Here's how The Journal differed from other major newspapers in its climate reporting:
The Journal was far less likely than the other newspapers to mention at least one impact of climate change on the environment, public health, national security, or the economy. The Journal only mentioned climate change impacts in 21.6 percent of its climate stories, far less frequently than The New York Times (40.3 percent), Washington Post (48.8 percent) and USA Today (58.2 percent). In particular, The Journal was far and away the least likely newspaper to mention the impacts of climate change on the environment and public health.
The Journal was also least likely to cover climate change as a threat -- particularly as a present-day threat. The study found that The Journal discussed present-day threats from climate change in only 12.7 percent of its articles, whereas The Times, Washington Post, and USA Today discussed climate threats in 28.3, 39.5, and 40.3 percent of their climate coverage, respectively. Recent Pew polling shows that Americans consider climate change less of a threat than people in many other countries do, a trend that may be exacerbated by The Journal's coverage.
The Journal was by far the most likely newspaper to discuss climate change actions, particularly government actions. The Journal mentioned at least one action that could be taken to address climate change in 93.3 percent of its coverage, and mentioned government actions in 81.3 percent of its stories. By contrast, the other newspapers discussed climate actions in 82.1-83.6 percent of their climate coverage, including government action in 60.9-66.4 percent of their climate stories.
But that's not actually a good thing, because The Journal tended to frame those actions as difficult or ineffective. The study found that The Journal included "positive efficacy" -- framing climate actions as manageable or effective -- in just 20.1 percent of its climate coverage. It included "negative efficacy" -- framing climate actions as unsuccessful or costly -- in 33.6 percent of its climate stories.
The New York Times was the only other newspaper to frame climate actions negatively more often than positively. The Times included "positive efficacy" in 16.8 percent of its climate coverage, and "negative efficacy" in 23.9 percent.
Finally, The Journal was the most likely newspaper to use "conflict" framing -- presenting the issue as "a conflict or power struggle between politicians or stakeholder groups (e.g. Democrats and Republicans battling over legislation, international disputes over climate policy, climate change as an election issue)." It did so in 53 percent of its climate coverage.
For the second time in recent months, The Washington Times has cherry-picked statements from fossil fuel industry-funded individuals and organizations to allege that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan "faces opposition from black [and] Hispanic leaders." In reality, a great majority of African-American and Latino voters support climate action, and leaders from many of the largest minority groups have come out in support of the plan.
Several polls indicate that African-American and Latino voters overwhelmingly support government action to combat climate change -- and the Clean Power Plan specifically. Additionally, many major black and Hispanic organizations have endorsed the EPA's plan to reduce carbon pollution from power plants because of the financial and health benefits it will provide for their communities.
Here's a list of people of color who aren't representing the fossil fuel industry that The Washington Times could have cited if it had wanted to fairly reflect how the nation's African-American and Latino communities feel about the Clean Power Plan:
Cornell Williams Brooks, NAACP President and CEO: In an Aug. 4 statement mentioning the health benefits the EPA's plan would bring to African-Americans living "within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant," NAACP's Cornell Williams Brooks noted:
"As we enter the third day of America's Journey for Justice, I applaud President Obama's introduction of the Clean Power Plan. Just as we march to preserve our right to vote and to ensure that our children have access to good schools and a quality education, we also march to preserve our rights to clean air, clean water and to communities less impacted by climate change. The NAACP will continue to advocate for safer, cleaner, healthier energy alternatives and the job opportunities that result from innovative energy solutions. We stand with President Obama's efforts to establish the protections our communities need."
Albert S. Jacquez, Deputy Executive Director of National Council of La Raza Action Fund (NCLRAF): In an Aug. 8 opinion column in The Huffington Post, Jacquez cited concern about how the Latino community is among the most affected by climate change in places like California, Texas, and Florida as a key reason for the overwhelming Latino support for taking action:
Thus, it is not surprising that Latinos are so concerned about climate change. Polling shows that 82 percent are concerned with climate change, and nine-in-ten believe it is important for the government to take action on climate change.
This is why President Obama's historical and ambitious Clean Power Plan is so important and relevant for Latinos. The Clean Power Plan sets the first-ever limits on dangerous carbon pollution from the nation's existing power plants. It will protect public health from dangerous carbon pollution, invest in clean, renewable energy development, and boost energy efficiency measures, creating jobs in the process.
Gilbert Campbell and Antonio Francis, Volt Energy: In a statement, the two co-founders of this "minority-owned renewable energy firm" applauded the Clean Power Plan:
Volt Energy applauds President Obama's leadership on clean energy and especially with the Clean Power Plan. The president's leadership and commitment to clean power and climate action has helped the industry create millions of jobs and become one of the fastest growing sectors in our economy. As a minority-owned renewable energy firm, we also appreciate his championing of small businesses and working towards creating an inclusive green economy.There is real wealth being created in the clean energy industry and it is vital that communities of color are actively involved and also reaping the benefits.
Jamez Staples, Renewable Energy Partners: Staples, who is also on the Economic Development Committee of the African American Leadership Forum, said:
"We live in a time when profits are increasingly valued over people. The Clean Power Plan has the capacity to create more balance by opening doors to clean energy that protects our health and our kids' futures."
Kimberly Lewis, U.S. Green Building Council: Lewis, who fights to expand "access to green building to communities of color," stated:
My nieces and nephews are the light of my life. They will bear the burden of previous generations unsustainable use of energy resources that lead to pollution and climate change. President Obama's Clean Power Plan is vital to protecting vulnerable populations such as children, the poor and the elderly who share an undue burden of climate change. It will not be easy - but we believe the EPA's approach can work.
Christine Alonzo, Executive Director of the Colorado Latino Leadership Advocacy Research Organization (CLLARO): In an Aug. 5 op-ed published in The Denver Post, Latino organization representative Christine Alonzo expressed her group's support for the Clean Power Plan:
As part of the national strategy to deal with climate change, CLLARO supports the Clean Power Plan and will encourage members of the Latino community to support it also. The improvement in the quality of health and life within the Latino community and the overall Colorado community merits such support.
Van Jones, Green For All: Van Jones, founder of Green for All -- which works to "make sure people of color have a place and a voice in the climate movement" -- praised the Clean Power Plan in an op-ed co-authored with Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) and published in The Guardian. They wrote that communities of color are disproportionately exposed to the health hazards of power plants, and that the Clean Power Plan "is a desperately needed response" to this problem:
African-Americans are more likely to live near environmental hazards like power plants and be exposed to hazardous air pollution, including higher levels of nitrogen oxides, ozone, particulate matter and carbon dioxide than their white counterparts ... We can't afford this. Black kids already have the highest rate of asthma in the nation, and our infant mortality rate is nearly double the national rate.
President Obama's Clean Power Plan is a desperately needed response to this problem. The Clean Power Plan would cut carbon pollution from power plants and put our country on a path towards cleaner energy solutions. It could stop up to 6,600 premature deaths and prevent up to 150,000 asthma attacks in children over the next 15 years - especially in African-American communities.
Elena Rios, National Hispanic Medical Association: National Hispanic Medical Association President and CEO Elena Rios said in a statement:
I, along with the National Hispanic Medical Association's 50,000 member doctors and allied health professionals, strongly support the EPA's final rule limiting carbon pollution from existing power plants. Pollution from these power plants -- both carbon pollution and other toxic power-plant emissions -- sickens people raising the risk of illnesses like asthma, allergies, lung cancer and heart disease.
The League Of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC): In a press release at the time the EPA's climate plan was announced, LULAC stated that "the Clean Power Plan will benefit Hispanic Americans more than most":
The League of United Latin American Citizens, this nation's largest and oldest Hispanic civil rights organization, fully supports the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to cut carbon pollution from America's power plants. Given that half of the U.S. Latino population lives in areas where the air quality does not meet EPA's health standards and that Latinos are 30 percent more likely to have to visit the hospital for asthma related attacks, the Clean Power Plan will benefit Hispanic Americans more than most.
Coalition Of Hispanic Groups Voiced Strong Support For Clean Power Plan In Letter To EPA's McCarthy. In a letter to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, a coalition of groups including GreenLatinos, AZUL, National Hispanic Medical Association, Latino Decisions, Mujeres de la Tierra, National Hispanic Environmental Council, Presente.org, CHISPA, Hispanic Federation, and Protegete: Our Air, Our Health stated:
We strongly support EPA in moving forward with the proposed Clean Power Plan in the strongest form possible. We know that communities of color and low-income communities, including the Latino community, are frequently among those most negatively impacted by carbon pollution. Whether it is exposure to health damaging copollutants associated with carbon emissions or the present and worsening effects of climate change, these impacts are both direct and indirect and they threaten the social and economic order of overexposed and overburdened communities.
During the 5 p.m. ET Fox News Republican presidential debate, moderator Bill Hemmer asked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) how Republicans could "trust" him after his "extremely unpopular" collaboration with Democrats on a cap-and-trade bill to address climate change. Graham reportedly warned Democrats at the time that they needed to accelerate negotiations on the bill as quickly as possible, "before Fox News got wind of the fact that this was a serious process." The network would go on to make a deliberate effort to undermine efforts to pass climate legislation.
During the debate, Hemmer asked Graham, "you worked with Democrats and President Obama when it came to climate change, something you know is extremely unpopular with conservative Republicans. How can they trust you based on that record?"
Ryan Lizza reported in The New Yorker that during 2010 negotiations on that climate bill, Graham urged fellow senators to move quickly on legislation before Fox found out about it: (emphasis added)
At a climate-change conference in South Carolina on January 5, 2010, Graham started to sound a little like Al Gore. "I have come to conclude that greenhouse gases and carbon pollution" are "not a good thing," Graham said. He insisted that nobody could convince him that "all the cars and trucks and plants that have been in existence since the Industrial Revolution, spewing out carbon day in and day out," could be "a good thing for your children and the future of the planet." Environmentalists swooned. "Graham was the most inspirational part of that triumvirate throughout the fall and winter," Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, said. "He was advocating for strong action on climate change from an ethical and a moral perspective."
But, back in Washington, Graham warned Lieberman and Kerry that they needed to get as far as they could in negotiating the bill "before Fox News got wind of the fact that this was a serious process," one of the people involved in the negotiations said. "He would say, 'The second they focus on us, it's gonna be all cap-and-tax all the time, and it's gonna become just a disaster for me on the airwaves. We have to move this along as quickly as possible.'"
Fox News hosts and guests would go on to viciously attack the bill, which never came to a vote in the Senate.
Graham ultimately withdrew from the bipartisan climate bill efforts, subsequently claiming that he didn't believe human-caused emissions "are contributing overwhelmingly to global climate change."
Media Matters later obtained an email from Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon to Fox journalists instructing them in the midst of the 2010 climate bill debate on Captiol Hill to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question." Sammon has since been identified as the "secret weapon" helping Fox journalists "craft the questions" for the evening debate.