Tuesday, November 5, 2019
Delivering 'Catastrophic Message in a Moment of Great Urgency,' Trump Formally Begins Ditching Paris Climate Deal
"President Trump's
decision to walk away from the Paris agreement is irresponsible and
shortsighted."
Monday, November 04, 2019
As President Donald Trump's
administration on Monday took the first step to formally withdraw from the
Paris agreement, climate campaigners reiterated concerns about the United
States ditching the landmark 2015 deal that aims to bring countries together to
tackle the climate emergency.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo announced the move in a tweet Monday, the first day that world leaders
could begin the one-year withdrawal process:
In response, Alden Meyer,
director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and
a leading expert on the United Nations' international climate negotiations
process, warned that "President Trump's decision to walk away from the
Paris agreement is irresponsible and shortsighted. All too many people are already
experiencing the costly and harmful impacts of climate change in the form of
rising seas, more intense hurricanes and wildfires, and record-breaking
temperatures."
The primary goal of
the Paris accord is to "strengthen the global response to the threat of
climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2
degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the
temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius."
Trump announced his
intention to abandon the agreement, which was backed by the Obama
administration, in a June 2017 speech. In the two years since, every nation on
earth has
pledged support for the accord, which went into effect on Nov. 4,
2016. No country was allowed to withdraw for three years.
The Trump administration was
required to send a
letter to the United Nations to begin the withdrawal process. U.S. State
Department spokesperson James Dewey had told The
Associated Press Friday that "the U.S. position with respect to the
Paris agreement has not changed. The United States intends to withdraw from the
Paris agreement."
"The total retreat by
President Trump and his administration in the global fight against climate
change is the definition of betrayal," declared Environmental
Working Group president Ken Cook. "The U.S. and the world are rapidly
running out of time to stave off the worst impacts of climate disruption, while
the president is actively working to speed up our collision with the biggest
existential threat facing every American."
Ahead of the administration's
letter on Monday, Jean Su, energy director with the Center for Biological
Diversity's (CBD) Climate Law Institute, said in
a statement that "Trump can run from the Paris agreement, but he can't
hide from the climate crisis."
"The silver lining is,
Trump's Paris withdrawal will give the global community a break from his
bullying support for fossil fuels," said Su. "But the next president
will need to rejoin the accord immediately and commit to the rapid, wholescale
clean-energy transformation the climate emergency demands."
The yearlong process means the
U.S. withdrawal would take effect after the next presidential election—meaning
that if someone other than Trump wins the White House in 2020, that president
could return to the deal within 30 days.
"America is the number
one historical contributor to the climate emergency wreaking havoc in burning
California, the flooded Southeast, and the rest of the world," Su added.
"The next president must repay this extraordinary climate debt by rapidly
moving America to 100 percent clean energy and financing the decarbonization of
the Global South."
Karen Orenstein, Friends of
the Earth's deputy director of economic policy, concurred in a statement
Monday.
"World leaders must not
wait for Trump, and must not use his moral bankruptcy as an excuse for
inaction," she said. "The rest of the world must implement the Paris
agreement without the United States."
"However, rich countries
must take the threat caused by climate change far more seriously and make their
mitigation and climate finance commitments commensurate with what climate
science and justice demand," Orenstein added. "When the U.S. has more
sane leadership and rejoins the international community, the Paris agreement
needs to be substantially more equitable and ambitious."
With the administration's
withdrawal, "Donald Trump is sending a signal to the world that there will
be no leadership from the U.S. federal government on the climate crisis—a
catastrophic message in a moment of great urgency," 350.org executive
director May Boeve said Monday.
The group's North America
director, Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, said that "Trump is torching our future
so fossil fuel billionaires can pull a profit while the rest of us pay the
price."
"When Trump first said
he'd quit Paris, our message was for elected officials and decision-makers to
pledge 'we are still in,' and double down on commitments for climate
action," she added. "That's still our expectation of all global
officials: to heed demands of the people for transformative climate
action."
Given the Trump
administration's intentions for this particular deal and broader record on
climate issues, O'Laughlin emphasized the importance of state and city
governments in the United States taking action "beyond the commitments of
the Paris agreement," which some activists and experts criticize for not
being bold enough.
Trump and his appointees
have worked
tirelessly to roll back and weaken key environmental and climate
policies implemented by his predecessors. Meanwhile, said Boeve, "a
majority of people in the United States understand the need to address this
crisis head-on."
"There's dangerous
regression from the Trump administration," she explained, "but there
is plenty of leadership everywhere else: young people leading with great
courage; the 7.6 million people who joined the Global Climate Strikes; wise investors
shifting trillions of dollars out of coal, oil, gas companies; liability in
courtrooms, and tribunals as the likes of Exxon are called to pay for the harm
they've caused; and more. The moral outrage at this decision will be a powerful
catalyst for action."
Youth-led climate strikes in
September bookended the U.N.
Climate Action Summit in New York City. Campaigners are
organizing another pair of strikes for Nov. 29 and Dec. 6, timed to
line up with COP25. At the global climate conference—which was recently moved
from Santiago,
Chile to Madrid,
Spain—world leaders will discuss their commitments under the Paris accord.
Katie Eder is the 19-year-old
executive director of Future Coalition, one of the youth groups involved with
planning the climate strikes.
"Trump has made it clear
that he is going to continue to put the wants of large corporations and fossil
fuel executives above the lives and futures of our generation," Eder said Monday.
"We're asking that elected officials at all levels maintain commitments to
the Paris climate agreement and end the fossil fuel era once and for all. We
will continue to strike, rally, and march so that elected officials hear that
message. And come November, if they don't listen, we are prepared to vote them
out."
Before the September strikes,
the Youth Climate Strike Coalition released its
five policy demands: respect for Indigenous land, environmental justice,
protecting biodiversity, the implementation of sustainable agriculture, and a
Green New Deal.
"The demand for climate
action cannot be ignored, and Trump's neglect of the will of the people won't
change that," concluded Toles O'Laughlin of 350.org. "Beyond the
Paris climate agreement, we're not going to stop until we get a Green New Deal
that ends fossil fuels and makes the industry pay for care and repair,
prioritizing frontline communities and workers in the transition."
Meyer of UCS noted that
"fortunately, no other country is following President Trump out the door
on Paris, and here at home, states, cities, and businesses representing more
than half of the U.S. GDP and population have committed to take action to meet
the Paris agreement's goals."
"Unlike the
president," he said, "these leaders understand that reducing
emissions creates jobs and protects local communities, while it is inaction on
climate that poses the real threat to prosperity."
Bernie Sanders Says Apple's $2.5 Billion Home Loan Program a Distraction From Hundreds of Billions in Tax Avoidance That Created California Housing Crisis
"We cannot rely on
corporate tax evaders to solve California's housing crisis."
Monday, November 04, 2019
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday
sharply criticized an announcement from tech giant Apple that the company
would invest $2.5
billion in helping to asssuage the effects of California's housing crisis—a
crisis that Apple has contributed to by driving prices up as the company has
expanded in the San Francisco area.
"Apple's announcement
that it is entering the real estate lending business is an effort to distract
from the fact that it has helped create California's housing crisis—all while
raking in $800 million of taxpayer subsidies, and keeping a quarter
trillion dollars of profit offshore, in order to avoid paying billions of
dollars in taxes," Sanders, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for
president in 2020, said in a statement.
"Bernie Sanders comes out
swinging on Apple's housing announcement," tweeted ReCode reporter Teddy
Schleifer.
"Bernie is the first 2020
candidate I've seen to weigh in on this," added Schleifer.
Sanders, in his statement,
said that relying on company's like Apple to solve the issue is not a
solution—no matter how much money the tech giant is throwing at the problem.
"Today, more than 134,000
Californians are homeless and renters need to earn $34.69 per hour to afford
the average two-bedroom apartment," said Sanders. "We cannot rely on
corporate tax evaders to solve California's housing crisis."
As Common Dreams reported,
Sanders unveiled his "Housing for All"
plan in September, promoting an end to homelessness, national rent control, and
the construction of 10 million new homes.
The senator referred to the
plan on Monday, promising Apple that it would contribute to solving the issue,
though perhaps not in the way the company had in mind. The proposal calls for
$2.5 trillion in spending over the next decade—which would "be fully paid
for by establishing a tax on the wealthiest top one-tenth of one percent of
Americans," according to the Sanders campaign.
"When we defeat Donald
Trump, we are going to make companies like Apple start paying their fair share,
so that we can finally start making massive long-term investments that
guarantee Americans affordable housing," said Sanders.
Report Shows How World's Top Capitalists Driving Humanity 'Head-On Into' Global Climate Emergency
The world's leading asset
managers, with trillions of dollars under their direction, continue to vote
down efforts to address the crisis.
Monday, November 04, 2019
A "striking"
report published Monday by the U.K.-based charity ShareAction exposes how the
largest U.S. asset managers are "overwhelmingly"
stalling corporate efforts to tackle the climate crisis despite those
companies' public proclamations and the growing demands for bold action from
people around the world.
ShareAction promotes "responsible
investment." According to the new report (pdf),
the group's "vision is a world where ordinary savers and institutional
investors work together to ensure our communities and environment are safe and
sustainable for all."
As the report—entitled Voting
Matters: Are Asset Managers Using Their Proxy Votes for Climate Action?—explains:
Investors have a key role to
play in helping avert dangerous climate change. One way they can do so is by
using their proxy voting rights. Proxy voting is the primary means by which
shareholders can exert influence over their investee companies and exert
stewardship... Yet, this stewardship tool is often underused by investors. This
year, the directors of BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Total were all
(re-)elected with on average 97% support from shareholders, despite these
companies being some of the largest emitting companies on earth and lacking
plans to transition to a well-below 2°C world.
Voting Matters analyzes
how 57 of the world's largest asset managers have voted on 65 recent
shareholder resolutions that covered topics including "climate-related
disclosures, companies' lobbying activities, and the setting of targets aligned
with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement."
ShareAction researchers found
that "U.S. asset managers are clear laggards in terms of proxy voting on
climate, whilst European asset managers lead the way." The top 10 worst
performers overall are based in the United States; even the report's highest
ranked U.S. managers score lower than those in Europe and the rest of the
world.
"These results are highly
concerning," Voting Matters says, "as the 20 largest U.S.
fund managers control about 35% of global assets under management (AUM), more
than double the 14% run by the top 20 European players."
The worst performers overall
are Capital Group, T. Rowe Price, Blackrock and J.P. Morgan—which are tied for
third—Vanguard Asset Management, Fidelity Management and Research Co.,
Wellington Management International, Franklin Templeton, Northern Trust, State
Street Global Advisors, and MetLife Investment Management.
"Six out of 10 of the
worst performers have come out in support of the Taskforce for Climate-related
Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and joined at least one investor engagement
initiative on climate change," the report notes, "yet fail to vote in
favor of resolutions on climate-related disclosures."
The report's author, ShareAction
campaign manager Jeanne Martin, said in a statement Monday that "you can't
boast climate-awareness in public and block climate goals in private."
"Ultimately, these
investors will be judged on their voting, which is the most powerful tool at
their disposal," Martin added. "They have the power to put the brakes
on the climate emergency, but they're on auto-pilot, driving us head-on into
it. We hope their clients take note of these findings which separate out those
who are really walking the walk on climate change."
Martin, in a series of tweets
Monday, outlined some of the report's key findings, including how fund managers
are responding to the more than 50 investor initiatives that aim to compel and
support investor activity on the climate crisis, such as the Climate Action
100+ (CA100+) Initiative, a global coalition that
pushes some of the world's highest emitting companies to pursue climate action.
Highlighting ShareAction's
recommendations for asset owners, Martin concluded that "as stewards of
capital for millions of beneficiaries, asset owners have a duty to monitor the
engagement activities and proxy voting records of their asset managers."
The report notes that
"the last few years have seen a shift in investors' attitudes towards
climate change." For example, "1,118 institutions representing
US$11.48 trillion in assets and more than 58,000 individual representing US$5.2
billion have committed to divest from fossil fuels."
For those figures, Voting
Matters cites Fossil Free, a
project of the global environmental group 350.org. DivestInvest and
350.org detailed the
divestment movement's successes in September with a report—released just ahead
of the Financing the Future summit in Cape Town—that celebrated surpassing the
$11 trillion milestone.
"What began as a moral
call to action by students is now a mainstream financial response to growing
climate risk to portfolios, the people, and the planet," the September
report said. "The momentum has been driven by a people-powered grassroots
movement, ordinary people on every continent pushing their local institutions
to take a stand against the fossil fuel industry and for a world powered by 100
percent renewable energy."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)