Search results

More Search Options
54 Results for 'Climate Change'
Recent
As Democrats assume control of the House and its various committees, Republicans are having to adapt to being the minority. On Wednesday, the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on climate change — part of what committee Democrats say will be a full court press on this issue — prompting outrage from Republicans. “Climate change is NOT in committee jurisdiction” tweeted Kristina Baum, the Republican minority communications director for the House Natural Resources Committee. The hearing, which made the case that climate change disproportionately harms communities of color, comes amidst a broader push by Democrats to make climate change a central issue; the most prominent example being a resolution co-authored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to create a committee on a Green New Deal, which garnered the support of high-profile Democratic presidential hopefuls Sens. Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Cory Booker. While Republicans point to the fact that climate change isn’t specifically enumerated in the committee’s official list of responsibilities, many of those responsibilities can’t be addressed without dealing with climate change. For example, Rule X(m), on the Natural Resources Committee’s jurisdiction, lists fossil fuel items specifically, such as “Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline,” and “petroleum conservation on public lands.” The list also mentions environmental domains already affected by climate change: “conservation…[of] fisheries and wildlife,” “public lands generally,” and “forest reserves and national parks.” “Almost everything in our jurisdiction either contributes to or is impacted by climate change,” Adam Sarvana, communications director for the Natural Resources Committee, told TYT. “We oversee fossil fuel extraction on public lands. We oversee the health of our national forests and national parks. We oversee federal policy in Indian Country. We oversee oceans and coastal zones. We oversee federal water resource management.” He said, “If they don’t see the climate change jurisdiction in what this Committee exists to do, that’s their business, but that does nothing to diminish the urgency of the climate work the Democratic majority will do in this Congress.” Speaking for committee Republicans, Baum told TYT, “We do not have jurisdiction over EPA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, clean energy, or even climate science….You will not see ‘climate change’ on the generous list of detailed items in committee jurisdiction.” Baum added, “The House Energy and Commerce committee has the regulation of fossil fuels, conservation of energy, and the list goes on. It seems as though the Democrats are mistaking us for either the House Energy and Commerce Committee or the House Science Committee.” The former digital director for the committee, Ben Goldey, who is also a Republican, echoed the sentiment. “Climate Change is not within the jurisdiction of @NatResources,” Goldey tweeted. Goldey left the committee in November, according to his LinkedIn account. Former committee chair, and now ranking member, Rob Bishop (R-UT), reportedly said that climate change is not in the committee’s jurisdiction but that it does help reporters “write cute stories.” At the same event, Bishop added, “I know you have made February climate change month. I appreciate the fact that you picked the shortest month of the year to do that.” Oil and gas are listed as Bishop’s top industry contributors this past cycle, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. Bishop did not immediately respond to TYT’s request for comment. The Republican rhetoric comes in response to a more aggressive climate posture on the part of the new Democratic majority. “We’re not stopping with today’s event,” Sarvana said, referring to the hearing on climate change. “Our climate hearing schedule is packed throughout the month because that’s the best way to inform lawmakers and prepare legislation. It’s a clear departure from Republican practice and rhetoric on climate change.” Ken Klippenstein is a senior investigative reporter for TYT. He can be reached securely via Signal at 202-510-1268, Twitter @kenklippenstein or via email: kenklippenstein@tytnetwork.com. Follow TYT Investigates on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to stay on top of exclusive news stories from The Young Turks.

GOP Committee: Climate Change ‘Not Our Jurisdiction’

PlusArticle
The Young Turks, Jul 23, 2025
PlusClip
America is now leading the way on fighting climate change, Biden says

Biden Apologizes for Trump's Withdrawal from Climate Agreement

PlusArticle
Many Republican candidates in battleground races for the US Senate and House seem to be ignoring national polls that indicate the majority of Americans, including the majority of Republicans, believe climate change is real and should be addressed. TYT Investigates examined six representative contests: Three U.S. Senate races and three House races. All are considered battleground races, meaning they are close and could impact the balance of power in Congress. But first the polls. CLIMATE CHANGE POLLS On July 16, the Global Strategy Group released the results of its national online poll. This was not a traditional telephone or even cell phone poll. Pollsters asked: Do you support the U.S. government taking bold action to combat climate change? Seventy-one percent chose support and 19 percent chose oppose. The online poll also asked: Who would you vote for, a Democrat supporting bold action to combat climate change or a Republican opposing bold action to combat climate change? Fifty-eight percent chose Democrat, 34 percent chose Republican. In June, a more traditional poll conducted by the Pew Institute came to similar conclusions. It found the majority of Americans, 65 percent, felt the Federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change. Seventy-nine percent felt the US should prioritize developing alternative energy sources. A surprising statistic from this Pew Institute poll was that, of Americans who identify as Republican or leaning Republican, 65 percent said the more important priority for U.S. energy supply should be developing alternative energy, versus 35 percent who chose expanding fossil fuel. BATTLEGROUND SENATE RACES In North Carolina, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis faces Democrat Cal Cunningham. In Arizona, Republican Sen. Martha McSally is running against Democrat Mark Kelly. In Colorado, Republican Sen. Cory Gardner faces Democrat John Hickenlooper. In swing state North Carolina, the League of Conservation Voters gives Tillis an approval rating of 21 percent for his 2019 votes and a lifetime rating of just nine percent. The league has endorsed his opponent, Iraq War veteran and former state Sen. Cal Cunningham, as has the Sierra Club. Senator Tillis has supported tax credits for the solar industry. Cunningham, on his campaign website, endorses a wide range of efforts to combat climate change; from supporting clean energy, like the state’s solar industry; to reducing carbon levels; and defending natural resources. In the most recent quarter, Cunningham raised more money than Tillis did, even though the Democrat is not accepting any corporate PAC money. Arizona has been a traditional Republican stronghold. But incumbent Senator McSally already lost once to a Democrat for the state’s other U.S. Senate seat. She was appointed to her office after the death of Senator John McCain. Her opponent, Democrat Mark Kelly, was an astronaut who described seeing visible signs of climate change from outer space. He is married to Gabby Giffords, the former congresswoman who was shot in the head while at a public function. Although McSally has shown some support for renewable energy, Kelly talks about the need to address climate change having seen a literal big picture of Earth from space. At first glance, Colorado seems to be the exception. Incumbent Senator Cory Gardner co-introduced the Great American Outdoors Act, which the House is expected to vote on this week. It would fund desperately needed repairs of America’s national parks. The president has tweeted that he will sign the bill. This bill, though, would use royalties from oil and gas leases for funding, which means we could still have oil and gas drilling on public lands like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Chaco Canyon National Historic Park. Gardner’s Democratic opponent is former Governor John Hickenlooper, who was once a petroleum engineer. Hickenlooper would not ban fracking or existing drilling on public land. He does support returning to the Paris Climate Accord and stronger regulations on auto emissions. The League of Conservation Voters and the political arm of the Environmental Defense Fund both criticized Gardner’s record on climate issues other than his national parks bill. BATTLEGROUND HOUSE RACES In Ohio, incumbent Republican Steve Chabot faces Democrat Kate Schroder. In New York‘s 24th district, incumbent Republican John Katko is up against Dana Balter. And in Texas’ District 21, incumbent Chip Roy faces Democrat Wendy Davis. In District 1 of swing state Ohio, which includes most of Cincinnati, pro-fossil fuel and longtime incumbent Steve Chabot faces pro-renewable energy Kate Schroder. Schroder, a healthcare professional, lists fighting climate change as a priority and calls for carbon reduction and a nuanced “less dependent on fossil fuel.” Chabot calls for using all energy sources, including fossil fuels, without slowing down production with “needless regulation.” In central New York‘s 24th district, Republican Representative John Katko again faces university professor Dana Balter in what was once a Democratic district. Katko’s website shows an oil derrick under his energy section and suggests contacting his office to learn about his position on energy. He has said in the past he supported the Keystone XL pipeline, but also would regulate greenhouse gases as long as consumers had energy choices. Katko supports Donald Trump for president. Dana Balter supports renewable energy sources, rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, and a carbon tax. And in Texas, former oil and gas lawyer Chip Roy faces pro-sustainable energy Democrat Wendy Davis. The League of Conservation Voters gave Roy a zero percent rating for 2019 and a zero percent lifetime rating. Davis, a former state senator, backs fighting climate change; including restoring EPA protections; supporting wind, solar, and geothermal jobs; and a return to the Paris Climate Accord. She is endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters and has raised more money than Roy. ARE REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS OUT OF SYNC WITH REPUBLICAN VOTERS? Do Republicans read the same polls the rest of us do? Polls show that most Republican voters, if not Republican office holders, have joined the rest of the country in shifting attitudes toward the environment and global warming. So why do so many Republican senators support the fossil fuel industry? Why did 185 Republican members of the House, including all of those mentioned above, vote against the Moving Forward Act, the $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill? It is the only major green bill brought to a vote in the House in four years. The bill included $300 billion to fix crumbling roads and bridges, along with $100 billion for zero-emission buses and $29 billion for Amtrak. And why does the Republican controlled Senate refuse to even discuss the Moving Forward Act? THE TRUMP FACTOR The Republican Party opposed efforts to fight climate change long before Trump joined their ranks. But President Trump has made aiding and abetting big business at the expense of the environment a cornerstone of his policies. A hundred EPA regulations rescinded, oil and gas leases to fossil fuel companies on federal lands and waters. And now Trump is targeting the first and most basic law favoring mother nature: the National Environmental Policy Act, a 50-year-old law that required all federal projects be reviewed before inception for possible environmental impacts. And President Trump’s popularity among his followers is such that a Trump endorsement gets you elected and a Trump denouncement often means your political career hits retirement. THE MONEY TRAIL Federal Election Commission records reveal another possible reason why so many Republican politicians support fossil fuel companies. In 2019 to March of 2020 the Republican Take Back the House PAC raised more than $50 million. One of the biggest contributors to that fund was Kelsy L. Warren of Texas, the CEO and chairman of Energy Transfer, owner of Sunoco and the stopped Dakota XL pipeline. He personally donated $500,000 to Take Back the House. That fund gave Congressman Roy $125,852.61 in 2019 and 2020. If you were Congressman Roy would you listen to the concerns of the second biggest donor to a fund that gave you $125,852.61 who is also from your home state? Roy also got $10,500 from Valero Energy, Chevron and American Airlines. If you were Congressman Steve Chabot from Ohio and you got $137,008.37 from Take Back the House would you listen to fossil fuel concerns, knowing some of the largest individual contributors were fossil fuel magnates? And if you were Congressman Katko from New York and you got $160,514.66 from Take Back the House, would you carefully talk about energy concerns, knowing some of the biggest single contributors to that PAC were fossil fuel CEOs? Would you ignore green polls as long as you got the money? We asked all the politicians mentioned in this story why they took their positions, given the polls indicating most Americans want our government to tackle climate change. None responded. TYT Investigative Reporter Ti-Hua Chang is an award-winning journalist who has worked for CBS News and other outlets. You can find him on Twitter @TiHuaChang.

In Battleground States, Republicans Run at Odds with Their Voters on Climate Change

PlusArticle

Megyn Kelly Admits Truth On Religion

PlusArticle

Republicans Unbelievable Red Meat Lies

PlusArticle
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) was the key obstacle to reaching a deal Thursday night on passing both the Democratic infrastructure bill that passed the Senate last month, and the broader bill to address climate change and provide $3.5 trillion over ten years for a vast range of spending that would impact the lives of poor and middle-income people. As a result, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pushed back the House infrastructure vote, saying it would come on Friday. Progressives in the House so far have held fast against passing the infrastructure bill--which they support--without also getting the Senate, including Manchin, to approve the broader bill, with the measures that Pres. Biden campaigned on. That bill would create universal pre-K, saving the average family an estimated $13,000 annually; lower the costs of some child care; give free school meals to nine million children; add dental, eye, and hearing coverage to Medicare; lower costs for Obamacare enrollees; lower drug prices; invest in climate-change measures that would reduce carbon emissions, lower energy bills, create thousands of conservation jobs, and mitigate wildfires; and fund both school repairs and construction of new schools. The White House says the investment of $3.5 trillion will be funded by raising taxes on the rich and slightly boosting corporate taxes (though still far below historic rates). The bill’s investments will generate much more in revenues than they cost, by slowing the impact of climate change, improving education, and so on. Manchin, however, has consistently balked at the initial price tag and refused to vote for anything over $1.5 trillion. He has also objected to the bill’s climate-change measures, calling some of them “very, very disturbing.” This comes despite the recent and very troubling UN climate report that said some climate-change effects are already here and will be irreversible for centuries, at least. But why is Manchin, who chairs the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources -- a key position in ensuring the country pursues more climate-friendly policies -- so adamantly against taking the proper steps to address or at least curb the effects of climate change? Manchin has a vested and longstanding interest in the coal industry as a senator from West Virginia. The state is second in the nation in coal production and coal is part of its identity. Between 2011, the year covered by his first Senate disclosure filing, and 2020, Manchin raked in a total of $5,211,154 in dividend income from Enersystems, a coal and energy resource company he founded in 1988, before entering the public sector, according to annual financial disclosures. The senator earned $491,949 in dividends last year alone, as journalist Alex Kotch reported this summer. The filings show that Manchin has made an average of $521,115, more than half a million dollars, every year from Enersystems. Dividend income from before Manchin took office isn’t public, but since he joined the Senate, the least he has made from Enersystems is $243,663, in 2015. The most was $865,065 in 2012. [Manchin Dividents](//images.contentful.com/uoaa2cfwzbej/4ABos9ptAGYVNbUXSqT7My/55c9cd5933554cd54eab305967f42834/Blue_Simple_T_Chart.png) Enersystems represents a staggering 71 percent of Manchin’s investment income, according to FinePrint. It accounts for 30 percent of his net worth. His stake in the company is worth as much as $5 million. Manchin, in other words, has a vested interest in creating policies to keep coal profitable. And the family business isn’t Manchin’s only conflict of interest. He also has racked up support from the broader fossil-fuel industry. He rakes in cash from other big names in the fossil fuel industry. It’s no surprise Manchin has scoffed at legislation to address climate change. In 2019, he slammed The Green New Deal, telling CNN’s Chris Cuomo, ”I've got to work with the realities and I've got to work with the practical." However, climate change action is not only necessary, it is very practical. In fact, some of the world's biggest automakers have already ramped up efforts to phase out gas-powered vehicles in exchange for electric-vehicle fleets, in line with Biden’s plan for a national framework of EV charging stations. Earlier this year, Unearthed, Greenpeace U.K.’s investigative unit, obtained video of now-former Exxon lobbyist Keith McCoy discussing 11 senators he called crucial to Exxon’s interests, referring to Manchin in particular as “the kingmaker.” McCoy bragged about speaking with Manchin’s office on a weekly basis. Environmental groups based outside Manchin’s home state, however, reportedly said they enjoy far less access than Exxon has. According to Federal Election Commission filings, Manchin has taken a combined $12,500 in campaign contributions from Exxon Mobil’s PAC since 2012. The most recent contributions came during Manchin’s last race, in 2018, and totalled a combined $5000. Manchin took from several other big names in the oil and gas business as recently as April, when Manchin accepted $5000 from Marathon Oil’s PAC. The list goes on and on. According to data compiled by OpenSecrets, the senator has taken more money from the fossil fuel industry in the current election cycle than any other Democrat. With additional research by TYT News Assistant Zoltan Lucas and TYT Investigates Intern Jamia Zarzuela.

Manchin's Coal Haul Tops $5 Million

PlusArticle

Hannity Encourages More Texas Disasters To Own The Libs

PlusArticle
PlusPage
This week was a big one for the environment on Capitol Hill -- at least on a portion of the Hill. On Wednesday, the House passed 233 to 188 the Moving Forward Act, a $1.5 trillion infrastructure funding bill. It is not an actual green stimulus bill, but it has some significant green portions on climate change, such as supporting public transit and requiring that 75 percent of US Postal Service vehicles be electric. Most importantly, it is an actual bill, not merely a wish list or request. Earlier Wednesday, 60 Democratic members of the House sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) requesting that Congress lead the country with a $2 trillion green stimulus plan to a sustainable economic recovery with non-polluting energy and environmental justice, especially for communities of color. And Tuesday, the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis issued a 500-page plan calling for decarbonization by 2050 and supporting sustainable non-polluting energy like wind and solar. It covered a wide range of green stimulus solutions, like incentivizing domestic manufacture of electric vehicles, improving America’s power grid, and union jobs in clean energy. The plan has some parts similar to the $16 trillion Green New Deal, without mentioning that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) resolution. A small number of environmental groups were unhappy the climate-change committee plan did not include a ban on fracking and producing more fossil fuel. But publicly many activist groups, including Evergreen Action and the Environmental Defense Fund, declared support for this comprehensive plan and wish list. “Today’s vote and this week’s release of policy recommendations from the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis add to growing momentum for Congress to enact practical solutions that create jobs and a safer climate for our children,” said EDF’s Elizabeth Gore, Senior Vice President, Political Affairs. The only actual bill, the Moving Forward Act on infrastructure repair, seems to follow the tactic of proposing a few sustainable actions within bills, not a comprehensive Green stimulus bill. This tactic was explained by one of the bill’s 129 co-sponsors – Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. In an interview with comedian Hasan Minhaj for Netflix that first aired June 24 on YouTube, Ocasio-Cortez said, “That’s how lobbyists get things done all the time. …They’ll take these massive, thousand-page pieces of legislation and they’ll slip in a line here or slip in a line there. You know, we’ve passed Green New Deal provisions in past legislation, just a lot of people don’t know it yet. Just like the lobbyists do. We’re, we’re very quietly trying to make your drinking water safer…(Did you swagger jack that from the Republicans?) A little bit. A little bit (laughter).” Even in this playful interview, Ocasio-Cortez offers that the Senate, House, and White House must all be Democratic controlled for any major climate reform, before any major portions of the Green New Deal can pass. One Democratic congressional staffer, who works on climate issues, had predicted the Moving Forward bill would pass the House. Those voting for it, he said, will all be Democrats and all Republicans will vote against it. “Then nothing will happen with the bill,” he lamented, “because [Sen. Maj. Leader] Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will not pick it up in the Senate.” The staffer was right on both points. McConnell was quoted after the vote saying, “This nonsense is not going anywhere in the Senate. It will just join the list of absurd House proposals that were only drawn up to show fealty to the radical left.” President Trump has indicated he would veto the bill and criticized it as, “full of wasteful ‘Green New Deal’ initiatives…” But the staffer adds, “This is a real bill that can be more easily defended than the Green New Deal, because it is genuinely an infrastructure bill dealing with road and rail repair that happens to have some green issues in it.” One example is strategies to reduce the climate change impacts of the surface transportation system when rebuilding highways and bridges. The staffer concluded, “it would be foolish not to use the latest technology, which is sustainable renewable energy, and not technology from the 1950’s.” Some progressives wonder why Democrats seem so afraid of Trump’s ability to make the Green New Deal a talking point in his reelection bid. Trump is particularly weak now in national polls, given his deadly delay and mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic; which sent millions into unemployment and the country into recession. Then his anemic response to the Black Lives Matter movement further compounded his drop in popularity. A recent Pew Institute poll found that a majority of not just Democrats but also Republicans believe that climate change is real. Overall, 65 percent of Americans thought the US is not doing enough to combat climate change. Seventy-nine percent thought America must prioritize finding alternative fuels. Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has endorsed major portions of the Green New Deal. But his green plan would cost $1.7 trillion, versus $16 trillion for the Green New Deal. Still, the environmental activist Sunrise Movement, which was key in advocating for the Green New Deal, called Biden’s plan a “comprehensive” effort for tackling climate change, while urging him to decarbonize the US before 2050. Whatever Biden’s degree of support for the Green New Deal, the November elections will be between a green supporter and a pro-fossil fuel, anti-environment president. So If Joe Biden wins and the Senate is flipped while the House retains its Democratic majority, this week’s bill, plan, and even letter would become talking points and possibly blueprints for the future. If Donald Trump is reelected and Mitch McConnell presides over a Republican majority Senate, this week’s wins become tomorrow’s forgotten hopes to deal with the climate crisis. TYT Investigative Reporter Ti-Hua Chang is an award-winning journalist who has worked for CBS News and other outlets. You can find him on Twitter @TiHuaChang.

A Rare Green Victory on Capitol Hill

PlusArticle
Here’s a simple question with a complex answer that could kill us all one day. Unfortunately, that’s not an exaggeration. Ready? Why is there no stimulus money for the environment from our federal government? Why after $3 trillion has been authorized for recovery and another $1 trillion considered, not one penny has gone to end climate change when scientists warn the Earth is at a critical tipping point and we are the world’s worst polluter? Why nothing for the environment when global warming and carbon emissions are increasing faster than originally thought? Why is there not even a green stimulus bill proposed to address climate change and global warming even though 2019 was the second warmest year on record and 2020 is expected to be warmer? The simple part of the answer is that Donald Trump is president and loves oil companies, especially those who donate to his campaign. He seems to favor anything that benefits business, even reversing 100 environmental regulations. Add to that Republicans who, so far, have not allowed any green bills to pass the Senate. Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in March said on the Senate floor in response to Democratic requests, “That is exactly, exactly the wrong approach right now. That is the kind of thinking that could bog down these urgent discussions…This is a national emergency.” He has maintained this position by his lack of action for the environment. But why are there no major green bills even proposed, much less law? This is where the answer gets complex and, to some Democrats, scary. According to a spokesperson for a major environmental activist organization with lobbyists in Washington D.C., there is no stimulus money for the environment because Democrats are politically afraid Trump and McConnell will use the Green New Deal, which is only a non-binding resolution, as an easy talking point against Democrats. A Democratic staffer who works on climate issues in Congress adds that any environmental legislation proposed would allow President Trump and Republicans to demonize the Green New Deal as a major talking point to convince voters in swing states to vote Republican. The demonizations, the staffer said, would have gross exaggerations, like claiming the Green New Deal won’t allow you to fly or have a car. He noted that if the exaggerations work, Democrats worry Trump will be re-elected and there would be, “zero chance” of any environmental legislation for another four years. Trump, emphasized this staffer, “...is absolutely anti-environment and pro fossil fuel.” Political science professor Thomas Halper of Baruch College agrees with the assessment about the Green New Deal. “Most Democrats believe, with good reason, that supporting the Green New Deal would be fatal. This is how democracies work.” Perhaps confirming Democratic fears, President Trump has already started attacking the Green New Deal, though no major environmental legislation has been submitted to Congress. In a news conference on June 5, the president alleged that, “Democrats want to do Green New Deals which are totally ridiculous, frankly ridiculous … we’re setting all sorts of really good environmental records; we’re very proud of that. But the Green New Deal would kill our country. The Green New Deal would have a devastating effect on the world. And it’s not going to happen anyway cause it’s impossible for them to do it; if you ever look at what they want to do under the Green New Deal it’s, it’s like baby talk.” In a recent tweet, Marc Lotter, director of strategic communications for Trump’s presidential campaign, listed the Green New Deal third in a supposed Biden agenda. The list began with “higher taxes” and “more government regulations.” So the Green New Deal for Republicans is already an easy, talking-point attack on Democrats. One key reason is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). The star freshman Congressmember is a sponsor of the Green New Deal. Some Democrats, anonymously, call her a lightning rod, noting, “We don’t want the Democratic party represented by a self-declared Democratic socialist from the Bronx.” But she and John Kerry are working together on Joe Biden’s environmental platform; Ocasio-Cortez is immensely popular among young Democratic voters. The Democratic staffer added that another reason for the lack of environmental legislation is that fossil fuel conglomerates still wield tremendous power in Washington, because of their money to fund political campaigns. Professor Halper added two elephants to this discussion room. “I also think that the absence of talk about climate change is largely due to coverage of, first, the virus, and now, protests/racism that have monopolized the news. It isn’t only climate change that’s ignored; everything else is ignored.” The climate activist organization Greenpeace agrees that dealing with the pandemic stopped any federal green legislation. But it says stopping a monetary bailout for big oil (though not loans) was an environmental victory. Greenpeace climate campaigner Charlie Jiang says November 2020 must now be a focus: “… this election is absolutely critical and one of the most, if not the most important election we’ll ever see…we're going to need millions of people to turn out to vote to ensure that our next administration or next Congress are going to put the needs of people first.” Activists and centrist Democrats concur that Congress has rightly focused on the historic COVID-19 pandemic, economic recession, and Black Lives Matter mass protests. But just as we have learned that the science of the virus pandemics ignores national boundaries and political concerns, so too does the science and inevitability of the disasters of hurricanes, drought, and wildfires from climate change. In March, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced the next stimulus bill would have something to deal with climate change and global warming. The infrastructure plan even had a name, “Moving Forward Framework.” The Sierra Club, Oil Change International, 350.org, Greenpeace, and the Sunrise Movement met and communicated with Democratic congressional staff from both the House and Senate to work on this plan. They hoped it would lead to a House bill which included environmentally sustainable industries. House Democrats believed their plan could mean 10 million jobs and a major shift in American energy policies and pollution. But it went nowhere and each month, with each stimulus plan, it was the next plan that would have some green stimulus. And it’s still that way. Calls for a bill, but no major environmental bill even proposed. Climate activists believe this is a mistake. The environmental activist who said Democrats are afraid added they should not be. A recent poll indicates some 70% of Americans and 80% of millennial Americans believe climate change is real and must be addressed. Keith Gaby, the communications director for the 2.5 million member Environmental Defense Fund, notes: Congress absolutely needs to invest in rebuilding a better economy – cleaner, healthier, more just. If we just go back to business as usual, we'll be guaranteeing even more serious damage from climate change. Before coronavirus, the clean energy industry produced jobs 70% faster than the economy as a whole. It needs to be a big part of how we recover. This pandemic is a big giant signal not to ignore the warning of scientists. Congress needs to invest for a healthier, better future. Many corporations agree. Some 700 companies have signed letters to world leaders, calling on them to pass economic stimulus packages that tackle both the impacts of the coronavirus and the ongoing climate crisis. Forty-five hundred health professionals and 350 organizations, representing at least 40 million health workers worldwide, have urged the leaders of the G20 to ensure a green recovery. The oil industry itself is now saying it is time to invest in renewable energy. Even a contributor to the self-described “capitalist tool,” Forbes magazine, is editorializing that it is time to invest in renewable energy sources. The pandemic has opened through its massive number of deaths a new era when science is not ignored in making political decisions. Other major economies are including green parts to their stimulus programs. Germany and France both have subsidies for electric cars from $3000 to $6000. And it does not take a Green New Deal to make major changes. A University of California, Berkeley, study found that the US electricity grid could be 90% carbon free if Congress set a universal clean-electricity standard. Such a rule would mandate that utilities generate part of their energy from carbon-free sources like hydroelectric, wind, solar, and geothermal. Stand.earth’s Matt Krogh is director for its US Oil and & Gas Campaign. We hope congressional leaders come to understand that the overlapping issues of COVID-19, climate, and air pollution all point to a clear conclusion: using stimulus money to get off fossil fuels would mean better air quality, shovel ready jobs, healthier homes, and a society more ready to tackle climate change. Done right, greening the stimulus could mean a win for everybody. One climate organization is now openly campaigning for a green stimulus bill. Jamal Raad, co-founder and campaign director of Evergreen Action, sent out an email thanking 57 members of congress who wrote to their leadership to take action on Climate change. He asked for the public’s help, noting, “The two big relief packages passed by the House so far -- the CARES Act and the HEROES Act -- failed to recognize the urgency of addressing the climate crisis. Massive as they were, neither package provided support for clean energy, a sector that shed some 600,000 jobs in the first two months of the pandemic alone. "But now, we're seeing newfound energy among Democrats to prioritize clean energy investment. Data for Progress polling shows strong public support for the ideas in our Clean Jumpstart Plan, a $1.5 trillion investment in the clean energy economy.” The United States is not alone in its refusal to aid the environment during this pandemic. China, India and Brazil are all focused on economic recovery with little regard for the environmental damage. The Democratic staffer I spoke to claims activists always say Democrats don’t do enough. But Democrats and climate activists agree on this: for the environment to have a chance, Donald Trump cannot be president. And the House and Senate must be controlled by Democrats for the environment to get any serious consideration and hope of meeting the 2030 and 2050 goals for carbon levels set by the United Nations. If we don’t meet the 2050 goals, many scientists believe, the human race faces extinction. TYT Investigative Reporter Ti-Hua Chang is an award-winning journalist who has worked for CBS News and other outlets. You can find him on Twitter @TiHuaChang.

Why No Green Stimulus Money?

PlusArticle

Devastating Wildfires Given HISTORIC Name Never Used Before

PlusArticle

Republican Throws Temper Tantrum Over Facebook Fact-Checking

PlusArticle

Greta Thunberg DROPS MIC In Davos Speech

PlusArticle
President-elect Joe Biden’s liaison to the climate-change movement is “perpetuating the oil and gas industry” with an offshore-drilling bill he introduced, a Democratic congressional staffer tells TYT. The criticism is the latest in a chorus against Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Biden’s climate-change liaison during the transition and future director of the White House Office of Public Engagement. Richmond supported the Keystone XL Pipeline, takes fossil-fuel donations, and has come under scrutiny for his ties to the industry and alleged neglect of vulnerable communities. The Biden transition team did not respond to TYT’s request for comment, but previously defended Richmond as "committed to serving the President-elect's vision.” However, a bill Richmond introduced last year is raising new questions about his own vision. And when TYT spoke with one congressional staffer who works for a Democratic member of the Natural Resources Committee, the staffer’s response also raised questions about Democratic support for Richmond. The bill, The Domestic Offshore Energy Reinvestment Act, would raise the amount that offshore drillers have to pay for coastal restoration and protection of Gulf Coast states, including Louisiana. Although it sounds environmentally friendly, cementing offshore drilling as a revenue source poses potential problems, the Democratic staffer said. “Some people look at it as a win-win to fund environmental priorities with a reliable stream of income,” the staffer said. “But a lot of people are upset you are perpetuating the oil and gas industry you should be winding down, should be shutting down.” The staffer said that the bill “creates an unavoidable conflict of interest to maintain this funding for good environmental projects, since you are reliant on the oil and gas industries.” Richmond did not respond to TYT’s request for comment. His bill is now in the Natural Resources Committee, and has strong support from some Gulf Coast Republicans. In fact, more Republicans (nine) than Democrats (five) co-sponsored Richmond’s bill. One of the co-sponsors is Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), the House minority whip. Richmond’s bill did receive support from some of the more established, mainstream environmental organizations. The Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Society, and other groups said in a joint press release last year, “We thank Congressman Richmond for his commitment to the critical restoration needs of coastal Louisiana... It is important that coastal producing states are also well-equipped to ensure the sustainability of coastal communities and ecosystems.” The Biden team’s earlier statement about Richmond said that he “is committed to serving the President-elect's vision to meet this moment by prioritizing both an inclusive, clean energy future and federal investment in transitional communities, creating millions of good-paying jobs and protecting our planet for generations to come.” But some progressive environmental organizations have criticized Biden’s choice of Richmond as his senior advisor, because he has taken more oil and gas donations than nearly any other House Democrat: $341,000 over 10 years, The Daily Poster reported. The congressional staffer who spoke with TYT acknowledged that Richmond’s state depends on oil and gas, but also noted that his district includes New Orleans, devastated by hurricanes intensified by climate change due in part to fossil fuel emissions. Richmond’s district also includes “Cancer Alley,” which runs from Baton Rouge to New Orleans and is adjacent to polluting chemical and industrial plants, most of them fossil-fuel related. The rate of air-pollution-caused cancer there is 50 times the national average. A major concern is that Richmond, with his fossil fuel ties, will be a key figure implementing Biden’s Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice Plan. The question is: Will Richmond deal with fossil fuel companies with the same principles behind his bill of apparent practicality, but possible support of climate-destroying oil and gas? TYT Investigative Reporter Ti-Hua Chang is an award-winning journalist who has worked for CBS News and other outlets. You can find him on Twitter @TiHuaChang.

Richmond Bill “Perpetuating” Fossil Fuel Industry, Dem Staffer Says

PlusArticle
Internal audio reveals push to help oil companies by forcing people to go back to work

Morgan Stanley Analyst Called for Reopening the Economy to Help Oil Prices

PlusArticle
by: Ollie Peabody If you love to travel, bike to work, or need to clean your clothes without a machine quickly, you know how frustrating it can be. Lucky for you, there's a brand-new gadget that can completely change how you clean your clothing! The Sonic Soak Ultrasonic Cleaner uses ultrasonic technology to wash your clothes without detergent or bulky machines. Best of all, this innovative device is currently only $109.99, or $140 off the usual price. Usually $250, the Ultrasonic Cleaner uses up to 50,000 ultrasonic vibrations a second, which Sonic Soak claims can eliminate dirt, smells, and bacteria that cling to your clothes. Just fill a bowl or sink with water, add the device and your clothes, hit start, and wait until the timer is done. No detergent, spin cycle, laundromat, or expensive cleaners necessary. Your laundry will look and smell great, and you can even help the environment! Sonic Soak suggests the device uses 40 times less water and 15 times less energy than your usual washing machine — with today's climate change, that's important! Check out this preview before you purchase:  https://www.youtube.com/embed/ikdZUJmpBQY After crowdfunding over $3 million from nearly 17,000 backers on Indiegogo, Sonic Soak has been hugely popular with folks looking to keep their clothes, jewelry, and food clean without harsh chemicals. It even earned 4 out of 5 stars from TrustedReviews.com. The reviewer shared that it was particularly effective at cleaning clothes, making it a great choice for those travelling that don't want the expense of hotel laundry. Additionally, they loved its portability, effortless function, and eco-friendliness.  With the Sonic Soak Ultrasonic Cleaner, you can travel in style with a fresh set of clothes, and you won't harm the environment while you're at it. At only $109.99, this cleaner may save you a ton on hotel laundry costs and embarrassing odors.  <!-- HTML snippet: CTA -->   Sonic Soak Ultrasonic Cleaner - $109.99Get Clean Clothes On The Go Without Soap! <!-- HTML snippet ends here --> Prices Subject to Change.

Wash Your Clothes with Just a Bowl of Water and This Cool Device

PlusArticle
The Biden administration is refusing to say whether it will overturn a controversial decision last year by the Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stripping tribal sovereignty from Native Americans in Oklahoma. As TYT revealed last year, the Oct. 1, 2020, ruling by then-EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler effectively reversed a landmark Supreme Court ruling in favor of the tribes, turning over environmental regulatory control of tribal land to the state’s pro-fossil fuel, pro-big agriculture government. Wheeler’s decision would even allow dumping hazardous waste on tribal land without consultation. Biden has won broad praise from environmental activists for his early moves, but Oklahoma tribes say they are not surprised by the Biden administration’s refusal to take a stand for them. TYT asked the White House whether it supports tribal sovereignty over the pro-oil state government in Oklahoma. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Assistant Press Secretary Vedant Patel responded to TYT’s inquiries, but neither would comment on the record. The EPA also declined to take a position, stating only that it will now support science and law there in principle. In an email to TYT, an EPA spokesperson said that the EPA “will follow the science and law in accordance with the Biden-Harris Administration’s executive orders and other directives in reviewing all of the agency’s actions issued under the previous Administration to ensure that they protect public health and the environment.” When asked what that meant concretely in regards to Oklahoma, the spokesperson responded, “We don’t have anything more to share at this time as we review the agency’s actions issued under the previous Administration.” OKLAHOMA TRIBES AND ACTIVISTS REACT For the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, this will not suffice. “The EPA saying that it will follow science and the law isn't enough,” said Casey Camp-Horinek, Environmental Ambassador, Elder & Hereditary Drumkeeper of the Ponca Tribe. “Show us. Restore our government-to-government relations [with Oklahoma] now. Only then will we begin to believe that this administration is any different than the last 45." Camp-Horinek also told TYT that the Biden administration must restore environmental regulatory control to tribal governments. “This has yet to even be discussed, much less rectified. We cannot allow this to be put on the back burner to fester and grow as we watch [Gov. Kevin Stitt (R-OK)] push what he calls the state of Oklahoma's sovereignty and to further erode the Treaty obligations to the 39 federally recognized tribes that are guaranteed by the Constitution of the U.S.” On Thursday, in a telephone conversation with TYT, Camp-Horinek emphasized that Oklahoma tribes are still under state regulations, including for polluting fossil fuels (Oklahoma has the fourth biggest oil industry in the country). She noted that tribal sovereignty has not been honored, despite the Supreme Court’s McGirt v. Oklahoma ruling in July 2020 that much of the eastern portion of the state is still tribal territory. The Indigenous Earth Network, a Native American environmental activist organization, told TYT it was not surprised by the Biden administration’s “non-response.” Oklahoma IEN representative Ashley Nicole Engle said, “It is my hope the Biden Administration will make good on its promises made to tribal nations and Indigenous peoples by moving beyond mere consultation — or even 'meaningful consultation' and codifying Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC).” Engle, who is Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma/Oglala Lakota Nation, added that the indigenous tribes were key to preventing the industries presently and in the future from polluting all of Oklahoma. “Right now, Oklahoma tribes serve as one of the only actual checks or barriers between the people and the land and completely unfettered and unregulated resource extraction,” Engle said. One environmental activist organization declined to comment for this story. Another did not respond to a request for a comment. Many environmental organizations have complimented President Biden for his executive actions, some of which reverse or will attempt to counter the Trump administration’s estimated 100 rollbacks of environmental regulations, and for appointing Rep. Deb Haaland (D-NM) as the first Native American secretary of the Interior Department. Environmental activists also praised Biden for elevating climate change to be part of every level of the federal government, working to reenter the Paris Climate Agreement, and bringing the largest team of climate change advocates and experts to the White House. TYT Investigative Reporter Ti-Hua Chang is an award-winning journalist who has worked for CBS News and other outlets. You can find him on Twitter @TiHuaChang.

Biden Won't Say Whether He'll Undo Trump's Tribal Land Grab

PlusArticle
While America is focused on the very public and critical war of survival against the coronavirus (COVID-19), the Trump administration, some Republicans, and fossil-fuel companies are continuing to wage another war against the environment and renewable energy. Quietly, and occasionally wrapped in patriotism, it’s a concerted effort and a continuation of the president’s big-business world view and so-called “Energy Dominance.” This anti-environment war is being waged, at least in part, by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Commerce Department, the Department of the Interior (and its Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Land Management), as well as allies such as Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Harold Hamm, the billionaire founder of Continental Petroleum. Only a handful of Democratic members of Congress and environmentalists have publicly attempted to combat it. On the Senate floor on Saturday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky warned Democrats against bringing up any issues other than immediate ones dealing directly with the pandemic. “That is exactly, exactly the wrong approach right now. That is the kind of thinking that could bog down these urgent discussions…This is a national emergency.” As the president waits to sign the unprecedented $2.0 trillion H.R. 748 (the Obama era 2009 Wall Street recovery package was $831 million) coronavirus stimulus bill, it has triggered a virtual feeding frenzy by lobbyists at this giant trough of cash. Despite the coronavirus and social-distancing, in a frenzy of phone calls, Zoom video conferences, emails and texts, lobbyists are scrambling to grab a piece of this huge American money pie. This mad scramble began with the American oil industry. On March 13, President Trump announced that the United States would purchase American oil to fill to capacity America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Roughly $2.3 billion of crude oil from American companies was to be delivered to the country’s reserve tanks located near the Gulf of Mexico. On March 19, the Department of Energy began initial solicitation. The DOE statement opened with: “WASHINGTON, D.C. – At the direction of the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, the Department of Energy (DOE) will fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to its maximum capacity by purchasing 77 million barrels of American-made crude oil. Today, DOE announced a solicitation for the purchase of an initial 30 million barrels to begin filling the SPR. Solicitations for additional purchases will follow. “‘DOE is moving quickly to support U.S. oil producers facing potentially catastrophic losses from the impacts of COVID-19 and the intentional disruption to world oil markets by foreign actors,’ said U.S. Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette. “Under this initial solicitation, DOE will purchase up to 30 million barrels of sweet and sour crude oil with a focus on small to midsize U.S. oil producers.” Funding for the purchase was originally included in the coronavirus bailout as part of $400 billion allocated for fossil-fuel and other industries. After Democratic pushback, however, the SPR purchase didn’t make the final version. On Thursday, the Department of Energy withdrew its solicitation for bids. But Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at the advocacy Group Public Citizen, tells TYT the withdrawal may be temporary. “DOE could attempt to fill the Reserve using 1950 Defense Production Act authorities,Slocum said.There will likely be additional legislative responses when the Senate returns April 20 that may include appropriations to buy oil for the SPR.” These still-possible purchases were partly intended to rescue shale oil producers who were already on shaky ground before Russia increased oil production in its global chess game against rival producers. To protect its market share, Saudi Arabia countered by increasing oil production to a record 12 million barrels per day. The world’s excess supply drove oil prices down to below $30 a barrel, roughly half of what it was just four years ago. The present pandemic and economic slowdown have dropped the price of standard WTI Crude oil to $22 a barrel: Good for consumers, bad for oil companies. Small and mid-sized shale oil companies need oil prices above around $60 a barrel to profitably extract oil from shale rock. And extraction usually means fracking — a process that contributes to climate change and damages the environment — pumping large amounts of water (with toxic chemicals) into oil deposits to force out both oil and gas. Fracking turned the United States into an oil exporter (as proudly noted by Trump), but at the expense of the environment: Air and water pollution, and increased minor earthquakes. On March 17, twenty Democratic members of Congress wrote to Trump, expressing, “grave concerns” that he was considering a bailout of the oil and gas industry. Their letter concluded, “The COVID 19 crisis shows that we must make critical investments in our public health infrastructure and provide support for those who need it most. Using this public health crisis as an excuse for another giveaway to the fossil fuel industry is badly misguided. It would only worsen the climate crisis. America must respond to the threat of climate change by pursuing a clean energy future with bold solutions that ensure a fair and just transition for affected workers in the communities. A corporate bailout for oil and gas industry is not the answer to either crisis.” The lead signatory was Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragan (D-CA). Her press officer, Ron Ekstein, told The Young Turks in a phone interview, “All you have to do is look at who his donors are, and [see] who has the most impact on him.” Harold Hamm is the billionaire founder of Continental Resources Inc., an oil company out of Oklahoma. Federal Election Commission records indicate he has donated more than $50,000 to Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign and political action committee, and nearly $100,000 to various Republican politicians and the Republican National Committee in this cycle. Hamm has publicly admitted seeking the Trump administration’s help for oil companies. When asked how soon-to-be-unemployed American workers would feel about a bailout for oil and gas companies, Hamm told CNBC, “We’re not asking for a hand-out. Nobody is… We’ve delivered something here that was unheard of. That is bringing up production… this natural energy renaissance has been tremendous for the American people who are going to have low prices, you know, for the foreseeable future.” On the same CNBC program, Hamm was split-screened with Inhofe, also of Oklahoma. Inhofe has been a long-time advocate for the oil and gas industry and opponent of environmental programs. In 2017, Inhofe boasted to a Heritage Foundation audience that because the Trump administration reversed 66 Obama-era oil drilling regulations, they had “won.” Inhofe, chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee and a recipient of Hamm donations, wants the Commerce Department to investigate the Russian and Saudi Arabian oil price manipulations and apply tariffs on foreign oil. He said, “I don't want to get us in a position where we're dependent upon importing oil for our ability to defend America, to fight a war, to run our economy… a lot of jobs are dependent upon our ability to be able to produce [oil] domestically, and that’s very consistent to the things we’re voting on right now as we speak.” (TYT sought but did not receive comment from Inhofe and other members of Congress, as well as Continental Resources, and government offices including the White House.) On Tuesday, Thanu Yakupitiyage, spokeswoman for the international environmental organization 350.org, told TYT in an email: “…We’re pushing back hard on a stimulus bill that bails out corporations over people. Every dime that goes to bail out oil and gas companies should be redistributed towards going to make virus test kits, ventilators, and masks; towards increasing hospital capacity; and towards supporting our most vulnerable communities, industry workers, and at-risk individuals. “What Congress invests in now through bailouts, subsidies, loan forgiveness, and health care coverage will determine an individual's recovery. Bailing out Big Oil is a giant step backward toward a society governed by those that refuse to listen to science. We need to be supporting our communities, making sure all our basic needs are being met and investing in a just transition toward a new economy that puts people and the planet first. “Big Oil companies will use their ‘stimulus package’ from taxpayers to drill for oil, build more destructive pipelines, and worsen the climate crisis. It does nothing for communities facing the first hand impacts of the pandemic.” Also scrambling for taxpayer money, the airline industry is seeking a whopping $50 billion in aid. This is the industry that contributes an estimated 2.5% of the world’s planet-warming CO2 pollution. Yet, as with other industries, there is no discussion by the Trump administration during this pandemic of transitioning to more efficient airplanes, developing electric airplanes or investing in less-polluting transportation like trains. Another major polluter, the cruise line industry, reportedly sought $50 billion in aid, in the form of loans. On March 18, eight senators wrote to congressional leaders urging that taxpayer monies to the airline and cruise industries be accompanied by environmental reforms. “Given the large carbon footprint of commercial aviation, requiring reductions in carbon emissions would represent a major step in curbing our nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Requiring reductions in carbon pollution from flag cruise ships as well as reductions in other air pollutants and increased penalties for illegal dumping will result in cleaner air and a healthier ocean. If we give the airline and cruise industries assistance without requiring them to be better environmental stewards, we would miss a major opportunity to combat climate change and ocean dumping... Business leaders are themselves increasingly recognizing that their companies must make positive contributions to society or risk losing their social license. This is particularly true when companies ask American taxpayers for financial assistance.” The coronavirus bill is expected to pass the House and get signed into law as early as this week. While industry is jockeying for taxpayer money to survive, and America’s attention is understandably focused on the coronavirus pandemic, the Trump administration is not only writing checks, it’s also rolling back rules to favor business interests at the expense of the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency last week initiated a 30-day prospective on its Scientific Transparency Rule, which would limit the use of science in regulatory decisions. It is also rushing to complete its Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicles rule, which, contrary to what its name implies, would lower vehicle emissions standards. The Department of Interior, through its U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is closing comment on ending the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918, which allowed prosecution of oil and gas companies for killing birds during operations. Without prosecution, the fear is that millions of birds could be killed. The department is also pushing to scrap clean-water and energy-efficient light bulb regulations. Its Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is continuing fossil-fuel leasing, offering 78 million acres along the Gulf of Mexico. Four-hundred-thousand acres went for $93 million, half what it went for in the last sale. And in the next two weeks, the Bureau of Land Management will auction off oil and gas leases on federal lands in Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada. The auctions come at a time when the country is focused on a pandemic and oil prices are at the lowest in a decade, meaning big companies may pick up bargains against slim competition. The stated belief among some environmental groups is that the Trump administration is attempting to make as many regulatory changes as possible in case the president loses in November. On Thursday, though, after the Senate passed the CoronaVirus stimulus package, 350.org declared a partial victory. “Although there is still a $500 billion fund for corporations to use, the provisions for direct bail outs for Big Oil were eliminated," the group said in a statement. North America Director Tamara Toles O’Laughlin said: “Congress has taken a step in the right direction by prioritizing people over corporations in this relief package. With the help of our supporters, we successfully removed $3 billion in direct handouts to Big Oil. We still reject the corporate bailout fund as a power grab and dirty money transfer. Over the last few days, 350.org supporters made their voices heard by calling Congress and signing more than 12,770 petitions, to demand the people-centered relief we deserve. We thank our champions in Congress for these initial protections that prioritize health and economic relief to those most impacted by the pandemic and its cumulative effects on our communities. “While we applaud this first step, there is still much more that Congress can do in the long term to uplift people and the planet. Along with immediate relief, we need a long-term, climate-resilient recovery plan that charts a bold path forward to a livable future for all. There is no going back to ‘business-as-usual’ after this pandemic.” Environmentalists are not in complete agreement on how to approach this pandemic. Respected climate economist and Professor at New York University, Gernot Wagner, responded to TYT’s question about shale oil bailouts and climate change, noting: “In short, bailing out US shale oil producers is bad for the climate, much like bailing out the airlines or any other high-carbon industry — without any conditions — is bad for the climate. “That said, right about now, I couldn't care less about what Covid-19 means for CO2 emissions. I care about CO2 emissions because I care about people, and people are dying right now. Let's focus on that. Sure, let's avoid making things worse on climate while we're at it. But let's not forget to focus on what's truly important.” With no climate-change provisions in the coronavirus stimulus bill, and federal agencies actively pursuing anti-enviroment agendas, it seems obvious that the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans have no intention of using taxpayer monies to combat climate change, or restore the balance of nature. A balance clearly out of whack as we hunker down with our families, afraid to come near other humans, avoiding a virus in what might be a movie about a zombie apocalypse. Except, in this script, we are trying to save the infected zombies just as some of us are trying to save the Earth for our children and grandchildren. TYT Investigative Reporter Ti-Hua Chang is an award-winning journalist who has worked for CBS News and other outlets. You can find him on Twitter @TiHuaChang.

Under the Cover of Coronavirus, Trump and Big Oil Strike

PlusArticle
by: Ollie Peabody Did you know that laundry detergent causes serious damage by accelerating algae blooms? If you're looking for a new way to protect the environment by reducing your waste and keeping chemicals out of our water supply, greening your laundry is a great choice.  Now though, you can protect the environment and keep your clothes fresh and clean with Ecoegg™ Bundle: Laundry Egg + Dryer Egg + Mega Detox Tab, now on sale for only $44.99! The Ecoegg is a brand new, unique laundry product that cleans your clothes using two types of mineral pellets in a reusable, recyclable plastic egg. With zero harmful chemicals the Ecoegg will keep your clothes fresh, be kind to your skin, and reduce the chemicals in our precious water supply. You'll be reducing your plastic usage, fighting climate change, and staying fresh for more than 700 washes. Save 34% off the usual price on this bundle that includes the Laundry Egg to clean your clothing, a Dryer Egg to soften and freshen, and a Detox tab to remove any damaging chemicals from your washing machine between uses. Look great and smell good while protecting the environment and saving more than $20 off the usual price! Ecoegg has been thrilling folks who care about the environment since its release, wowing customers and critics alike. Winning a 5 out of 5-star rating on What's Good To Do for its great packaging, ease of use, and great results, the Ecoegg is a winner for anyone who cares about the environment. Ecoegg also won a 4.2 out of 5 stars on Amazon, with more than 60% of reviews giving 5 stars! Freshen up your clothes and protect the environment with Ecoegg™ Bundle: Laundry Egg + Dryer Egg + Mega Detox Tab for only $44.99. You'll be getting 3 years of washes, less than $15 a year, while keeping our water clean. Act fast though, because this deal won't be lasting a whole lot longer.   Ecoegg™ Bundle: Laundry Egg + Dryer Egg + Mega Detox Tab - $44.99Protect our water from laundry chemicals <!-- HTML snippet ends here --> Prices subject to change. 

Protect Your Water From Nasty Industrial Chemicals With the EcoEgg Laundry Bundle

PlusArticle
A leading environmental group tells TYT that Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) should not be the secretary of the Department of the Interior in the Biden administration. The opposition to Udall, reportedly one of the top contenders for the position, comes from Food and Water Action, a progressive organization of environmental activists and the first national organization to oppose fracking. The group's policy director, Mitch Jones, told TYT, “Senator Udall does have an inclination to compromise on issues of fossil fuel development...We need a secretary of the interior who both recognizes the urgency of the climate crisis and is willing to confront the fossil fuel industry directly.” Asked to respond, Udall’s office did not directly address Jones' remarks, but pointed to documents Udall has posted online chronicling his long record of leadership on conservation and climate issues. Jones supports another New Mexican Democrat in the running, Rep. Deb Haaland. She is a staunch environmentalist and vice-chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources. One of the first Native American women elected to Congress, Haaland is of the Laguna Pueblo tribe and endorsed by 150 Native American leaders, along with other environmentalists and progressives like 350.org. A group of Haaland supporters reportedly asked Udall on Thursday to withdraw his name from consideration. Udall's nomination would likely receive support from many of his Senate colleagues, including even some Republicans who reportedly gushed over him in his farewell. Udall is retiring after two terms and received praise for his cordiality and ability to compromise from Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and John Barrasso (R-WY). TYT learned of Food and Water’s opposition to Udall when asking Jones about Udall’s bipartisan bill with retiring Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). The Fair Returns for Public Lands Act would increase the amount of money oil and gas companies are charged for drilling on federal lands and waters. This seemingly positive step, though, could also perpetuate a dependency on oil and gas revenues, according to Jones. “The bill should not be passed, period. Instead we should end new fossil fuel extraction on public lands and ramp down that production on public lands over a set period of time in the next decade… Biden promised to stop new extraction and...phase out oil swiftly to avoid increasingly chaotic climate change. We need an orderly transition.” As TYT previously reported, fears that collecting revenue from fossil fuel companies perpetuates dependency on the industry have also surfaced concerning Biden's climate change liaison, Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA). Richmond sponsored The Domestic Offshore Energy Reinvestment Act, which would raise the amount that offshore drillers have to pay for coastal restoration and protection of Gulf Coast states. Although it may sound environmentally friendly, cementing offshore drilling as a revenue source poses a potential problem of dependency on fossil fuel revenues and perpetuating the fossil fuel industry, Food and Water’s Jones says. “The underlying law that Rep. Richmond’s bill amends is itself a fossil fuel energy promotion for the Gulf of Mexico and is part of energy legislation during the Bush administration that began to unleash massive fossil fuel extraction in the U.S., which continued under the Obama administration.” Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL), one of nine Republicans who co-sponsored Richmond’s bill (along with only five Democrats) said in a press release last year that the revenue from drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is “...indispensable for coastal restoration and hurricane preparedness.” Indispensable means permanently needed. One staffer for a Democratic member of the Natural Resources Committee told TYT last month that people must recognize that oil and gas is needed now and that a transition will take time. While the staffer agreed that a deadline, or sunset law, would allow for taxation of fossil fuels but not perpetuate them, the staffer believed Food and Water’s suggested 2030 deadline is unrealistic given the present political climate on Capitol Hill. “Part of the legislative process is give something to get something...ending by 2030 will never happen, that’s a real phasing out. We can’t just end this without having the next energy sources available to take the place of oil and gas. There can’t be a gap. People have to accept and trust that when they plug into their walls, there will be power and they can drive their cars with some energy. They don’t really care whether the source of energy is fossil fuels or renewable energy… Our biggest failure is we are not already committed to alternative energy.” Jones agrees in principle, but not in practice. “We need an orderly transition... can’t stop production today and expect the economy to function tomorrow. But nobody is proposing that. Everyone who talks about stopping extraction [does so] as a vital part of a fair and just transition to renewable energy... We need to dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions...look at what oil and gas companies are saying to shareholders, one another and to friendly business press...they are looking for ways to lengthen the life of fossil fuels indefinitely; that’s why their preferred solutions are all designed to allow continue extraction and burning of fossil fuels.” Michael L. Connor, who was a deputy secretary of the interior during the Obama administration, is also under consideration. Connor is a member of the Taos Pueblo Tribe. Biden has pledged his Interior Department would not issue new permits for oil, gas, and coal on federal lands and waters and by 2030 would end extraction on 30 percent of those areas. All three of the contenders to run the department support that goal. TYT Investigative Reporter Ti-Hua Chang is an award-winning journalist who has worked for CBS News and other outlets. You can find him on Twitter @TiHuaChang.

Environmental Group Opposing Udall as Biden's Interior Secretary

PlusArticle
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted the state of Oklahoma regulatory control over environmental issues on nearly all tribal lands there, TYT has learned. This strips from 38 tribes in Oklahoma their sovereignty over environmental issues. It also establishes a legal and administrative pathway to potential environmental abuses on tribal land, including dumping hazardous chemicals like carcinogenic PCBs and petroleum spills, with no legal recourse by the tribes, according to a former high-level official of the EPA. This also includes hazardous chemicals that are byproducts of petroleum procurement and refining. In 2019, Oklahoma had the fourth largest petroleum industry in the US. TYT has obtained a copy of the letter EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler sent to Gov. J. Kevin Stitt (R-OK) on October 1. The end of the opening paragraph states simply, “EPA hereby approves Oklahoma's request.” DOCUMENT: EPA Administrator Wheeler's letter on tribal sovereignty in Oklahoma TYT previously revealed that on July 22, Stitt requested control of environmental regulations on tribal land involving a wide range of issues. All of Stitt’s requests in his letter were granted by the EPA. They include: - Hazardous waste dumping on tribal lands which could be any of the hundreds of hazardous chemicals listed by the EPA, including formaldehyde, mercury, lead, asbestos, toxic air pollutants, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), pesticide chemicals, glyphosate, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). - Underground Injection Control, an EPA program used to permit fracking. Fracking uses large amounts of high-pressured water to remove oil and gas from shale rock. It is a contributor to climate change and is known to leave behind contaminated water and toxic pollution. - Protecting large agricultural polluters in industrial-sized livestock operations, most often dairy cows, hogs or chickens. These mega farms produce enormous amounts of waste, according to the Sierra Club, which estimates that “the quantity of urine and feces from even the smallest CAFO [Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation] is equivalent to the urine and feces produced by 16,000 humans.” In his letter, Wheeler acknowledges that the U.S. Supreme Court decision McGirt v. Oklahoma precipitated this EPA action. The McGirt ruling found that, by treaty, much of eastern Oklahoma is still Native American territory, which could mean under five tribes’ jurisdiction including for taxation and regulation. In anticipation of the decision, the Seminole tribe in 2018 issued an eight percent tax on oil and gas wells on its reservation land. The EPA has now granted the State of Oklahoma the same authority it had before McGirt on environmental issues, especially on petroleum. It can do this because federal legislation can nullify Supreme Court rulings. In 2005, a midnight rider attached to a transportation bill took away environmental regulatory control by Oklahoma tribes if requested by the state as it has now done. The Oklahoma state government is pro-fossil fuel and pro-big agribusiness. This return to previous pro-fossil fuel regulations may be one factor in the multi-billion dollar merger of Oklahoma’s Devon Energy with WPX Energy. As previously reported by TYT, the Petroleum Alliance of Oklahoma knew about Governor Stitt’s letter to the EPA on July 22, the day it was sent. This was close to one month before the tribal governments were told. The EPA action infuriated Oklahoma’s Ponca Tribe. Casey Camp-Horinek, Environmental Ambassador & Elder & Hereditary Drumkeeper Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, provided the following statement to TYT: “After over 500 years of oppression, lies, genocide, ecocide, and broken treaties, we should have expected the EPA ruling in favor of racist Governor Stitt of Oklahoma, yet it still stings. Under the Trump administration, destroying all environmental protection has been ramped up to give the fossil fuel industry life support as it takes its last dying breath. Who suffers the results? Everyone and everything! Who benefits? Trump and his cronies, climate change deniers like Governor Stitt, Senators Inhofe and Langford, who are financially supported by big oil and gas. I am convinced that we must fight back against this underhanded ruling. In the courts, on the frontlines and in the international courts, LIFE itself is at stake.” SUMMARY REPORT TO TRIBES TYT also obtained the EPA Summary Report sent Sept. 29 to Oklhaoma’s tribes. In it, the EPA writes that the agency will keep Oklahoma’s environmental actions within federal law. But this is the same EPA that has rolled back 100 of the agency’s previous regulations protecting the environment and has pushed for a rule which would bar the agency from relying on scientific studies that have granted confidentiality to the people tested. DOCUMENT: EPA Summary Report on Oklahoma Regulatory Control In a seminar Sept. 21 at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank funded by fossil fuel companies, Wheeler concluded that he had fulfilled President Trump’s requests to him. Wheeler said, "[Trump] asked me to continue to clean up the air, continue to clean up the water and continue to deregulate and help create more jobs…” The EPA not only granted all of Oklahoma’s requests, it added additional ones such as regulatory control over underground storage (the state has one of the largest oil storage facilities in the country), air pollution, pesticides, lead-based paints, and asbestos in schools. The EPA Summary report says it consulted with 13 Oklahoma tribes in September. The report says that all the tribes questioned the limited consultation and short time of it, saying, “Comments submitted state that the length of the consultation period was too short, that the consultation should have been extended to tribes beyond Oklahoma…” The EPA report also acknowledged that the Oklahoma tribes said the agency’s decision was contrary to the principles contained within the EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations (1984 Indian Policy). That policy requires a government-to-government negotiation. The summary report concluded, “However, EPA is also bound to apply the clear and express mandate of Section 10211(a) of SAFETEA, a duly enacted Act of Congress, that specifically allows environmental regulation under EPA administered statutes by the State in areas of Indian country, and that requires EPA to approve a request of the State to so regulate notwithstanding any other provision of law…” Section 10211 (a), the federal law giving Oklahoma the legal right to take over environmental regulations on Tribal land, is a mere two-paragraph rider on page 795 of the 836-page SAFETEA transportation bill. In 2005, this midnight rider was maneuvered into this massive transportation bill by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). Inhofe is a staunch fossil fuel advocate and climate-change denier. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler worked for Inhofe for 14 years. FORMER HIGH-LEVEL EPA OFFICIAL NOTES EPA CHOSE NOT TO HAVE DISCRETION The former high-level official worked in the EPA’s office of general counsel. The former official told TYT, “EPA overstates when it claims '[t]he statute provides EPA no discretion to weigh additional factors in rendering its decision.' The statute says that Oklahoma need not make any further demonstration of authority than it already did when it sought approval from EPA to administer the same programs elsewhere in the state. But the position EPA takes in the letter -- that it lacks discretion entirely -- departs from earlier statements made by EPA in Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality v. EPA, where it interpreted SAETEA as still allowing it to attach conditions to its approval of Oklahoma programs implemented in Indian Country." WHO BENEFITS FROM EPA DECISION? Who will benefit from the state of Oklahoma taking over environmental regulations on tribal lands there? Fossil fuel companies, big agriculture, and livestock companies. This is based on what a former high-level EPA official said after reviewing Governor Stitt’s letter to the EPA requesting jurisdiction. As for the future of Oklahoma’s environmental control, the EPA Summary Report includes one paragraph that suggests a pro-environment president and Congress could have impact, but only if new federal legislation is passed: “EPA has found no evidence, nor has any been provided by tribes, that indicates section 10211 has sunset and is therefore no longer valid. Should Congress elect to repeal this provision after EPA approves the State’s request, EPA would address any effect on its approval of the State’s request at that time." THE NEXT MOVE? U.S. Attorney General William Barr has now joined other Republican officials trying to nullify the McGirt v. Oklahoma ruling that much of the eastern portion of the state is tribal land. The Associated Press and a local Cherokee Radio station report that during a Sept. 30 visit to the Cherokee Nation headquarters, Barr said that he is working with Oklahoma’s federal congressional delegation to devise a “legislative approach" to address the McGirt decision. Both Governor Stitt and Senator Inhofe have called for a federal “legislative solution.” As TYT has reported, Stitt and Inhofe have pushed for federal legislation to take over not only environmental regulatory control of Tribal lands but all regulatory control, which would return Oklahoma back legally to pre-McGirt status. In six emails between the EPA’s public relations office and TYT, the agency has not denied the accuracy of TYT’s main points or the Wheeler letter and Summary Report. TYT Investigative Reporter Ti-Hua Chang is an award-winning journalist who has worked for CBS News and other outlets. You can find him on Twitter @TiHuaChang.

EPA Grants Oklahoma Control Over Tribal Lands

PlusArticle
Regardless of what ends up in the Build Back Better package, the opposition to it from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is already enriching coal investors like him by sending the price of coal skyrocketing. Manchin’s opposition to climate-change measures, and his defense of fossil fuel, are helping to goose coal prices by signaling a slower decline in demand for coal than was once anticipated — and giving investors confidence to put more money in coal ventures. Although Manchin’s coal-brokerage company, Enersystems, is privately traded, it still benefits from rising coal prices. And that’s helping Enersystems make significantly more money than it otherwise would. "I think in the absence of Manchin, the price would be much lower,“ said Dr. Michael Greenberger, the former diirector of the Division of Trading and Markets at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and now professor and director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. Manchin’s moves are helping the coal industry at large. By proposing policies that support the need for coal, that's driving up the price of coal — an otherwise dying fuel source. So far this year, the price of coal has surged approximately 260 percent, and the biggest jump was in the last few months. The price of coal soared by about 140 percent since just the beginning of July, when the third quarter started. “The future, absent Manchin, for investment in coal should be on the decline and prior to this year it was on the decline,” Greenberger told TYT. Manchin’s grandstanding comes amid surfacing reports illuminating just how deep the West Virginia senator’s connections are to the coal industry. For Enersystems, the elevated price of the commodity means more money lining their pockets. That means a bump for Manchin’s income in particular. Earlier this month, TYT reported that since 2011, Manchin has raked in more than $5.2 million from Enersystems. That makes up 71 percent of Manchin’s investment income. For his peers running publicly traded companies — like Peabody Energy Group, the nation’s largest coal producer — Manchin's opposition also means their stock prices will rise. And that's exactly what we're seeing. In the third quarter, Peabody Energy reported $900 million in sales. That’s the highest it’s been in seven quarters. The company’s stock is also up more than 10 percent this year, after several quarters of declines dating back from a high in June 2018. According to Federal Election Committee filings, Peabody Energy’s PAC donated $5000 to Manchin as recently as July amid active negotiations on Biden’s agenda. And even coal executives are echoing Greenberger’s assessment. Alliance Resource Partners CEO Joe Craft publicly thanked Manchin. In a quarterly earnings call late last month, Craft said: “I think the positive news for the people in the coal business, it looks like Senator Manchin's been successful in keeping out some of the draconian measures that were in the earlier bills. But we really need to see what in the world comes out of the Biden administration this quarter heading into next year, and what their reaction is going to be relative to whether it be legislation incentivizing alternatives, more importantly, what position are they going to take toward our financial institutions and access to capital. Because there have been signs recently that the Federal Reserve has been encouraging the banks not to lend the coal industry.” Greenberger told TYT, “I think the confidence that investors and their industry have in Manchin's ability to tie up climate change proposals is a prop for [the coal business]...Anybody who understands the way these prices work would have to say that his interference has supported the price of coal." Without Manchin, there are few, if any, financial reasons to support further investment in coal. Today only 19 percent of the country gets electricity through coal. That’s down 33 percent from 1990. Manchin’s state, however, is not on par with the rest of the country’s energy diversification. West Virginia still relies on coal to produce a staggering 89 percent of its electricity. And Manchin’s position on the Biden agenda has shifted. Earlier this year Manchin voiced support for $4 trillion in spending. In negotiations since then, he has moved the goal post. He now says his red line is closer to $1.5 trillion. One of Manchin’s few consistent positions has been his allegiance to coal industry executives. Before Biden was even inaugurated, Manchin addressed a January symposium of the West Virginia Coal Association. Manchin promised the organization, including Craft, the head of Alliance Resources, “I will be a voice of reason in the Senate on coal and energy. I will continue to advocate for a total, all-in energy policy and for the continued use of coal.” In late July, Manchin made good on his word. He sent a one-pager to Sen. Maj. Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), saying that Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage should be included in legislation and that both coal and natural gas “feasibly qualify.” Manchin also requested that, if wind and solar energy tax credits were included, then existing tax credits for fossil fuels should not be repealed. But if executives and investors in the coal business are getting a helping hand from Manchin and his grandstanding, it's not helping the average West Virginian. Sales are up as are share prices, but so is the cost to consumers. According to reporting from CNN, the average utility bill through American Electric Power, one of the state’s largest utilities providers, has risen by 122 percent in the last 13 years, with some residents paying electric bills that are higher than their mortgages. Manchin's support for coal is not particularly helping the state’s workforce either. Coal is the ninth largest industry in the state and only accounts for just three percent of the state’s workforce. According to West Virginia University, in 2020 mine employment fell below 11,000. The university also forecasted that employment wouldn’t return to pre-covid numbers within the next five years. Andy Hirschfeld is a freelance reporter. You can find him on Twitter @andyreports

Manchin's Obstruction Is Already Making Him Richer

PlusArticle
TYT has obtained a copy of Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt’s scheduling calendar for June, July, and August 2020. TYT obtained it after filing an Open Records Request, the state’s version of the federal FOIA, or Freedom of Information Act. After examining Stitt’s schedule, a pattern has emerged. In the days and weeks following the U.S. Supreme Court’s July 9 McGirt v. Oklahoma ruling, Stitt met and conferred with the non-Native American business and political interests of the state. That was his response to the high court's McGirt ruling that much of the eastern portion of the state is still sovereign Native American territory. Stitt met with state representatives of areas that were suddenly in tribal land and business leaders; conferred with the state’s top law firm, which has represented energy interests; discussed with his advisors, who are closely allied with the state’s fossil fuel businesses; gave a speech to the Oklahoma Petroleum Alliance; and was the key participant in a webinar with the the state’s Farm Bureau, which represents big agribusiness. There may have been other meetings, but some of Stitt's schedule was redacted or blacked out with no indication of the content or subject of the redacted parts. STITT HAD LITTLE CONTACT WITH TRIBES What is also missing are any meetings, conferences, Zoom calls, speeches, or visits to the Five Tribes of eastern Oklahoma impacted by McGirt. There was only one phone call each to two tribal chiefs. During an August 3 Farm Bureau webinar, Stitt characterized his McGirt discussions with tribal leaders this way: “The problem is a couple of the chiefs I've talked to think it's fantastic, it's a great, it was a great day for their people. It validated what they've always believed: That they're sovereign over this jurisdiction, so they don't see any need for, for a congressional fix or federal legislation to fix anything. They're happy to have us [conduct] government-to-government negotiations.” OKLAHOMA COMMISSION ON COOPERATIVE SOVEREIGNTY Stitt’s goal is clear. On July 20, he set up the Oklahoma Commission on Cooperative Sovereignty, which has no tribal representatives but includes oil billionaire Harold Hamm, and is chaired by a former oil company CEO, Larry Nichols. On Thursday, the commission issued its first report and supported the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transfer of regulatory power. After starting off by hailing Native Americans at length, section 4b supports the state of OKlahoma controlling the environmental regulations in the state, including on tribal lands, without mentioning that this could include dumping hazardous chemicals on reservations. The report concluded, “Congress should let Oklahoma return to being One people.” This may hint at a desire for federal legislation to nullify the Supreme Court’s McGirt decision. This does mean keeping state regulations that favored fossil fuel production regardless of pollution and climate change. In a press release, Stitt said, ”As governor, I represent members of all 39 tribes and all 4 million Oklahomans... This is why one set of rules is so essential to becoming a Top Ten state.” OKLAHOMA INDIGENOUS ACTIVIST RESPONSE This commission’s position has infuriated Native American leaders and activists. “This statement issued on behalf of the so-called Oklahoma Commission on Cooperative Sovereignty is nothing less than a white-washed effort to undermine and eradicate the inherent sovereignty of Oklahoma’s 39 federally recognized tribal nations while uplifting a settler-terrorist regime built on the extraction of fossil fuels...It would benefit their capitalistic goals of accessing more lands to exploit and extract while ensuring that regulatory rollbacks are systematic and consistent. This is another reason why tribal sovereignty is important for everyone and not just tribal citizens — in states like Oklahoma, where oil & gas regulations are virtually non-existent, tribal sovereignty and regulatory control over their lands sometimes serves as the only protection between greedy extractive companies and Oklahoman land and communities. "The entire nation — especially the #LandBack and environmental justice movements — should have their eyes on Oklahoma. What we are seeing here is not only a test for the implications of #LandBack in the wake of the McGirt decision, we are also seeing Oklahoma emerge as a test state for the Trump Administration’s Termination agenda. - Ashley Nichole McCray, Indigenous Environmental Network (ienearth.org) STITT AND INHOFE CONFER JUST BEFORE EPA LETTER SENT Stitt’s schedule also reveals that he had a cellphone conversation with Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) on July 21. The next day, Stitt sent an official letter to Andrew Wheeler, the EPA administrator. The Stitt letter sought for the state of Oklahoma environmental regulatory control over tribal lands in the state. It included requesting the right to dump hazardous waste on the reservations. Wheeler granted Oklahoma’s request on Oct. 1, which TYT Investigates was the first to make public. Wheeler was once a coal lobbyist and worked for Inhofe for 14 years. Inhofe is staunchly pro-fossil fuel and a climate-change denier. Inhofe’s press officer denied that the senator spoke to Stitt about Oklahoma’s letter to the EPA. TYT emailed Inhofe’s press officer, asking: Based on Governor Stitt's schedule calendar, was the cell phone conversation between Governor Stitt and Senator James Inhofe on July 21, 2020, about *McGirt v. Oklahoma* or writing to the EPA about SAFETEA? Did it last the entire half hour from 8am to 8:30am? Inhofe’s press officer responded: The senator spoke with the leaders of all five tribes and the governor the week of July 20. Each conversation was a broad discussion of McGirt where Sen. Inhofe reiterated his commitment to working towards a consensus based solution. The EPA item you mentioned below did not come up. This is interesting, since it appears Inhofe spoke to more tribal leaders than Stitt did, at least based on his schedule and the senator’s response. It is curious that the senator allegedly did not bring up the EPA letter, since it was sent the day after Inhofe and Stitt talked by cell phone. Also, the main legal basis for Stitt's request was a two-paragraph rider attached by Inhofe himself to an 836 page transportation bill in 2005 known by the acronym SAFETEA. The rider allows the EPA to turn over environmental regulatory control of reservations in OKlahoma to the state and can nullify even a Supreme Court decision. TRIBES REACT WITH DÉJÀ VU The environmental ambassador of Oklahoma’s Ponca Tribe responded to TYT’s request for a comment. “Senator Inhofe has disrespected the government to government relationship with the 39 Native Nations of Oklahoma for the 53 long years that he has been in office. He is an expert at undermining sovereignty and his failure of discussing Governor Stitt's request to bring the EPA under the state of Oklahoma's auspices was no mistake. He deliberately added the SAFETEA rider in 2005 with the idea of using it at the convenience of the fossil fuel regime's needs. His so-called 'consensus based solutions' are political rhetoric, nothing more. The only chance that Oklahoma has for an honorable relationship with the 39 federally recognized Native Nations is to vote him out of office.” Casey Camp-Horinek, Environmental Ambassador, Elder & Hereditary Drumkeeper, Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma On November 3, Senator Inhofe is up for reelection to a fifth term. He is expected to win in this deeply red state. With additional research by TYT Investigates intern Zoltan Lucas. TYT Investigative Reporter Ti-Hua Chang is an award-winning journalist who has worked for CBS News and other outlets. You can find him on Twitter @TiHuaChang.

Calendar Shows Governor and Big Business Conferred Prior to Tribal Sovereignty Snatch

PlusArticle
The Trump Administration saved one of its worst attacks on the environment for last. And several advocacy organizations tell TYT that it will cost lives. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler has announced that the EPA has put into effect a rule banning the EPA from basing regulatory decisions on scientific studies that do not identify participants by name. This will effectively give many industries, including fossil fuel and tobacco companies, significantly more leeway to pollute and endanger the health of a broad spectrum of Americans, because many health studies routinely keep the identity of participants confidential to protect their privacy. The rule, dubbed the Censored Science Rule, will have deadly consequences, says the Union of Concerned Scientists. “If we cannot rely on studies using health data, we cannot set standards and it will cost lives. Tens of thousands of people die annually because of air pollution. If we cannot set standards to protect people, then we will see more deaths,” says Gretchen Goldman, Research Director Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists. One of the largest environmental advocacy groups in the US agrees. “The vagueness and ambiguity of the proposal makes it impossible for the public to understand fully what is at stake here. This is a broad and dangerous instrument,” says Senior Attorney Ben Levitan of the Environmental Defense Fund. Both groups believe the Biden administration must prioritize reversing this ruling. INDUSTRY LONG QUEST FOR A CENSOR SCIENCE RULE The push to ban the use of studies without named participants began decades ago with the tobacco industry’s R.J. Reynolds, according to a letter sent to the EPA in 2018 by nine US senators, including now Vice-President-Elect Kamala Harris. The drive to ban confidential scientific studies continued with fossil fuel companies including coal company Peabody Energy, the American Petroleum Institute, and The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). TASSC included big tobacco and donors like Amoco, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Occidental Petroleum. Pro-business, anti-regulation advocates like the billionaire Koch brothers have supported this rule too. FOSSIL FUEL CHAMPIONS This rule to censor science found a champion in former Trump EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, who as Oklahoma attorney general repeatedly sued the EPA to stop regulations connected to fossil fuel companies. Pruitt’s political campaigns received from energy related companies some $1.25 million in donations. Before being forced out by scandal, Pruitt was supported by now lobbyist Lamar Smith, the former Texas congressman and longtime fossil fuel advocate. Smith tried unsuccessfully to legislate a science censor bill. Smith’s campaigns received some $800,000 from oil and gas companies. The science censoring rule has finally been realized by outgoing EPA administrator Wheeler, who was a coal lobbyist and worked for oil advocate and climate-change denier Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) for 14 years. WHEELER ANNOUNCES ANTI-ENVIRONMENT VICTORY Administrator Wheeler spoke Tuesday morning to the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute. EDF expected, and The New York Times reported, that Wheeler would announce that the EPA had approved the Censored Science Rule, which the Times obtained a copy of. Wheeler made this major pro-business, anti-environment announcement before a friendly audience, while most of the country was focused on the Georgia US Senate elections, and just 15 days before the Trump administration leaves office: One last slam against the EPA and the environment. The EPA has already reversed more than 100 environmental regulations. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ Goldman told TYT this ruling is one of the worst. It “...affects the EPA from air pollution to drinking water to pesticide regulations,he said.It sets a dangerous precedent for other agencies…” And Goldman warns it may take years to reverse this ruling, during which time industries will delay setting up pollution standards by going to court and citing this ruling as a legal basis. But the Center for Progressive Reform noted, ...the pick of Michael Regan to lead the EPA might turn out to be a shrewd one on this count ... He comes from an environmental science background, and he has some professional experience in re-building an environmental agency (North Carolina’s) that had been decimated under prior Republican control. That’s exactly the challenge he’ll face at rebuilding EPA, including getting rid of things like this bad science rule. James Goodwin, Senior Policy Analyst. The EPA and the Biden Transition Team did not respond to TYT’s requests for comment.

Trump's EPA Slips in One More Rule to Stifle Science

PlusArticle
“Donald Trump is the worst president for the environment in our history and he is working every day to double down on that fact.” Adam Beitman, Sierra Club National Press Secretary. During his term, President Trump has successfully gutted or reduced an estimated 125 environmental regulations, ranging from vehicle emissions to mercury levels to drilling on federal land and water. The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a former coal lobbyist, bragged in an op-ed that his agency had created “...five cost-saving deregulatory actions for every one regulation implemented.” Implemented regulations that cleaned up America's air, water, and land, compared to 50 years ago. RECENT TRUMP ANTI-ENVIRONMENT ACTIONS On Wednesday, regardless of who wins the presidency, the United States is formally out of the Paris Climate Agreement to reduce greenhouse gases. On Oct. 28, Trump permitted trees to be chopped down on 9.3 million acres of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. Tongass removes more global-warming carbon out of the atmosphere than any other forest in America. Earlier this fall, Trump appointed a climate-change denier, David Legates, to deputy assistant secretary of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which measures the warming of the earth, tracks hurricanes and fossil fuel emissions. Legates has argued that the NOAA data indicating global warming is faulty. EAB: A MAJOR, OVERLOOKED TRUMP ANTI-ENVIRONMENT MOVE But Trump’s anti-environment strategy goes further, according to a former high-level official of the EPA. The former official believes the Trump administration took away a key tool for poor communities, especially communities of color, to fight the pollution that afflicts them. The former official told TYT that the EPA is “curtailing the ability of environmental justice communities (the communities who are disproportionately impacted) to be able to meaningfully participate in EPA's permitting decisions." The former official specifically pointed to the fundamental altering of the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). The EAB is part of the EPA. Before the Trump administration, three independent judges of the EAB reviewed projects approved by the EPA and sometimes ruled against their own agency. Courts sided with the EAB rulings the majority of the time. So the EAB was like an appeals board for the poor, because petitioning it did not require expensive teams of lawyers or lobbyists. It was used by poor communities of color often battling large companies, says the former EPA official. But under the present Trump-appointed EPA administrator, the EAB rules were altered, making it harder for poor communities to use it. For example, one simple rule change was speeding up the review process, which meant more lawyers (and more money) would be needed to draft legal briefs quickly enough. The former EPA official remarked that the EAB is easier to use now by corporations than by poor communities. RECENT EAB ANTI-ENVIRONMENT DECISION One example is a decision on Sept. 30. EAB judges turned down a request from the Navajo Nation and environmental activists to stop the utility company, Arizona Public Service, from discharging wastewater from a steam power plant into a lake on Navajo land. The permit was revoked during the Obama administration, but upheld under the Trump administration. WEAKENING OF “MAGNA CARTA” OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS The former EPA official also cited Trump’s weakening of what some call the “Magna Carta” of environmental laws, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since 1970, NEPA has required all projects with federal funding to conduct an environmental impact study. The new rule changes include, again, speeding up the review process and limiting to 150 pages the length of the environmental impact statement. Defend Our Future, a project of the activist Environmental Defense Fund, mobilizes young people for climate action. It responded to TYT’s request for a comment on the NEPA rollback. “Time and time again – and during a global pandemic, no less - the administration has placed the interests of corporate polluters before the health and safety of the Americans while ceding climate leadership on the world stage..” --Jonathan Soohoo, Manager, Defend Our Future. IF JOE BIDEN ... Joe Biden has stated that if he is elected president he will restore the NEPA rules and rejoin the Paris Accord. But just as leaving the Paris Accord was a nearly four-year process, it will be a lengthy process to re-enter it. This same scenario is expected for other environmental regulations. Some estimate It could take years to restore the environmental protections established in the 46 years before Donald Trump became president. And that is if a President Biden chooses to do so, despite possible pressure from some business interests enjoying the more polluting, relaxed environmental regulations. TYT Investigative Reporter Ti-Hua Chang is an award-winning journalist who has worked for CBS News and other outlets. You can find him on Twitter @TiHuaChang.

The Trump Environmental Setbacks You Didn't Know About

PlusArticle
The Texas politicians most responsible for not preparing for the state’s ice storm disaster have a long history of supporting deregulation and the free market, while taking money from oil and gas companies. Although Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) blamed progressive energy policies for the devastating power outages that hit his state during freezing winter weather, experts have pointed to other factors, including lax regulations that let the energy industry cut corners on winterizing. Officials who oversee the energy industry have also been the recipients of energy industry campaign donations. Republican governors have benefited from fossil fuel donations for years. And the three members of the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC), which regulates energy production, received 60 percent of their campaign donations, some $6.6 million, from fossil fuel companies during the 2010-2016 election cycles. Adrian Shelley, director of Public Citizen's Texas office, blames “overall the Texas political attitude of laissez-faire. Also the Legislature, [former] Governor [Rick] Perry, the PUC [Public Utility Commission], and the industry, drillers, pipeline owners and [energy] generators today." Midland Energy is the largest single donor to Abbott and to Perry, his predecessor, who was tapped by Pres. Trump to run the Energy Department. Midland’s founder, Syed Javaid Anwar, has said he is friends with former Pres. George W. Bush, who hails from Midland and reportedly refers to Anwar as “J. Daddy.” Anwar told E&E News that he identifies as politically conservative, supporting free markets and casting doubt on climate change. As of 2018, Anwar reportedly had donated more than $1.7 million to Texas Republicans. Abbott got more than a million dollars of that, including both cash and airplane rides. Anwar has also given more than $400,000 in campaign contributions to RRC Chair Christi Craddick. Although Craddick has said “energy is non-partisan,” her agency bio says she was “raised in a strong conservative household” and “has fought against Washington’s one-size-fits-all environmental policies that would kill jobs and stifle energy production growth.” Craddick comes from a wealthy Midland family that's in the oil business. As a lawyer, she “specialized in oil and gas.” The RRC’s other members are Jim Wright, whose companies “service the energy industry,” and Wayne Christian, a “lifelong conservative businessman.” According to Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins, the RRC failed to require proper winterizing of energy industry equipment, prioritizing commercial customers over residents. Jenkins told the Texas Tribune, “Other states require you to have cold weather packages on your generation equipment and require you to use, either through depth or through materials, gas piping that is less likely to freeze.” The RRC did not respond to requests for comment from the Tribune or TYT. A Year of Missed Opportunity If you could pinpoint a single time when the current disaster in Texas could have been avoided, it would be 2011. Two bills, SB 1133 and HB 1986, could have required Texas to winterize and regulate most energy generation, ranging from oil and natural gas wells to wind turbines. SB 1133 did not require winterization; it only recommended it, leaving it up to companies to decide. HB 1986, which would have required regulation of energy generating companies, was killed in committee. Together, those bills would have winterized energy production and delivery in Texas enough to have withstood the winter storm that left 12 million people without drinkable water, left two million without power for days, created food shortages, and damaged millions of homes. So who killed the bills? According to the present and past directors of Public Citizen's Texas office, there is a long list. It includes Perry, Lt. Gov David Dewhurst (R-TX), past and present legislative and agency officials, and the RRC. But a complete list of those responsible would include virtually every Texas official with any power over the last few decades. According to Public Citizen’s Shelley, “The reality here is there is blame everywhere and everybody is at fault... Our leadership and industry has a chokehold on our state and now our people don’t have power and water.” The former director of the Public Citizen Texas office, Tom “Smitty” Smith, told TYT that irresponsible regulation has been more of a problem than deregulation. He said some aspects of deregulation have been positive. “Without deregulation we would have never seen Texas become a leader of renewable energy in America,” Smith said. “That was not the truth before deregulation… We need to regulate properly for our health and safety and for protection against winter storms and climate disasters.” Smith added, “What you hear in a committee hearing is not what you hear in the back room. [Publicly] they will tell leadership it will cost too much money and it happens so infrequently it isn't worth it.” TYT Investigative Reporter Ti-Hua Chang is an award-winning journalist who has worked for CBS News and other outlets. You can find him on Twitter @TiHuaChang. Jonathan Larsen is TYT’s managing editor. You can find him on Twitter @JTLarsen. With additional research and reporting by TYT Investigates News Assistant Zoltan Lucas and Intern Jamia Zarzuela, and assistance from members of the TYT Army. If you have tips on this subject or others you can contact us using Proton Mail at TheYoungTurks@ProtonMail.com. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to stay on top of exclusive news stories from The Young Turks.

In Texas, Money Flowed, Then the Power Didn't

PlusArticle
Friday in Washington D.C., two distinct worldviews competed. At 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, President Trump met with executives from seven oil companies, including some of the largest in America, to discuss how a global glut and plummeting demand during this pandemic have driven down petroleum prices. At the Capitol building, in unheralded meetings, House Democrats and environmental lobbyists discussed the party’s Moving Forward Framework. That’s the draft for a $760 billion House bill on infrastructure. It includes $329 billion for highways and $34 billion for “clean energy.” The dueling meetings embodied the battle between fossil fuels and clean renewable energy. The North America director of the environmental activist group 350.org, Tamara Toles O’Laughlin, issued the following statement regarding Trump's oil meeting: The President of the United States should be meeting with the 10 million Americans who have filed for unemployment due to the pandemic. He should be reaching out to the nurses and doctors who are non stop caring for sick patients, without enough protective gear or equipment. It’s disrespectful that instead he’s chosen to roll out the red carpet for Big Oil executives. It’s shameless! Some analysts have said Trump could invoke the Defense Production Act to purchase oil to fill the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Using this executive power, he could potentially bypass Congress and the environmentalists, like 350.org, that stopped the bailout of oil and gas companies in the $2.2 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill. On Thursday, Trump made the still unsubstantiated claim that he had convinced Saudi Arabia and Russia to reduce oil production, which raised oil prices. The two countries have increased production, leaving the world with an oversupply. Saudi Arabia alone was processing a record 12 million barrels a day. With the worldwide economic slowdown due to the coronavirus pandemic, the oversupply and low demand reduced the price of WTI Crude oil to just over $20 this week compared to $40 a month ago. After Trump’s tweet, the price of WTI Crude spiked before settling to $25. Tyson Slocum, the Energy Program director for the advocacy group Public Citizen, told The Young Turks in an email that, in 2012, President Obama invoked the Defense Production Act to help out the biofuels industry. Regarding the possibility of using the DPA to bail out fossil fuels by filling the SPR, Slocum noted that the Department of Energy (DOE) had filed a solicitation about using the SPR to store oil. Slocum wrote, …this appears to be more of an opportunity for US producers and various marketers to use the SPR as a short-term storage option. That’s because right now, private storage facilities are actually filling up fast, since the demand shock means a lot of oil has nowhere to go. I’ve heard that some pipeline companies are considering using their pipelines to store oil, as the situation is getting bad. Slocum also noted that the 2015 budget bill created an energy security fund to pay for SPR maintenance. He estimated that the fund has some $850 million the DOE could use to buy oil. On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that the Treasury has limited ability to aid oil companies, but will work with the Federal Reserve to lend the companies money. The oil executives reportedly attending the president’s meeting Friday were: Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth, Continental Resources founder Harold Hamm, Occidental Petroleum CEO Vicki Hollub, Devon Energy CEO David Hager, Phillips66 CEO Greg Garland, and Energy Transfer CEO Kelcy Warren. There were different types of oil companies present at the meeting: Big oil and smaller companies focused on natural gas and fracking. Their interests are not the same. The oil industry's main lobbying group, American Petroleum Institute, has said that oil companies do not want a bailout -- that the market should decide. And Big Oil executives at Friday’s meeting have not been donating significant amounts to Trump, Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show. But others at the meeting have been. Kelcy Warren, head of Energy Transfer, last year donated $5600 to Donald Trump’s campaign, and $360,600 to the Trump Victory joint fundraising committee, according to FEC records. Warren also gave $355,000 to the Republican National Committee. Energy Transfer is a natural-gas company and owner of Sunoco. It is also part-owner of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. Hamm, the founder of Continental Resources, has contributed $50,200 to the Trump Victory joint fundraising committee and the Trump campaign. Hamm has called for tariffs on foreign oil. He is invested in shale oil, which requires fracking to remove the oil and gas from shale rocks. Fracking is not only worse for the environment and climate change, it’s more expensive. Fracking companies have to sell at higher prices to make a profit. The shale oil industry was profitable when the price of oil was $60 a barrel. It is not at $25. Analysts have said big oil companies may be able to weather this economic downturn, but that smaller oil companies may get absorbed or die. As the White House meeting occurred, over at the Capitol -- and via videoconferencing -- sources say, major environmental groups including the Sierra Club, Oil Change International, 350.org, Greenpeace, and the Sunrise Movement met and communicated with Democratic congressional staff from both the House and Senate to work on the Moving Forward Framework infrastructure plan. They hope the plan will lead to a House bill which includes environmentally sustainable industries. House Democrats believe their plan could mean 10 million jobs and a major shift in American energy policies and pollution. However, on Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi backtracked, saying the next stimulus relief bill would have to be like the last one, giving direct aid to deal with the pandemic. She said it was still possible Democrats would pursue infrastructure and environmental changes in another stimulus bill. On Wednesday she had noted that the $760 billion plan includes money for community health centers to combat the coronavirus, highway improvement, public transit, railroads, airports, clean water and wastewater treatment, harbor infrastructure, clean energy, broadband for the entire country, and public safety. Natalie Mebane is the associate director of policy and a lobbyist for 350.org. She told TYT that environmental groups coalesced last month to stop the oil industry bailout because of the speed at which the coronavirus stimulus bill went through the Senate. She told TYT, “…with the Senate package moving so quickly and being so large… we just had to coordinate faster than ever, we had to work together and move as a community and think faster than ever…. We all work together, we all coordinate, we all share, because we’re all fighting for the same things.” Mebane noted that the key issues for the next stimulus plan would be supporting clean energy, reducing carbon output, and green jobs. ...If we are doing the right investments with clean energy, and also making sure that we are actually trying to reduce our carbon pollution, because that is the most critical… this is the only time we have... and also providing the job transitions. I think we don't want to sideline and hurt workers who are stuck in the fossil fuel economy by no fault of their own. They're trying to work, they’re trying to live. Whether a Democratic House bill could pass the Senate or get a presidential signature remains to be seen. Trump is unpredictable, though his record has been consistently anti-environment. Because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is in a tight reelection race, some activists believe he may be more accommodating on environmental issues.

The Green Fight for Coronavirus Stimulus Money

PlusArticle
Wall Street and some top oil and gas lobbyists expect a fossil fuel bailout in the next coronavirus stimulus package as part of a tradeoff in which renewable energy companies get tax credits, according to an internal Morgan Stanley report obtained by The Young Turks. Climate-change activists criticized the potential deal, calling it “terrible.” The report describes and links to audio of an April 22 conference call between Morgan Stanley and Akin Gump, one of the top lobbying firms in Washington. Akin Gump’s team consisted of a lawyer and four lobbyists, two of them former members of Congress, the other two former Republican staffers. Akin Gump represents numerous oil and gas interests, lobbying-disclosure forms show. In the first quarter of this year, Akin Gump lobbyists received $100,000 from two of the biggest oil companies in the world: ExxonMobil and Chevron. On the other end of the call were North American oil and gas analysts and a strategist from Morgan Stanley. The $80 billion investment bank has billions invested in fossil fuels and was the top broker of oil industry mergers and acquisitions in 2018 -- $49 billion worth. During the call, Akin Gump lobbyists laid out what reads like a behind-the-scenes game plan for the fossil fuel industry to pursue in Congress. Morgan Stanley’s internal report summarized a number of paths for “potential...financial support for the [fossil fuel] industry,” referring to “a likelihood” that Congress would authorize a bailout in the form of purchasing oil for the government’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). With the Senate back in session, and the House discussing how to resume its legislative work, members in both chambers are already debating billions of dollars of spending in the next stimulus plan, which has come to be known as 4.0. Any bailout would ostensibly be to save jobs, but as TYT previously reported, much of the industry had been focused on reducing headcount even before the pandemic. One Akin Gump lobbyist explained why the fossil fuel industry failed to get a bailout in the CARES Act coronavirus stimulus package. “It fell apart because there was not a companion benefit for the renewable space of a similar scale,” said Akin Gump Senior Advisor Ryan Thompson, a former aide to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK). The report says, “Today we hosted a call with members of the law firm Akin, Gump to discuss government support for the US Energy industry in the midst of low prices and Covid-19 demand headwinds. Federal action has been limited thus far, and may continue to be challenged due to lack of bipartisan support.” Former Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN), now an Akin Gump partner, said on the call, “For the oil and gas industry to benefit, it is likely that there’ll be a request, requirement that there be a significant renewables package in there as well.” Reaction was frank from Jamie Henn spokesperson for Stop the Money Pipeline Coalition. “This is clear evidence of the unholy marriage between big oil and big finance. This is why it’s so important for Congress to keep a close eye on Wall Street to make sure that the billions of dollars that should be going to the American people are not getting sucked up by big oil companies.” The private report, sent to high-asset clients, was titled, “How Might the White House & Congress Support the Energy Sector?” Akin Gump and Morgan Stanley did not dispute its authenticity or respond to TYT’s requests for comment. The report describes the unfavorable situation for oil and gas companies and says that no money is expected from the next stimulus package. But the lobbyists see some possible tactics. An oil bailout, it says, “could be coupled with renewables tax credit extensions, while regulatory support could be in the form of SPR purchases, relaxation in regulations, and diplomatic support from negotiations with other oil producing countries.” In other words, quid pro quo bartering. Akin Gump Senior Consultant Lamar Smith, former Republican congressman from Texas, said, “I am hopeful in the 4.0...there will be some provisions in there that will be helpful to the energy industry. One: There may be more money for storage, I think specifically there’s gonna be a big effort made to get loans to at least mid-size energy companies that are not necessarily qualifying for loans right now.” The report says that the Akin Gump “panel saw action regarding the SPR as the most immediate and likely solution.” The fossil fuel industry will likely ask Congress to lease out space in the SPR because the oil glut and low demand means just storing oil has become a huge problem for the industry. Morgan Stanley predicted in the discussion that commercial oil storage space will run out in mid-May and all storage space, including the SPR, will run out in July. President Trump has said the US would buy oil for the SPR, but Democrats blocked that and he opted for storage instead. But that too has stalled. Lobbyists also anticipate Trump cutting more oil and gas regulations. Some oil billionaires like Harold Hamm have requested tariffs on foreign oil to raise the price of oil here. All this and the only offer to Democrats and environmentalists would be to give back tax credits for renewable energy companies that were ended by the Trump administration. Tyson Slocum, an energy specialist at the advocacy group Public Citizen called this, “A terrible deal for taxpayers and the climate …The renewable energy industry is less reliant on tax policy for market deployment and the public should not [bail out] the failed business models of the oil and gas sector ” This insider report elaborates on what Republicans might agree to in order to gain Democratic support for an oil bailout. “Options for clean energy support include tax credits for wind and solar and backing for CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage). Carbon taxation may be more challenging to achieve necessary levels of support.” The report gets blunt on which party will help the oil industry, noting, “November elections are key to future legislative action. In a divided government (a Democratic House and a Republican Senate), the prospects for significant legislation is more limited. In the event of the legislature and the Presidency being held by the same party, there could be more significant legislation - with energy industry support more likely under a Republican majority and renewables support more likely under a Democratic majority.” Translation: a Republican president and Congress will help fossil fuel companies and Democrats overall will not. Morgan Stanley’s report addressed other federal help fossil fuel may get. “Under The Main Street Lending Program,” the report says, “while the Fed has not yet finalized its guidance, the Department of Energy (DOE) is asking for an increased lending limit, currently at $150mm, to provide further relief to oil and gas companies.” Morgan Stanley analysts also said that there is bipartisan support for congress to purchase $3 billion of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They also suggested tax credits for renewables would be a good compromise. They concluded that a bill from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the American Energy Innovation Act, “…which contains 50 bipartisan objectives, including significant focus on renewables and carbon storage… in whole or in part, could be adopted.” Thanu Yakupitiyage, head of U.S. communications for the environmental activist organization 350.org, was not surprised by the revealing internal report, but called it “angering and frustrating.” She said, “While hundreds of thousands of people are impacted by the Coronavirus, oil executives are [focused on keeping] their paychecks fat….For us it’s pretty simple: no polluters should be bailed out by the stimulus.” TYT Investigative Reporter Ti-Hua Chang is an award-winning journalist who has worked for CBS News and other outlets. You can find him on Twitter @TiHuaChang.

Wall Street and Big Oil See a Democratic Compromise on Fossil Fuel Bailout

PlusArticle