In This Election, the Climate Should Trump Everything Else

During the Democratic primary debate in Brooklyn, N.Y., Clinton suggested that the 2015 Paris agreement went “far enough.” Many environmental leaders disagree. Benjamin Schreiber, climate and energy program director at Friends of the Earth, points out that the Paris agreement is nonbinding. The TPP, on the other hand, is binding. It has far-reaching power to dictate our climate future — much more than the ballyhooed Paris deal, the signature goal of which was a decision in favor of holding the upper limit of global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in order to avoid a worst-case scenario. Eight months later, current temperature data synthesized into an animated graphic shows the earth close to breaking that limit. Exceeding it will set the stage definitively for “desertification, heat waves, widespread flooding and other global warming impacts,” according to an August article in The Guardian. Can Clinton Be Pushed? Environmental writers and activists Bill McKibben, Russell Greene and David Braun, all members of the Democratic Platform Committee appointed by Bernie Sanders, contend that we now face a climate emergency requiring the same level of mobilization the United States undertook on the brink of World War II. Clinton’s supporters hope to push her toward more climate-oriented positions if she’s elected. The Democratic platform meetings reveal this as wishful thinking. Despite her primary promises, the Clinton platform whips dispensed with nearly all meaningful climate-related proposals through the tactic of bloc voting. The key initiatives were on the table: fracking, carbon pricing and the TPP. But apart from minor changes not significantly impacting the net outcome for the climate, Clinton’s surrogates defeated options that would help avert climate catastrophe. Orchestrating the bloc voting beyond the view of television cameras was Carol Browner, a top energy official in both the Obama and Bill Clinton administrations. Steve Horn at DeSmog Blog revealed that both Browner and Wendy Sherman (a second Clinton surrogate/whip) have ties to the Albright Stonebridge Group (founded by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright), which owns a 33 percent stake in a fracking services company. Hillary Clinton’s chief energy adviser, Trevor Houser, also has gas and oil “industry ties via his now-defunct fellowship at the Peterson Institute for International Economics,” Horn reports. According to The Intercept, many of Hillary Clinton’s largest fundraisers are lobbyists for oil and gas corporations. “Prior to announcing her candidacy, Clinton also received $990,000 for speeches she made to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce — a heavy investor in TransCanada and the Keystone XL pipeline,” reports Alex Emmons. Some of her largest contribution bundlers are lobbyists representing Chevron, Cheniere Energy and TransCanada — all companies that develop shale gas. According to the environmental group Greenpeace, Clinton’s campaign has received $6.9 million from “lobbyists, bundlers, and large donors connected to the gas and oil industry.” The question begs to be asked: How can Clinton stand against climate change given her donors and affiliations? And why do some still believe that she can be pushed? The Truth About Fracking What do the Clinton platform positions and energy plan signal about her willingness to cut back on a key driver of climate change, the burning of fossil fuel? Contrary to advancing even a nominal anti-climate-change agenda, Clinton and the Democratic Party have signaled their intent to: ● Boost rather than ban fracking by, among other measures, repairing or replacing “thousands of miles of outdated pipelines to improve safety and reduce methane leaks.” ● Omit a carbon tax, leaving little or no economic incentive to transition to renewable energy. ● Leave an open path to the TPP, which would empower an international build-out of gas and oil development, transport and exports. Clinton’s plan builds on Obama’s Clean Power Plan, an initiative that relies on all available forms of energy. The problem with Obama’s plan is that it neither effectively advances renewable forms of energy nor limits fossil fuel development. The bulk of the tax investment goes to fossil fuels and nuclear power. Another eight years of this energy policy would precipitate disastrous shifts in the climate. Your support matters…

Independent journalism is under threat and overshadowed by heavily funded mainstream media.

You can help level the playing field. Become a member.

Your tax-deductible contribution keeps us digging beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that unearths what's really happening- without compromise.

Give today to support our courageous, independent journalists.

SUPPORT TRUTHDIG 1 2 3 4 5

In this Article: