This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three times a week, click here.
The scientists of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued their first report in 1990. Only recently, they put out their sixth and latest assessment, a "final warning" on the state of the planet -- and the news was anything but good. Yes, some progress had been made in releasing humanity from its greatest addiction -- its reliance on coal, oil, and natural gas -- while the costs of solar, wind, and lithium-ion batteries have dropped rapidly. Still, greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to rise. The odds that humanity will burst through the 1.5-degree centigrade limit set by the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 seem ever more likely. Sadly, the sky's increasingly the limit, as, according to the report, "Net GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions have increased since 2010 across all major sectors" of the global economy.
And this is no longer simply science. It's daily life. We can feel it -- from heat waves to megadroughts, melting ice and rising sea levels to the recent record-breaking storms in California. As that report put it, "Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. The evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and in particular, their attribution to human influence" has only grown stronger since the IPCC issued its previous report. And if you read the present one, though hardly written for a popular audience, almost every page is, in its own way, daunting. As one typical passage goes: "Climate change has reduced food security and affected water security due to warming, changing precipitation patterns" and greater frequency and intensity of climatic extremes, thereby hindering efforts to meet Sustainable Development Goals."
In these years, from building alternative energy sources to reining in fossil fuels, advances have been made. Unfortunately, they fall distinctly short of what's truly needed to keep this planet viable for humanity, while, for instance, the two greatest greenhouse gas emitters, China and the U.S., have both recently approved new fossil-fuel-producing projects. Perhaps the key line in the report, as Somini Sengupta of the New York Times pointed out, is this: "There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all (very high confidence)." And that, my friend, is not good news!
Worse yet, as TomDispatch regular Stan Cox, author of The Green New Deal and Beyond: Ending the Climate Emergency While We Still Can, reports today, when it comes to what must be done to keep future generations within any bounds of safety, the news is grim. The MAGA crew of the Trumpublican Party, in control of all too many state legislatures and the House of Representatives, seems intent on driving this country and our world all too literally to hell in a handbasket. Tom
Tinpot Legislators
Their One-Party Rule Will Be Ruinous for the Earth
By Stan Cox
The demise of Silicon Valley Bank last month triggered plenty of angst among solar energy developers. Before it collapsed, SBV claimed it had "financed or helped finance 62 percent of community solar projects in America," according to Washington Post business reporter Evan Halper. At first, it wasn't clear who might fill that gap. MAGA politicians took great delight in the disruption of what they tediously referred to as the "woke" economy. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) typically tweeted this non sequitur: "So these SVB guys spend all their time funding woke garbage -- 'climate change solutions' -- rather than actual banking." Meanwhile, Stephen Miller, the vampirish mastermind of Donald Trump's 2017 Muslim travel ban, asked all too rhetorically how much time and money that bank had spent on what he called equity, diversity, and climate "scams."
Why has the right become so obsessed with climate-friendly banking? Here's a clue to answering that question: just as MAGA-world was celebrating such an interruption in renewable-energy financing, red-state lawmakers were taking legal aim at private companies and local leaders considered insufficiently deferential to the fossil-fuel industry. In state after state, such politicians are now attempting to dictate the makeup of the American energy supply -- sometimes putting a thumb on the scale, at other times stomping on it.
Dictating Climate Disruption
Despite the collapse of SVB, the solar industry appears in no danger of imploding. Plenty of other lenders are stepping in to compensate for the loss. But any banks riding to the rescue, or others that openly support non-fossil-fuel energy, had better brace themselves. Republican state politicians, wielding a lot more than mean tweets, are intent on waging all-out war against private companies that don't cater to the oil, gas, and coal industries.
No surprise there. The right has long opposed any government action to curb climate change. Now, financial institutions and other private companies that, in their decision-making, consider not just profits but the environment, society, and governance (what's now coming to be known as the "ESG" principles) risk finding themselves under ever heavier fire. The term ESG has been around for almost two decades, but the far-right assault on companies that adopt its precepts goes back only about three years.
This spring -- a season in which old men's thoughts turn to "woke-ism" and lots of state legislatures are in session -- the crackdown on all things climate is only accelerating. MAGA legislators and treasurers are putting in place laws and regulations meant to prohibit state entities like pension funds from even considering climate issues when choosing where to make investments. Many are also planning to bar state agencies from doing business of any sort with private companies that refuse to deal with oil-, gas-, and coal-related enterprises.
When it comes to climate, it's increasingly clear: the red-blue "national divorce" envisioned by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is already underway. In 15 of the 19 states that emit the most carbon per dollar of production (and, not coincidentally, are among the top oil, gas, and coal producers), Republicans have total control of both the statehouse and the governor's mansion. Not surprisingly, it's in those sooty states that legislative crackdowns on climate-conscious policies are proliferating. In contrast, at least 15 of the lowest-emitting states have passed, or at least considered, bills that aim to prohibit the investment of state funds in the fossil-fuel business.
In a March 11th post, the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance reported on recent anti-climate activity in states across America. Idaho and North Dakota now have laws that prohibit officials from taking climate into account when investing state funds. Legislators in Iowa and Oklahoma have similar bills in the works, while state treasurers and attorneys general in Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, and Mississippi have issued policy statements or directives aimed at punishing any company that considers climate change while making investment or production decisions.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
