THE DON JONES INDEX…

 

 

 

GAINS POSTED in GREEN

LOSSES POSTED in RED

 

 

 4/30/21…  14,210.23

 4/23/21…  14,210.58

   6/27/13…  15,000.00

 

 

DOW JONES INDEX: 5/7/21…32,862.30; 4/23/21…33,815.90; 6/27/13…15,000.00)

 

 

LESSON for April 23, 2021 – “JOE does DEATH!”

 

 

A year and a half ago, a small… admittedly sour… Swedish teenager named Greta Thunberg came to America to lecture the Congress in Washington and, a few days later, the united Nations, on what they were doing wrong and what she, Greta insisted that they do or else many of the autocrats, Democrats, plutocrats and such would not only be dooming their children and grandchildren, those who were, at least, under fifty, would be dooming themselves to a hot and horrible death – sometime over the next twelve to thirty years (the actual time of extinction remains a topic of debate among scientists).

Wherever she went, she told the Congress: “…I seem to be surrounded by fairy tales.  Business leaders, elected leaders all across the political spectrum spending their time making up and telling bedtime stories that soothe us, make us go back to sleep.”  (“No One is Too Small to Make a Difference”)

Remember, Donald Trump was still President and would be so for more than another year.  She might well have added that some of the fairy tales were of the darker sort about pulling those who disagree with you away from their desks and outside to the gallows, to be hanged.  But she was young – and naďve.  “The climate and ecological crisis is beyond party politics.  And our main enemy right now is not our political opponents.  Our main enemy now is physics.  And we cannot make “deals” with physics.”

 

Advance forward that same year and a half to Earth Day, 2021; President Joe and thirty nine other world leaders participating in a (virtual) summit on climate change, variously urging human change and blaming other people for the problem. 

“President Biden’s Earth Day Climate Summit sought to reclaim U.S. global leadership on climate change,” the business magazine Forbes declared, before cynicism crept in like fog.  “At the Summit, Biden pledged that the U.S. would cut carbon emissions by 50-52% by 2030, with 2005 as the baseline (for reference, in 2015, President Obama had pledged a 25 to 28% reduction by 2025). Biden’s credibility with the international audience depends on whether he can show a domestic policy pathway to the promised 50% reduction. Moreover, he needs to make sure that the climate targets do not get tied to other issues that might invite strong domestic opposition.”

 (See Attachment One)

Some things (and people) change.  Others stay the same.  Still more others manage to appear to be doing both.

A somewhat unlikely climate champion after years as a political moderate, Biden came into office with a number of big climate and clean energy goals. On his first day in office, noted the online magazine Vox, he reentered the US into the Paris climate agreement and issued a flurry of executive orders to accelerate the transition off fossil fuels, protect biodiversity, and address environmental injustice.

“To underscore America’s renewed commitment, Biden this week announced an ambitious new nationally determined contribution (NDC). Actually getting there will require a massive transformation of the US economy toward clean energy and a big investment in electric vehicles.”

Gee, holly golly.  Over the course of a few years, addressing climate had gone from being a backburner issue to a centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda, a crucial plank of his economic policy. A career moderate, the Voxxaterians reported.  Biden is an unlikely champion of the issue. But as the politics and urgency around climate change has shifted, so too has Biden.

The biggest news out of the virtual event was the commitments various countries made to reduce their emissions. At the top, Biden formally pledged America would cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 52 percent relative to 2005 levels by 2030 — the most ambitious target the US has set to date. Still, as Vox’s Umair Irfan laid out, some believe the goal is not big enough given the sheer scale of the current climate crisis and the pace of warming.  (See below and Attachment Two)

The key reasons for the new geopolitical consensus are clear. Earth has already warmed dangerously -- by around 1.2° Celsius, or 2.7° Fahrenheit over the past 250 years -- and will continue to warm at around 0.2° C per decade or higher unless the global energy system is decarbonized.

President Biden’s climate goals carry a big risk — “or a big potential payoff”, intoned the New York Times… inadvertently (or vertently) taking the “floor” position on climate change deadlines, as apposed to the 2050 deadline for the planet preferred by many other “moderates”.

Scientists say that his pledge to cut America’s climate warming emissions in half by 2030 is technologically feasible and ecologically imperative. The speed of the economic transition away from fossil fuels, however, risks exposing vulnerabilities in the nation’s electricity system and unsettling its transportation sector. But the rewards could be high: lower risk of catastrophic climate change, new jobs and renewed global leadership for American companies.

Separately, a major U.N. report to be released next month will declare that slashing emissions of methane, the main component of natural gas, is far more vital than previously thought to ward off the worst effects of climate change.

To wit…

NBC News reported, Wednesday, that glaciers are melting faster, losing 31 percent more snow and ice per year than they did 15 years earlier, according to three-dimensional satellite measurements of all the world’s mountain glaciers.

Scientists blame human-caused climate change.

“Using 20 years of recently declassified satellite data,” they say, scientists calculate that the world’s 220,000 mountain glaciers are losing more than 328 billion tons (298 billion metric tons) of ice and snow per year since 2015, according to a study in Wednesday’s journal Nature. “That’s enough melt flowing into the world’s rising oceans to put Switzerland under almost 24 feet (7.2 meters) of water each year.

The annual melt rate from 2015 to 2019 is 78 billion more tons (71 billion metric tons) a year than it was from 2000 to 2004. Global thinning rates, different than volume of water lost, doubled in the last 20 years and “that’s enormous,” said Romain Hugonnet, a glaciologist at ETH Zurich and the University of Toulouse in France who led the study.

Half the world’s glacial loss is coming from the United States and Canada.

Alaska’s melt rates are “among the highest on the planet,” with the Columbia glacier retreating about 115 feet (35 meters) a year, Hugonnet said.

For perspective, at a 2017 climate march in Washington, DC, progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders (VT) and Jeff Merkley (OR) unveiled a new bill calling for 100 percent of US energy to be generated by clean and renewable sources by 2050. Four years later, Biden is speeding up the timeline significantly.

The wild swings from Obama to Trump to Biden and a lack of stable federal policy on climate and clean energy has been difficult to contend with, experts told Vox.

A recent study from the Rhodium Group found that though the US is indeed on target to hit the Obama-era emissions goals, that hasn’t happened purely because of the good intentions of American business and industry. The Rhodium Group study found that the Covid-19 pandemic suddenly grinding the economy to a halt led to a 10.3 percent drop in US greenhouse gas emissions in 2020.

“With coronavirus vaccines now in distribution, we expect economic activity to pick up again in 2021, but without meaningful structural changes in the carbon intensity of the US economy, emissions will likely rise again as well,” the Rhodium Group study concluded. In other words, the federal government can’t count on businesses to do the right thing. It needs to set the tone moving forward.

 

By every standard, President Joe Biden's virtual climate change summit (summoning forty world leaders onto Zoom to make virtual pronouncements) was a remarkable success, according to Jeffrey Sachs of CNN. “With great diplomatic dexterity,” he gushed.

“Biden and climate envoy John Kerry assembled world leaders representing 82% of world carbon emissions, 73% of the world population and 86% of world economic output to commit to bold climate action.”

(See a list and some remarks from their hometown media as Attachment Fourteen)

CNN even reported that Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro had done a U-turn… after long parroting Trump's anti-environmentalism, Bolsonaro “abruptly fell in behind Biden by announcing Brazil's intention to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and to scale-up nature-based solutions in Brazil's vast Amazon rainforest… the so called lungs of the planet as have been rather wracked by slash and burn agriculture as those lungs of individuals unfortunate enough to have encountered the plague (or tobacco, or ongoing pollution… speaking of China, whose President Xi Jinping “not only underscored China's commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2060, but also to draw down coal use after 2025, a major step forward, and one that will likely put China on the path to reach net zero by 2050, alongside the US.”

Well, that’s what CNN said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi both promised climate action but offered few new details. Russia is of course heavily dependent on fossil fuels, yet Putin knows that Russia needs to change as foreign markets for Russia's gas exports inevitably decline. India is still coal dependent, yet the Indian government recognizes India's vast solar power potential, its high vulnerability to global warming and the serious risks of losing export markets if India delays its energy transformation.

And they have certain… other problems… at present.

Vox celebrated the “big pledge from Chinese President Xi Jinping” to reduce coal consumption between 2026 and 2030. But Xi’s announcement was short on specifics, and China’s overall targets — hitting peak carbon emissions by 2030 before getting to net-zero emissions by 2060 — remained unchanged.

 

“Even if the pledges from the US and other countries were broadly encouraging,” Vox reported, “the real test of whether these countries will actually make good on them is yet to come. Many are putting economic growth first after a year of stagnation due to the Covid-19 pandemic; air pollution levels are already soaring again in China.

China, according to a recent article in Time, is also among the first economies that are recovering rapidly from the outbreak. Beating pessimistic forecast, Beijing expanded its economy by 2.3 percent in 2020, making it the only major economy registering positive growth last year.

“What is also rebounding is its air pollution level. According to Finland-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), by early May levels of concentration of air pollutants – PM2.5, NO2, SO2 and ozone – all returned to or exceeding the monthly levels recorded the previous year. In October, PM2.5 concentrations in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, the China-equivalent to Germany’s densely packed Ruhr region, saw an increase of 15.6 percent over the same month last year, raising concerns that the region risks falling short of its winter pollution control targets.

In 2019, more than 66 percent of the electricity in China was generated using coal power, which is a leading contributor to air pollution in China. Convinced that high economic growth ultimately leads to environmental improvements, some Chinese elites insist that economic development is a sine qua non for solving the country’s environmental problems. Justin Yifu Lin, a renowned government economist in China, even argued that economic growth was not the primary factor behind China’s smog problem, and that China should speed up growth to fundamentally solve its environmental crisis. In September 2019, Premier Li Keqiang reaffirmed that economic development be taken as the central goal.”

The great, gray New York Times cited America’s Six Steps to Sanity – “Lo and behold, (governments) are finding that decarbonizing the energy system is not some pie-in-the-sky dream, but is rather a practical and achievable task, with six basic steps in the transformation:

“First, stop building any new fossil fuel-based power generation (such as coal-fired power plants) and replace all mothballed power plants and new generation capacity with zero-carbon power (such as wind, solar, nuclear, etc.).

“Second, electrify transport. All of today's automakers and many aspiring automakers of the future know that the automotive future lies in electric vehicles. Major auto producers will shift fully from internal combustion engines to battery electric vehicles by around 2035.  (Biden's infrastructure plans also invest in other steps. For example, they support the transition to electric vehicles through investments in charging stations and R&D for advances in battery technology.)

“Third, electrify buildings. New buildings will be fit with electric heat pumps and electric cooking, and old buildings heated with home heating oil and natural gas will be retrofitted for electricity.

“Fourth, improve energy efficiency through smart appliances, improved building design, better materials and other cost-effective energy savers.

“Fifth, produce "green" fuels such as hydrogen using zero-carbon electricity for use in industrial applications that can't be electrified directly. Hydrogen or other zero-carbon fuels will be used in sectors such as aviation, ocean shipping and steel production.

“Sixth, adopt nature-based solutions to store more carbon dioxide in forests and soils by creating more protected nature reserves and by shifting from extensive (land-using) agriculture to intensive (land-saving) agriculture.”

 

These are all worthy and… if you believe President Joe… goals that not only preserve life on Earth, but produce jobs and profits, too.  Republicans, whose support he will need to enact domestic legislation and spur or shame foreigners into compliance, do not seem to be on board the S.S. Biden.

Soon, however, would be heard some discouraging words.

 

Vox had reported that the “breakout” star of Biden’s climate summit is 19-year-old climate justice activist and organizer with Fridays for Future Xiye Bastida. In fiery remarks delivered during a session on climate solutions, Bastida, who relocated to New York from Mexico with her family at the age of 11 when they were displaced by drought and floods, joined the swelling army of “youth climate activists” demanding governments “act decisively using the tools available to end the climate emergency.”

When pushed to address Bastida’s concerns at a press conference following the summit, climate envoy Kerry said President Biden’s climate summit is a big step in the right direction. “Is it enough? No. But it’s the best we can do today.”

Bastida clearly had made an impression. Speaking at a White House press conference later on Thursday, Kerry described her impassioned plea as “profoundly meaningful” and “moving.”

“That’s where a lot of the younger generation is today, appropriately,” Kerry said. “Pretty upset at the adults — the alleged adults — who are not getting their act together to make happen what needs to happen.”

Even the arch-conservative Breitbart agreed (sort of), at least about Bastida’s sincerity (if not her vision)…

The Breitbarters called Bastida ”anticolonial” and “anticapitalist for her anti-American, anti-West, anti-white and anti-capitalist accusations (something Kerry preferred not to echo).

Bastica accused world leaders of perpetrating economic systems that disproportionally harm black, brown, and indigenous people.

“We demand that you stop systematically targeting the global south, and black and brown and indigenous communities through environmental plunder, the exploitation of our lands…” she said.

Bastida also called for “comprehensive non-Eurocentric and intersectional climate education” as well as “literacy on climate justice, Environmental racism, and ancestral and indigenous wisdom.”

As if, perhaps, channeling Marianne Williamson (or Gwyneth Paltrow?), BB reported that the speaker had challenged world leaders for not doing enough on climate change, calling them to “live in harmony with Mother Earth.”

And they reported that a Russian video feed showed the American President and cohorts Kerry and Blinken as the only climateers wearing masks “even though they have been presumably vaccinated for the coronavirus and were sitting six feet apart from each other.”

What a trio of old fuddy-duddies!

(BB did not mention whether virtual Indian boss Modi was masked – given the… uh… circumstances in his country.)  He wasn’t.

 

The grand old goat of the (RINO) right, National Review, attempted to right its Trump-skeptical course by jumping into the fray with a full-scale, three pronged attack on President Joe and his virtual summit, calling the event “unserious”, the perpetrator a “denialist” (that dread term weaponized against his predecessor’s scientific acumen for simple proposals like making everybody drink bleach and, speaking of government coercion, joined the tinfoil crowd in declaiming that Joe really, really DID want to ban meat.  (See Attachments Four; A, B and C)

There was even dissent from the left – “…history will judge Biden not by how much he cares or what he says, but by which policies and investments his administration and Democrats in Congress put in place, how they are implemented and enforced, the emission reductions they produce, and whether they lead to further policy,” warned another Vox correspondent, David Roberts, in another composition. (Attachment Five)

And a NYT correspondent, while mostly approving of the effort to restart the issue after the Paris debacle, warned that: “Leaders of many other countries understand that climate change and extreme weather can cause problems for them. The leaders also see clean energy as a growing industry and want their companies to be leaders. The U.S. can’t simply dictate terms. Both China and India, for example, will remain more reliant on coal than Biden administration officials wish.”  (Attachment Six)

During Barack Obama’s presidency, and now Biden’s, “Republicans have almost uniformly opposed significant legislation, be it on health care, climate change, Wall Street regulation or economic stimulus.”  (nyt) And Vox, tolling off a list of winners and losers, consigned the Grand Old Party to the later (even though “loss” on this issue means loss of life for all parties, partisans and people – whether by 2030, 2050 or even 2100.)

In the days leading up to the summit, House Republicans halfheartedly and unsuccessfully tried to reverse the cemented narrative that their official climate platform is to deny scientific reality. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy published a video touting the Energy Innovation Agenda, a package of “dozens of bills and solutions” the GOP has to address climate change and infrastructure as a counterpoint to Biden’s agenda.

No president of either party has so fully embraced tackling climate change before, Vox allowed, “but the hardest part for Biden is yet to come. Though White House officials have insisted they have multiple pathways to halve emissions from 2005 levels in less than a decade, it will be difficult without passing Biden’s American Jobs plan through a divided Congress.

“That policy change has been driven by a significant transformation, essentially the zeitgeist of climate change,” Julian Brave NoiseCat, vice president of policy and strategy at Data for Progress, told Vox in an interview. “The conversation used to be about how the heck do we get people to care about climate change when it feel so far off.”

Compiling data for the past 13 years, researchers at Yale and George Mason universities used to see about 12 percent of people they classified as “alarmed” about climate and the same amount who were “dismissive” about the issue. Over the years, the numbers have shifted. Those in the alarmed group have grown to about 26 percent (there’s another 29 percent who classify themselves as “concerned” about climate change), while the number in the dismissive category has shrunk to 8 percent.

“The bigger question is, is public engagement in climate increasing — and the answer is unequivocally yes,” said Edward Maibach, director of the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.

For the most part, Republicans are no longer the party of outright climate denial, recognizing a fundamental shift in the electorate. At the same time, their initial plans to tackle climate change revolve around planting 1 trillion trees worldwide and investing in technologies to remove carbon from the atmosphere — rather than reorienting the American economy to not produce carbon in the first place. And the GOP is sounding the alarm about Biden’s decarbonization targets, saying a departure from fossil fuels will wound the economy.

“I’d say there isn’t an overall Republican strategy to combat the climate crisis where it is,” said Joe Bonfiglio, president of the Environmental Defense Action Fund. “What we’re seeing now is a party grappling with a need to have climate plans that neatly fit under the policy umbrella of all of the above energy strategy that doesn’t reduce fossil use.”

Vox also called Climate Czar John Kerry’s faith in markets another “loser”

“Kerry’s faith in the private sector as the silver bullet is somewhat naive. The private sector is an important partner to meet ambitious climate goals, but it will also take serious investment across all levels of government to get there.”

new coalition, launched Thursday last, seeks to funnel at least $1 billion in payments to countries that show they’re preventing tropical deforestation and its associated emissions. The US, Britain, and Norway are driving the effort along with a number of major corporations, including Amazon, Nestlé, Unilever, and Salesforce, forming what the group called “one of the largest ever public-private efforts to help protect tropical forests.”

“Bringing together government and private-sector resources is a necessary step in supporting the large-scale efforts that must be mobilized to halt deforestation and begin to restore tropical and subtropical forests,” Kerry said in a statement when the group, known as the Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance Coalition (LEAF), was announced Thursday.  (See Attachment Three)

Hollywood, at least, is on board.

 

Back in 2019… seems like long, long ago, President Donald Trump mocked Thunberg on Twitter after the 16-year-old excoriated world leaders for not doing enough to tackle the climate crisis.  (See Attachments Eight A, B and C)

“She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!” Trump posted on Twitter, replying to a video of Thunberg’s speech at the United Nations climate action summit earlier in the day.

Trump’s penchant for Twitter insults and online confrontations with people he sees as political adversaries is well known, though CNN did acknowledge that the tweet was “a striking display of the President teasing a child.”

Thunberg appeared to take Trump’s slight in stride. By late Tuesday morning, she had updated her Twitter bio to read: “A very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future.”

Trump, on the other hand, went ballistic after Time nominated the teenybopper as its Person of the Year.

They say revenge is a dish best served cold, the Guardian UK reiterated – citing Don Corleone and Greta Thunberg, the teenage environmental activist mocked by Donald Trump in a tweet when she was named Time magazine’s person of the year, waited exactly 11 months before delivering the perfect riposte.

In his December 2019 insult, Trump told Thunberg, 17, to work on her “anger management problem” and to “go to an old-fashioned movie with a friend”.

“Chill Greta, chill!” the president implored in the tweet, which began with him branding her Time award as “so ridiculous”.

On Thursday afternoon, with Trump raging on Twitter in all capital letters and throwing out baseless allegations of voter fraud even as his election day lead in Pennsylvania and other states continued to erode, Thunberg threw his words straight back at him.

“So ridiculous,” Thunberg tweeted in reply to Trump’s earlier “STOP THE COUNT!” rant.

“Donald must work on his Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Donald, Chill!”

Within two hours of posting it, the tweet had amassed more than 452,000 likes, double the total for Trump’s original message.

And now, Greta has new rivals on both her left and right flanks.  The “breakout star of Biden’s climate summit” was 19-year-old climate justice activist and organizer with Fridays for Future Xiye Bastida.

In fiery remarks delivered during a session on climate solutions, Bastida, who relocated to New York from Mexico with her family at the age of 11 when they were displaced by drought and floods, demanded governments act decisively using the tools available to end the climate emergency.

The Washpost (see Attachment Nine) reported that a right wing think tank hopes it’s found an  anti-Greta.

Naomi Seibt is a 19-year-old German who, like Greta, is blond, eloquent and European. But Naomi denounces “climate alarmism,” calls climate consciousness “a despicably anti-human ideology,” and has even deployed Greta’s now famous “How dare you?” line to take on the mainstream German media.

“She’s a fantastic voice for free markets and for climate realism,” said James Taylor, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute, an influential libertarian think tank in suburban Chicago that has the ear of the Trump administration.

 

Girl scuffles aside, the summit represented a “tipping point” (Sachs/CNN) with the world's largest economies -- the United States, Canada, the European Union, China, Japan, Korea, India, United Kingdom, Brazil -- finally aligning around the goal of deep decarbonization, “meaning the shift of the energy system from fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) to zero-carbon sources (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass).”

They might have added nuclear, but adverse atoms are still anathema on the left.

Joshua Goldstein, an American, and Steffan Qvist (yes, Greta, a Swede!) tout so-called “fourth-generation” nuclear fission,  “From a political marketing perspective,” they advise, “(f)ears about nuclear power, however unjustified, might be mitigated with the reassurance that fourth-generation designs are even safer (than safe) and all-around better.  And then, they smile, it’ll be time to break nuclear fusion out of the deathtrap dungeon into which most Americans put it, thanks to pre-Djonald crackpot Lyndon LaRouche.  (See their book: “A Bright (literally – dji) Future”)

If only those damn private sector nukers would stop building their doom domes on earthquake faults, upwind of major cities and next to convenient sources of drinking water!

Still, the anti-nukers bump up against another Vox and friends Loser: “The goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

Any country that delays decarbonizing, they say, will be left with stranded assets and shrinking markets for its exports.

We are still a long way from achieving this goal, but the debates over the objective -- net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, the timing (by around 2050, according to CNN), but 2030 is the new 2050 and even the basic pathways to success -- are largely over.

The 2015 Paris climate agreement has a topline goal of limiting the increase in global average temperatures this century to below 2 degrees Celsius, but it also has a secondary, more ambitious target of keeping warming below 1.5°C.

Back in 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put out a major report looking at just how hard it would be to meet the 1.5°C target. It found that every degree of warming matters, with higher temperatures extracting a higher human and economic toll. The report concluded that to reach this goal, the world has until 2030 to slash greenhouse gas emissions by half or more from present.

And 1.5°C is hardly a “safe” climate. The world has already warmed by at least 1°C on average, and the effects have been devastating. The longer the world waits to act to limit emissions, the harder it will get.

The new US climate target — a 50 to 52 percent cut in emissions relative to 2005 by 2030 — “looks like it is consistent” with the 1.5°C goal, according to a senior White House official on a call with reporters on Wednesday. But according to Climate Action Tracker, a US commitment in line with this target would actually need a 57 to 63 percent cut.

Many other countries have also said they are using 1.5°C as their benchmark for their climate commitments. Rhetorically, it seems there is widespread support for being more ambitious. However, it’s clear there’s a cavernous rift between commitments and actions. Global greenhouse gas emissions have only grown since the 2018 IPCC report. While there was a lull in this growth last year due to the Covid-19 pandemic, emissions are poised to rebound around the world, including in the US, as economies reopen.

So now, concludes Umair Irfan: “the world has to make even more drastic cuts to greenhouse gases — and in less time. It’s easy to paint a target years into the future. It’s much harder to take aim today. And right now, that target is nowhere in our sights.”

As for Joe, he celebrated Earth Day with friends, family and maybe even Al Gore, and then, yesterday, descended to the hallowed, haunted Capitol to address two hundred Congresspersons chosen by lottery and television cameras, all under heavy security.  It was his Hundredth (well, 99th) Day Speech, not a State of the Union, per se, but what is the new normal for 2021… and featured an out-of-left-field accusation that Joe was going Bloomberg and proposing legislation to ban the eating of meat (as well as, presumably, eggs, milk, potato chips, chocolate and bananas).

Whole grain bread and water for you, Mister.

In the lengthy, wide-ranging and… in a contrast to the usual Trump harangues… somewhat boring address, Biden recited a number of costly agenda items, including measures to combat climate change.  Not many, not specific, but more than his predecessor.  (See Attachment Ten)  The Republican response, from Sen. Tim Scott, was also very light… in fact, negligible on climate, approached only indirectly through jobs and infrastructure issues.  (See Attachment Eleven)

Comments on the speech, by NPR and CNN are attached as Attachments Twelve and Thirteen.

 

Dirt is just another name for Earth, and Joe knows Dirt… the kind that flies about in Washington and then that which behaves itself and stays in its place across flyby America and, in the process, allowing food to be produced – even meat!

After scolding Congress in 2019, Greta Thunberg voyaged to New York (presumably by Flintstones SUV) and engaged the assembled, scowling diplomats – many from the same countries so effusively praising the objectives (if not the task) of Biden’s summit eighteen months later.

“You have taken away my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,” the progeriac sweet sixteener told the men (almost all) in high places.  “And yet I’m one of the lucky ones.

“People are suffering.  People are dying.  Entire ecosystems are collapsing.  We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.  And all you can talk about is fairy tales of money and economic growth.  How dare you!”

Happy Earth Day, 2021!

 

APRIL 23 – APRIL 29

 

   Friday, April 23, 2021

     

      Infected: 31,992,407

               Dead:  571,200

                  Dow:  34,043.49

      

           

President Joe declares he’ll raise the capital gains tax as well as income taxes on the rich to pay for Coronavirus expenses.  Republicans make a counteroffer to Joe’s 1.9T stim; 568M.  Not taken. 

   More services and places (like California state universities) demand Vaxx Cards so the usual happens – criminals and forgers cash in.  Experts disagree on how long immunity will last – weeks, months or years?  Dr. Jha calls J&J “extraordinarily safe” with only one in 500,000 getting clots, but Americans resist anyway.  But plague is far worse in Brazil and India (where there are public cremations in the streets), although better in Israel.

   Leakers in Minneapolis reveal that Derek Chauvin has a history of knee-strangulation of unarmed blacks as states race ahead of feds on police reform.  Diversitarians hail first woman appointed head of FEMA and Congress approves statehood (and 2 Senate votes) for Washington DC, though chances of passing through a Senate filibuster are minimal.

   Caitlyn Jenner announces for Governorship of California pending Newsome recall; hires The Donald’s melted-down Brad Parscale as manager.

 

Saturday,  April 24, 2021

 

      Infected:  32,045,236

                Dead:  571,921

                 

 

 

It’s Earth Day.  President Joe holds his virtual summit with forty mostly wealthy nations.  (See above)

   Joe’s stimuli variously called American Economic and/or Family Plans.  Highest income tax rate will rise from 36% to 39.6% for the over-$400,000 earners but capital gains taxes will become co-equal (a virtual doubling).  Republicans howl and vow resistance, Dow craters and bitcoins sink below $50,000 for the first time in months.

   J&J re-greenlighted, shots may be rolling out in days even though clot toll rises to 15 with 3 deaths.  Vaxxing as a whole is falling off; right-wing hardliners blamed.  NIH blames the “fragile” American psyche.

   Border migration crisis send’s Biden’s popularity plunging like a rock… his 52% approval is better than Trump, but worse than most Presidents nearing their 100th day in office.  He growls at Central America’s corrupt dictators.  No action ensues. Vice President Harris appointed to seek the “root causes”, experts cite drought and crop failures in Guatemala, silence on corruption. 

 

Sunday,  April 25, 2021

 

      Infected:  32,077,076

                Dead:  572,387

 

                

 

 

Vaxxed Americans now comprise 53% of the population.  Dr. Fauci says the world is now looking to America as the “gold standard” in plague fighting.

   More street cremations as India’s health system implodes; shortage of PPE, vaxxes and oxygen have healthcare workers and hospitals “gasping for breath” with 2,600 deaths in a single day.  80 killed in fire at Iraqi plague hospital.  Indonesian submarine found in three pieces at the bottom of the ocean.  No survivors.

   “I can’t breathe” cop Chauvin will be sentenced on June 16th.  More police shootings fill the gap – juvenile old knife wielder Mahkia Bryant in Columbus, Ohio; Andrew Brown in North Carolina, Isaiah Brown in Virginia.  Attorney General Garland promises meetings.

   A Republican publican offers guarded praise to President Joe.  “He just needs to keep politics boring.”

 

Monday,  April 26, 2021

 

       Infected:  32,124,369

                 Dead:  572,666

                  Dow:  33,981.57   

               

 

It’s National Pretzel Day.  Oscar aftermath finds mixed messages on diversity; Asian power swells, with Chloé Zhao winning Best Director for “Nomadland” (best picture) and Yuh-jung Younwins Best Supporting Actress.  Tyler Perry wins Humanitarian Award, tells story about giving shoes to a homeless woman who then says: “My feet are no longer on the ground.”

   32 states resuming J&J vaxxes, but 73% reject it.  First male clot victim in California.  So America will send surplus doses and PPE to India, where Dr. Jah says plague is worsening.  Dr. Fauci says vaxxees don’t need to wear masks outdoors.

   In the skies above: UFOs and a pink Supermoon.

 

  Tuesday,  April 27, 2021

 

          Infected: 32,173,383

                   Dead:  573,378

                     Dow:  33,984.64

 

Census results in Congressional redistricting; Texas gains seat, New York loses one (by 89 returns) and so does California, where recall of Governor Newsome makes the ballot.  Florida also gains a seat and announces that they will release genetically modified celibate mosquitoes into neighborhoods.

  Experts say India is reporting only 20% of plague deaths.  CDC follows Fauci in dropping mandatory outdoor masking – President Joe goes on TV, rips off his black mask and promises a normal Fourth of July… voice dropping into a creepy whisper warns Don Jones to get vaxxed “now, now!”  Americans are washing their hands less often and prizes for vaxxees abound… free drinks at the bar and West Virginia considers a $100 bounty.  (Those who already got shot curse their luck.) 

   Consumer confidence said to be back to pre-plague levels.  Vegas is booming again.  One result… inflation.  Used cars, Crocs and chicken wing prices are up and Spotify raises its rates.  In the aftermath of Earth Day and the Zoom climate summit, Epicurious Food Magazine will no longer publish recipes for meat (insisting “we’re not anti-meat, we’re pro-planet”) and Jeff Bezos proposes a substitute… edible seaweed.  (The Japanese love it.)

 

  Wednesday, April 28, 2021

               

          Infected:  32,229,327

                    Dead:  574,329

                     Dow:  33,820.38  

President Joe celebrates his 99th Day with an “address” to Congress (above) with only 200 in attendance at the Capitol as opposed to the usual 1,600 despite CDC’s Walensky pivot from “impending doom” to “turning a corner” as a result of over half Americans now shot at least once.  But, she warns: “We know that this virus is an optimist… er… opportunist.” 

   Angry Republicans respond that Joe’s taxes will destroy America.  Mitchy decries a “smorgasbord” of special interest giveaways like the proposed 200M for pre-K education. 

   Taliban celebrate victory as American troops start leaving Afghanistan.  Iranian navy said to be “swarming” American ships in the Persian Gulf.  A Texas man is killed by hundreds of bee stings.  Feds swarm Rudy G’s home and office, seizing documents and computers – accuse him of being a secret lobbyist for a foreign “power”… Ukraine. Apple’s new privacy apps “make war” on Facebook; the Zuck thunders back that he wants to “inflict pain” on Tim Cook.

  

     Thursday, April 29, 2021

 

             Infected:  32,274,941

                       Dead:  575,193

                         Dow:  34,060.36

 

Pundits and partisans toll off “takeaways” from JoeSpeech, but Don (well, Dawn) Jones’ favorite was his tribute to the two women (Harris and Pelosi) directly behind him.  Nancy’s desk defiler finally granted bail after four months in the klink.  Joe says he “likes to meet people with different ideas” then flies down to Georgia to meet ex-Prexy Jimmy Carter.  Tim Scott (R-SC) gives rebuttal… urges Americans to trust God and fight “Washington dreams and Socialist schemes.”  Real socialist Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) said 30 to 40% of Americans do not believe in democracy; “they want a strongman” and that makes them easy prey for conspiracy theorists.

   Hardcore resistance means thousands of shots are expiring; experts shipping them off to Brazil and India which are trading places as worst plague hotspots. 

   NFL draft in Cleveland (relocated from voter-suppressing) Georgia, Clemson quarterback Trevor Lawrence goes to Jacksonville as first pick.  A pair of Michael Jordan’s 40 year old sneakers expected to sell for $100,000 to $150,000 (if autographed, they’d garner half a mil).  Australian town invaded by thousands of “destructive” (i.e. incontinent) cockatoos – some talking, some not.

 

 

The media have made a much of a muchness about America’s return to the New Normal – supposedly including a booming economy that will generate jobs and justify President Joe’s new taxing and spending initiatives.  But, at least for this week, the performance of the markets was anaemic.  Employers now say that lazy Americans would rather sit on their ass and collect kited unemployment handouts than go back to work – labor sorts reply that more and more of the good jobs are going bye bye and the bad jobs that replace them… at minimum wage or worse… can’t feed their families.  Everybody says that the solution is a more competent, motivated and educated workforce, but Democrats say this can’t happen without more handouts for schooling from the cradle to (if not the grave that our climate is digging) than at least into their late 20s or thirties.  So jobs from healthcare to truck driving to Governorships are going unfilled and the military drawdown means that Army training is on the chopping block too.

Whether or not the cost of re-educating Don Jones for the jobs of the future is worth the cost will be a part and parcel of next week’s Lesson on taxes and their benefits (or lack) but while Republicans vow to destroy the Biden agenda by claiming that the borrowing will come from China… some will, some won’t… inflation is also a reality.  While the general state of the Jones was another more or less break-even wash, the statistics that stood forth were on housing… higher prices, fewer sales.  As for inflation, those numbers are on the way.  They won’t be pretty.

 

 

THE DON JONES INDEX

 

CHART of CATEGORIES w/VALUE ADDED to EQUAL BASELINE of 15,000

 

                                (REFLECTING… approximately… DOW JONES INDEX of June 27, 2013)

 

                                                          See a further explanation of categories here

 

ECONOMIC INDICES (60%)

                                                 ECONOMIC

 

DON JONES’ PERSONAL ECONOMIC INDEX (45% of TOTAL INDEX POINTS)

 

CATEGORY

VALUE

BASE

 

RESULTS

 

SCORE

SCORE

OUR SOURCE(S) and COMMENTS

 

 

  INCOME

(24%)

6/27/13

LAST

CHANGE

NEXT

  4/23/21

4/23/21

                             SOURCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wages (hourly, per capita)

9%

1350 pts.

 4/2/21

     nc

 5/7/21

1,430.31

1,430.31

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wages  25.21 nc

 

 

Median Income (yearly)

4%

600

 4/23/21

 +0.025%

 5/7/21

669.41

669.58

http://www. whttp://www.usdebtclock.org/   35,445

 

 

*Unempl. (BLS – in millions

4%

600

 4/2/21

      nc

 5/7/21

334.23

334.23

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000/  6.0% nc

 

 

*Official (DC – in millions)

2%

300

 4/23/21

   -0.06%

 5/7/21

402.25

403.00

http://www.usdebtclock.org/      9,687

 

 

*Unofficl. (DC – in millions)

2%

300

 4/23/21

   -0.11%

 5/7/21

331.63

332.00

http://www.usdebtclock.org/    17,426

 

 

Workforce Participation-Number  Workforce Participation-Percent

2%

300

 4/23/21

 +0.025%

 +0.02%

 5/7/21

 

313.74

 

313.80

In 150,994 Out 100,491 Total: 251,485

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 60.04

 

 

WP Percentage (ycharts)*

1%

150

 4/2/21

    nc

 5/7/21

151.99

151.99

http://ycharts.com/indicators/labor_force_participation_rate 61.50

 

 

OUTGO

(15%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Inflation

7%

1050

 4/23/21

+0.6%

 5/7/21

1,008.16

1,008.16

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.6 nc

 

 

Food

2%

300

 4/23/21

+0.1%

 5/7/21

282.99

282.99

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.1

 

 

Gasoline

2%

300

 4/23/21

  +9.1%

 5/7/21

269.99

269.99

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +9.1

 

 

Medical Costs

2%

300

 4/23/21

+0.1%

 5/7/21

286.77

286.77

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.1

 

 

Shelter

2%

300

 4/23/21

+0.3%

 5/7/21

293.44

293.44

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm     +0.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WEALTH

 

(6%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dow Jones Index

2%

300

 4/23/21

- 2.82%

 5/7/21

371.35

360.88

https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/index/DJIA  32,862.30

 

 

Sales (homes)

Valuation (homes)

1%

1%

150

150

 4/23/21

- 3.38%

+5.14%

 5/7/21

180.75

157.56               

174.65

165.66              

https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics

     Sales (M):  6.01 Valuations (K):  329.1

 

 

Debt (Personal)

2%

300

 4/23/21

+0.63%

 5/7/21

272.76

274.49

http://www.usdebtclock.org/    64,096

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

             AMERICAN ECONOMIC INDEX (15% of TOTAL INDEX POINTS)

 

 

 

NATIONAL

(10%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revenues (in trillions)

2%

300

 4/23/21

+0.06%

 5/7/21

297.82          

298.00          

debtclock.org/       3,486

 

 

Expenditures (in tr.)

2%

300

 4/23/21

+0.10%

 5/7/21

220.33

220.10

debtclock.org/       6,742

 

 

National Debt (tr.)

3%

450

 4/23/21

+0.11%

 5/7/21

328.63

328.28

http://www.usdebtclock.org/    28,231

 

 

Aggregate Debt (tr.)

3%

450

 4/23/21

+0.14%

 5/7/21

367.15

366.63

http://www.usdebtclock.org/    86,209

 

 

 

GLOBAL

 

(5%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign Debt (tr.)

2%

300

 4/23/21

+0.86%

 5/7/21

289.88             

292.37             

http://www.usdebtclock.org/   7,077

 

 

Exports (in billions – bl.)

1%

150

 4/23/21

     nc

 5/7/21

155.80

155.80

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/index.html  187.3

 

 

Imports (bl.)

1%

150

 4/23/21

     nc

 5/7/21

135.92

135.92

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/index.html   258.3

 

 

Trade Deficit (bl.)

1%

150

 4/23/21

     nc

 5/7/21

101.80            

101.80            

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/index.html  71.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOCIAL INDICES (40%)  

 

 

ACTS of MAN

(12%)

 

 

 

 

  World Peace

3%

450

4/23/21

  +0.1%

 5/7/21

395.09

395.49

India overtakes Brazil as worst plague nation; street cremations proliferate.  Russian dissident Navalny ends hunger strike.  Euros allow fully vaxxed Americans to enter their fiefdoms.  Human Rights Watch accuses Israel of apartheid.  Veep Harris put in charge of refugees – says she wants to give them “some hope”.

 

Terrorism

2%

300

4/23/21

   +0.1%

 5/7/21

240.02

240.26

Tunisian terrorist stabs six French policemen.  FBI still hunting Capitol rioters, but Richard Barnett gets bailed out after four months for planting his feet on Pelosi’s desk. 

 

Politics

3%

450

4/23/21

   +0.1%

 5/7/21

435.56      

436.00      

Republicans make 568M counteroffer to Joe’s 2M infrastructure tab.  Caitlyn Jenner will run as Republican for California Governor after petitions spark recall election.  In addition to doling out hope, Veep Kamala says she’ll look for root cause (i.e. corrupt hellholes).  Census results out – red states gaining population (and influence), NY (by 89 dis-counted) and California lose.

 

Economics

3%

450

4/23/21

    -0.2%

 5/7/21

402.99     

402.18     

Unemployment claims drop.  Chinese airport displaces Atlanta as world’s busiest.  Bitcoin value drops below $50K first time since August.  Rental car shortage driving prices up to $700/day.  And apartment rents are rising too.  And Spotify. 

 

Crime

1%

150

4/23/21

   +0.4%

 5/7/21

252.02

251.01

Active (bad) shooter bags five, kills nobody on Bourbon Street.  DC police accused of racing and crashing patrol cars.  Hate crimes plague NYC… elderly Asians and Jewish synagogues attacked.  As travel resumes, third-party airline bookers accused of gouging and fraud. North Carolina cops refuse to release Andrew Brown murder video.  Three cops knee Latino to death in Alameda, Ca, two cops killed in Boone, NC shootout.

 

 

 

ACTS of GOD

(6%)

 

(with, in some cases, a little… or lots of… help from men, and a few women)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environment/Weather

3%

450

 /16/21

    -0.2%

 5/7/21

414.80

414.00

Salmon deaths make Snake America’s most endangered river.  Baseball sized hail on Florida-Georgia line.  Melting glaciers causing world axis to tilt 15 feet to the east.

 

Natural/Unnatural Disaster

3%

450

 /16/21

    +0.3%

 5/7/21

410.19

408.96

Florida freeze may cause fruit shortage/price hike.  Six killed and ten injured in SUV crash near Atlanta.  80 killed in Iraqi Covid hospital fire.  Indonesian submarine found in three pieces, no survivors.  Pink supermoon brings UFO sightings.

 

 

LIFESTYLE/JUSTICE INDEX   (15%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science, Tech, Education

4%

600

4/23/21

   +0.3%

 5/7/21

660.06

662.04

Four astronauts lift off on Space X, narrowly missing Space Junk.  Florida to release genetically modified “non-biting” mosquitoes in the wild.

 

Equality (econ./social)

4%

600

 /16/21

  -0.1%

 5/7/21

569.53

568.96

Facebook “culture fit” called racist.  Post-Floyd protests over shootings of Makiah Bryant, Adam Toledo, Andrew Brown and Isaiah Brown.  AyGee Garland announces that he will hold meetings.  Oscars celebrate Asians and women, shut out Chadwick Boseman in favor of Hannibal Lecter. 

 

*Health

 

          Plague

4%

600

 /16/21

 +0.1%

 

 

+0.4%

 5/7/21

503.27

 

- 102.00

 

503.77

 

- 101.59

 

Epicurious Food Magazine bans recipes for “evil” beef.  Jeff Bezos investing 100M on edible seaweed.  Americans are accused of washing their hands less often.  Plans surface to ban menthol cigarettes.

Dr. Fauci calls CDC and FDA the world’s “gold standard”.  J&J vaxxes return after eleven day siesta.  Their toll: 15 clotted, 3 dead out of 8M recipients.  Total vaxxes drop 16% for week; NIH blames “fragile Americans” and West Virginia starts paying people to get shot.   Sunday talker Nate Silver: “Keep tiny risks in perspective.”  Antis don’t.  India glad to take America’s unwanted doses, even the prohibited Astra Zeneca.  Low (1%) vax rate threatens “cringeworthy” Tokyo Olympics.

 

 

Freedom and Justice

3%

450

 /16/21

 +0.1%

 5/7/21

453.76

454.21

JEpstein Madam Ghislaine Maxwell pleads not guilty to pimping children.  SCOTUS will hear case of rejected cheerleader who posted curses on Snapchat.  Chauvin jurors start going public – wished he had testified and dismiss riot pressure as “secondary”.  39 year old Britney Spears contesting Daddy’s control of her finances. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS and TRANSIENT INDEX        (7%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cultural incidents

3%

450

 /16/21

+0.5%

 5/7/21

504.70

507.22

Elon Musk will host SNL.  Diamondbacks’ pitcher Madison Bumgarner throws 7 inning no-hitter.  Essential Quality is early Derby favorite at 2-1,  Gronk sets record by catching football thrown from helicopter 600 ft. up.  Tyler Perry wins Oscar’s Humanitarian Award – advises Americans to “stand in the middle”.  RIP Les McKeown (Bay City Rollers)  Shock G. (Digital Underground)  Burning Man cancelled for 2nd straight year, but spectacular funeral for rapper DMX with many, many bikers and monster trucks.

 

Miscellaneous incidents

4%

450

4/23/21

 +0.2%

 5/7/21

474.94

475.89

Consumer confidence said to be back to pre-pandemic levels.  But unsold Girl Scout Cookies piling up in warehouses.  Dog outruns woman in relay race.  Other woman charged with felony for returning video 20 years late.  Cat lady accused of cruelty for keeping tiger and bobcat in her trailer.  Oldest known bottle of whiskey (200+ yrs.) to be auctioned: 20-40K expected.  Lebron James rookie card goes for 5.2M (or 200 bottles of 200 year old whiskey).  Tanks of black market oxygen rise from $80 to $1,000 in India.

 

             

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Don Jones Index for the week of April 23rd through April 28th, 2021 was DOWN 0.35 points.

 

The Don Jones Index is sponsored by the Coalition for a New Consensus: retired Congressman and Independent Presidential candidate Jack “Catfish” Parnell, Chairman; Brian Doohan, Administrator/Editor.  The CNC denies, emphatically, allegations that the organization, as well as any of its officers (including former Congressman Parnell, environmentalist/America-Firster Austin Tillerman and cosmetics CEO Rayna Finch) and references to Parnell’s works, “Entropy and Renaissance” and “The Coming Kill-Off” are fictitious or, at best, mere pawns in the web-serial “Black Helicopters” – and promise swift, effective legal action against parties promulgating this and/or other such slanders.

Comments, complaints, donations (especially SUPERPAC donations) always welcome at feedme@generisis.com or: speak@donjonesindex.com

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT ONE  from Forbes

 

Apr 28, 2021,04:20pm

HERE’S WHY DOMESTIC POLITICS SHAPED BIDEN’S CLIMATE SUMMIT AGENDA

 

President Biden’s Earth Day Climate Summit sought to reclaim U.S. global leadership on climate change. At the Summit, Biden pledged that the U.S. would cut carbon emissions by 50-52% by 2030, with 2005 as the baseline (for reference, in 2015, President Obama had pledged a 25 to 28% reduction by 2025). Biden’s credibility with the international audience depends on whether he can show a domestic policy pathway to the promised 50% reduction. Moreover, he needs to make sure that the climate targets do not get tied to other issues that might invite strong domestic opposition.

The Manchin Factor: The Road to Climate Progress runs through West Virginia

The 50% emission reduction target will be achieved by a mix of regulation and federal spending. Biden’s ambitious $2 trillion infrastructure plan generously funds climate projects. But domestic spending programs require Congressional approval. This is where Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) comes in. He chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. But more importantly, given the 50-50 split in the U.S. Senate, Manchin is the crucial swing vote.

Manchin’s room to maneuver on climate issues (which are perceived as anti-coal and deeply unpopular in his state) is limited. In 2020, Trump secured 69% of votes in West Virginia, behind only Wyoming at 70%. Moreover, Manchin’s winning margin in the Senate elections has declined from 24% in 2012 to 3.3% in 2018.  This means Biden’s climate proposals need to make sure that West Virginia’s concerns are addressed.  

What does Joe Manchin want? Like any other leader, he wants jobs and prosperity for his state. Specifically, the subject of “just transition” for coal-dependent communities is critical. No wonder, the second day of Summit was focused on jobs and technology.

On the same day, the White House released the first report of its Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization. The report “identified nearly $38 billion in existing federal funding that could be accessed by energy communities for infrastructure, environmental remediation, union job creation, and community revitalization efforts.”

Given the scale of the just transition challenge, this level of funding is probably inadequate. Sizable new support would be required for projects such as carbon capture, broadband Internet, coal mine reclamation, and tax credit for investing in coal-dependent communities. Further, new investments would be needed for public services, such as schools, which will get defunded as the fossil fuel economy declines. Indeed, Senator Martin Heinrich, representing the oil and natural gas rich New Mexico, endorsed Senator John Barrasso’s (R-WY) proposal to compensate school districts for the revenue decline due to decarbonization policies. He noted: “We support their schools, and throughout this transition we should support the people who have kept the lights on and made this country the greatest energy country on the face of the Earth.”

Climate Migration and Climate Aid Have Low Priority

The Summit ignored the subject of migration, which is accentuated by climate change. If a community cannot adapt to say prolonged droughts or frequent floods, people are forced to migrate. Thus, scholars note that migration is a form of climate adaptation. President Biden recognized this link in his February 4 Executive Order.

And yet, the Summit did not talk about climate migration probably because it is a politically charged issue, especially with the surge on the US-Mexico border. News about unaccompanied minors is heartbreaking. But Biden Administration lacks a coherent response on this subject, see the flip-flop on the issue of the 15,000 refugee cap. Vice-President Kamala Harris, who is leading the administration’s response to the migration crisis, is yet to address a press conference on this subject.

The ongoing human displacement crisis is vast.  The UNHCR reports that 1% of global population, about 79 million, is displaced. Both Europe and the U.S. have struggled to craft an appropriate policy response, especially with the rise of nativist sentiment. 

Biden recognizes that governance failure, poverty, and now climate change, motivate migration. Thus, overseas aid to strengthen climate resilience could reduce the incentives to migrate. Following this logic, did the U.S. announce a substantial increase in overseas climate funding?

It did not. Climate aid does not have a vocal domestic constituency: the Green New Deal does not even mention it. Although countries had pledged to create a $100 billion Green Climate Fund under the Paris Agreement, they have contributed barely 10% of the amount. The Obama Administration had pledged $3 billion and was able to appropriate $1 billion. Trump canceled future payments. Biden has pledged $1.2. billion, but this falls short of even the remaining $2 billion that Obama had committed.

Moving Forward

Biden is wise to pay close attention to domestic political realities. He has a narrow window to pass climate legislation. If history is any guide, Republicans will probably take back the House in 2022. While Biden may still achieve some policy progress through Executive Orders, a Republican-controlled House is unlikely to support climate laws or his spending initiatives, such as the infrastructure plan.

Biden probably has 18 months to change the climate policy trajectory. Can he mobilize support in the House and the Senate to do it?

 

ATTACHMENT TWO – from Vox

 

HOW CLIMATE BECAME THE CENTERPIECE OF BIDEN’S ECONOMIC AGENDA  

 

The politics and urgency around climate change are shifting.

By Ella Nilsenella.nilsen@vox.com  Apr 22, 2021, 12:40pm EDT

 

At long last, combating climate change is having a moment in the United States.

Over the course of a few years, addressing climate went from being a backburner issue to a centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda, a crucial plank of his economic policy. A career moderate, Biden is an unlikely champion of the issue. But as the politics and urgency around climate change has shifted, so too has Biden.

The Biden administration on Thursday formally committed to cutting America’s greenhouse gas emissions 50 to 52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Biden’s campaign pledge on emissions was getting the US to net-zero emissions by 2050, and getting the American economy to run on 100 percent clean and renewable energy by 2035.

“Transforming the energy system was both essential and a tremendous opportunity,” John Podesta, the founder of the Center for American Progress and former climate adviser to President Barack Obama, told Vox in a recent interview. “It went from being a down-the-list environmental issue to the center of his economic project.”

For perspective, at a 2017 climate march in Washington, DC, progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders (VT) and Jeff Merkley (OR) unveiled a new bill calling for 100 percent of US energy to be generated by clean and renewable sources by 2050. Four years later, Biden is speeding up the timeline significantly.

Public polling from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication shows that while a slimmer majority of voters believe the US should tackle global warming, transitioning to clean energy sources like wind and solar is broadly popular across parties. That could be a boon for Biden as he aggressively sells his $2.25 trillion American Jobs Plan to Congress — a jobs and infrastructure package that doubles as a climate bill.

There’s no doubt Biden was influenced by young climate activists and other progressives in the Democratic Party pushing him to embrace the Green New Deal and go big on climate. While Biden has been careful to separate his plan from the Green New Deal, he has also adopted some of its key tenets. For one, Biden recognized the ability to pair his climate ambitions with an optimistic economic message: “When I think about climate change, the word I think of is ‘jobs,’” Biden said during a July campaign speech.

No president of either party has so fully embraced tackling climate change before, but the hardest part for Biden is yet to come. Though White House officials have insisted they have multiple pathways to halve emissions from 2005 levels in less than a decade, it will be difficult without passing Biden’s American Jobs plan through a divided Congress.

Obama’s signature climate bill, cap and trade, failed in 2010. And though the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s regulatory effort to lower emissions, largely withstood President Donald Trump’s efforts to weaken it, the Biden administration wants to implement something more ambitious.

“That policy change has been driven by a significant transformation, essentially the zeitgeist of climate change,” Julian Brave NoiseCat, vice president of policy and strategy at Data for Progress, told Vox in an interview. “The conversation used to be about how the heck do we get people to care about climate change when it feel so far off.”

How the public perception around climate has changed

The politics around climate change — and what to do about it — have changed significantly over the past decade.

Compiling data for the past 13 years, researchers at Yale and George Mason universities used to see about 12 percent of people they classified as “alarmed” about climate and the same amount who were “dismissive” about the issue. Over the years, the numbers have shifted. Those in the alarmed group have grown to about 26 percent (there’s another 29 percent who classify themselves as “concerned” about climate change), while the number in the dismissive category has shrunk to 8 percent.

“The bigger question is, is public engagement in climate increasing — and the answer is unequivocally yes,” said Edward Maibach, director of the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.

At the same time, Maibach and his colleagues have noted there’s widespread support among voters for the US to embrace clean energy. In a December survey, Maibach and his fellow researchers found that 66 percent of registered voters said developing sources of clean energy should be a “high” or “very high” priority for the president and Congress. That number was 13 percentage points higher than the number of registered voters who said global warming should be a high or very high priority for the president and Congress, the poll found. And 72 percent of registered voters supported transitioning the US economy from fossil fuels to 100 percent clean energy by 2050. (Of course, it’s worth repeating that Biden wants to speed up this timeline.)

“While there is clearly a divide in America between liberals and conservatives on the issue of climate change, that divide is much much smaller with regard to clean energy and support for clean energy,” Maibach said. “It is still true that Democrats are much more likely to support an aggressive pivot toward transitioning to clean energy; it’s also true a large majority of Republicans support the same.”

As Democrats have wholeheartedly embraced climate as both an environmental and an economic issue, Republican politicians are still trying to articulate the party’s position.

For the most part, Republicans are no longer the party of outright climate denial, recognizing a fundamental shift in the electorate. At the same time, their initial plans to tackle climate change revolve around planting 1 trillion trees worldwide and investing in technologies to remove carbon from the atmosphere — rather than reorienting the American economy to not produce carbon in the first place. And the GOP is sounding the alarm about Biden’s decarbonization targets, saying a departure from fossil fuels will wound the economy.

“I’d say there isn’t an overall Republican strategy to combat the climate crisis where it is,” said Joe Bonfiglio, president of the Environmental Defense Action Fund. “What we’re seeing now is a party grappling with a need to have climate plans that neatly fit under the policy umbrella of all of the above energy strategy that doesn’t reduce fossil use.”

Republicans are also not going along with Biden’s infrastructure and climate push, releasing their own, narrower plan that deals more with fixing the nation’s roads and bridges. While Democrats can pass Biden’s American Jobs Plan through the Senate without Republican support using an obscure procedural tool called budget reconciliation, they have a limited window to get policy through Congress and shovels in the ground.

The Biden White House is very aware of the potential for climate progress to be reversed by Republicans if and when they win in the midterms or the next presidential election. That’s why it is far more focused on proposing concrete changes that are “hard to roll back,” a White House official told Vox.

Many in the energy industry are moving ahead

When slashing environmental regulations and lowering emissions standards, Trump often cast his actions as being friendly to businesses.

At the same time, many businesses and utilities recognized that the broader economy was heading toward renewable sources of energy, in large part because wind- and solar-generated energy has become much cheaper than energy generated from fossil fuels. There are about 3 million clean energy workers in America, according to the latest annual jobs report from the national nonpartisan group E2. Nearly three times as many workers are employed in clean energy, compared to fossil fuel extraction and generation workers.

“It is consensus that the urgency around this is growing, so that momentum has been moving for quite some time,” said Mike Boots, executive vice president of Breakthrough Energy. “It’s always helpful to have a consistent and durable policy at the federal level.”

The wild swings from Obama to Trump to Biden and a lack of stable federal policy on climate and clean energy has been difficult to contend with, experts told Vox.

“Investors like certainty, and they haven’t gotten any certainty at the federal level,” Karen Wayland, policy adviser to electricity utility coalition group Gridwise Alliance, told Vox. “The utilities have embraced this decarbonization agenda, and they do long-term planning.” In the Trump years, Wayland added, utilities were “setting goals absent federal policy.”

At the same time, a recent study from the Rhodium Group found that though the US is indeed on target to hit the Obama-era emissions goals, that hasn’t happened purely because of the good intentions of American business and industry. The Rhodium Group study found that the Covid-19 pandemic suddenly grinding the economy to a halt led to a 10.3 percent drop in US greenhouse gas emissions in 2020.

“With coronavirus vaccines now in distribution, we expect economic activity to pick up again in 2021, but without meaningful structural changes in the carbon intensity of the US economy, emissions will likely rise again as well,” the Rhodium Group study concluded. In other words, the federal government can’t count on businesses to do the right thing. It needs to set the tone moving forward.

Biden’s promise to modernize the electrical grid and invest in cleaner sources of energy is welcome to some industry groups and leaders, but there are many more who oppose the push. Oil and gas groups are not happy, and some unions are uneasy about what the transition could mean for workers who have made more, on average, from fossil fuel jobs.

The 2019 median annual wage for solar photovoltaic installers was $44,890, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while the median annual wage for wind turbine service technicians was $52,910. Comparatively, jobs in the fossil fuel power sector pay between $70,310 and $81,460, and tend to be more heavily unionized compared to the emerging clean energy sector.

“In order for us to get where all of us want to go, we have to bring everyone along with us,” AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka told Vox recently. “We can’t just jettison people. That’s the transition we have to strike, and I think this administration understands that transition.

 

“When people talk about climate, I think jobs,” Biden said during his Thursday speech. “Within our climate response lies an extraordinary engine of job creation and economic opportunity ready to be fired up.”

A somewhat unlikely climate champion after years as a political moderate, Biden came into office with a number of big climate and clean energy goals. On his first day in office, he reentered the US into the Paris climate agreement and issued a flurry of executive orders to accelerate the transition off fossil fuels, protect biodiversity, and address environmental injustice.

To underscore America’s renewed commitment, Biden this week announced an ambitious new nationally determined contribution (NDC). Actually getting there will require a massive transformation of the US economy toward clean energy and a big investment in electric vehicles.

This very concept — rerouting the American economy to be powered by wind, solar, nuclear, and other renewables — is the big idea in Biden’s economic vision. He’s pledged 100 percent of America’s energy to be carbon-free by 2035, and his infrastructure and jobs plan calls for a clean electricity standard, tax credits to accelerate wind and solar development, and $174 billion to be put into electric vehicle infrastructure alone.

The Deepwater Wind offshore wind farm at Block Island in Rhode Island on August 14, 2016. Mark Harrington/Newsday RM via Getty Images

But Biden also has a challenging road ahead in actually implementing this policy; he needs Congress to pass it. He can certainly direct his agencies to tighten vehicle emission standards and use the power of federal procurement to help get the US there, but passing his infrastructure plan is crucial for reaching the goals.

“That one package doesn’t make or break the 50 percent target,” Nathan Hultman, the director of the University of Maryland’s Center on Global Sustainability, told Vox. But “it’s certainly extraordinarily helpful. There’s no doubt.”

Negotiations are already underway on Biden’s infrastructure plan, and the next few months could determine exactly how bold the US goes on clean energy. But Biden’s pledge was a good start. —Ella Nilsen

Winner: Climate activists

It’s hard to imagine President Biden choosing to hold this summit or to center his economic agenda on climate change without the persistent pressure of a wide range of climate activists — young and old, in the US and around the world. In the past few years, they have doggedly and persuasively demanded that world leaders increase their ambition and follow through on climate plans.

Biden’s climate summit and the new pledges are examples of the success of applying that pressure.

The breakout star of Biden’s climate summit is 19-year-old climate justice activist and organizer with Fridays for Future Xiye Bastida. In fiery remarks delivered during a session on climate solutions, Bastida, who relocated to New York from Mexico with her family at the age of 11 when they were displaced by drought and floods, demanded governments act decisively using the tools available to end the climate emergency.

RELATED

Youth climate activists are back with new, sharper demands for countries and corporations

When pushed to address Bastida’s concerns at a press conference following the summit, climate envoy Kerry said President Biden’s climate summit is a big step in the right direction. “Is it enough? No. But it’s the best we can do today.”

Bastida clearly had made an impression. Speaking at a White House press conference later on Thursday, Kerry described her impassioned plea as “profoundly meaningful” and “moving.”

“That’s where a lot of the younger generation is today, appropriately,” Kerry said. “Pretty upset at the adults — the alleged adults — who are not getting their act together to make happen what needs to happen.”

 

In the US, the Sunrise Movement is sure to continue to push the Biden administration to scale up its infrastructure plan. And activists around the world will maintain pressure on world leaders in the buildup to COP26 in Glasgow. —Jariel Arvin

Loser: John Kerry’s faith in markets

US climate envoy John Kerry is enormously optimistic about what’s happening in the private sector around clean energy.

Talking to reporters at a Thursday White House briefing, Kerry said that even if another Trump-like politician comes along with regressive climate policies, it won’t necessarily matter. His reasoning? The market is trending too much toward clean energy to go back.

“No politician, no matter how demagogic or how potent and capable they are, is going to be able to change what that market is doing, because it will have moved,” Kerry said, pointing in particular to the heavy demand for Tesla’s electric cars in the US. “It’ll have four years of entrenchment. And those jobs will be there.”

This is not the first time Kerry’s faith in markets has come up. In remarks to the Institute of International Finance, Kerry said he believed “no government is going to solve this problem” of climate change, adding, “Solutions are going to come from the private sector.”

Special Presidential Envoy for Climate and former Secretary of State John Kerry waits for the beginning of day two of the virtual Leaders Summit on Climate at the East Room of the White House April 23, 2021, in Washington, DC. Anna Moneymaker-Pool/Getty Images

Kerry has good reason to feel this way. The cost of renewable energy has fallen sharply over the past few years; it’s now cheaper than fossil fuels.

“The costs have plummeted quite rapidly, they’ve gone faster than expected,” Hultman told Vox. “You actually have a lot of choices that are clean, at the same cost, [or] sometimes lower costs than alternate, dirtier technologies.”

Loser (reiterated): John Kerry’s faith in markets (again!)

But Kerry’s faith in the private sector as the silver bullet is somewhat naive. The private sector is an important partner to meet ambitious climate goals, but it will also take serious investment across all levels of government to get there.

Having lived through the Trump years, members of the Biden administration seem very aware that progress can be short-lived. They want to get shovels in the ground on projects and build out physical infrastructure like 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations, offshore wind turbines, and solar farms before another US leader tries to go in the opposite direction.

Furthermore, the market forces at play now happened in part due to government intervention. Investment and production tax credits in President Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill spurred tremendous development in renewables. The low cost of solar panels didn’t happen in a vacuum. “It was driven, at every stage, by smart public policy,” Dave Roberts wrote for Vox in 2015.

The private sector can be an important partner in combating climate change. But plenty of experts warn it needs strong signals from the highest levels of government, and it can’t be implicitly trusted to do the right thing. —EN

Loser: The coal industry

One message came out loud and clear from the summit: In a world committed to climate action, government support for coal power is rapidly waning.

In the United States, where the coal industry is being pushed out of the market by cheaper energy sources, there are 191 plants still operating. To hit Biden’s target of reducing greenhouse gas pollution by 50 percent, it’s likely that all of them will have to shutter before 2030. That is the conclusion of multiple studies on the paths to reach Biden’s goal, including from the environmental groups Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council, the research groups Energy Innovation and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the coalition America Is All In.

According to Energy Innovation, “Without eliminating coal emissions by 2030, achieving US emission reductions in line with a 50 percent reduction is impossible.” Even the United Mine Workers, the major labor group representing coal miners, has acknowledged that reality by embracing Biden’s infrastructure package — and a transition to clean energy — in the days leading up to the summit.

His plan already asks Congress to pass a national clean energy standard that would raise utilities’ renewable targets and ratchet down their coal and gas dependency by a deadline of 2035. And his EPA is already working to prepare new power plant regulations that take the place of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan and the weak Trump rule that the courts struck down.

But coal’s decline hasn’t been as swift in many other parts of the world, where renewable energy and natural gas have been slower to replace it. In major economies like China, India, Japan, and Indonesia, governments have continued to rely on coal — and finance the development of new plants overseas.

RELATED

Why China is still clinging to coal

That’s why several new commitments to phase out coal consumption and financing at the summit are so notable. China’s President Xi reiterated his country’s goal to hit peak pollution sometime before 2030 but elaborated for the first time on a specific timeline for the coal industry. In China’s next five-year economic plan, from 2026 to 2030, it would “strictly limit” the increase in its consumption of coal, he said. Another major announcement came from South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who said the country would cut off all overseas financing of coal.

None of this means coal will disappear overnight. But major world leaders signaling the demise of coal and coal financing is a clear sign the fuel is becoming a smaller fraction of the world’s energy mix. —Rebecca Leber

Winner: Countries rich in tropical forests

Even as economies slowed last year from the pandemic, tropical deforestation worldwide paced ahead — jumping 12 percent, compared to 2019. And that number came with a big toll on the climate: carbon emissions equal to roughly double the annual tailpipe emissions of cars in the US, according to the World Resources Institute. A large chunk of those emissions can be tied to Brazil, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Bolivia, which saw the highest rates of deforestation last year.

Enter a new coalition, launched Thursday, that seeks to funnel at least $1 billion in payments to countries that show they’re preventing tropical deforestation and its associated emissions. The US, Britain, and Norway are driving the effort along with a number of major corporations, including Amazon, Nestlé, Unilever, and Salesforce, forming what the group called “one of the largest ever public-private efforts to help protect tropical forests.”

“Bringing together government and private-sector resources is a necessary step in supporting the large-scale efforts that must be mobilized to halt deforestation and begin to restore tropical and subtropical forests,” Kerry said in a statement when the group, known as the Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance Coalition (LEAF), was announced Thursday.

 

ATTACHMENT THREE – from L.E.A.F. 

THE LEAF COALITION

 

The Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest finance (LEAF) Coalition aims to mobilize at least $1 billion in financing, kicking off what is expected to become one of the largest ever public-private efforts to protect tropical forests, to the benefit of billions of people depending on them, and to support sustainable development.

Coordinated by assorted corporate sponsors.  See link above for list.

 

The importance of forests

Tropical forests around the world are under threat. The world lost more than 10 million hectares of primary tropical forest cover last year, an area roughly the size of Switzerland. Ending tropical and subtropical forest loss by 2030 is a crucial part of meeting global climate, biodiversity and sustainable development goals. Protecting tropical forests offers one of the biggest opportunities for climate action in the coming decade.

Harnessing public and private action

The LEAF Coalition can help reverse the trend by providing unprecedented financial support to tropical forest governments implementing forest protection, contributing to green and resilient growth through sustainable investments. The LEAF Coalition empowers tropical and subtropical forest countries to move more rapidly towards ending deforestation, while supporting them in achieving their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. Reductions in emissions are made across entire countries or large states and provinces (“jurisdictions”) through programs that involve all key stakeholders, including Indigenous peoples and local communities.

Read and download the full press release here.

 

Why is LEAF the right approach?

 

Working at scale

Engaging tropical forest countries and states to reduce deforestation on a jurisdictional level and supporting their investments in sustainable development

Robust social protections

Ensuring the full and effective participation of local and Indigenous peoples in line with the Cancun Safeguards

Raising ambition

Private sector support is in addition to, not instead of, deep cuts in their own value chains in line with science-based emission reduction targets

Environmental integrity

Using the independent and rigorous ART/TREES standard to ensure uncompromising environmental and social integrity

Results based finance

Payments made by public and private sectors for demonstrated results that increase the speed and scale of forest protection

Mobilizing finance

Catalysing private capital at scale, providing an avenue for companies to go beyond individual efforts to support global action

 

How it works

1  Jurisdictions reduce deforestation through national or sub-national scale forest protection programs

2. Emission Reductions (ERs) verified and issued by ART

3. Transaction of ART credits from jurisdictions purchased or paid for via intermediary after diligence and internal approvals

4. ERs will transact at a minimum price of $10 per ER via intermediary, as applicable

5. Funds channelled to jurisdictions according to fund management best practice

 

 

ATTACHMENTS FOUR (A), (B) and (C) – FROM the national review

 

ATTACHMENT FOUR (A)

BIDEN’S UNSERIOUS CLIMATE SUMMIT

PResident Joe Biden is convening a “virtual climate summit” — which is a very fancy thing to call a conference call — to be addressed by Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, among others. It comes as Biden announces a fuzzy plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by more than half by the end of the decade (details to come . . . eventually) while congressional Democrats led by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Senator Ed Markey (D., Mass.) offer up a plan to put 1.5 million Democratic activists on the federal payroll by creating a “Civilian Climate Corps.”

It would be difficult to organize all of this by order of seriousness, though the character of the Civilian Climate Corps proposal is suggested by Senator Markey’s infomercial-style salesmanship, promising that the program would “combat the interlocking crises of the moment — climate change, racial injustice, a global pandemic, and income inequality.” One expects him to promise that it doubles as a salad spinner and makes fresh-pressed juice, too. This is the classic Democrat approach to complex problems: “Give us money to give to the people who support us politically.” On the issue of climate, we can expect this approach to produce the same great results it has achieved with the public schools in St. Louis.

Senator Markey is an unserious man. Xi Jinping is a serious one. (Vladimir Putin is serious, as two-bit gangsters go, but one gets the feeling the Russians are included in this sort of thing mainly for old times’ sake.) Xi’s regime is, among other things, an operator of concentration camps, but China’s maximum leader would like the world to believe that he and his country stand for global cooperation — and, further, that his government should be entrusted with a more prominent role in global leadership. Speaking at the Boao Forum for Asia this week, Xi (without directly mentioning the United States) put the Biden administration on notice that his government will oppose American-led efforts “to arrogantly instruct others and interfere in internal affairs.” He warned about “unilateralism” and against a “new cold war and ideological confrontation.”

The climate-change debate creates an opportunity for Xi, because on the issue there is a real divide between the United States and our allies in Europe and Japan, and — even more useful to Xi — a deep divide on the issue within the United States, where climate change is, like practically every other issue, wrapped up in a broader culture-war contest. Hence, Senator Markey’s rhetorical linkage of the climate question to racial and economic issues. By turning up the heat, so to speak, on the climate debate, Biden may be fortifying his left flank, but he is putting the country in a worse position by making it even easier for Xi et al. to exploit our internal and international cleavages.

MORE IN CLIMATE CHANGE

·         Is Climate Change More Important Than Genocide?

·         Yes, Climate-Change Activists Want to Ban Hamburgers

·         Climatists for Nukes

The climate radicalism of Ocasio-Cortez and of the Biden administration itself is mostly a radicalism of rhetoric and posture. If the goal is to radically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in a way that mitigates climate change some decades down the road, then creating a jobs program for Democratic activists is not a meaningful proposal. It is simply a way to raid the treasury while linking the political priorities of the moment of New Deal nostalgia. The fact that it is unserious does not mean that it cannot do both political and economic damage in the real world, if it is pursued with sufficient vengeance. One suspects that Chairman Xi understands that even if President Biden doesn’t quite.

ALSO FROMTHE EDITORS

Biden’s Vindictive Capital-Gains Tax Hike

Russia Challenge Remains Even as Ukraine Crisis Abates

Vaccination Is Our Ticket Out of the Pandemic

 

If we could set aside the culture war for a half a minute, we might discover some points of cooperation. For example, the U.S. electricity-generating sector has significantly improved its greenhouse-gas profile in recent years, not because it was visited by bright young things employed by a Civilian Climate Corps but thanks to — prepare to clutch your pearls — fracking. Natural gas is a much cleaner fuel than coal from a carbon-emissions point of view, and an abundance of inexpensive natural gas enabled normal economic forces to act in the green interest. We could be exporting enormous quantities of the stuff to the rest of the world, helping to displace coal power with cleaner gas power while doing precisely what it is Senator Markey and his congressional allies say they want to do at home: creating good jobs. But that would require, among other things, infrastructure, from pipelines and storage facilities to new export terminals on the West Coast. Private investors are ready to build these at their own expense, but the Biden administration and its allies stand in the way of this and other practical measures that have a chance at producing both consensus and results. Neither “Green New Deal” radicalism nor puffed-up summitry credibly promises as much.

Biden can sign a piece of paper and say the United States is back in the Paris Agreement, but this will amount to nothing until and unless we can come up with a set of policies rooted in a broad and bipartisan internal consensus. Unlike Xi, Biden has to take into account domestic disagreement, both about the content of climate policy and the priority that should be given to the issue. New Deal nostalgia and the quasi-religious approach to climate change cultivated by progressive activists is not going to get the job done — in fact, it is going to make things worse.

Which is to say, if Joe Biden wants to be a world leader on climate, then he has to begin by being a leader at home, taking an intellectually and politically serious approach to building consensus on climate policy. There is very little reason to believe that he is inclined to do so or even capable of doing so. Instead, he is committed to governing by talking point and symbolism. It is unlikely that he will ever do as much practical good on climate change as Elon Musk or George Mitchell.

Xi genuinely wants to be seen as a leader on climate — not out of any gauzy green sentimentality but because it suits his own interests. At the top of his to-do list is supplanting the United States as a world leader by exploiting discord in Washington and between the United States and its allies. Secretary of State Antony Blinken talks often about “the need to engage China from a position of strength,” which is truistic, but — where’s the strength?

About that, and much else, Biden is a bit vague.

 

 

ATTACHMENT FOUR (B)

 

JOE BIDEN’S CLIMATE DENIALISM

In anticipation of Thursday’s virtual Leaders Summit on Climate, a two-day global gathering of more than 40 world leaders, President Joe Biden declared that the United States had a “moral imperative” to adopt an “ambitious” goal of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050.

Such an effort, if we were serious about it, would entail massive destruction of wealth, a surrender of our international trade advantages, the creation of a hugely intrusive state-run bureaucracy at home, the inhibition of free markets that have helped make the world a cleaner place, and a precipitous drop in the living standards of most citizens — especially the poor.

Of course, it should be said that those who oppose the expansion of fracking and nuclear energy — most elected Democrats, it seems — aren’t even remotely serious about “tackling” carbon emissions, anyway. Around 80 percent of American energy is generated by fossil fuels and nuclear right now. Around 20 percent is generated by “renewables” — predominantly wind and hydropower (which is unavailable in most places). Only around 2 percent of our portfolio consists of inefficient and unreliable solar power — this, even after decades of subsidies and mandates.

MORE IN BIDEN ADMINISTRATION

·         Joe Biden’s Executive Incoherence

·         Biden’s Trillion-Dollar Train Wreck

·         Uncle Sam Does Not Belong in Girls’ Dorms or Showers

It’s always funny to hear people speak about solar panels as if they were some sort of cutting-edge technology. The discovery of the photovoltaic effect goes back to 1888. President Jimmy Carter declared a national “Sun Day” in 1978 and put 30 solar panels atop the White House. One of those panels is now on display at the Science and Technology Museum in China — not only the top producer of solar panels and carbon emissions, but also the nation that would most benefit from the United States’ unilateral economic capitulation.

To reach Biden’s goal, the United States would need to envelop most of the nation in panels and windmills, and then rely on enormous Gaian prayer circles — may she grant us sunshine and gale-force winds. We would be compelled to eliminate most air travel and cars — making new ones produces lots of carbon emissions — and retrofit every home, factory, warehouse, and building in America to utilize this type of energy. We would need to dramatically cut back on our meat and dairy intake as well.

“The signs are unmistakable, the science undeniable,” Biden claimed. “Cost of inaction keeps mounting.” Now, I realize that people repeat these contentions with religious zeal, but the evidence is extraordinarily weak. For one thing, there is action. Market innovations keep creating efficiencies all the time. For another, we live in the healthiest, most equitable, most prosperous, most safe, and most peaceful era in human existence. Affordable fossil fuels have done more to eliminate poverty than all the redistributionist programs ever concocted. By nearly every quantifiable measure, the environment is also in better shape now than it was 20, 30, or even 50 years ago. A lot of that is grounded by an economy that relies on affordable energy. Also, though every weather-related event is framed in a cataclysmic way, not that long ago, being killed by the climate was serious concern for most people. Today, it is incredibly rare.

Progressives, however, regularly maintain that we are facing an existential crisis. One might point out that science’s predictive abilities on climate have been atrocious. But, really, these days, “science” is nothing but a cudgel to push leftist policy prescriptions with little consideration for tradeoffs, reality, or morality.

The Malthusian fanaticism that’s been normalized in our political rhetoric is also denialism. “Science,” as the media and political class now practice it, has become little more than a means of generating apprehension and fear about progress. It is the denial of the modern technology and competitive markets which continue to allow human beings to adapt to organic and anthropogenic changes in the environment. Even people who mimic doomsday rhetoric seem to understand this intuitively. The average American says they are willing to spend up to $177 a year to avoid climate change, not the approximately $177,000,000 per person it would cost to set arbitrary dates to get rid of a carbon-energy economy.

The choice we’re given now pits a thriving open economy against an economy weighed down by centralized (and unratified) worldwide climate-change treaties such as the Paris Agreement that put little burden on growing economies such as China and India, and all of it on you.

What does that burden look like? After shutting down a large chunk of its economy in 2020, and spending trillions to keep those affected afloat and avert a depression, the United States emissions only fell by 13 percent. Imagine what 50 percent might entail. When confronted with these nagging specifics, we often hear how these are aspirational goals. Why would we aspire to make life worse for billions of people?

 

AND… ATTACHMENT FOUR (C)

 

YES, CLIMATE-CHANGE ACTIVISTS WANT TO BAN HAMBURGERS

By DAVID HARSANYI

 

We’ve been hearing about the importance of eliminating meat for a long time, no matter what the media say today.

 

The  media like to play this neat trick in which they highlight some conservative hyperbole about Democrats, and then pretend the entire underlying concern that motivated discussion of the topic is nothing but a wild conspiracy theory cooked up in a vacuum.

Take the issue of meat.

“Biden is not coming for Americans’ Big Macs, chicken wings or bacon,” the Washington Post informs us. CNN ran one of their typically idiotic chyrons yesterday: “BIDEN PREPS ADDRESS TO NATION AS GOP CONSPIRACISTS SPREAD FALSE CLAIMS ON MASK-WEARING, BEEF AND BOOKS TO ATTACK HIM.” All of this concern was prompted by a Daily Mail story suggesting Joe Biden would need to limit America’s meat consumption to meet his climate-change goals.

However, Biden’s climate-change goal of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by 100 percent from 2005 levels isn’t achievable without severely restricting factory farming. As a recent Science study found, food-system emissions alone make the Paris Agreement’s target limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius unreachable. And Biden argues that his climate plan exceeds those targets. “Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth,” another Science study tells us, per the Guardian.

Of course, while the media gaslight on the issue, we’ve been hearing about the importance of eliminating meat for a long time. For a decade now, the United Nations has been urging a global meat-and-dairy-free diet. The topic has been one of the hobbyhorses of left-wing political outlets like Vox. “Let’s Launch a Moonshot for Meatless Meat,” popular New York Times columnist Ezra Klein proposed last week. In a 2018 documentary of Jonathan Safran Foer’s bestselling anti-meat book, Eating Animals, co-narrator Natalie Portman explains the immorality of consuming meat.

Bill Gates’s recent book is titled How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. Reviewers lauded the book’s “effective approaches” and “its bracing mix of cold-eyed realism and number-crunched optimism.” The Associated Press says the book is a “calm, reasoned, well-sourced explanation” on how society can deal with a crisis of survival. One of the main ideas in the book is a severe cutback on meat and dairy. “I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef,” Gates explains. “You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time.”

In 2019, CNN put on a Dantesque town hall to talk about the “climate crisis.” Here’s how the network described it in one of its pieces:

For a whopping seven hours, 10 Democratic candidates for president on Wednesday outlined what they would do to address the earth’s changing climate.

One issue that sizzled: Beef production.

It’s peculiar that such an esoteric topic, supposedly the purview of conservative conspiracists, should come up so prominently on the network. The CNN reporter offers quotes from various candidates opposing any legal restrictions on meat consumption, but then decides not to quote an exchange in which Erin Burnett asks the future vice president, Kamala Harris, if she would “reduce red meat specifically.”

Her answer: “Yes, I would.”

Then, of course, the Green New Deal’s goals — embraced by the Biden administration as the aspiration for its own policies — include the long-term hope of getting rid of “farting cows.” Now, granted, I’m not a farmer, but my assumption is that most bovine engage in this activity. The Green New Deal plan also calls for “farmers and ranchers to create a sustainable, pollution and greenhouse gas free, food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.”

Further, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Urges Kids to Save the Planet by Ditching Meat and Dairy,” is not a headline cooked up in the imagination of conservatives. The congresswoman says, “Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Like, let’s keep it real.”

Is Ocasio-Cortez a member of the Democratic Party in good standing or is she someone we shouldn’t be taking seriously? Let us know.

Getting rid of “hamburgers” is not one of Biden’s policy prescriptions. No one should claim otherwise. We are, however, in the normalization stage of the meatless idea, an aspiration of most environmentalists. That’s the goal. The media want to mock and gaslight those who point out that restricting factory farming is a popular topic on the progressive left — it reminds me of the games they play with “defund the police” — because it’s still unpopular among most Americans. As with many things, they want it both ways.

 

ATTACHMENT FIVE – FROM Vox

 

AMERICA IS MAKING CLIMATE PROMISES AGAIN. SHOULD ANYONE CARE?

Policy, not aspirations, will determine Biden’s legacy on climate change.

 

By David Roberts  Apr 27, 2021, 3:20pm EDT

 

In 2015, when President Barack Obama signed the US on to the Paris climate agreement, he did what all participating nations must do and made an emissions reductions pledge: The US would reduce its emissions 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

President Donald Trump notoriously yanked the US out of the Paris agreement. Now President Joe Biden is getting the US back in, and once again, an emissions reductions pledge is required. Last Thursday, Biden offered it: The US will reduce emissions 50 to 52 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.

That is not, contrary to some of the more enthusiastic headlines, a doubling of Obama’s target or a halving of current emissions. It is a relatively modest boost in ambition and a halving of 2005’s much higher emissions. (Vox’s Umair Irfan has a great piece on this.)

The US is expected to announce a climate goal of cutting emissions 50% below 2005 levels by 2030

One thing we need to clear up:

**This is not double the Obama-era pledge for 2025**

28% by 2025 is equivalent to ~38% by 2030

So 50% isn't even a one-third increase in ambition! pic.twitter.com/1u5rHkVT7P

— Simon Evans (@DrSimEvansApril 22, 2021

Nonetheless, it is an ambitious target that would require sweeping changes across US society, on which Biden’s infrastructure plan would be a mere down payment.

What does it take for the US to cut greenhouse gas emissions 50% below 2005 levels, as the Biden Adminstration is expected to announce later this week? Researchers at UMD modeled one pathway. Here's how it adds up. https://t.co/MODMHIGTK3 pic.twitter.com/pA5KR8I0Hh

JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkinsApril 22, 2021

I suppose I should be excited about it, but reader, I must confess: I am not.

I know that targets and pledges serve an important signaling function. They communicate intentions within countries — when they come from states, provinces, cities, or companies — and between them, in the context of international climate relations. They “send a message.” Sometimes, a particularly bold target or pledge will even go so far as to “change the conversation.”

But messages and conversations do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Policies reduce emissions, by driving changes in behavior, and targets and pledges are not policies. They are vouchers, promises to pass policies in the future. They are wrapping paper. It’s the policy inside that matters.

In part because it has involved so much talk and so little action, climate politics has always been preoccupied with symbolism, with grand gestures, statements of intent, coalitions, declarations, and treaties — words, words, words. But history will judge Biden not by how much he cares or what he says, but by which policies and investments his administration and Democrats in Congress put in place, how they are implemented and enforced, the emission reductions they produce, and whether they lead to further policy.

There’s a better-than-average chance that Democrats will lose the House in the 2022 midterm elections, and with it the ability to legislate. They may have nothing but the next 18 months in which to make their mark on the country’s near future. There is precious little time to spend on symbolism.

Despite their centrality in international climate negotiations, especially in the Paris climate agreement, it’s not clear that national carbon targets have much effect on the national emissions of the countries that offer them. The history of the Paris agreement so far is one of escalating targets without the domestic policies needed to reach them.

It seems there is enough domestic political will in most countries to force policymakers to promise the moon, but not enough to force through the tangible policy changes that would fulfill those promises.

Time to update my chart on Canada's miserable history on climate targets. I don't yet have 2020 emissions data (likely a temporary drop of around 10%), but Canada is still projected to miss its Paris pledge by 15-20% under current policy. pic.twitter.com/CA0nfXmpbm

— Dr. Steve Easterbrook (@SMEasterbrookMarch 28, 2021

The new US climate pledge is unlikely to be exempt from this general rule. It boasts four features that it shares with many other national targets across the world, which reveal why targets are such an unreliable guide to action or results.

First, it isn’t enough. US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry has acknowledged as much. Given that the US is the largest historical emitter and has arguably benefited more from dumping carbon into the atmosphere than any other country, activists argue that it should be aiming for something more like a 70 percent reduction by 2030, with a ramp-up of assistance for developing countries to decarbonize.

Second, it almost certainly promises more than US national politics can deliver. It certainly promises more than Biden can deliver. Even assuming he is reelected in 2024 and serves through 2028 without being impeached or overthrown by a lawless Republican opposition, to reach the target, he will need the cooperation of Congress and the courts.

He does not have control of either. And both are heavily weighted in favor of a revanchist reactionary minority that does not want to reduce fossil fuel use or submit to international agreements.

Biden’s pledge reflects the worldview and intentions of the Democratic majority that gave him 7 million more votes in the 2020 election. It reflects the intentions of Democrat-led states, hundreds of citiesmore than 100 companies, thousands of researchers and entrepreneurs, and thousands more civic, academic, and scientific institutions. It reflects the global scientific and political consensus.

But in the context of US politics, it reflects the will of a party that is likely to lose control of Congress in 2022. Even in the best-case scenario, it won’t hold Congress all the way through 2030. It can’t help but rely, for any 2030 goal, on some help from Republicans — which it can’t rely on and certainly can’t promise to the international community.

Third, it is not connected to any policymaking levers. It doesn’t make anything happen or bind anyone to anything. Biden will surely try to reduce emissions, but there’s no reason to believe he’ll try any harder, or be capable of any more, in the wake of this pledge than he was before it.

That’s why the US debate (such as it is) over the Paris agreement has always been so surreal. Trump said all kinds of deranged things about Obama’s pledge, including that it would shut down whole industries and cause blackouts and destroy the oil industry.

In fact, America’s Paris pledge won’t do anything. It doesn’t trigger any policy process. There’s no penalty for not meeting the target. The only enforcement mechanism is the opinion of other nations.

This was the entire premise of the Paris agreement: Rather than agreeing to a legally binding target, which had been pursued fruitlessly for decades, countries offer voluntary pledges for how much they believe they can reduce emissions. Every five years there is an international “stock take,” wherein countries report their progress. Presumably, they don’t want to report failure, so the public pledge creates some pressure.

But it’s only pressure. It’s not policy. Policy involves a whole separate process, subject to the dynamics and restrictions of domestic politics, over which international agreements have very little sway.

Fourth, even with a compliant Congress, Biden’s climate policies can’t guarantee any particular target. In reality, the only policy that could truly guarantee a particular emission target is a loophole-free, legally enforceable, economy-wide, declining cap on carbon — a policy that does not exist anywhere in the world.

National Democrats aren’t even aiming for cap and trade anymore, anyway. They are pushing standards, investments, and justice (SIJ), the elements of old-school industrial policy. The kinds of investments and incentives Biden would put in place would reduce emissions, but there’s no way to know (certainly not a decade in advance) exactly how much they would reduce emissions. The specificity of Biden’s target, and all similar targets, is faux.

Targets can have a useful role in signaling intent and convince others to adopt more ambitious measures. At the same time, there’s a disconnect between the types of industrial policies that the Biden administration is pursuing and the specificity implied by the 2030 target.

 

ATTACHMENT SIX  from the New York Times

 

LEADERSHIP MATTERS

 

From Al Drago, NYT: 

When I was last in China, in 2019, I met an entrepreneur named Gao Jifan, who told me a story that I’ve been reflecting on during President Biden’s climate summit this week.

Back in the 1990s, Gao received a letter from an old friend who was living in the United States. The letter included a photo clipped from a newspaper, showing President Bill Clinton as he announced a plan to outfit one million homes with solar power.

 

“It was like a light bulb,” Gao recalled, as we were sitting in his office in Changzhou, about 100 miles northwest of Shanghai. Clinton’s initiative caused Gao — a chemist by training — to think that he should start a company to meet the coming demand for solar equipment. That company, Trina Solar, has since made Gao a billionaire.

For the inspiration, Gao is grateful to the U.S. But he is also befuddled by the American approach to climate change.

 

“There is really conflicting policy,” he said. He rattled off the names of recent presidents — Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump — and moved his hand back and forth, to describe the sharp policy changes from one to the next. Those changes, he added, had hurt the solar industry and other clean-energy efforts: If the U.S. took a more consistent approach, the global struggle to slow climate change would be easier.

A ‘lost four years’

 

Many Americans have come to believe a different story — namely, that U.S. climate policy hardly matters compared with the actions of China, India and other countries that account for a growing share of emissions. As some congressional Republicans have been asking this week, why should the U.S. act to slow climate change unless other countries do so first?

But that view is not consistent with history, either the recent history of climate diplomacy or the broader history of American influence.

 

“There aren’t many other areas of policy where we say, ‘Why don’t we let everyone else lead, and we’ll follow?’” as Nathaniel Keohane of the Environmental Defense Fund says. The U.S., for all its problems, remains the world’s most powerful country. When it wants to influence the policies of other countries, it can often do so, especially when those countries see it as being in their own interests to change.

Climate is just such an issue. Leaders of many other countries understand that climate change and extreme weather can cause problems for them. The leaders also see clean energy as a growing industry and want their companies to be leaders.

 

The U.S. can’t simply dictate terms. Both China and India, for example, will remain more reliant on coal than Biden administration officials wish. But the U.S. can often have an effect. Relative to many other issues, in fact, climate diplomacy is sometimes easier: President Xi Jinping has largely rejected U.S. entreaties on Hong Kong, Xinjiang and the South China Sea, but he has been willing to deal on climate change.

 

President Barack Obama and Xi came to multiple agreements that involved both countries moving to reduce emissions. They started small, with the relatively narrow topic of refrigerants, and expanded from there. As my colleague Brad Plumer says, “There’s a reasonable argument the Obama administration’s and China’s joint agreement on climate change in 2014 helped set the table for the Paris climate agreement.”

Crucial to these efforts was a U.S. willingness to act at home: It’s much easier to agree to take economic risks when your main global competitor is doing the same. And the U.S. still leads the world in per-person emissions, about 75 percent above China, according to recent numbers.

 

The Trump administration slowed global efforts on climate change by dismissing it as a threat and allowing more pollution at home. A Chinese official last week mocked the U.S. for “the lost four years.” The Biden administration is now trying to reverse course, with an emissions-reduction goal that’s larger than many advocates expected.

The cynical view — that the U.S. can only follow, not lead, on climate policy — has it backward. As Gao told me, one of the biggest obstacles to progress on climate change has been the lack of consistent American leadership.

 

ATTACHMENTS SEVEN (A) and (B)

 

ATTACHMENT SEVEN (A) – from Vox

BIDEN’S FAKE BURGER BAN AND THE RISING CULTURE WAR OVER MEAT

Biden’s not taking away your meat, as Republicans claimed this weekend. But partisan conflict over eating animals is just getting started.

By Zack Beauchamp Updated Apr 26, 2021, 3:47pm EDT

Over the weekend, Republicans accused Joe Biden of trying to ban meat.

The claim, which you’ve heard from the likes of Donald Trump Jr. and Texas Gov. Greg Abbot, is that Biden’s climate plan will prohibit Americans from chowing down on burgers in an effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions associated with industrial agriculture.

On Fox News this Friday, former Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow warned of a Fourth of July where “you can throw back a plant-based beer with your grilled Brussels sprouts” (Kudlow doesn’t seem to be aware of what beer is made from). Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) dubbed Biden “The Hamburglar.”

Of course, Biden’s climate change plan does not limit meat-eating in any way. A Washington Post fact-check traced the burger-banning Biden myth back to a misleading article in the Daily Mail, a UK tabloid known for sensationalist coverage and right-wing politics. Biden’s actual climate policies so far have focused on reducing emissions from cars and power plants, with no effort to block meat production or consumption.

Sign up for The Weeds newsletter

Vox’s German Lopez is here to guide you through the Biden administration’s unprecedented burst of policymaking. Sign up to receive our newsletter each Friday.

At first blush, this is yet another instance of a fake outrage cycle in the right-wing echo chamber pegged to a lie. But there’s something more distressing here too — it’s the latest example of how efforts to curb the climate crisis and our reliance on meat are becoming just the latest flashpoints in our all-consuming culture wars.

The grain of truth in the Republican claims (agri-pun intended) is that any serious climate change plan needs to do something about meat production. A recent paper in Science, a leading academic journal, found that food-related emissions alone put the Paris climate agreement’s warming target of 1.5 degrees Celsius out of reach. The most effective way to address these emissions, according to the paper’s authors, is a global shift away from meat consumption.

Biden’s climate policies so far have not advanced this goal, so those conservative potshots over the weekend were lies. But here’s the thing: Biden’s plan absolutely should do something about industrial farming. Any plan to tackle climate change should do something to decrease America’s reliance on the meat industry — moonshot subsidies for lab-grown meat, for example.

But everything nowadays is bound up in our political identities, and meat has a cultural and economic significance few other things can match. Anything Democrats propose to address the problem of animal agriculture’s emissions will be — is already being — met by major backlash from the right.

Increasingly, America’s meat-eating ways are being subsumed into our culture wars. It’s yet another sign of how polarized our country is and how hard this polarization makes tackling a catastrophic threat like climate change.

The anatomy of a meat smear

On Thursday, the Daily Mail published an article with a characteristically inflammatory headline: “How Biden’s climate plan could limit you to eat just one burger a MONTH.

The use of the word “could” there is crucial, as the article’s content is entirely speculative. It takes Biden’s recently announced climate change targets — cutting 50-52 percent of America’s emissions per month — and attempts to make projections about what policy changes might be needed to reach that target. Though Mail reporter Emily Crane admits that Biden “has yet to release any firm details on exactly how such a plan will affect the daily lives of ordinary Americans,” she goes ahead and makes some sketchy guesses.

“Americans may have to cut their red meat consumption by a whopping 90 percent and cut their consumption of other animal based foods in half,” Crane writes. “To do that, it would require Americans to only consume about four pounds of red meat per year, or 0.18 ounces per day. It equates to consuming roughly one average sized burger per month.”

The estimate is based on a University of Michigan paper on how much hypothetical diet changes could reduce American climate emissions, which found that the US could achieve a 51 percent reduction in food-related emissions by reducing beef consumption by 90 percent and all other animal-based foods by 50 percent. But there is no evidence presented that the Michigan estimate is informing Biden’s climate policy.

We cannot assume that, in order to hit a 50 percent reduction overall, Biden would attempt to reduce emissions in each sector of the economy by exactly 50 percent. The plans for the agricultural sector may end up being more or less than that, and they may aim to accomplish them by means other than reducing domestic meat consumption (like reducing the use of nitrogen in plant agriculture). As the Mail itself admits, we genuinely have no idea.

Despite these flaws, the Mail’s article took off in the right-wing media world, with many interpreting it as an actual summary of Biden’s policy aims. According to the Post’s fact-check, the most influential vector was Fox News, which made an easily shareable infographic about “Biden’s climate requirements” that launders the Mail’s misinformation as an authoritative claim about Biden’s plan stemming from the University of Michigan itself.

On Monday, Fox News’ John Roberts admitted the error on-air: “a graphic and the script incorrectly implied it [the Michigan study] was part of Biden’s plan for dealing with climate change. That is not the case.” But it was too late: the graphic had already motivated of the more prominent false claims on social media, with prominent conservatives retweeting it as though it were accurate:

Not gonna happen in Texas! pic.twitter.com/zqYS9kH8CU

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TXApril 25, 2021

I’m pretty sure I ate 4 pounds of red meat yesterday. That’s going to be a hard NO from me. https://t.co/wvGC19cN6R

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJrApril 24, 2021

As we’ve seen in the past, lies that circulate unchallenged in the right-wing media ecosystem can sometimes harden into myths. Birtherism and the Obamacare “death panel” rumors began as fringe claims pushed with little to no factual basis; once amplified by conservative media, they became widely embraced by the GOP base and elements of the official Republican Party. The notion that the 2020 election was somehow stolen, while similarly factually challenged, spread even faster (largely because its progenitor was also the incumbent president and party leader).

Because so many conservatives distrust the mainstream media, fact-checks like the Post’s are not going to change the Fox-Republican narrative. As Biden continues to roll out his climate change policies, expect some conservatives to say it bans beef — even if it does nothing of the kind.

The culture war over meat begins

Here’s the problem, though: If Biden’s climate plan doesn’t do something about meat, it’s probably going to fail.

Globally speaking, livestock production represents a significant portion of overall greenhouse gas emissions. The reasons for this are intrinsic to meat production itself; there is no way for humans to consume meat in the way we do without abetting catastrophic warming.

Ruminant animals like cows, kept in numbers much larger due to meat and dairy demand, emit methane gas through their bodily functions — a pollutant more potent than carbon dioxide. Raising allegedly more climate-friendly meats, like chicken, also emits significantly more greenhouse gases than plant-based protein productions. Animal agriculture necessitates clearing huge amounts of land, a significant cause of deforestation in places like Brazil’s Amazon. Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), factory farms where animals are crowded into tiny cages and kept in horrific conditions, create massive feces lagoons that intensify the methane problem.

There is, in short, no way around the problem: If we want to keep climate change at a manageable level, we need to change the way we produce and consume animal products.

The Biden administration may or may not eventually take steps to deal with this problem. But the hysterical reaction to a falsehood that it is going to be doing so suggests just how explosive the reaction will be if Biden actually moves in this direction.

Both in the United States and globally, meat’s cultural significance is hard to overstate. Humans have eaten animals for millennia, and it’s become deeply ingrained in our cultural rituals and self-understanding. In America, meat is linked with masculinity and ideals about the virtuous traditional American farmer — central concepts in a Republican Party dominated by culturally conservative rural whites.

To make matters worse, animal agriculture is also a huge business, meaning that billions of dollars would likely line up behind pro-meat Republicans. A new study reported by my colleague Sigal Samuel found that animal agriculture industries have already spent millions trying to undermine climate policy, when there’s been no federal effort to intentionally reduce American meat consumption. Imagine how hard they’d fight if there was one.

This conjunction of forces — the cultural power of meat and the interests of Big Agriculture — make the issue of reducing meat consumption politically challenging.

When a draft FAQ about the Green New Deal mentioned the problem of animal methane emissions, conservatives responded by falsely claiming the policy would ban cow production — seeing this as a potent attack line. There’s a reason Biden’s team responded to the current rumors by tweeting a picture of Biden grilling patties: This is a fight they don’t want to have directly.

Even the most palatable meat alternatives, like lab-grown meat and Impossible-style plant proteins, threaten both conservative self-images of America and the bottom line of the agriculture industry. When current Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) ate at a plant-based vegan restaurant in Atlanta during the 2020 campaign, his opponent David Purdue mocked him by tweeting a picture of himself eating bacon. The caption? “Pick your side, America.”

The unstoppable force of climate change advocacy on the left is about to hit the immovable object of attachment to meat on the right. The resulting fight will implicate issues at the very core of American identity, a country where animal agriculture is a major part of our mythologized cowboy past and economic present.

With the stakes so high, there’s every reason to believe that meat could be the next big fight in our all-consuming culture war. “Biden bans burgers” isn’t a one-off lie; we may look back on it as the meat wars’ Fort Sumter.

 

 

ATTACHMENT SEVEN (B) – from the Daily Mail, UK

By EMILY CRANE  PUBLISHED: 18:08 EDT, 27 April 2021 | UPDATED: 00:42 EDT, 28 April 2021

 

Experts say Americans WILL have to cut back on meat for the US to meet Biden's climate change goal as president faces pressure to come clean on how he actually plans to slash greenhouse emissions

·         Experts say Americans will have to dramatically reduce their meat intake to avoid the most severe climate change scenarios 

·         President Biden now faces mounting pressure to come clean on what his ambitious climate plan means for agriculture and meat consumption in the US 

·         Biden still hasn't detailed how the lives of Americans will be impacted a week after announcing he aims to slash greenhouse emissions by 50 to 52% by 2030

·         His hasn't disclosed if if Americans will have to change their diets to meet goals

·         Multiple scientific studies and climate change campaigners have acknowledged eating habits will need to be adjusted to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

Americans will have no choice but to reduce meat consumption if President Joe Biden is going to slash greenhouse gas emissions by half in the next 10 years, experts say - even if the president is mum so far on how he'll actually achieve that goal.

Biden hasn't laid out a plan beyond the big number: reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 52 percent from their 2005 levels by 2030. 

To do that, experts say meat will have to be a target because of the greenhouse gases emitted in producing and raising beef - especially methane.

In the UK, for instance, the government has already told its citizens they'll have to reduce meat intake by 20 percent for the country to meet its climate goals. 

Brent Kim, a Maryland-based expert at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, which researches food and climate issues, told DailyMail.com that it was clear, based on evidence, that Americans would have to reduce their meat and dairy intake if the US is to deal with climate change. 

'To avoid the most catastrophic climate change scenarios, the evidence is clear that citizens in high-meat consuming countries - such as the United States - need to dramatically reduce their meat and dairy intake,' he said. 

Kim acknowledged that Biden had yet to release a concrete plan that involved cutting meat consumption, saying the president's goal emphasizes the urgency of decarbonization, which is moving away from a dependency on polluting fossil fuels. 

Still, he said, government policies 'do influence what Americans eat.' 

President Joe Biden has still not detailed how the lives of Americans will be impacted a week after announcing that he is aiming to slash greenhouse emissions by 50 to 52 percent from 2005 levels by 2030

'I'm not talking about banning certain foods or force-feeding anyone broccoli… but our food choices don't occur within a vacuum. For better or for worse, what Americans choose to eat is heavily influenced by the availability of certain foods in their community, how much they cost, and whether healthy plant-based options are offered in our schools and institutions.

'These are all factors that are affected, directly or indirectly, by local, state, and federal policy,' he said. 'So there is a strong case to be made that when our tax dollars are being used to fund meals at public institutions, for example, people should be given the option of choosing healthy, climate-friendly, plant-based meals.'

If Biden does meat consumption details to his stated goal on climate change, they are likely to include meat-reducing efforts through all kinds of policies: taxes, transportation rules, food stamps, dietary recommendations and a whole host of government edicts. It won't 'ban' meat or other food. 

'The plan also alludes to many opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the agriculture sector, including helping farmers to reduce soil erosion and store carbon in soils - ideas that are good for farmers, and good for the environment,' Kim said. 

His comments come as experts weigh in on Biden's goal to reduce climate change so drastically - buying largely into the 'Green New Deal' that's been pushed by the liberal wing of the Democratic party.  

President Biden has still not detailed how the lives of Americans will be impacted a week after announcing that he is aiming to slash greenhouse emissions by 50 to 52 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.

The plan, which would set the US on a path of a zero emissions economy by no later than 2050, includes broad strokes and huge investments including $174 billion on electric car development, $85 billion to modernize US transit, and $10 billion on climate corps. 

It is not clear when Biden will specifically lay out how to achieve his goal.  

The initial announcement does not mention if Americans will have to change their diets - even though multiple scientific studies and climate change campaigners have acknowledged eating habits will need to be adjusted to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The only reference to agriculture in Biden's plan, according a fact sheet on the White House website, says the US can reduce emissions from forests and agriculture through 'a range of programs and measures including nature-based solutions for ecosystems ranging from our forests and agricultural soils to our rivers and coasts'. 

There are no clear targets yet for agriculture. Ag production accounts for 10 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US - mostly from fertilizers, livestock and manure, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Methane, the greenhouse gas emitted from belching cows, is 28 time more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to its contribution to global warming, according to experts at the University of California-Davis - making it an especially important piece to meeting a goal of pushing down the world's temperature.

The failure to mention meat consumption in Biden's plan comes despite academics, campaigners and even politicians suggesting for years that a change to how Americans eat will likely be required to reduce emissions to levels similar to those outlined by the president

Biden's current broad plan is leaning toward providing 'incentives' to farmers so they can adapt their operations and adopt new practices to help get rid of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, Politico reports. 

The agriculture industry, as well as lawmakers in states where it is big, have already slammed efforts to reduce meat consumption, including a push for things like 'meat-less Monday'.

Among them is Nebraska's Governor Pete Ricketts, whose state is among the top for beef production in the US.

The Republican governor is demanding that Biden release clear plans about what his plans mean for the industry. 

'Green New Deal climate activists have put meat production and consumption in the crosshairs,' Gov Ricketts told DailyMail.com.

'So far President Joe Biden has failed to make clear statements about what his plans mean for agriculture and meat production. It's time for President Biden to decide whose side he's on: Radical climate activists or America's farmers and ranchers.'

The failure of the Biden administration to provide details on its climate goals when it comes to eating meat comes despite academics, climate campaigners and even politicians suggesting for years that a change to how Americans eat will likely be required to reduce emissions to levels similar to those outlined by the president. 

Other countries with similar goals to Biden's, such as the United Kingdom, have already laid out what life could look like for citizens. 

The British government told its citizens last week - the same day Biden announced his plan - that meat consumption would have to be reduced by a fifth over the next decade in order to reach the ambitious goal of cutting emissions by 78 percent.   

In Britain, that would mean a person who has meat for every three meals could only do this twice a week. Similarly, the average Briton would need to shave a fifth of the average milk consumption down to 16ml a day - or roughly three teaspoons. 

Various researchers, who have no known links to Biden's plan, have previously warned cuts to meat consumption and dairy will be needed for Americans as well.  

High-profile activists and climate change supporters have also offered similar warnings. 

he University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Systems released a study back in 2020 suggesting that Americans may have to cut red meat by 90 percent to in order to cut greenhouse emissions by half in the next decade.

The study, titled Implications of Future US Diet Scenarios on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, explored the effect of greenhouse gas emissions based on hypothetical cuts to animal-based food consumption across the US. 

Based on four scenarios, the study examined how different levels of changes to diet could influence reductions in greenhouse emissions.

The fourth scenario examined in the study looked at how a 90 percent reduction to beef, as well as a 50 percent reduction in other meats, could potentially achieve a 50 percent cut to in diet-related greenhouse gas emissions associated with agricultural production.

In that specific scenario, Americans would only consume about four pounds of red meat per year, or 0.18 ounces per day. 

Based on DailyMail.com's calculations, that reduction would equate to consuming roughly one average sized burger per month.   

A report published in the Science academic journal in November 2020 found that emissions from food production alone would make it impossible to limit the planet's warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius this century.

This is the goal set out by the Biden administration and in the 2015 Paris Climate Accord.  

The report, titled 'Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets,' was authored by academics at Oxford University, University of Minnesota, University of California, Santa Barbara and Stanford University. 

Meanwhile, the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health issued a report in 2019 citing 37 world-leading scientists that said a 'radical transformation of the global food system is urgently needed'.  (They recommend climate-friendly proteins such as small fish, mollusks and insects.)

See link for charts and graphs!

Climate initiatives in Biden's $2trillion infrastructure plan 

$85billion to modernize existing transit and help agencies expand their systems to meet rider demand

$174billion on electric car development 

$111billion to replace lead pipes and service lines and to modernize drinking water and sewer systems 

$100billion to protect nature-based infrastructure – lands, forests, wetlands, watersheds, and coastal and ocean resource; to build up electrical system; expand tax credits for clean energy generation and storage; plug orphan oil wells and mines; and redevelop Superfund sites 

$40billion to improve the infrastructure of the public housing system in America

$100billion to upgrade electrical grid 

$100billion to upgrade and build new public schools

$10billion in the modernization, sustainability, and resilience of federal buildings 

$35billion investment in climate science

$10billion for a new Civilian Climate Corps 

The report called for a 50 percent reduction in meat and sugar consumption as part of a healthy human and planetary diet. It recommended a largely plant-based diet, with small and occasional allowances for meat, dairy and sugar.

It suggested eating 300 calories worth of animal protein, or 12 percent, based on the recommended daily 2,500 calorie intake. That is based off CO2 emissions reaching zero by 2050.

The report also recommends a 'low food chain' diet that combines plant-based food with climate-friendly proteins such as small fish, mollusks and insects.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America released a study in 2019 stating that reducing meat consumption in higher income countries - such as the United States is 'vital to protect the environment and improve public health'.  

Janet Ranganathan told Carbon Brief in September 2020 that ruminant meat (mostly beef) supplies only 3 percent of calories and 12 percent of protein but contributes to roughly half the average person's diet related to greenhouse gas emissions. 

Ruminant meat comes from animals - including cattle - that mainly eat plant-based food in order to digest. The word 'ruminant' comes from the Latin ruminaire, which means to 'chew over again'.  

A July 2020 report in Sustainability found that most countries are reluctant to address meat and dairy consumption in diets and an analysis by the World Wildlife Fund in August the same year concluded that most nations focus on food production and waste rather than diet. 

Kamala Harris has previously supported changing dietary guidelines to reduce red meat  

In 2019, prior to becoming Vice President, Kamala Harris said she would support changing dietary guidelines in the US to reduce the amount of red meat people consume.

Speaking at a climate change town hall when she was a presidential candidate, Harris was asked: 'Would you support changing the dietary guidelines? Reduce red meat specifically?'

'Yes, I would,' she said. 

'But I will also say this: The balance we have to strike is frankly about what the government can and should do around creating incentives, and then banning certain behaviors.' 

The federal diet guidelines do not mandate what people can eat. They can only address federal programs such as school lunches. 

Where does the United Nations and other countries stand on cutting down on meat? 

United Nations: In 2013, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization said livestock supply chains account for 15.5 percent of all human caused greenhouse has emission releases.

This adds up to 7.1 gigatonnes (GT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) per year. 

In 2019, the UN released a report saying there needs to be a drastic change in global land use, agriculture and human diets to curb emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said plant-based diets would cut emissions.

By 2050, dietary changes could free up several million square miles of land and reduce global emissions 

Hans-Otto Pörtner, an ecologist who co-chairs the IPCC's working group on impacts told Nature.com:  'We don't want to tell people what to eat. But it would indeed be beneficial, for both climate and human health, if people in many rich countries consumed less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect.'  

New Zealand: In January 2020, New Zealand introduced its new climate change curriculum into schools, urging students to eat less meat and dairy.

The report pointed to intensive agriculture as one of the primary causes of greenhouse gases and urged students to have a meatless day a week, eat more fruit and vegetables.

It also suggested driving less, recycling and buying second hand MEAT? vomit when possible.

Farmers in a nation where more than 60 percent of exports are from agriculture feel they were unnecessarily targeted. 

'If they are going to continue to bite the hand that feeds them, and farming feeds New Zealand, then they are going to lose out in the long term,' dairy farmer Malcolm Lumsden from the country's northern Waikato region told Reuters.

India: In 2020, the Indian government recommended a plant-based diet to help fight climate change.

Italy: In 2019, the Italian government made climate change mandatory in climate schools to make 'environment and society at the core of everything' children learn in schools. 

Other nations have loosely suggested diet changes but have steered clear of dictating what people eat.

Experts say Americans WILL have to cut back on meat

 

ATTACHMENTS EIGHT (a, b and c)

 

ATTACHMENT EIGHT A – from cnn

Trump mocks teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg

By Veronica Stracqualursi, CNN   Updated 4:56 AM EDT, Wed September 25, 2019

 

(CNN) —  President Donald Trump mocked Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg on Twitter late Monday night after the 16-year-old excoriated world leaders for not doing enough to tackle the climate crisis.

“She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!” Trump posted on Twitter, replying to a video of Thunberg’s speech at the United Nations climate action summit earlier in the day.

Trump’s penchant for Twitter insults and online confrontations with people he sees as political adversaries is well known, though Monday’s tweet is a striking display of the President teasing a child.

Thunberg appeared to take Trump’s slight in stride. By late Tuesday morning, she had updated her Twitter bio to read: “A very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future.”

In the video shared by Trump of her speech, Thunberg is visibly frustrated and at times appears to be holding back tears of anger as she dresses down the UN General Assembly.

“People are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth,” Thunberg said.

She did not name Trump or any other world leaders in her speech, but her message was pointed.

“How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you’re doing enough when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight,” she said. “You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency, but no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act then you would be evil and that I refuse to believe.”

Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci, who recently withdrew his support for Trump, criticized the President for his comment about Thunberg.

“Parents in America and around the world: he went after a 16 year old girl yesterday. ⁦@realDonaldTrump⁩ unfit to serve,” Scaramucci tweeted on Tuesday.

Trump briefly attended the UN climate summit on Monday in an impromptu stop on his way to his administration’s priority event on religious freedom. But the US did not speak at the event and Trump – who has repeatedly said he thinks climate change is a hoax – left after 15 minutes.

Thunberg, who has helped galvanize a global movement demanding more action to address climate change, crossed paths with Trump at the UN General Assembly. Video captured her staring down the US President.

The young Swede has been open about her diagnosis of Asperger’s, calling it a “superpower” that helps her activism.

“My diagnosis has definitely helped me keep this focus. When you are interested about something you just continue to read about it and you get super focused,” she told CNN’s Bill Weir in an interview this month.

CNN’s Nicole Gaouette and Ivana Kottasová contributed to this report.

 

ATTACHMENT EIGHT (B) – FROM npr

 

After Greta Thunberg Wins 'Time' Honor, Trump Suggests She 'Chill' And Watch A Movie

December 12, 20192:51 PM ET   Updated at 3:20 p.m. ET

Sixteen-year-old activist Greta Thunberg has quickly risen to prominence with her clarion call for climate action and Time's naming her its 2019 Person of the Year this week.

Since her first school strike for action in August 2018, Thunberg has grown her protest into a global youth movement calling on the world leaders of today to take decisive action on climate change and prevent further global warming.

One leader is evidently not impressed with accolades the young Swede has earned: Donald Trump.

"So ridiculous," Trump tweeted on Thursday morning. "Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!"

Thunberg, who delivered an address at the U.N. climate conference on Wednesday in Madrid, responded like the social media-savvy teenager she is, changing her Twitter profile to read: "A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend."

Trump and Thunberg crossed paths in September at the United Nations in New York. Thunberg was seen staring down the U.S. president as he arrived to attend a meeting on religious freedom.

At U.N. Climate Action Summit, Thunberg gave an impassioned speech in which she implored officeholders: "You all come to us young people for hope. How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words, and yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing."

Trump later made a surprise visit to the same auditorium where Thunberg spoke, arriving shortly after she concluded her remarks.

He mocked Thunberg at the time, as well. "She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!" he tweeted.

Trump has historically had strong opinions about the Time designation. He was named the Person of the Year in 2016, which he called "a tremendous honor." The following year, he said he "took a pass" on the title, an account that Time disputes. The magazine instead honored "The Silence Breakers," women who spoke out during the #MeToo movement.

In 2018, he said he couldn't think of anyone but himself that was suited for the honor: "I can't imagine anybody else other than Trump. Can you imagine anybody other than Trump?"

Apparently Time could. "The Guardians" — journalists who were imprisoned, persecuted or killed — graced the 2018 covers.

In 2017, The Washington Post reported that fake Time covers featuring Trump's image were hanging in at least five of his clubs. The magazines were dated March 1, 2009, though there was no March 1 issue and Trump appeared on no covers of Time magazine that year.

The mock-cover idea was revived on Thursday, as Trump's 2020 campaign team tweeted out an image of the new Time cover, now with Trump's head pasted onto Thunberg's body.

Thunberg is the youngest Time's Person of the Year.

She was honored, the magazine said, for "sounding the alarm on humanity's predatory relationship with the only home we have ... for showing us all what it might look like when a new generation leads."

 

ATTACHMENT EIGHT (c) – from guardian UK

 

'CHILL!': GRETA THUNBERG RECYCLES TRUMP'S MOCKERY OF HER AS HE TRIES TO STOP VOTES

 

Swedish teen environmental activist took her shot at the president’s rage tweet as the US formally exits from the Paris climate agreement

 

By Richard Luscombe  Thu 5 Nov 2020 17.45 EST

 

They say revenge is a dish best served cold. Greta Thunberg, the teenage environmental activist mocked by Donald Trump in a tweet when she was named Time magazine’s person of the year, waited exactly 11 months before delivering the perfect riposte.

In his December 2019 insult, Trump told Thunberg, 17, to work on her “anger management problem” and to “go to an old-fashioned movie with a friend”.

“Chill Greta, chill!” the president implored in the tweet, which began with him branding her Time award as “so ridiculous”.

On Thursday afternoon, with Trump raging on Twitter in all capital letters and throwing out baseless allegations of voter fraud even as his election day lead in Pennsylvania and other states continued to erode, Thunberg threw his words straight back at him.

“So ridiculous,” Thunberg tweeted in reply to Trump’s earlier “STOP THE COUNT!” rant.

“Donald must work on his Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Donald, Chill!”

Within two hours of posting it, the tweet had amassed more than 452,000 likes, double the total for Trump’s original message.

Thunberg has proved something of a nemesis for the climate crisis-denying president, the original Twitter exchange coming barely two months after the pair crossed paths at the United Nations in New York. Trump skipped the climate summit at which Thunberg told world leaders, “You are failing us,” but she fixed Trump with an icy stare in a hallway as he made his way to another event on religious freedom.

This week has added poignancy for Thunberg due to the formal exit from the Paris climate agreement by the United States on Wednesday. In October, Thunberg endorsed Trump’s election rival Joe Biden, who has pledged to return the US to the global pact on his first day in office.

 

 

ATTACHMENT NINE – from the Washington Post

 

THE ANTI-GRETA: A CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK TAKES ON THE GLOBAL PHENOMENON

 

How a group allied with the Trump administration is paying a German teen to question established climate science.

Feb. 23, 2020 at 7:53 p.m. EST

 

For climate skeptics, it’s hard to compete with the youthful appeal of global phenomenon Greta Thunberg. But one U.S. think tank hopes it’s found an answer: the anti-Greta.

Naomi Seibt is a 19-year-old German who, like Greta, is blond, eloquent and European. But Naomi denounces “climate alarmism,” calls climate consciousness “a despicably anti-human ideology,” and has even deployed Greta’s now famous “How dare you?” line to take on the mainstream German media.

“She’s a fantastic voice for free markets and for climate realism,” said James Taylor, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute, an influential libertarian think tank in suburban Chicago that has the ear of the Trump administration.

In December, Heartland headlined Naomi at its forum at the UN climate conference in Madrid, where Taylor described her as “the star” of the show. Last month, Heartland hired Naomi as the young face of its campaign to question the scientific consensus that human activity is causing dangerous global warming.

If imitation is the highest form of flattery, Heartland’s tactics amount to an acknowledgment that Greta has touched a nerve, especially among teens and young adults. Since launching her protest two years ago outside the Swedish parliament at age 15, Greta has sparked youth protests across the globe and in 2019 was named Time magazine’s “Person of the Year,” the youngest to ever win the honor.

The teenager has called on the nations of the world to cut their total carbon output by at least half over the next decade, saying that if they don’t, “then there will be horrible consequences.”

“I want you to panic,” she told attendees at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last year. “I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.”

Naomi, for her part, argues that these predictions of dire consequences are exaggerated. In a video posted on Heartland’s website, she gazes into the camera and says, “I don’t want you to panic. I want you to think.”

Graham Brookie directs the Digital Forensic Research Lab, an arm of the nonprofit Atlantic Council that works to identify and expose disinformation. While the campaign “is not outright disinformation,” Brookie said in an email, it “does bear resemblance to a model we use called the 4d’s — dismiss the message, distort the facts, distract the audience, and express dismay at the whole thing.”

Brookie added: “The tactic is intended to create an equivalency in spokespeople and message. In this case, it is a false equivalency between a message based in climate science that went viral organically and a message based in climate skepticism trying to catch up using paid promotion.”

Naomi said her political activism was sparked a few years ago when she began asking questions in school about Germany’s liberal immigration policies. She said the backlash from teachers and other students hardened her skepticism about mainstream German thinking. More recently, she said that watching young people joining weekly “Fridays For Future” protests inspired by Greta helped spur her opposition to climate change activism.

“I get chills when I see those young people, especially at Fridays for Future. They are screaming and shouting and they’re generally terrified,” she said in an interview. “They don’t want the world to end.”

Naomi said she does not dispute that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, but she argues that many scientists and activists have overstated their impact.

“I don’t want to get people to stop believing in man-made climate change, not at all,” she said. “Are manmade CO2 emissions having that much impact on the climate? I think that’s ridiculous to believe.”

Naomi argues that other factors, such as solar energy, play a role — though the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth has actually declined since the 1970s, according to federal measurements. A slew of peer-reviewed reports, from scientific bodies in the U.S. and elsewhere, have concluded that greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century, producing a range of devastating effects from massive marine die-offs in South America to severe wildfires in Australia and sinking ground in the Arctic.

In addition to climate change, Naomi echoes far-right skepticism about feminism and immigration. The German media have described her as sympathetic to the nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD), the biggest opposition party in parliament, whose leaders have spoken of fighting “an invasion of foreigners.” Naomi says she is not a member of AfD — she describes herself as libertarian — but acknowledges speaking at a recent AfD event.

Her path to Heartland began in November with a speech at EIKE, a Munich think tank whose vice president is a prominent AfD politician. By then, Naomi was already active on YouTube, producing videos on topics ranging from migration to feminism to climate change. In the audience was Heartland’s Taylor. He said he immediately recognized her potential and approached her about working with Heartland.

Founded in 1984 and funded largely by anonymous donors, Heartland has increasingly focused on climate change over the past decade. Its staff and researchers enjoy ready access to the Trump administration, and one of its senior fellows, William Happer, served as a senior director on the White House National Security Council between September 2018 and 2019.

An emeritus professor of physics at Princeton University, Happer has repeatedly argued that carbon emissions should be viewed as beneficial to society — not a pollutant that drives global warming. During his time with the Trump administration, he sought to enlist Heartland’s help in promoting his ideas and objected to a U.S. intelligence official’s finding that climate impacts could be “possibly catastrophic,” according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

Why would an American think tank want to get involved in German politics? Because it worries that Berlin’s strong stance on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions could be contagious, according to a recent investigation aired on German television.

For two decades, Germany has been a leader in pressing other nations to curb carbon output and shift to renewable energy. Though it is falling short of its ambitious goals, Germany has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions this year by 40 percent compared to 1990 — and by up to 95 percent by mid-century.

In December, during the Madrid climate conference, two undercover staffers from the nonprofit investigative newsroom CORRECTIV approached Taylor and claimed to work for a wealthy donor from the auto industry who wanted to give Heartland a half-million euros. Taylor took the bait, and followed up with a three-page proposal outlining a campaign to push back against German efforts to regulate emissions.

“These restrictive environmental programs are largely unnecessary,” says the document, a copy of which was obtained by The Post. “Worse, other nations — including the United States and European Union nations — are increasingly being influenced by unwise German policy.”

The proposal described Naomi as “the star” of a “Climate Reality Forum” organized by Heartland during the Madrid talks. With “over 100,000 people viewing her talk on climate realism,” the proposal said, Naomi was well-positioned to fight German climate policies.

“Funding for our Germany Environmental Issues project will enable Heartland to provide Naomi with the equipment and the sources she needs to present a series of effective videos calling attention to the negative impacts of overreaching environmental regulations,” the proposal says.

CORRECTIV aired its report on Heartland earlier this month on German TV. Taylor dismissed the report, saying, “Heck, I would have spoken with them if they told us who they were, and the answers would have been pretty much the same.”

The investigators filmed Naomi at a public event, posing as would-be donors. She struck back with her own video response. Invoking Greta, she said, “To the media, I have a few last words: How dare you?"

Greta Thunberg confronts world leaders at the U.N. climatre summit: 'How dare you?'

Despite echoes of Greta’s style, Naomi has objected to the comparison.

“The reason I don’t like the term anti-Greta is that it suggests I myself am an indoctrinated puppet, I guess, for the other side,” she says in one video. Asked if she meant that as a criticism of Greta, Naomi says: “That sounds kind of mean, actually.” She added: “I don’t want to shame her in any way.”

Taylor said the tendency to associate Naomi with Greta is “kind of natural” — and benefits Heartland’s message.

“To the extent that Naomi is pretty much the same, just with a different perspective, yeah, I think that it’s good that people will look at the two as similar in many ways,” he said.

Still, Naomi has a long climb to reach the level of global attention lavished on Greta. While Greta measures her social media following in the millions, Naomi counts slightly under 50,000 YouTube subscribers.

Through her spokespeople, Greta declined to comment.

 

ATTACHMENT TEN – from Whitehouse.gov

Excerpts (on climate) from President Biden’s Address to Congress

 

“No one nation can deal with all the crises of our time alone – from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to mass migration, cybersecurity, climate change – and as we’re experiencing now, pandemics. There’s no wall high enough to keep any virus away.

As our own vaccine supply grows to meet our needs – and we are meeting them – we will become an arsenal of vaccines for other countries – just as America was the arsenal of democracy in World War Two.

For too long, we have failed to use the most important word when it comes to meeting the climate crisis. Jobs. Jobs. For me, when I think about climate change, I think jobs….

 

“The climate crisis is not our fight alone, either. It’s a global fight. The United States accounts for less than 15% of carbon emissions. The rest of the world accounts for 85%. That’s why – I kept my commitment to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement on my first day in office. And I kept my commitment to convene a climate summit right here in America, with all of the major economies of the world – from China and Russia to India and the European Union in my first 100 days.

I wanted the world to see that there is consensus that we are at an inflection point in history. And the consensus is if we act, we can save the planet – and we can create millions of jobs and economic growth and opportunity to raise the standard of living for everyone in the world.”

 

ATTACHMENT ELEVEN   FROM Sen. Tim Scott

 

EXCERPTS FROM HIS REPUBLICAN REBUTTAL ON CLIMATE

 

 “Good evening. I’m Sen. Tim Scott from the great state of South Carolina. We just heard President Biden’s first address to Congress. Our president seems like a good man. His speech was full of good words. But President Biden promised you a specific kind of leadership.

He promised to unite a nation, to lower the temperature, to govern for all Americans, no matter how we voted. This was the pitch. You just heard it again.

But our nation is starving for more than empty platitudes. We need policies and progress that brings us closer together. But three months in, the actions of the president and his party are pulling us further and further apart…

 

 “Another issue that should unite us is infrastructure. Republicans support everything you think of when you think of infrastructure: roads, bridges, ports, airports, water ways, high speed broadband. We’re in for all of that. But again, Democrats want a partisan wish list. They won’t even build bridges to build bridges.

Less than 6 percent of the president’s plan goes to roads and bridges. It’s a liberal wish list of big government waste. Plus, the biggest job killing tax hikes in a generation…

 

“…we passed Opportunity Zones, criminal justice reform and permanent funding for historically Black colleges and universities for the first time ever.  We fought the drug epidemic, rebuilt our military and cut taxes for working families and single moms like the one that raised me.  

Our best future will not come from Washington schemes or socialist dreams.  It will come from you, the American people, Black, Hispanic, white and Asian, Republican and Democrat, brave police officers and Black neighborhoods…

“May the Lord bless you and keep you, make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you.  May his presence go before you and behind you and beside you, in your weeping and your rejoicing, He is for you. May his favor be upon our nation for a thousand generations and your family and your children and their children. “

Goodnight and God bless the United States of America.  

 

 

ATTACHMENT TWELVE   FROM NPR

BIG GOVERNMENT IS BACK, AND 3 OTHER TAKEAWAYS FROM BIDEN'S ADDRESS TO CONGRESS

 

April 29, 2021 5:01 AM ET BY DEIRDRE WALSH

 

President Biden addressed a joint session of Congress. Biden made the pitch for a larger federal role in American society and marked history in the House chamber with two top women: Vice President Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

President Biden's joint address to Congress looked back over the challenges he faced taking office 100 days ago in the midst of a pandemic — and declared "America is on the move again."

But the speech also outlined an ambitious, active role for the government to continue helping Americans struggling, as well as new proposals to boost the country's ability to compete. It amounted to an updated New Deal, but one that faces a precarious path to get through razor-thin margins in both the House and Senate.

Because of the pandemic and Biden' personality, the hour-plus speech was a stark contrast from his predecessor's. It was a more low-key and traditional litany of policy priorities instead of the often unpredictable and unscripted moments seen in former President Donald Trump's speeches on Capitol Hill.

Instead of facing a crowded chamber of lawmakers ready to interrupt with loud cheers, Biden spoke to a mostly empty chamber — only 200 attendees instead of the usual 1,600. The former senator felt at home, ad-libbing references to his former colleagues in Congress, and seeming nostalgic about his time walking the halls in the Capitol. But he also spoke to a deeply divided room that almost had polar opposite reactions to the bulk of his presentation.

Here are some takeaways from the joint address:

1. Era of big government is back, and Biden is all in

Former President Bill Clinton notably declared in his 1996 State of the Union address that "the era of big government is over," marking a shift for Democrats then trying to show attention to fiscal responsibility. But Biden, in unabashedly rolling out new, liberal federal programs, rejected that and instead argued government was the solution.

Biden already notched one legislative achievement on his belt with the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill that he signed in March. Less than three weeks later, he unveiled a $2.3 trillion infrastructure bill, dubbed the American Jobs Plan, which calls for spending on a range of items like roads, bridges, water systems and broadband access. But it also expands beyond traditional infrastructure spending to include plans to address racial inequity and combat climate change.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have spent weeks debating what should ultimately qualify as infrastructure, and Republicans introduced their own, much more-targeted $568 billion proposal.

And Biden spent much of the primetime speech Wednesday outlining another massive domestic program — his American Families Plan — a nearly $2 trillion plan that includes initiatives pushed by progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders. These would dramatically widen the social safety net for Americans from preschool age to those on Medicare. It would convert some items initially designed as temporary coronavirus relief to more permanent federal mainstays for millions of families.

Biden was viewed as the moderate in the 2020 Democratic field. But since swearing in, he's made clear that he views his role is to use the government to transform the economy, targeting those at the lower rungs of the economic ladder. The Families Plan provides money for two years of preschool and two years of free community college, extending the current 12 years of public school American students now get. Biden also said low-income Americans should be guaranteed to spend no more than 7% of their income for child care for kids up to the age of 5. He insisted the U.S. should support up to 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave.

In total, Biden outlined almost $6 trillion in spending — another $4 trillion on top of what Congress already approved. This is a staggering sum, especially with the U.S. facing record deficits. It's also an ambitious effort politically after Democrats muscled through a COVID-19 relief bill through both chambers essentially on party-line votes due to universal GOP opposition.

Biden faces long odds to get the entire scope of his proposal through — he urged both parties to come together, but there's little evidence he'll get much, if any GOP support. He still needs to sell members of his own party on the merits of his plans. West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, a critical vote in the 50-50 Senate, told reporters on Capitol Hill before the speech that the size of the series of programs made him "uncomfortable."

2. Biden framed expanded federal programs as a New Deal for middle class to compete

Republicans have tagged Biden's expansive vision for more federal spending as "radical" and mocked his argument that items like health care subsidies and child care tax credits are forms of infrastructure. But instead of engaging in that debate, Biden argued that the U.S. should be compelled to provide these types of programs now because it was falling behind globally. He said these programs would equip Americans to compete with other countries in the 21st century — with education the cornerstone to close the gap.

Biden said he wanted ideas from Republicans, and there was room for compromise, but he made it clear he wouldn't wait if negotiations didn't progress, saying: "Doing nothing is not an option."

"We can't be so busy competing with each other that we forget the competition is with the rest of the world to win the 21st century. To win that competition for the future, we also need to make a once-in-a-generation investment in our families, in our children," Biden said.

The president, who regularly touts his own blue-collar roots, maintained that his plan was targeted to those who had been left behind as other nations emerged as leaders in the development of new technologies.

"The American Jobs Plan is a blue-collar blueprint to build America," he said. He argued his proposal to tax wealthy Americans and corporations was a fair approach, since the small number of ultra rich only expanded their portfolios during the pandemic while middle-class and low-income workers suffered.

"Wall Street didn't build this country. The middle class built this country. And unions build the middle class," Biden said.

3. Biden tied the success of his presidency to reasserting democracy abroad

Biden didn't mention Trump by name, but as he talked about his conversations with foreign leaders and his pledge that America was reengaging in alliances around the world, he stressed that he was pivoting away from the past four years.

Standing in the Capitol that was attacked on Jan. 6 by pro-Trump extremists who disputed the 2020 election results, Biden said, "the insurrection was an existential crisis — a test of whether our democracy could survive."

He framed the government's success at quickly distributing vaccines as a model for the rest of the world — that the American way is superior and more effective than those led by "the autocrats of the world."

"It's time we remembered that we the people are the government. You and I. Not some force in a distant capital. Not some powerful force we have no control over," Biden said. Americans have a responsibility to "do our part" — a contrast from Trump's emphasis on an "America First" foreign policy.

Biden said: "If we do, then we will meet the central challenge of the age by proving that democracy is durable and strong. The autocrats will not win the future."

4. Marking history

Presidents frequently argue that they are making historic strides in their annual prime-time speeches, touting a policy accomplishment or statistics about a record-breaking economic indicator.

But Biden made the point of pausing at the start of his speech to emphasize the image of him standing for the first time as president of the United States before two women on the rostrum. That moment — streaming online and on television screens to millions — was a compelling moment for women, and for communities of color.

"Madam speaker, madam vice president — no president has ever said those words from this podium, and it's about time," Biden said, acknowledging the first female vice president, Kamala Harris, sitting behind him, alongside Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Later the president mentioned tasking the vice president with leading the effort to implement his American jobs plan, and her role in the diplomatic effort to address the immigration crisis in talks with Central American countries.

 

ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN - FROM CNN

5 TAKEAWAYS FROM PRESIDENT BIDEN'S FIRST ADDRESS TO CONGRESS

 

By Kevin Liptak, CNN Updated 11:17 PM ET, Wed April 28, 2021

(CNN)President Joe Biden made a sweeping case Wednesday for massive new programs that would transform the government's role in Americans' lives, claiming nothing less than the future of the country is at stake as he delivered his first address to Congress.

Coming later than usual, on the eve of his 100th day in office, Biden delivered his speech amid swirling health and economic crises he has spent his term combating.

But his message went beyond simply ridding the country of coronavirus or getting Americans back to work. In Biden's telling, the results of those efforts could determine whether American Democracy survives at all: a live-or-die proposition that escalated his calls for trillions of dollars in new spending into an existential question for his audience of lawmakers.

His speech was laden with symbolism, from its scaled-down audience to the historic pair of women sitting behind him. It was a speech decades in the making for a president who has waited longer than most to be introduced with the familiar call: "Madam Speaker, the President of the United States."

Here are five takeaways from Biden's speech:

A long wait ended — and Biden wants to move fast

For more than 40 years — and after two failed presidential bids — Biden watched as the House Sergeant at Arms announced another president into the House chamber for speeches to Congress. He sat dutifully behind President Barack Obama for eight years, bantering with a succession of House speakers in the spot reserved for the number two.

On Wednesday, it was Biden's name in lights on the marquee -- a testament to an extraordinary degree of political patience that few politicians can rival.

"It's good to be back," he declared as he opened his remarks.

Yet if anything, Biden's speech reflected a distinct impatience, now that he is in office, to wait long to see his agenda passed. He made no apologies for passing a $1.9 trillion stimulus without Republican support in the first weeks of his presidency, insisted it was urgently needed. And he urged lawmakers to rapidly take up the next bills, declaring it a matter of imminent national consequence.

BIDEN'S FIRST 100 DAYS

·         Biden's moved fast since his swearing-in. Here's an interactive look at what he's gotten done.

·         Majority of Americans approve of Biden and his priorities in first 100 days, a new CNN poll finds.

·         This is how the Biden presidency looks from one pivotal Pennsylvania county, 100 days in.

"America is moving -- moving forward. And we can't stop now," Biden said. "We're in a great inflection point in history. We have to do more than just build back. We have to build back better."

"I'd like to meet with those who have ideas that are different. We welcome ideas," he said later, addressing his willingness to work with Republicans. "But the rest of the world isn't waiting for us. I just want to be clear: from my perspective, doing nothing is not an option."

Biden and his advisers recognize his window for accomplishing major things is narrow. In fact, he called on Congress to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act by the one-year anniversary of Floyd's death next month. Biden called on Congress to come together, pointing to the ongoing discussions between Democrats and Republican Sen. Tim Scott, the GOP pick to respond to Biden's address.

The pandemic has heightened Americans' desire for government aid. And like most presidents he is enjoying a post-inauguration polling honeymoon.

But largely because of the vaccination effort Biden has overseen, the pandemic is waning. And any number of summertime troubles -- a continued surge of migrants, unrest around policing, high gas prices -- could see his popularity wane. And that is before the congressional election cycle begins in earnest, when Republicans will likely be even less willing to cooperate. Historical patterns aren't kind to first-term presidents at their first midterms.

Biden, who has been waiting decades to make the speech he delivered Wednesday, made clear he could not wait while the moment slipped past.

Biden argues big government is better government

If there was one argument animating Biden's speech -- and his entire presidency to date -- is that more government, when working right, can improve Americans' lives. It's a simple proposition that bucks a decades-long trend in both parties toward a smaller, less interventionist Washington.

"We have to prove democracy still works. That our government still works -- and can deliver for the people," Biden said in his speech, referencing items he said proved government's worth: the vaccination campaign and job creation initiatives.

It's a distant cry from President Bill Clinton's declaration in his 1996 State of the Union that "the era of big government is over." Speaking from the same podium 25 years later, Biden seemed to argue the exact opposite: that now is the time for big government to return -- and with it the chance to prove that it's still working.

Referencing scientific investments like developing the Covid-19 vaccine, Biden said, "These are the investments we make together, as one country, and that only government's in a position to make."

The theme isn't new for Biden. But never before has it been more clearly distilled than when he laid out his legislative accomplishments so far, and the plans he still hopes to pass. In total, Biden is pressing for almost $6 trillion in new spending -- including the $1.8 trillion plan he proposed Wednesday shoring up education, child care and paid family leave -- a massive bet on government's ability to solve the most intractable problems.

Biden has on his side a generational health crisis and its incumbent economic meltdown that have altered Americans' views of what their government can do for them. But he's also benefited from shifting views on longer-term issues like climate change and criminal justice reform, which will require government intervention to produce the types of results more Americans are asking for.

Polls, including a CNN survey conducted by SSRS, show a majority of Americans approve of Biden's job performance at this stage in his presidency. But they also show some appetite for Biden's expansive view of government. An NBC News poll found 55% of Americans said government "should do more to solve problems" compared to 41% who said it's doing too much.

Covid is impossible to ignore

There was little question the coronavirus pandemic would occupy a major part of Biden's speech. It's the single greatest challenge he faces and the issue he and his advisers believe will make or break his presidency.

But even had Biden said nothing about the pandemic, the scenery on Wednesday provided a constant reminder of the ongoing crisis. Gone was the familiar packed-in crowd of lawmakers. There were no guests to point to in the first lady's box. And the two women sitting behind Biden were both wearing masks.

The contrast with past years felt strange. The many empty seats caused the usual din of applause to feel more like the polite clapping at small theater, with individual lawmakers' murmurs and clapping able to be heard during the traditional entrances before the speech.

Biden's message was one of distinct optimism about the trajectory of the pandemic, hoping to provide a high-profile boost in the national spirit after a year of lockdowns and tragedy.

"Our progress these past 100 days against one of the worst pandemics in history is one of the greatest logistical achievements our country has ever seen," he said.

But his remarks also laid bare the lingering concerns within the administration about Americans who aren't rushing to get vaccinated. In a worst case scenario, administration health officials fear the country won't be able to achieve widespread immunity if enough people decide not to get a shot.

Whether Biden's entreaties on Wednesday make any difference remain to be seen. He's been encouraging eligible populations to get vaccinated for months. And even he has acknowledged the still-hesitant groups aren't likely to listen to him.

"Go get vaccinated," he pleaded from the podium. "They're available now."

Symbolism on display

Addresses to Congress are about more than just the address. What is usually the most-watched televised speech of the year is also laden with visual symbols, no more so than this year.

If the most glaring symbol was the pandemic-altered room, the most historic was the tableau behind Biden: for the first time, two women were seated in the spots reserved for the vice president and House speaker.

"Madame Speaker. Madame Vice President. No president has ever said those words from this podium — no president has ever said those words — and it's about time," Biden said at the start of his address.

Later, Biden gave Harris a new assignment: overseeing his proposed expansion of broadband internet.

Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi, both Californians from the Bay Area, are not strangers to one another. And there was little question the historic weight of the moment wasn't lost on either of them.

"To have two women behind him as he speaks is cause for a lot of excitement," Pelosi said ahead of the address. "I've been getting calls from -- globally -- about that they can't wait to see."

The sparsely-filled House chamber also served to illustrate the fresh memory of the January 6 riot, where would-be insurrectionists sought to prevent Biden from becoming president. Fallout from the moment still lingers as enhanced security surrounds the Capitol.

In his speech, Biden made reference to the event.

"As we gather here tonight, the images of a violent mob assaulting this Capitol -- desecrating our democracy -- remain vivid in our minds. Lives were put at risk. Lives were lost. Extraordinary courage was summoned," Biden said. "The insurrection was an existential crisis -- a test of whether our democracy could survive. It did."

A case to the world

Biden's primary focus in his early days -- and his primary audience for Wednesday's address -- is Americans.

But he has made no secret that his efforts at home are also meant to signal to the world -- and specifically to China -- that perceptions of the United States' decline are mistaken.

On Wednesday, China was the consistent subtext -- and at moments it wasn't so subtle -- of his speech. He named President Xi Jinping three times; speaking off-script about his Chinese counterpart, Biden said, "He's deadly earnest about becoming the most significant, consequential nation in the world."

Biden has framed his entire agenda as a battle between democracy and autocracy. And he believes passing major pieces of legislation are signals to the world that democracy will win out.

"The autocrats will not win the future," Biden said as he concluded his speech. "America will."

Foreign policy is usually a secondary topic in any State of the Union -- "It's never as much foreign policy as the foreign policy team wants," Biden's press secretary Jen Psaki said this week -- and Wednesday wasn't an exception.

He referenced his decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan by September 11, competition with China, the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea and relations with Russia.

But even if national security wasn't at the heart of the speech, Biden would likely argue it was there in more existential form.

"In my conversations with world leaders, and I've spoken to over 38, 40 of them now, I've made it known -- I've made it known that America is back," he said. "And you know what they say? The comment I hear most of all from them is they say, 'We see America's back, but for how long? But for how long?' "

"My fellow Americans," Biden went on, "we have to show not just that we're back but that we're back to stay."

 

ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN – FROM whithouse.gov and various sources

 

PRESIDENT BIDEN INVITES 40 WORLD LEADERS TO LEADERS SUMMIT ON CLIMATE

 

MARCH 26, 2021  STATEMENTS AND RELEASES

 

Today, President Biden invited 40 world leaders to the Leaders Summit on Climate he will host on April 22 and 23.  The virtual Leaders Summit will be live streamed for public viewing.

President Biden took action his first day in office to return the United States to the Paris Agreement.  Days later, on January 27, he announced that he would soon convene a leaders summit to galvanize efforts by the major economies to tackle the climate crisis.

The Leaders Summit on Climate will underscore the urgency – and the economic benefits – of stronger climate action.  It will be a key milestone on the road to the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) this November in Glasgow.

In recent years, scientists have underscored the need to limit planetary warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in order to stave off the worst impacts of climate change.  A key goal of both the Leaders Summit and COP26 will be to catalyze efforts that keep that 1.5-degree goal within reach.  The Summit will also highlight examples of how enhanced climate ambition will create good paying jobs, advance innovative technologies, and help vulnerable countries adapt to climate impacts.

By the time of the Summit, the United States will announce an ambitious 2030 emissions target as its new Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement.  In his invitation, the President urged leaders to use the Summit as an opportunity to outline how their countries also will contribute to stronger climate ambition.

The Summit will reconvene the U.S.-led Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, which brings together 17 countries responsible for approximately 80 percent of global emissions and global GDP.  The President also invited the heads of other countries that are demonstrating strong climate leadership, are especially vulnerable to climate impacts, or are charting innovative pathways to a net-zero economy.  A small number of business and civil society leaders will also participate in the Summit.

Key themes of the Summit will include:

·         Galvanizing efforts by the world’s major economies to reduce emissions during this critical decade to keep a limit to warming of 1.5 degree Celsius within reach.

·         Mobilizing public and private sector finance to drive the net-zero transition and to help vulnerable countries cope with climate impacts. 

·         The economic benefits of climate action, with a strong emphasis on job creation, and the importance of ensuring all communities and workers benefit from the transition to a new clean energy economy.

·         Spurring transformational technologies that can help reduce emissions and adapt to climate change, while also creating enormous new economic opportunities and building the industries of the future.

·         Showcasing subnational and non-state actors that are committed to green recovery and an equitable vision for limiting warming to 1.5 degree Celsius, and are working closely with national governments to advance ambition and resilience.

·         Discussing opportunities to strengthen capacity to protect lives and livelihoods from the impacts of climate change, address the global security challenges posed by climate change and the impact on readiness, and address the role of nature-based solutions in achieving net zero by 2050 goals. 

Further details on the Summit agenda, additional participants, media access, and public viewing will be provided in the coming weeks.

 

The DJI will list the forty world leaders (or as Greta might call them, forty thieves) and how their home nations responded to their performance.  This will probably take place in our Lesson for May 13th barring… as happens from time to time… unforeseen circumstances.