Climate Change Will Impact Health

People probably know that scientists have been studying climate change for years and looking at how a changing climate affects global temperatures and sea level rise, and that's important, but I think that most people don't know that there's hundreds of studies now connecting the dots between climate change and human health, and that's a big concern. Climate change is fueling more frequent—and more intense—and longer-lasting heat waves, and that heat is not just an inconvenience to people. It kills people. Some of the people who are most vulnerable to that extreme heat include children, and older adults, and households that are economically disadvantaged, and that's not just a few people; that amounts to many millions of people in the U.S. Another concern is air pollution. The warmer temperatures are, the higher the concentration of some really important air pollutants. Breathing ground-level ozone smog can irritate your eyes and your throat, and really damage your lungs and airways. There are other kinds of air pollutants that are also affected by climate change. Take the kind of pollens that can make allergy symptoms much, much worse, or even trigger an asthma attack. The longer our warm weather seasons, the more pollen is produced in the air.

So, it's like a double whammy for health: ozone smog, and pollen. There's another way, a third way, that climate change is affecting people's health, and that's insects and the illnesses that they can carry, like dengue fever, like West Nile virus, like Zika virus, that are carried by mosquitoes and Lyme disease that's carried by certain kinds of ticks. The thing is, people don't think often about how much those illnesses caused by climate change cost, and not just in human suffering and pain and illness, but in dollars and cents. It's big dollars. NRDC looked at just six of those kinds of events that have occurred very recently: a wildfire episode, a hurricane season, a flooding episode, a West Nile virus outbreak, and air pollution episode, a heat wave, and found that it costs over 14 billion dollars just to people's health. Those are costs that we don't think about and we need to.

I guess my hope as a scientist who studies climate change and health is not that people will get super bummed out listening to all of these effects, but that they'll be energized and demand preparedness and demand cleaner energy and demand building healthier and more secure communities for their children's future..

Rep. Kevin Cramer says global environmental benefits not worth “disarming our economy”

NOW? — ROWLING TAKING HIS SIDE NOW? >> I'M FERNANDO ESPUELAS. WELCOME TO "MATTER OF FACT." WHEN DONALD TRUMP TAPPED CONGRESSMAN KEVIN CRAMER TO HELP CHANGE HIS ENERGY POLICY, HE CHOSE A REPUBLICAN WHO ONCE RODE A BIG OL' BOOM, NORTH DAKOTA, NOW FACING A BUST. TRUMP: SO OBAMA IS TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THIS WITH GLOBAL WARMING. A LOT OF IT IS A HOAX. FOR MONEY. A LOT OF IT. FERNANDO: WHAT ADVICE DOES HE HAVE FOR THE PRESUMED REPUBLICAN NOMINEE. CONGRESS CRAMER JOINS ME NOW. WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM. KEVIN: THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. FERNANDO: WHY DID YOU ENDORSE DONALD TRUMP? KEVIN: A LOT OF REASONS. NORTH DAKOTA CHOSE NOT TO HAVE A PRIMARY OR CAUCUS, WHICH VIOLATES MY FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT EELECTION ARE WON BY INCLUSION, NOT BY EXCLUSION SO I DID MY OWN ONLINE STRAW POLL, GATHERED SYSTEM INFORMATION AS I COULD FROM AS MANY NORTH DAKOTA REPUBLICANS AS I COULD. THE COMBINATION OF BEING INFORMED BY CONSTITUENTS, I FELT MR.

TRUMP HAD A BETTER CHANCE TOE WIN. FERNANDO: AND WHAT ARE SOME OF HIS POLICIES THAT YOU KNOW ARE GOOD FOR AMERICA? KEVIN: THE BIGGEST THING FOR ME IS HIS ABILITY TO CREATE JOBS. HE'S PROVEN THAT AS A BUSINESS PERSON, HE'S SURROUNDED HIMSELF WITH REALLY GOOD PEOPLE AND LISTENS TO THEM AND HIS ATTITUDE ABOUT AMERICA FIRST IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND BY THAT I DON'T MEAN TO THE EXCLUSI NECESSARILY OF OTHERS BUT OUR COUNTRY AND OUR COUNTRY ICE NEEDS, WHETHER IT'S TRADE, POLICY, GLOBAL POLICY AS IT RELATES TO NATIONAL DEFENSE. FERNANDO: DOES THAT MEAN YOU AGREE WITH HIS INTENTION AS AT A TIME STA — STATED OF ENDING MANY TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN COUNTIES? KEVIN: AT THE LEAST, I'D LIKE TO SEIBERT TRADE AGREEMENTS. — SEE BETTER TRADE AGREEMENTS. FERNANDO: NORTH DAKOTA, OF COURSE, THE HUGE ENERGY STATE. YOUR ECONOMY HAD A BIG BOO. UNFORTUNATELY NOW A BIG BUST. YOU'VE BEEN ASKED TO ADVISE TRUMP ON HIS ENERGY POLICY. KEVIN: MY ADVICE IS LET'S MAKE AMERICAN ENERGY MORE COMPETITIVE.

WE SNOW THAT SAUDI ARABIA CAN PRODUCE OIL AT $5 TO $10. THEIR ECONOMY CAN'T SUSTAIN THAT BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO DRIVE PLACES LIKE NORTH DAKOTA AND TEXAS OUT OF THE SHAL E-BIZ. RATHER THAN PUNISHING THE SAUDIS FOR THEIR SUCCESS, WE SHOULD SOME PUSHING — PUNISHING AMERICAN BUSINESSES BY ADDING LAYERS AND LAYERS OF RULES AND REGULATIONS. I WOULD LOOK AT A WAY TO UTILIZE NOT CREDITS OR SUBSIDIES BUT RAMP DEDUCTIONS FOR ANYTHING THAT'S AMERICAN MADE. SO IF YOU'RE IN THE WIND INDUSTRY AND BUILDING WIND TUR BINS OR POWERS — TOWERS OR CREATING PIPE AND DRILLING FOR OIL OR SOLAR POWER OR DRAG LINES FOR COAL MINING, IT'S AMERICAN MADE AND AMERICAN MADE ENERGY, LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. FERNANDO: ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF HAVING THE ECONOMY CONVERT TO RENEWABLE ENERGY? KEVIN: I'VE ALWAYS SUPPORTED EARLY TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR INVESTMENT IN EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES.

WHAT I OPPOSE IS THESE INVESTMENTS GO ON FOREVER. FERNANDO: AND YOU SAID THAT THE E.P.A. IS A FRAUDULENT SCIENCE, TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. WHAT'S THE PROOF OF THAT? KEVIN: I SAID IT SKEPTICAL OF THE HUMAN BEING'S CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL CHANGE. FERNANDO: BASED ON WHAT? KEVIN: LET'S SAY THE UNITED STATES, FOR EXAMPLE — THIS IS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC THINGS I'VE READ THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED — IF THE UNITED STATES CEASED TO EXIST, NO ANYTHING. NO UNITED STATES, BY 2015, THE IMPACT ON GLOBAL CLIMATE WOULD BE NEGATIVE .08 DEGREES. SO THE UNITED STATES UNILATERALLY — FERNANDO: BY — BUT AFTER THE PARIS ACCORDS, IT'S NOT UNILATERAL, RIGHT? KEVIN: WE ARE PRESUMING THAT A BUNCH OF COUNTRIES WITHOUT OUR HISTORY ARE GOING TO ADHERE TO THE DEAL. FERNANDO: THE FLY IN THAT OINTMENT IS IF WE DO NOTHING, NOTHING WILL CHANGE BUT ISN'T CHANGE BY DEFINITION A SET OF INCREMENTAL SHIFTS THAT IT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA AND EUROPE — KEVIN: LET'S CARRY THAT THOUGHT FORWARD. WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE INCREMENTAL CHANGE.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES GLOSHTSE A DEAL WITH CHINA THAT FROM NOW UNTIL 2030, THEY GET TO EMMITT THEIR EMISSIONS WHILE THE U.S. DECREASES ITS. CREATING AN ADVANTAGE FOR CHINA IN WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A GLOBAL PROBLEM. FERNANDO: THANK YOU SO MUCH. KEVIN: MY PLEASURE..

Weather Channel Founder Backs Trump, Tells The TRUTH About Global Warming

Weather Channel Founder Backs Trump, Tells The TRUTH About Global Warming President Donald Trump has been excoriated for his decision to have the United States exit the Paris Climate Accord. However, one very influential man � John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel � has his back. TAA reports: In a series of tweets and emails Coleman sent to Al Gore and various Democratic supporters and organizations, he called out climate alarmists with a barrage of facts based on actual science and not wishful thinking As it turns out, if you chart global temperatures back into the �70s, there are absolutely no signs of global warming. There�s been less than one degree temperature change since 1978 and no warming to speak of since 1998. So where is the government getting their information from? It turns out that the government has been manipulating climate computer models.

This means that the American tax payers are being charged $4.7 billion a year in taxes that are being used to fund organizations that carry out meaningless studies based on bad science. Basically, the American people are paying fake scientists to lie to them. Find out more in the video below. Government actions to counter �carbon pollution� have raised the cost of fuel, electricity and food by an average of $1000 per year for an average American family of four. If that family of four would only open their Internet browsers and see that the Antarctic Sea is at an all time high and sea levels are rising at an �alarming� rate of around 6 inches per century, they would feel outraged that they�re being taken advantage of, at least one would hope. President Trump was right to leave the Paris Climate Accord � they lie to American taxpayers and waste trillions of dollars..

 

Hackers Back Up US Climate Data So Trump Can’t Delete It

On Friday, January 20th, as Donald Trump was taking the oath of office to become the 45th President of the United States a group of 60 scientists, computer programmers and hackers met at UCLA to completely comb through government archives, the whitehouse.gov website and copy and collect and back up any data that the government has on climate change. They then took all this data and stored it on servers housed in Europe so that the Trump Administration could not touch it. The reason they did this is because they were terrified that the Trump Administration was going to go through and delete all of this data once the swearing in ceremony was finished. To be honest this was something that the scientists and federal employees had worried about a few weeks ago, so they began doing the same thing long before the inauguration even took place. What they're planning to do now is keep this data, go through it, analyze it and then compare it to what is still available on the government websites.

Essentially if the Trump Administration attempts to falsify any data, any reports or scrub anything, these scientists, these hackers, these computer programmers are going to call them out on it. That is probably one of the most positive things I've seen in quite a while. Here's the other side of this, they were right because immediately following the swearing in ceremony the term climate change disappeared from the whitehouse.gov website. I know Trump supporters are out there saying, "No it didn't, it's still there." Well, no there were plenty of search engines, images out there, articles written. The term did completely disappear at least for a little bit. Maybe they've put it back up on a couple pages now. Trump people attempted to write this off by saying, "Of course he believes in climate change.

He's said it over and over again for months." Kellyanne Conway said that. No, Kellyanne, he never said that. He hasn't been saying it for months. Really the last thing we heard from him on climate change is that he believes it's a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. Don't try to tell us with your alternative facts that he has always been a believer in climate change. She verified this by saying because the climate always changes. What idiot Conway is confusing at the moment is climate and weather. The weather changes from day to day. Republicans aren't smart enough to understand that the weather is not climate. They think that if it's snowing one day climate change, global warming, can't be real. Oh God no. Look at the climate outside. They're just not smart enough to understand the difference between weather and climate. That's why the scientists and programmers and hackers had to get together and copy this data and back it up and store it so that we do not lose it for the next four years.

This is decades worth of research and scientific analysis that the Trump Administration is attempting to get rid of. Luckily we do have people out there that took action, they got the data. Hopefully they will call Donald Trump out every single time his administration attempts to falsify, remove or otherwise bastardize decades worth of research on climate change..

5 Bad Reasons to Ditch the Paris Climate Agreement

Yesterday the President of the United States Donald J Trump decided to remove the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, something that was agreed to by basically every country on earth except for Syria and Nicaragua Syria in war and Nicaragua because they didn't think it went far enough. Now this just baffles me, I'm trying to understand the reasons for why you would do this, why withdraw from this agreement but none of the stated reasons make any sense to me so in this video I'm going to break down the top five bad reasons I've heard for why the US is withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement. Okay, number one is because it is bad for the US economy. The U.S. set a target of reducing their emissions from 2005 levels by 26 to 28 percent by 2025, and they've already reduced the emissions by around 12 to 14 percent.

So maybe it's fair enough to say if you wanted to implement some really strict policies and really curb emissions there might be a way to do harm to the economy in the process but here's the thing, the Paris agreement is completely non-binding. So if the president didn't want to implement any policies to curb emissions that would be fine and he's not going to be president in 2025 anyway so I mean what does it matter there's a non-binding agreement there are no repercussions no one has to do anything it's mainly just a goal it's a target that target in itself is not going to harm the US economy and all of this ignores the fact that the world is moving towards cleaner, greener tech innovation there's going to be a lot of investment in that area, estimates of multiple trillions of dollars being invested in this so if you're a country that doesn't embrace reductions in emissions then actually you might miss out on investment opportunities new innovations and you might lose the opportunity to be a world leader and that might actually hurt the GDP and if you look at the Canadian province of British Columbia for example they implemented a carbon tax and reduced per capita fossil fuel use by about 20 percent compared to the rest of Canada meanwhile their GDP grew at the same rate as the rest of the country so there isn't a lot of evidence to suggest that reducing emissions, directly causes a downturn in the economy.

Which brings us to number two, well the free market should decide what technologies take off, what innovations happen the money, the smart money should go where the good investment opportunities are the government shouldn't be deciding who should win and who should lose and that we should change to a cleaner greener economy, that is a very American viewpoint on the world and I like it, I like this idea that markets are smart and they'll put money where it pays returns the problem is this market has never been fair and the reason why is because co2 has not been considered really a pollutant up until now and to be fair co2 doesn't really seem like a pollutant and if you're just emitting a little bit of it there's no problem the problem comes when we totally change the amount of co2 in the atmosphere and only then because co2 has this effect of trapping infrared radiation, something scientists figured out you know more than 100 years ago. So here's the problem, people have been emitting co2 which in small amounts is really not a big deal but in large amounts can cause some damage, damage in the form of more intense storms and droughts and people have to pay for that so there is a cost actually associated with emitting co2 except right now that cost is not being borne by the emitters of co2, it's being borne by the whole world and that makes the markets not on a level playing field.

I mean the analogy for this would be let's say there's one company that disposes of its pollution appropriately and that cost some money and so paying this company is more expensive than paying another company which just dumps its pollution in a river and you know leaves the rest of the communities downstream to deal with it. in that market it's not fair because people will go to the cheaper option and they're only cheaper because they're polluting for free, so in order for free markets to decide and make a fair decision all I'm saying is we need to factor in the cost of the pollution. This makes cleaner technology way more competitive and so yeah let's go for a free market solution but let's make sure the market is truly fair first. Number three, China and India don't have to reduce their emissions so why should the United States? Ok well the truth about this is that China and India are setting targets under the Paris agreement to reduce their emissions but that is per unit of GDP.

With the idea that these countries are still developing they're still going to grow a lot and so it seems pretty unfair to curb their emissions so strictly right now, whereas the US is the biggest historic emitter of carbon dioxide they've emitted about 30% of the total excess carbon dioxide that is now in the atmosphere Europe's also emitted about 30% and that has made those countries very rich and very capable of changing their economies into less polluting economies so the idea here is that what seems most fair is for the countries that contributed most of the problem to start to take action first and also because their economies can deal with it they're rich enough and also the economies of the US and Europe don't depend very much on just a lot of energy I mean a lot of the sectors like you know financial and technology and innovation they don't require tons of energy to to get going, not like building the infrastructure in in India and China are going to require in order to lift all of those populations out of poverty so I think it seems pretty fair for the US and Europe to go first I don't think this is a part where you point to a country that hasn't really contributed much the problem say well why aren't they changing first before we do it.

If you created the problem you need to be one of the first to try to fix it. Number four, the Paris agreement wouldn't do anything to help climate change anyway, now while it's true that under the current emissions targets that have been set we're not guaranteed to limit warming to under two degrees Celsius which is what most experts think is kind of a safe level but it is an important starting point it is all the countries of the world virtually coming together to agree to do something and I think once people start taking action to try to achieve these goals we're going to find that it just gets easier to try to lower our emissions so I think the Paris agreement is really a floor not a ceiling on what we can do in terms of reducing our emissions and it's really an important first step and I don't see how anything is gained by leaving it. Number five; he had to withdraw from the Paris agreement because it's politically unpopular here in the U.S. That is actually just not true depending on what poll you look at roughly seven out of ten Americans think that we should still be in the agreement and 60% of swing voters think that it's good to be part of the deal and even half of Republicans wanted to stay in so what really is gained here I think there's certainly a portion of Trumps base that wanted to see him withdraw from this agreement it's something he can point to is a campaign pledge that's been fulfilled and it'll definitely energize that base but beyond that it's hard to see how this is going to raise his approval ratings much which currently sit around 39% and that brings me to bonus reason number six which perhaps is the real reason that he did this and it was to piss off the opposition.

He wanted a whole bunch of environmentalists whipped into a frenzy so that he could point at them and say look how crazy these people are and how much they prefer the trees and birds and stuff like that over jobs and the economy and things that people really should care about. The problem is I mean that relies on people believing that you know these sorts of agreements would be bad for the economy which I think you can demonstrate from the evidence that they're not, so I think the best response to this decision is not to get angry or inflamed or you know go nuts about it because I think that's kind of maybe why he did it in the first place I think the best reaction is one that we're already seeing, that people around the U.S. cities, states, leaders business leaders are all agreeing to work with each other to make sure that the U.

S. meets its responsibilities under the Paris climate agreement whether the federal government actually, you know signs it, ratifies it or not and I think that might be the best outcome here if Trump becomes marginalized and people no longer look to his leadership that might just make him feel small which is probably the thing he would hate the most..

Trump Got Climate Change Pretty Wrong in His Paris Speech (HBO)

— Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the nonbinding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. — And with that, Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the most comprehensive climate deal in the history of the planet— and the best hope of limiting continued global warming. Trump spent most of his 28-minute Rose Garden speech talking about economics: — The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers, who I love, and taxpayers to absorb the cost. — But when he did talk about the Paris Agreement, he was almost entirely wrong: — Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree— think of that. This much.

— Actually, the Paris Climate Agreement wasn’t going to reduce global temperatures at all. The goal was always to cap the rise in global warming at 2°C— and even that goal meant coming to terms with a future in which tidal areas disappear, climate refugees are a daily part of life, and food and water scarcity could lead to greater violence between people and countries. Paris was hardly optimistic. — India will be able to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it—India can double their coal production, we’re supposed to get rid of ours… — Actually, India has canceled plans to build nearly 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations. Claims of China getting a “better deal” are just as baseless, but that’s not even the point. Part of the reason 194 other parties signed on to the Paris Agreement is that it doesn’t actually require any of them to do anything specific. They each got to pick their own path to reaching their commitments.

So if the United States wanted to, for example, double coal output and quadruple solar, it could do that. It would break the pledge, but there are no consequences for breaking it. The entire agreement is a giant global pinky promise in which everybody tries to do the right thing for the planet. — As the Wall Street Journal wrote this morning, the reality is that withdrawing is in America’s economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate. — The numbers are pretty simple. If the U.S. doesn’t drastically reduce its current carbon output, it’ll be responsible for an additional 0.3°C of global warming by 2100. And it’s not like other countries could simply pull more weight. According to a study in Nature Climate Change, any delay from the United States makes the overall target of limiting warming to 2° unreachable. You can say it was a jobs speech.

You can say it was a brilliant tactical speech that will allow Trump to re-negotiate for terms that benefit Americans— and some Trump supporters will say that. What you can’t say is that Trump’s speech was fluent in the facts of the very agreement he’s pulling out of..

Is Free Trade Bad For The Economy?

Throughout the 2016 election, candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have had clearly divided and opposing views. But one topic on which they share their opposition is that of free trade agreements. Many people have demonized free trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP in the last year. So, what exactly are free trade agreements and what’s so bad about them? Well, first it is important to realize that the world economy, and by extension standards of living, are dependent on international trade. In practice, countries which produce more usually do better economically, and many countries enact trade rules which favor their own production. For example, in the 1920s, European farms were able to sell agricultural goods to the US very cheaply. This undercut American farmers, and so Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which raised taxes on imports. This artificially made foreign goods very expensive compared to domestic goods, now favoring the American farmer. Laws and rules like these are called “protectionist”.

Free trade agreements are, at their most basic, a series of compromises between countries. They remove protectionist restrictions and taxes, but also work to keep participating economies from falling apart without them. Most countries are members of the World Trade Organization, which regulates international trade agreements, and maintains the global economy. But one of the problems with Free Trade Agreements is that they can also hurt consumers. For example, in 2011, tobacco giant Philip Morris sued the country of Australia for implementing anti-smoking regulations. The company argued that the regulations would violate a portion of a 1993 trade agreement between Hong Kong and Australia because plain packaging would diminish their trademark. And even though the lawsuit failed to stop restrictions, it is an example of free trade agreement overreach. A much more common complaint, especially in the United States, is that free trade agreements lead to outsourcing, and a loss of American jobs. When the North American Free Trade Agreement was established between the US, Canada, and Mexico in 1994, it eliminated most taxes on imports and exports between those countries.

This made it cheaper to import food and goods from Mexico than it was to grow or make them in the United States. This led to considerably cheaper goods, and a net benefit for consumers. However, the trade agreement also led to outsourcing those same farming and manufacturing jobs to Mexico. It’s been estimated that one million jobs have been lost to NAFTA over the past two decades. In short, a free trade agreement makes it easier for foreign countries to compete with local production, making everything less expensive according to free market principles. But for those workers who actually have to compete with cheaper foreign labor or resources, they’re often forced to find new work. There are also a huge number of other considerations besides actual trade that go into free trade agreements, like environmental and copyright concerns. In the end, free trade agreements can make goods cheaper and more available.

However, this benefit can come at the expense of thousands, if not millions of jobs. The TPP is one such free trade agreement that has received major criticism. But what exactly is the big deal? Check out our video to learn more. Thanks for watching! Make sure to like and subscribe for more TestTube News every day..

Trump Dismantles U.S. Climate Rules, Virtually Ensuring U.S. Will Break Paris Accord Promises

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. President Trump signed an executive order Tuesday to dismantle a slew of climate rules established by President Obama. If carried out, the executive order will virtually guarantee that the United States will fail to meet its 2015 Paris Agreement pledge to reduce emissions in order to curb the effects of climate change. The executive order marks the first step to undo Obama’s Clean Power Plan to limit emissions and replace coal-fired power plants with new solar and wind farms. Trump signed the executive order at a ceremony at the Environmental Protection Agency while being surrounded by a group of coal miners, as well as EPA head Scott Pruitt, who himself denies the human impact on climate change. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Today I’m taking bold action to follow through on that promise. My administration is putting an end to the war on coal. Gonna have clean coal, really clean coal.

With today’s executive action, I am taking historic steps to lift the restrictions on American energy, to reverse government intrusion and to cancel job-killing regulations. AMY GOODMAN: The executive order also ends President Obama’s 2013 Climate Action Plan, which outlined the federal government’s approach to curbing climate change. Trump never mentioned climate change or global warming during his remarks, even though 2016 was the warmest year on record, breaking the record set in 2015. He also only mentioned the EPA’s mission to protect the environment once. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We’re going to continue to expand energy production, and we will also create more jobs in infrastructure, trucking and manufacturing. This will allow the EPA to focus on its primary mission of protecting our air and protecting our water. Together, we are going to start a new energy revolution, one that celebrates American production on American soil.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Jacqueline Patterson, director of the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program, joining us from New Orleans. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Jacqueline. Talk about the effect of this executive order, its significance. JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Yes, it is so significant. Thanks for having me. So, there are so many far-reaching implications for this rule, if the actions go forward as presented. Certainly—certainly, fortunately, labor experts and market experts say that regardless of this rule, which seeks to release the restriction on leasing of federal lands for coal, they’re saying that it’s not necessarily going to bring back the coal industry. But if it did, the coal industry is so harmful not only to the communities that are host to coal-fired power plants, but also to the very workers whose jobs that President Trump purports to save, including the fact that 76,000 coal miners have died of black lung disease since 1968, while the industry has fought against the regulations to protect them from coal mine dust. So we have those implications. We have implications like the communities that are host to coal-fired power plants are choking down sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, arsenic, lead, not to mention that coal is the number—coal-based energy production is the number one contributor to greenhouse—to carbon dioxide emissions, which is the number one greenhouse gas emission that drives climate change.

So, those implications are significant. AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about how, in particular, it will affect communities of color? JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Yeah, so, for example, African American—68 percent of African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. And we know that with the emissions, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, they’re known to have a link to exacerbating respiratory conditions such as asthma. We also know that African Americans—71 percent of African Americans live in counties in violation of air pollution standards. And we know that the African-American children are three to five times more likely to enter into the hospital from asthma attacks and two to three times more likely to die of asthma attacks. When we connect the dots in terms of exposure and in terms of the health conditions of African-American children and people, we start to see the ties in terms of the impact, the disproportionate impact, of the coal industry, in particular, on communities of color.

We know that African-American adults are more likely to die from lung disease, but far less likely to smoke. When we put out our report, "Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People," back in 2012, we went around, and we visited with communities that were host to coal-fired power plants. And we heard time and time again from folks who had—half the kids in their school were on inhalers. Half the people in their church were on respirators. I spoke to a fellow in Indiana whose wife had died of lung disease. They lived within seeing distance of a coal-fired power plant. She had never smoked a day in her life. I spoke to a woman whose father worked in a coal plant and who died of lung cancer, but had never smoked a day in his life. So we see these stories—we hear these stories, and we see the statistics. And the disproportionate exposure and the differential impact are clear.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Earthjustice Policy Vice President Martin Hayden, who questioned whether President Trump’s executive order will have a significant effect on the coal industry. MARTIN HAYDEN: [We] are a net exporter of coal, by a long shot. So, producing more coal isn’t going to make us more energy independent. And the other piece of producing more coal—and you saw many of the coal company executives say this last night—that while it may raise coal production some, it’s not going to create many more jobs, because they are more automated today, that the—that the trend has been fewer and fewer jobs in the coal fields, irrespective of how much coal is mined, because they’re using more mechanized approaches and less people approaches. AMY GOODMAN: So, that issue, Jacqueline Patterson, of what the president keeps pushing, the issue of coal jobs? JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Yes, so—yes, so, as I was saying at the very beginning, both the labor industry and the market say that it’s not necessarily going to bring back coal.

I was saying what the implications would be if it did, in any way, increase—increase coal production—coal-based energy production in the United States. But then there’s the other side of the fact, that even if we’re exporting coal, and other countries are using coal, as we know, any use of coal burning to produce energy affects climate change overall. And we know that communities of color and low-income communities are more likely to feel the impacts from climate change. And so, whether it’s communities that have poor housing stock, communities that are underinsured, communities that are—whose homes are located in the floodplains, we see that these communities are disproportionately vulnerable to climate change and more likely to be impacted by climate change. We know that these communities are often the ones that are—don’t have access to healthy and nutritious foods.

They have food insecurity. And we know that shifts in agricultural yields is another impact of climate change and that—and that this might make food insecurity even greater in these communities. So the far-reaching implications of any type of increase in coal-based energy production are felt no matter where it happens, are felt globally, and particularly in vulnerable communities and vulnerable countries. AMY GOODMAN: We’ve been talking about coal plants, but let’s talk about coal-fired plants. Jacqueline, talk by your own growing up in Chicago. JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Yeah, so I grew up on the South Side of Chicago, where there were three coal-fired power plants within a 15-mile radius of where I lived, the Fisk and Crawford plants on the South Side of Chicago and the State Line plant on the northwest side of Indiana. So, unbeknownst to me, really, because, you know, these things are there, and you often just don’t know the impacts of these—of these facilities in your community, I was living in this toxic corridor. And fast-forward to today, when I was doing the work on the "Coal Blooded" report, I visited with the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, PERRO and others in Chicago who were doing work on the Fisk and Crawford plants.

And they had done a partnership with the Harvard School of Public Health. And through the community-campus partnership, they found that 40 asthma deaths and a thousand hospitalizations were attributed to the Fisk and Crawford coal plants, which gave them what the—the fuel that they needed to be able to inform the community, which eventually resulted in the City Council passing an ordinance around clean air and Mayor Rahm Emanuel giving a ultimatum to either clean these coal plants up or shut them down, which eventually did happen. And so, again, I was growing up in harm’s way. My father—my father passed away a few years ago of lung disease. And his doctor specifically cited that it was due to environmental exposures. And now I wonder what the cumulative impact might have been of living on the South Side of Chicago in that toxic corridor with those three coal plants and other toxins in the air. AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Jacqueline Patterson, just the overall broader issue of cuts to the EPA and the whole direction the Trump administration is going? And, I mean, he signed this executive order at the Environmental Protection Agency, which he said he is going to slash by almost a third.

This is with the acquiescence of the head of the EPA—right?—the former Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt, who sued the EPA 14 times before he’s now become its head. JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Mm-hmm, yes. And unfortunately, not only—if it was just slashed off of the EPA budget in general, that would be bad enough. But the fact that it’s targeted slashing of environment justice programs, that are meant to protect communities like Mossville, Louisiana, which is in this petrochemical corridor, which is a cancer cluster, which has already these existing impacts for their community, communities like Uniontown, Alabama, which, again, has multiple assaults in terms of its environmental exposures, the communities across the nation that are, again, disproportionately communities of color, disproportionately indigenous communities and low-income communities, communities in Appalachia, who are suffering under the impacts of mountaintop removal and so forth and so on.

And so, the Environmental Protection Agency, as we—as per its name, it is there to ensure that we have the monitoring and the enforcement of safeguards for our health and well-being. So I shudder to think what the impacts will be if that agency does not serve that function. AMY GOODMAN: Jacqueline Patterson, I want to thank you for being with us, director of the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program, speaking to us from New Orleans. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, the House votes on internet privacy. Stay with us..

Trump pulls U S out of non binding Paris Climate Accord — Here’s why he was right to do it

Trump pulls U.S. out of non-binding Paris Climate Accord � Here�s why he was right to do it by: JD Heyes Far-Left Democrats and so-called �environmentalists� who still believe the global warming hoax are furious at President Donald J. Trump for keeping his campaign pledge to withdraw the United States from the �non-binding� Paris Climate Accords signed onto by the Obama administration. But perhaps after they calm down and allow their blood pressure to return to normal, they can take a rational, reasoned look at why the president made his decision; if they afford him that courtesy, there is no way they can conclude that his decision was wrong. In making the announcement from the White House Rose Garden Thursday afternoon, Trump stated that he felt obligated to withdraw from the agreement � which should have been sent to the U.

S. Senate by Obama to be ratified as a treaty, because that�s what it was, in both style and substance � because it is �a bad deal� for American workers, taxpayers and companies. (RELATED: The Paris Climate Accord is GENOCIDE against plants, forests and all life on our planet) Trump also knocked the cost of the agreement � which will rise to some $450 billion a year, much of which would have to come from the U.S. � while major polluters who are also signatories to the deal do not have to comply with the accords� emissions limitations for more than a decade. Meanwhile, the U.S. has to comply immediately. The president also lashed out at his critics who said pulling out of the deal would be a disaster for the country, noting that remaining in the agreement would cost American families and businesses billions per year. Also, he said, the agreement prohibited the U.S. from �conducting its own domestic economic affairs� by preventing the development of our own natural resources, like clean coal and natural gas, both of which create far fewer emissions than other forms of energy.

�I was elected to represent the people of Pittsburg, not Paris,� Trump said. �It�s time to pursue a new deal that protects� the environment, as well as the American people. Trump, according to various experts and analyses, was right to withdraw from the current agreement as written. �Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama has essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy,� Americans for Tax Reform noted Wednesday in a post on its website. �Sadly, the agreement will not just hurt the country�s growth as a whole, but will trickle down to low-and-middle income Americans. As a result of the agreement, energy costs will skyrocket, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods.

� (RELATED: UN official actually ADMITS that �global warming� is a scam designed to �change world�s economic model�) A study of the agreement by the Heritage Foundation, released in April 2016, found that the agreement would have resulted in the adoption of government policies that dramatically increased electricity costs for a family of four between 13 and 20 percent annually. In addition, the analysis found that American families would lose out on some $20,000 in income by 2035, regressive (not progressive) economic policies that no doubt would hit the nation�s poorest the hardest. [Meanwhile, we�re sure that Obama won�t have any trouble paying his electric bill, no matter what it costs] Other analysts, as Trump noted in his speech, noted that the loss of U.S. annual gross domestic product would be close to $3 trillion by 2035, while reducing employment in the U.S.

by about 400,000 jobs, half of which would be in manufacturing. But perhaps most galling of all is the fact that even the far Left admitted that the agreement would accomplish virtually nothing � and certainly was not the global carbon emissions destroyer its principle advocates made it out to be. Politico Europe reported: In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth. As Trump said, �The agreement is a massive redistribution of wealth from the U.S. to other countries.� There is no good reason to remain in it, just as there was no good reason for Obama to have signed it..

 

Trump Team Clarifies Stance On Climate Change

U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS IS CLARIFYING THE PRESIDENT'S STANCE. Reporter: THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS NIKKI HALEY IS MAKING IT CLEAR HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP VIEWS CLIMATE CHANGE. SHE BELIEVES THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING. HE BELIEVES POLLUTANTS ARE PART OF THAT. Reporter: THE INTERVIEW WILL AIR SUNDAY ON CBS FACED THE NATION. FRIDAY WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY SEAN SPICER AND THE HEAD OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DEFLECTED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S VIEW ON CLIMATE CHANGE FOLLOWING HIS DECISION TO PULL OUT OF THE PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD. I HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. Reporter: SUPPORTERS OF THE MOVE HELD A RALLY OUTSIDE OF THE WHITE HOUSE. WE DO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT AMERICA AND WHAT WE ARE DOING. AND NOT JUST GO ALONG WITH EVERYBODY ELSE BECAUSE THEY SAY WE SHOULD. Reporter: THOSE OPPOSED TO THE PRESIDENT'S POLICIES HELD MORE THAN 100 PROTESTS IN CITIES AROUND THE WORLD.

OUR PLANET! Reporter: DEMANDING A FULL INVESTIGATION INTO WHAT CONNECTIONS THE TRUMP TEAM HAD WITH RUSSIA. WE ARE TRYING TO SEND SIGNALS TO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS THIS IS IMPORTANT TO US. Reporter: THE INVESTIGATION WILL BE BACK IN THE SPOTLIGHT NEXT WEEK. WHEN FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY IS SCHEDULED TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS CONSIDERING INVOKING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN.