RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The First Undeniable Climate Change Deaths Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55223"><span class="small">Daniel Merino, Slate</span></a>   
Thursday, 23 July 2020 12:47

Merino writes: "July 23, 2018, was a day unlike any seen before in Japan. It was the peak of a weekslong heat wave that smashed previous temperature records across the historically temperate nation. The heat started on July 9, on farms and in cities that only days earlier were fighting deadly rains, mudslides, and floods."

Mount Fuji. (photo: Daniel Merino)
Mount Fuji. (photo: Daniel Merino)


The First Undeniable Climate Change Deaths

By Daniel Merino, Slate

23 July 20

 


In 2018 in Japan, more than 1,000 people died during an unprecedented heat wave. In 2019, scientists proved it would have been impossible without global warming.

uly 23, 2018, was a day unlike any seen before in Japan. It was the peak of a weekslong heat wave that smashed previous temperature records across the historically temperate nation. The heat started on July 9, on farms and in cities that only days earlier were fighting deadly rains, mudslides, and floods. As the waters receded, temperatures climbed. By July 15, 200 of the 927 weather stations in Japan recorded temperatures of 35 degrees Celsius, about 95 degrees Fahrenheit, or higher. Food and electricity prices hit multiyear highs as the power grid and water resources were pushed to their limits. Tens of thousands of people were hospitalized due to heat exhaustion and heatstroke. On Monday, July 23, the heat wave reached its zenith. The large Tokyo suburb of Kumagaya was the epicenter, and around 3 p.m., the Kumagaya Meteorological Observatory measured a temperature of 41.1 degrees Celsius, or 106 F. It was the hottest temperature ever recorded in Japan, but the record was more than a statistic. It was a tragedy: Over the course of those few weeks, more than a thousand people died from heat-related illnesses.

On July 24, the day after the peak of the heat wave, the Japan Meteorological Agency declared it a natural disaster. A disaster it was. But a natural one? Not so much.

In early 2019, researchers at the Japan Meteorological Agency started looking into the circumstances that had caused the unprecedented, deadly heat wave. They wanted to consider it through a relatively new lens—through the young branch of meteorology called attribution science, which allows researchers to directly measure the impact of climate change on individual extreme weather events. Attribution science, at its most basic, calculates how likely an extreme weather event is in today’s climate-changed world and compares that with how likely a similar event would be in a world without anthropogenic warming. Any difference between those two probabilities can be attributed to climate change.

Attribution science was first conceived in the early 2000s, and since then, researchers have used it as a lens to understand the influence of climate change on everything from droughts to rainfall to coral bleaching. As scientists have long predicted, the vast majority of extreme weather events studied to date have been made more likely because of climate change. But the 2018 Japan heat wave is different. As people who lived in Japan knew at the time, the oppressive temperatures were more than unusual. They were unprecedented. In fact, without climate change, they would have been impossible.

“We would never have experienced such an event without global warming,” says Yukiko Imada of the Japan Meteorological Agency.

On June 7, 2019, Imada, Masahiro Watanabe, and others published an attribution study of the 2018 Japan heat wave in the journal Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere. They found that the deadly event of the previous summer “could not have happened without human-induced global warming.”

This heat wave is not the first extreme event found to be only possible because of climate change. But it is the first short-lived event, and the first to have direct impacts on human health. Given that tens of thousands were hospitalized and more than a thousand died due to the heat wave, in a sense, these people are the first provable deaths of climate change.

For Watanabe, the result wasn’t unexpected. It was more of a grim inevitability. “It was not that surprising,” he says of his unprecedented result. An event like this was “naturally expected as global mean temperature continued to rise.” But for both Watanabe and Imada, it holds real historical significance. “It is very sensational for me because human activity has created a new phenomenon. Human activity has created a new phase of the climate,” says Imada.

You couldn’t live through this heat wave without realizing that something was unusual. Ayako Nomizu lives in Tokyo. “When I was growing up in the ’80s, if we had 31 or 32 degrees centigrade, that was hot,” she says. “We would say ‘Oh, my God, it’s gonna be really 32 degrees?’ ” Summers recently, and especially 2018’s, concern her. “Now we are seeing 37, 38 [degrees]. It’s crazy. We didn’t really have this kind of heat before.” Nomizu works for Climate Action 100+, a group that helps investors and companies transition to clean energy, so for her, the connection between climate change and the extreme heat in summers is obvious.

Kazuo Ogawa, a 65-year-old landlord who lives in Tokyo, says he has never experienced anything like the heat wave of 2018. His memories of the experience are visceral. “I was so uncomfortable. I took a shower three times a day, I changed my T-shirt three times a day,” he says.

This kind of heat, as the hospitalization numbers and death toll show, is dangerous. Especially so in Japan, where most people didn’t grow up with air conditioning because it was never needed, and where heat exhaustion was basically unknown until recently. To Ogawa and many Japanese, this is a new problem. “Heat exhaustion is called netsuchusho in Japanese. I never heard of this phrase, this illness, 30 years ago,” Ogawa said.

Heat exhaustion and its more deadly version, heatstroke, are simply the physiological changes that occur when someone has an extremely elevated body temperature. There are a lot of mechanisms humans have evolved to prevent dangerous overheating—sweating and other internal changes like increased heart rate and the transfer of blood from organs to the skin can usually keep the body at a safe temperature—but there is a limit to what the body can handle. If the outside temperature gets too intense or high humidity prevents sweat from evaporating and pulling warmth out of the skin, internal body temperature will start to rise. When this happens, blood vessels dilate in an attempt to get rid of more heat, causing a drop in blood pressure that leads to the first symptoms of heat stress—lightheadedness and nausea. As the body continues to heat up, organs swell, and cell-signaling processes, especially in the brain, are disrupted. At this point people begin to fall unconscious, and if their temperature is not lowered quickly, the damage can be fatal.

The most dangerous conditions are when high temperatures coincide with high humidity (a set of interactions measured by wet bulb temperature), and the danger gets worse the longer these conditions last. Older people and children are most at risk because their bodies aren’t as efficient at self-cooling, and children often won’t realize the seriousness of their symptoms and will continue to play or exercise outside. In places that aren’t accustomed to extreme heat, like Japan, many get caught unprepared and uninformed.

The heat wave of July 2018 was a perfect storm. The rains that ended just as the heat wave began had soaked the landscape. Temperatures stayed high day and night, day after day. Many people in Japan, especially the elderly, don’t have air conditioning, and those who did were hesitant to spend the extra money to run it 24/7. In the first few days of the heat wave, kids continued to play outside, construction workers stayed on job sites, and people looking for exercise went about their normal routines. But as the heat wave wore on into the third, fourth, and fifth days, with high nighttime temperatures offering no reprieve, people began to suffer heatstroke in astonishing numbers.

Tatsuro Maesawa, a 36-year-old bike shop owner in Kumagaya, quickly learned the risks posed by the heat. On a bike ride in the first days of the heat wave, he experienced minor heatstroke, so he switched to riding before sunrise. But some did not adapt so well. A few days after his own bout of heatstroke, a regular customer stepped clumsily into the shop while on a ride, complaining. “He said he had a headache and felt powerless,” Maesawa said. “He had reduced concentration.” Having just experienced these same symptoms only a few days before, Maesawa was concerned and immediately recognized what was going on. “I saw he was feeling dull, and the way he walked was not usual.” He offered the man some water and encouraged him to rest in the shop until his body cooled down. The man was eventually OK, but for Maesawa the experience was a powerfully close-to-home demonstration of life in a changed climate.

As the number of hospitalizations climbed, government organizations started to take action. The Tokyo Fire Department issued heatstroke warnings over radio and television. They advised people to drink more water, keep their air conditioners running, and avoid going outside. This posed its own problems, though. With air conditioners running 24/7 across the country, demand for electricity spiked, and prices hit a five-year high. When price hikes were announced, there was even more incentive for people to suffer through the heat rather than spend the extra money. Not running an air conditioner would seem like an economically smart choice, but this quickly became dangerous. As the number of deaths climbed, one energy supplier, Kyushu Electric Power, tried to reverse course by offering a 10 percent discount to anyone over the age of 75.

The heat wave wore on; public concern, hospitalizations, and temperatures rose; and it became apparent just how unprepared the country was. The drink-water-and-stay-inside warnings continued, but government agencies also started asking residents in major cities to spray down sidewalks and streets with water in an attempt to lower temperatures. This, as one expert explained, has little effect on temperature and in fact hurts rather helps with heatstroke: The evaporating water raises humidity locally. After a 6-year-old boy died from heat exhaustion on a school trip to a park, the education ministry issued warnings asking schools to reconsider going outside with students. The only answer Japan seemed to have was to hide.

Officially, more than 70,000 were hospitalized and 1,032 died due to the heat wave. The emergency medical division of the Tokyo Fire Department keeps records of the number of ambulances dispatched each day. Of the 10 days with the most dispatches in their history, the top seven occurred during the week from July 17 to July 23. On July 23, the last and hottest day of the heat wave, the fire department responded to 3,383 calls. As Takashi Komabashiri, assistant manager of the emergency planning branch, explained, the Fire Department was overwhelmed and unprepared for an event of this magnitude.

“We felt a sense of crisis against these numbers. After all, as the number of cases increases, it takes more time for ambulances to arrive,” says Komabashiri.

For people like Katheryn Gronauer, a 30-year-old executive coach in Tokyo, the sound of sirens is now associated with extreme heat. “I remember I heard, like, six ambulances in one day, and my first thought was ‘Oh, it’s summertime.’ ” Maesawa, the bike shop owner, is concerned about the future of his country and the future of his business. Motioning to a group of kids playing baseball across the street, he said sadly, “I think that outdoor sports will become difficult in the future.”

The summer of 2018 broke records, took lives, and shook the belief of many about what the future holds for Japan’s climate. But as Watanabe said, this was not unexpected. The trend had been heading this way for decades. Kazuo Sakamaki, 76, has lived directly across from the weather observatory in Kumagaya his entire life. He said he’s noticed a dramatic change over the years: “I used to be able to endure [summer] with only a fan in the past, but now I can’t live without an air conditioner.”

When I asked him if he knew why the summers have changed, he responded, confidently, “Oh, that’s the global warming that is now making noise.” And then he said something unexpected: “But I don’t know if this area will be affected due to that.”

As a scientist and journalist who has spent years thinking and writing about climate change, I was confused and saddened by the apparent doublethink I saw in Japan. Researchers have shown that living through a climate-related natural disaster—like a heat wave—can change whether a person believes in or cares about climate change. But one strong hurricane won’t change the mind of a climate denier overnight. Much of the research shows that political affiliations and existing beliefs on climate change are extremely hard to overcome, even in people that have lived through extreme weather events. As the coronavirus pandemic so glaringly shows, political leaders often wield more power to convince than science or personal experience.

With the lack of political or cultural leadership on climate change, many Japanese people struggled to fully blame the heat wave of 2018 on the global crisis that both science and common sense show is happening right now. Sakamaki, for example, said he understood that global warming is affecting the temperature of the planet generally, but he wasn’t sure if it had been responsible for that heat wave specifically. This hesitance to connect local experiences to the global problem has haunted climate change researchers and activists for years. And much to their frustration, the direct link between climate change and a single weather event was, for a long time, an impossible thing to prove scientifically.

As an undergraduate ecology student in the early 2010s, I often heard this line used to describe the tricky relationship between climate change and weather: We know climate change will make weather more extreme, but it is impossible to point to any one event and say, “That! That individual event was affected by climate change.” This temporary reality has melted into common wisdom.

Coverage of Australia’s bushfires in early 2020 perfectly illustrates this. Journalists and experts are well practiced in saying that climate change was likely contributing to make fire conditions worse and that long-term warming is going to affect future fire seasons. But they were hesitant to make a direct link between climate change and the fires. Years of this have permeated people’s brains, and the hesitance of people like Sakamaki might be one outcome.

Attribution science is illuminating this formerly invisible link. As Yukiko Imada of the Japan Meteorological Agency explains, “The purpose of [attribution science] is to ask the question: Whether and to what extent can an event be attributed to climate change?” The ability to answer that question long eluded scientists. But now, using attribution analysis, researchers like Imada can separate the signal of climate change from the noise of daily weather.

To actually conduct an attribution study takes a massive amount of computing power, complicated climate models, and precise weather data. But the theory underlying the process is simple and replicable. What an attribution study does is use two computer simulations of the climate—one with all of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide and one without—and assesses the likelihood of an extreme weather event happening in each model.

So, for example, in a model of today’s climate-changed world, the heat wave that crippled France in July of 2019 has an estimated return period of 100 years (meaning it would be expected to happen about once every 100 years). In a model of the world without climate change, such an event would happen about once every 1,000 years or more. Therefore, while climate change didn’t create the opportunity for that heat wave, it made it at least 10 times more likely.

To assess the heat wave in Japan, the researchers did the same thing. They built side-by-side models of a world with climate change and a world without it. Then they calculated the return period for a heat wave as bad as the one in 2018 in each of the models. Finally, they compared the return period of the heat wave in a world without climate change to the return period of the heat wave in today’s climate-changed world. Any difference between the return periods in the two models would be caused by climate change.

They found a big difference. With climate change as it stands today, a heat wave like the one that happened in 2018 has a 2.1 percent chance of occurring in any given year, or a return period of about 50 years. In years when the weather patterns match the specific conditions that produced the heat wave, there is a 19.9 percent chance. In a world without climate change, the likelihood of a heat wave as bad or worse happening in any given year is 0.00003 percent. That is about once every 3.33 million years, otherwise known as never. The 2018 heat wave was impossible until anthropogenic global warming changed the climate.

Attribution studies tend to include something called the factor of attributable risk, or FAR, to describe how much climate change influenced the risk of an extreme event occurring: FAR = 0 would mean climate change had no influence on the risk of the event occurring, FAR = 0.9 would mean that it was responsible for 90 percent of the risk, etc. The 2018 Japan heat wave had an FAR of 1, meaning climate change was responsible for 100 percent of the risk of it happening.

How did climate change cause such a heat wave? It’s not just the result of the Earth being hotter; it’s how this heat influences weather patterns. What happened was a rare situation called a double-high, where a high-pressure system in the lower atmosphere and a high-pressure system in the upper atmosphere stack on top each other. Warmer sea surface temperatures and a warmer atmosphere made the baseline temperature that the double-high added to significantly higher, which pushed the event from unusually hot to record-breaking and deadly.

Watanabe, one of the researchers, was at a bit of a loss for words when I asked him what the future holds for attribution science. “We have nothing more to say once the FAR is equal to 1, at least using this indicator,” he told me. He also had a warning: “We will keep having FAR = 1 events.”

And the Japanese heat wave wasn’t the first. There had already been four other events with FAR = 1. Two were marine heat waves off the coast of Australia, one was the high average temperature of Asia in 2016, and the last was the total global warmth in 2016. The 2018 Japan heat wave differs from these in that it was a singular and short-lived event (not an average) that occurred where people actually live (i.e., not the ocean), which is how it’s gained its other notorious distinction: the first FAR = 1 event to directly cause human deaths.

When I asked Imada and Watanabe about the impact and importance of their work, they had mixed feelings. On one hand, Imada said that the media were showing interest in the work, and she has done many interviews since the paper came out. But on the other hand, she was uncertain as to what, if any, effect the reporting had on how the public thinks about climate change. “People can only read the results from the TV or newspapers, and I don’t know how they are responding to that,” she said.

After speaking with dozens of people about the heat wave in 2018, I found Imada’s concerns to be true. Nearly everyone knew that the temperature record had been broken, and many assumed it was climate change, but not a single person I spoke with knew about the study or that the heat wave had actually been connected to climate change in a definitive way. In fact, most people were shocked when I told them that the official death toll was more than a thousand. Most thought it had been in the dozens or, at most, the low hundreds. In spite of broad national awareness of the concept of climate change, a deeper understanding of how this global problem is manifesting locally seems to be missing, even in a country that is already feeling the deadly effects.

Asuka Suzuki-Parker, a professor and climate researcher at the Kumagaya campus of Rissho University, showed me around the city that was the epicenter of the heat wave. Kumagaya hosted a few games of the Rugby World Cup in 2019, and Suzuki-Parker explained measures the local government had taken to reduce heatstroke risk after the extremes of 2018’s summer. Roads in the city center had been repaved with lighter-colored asphalt that absorbs less heat than traditional streets. Water misters had been installed at the train station. A shade covering had been built between the train station and the rugby stadium. These changes are adaptations, not solutions, and Suzuki-Parker had a fatalistic outlook: “In the short term, what we can do is adapt because the temperature will increase no matter what we do about it.”

After the lesson of 2018, the Tokyo Fire Department increased its number of reserve ambulances and began to ready them ahead of heat waves. Thanks to huge information campaigns, the Japanese public is much more aware of the risks of heatstroke and methods to avoid it. Thousands of schools across the nation have installed air conditioning for the first time, and I was told by dozens of people that they are using air conditioning more frequently in their homes.

In many small ways, Japan is shifting to accommodate a warming future. But if these changes don’t seem like huge strides in the fight for a greener future, it’s because they aren’t. These are adaptations to a warmer world. They are not actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent an even hotter one.

The Japanese government has a less-than-stellar plan to meet the challenges of climate change. There are, of course, some people doing what they can to fight climate change. Groups of young activists are hosting workshops and talks, organizations like Climate Action 100+ are trying to convince businesses to adopt more sustainable practices, and there are individuals, in modest ways, making changes to their personal lives in an attempt to help. But there isn’t a sustained, centralized, government-endorsed move to take the necessary amount of action. More than once I was told that change would happen if the government asked for it, but the government hasn’t asked. In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, there has been a switch away from nuclear energy in Japan. The government created a subsidy program for solar energy but is simultaneously investing in coal power plants. Regardless of where the blame falls, the end result is the same as in so many places: Japan is not prioritizing actions to counter the underlying cause of climate change.

Attribution science is giving us the ability to watch, in real time, the consequences of our actions. The future that the heat wave of 2018 represents is one we knew was coming. It is here, today, and attribution science gives scientists and the world the ability to say so with conviction.

There’s another way in which the new field might prove useful. At the end of our conversation, Watanabe paused to reflect on the work he has done. Attribution science compares the world of today with a world without climate change. In some ways, he’s started to see his work as a signpost in history, reminding us of a world that used to exist, but no longer does. Someday, it’s the other simulation, the world without climate change, that will be the curiosity, he thinks. That computer simulation will be the one that tells people something they never got to experience—an image of what the world once was, but will never be again.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Liberal, Progressive - and Racist? The Sierra Club Faces Its White-Supremacist History. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55219"><span class="small">Darryl Fears and Steven Mufson, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Thursday, 23 July 2020 11:44

Excerpt: "No one is more important to the history of environmental conservation than John Muir - the 'wilderness prophet,' 'patron saint of the American wilderness' and 'father of the national parks' who founded the nation's oldest conservation organization, the Sierra Club. But on Wednesday, citing the current racial reckoning, the group announced it will end its blind reverence to a figure who was also racist."

John Muir, a Scottish American naturalist, engineer, writer and pioneer of conservation. (photo: Getty)
John Muir, a Scottish American naturalist, engineer, writer and pioneer of conservation. (photo: Getty)


Liberal, Progressive - and Racist? The Sierra Club Faces Its White-Supremacist History.

By Darryl Fears and Steven Mufson, The Washington Post

23 July 20

 


The group is speaking out against John Muir, its founder and an environmental icon who fought to preserve nature and disparaged African Americans and Native Americans

o one is more important to the history of environmental conservation than John Muir — the “wilderness prophet,” “patron saint of the American wilderness” and “father of the national parks” who founded the nation’s oldest conservation organization, the Sierra Club. But on Wednesday, citing the current racial reckoning, the group announced it will end its blind reverence to a figure who was also racist.

As Confederate statues fall across the country, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in an early morning post on the group’s website, “it’s time to take down some of our own monuments, starting with some truth-telling about the Sierra Club’s early history.” Muir, who fought to preserve Yosemite Valley and Sequoia National Forest, once referred to African Americans as lazy “Sambos,” a racist pejorative that many black people consider to be as offensive as the n-word.

While recounting a legendary walk from the Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico, Muir described Native Americans he encountered as “dirty.” 

Muir’s friendships in the early 1900s were equally troubling, the Sierra Club said. Henry Fairfield Osborn, a close associate, led the New York Zoological Society and the board of trustees of the American Museum of Natural History and, following Muir’s death, helped establish the American Eugenics Society, which labeled nonwhite people, including Jews at the time, as inferior.

The Sierra Club isn’t the only organization that is shaking its foundations. Leaders of predominantly white, liberal and progressive groups throughout the field of conservation say they are taking a hard look within their organizations and don’t like what they see.

African American and other minority employees are pointing out the lack of diversity in green groups and the racial bias that persists in top and mid-level management.

The most startling example is a manifesto by Ruth Tyson, an employee at the Union of Concerned Scientists who quit recently after she “woke up feeling resentment and agony” because her job there was unbearable. Tyson flipped open a laptop to write a short email explaining why she was quitting with only a three-day notice but didn’t stop until she had written 17 pages of searing criticism.

She sent it to 200 people.

Her open letter ripped the organization’s casual indifference to black workers. Their ideas were routinely dismissed and the community outreach jobs they were hired to perform were a low priority. Tyson said the Union of Concerned Scientists, along with other groups, has fallen woefully short in its efforts to make its workplace more diverse and help communities disproportionately impacted by pollution.

Tyson was one of four black women on a 14-member team when she started work three years ago, watching as they quit or were forced out. Now there are none.

“They simply baited us in with the language of equity without making significant infrastructural, cultural, and procedural changes to prioritize and accommodate the [people of color or] the actual work of racial equity,” she wrote. “As if anti-racist work were something you could just sprinkle on top.” 

Remarkably, her bosses agreed.

“I’ve read the letter many times,” said Ken Kimmell, the organization’s president. “I thought it was fair, yeah. I think this is part of a larger issue in all of society and there is real meaning to the culture of white supremacy.

“There are ways that a white-dominated workplace doesn’t make it welcoming to persons of color,” Kimmell said. “I have subsequently learned that many of the things she raised in her letter were not unique to her and things other people of color have experienced.” 

Now, like other green groups, the Union of Concerned Scientists is vowing to look at the way it’s structured; diversify its board, workers and managers; and police casual racial bias.

At the 53-year-old Environmental Defense Fund, Fred Krupp, its president, also promised change. “The pandemic has exposed for the American public inequities that have existed, including access to health care, neighborhoods that are much more polluted than others,” Krupp said.

“I don’t feel EDF is being pressured. I’m feeling pressure from the facts, the inequities that have been laid bare by covid and the events following George Floyd’s murder and that EDF hasn’t done nearly enough on environmental justice issues and issues involving racism,” Krupp said.

Even a coalition of nontraditional groups, GreenLatinos, issued a statement about racism in its community during the racial reckoning. “In the Latino community, we have had a problem of anti-black racism for a long time. We’ve finally started to recognize it,” said Marce Gutiérrez-Graudi?š, a founder and director of the ocean conservation group, Azul, the Spanish word for blue.

“I grew up in Mexico and very much present as white,” Gutiérrez-Graudi?š said, referring to her skin color. “I grew up in this area of anti-black racism, it was benign. We have this way in Latin America to say, ‘That’s something that the Spanish did.’ We have a way of rationalizing that and say, that was not us. Two years ago, Televista still had people doing blackface on their comedy shows saying it wasn’t a big deal.” 

But no statement was as forceful as that of the 128-year-old Sierra Club, the nation’s oldest and most venerable environmental group. Brune recently addressed 800 staff and 4 million members and volunteers with a note that was unusually frank and acquiescent.

For years, Brune wrote, the Sierra Club’s staffers of color “have led the call for transformative change and I and other white leaders have not responded with the urgency nor at the scale that the opportunities and challenges demand.” He promised to overhaul executive leadership, reallocate $5 million to reduce pay inequities, and devote greater attention to the communities suffering most from “environmental racism” and “structural injustice.” 

Because Muir was the most iconic figure in Sierra Club history, the group’s Wednesday statement said, his “words and actions carry an especially heavy weight. They continue to hurt and alienate Indigenous people and people of color who come into contact with the Sierra Club.” 

“Such willful ignorance is what allows some people to shut their eyes to the reality that the wild places we love are also the ancestral homelands of Native peoples, forced off their lands in the decades or centuries before they became national parks,” the statement said.

Early Sierra Club members and leaders such as Joseph LeConte and David Starr Jordan “were vocal advocates for white supremacy and its pseudoscientific arm, eugenics.” Jordan supported forced-sterilization laws and “programs that deprived tens of thousands of women of their right to bear children.” 

The roots of American environmentalism are grounded in a reverence for nature and racism. Muir’s contemporaries at the turn of the last century included Madison Grant, a co-founder of the Bronx Zoo who wrote “The Passing of the Great Race, or The Racial Basis of European History,” an argument for white supremacy in which he decried the decline of Nordic people.

Former president Theodore Roosevelt, who created the first national forests, praised the 1916 book, which helped shape the views the future leader of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler, who would go on to write the anti-Semitic autobiography “Mein Kampf,” called Grant’s book, “my bible.” 

Given the troubled history of the groups, black and brown activists who have long complained about unfair funding and lack of attentions to their communities weren’t impressed.

“The big white green groups have all issued racial justice statements — a good first baby step,” said Robert Bullard, a Texas Southern University professor and activist who helped restart the National Black Environmental Justice Network this month.

“In my opinion, none of them have taken a strong stand in the way their white privilege sucks up damn near all the green dollars from foundations and donors, away from people of color." 

Environmental and climate justice groups work in communities with the greatest need, said Bullard, a founder of the environmental justice movement that started when African American, Latino, Native American and other environmentalists gathered for the first time in D.C. in 1991 and vowed to fill the gaps big green groups missed.

For more than 30 years, environmental justice groups have deployed paltry budgets to fight big battles over power plants, refineries, landfills and other projects that foul the air and land around black and Latino communities. Ludovic Blain, who attended the second environmental summit a decade after the first, said activists often worked without pay.

“If you’re very used to not getting funded, people are used to doing it free,” Blain said. “The environmental movement has a lot of philanthropic money, there’s enough money to go around.” 

According to its tax filing, the Sierra Club had assets of more than $106 million in 2018, and the Union of Concerned Scientists had nearly $40 million. One group, the Nature Conservancy, had assets and grants that totaled more than $1 billion that year. Another, the Natural Resources Defense Council, had more than $350 million.

That compares to about $2 million for the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice in New Orleans and $2.5 million for West Harlem Environmental Action in New York. Los Jardines Institute, another environmental justice group, had about $300,000 in revenue in 2018.

“If you had told me two decades ago that millions of dollars would be going to Latino environmental justice work, I would never have guessed it would have been through Natural Resources Defense Council,” Blain said.

The nation’s biggest philanthropies have traditionally given to established environmental groups. The Hewlett Foundation, for example, has given about half a million dollars a year to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s lands program for a quarter-century, but last year it informed the organization that it would be giving that money to more-local groups such as Outdoor Afro, GreenLatinos and the Hispanic Access Foundation.

Still, many in the environmental justice movement shrug at the recent shift in support. “We’re just getting chump change when it comes to big green” environmental groups, said Angela Adrar, director of the Climate Justice Alliance. “It’s been quite incremental, to be honest.” 

“Ninety percent of the funding is enjoyed by two percent of the organizations,” said Anthony Rogers-Wright, recently named a member of the board for Friends of the Earth.

Ruth Tyson entered the world of white environmentalists three years ago. A friend sent her an ad for a Union of Concerned Scientists job that offered $47,000 — “like more money than anyone in my family had made,” said Tyson, whose parents emigrated from Jamaica when her mother was seven months pregnant with her.

Tyson was awed by her new workplace, but there were almost no black managers, co-workers or mentors. When things went wrong, she felt she had nowhere to turn.

At a meeting to uplift the voices of marginalized communities, Tyson quickly noticed “the majority of people participating were white,” her letter said. She felt she was expected to be the voice of the black community. “I was put on every racial equity task force that popped up,” she wrote.

Managers seemed dismissive. “I saw how white men scrolled through their phones or laptops as I talked, and got up and left whenever they wanted to be done meeting with me,” the letter said. “I understood that these behaviors were not personality traits, but the manifestations of the white dominant culture throughout the organization.” 

Asked whether he disagreed with anything Tyson wrote, Kimmell said: “We are actually grateful for the letter because it shed so much light on so many things. I was sad because our workplace wasn’t welcoming and nurturing for her.” 

Whitney Tome, the outgoing executive director of Green 2.0, also thought the letter rang true. It “enumerated the problems” people of color face in all the groups and “was heartbreaking,” she said.

Andrés Jimenez, the incoming executive director, said it was indicative of the minority talent drain. “Retention is a problem and upward mobility is not strong” at big green groups, he said. “A person of color comes in as a legislative assistant or staff assistant and there is no way up for them.” 

Tyson’s letter also made its way to Brune. “I found her letter to be heartbreaking and familiar.” And that has to change, he said.

“What’s clear is that there’s no going back to the Sierra Club we have been. What’s needed is fundamental transformation, not reform.” 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Bribed Ohio's $60 Million Radioactive Uproar Rocks the 2020 Vote Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52307"><span class="small">Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Columbus Free Press</span></a>   
Thursday, 23 July 2020 08:32

Excerpt: "Ohio's biggest-ever bribery case is rocking America's reactor industry ... and the fall election."

The FBI has charged Republican speaker of the Ohio house of representatives Larry Householder with taking  million in bribes. (photo: Columbus Dispatch)
The FBI has charged Republican speaker of the Ohio house of representatives Larry Householder with taking million in bribes. (photo: Columbus Dispatch)


Bribed Ohio's $60 Million Radioactive Uproar Rocks the 2020 Vote

By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News

23 July 20

 

hio’s biggest-ever bribery case is rocking America’s reactor industry ... and the fall election.

Full details of the shocking arrest of Ohio’s powerful Speaker of the House are still unfolding.

But on Monday, the FBI charged Larry Householder and four associates with taking $60 million (that’s NOT a typo) in bribes from “Company A,” suspected to be the Akron-based nuke utility FirstEnergy. The company has not been formally named as the source of the bribe, but FE’s stock has since plummetted.

Householder is suspected of buying votes for the widely hated $1.5 billion bailout of two decrepit nuke reactors on Lake Erie. Donald Trump lobbied at least five legislators to support the cash giveaway. Ohio’s moderate Republican governor, Mike DeWine, has asked Householder to resign. 

Without the bailout, Perry and Davis-Besse would already be dead in the rising tsunami of US reactor shutdowns. 

The handout also supported two ancient coal burners (one in Indiana), and ten small solar plants. It killed a big, highly successful state-wide efficiency program and crippled further Ohio development of wind and solar. 

Facing the imminent shutdown of FE’s dying Perry and Davis-Besse nukes, Householder rammed the bailout through a gerrymandered Ohio legislature with just a few votes to spare. In recent primaries, the company assaulted a score of free-market Republicans and hesitant Democrats, replacing them with compliant corporatists. The HB6 bailout could not have passed without those hand-picked Republicans and a few Democrats now suspected of pocketing some of Householder’s FE cash. 

The indictments have Ohio burning. 

HB6 remains hugely unpopular in a state savaged by soaring energy bills and massive job losses, much of which could have been avoided with large turbine farm developments proposed for Ohio’s north coast corridor. Strong lake-based winds, flat fields, and ample transmission to nearby cities years ago attracted $4 billion in committed investments. But rather than embracing a green-powered future, the legislature undercut those projects with a single corrupt anti-wind clause in the 2015 Ohio Code, leaving Ohio dependent on fossil and nuclear fuels.

Householder became speaker in 2017 as FirstEnergy spent millions on bailing out its dying nukes. With shrill TV ads, they linked reactor opponents to Communist China. Hired thugs called “blockers” physically assaulted activists who were gathering signatures to put a popular repeal referendum on this fall’s statewide ballot. The fascist attacks and strategic delays by Ohio’s secretary of state kept the referendum off the upcoming November ballot. 

The free-market Buckeye Institute, Sierra Club, and others now want HB6 rescinded, almost certainly leading to the Perry and Davis-Besse reactors shutting down. Opened in the 1970s, Davis-Besse is infamous worldwide as a shoddy relic likely to soon melt. In 1986, Perry became the first US reactor to be damaged by an earthquake.  

It’s unclear how a repeal vote would now go in the Legislature, or whether Gov. DeWine – who signed off on the original bailout –would support it.

But as the case unfolds, Ohio is in election-year turmoil over a Trump-supported nuke bailout bought with bribery. Whether public fury will kill the handout and affect the fall presidential election remains to be seen. 

But Bribed Ohio 2020 has clearly gone radioactive. 



Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman co-wrote The Strip & Flip Disaster of America's Stolen Elections: Five Jim Crows & Electronic Election Theft . (www.freepress.org).

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Defund the Police State, Before It's Too Late Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 22 July 2020 12:57

Boardman writes: "The American police state is currently making its boldest test run to date in Portland, Oregon, escalating violence and lawlessness against the peaceful population of an American city."

Federal law enforcement officers, deployed under the Trump administration's new executive order to protect federal monuments and buildings. (photo: Nathan Howard/Reuters)
Federal law enforcement officers, deployed under the Trump administration's new executive order to protect federal monuments and buildings. (photo: Nathan Howard/Reuters)


Defund the Police State, Before It's Too Late

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

22 July 20

 

he American police state is currently making its boldest test run to date in Portland, Oregon, escalating violence and lawlessness against the peaceful population of an American city. The people of Portland have responded with increased resistance, but support from officials elected to defend the Constitution is scarce and weak.

Oregon’s two senators, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, are both Democrats with reputations for being on the better side of important issues. But until July 20, their best response to federal secret police operating without restraint in Portland had been to wring their hands and call for a federal investigation of the uninvited federal forces that have ratcheted up street violence and terrorized the city.

On July 20, the two senators made their biggest move yet, an amendment to pending legislation. Supported by 18 other senators and several members of the House, their press release “announced that they are introducing the Preventing Authoritarian Policing Tactics on America’s Streets Act, which would block the Trump administration from deploying federal forces as a shadowy paramilitary against Americans.” This sounds a whole lot better than it looks, since it’s only an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, unlikely to pass the Republican majority or, in the extreme, a presidential veto. It’s what you might call Potemkin legislation. The establishment of a police state is happening now, after decades of preparation, and this is a “solution” that will never matter.

What’s the matter with these people? The deployment of secret police, unidentified and unidentifiable, defying local control, should be recognized as a Rubicon crossing that cannot be allowed without kissing constitutional government one last goodbye. Why are these senators and their staffs not out in the streets with their constituents? What don’t they get that’s not worth even a single evening of their taxpayer-funded jobs?

Senator Merkley seems to understand on some level the significance of this crisis, having issued a statement on July 17 (more pushback!) that refers to two federal, executive-branch agencies, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ):

DHS and DOJ are engaged in acts that are horrific and outrageous in our constitutional democratic republic. First, they are deploying paramilitary forces with no identification indicating who they are or who they work for. Second, these agents are snatching people off the street with no underlying justification. Both of these acts are profound offenses against Americans. We demand not only that these acts end, but also that they remove their forces immediately from our state. Given the egregious nature of the violations against Oregonians, we are demanding full investigations by the inspectors general of these departments.

Oregon has five congressional representatives, two of whom – Earl Blumenauer and Suzanne Bonamici, both Democrats – joined their senators in calling for an investigation. The other three – Democrats Peter DeFazio and Kurt Schrader, Republican Greg Walden – had even less objection to secret police patrolling Portland. There were no reports of them or their staffs taking a stand with their constituents in the streets.

Representative DeFazio issued a press release fretting about “reports” but failing to acknowledge the actual violence perpetrated by unidentifiable federal officers on peaceful protesters. The best DeFazio did was promise no action while vaguely expressing something like mild distress: “I am deeply disturbed by the reports coming out of Portland about the escalating use of force against citizens peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights….” 

In June, Rep. Schrader joined his senators and reps Blumenauer and Bonamici in a press release complaining about a possible surveillance aircraft flown by a federal agency over earlier protests following the police murder of George Floyd. The lawmakers wrote a letter to the U.S. Marshalls Service (USMS) asking for answers about a USMS-linked aircraft that spent three hours circling Portland protests on June 13. As for police-state tactics in Portland, Rep. Schrader seems so far to be AWOL. Also missing in action is Republican Rep. Walden, who is not running for re-election. Silent on federal secret police, Walden on July 21 called for a “safe, effective, accessible COVID-19 vaccine.”

Oregon’s Democratic governor Kate Brown has been consistently, insistently objecting to the federal secret police presence since it first started escalating police violence on July 11, when a USMS officer shot an immobile, peaceful protestor in the head with a “less than lethal” round that shattered the man’s skull. No one in state or local government requested any federal help. Those officials are unanimous in wanting the feds to leave.

Governor Brown has requested that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immediately withdraw its unwelcome officers from Portland, but with no effect. DHS officials have not responded to the Oregon governor’s office. In effect, the federal policing in Portland is an experiment in martial law with no justifying declaration of martial law. Acting DHS head Ken Cucinelli told NPR: “This is a posture we intend to continue, not just in Portland but in any of the facilities that we’re responsible for around the country.” The secret police presence in Portland does not limit itself legitimately to protecting federal facilities but operates freely outside its legal jurisdiction with no restraint by any other authority. This lawlessness appears to be a form of anarchy.

In the midst of her apparent impotence, Gov. Brown used strong language in a July 20 tweet: “This is a democracy, not a dictatorship. We cannot have secret police abducting people in unmarked vehicles. I can’t believe I have to say that to the President of the United States.”

On July 17, Oregon attorney general Ellen Rosenblum announced that the state was about to file a lawsuit in federal court:

… against the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Marshals Service, the United States Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Protection Service and their agents alleging they have engaged in unlawful law enforcement in violation of the civil rights of Oregonians by seizing and detaining them without probable cause (see AG Rosenblum vs John Does 1-10 Complaint).

In addition to its lawsuit, Oregon planned to seek an immediate temporary restraining order (TRO) against the federal government’s police state activities. If granted by the court, the TRO “would immediately stop federal authorities from unlawfully detaining Oregonians.”  

One of the incidents prompting the state lawsuit – when peaceful, standing-still protestor Donovan LaBella, 26, had his skull fractured by a projectile fired by an unidentified secret police officer – is also the subject of a criminal investigation by the Oregon Department of Justice, joined by the Multnomah County District Attorney.  

Another lawsuit filed July 21, charges the US with violating the tenth amendment of the Constitution, that reserves to the states all rights not specifically granted in the Constitution to the federal government, such as local law enforcement. The multiple plaintiffs in this case include two state representatives, the First Unitarian Church of Portland, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

With the possible exception of the TRO, which would likely be appealed, none of the state’s measures promises any immediate relief.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, 57, is a timber fortune heir who once climbed Mt. Everest. In the current crisis, Wheeler seems hardly able to climb out of bed. By a quirk of local government, Wheeler was also able to assign himself the role of Portland’s police commissioner, which is both legal and a conflict of interest. Portland Police Bureau has a long, dismal history of bias and violence that Wheeler has been loath to address. In 2018, half of all Portland Police arrests were homeless people.

During the protests after the George Floyd murder, Mayor Wheeler imposed a curfew on Portland, despite objections that it would encourage police abuse. He lifted the curfew two  days later, after nights of excessive police use of tear gas and other chemical weapons.

Wheeler issued a statement saying he shared people’s concerns about police using chemical weapons during a pandemic that causes serious lung problems. But Wheeler refused to ban police use of chemical weapons. His statement went on to enshrine his inaction in language amazingly lacking in any sense of leadership:

Today, I directed Portland Police Chief Jami Resch that gas should not be used unless there is a serious and immediate threat to life safety, and there is no other viable alternative for dispersal. I strongly believe that gas should not be used to disperse crowds of nonviolent protestors or for general crowd management purposes. It should only be used in response to violence that threatens life safety. My priority and focus are to protect the lives of demonstrators, our first responders, and the people in custody at the Justice Center.

That statement was issued June 6, and police use of chemical weapons in Portland has continued, unhindered by the mayor who is also police commissioner. Before issuing the May curfew in Portland, Mayor Wheeler asked the governor to mobilize the National Guard to patrol Portland. At a June 1 press conference, Gov. Brown said: “Mayor Wheeler asked me over the weekend to mobilize the National Guard and put them in direct confrontation with protesters. This was not the first time the mayor has asked to mobilize the National Guard and not the first time I have declined.”

Mayor Wheeler has said publicly th at he would like the federal secret police to leave Portland, but he has not made a big issue of it. In spite of his expressed concern for peaceful protestors, he has not chosen to join them on the streets any more than the rest of Oregon’s reluctant leadership class.

Real leadership in Portland is coming from the streets and has been growing in response to the violent tactics of the federal police state.

Doing what no one in Oregon government attempted to do, a “Wall of Moms,” mothers and grandmothers, has emerged to stand as a human shield between the federal aggressors and the protestors. The feds tear-gassed them anyway.

At least one woman (possibly two or more) confronted the federal phalanx of heavily armed and body armored men with nothing but her own naked body. The feds shot pepper balls at her.

In one of the most vivid videos coming out of Portland, Christopher David, 53, a career Navy vet, approaches a line of secret police in camo to ask them a question or two. David hadn’t paid much attention to the first seven weeks of protest on Portland, but unidentified militia kidnapping bystanders in unmarked vehicles got his attention. The Naval Academy graduate told USA today:

What they were doing was unconstitutional. Sometimes I worry that people take the oath of office or the oath to the Constitution, and it’s just a set of words that mean nothing. They really don’t feel in their heart the weight of those words.

David is a large man, a head taller than most of the secret police that  he approached, but his approach was slow, calm, deliberate, non-threatening. One of the feds hit him in the chest with a baton, knocking him off balance, backwards a step. He recovered, presumably still intent on asking the officers about their oath to the Constitution. Then one of the feds clubbed him three times (breaking his hand) and another reached out to pepper spray him in the face. He tried to slap the pepper spray away as he backed up, then turned away from the feds who had just given him the short course in police state violence.

Acting DHS secretary Chad Wolf is a former lobbyist who has been with DHS since March 2017. His early work centered on the Trump administration’s practice of separating immigrant children from their parents, but he told Congress it was not his job to say whether the policy was right or wrong. Recently, Wolf has been vociferous in his defense of US police state practices in Portland. In a statement which is technically true, but does not actually deny the underlying accusation of savagery, Wolf said: “These police officers are not storm troopers, they are not Gestapo. That description is offensive.”

Yes, that description IS offensive. It’s intended to be offensive. And it’s also accurate in characterizing the behavior of American secret police. Is it better or worse to know that Wolf sent them into the field even though he knew they had not been trained in riot control or mass demonstration management?

Even other DHS employees are worried, according to Buzzfeed, which reports that “DHS employees are worried the Portland Protest Response is destroying their agency’s reputation.” Wait, what reputation is that? DHS, you’ll recall, is a mega-agency with no coherent mission, created in bi-partisan fashion in the panic after 9/11 (Ron Wyden voted for it in a 90-9 Senate vote). It was never a good idea. Right-wing authoritarians had written the legislation long before 9/11, then used the crisis as an occasion to take a massive step forward along America’s evolution toward a police state. Where we are now should be no surprise to anyone, any more than the mostly supine response so far to the initial deployment of our Homeland Security police and the presidential promise to take it nationwide. 



William Boardman has been writing for Reader Supported News since 2012. A collection of his essays, EXCEPTIONAL: American Exceptionalism Takes Its Toll, was published in September 2019 and is available from Yorkland Publishing of Toronto. He is a former Vermont assistant judge.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Wants to Strip House Seats From States Under Three-Fifths Clause Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=38548"><span class="small">Mark Joseph Stern, Slate</span></a>   
Wednesday, 22 July 2020 12:57

Stern writes: "Donald Trump's new memorandum to exclude undocumented immigrants from the next round of congressional apportionment is morally repulsive, illegal, and impossible."

Demonstrators rally at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on April 23, 2019 to protest a proposal to add a citizenship question in the 2020 census. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty)
Demonstrators rally at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on April 23, 2019 to protest a proposal to add a citizenship question in the 2020 census. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty)


Trump Wants to Strip House Seats From States Under Three-Fifths Clause

By Mark Joseph Stern, Slate

22 July 20


The president wants to strip House seats from certain states by arguing undocumented immigrants are not “persons” under the Constitution.

onald Trump’s new memorandum to exclude undocumented immigrants from the next round of congressional apportionment is morally repulsive, illegal, and impossible. It is repulsive because it borrows the logic of the notorious Three-Fifths Clause to declare that undocumented immigrants are not full “persons” under the Constitution. It is illegal because it seeks to exclude these immigrants from a state’s population when counting how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives, which violates the Constitution. And it is impossible because there is no way that the government can count undocumented immigrants with any accuracy by the December deadline.

None of these problems will stop Trump from trying to rig the census to strip House seats from states with large undocumented populations. Even if this scheme fails, however, the memo will do insidious damage to the bedrock principle that all people count. Trump has formally endorsed the notion of excluding noncitizens from the redistricting process, an idea that red states are already exploring to boost the electoral power of white, rural voters at the cost of diverse urban centers.

Trump’s census order, released on Tuesday, is not actually an order at all but a “memorandum” that announces “the policy of the United States” (i.e., the Trump administration). It attempts to revert back to the pre–Civil War practice of diminishing the constitutional personhood of certain residents. Originally, the Constitution counted enslaved people as three-fifths of a person when apportioning House seats. The 14th Amendment repealed this Three-Fifths Clause by stating that representatives “shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.” House seats would now be apportioned on the basis of “persons” living in each state. There would be no more degrading distinctions on the basis of legal status. Ever since, Congress has counted all “persons,” meaning a state’s “inhabitants,” another term used in the 14th Amendment.

Trump wants to disrupt this historical practice by decreeing that undocumented immigrants are not “persons” under the 14th Amendment. In other words, he wants to import the racist logic of the Three-Fifths Clause into an amendment designed to abolish that very principle. On what legal basis? Trump provides two arguments.

First, he equates undocumented immigrants with diplomats, tourists, and businessmen. Because these individuals are only visiting the U.S., they are not deemed “inhabitants” and thus excluded from the census. But a large majority of undocumented immigrants cannot be considered foreign tourists on a temporary jaunt through America. They live here, put down roots, and often raise children who are citizens. They are members of their communities with an established presence in the country. To dismiss them as non-inhabitants—and, by extension, not “whole … persons”—would run counter to the 14th Amendment.

Second, Trump presents a policy argument thinly disguised as a legal claim. “Increasing congressional representation based on the presence of aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status,” his memo states, would “create perverse incentives encouraging violations of Federal law.” States that adopt so-called sanctuary laws to protect undocumented immigrants “should not be rewarded with greater representation in the House of Representatives.” And excluding these immigrants from the census count “is more consonant with the principles of representative democracy,” because states with more citizens deserve more “formal political influence.”

This logic transforms a constitutional command into a tool of partisan manipulation. In Trump’s view, the executive gets to decide who is and is not a “person” based on “principles of representative democracy.” If certain people deserve less “political influence,” they can be excluded from the count with a wave of the president’s magic wand. Moreover, the executive can punish states that pass laws he dislikes by refusing to count some of their residents, diminishing their congressional representation. This view is not the law, or anything close to it. No court has ever allowed the government to exclude an entire class of inhabitants from the census count based on a president’s idiosyncratic conception of who is a “person.”

Yet an even bigger logistical problem looms over this endeavor: The government does not know how many undocumented immigrants live in each state and has no way to find out. Trump notoriously tried to count noncitizens on the 2020 census, but the Supreme Court blocked the question. He then tried to tally noncitizens by drawing on existing records, but the process has floundered: Only four states have turned over citizenship data to the federal government. And states do not track the number of undocumented immigrants within their borders, so even if Trump could tally all noncitizens, he could not identify which are authorized to live here. By law, Trump must turn over census apportionment data to Congress within a week of Jan. 3, 2021. How does he intend to come up with nonexistent citizenship data in less than six months? The memo does not explain.

And here’s where things get messy. The Constitution grants Congress power over the census and congressional apportionment. Congress has delegated most of those responsibilities to the executive branch. Under current law, the president reports census apportionment data to Congress, then the clerk or sergeant at arms of the House of Representatives certifies the information and sends it to state governors. Presuming Democrats retain control of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi could direct the clerk or sergeant at arms not to certify Trump’s data. And if Joe Biden beats Trump, he could withdraw Trump’s report, replacing it with an accurate, constitutional count.

Before this potential showdown, though, the Trump administration will be sued. States with large undocumented populations like California—which the president is trying to punish by reducing their congressional representation—will probably join the legal pile-on. It seems unlikely that the same Supreme Court that blocked the census citizenship question will now let the Trump administration fabricate data to promote unconstitutional apportionment. Indeed, this entire operation reeks of the kind of “arbitrary” and “capricious” executive action that federal law forbids.

Despite these strong odds that Trump’s plan will fail, it does tee up an inevitable, monumental legal battle just around the corner. For decades, states have drawn districts on the basis of overall population. But now, as they prepare for another round of redistricting in 2021, red states like Texas are considering how they can shift power away from cities and communities of color. Once House seats are apportioned, states get to draw the lines for their congressional districts. They also draw districts for their own legislatures. And some state lawmakers are eager to draw these districts by counting citizens, not people. This method would transfer power from diverse urban regions toward white, rural areas—bolstering Republican power in Congress and state legislatures. The Supreme Court has declined to say whether redistricting on the basis of citizen population is unconstitutional, though it very obviously is.

Trump, then, is essentially firing the first shot of this impending battle. He has thrown the weight of the executive branch behind the basic proposition that only citizens deserve political representation. And he has sent a message to his political allies in the states to pursue their own efforts to strip immigrants, and the communities that welcome them, of political power. Even if Trump loses this fight over apportionment, the war over who counts in America is really just beginning.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 Next > End >>

Page 413 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN