Presidential Environmental BS — An Analysis
Donald Trump has made many exaggerated claims, but the latest one in which he says he’s the greatest environmentalist since Teddy Roosevelt may top the list as the biggest BS-ism of them all. Virtually every environmental organization in America would echo that assessment. They just may not use the phrase BS.
For starters — A reminder: This is the same man who said climate change is a “hoax” invented by the Chinese (the same people who invented the “China flu”), the same man who pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement and the same man who warned that wind turbines cause cancer. But this latest statement is even more brazenly stupid.
Consider this timeline:
- On Tuesday, September 8th, Trump signed an executive order banning offshore oil drilling off the coasts of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. That’s when he made the statement about what a great environmentalist he is. The fact that he supported off-shore drilling before, but states critical to the next election oppose it, is a coincidence.
- On Monday, September 14th, less than a week later, during a news conference about the California wildfires, after the state’s natural resources secretary warned of the impact on climate change, Trump responded: “It’ll start getting cooler.” Then, when the secretary politely suggested the scientific facts don’t support that, responded: “Well, I don’t think science knows actually.”
Environmental groups have had enough. Several have taken positions calling directly and forcefully for his ouster.
The Sierra Club: “Donald Trump is the worst President for our climate, our environment, and our health in history. The only thing Trump has made greater is the strength and severity of the climate crisis. With every Trump rollback of climate safeguards, every failed response to climate-fueled extreme weather, and every payout for big polluters, more Americans grow more committed to defeat Trump and the climate crisis.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council: “We cannot afford to keep Donald Trump around for four more years. He has already caused inconceivable damage to this country — to our environment and health, our climate, and our democracy — and it stops this November when we vote him out”.
The Center for Biological Diversity: “Donald Trump has been the worst president in modern history — an absolute disaster, especially when it comes to protecting people, wild places and wildlife. Four more years would be catastrophic for our planet and democracy. We can’t let that happen.”
Greenpeace: “His environmental record remains a solid ‘F’. He touts his ‘environmental accomplishments’, but his policies have led to pollution and destruction at every turn. “His untruths are not only outrageous, they are dangerous as we are getting closer to an election in which people want to vote for a climate leader, not a climate destroyer. Trump is out of touch, selling out America, and the world, for profit.”
Greenpeace has a reputation for being very aggressive in its fight for the environment, but virtually all of the environmental groups have become much more aggressive — probably none so much as the Environmental Defense Fund.
The EDF does a 12-page analysis of the climate record of Trump versus Vice President Joe Biden, and bluntly, there is no comparison. The report also lays out a detailed action plan for turning out the vote in key swing states. The president of the EDF’s Action group says they “remain committed to building bipartisan coalitions to protect the environment” but as the analysis makes clear they have to take a stance for the first time in the group’s history because — -
“President Trump’s relentless assault on the environment is ravaging our climate, air and water — as well as the health of our communities, particularly those most disadvantaged. We can’t tolerate another four years of his radical and irresponsible policies”
The group, 350.org, has a similar analysis to the Environmental Defense Fund’s examination of the respective presidential candidates’ environmental record. However, it has taken it a step further and created a “test” — obviously meant to engage the younger voters.
In case you’re wondering, the title 350 refers to the “safe” upper limits of parts per million of carbon dioxide before climate change becomes virtually irreversible.
Other environmental groups have not attacked Trump directly but instead have either challenged his administration’s actions and policies in court or attacked his policies and actions through their website and their membership newsletters. The reason for the different approach is because of their tax status. Most environmental groups are registered with the Internal Revenue Service as 501(c)3. Under this categorization, they are non-profits engaged in “religious, charitable or educational purposes” with limited political activity. Many groups then create another related group and register it as 501(c)4. Under this categorization, they “can engage in more advocacy and lobbying.”
The EDF Action group is a 501(c)4 which gives it more leeway to be vocal. However, being a 501(c)3 does not have to slow down the criticism. The National Audubon Society has taken the Trump Administration to court numerous times in conjunction with other environmental groups. One of its biggest wins was in defense of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act which, as the name implies, protects migrating birds and which has been the law for a hundred years. As it has done with so many environmental issues, the Trump administration tried to gut the law.
In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni wrote:
“It is not only a sin to kill a mockingbird, it is also a crime. That has been the letter of the law for the past century. But if the Department of the Interior has its way, many mockingbirds and other migratory birds that delight people and support ecosystems throughout the country will be killed without legal consequence.”
The National Wildlife Federation takes a similar approach, challenging the many environmental rollbacks by the Trump administration in court such as the delay in the Clean Water Rule. And it also does it in conjunction with other environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council. But to that it adds attacks on the administration through news releases and the news media — hitting such issues as the administration’s failure to follow science-based decision-making.
The World Wildlife Fund takes the less confrontation approach, claiming that it has “helped make the U.S. a global leader on efforts to conserve international species and combat wildlife trafficking around the globe.” When I asked for their position regarding Trump’s attacks on the environment, including the Endangered Species Act, this was their response:
“World Wildlife Fund does not endorse or renounce political candidates. Instead, we choose to concentrate our efforts on the conservation and the preservation of our land by protecting endangered species and habitats. In addition, we work tirelessly to preserve and create protected areas, link conservation needs with human needs, build effective institutions to help sustain conservation efforts, and address serious global threats like climate change and toxic chemicals that cause pollution.”
To use an environmental pun, all these groups only represent the tip of the iceberg. There are many other groups also concerned, worried, frightened by this administration — and fighting back. What’s disheartening is that many of them have been warning about this administration’s policies for years.
But what is heartening is that many of them are stepping up their efforts as well. Even more heartening is that many businesses recognize the challenges.
By my count there are more than 20 Million “members and supporters” of these groups in the United States. That’s 20 Million voters. Several of the groups have pushed their members to join “get out the vote” campaigns on behalf of environmental issues. I know. I’m in several of them. But will it make a difference?
It’s hard to believe that even his hard-core supporters can possibly believe that he is the great environmental president he claims to be. His record so clearly shows otherwise. All these groups believe the record is clear. But do his supporters hear, and do they care? He is a danger to America, a danger to the world and a danger to future generations — their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
