California received only a “D”, on This year’s Environmental ScorecardThe nonprofit California Environmental Voters has published a report card every year since 1973.
The state Senate has stalled many climate bills, despite the fact that Democrats have a supermajority. This is mainly why the score is so low. Mary Creasman (CEO of California Environmental Voters) said that many Democratic lawmakers talk a good song but then vote for delaying climate action.
Creasman stated that “we actually have the solution” and “the technology.” All of these things are job creators and will help advance our economy. We don’t have the political will or the ability to do it at scale and speed that science says we should.
Climate-action opponents often point out the business costs. The report blames inaction on fossil-fuel companies. It found that 52% of Democrats and 96% respectively accepted campaign cash from oil-interest groups.
The scorecard shows Gov. Gavin Newsom made 82% of his pro-climate decisions. Overall, state Democrats received a score between 80% and 15%.
Assemblyman Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) said it was difficult to get his colleagues to allocate sufficient resources to decarbonize buildings, transportation, renewables, and modernize our grid.
Bennett said, “Politicians are not popular by asking people today to make sacrifices to solve problems that will come 15 or 20 decades down the line.” “And that’s why it’s been so slow to take action on climate change.”
David Chiu, an ex-Assemblyman and now City Attorney for San Francisco said there is hope, if Californians cooperate.
Chiu stated that there is enough wind off California’s coast to provide clean power for the entire grid and create great jobs for tens or thousands of workers. “But we have so much more work to do to improve clean-energy solutions.”
You can check the score of your representative and view the entire report at envirovoters.org/scorecard.
Get more stories like these via email
After Vladimir Putin sent Russian troops into Ukraine in March, the Colorado Public employees’ Retirement Association (PERA), withdrew $7.2 Million from a Russian Bank. Climate activists now call on PERA for a complete divestment of all Russian oil and natural gas holdings.
Devon Reynolds, a PERA member, is a graduate student at the University of Colorado Boulder. He said that the fund currently has $8 million in investments in at least five Russian oil-and-gas companies.
Reynolds stated that “moving assets out of Russian companies was being done because it is wrong to profit from humanitarian horrors.” “And in a similar way, moving money away from oil and natural gas is right because billions will be affected.
Fossil Free PERA submitted an application Formal appealThis week, the fund is requesting that all Russian oil-and-gas investments be removed from its $61 Billion portfolio.
A spokesperson for PERA said that the fund was reviewing federal sanction mandates and is preparing to implement them. This follows the call for divestment made by Report from last weekLeading climate scientists warn that the window to avoiding the worst effects of a warming planet is closing.
Reynolds noted that PERA has a fiduciary duty to divest to protect its members’ retirement assets. Scientists agree that most of the world’s fossil-fuel reserves must be kept in the ground to avoid the most devastating effects of climate change.
Reynolds pointed out that the future of oil stock values, which are based in part on bringing these reserves to market, is becoming less certain.
Reynolds predicted that “if those assets become stranded,” those stocks would lose value and that people’s retirement investments would also plummet. “Especially long-term investments such as those in public pension funds.”
According to the U.S. Pension Funds, more than $800 million is currently invested in Russian oil-and-gas operations. New dataStand, an environmental group
More than 140 pension funds around the world have divested fossil fuels so far. PERA estimates that $1.5 billion has been invested in more than 300 oil and gas companies.
Get more stories like these via email
Nevada could receive $38 million over five-years to build electric-vehicle charging networks. This is part of the newly released EV funding plan by the Biden administration. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
According to the Department of Motor Vehicles Nevada now has More than 17,000Electric vehicles that are registered.
Marie Steele is vice president for electrification, energy services, at NV Energy. She said that customer surveys predicted a huge jump in the next few years.
Steele reported that twenty-five percent of customers believe their next vehicle will come with an electric motor, while another 25% say they are neutral. “Certainly, the number of customers who are interested in electric vehicles is increasing and we anticipate that more will be online soon.”
She said that Nevada’s Electric Highway program is well-positioned to place an EV charging station on every 50 miles, especially on I-15 or I-80. NV Energy offers a $2,500 rebate to low-income families who purchase an electric vehicle.
Christi Cabrera, policy & advocacy director for Nevada Conservation League, stated that Nevada’s new vehicle emissions standards would go into effect in 2025.
Cabrera said, “Last October we passed the clean car standards.” “Nevada will have more electric vehicles on its lots.”
Nevada’s statute requires that charging stations for electric vehicles must be installed in areas with low incomes, rural areas, or tribal lands.
Larissa Koehler (senior energy attorney for Environmental Defense Fund) said that these communities will also be benefitted if more zero-emissions buses and trucks are on the roads.
Koehler noted that “It will be crucial, particularly in disadvantaged community that are really disproportionately affected from truck and bus pollution to make sure we’re prioritizing that community and making sure the benefits of electric cars are seen.”
A Recent analysisThe Environmental Defense Fund has found that we can prevent 57,000 premature deaths and eliminate 4.7 million metric tons pollution by 2050 if we switch to zero-emission freight trucks or buses by 2040 in urban areas and 2035 in community and urban areas.
Get more stories like these via email
Experts believe it is crucial to combat climate change and reduce dependency on fossil fuels. This is in light of the recent global warming. New United Nations reportThis warns that time is running out.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that 3.5 billion people worldwide are now at risk from megafires and droughts, sea-level rise, flooding, and other effects of climate change.
Shannon Heyck Williams, senior director of climate and energy policy for the National Wildlife Federation, stated that it is a matterof life or deathFor many species.
Heyck-Williams reported that 3% to 14% may be at high risk of extinction if 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming occurs. “A level is becoming more like a threshold for more warming than an endpoint if strong policies are not implemented immediately.”
Opponents complained about high prices Make it better.
Conrad Schneider is the Clean Air Task Force’s advocacy Director. He stated that Build Back Better’s tax credits to clean energy will decrease deaths from diseases caused by particulate material in the air.
Schneider stated, “These provisions would decrease cumulative premature deaths by 24,000 through 300% versus current policy.”
Project Repeat conducted a study at the Princeton Zero LabWe evaluated the climate effects of the Build Back better Act and concluded that it would reduce emissions enough for the United States to meet President Joe Biden’s commitment to reduce emissions by half by 2030.
Jesse Jenkins is principal investigator at Princeton Zero Lab, and coauthor of this study. He stated that Build Back Better would be a huge boost for the economy.
Jenkins stated that “We believe that investments in the Build back Better Act would result approximately two million net jobs in the energy supply sectors by 2030 relative to infrastructure bill alone.” “Notably, one-million of those are in manufacturing. This is primarily in solar and wind-related components manufacturing.”
Marcela Mulholland was the political director for Data for Progress. broad bipartisan support.
Mulholland reported, “Nearly all Democrats (92%); over two-thirds independents (72%); and 46% of Republicans (46%) say it is very or somewhat essential for Congress to take actions on climate change.”
Get more stories like these via email