WolfeNotes.com

Obama Is A Hypocritical and Dangerous Neoliberal Fraud

“Under my administration, America is producing more oil than at any time in the last eight years. We’ve opened up new areas for exploration. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to circle the Earth and then some,” Obama said (source)

From the outset of the Obama administration – having many professional and personal experiences with his first term EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and White House energy policy aide Heather Zichal (now a corporate gas whore)- I knew the man was a fraud. And I soon found several opportunities to expose that, for example:

• Obama CEO Summit Explains EPA Regulatory Retreat
• Another Obama EPA Backtrack On Greenhouse Gas Regulation
• Obama All In For Oil & Gas

In total frustration and disgust over the failure of US media and environmental groups to tell the truth, in 2014 and 2015, I wrote:

• Growth Rates Mask Effects on Total GHG Emissions – Obama on The Same Page as Bush on “Energy Intensity” and Economic Growth
• Look At Your Obama “All of the Above” Energy Policy
• Obama Lifts Oil Export Ban

For the same reason, I later wrote:

• Take A Look At The So Called Obama “War On Coal”

So, while I was not surprised, I was particularly sickened by hearing Obama’s remarks at the COP26 conference. Read it and weep:

• Barack Obama COP26 Climate Speech Transcript

This Obama speech was deeply offensive – to begin, because it was Obama that led the charge to make Paris a weak, meaningless, voluntary and unenforceable framework:

And on Paris, our goal was to turn progress into an enduring framework that would give the world confidence in a low carbon future, an agreement where countries would update their emissions targets on a regular basis, an agreement that would help developing nations get the resources they need to skip the dirty phase of development and help those nations that are most vulnerable to climate change get the resources they need to adapt, an agreement that would give businesses and investors the certainty that the global economy is on firm path towards a clean and sustainable future.

In other words, our hope was to create an agreement they gave our planet a fighting chance. That was our ambition. By some measures, the agreement has been a success. For the first time leaders of nearly 200 nations, large and small, developed and developing, made a commitment to work together to confront a threat to the people of all nations. That seemed proof that for all the divisions in our world when a crisis threatens all of us, we can come together to address it.

In another sickening lie, Obama touts what is now obvious discredited private corporate PR sham and Neoliberal market fundamentalism:

At the time, we also believed that if enough national governments showed they were serious about climate, then other institutions, particularly in the private sector, would start raising their sights as well. Over the last six years, that is what’s happened. Today more than one-fifth of the world’s largest companies have set net zero emissions targets. Not just because it’s the right thing to do for the environment, but in many cases because it makes sense for their bottom line.

Obama then engages in historical revisionism about his failed EPA regulatory strategy, known as the Clean Power Plan:

the determination of our state and local governments, along with the regulations and investment that my administration had already put in place, allowed our country to keep moving forward despite hostility from the [Trump] White House.

False. Obama’s core EPA Clean Power Plan was never “put in place”.

The Supreme Court blocked it. The Court is on the verge of stripping EPA of authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, based in part on Obama and Lisa Jackson EPA’s flawed regulatory strategy under the Clean Air Act.

Obama then cheerleads for passage of Biden’s lame and gutted climate plans:

We have enormous responsibilities and obviously we still have a lot of work to do. But last week, Congress passed President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill that will, among other things, create jobs manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines and batteries and electric vehicles and build out the first ever national network of charging stations so families can travel across the US in electric vehicles. I’m confident that a version of President Biden’s Build Back Better bill will pass through Congress in the coming next few weeks. … That legislation will devote over half a trillion dollars to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over a billion metric tons by the end of the decade, at least 10 times more than any legislation previously passed by Congress.

I’ve seen no credible “net” quantification of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the infrastructure bill and the gutted Biden reconciliation bill that would support Obama’s claim that the legislation would “reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over a billion metric tons by the end of the decade.”

Obama admonishes and discourages young people from protesting. They must dial back all that activism and make it a priority to vote for Democrats, and then be good little  consumers and support the Neoliberal capitalist regime by focusing on corporate market responses:

A second way you can have an impact on climate change is by pressuring companies to do the right thing. Members of your generation have already shown you’re willing to pay for products that you believe are responsible and responsive to the climate challenge, and that you’re also willing to avoid those companies that are actually making climate change worse. …Companies are starting to figure out that becoming more energy efficient is good for their bottom line because they’ll spend less on energy, but you also have the opportunity to teach them that by getting serious about climate change, they have a chance to win loyal customers and employees.

Obama even scolds activists and denounce direct action tactics – similar to how he scolded black men to “pull up your pants”:

But to build the broad based coalitions necessary for bold action, we have to persuade people who either currently don’t agree with us or are indifferent to the issue. And to change the minds of those fellow citizens in our respective countries, we have to do a little more listening. We can’t just yell at them or say they’re ignorant. We can’t just tweet at them. It’s not enough to inconvenience them through blocking traffic in a protest.

The only thing I could partially agree with was when he expressed a convoluted solidarity with workers. But in doing so, Obama managed to dismiss the “just transition” strategies advocated by climate activists. Instead, sounding like Joe Manchin and using fake populist rhetoric, he failed to mention “just transition” work and again dissed climate activists for their “highfaltin’ talk”

There are workers and communities that still depend on coal for power and jobs. And yes, they are concerned about maintaining their wages. That’s not unreasonable for them to be concerned about that. And the fact is the truth is that transitioning from dirty energy to clean energy does have a cost. And it is not unreasonable for people who often are already economically vulnerable, and maybe don’t feel particularly politically powerful. It’s not unreasonable for them to think that for all the high highfalutin’ talk, some of those costs of transition will be bourne by them. Not by the more powerful and the privilege. That’s not an unreasonable perspective for them to have.

Obama is a dangerous liar. And he’s very, very good at it.

And this lecture from a man living in a multi-million dollar estate on Martha’s Vineyard and abusing communities in Chicago by building his obnoxious massive Presidential Library in a public park.

Defends No Restrictions on Corporate Conflicts of Interest, Ethics, or Scientific Bias (Impartiality test)

The Roots of Regulatory Capture

Should Toxic Polluter Dupont Have Any Role In Setting Policy On Clean Water?

[See End Note for specific examples]

Upon learning of the imminent expiration of the term of the Dupont corporation member of the Delaware River Basin Commission’s (DRBC) “Toxics Advisory Committee” (TAC), I recently gave DRBC Executive Director Tambini an opportunity to reform and strengthen the DRBC’s scientific integrity policies and practices.

I thought this was a particularly timely opportunity for reforms, given the Congress’ investigation into how the oil and gas industry manipulated the science and misled the public on climate change. That investigation has shown a bright light on issues of scientific integrity and corporate influence on science, including how manipulation of science can forego, delay and weaken regulation.

So I wrote Tambini a letter, requesting that he take action.

I thought I gave him a golden opportunity to seize the moment, pre-empt criticism, come off as an enlightened leader and put the Commission and its staff in a favorable public light, see:

• Delaware River Basin Commission Urged To Remove Dupont Representative And Restrict Chemical Industry Influence On Toxics Advisory Committee

Yesterday, I received a reply from Tambini – some people just don’t get it.

Tambini not only rejected my requests, he went out of his way to defend the status quo and actually praised what are clearly inappropriate policies and practices with respect to scientific integrity and ethics.

The DRBC’s policies and practices do not meet the minimum requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) or the NJ DEP Science Advisory Board (NJ SAB). (see also this on appointing NJ DEP SAB members).

For example, the EPA SAB has detailed ethics requirements for advisors. These are far more detailed and rigorous than the NJ DEP SAB.

However, because the DRBC is an interstate entity, formed by Congressional compact, stricter federal EPA standards are appropriate.

These EPA ethical requirements involve corporate, financial, and scientific aspects – at both a corporate and individual scientist level.

These EPA ethics reviews address whether a corporate interest would create a legal or financial conflict of interest. They also address whether an individual scientist, based on his corporate affiliation, financial disclosure form, or prior work, could create “an appearance of loss of impartiality”.

NJ ethics laws have a similar “appearance” standard. NJ Election laws (ELEC) have more stringent disclosure and reporting requirements, for attempts to “influence government processes”, which service on a SAB or TAC is by definition.

Here’s how EPA implements a SAB ethics review BEFORE a candidate could be named and appointed as an advisor:

How EPA Evaluates Ethics Information

When forming an advisory panel, one component of that process is to ensure candidates are free from Conflicts of Interest and/or an appearance of a loss of impartiality. This decision is made based on all relevant information, including a review of each candidate’s confidential financial disclosure form (EPA Form 3110-48), the responses to the supplemental ethics questions, public comments and information gathered by SAB staff. Possible remedies to a conflict of interest include recusal from some part of the matter, divestiture from the disqualifying financial interest, application of exemptions in the ethics regulations, or an EPA-issued individual waiver.

DRBC has nothing like this. Nothing at all, as a matter of fact.

It seems OBVIOUS that a major polluter, like the Dupont corporation, has egregious corporate conflicts of interest (legal, financial, ethical, and scientific) with the scientific, regulatory, and public interest work of the DRBC.

It seems equally obvious that a scientist, who is paid by the Dupont corporation, also has financial conflict of interest and also – based on his financial compensation by Dupont and his scientific work for Dupont – has the “appearance of a loss of impartiality.”

But this is not obvious to Mr. Tambini – here is his egregiously poor judgement: [my comments in red]

Mr. Wolfe,

I received your e-mail below and offer the following response.  I do not intend to remove the industry representative from the Toxics Advisory Committee (TAC) for the reasons set forth here:

1. The term of the TAC position held by the Chemours representative expires at the end of this calendar year, and DRBC is currently accepting applications to fill the impending vacancy.

[I requested reforms to apply to the new industry representative. Tambini ignored that.]

2. Section 3.10 of the Delaware River Basin Compact (the law that formed and governs the DRBC) states:  “The commission may constitute and empower advisory committees, which may be comprised of representatives of the public and of federal, state, county and municipal governments, water resources agencies, water-using industries, water-interest groups, labor and agriculture.”

[Irrelevant and a diverion. I never questioned DRBC or his authority to appoint a TAC or include industry membership. My focus was on conflicts and the need for new scientific integrity and ethical standards.]

3. In authorizing each of its advisory committees, the Commission endeavors to ensure that diverse viewpoints and areas of expertise are represented, including from our regulated community.  Importantly, the constitution of committees is prescribed to ensure that diverse viewpoints are represented and that no one sector dominates any DRBC advisory committee.  Each committee member—whether from industry; academia; environmental advocacy; agriculture; municipal, state, or federal government; or any other sector—is seated to bring unique technical expertise, viewpoints, and concerns to the table.  It is our view that the committee, the Commission, and the public benefit from these diverse perspectives.

[Another non-response diversion. Diverse viewpoint can be flat out wrong, due to scientific or ethical conflicts, or an appearance of a lack of impartiality.

And how is it possible that “diverse” and “balanced viewpoints” can be realized by a token environmental group representative on the TAC, a person with no expertise and no resources. How can that reprentative possibly “balance” the views of a PhD Dupont toxicologist backed by billions of dollars and the best scientists in the world and prevent Dupont from “dominating” (having undue influence) ?]

4. Advisory committees serve the Commission in an advisory role only.  Neither the TAC nor any other DRBC advisory committee makes any decisions on the Commission’s behalf.  When an advisory committee chooses to offer recommendations to the Commission, the Commission has no obligation to accept them.  All actions of the Commission are taken upon a majority vote of the five Commissioners—the governors of each of the four basin states, and on behalf of the United States, the commander of the North Atlantic Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—who may vote in person, or as is more common, through a designated alternate.

[TAC’s strongly influence the focus, subject matter, methods, data, literature, and scientific and technical inputs to scientific judgments, formation of scientific consensus,  and DRBC staff and Commission decision-making. As such, they necessarily play a role in policy and regulation. This is just a misleading statement by Mr. Tambini.]

5. “Conflicts of interest” arise where an individual has incompatible obligations. In their capacity as members of the Commission’s advisory committees, members from all sectors are expected to represent the interests of the entities that supported their nomination.  That obligation is in no inherent way incompatible with a representative’s other duties as an advisory committee member—to attend meetings and to respect the terms of the committee’s authorizing resolution and bylaws.  Quite the opposite.  By providing their unique perspectives, committee members give the Commission, the committee,  and the public (since all committee meetings are public) a window into the concerns of the sectors they represent on the matters the committee takes up.  TAC motions and recommendations, in particular, require the support of a majority of the committee’s members to pass, preventing any single member from unduly influencing the committee’s recommendations.

[This is incredible. Tambini is actually defending and inviting the corruption of science and ethics and erosion of public trust in government. Industry has other procedural opportunities to prevent their views, e.g. they can submit written comments and testify at public hearings and Commission meetings like everyone else. They do no warrant inside access and influence on the science and DRBC staff that that access provides. Tambini is not only oblivious to the dynamics of scientific integrity and ethics, but to the entire concept of “regulatory capture“. This is a stunningly inappropriate reply.]

6. Advisory committees have no role in the review of docket applications considered by the Commission.

[True, but misleading. TAC’s significantly influence the scientific inputs to the staff recommendations that are presented to the Commission for regulatory and policy decision.]

7. The Commission appreciates the professionalism and expertise of its advisory committee members and values their willingness to engage in debate, dialogue, and input on the challenging water resource management issues we confront in an environment of continually evolving science.  The independence, objectivity, and scientific integrity of the DRBC staff and the Commission can be enhanced—not compromised—when we engage with stakeholder representatives on our advisory committees.

[This has nothing to do with professionalism, other than to set clear standards that define such professional practices and reinforce public confidence in government. And this Tambinin statement is just bizarre:  “The independence, objectivity, and scientific integrity of the DRBC staff and the Commission can be enhanced—not compromised—when we engage with stakeholder representatives on our advisory committees.”]

Thank you for your interest in the DRBC.

Steve

And here is my quick reply to Tambini:

Mr Tambini – thank you for a thoughtful response.

I’m afraid I strongly disagree.

Corporate “stakeholders” have powerful and specific economic interests and far more expertise, resources, and influence compared to public interest stakeholders. As such, there is not even close to the kind of diverse, balanced, and transparent deliberation you presume.

The federal FACA law and the EPA and NJ DEP SAB policies place limits, including on ethics, conflicts of interest, disclosure, and scientific bias. NJ DEP SAB goes further by discouraging SAB members from participating in regulatory policy. NJ ELEC law goes even further by requiring reporting of all efforts to “influence government processes”.

It is disappointing that you apparently fail to understand these issues and defend the clearly flawed status quo.

Respectfully

Bill Wolfe

My next move will be an appeal to the individual Commissioners.

Let’s hope the media and the environmental groups take on this fight for scientific integrity and protection of the public interest from undue corporate influence.

Protection of the earth, water, land, air, wildlife, and public health requires independent, objective and impartial science.

That can not result from industry influence on the scientific inputs to public policy and regulation.

[End Note: If anyone thinks this is just hypothetical or theoretic nonsense, consider these concrete examples:

1) Unregulated chemicals – “Contaminants of Emerging Concern”

What might have become of this strategy and task, which wasn’t even recommended by DRBC Staff until in a 2018 TAC presentation: 

Note the word “initiate” and “strategy”, and this is after 15 YEARS – no typo FIFTEEN YEARS – on various DRBC research projects and 3 years ago they just were ready to “initiate” a strategy!!

Greenhouse gas emissions and DEP role continue to be ignored

A Climate And Land Use Legacy For Gov. Murphy?

Time for a NJ Farms and Forest Protection Act To Preserve What Left Of The Landscape

After repeatedly getting several critical issues wrong, NJ Spotlight finally got one aspect of the warehouse sprawl story correct today: home rule, see:

• A first step toward regulating warehouse sprawl?

The question in the headline is apt: the State Plan Implementation Committee is an advisory group to the State Planning Commission. And the Commission has jurisdiction over a voluntary State Development and Redevelopment Plan that has no teeth. That’a very far cry from “regulating warehouse sprawl”. Thus, the Executive Director’s emphasis that this was merely a “listening session”!

Donna Rendeiro, executive director of the commission, called the meeting a “listening session” that did not include policy proposals by commission members, but said it’s likely to kick off further discussions.

But NJ Spotlight continues to ignore several other critical issues, including the massive new greenhouse gas emissions from these warehouse developments (and new truck traffic), and how those emissions conflict with Gov. Murphy’s climate goals.

Additionally, there has been no reporting on the role of DEP regulatory oversight and gaps in DEP regulations (there are warehouse projects pending DEP approval and DEP has approved an unknown quantity of new development with no accountability).

More importantly, warehouses are not the only threat to NJ’s few last remaining farms and forests. Those farms and forests continue to be threatened by all forms of development, including a huge proliferation of industrial scale solar development and forests are threatened by various logging schemes.

So, as I’ve suggested, the time is right to connect the climate and land use issues in a major new initiative, which could form Gov. Murphy’s legacy, much like the Pinelands Protection Act is a legacy of Gov. Byrne and the Highlands Act is a legacy of Gov. McGreevey, see:

• The Final Frontier In NJ’s Long Running Land Use War

Instead of compromising away what little is left of NJ’s forests and farmlands, it’s time for the conservation, environmental, justice, and climate communities to work together and fight the final battle to preserve what’s left.

The current incremental strategy – which amounts to case by case litigation, local site specific land use battles, and reliance on the land trusts and Foundation funded “environmental groups” to cut deals with the solar industry – surely has failed and will kill what’s left.

The climate science; land use, forestry, and agricultural policy; and the politics could actually work together to support a very aggressive demand for a NJ Forest And Farmland Preservation Act.

The idea is simple: preserve what’s left before NJ’s is either fully built out or inundated by sea level rise.

(and where are all those people now living along shorelines and rivers going to relocate when the inevitable next major floods hit and the sea level rises? Not all of them can move to Florida. They’re going to demand to develop what’s left of NJ’s higher elevation lands.)

It may take awhile, but perhaps the NJ activist community could mount a campaign and give Gov. Murphy his second term agenda and legacy platform. Now is the time to move on that, as the Murphy administration prepares its second term strategy.

I guess it takes a while to get the NJ environmental community focused and for NJ Spotlight to correct their coverage.

On the home rule issue, over a year ago, on 11/6/20, I wrote to correct NJ Spotlight’s misleading framing and false coverage:

• Warehouse Development Threat To Rural NJ Exposes Failures In State And Regional Planning and Regulation

The solutions are regional planning and regulatory powers enforced by State and regional institutions (not county and local governments).

NJ has a well developed, time tested, and legally valid effective suite of State and regional planning and regulatory laws and institutions, i.e. 1) the NJ State Development and Redevelopment Plan and The State Planning Commission; 2) The Highlands Act, Regional Master Plan, and Highlands Council; and 3) the Department of Environmental Protection land use and water resource planning and permitting programs (as well as the State Department of Transportation).

So, why does the Spotlight story not only omit all that and focus exclusively on local and county voluntary coordination and demonstrably weak and ineffective tools under the “home rule” oriented NJ Municipal Land Use Law?

I repeated that criticism and sought correction in a more recent March 2021 post:

• False Narrative On Warehouse Development Story Masks Corporate Power & Failures In State Planning, Regulation, and Media

1. The myth of “Home rule” is strengthened, not exposed. NJ Spotlight wrote:

“Municipalities, which have authority over land use, are attracted to the local taxes and jobs that come with new warehouses and many approve the plans over the objections of local critics.”

This is legally a false statement. Municipalities are delegated limited land use power by the State legislature, under the State’s constitutional police power.

2.  The powers of State government and the politics of land use are distorted. NJ Spotlight wrote:

“It’s a home-rule state, and local governments have the final say,” he said. “It’s hard to reel that power back once you’ve handed it to the local governments; you are going to meet a lot of political resistance if you say you need to take some of it back.”

Again, these statements are factually false. Local governments do not have “the final say”. Under NJ law, regional entities like the Highlands Council and the Pinelands Commission have final say within their regions. Under NJ law, State regulatory agencies like the DEP have final say on infrastructure, water resources, and many environmental issues. Under NJ law, the Legislature has “taken back” local land use powers many times (from the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act, to the Flood Hazard Control Act, to coastal land use under CAFRA.)

To plant those seeds on how to create a legacy for Gov. Murphy, I wrote the following note to reporter Jon Hurdle.

Maybe Eliott Ruga and Amy Goldsmith can parrot these words too:

Jon – you finally got the home rule issue framed correctly, but it pains me to hear my words come from the mouths of idiots like Amy Goldmsith (who never did anything on land use in NJ) and Eliot Ruga (a former TV sports producer with no land use or environmental training or experience, who reversed his prior remarks that emphasized home rule).

Perhaps future stories will focus on:

1) the massive greenhouse gas emissions from these developments and conflicts with Murphy’s climate goals;

2) the DEP regulatory role and the pending permits and all the prior DEP permit approvals; and

3) the need for a new legislative initiative to protect what’s left of NJ’s remaining farms and forests – which could a legacy initiative for Murphy, like McGreevey’s Highlands or Byrne’s Pinelands or Kean’s Freshwater Wetlands Act.

Wolfe

Gaslighting and Kabuki Cover For Corporate Capitulation

Neoliberal Economics, Fake Austerity, and Corporate Power Overwhelm Democracy

Rockets, moon shots
Spend it on the have nots
Money, we make it
Fore we see it you take it ~~~ Inner City Blues, Marvin Gaye

While AOC gaslights her celebrity cult followers to cover for her complete and utter capitulation to Democratic leadership (a total sellout of “NO CLIMATE – NO DEAL!, which has been exposed as an empty slogan), we thought we’d post a very, very brief note of what’s really going on, just for the historical record.

[Intro note: AOC is gaslighting on the content of the reconciliation bill and the reversal of her posture to demand linkage between infrastructure and reconciliation. Despite her “NO” vote on the infrastructure bill, it is obviously that this Kabuki was arranged with and approved by Pelosi, who had secured 10 Republican votes to offset the NO votes of AOC and parts of the Squad. Just like the coordinated voting on previous folds by AOC and progressives, no way would AOC’s NO vote actually have blocked passage of the bill. Pelosi would not have allowed that.]

Biden is championing failed Neoliberal economics (i.e. corporate subsidies, corporate tax cuts, privatization under the guise of “public private partnerships”, deregulation under the guise of “streamlining”, and “America is back” economic globalism and imperial militarism under the guise of Obama’s “Pacific Pivot”) while Democrats in Congress use discredited Neoliberal austerity policies to slash public investment and social spending (under the guise of limiting the deficit and controlling inflation).

Biden and the Democrats campaigned on a pledge to make corporations and the rich pay their fair share. Instead of following through, they have now managed to reverse that promise and have not only abandoned a modest Biden proposal to recoup just half of the Trump tax cuts, but now have INCREASED tax cuts for the rich with a $400 billion SALT giveaway to the wealthiest 5%. (are we supposed to be happy not just the 1% benefitted, but another 4% get tax cuts?). And they do all this while claiming to care about deficits!

The list of promises Biden and the Democrats campaigned on and have failed to deliver on or outright abandoned is long, too long to rehash here (no $15 minimum wage even though it should be $24/hour based on productivity increases, no public option (Biden’s alternative to single payer or Medicare for all), no Medicare expansion, no student debt relief, no moratorium on evictions and foreclosures …….)

Democrats actually managed to increase defense spending to record levels and increase spending on and militarization of local police forces.

They abandoned Voting Rights Act reform legislation (John Lewis Act), despite the national Republican anti-democratic racist campaign of gerrymandering, voter suppression, and expansion of control over State electors (a key part of Trump’s strategy to steal the 2020 election via the 12th amendment procedure and very likely to work in stealing the ’24 election).

The Biden administration has increased deportations, expanded Trump’s abuse of public health laws to block legal immigration and send refugees back to Mexico, and abandoned legislative immigration reforms. The US Border Patrol is still out of control.

The Biden Executive Order “pause” on issuing leases for oil and gas extraction on federal lands was quickly abandoned and exposed as sham, as Biden issued more gas, oil and pipeline development approvals than Trump and George Bush. My goodness, US coal power production increased this year!

Seems almost like this is all part of Biden’s promise to Wall Street and Big Donors: “nothing fundamentally will change”.

Meanwhile, the media is focused on the huge reduction in spending under Biden’s “Build Back Better” reconciliation bill. (I think Sanders began the debate at $6 trillion and now were’ looking at a small fraction of that, something like $1.75 trillion)

But the real story is in the substance of the bills.

It’s not just money – the bills include many terrible pro-corporate policies and programs, including massive billion dollar subsidies to fossil (carbon capture and methane grants), privatization, deregulation, attacks on NEPA, and more logging of national forests under the guise of “resilience” and wildfire prevention. The lame Biden Climate Program was gutted by Manchin.

The package of bills actually makes the US emissions profile even WORSE.

Notice that no one has conducted an analysis of how the bills would impact greenhouse gas emissions.

That analysis should be done, just like the Congressional Budget Office “scores” bills for economic impact and effects on the deficit. The road projects alone in the infrastructure bill, not considering economic growth that will result from this stimulus and the promotion of logging et al, would greatly increase emissions (more VMT and massive amounts of high carbon steel and concrete).

The John Muir Project has documented how just the logging programs alone in these bills would increase current huge emission from logging, and wipe out at least one third of any greenhouse gas emissions reductions resulting from the renewable energy programs.

I’ve been documenting all this in multiple prior posts, so will leave it at that.

Market Fundamentalism Gone Mad

THE LEAF COALITION IS WIRED, FROM WALL STREET TO THE BIDEN WHITE HOUSE

The LEAF COALITION

[Update below]

Last week, I read the Biden Administration’s COP26 “Nationally Determined Contribution”” greenhouse gas emissions reductions plan and was not impressed by the lack of substance and detail on how the 50% – 52% emissions reductions by 2030 pledge would be implemented and funded. All the sections of the plan that involved disclosure of these details were checked “not applicable” N/A.

I also was disappointed – but not surprised – by the extent to which the Biden COP26 plan ignored and downplayed any role for regulation, while repeatedly promoting market mechanisms. (Regulation has become so taboo, that now the term is not even mentioned, but instead the whole concept is Orwellian and euphemistically called “standards”).

The plan views the role of government as “spurring” private markets, and is devoted to the discredited notion of “progress”:

The plan claims that “progress” in reducing emissions is driven by technological innovation and markets, not collective democratic action, or government intervention, and surely not by regulatory mandates:

So, it’s clear that Neoliberalism (private markets, capitalism, incentives, deregulation, technological innovation, and endless growth) continues to be the US governing policy and ideology that controls the public realm.

About this same time, on BBC radio, I heard a story about a group called THE LEAF COALITION, which included an interview with a former Obama White House climate policy aid. Immediately, my corporate corruption radar detector went off.

The Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest finance (LEAF) Coalition’s goal to halt deforestation by financing large scale tropical forest protection. In 2021, the Coalition mobilized $1bn in financing, kicking off largest-ever public-private efforts to protect tropical forests.

I’m reminded of all this now because I just read an important piece on Bob Scheer’s website, see:

• Wall Street’s Latest Scheme Is Monetizing Nature Itself – Just in time for the UN’s policy push for “30 x 30” – 30% of the earth to be “conserved” by 2030 – a new Wall Street asset class puts up for sale the processes underpinning all life.

My corporate corruption detection bells went off again.

Connecting these dots, I like to drill down on concepts and illustrate how they are implemented in policy, so I immediately recalled a prior April Biden White House “America Is Back” announcement, and was surprised to see the inclusion and promotion of our friends from THE LEAF COALITION

FACT SHEET: President Biden’s Leaders Summit on Climate

• Investing in tropical forests to drive towards a net-zero world. Halting deforestation globally, and restoring forests and other ecosystems, is critical to reaching a net-zero emissions world by 2050. The United States is joining together with other governments and private sector companies today to announce the Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest finance (LEAF) Coalition. The LEAF Coalition expects to mobilize at least $1 billion this year to incentivize tropical and subtropical countries in reducing emissions from forests by paying for verified emissions reductions that meet a high environmental and social standard. This is a crucial component to raising global climate ambition and to halting and reversing deforestation by 2030.

Imagine that: a former Obama White House climate aid – partnering with Wall Street vultures like Blackrock and tax avoiding billion dollar corporations like Amazon and Walmart – is written into the Biden White House climate market based plans.

Many mainstream corporate news outlets are already promoting this Wall Street corporate politically wired “public-private partnership”:

See how corporate power, political connections and media propaganda work?

Corporate Joe is not just a do nothing climate fraud on the domestic front.

It’s much worse than that.

He’s doing actual harm, by expanding corporate power, consolidating the discredited Neoliberal market fundamentalism model, and monetizing the world, including nature and the lands and forests of indigenous people, while allowing corporate carbon polluters to continue to pollute

Yes, Joe, it sure looks like “America Is Back”.

[Update: 11/9/21 – In terms of piecing Kabuki and understanding harm, Greta is an astute young woman. WSWS reported:

It is hard to argue with Thunberg’s characterization of the summit as “two-week-long celebration of business as usual and blah, blah, blah.”

She told the huge crowd, “The leaders are not doing nothing. They are actively creating loopholes and shaping frameworks to benefit themselves and to continue profiting from this destructive system. This is an active choice by the leaders to continue to let the exploitation of people and nature, and the destruction of present and future living conditions to take place.”

Wow.