|
|
Background on Environment |
Environment topics in the 2024 election cycle:
OnTheIssues a decade ago had an issues category called "Energy & Environment" -- but we split that into two because for several election cycles both topics were important. In the 2024 election cycle we considered re-collapsing into one topic because environmentalism has come to mean nothing more than "energy & oil policy". Many current poltiicians have nothing to say on envirnomental policy other than their energy policy -- and hence are omitted from this page.
The new partisan split on environmental topics is a difference in basic attitudes towards the EPA and any environmental action. The current Republican attitude is "Deregulate!", exemplified by Gov. Burgum (R, ND) and Sen. Vance (R, OH). The current Democratic attitude is "Duck!" exemplified by the lack of outspokenness on environmental issues (with more "ducking" below on other topics).
For the Republicans, the purpose of deregulation is to reduce the "regulatory burden" that the EPA imposes on corporations -- the Republican attitude focuses on the costs to businesses of deregulation.
For the Democrats, the purpose of regulation is protect people and the environment via the EPA imposing rules -- the Democratic attitude focuses on the benefits to people of regulations.
In inflationary times, such as the leadup to the 2024 election, people demand an improving economy instead of improving environmental health. Hence the Democrats have de-emphasized their environmental goals ("ducked").
The IRA is the next phase of COVID relief, after CARES and ARPA. CARES focused on pandemic costs; ARPA focused on economic recovery; and IRA focuses on rebuilding post-pandemic. That means a lot of infrastructure investment, which Biden and the Democrats chose to focus on environmental goals. The economic goals are detailed in our Budget & Economy section.
These Green New Deal policies ended up in the IRA:
The Flint Water incident, detailed below, was a key environmental justice issue of 2014, with a follow-up in 2020.
U.S. Rep. Joe Morelle (chair of the House Administration Committee), published a thorough analysis of the Chevron Deference after the Supreme Court ruling. That didn't make it to the presidential level, nor into the mainstream media at all -- it's too wonky an issue for all but the most hard-core policy wonks. Nevertheless, this ruling will stand as a landmark case for the indefinite future.
The new lower PFAS limits will cost between $1.5 billion and $3.8 billion annually -- how that gets paid will be determined as the regulation kicks in by 2026. The presidential candidates have limited views because PFAS enforcement and cleanup has been left to the states (hence VP nominee Walz has a lot to say, as Governor).
Also linked below are other candidates' views on other cleanup issues, including cleanup from natural disasters. Dealing with health effects of pollutants is a relatively new approach to environmental policy -- as evidenced by the new PFAS rules.
Every recent president, including Obama, has promised "green jobs" in their State of the Union speeches; but the only action so far has been to mention it again in the subsequent year's State of the Union message.
"Solyndra" has become shorthand for "cronyism in the name of green jobs." Solyndra declared bankruptcy in Sept. 2011 after receiving a $527 million federal loan to support commercial-scale manufacturing for its solar photovoltaic panels. Romney visited the abandoned Solyndra factory in May 2012 to criticize Obama's policy.
Amendment V to the US Constitution
...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.(1791)
|
Click here for Amazon books on Environment
Environmental science Environmental health Environmental justice |