JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Update on Prosecution of Capitol Rioters
Brief # 18 – Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
While it has been nearly six months since a group of right-wing extremists stormed the Capitol Building, we are still seeing late arrests being made, as well as justice finally being served as the first sentence has been given out in connection with the Capitol Riots.
Infrastructure Plan Update: Parties Haggle Over Content and Funding
Brief # 122 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
Biden and the Democrats are currently haggling over a 1.2 trillion dollar plan to address infrastructural change. This figure is down from the original 4 trillion sought by Biden. For negotiations, the White House had trimmed the bill to 1.7 trillion and it now stands at 1.2 trillion.
A Review of Current Assistive Technology Policy in the United States
Brief # 51 – Technology
By M.J. Conaway
In the United States, there are several Federal laws that address technology accessibility for people with disabilities, including the American with Disabilities Act, the Telecommunications Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. The U.S. Access Board develops accessibility standards for the various technologies covered by the laws, which have been incorporated into the procurement regulations of the Federal government.
Global Herd Immunity Remains out of Reach– 99% of People in Poor Countries are Unvaccinated
Brief #113 – Health & Gender Policy
By Maria De Jesus, theconversation.com
Public health experts estimate that approximately 70% of the world’s 7.9 billion people must be fully vaccinated to end the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 21, 2021, 10.04% of the global population had been fully vaccinated, nearly all of them in rich countries.
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 5: Protecting and Empowering Women
Brief # 112 – Health and Gender Policy
By Erin McNemar
As President Biden continues with his first term , women’s issues remain high on his agenda. During his campaign, he introduced The Biden Agenda for Women. Through this plan, he highlights ways his administration will support gender equality in the US and around the world. Biden wants to help create a culture that protects and empowers women. In the final section of his policy proposal, Biden explains just how he plans to do that.
Should We Be Concerned About Inflation?
Brief # 117 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
Inflation occurs when the value of money decreases, largely due to increases in prices which are not matched by rises in income. With the vaccine rollout, people are emerging from their pandemic cocoons and demands for goods and services are surging. High demand, coupled with reduced supplies, is causing prices to rise.
Court Blocks Biden Administration Efforts to Suspend Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Lands
Brief # 117 – Environment Policy
By Jacob Morton
On Tuesday June 1, the Biden administration temporarily suspended all oil and gas drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), reversing one of former President Donald Trump’s most sought after and last-minute environmental policy changes.
The suspension comes after President Joe Biden’s executive order, given on his first day in office, placed a moratorium on drilling in the ANWR and requested a new environmental review “to examine possible legal flaws in the program approved by the Trump administration.”
The Moderate Republicans: A Guide to Who’s Who
Brief # 22 – Elections and Politics
By William Bourque
When it comes to political beliefs, a large portion of voting bloc seems to be wrought with radicals. However, the truth is that most Americans don’t have very extreme ideas at all, and are actually quite moderate. In recent elections we have seen this, with an increasing amount of folks with more radical beliefs being elected to Congress.
US Catholic Bishops Make Communion a Political Issue
Brief # 111 – Health and Gender Policy
By S Bhimji
In 1973 the landmark Roe Vs Wade decision by the US Supreme Court legally protected the rights of pregnant women who choose to have an abortion without excessive government intrusion. This landmark ruling struck down many state and federal abortion laws but at the same time has created an ongoing national debate as to who should decide the legality of abortion and to what extent is abortion legal.
Democratic Education and Practice
Brief # 55 Education Policy
Democratic Education and Practice
By Emily Carty
March 1, 2021
Summary
Schools are an ideal place to plant the seeds of democracy and cultivate a culture of learning, participation, and will to be informed and take action for one’s rights and ideals. Commentary from a recent Brookings Institute article contrasts the emphasis placed on preparing kids for a modern economy with the lack of resources to prepare kids for a modern democracy. Citing the constant criticisms of schools being unable to prepare graduates for the job market or college, the author notes that a demand for prepared, active citizens is lacking. Conservatives and progressives have their respective fears about civic education in schools — will it be propaganda, whitewashed history, or activist training to make major changes to our country? While those concerns do have their place, no one can deny that basic education around the political process, civil rights, and modern media literacy is much needed in this country.
Historically, initial debates in states around the purpose of public education have demonstrated that the priority was placed on civics — preparing kids to protect and defend their rights was put ahead of other necessary things like building a workforce. However that focus has since disappeared as our country’s educational mission become focused on building a modern-day technology and science-based workforce. The George W. Bush era’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act encouraged schools to place a greater concentration on math and language arts to keep up with the rapidly developing economy — it left civics and the modernization of democracy behind.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) passed in 2015 as a replacement for the NCLB act. It aims to place a greater emphasis on civics education in schools and provide equitable, well rounded education. The ESSA, which has funding through 2021, has several major funding goals, including setting educational civics education standards, and assuring state accountability for student performance It is the primary policy setting the agenda for civics education.
Researchers informing the act found that students from low-income families and schools were less likely to receive robust civics education, as schools were prioritizing math and language arts — the subjects that made up standardized tests. They also found that better civics education had an impact on student success rates, academic and non-academic, as well as young adults’ perception of the importance of democratic society. Thus, the ESSA has aimed to provide better funding for low-income schools to implement and support civics learning and to support all schools in requiring civics education in their curriculum and testing. The format and content of civics education however, is left up to states and local education agencies.
As funding for ESSA comes to an end, legislators and families across the nation have the chance to advocate for updated legislation that addresses our nation’s disillusion with democracy (as evidenced by the January insurrection).
Analysis
The inattention to teachingn democracy in schools had a turning point with the passage of the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). However ESSA serves as a gentle push rather than a driving force. Unfortunately, the act does not require states to implement standardized testing for civics, nor does it allocate fixed amounts of funding for civics education development. Instead districts have been simply encouraged to apply for grants and focus on developing a well-rounded education through creating more robust social studies and civics programs.
The decline in Americans’ faith in our American democracy is evident, in 2016 only 16 percent of millennials felt they could trust our institutions. This distrust could come from many sources, but the lack of education around our institutions, government, and the value of democratic practices is certainly a factor. A more recent study of the 2020 election results indicates the tides are turning — youth feel that it is their responsibility to participate in democracy and make change. The study suggests the majority of youth were mobilized in response to racial justice, rather than increased civics education or practice in schools. Nevertheless, this is a huge step in the right direction.
Outside of civics education from an academic standpoint, educational leaders agree that democratic practice built into school systems is key to developing an understanding and appreciation for democracy in the US and global context. When students see democracy in action, when they are creators and participants in their environment. From small classroom practices to school- and district-wide engagement, practical democracy teaches children that we all have power to act and to make our voice heard.
Without the demand for robust, relevant civics education and practice in schools, it is uncertain if we will see a more civic-fluent new generation that values democratic principles.
RESISTANCE RESOURCES
The Civics Renewal Network – The CRN is a group of nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations committed to strengthening civic life in the US by increasing the quality of civics education in our nation’s classrooms and by improving accessibility to quality, free learning materials. Check out their site for advocacy and teaching resources.
Facing History and Ourselves — FHO is a nonprofit with a mission to promote a citizen body that understands history and the responsibilities of an informed democracy. They encourage a participatory and informed democracy, and inspire agency in all to address issues such as racism and inequity. Check out their resources, webinars, curriculum, and community of educators to start the conversation about civics in your community.
iCivics – This site full of fun and educational activities related to civics education for youth was developed by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Check out their resources for learning about how to participate in democracy and be an effective citizen.
SOURCES
Brookings – We’ve Built Schools for Modern Economy
Education Commission of the States – Mapping Opportunities for Civic Education
Truthout – Education Central to Democracy
Center for Civics Education – Role of Civics Education
Education Next – Where the Left and Right Agree on Civics Education
Washington Post – Parents Should be Asking for Civics Education in Schools
Washington Post – After Capital Attack Civics Teachers Struggle
The Century Foundation – Putting Democracy Back into Education
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 2: Expanding Access to Healthcare
Brief # 97 Health & Gender Policy
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 2: Expanding Access to Healthcare
By Erin McNemar
March 2, 2021
Policy
Throughout his presidential campaign, President Joe Biden made it clear that women’s rights were going to be a leading issue during his administration. Over the summer, Biden released a policy proposal titled “The Biden Agenda for Women.” The plan outlined different areas in which women are disproportionately impacted, and how he intends to level the playing field. One of the major areas the plan focuses on is expanding and protecting healthcare for women.
Historically, women have faced an uphill battle regarding their right to health coverage. Whether this has been due to lack of representation of women in government or the stigmas created around services like Planned Parenthood, there is a clear bias against women in our healthcare system. While the Affordable Care Act was able to expand health care coverage to many underserved Americans, Biden provides evidence that there is still work to be done. Access to quality healthcare for women, decreasing the maternal mortality rate; ensuring reproductive rights are priority areas of need for women. In Biden’s plan he raises the question: how do we address these health inequalities?
Analysis
When examining Biden’s proposal for women’s health, there is a lot to unpack. The first is the issue of maternal mortality. Biden explains that even before the pandemic hit, the United States had one of the highest rates of deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth among developed countries. Additionally, these rates were higher among women of color. In order to address the issue, Biden has stated he wants to turn his attention to the work being done in California. In California, the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative formed a strategy that cut the state’s number of maternal mortality rates in half. Biden expressed that he plans to implement that strategy on a national level.
In the next part of his plan, Biden discusses the protection of reproductive rights. Many of Biden’s healthcare policies focus on building upon what was created in the Affordable Care Act; reproductive rights are not an exception to that. In addition to making sure that women can receive free contraception, Biden wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment and ensure women’s rights under Roe v.s. Wade. Other steps Biden is looking to take in his administration are to prohibit states from creating laws that violate Roe v.. Wade, restore funding to Planned Parenthood and rescind the Mexico City policy.
Lastly, Biden expresses that when he says he wants to expand healthcare coverage for women, he means all women. This includes allocating resources and updating policies for LGBTQ+ women, women with disabilities, incarcerated women, women veterans and native women. In a country that was developed on the ideas of equality and freedom, striving for equity in healthcare should be a top priority.
Engagement Resources
- Read President Joe Biden’s Agenda for Women Plan.
- Learn more about the Affordable Care Act.
- Read about women and gender equity in
- See what resources are offered at Planned Parenthood.
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
- To keep up to date on the latest health & gender policy news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!
Facebook’s Supreme Court: A New Model For Online Governance?
Technology Brief #39
Facebook’s Supreme Court: A New Model For Online Governance?
February 28, 2021
By Scout Burchill
Summary:
A new experiment in online moderation governance has been taking shape at Facebook over the past two years and its most consequential test is fast approaching. By the end of April Facebook’s Supreme Court, officially called the Oversight Board, will declare a ruling on the company’s permanent ban of Donald Trump from the platform.
Facebook’s Oversight Board was first conceived of in 2018 as an independent quasi-legal governing body that would advise Facebook on its content moderation policies and litigate appeals of users over content moderation enforcements. In the years since, Facebook has invested considerably in developing the operational procedures, powers and composition of the Board. The Board abides by an official public charter and currently consists of 20 members from various areas of expertise as well as diverse backgrounds. By design, the Oversight Board only has the authority to review user appeals that involve ‘take-downs’ of content and can rule to either uphold or overrule them. The Board is indirectly funded by Facebook through a trust to the tune of around $130 million.
Since the Board began officially accepting cases in October 2020, it has already received over 180,000 appeals. The Board itself is responsible for deciding which cases to take on. The inaugural docket was published on December 3rd, 2021 and of the 7 cases taken up so far, the Board overruled Facebook’s moderation decisions on 5 of them, upheld 1 of them and was unable to make a ruling on the 7th because the content was removed by the user. The next docket will include a ruling on Trump’s posts and suspension following the January 6th Capitol Riots.
Analysis:
Facebook’s Oversight Board is a highly controversial experiment in private governance and self-regulation that could pave the way for future models of online governance. The simple fact that Facebook has gone ahead and created its own quasi-legal framework and corporate tribunals is a testament to both the enormous power and reach of the company as well as the utter lack of institutionalized regulatory models for dealing with content moderation policies and speech in the digital sphere. The Trump case will most likely be the defining moment of this nascent institution.
The biggest challenge of any budding governance model is its ability to garner legitimacy in the opinion of the public. Facebook has been working for over two years to construct the Oversight Board and has put in considerable effort to convince the public that this body is a legitimate, independent and transparent entity that will provide accountability for the company’s policies as well as an option for recourse for perceived wrongs. The Oversight Board’s charter laying out the governance framework of how the Board operates is publicly available on the Board’s website (link attached below) and is incredibly accessible. Of particular note is the explicit and purposeful choice of the word “people” instead of “Facebook users” throughout the charter, signaling just how grand and ambitious the company’s vision of the Oversight Board truly is.
In essence, the Board is the ideological fusion of constitutionalism and corporatism. Similar to the Supreme Court, the Board is designed to act as a check on the power of specific content moderation decisions of the company. It has the discretion to accept or reject which cases to review (with some caveats described later). The analogy only goes so far though. As of now, one important way in which it differs from a Supreme Court is that it evaluates each case individually and its rulings do not necessarily set precedents or changes in policy.
The identities of the Board members are publicly available on the Board’s website. They can serve up to three three-year terms. Facebook and the public can recommend Board members, but ultimately trustees appoint the members. The Board reviews and decides on cases in accordance with Facebook’s own content policies and values, so it doesn’t necessarily have free reign to make its own standards. To stretch the Supreme Court analogy a bit further, debates between textualism and contextualism are sure to define many the Board’s rulings and interpretations in cases to come. Finally, the Board’s rulings on individual content decisions are binding for Facebook and for each ruling, the Board must publicly publish its decisions and arguments.
There are certainly reasons to see this approach as a positive development for dealing with controversies over content moderation policies, especially in light of all the controversial and seemingly ad-hoc content moderation decisions that have been made over the years. However, as with most tech issues, the Oversight Board has its fair share of naysayers and skeptics. Critics of the Oversight Board view the corporate tribunal as a sham and a public relations tool at best, rather than a legitimate court of recourse.
Perhaps the most controversial topic is the independence of the Oversight Board. If Facebook cannot convince the public that the Board is indeed impartial and independent then its future will surely be doomed. Besides the fact that the Board is Facebook’s own creation, critics also suggest that financial incentives may dissuade members of the Board from being too tough on Facebook. According to reports, the current 20 members are paid six-figure salaries for around 15 hours of work a week.
While the initial rulings of the Board do seem to suggest that it is willing to overrule Facebook’s own moderation enforcement decisions, the actual power of the Board to influence Facebook’s policies is extremely limited. Since the Board’s inception, this has been one of the most controversial topics from both within and without the company. The Board has no authority to rule on content that has not been removed. This means that the Board has no say on divisive or incendiary content like hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories that remain up on the site. Furthermore, the Board can only issue guidance or advisory opinions when it comes to the actual workings of the company’s algorithmic policies and operational procedures. Issues such as political advertising, algorithmic incentives and the deplatforming of users and groups can only be considered at the direct behest of Facebook, and even then, the Board’s arguments are not binding. This will effectively curb the Board’s ability to make any decisions that might run counter to Facebook’s business model.
Critics also claim that the Oversight Board is a mere mirage to stave off stricter regulations against the company and divert outrage over controversial and politically fraught decisions. In other words, it’s a convenient, pseudo-independent arm of the company wherein the moral implications of Facebook’s business model and societal harms can be offloaded and then lavishly presented as accountability. Accountable Tech, an independent organization, as well as another independent collective of activists and academics called the Real Facebook Oversight Board are among the most outspoken critics of Facebook’s Oversight Board.
A recent conversation between the Carnegie Endowment and Oversight Board co-chair, former Prime Minister of Denmark, Helle Thorning-Schmidt revealed that the Board’s vision for the future is to go even bigger. Thorning-Schmidt suggested that if the Board proves to be an authoritative and legitimate body, other platforms and tech companies may opt in, forming a sort of super tribunal. It is amazing to consider the fact that if this experiment proves to be a success, Facebook’s Oversight Board may end up presiding over one of the largest jurisdictions of any legal system in the world. Speech norms differ widely across the globe, and humor especially varies from culture to culture, so one court to rule them all may ultimately prove unfeasible and easily corrupted by corporate and political interests.
All this background points to the importance of the upcoming Trump decision. Facebook has invested considerable amounts of money and time into making its Oversight Board a legitimate body of governance and accountability. If anything, legitimacy and trust are built over time and it would have made sense for the Oversight Board to steer clear of particularly polarizing and politicized rulings. But after the events of January 6th and the suspension of the sitting president, this position has become untenable. Not ruling on this case would deal a severe blow to the legitimacy of the institution right as it is getting off the ground. Currently, the Oversight Board is accepting feedback from the public on the Trump case. You can submit your very own ‘amicus brief’ to the court via the Oversight Board’s website. Reportedly, Trump personally called Mark Zuckerberg to express his opposition to the composition of the current Board and has even submitted his own appeal, which will be considered in the ruling.
The importance of the Oversight Board’s ruling on the Trump case cannot be overstated. Even though the Oversight Board is technically no Supreme Court, its ruling on the Trump case will reverberate just as resoundingly as a Supreme Court decision. There is a lot on the line not only for Facebook’s experiment in self-regulation, but also for future models of internet and social media governance.
Resistance Resources:
The Oversight Board’s Official Website
The Real Facebook Oversight Board
https://the-citizens.com/real-facebook-oversight/
Accountable Tech Organization and their Report on the Oversight Board
https://accountabletech.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Move-Slow-and-Fake-Things.pd
Sources and Further Reading for the Curious
Insider Account of the Making of the Oversight Board
New York Times Article on Trump Case
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/24/business/media/trump-facebook-oversight-board.html
Times Magazine on the Oversight Board
https://time.com/5934393/facebook-oversight-board-big-tech-future/
Oversight Board’s Comments on Expanding to Include Other Platforms
https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/11/facebook-oversight-board-other-social-networks-beyond-facebook/
Trump Submits Appeal to Oversight Board
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-submitted-an-appeal-to-facebook-oversight-board-2021-2
The Formation of Real Facebook Oversight Board
Reputable Criticisms of Oversight Board
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/02/17/the-facebook-oversight-board/
https://time.com/5933989/facebook-oversight-regulating-social-media/
Killer Robots are a Reality, Where Does the Biden Administration Stand?
Brief #40 – Technology
By Charles A. Rubin
Killer Robots are a Reality, Where Does the Biden Administration Stand?
Policy Summary
Fully autonomous weapons, the stuff of dystopian sci-fi novels, are now approaching reality. The US, China, Israel, South Korea, Russia, and the UK are developing weapons systems with significant autonomy in their critical functions of selecting and attacking targets. If left unchecked the world could enter a destabilizing robotic arms race. These weapons include autonomous submarines, precision bombs and autonomous machine guns similar to the one that Iranians authorities claimed to have killed scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in late November.
Unlike drone weapons, which have a human albeit remote handler, Fully Autonomous Weapons Systems (FAWS) decide algorithmically who lives and who dies without further human intervention. FAWS systems cross a moral threshold that lack the inherently human characteristics such as compassion that are necessary to make complex ethical decisions. With a new administration the United States must take a leadership role in banning these weapons worldwide.
Analysis
Replacing troops with FAWS could likely make the decision to go to war easier and shift the cost of conflict even further onto civilians. FAWS would make tragic mistakes with unanticipated consequences that could inflame tensions a greater possibility.
Twenty eight countries have called for a pre-emptive ban on killer robots. In addition, the Non-Aligned Movement, the largest bloc of states operating in the UN, has called for a legally binding instrument stipulating prohibitions and regulations of such weapons. Austria, Brazil, and Chile support the negotiation of “a legally binding instrument to ensure meaningful human control over the critical functions” of weapon system. A few others have expressed their interest in non–legally binding mechanisms, such as a political declaration proposed by France and Germany. Until the US, China and its allies join this movement and ban companies from R&D the advancement and eventual deployment will only continue.
According to a report from the Congressional Research Service “U.S. policy does not prohibit the development or employment of FAWS. Although the United States does not currently have FAWS in its inventory, some senior military and defense leaders have stated that the United States may be compelled to develop FAWS in the future if potential US adversaries choose to do so.”
The US National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, in an interim report released to Congress in October 2020, acknowledged the risks of autonomous weapons. The commission, headed by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, warned of pressure to build machines that react quickly, which could escalate conflicts. The panel strongly emphasized the need to have humans make decisions on launching nuclear warheads, for instance. The panel recommended anti-proliferation work as opposed to a treaty banning the systems, which it said would be against US interests and difficult to enforce. It is clear, though, that the US must stake out a position and lead the debate.
Renewal Resources
- The Federation of American Scientists provides science-based analysis of and solutions to protect against catastrophic threats to national and international security.
- Reaching Critical Will (RCW) is the disarmament programme of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), the oldest women’s peace organisation in the world.
- Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA) is an international network of legislators who work together to advance peace and understanding around the world.
Fishing Boat Dispatch # 2
Changing Tides: A new blog post on the marine environment written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Reporter Katherine Cart
Fishing Boat Dispatch # 2
March 1, 2021
I came to Amaknak Island by plane. The mountains the plane passes between were, in June, very green. The visual sense that the Aleutian Chain gives is of a treeless Hawaii – its geology is similar; the landscape is very young, and active volcanoes grow the islands sporadically. Extending like a hooked arm, the Aleutians delineate the southern edge of the Bering Sea. Amaknak rises from the North Pacific, 800 miles south of Anchorage. Around the smidge of land that is the Aleutian Chain, there is very little but sea.
Amaknak’s Iliuliuk Bay, where 300 foot vessels dock, offload fish, and fuel, drops dramatically to twenty fathoms. The basalt and andesite flows and pyroclastic rocks that form the cliffs of Mounts Ballyhoo and Split Top, and through which obdurate roads have been blasted, rise nearly two thousand feet from the bay edge. Thin soil, reddish, capped by tall grasses and shrub like a fur, holds tremulous purchase on the volcanic substrate. There is a wildness and fragility to Amaknak. With nearly three thousand residents, Amaknak is the most populous of Aleutian islands, and where Dutch Harbor provides anchorage to the North Pacific fishing and shipping fleets. Billions of dollars pass through each year.
The litoral margins of islands Amaknak and Unalaska house factories, supply stores, dynamite-blasted roads, and small mountains of CONEX containers that grow and shift and diminish as they are offloaded, filled with frozen fish product, and locked onto the decks of six-hundred foot carrier vessels. Semis move containers from factory to dock. Upon completing a two week trip, the lines of factory fishing vessels are caught by longshoremen, and crews of thirty or a hundred begin offloading into warehouse and waiting CONEX hundreds of thousands of pounds flash-frozen pollock, flatfish, rockfish, cod – reduced from individual entities to fillet, surimi, a gutted, buyable product. Everyday, at any hour, this churn twists. There is no night in Dutch Harbor.
I have walked across the island in winter, when the sun has set hours before and only rises perfunctorily. Darkness on the road is a brief punctuation between fluorescent, dazzling lights. Trucks drive back and forth and back again, from Westward Plant on Unalaska Island, to City Dock in Iliuliuk Bay, from Kloosterboer to town. Across the roads we have cut into the land, the dirt bleeds, sod hangs like skin, basalt is boney, black. There is the sense everywhere of wounds not quite healed. And very tired people scurry, moving fish.
Once, during the second world war, Dutch Harbor was a military base. Its ordnance formed Alaska’s Iron Ring and suffered in June of 1942 a Japanese air strike. You can see the remains of the fortification everywhere, and especially well from Mount Ballyhoo. Artillery digs make oddly geometric lines across the hump of Bunker Hill. Cement bunkers sit atop many hills, and beneath, into the rock, are bored caves like wormholes for storage and infantry movement. On Ulakta Head sits the highest battery in North America, at 897 feet. Below, anti-submarine nets once crossed the mouth of Iliuliuk Bay. On Hog Island, in spring, flowers nearly cover the gun shields of Fort Learnard. When the war ended, the U.S. navy leaked away, leaving the cement husks of conflict in the landscape.
Before the war, and before commercial fishing, and before Russian fur-trappers arrived in the eighteenth century and erected the green-steepled Church of the Holy Ascension on the slopes of Unalaska, indigenous Unangan people lived on the islands for thousands of years – though you’d be hard pressed to find their any obvious trace. The last several centuries of human development have been like the sudden, fitful seep of a volcano, radically amending landscape.
Beneath the water, we dig holes too. Trawlers whose nets scrape the benthos pull black mud, coral, old plastic, unsellable sculpin, sand lances and dollars, crab (last summer, a codend dumped five metric ton crab to deck – a slowly crawling mountain, up which deck hands ran, laughing), all to target this fish or that fish, at the whim of buyers. The seafloor we gouge with codends like bombs dropped from the sea roof is delicate spawning ground, quiet habitat in which competition has evolved for millenia. The act of trawl fishing seems to me much like spraying a machine gun through a forest, hoping to kill a deer. I don’t know how long it takes the mud to settle. Perhaps not so long as the ratifying of litigation that would eliminate wasteful fishing, but long enough.
Two noticeable heat “blobs” have bloomed off the west coast of North America over the last decade. In aerial heat maps of water temperature anomalies, the Bering Sea, during these events, registers a deep, brickish red. The color denotes an average temperature increase of 3ºC. Pacific cod, a fatty fish whose eggs are susceptible to heat flux took – and are taking – a beating. The alarmingly low cod stock, when I was collecting data aboard a pollock dragger last winter, limited catch size across fisheries and threatened to close areas to trawl fishing.
In 2019, another heat-bubble bloomed, moving from the South Pacific north, changing ecosystems, coastal climate, weather patterns. I saw, and became quite used to, many tons of northern sea nettle falling like giant raindrops from net to trawl alley. Jellyfish are impossibly durable invertebrates: they can survive in low-oxygen water when other species might seek cleaner currents. Warming trends boost plankton growth, diminishing oxygen. On a different boat, a factory vessel, there were, for a few days, as many jellyfish as pollock in my samples.
A broad sheet of sea ice seen on a clear winter dawn is a tremendous thing. It is soft and pinkish until the horizon, and behind you, the Bering Sea is black, gold, pink, translucent and green at wave tip – it is a field of rippling mirror. Sea ice, each winter, shrinks. Its southern edge moves north. Fish whose habitat is frontier ice move north. Do we follow?
Things are moving. We are moving. Of course, migration is a constant. Living matter seeks new ledges on which to root. Monarchs cross the Atlantic. Humans walk land bridges and steel bridges. Last week, the Perseverance Rover landed on Mars. Cold flamingos come down from the mountains, and the mountains rise up from the sea. The Earth grows callus in ridges, absorbing stampede, monsoon, quake and rot.
Looking at Dutch Harbor from Ballyhoo, I was reminded of a child’s playthings, spilt across a carpet. Blue-roofed houses, factories billowing fishmeal steam, roads that, from so high above, appear benign, even quaint. It’s impossible not to wonder what will happen to that place when, inevitably, we move onwards, perhaps northwards, and settle our boxes and buildings and giant semi trucks elsewhere. How long does it take an island to grow up, grow over, reclaim? And can the seafloor recover?
Learn More:
“New Marine Heatwave Emerges off West Coast, Resembles ‘the Blob’” NOAA (5 September, 2019), retrieved 27 February from: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/new-marine-heatwave-emerges-west-coast-resembles-blob
2 New Congressional Bills Seek to Address Racial Inequalities in US Agriculture
Agricultural Policy
Brief # 1
2 New Congressional Bills Seek to Address Racial Inequalities in US Agriculture
By Katherine Cart
February 22, 2021
POLICY
Racial inequity and farm policy, in this country, have long been indivisible; discrimination in agrarian land ownership and by the USDA has made a farce of an already flimsy bid for equality, for financial freedom and freedom to farm and ranch American land with the nonpartisan support of government. The COVID-19 pandemic has both exacerbated and highlighted the racism within the USDA’s treatment of farmers. Two recently introduced bills promise definitive, sweeping change: the Justice for Black Farmers Act was reintroduced by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ); the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act was introduced by Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA). The sentiments of these bills are reflected in the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the full text of which was released by the budget committee for review on February 19. The passing of these bills would mark an inflection point in the intersection of civil rights and agrarian economy.
The bills recognize that discrimination is not explicit, that equity within US agriculture is not exclusive – a sentiment whose drum has been beaten until it should break, for there are those that will not hear. The passage of the bills would increase funding within the USDA for technical assistance and programs such as Conservation Stewardship and Rural Energy for America, benefitting all marginalized farmers and ranchers, and, one should note, boosting more ecologically conscious farming practices. The Justice for Black Farmers Act would also strengthen the antitrust measure of the Packer and Stockyards Act of 1921 – a boon to the wellbeing of the employees, ranchers and consumers of mega meat-packing conglomerates.
However stale the recitation of the impacts of the pandemic on small business may now be, the financial reality is no less grave. The Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act, as described in the American Rescue Plan of 2021, would subsidize marginalized farmers and ranchers, mitigating the most acute financial effects of the pandemic. In the first round of pandemic aid, the smallest 10% of farms and ranches – those who spend more to make less, proportionally, and are more likely to be owned by a person of color – received each, on average, $300. “COVID-19 has exacerbated the challenges facing New Mexico’s farmers and ranchers. Yet, Hispanic, Native American, and Black farmers in New Mexico did not receive their fair share of COVID-19 relief under the last administration,” said Senator Ben Ray Luján, “this legislation is an important step toward addressing this historic injustice, and it provides farmers and ranchers of color with the targeted relief needed to survive the pandemic and thrive in the years to come.”
In an effort to slow the proportional decline of Black-owned farms, the Justice for Black Farmers Act would create a Farm Conservation Corps sponsored by the USDA. Young adult participants from socially disadvantaged communities would gain experience on local farms and ranches, and be paid through the USDA, at no cost to farmers grossing less than $250,000 per annum. Successful participants would be given priority for new land grants of up to 160 acres. Both bills also provide increased funding for 1890s land grant universities and other HBCUs, fortifying the theoretical and technical skill of young farmers. The bills also seek to provide greater access to legal aid and education for farmers of color, with the intent to lessen the impact of heirs’ property on Black-ownership of farming acreage. The modalities of the bills are attractive in their targeted upshots; they address systematic problems with systematic solutions. Leah Penniman, Co-Executive Director and Farm Manager of Soul Fire Farm, describes Justice for Black Farmers as, “the opportunity to correct decades of discrimination, preserve agricultural lands, and equip the next generation of farmers who will feed the nation.”
ANALYSIS
These bills are not fundamentally radical. They acknowledge the constitutionality of fair and equal treatment. Support of their rhetoric has bipartisan support. USDA Chief of Staff Katherine Ferguson stated that the USDA was “pleased to see the introduction of the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color,” and that the bill would “bring much needed economic assistance during the pandemic and begin to advance equity for farmers of color.” The likelihood of the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act being passed as part of the American Rescue Plan is high; the 2021 budget resolution, according to a recent House Committee report, “laid the groundwork for bold action by providing the option of using the budget reconciliation.” The bill will be voted on by the House Budget Committee on February 22. The agricultural component of the plan is largely uncontroversial and not in threat of elimination. Senate Majority Leader Schumer predicts President Biden will sign the plan before March 14. Justice for Black Farmers was introduced to the Senate on February 8 and will be addressed following the resolution of the American Rescue Plan.
Engagement Resources
Building Local Food Economies:
Maintaining and strengthening local economies through diversification of food and food suppliers. https://cefs.ncsu.edu/food-system-initiatives/local-food-economies/a-government-guide-on-building-local-food-economies/
Farm Aid:
Works with local, regional and national organizations to promote fair farm policies and grassroots organizing campaigns designed to defend and bolster family farm-centered agriculture. https://www.farmaid.org/
National Black Farmers Association:
Encourages the participation of small and disadvantaged farmers in gaining access to resources of state and federal programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.blackfarmers.org/
Learn More:
“Booker, Warren, Gillibrand, Smith, Warnock, and Leahy Announce Comprehensive Bill to Address the History of Discrimination in Federal Agricultural Policy.” Cory Booker United States Senator for New Jersey (9 February, 2021), retrieved February 18 from: https://www.booker.senate.gov/news/press/booker-warren-gillibrand-smith-warnock-and-leahy-announce-comprehensive-bill-to-address-the-history-of-discrimination-in-federal-agricultural-policy
“Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act 2021.” 117th Congress (2021), retrieved February 18 from: https://www.warnock.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Emergency-Relief-for-Farmers-of-Color-Act-of-2021.pdf
Presser, Lizzie. “Their Family Bought Land One Generation After Slavery. The Reels Brothers Spent Eight Years in Jail for Refusing to Leave it.” ProPublica (15 July, 2019), retrieved February 18 from: https://features.propublica.org/black-land-loss/heirs-property-rights-why-black-families-lose-land-south/
Statement by Katherine Ferguson, USDA Chief of Staff, on the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act (2021, February 9) retrieved February 18 from: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/02/09/statement-katharine-ferguson-usda-chief-staff-emergency-relief
Ramgopal, Kit, and Lehren, Andrew W. “Small farmers left behind in Trump administration’s COVID-19 relief package.” NBC News (9 August, 2020), retrieved February 20 from: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/small-farmers-left-behind-trump-administration-s-covid-19-relief-n1236158
Maryland’s New Tax – A Significant Step Forward in Digital Policy-Making
Technology Brief #38
Maryland’s New Tax – A Significant Step Forward in Digital Policy-Making
February 6, 2021
By Scout Burchill
Summary:
On Friday, February 12th the Maryland State Senate overrode Governor Hogan’s veto to become the first state in the nation to impose a tax on digital advertising revenue. Even though the new law is already being challenged in the courts, its passage reflects the dire need to plug gaping holes in state and local budgets due to pandemic losses as well as enact innovative new approaches to taxing and regulating big tech companies that have continued to rake in record profits over the past year.
Maryland’s Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax would impose a 2.5% tax on advertising revenue made by selling digital advertising within the state for companies that make over $100 million a year globally from digital advertising revenues. This tax rate increases to 5% for companies making between $1 billion and $5 billion, 7.5% for companies making between $5 billion and $15 billion and finally 10% for those companies making more that $15 billion, essentially targeting Google and Facebook. The new tax is expected to generate $250 million after the first year, which will be set aside for Maryland’s education system.
Critics, predominantly made up of big tech and advertising industry interest groups, claim that the cost of these new taxes will simply be passed on to local businesses who end up being forced to pay higher rates for advertising services in Maryland. They also question whether Maryland can tax companies and activities that operate outside the state. Strong legal pushback is expected and already underway as the Maryland model may present a framework for other states going forward. Connecticut and Indiana have already proposed similar measures.
Analysis:
Many eyes will be on Maryland over the next year eager to see what will come of the state’s efforts to redirect a percentage of Big Tech’s ever-growing profits to prop up local communities in the face of ballooning budget deficits. Whatever the outcome may be, this new legislation is a significant step in the implementation of digital policy and governance in the United States and highlights two trends that have been emerging in the tech policy world that will be outlined below.
Firstly, it is undeniable that the tides have decisively turned against the laissez faire approach the federal government has taken to regulating the technology industry. This long-time negligence is now resulting in a flurry of new efforts to regulate and tax Big Tech giants at state levels. There is a growing sentiment, compounded by the pandemic, that companies like Facebook and Google are not paying their ‘fair share’ relative to their massive profits and oversized influence on the economy and society. Bill Ferguson, a Democratic state senator who championed Maryland’s new tax law captures this growing sentiment well in a recent Facebook post (Ironic, right?), “At a time when Maryland’s budget is being impacted in unforeseen and astronomical ways due to COVID-19, Maryland families and businesses can foot the bill, or big tech can start paying their fair share.”
The federal government’s lack of vision and political will to address these issues over the past years has created a vacuum that states are now attempting to fill on their own, especially in regards to regulating and taxing these companies. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ recent proposal to punish the censorship of tech companies is another example to this trend. The details of DeSantis’s proposal are vague and verge on the incoherent, but the proposal itself is evidence of this growing trend. It’s hard to imagine, but the end result may be a splintering of the nation’s digital sphere into separate fiefdoms with regulation and taxation deriving from state levels. Whether this is even feasible as a potential business model for tech companies is another question. A more probable outcome is that these state initiatives will end up being the testing grounds that pave the way for a more coherent national policy initiative, something akin to how Romneycare in Massachusetts created the model for Obamacare on a national level.
The second point is that these developments within the United States mirror many of the trends that have been emerging globally in the governance of tech and the digital sphere. The online world is increasingly splintering and territorializing as nations around the world impose their own moderation, taxation and regulation regimes in the digital sphere.
This trend is illustrated well by the fact that Maryland is not the first place to enact this tax policy. France and Austria already tax digital advertising revenue. In fact, European policy makers have been pioneering different approaches and taking on governance problems posed by big tech companies for a couple years now. Even though Maryland lawmaker Bill Ferguson credits an Op-Ed in The New York Times by Paul Romer as the source of inspiration behind the new bill, his colleague, Senator James Rosapepe offered his own explanation to the New York Times that reveals insight into a train of thought emerging globally in tech policy. He told the Times, “I don’t think the issue’s any different in Maryland than it is in California, India, France or Spain…Given that they’re so profitable, they ought to be paying taxes.”
For decades the United States’ greatest ‘exports’ have been the influence and power of tech giants like Facebook and Google, which have revolutionized the world and life itself, but now the United States may be looking abroad to ‘import’ policies that address the economic and social harms that these companies have wrought. In countries all over the world there are ongoing experiments, both good and bad, that aim to reign in the power of Big Tech companies and reshape the digital sphere.
A great example currently underway is happening in Australia. A new law proposed there would require companies like Facebook and Google to pay news organizations for content. The law is a response to Big Tech companies monopolizing advertising revenues which has caused funding for good journalism to be siphoned away toward clickbait and other less reputable sources of information. Healthy democracies are dependent on good information and many critics of Big Tech platforms argue that the built-in incentives of these platforms exacerbate polarization, misinformation and sensationalist news coverage, while eradicating the traditional sources of funding for news organizations. The law will enable the embattled news industry to bargain with tech platforms for the use of their work. The world will be watching to see how events unfold.
While individual states may become experimental testing grounds for larger nation-wide tech and digital policy initiatives, American policy makers should not lose sight of innovative policy attempts being implemented abroad. The United States may have unleashed the beast, but it is not alone in figuring out ways to tame it.
Bold American policy initiatives have languished in recent decades. The United States’ botched coronavirus response coupled with years of elite failures from the Iraq War to the 2008 financial crisis have sown distrust and cynicism in many Americans’ views of their government. But from failure perhaps a sense of humility can take root. A recent report by the Pew Research Center reveals that in the midst of the pandemic a majority of Americans, and especially younger Americans, believe they can learn a fair amount about policy issues from other countries.
As the Biden Administration looks to rebuild a sense of trust and pride in our government institutions at home as well as restore ties with new and traditional allies abroad, tech and digital policy may emerge as a fruitful domain. By looking within, at pioneering states in the union, as well as outwards to foreign governments and allies, the Biden Administration will be better equipped to craft tech policies that address the societal and economic harms of Big Tech while also promoting democratic ideals, economic rights, and open spaces for free expression.
Resistance Resources on Tech Policy:
https://www.internetgovernance.org/
https://www.economicliberties.us/big-tech-monopolies/
Sources:
NYT on Maryland Digital Ads Tax
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/technology/maryland-digital-ads-tax.html
Tech Groups’ Lawsuits against MD Digital Ad Tax
Op-Ed Referenced as Inspiration for MD Digital Ad Tax
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/opinion/tax-facebook-google.html
Australia’s New Digital Publishing Law
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/technology/facebook-google-australia-news.html
Pew Research Report
MIS-C: What is it, and Why it Matters
Brief # 96 Health and Gender Policy
MIS-C: What is it, and Why it Matters
By Justin Lee
February 24, 2021
Policy
There are multiple reports of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (in children, MIS-C) being seen across the world shortly after the onset of COVID-19. Children and teen patients with MIS-C can suffer from inflammation that can limit blood flow throughout the body, exposing danger to major organs such as the heart, kidneys, and other organs. While cases, which have ranged from ages 2 to 15 years, have been considered rare the outcome can be dangerous if left untreated. MIC-C can be treated with drugs that can control the inflammation and prevent prolonged, permanent organ damage.
These onsets and continued uncertainty affect President Biden as he continues to gear America for reopening and reestablishing a sense of normalcy. Should high-contact environments, like schools or entertainment venues, be reopened considering the spread of MIS-C?
Analysis
Before this question is addressed, it is important to outline that most children who are infected with COVID-19 have mild illness. It is rare that pediatric patients with COVID develop MIS-C, and most these cases are treated with early medical care. Current studies do link children with MIS-C with COVID-19 antibodies, but it is unclear which variant these children were infected with. More studies with analysis are needed to confirm whether or not certain variants expose pediatric patients more to MIS-C than other variants.
MIS-C joins a number of obstacles that fuel uncertainty of determining how much longer the pandemic will go on. In combination of different variants and the still trickling vaccine distribution, America reopening to a sense of normalcy seems distant. And that is correct. Protocols for face coverings, routine testing, and social distancing will not go away this year. Viruses have and will continue to mutate, and President Biden should focus on deciding factors for reopening; factors like COVID-19 hospitalization rates, new infection rates, and percentage of vaccinated or antibody-positive Americans. These factors should be considered when taking steps to reopen for all high contact environments like schools and restaurants.
As of mid-February, only 11.5% of American shave been vaccinated. However, with vaccines beginning to be distributed in nationwide pharmacies along with the likely Emergency Use Authorization approval for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine should help boost vaccination and COVID protection efforts worldwide. There will continue to be new obstacles to rid the pandemic, but America has to be hopeful that hope and progress for normalcy is clearly visible and welcome news.
Learn More
Helpful links
US News: Biden and School Reopenings
Engagement Resources
Trust for America’s Health is a public health policy and research organization that advocates for a nation that values the health and well-being of Americans. Their organization has valuable information regarding health policies and issues on a federal and state level, and also actively publishes reports regarding public health on their website. To find more information or to get involved, use the link below:
The American Public Health Association is an organization aimed to Improve the health of the public and achieve equity in health status. As the main publishers for the American Journal of Public Health and The Nation’s Health newspapers, APHA educates the public on public health, policy statements, and advocacy for public health. To volunteer or become a member, use the link below:
Where Do Things Stand with Iran?
Brief # 102
Foreign Policy
Where do Things Stand with Iran?
By Will Solomon
February 24, 2021
Policy Summary:
A central premise of the Biden candidacy was reentering the JCPOA (the Iran Nuclear Deal), which was negotiated and signed by the Obama administration in 2015, and subsequently exited by the Trump administration in 2018. This goal was seen as both a rebuke to Trumpism, as a means for international diplomatic re-engagement, and as practical step to avoid increased nuclear proliferation and potential war in the Greater Middle East.
There were always logistical challenges in doing so—among them, that Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement led Iran to stop complying with aspects of the deal. Still, the onus was clearly on the United States, who had breached the agreement, to take the first steps towards re-engagement.
Why, then, has the Biden administration been slow to adopt practical measures demonstrating its intent to re-enter the deal?
Analysis:
The Iranian government continues to be clear that they expect all Trump-era sanctions to be lifted before re-engaging with the JCPOA. But the Biden administration has resisted taking this step. One likely issue for their intransigence seems to be domestic politics; the Biden administration presumably desires not to be seen as weak or caving to Iranian demands. Long-standing bipartisan hostility to Iran make this absurd policy more practicable.
Whatever the case, there is no good excuse. These tired debates over whether engagement emboldens Iranian leadership are of another era. The fact is that the United States reneged on a vital and complex multilateral agreement, and the burden has since been on the United States to (attempt to) make good on its previous failure.
This position is largely shared by American allies and other signatories to the deal. Other signatories have done what they could to keep the deal alive since the 2018 American withdrawal, though America unquestionably retained the most power in the agreement. This said, President Macron of France recently expressed support for strengthening the deal and bringing in other regional states, like Saudi Arabia, a position Iran is likely to refuse
Despite an effective months-long delay, the Biden administration has recently taken steps to indicate they wish to re-engage with Iran. But as noted above, Iran justifiably insists that sanctions imposed by Trump be removed prior to good faith negotiations.
There clearly is potential, in this moment, for renegotiation on this crucial issue. Multilateral diplomacy was successful in the past, and could be once again. But as Joe Cirincione writes in Responsible Statecraft: “Biden can’t simply put Iran on hold. Time is not on his side. There are too many things that could go wrong and too many saboteurs in both nations that want to kill the deal. The longer he waits, the more likely it is that an incident in the Middle East wars, such as Israeli attacks on Iranian sites and personnel, or the recent Iraqi militia attack that killed an American contractor in Erbil, will trigger a larger conflict.”
Indeed, the Biden administration must act quickly; there is no good reason for a delay. In doing so, they must implicitly acknowledge US fault in exiting the accord by committing to re-enter the deal in good faith—and this almost certainly will involve removing Trump-era sanctions. It is incumbent upon Biden’s supporters, and those who simply voted for him seeking a change from Trumpism, to push him to make the right decision.
Resources:
https://www.armscontrol.org — “The Arms Control Association, founded in 1971, is a national nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of and support for effective arms control policies.”
https://quincyinst.org — “The Quincy Institute is an action-oriented think tank that will lay the foundation for a new foreign policy centered on diplomatic engagement and military restraint. The current moment presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring together like-minded progressives and conservatives and set U.S. foreign policy on a sensible and humane footing.”
https://thebulletin.org — “The Bulletin equips the public, policymakers, and scientists with the information needed to reduce man-made threats to our existence.”
Leading Environmental Organizations Went Public with a Letter That Supported the Impeachment of President Trump
Environmental Policy Brief # 110
Leading Environmental Organizations Went Public with a Letter That Supported the Impeachment of President Trump
Written By: Shannon Q Elliott
Wednesday, February 24, 2021
Leaders of America’s most prominent environmental organizations penned a letter to the US House of Representatives in support of House Resolution 24; a second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. The letter was authored by The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Greenpeace US, and the Natural Resources Defense Council who concluded the letter gently reminding our leaders that the “health of our democracy and environment are inextricably linked”
The groups affirm that the letter reflects like-minded members who feel that the politically irresponsible actions of January 6, border on treason. They insist that we must hold public officials accountable for continued misuse of their platform. While it’s true that these organizations have their own agenda for disbarring Trump, the letter is not a reflection of their own fight for environmental justice. Their fight will continue in the courts and challenge the rollback back of over 125 protections. Collaboratively the groups have filed over 259+ lawsuits.
During the Trump Administration, the environmental sector saw last minute language changes to The Endangered Species Act; (ESA) which safeguarded land to conserve threatened species. Now, the federal government can commandeer the land if the benefits to humanity are greater than the retention of species. The changes also included a loss of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl and axed the wolverine off the endangered species list. Additionally, Trump announced the successful installation of 450 miles of protective fencing securing southern points of California, New Mexico, and Arizona. The administration was laser-focused on the completion of the promised border wall and neglected environmental protections leaving the area susceptible to climate change, species diversion, harmful emissions, dwindling water supply, and irreversible landscape changes to the indigenous beauty of these three states.
Analysis
The letter was not written in a retaliatory or vengeful tone. Organizations such as The Sierra Club et al, harbor brilliant educated minds who can sharply articulate how the past four years have impacted the coexistence of democracy and environment. Ramon Cruz, President of the Sierra Club was the Deputy Director of the state environmental regulatory agency in Puerto Rico and held senior positions at the Environmental Defense Fund, Abigail Dillen, President of Earth justice served as the Vice President of Litigation for Climate & Energy; Sylvia Baca , Board of Directors for Defenders of Earth wildlife served as deputy assistant secretary at the Department of the Interior (DOI) from 2009 to 2012 and was assistant secretary from 1995 to 2001. These are just a few board members with outstanding credibility, and whose opinions should be revered.
The groups were optimistic that the letter would show habitual evidence that the ex-president was inconsistent, and a danger to the American people. However, as we now know the Senate failed to convict President Trump and the letter from the environmental organizations is still worth publicizing as a catalogue of environmental abuses by the Trump administration that now urgently must be reversed. It is reproduced for our readers below.
United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510
Re: Environmental Organizations Support H.Res. 24, Impeachment of President Trump
Dear Representative,
The undersigned environmental groups write today on behalf of our millions of members and supporters to express our support for Congress using immediate and appropriate processes to impeach President Trump for inciting last week’s white supremacist violent insurrection at the United States Capitol.
President Trump remains a clear and present danger to the safety and security of everyone in this country. He encouraged and incited the deadly mob on January 6, and perpetuated the unfounded and harmful claims about the 2020 election that inspired their actions. The riot caused multiple deaths and directly threatened our national security, and the president responded with inaction followed by further defense of the violent behavior.
These actions, and President Trump’s refusal to take any responsibility or adequately disavow the acts of violence and insurrection, raise serious concerns about the harms he may continue to cause during his final days in office. Taking immediate steps to impeach President Trump ensures accountability for his dangerous behavior and sets a critical precedent that efforts to overturn free and fair elections are not tolerated.
In addition, members of Congress who joined in the incitement of violence, or who returned to the ransacked Capitol building hours later and voted to overturn an election based on the same unfounded lies that motivated the mob, must be held accountable for violating their oaths of office.
Holding elected officials accountable and ensuring our elections remain free and fair are essential for the preservation of our democracy. And the health of our democracy and environment are inextricably linked. For these reasons, we strongly urge you to support H.Res. 24, the impeachment of President Trump.
Sincerely,
Defenders of Wildlife
Earthjustice
Friends of the Earth
U.S. Greenpeace
US League of Conservation Voters
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Ocean Conservancy
Sierra Club
The Wilderness Society
Union of Concerned Scientists
Join the movement
Learn More:
Final Days of Trump . (2021). https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/11/20/what-to-expect-from-the-final-days-of-the-trump-presidency
Midnight Regulations . (2020, December). https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/06/politics/trump-midnight-regulations-record-rulemaking/index.html
The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List. (2021). https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html
Trump Administration May Hurt Wildlife . (2021). https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2021/01/trump-admin-midnight-actions-hurt-wildlife-environment/
Resistance Resources
Earthjustice : Earthjustice.org
Defenders of Wildlife : https://defenders.org/
National Resources Defense Council: https://www.nrdc.org/
The Sierra Club : https://sierraclub.org