|
|
Elizabeth Warren on EnvironmentMassachusetts Senator; former head of CFPB; Dem. Presidential Challenger |
WARREN: It's got to be hard to watch your homelands disappear. [In my climate plan] I want to work on this with the communities that are affected--making sure that this money goes down to the community level, that it doesn't go, I'll be blunt, to governors. [In all my policy plans], it's not going to be a one and done that's all confined. So, for example, on the policies about our federal government's relationship with our native tribes, it's about respecting the tribe's ability to take care of their own land, to be good stewards of the land. I will not approve any plans for the use of federal lands that can affect what happens on tribal lands--I will not do that without the prior informed consent of the neighboring tribes. I think that's how we help tribes be the stewards of the land that they have been for generations and I know they will be for generations to come.
WARREN: I like that. We need a Blue New Deal, as well [a Green New Deal]. I just want to say on this one about the oceans. The rising acidification and the fact that now, in Boston, the lobsters move to Maine because it's too warm in the waters. I talk to folks who fish commercially off our shores [in Massachusetts]. They keep pulling stuff up that they don't even know what it is--[because those species used to get caught] off the coast of Florida. Here's what really scares me. This isn't slowing down. It's speeding up. We count on our oceans for life, not just for food, but what it means in our entire climate. So you want to call it a Blue New Deal, count me in. But part of getting the carbon out of the air, out of the water, out of the soil is also about the change in what's happening in our oceans.
"Elizabeth Warren has fought her whole career against the billion dollar companies that have been raking in record profits while American families pay the price in terms of our health, our economy, and our environment," said the Political Chair of the MA Sierra Club. "Warren understands that fighting for middle-class families means standing up to big banks and big polluters alike."
The Clean Water Action group which works to promote clean and affordable water, said they believe Warren will best promote environmental protection in the Senate. "Warren shares our commitment to preventing pollution and protecting our air quality," said Clean Water Action.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes: Mr. WHITEHOUSE: This measure was part of the RESTORE Act, [but] this piece of it fell out of the bargain. If you supported the RESTORE Act, you have already supported this bill. If you believe that deals should be deals in the Senate, then you should support this bill. It is very important that we as a body support this bill. It does not create a single extra bureaucracy or person. It works within the existing government, and it adds no funding.
MississippiRiverDelta.org Summary of RESTORE Act: The Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act (RESTORE Act) dedicates 80% of all Clean Water Act penalties paid by those responsible for the 2010 gulf oil disaster to Gulf Coast restoration.
Proponent's press release supporting Yes vote: The National Endowment for the Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes Act would provide steady funding that universities, non-profit organizations, and government agencies can count on every year to support research and restoration projects. It would be funded primarily by dedicating 12.5% of revenues from offshore energy development, including oil, gas, and renewable energy. Revenue is generated through offshore lease sales and production based royalty payments. Funds from the Endowment would be distributed through a competitive grant program to fund projects to restore habitat, manage fisheries, plan for sustainable coastal development, enhance ocean monitoring and research activities, acquire coastal properties for preservation, and relocate critical coastal infrastructure.
Congressional Summary:
Discussion of pro/con (Huffington Post 4/25/2013):
Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans--over 90%--supports mandatory labeling of foods with GE ingredients. 64 other countries already require such labels. However, strong opposition from the agriculture and biotech industries has scuttled proposals for GMO (Genetically-Modified Organisms) labeling laws in the past. The most recent and high-profile of these failed attempts at a GMO labeling requirement was California's Proposition 37, which was narrowly defeated after opponents spent $50 million lobbying against it. "Unfortunately, advocates of mandatory GMO labeling are working an agenda to vilify biotechnology and scare consumers away from safe and healthful food products," a Biotechnology Industry Organization spokeswoman wrote.
Argument in opposition (Food Democracy Now 5/26/2012):
Exactly 20 years ago today, the first Bush administration declared genetically engineered foods to be "substantially equivalent" to foods that farmers had traditionally bred for thousands of years. With this single policy, the US government radically altered the food supply, introducing novel genes into our food that had never before been consumed by humans. Corporate executives at Monsanto colluded with elected officials to make sure that their new "products" were placed onto the market as quickly as possible. Two decades later, Americans are still denied the basic right to know what's in their food because of this infamous policy.
Library of Congress Summary: This joint resolution nullifies the rule finalized by the Department of the Interior on Aug. 5, 2016, relating to non-subsistence takings of wildlife and public participation and closure procedures on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.
Case for voting YES by House Republican Policy Committee: The Fish and Wildlife Service rule--which lays claim to more than 20% of Alaska--violates ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act) and the Alaska Statehood Compact. Not only does [the existing 2016 rule] undermine Alaska's ability to manage fish and wildlife upon refuge lands, it fundamentally destroys a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the federal government.
Case for voting NO by the Sierra Club (April 6, 2017):