Trump White House: global catastrophe inevitable, we might as well pollute

Repost from The Rolling Stone
[Editor: thanks to Marilyn Bardet for alerting us to this deep and shocking analysis of Trump’s latest disaster.  – R.S.]

Why Aren’t We Talking More About Trump’s Nihilism?

The White House now says we might as well pollute because global catastrophe is inevitable

By MATT TAIBBI, OCTOBER 1, 2018 12:28PM ET

President Donald Trump pauses while speaking at a campaign rally at WesBanco Arena, in Wheeling, West Virginia. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP/Shutterstock

While America was consumed with the Brett Kavanaugh drama last week, the Washington Post unearthed a crazy tidbit in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) latest environmental impact statement.

The study predicts a rise in global temperatures of about four degrees Celsius, or seven degrees Fahrenheit, by the year 2100. Worse, it asserts global warming is such an inevitable reality, there’s no point in reducing auto emissions, as we’re screwed anyway.

“The emissions reductions necessary to keep global emissions within this carbon budget could not be achieved solely with drastic reductions in emissions from the U.S. passenger car and light truck vehicle fleet,” is how the report put it.

To make a real difference, it adds we’d have to “move away from the use of fossil fuels,” which is “not currently technologically feasible or economically practicable.”

There’s been just a flutter of media attention about this, mostly focusing on the hypocrisy. Trump, as is his wont, has at one point or another occupied basically every inch of territory on the spectrum of global warming opinions.

He went from urging President Obama to act to prevent “catastrophic and irreversible consequences… for our planet” (2009), to calling global warming a Chinese conspiracy (2012), to calling it an “expensive hoax” (2013), and “bullshit” (2014), to switching up again during the election to concede the existence of “naturally occurring” (i.e., not man-made) climate change.

Now comes this Linda Blair-style head turn. The NHTSA report deftly leaps past standard wing-nut climate denial and lands on a new nihilistic construct, in which action is useless precisely because climate change exists and is caused by fossil fuels.

The more you read of this impact statement, the weirder it seems. After the document lays out its argument for doing nothing, it runs a series of bar graphs comparing the impact of various action plans with scenarios in which the entire world did nothing (labeled the “no action” alternative).

These absurd illustrations make Thomas Friedman’s time-traveling efforts to graph the future seem like the work of a Nobel laureate.

“A textbook example of how to lie with statistics,” is how MIT professor John Sterman described it to the Post.

There’s obviously a danger at overinterpreting this paper, which mostly seems like a desperate bureaucratic attempt to square science with Trump’s determination to roll back environmental policies for his business pals.

But even as accidental symbolism, it’s powerful stuff. A policy that not only recognizes but embraces inevitable global catastrophe is the ultimate expression of Trump’s somehow under-reported nihilism.

While the press has focused in the past two years either on the president’s daily lunacies or his various scandals, the really dangerous work of Trump’s administration has gone on behind the scenes, in his systematic wreckage of the state.

Implicit in this campaign of bureaucratic dismantling has been the message that pandemonium is a price Trump is very willing to pay, in service of breaking the “disaster” of government. Many of his top appointees have been distinguished by their screw-it-all mentality.

Remember, he appointed Mick Mulvaney, a man who had once inspired a downgrade of America’s credit rating by threatening to default on the debt, to be his budget director.

He later put Mulvaney in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where he fired his own 25-person advisory board — after requesting a budget of $0 and promising to fulfill the bureau’s mission “no further.”

Trump’s original EPA chief, Scott Pruitt, was best known for having used his time as Oklahoma’s attorney general to sue the EPA repeatedly and zero out the environmental-enforcement budget. Trump made a robotization enthusiast his choice for labor secretary, chose a hockey-team owner to run the Army (he withdrew, thankfully), and so on.

There are still hundreds of top federal jobs left unmanned, and some of the non-appointments seem like Nero-level acts of madness. Trump asked for 25 percent cuts to the whole State Department on the grounds that they were “prioritizing the efficient use of taxpayer resources.” But what country goes without ambassadors for years? Trump fired dozens upon inauguration and to this day still has 34 vacancies. We have no ambassador in South Africa, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, even Mexico. We’re a ghost state with nukes.

All of this is part and parcel of Trump’s doomsday message. He’s been a textbook example of Richard Hofstadter’s famed theory of paranoid politics. See if any of this (especially the line about “barricades”) sounds familiar:

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization… Like religious millennialists, he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days…

From Day One of Trump’s campaign, pundits have reached for traditional political explanations to describe both his behavior and his appeal. Because we’re trained to talk in terms of left and right, progress and reaction, we tried to understand him in those terms.

But Trump sold something more primal. His core message was relentless, hounding negativity, lambasting audiences with images of death and disaster.

His first campaign speech was basically a non-denominational end-times sermon, in which America was either kaput or close to it, surrounded on all sides by bloodthirsty enemies. “They kill us,” he preached. “They beat us all the time… We have nothing…”

He ranted about a system befouled by false prophets. “Politicians are all talk, no action,” he howled. “They will not bring us— believe me — to the promised land.”

The “What have you got to lose?” line he pulled out later was supposedly just a pitch to African-American voters, but all of Trump’s audiences picked up on the “it just doesn’t matter” theme. (If you want to be wigged out, check out the similarities between Trump speeches and the famed Bill Murray speech from Meatballs. Just substitute “China” for “Mohawk.”)

Obese and rotting, close enough to the physical end himself (and long ago spiritually dead), Trump essentially told his frustrated, pessimistic crowds that America was doomed anyway, so we might as well stop worrying and floor it to the end.

If that meant a trade war, environmental catastrophe, broken alliances, so be it. “Let’s just get this shit over with,” is how Trump’s unofficial campaign slogan was described in the show Horace and Pete, one of the few outlets to pick up on Trump’s Freudian death-wish rhetoric.

Trump made lots of loony promises to bring us back to the joyous Fifties (literally to Happy Days, if you go by his choice of Scott Baio as a convention speaker). But even his audiences didn’t seem to believe this fable.

The more credible promise of his campaign was a teardown of the international order, which he’s actually begun as president. Trade deals, environmental accords, the EU, NATO, he’s undercut all of them, while ripping government in half like a phone book.

He keeps inviting destruction like it’s a desirable outcome. He even pushed through legislation for “low-yield” nuclear weapons, whose only purpose is to be more theoretically usable than the other kind (although he’s wrong about this, too).

His fans even cheered when he played nuclear chicken with Kim Jong-un, tweeting that his “nuclear button” was “bigger & more powerful” than Kim’s (and “my Button works!”).

It’s easy to understand the nationalist sentiment behind reversing trade deals or backing Brexit. But what’s the populist angle on burning the planet, or nuclear war? How does hating elites explain cheering a guy on for turning nuclear diplomacy into a penis-measuring contest?

On a policy level, this apocalypse politics is pure corporate cynicism, with Trump’s big-business buddies showing a willingness to kill us all for a few dollars now.

The broader electoral pitch is just an evil version of every nuclear-age dance tune ever, “99 Luftballoons” or “1999.” The world is ending, so fuck it, let’s party. As crazy as it is, it’s a seductive message for a country steeped in hate and pessimism. Democrats still don’t understand it. Trump’s turning America into a death cult, with us as involuntary members.

Benicia City Attorney investigating outsider election smear campaign

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald
[Editor: Vice Mayor Steve Young and many others who received the call have been perfectly clear about the smear tactics of the “push poll” callers who have spread misinformation and lies about candidate Kari Birdseye.  Kari’s opponents have publicly raised questions about whether there even was a bias (see  Largaespada’s and Strawbridge’s highlighted comments  below).  For a detailed and accurate description of the blatant bias, see Steve Young: Benicia voters should be wary of fake polls.  Kudos to City Attorney Heather McLaughlin for looking into this.  Learn the truth about Kari Birdseye at BirdseyeForBenicia.com.  – R.S.]

Benicia officials looking into push poll incident

By John Glidden, October 1, 2018 at 7:01 pm

BENICIA — City Attorney Heather McLaughlin has launched an investigation into whether the city’s campaign ordinances were violated after several residents reported receiving a survey call about the current Benicia City Council candidates.

McLaughlin confirmed last week that she will be meeting with the City Council in closed session on Tuesday about possibility initiating litigation in response to the calls.

The calls came to light after Vice Mayor Steve Young wrote a letter, first posted on the Benicia Independent website, stating he received one of the calls from Research America, Inc, a data collection company which has multiple branches throughout the United States.

Young said the call originated from a Saratoga phone number, and the pollster said she would be asking questions about the City Council, senatorial and gubernatorial contests. However, Young alleges that only questions about the council were asked.

He further said that the person asked a few questions about Christina Strawbridge, and none about William Emes, however, “there were lots of questions about Lionel Largaespada and Kari Birdseye.”

“The statements about Mr. Largaespada were uniformly positive and stated how, for example, he would use his small business background to improve the City’s economy and relations with its businesses,” Young wrote. “The statements about Ms. Birdseye were the opposite. Among these statements were ‘She wants to shut down Valero, costing hundreds of jobs,’ and ‘She will bring radical left-wing politics to City Hall.’”

Young said the call was a push poll. Such polls are meant to sway public opinion instead of recording objective information from those surveyed.

Reached by phone Monday, a Research America employee, who declined to give his name, said the company was paid to “collect data as an opinion poll only.”

He also denied the poll was meant to sway voters. However, the employee confirmed EMC Research paid for the poll. A representative of the company couldn’t be reached for comment on Monday.

McLaughlin said her investigation centers on whether the pollsters disclosed who paid for the campaign poll.

“It is a little hard to say what section (the polls) are violating since we don’t know enough about the poll,” she wrote in an email, first reported by the Benicia Herald. “If the poll is paid for by a candidate there are rules for that. If it is paid for by an independent committee there are rules for that. All of it basically boils down to disclosure. They should be disclosing who is behind the poll.”

In a letter posted online, Largaespada said he had “no involvement whatsoever with this poll.”

“I do not know who is conducting it, and it was done with no input or permission from me,” he wrote. “ I have heard from many residents about the poll, and I have heard many different opinions on how it was conducted – ranging from Steve’s claim that it is biased towards me, to residents who found it equally balanced, to others who thought it was negative-sounding towards me. As with most topics, people have differing reactions and take always based on their own beliefs and opinions. 

Largaespada said he is against push polling as it doesn’t benefit anyone.

A blog post on Birdseye’s campaign page, “When they go low, we go high,” said the campaign had nothing to do with the poll.

“However, the telephone pollster offered lies about me and flattering comments about one of the other candidates,” she wrote.

Birdseye followed up by responding to Largaespada’s comments about the poll.

“The favored candidate has publicly denied involvement. I believe him, but then he claims that the poll wasn’t necessarily biased,” she wrote. “He suggests that people hear what they want to hear.  But many Benicians have reported that the push poll is an obvious attempt to smear my good name.”

Strawbridge also said she does not favor push polling.

“It has no place in our town’s election process. That said, during most of the elections I have participated in, there has been influence coming from both outside and inside Benicia. At times the facts have not always been true for or against a candidate,” Strawbridge wrote in an email to the Times-Herald on Monday. “Since I was not surveyed  and there have been conflicting reports about the content of the questions , more information is needed as to the who and the what of the poll.”

She further said forums are a great way to find out where candidates stand on important issues.

Financial records submitted by the three campaigns last week to the Benicia City Clerk’s Office show that none hired EMC or Research America to conduct the poll.

Campaign finance reports – Benicia City Council

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald
[Editor: The Benicia Independent endorses Kari Birdseye for City Council.  This report documents her fundraising success.  More is needed – learn about Kari and make a donation at BirdseyeForBenicia.com.  – R.S.]

Benicia City Council candidates raise funds

By John Glidden, October 1, 2018 at 3:05 pm

BENICIA — The three active City Council campaigns have had a spend-now mentality during the last three months as they spent a combined $31,735, nearly $6,000 more than what they took in, according to financial records submitted to the Benicia City Clerk’s Office last week.

Kari Birdseye, Christina Strawbridge, and Lionel Largaespada raised a combined $24,000 in cash contributions during the same three-month period from July 1 through Sept. 27, records show.

A political newcomer, Birdseye raised the most with $10,523 in cash contributions, her campaign reported. Interestingly, the campaign picked up several individual $500 donations. They included: Kathy Kerridge, Michael Keischnick, Mildred Brennan, Brian Mitchell, Kelly De witt, Tom Wilson, Jill Wilson, David Hackman, and Jeremy Hartgraves.

Other major donations include, $540 from Dirk Fulton, $300 from Benicia school board candidate Adrean Hayashi, with Jack Ruszel contributing $300, $350 coming from Ralph Dennis, and James Birdseye giving $550.

The United Democrats of Southern Solano County donated $500 to Birdseye’s campaign as well.

Almost half of the campaign’s $11,079 in expenses was spent on television advertisements and production costs. The majority of the expenses were also allocated for campaign literature, records show.

The campaign has about $3,100 in its coffers.

Former Benicia Councilwoman Christina Strawbridge received $6,900 in cash contributions during the same period.

Councilman Mark Hughes gave the campaign $250, records show. Hughes and Alan Schwartzman both decided not to seek re-election to the fiver person City Council this fall, paving the way for two new councilmembers.

Strawbridge received notable donations, including $500 from the UA Local 342 PAC fund, $500 from IBEW Local 180, $540 from the Tim Grayson for Assembly 2018, $330 from the International Association of Heating and Frost Insulators PAC, $330 from Tim Hamann, $330 from Jean Hamann, and $100 from Gary Heppell and attorney with the Vallejo-based Favaro, Lavezzo, Gill, Caretti, Heppell law firm.

Her campaign spent the most with $13,922 in expenditures since July 1. About $2,300 of that went to Mary Hand Mango Consulting, with $1,750 going to Mark Lampkin to help film a commercial. Another expense was $5,000 for a television advertisement.

According to her financial documents, Strawbridge’s campaign has nearly $6,000 in the bank.

Finally, the Lionel Largaespada for Benicia City Council 2018 campaign picked up $6,698 in cash. Hughes also donated $250 to the campaign, with additional notable contributions of $500 from Richard Bortolazzo, $500 from Sherri Bortolazzo, $540 from the Tim Grayson for Assembly 2018 campaign, $500 from IBEW Local 180 PAC, $500 from Bob Triggila, $540 from Ponder Environmental Services, $580 from the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulator and allied Workers Local 16, AFL-CIO PAC fund.

Largaespada’s campaign received $311 in non-monetary funds for a walk list which was paid for by the San Diego-based GROW Elect, a PAC which funds, endorses, and recruits Latino Republicans for public office.

The campaign had $6734 in expenses with a majority of the funds being spent on campaign literature, the same records show. About $10,354 was in the campaign’s coffers as of Sept. 27.

A fourth City Council candidate, William Emes doesn’t have a campaign committee so he wasn’t required to submit financial forms.

The election is Nov. 6.

Mayor Patterson: Benicia needs to plan for the declining role of oil and gas

An E-Alert from Mayor Elizabeth Patterson
[Editor: Mayor Patterson has been falsely accused of wanting to run Valero Refinery out of town.  A careful reading of her position shows that she wants the City to plan jointly with Valero and economic advisers for a stable future as we face into the predicted and inevitable decline in carbon-intensive industries.  Other California cities are planning ahead.  Patterson urges Benicia to do the same.  See below.  – R.S.]

New state laws’ and policies’ impacts on Benicia’s future

By Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia, California, October 2, 2018
Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007 - present
Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007 – present

Does the city monitor economic trends to forecast the future revenue necessary to operate city services of public safety, road maintenance, safe drinking water, parks and recreation, library and community services?  To some extent, yes.  To the extent that there is an understanding of shifting economic activity such as declining role of oil and gas, no.  We have not done an in depth analysis of the impact of state policies and the law to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.

Brown is calling for the entire California economy to become carbon-neutral by 2045. That would mean deploying a combination of new technologies to vastly reduce the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, plus the widespread implementation of methods to capture the rest, so that the state’s net release of emissions already altering the climate in devastating ways would be zero.  [from KQED, Sept. 24, 2018]

What are the opportunities for the city to benefit from this carbon-neutral goal?  Should there be a working group with the city, Valero Refinery, economists and planners to think about 20 years from now?

What are other cities and counties doing to achieve carbon-neutrality?  Will we be on the leading edge or play catch up?  I will continue to advocate for thinking beyond tomorrow and seizing opportunities for Benicia’s economy to evolve for the future so that we continue to have what I think is the best small town in California.

Below is an article about what San Luis Obispo is doing to meet the challenge of carbon-neutrality by 2045.

Elizabeth Patterson, Mayor, City of Benicia


SLO wants to be carbon neutral by 2035, ahead of California

The Tribune, sanluisobispo.com, by Nick Wilson, September 25, 2018 03:06 PM

The City Council wants San Luis Obispo to be carbon-neutral by 2035, an ambitious target that’s 10 years earlier than Gov. Jerry Brown’s statewide goal of 2045.

The council last week directed staff to move forward with a climate action plan that could mean new building codes and ramping up citywide electrical vehicle charging stations, among several other initiatives.

Carbon neutrality, or net-zero energy, is the concept of reducing as much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere as possible, with the overall goal to achieve a zero carbon footprint. It is achieved largely by replacing fossil fuel energy sources that emit greenhouse gases with renewables like solar and wind.

Greenhouse gases are emitted from cars, homes and businesses, as well as from livestock, among other sources.

An example of an electric vehicle charging station designed by Recargo, a Los Angeles-area company that’s planning to build four new DC fast-chargers in San Luis Obispo.

“This is aggressive,” said Councilwoman Andy Pease. “It’s a really big goal. I think we can do it. But I think it should be a goal within our Climate Action Plan development.”

The specifics of the city’s Net Zero 2035 commitment haven’t been formulated yet, pending the Climate Action Plan update next year.

But efforts undertaken by the city already have reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the city by 10 percent since 2005, with a goal of reaching a 15 percent reduction by 2020.

Ideas to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on California Energy Commission recommendations, include:

▪ Reducing solid waste (including making sure people recycle and reuse items they consume, and compost food scraps), eliminating the need for landfills;

▪ Using carbon-free electricity, while transitioning from fossil-fuel based appliances and technologies (such as phasing out internal combustion-based vehicles in place of electric ones, and ratcheting down natural gas-fired furnaces or water heaters in favor of high-efficiency heat pump models that run on clean electricity, for example);

▪ Creating new laws around building codes to ensure efficient, clean energy uses rather than natural gas ones (pending legal and practical study of that possibility to be reconsidered by the council in 2019);

▪ Finding ways to attain carbon sequestration, meaning strategies to manage city forests that convert carbon dioxide into nutritional benefits for tree growth, and other means;

▪ Encouraging efficient use of water and cars (walking and biking whenever possible, versus driving, for example).

Despite its commitment, the council will wait until its Climate Action Plan Update next year to formally decide on the 2035 goal, but it’s united in trying to implement policy to set that timeline in motion, which council members acknowledge is ambitious.

The council was divided on whether to adopt a formal resolution to set the 2035 Net Zero target – immediately creating a formal policy directive to work from, rather than waiting to formalize that goal after more research on how it would affect city residents, builders, existing policy, land use and other considerations.

Mayor Heidi Harmon argued in favor of adopting a resolution, saying that a formal, “bold” statement targeting a 2035 Net Zero goal could make it harder for a potentially new council, after this November’s election, to roll back that policy.

“I think this is so important, and I know how tough culture shift is,” Harmon said. “But this is one of the main reasons I got elected was to be a champion on climate and have real, actionable things that we’re doing.”

But Councilwoman Carlyn Christianson said that an “action plan” will better inform the council before it signs off on a 2035 policy.

“There are large numbers of people who emotionally react one way or another on these issues,” Christianson said. “We need to know exactly what we’re talking about, and we kind of don’t (without further staff research).”