Fact Check: On the Environment
- Archi, Carmen, Dornubari, Elisa, Kelsie
- Dec 16, 2016
- 6 min read
PABLO ROTHSCHILD
HIS CLAIM & PLAN:
While mentioning the environment Pablo stated in his speech “What’s more, we pollute the environment to the point where in some places, it is literally dangerous to breathe. According to the New York Times, Chinese air pollution caused 366,000 premature deaths in 2016.”
He proposed as a method of solution his Harmful Waste Disposal Plan and his Total Conservation Strategy, claiming they will give him “an actual foundation to build my environmental policies and protect our nation’s treasure”
HYPERBOLIZED:
Although what he claimed is true, the New York Times article is about air pollution in China and not in the United States. “The study, which was peer-reviewed, grew out of a collaboration between Tsinghua University in Beijing, one of China’s top research universities, and the Health Effects Institute, based in Boston, a research center that receives funding from the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the worldwide motor vehicle industry. The researchers’ primary aim was to identify the main sources of air pollution leading to premature deaths in China."
Therefore this data cannot be applicable to the United States in order to make a case against pollution in the U.S as a whole because pollution in the United States is not causing premature deaths. If anything, China should be the one to come up with ways to improve their countries air quality.
TIGER BJORNLUND
HIS PLAN:
Tiger has promised to support the Paris Climate Accords, in which countries use climate regulations to prevent a two degree rise in temperature. The campaign said that their main goal is to prevent this two degree rise.
QUESTIONABLE:
If this is the campaign’s only plan for the environment, it won’t do much in preventing global warming or the climate change we are experiencing today. Moreover, the Paris Climate accords don’t go far enough and don’t hold countries accountable.
Scott Barrett of Columbia University explains that even if climate agreements are upheld, it won’t be enough to stop global emissions from heating up the world. Princeton Scientist Michael Oppenheimer notes that in order for the world to change the trajectory of climate change, we have to completely end CO2 emissions. Oppenheimer writes that in order for the world to solve its climate change problems, we need to get to zero emissions by 2050.
Furthermore, Barrett notes how the Paris climate accords don’t hold countries accountable, so it’s easy for countries to agree to the accords, but not actually implement them. How would a Bjornlund presidency be held accountable? Even if the U.S. does reduce emissions, if the rest of the world keeps increasing their emissions then what’s the impact?
In order for the Bjornlund campaign to actually make a positive environmental impact, they will need to commit to a higher standard-- far above the two degree limit. They need to give specifics about emissions reductions and aim for a zero-emissions world by 2050. Without accountability, there will be no way to ensure that Bjornlund will even meet the two degree standard without a specific emissions reductions plan.
KONSTANTIN BELIKOW
HIS CLAIM: “Global temperatures have risen over 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880, and they are expected to further rise by four degrees by the year 2100.”
HYPERBOLIZED:
The Environmental Protection Agency published data stating that since the year 1880, there has been a 1.5 degree increase in global temperatures. However, Belikow’s claim that global temperatures are expected to rise by another four degrees within the next century are not completely correct. While it’s possible that this could happen, officially the EPA has said that global temperatures are “projected to rise another 0.5 to 8.6°F over the next hundred years,” meaning that the number Belikow has been using is not a definite.
HIS CLAIM: The melting of the polar icecaps caused by global warming could cause sea levels to rise by twenty-three feet, causing coastal cities to flood. “London will go underwater.”
HYPERBOLIZED:
According to National Geographic, some studies estimate that the sea level will rise by 23 feet, which would cause London to be submerged in water. However, National Geographic described these as “more dire estimates” than others which expect “the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet,” a figure which, while still troubling, is a much less distressing number than the one being publicized by the Belikow campaign.
HIS CLAIM: The rise in global temperatures will cause thousands of species to go extinct.
UNCONFIRMABLE:
Global warming is undoubtedly a threat for many species. However, while the threat to these species is real, the Walking Nine could not find any evidence supporting Belikow’s claim that thousands of species will go extinct.
MAX GORDY
HIS CLAIM & PLAN: Gordy says the EPA is portrayed as a business-killer, but it is very beneficial to the environment. The EPA has prevented premature deaths, cleaned rivers and lakes, and eradicated dangerous chemicals such as lead and DDT. However, the EPA does need to be reformed because certain policies harm businesses. He believes that businesses should be able to stay competitive while still protecting the environment.
QUESTIONABLE:
It is true that The Sierra Club estimated that legislation administered by the EPA prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths from air pollutants and cleaned more than 2000 polluted rivers and lakes. The EPA also removed dangerous chemicals such as DDT and PCB from the environment. Gordy cited this statistic in his most recent speech. However, the Sierra Club may not be a reliable source. The Sierra Club often criticizes the EPA, and the agency was accused of suppressing a report that questioned global warming. In fact, further analysis into the Sierra Club reveals radical policies. The Sierra Club is considerably extremist, arguing against any fossil fuel usage and GMOs. A supposedly scientific organization has ignored scientific reports that only clean power will not be enough to power our society and that GMOs have shown no adverse effects.
LZ Granderson, a journalist for CNN, wrote a piece on the debate over the EPA. In his article, he included the Sierra Club’s statistics that Gordy used, but he also made sure to represent the controversy that surrounds the Sierra Club. Gordy mentioned the pros, but failed to mention the cons.
The full information about the Sierra Club was obtained from Activist Facts, a website dedicated to detailing the practices and beliefs of many influential organizations. The Sierra Club was described as anti-growth, anti-technology, and anti-energy.
Gordy seems to be heavily correlated with the Sierra Club. He has mentioned it in his speeches, and he has revealed a financial donation from the Sierra Club. Can we expect that Gordy will be shrouded in controversy like the Sierra Club is?
RORY NEVINS:
HIS CLAIM & PLAN: “An emissions tax would even add blue ink to the ledger, and my planned subsidy for businesses that develop technologies to help the environment would leave industry more modern and more competitive,” Nevins said in his first speech, laying his plan to protect the environment by creating an emissions tax that could increase revenue even while restricting damage to the environment, and subsidizing businesses that help develop environmentally friendly technology.
QUESTIONABLE:
According to the Congressional Budget Office, it's true that an emissions tax could generate an immense amount of revenue while decreasing U.S. emissions substantially; The CBO estimated in 2011 that a “cap-and-trade program that would have set a price of $20 in 2012 to emit a ton of CO2 (and increased that price by 5.6 percent each year thereafter) would raise a total of nearly $1.2 trillion during its first decade...[and]...total U.S. emissions of CO2 would be about 8 percent lower over that period than they would be without the policy.”
However, while it may be somewhat beneficial, the CBO acknowledged that without taking a global approach, the tax would be ineffective at staunching climate change overall.
Additionally, the CBO said that without clear purposes for the investment of the additional revenue, the effect of the tax on the economy could be incredibly detrimental, and the hardships would not be even across all economic classes; “The additional costs from higher prices would consume a greater share of income for low-income households than for higher-income households, because low-income households generally spend a larger percentage of their income on emission-intensive goods.” Even if the revenue was targeted toward relief programs for these groups, such programs “would tend not to reduce the total economic costs of the tax,” according to the CBO.
Opmerkingen