Oil And Natural Gas Minor Source Federal Implementation Plan In: Fill & Download for Free

RESILIENCE AND FOSSIL FUELS are the only answer for governments to mitigate natural disasters. We cannot control the climate and natural disasters because they are natural. We must abandon the false science of the fake PARIS ACCORD asking governments to reduce the use of fossil fuels as it they are vital during natural disasters. We need power from cheap, mobile, immediate and plentiful energy sources like oil, natural gas and coal.We won the Second World War with machines run on fossil fuels and we have saved countless lives from hurricanes, floods, wildfires and volcano natural disasters with machines run on fossil fuels. Abandoning fossil fuels is madness in my view.USAIn California, Central Valley Farmers, Water Experts Fight to Save LeveesFebruary 24, 2017 03:06 AMFILE - A load of rocks is dropped to patch a crater as repairs are made on the Tyler Island levee near Isleton, Calif., Feb. 15, 2017.SAN FRANCISCO - Billions of dollars in flood projects have eased fears of levee breaks near California’s capital and some other cities, but state and federal workers are joining farmers with tractors in round-the-clock battles this week to stave off any chain-reaction failure of rural levees protecting farms and farm towns.We cannot mitigate natural disasters with emergency government funds if governments are bankrupt from scrapping fossil fuels and electrifying with renewables.USA cost to go without fossil fuels: $18-29 TrillionAnthony Watts / 2 days ago September 22, 2020By comparison, the USA Gross Domestic Product for 2018 was $20.54 trillion.E&E Legal Releases Tom Tanton State-by-State “Electrification” Costs ReportFor Immediate Release: September 22, 2020– Today, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), released a state-by-state report on the capital cost associated with “electrification” for states and the nation. The report, and its accompanying data spreadsheet, was authored by Tom Tanton, E&E Legal’s Director of Science and Technology Assessment.According to the report, electrifying the entire nation, with a goal of eliminating the direct consumption of fuel and reducing climate change emissions, would cost between $18 trillion and $29 trillion in first costs. Going all renewable will force costs to the high end of the range. Also, constructing and implementing an “all-electric” nation will include two other significant costs: stranded assets and deadweight losses.The bottom line is that electrification is not a cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions from commercial or residential buildings nor the transportation sector.“Electrification of everything is a poor means to reduce greenhouse gasses and exposes customers to more frequent outages. Further, we’d just be substituting one set of environmental impacts for another,” said Tanton.“There are several other more environmentally-friendly and cost-effective means to accomplish this goal, and we simply can’t afford to electrify everything as the report clearly shows.”Tanton adds that electrification will destroy decades of diversification by the market, tying consumers to a fragile yet monolithic electric grid.The electric grid is ill-equipped for extreme conditions, like extended heat waves or polar vortex cold snaps, without blackouts, like just happened in California. The likelihood of outages will increase with the considerable increase in demand associated with electric cars, removing natural gas from buildings, and other electrification moves. Building a more robust grid to handle such extremes would add perhaps $7 trillion to the costs.The report notes that Texas would lead the way in terms of total electrification costs at $3.157 trillion, followed by California at $2.823 trillion.What’s even more frightening is the per capita costs of such an expensive and destructive experiment. For example, each resident of Louisiana can expect a bill of $166,065, while Wyoming citizens would be on the hook for $158,961 apiece, and those in North Dakota would face a tab of $133,847.Tanton, who lives in California and formerly a Principal Policy Advisor with the CA Energy Commission (CEC), has witnessed first-hand the devastation wrought by attempts at complete electrification.“California’s rolling blackouts and cataclysmic forest fires are not the results of climate change. They are the direct result of poor leadership and destructive energy policies that should be rolled back in my state and others before it’s too late,” Tanton concluded.The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is a 501(c)(3) organization that champions responsible and balanced environmentalism, which seeks to conserve the nation’s natural resources while ensuring a stable and robust economy through energy dominance.Specifically, E&E Legal advocates responsible resource development, conservation, sound science, and respect for property rights.-30-According to the BEA, the USGDP is now negative. The greens should explain how they plan to pay for the “green new deal” under these circumstances:Report: Benefits outweight costs of carbon 50 to 1Anthony Watts / January 24, 2014Landmark Report Calculates Societal Benefits of Fossil Energy to be at Least 50 Times Greater than Perceived Costs of CarbonBenefits outweigh supposed costs by range of 50-1 to 500-1Washington, D.C. – The benefits of fossil fuel energy to society far outweigh the social costs of carbon (SCC) by a magnitude of 50 to 500 times, according to a landmark study‎ released by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) today.Higher Resolution Image Available Here“It is without question or debate that our national and global societies have benefited from fossil fuels. And those benefits will continue to be realized from coast to coast and around the globe for generations to come,” ACCCE President and CEO Mike Duncan said. “If this Administration attempts to calculate the future costs of carbon, it’s imperative that policymakers also consider the actual and potential benefits of our carbon-based economy. Fossil-based energy has powered three industrial revolutions, including today’s ‎technology revolution. It has increased life expectancy, improved the quality of life, supported the cause of liberty, and brought hope to every civilization that has used it. I would hope that legislators and regulators understand this and enact and support policies that continue the responsible use of fossil fuels – especially clean coal.”According to the study, The Social Costs Of Carbon? No, The Social Benefits Of Carbon, over the past 250 years global life expectancy has more than doubled and incomes have increased 11-fold in large part due to increased energy production and delivery, most of which has been fossil-based. And although a Federal Interagency Working Group (IWG) estimated the social cost of carbon (SCC) to be $36/ton; the actual societal benefits of carbon – as a by-product of energy production – is 50 to 500 times greater than the perceived cost.“Even the most conservative estimates peg the social benefit of carbon-based fuels as 50 times greater than its supposed social cost,” Dr. Roger Bezdek, the lead author of the report said. “And the benefits are actual fact; founded on more than two centuries of empirical data, not theoretical summaries based on questionable assumptions, dubious forecasts, and flawed models.”The report goes on to say that coal is the world’s fastest growing energy source and has increased nearly as much as all other sources of fuel combined. Much of this growth is in emerging economies like China and India, which are just beginning to realize the social and economic benefits that reliable, affordable electricity can bring. It is expected that coal will continue to be the leading feedstock for electricity generation around the globe for at least the next three decades. Additionally, according to the statistical arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, the Energy Information Administration, fossil fuels will provide 75 to 80 percent of the world’s energy for the foreseeable future.Here in the United States, coal remains the largest feedstock for baseload electricity generation supplying nearly 40 percent of the nation’s electricity. But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making it increasingly difficult for clean coal energy to survive in the United States. The agency’s proposed rule for new coal-fired power plants, the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), has been widely criticized for its unachievable requirements. NSPS requires the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) for all new coal-fueled power plants, a technology that is not yet commercially viable. Therefore, the EPA proposal effectively bans new coal plants.These regulations seem to ignore the $130 billion the industry has invested in clean coal technologies that have already reduced emissions by nearly 90 percent over the past forty years.“Fossil fuels have provided the energy to improve farming yields, grow manufacturing and business, and are now powering data servers and even the Cloud,” Mr. Duncan said. “And while we have all benefited from reliable, clean coal electricity, there are still those who seek to end this American form of power. More and more, this Administration has abdicated its energy policy to the EPA whose regulations will shutter existing coal power plants and thwart the construction of new ones. We would hope that evidence in support of the benefit of fossil fuels, including clean coal, will help bring common sense to the regulatory process.”Gross Domestic Product, 2nd Quarter 2020 (Advance Estimate) and Annual UpdateFossil Fuels Will Save the World (Really)Posted: March 22, 2015 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Climate Change, Climatism, Fossil Fuels, Global Warming | Tags: Climate Change, coal, COP21, Fossil Fuels, Global Warming| 1 Comment“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be theequivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that theindustrialized civilizations collapse?Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”– Maurice Strong,founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)“The Earth has cancerand the cancer is Man.”– Club of Rome,premier environmental think-tank,consultants to the United Nations•••Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy?•••Minor disclosure before posting Matt Ridley’s must read op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:‘Climatism’ nor myself receive any funding from any fossil fuel company. All I receive from them is abundant, cheap, reliable, on-demand energy that enables me to heat myself in winter, cool myself in summer, get to work on time, drink clean water, bathe myself and use my computer, even when the wind stops blowing or the sun goes to sleep.•••via The Wall Street Journal, 14 March 2015 :Fossil Fuels Will Save the World (Really)There are problems with oil, gas and coal, but their benefits for people—and the planet—are beyond disputeBy Matt RidleyThe environmental movement has advanced three arguments in recent years for giving up fossil fuels: (1) that we will soon run out of them anyway; (2) that alternative sources of energy will price them out of the marketplace; and (3) that we cannot afford the climate consequences of burning them.These days, not one of the three arguments is looking very healthy. In fact, a more realistic assessment of our energy and environmental situation suggests that, for decades to come, we will continue to rely overwhelmingly on the fossil fuels that have contributed so dramatically to the world’s prosperity and progress.In 2013, about 87% of the energy that the world consumed came from fossil fuels, a figure that—remarkably—was unchanged from 10 years before. This roughly divides into three categories of fuel and three categories of use: oil used mainly for transport, gas used mainly for heating, and coal used mainly for electricity.Over this period, the overall volume of fossil-fuel consumption has increased dramatically, but with an encouraging environmental trend: a diminishing amount of carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of energy produced. The biggest contribution to decarbonizing the energy system has been the switch from high-carbon coal to lower-carbon gas in electricity generation.On a global level, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar have contributed hardly at all to the drop in carbon emissions, and their modest growth has merely made up for a decline in the fortunes of zero-carbon nuclear energy. (The reader should know that I have an indirect interest in coal through the ownership of land in Northern England on which it is mined, but I nonetheless applaud the displacement of coal by gas in recent years.)The argument that fossil fuels will soon run out is dead, at least for a while. The collapse of the price of oil over the past six months is the result of abundance: an inevitable consequence of the high oil prices of recent years, which stimulated innovation in hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, seismology and information technology. The U.S.—the country with the oldest and most developed hydrocarbon fields—has found itself once again, surprisingly, at the top of the energy-producing league, rivaling Saudi Arabia in oil and Russia in gas.The shale genie is now out of the bottle. Even if the current low price drives out some high-cost oil producers—in the North Sea, Canada, Russia, Iran and offshore, as well as in America—shale drillers can step back in whenever the price rebounds. As Mark Hill of Allegro Development Corporation argued last week, the frackers are currently experiencing their own version of Moore’s law: a rapid fall in the cost and time it takes to drill a well, along with a rapid rise in the volume of hydrocarbons they are able to extract.And the shale revolution has yet to go global. When it does, oil and gas in tight rock formations will give the world ample supplies of hydrocarbons for decades, if not centuries. Lurking in the wings for later technological breakthroughs is methane hydrate, a seafloor source of gas that exceeds in quantity all the world’s coal, oil and gas put together.So those who predict the imminent exhaustion of fossil fuels are merely repeating the mistakes of the U.S. presidential commission that opined in 1922 that “already the output of gas has begun to wane. Production of oil cannot long maintain its present rate.” Or President Jimmy Carter when he announced on television in 1977 that “we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.”That fossil fuels are finite is a red herring. The Atlantic Ocean is finite, but that does not mean that you risk bumping into France if you row out of a harbor in Maine. The buffalo of the American West were infinite, in the sense that they could breed, yet they came close to extinction. It is an ironic truth that no nonrenewable resource has ever run dry, while renewable resources—whales, cod, forests, passenger pigeons—have frequently done so.The second argument for giving up fossil fuels is that new rivals will shortly price them out of the market. But it is not happening. The great hope has long been nuclear energy, but even if there is a rush to build new nuclear power stations over the next few years, most will simply replace old ones due to close. The world’s nuclear output is down from 6% of world energy consumption in 2003 to 4% today. It is forecast to inch back up to just 6.7% by 2035, according the Energy Information Administration.Nuclear’s problem is cost. In meeting the safety concerns of environmentalists, politicians and regulators added requirements for extra concrete, steel and pipework, and even more for extra lawyers, paperwork and time. The effect was to make nuclear plants into huge and lengthy boondoggles with no competition or experimentation to drive down costs. Nuclear is now able to compete with fossil fuels only when it is subsidized.As for renewable energy, hydroelectric is the biggest and cheapest supplier, but it has the least capacity for expansion. Technologies that tap the energy of waves and tides remain unaffordable and impractical, and most experts think that this won’t change in a hurry. Geothermal is a minor player for now. And bioenergy—that is, wood, ethanol made from corn or sugar cane, or diesel made from palm oil—is proving an ecological disaster: It encourages deforestation and food-price hikes that cause devastation among the world’s poor, and per unit of energy produced, it creates even more carbon dioxide than coal.Wind power, for all the public money spent on its expansion, has inched up to—wait for it—1% of world energy consumption in 2013. Solar, for all the hype, has not even managed that: If we round to the nearest whole number, it accounts for 0% of world energy consumption.Both wind and solar are entirely reliant on subsidies for such economic viability as they have. World-wide, the subsidies given to renewable energy currently amount to roughly $10 per gigajoule: These sums are paid by consumers to producers, so they tend to go from the poor to the rich, often to landowners (I am a landowner and can testify that I receive and refuse many offers of risk-free wind and solar subsidies).It is true that some countries subsidize the use of fossil fuels, but they do so at a much lower rate—the world average is about $1.20 per gigajoule—and these are mostly subsidies for consumers (not producers), so they tend to help the poor, for whom energy costs are a disproportionate share of spending.The costs of renewable energy are coming down, especially in the case of solar. But even if solar panels were free, the power they produce would still struggle to compete with fossil fuel—except in some very sunny locations—because of all the capital equipment required to concentrate and deliver the energy. This is to say nothing of the great expanses of land on which solar facilities must be built and the cost of retaining sufficient conventional generator capacity to guarantee supply on a dark, cold, windless evening.The two fundamental problems that renewables face are that they take up too much space and produce too little energy. Consider Solar Impulse, the solar-powered airplane now flying around the world. Despite its huge wingspan (similar to a 747), slow speed and frequent stops, the only cargo that it can carry is the pilots themselves. That is a good metaphor for the limitations of renewables.To run the U.S. economy entirely on wind would require a wind farm the size of Texas, California and New Mexico combined—backed up by gas on windless days. To power it on wood would require a forest covering two-thirds of the U.S., heavily and continually harvested.John Constable, who will head a new Energy Institute at the University of Buckingham in Britain, points out that the trickle of energy that human beings managed to extract from wind, water and wood before the Industrial Revolution placed a great limit on development and progress. The incessant toil of farm laborers generated so little surplus energy in the form of food for men and draft animals that the accumulation of capital, such as machinery, was painfully slow. Even as late as the 18th century, this energy-deprived economy was sufficient to enrich daily life for only a fraction of the population.Our old enemy, the second law of thermodynamics, is the problem here. As a teenager’s bedroom generally illustrates, left to its own devices, everything in the world becomes less ordered, more chaotic, tending toward “entropy,” or thermodynamic equilibrium. To reverse this tendency and make something complex, ordered and functional requires work. It requires energy.The more energy you have, the more intricate, powerful and complex you can make a system. Just as human bodies need energy to be ordered and functional, so do societies. In that sense, fossil fuels were a unique advance because they allowed human beings to create extraordinary patterns of order and complexity—machines and buildings—with which to improve their lives.The result of this great boost in energy is what the economic historian and philosopher Deirdre McCloskey calls the Great Enrichment. In the case of the U.S., there has been a roughly 9,000% increase in the value of goods and services available to the average American since 1800, almost all of which are made with, made of, powered by or propelled by fossil fuels.Still, more than a billion people on the planet have yet to get access to electricity and to experience the leap in living standards that abundant energy brings. This is not just an inconvenience for them: Indoor air pollution from wood fires kills four million people a year. The next time that somebody at a rally against fossil fuels lectures you about her concern for the fate of her grandchildren, show her a picture of an African child dying today from inhaling the dense muck of a smoky fire.Notice, too, the ways in which fossil fuels have contributed to preserving the planet. As the American author and fossil-fuels advocate Alex Epstein points out in a bravely unfashionable book, “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” the use of coal halted and then reversed the deforestation of Europe and North America. The turn to oil halted the slaughter of the world’s whales and seals for their blubber. Fertilizer manufactured with gas halved the amount of land needed to produce a given amount of food, thus feeding a growing population while sparing land for wild nature.To throw away these immense economic, environmental and moral benefits, you would have to have a very good reason. The one most often invoked today is that we are wrecking the planet’s climate. But are we?Although the world has certainly warmed since the 19th century, the rate of warming has been slow and erratic. There has been no increase in the frequency or severity of storms or droughts, no acceleration of sea-level rise. Arctic sea ice has decreased, but Antarctic sea ice has increased. At the same time, scientists are agreed that the extra carbon dioxide in the air has contributed to an improvement in crop yields and a roughly 14% increase in the amount of all types of green vegetation on the planet since 1980.That carbon-dioxide emissions should cause warming is not a new idea. In 1938, the British scientist Guy Callender thought that he could already detect warming as a result of carbon-dioxide emissions. He reckoned, however, that this was “likely to prove beneficial to mankind” by shifting northward the climate where cultivation was possible.Only in the 1970s and 1980s did scientists begin to say that the mild warming expected as a direct result of burning fossil fuels—roughly a degree Celsius per doubling of carbon-dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere—might be greatly amplified by water vapor and result in dangerous warming of two to four degrees a century or more. That “feedback” assumption of high “sensitivity” remains in virtually all of the mathematical models used to this day by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.And yet it is increasingly possible that it is wrong. As Patrick Michaels of the libertarian Cato Institute has written, since 2000, 14 peer-reviewed papers, published by 42 authors, many of whom are key contributors to the reports of the IPCC, have concluded that climate sensitivity is low because net feedbacks are modest. They arrive at this conclusion based on observed temperature changes, ocean-heat uptake and the balance between warming and cooling emissions (mainly sulfate aerosols). On average, they find sensitivity to be 40% lower than the models on which the IPCC relies.If these conclusions are right, they would explain the failure of the Earth’s surface to warm nearly as fast as predicted over the past 35 years, a time when—despite carbon-dioxide levels rising faster than expected—the warming rate has never reached even two-tenths of a degree per decade and has slowed down to virtually nothing in the past 15 to 20 years. This is one reason the latest IPCC report did not give a “best estimate” of sensitivity and why it lowered its estimate of near-term warming.Most climate scientists remain reluctant to abandon the models and take the view that the current “hiatus” has merely delayed rapid warming. A turning point to dangerously rapid warming could be around the corner, even though it should have shown up by now. So it would be wise to do something to cut our emissions, so long as that something does not hurt the poor and those struggling to reach a modern standard of living.We should encourage the switch from coal to gas in the generation of electricity, provide incentives for energy efficiency, get nuclear power back on track and keep developing solar power and electricity storage. We should also invest in research on ways to absorb carbon dioxide from the air, by fertilizing the ocean or fixing it through carbon capture and storage. Those measures all make sense. And there is every reason to promote open-ended research to find some unexpected new energy technology.The one thing that will not work is the one thing that the environmental movement insists upon: subsidizing wealthy crony capitalists to build low-density, low-output, capital-intensive, land-hungry renewable energy schemes, while telling the poor to give up the dream of getting richer through fossil fuels.Mr. Ridley is the author of “The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves” and a member of the British House of Lords.Search Results for “decarbonizing” – Climatism

American Progress says:EconomyRaised housing payments for new homebuyers by about $500 in 2017. On its first day, the Trump administration reversed an Obama administration action to lower Federal Housing Administration, or FHA, mortgage insurance premiums for new homebuyers by 25 basis points, which could have lowered mortgage payments for 1 million households purchasing or refinancing their home this year alone.Attacked the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule, which would have required retirement advisers to act in their clients’ best financial interest. President Trump delayed the rule’s implementation by 60 days and has ordered the department to re-evaluate the rule. This will make it much harder to save for retirement, as high fees from conflicted advice result in savers losing $17 billion in fees annually.Delayed court proceedings on the Obama administration’s expansion of overtime, failing to defend the pro-worker rule. This rule would have raised wages for workers by $12 billion over the next 10 years and extended overtime protections to 4.2 million more Americans. In his confirmation hearings, Labor Secretary nominee Alexander Acosta suggested he would attempt to weaken the overtime rule.Delayed enforcement of a rule to reduce workers’ exposure to deadly silica dust for three months. After more than four decades of development, this rule would protect construction and manufacturing workers from inhaling silica, which can lead to lung cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and kidney disease. It was projected to save more than 600 lives and prevent more than 900 new cases of silicosis each year.Repealed the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, which ensured that federal contractors complied with worker protection laws before receiving government contracts. The order would have required companies wanting to do business with the government to disclose past labor law violations and come into compliance before receiving new contracts. Because of the repeal, millions of workers will be more vulnerable to wage theft, workplace injuries, and discrimination on the job. The order also would have protected women by banning forced arbitration in the case of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination claims.Supported efforts in Congress to cut taxes on the wealthy that help fund the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. As part of Congress’s effort to repeal and replace the ACA, a move that President Trump supported, the 3.8 percent net investment income tax would have been repealed at a cost of $157 billion over 10 years, according to Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. This is revenue needed to fund important programs that ensure basic human living standards and retirement security for tens of millions of working Americans. Based on Trump’s rental real estate income alone, The Wall Street Journal estimated the repeal would have saved Trump $3.2 million in taxes in 2016 alone.Tried to cut his own taxes by millions of dollars while taking health insurance from tens of millions of Americans. Based on President Trump’s leaked 2005 Tax Return Form 1040, repealing the ACA could give Trump a personal tax cut of more than $2 million. At the same time, the House legislation to repeal the ACA would have taken health insurance from 24 million Americans.Assembled a team of wealthy financial industry elites to advise him on tax reform, which he promised would benefit the middle class. The tax code is the tool of choice when special favors are doled out to special interests. Despite his campaign promises to drain the swamp, President Trump has assembled a band of elites to construct his tax reform plan: three former Goldman Sachs executives, Steve Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, and Steve Bannon; two more former executives from the finance industry, Justin Muzinich and Craig Phillips; and a former tax lobbyist for Fidelity Investments, Shahira Knight.Made it harder for veterans to find jobs with a federal hiring freeze. Veterans receive a strong hiring preference for federal jobs, and roughly one-third of all newly hired federal employees in 2015 were veterans. Even if many jobs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, or VA, are exempt from the hiring freeze, other vacant jobs will still be unavailable at other federal agencies.Proposed budget cuts that would devastate rural America. President Trump’s budget would eliminate programs that support rural jobs, housing, infrastructure, health care, and economic development. If implemented, these budget cuts would eliminate affordable housing for tens of thousands of struggling rural families; eliminate community service jobs for 18,000 senior citizens living in rural areas; and eliminate critical support for airline connections serving 175 small and rural communities.Proposed dramatically slashing job training programs and worker wage and safety enforcement. President Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2018 budget could result in 2.7 million adults and youths losing access to job training and employment services in 2018.Proposed budget cuts that would increase roadway congestion and reduce economic productivity. The budget calls for eliminating the TIGER grant program at the U.S. Department of Transportation, or USDOT, which funds innovative surface transportation projects. Additionally, the budget calls for the phased elimination of the New Starts program within the Federal Transit Administration, which funds major public transportation projects. Rail and bus rapid transit projects help to reduce roadway congestion and air pollution while spurring economic development.Proposed budget cuts that would threaten billions in loans and investments to distressed communities. The proposed budget would eliminate the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which supports billions of dollars in financing across low-income communities, including more than $300 million in rural and Native American communities, as well as the Economic Development Administration and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, costing another $300 million or more that is annually invested in community growth. Without federal support, economic development in these locations will suffer, including small-business development.Reneged on his promise to disclose his tax returns. President Trump’s refusal leaves Americans in the dark about whether any tax reform he proposes will benefit him or working Americans. Trump repeatedly stated before and after he was elected that he would disclose his tax returns. While initially he said he could not release them because he was being audited—a fact that does not prevent anyone from releasing their returns—his counselor, Kellyanne Conway has now said, “He’s not going to release his tax returns.”Proposed $6.7 billion cut to housing and community support programs. President Trump’s budget would eliminate the Community Development Block Grant, which is used by 1,265 local communities for important initiatives such as Meals on Wheels, neighborhood rehabilitation, the development of affordable housing, job training, and business expansion. The Housing Choice Vouchers program will also experience deep cuts in funding, as will other programs providing supportive services for the elderly and persons with disabilities. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, about 200,000 families will no longer receive a housing voucher to pay for their rental costs and could eventually face homelessness in a housing market where there is a severe shortage of affordable housing.Attacked neutral budget analysts so that lawmakers ignore negative effects from their policies. The Trump administration attacked the nonpartisan CBO in an attempt to preemptively discredit their estimates related to legislation repealing the ACA. These attacks continued after the CBO estimated that the House ACA repeal bill would take coverage away from 24 million Americans by 2026. This is part of a larger attempt by the Trump administration to discredit independent data and analysis in order to obscure the negative impacts that their agenda will have for working families.Undermined investor protection by making it harder for the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, to hold Wall Street accountable. An independent and vigorous Division of Enforcement at the SEC is vital to preserving free and fair financial markets for investors. After the Bernie Madoff scandal, Obama administration SEC Chair Mary Schapiro made it easier for Division of Enforcement staff to open investigations and issue subpoenas to protect investors and get to the bottom of suspected malfeasance. Chair Michael Piwowar inexplicably rolled back this change, hindering the SEC’s ability to protect the average investor from financial wrongdoing. He has also proposed rolling back key advances in corporate transparency, including regarding human rights risks in supply chains and the pay ratio between CEOs and the median worker.Proposed funding cuts for programs that help support and encourage small business development. President Trump’s budget cuts funding for several programs that help groups with historically low business ownership rates overcome barriers to becoming entrepreneurs, including the PRIME technical assistance grants for low-income micro-entrepreneurs; the Minority Business Development Agency, and the Economic Development Administration.Attempted to make it harder for entrepreneurs to get access to affordable health. The ACA helps millions of entrepreneurs obtain access to health care without relying on a spouse or employer, which allows them to take one of the necessary risks associated with starting a business. The proposed American Health Care Act, or AHCA, would reduce access to health care and make it more expensive for many people to get comprehensive health care coverage.Proposes leaving 23,000 calls for help unanswered from disaster-struck Americans. President Trump’s skinny budget proposed eliminating the Corporation for National and Community Service, which would also eliminate AmeriCorps, a vital service program that plays a critical role in mobilizing volunteers to aid with disaster preparedness and response.Proposed slashing the WIC program. President Trump’s proposal to slash funding for the WIC program puts basic food security at risk for thousands of families. At an annual food cost of about $513 per person, the $200 million cut could help pay for a year’s worth of food and formula for nearly 390,000 participating women, children and infants.Proposed elimination of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. To date, HOME has helped more that 1.2 million families gain access to safe and affordable housing. But this successful program is also on President Trump’s budget chopping block, thereby threatening housing security for thousands of families.Proposed eliminating NeighborWorks America. NeighborWorks America provides grants to community development organizations that help build and maintain affordable housing. The program created 53,649 jobs and assisted 360,009 families with affordable housing in the last year alone.Environment and energyProposed cuts to energy programs that save people money. The Trump budget blueprint calls for a 5.6 percent cut overall to the U.S. Department of Energy. This cut, along with calls for additional funding to nuclear security and waste cleanup, mean that there will be steeper cuts for programs designed to develop household appliances that save families money. President Trump’s budget proposal also eliminates programs such as ARPA-E, which helps entrepreneurs develop clean, affordable energy, and the Weatherization Assistance Program, which upgrades the homes of low-income families with insulation and cost-effective energy efficient improvements to help reduce utility bills.Allowed a dangerous pesticide to stay on the market, despite it being a threat to children’s health. Chlorpyrifos a common agricultural pesticide that causes neurological harm in children exposed in utero. In 2016, the EPA’s scientists concluded that the agency should ban chlorpyrifos after finding unsafe levels of the chemical on apples, peaches, oranges, strawberries, and other fruits. Dow Chemical, one of the largest producers of products using this chemical, gave $1 million to President Trump’s inauguration committee and leads a presidential advisory committee on manufacturing. On March 28, Trump’s EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt rejected the findings of the agency’s scientists, denied a petition to ban the chemical, and delayed further action until 2022.Eliminated pollution standards for power plants and oil and gas facilities. In his final term, President Obama established the first-ever carbon pollution standards for power plants and the first-ever methane standards for oil and gas drilling facilities. These standards would have reduced soot- and smog-forming pollutants that trigger asthma attacks and cut emissions of carbon and other gases that cause climate change. On March 28, President Trump signed an executive order that started the process of nullifying these pollution standards and making it harder for future presidents to put them back in place.Proposed cutting EPA programs to clean up water sources. In February, President Trump proposed a budget for the EPA that would cut the agency’s funding by 31 percent and its staff by one-quarter. The president’s proposal targets several popular programs, such as regional efforts to clean up the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, and other iconic bodies of water.Proposed eliminating programs at the EPA dedicated to preventing children’s exposure to lead-based paint, which can cause neurological delays. An estimated 38 million U.S. homes contain lead-based paint, and in 2015, the Centers for Disease Control found that 243,000 children had elevated levels of lead in their blood. Lead is a neurotoxin that causes permanent nerve damage.Rolled back important protections for drinking water in coal communities. One of the Trump administration’s first actions was to nix the Stream Protection Rule put in place by the Obama administration to prevent coal companies from polluting nearby streams. Scrapping this environmental protection was a top priority of the coal industry at the expense of clean drinking water in coal communities.Repealed anti-bribery rule to the delight of the oil industry. President Trump eliminated an anti-corruption rule that had required oil and gas companies to disclose payments to foreign governments. When he was still the CEO of Exxon Mobil, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had lobbied to remove the rules established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.Ripped off American taxpayers and avoided fixing the broken federal coal-leasing program. The Trump administration moved to preserve a loophole the Obama administration closed that allows coal companies to rip off taxpayers by allowing them to sell coal mined on federal lands to their own subsidiaries at artificially low prices and shirk royalty payment responsibilities.Halted the first comprehensive review of the federal coal program in more than 30 years while simultaneously opening public lands for new leases to mine coal. Federal coal lease sales only bring in, on average, $1 per ton in bids, and taxpayers are estimated to be losing $1 billion annually in lost royalty payments on undervalued coal sales.Proposed major cuts to the Department of the Interior’s budget that would impair critical maintenance of our national parks while making a public show of supporting them. A few weeks after proposing to cut $1.5 billion, or 12 percent, from the Department of the Interior’s budget, President Trump had Press Secretary Sean Spicer ceremoniously hand a $78,000 check—Trump’s first-quarter earnings—to Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke to help the National Park Service. Here’s the rub: Trump’s check only covers 0.01 percent of $1.3 billion in “critical systems deferred maintenance” that the National Park Service urgently needs.Pulled the rug from under private investors backing conservation efforts. As part of a sweeping executive order aimed at gutting actions the Obama administration took to address climate change, President Trump rescinded the presidential memorandum that encouraged private investment when developers work to mitigate impacts on natural resources. This action undercuts the economic and environmental gains that the fast-growing restoration industry has made recently to the tune of $1.15 billion between 2014 and 2015 in private capital invested in habitat conservation and water management. These relatively new environmental marketplaces rely on regulatory consistency that President Obama’s memorandum bolstered.Declared open season on baby bears and wolves in wildlife refuges. President Trump overturned a rule that had protected black bear mothers and their cubs from being hunted in their dens. The Obama administration’s “Fair Chase” rule, which applied to national wildlife refuges in Alaska, also limited baiting, trapping, and the use of aircrafts to track and shoot bears and wolves.Moved to weaken air quality standards for ozone. Ozone pollution is a key contributor to smog, which can cause more frequent asthma attacks and exacerbate lung diseases. President Trump’s EPA is moving toward changing air quality standards established under the Obama administration to allow greater ozone pollution. Ground level ozone pollution can increase the frequency of asthma attacks, cause shortness of breath, aggravate lung diseases, and cause permanent damage to lungs through long-term exposure. Elevated ozone levels are linked to increases in hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and premature death, and can cause pronounced health impacts in children and the elderly.Signed an executive order nullifying the “social cost of carbon.” President Trump essentially determined that climate change has no cost by eliminating a critical metric used to measure the benefit of cutting carbon pollution.Stopped rules that would limit dumping toxins from power plants. Trump’s EPA is stopping rules that would limit the dumping of toxins, such as mercury and arsenic, and pollution from power plants into public waterways. These would have been the first protections in more than 30 years to curb toxins and other pollutants in power plants.Changed standards to protect water and wildlife from lead poisoning. Hours after riding a horse to his first day on the job, Secretary of the Interior Zinke reversed a ban on using lead bullets for hunting in wildlife refuses. Lead content in these bullets can poison water and wildlife.Opened the door to reducing methane pollution standards. The president signed an executive order directing the EPA and the Bureau of Land Management to review the methane pollution standards for oil and gas drilling facilities and determine whether to rescind or revise them. Methane pollution supercharges global warming 86 times as much as carbon pollution.Took steps to reverse progress to date on U.S. preparations for climate change. President Trump signed an executive order rescinding previous executive orders related to preparing the U.S. for climate change; encouraging private investment in efforts to mitigate pollution; and ensuring our national security plans consider climate change impacts.Nominated an EPA administrator who denies scientific proof of climate change. EPA Administrator Pruitt told the media that he does not think carbon dioxide is the primary contributor to climate change. His statement is the climate science equivalent of saying the world is flat.Proposed budget cuts to that will cause 5.7 million low-income residents to lose assistance with their heating bills and about 673,000 to lose cooling assistance. President Trump’s proposal to eliminate the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, will be especially dangerous as more states experience extreme weather.Democracy and government reformImperiled American voters with untrue claims about illegal voting. President Trump’s empty claims of widespread fraud undermine the integrity of our elections and lay the basis for voter suppression efforts that attack our constitutional right to participate in self-government. When government officials spread lies that call into question the legitimacy of our elections, people lose faith in the democratic process. Instead of responding to the clear and present dangers of foreign interference and discriminatory efforts to keep some American citizens from casting their ballots, Trump chooses to spread baseless slander while calling for a witch hunt against American voters.Brought pay-to-play corruption to the presidency. The Trump family continues to promote their private business interests at home and abroad while profiting off of the presidency. Corruption, or even the appearance of corruption, diminishes trust in government and increases cynicism toward democratic institutions. At a time when 75 percent of Americans already believe that corruption is widespread in government, President Trump’s blatant disregard for ethics rules and constitutional prohibitions on presidential enrichment further undermine democratic norms and threatens our democracy, economy, and national security.Undermined transparency and accountability by continuing to hide his tax returns and withholding White House visitor logs. Due to his refusal to release his tax returns the full extent of President Trump’s indebtedness and foreign entanglements remains unknown. As a result, Americans cannot be sure that Trump is not providing favors and special treatment to his business partners or that foreign states and businesses are not leveraging influence over the Trump administration and its decisions. It is impossible for Trump to lead an effort to revise the tax code without Americans knowing how his proposals would line his own pocket. Changing the practice to stop disclosing White House visitor logs prevents the public from knowing who is accessing federal officials on a daily basis and keeps special interest influence shrouded in secrecy.ImmigrationSigned two Muslim and refugee bans, both of which have been enjoined by federal courts. In January, and then again in March, President Trump signed executive orders banning immigrants from seven—and then, subsequently, six—Muslim-majority nations for at least three months and halting the refugee program for four months. The January executive order sparked widespread protests at airports all across the country and was quickly blocked by a federal court in Washington state and then by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In early March, Trump signed a barely revised version of the original order, which courts in Hawaii and Maryland rightly acknowledged still constituted a Muslim and refugee ban. The core parts of the ban were once again put on hold.Made every unauthorized immigrant a deportation priority, regardless of equities. As a matter of the smart prioritization of resources, the Obama administration focused its immigration enforcement on serious threats to national security and public safety, as well as recent border crossers. Within days of taking office, Trump signed an executive order eliminating the Obama priorities, effectively making all unauthorized immigrants a priority for deportation, regardless of how long they have been in the country, their ties to families and communities, or other equities. In practice, this has meant that people like Guadalupe García de Rayos, a mother of two from Arizona who has been in the U.S. for over two decades, and Maribel Trujillo Diaz, a mother of four U.S.-born children have been deported.Made immigrant survivors of domestic abuse and sexual assault afraid to turn to law enforcement for help. Aggressive immigration enforcement by the Trump administration—including a case in El Paso, where immigration officials arrested a victim of domestic abuse at a courthouse after she received a protective order against her abuser—has made immigrants and Latinos, regardless of immigration status, increasingly reluctant to come forward to report crimes. Prosecutors in Denver have been forced to drop four domestic violence prosecutions because immigrant victims no longer wish to cooperate. Another domestic violence case in Austin hangs in limbo under similar circumstances. Since last year, Los Angeles has seen reports by Latinos of sexual assault decline by 25 percent, and Houston has seen reports by Latinos of rapes decline by nearly 43 percent. By making everyone a priority, the administration has made no one a priority to the detriment of public safety.Arrested multiple recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. Even though Trump has said that he will deal with young unauthorized immigrants with “great heart,” and even though Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly has said that he is “the best thing that happened to DACA,” the Department of Homeland Security has detained at least five recipients of DACA—which grants eligible young people a two-year reprieve from deportation and a work permit—since taking office. The detained include Daniela Vargas, Daniel Ramirez, Edwin Romero, Josue Romero, and Francisco Rodriguez. It is now also being reported that the Department of Homeland Security deported Dreamer Juan Manuel Montes while he was protected from deportation through DACA.Threatened to take away critical community safety funding from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions. As part of the January 25 executive order on interior immigration enforcement, President Trump threatened to take away federal funds from more than 600 so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. On March 27 Attorney General Jeff Sessions threatened to revoke Department of Justice grants that, among other purposes, help local law enforcement to eliminate barriers to processing rape kits, combat gang and gun crime, and stop human trafficking. The attorney general’s comments were swiftly denounced by the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Research shows that counties with sanctuary policies have lower crime rates and stronger economies than those without the policies.Scared authorized immigrants away from accessing benefits and necessary health care for which they and their children are eligible. Not long after the Trump administration took office, a draft executive order leaked, illustrating that the administration was looking to target even legal immigrants living in the United States. Among other provisions, the draft order would make lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, eligible for deportation if they use any type of means-tested benefit. The mere possibility of the order, as well as increased immigration enforcement, has had a chilling effect on communities across the nation. In California, for example, the Alameda County Community Food Bank saw 40 families cancel their food stamps and another 54 eligible families choose not to apply for food stamps. Other reports indicate that some immigrants are taking their names off of the list to receive baby formula or keeping children away from child care centers.FaithTrampled on the religious liberty of Muslims with his attempts at unconstitutional travel bans. President Trump’s January 27 executive action on refugees and revised March 6 executive action both aimed to prohibit travel to the United States for nationals of Muslim-majority nations and fundamentally reshape the refugee admissions program to prioritize the claims of Christians. Trumps actions have alienated the Muslims communities not only within the United States but also around the world, damaging critical relationships with national security allies.Attempted to redefine religious liberty only for those who share a conservative Christian faith. From the anti-Muslim travel bans to disturbing Holocaust-denying remarks, the administration is a threat to religious minorities, many of whom are already vulnerable to rising incidents of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim bigotry.Promises to destroy the Johnson Amendment, which prevents nonprofit organizations—including houses of worship—from endorsing political candidates. A leaked draft executive order indicates plans to insert religious exemptions in federal nondiscrimination protections, revealing a pattern of attempts to redefine the foundational value of religious freedom so it will only protect people of faith who share conservative Christian beliefs.Gun violence preventionSigned a law that weakens the firearms background check system and undermines enforcement of the current law that prohibits certain individuals with a serious mental illness from gun possession. Using the shortcut process of the Congressional Review Act, President Trump repealed a Social Security Administration regulation that formalized the process by which the agency could provide to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, the names of beneficiaries who—because of serious mental illness—are prohibited from gun possession under federal law. This action represents a significant step backward from recent efforts at the federal and state level to better enforce current law by ensuring that all records of prohibited purchasers are provided to NICS.Made it easier for fugitives to buy guns. Under federal law, anyone who is “a fugitive from justice” is prohibited from buying and possessing guns. Since at least 2006, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives have disagreed over the proper scope of this law, with the FBI adopting a position that it applies to all individuals with an outstanding arrest warrant while the ATF argued for a narrower interpretation that it applies only to individuals who had left the state where the warrant was issued. Because the FBI is the agency that operates the background check system, that agency’s interpretation prevailed. However, in February 2017, the Department of Justice issued new guidance resolving this dispute by adopting ATF’s interpretation and dramatically narrowing the category of individuals with active criminal warrants who will be prohibited from buying guns.Health careAttempted to repeal the ACA. Repeal of the ACA would cause significant stress and anxiety for millions of families who rely on it for coverage. The AHCA would have resulted in 24 million more people being uninsured in 10 years—breaking President Trump’s promise to cover “everybody.” It would also have broken Trump’s campaign promise not to cut Medicaid.Undermined the ACA marketplace. The Trump administration has already undermined the ACA marketplace by refusing to officially abandon its efforts to repeal the law. In addition, its refusal to commit unequivocally to paying the cost-sharing reduction subsidies is generating massive uncertainty for insurers. This uncertainty is having a direct impact on the marketplace by encouraging insurers to quit the market in 2018 or raise premiums.Began to undermine Medicaid. In a letter to governors by Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma, the administration encouraged states to pursue harmful changes to their Medicaid programs, including work requirements and increased cost-sharing.Made ACA marketplace enrollment more difficult. In the final days of the most recent open enrollment period, the Trump administration cancelled Get 2019 health coverage. Health Insurance Marketplace TV ads and email outreach, which are critical in helping people remember the deadline and enroll in time. Although some of this was restored after a backlash, a former Get 2019 health coverage. Health Insurance Marketplace chief marketing officer estimated that the administration’s actions reduced enrollment by 480,000 people.Stripped Title X funding. With Vice President Mike Pence’s tie-breaking vote, the Senate voted to overturn Obama era protections for Title X providers. Trump signed the bill, which allows states to block Title X funding. Title X funding provides critical reproductive, educational, and counseling services related to family planning and contraception to 4 million clients each year.Reinstated the Global Gag Rule. One of Trump’s first actions as president was to reinstate the Global Gag Rule, which prevents recipients of U.S. foreign aid from offering any information, referrals, services, or advocacy regarding abortion care—even if they do so with separate funding sources. The Global Gag Rule will lead to more maternal deaths, more unintended pregnancies, and higher rates of unsafe abortion.Proposed cutting funds for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.The Trump budget proposes a $50 million reduction in funding for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, which works with organizations across the United States to implement evidence based, proven programming.Proposed defunding Planned Parenthood. President Trump’s health care bill, the AHCA, would defund Planned Parenthood, which served 2.5 million patients in 2014.Higher educationProposed deep cuts to programs that help make college more accessible and affordable for low-income students and students of color.President Trump’s budget proposed more than $5 billion in cuts to valuable programs, including the Pell Grant program and the work-study program, which provide needed funds to help low-income students afford the rising cost of college. The cuts also target important college-access programs—including TRIO and GEAR UP—that provide supports such as tutoring, mentoring, and research opportunities to low-income and first-generation students.Rescinded protections for student loan borrowers. On March 16, the Trump administration withdrew measures to protect struggling student loan borrowers and made repayment more difficult by allowing debt collectors to charge a 16 percent fee—even when the borrower agrees to make good on their debt within 60 days. On April 11, the Trump administration stripped away important measures that would hold student loan servicers accountable when their actions are not in the best interest of students. It has been well-documented that servicers sometimes place borrowers in repayment programs that could ultimately make it more difficult for them to repay their debt.Failed to help students when a critical resource for financial aid and loan repayment was shut down. In March 2017, with no advance warning, the IRS and U.S. Department of Education disabled a key web-based tool that helps millions of students apply for aid and repay their loans. Failure to notify students put financial aid applicants at risk of losing access to grant aid that helps pay for college and put student loan borrowers at risk of seeing their payments jump by hundreds of dollars.Endangered students by appointing for-profit college officials to top positions. Robert Eitel, senior counselor to Secretary of Education DeVos, joined the administration well before he even left his job at Bridgepoint Education—a for-profit college company facing multiple federal investigations. And Taylor Hansen, a former lobbyist for for-profit colleges—whose father’s student loan debt-collection company sued the Obama administration—served on the department’s “beachhead” team.Undercut students’ civil rights by naming skeptics to top civil rights positions. The nominee to serve as general counsel in the Department of Education, Carlos Muñiz, defended Florida State University against allegations that it protected a star quarterback from rape charges. And the new head of the Office for Civil Rights, Candice Jackson, has claimed she experienced discrimination for being white and called the women who accused President Trump of assault and harassment “fake victims.”K-12 educationProposed completely eliminating federal funding for after-school programs. In President Trump’s budget, the administration zeroed out the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which provides $1.2 billion to districts across the country for after-school programs that support students and working families. This funding serves more than 1.6 million students participating in these programs.Proposed completely eliminating federal funding to support teacher quality. In President Trump’s budget, the administration zeroed out Title II of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which provides $2.4 billion to states and districts for teacher recruitment, training, retention, and support. This cut translates to a loss of 40,000 teacher salaries.Nominated the highly unqualified and anti-public school Betsy DeVos as secretary of education. DeVos’s only experience with education is as a lobbyist and megadonor pushing private school voucher schemes in states across the country. Instead of working to support public schools and the students that attend these schools, she has called public education a “dead end.”Rescinded the Obama administration’s regulations that supported school accountability under the new Every Student Succeeds Act. Through the Congressional Review Act, Congress and President Trump eliminated key protections and guidance for states and districts to implement the law, leaving significant confusion at the state and local level. The Trump administration has also signaled that it will take a very lax enforcement stance with states, opening the door for states to ignore their responsibilities to protect vulnerable students.Rescinded the Obama administration’s regulations that supported improving teacher preparation programs. Through the Congressional Review Act, Congress and Trump eliminated requirements for states to make sure that teacher preparation programs are helping prospective teachers gain the skills needed to be successful in the classroom and support student learning. Without these regulations, states will continue to struggle to improve teacher preparation programs and support the most effective programs.Proposed cutting $9 billion from public education while spending $1.4 billion on school choice. This proposal includes harmful private school voucher schemes and the creation of a new $250 million federal program that will allow taxpayer dollars to flow to private schools, which are not accountable; can discriminate in admissions and discipline; and are not subject to basic monitoring, oversight, and civil rights laws.Proposed cutting crucial support for school reform efforts. By zeroing out support for the AmeriCorps program, President Trump would undercut many of the most successful education organizations—from KIPP Public Charter Schools, to Teach For America, to City Year—that have had positive effects on students across the country and rely on that program.JusticeNamed Jeff Sessions, a long-time opponent of civil rights, as attorney general, the top law enforcer in the nation. Sessions co-sponsored the First Amendment Defense Act, a draconian measure that prohibits the federal government from taking “discriminatory action” against any business or person that discriminates against LGBTQ people. The act aims to protect the right of all entities to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on two sets of religious beliefs: “(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” As a federal prosecutor in 1983, Sessions prosecuted a trio of voting rights activists for voter fraud. As the chief enforcer of the civil rights laws of the United States, it is almost impossible to imagine how he will now protect the very community for which he endorsed discrimination.Appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch—a judge with a long record of ruling against the rights of workers, women, and students with disabilities—to the Supreme Court. Justice Gorsuch will rule on fundamental constitutional issues—including civil rights, the role of money in politics, and reproductive rights. For example, he will soon vote on whether the Court should allow North Carolina’s 2013 voting bill—which a lower court said targeted black voters with “almost surgical precision”—to remain in effect.Pressured the Senate to enact the “nuclear option” to get his Supreme Court nominee confirmed. Nearly every other justice on the Court had bipartisan support and crossed the 60-vote threshold at some point during their confirmation process, but many senators objected to President Trump’s nominee. The nuclear option means Senate leaders can now confirm Trump’s ideologically driven judges with a simple majority.Undermined the legitimacy of the court system. As a candidate and as president, Trump has attacked judges whose rulings he does not like and undermined the legitimacy of these courts. He called a judge who ruled against his discriminatory Muslim ban a “so-called judge.” During the campaign, he said that a Mexican-American judge could not be impartial in a lawsuit against Trump due to his ethnicity. These attacks on the third branch of government undermine the founders’ separation of powers as well as the very rule of law.Nominated ideological extremists to federal courts. The Trump administration is already vetting conservative ideologues to appoint to federal courts. President Trump’s nominations, particularly for seats on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, signal an aggressive push to bend the federal judiciary ideologically. Trump has well over 100 seats to fill—thanks to Senate obstruction during President Obama’s term—and Trump recently announced that the administration would no longer seek the recommendation from the nonpartisan American Bar Association.Proposed eliminating the Legal Services Corporation. Already scarce access to justice will be put even further out of reach for 60.6 million low-income Americans under President Trump’s proposal to eliminate the Legal Services Corporation—the nation’s main funding stream for civil legal services.Tried but failed to stop Baltimore police reform efforts. Attorney General Sessions asked a court at the last minute not to accept a consent decree that was supported by the Baltimore police commissioner, mayor, community members, and career Department of Justice attorneys. The federal court rejected Sessions’ motion, allowing needed police reforms that would build trust between the police and the communities they serve to proceed.Attempted to bring back the war on drugs. The outdated strategy was ineffective and caused long-term devastation to thousands of families. Attorney General Sessions is implementing a tough-on-crime approach that would increase federal prosecutions and long prison sentences even for low-level, nonviolent offenders. Even as the Trump administration pushes outdated law-and-order policies, Democratic and Republican governors are making progress on sentencing reform, drug treatment, and alternatives to incarceration.Supported outdated and ineffective criminal justice reforms that have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. Attorney General Sessions should be focusing on the need for police reform; supporting innovative crime-reduction strategies; and ensuring drug treatment and alternatives to incarceration are available. Yet, instead, he has ordered a review of current pattern and practice cases of police misconduct where evidence and a clear record has shown a police department has acted with systemic misconduct. He has also questioned decades of research and science rejecting a tough-on-crime approach.Reversed the Obama era Department of Justice’s order to stop contracting with private prison facilities. Private prisons create a perverse incentive to incarcerate more people since these companies are motivated to increase profit, which is generated only if there are more inmates filling their facilities. Private prisons that contracted with the Department of Justice were found by the department itself to be less efficient and have more issues with security and management.Racial justiceSupported economic policies that are detrimental to communities of color. Many of the budget cuts proposed by President Trump would cut key social service programs. For example, 41 percent of the 9 million Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, recipients are people of color. The budget also eliminates the Minority Business Development Agency, which promotes business development for people of color—the fastest growing segment of the population.Supported education policies that do not support students of color. The Trump administration supports cuts to Pell Grants and tuition assistance programs as well as cuts to after-school programs that would affect 1 in 4 African American students. The administration also supports voucher programs that do not encourage the success of students of color.Pushed environmental policies that will negatively affect communities of color. As noted above, the EPA wants to eradicate programs dedicated to reducing exposure to lead paint, which disproportionately affects communities of color. The EPA is also cutting funding for the environmental justice office that had just been set up to specifically deal with lead, pollution, and other issues facing communities of color.LGBTQTurned a blind eye to illegal anti-transgender discrimination in schools. The Trump administration revoked Title IX guidance issued by the Department of Education clarifying schools’ long-standing obligations under federal civil rights law to treat transgender students equally and with dignity. Transgender students face pervasive harassment and discrimination in schools, impeding these students’ ability to learn. Nearly 1 in 6 out transgender K-12 students have been forced to leave school because of this harassment.Erased LGBTQ people from federal surveys, making it impossible to know if government programs serve them fairly. The Trump administration removed questions about LGBTQ people from key federal surveys about programs that serve seniors and people with disabilities, without which policymakers and advocates cannot ensure LGBTQ people have equal access to key government services such as Meals on Wheels. The administration also appears to have included—but then gone back and omitted—questions about LGBTQ people from the American Community Survey, an annual survey that gathers information about Americans’ educational attainment, housing, and health coverage.Appointed longtime opponents of LGBTQ rights—including members of anti-LGBTQ hate groups—to key administration positions. Many of President Trump’s appointees, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, made their careers standing in the way of LGBTQ rights—and now, they’re in charge of agencies that enforce those very rights. The appointments get even more disturbing the closer you look: Trump tapped Ken Blackwell, a former fellow at an anti-LGBTQ hate group, as a domestic policy adviser; selected leaders of the hate group C-FAM for the president’s delegation to the United Nations; and appointed Roger Severino, a longtime opponent of transgender civil rights, to run the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights.Proposed slashing funding for research to cure HIV/AIDS. President Trump has proposed devastating cuts to health research, including $6 billion in cuts to the National Institutes of Health in the budget and a $50 million cut to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s HIV research and prevention programs. The administration has also pushed a $300 million cut to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR—an extraordinarily successful program that provides lifesaving treatment to 11.5 million people worldwide and has broad bipartisan support.Barred refugees and asylum seekers fleeing anti-LGBTQ persecution from protection in the United States. President Trump’s refugee suspension blocked LGBTQ Syrian and Iraqi refugees from finding protection in the United States, leaving them stranded in countries where they are persecuted. His policy of detaining all immigrants who enter at the southern border and expanding the populations targeted for deportation traps LGBTQ asylum seekers in dangerous immigrant detention facilities and increases the risk that they will be wrongly deported to countries where their lives are at risk. The administration also decided to close the only dedicated transgender immigrant detention pod in the country, leaving transgender immigrants in detention at risk.National securityMade Americans less safe from the Islamic State, or IS. The anti-Muslim bigotry of the Trump administration makes every American less safe by helping IS and other terrorist groups recruit followers. As one IS commander in Afghanistan put it, the Trump administration’s “utter hate towards Muslims will make our job much easier because we can recruit thousands.” The original Muslim ban included Iraq, where Iraqi soldier fighting alongside U.S. forces against IS called it a “betrayal.”Made Americans more vulnerable to pandemic diseases such as Zika and Ebola. Massive cuts in aid, diplomacy, and health proposed in President Trump’s FY 2017 budget would end the Global Health Security account, which works to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease outbreaks around the world, including Ebola. In his proposed budget, Trump has also called for the elimination of funding for the Fogarty International Center, which supports global health research initiatives, including for infectious diseases research in developing countries.Undermined American jobs and security by ceding global leadership to Beijing. President Trump has taken no actions to achieve more balanced trade with China. He recklessly toyed with overturning nearly 40 years of official policy recognizing “one China” but backed down during his first call with the Chinese president, showing that his threats were hollow. Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson claimed they would stop China from building on disputed islands in the South China Sea, but China proceeds to do what it wants, where it wants. Trump’s summit with President Xi Jinping at his Mar-a-Lago resort resulted in no progress on any difficult issues. Beijing sees Washington as hot air with little substance. Trump’s all talk, no action approach is encouraging repression over freedom and making authoritarian leaders confident that repression will be tolerated.Oversaw an increase in civilian deaths from U.S. military operations. After years of decline, civilian deaths from U.S. military operations have surged under Trump, destroying families, undermining strategic aims, and providing a propaganda boon to U.S. enemies. U.S. military spokesperson Col. Joseph Scrocca said “[More civilian casualties] is probably detrimental to the strength of our coalition. And that’s exactly what ISIS is trying to target right now.” Civilian deaths in Iraq and Syria have spiked in 2017, already far surpassing the total for all of 2016. Trump’s first major raid as president, in Yemen in January, was decided over dinner in the White House—far outside the regular process—and resulted in dozens of civilian deaths.Threatened national security and hurt the integrity of America’s democracy by an ongoing lack of transparency and refusal to disclose details about his finances and ties to Russia. Americans cannot know who President Trump might owe money or what obligations or commitment he and his team could have to Russia or other foreign powers. Trump’s refusal to condemn the Russian government’s interference in the 2016 elections; release his tax returns; step away from his business; and support an independent commission and special counsel to get to the bottom of Russia’s influence over the 2016 election are a green light to Russians and others who want to meddle in U.S. democracy. All Americans from all political parties are vulnerable when foreign influence, money, and hacking can run roughshod though America’s democratic institutions.This list is just a sample of the ways in which President Trump and his administration have already broken their promises to Americans and revealed their true priorities. As this list grows, real damage is being done to communities and working families across the nation. Trump should heed their calls to put the needs of ordinary Americans ahead of corporations and the wealthy.

I’m digging through the top candidates’ climate plans. I’ve published on Warren’s, Biden’s and Yang’s, and I’ll be getting to Sanders’ and possibly Buttegieg’s given his improved polling recently.Harris’ plan is aggressive, well-balanced, with clear dates, targets and action items, and is aimed at building a coalition of alliesI can’t stress strongly enough that Harris’ plan is the most inclusive of other politicians and the least arrogant about being about her. The Harris plan references other politicians draft Acts, including her opponents’, far more than any other candidates, showing a view forward to coalition building that’s assumed by others. This is a statesmanlike effort that should be rewarded.Harris leans strongly into the social justice aspects of the Green New Deal in her plan. Jobs and good, well-paying, safe jobs for all people, are not only the first section of her plan but show up throughout it. The past decades have been challenging for many US workers as the economy has shifted, and more radical shifts are coming.Similar to Biden but with a different flavor, Harris addresses foreign policy. Unlike Yang and Warren who let it slip by, more than not, Harris is focused on re-asserting US leadership in this space, and is one of the few candidates who explicitly calls out her support for the $100 billion USD pledge that’s part of the Paris Accord. Further, she’s going to increase US assistance and engage other countries to lead. She’s less hawklike with China than Biden, but nonetheless it’s there. Pushing the China button works with the American public right now, especially as few know how much China is doing already to bend the arc of carbon emissions, or that China’s emissions grew less than the USA’s in 2018.Harris’ plan is weakest on the military. This is a major hole that needs to be filled.ContextAs a reminder, global warming has several large areas of causation. Electrical generation, transportation, land use and industry all have greenhouse gas emissions. The US military, which is seven times larger than the next seven largest military forces in the world combined, is estimated to be one of the single largest greenhouse gas sources in the world and has not been required to quantify its emissions, but has been pointing out the significant global security risks of climate change for over a decade. While dealing with the causes is critical, dealing with adaptation to the impacts is now important as well due to our delays in addressing this problem which has been clear since the 1970s. Finally, while accelerating drawdown of carbon from the atmosphere is of lower priority than stopping emitting greenhouse gases, any plan should address aspects of drawdown as well. These aspects of any plan need to be assessed to see if they are present and the approaches are reasonable.Table stakesThere are three things which virtually every Democratic candidate agrees with. The first is that they all accept the science of human-caused global warming and resulting climate impacts, and the need to act on this serious global issue. The second is a return to the Paris Accord, which Obama entered the US into and Trump walked away from. The third is support for the Green New Deal, at least in principle, but implementation varies quite a bit. And the Paris Accord portion means that US military emissions would finally be reported, so that they could be tracked and reductions measured.Electrical generationHarris makes a strong promise in an aggressive timeframe which is in line with the Green New Deal, the urgency of climate action per the UN IPCC 1.5 Degree report and what is possible.100 percent of our electricity demand with carbon-neutral power by 2030.She’s strong about how she intends to do this: extend the PTC and ITC tax credits for wind and solar past their 2020 and 2022 elimination and massive reduction respectively, using federal financing programs to fund additional ones and use the USDA to take over fossil fuel generation to allow it’s rapid sunsetting. She’s clear that both transmission and storage require investment as well, and through related mechanisms.In addition, there’s this:a green bank as outlined in Senator Markey’s National Climate BankThis is one of many places where Harris calls out other Democratic policies, establishing the ground work for alliances across the party in Congress to enable effective forward movement. Harris is strongest on this element, and generous with naming other authors of legislation, a positive sign.In addition, Harris’ plan commits to ending fossil fuel subsidies, and unlike many other plans, cites a number, the IMF $649 billion annually that includes negative externalities. Unlike Biden, she isn’t reiterating a promise made a decade ago and never delivered on.Kamala will leverage both executive authority and Congress to end federal support for the fossil fuel industry, including by protecting our public lands, eliminating tax preferences, and opposing new fossil fuel infrastructure projects.Her experiencing prosecuting polluters in California is something Harris’ plan leans into, with statements pointing to Superfund, EPA and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Harris and her team are clear about what departments and laws they will use to hold polluters accountable.Unlike Yang, for example, Harris isn’t as crisp on a carbon price, promising only to involve communities in developing one. This is a key strategy, and Yang’s approach of both pointing to an (ex-) Republican carbon fee and dividend program with specific cost-per-ton points is much stronger. This is an unusual space in Harris’ plan where she waffles.IndustryHarris’ price tag is a big one, second biggest among the leaders.$10 trillion of public and private spending over the next 10 years, creating millions of new, high-quality jobs.But note that she’s separating it between public and private spending. This is indicative of a governmental role in unlocking and matching private investment, not purely a governmental model. But the dollar figure is more aligned to the magnitude of the task. She’s less clear about where the money is going specifically, and where it’s coming from.And again, Harris calls out other Democratic legislation, including her direct competitors.ensure that corporations appropriately assess and disclose risks from climate change. This includes incorporating strategies like Senator Warren’s Climate Risk Disclosure ActRare, powerful and a great choice. There is drafted legislation that’s been tabled in many cases. Putting the Presidential weight and presumably the weight of one or both Houses behind existing drafts is much quicker and also much better bridge building.Harris’ plan references jobs 25 times. She’s focused on millions of new jobs, assisting fossil fuel industry workers to transition with her already drafted 21st Century SKILLS Act, and ensuring that the jobs are well-paying and have protections for workers. She leans into the Green New Deal focus on equity and safety for workers early and often in her plan.When I published an assessment of one of Warren’s plan on CleanTechnica, one of the comments that generated a lot of discussion is why jobs were important in Presidential climate plans or at all when the USA was facing unprecedentedly low unemployment.As I said in responses, some of it is a question of where the jobs are. Employment in urban areas is very high, but in rural areas it's often very low. And the types of jobs in rural areas are usually lower paying, so better paying jobs in rural areas is a vote winner.Secondarily, there is an expectation of a great loss of employment due to increasing automation and task-specific AI. Creating new good paying jobs to replace jobs that are disappearing is important, if you consider employment important. The coming decades are seeing 25% of current jobs disappearing.And more people are experiencing challenges with job security in the USA now too.There is a significant amount of both job anxiety and job displacement that will occur with or without the transition to a low-carbon economy, and a plan that ignores jobs is no plan at all.And once again, Harris calls out another Democratic piece of legislation to build upon.as we invest in our nation’s infrastructure, policies like Senator Gillibrand’s Build Local Hire Local Act will ensure that local communities benefit first from federal investment in infrastructure projects.As with Biden and others, she calls for the USA to commit to the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, but this is slipped into her foreign policy section. This is a major step, as it would commit the USA to replacing HFC refrigerants across multiple US sectors. It’s #1 on Project Drawdown’s cost-benefit-ranked list of action items, and deserves more attention.Unlike Biden and unlike her weakness on transportation, she has a fairly balanced plan to invest in R&D and skills. Naturally, she calls out another Democratic draft Act as the basis for action. She also calls out specific centers and key items on diversity, a long-running challenge in US STEM that has not taken advantage of the brilliance of women and people of color to the extent that the US should.Senator Heinrich’s Energy Technology Maturation Program Act, that would facilitate commercialization of federal laboratory-developed energy technologies […]enhance training programs for clean energy jobs and clean research efforts such as those at the University of Nevada – Reno’s Innevation Center.[…]STEM diversity legislation, including her Combatting Sexual Harassment in STEM Act and 21st Century STEM for Girls and Underrepresented Minorities Act. Additionally, Kamala has proposed a $60 billion plan to boost STEM at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority serving institutions.I can’t stress strongly enough that Harris’ plan is the most inclusive of other politicians and the least arrogant about her. This is a statesmanlike effort that should be rewarded. Although she’s unlikely to get the nomination, a VP role with a mandate on this front and much of her plan intact would make excellent sense, especially if the candidate were Sanders or Biden.TransportationAgain, Harris has an aggressive, but achievable target in this space.an accelerated model of Senator Merkley’s Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, we will ensure that 50 percent of all new passenger vehicles sold are zero-emission by 2030, and 100 percent are zero-emission by 2035.Once again, she calls out an existing proposal to build upon, calls out the specific changes she would make and is generous with her inclusion of the author.Having built and leveraged for multiple purposes a global electric vehicle penetration model, having observed the rapid growth in China and other countries, and having paid attention to the commitments being made by other leading countries, I know that these targets are aggressive but achievable. They would lead to almost all road transportation being carbon-neutral by 2050 with the lifespan of vehicles, but wouldn’t ban the use, merely eliminate internal combustion vehicles as new options, a sensible approach.Her approach falls short when it comes to shipping, aviation and rail. She calls for R&D and the establishment of targets for emissions reductions within two years of taking office. This is a place that requires much less R&D and much more deployment of known solutions against harder targets. Biden’s plan is stronger on this point, especially with his commitment to high-speed rail corridors on the east and west coast, although he likely overshoots with links across the USA.Farmers will see continued crop-to-fuel approaches, likely displacing ethanol but focussing instead on biologically sourced synthetic diesel and kerosene for the subsets of long-distance rail, shipping and aviation that can’t electrify.For context, Mark Z. Jacobson’s 100% Renewables by 2050 policy guidance foregoes biofuels for the small portion of transportation that can’t electrify, focussing instead on cleaner hydrogen paths.Our goal is to eliminate air pollution and all chemicals that cause warming. Combusted synfuels still produce black carbon, brown carbon, NOx, and other chemical air pollutants so are not an option in a clean, renewable energy future.— Mark Z. Jacobson (@mzjacobson) September 18, 2019This is a place I’ve been open to the potential for hydrogen, but haven’t seen strong evidence that it’s a viable replacement for biofuels. With existing, lower-carbon, low-cost biofuels already in existence, I can strongly see a case for elimination of fossil fuels for heavy transport in the short term with biofuels and all capital replacements shifting to electric or hydrogen as a reasonable approach. There are few places I disagree with Jacobson’s proposed mixes, the potential for residential solar being the primary one, but I’m open to the potential for biofuels and don’t think that hydrogen has proven itself to be the most viable or fastest pathway to reduction.Kamala isn’t fully silent, but leaves the bigger push around at least one major transportation sector, aviation, for the foreign policy pillar of her plan.Kamala will commit the U.S. to implement the system established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to decarbonize aviation, called CORSIA, and will work with the American airline industry to reduce airline emissions consistent with the long-term goal of carbon neutrality.Land UseHarris’ plan focuses on America’s farmers and the world’s but isn’t as strong as as many of her other targets, or as strong as Warren’s in terms of specific paths to achieving outcomes.U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will support every farm in America to fully implement science-based agricultural conservation practices by 2040But the plan does talk about food, fibre, fuel and conservation services that farms provide, while being much quieter about specific programs than Warren’s clearer plan. This is another place in addition to SEC climate risk policies where Warren’s plan is stronger, but unlike that case, Harris doesn’t call it out or learn from it, at least not yet.Like Warren and Biden, Harris also focuses on public lands, but she goes further they do. While both would eliminate new fossil fuel extraction leases and promote renewables, Harris commits to ending existing leases. Given the overabundance of fossil fuel reserves and the climate requirement that most of them need to stay in the ground, this is eminently sensible. Public lands should not be exploited for climate destruction.Once again, Harris has legislation in hand for protecting lands, with three bills targeted at protection of over a million acres of California. And once again, it’s with an ally.U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris (D-CA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on Wednesday introduced a package of legislation to restore and expand protections for California’s public lands.Unlike other plans, Harris is explicit in having the USA ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity, a key international agreement that would provide support for US lands achieve better diversity, and engage the USA in international efforts more strongly. Perhaps understandably, Harris’ plan has this is in the foreign affairs pillar, but it has US land use implications as well.And once again, Harris’ plan has targets and dates, where other plans often waffle on targets or defer dates a long time, as Biden does.She will protect 30 percent of all of our nation’s land and ocean by 2030.And in addition to calling out the Antiquities Act as a path, Harris yet again calls out existing draft legislation by other Democratic politicians.Kamala will support legislation that protects the health and function of our ecosystems like Senator Udall’s Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act and Senator Hirono’s Botanical Sciences Act.The only way Harris’ attention to the good work of other politicians could be improved is if she could call out Republican politicians’ efforts to build upon, but of course, right now positive actions by Republicans even in draft are hard to identify. This is a case where Yang’s specific call outs to bi-partisan value propositions that appeal to Independent voters comes into relief for the unique strategy it is.The MilitaryOn this front, Harris’ plan disappoints, perhaps reasonably given her lack of military background and focus on California state activities until recently.As President, Kamala will appoint a new Defense Climate Advisor to coordinate and oversee projects and strategies across the DoD to ensure that our military is prepared for the new challenges climate change will present. She will also ensure that DoD is a leader in reducing emissions and adopting technologies that neutralize its carbon footprint while enabling it to be more nimble and resilient.No acknowledgment of the massive carbon footprint, the role the military plays in defending up the strategic interests of global oil production and distribution — witness the responses to the recent Saudi drone strikes by rebels — or the outsized military budget often related to the global oil industry. This is a case where boldness would have served Harris better.Even a reference to and commitment to reporting US military emissions as part of the Paris Accord would have been something.This portion of Harris’ plan is by far the weakest, but it might be a case of being the better part of valor and a strategic choice for silence. But no plan can be adequate without addressing the US military more strongly than this.Note: my personal policy is to block and mute climate change deniers. Yours should be too.Reading:A Climate Plan For the People | Kamala HarrisBiden's Climate Plan Is Designed To Appeal To Independents Who Don't Think Climate Change Is SeriousYang Would Spend $3 Trillion On Residential Solar, But The Same Money Could Decarbonize The Grid EntirelyWarren’s Climate Plan: Solid, But Sophisticated & Hard To Sell To VotersUS Subsidizes Fossil Fuels To The Tune Of $4.6, $27.4, Or $649 Billion Annually, Depending On SourceEVs Could Cut Global Gasoline Use By 2040Hydrogen Might Fulfill 3–4% of Total Transportation Fuel NeedsSmall-town U.S.A. falls further behind urban America in job opportunities after recessionIf your job is 'boring and repetitive' watch out: You run the risk of being replaced by robotsAmerican job security is eroding, according to trends at nation's top-10 employersHarris, Feinstein Propose New Protections for Over 1 Million Acres of Land in California | U.S. Senator Kamala Harris of CaliforniaChina Is Doing A Lot Better On Climate Action Than Most People RealizeRefrigerant Management | Drawdown