Tori Goebel, Y.E.C.A.

Press Release from the Young Evangicals for Climate Action, January 28, 2021

Young Evangelicals for Climate Action (YECA) welcomes Tori Goebel as the organization’s incoming National Organizer and Spokesperson. Tori has spent the last 4 years as Communications Director for YECA and the Evangelical Environmental Network, YECA’s partner ministry. During this time, she also served on YECA’s national steering committee. Tori brings a wealth of experience in political organizing and policy advocacy to the role, as well as professional communications and marketing skills.

“We are at a pivotal moment as we face the climate crisis,” says Tori. “Communities are already being hurt in a myriad of ways, and many Christians within the U.S. have ignored this reality for far too long. I believe we have a unique role to play in addressing environmental injustice, and YECA has been on the cutting edge of educating, empowering, and mobilizing young Christians to take action at all levels. I am excited for the future of YECA, and humbled by the opportunity to lead in this way.”

YECA’s previous National Organizer and Spokesperson, Rev. Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, has been named Vice President of the Evangelical Environmental Network. Kyle served in the role of National Organizer and Spokesperson for YECA from August 2016-January 2021.

“I am prouder than I can say of what YECA has accomplished these last 4 and a half years,” says Kyle, “and Tori is the perfect leader to guide YECA toward even greater impact. Having had the privilege of working alongside Tori for the past 4 years, I can say with certainty that she has the vision, skill, and passion to help YECA flourish and grow for years to come.”

>>>>>…..>>>>>…..>>>>>…..>>>>>…..>>>>>

See also: YECA Calls for President Trump To Be Removed From Office, Rev. Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, January 12, 2021

>>>>>…..>>>>>…..>>>>>…..>>>>>…..>>>>>

See also: Young Evangelicals Call for Renewed Commitment to Climate Action on 5th Anniversary of Paris Agreement, Y.E.C.A., December 11, 2020

President-elect Biden must rejoin the Paris Agreement on January 20, and then do everything in his power every day thereafter to achieve the future that the Paris Agreement makes possible. We pledge to continue doing all we can to help, for the sake of God’s good creation and our neighbor’s good.”

#####…..#####…..#####…..#####…..#####

See also: WHAT NOW? WV Center on Climate Change, Three Speaker Webinar, January 25, 2021. “Climate Solutions 2021 and A Just Transition for West Virginia”

There are 90 major wildfires burning in 13 western states

From an Article by Andrea Germanos, Common Dreams, September 11, 2020

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown sounded alarm Thursday that the wildfires ravaging the west are “a bellwether of the future”—a warning that came as half a million people were forced to evacuate her state and become “temporary climate refugees.”

Thousands of firefighters in Oregon are currently battling 36 fires that have scorched nearly 900,000 acres. State officials said Thursday that 500,000 of Oregon’s 4.2 million residents have been forced to evacuate, “and that number continues to grow.”

“Half a million Oregonians are temporary climate refugees (and many of them have lost their homes for good),” author and climate activist Bill McKibben tweeted Friday.

Record wildfires have been devastating other western states as well, including California and Washington, with at least 23 people dead as a result of the blazes.

“One hundred large fires have burned more than 4.5 million acres in 12 states,” the National Interagency Fire Center announced Friday. “Evacuation orders are in place for residents near 42 large fires across the West.”

While President Donald Trump has remained silent about the fires for several weeks, climate activists have pointed to the events as further evidence lawmakers must take urgent climate action including passing the Green New Deal.

In a Thursday tweet, Brown put the wildfires in the context of the climate crisis as well. “I wish the 2020 wildfires were an anomaly—but this will not be a one-time event. Unfortunately, it is a bellwether of the future. We are seeing the devastating effects of climate change in Oregon, on the entire West Coast, and throughout the world,” he wrote.

Brown’s assessment is bolstered by a new resource from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The science group released an infographic stating that “wildfires are getting worse,” causing more damage, and are fueled by the climate crisis.

The group noted that “ecologically-sound forest and fire management could help limit fire risks” in the near-term. “But in the long-term, climate action is the best tool we have,” UCS said. “When we reduce global warming emissions, we slow the growth of climate risks, including wildfire. Until then, summers will continue getting hotter, forests will get drier, and more and more people will face the threat of wildfire.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Climate conditions in the western states are extreme

U. S. Forest Service: Trees are the answer

From an Article by Olivia Rosane, EcoWatch.com, May 3, 2019

The U.S. House of Representatives approved its first major climate change legislation in a decade on Thursday, Reuters reported. The Climate Action Now Act would require President Donald Trump to keep the U.S. in the Paris agreement, mandating that he outlines steps to reduce greenhouse emissions and prohibiting him from using federal funds to withdraw from the agreement.

The bill passed 231 to 190, with three Republicans crossing the aisle to approve it with the Democrats. It is unlikely to pass the Senate, but the Democrats see it as a way to stake out a climate position ahead of the 2020 election and to signal to the international community that a future Democratic president would stay in the agreement, The Washington Post reported.

“Passing this bill is an important signal to our allies, and my expectation is that when we act, we’ll see increased ambition from them, too,” Democratic Florida Representative Kathy Castor, who sponsored the legislation and chairs the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, told the press before the vote, as The Washington Post reported.

While Trump promised to withdraw from the Paris accord in June 2017, he cannot legally do so until November 2020. “That’s an interesting date, isn’t it?” Castor said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the bill would “go nowhere” in the Senate and called it a “futile gesture to handcuff the U.S. economy,” The New York Times reported.

The Obama administration had promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 28 percent of 2005 levels by 2025; China promised to slow its emissions growth and reach peak carbon in 2030, and India said it would reduce the carbon dioxide emitted per unit of gross domestic product while still allowing overall emissions to rise.

“Environmental protection and economic growth are not mutually exclusive,” Florida Republican Representative Vern Buchanan, one of three Republicans who voted for the act, said, as The Washington Post reported.

Some green groups applauded Thursday’s vote. Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune called the bill “an important opportunity for every member of Congress to affirm on the record that the U.S. must be a leader in addressing the climate crisis.” Others argued that it did not go far enough.

“The latest science is clear: In order to adequately address deepening climate chaos, we must transition completely to clean, renewable energy generation in little more than a decade,” Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter said ahead of the vote. “The terms of the Paris accord aren’t low-hanging fruit, they’re fruit that has fallen to the ground and begun to rot.”

Scientists have said that if all the world’s countries met their pledges under the Paris agreement, it would not be enough to prevent a dangerous rise in temperature.

Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has championed a more ambitious Green New Deal that would transition the U.S. to net zero emissions within 10 years, said Thursday’s act needed to be the precursor to more legislation. “The idea that we can just reintroduce 2009 policies is not reflective of action that is necessary for now in the world of today,” she said.

Actually, 2009 was the last year that the House passed major climate change legislation, according to The New York Times. That bill would have put a cap on U.S. emissions and let businesses and utilities trade permits to emit, but it failed to advance in the Senate.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See also: These Scientists Are Radically Changing How They Live To Cope With Climate Change, Zahra Hirji, BuzzFeed News Reporter, April 23, 2019

When the US government is doing nothing to stop climate change, do your personal choices even matter? Here’s how climate scientists are — and aren’t — changing their lives.

Speaking of Carbon Action ASAP

A Conservative Case for Climate Action

Opinion: Op-Ed Contributors

From Commentary by Martin S. Feldstein, Ted Halstead, and N. Gregory ManKiw, New York Times, February 8, 2017

CRAZY as it may sound, this is the perfect time to enact a sensible policy to address the dangerous threat of climate change. Before you call us nuts, hear us out.

During his eight years in office, President Obama regularly warned of the very real dangers of global warming, but he did not sign any meaningful domestic legislation to address the problem, largely because he and Congress did not see eye to eye. Instead, Mr. Obama left us with a grab bag of regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions, often established by executive order.

In comes President Trump, who seems much less concerned about the risks of climate change, and more worried about how excessive regulation impedes economic growth and depresses living standards. As Democrats are learning the hard way, it is all too easy for a new administration to reverse the executive orders of its predecessors.

On-again-off-again regulation is a poor way to protect the environment. And by creating needless uncertainty for businesses that are planning long-term capital investments, it is also a poor way to promote robust economic growth.

By contrast, an ideal climate policy would reduce carbon emissions, limit regulatory intrusion, promote economic growth, help working-class Americans and prove durable when the political winds change. We have laid out such a plan in a paper to be released Wednesday by the Climate Leadership Council.

Our co-authors include James A. Baker III, Treasury secretary for President Ronald Reagan and secretary of state for President George H. W. Bush; Henry M. Paulson Jr., Treasury secretary for President George W. Bush; George P. Shultz, Treasury secretary for President Richard Nixon and secretary of state for Mr. Reagan; Thomas Stephenson, a partner at Sequoia Capital, a venture-capital firm; and Rob Walton, who recently completed 23 years as chairman of Walmart.

Our plan is built on four pillars.

First, the federal government would impose a gradually increasing tax on carbon dioxide emissions. It might begin at $40 per ton and increase steadily. This tax would send a powerful signal to businesses and consumers to reduce their carbon footprints.

Second, the proceeds would be returned to the American people on an equal basis via quarterly dividend checks. With a carbon tax of $40 per ton, a family of four would receive about $2,000 in the first year. As the tax rate rose over time to further reduce emissions, so would the dividend payments.

Third, American companies exporting to countries without comparable carbon pricing would receive rebates on the carbon taxes they’ve paid on those products, while imports from such countries would face fees on the carbon content of their products. This would protect American competitiveness and punish free-riding by other nations, encouraging them to adopt their own carbon pricing.

Finally, regulations made unnecessary by the carbon tax would be eliminated, including an outright repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

Our own analysis finds that a carbon dividends program starting at $40 per ton would achieve nearly twice the emissions reductions of all Obama-era climate regulations combined. Provided all four elements are put in force in unison, this plan could meet America’s commitment under the Paris climate agreement, all by itself. Democrats and environmentalists may bemoan the accompanying regulatory rollback. But they should pause to consider the environmental value proposition.

These four pillars, combined, invite novel coalitions. Environmentalists should like the long-overdue commitment to carbon pricing. Growth advocates should embrace the reduced regulation and increased policy certainty, which would encourage long-term investments, especially in clean technologies. Libertarians should applaud a plan premised on getting the incentives right and government out of the way. Populists should welcome the distributive impact.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, the bottom 70 percent of Americans would come out ahead under a carbon dividends plan. Some 223 million Americans stand to benefit.

The idea of using taxes to correct a problem like pollution is an old one with wide support among economists. But it is our unique political moment, combined with the populist appeal of dividends, that may turn the concept into reality.

Republicans are in charge of both Congress and the White House. If they do nothing other than reverse regulations from the Obama administration, they will squander the opportunity to show the full power of the conservative canon, and its core principles of free markets, limited government and stewardship.

A repeal-only climate strategy would prove quite unpopular. Recent polls show that 64 percent of Americans are concerned about climate change, 71 percent want America to remain in the Paris agreement, and an even larger share favor clean energy. If the Republican Party fails to exercise leadership on our climate challenge, they risk a return to heavy-handed regulation when Democrats return to power.

Much better would be a strategy of “repeal and replace.” This would be pro-growth, pro-competitiveness and pro-working class, which aligns perfectly with President Trump’s stated agenda.