Post by dorieseavey on Jul 22, 2020 17:30:46 GMT -5
Environmentalists historically have a big "turnout problem." An estimated 20 million Americans already are fully persuaded environmentalists. They go to great lengths to recycle, bike to work, install solar panels on their roofs) but they often don't vote. This is a problem for two reasons: a) environmental leaders are less likely to be elected, and b) politicians really only care about people who vote--so they won't drive environmental policy unless voters identify the environment as one of the top issues they care about.
The encouraging news: More and more environmental voters are voting. But voters who are most likely to be environmentalists are younger people, African Americans, and Latinx--many of whom live in communities adversely impact by climate change and pollution--are more likely to confront voting barriers.
Post by dorieseavey on Jul 27, 2020 13:58:01 GMT -5
Here's another key force at play in voting and the environment--Money is used by oil & gas companies to systemically support anti-environmental politicians via a reward system.
The influence (or investment) of money in politics has taken on new importance in the US with the Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision in 2010. Large corporations have taken full advantage of this “money as speech” court decision. Oil and gas companies contributed more than $84 million to candidates running for the US Congress in 2018—more than a twofold increase since the Citizens United decision. Researchers in this article report that, instead of attempting to sway undecided or opposing legislators’ votes, oil and gas companies provide financial rewards to members of Congress after they have voted against legislation to protect the environment. In other words, these campaign contributions constitute a de facto reward system to legislators who are aligned with corporate policy goals.
Post by Gary Riccio on Aug 12, 2020 20:01:14 GMT -5
Fivethirtyeight.com has been the most scientific and trustworthy aggregator of polling over the last twelve years. Beyond this unparalleled credibility, the site also is different in forecasting a distribution of scenarios rather than the single most likely scenario. This is exceedingly important for decision making in voter activism. This week they started their tracking for the 2020 General Election. They track changes in the forecasted distributions over time. Again, this is enormously important for in-stride adaptation of strategies in voter activism.
These statistics do not specifically focus on environmental voters but, for obvious reasons, it is consequential for environmental voter activism in the 2020 General Election. They also track Congressional races. This enables tracking of Senate and House Representatives that are determined though other sources to be of concern to environmental voters.
"Biden also has pledged that his $2 trillion plan for combatting climate change here would support environmental justice by directing clean energy spending toward communities living in the shadow of refineries and power plants."
"As a presidential candidate herself last year, she was an early endorser of the progressive Green New Deal, a congressional platform that envisions a 10-year, government-led process for decarbonizing the economy."
"Harris also said she would ban fracking natural gas in the United States, making her an early target of President Donald Trump and his re-election campaign team."