Today, Trump Is Scaling Back Rules Restricting Air And Water Pollution

Last week, Roland made an announcement: we're done with India. I've been there at least half a dozen times since 1970-- once for over a year-- so I wasn't especially disturbed by the proclamation but I asked why. He said that the air pollution is so deadly in the major cities that it was absolutely unsafe. He has some app he uses that measures air pollution around the world. Last week when the fires in California had driven L.A.'s pollution levels into "unhealthy" (150 was the number and we were supposed to not go outside), the Delhi number was 999, and would have been higher had the app gone into 4 digits. Over the weekend, The Economist backed Roland up. "As part of a 'public-health emergency' declared on November 1st in Delhi, millions of face-masks are being distributed to children. Schools will shut until at least November 5th. The cause is polluted air, which Delhi’s chief minister says has turned the city into a 'gas chamber'. The measures are severe but not unusual. In the past year, schools around the world-- in Thailand and Malaysia, Mexico and America-- have cancelled classes on bad-air days. Air pollution does indeed do terrible things to schoolchildren. Globally, says the World Health Organisation, more than 90% of children under 15 breathe air that puts their health at serious risk. The young are especially susceptible, because their lungs are still developing and their breathing is faster than adults’, so they take in more pollutants relative to their body weight. A British study found that on school-runs young children were exposed to 30% more pollutants than the adults accompanying them, because their height puts them closer to exhaust pipes. One of the most common ailments that results is asthma. Poorer children are still more vulnerable, since their schools tend to be near busy roads."

Children’s brains are also at risk. This is not because pollution confines them to home. Assiduous teachers in Malaysia and China may instruct students online on days when the smog keeps them away from school. In any case, research in 2014 by the Harvard Kennedy School into the effect of shutting schools because of snow shows that missing a few days does not appear to impair learning.

Much more dangerous is the toll that pollution takes on cognitive development and mental health. Research, also conducted in 2014, found that air pollution harmed Israeli students' exam performance. A study in Cincinnati, Ohio, showed an increase in pollution to be correlated with a higher number of psychiatric-hospital visits by children troubled by anxiety and suicidal thoughts. Even very young students are aware of the pollution problem: in a survey by Sustrans, a charity that aims to reduce car use, 45% of British pupils aged four to 11 said they were worried about air quality. Such “eco-anxiety” is the reason that some American school boards are riven by disagreements between environmentalists, who maintain that children need to understand climate change, and administrators who say studying it will traumatise them.

Clean-air campaigners have tried to stem the damage. In Britain, for example, they have, besides encouraging student pick-ups and drop-offs on foot or by bicycle, recommended imposing no-car zones around schools in Birmingham, or, in Sheffield, placing hedges between roads and playgrounds. Such measures are no substitute for bigger changes, though. If trends persist, warns the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, air pollution will cut 1% from global GDP by 2060, in large part from lost agricultural yield, lower worker productivity and higher health costs. Apart from choking on the fumes, today’s school children can look forward to bearing those burdens, too.

None of that bothers Señor Trumpanzee in the least. He has an election to win and he believes there's a constituency that demands deadly air pollution, particularly coal burning pollution. Yesterday, Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis, reported for Washington Post readers on how Trump is working diligently to hamper cognitive development among children and worsen mental health in our own country. Today, the EPA is relaxing "rules that govern how power plants store waste from burning coal and release water containing toxic metals into nearby waterways. The proposals, which scale back two rules adopted in 2015, affect the disposal of fine powder and sludge known as 'coal ash,' as well as contaminated water that power plants produce while burning coal. Both forms of waste can contain mercury, arsenic and other heavy metals that pose risks to human health and the environment." Take that, Obama!

The new Trumpist rules reflect Trumpanzee’s "broader goal of bolstering America’s coal industry at a time when natural gas and renewable energy provide more affordable sources of electricity for consumers. Under the Obama-era rule, coal ash ponds leaking contaminants into groundwater that exceeded federal protection standards had to close by April 2019. The Trump administration extended that deadline until October 2020 in a rule it finalized last year. In August 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit instructed the EPA to require that companies overhaul ponds, including those lined with clay and compacted soil, even if there was no evidence that sludge was leaking into groundwater.

In a statement, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the Obama-era rules “placed heavy burdens on electricity producers across the country.”

Andrew Wheeler by Nancy Ohanian

“These proposed revisions support the Trump administration’s commitment to responsible, reasonable regulations,” Wheeler said, “by taking a common-sense approach that will provide more certainty to U.S. industry while also protecting public health and the environment.”

... [I]f a company can demonstrate that it is shutting down a coal boiler, it can petition to keep its storage ponds open for as long as eight years, depending on their size. Slurry ponds smaller than 40 acres could get approval to stay in place until Oct. 15, 2023, officials said, while larger ones could remain open until Oct. 15, 2028.

Environmentalists have sharply criticized the proposals, arguing these containment sites pose serious risks to the public at a time when more frequent and intense flooding, fueled in part by climate change, could destabilize them and contaminate drinking water supplies that serve millions of people. The rules will be subject to public comment for 60 days.

During the past decade, Tennessee and North Carolina have experienced major coal ash spills that have destroyed homes and contaminated rivers, resulting in sickened cleanup workers and massive lawsuits.

The question of how to handle coal waste, which is stored in roughly 450 sites across the country, has vexed regulators for decades. The Obama administration negotiated for years with environmental groups, electric utilities and other affected industries about how to address the waste, which can poison wildlife and poses health risks to people living near storage sites.

Lisa Evans, an attorney specializing in hazardous waste law for the environmental group Earthjustice, said allowing the electric industry to extend the life of coal ash pits represents a particular threat to low-income and minority Americans, who often live near such installations.

“Allowing plants to continue to dump toxic waste into leaking coal ash ponds for another 10 years will cause irreversible damage to drinking water sources, human health and the nation’s waters,” Evans said in an email. She added it was not surprising the coal industry had lobbied against closing these storage sites. “Operating ponds is cheap. Closing them costs the utilities money,” she said.

It is also likely to add to ordinary consumers’ costs. Last year, for example, a member of the Virginia State Corporation Commission estimated it could cost ratepayers as much as $3.30 a month over 20 years-- between $2.4 billion and $5.6 billion-- to clean up Virginia-based Dominion Energy’s 11 coal ash ponds and six coal ash landfills in the state.

The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, which lobbies on coal ash issues on behalf of electric utilities, said in its 2017 petition that the Obama-era rules were “burdensome, inflexible, and often impracticable” and that they “created a monolithic, one-size-fits-all regulatory regime.”

Delia Patterson, general counsel of the American Public Power Association, said the proposed rules would “bring more certainty to the industry and facilitate the safe management” of waste ponds.

...The vast majority of ponds and landfills holding coal waste at hundreds of power plants across the country have leaked toxic chemicals into nearby groundwater at facilities from Texas to Pennsylvania to Maryland, according to that analysis. The report acknowledged, however, that the groundwater data alone does not prove drinking-water supplies near the coal waste facilities have been contaminated. Power companies are not routinely required to test nearby drinking water wells. “So the scope of the threat is largely undefined,” the report stated.

The EPA on Monday will also revise requirements for how power plants discharge wastewater, which contain some of the same kind of contaminants. Under the Obama administration, EPA staff had concluded it was feasible to prohibit any releases of such toxic materials by having the units continually recycle their water. The agency has now concluded this is far more costly than originally anticipated, and technological advances have made it cheaper to filter and capture the waste through a membrane system, officials said.

Under the new rule, plants would be allowed to discharge 10 percent of their water each day, on a 30-day rolling average. The administration projects that the regulation would prevent 105 million pounds of pollutants from being released compared with the old standards because 18 affected plants would voluntarily adopt a more advanced filtration system. The administration also estimated it would save the industry $175 million each year in compliance costs and yield an additional $15 million to $69 million in annual public health and environmental benefits.

However, even if the 18 plants voluntarily adopted more advanced filtration techniques, they represent a minority of the nation’s total number of plants.

Elizabeth “Betsy” Southerland, former director of science and technology at the EPA’s Office of Water, said the proposed rule “relaxes the 2015 treatment requirements allowing increased selenium discharges and [the] release of contaminated water from coal ash handling. Even worse, it exempts a large number of plants from these relaxed requirements, allowing them to discharge more pollutants and continue disposing of ash in leaking ponds.”

Evans said environmentalists are likely to challenge the new rule on coal ash storage and the federal government could again reverse course if a Democrat wins the presidency next year. She noted that, because 95 percent of coal ash ponds remain unlined, two-thirds lie within five feet of groundwater and 92 percent leak more than federal health standards allow, they could pose a risk to the public even as litigation winds its way through the federal courts.

“We have to hope that no wells are poisoned and no toxic waste is spilled in the interim,” she said. “Crossing your fingers is not a legal or sane way to regulate toxic waste.”

ScienceAlert warned last month that air pollution had gotten significantly worse in the U.S. since Trump occupied the White House, "a reversal after years of sustained improvement with significant implications for public health. In 2018 alone, eroding air quality was linked to nearly 10,000 additional deaths in the US relative to the 2016 benchmark, the year in which small-particle pollution reached a two-decade low, according to researchers at Carnegie Mellon University... Last year, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler disbanded the expert academic panel that reviewed and advised the agency on its standards for small-particle air pollution. In its place, the administration has hired consultants with links to the fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and tobacco industries... One thing that's clear at the moment is the effect that rising pollution is having on mortality and life expectancy."

Two congressional candidates from Chicago had a lot to say about Trump's-- and conservatives' in general-- love affair with pollution-for-profit and how it impacts the families in their neighborhoods. Kina Collins: "In the predominantly Black and Brown neighborhoods in IL-07, we see food deserts with a lack of fresh produce, industrial corridors pumping toxins into the air, and some areas that have higher levels of lead in the water than Flint, Michigan. In Chicago, there are hotspots where Black children are dying from asthma attacks at eight times the rate of white children because of the air quality and healthcare inequities. This is an environmental crisis. We need to be increasing funding for the EPA and other agencies to immediately and aggressively combat the causes of climate change, not cutting back on regulations and giving tax breaks to polluters. We cannot separate environmental justice from economic justice, and I plan to bring training and opportunities for green jobs into the south and west sides of Chicago so that they do not get left behind as we push to become the world leaders in the green industry. And we need leaders who are at the forefront of Congress pushing for the Green New Deal, who are actually fighting for Generation GND. We can afford to invest in the infrastructure and clean technology needed to end problems like lead in the water, we just need to have the moral authority to put the money where it is needed most. We don't need a Congressman who sits on the sidelines, because our planet doesn't have 20 more years to 'wait and see.' I will be fighting for environmental justice policies from Day One like my life depends on it-- because the future matters to me and to millions of other young Americans who are ready for bold action."

Marie Newman is also running for a seat held by a Democrat who doesn't seem to give a damn about corporate pollution. "With the undeniable amount of rebuilding and work we will have to do to address the climate crisis, my opponent’s lack of understanding and dismissal of the climate crisis alongside the amount of funding he is getting from the fossil fuel industries is truly disturbing. We must push past dinosaurs like Lipinski and get progressives elected ASAP. It is why I’m running."

Chicago Zip Codes Shouldn't Determine Which Side Of The City's 30 Year Life Expectancy Divergence You're On

This map of Chicago from The Economist shocked me as the magazine makes the point that if you take a ride along Chicago's red line-- a rail service running north-south for 23 miles-- life expectancy varies by 30 years from one end to the other! Thirty years! In a developed country! In the richest country in the world! And it's not all caused by the epidemic of opioid addiction and the NRA-GOP worship of fire arms.

In the last decade, Chicagoland stopped sending Republicans to Congress. But there are still worthless conservatives representing the area. And if Dan Lipinski is the worst and best known, he isn't the only one. Blue America has 4 strong progressive candidates running in primaries against 4 Democratic incumbents who are not part of the solution-- Marie Newman, Kina Collins, Robert Emmons and Rachel Ventura. I asked all four to look at the map and help me understand it. Marie-- who is running for the seat occupied by Lipinski-- was the first to respond. "Environmental, economic and racial injustices are clear and stark in the Chicago area. This affects my district, IL-03-- the southwest side of the city and suburbs-- dramatically and everyday. My platform was built on addressing the environmental crises in my district as well as the income divide and addressing hate head on. We need to create equality and we need to do it now."

That probably has something to do with presidential candidates Bernie, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker endorsing her-- not to mention congressional superstars AOC and Ro Khanna, despite warnings from the DCCC not to.

Kina Collins may not be as well known yet, but we've got to change that. In fact, even before The Economist published the map, she was the first to talk with me about the huge disparity in life expectancy and told me it went into her decision to run for Congress. "In IL-07 we have the largest life expectancy gap in the country from Streeterville with an average age of 90 years just 10 miles south to Englewood with an average life expectancy of 60 years. I am running on a healthcare reform platform to address this health inequity not only in Chicago, but across the country. Your ZIP code should not determine whether you get quality healthcare or not, and we must address the institutional racism and inequity that is built into the healthcare system. Before I announced my candidacy for Congress, I worked as the National Organizer for Physicians for a National Health Program, a national non profit of 20,000 doctors and medical students fighting to secure a single payer medicare for all system. Healthcare is everything, from the water we drink to the air we breathe. That's why when elected I will work to close the healthcare equity gap by supporting Medicare-For-All and a Green New Deal."

While canvassing in New Lenox yesterday, Rachel Ventura told me that "One's life expectancy, chances of getting into college, or median household income should not be determined by the zip code you live in. This map underscores the need for a single-payer, improved Medicare for All system that provides high quality healthcare for every resident of the United States. Additionally, one might consider that life expectancy is negatively impacted in poor areas because of increased levels of pollution. While there are no multiple shades of red to parse out life expectancy in the 11th Congressional District, I am certain that residents who live near the Will County refineries (Citgo and Exxon Mobile) or coal ash pits have lower life expectancy rates. I'm sure that those who live in the more affluent parts of the 11th district retire earlier, earn more money, have access to higher levels of education and better healthcare. We need to close the wealth gap, pass the green new deal and win Medicare for All. This won't happen with a multi-millionaire representing the district who opposes these substantial changes."

Robert Emmons is the last of our Chicagoland candidates but he's running in the first district. Tragically, he lost his best-friend to gun violence in 2015. Robert told me "his death was (statistically speaking) predictable. It was predictable because he was living in a society that failed him-- and our community-- at every turn. Our economic system failed him, our education system failed him, our racist criminal justice failed him. Let’s be clear, his murder was 100% preventable. It was preventable with a living wage, universal pre-k, Medicare-for-All, and a Green New Deal. We must approach the epidemic that is gun violence as a public health crisis, and then eradicate the disease once and for ALL. Zip code should not define whether or not you live or die. When we elect progressives to Congress, we send that message loud and clear."

Is The Democratic Party Tent Too Big To Offer Voters Anything?

A new poll done by Change Research-- a very good firm-- found that 60% of voters in rural counties in 9 states-- Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and West Virginia-- approve of the way Trump is doing his job. Democrats need to work harder in rural districts, which they've largely abandoned. And when they haven't abandoned them, they've left them to right-of-center Blue Dogs, New Dems and other conservaDems who don't represent the Democratic Party and its values at all. These are the only Democrats whose districts are at least 25% rural. Non-conservatives G.K. Butterfield (NC) and Bennie Thompson (MS) represent districts that, though rural, are over 50% African-American. Most of the others oppose Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, even a $15 minimum wage. Perhaps that helps explain why Trump does so well in rural areas-- no one to fight back. This list shows what percentage of each district is rural and the grade at the end of each line is how ProgressivePunch rates the congressmember.

• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)- 29.8%... F
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)- 52.4%... F
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)- 40.95... F
• Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)- 27.6%... F
• Cheri Bustos (New Dem-IL)- 42.7%... F
• Abby Finkenauer (D-IA)- 47.7%... F
• Dave Loebsack (D-IA)- 60.7%... F
• Jared Golden (D-ME)- 71.9%... F
• Bennie Thompson (D-MS)- 75.3%... D
• Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH)- 57.6%... F
• Xochitl Torres-Small (Blue Dog-NM)- 73.1%... F
• Antonio Delgado (New Dem-NY)- 45.7%... F
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 28.9%... F
• G.K. Butterfield (D-NC)- 48.6%... F
• Peter DeFazio (D-OR)- 36.8%... B
• Peter Welch (D-VT)- 69.5%... B
• Derek Kilmer (New Dem-WA)- 27.8%... F

And speaking of no one to fight back, Blue Dog Max Rose, represents Staten Island and a substantial chunk of south Brooklyn. A few days ago he wrote an OpEd for the Staten Island Advance on why he opposes an impeachment investigation. It also demonstrates why I oppose supporting Blue Dogs running for office as Democrats. He starts with some whiny "why can't we all just get along" bullshit, seemingly not cognizant of the Republicans impeaching Bill Clinton over nothing at all, Moscow Mitch making refusing to allow a vote of President Obama's Suprme Court nomination, Moscow Mitch allowing the Russians to help Trump steal the 2016 election... little things like that. Even yesterday... Trumpist Cory Lewandowski obstruction at the House Judiciary Committee. As always, Rose follows that up by breaking out his Republican Party talking points and singing them as loud and he can:

For the past decade, the American people have been sending a clear and unmistakable message: End the hyper-partisanship and do your jobs. Yet, both parties have taken electoral victories as mandates to ignore that message to do what they want. It must stop.

Republicans across the country ran on a proactive agenda in 2016: To drain the swamp, rebuild our roads and bridges, and protect Social Security and Medicare. What they did instead was pass a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very companies that created the opioid epidemic. I fear the Democratic Party is now at risk of repeating a similar bait-and-switch mistake by focusing on impeachment instead of infrastructure, healthcare costs, and putting people to work with livable wages and benefits.

Let me be clear, we have made real progress this year, including permanently extending and fully funding the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, passing the most sweeping anti-corruption legislation in a generation, and bipartisan gun safety reforms.

This Rose stinks

But there’s far too much work left to be done and we are in danger of losing the trust of the American people if we choose partisan warfare over improving the lives of hardworking families. I made a promise to my constituents to focus on making their lives better, and I won’t break it.

There is no doubt that this Administration is one of the most corrupt in history. From taxpayer dollars propping up Trump Organization properties to the mass exodus of Administration officials who have been forced to resign, are facing serious ethical investigations, or have sped through the revolving door to become federal lobbyists for the same industries they oversaw. It’s clear as day, the swamp is alive and thriving.

But pursuing a partisan impeachment process won’t address any of those serious issues. The truth is impeachment will only tear our country further apart and we will see no progress on the enormous challenges we face as a nation. Impeachment will not fix our roads and bridges or lower the costs of drugs. Impeachment will not keep our kids safe from gun violence or end the opioid epidemic. Impeachment will not improve the lives of the hardworking Staten Islanders and South Brooklynites that I fight for every day.

That’s why I implore my Democratic colleagues to focus on making our case that we are the party that will put the interests of working families first. Because in just over 400 days, men and women across the country will go to the polls and render their judgment on this administration. I have faith in the American people and believe that they will-- and should-- make the final decision as to who will lead this country.

Rose hasn't accomplished a thing since he got to Congress-- unless you call holding back accomplishments accomplishing something. He's been against virtually every progressive initiative proposed. The video above, released this afternoon by the Kina Collins campaign in Chicago, shows a very different end of the Democratic tent, a young woman who has every intention of getting things done for her constituents. The theme of this one is gun violence prevention and Kina is on fire to get it done-- done for real. Kina is running in Chicago, in IL-07 for a seat held by do-nothing incumbent Danny Davis-- and it's a tragedy that there isn't someone like her running against Rose.

"We have to go beyond the gun," she said, "to address systemic issues of poverty and neglect. It's time to pursue a bold progressive platform that includes Medicare-for-All, a Green New Deal, criminal justice reform and future free of gun violence... It's time; it's our time." Please consider contributing what you can to Kina's grassroots congressional campaign by clicking on the 2020 Blue America House  thermometer on the right. We desperately need more activist members of Congress like Kina Collins and far fewer like do-nothing reactionaries like Max Rose. This is a time for independent-thinkers like Kina, not for passive follow-the-leader shills like Danny Davis and Max Rose, sitting around and ignoring the urgent issues of the day while they collect their unearned paychecks.

The Urgency Of The Climate Crisis Might Not Be Partisan But Is Very Political

One of the big surprises in recent years when I talk with new congressional candidates is the number who tell me that the reason they're running is climate change. The first one who ever told me that was when I spoke with a state Senator in California struggling with the idea of leaving his family behind in his beloved southern California to immerse himself in tawdry Washington by running for Congress. Matt Stoller was with us at dinner and he asked him why he would make the change from California too DC. The candidate said it was because of climate change and how serious it was for the safety of the planet and for his own family. That candidate was now-Congressman Ted Lieu and he was the first candidate who named climate as the top reason for running. Yesterday, Ted's chief of staff, Marc Cevasco, told me that when he interviewed with the newly-elected congressman to be his chief of staff back in 2014, "I asked him what issues he wanted to focus on when he got to Congress. I wanted to know what made him tick-- what inspired him to run for Congress in the first place. The first issue he mentioned was climate change. Ted said he considered climate change to be an existential threat to the human race, and one of the main reasons he ran for Congress was to push for greater action to address the climate crisis. The very first bill we introduced after he was sworn in was the Climate Solutions Act, which was based on California's landmark Global Warming Solutions Act. Ted was proud of his work on the California bill and wanted to bring those ideas to the national policy debate.  Over the course of his 2 plus terms in Congress have tweaked the bill a bit, but it remains one of the most aggressive pieces of legislation introduced to deal with climate change."

Now more than half the candidates I talk to mention it as their #1 issue! The newest candidate Blue America endorsed, Mark Gamba up in Oregon, running for a seat occupied by corporate-oriented Blue Dog Kurt Schrader, told me he thinks "so many candidates are getting in the game because the status quo is failing humanity. It's why I ran for office [city council] in the first place. The Green New Deal is simply a tidy package to put the multitude of actions into. It provides a short sound bite but more importantly it offers a historical comparison for the scale that we must engage at. I think other than the millions of good paying jobs, I would say the climate initiative that is required is closer to our entry into WWII. There has never been, in the history of our species, a more critical issue than the climate crisis. All other issues pale in comparison and frankly if we don't solve this one, none of the rest of it will matter within 50 or a 100 years. This issue is why I got into politics. As a National Geographic photographer I was seeing the changes occurring years ago and I was not seeing the government doing it's job and protecting the people and the planet. My opponent pays lip service to the issue at best, and has come out vocally against The Green New Deal, which is really no surprise given who funds his campaigns. I believe America is capable enough to solve this problem and others simultaneously. I question the patriotism of any American who says this is too hard to deal with or we have to wait for other countries, we have never waited for anyone. We are leaders. It is time for America to step up, do the hard things and lead the world boldly towards solving the climate crisis."


Brianna Wu is running for Congress-- for a seat in the Boston area occupied by very conservative Democrat Stephen Lynch, who has been as bad as a garden variety Republican. "If we wanted slow, incremental change on the climate," Brianna told us last night, "we should have acted decades ago. We don’t have time to waste. We have 12 years and the clock is ticking. If you are against the Green New Deal, you are against continued human survival. There are parts of my district on the coast of the Atlantic. They’re going to be underwater if we don’t act. That might not matter to a billionaire that can sail away on their yacht, but it matters to ordinary Americans. The thing that’s so frustrating is we have solutions on this. We can move to electric vehicles, and renewable energy is a realistic way to power the United States. But if I’ve learned anything, it’s asking status quo politicians to do the right thing doesn’t work. We have to stand tall do the right thing ourselves. My opponent is a do-nothing Democrat on climate change. He thinks the Green New Deal is an 'aspirational document.' He voted for the Keystone XL pipeline, he cracks jokes about climate activists. If we wait for him to do the right thing, we’re going to be underwater. It’s time to get to work."

 

On Tuesday, Bernie Sanders, AOC and Earl Blumenauer-- like Gamba, an Oregon Democrat and a climate activist-- introduced a joint resolution to Congress calling for a national emergency to be declared around climate change. The act is largely symbolic, but it's meant to call attention to the issue. This is what Blumenauer told his Portland constituents: "The problem is straightforward: climate change is threatening all life on Earth. There're many parts of the solution, and everyone's going to have to pitch in, but the first step for our federal government is simple: we must declare a national emergency right now. That's why I drafted a resolution and partnered with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders to push back on this insanity. We're introducing my resolution in both the House and the Senate so that Congress recognizes climate change for what it is: an emergency requiring immediate and aggressive action... We can't wait. Each day Donald Trump and his allies deny climate science and refuse to act is another day it becomes harder to fix. Without an immediate, dramatic response, we will experience irreversible and catastrophic changes to global human health, quality of life, food security, access to clean air and drinking water, and our economy. In the face of presidential inaction, Congress must mobilize all available resources to tackle this crisis now. The good news? Acting on climate change is a win on all fronts; it'll supercharge the economy for working people, improve our communities' health, and ensure a sustainable habitat for future generations. We must get this done. Now." He added on a press call the next day that "the national emergency is not at the border, it's the climate. It's time for Congress to formally acknowledge the scale and depth of climate change, and time for Congress to make an impact."

Bernie: "the problem is the lack of political will. We have a president who is dangerously ignorant... This is a moral imperative, there is no choice, we are going to have to take on the greed of the fossil fuels industry and the ignorance of Donald Trump and transform our energy system in a bold way... Let's be clear. Failure to act decisively on climate change will mean more drought, more famine, more rising sea levels, more floods, more ocean acidification, more extreme weather disturbances, more disease and more human suffering. Climate change is about our survival of the human race. The good news is that we now have the knowledge and technology to address climate change, and it starts with creating an international energy system that is clean, efficient, and sustainable. The bad news is that we are up against the fossil fuel industry, which is one of the most powerful political forces in the country. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on campaigns and lobbying every election cycle to protect their interests, while they continue to lie and deny the reality of climate change. And they make billions in profits by continuing to pump, refine, and burn oil, while future generations will be forced to deal with the catastrophic consequences of climate change. It is past time for the United States to call climate change what it is: an emergency that is an existential threat to humanity that requires an urgent, massive response."

Ocasio-Cortez told reporters that declaring a national emergency is a good first step that would make way for large policy packages like her Green New Deal to be enacted. "This is a political crisis of inaction, and it's going to take political will and courage to treat this with the urgency that the next generation needs in order to preserve our way of life," she said. "We have less than 12 years to enact a global solution. This is a first step, and declaring a climate emergency is a good idea, this is what we need to do to start pursuing the plan we need."

...The call and resolution come just one day after President Trump held a press conference where he touted his administration's efforts to provide the country with clean air and water. His administration he said, had likely done more than any other to protect the environment. Critics accused the energy-first president of "greenwashing" his policy decisions.

"Donald Trump is resorting to greenhouse gaslighting the public to try and cover-up the fact that he is the worst president in history for the environment, climate and public health," said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune in a statement. "Trump's relentless attacks on our clean air, clean water, climate and public lands threaten the health and safety of millions of Americans and no speech he gives can ever change the reality of his actions."

Still, any discussion around climate change brings attention to the issue and makes people more receptive to the science around it, found a new study led by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

"Discussing climate change with friends and family led to enhanced understanding of the extent of scientific agreement about human-caused climate change," wrote Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the program, in an email. "In turn, better understanding of the scientific agreement led to increased belief that climate change is happening and is human-caused and to increased worry about it."

Yesterday, Audrey Denney-- the compelling candidate in the video above-- told me that "Climate change is not a threat in the distant future. It is threatening the lives, homes, and livelihoods of people who live in my district today. We have to take bold action to mitigate climate change and restore our forests to health. The Green New Deal is not a plan to mitigate climate change-- it is a bold commitment to the belief that we can. I want to be a policymaker who crafts pragmatic policies that support the vision of the Green New Deal-- tailored to benefit the people and the communities of California’s first district. I will be the voice at the table that represents rural America, our farms, ranches, and forests. A lot of misinformation about the GND has been propagated and folks in conservative districts range from skeptical to afraid of it. I believe the GND is a tremendous opportunity for us to push forward innovative policies that will help our farmers and ranchers prosper, make our forests healthy and our communities safer from wildfires, and restore our rural economies-- all while doing our part to mitigate climate change. The incumbent I am running against refuses to even have discussions about this issue because he doesn’t believe climate science."

Kathy Ellis is running in a deep red district in southeast Missouri, but, as she told us last night, "Denying the reality of climate change will not solve anything. Missouri's 8th Congressional District is overwhelmingly rural, and many in the district are farmers or otherwise rely on the land to provide for their families. Right now, the 8th District is underwater. When driving on the highways, you look out over fields on your left and right, only to see endless water. The flooding, resulting from months of heavy rain, is hurting the economy and the people in my District. This is why I fully support the Green New Deal. While my opponent Jason Smith, does not believe that climate change exists and has said that the Green New Deal would eliminate jobs and bankrupt our economy, our farmers-- and therefore the economy of the 8th District-- are drowning. It's time for legislation that protects our environment, creates new jobs in our community, and acknowledges the science-backed reality of climate change.

   Both Audrey and Kathy grew up and live in largely rural and small town areas. Shaniyat Chowdhury's district is in southeast Queens and Marie Newman's and Kina Collins' are in Chicago, 3 of the most urban districts in the country. Kina's perspective is just as strong as Audrey's when it comes to the Green New Deal, even if it comes from a very different place. She told us that "In IL-07, there is a stark contrast between the more affluent neighborhoods that have invested in green spaces and clean energy and the communities of black and brown families where we see a high percentage of childhood asthma, food deserts with lack of fresh produce, and some areas that have higher levels of lead in the water than Flint, Michigan. I fully support the Green New Deal, because we must take bold action to address the urgent environmental crises threatening the future of our country. We must take an equity approach to solving this problem, and the Poor People’s Campaign has provided a blueprint which focuses on investing in a clean energy transition-- and in basic resource rights like clean water-- that would create jobs, save trillions, and address the needs of the poor and people of color who are already feeling the worst effects of climate change. We cannot separate environmental justice from economic justice, and I plan to bring training and opportunities for green jobs into the south and west sides of Chicago so that they do not get left behind as we push to become the world leader in the green industry."

"I am terribly frustrated the Green New Deal has been branded as pie-in-the-sky," said Marie Newman. "My opponent calls it silly. I call it our only way to have a future in which we can all breathe. Period. Everyone should stop talking about branding and start developing this resolution into a full plan with programs, tactics, budgets and timelines." Her opponent is a backward Blue Dog fossil, Dan Lipinski. He's virtually wrong on everything-- wrong on women's Choice, wrong on immigration, wrong on healthcare, wrong on equality... and now wrong on Climate.

Shaniyat Chowdhury is also up against an out of touch, corrupt conservative, New Dem Gregory Meeks, who will never do anything but pay lip-service to the urgency of Climate Change. "Breaking down the Green New Deal," Chowdhury told us yesterday, "we see that it addresses so many of our country’s issues disproportionately affecting communities of color. The Green New Deal massively can bring districts like NY-05 out of poverty. The district lies on a peninsula where it was devastated by Hurricane Sandy and there has been nothing done to help families still recovering, or a plan placed to prevent such an event again. Investing in the GND will create jobs that will focus on public transportation built with renewable energy and solar paneled homes including NYCHA. The plan will seek to reduce chronic health problems for black families including asthma, cardiovascular diseases, and lack of nutrition. The GND is not only meant to help our communities to survive, but to strive beyond the 12 years we have been given to make a radical change. Not only do I want to see the resolution to bring awareness, but I will always fight for the legislation to be written and passed in Congress."

Only 27 members of the House notice there's a crisis? Or other other subconsciously begging for primaries?

Eva Putzova is running for an Arizona congressional seat held by "ex"-Republican Tom O'Halleran, one of those reactionary Blue Dogs being protected by Cheri Bustos and Nancy Pelosi. That isn't keeping Eva from peaking out loud and strong. "We need to tell it like it is: thanks to the bi-partisan inaction of the past decades we are in the midst of a climate crisis which qualifies as a national emergency as described in the proposed joint resolution to Congress sponsored by Representatives Ocasio-Cortez, Blumenauer and Senator Bernie Sanders," she said. "Without pushing for massive investments to retool our economy, signing one's name to a piece of paper pledging to not withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change as does my opponent is utterly insufficient. This is one issue that does not lend itself to traditional methods of political compromise. As climate activist Bill McKibben says: 'Physics doesn't negotiate.' Climate crisis is a healthcare, immigration, economic, social, and resource crisis. This is a 911 call and hesitant leadership on climate is no leadership at all."

Kara Eastman has a similar situation. Although the Omaha progressive Democrat won last cycle's primary against a Blue Dog crony of Pelosi's and came within a point of defeating Republican incumbent and Climate Crisis denier Don Bacon, the DCCC is working to sabotage her again. "In Nebraska, we have been plagued this year by floods that have made the national news. Thousands of people, both within my district and throughout the state, continue to face direct harm to their livelihood due to these catastrophic events. Even just this week, the central Nebraskan city of Kearney was under water due to rainfall of six to nine inches. It is absolutely the case that climate change is a crisis demanding an emergency response. It is an absolute priority and this is why I support the efforts of Rep. Blumenauer and others to enact legislation to make it a priority of Congress. It is unfortunate that the Trump administration is in full denial mode, as is his follower Rep. Don Bacon. It's also unfortunate that my primary opponent has come out against the Green New Deal and in favor of acquiescing to Republicans on any meaningful and progressive legislation. In an email just yesterday, she came out against taking the 'fight' to the other side. If we are going to address climate change, we need to recognize it for what it is: A national emergency."

One very strong progressive candidate on Climate is Michigan state Rep. Jon Hoadley, who's running for one of the architects of the GOP strategy of Climate Change denial. "Getting in front of problems as big as pollution and climate change is going to take all of us working together," he told us yesterday. "We have a historic opportunity to create a Green New Deal that’s designed by people and community.  This would mean good jobs in rural communities and healthier air and water for people in cities. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from serving five years in the state legislature, it’s that when we leave communities out of the design phase of legislating we miss some of the most needed and most innovative solutions. A Green New Deal should leave no one behind and be built from the people up. Rep. Upton had decades to act on these issues and didn't."
  

Congress Needs More Activists In Its Ranks-- Meet Chicago's Kina Collins

I have a hard job at Blue America-- figuring out how a candidate is going to behave once they get into Congress. It's less about looking into a crystal ball, though, and more about looking into their hearts. With some of the candidates we vet, it takes weeks or even months. With Kina Collins, it took a couple of days-- really just a couple of hours. Blue America will never have to push Congresswoman Collins on anything-- anymore than we ever have to push AOC or Rashid Tlaib on anything. Like them, the Kina Collins I've been talking to is a natural-born leader who will be fighting for the issues that motivates Blue America-- including issues years from now that haven't even come up yet. She made my tough job easy.

Kina is running for the downtown Chicago congressional seat occupied Danny Davis (going on 78 years old and first elected in 1996). IL-07 is a solid blue district with a PVI of D+38. Trump didn't even hot the 10% make there and whoever wins the Democratic primary will be the next member of Congress. A minority-majority district, just 27% of IL-07 residents are white. It stretches from tony lakefront neighborhoods through the Loop and the Near Northside into the Westside, the heart of the district, and out into Cook County suburbs like Oak Park (home of American Chicago icons Ernest Hemingway and Frank Lloyd Wright), River Forest, Maywood, Broadview and Hillside. Danny Davis isn't a "bad" congressman and he has served his district. Kina Collins has the ideas and the energy of the 21st century that folks in IL-07 will benefit from. The status quo is not the answer for these communities. I asked her to introduce herself in a guest post that goes into her background as an activist as a way of showing what she brings to the table. Please give it a read (and watch the iPhone video she made for us above)... and if you like what you see, please consider contributing to Kina's all-grassroots campaign by clicking on the Blue America 2020 congressional thermometer on the right. It's not just IL-07 that needs her; Congress does and America does.

From Activist to Policymaker
-by Kina Collins

Three and a half years ago, I was standing on the Magnificent Mile in downtown Chicago linking arms with other activists and organizers across the city, protesting the murder of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald. People mocked us, they spat at us, they pushed us, but for 12 hours straight they couldn’t move us. We stayed the entire day outside businesses from open to close enacting an economic boycott, and at the end my toes and fingers were frozen and I couldn’t feel my face, but my heart and soul were full. I knew we had done something special, and we did it peacefully and in solidarity. That day, we collectively changed the course of history in Chicago.

Before the Black Friday shutdown happened in November 2015, there had been an immense amount of strategic organizing going on behind the scenes. Seeing the video of Laquan being shot 16 times, I physically felt a burning sensation in my back as I watched Officer Van Dyke pull that trigger. I remember feeling like time had stopped. Within 24 hours of the video being released, we had a plan. We knew what we were capable of, and that we did not want our rage to result in burning the city down because that would not further our collective movement.

In order to take bold action and put the power back into the hands of the people, we wanted to stop the city from doing business on the biggest financial day of the year. We knew that direct action would not suffice on its own; we wanted policy changed, laws rewritten, and we wanted elected officials to be held accountable. We had no idea on that day that this was the spark that would eventually lead to Chicago getting a new police superintendent, electing a new state’s attorney, ousting the mayor responsible for the cover up, and actually seeing a police officer convicted of murder-- something that no other major city has accomplished in the Black Lives Matter era.

It was the activist community in Chicago that showed me that we have the collective power to fight for what is right in this country, and to keep pushing until we can put an end to corrupt, immoral, and unjust systems. Organizing alongside other powerful movement leaders, I have seen that not enough people are being brought to the table. The voices of the most marginalized in our community are being left out of policy making, and it is time for the Democratic party to elevate new leaders with fresh perspectives to be on the front lines in Washington.

Since that cold day in November, I've turned my activism into action, I've written and passed state policy, and I’ve organized on a national scale for a single-payer Medicare for All plan. Now I am ready to take this same energy and coalition building all the way to Capitol Hill. The most important actions we can take are not just focused on resistance but focused on solutions, and putting in place accountability measures to prevent what happened to Laquan McDonald from ever happening again. There are real life battles going on in small towns and big cities across our country, and we need fighters in Congress who will bring the spirit of their community with them.

At the national level, this is the same bold action we need to take to abolish ICE, to support Dreamers, to preserve reproductive freedoms, to protect the rights of transgender folks, and to get real about the climate crisis. I will bring a new approach to the Illinois 7th Congressional District, speaking up for the concerns of everyday citizens and not shying away from difficult political fights. That is why I am running for Congress - to bring a new voice to Washington, and to directly confront the most pressing issues of our times.

We are running a people-powered grassroots campaign, and we’re not going to win with big money-- we’re going to win with big organizing. I will not be taking any corporate PAC money related to the fossil fuel industry, pharmaceutical or insurance companies, nor from any groups associated with private prisons or the gun lobby. I know that with your help, we can work together to bring about change in our country. Find out more at KinaForCongress.com and @Kina4Congress on social media, and thank you for your support!

No, Not ALL The House Democrats Are Cowards Worthy Of Contempt

Their time is passed for the kind of energy it would take to fight for impeachment-- old and in the way

There are various whip counts of which Democrats support and which Democrats do not support impeachment. The New York Times tally says 54 House Democrats support impeachment, 58 do not support it and 123 have not committed. And then there's Justin Amash, the only House Republican to support impeachment. It takes just 118 votes to approve a resolution to begin a formal impeachment process. None of the whip counts are the same. For example, take the Times' interpretation of Judiciary Committee member Karen Bass' spokesperson: "If there’s a vote on opening an impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Bass would vote yes, as indicated by her voting record established by the two votes she’s already taken on the House floor against tabling an impeachment resolution." The Times puts her under the "59 do not support now or undecided" column. I'd put her in the "56 support" column. But we'll use The Times faulty whip list anyway, since they're all faulty. First off, there are 13 on the Judiciary Committee Democrats calling for impeachment (not including Bass). There are 8 Judiciary Committee members most of whom are basically sating, "You may not have noticed before, but I have no brain and I will do whatever Pelosi tells me to do. Best example-- Hakeem Jeffries: "not at this time." Others, like Bass, are more nuanced. Eric Swalwell says he is "preparing for impeachment," which doesn't sound like a no to me. Most members are just hiding and refusing to answer. My Twitter followers answered this question correctly: 

I've arranged the ones who are for impeachment by their district's PVI. The bluer the district, the higher on the list (and the more likely they are unlikely to get into any political trouble back home by backing impeachment (bolded members are on the Judiciary Committee):

• Adriano Espaillat (NY-13)- D+43
• Dwight Evans (PA-03)- D+41
• Barbara Lee (CA-13)- D+40
• Danny Davis (IL-07)- D+38
• Nanette Barragán (CA-44)- D+35
• Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)- D+34
• Pramila Jayapal (WA-07)- D+33
• Rashida Tlaib (MI-13)- D+33
• Chuy Garcia (IL-04)- D+33
• AOC (NY-14)- D+29
• Maxine Waters (CA-43)- D+29
• Robin Kelly (IL-02)- D+29
• Al Green (TX-09)- D+29
• Steve Cohen (TN-09)- D+28
• Brendan Boyle (PA-02)- D+27
• Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)- D+27
• Bobby Rush (IL-01)- D+27
• Ilhan Omar (MN-05)- D+26
• Cedric Richmond (LA-02)- D+25
• Earl Blumenauer (OR-3)- D+24
• Jared Huffman (CA-02)- D+22
• Juan Vargas (CA-51)- D+22
• Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11)- D+21
• Don Beyer (VA-08)- D+21
• Mike Quigley (IL-05)- D+20
• Norma Torres (CA-35)- D+19
• Mark Pocan (WI-02)- D+18
• Alama Adams (NC-12)- D+18
• Veronica Escobar (TX-16)- D+17
• G.K. Butterfield (NC-01)- D+17
• Ted Lieu (CA-33)- D+16
• Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)- D+15
• Jamie Raskin (MD-08)- D+14
• Betty McCollum (MN-04)- D+14
• David Cicciline (RI-01)- D+14
• Bennie Thompson (MS-02)- D+14
• Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)- D+13
• Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05)- D+13
• Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)- D+13
• Val Demings (FL-10)- D+11
• Joaquin Castro (TX-20)- D+10
• Filemon Vela (TX-34)- D+10
• Joe Neguse (CO-02)- D+9
• Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)- D+9
• Jim McGovern (MA-02)- D+9
• Chellie Pingree (ME-01)- D+8
• Tim Ryan (OH-13)- D+7
• Madeleine Dean (PA-04)- D+7
• Paul Tonko (NY-20)- D+7
• John Yarmuth (KY-03)- D+6
• Seth Moulton (MA-06)- D+6
• Darren Soto (FL-09)- D+5
• Greg Stanton (AZ-09)- D+4
• Kathleen Rice (NY-04)- D+4

• Tom Malinowski (NJ-07)- R+3

Young Tom grew up to be a courageous congressman from New Jersey

You'll notice that the one Democrat taking a relatively big chance is TomMalinowski, a freshman, in a red-leaning district and where this will absolutely be an issue. Trump isn't particularly popular there, though-- having lost to Hillary 48.6% to 47.5%.

Everyone has their own reasons for deciding to go for it or not go for it-- and they're not always apparent. Rep. Danny Davis (D) is in a deep blue district where voters hate Trump (he only carried 9.2% of the vote there in 2016) but his motivation may have had more to do with the fact that he has a strong progressive opponent this cycle, Kina Collins. In fact, last night Collins told us that "There is no middle ground for me. We need to investigate him, and we need to impeach him. There has been a complete breach of trust, and a breakdown of the checks and balances that are constitutionally bound. In our current political climate, it is critical that we elevate new leaders who will take bold action. I will not shy away from difficult political fights, and I stand by Congresswoman Maxine Waters who has talked about impeachment from the very beginning. I wonder why it has taken this long for so many other Democrats to step up."

Another interesting dynamic is the one in Rhode Island. There are 2 House seats, one held by David Cicciline, a progressive, and the other by Jim Langevin, a moderate. There's a 50-50 chance that after the census, Rhode Island is going to wind up with just one seat, which could easily result in a Cicciline vs Jim Langevin. And right now, Cicciline is pushing aggressively for impeachment and Langevin's spokesman said "Congressman Langevin does not support opening an inquiry at this time."

In yesterday's Washington Post, Greg Sargent offered data from Nixon's impeachment to show how public support for impeachment would grow (if the Democrats grew a pair). "In early 1973," he explained, "Gallup polling showed that only 19 percent of Americans supported removing President Richard M. Nixon. By the summer of 1974, when Nixon resigned, support had climbed to the high 50s-- which illustrates that on impeachment, public opinion can be moved in a big way, including, presumably on Trump." He pointed to Clyburn lame appearance on CNN over the weekend whining about bringing the public along. before they start impeachment.

So now let’s look at what happened with Nixon in that regard. Gallup provided me with this breakdown of four of its national polls on impeachment (the question wording shifts midway through):

As you can see, among Republicans, support for impeachment or removal moved from 6 percent in June of 1973, to 31 percent in August 1974.

Among independents, those numbers moved from 18 percent to 55 percent. And among Democrats, they moved from 27 percent to 71 percent.

In some ways, this offers more grist for believing that public opinion can be shifted again. Note that the shift was more substantial among independents, eventually amounting to a solid majority, than it was among Republicans.

Right now, independents are a key reason public support for impeachment is low. A recent Post-ABC News poll, which found that only 37 percent of Americans support beginning impeachment proceedings while 56 percent oppose it, also found that among independents, those numbers are 36 percent to 59 percent.

The Gallup numbers on Nixon suggest that big shifts among independents are possible and show that a substantially larger percentage of independents now support impeachment hearings than at the outset in Nixon’s day.

In other words, it might be possible to build majority support for an impeachment inquiry on Trump, even if Republican voters don’t ever move much on this question.

How support grew for impeaching Nixon

Princeton historian Julian Zelizer, the co-author of a new book on U.S. history, points out that some jumps in support for impeaching Nixon came after high-profile events.

For instance, Zelizer noted, the jump in July 1974 came after the House Judiciary Committee launched impeachment hearings in May 1974, and the subsequent jump in August 1974 came after the Committee approved articles of impeachment in July of that year.

It’s clear from the data that impeachment proceedings provided the jolt that shook the public, among independents in particular,” Zelizer told me. “An independent by nature is not going to make a quick decision. Impeachment proceedings and then the approval of articles of impeachment are what ended up moving independents.”

“This wasn’t Congress waiting on the public,” Zelizer added. “It was the other way around-- Congress provided guidance to the public.”

Democratic leaders insist an impeachment inquiry must have bipartisan support, meaning Republicans must come around. If that doesn’t happen, goes this argument, the Senate will acquit, so an impeachment inquiry will rip the country apart and potentially alienate swing voters while resulting in no serious consequences for Trump.

But if anything, this new data casts doubt on that approach. It raises the possibility that public opinion can be shifted in the middle regardless of whether Republicans ever support an inquiry in large percentages. What’s more, note that Republican support for impeaching Nixon never even reached one-third even at the end of the process.

And given current realities-- deep partisan polarization, and the massive media propaganda apparatus Trump enjoys that Nixon never had-- it’s plausible that Republicans could never come around in even those numbers. “Republican voters might be much less movable than in 1974,” Zelizer noted.

Here’s Gallup’s data on Nixon’s approval over the same period:

Try to imagine Trump’s approval among Republicans falling to 50 percent, and you get the idea.

It’s possible that because of this polarization, Republican-leaning independents might also be less movable, but we cannot know this in advance. And it’s also true that in Nixon’s day, there was far more time in advance of the next election to build support, but that perhaps argues for more prompt action now.

The bottom line is that insisting that even an impeachment inquiry can’t happen until Republicans support one might be tantamount to giving Republican intransigence-- and Trump’s disinformation network-- total veto power over whether our political system ever even considers the question of whether Trump’s corruption and misconduct amount to the high crimes and misdemeanors that merit removal.

That is likely tantamount to saying it can never happen at all. If that’s the real point, Democratic leaders should say so.

In fairness, Democratic leaders argue that pushing forward with oversight outside impeachment will shed light on Trump’s misdeeds, and that if this builds support for an inquiry, it might then be appropriate.

Look: If Democrats score multiple oversight wins in court, and new light is being shed on Trump’s corruption, it would be somewhat understandable if they then refrained from an inquiry, though the case for one has already been strong for many months.

But as many legal experts have pointed out, an inquiry would strengthen Democrats’ hands in these very same oversight battles, making success more likely. And if Democrats lose a bunch of them, and we find ourselves in the fall, and Democrats don’t want to launch one due to the looming election, then what?

If you oppose an inquiry, but also want Trump held accountable, you should at least engage with the risks embedded in this scenario-- and with the fact that the current conduct of Democrats could dramatically influence public opinion on the impeachment question. It’s not enough to simply declare that opinion tilts against an inquiry. Democrats don’t lack agency here.