Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

In Deep Red Utah, Climate Concerns Are Now Motivating Candidates

News Feed
Tuesday, March 19, 2024

The 2024 election is occurring as the planet’s future is more endangered than ever. Last year was the hottest in recorded history, and the winners of this election will face the responsibility of leading humanity to address our rapidly escalating climate catastrophe. This biweekly column examines races and ballot measures shaped by the climate emergency as well as the powerful interests that seek to sway votes on the issue. Driving on Interstate 215 south of Salt Lake City in late January, I couldn’t help but notice the bumper stickers on the pickup truck in front of me. One featured a rattlesnake and the classic motto “Don’t tread on me,” which dates to the Revolutionary War but has been co-opted by many right-wing ideologues. And the other featured a map of a shrinking lake and the words “Keep the Salt Lake Great,” the motto of a local environmental group focused on protecting Utah’s rivers and ecosystems.  Those dual views perfectly capture the ethos of Utah, a deep red state whose natural beauty is being threatened by more intense heat waves and extreme drought. A proud coal- and oil-producing state, it’s led by conservative lawmakers, and recent national surveys show it’s one of the most Republican states in the country. Back in 2010, the Utah Legislature even passed a resolution that essentially wrote climate change denial into state policy by urging the EPA to “cease its carbon dioxide reduction policies, programs, and regulations until climate data and global warming science are substantiated.” But since then, Utah has been impacted by climate change more than most states – over the last 50 years, temperatures in the state have risen at about twice the global average, and it has faced worsening drought, wildfires, flash floods and extreme heat waves. The impact has been devastating on the health and well-being of residents, with decreasing productivity of farms and higher rates of respiratory disease and asthma, along with other heat-related diseases.   And climate change has seriously damaged one of the state’s natural wonders — that map on the truck driver’s bumper sticker reveals how climate change has shrunk the Great Salt Lake’s footprint by half in the last decades due to the reduced flow of mountain streams that feed the lake and higher demand for freshwater for new development and agriculture. The crisis has also increased climate awareness in the state, with half of residents in a recent survey saying that climate change is an extremely or very serious problem and 64% saying they’ve noticed significant effects from climate change over the past 10 years.  “For voters, climate has become a bigger issue than it has been in the past,” said Josh Kraft, government and corporate relations manager for Utah Clean Energy, a public interest group that launched a historic compact in 2020 that brought together more than 100 of the state’s political and business leaders to stimulate support for clean energy and energize conversations on climate action and clean air solutions. That bipartisan concern with climate change is now impacting politics in the state — where two self-professed climate candidates are running to replace Mitt Romney in the U.S. Senate. In total, there are five GOP candidates polling higher than 3% and three Democratic candidates running in the June 25 primary. In the Republican primary, the frontrunner, U.S. Rep. John Curtis, is highlighting the need to address the climate crisis, pushing for more support for clean energy. He founded and leads the Conservative Climate Caucus in Congress and blames his party for not taking climate change seriously.  “We want to work together as Republicans and Democrats, because at the end of the day, we all care about leaving the Earth better than we found it,” Curtis recently told the Sierra Club. “That’s how I talk about it — who doesn’t want to leave the Earth better than we found it?” But climate activists are doubtful, claiming that Curtis is too reliant on industry-friendly solutions such as carbon capture and opposes some of President Biden’s signature climate accomplishments, including the Inflation Reduction Act.  In the Democratic primary, mountaineer and environmental activist Caroline Gleich has made climate action and air quality a key focus of her campaign. She rallied lawmakers in the state to take action to increase water flow to the Great Salt Lake as part of a larger climate agenda that includes cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, taking advantage of Inflation Reduction Act funds aimed at increasing the use of renewable energy in the state, and protecting public lands. “Our mountains, our air, our rivers and lakes, our lives deserve respect,” Gleich has repeatedly said.  Yet she sees a disconnect between public support for climate action and the policies pursued by the state’s political leadership, noting that the Legislature recently voted to increase the tax on EV charging and to reduce the tax on gasoline. “And when you look at who’s funding these candidates, you see there’s a huge amount of oil and gas and fossil fuel companies giving money to them,” Gleich said. Indeed, Curtis is a major recipient — his district includes an area known as Carbon County due to its abundance of coal and natural gas, and he has accepted $265,000 from oil and gas industry-linked political action committees since 2017. Curtis did not return calls from Capital & Main for comment. Gleich’s view is echoed by Zach Frankel of the Utah Rivers Council, an environmental group that distributes the Great Salt Lake bumper stickers. “We’re in a state of climate change denial — politicians might say that it’s real in an election year, but if we start asking them if we should embrace climate adaptive policies, they say no. They assume that any crisis is decades away.” Frankel is encouraged by the growing public concern over climate issues, such as the shrinking Great Salt Lake — the largest remaining wetland ecosystem in the American West — and the growing frustration with the lack of action.  “The state of Utah has refused to embrace any kind of meaningful policy plan to raise lake levels,” he said, predicting that “it will have to get worse before it gets better.” As elsewhere in the country, younger voters in the state seem to be more galvanized than older voters about the issue and demanding action. At a climate strike on the steps of the Utah state house last year, activists condemned the Legislature for not making serious efforts to reduce emissions. A legislator’s move to slash emissions at U.S. Magnesium, which harvests lithium and magnesium from the Great Salt Lake, was scaled back to a mere study of the effects of pollutants created in the process.  “Young people are disproportionately affected by eco-anxiety because it’s their future,” said Gleich, who at 38 is the youngest candidate in the Senate race. “That is what is on the line in this election.” Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

Would-be voters in this coal and oil state signal they’re increasingly alarmed by climate change. The post In Deep Red Utah, Climate Concerns Are Now Motivating Candidates appeared first on .

The 2024 election is occurring as the planet’s future is more endangered than ever. Last year was the hottest in recorded history, and the winners of this election will face the responsibility of leading humanity to address our rapidly escalating climate catastrophe. This biweekly column examines races and ballot measures shaped by the climate emergency as well as the powerful interests that seek to sway votes on the issue.


Driving on Interstate 215 south of Salt Lake City in late January, I couldn’t help but notice the bumper stickers on the pickup truck in front of me. One featured a rattlesnake and the classic motto “Don’t tread on me,” which dates to the Revolutionary War but has been co-opted by many right-wing ideologues. And the other featured a map of a shrinking lake and the words “Keep the Salt Lake Great,” the motto of a local environmental group focused on protecting Utah’s rivers and ecosystems. 

Those dual views perfectly capture the ethos of Utah, a deep red state whose natural beauty is being threatened by more intense heat waves and extreme drought. A proud coal- and oil-producing state, it’s led by conservative lawmakers, and recent national surveys show it’s one of the most Republican states in the country. Back in 2010, the Utah Legislature even passed a resolution that essentially wrote climate change denial into state policy by urging the EPA to “cease its carbon dioxide reduction policies, programs, and regulations until climate data and global warming science are substantiated.”

But since then, Utah has been impacted by climate change more than most states – over the last 50 years, temperatures in the state have risen at about twice the global average, and it has faced worsening drought, wildfires, flash floods and extreme heat waves. The impact has been devastating on the health and well-being of residents, with decreasing productivity of farms and higher rates of respiratory disease and asthma, along with other heat-related diseases.
 



 
And climate change has seriously damaged one of the state’s natural wonders — that map on the truck driver’s bumper sticker reveals how climate change has shrunk the Great Salt Lake’s footprint by half in the last decades due to the reduced flow of mountain streams that feed the lake and higher demand for freshwater for new development and agriculture.

The crisis has also increased climate awareness in the state, with half of residents in a recent survey saying that climate change is an extremely or very serious problem and 64% saying they’ve noticed significant effects from climate change over the past 10 years. 

“For voters, climate has become a bigger issue than it has been in the past,” said Josh Kraft, government and corporate relations manager for Utah Clean Energy, a public interest group that launched a historic compact in 2020 that brought together more than 100 of the state’s political and business leaders to stimulate support for clean energy and energize conversations on climate action and clean air solutions.

That bipartisan concern with climate change is now impacting politics in the state — where two self-professed climate candidates are running to replace Mitt Romney in the U.S. Senate. In total, there are five GOP candidates polling higher than 3% and three Democratic candidates running in the June 25 primary.

In the Republican primary, the frontrunner, U.S. Rep. John Curtis, is highlighting the need to address the climate crisis, pushing for more support for clean energy. He founded and leads the Conservative Climate Caucus in Congress and blames his party for not taking climate change seriously. 

“We want to work together as Republicans and Democrats, because at the end of the day, we all care about leaving the Earth better than we found it,” Curtis recently told the Sierra Club. “That’s how I talk about it — who doesn’t want to leave the Earth better than we found it?”

But climate activists are doubtful, claiming that Curtis is too reliant on industry-friendly solutions such as carbon capture and opposes some of President Biden’s signature climate accomplishments, including the Inflation Reduction Act. 

In the Democratic primary, mountaineer and environmental activist Caroline Gleich has made climate action and air quality a key focus of her campaign. She rallied lawmakers in the state to take action to increase water flow to the Great Salt Lake as part of a larger climate agenda that includes cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, taking advantage of Inflation Reduction Act funds aimed at increasing the use of renewable energy in the state, and protecting public lands. “Our mountains, our air, our rivers and lakes, our lives deserve respect,” Gleich has repeatedly said. 

Yet she sees a disconnect between public support for climate action and the policies pursued by the state’s political leadership, noting that the Legislature recently voted to increase the tax on EV charging and to reduce the tax on gasoline. “And when you look at who’s funding these candidates, you see there’s a huge amount of oil and gas and fossil fuel companies giving money to them,” Gleich said.

Indeed, Curtis is a major recipient — his district includes an area known as Carbon County due to its abundance of coal and natural gas, and he has accepted $265,000 from oil and gas industry-linked political action committees since 2017. Curtis did not return calls from Capital & Main for comment.

Gleich’s view is echoed by Zach Frankel of the Utah Rivers Council, an environmental group that distributes the Great Salt Lake bumper stickers. “We’re in a state of climate change denial — politicians might say that it’s real in an election year, but if we start asking them if we should embrace climate adaptive policies, they say no. They assume that any crisis is decades away.”

Frankel is encouraged by the growing public concern over climate issues, such as the shrinking Great Salt Lake — the largest remaining wetland ecosystem in the American West — and the growing frustration with the lack of action. 

“The state of Utah has refused to embrace any kind of meaningful policy plan to raise lake levels,” he said, predicting that “it will have to get worse before it gets better.”

As elsewhere in the country, younger voters in the state seem to be more galvanized than older voters about the issue and demanding action. At a climate strike on the steps of the Utah state house last year, activists condemned the Legislature for not making serious efforts to reduce emissions. A legislator’s move to slash emissions at U.S. Magnesium, which harvests lithium and magnesium from the Great Salt Lake, was scaled back to a mere study of the effects of pollutants created in the process. 

“Young people are disproportionately affected by eco-anxiety because it’s their future,” said Gleich, who at 38 is the youngest candidate in the Senate race. “That is what is on the line in this election.”


Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Oregon will continue ‘climate action’ despite EPA rollbacks, governor says

Oregon is one of a number of states that regulates greenhouse gas emissions and provides incentives for renewable energy.

Gov. Tina Kotek said on Thursday that her administration will continue to prioritize policies targeting climate-warming pollution, following an announcement by the head of the Environmental Protection Agency that it will repeal dozens of pollution limits and the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases.“There is no turning back,” Kotek said in a statement. “I guarantee that climate action will continue in Oregon, and that we will continue developing innovative solutions to confront the climate crisis and build a brighter future.”The head of the Environmental Protection Agency announced a series of actions Wednesday to roll back landmark environmental regulations, including rules on pollution from coal-fired power plants, climate change and electric vehicles.EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called it the “most consequential day of deregulation in American history.”Oregon is one of a number of states that regulates greenhouse gas emissions and provides incentives for renewable energy. “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created to protect human health and the environment,” Kotek said, and the Trump administration’s decision to roll back “landmark environmental regulations will do exactly the opposite.” “Combating climate change requires collaboration and long-term work – not deregulating polluters – to ensure a healthy planet for future generations."State Senate Republicans praised the EPA’s action and fired back at Kotek on Thursday.“While Governor Kotek is focused on political posturing, working Oregonians are struggling to afford the cost of living,” Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham, R-The Dalles, said in a statement. “The Governor’s refusal to acknowledge the economic impact of her climate agenda shows just how out of touch she is with the challenges everyday Oregonians face.”The Associated Press contributed to this report.— Hillary Borrud

Trump’s new attack on the climate, briefly explained

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here. Welcome to the Logoff: Today I’m focusing on the Trump administration’s effort to dismantle a slew of environmental regulations, a development only relevant to people who breathe air or are […]

A coal-fired power plant in West Virginia. | Visions of America/Joseph Sohm/Universal Images Group via Getty Images<br> This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here. Welcome to the Logoff: Today I’m focusing on the Trump administration’s effort to dismantle a slew of environmental regulations, a development only relevant to people who breathe air or are concerned about humanity’s future. What’s the latest? The Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday evening that it was starting the process of unwinding 31 regulations aimed at protecting air quality, water quality, and the climate. This includes rules on pollution (mercury, soot, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases) from many sources, including power plants, automobiles, and oil and gas refineries.  What about climate rules? Perhaps the most significant regulation on the chopping block is the EPA’s 2009 conclusion that greenhouse gases threaten public health and must be regulated. It’s the underpinning of the most important climate regulations, including rules aimed at dramatically lowering greenhouse gas emissions from the energy and transportation sectors. Can the administration do this? This is the start of a lengthy process of rewriting federal rules. Environmental groups are also planning to sue, which will tie up these rule changes in court for months or even years, my colleague Umair Irfan explains. Why is the administration doing this? EPA administrator Lee Zeldin framed the changes around “unleashing American energy” (in this case, he’s primarily talking about coal, oil, and natural gas) and “lowering the cost of living.” The EPA’s mandate, the New York Times notes, is to protect the environment and public health. What’s the big picture? These regulations — alongside financial support for clean energy development — are the backbone of federal efforts to address climate change, an undeniably real environmental problem that’s on track to deeply degrade the planet’s capacity to host human life. Federal policy is not the sole driver of our efforts to address climate change, as technological breakthroughs, market forces, and state rules all play a role. But if the EPA is successful in finalizing the rule changes it’s proposing, the administration will have succeeded in severely undercutting the nation’s ability to hit its climate goals. And with that, time to log off: I got a lot of great emails about the Good Robot podcast on artificial intelligence that I shared yesterday, so if you missed it, it’s available here on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and elsewhere. If you’re looking for something a touch more outdoorsy, I had a lot of fun with this National Park Service tool that tells you about the parks nearest you. It’s good inspiration for a future trip — or maybe even a weekend hike. Thanks, as always, for reading.

Farmers sue Trump administration over halted IRA grants

Farmers and environmental groups are suing the Trump administration over its decision to pause grants that are part of the Democrats’ climate, tax and healthcare law. They are challenging the freezing of grants including those that are part of a $300 million program to help farmers install renewable energy or energy efficiency upgrades. The lawsuit...

Farmers and environmental groups are suing the Trump administration over its decision to pause grants that are part of the Democrats’ climate, tax and healthcare law. They are challenging the freezing of grants including those that are part of a $300 million program to help farmers install renewable energy or energy efficiency upgrades.  The lawsuit says that the farmers have already made purchases and entered into contracts with installers related to the program – money they won’t be able to get back.  Two of the plaintiffs, Butterbee Farm and One Acre Farm, have fully finished solar projects and now will have to pay tens of thousands of dollars that had previously been promised by the government, according to their suit.  “Such a substantial, unexpected financial burden could put Plaintiffs’ farms’ financial futures at risk,” the suit said.  In January, the White House directed federal agencies to pause funds coming from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) – legislation that provided billions of dollars in subsidies for climate-friendly projects.  In the wake of the spending freeze, a broad range of programs and projects have been held up, leaving grantees without access to federal dollars. 

A Breakdown of Major EPA Deregulatory Moves Around Water, Air, Climate

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Wednesday announced nearly three dozen deregulatory moves that he said would spur the U.S. economy by rolling back rules that have unfairly burdened industry

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Wednesday announced nearly three dozen deregulatory moves that he said would spur the U.S. economy by rolling back rules that have unfairly burdened industry. Many of the moves would affect landmark regulations aimed at protecting clean air and water.Here's a look at some of the 31 regulatory changes Zeldin announced: Reconsider power plant emissions standards The Biden administration set limits on planet-warming emissions from existing gas and coal-fired power plants – a major step in the administration’s effort to reduce greenhouse gases from the heavily polluting energy sector. Trump has long opposed such tough, climate-friendly limits and has instead promoted oil and gas development. Zeldin said the agency would reconsider the Biden administration standards to avoid constraining energy production. Reconsider toxic emission limits on power plants Coal plants emit toxic metals like mercury and the Biden administration issued a rule to severely limit those pollutants. Officials at the time said technology had progressed enough for these plants to do better. The EPA on Wednesday said nearly two dozen states had sued, arguing the rule was costly and a major burden, especially to coal plants. They also considering offering industry a two-year compliance extension while officials reconsider the rule. Reconsider wastewater rules for coal and other power plants Hazardous metals like mercury and arsenic end up in the wastewater of steam-powered electric generating power plants like coal. These can have serious health effects including increasing cancer rates and lowering childhood IQ scores. The Biden administration tightened regulations of this wastewater. The EPA said it will revisit those “stringent” rules that are costly to industry and therefore may raise residential energy bills. New uses for oil and gas wastewater Currently, treated wastewater generated from oil and gas drilling can be used in limited ways in certain western lands, such as for agriculture. Environmentalists say there can be a broad range of contaminants in the wastewater, some of which might not be known. The EPA said it will reconsider those rules and look at how the treated water could be used for other purposes like cooling data centers, fighting fires and other ecological needs. They say the current rules are costly, old and don’t reflect the capabilities of modern treatment technologies. ​​Reconsider petrochemical emergency planning The Biden administration tightened safeguards against accidents for industrial and chemical plants that millions of people live near. The agency’s risk management program added planning and reporting requirements for facilities and forced some to implement new safeguards. Accidents at these plants can be severe – a 2019 explosion at a Texas facility, for example, forced tens of thousands to evacuate, for example. Industry associations have criticized parts of the rule, such as requirements to publicly report sensitive information.Zeldin said Biden administration officials “ignored recommendations from national security experts on how their rule makes chemical and other sensitive facilities in America more vulnerable to attack.” The EPA is reconsidering the rule. Reconsidering greenhouse gas reporting requirements The EPA said it was reconsidering its mandatory greenhouse gas reporting program, which requires thousands of major industrial polluters to tell the agency about its emissions. Zeldin said the “bureaucratic government program” costs hundreds of millions of dollars and doesn’t help air quality. Until now, the EPA said the data helped businesses compare their emissions to competitors and find opportunities to reduce them and lower costs. Reconsider light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicle regulations Zeldin vowed to review his agency’s emissions standards for cars and trucks, calling the tightened emissions rules the “foundation for the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate.” Nothing the Biden administration implemented required automakers to make and sell EVs or for consumers to buy them. Loosening standards would allow vehicles to emit more planet-warming greenhouse gases, but many automakers have already been investing in making their vehicles more efficient. Reconsider 2009 Endangerment Finding and regulations that rely on it The scientific finding, under the 2009 Clean Air Act, determined that planet-warming greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. It has been at the core of the nation’s action against climate change. Trump had already directed the EPA to consider the finding’s “legality” in an executive order. Experts say the impacts of climate change on human health and the environment are already clear, and that upending the finding would be devastating. Reconsideration of technology transition rule This program enforced strict rules to reduce the use of hydrofluorocarbons, highly potent and planet-warming greenhouse gases used in refrigerators, air conditioners, heat pumps and more. HFCs, as they are known, are thousands of times more powerful than carbon dioxide and leak through equipment that uses compressed refrigerants. Dozens of countries around the globe have pledged to slash their use and production of the chemicals. Ending ‘Good Neighbor Plan’ This rule was intended to limit air pollution by restricting power plant smokestack emissions, and those from other industrial sites, across 11 states. Eliminating it would especially impact downwind neighborhoods that are burdened by pollution from ground-level ozone, or smog, that is out of their control. However, the Supreme Court had already put a hold on the rule last summer, ruling that states challenging it were likely to prevail. Reconstitute Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee These seats have long been politicized given how influential they can be in setting national environmental policy. The board reviews “the quality and relevance of the scientific and technical information being used by the EPA or proposed as the basis for Agency regulations” and agency research programs. Congress directed the agency to establish the board to provide the Administrator science advice in 1978. The committee can give “independent advice” to the agency’s Administrator specific to the nation’s Ambient Air Quality Standards. Reconsider Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards Power plants and industrial facilities release particulate matter, or soot, that can easily pass through a person’s lungs and into their bloodstream. Last year, the Biden administration tightened standards regulating soot in response to scientific research indicating existing regulations were insufficient. At the time, the EPA estimated its stronger regulations would save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma and lost workdays annually. The Trump administration’s EPA says these regulations are “a major obstacle” for companies and that the U.S. has low levels of soot. Reconsider national emission standards for air pollutants for American energy and manufacturing These EPA standards apply to pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects or other serious health problems, such as asbestos and mercury. Industrial facilities are required to follow strict standards to monitor, control and limit the amount of these chemicals they release into the air. Restructure the Regional Haze Program For decades, this EPA program has required states to reduce pollution that threatens scenic views in more than 150 national parks and wilderness areas, including in the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. Zeldin said that the U.S. has made strides in improving visibility in national parks and that the program is being used as justification for shutting down industrial facilities and threatening affordable energy. Overhauling ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ The social cost of carbon is an EPA tool to weigh the economic costs and benefits of regulating polluting industries by putting a price tag on climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions – set at $190 per ton under the Biden administration’s EPA. That calculation is used in cost-benefit analyses, and was intended to account for greenhouse gas emissions’ impacts including natural disasters, crop damage, health problems and sea-level rise. Under the first Trump administration, carbon was pegged at around $5 per ton. An executive order Trump signed on his first day in office directs the EPA to consider eliminating this calculation entirely to advance his “Unleashing American Energy” policy. Prioritizing coal ash program to expedite state permit reviews and update regulations After coal is burned, ash filled with heavy pollutants including arsenic, lead and mercury is left behind and typically stored in giant pits under federal regulation. The EPA says it is now seeking to rapidly put regulation “more fully into state hands,” which environmental groups fear could lead to weaker standards. Last year, the Biden administration closed a gap that had allowed companies to avoid responsibility for cleaning up inactive coal ash pits – a policy that environmental groups say could now be repealed.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.