Thursday, August 24, 2023

NYC
Migrant, homeless advocates demand housing vouchers for undocumented, point to $3 billion in annual savings

Michael Gartland, New York Daily News
Tue, August 22, 2023 


Barry Williams/New York Daily News/TNS

NEW YORK — Advocates are calling on Mayor Eric Adams’ to extend housing vouchers to undocumented immigrants living in New York City — an unprecedented move they say will help alleviate pressure on the city’s homeless shelter system while saving taxpayers $3 billion annually amid the city’s rapidly expanding migrant crisis.

The homeless service provider Win and the New York Immigration Coalition laid out the logic for their demand in a new report exclusively shared with the Daily News that weighs the costs of housing migrants in emergency hotels against an expanded housing voucher. According to their analysis, using figures from the city, academia and the press, it costs $383 a day to house people in hotels versus upwards of $72 per day for funding a more robust housing voucher program.

They contend shifting the cost burden away from more expensive hotel shelters to housing vouchers — which would go toward paying for more permanent housing — could save the city $3 billion a year.

Their proposal comes just weeks after Adams announced that the cost of paying for the migrant crisis could balloon to $12 billion over the next three years.

Christine Quinn, who heads Win and previously served as City Council speaker, said the analysis conducted by her non-profit and the Immigration Coalition shows that expanding housing credits known as City FHEPS vouchers to undocumented is the most practical path forward, both financially and morally.

“Right now, we are moving asylum seekers into shelters or hotels, and they have no way to get out of those shelters or hotels because they don’t have working papers per the federal government and they don’t have any help in paying the rent,” she said. “The emergency hotels are $383 a night. If you gave undocumented people CityFHEPS vouchers it would cost $72 a night. That’s an enormous, enormous difference. That’s where the savings comes in, and that’s where the stabilizing comes in.”

Since April 2022, approximately 100,000 migrants have come to the city, mostly from Latin America countries. Of those, nearly 60,000 remain in the city’s care. In addition to providing shelter and other services for the newly-arrived migrant population, the city is currently housing nearly 83,000 people in its shelter system — most of whom are native New Yorkers. All of it has put an extreme strain on the city’s social safety net, and, as the mayor often points out, at great cost to taxpayers.

Adams has also been calling on the federal government for months to expedite work authorizations for migrants, but so far, the status quo has remained intact. And while that would require federal intervention, Quinn and Murad Awawdeh, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, point to expanding FHEPS eligibility as a way the city can act on its own to better address the situation.

Some questions remain about whether the mayor could enact such a policy on his own or if he would require state intervention, said Quinn.

Federal law prohibits certain benefits for the undocumented, but it also allows for states to make exceptions to that overriding legal principle.

Quinn said some interpretations of existing law support the idea that the city can act on its own — without input from the state — but that remains to be seen.

“It’s long past time that the city move out of its emergency response and into a long-term approach that gets people onto their feet,” Awawdeh said. “It’s drastically, significantly cheaper.”

Awawdeh said the idea of expanding FHEPS to undocumented immigrants has been floated at the city level before, but noted that advocates hadn’t been previously armed with data that showed how much the city would save. Quinn said renewed conversations with City Hall are now in the beginning stages.

“I have meetings scheduled in the next couple of weeks with both Deputy Mayor Williams-Isom and Deputy Mayor Torres-Springer to talk about these issues,” she said. “We’ve raised them with different leaders in the City Council who are very open to the idea.”

As Quinn prepares for her temperature-taking excursion to City Hall, the Adams administration has so far remained mum on it.

“We will review the report, but cannot comment directly on its findings without reviewing the underlying methodology,” an Adams spokesman said.

A spokesman for Gov. Hochul did not immediately respond to questions from The News.

The proposal, if rejected by Team Adams, could lead to a dynamic similar to the one that recently played out when the Council passed a law to expand housing voucher eligibility to include tenants who’ve received a written rent demand from a landlord. Adams vetoed the Council’s bill, but that was later overriden thanks to the veto-proof majority secured in the lawmaking body.

A Council spokesman also did not immediately respond to calls. But at least one Council member said he’s against the proposal and questioned the savings outlined in the report from Win and the Immigration Coalition.

“It’s only saving $3 billion in housing costs that they’re making us pay by propping up the right-to-shelter law and sanctuary city status,” said Republican Councilman Joe Borelli, referring to the law that requires the city to provide shelter to anyone who requests it. “This is nothing more than the standard money-grows-on-trees approach from these lefty groups.”

Awawdeh countered that in the long-term the influx of migrants will ultimately benefit the city and state’s workforce.

“This is an opportunity for our workforce needs to be met,” he said. “We have 5,000 agricultural jobs across the state that aren’t being filled, over 5,000 hospitality jobs, thousands of jobs in the healthcare industry — and we need the workforce. This is a golden opportunity for the city and the state, and the city is not seeing it that way.”

_____

Roger Stone's hubris exposes Trump's plan: New video shows lawyers faked distance from Capitol riots

Amanda Marcotte
Wed, August 23, 2023

Roger Stone Joe Raedle/Getty Images


Monday night, "The Beat with Ari Melber" on MSNBC rolled out another set of intriguing videos from "A Storm Foretold," a Danish documentary that follows Donald Trump's close aide and friend Roger Stone, both during the election and through the insurrection of January 6, 2021. Stone is an intriguing character in Trump's plot to overthrow democracy, especially as he's closely connected with the leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. He maintained a group chat called "Friends of Stone," in which many now-convicted insurrection leaders — recently found guilty of leading the Capitol riot, often under severe "seditious conspiracy" charges — kept in communication.

The documentary isn't available in the U.S. and the tapes have not been turned over to American law enforcement, because director Christoffer Guldbrandsen feels it violates journalistic ethics to do so. (Don't be hard on the guy, who was so devoted to this project that he ended up having a heart attack from the stress.) Last week, Melber's show released a video showing Stone detailing the fake electors scheme to his lackeys on November 5, 2020 — before the major news networks called the election. That proves, yet again, that the coup plan predates the election and was not, as Trump apologists claim, merely a reaction to a "sincere" belief that the election was stolen.

Monday's video may be even more damning, but for a moment that passes so quickly nearly all observers have missed the implications. It's yet another clip of Stone ranting, in which he accidentally reveals quite a bit about how, exactly, January 6th came to be. In it, we get a hint both that Trump knew full well that the Capitol riot was in the works — and how Trump managed to keep his fingerprints off any direct planning.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

The video captures Stone's aggravation at finding he's been barred from speaking at Trump's January 6th "Stop the Steal" rally at the Ellipse in Washington D.C.

"I don't understand how they want us to lead the march but can't even tell us where to go," Stone whines, adding that he's not speaking directly to Rudy Giuliani or the rest of Trump's inner circle. He complains that it's "very clear that I was never on their list."

"It's just childish and it's amateurish. That's why they lost. They don't know what they're doing," he snipes.

On MSNBC and elsewhere, the coverage has been focused on Stone's admission that Trump lost, adding to the already large pile of evidence that Trump and his co-conspirators never believed the Big Lie. But what struck me in that clip is the part right before it, where Stone indicates he's expected to "lead the march" but that the team directly around Trump has gone incommunicado. Despite Stone's claims that this is "amateurish," it actually suggests Trump and his lawyers were being quite savvy. Cutting off contact in the days before the riot means no traceable communications between them and the people who were going to storm the Capitol that day.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the various investigations into January 6 is nailing down Trump's role in the violence. On one hand, it's obvious that the riot was integral to Trump's "fake electors" plot. He and his co-conspirators wanted to exploit the chaos to argue for substituting fake votes for real ones. He behaved all day like he expected it and his public communications, while draped in plausible deniability, also communicated his expectations of violence to his followers. Plus, as White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified during the House hearings about January 6, Trump seemed to have planned to join up with the rioters, and was only thwarted by Secret Service not driving him to the Capitol as he demanded.

On the other hand, no one has turned up any evidence that Trump directly communicated his wishes for a violent insurrection to groups like the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers, who took it upon themselves to lead the charge. All the evidence shows is him riling people up with speeches and tweets, and simply trusting his followers would know what he wanted. Alas, without that direct communication, special prosecutor Jack Smith can't make insurrection charges stick in court, which is likely why he's avoided filing them.

This Stone video suggests this was all very much by design. The people around Trump seemed to know it was of paramount importance to keep many layers of people between him and the people who actually stormed the Capitol. That way, if the insurrection failed, he could plead ignorance of the riot's planning. Which is exactly what he's doing now. That the Secret Service blocked him from physically joining the insurrection, again, shows that the people around Trump knew how he needed this distance, in order to play the whole thing off as a spontaneous riot he had no part in causing.

In recent days, there's been rising discussion of how the Constitution should, in theory, block Trump from being eligible to run for president again. Multiple legal scholars have pointed out that the 14th Amendment bars people from running who have violated an oath of office previously, "either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution's enemies." Notably, the Constitution does not require a formal court conviction on insurrection charges.

By any reasonable measure, of course, this applies to Trump. Even if he insulated himself from direct communication with people convicted of sedition, it's indisputable that he gave aid and comfort, and continues to do so by championing them and promising them pardons. But, of course, the law is not a button you push that automatically turns the clear language on paper into enforcement in real life. Without a mechanism to enforce the law or the political will to enact it, Trump is coasting straight towards a spot on a ballot he should, by law, be barred from having.

If Trump had been indicted outright for sedition or insurrection, of course, then this conversation would suddenly feel less academic and more in the realm of real-world possibility. If he were convicted, it would be hard even for the biggest Trump apologists to claim the plain language of the Constitution doesn't apply. So it ended up mattering quite a bit that  Trump and his inner ring conspirators were careful to keep a firewall between themselves and the people who were orchestrating the riot.

This Stone video is some of the best evidence yet that Trump and his gang both knew that the Capitol riot was coming, but also that they couldn't risk directly communicating with the people leading the charge. As Stone's comments indicate, the downside of this "no direct communication" policy was that Trump and his legal team were taking a gamble, hoping that Trump's followers could take a hint. Unfortunately, it seems that their big bet worked out in most ways. The rioters obviously picked up what Trump was putting down and didn't need explicit commands. Trump has been able to muddy the waters around the question of his responsibility for the riot, to the point where he can't be charged for inciting it, even though we all know that's what he did. And so far, he's been able to keep questions about his eligibility to run at bay, though hopefully this effort to legally bar him will gain momentum.

That's the bad news. The good news is that none of these conspirators were nearly as savvy at hiding the paper trail of the fake electors plot, as demonstrated by the damning evidence compiled by both Smith and Georgia's Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. We may never see Trump charged directly for the events of January 6, but he wasn't nearly as clever at hiding his efforts to overthrow democracy as he thinks he was.

We Fact-Checked Republicans’ “Biden Corruption” Timeline. And It’s Bad.

Tori Otten
Thu, August 24, 2023




Republicans are moving to impeach Joe Biden, after months of accusing the president and his son Hunter Biden of corruption. But they have yet to produce any actual evidence of their claims, and the latest attempt to make their case is no better. Instead, it simply shows their desperation to discredit the president.

The House Oversight Committee has spearheaded the probe into the Bidens. Last month, the committee published a timeline going back as far as 2013 that supposedly shows the extent of the Bidens’ influence peddling overseas. But if you look closely, the timeline is riddled with errors. An analysis by The New Republic found at least 19 mistakes or misleading details—from mixed-up dates to messages and meetings that never happened. And nowhere does the timeline show actual wrongdoing by the president.

When the Oversight Committee released the timeline, it said it contained “important dates as to when Joe Biden knew and lied to the American people about his family’s business schemes.” It has updated the timeline as the investigation continues.

Out of the 106 dates listed in the timeline, only four are instances when Biden met someone related to Hunter’s business dealings. The timeline says that on December 4, 2013, Biden traveled to China with his son and met with Jonathan Li, the CEO of Chinese company Bohai Harvest, or BHR. Hunter later joined the BHR board.

While the timeline makes it sound like Biden went to China specifically to meet his son’s potential colleague, in reality, the then vice president went to Beijing on an official trip on behalf of the White House. He brought his son and one of his grandchildren along, as well as several reporters who noted it was common for Biden to bring family members in tow. While Hunter had business meetings with Li, Biden only met Li once. Hunter arranged for them to shake hands, but the two men did not interact further on the trip.

The timeline also says that Biden met Vadym Pozharskyi, an executive at the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, at a dinner Hunter hosted in Washington, D.C., on March 20, 2015. The dinner actually took place nearly a month later, on April 16, 2015. Pozharskyi emailed Hunter after the meal to thank him for “giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together.”

But Biden only spoke to one person, a recently retired leader of the Greek Orthodox Church, the whole evening. One dinner attendee, then-president of the World Food Program USA Rich Leach, told The Washington Post that Biden “didn’t even sit down,” but only spoke to Father Alex Karloutsos. Karloutsos confirmed Leach’s account.

Republicans also allege Biden attended a meeting for Chinese energy company CEFC in Washington on May 1, 2017. This information comes from Republicans’ star whistleblower, Gal Luft, who has been charged with acting as a foreign agent for China and of arms trafficking. It is unclear if Biden attended the meeting—texts from Hunter never confirm whether his father put in an appearance, and Biden himself has denied being there—that actually took place on May 3, 2017, in Los Angeles.

Finally, the timeline states that on July 30, 2017, Hunter sent a WhatsApp message to an unspecified Chinese company that he was “sitting here with my father.” Hunter’s lawyer Abbe Lowell, however, has slammed the message and others as “complete fakes.”

Biden’s utter lack of involvement matches testimony from multiple supposed whistleblowers. Republicans have heard testimony from IRS agents, Hunter’s former business partner Devon Archer, and former Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas. None of them was able to provide concrete evidence that Biden was involved in his son’s business. In fact, both Archer and Parnas said nothing could be further from the truth.

Beyond the tenuous evidence connecting Biden to his son’s work, the rest of the timeline contains sloppy mistakes, including on details mentioned in previous Republican reports about the Bidens’ wrongdoing.

In one instance, the timeline says BHR joined with a Chinese Communist Party–affiliated company on September 1, 2015, to buy the U.S.-based automotive producer Henniges Automotive. The deal actually took place on September 15, 2015, according to a 2019 report by the Senate Finance Committee.

The timeline says Hunter met with the U.S. ambassador to Romania in that country on November 13, 2015. Hunter actually met the ambassador in Washington, D.C. He didn’t travel to Romania until the following year.

Republicans have repeatedly accused Hunter of receiving illicit payments. According to the timeline, he received a payment from his associate Rob Walker on November 11, 2015. It says that Robinson Walker, a company associated with Walker, also made payments to Hunter’s company Owasco P.C. on February 12, 2016, and May 23, 2016.

The reasons for the payments are unspecified, and all three dates are wrong. As the House Oversight Committee already stated in a report from May this year, the payments actually took place on November 9, 2015, February 24, 2016, and August 15, 2016.

Hunter Biden is currently under investigation for tax evasion, and he will likely go to trial. But proof of his guilt or innocence will not be found in the Oversight Committee’s timeline.

The timeline is sloppy work done by a party on a political vendetta. Republicans have already admitted multiple times that they have no proof of wrongdoing by the president. They have said they don’t know whether the information on which their accusations are based is even legitimate. They have also admitted they don’t really care.

Republican Debaters Agreed on One Thing: They Hate Vivek Ramaswamy

Matt Lewis
The Daily Beast
Wed, August 23, 2023 

Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Reuters


Everyone hates Vivek. That was the biggest takeaway from the Fox News debate on Wednesday night. And who can blame them?

“I’m the only person on the stage who isn’t bought and paid for,” Vivek Ramaswamy boldly declared after calling climate change a “hoax.” This broadside was arguably the moment that Ramaswamy became the most hated person on the debate stage, at least by his Republican adversaries.

Ramaswamy, a slick, young, rich man in a hurry (who has been gaining in the polls), came into this debate with the idea that he should pander to the base with impunity and simultaneously be involved in every skirmish. This is often a smart move, akin to controlling the clock in a football game.

GOP Candidates Make Trump Look Like a Genius for Skipping Mudslinging Debate

But he forgot that he was facing some talented (and vastly more experienced) competitors, and that picking a fight with seven adversaries might amount to biting off more than he could chew, especially for a “rookie,” as Mike Pence called him.

Out of the gate, he looked pompous and oleaginous, with what can only be described as a smarmy, shit-eating grin that belied his sharp elbows. Regarding the slickness, Christie observed that he sounded “like ChatGPT.” And regarding the elbows, at one point, even Sen. Tim Scott—you know, the optimistic guy who has a reputation for being too nice—even accused him of “being childish.”

Ramaswamy’s first line—“I want to just address the question that is on everyone’s mind at home tonight. Who the heck is this skinny guy with a funny last name?”—essentially plagiarized Barack Obama. Christie, who was on the ball, called him on it. (Ramaswamy responded by reminding us of the time Christie hugged the former president following Hurricane Sandy’s devastation of large parts of New Jersey.)

During a later exchange, Ramaswamy took issue with Pence’s anti-Putin stance, saying “The USSR doesn’t exist anymore.” It was reminiscent of Obama’s 2012 debate line to Mitt Romney: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” Channeling Obama was, shall we say, an unusual move for a guy ostensibly seeking the Republican nomination.

The Right Needs to Ask: ‘Why Do These Racists Keep Getting Hired by Us?’

Anyone who dared disagree with Ramaswamy wasn’t just wrong, they had their motives questioned. Chris Christie, he said, was campaigning to get a paid MSNBC contributor gig. Christie’s trip to Ukraine was to pay homage to his “pope,” Volodymyr Zelensky. Of Nikki Haley’s support of Ukraine, he averred, “I wish you well in your future career on the boards of Lockheed and Raytheon.”

“You have no foreign policy experience, and it shows,” Haley told him. Speaking of Vladimir Putin, she said, “This guy is a murderer, and you are choosing a murderer” over a pro-American country [Ukraine].

No doubt the nationalists, populists, conspiracy theorists, isolationists, and “blame America firsters” who now dominate the MAGA right-wing media will side with Ramaswamy on most of the issues. But for this night, at least, the traditional Reagan Republicans like Pence, Christie, and Haley more than held their own against Ramaswamy, who most prominently represented the MAGA wing of the party on stage.

It was a reminder that, despite Donald Trump’s many faults, he carries this banner in a somewhat entertaining manner that is occasionally even charming and disarming, while also being dominant. Ramaswamy seems to have assumed that the MAGA policies that have come into fashion of late have won the day in the GOP. Of course, it could simply be that people like Trump, and retroactively embrace the issues he favors.

Speaking of Trump, the other big surprise was that he did not loom large over this debate, and wasn’t referenced by name during the first hour.

It’s impossible to say whether Trump made the right decision by skipping this debate, but it was conceivable he could have his cake and eat it, too. He skipped the debate, counter-programmed the debate, but he didn’t dominate the debate in absentia, as he might have. Save for a question about his indictment in Georgia, Trump was mostly an afterthought—which is a stunning thing to write in August 2023.

Why Is a Hindu GOP Candidate Pushing Christian Nationalism?

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who came into this debate in second place nationally, wasn’t quite an afterthought. He acquitted himself fine. But he was also mostly overshadowed by others, particularly the skirmishes that Pence, Christie, and Haley all had with Ramaswamy. If DeSantis were perceived as important, he would have become the target for others vying to supplant him as the candidate in second place. Instead, that honor went to Ramaswamy, who (admittedly) invited it.

At this point, I should probably say that it’s entirely possible that my interpretation of this night will be wildly out of step with what has become a very surreal and weird Republican Party.

As the political writer Michael A. Cohen tweeted, “Vivek Ramaswamy is one of the more unappealing politicians I’ve seen in quite some time...which means that he will likely rocket up the GOP polls.”

If Ramaswamy surges after this performance, as he very well might, it will be a sign that the GOP is in even worse shape than I had previously imagined. And that would be saying a lot.

Joe Biden Drops 3 Sharp Words On GOP

In A Swift Flip Of Nikki Haley's Debate Jab

President Joe Biden welcomed former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s words with open arms after she went after fellow Republicans’ voting records at the first GOP presidential debate on Wednesday.

Haley, one of the eight candidates to participate in the debate in Milwaukee, jumped on some of her GOP rivals ― Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and former Vice President Mike Pence ― for voting “to raise the debt” while also taking a shot at former President Donald Trump, who named her U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during his term in office. Trump had skipped the debate.

“And Donald Trump added $8 trillion to our debt, and our kids are never going to forgive us for this,” declared Haley in an apparent nod to the national debt increasing by about $7.8 trillion during the Trump administration.

“What she said,” wrote Biden, in a caption alongside a clip of her remarks.

Biden also made other not-so-subtle references to the debate on Wednesday, taking aim at biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who said the “climate change agenda is a hoax,” which was met by a sea of boos from the audience.

“Climate change is real, by the way,” Biden later wrote on X (formerly Twitter).

Haley, amid the candidates’ discussion of climate change, declared that climate change is “real,” as well.

“We do care about clean air, clean water ― we want to see that taken care of, but there is a right way to do it,” she stated on the debate stage.

“The right way is first of all, yes, is climate change real? Yes, it is. But if you want to go and really change the environment, we need to start telling China and India that they have to lower their emissions.”

Fox News Actually Asked GOP Candidates About Climate Change — And It Didn’t Go Well


Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis immediately punted, and the other seven candidates followed suit.



By Alexander C. Kaufman
HUFFPOST
Aug 23, 2023

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Vice President Mike Pence, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum participate in the first debate of the GOP primary season on Aug. 23, 2023 in Milwaukee.
WIN MCNAMEE VIA GETTY IMAGES


When Republican candidates began sparring in their first faceoff of the 2024 GOP presidential primary Wednesday night, Fox News struck a different tone than its norm on climate change.


Back in 2019, when Democratic presidential candidates debated onstage for the first time in the 2020 election cycle, it took NBC News’ moderators an hour and 22 minutes to ask about climate change. That same year, a watchdog group’s study found that Fox News devoted 86% of its coverage of global warming to claims that denied the reality that heat-trapping emissions are radically changing the planet.

But in the first half hour of Wednesday night’s debate, the right-wing network aired a recorded question from a teenage GOP activist lamenting how Republicans’ outright denial of climate change has alienated young voters.

Then, the moderators listed recent disasters — Hawaii’s wildfires, California’s rare hurricane, Florida’s 101-degree seas, and the Southwest’s record heat — and asked the eight Republicans onstage to raise their hands if they believed “human behavior is causing climate change.”

Before the candidates could move, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis balked at the question.

“We’re not schoolchildren. Let’s have the debate,” he said, launching into a diatribe accusing U.S. journalists of giving President Joe Biden a pass on his disaster response due to a bias toward Democrats.



Gov. Ron DeSantis, center, immediately derailed Fox News' line of questioning on climate change.
WIN MCNAMEE VIA GETTY IMAGES

After DeSantis’ derailing, the moderators didn’t follow up. Fox News never got its show of hands.

But the chaotic back-and-forth that followed showed a slightly more diverse range of views on climate change than in past Republican debates.

In his opening remarks, Vivek Ramaswamy, the 38-year-old biotechnology entrepreneur and political neophyte who made a name for himself opposing corporations’ efforts to cut emissions, had made the first mention of energy issues, pitching a platform focused on producing more oil, gas and coal and embracing nuclear power.

In response to the question, however, Ramaswamy sought to cast himself as the heir to former President Donald Trump’s political legacy, whom he later called the “best president of the 21st century.”

“The climate change agenda is a hoax,” Ramaswamy said over boos. “It is a hoax … The reality is, the anti-carbon agenda is a wet blanket on our economy. More people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change.”

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley deployed familiar GOP rhetoric meant to deflect attention from the U.S. — which is the No. 2 annual emitter and the No. 1 source of cumulative carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — to the Earth’s two most populous countries.

“We do care about clean air, clean water,” she said. “But there’s a right way to do it. Is climate change real? Yes, it is. But if you really want to go change the environment, we need to start telling China and India that they have to lower their emissions.”

She insisted the billions in subsidies made available in Biden’s landmark Inflation Reduction Act were “not working,” even as money flows into red states for battery manufacturing plants and electric vehicle factories.

South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott suggested that shift isn’t happening.

“If we want the environment to be better — and we all do — the best thing to do is to bring our jobs home from China,” Scott said. “Let’s bring our jobs home.”


Land is cleared for the expansion of the Qcells facility, where solar panels are manufactured in Dalton, Georgia. The largest solar manufacturing investment in U.S. history followed the passage of President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act.

THE WASHINGTON POST VIA GETTY IMAGES

Before the question, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum gave his own assessment of the war in Ukraine and the Inflation Reduction Act, offering a complex and somewhat meandering analysis of how U.S. sanctions on Russian oil and gas were diverting cheap fuels to China. Papering over major announcements of new battery and solar manufacturing plants in the U.S., he insisted that China’s dominance over clean-energy supply chains made buying panels or batteries pointless.

“If you buy a battery in this country, if you buy a solar panel, it’s being produced in a plant in China powered by coal,” he said. Repeating his claim that Beijing benefited from discounted Russian fuels, he said: “It’s being powered by oil and gas at 20% off.”

He returned to the theme later in the debate when asked about how to deter China from invading Taiwan, the self-governing democratic island Beijing claims as its territory but that the Chinese Communist Party has never ruled.

Despite White House climate diplomat John Kerry leading outreach to Beijing, Burgum said that Biden administration officials who visited China recently “don’t even bring up energy because they’re too busy trying to kill U.S. energy here.”

Meanwhile, Biden’s team answered Fox News’ simplistic question more succinctly than any of the Republicans onstage:


 


Looking for a US 'climate haven' away from heat and disaster risks? Good luck finding one

Earl Lewis, Director and Founder, Center for Social Solutions, Professor of History, Afroamerican and African Studies, and public policy, University of Michigan,

 Julie Arbit, Researcher at the Center for Social Solutions, University of Michigan, 

Brad Bottoms, Data Scientist at the Center for Social Solutions, University of Michigan

Wed, August 23, 2023
THE CONVERSATION

Burlington, Vt., is often named as a 'climate haven,' but surrounding areas flooded during extreme storms in July 2023. Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images


Southeast Michigan seemed like the perfect “climate haven.”

“My family has owned my home since the ‘60s. … Even when my dad was a kid and lived there, no floods, no floods, no floods, no floods. Until [2021],” one southeast Michigan resident told us. That June, a storm dumped more than 6 inches of rain on the region, overloading stormwater systems and flooding homes.

That sense of living through unexpected and unprecedented disasters resonates with more Americans each year, we have found in our research into the past, present and future of risk and resilience.

An analysis of federal disaster declarations for weather-related events puts more data behind the fears – the average number of disaster declarations has skyrocketed since 2000 to nearly twice that of the preceding 20-year period.


A powerful storm system in 2023 flooded communities across Vermont and left large parts of the capital, Montpelier, underwater. 
John Tully for The Washington Post via Getty Images

As people question how livable the world will be in a warming future, a narrative around climate migration and “climate havens” has emerged.

These “climate havens” are areas touted by researchers, public officials and city planners as natural refuges from extreme climate conditions. Some climate havens are already welcoming people escaping the effects of climate change elsewhere. Many have affordable housing and legacy infrastructure from their larger populations before the mid-20th century, when people began to leave as industries disappeared.

But they aren’t disaster-proof – or necessarily ready for the changing climate.
Six climate havens

Some of the most cited “havens” in research by national organizations and in news media are older cities in the Great Lakes region, upper Midwest and Northeast. They include Ann Arbor, Michigan; Duluth, Minnesota; Minneapolis; Buffalo, New York; Burlington, Vermont; and Madison, Wisconsin.

Yet each of these cities will likely have to contend with some of the greatest temperature increases in the country in the coming years. Warmer air also has a higher capacity to hold water vapor, causing more frequent, intense and longer duration storms.




These cities are already feeling the impacts of climate change. In 2023 alone, “haven” regions in Wisconsin, Vermont and Michigan suffered significant damage from powerful storms and flooding.

The previous winter was also catastrophic: Lake-effect snow fueled by moisture from the still-open water of Lake Erie dumped over 4 feet of snow on Buffalo, leaving nearly 50 people dead and thousands of households without power or heat. Duluth reached near-record snowfall and faced significant flooding as unseasonably high temperatures caused rapid snowmelt in April.

A lake-effect snowstorm in November 2014 buried Buffalo, N.Y., under more than 5 feet of snow and caused hundreds of roofs to collapse. A similar storm hit in December 2022. Patrick McPartland/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Heavy rainfall and extreme winter storms can cause widespread damage to the energy grid and significant flooding, and heighten the risk of waterborne disease outbreaks. These effects are particularly notable in legacy Great Lakes cities with aging energy and water infrastructure.
Older infrastructure wasn’t built for this

Older cities tend to have older infrastructure that likely wasn’t built to withstand more extreme weather events. They are now scrambling to shore up their systems.

Many cities are investing in infrastructure upgrades, but these upgrades tend to be fragmented, are not permanent fixes and often lack long-term funding. Typically, they also are not broad enough to protect entire cities from the effects of climate change and can exacerbate existing vulnerabilities.

Crews in Minneapolis work on a new stormwater tunnel underneath downtown. It’s designed to help protect part of the city, but not all of it.
Alex Kormann/Star Tribune via Getty Images

Electricity grids are extremely vulnerable to the mounting effects of severe thunderstorms and winter storms on power lines. Vermont and Michigan are ranked 45th and 46th among the states, respectively, in electricity reliability, which incorporates the frequency of outages and the time it takes utilities to restore power.



Stormwater systems in the Great Lakes region also regularly fail to keep pace with the heavy rainfall and rapid snowmelt caused by climate change. Stormwater systems are routinely designed in accordance with precipitation analyses from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration called Atlas 14, which don’t account for climate change. A new version won’t be available until 2026 at the earliest.

At the confluence of these infrastructure challenges is more frequent and extensive urban flooding in and around haven cities. An analysis by the First Street Foundation, which incorporates future climate projections into precipitation modeling, reveals that five of these six haven cities face moderate or major flood risk.

Disaster declaration data shows that the counties housing these six cities have experienced an average of six declarations for severe storms and flooding since 2000, about one every 3.9 years, and these are on the rise.



Madison, Wis., has seen warmer summers and more precipitation in the past decade. 
Jeff Miller/UW-Madison, CC BY

Intensified precipitation can further stress stormwater infrastructure, resulting in basement flooding, contamination of drinking water sources in cities with legacy sewage systems, and hazardous road and highway flooding. Transportation systems are also contending with hotter temperatures and pavement not designed for extreme heat.

As these trends ramp up, cities everywhere will also have to pay attention to systemic inequalities in vulnerability that often fall along lines of race, wealth and mobility. Urban heat island effects, energy insecurity and heightened flood risk are just a few of the issues intensified by climate change that tend to hit poor residents harder.
What can cities do to prepare?

So, what is a haven city to do in the face of pressing climate changes and population influx?

Decision-makers can hope for the best, but must plan for the worst. That means working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change, but also assessing the community’s physical infrastructure and social safety nets for vulnerabilities that become more likely in a warming climate.

Collaborating across sectors is also essential. For example, a community may rely on the same water resources for energy, drinking water and recreation. Climate change can affect all three. Working across sectors and including community input in planning for climate change can help highlight concerns early.

There are a number of innovative ways that cities can fund infrastructure projects, such as public-private partnerships and green banks that help support sustainability projects. DC Green Bank in Washington, D.C., for example, works with private companies to mobilize funding for natural stormwater management projects and energy efficiency.

Cities will have to remain vigilant about reducing emissions that contribute to climate change, and at the same time prepare for the climate risks creeping toward even the “climate havens” of the globe.

This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. 

It was written by: Julie Arbit, University of Michigan; Brad Bottoms, University of Michigan, and Earl Lewis, University of Michigan.

Read more:

How climate change intensifies the water cycle, fueling extreme rainfall and flooding – the Northeast deluge was just the latest


What causes lake-effect snow like Buffalo’s extreme storms?

Earl Lewis is affiliated with 2U Board of Directors; ETS Board of Trustees; American Funds/Capital Group Board of Directors; American Academy of Arts and Sciences Board of Trustees