Leading US political commentator and Washington DC lawyer, Mace Rosenstein, distilled the US election results. Mace was joined by Tom Axworthy, a senior policy advisor to the Canadian Federal government, and Bob Sandford, Global Water Futures Chair in Water and Climate Security at the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health.
Presentation Summary Points
by Jonathan O’Riordan
A couple of weeks ago I offered a stark choice between a Biden and a Trump Presidency in terms of carbon reduction targets and protecting biodiversity.
That differential still to some extent exists but it will be modified over the next four years because of changes in demographics and following the money.
The Pew Research noted that 88% of Republican voters ( not Democratic) under 40 supported expansion of solar power in the States and 80% supported the expansion of wind turbines. Youth will increasingly influence voting patterns over the coming decade.
When Trump was elected in 2016 US coal produced twice as much electricity as renewables but this year for the first time ever, renewables will produce as much power as diminishing coal sources.
Investors are taking note. Since the start of 2020, investment in the S&P Global Clean Energy Index has climbed by 70%
Globally renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives. Major oil firms are investing in renewables to hedge their bets for a shift from fossil to renewables.
As mentioned a couple of weeks ago the EU, China, Canada and potentially the US under a Biden Administration will embrace carbon neutrality by 2050. Indeed China today condemned the US for withdrawing from the UN Paris Agreement.
All is definitely not lost. The Countdown to the UN Climate Conference in November 2021 will witness an unprecedented engagement in creative solutions both from the top down and at the community level from the bottom up.
The pandemic has had a lasting effect on behaviour especially travel, transportation, office protocols and sharing empathy.
Nature will continue to pound away with increasingly severe weather reminding us all to live within her limits
Regardless of the final results from the US election, this next year and the coming decade will be a golden age for transformation towards living within planetary boundaries and tackling the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Additional Q&A
Q. It would seem that this election is at least an example of how facts cannot crack ideology. Any thoughts on how we can deal with this juggernaut?
A. Mace Rosenstein: In the U.S., at least, a return to fact-based governance, and the removal of ideological pandemic, climate and other deniers would be a start. One hopes this will occur immediately upon the launch of the Biden administration; it has been reflected already in the composition of the incoming coronavirus task force. I also believe that disrupting the “juggernaut” has to occur at the local level – through electoral politics but also through community engagement on issues such as climate. In particular by helping to make issues concrete and personal/relatable. For example, one way to counteract climate denial may be to point to immediate, tangible, local effects of climate collapse, e.G., water shortages (occurring now in southwestern U.S. Communities and Agriculture); coastal flooding (occurring on U.S. Eastern seaboard); abnormal and trending temperature rise (occurring now in much of U.S.).
Q. With the way the electoral system has come into question over the course of the 2020 election and dependent on the outcome of the results, do we foresee any ramification to the electoral system in the United States? Is it time for modification to the electoral votes?
A. Mace Rosenstein: Polls of U.S. Voters consistently support abolition or reform of the electoral college system, eg., by at least requiring that electoral votes be awarded proportionally, rather than by the “winner-take-all” model. Unfortunately any structural change would require a constitutional amendment, which in turn would require approval by two-thirds of both the senate and the house of representatives and by three-fourths of state legislatures. As we discussed, given the disproportionate weight rural/sparsely-populated states have in the this process – notwithstanding that the vast majority of voters reside in urban areas — we can stipulate that this will never happen.
Incremental steps could include (1) banning gerrymandering of U.S. Congressional districts, so that they are drawn based purely on population data rather than on demographic/voting trends; (2) providing for universal mail voting, or, short of that, (3) restoring provisions of the voting rights act policing access to the polls; (4) standardizing identification and signature requirements, etc.
Also, as we discussed, a consortium of states are working to gain support for an interstate compact pursuant to which states would agree to pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than to the winner of the popular vote in their particular state. Theoretically this would align the electoral vote with the overall popular vote. But it’s unclear whether this would work unless all states signed on. And for the reasons noted above that is unlikely to happen.
Q. During the Trump administration, Canada reportedly circumvented the White House by going to state governors and others to put forward our concerns on national policy decisions. Is this “backdoor to the President” now going to be the way we will deal with bilateral relations no matter who is the president?
A. Tom Axworthy: Taking Canada’s case directly to state legislatures, governors, and both Houses of Congress in addition to the White House is the norm. The US has a system of checks and balances plus it is a federal state so the US system has multiple points of access. One reason Canada has had local Consul Generals in multiple US cities is to influence local decision makers.
Q. What about the corrosive power of money? I’d like to have more discussion of that.
A. Tom Axworthy: No system of election financing is perfect but unlike many jurisdictions Canada only allows individuals to contribute to parties (not corporations or unions) and there is a limit on the amounts each individual can give. Limits are also placed on what parties can spend on national campaigns and at the riding level. Individual donations are encouraged through a generous tax credit. Since the 1974 electoral financing reforms there has been a real attempt to encourage individuals to support parties and prohibitions on corporate donations