Trump Is Anti-Environment, But So Was Obama

While the incoming Trump administration shows a callous disregard for the environment, liberals have conveniently forgotten that some of the most disastrous environmental and public health crises in U.S. history have occurred on President Obama's watch.
By | Follow on Facebook | @stopimperialism |
Be Sociable, Share!
    • Google+

    NEW YORK — (Analysis) It’s rather easy, and undoubtedly necessary, to lambast President-elect Donald Trump and his team of corporate parasites who will soon head nearly every key agency in the U.S. government.

    Of note are the pro-fracking, anti-environmental protections positions of everyone from the nominee for secretary of state, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, to the incoming head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt. Such appointments signal a reckless abandonment of even the pretense of safeguarding vital resources such as air, water, and soil, among many others, at a time when many in the scientific community are ringing the alarm about our quickly unraveling biosphere.

    However, while we rightly protest against this direct threat to our existence as a species, many have chosen to employ the age-old tactic of every ideologue from time immemorial: selective memory.

    Indeed, it wasn’t Trump, but President Barack Obama, who held the reins of the federal government and did nothing while drinking water contamination poisoned the people of Flint, Michigan. It was Obama who expanded offshore oil drilling while paying lip service to environmental responsibility in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill — a 2010 disaster which continues to wreak havoc on the Gulf of Mexico’s ecosystem. It was Obama who signed off on new oil pipelines, approving the construction of the equivalent of 10 Keystone pipelines between 2010 and 2015 alone. Oil and gas shipments by rail continued under his watch.

    These are just some examples of the countless other irresponsible policies. Forgive me if I don’t offer the liberals a post-consumer recycled handkerchief for their eco-friendly crocodile tears.


    Obama: Owner of the water crises  

    Although issues such as climate change are simply too all-encompassing, too staggering in their scope and scale, to simply be chalked up to bad policy and bad leadership, specific public health crises are not. And President Obama has indeed stood idle while communities, and in some cases even entire cities, fall victim to water contamination.

    The most well-documented example of this sort of gross negligence is the ongoing health emergency in Flint, Michigan. Once a thriving working-class industrial city, Flint has seen poverty rates soar while its city infrastructure deteriorates thanks in no small part to racism and endemic corruption by city and state officials. And it is, of course, the children of the poor who are most directly impacted by the lead contamination. In late 2015, researchers found that the levels of lead in the blood of Flint’s children were so high that a state of emergency was declared.

    And while Obama did eventually make an appearance in Flint to pose for photos and, in typical Obama fashion, deliver an emotionally charged but politically vacuous speech, he has done almost nothing to address the underlying problem in Flint. With one word, one executive order, Obama could have brought the power of the presidency down on Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and other public officials who are directly responsible for the crisis. But he never did, preferring instead to deliver the kinds of hollow platitudes that have become his trademark.

    It is rather striking that more than a year after the Flint crisis came to public attention while Obama was finishing another round of golf or shoring up his “Commander-in-Cool” image with interviews for Vice and “The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon,” the full scope of the crisis is now becoming clear.

    In a shocking examination published on Dec. 19 by Reuters, researchers found that nearly 3,000 communities had recorded lead poisoning rates double those in Flint, with more than 1,100 of them showing elevated levels of lead in the blood that were at least four times higher than in Flint. M.B. Pell and Joshua Schneyer reported:

    “The poisoned places on this map stretch from Warren, Pennsylvania, a town on the Allegheny River where 36 percent of children tested had high lead levels, to a zip code on Goat Island, Texas, where a quarter of tests showed poisoning. In some pockets of Baltimore, Cleveland and Philadelphia, where lead poisoning has spanned generations, the rate of elevated tests over the last decade was 40 to 50 percent.

    Like Flint, many of these localities are plagued by legacy lead: crumbling paint, plumbing, or industrial waste left behind. Unlike Flint, many have received little attention or funding to combat poisoning.”

    Such findings would undoubtedly be scandalous were it not for a corporate media more interested in political wrangling and Trump’s latest tweets than in covering the full scope of a story that amounts to intergenerational economic and physical oppression. For it is the poor and working class communities, most of which were formerly industrial cities, where the problem of lead poisoning is at its worst.

    These communities are often predominantly comprised of people of color and immigrants who are disproportionately affected by this level of federal, state, and municipal neglect.

    So, following on the heels of an election which has spotlighted the plight of the working class in America, it might be useful to ask the question: What, if anything, has Obama done to alleviate this problem? Have his policies improved the situation or made it worse?

    Of course, the sad reality is that neither Obama nor any other Washington insider has the faintest concern for the health and well-being of people depending on their local water sources for both physical and economic survival. If Obama cared even a little, he would not have peddled hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in the Gulf of Mexico in the aftermath of the devastating Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010.

    Mike Ludwig reported for Truthout in June that documents released to Truthout and the Center for Biological Diversity under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that the Obama administration approved more than 1,500 applications for offshore drilling plans — including fracking at hundreds of wells in the Gulf of Mexico — from 2010 to October 2014.

    “During this time regulators issued more than 300 ‘categorical exclusions’ to exempt drilling plans that included fracking from complex environmental reviews. …

    Federal records show that regulators approved several drilling plans involving fracking in the Gulf of Mexico even as the Deepwater Horizon disaster unfolded and oil from a broken well spewed into the Gulf for weeks on end.”

    In the wake of one of the worst environmental disasters in recent memory, the Obama administration was busy rubber-stamping fracking projects in the very same body of water being despoiled by BP’s oil spill. So much for the caring “Commander-in-Cool.”

    More recently, the Sioux Nation and their allies have taken a stand in defense of water and sacred land against corporate greed in the ongoing actions at Standing Rock as they attempt to block the Dakota Access pipeline from being built on their land. And while Obama waxed poetic about indigenous peoples having a voice in the White House during both his 2008 and 2012 campaigns, it seems he couldn’t be bothered to speak in defense of the oppressed indigenous community now that he’s comfortably ensconced in the Oval Office.


    Poisoning the Well: Obama and Clinton’s fracking arrogance

    It is well known to both environmental activists and millions of ordinary citizens alike that fracking can have severe ramifications for groundwater, as harmful chemicals are injected into the rock beneath the soil while millions of gallons of fresh water are expended per fracking well.

    Yet, despite the clear and unmistakable evidence of deleterious effects on drinking water, the Obama administration moved forward with supporting the technology, despite public opposition to it.

    As usual, Obama was speaking out of both sides of his mouth. The president directed his Department of Interior to attempt to ban fracking on tribal and federal lands while simultaneously taking large campaign donations from the very oil and gas companies involved in fracking. In fact, Obama took in nearly $2 million in campaign donations in 2008 and 2012 from companies that directly benefited from his administration’s focus on the development of domestic energy production, largely from fracking.

    And then, of course, there’s the queen of doublespeak, Hillary Clinton, who might as well have been the de facto proxy of the oil and gas corporations while she was secretary of state and during her campaign. Jesse Coleman, a researcher for the Greenpeace Investigations Team, noted in April that Clinton received roughly $7 million for her 2016 campaign — a staggering number when compared to any other industry not named Wall Street.

    But Clinton’s slavish devotion to fracking and the oil and gas industry did not stop at U.S. borders. She was perhaps the most prominent proselytizer of the fracking gospel around the world. The mountain of evidence of Clinton’s pro-fracking tenure at the State Department is only just being parsed through. In a 2012 email, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu wrote to Clinton to follow up on a previous conversation they’d had “about how—U.S. companies and the USG—can help other countries develop the shale oil and gas with hydraulic fracking in an environmentally responsible way.”

    Chu further noted, “The responsible development of these resources can change the energy and geo-political landscape in profound ways.”

    In other words, Clinton promoted fracking as a geopolitical weapon in the interests of U.S. political goals. Far from the defender of environmentally responsible policy and development that she purported to be during the campaign, Clinton may go down as one of the principal agents of Big Oil in the ecocidal “shale boom” of the early part of this decade.


    Looking past the façade of green politics, seeing nothing but greenbacks

    Obama, Clinton, and the entire Democratic Party establishment may speak with one righteous sounding voice when it comes to blasting Trump and speaking to the American people about hope and responsibility with a straight face. And indeed, against President-elect Trump’s toxic agenda of dirty energy and dirty corporate politics, they may seem to be a better option. But, when we look past the façade of green politics, it becomes clear that the only green Obama and Clinton were ever interested in was money.

    Trump is undeniably the new and critical danger. But let us never forget that Obama, Clinton, and the liberal establishment paved the way for him.


    Be Sociable, Share!


    Print This Story Print This Story
    You Might Also Like  
    This entry was posted in Front Page: Inside Stories, Health & Lifestyle, Inside Stories, Investigations, National, Top Stories, Top Story and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
    • Evan Dekeyser

      the flint water crisis was caused by their local government in Flint MI not Obama, but yes we do need infrastructure projects to renovate water treatment and distribution. Investigations found over 3,000 Neighborhoods With Worse Lead Problems Than Flint across the country. As for the BP spill the Obama administration fined BP with the largest fine in American History for the action. No buddy was arrested because there was no one criminally responsible for a drilling rig exploding… PS Obama is not the owner of the water crisis that’s like saying now that Trump is president he owns the water crisis, its a infrastructure project that needs renovation and likely needed it for decades. No one person owns this its on all of us… We need to invest in our future and the way we do that is pay taxes to improve upon our infrastructure and vote people in that will commit those resources to what is needed.

    • James Wherry

      The “Obama-hating” just goes on and one.
      So now President Obama has set aside the Arctic and much of the Atlantic from oil development. Doesn’t that count?

      He’s even commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning. Does that now count?

    • Doug Miller

      It is about the money and Obama does not get a pass for sure, but we now certainly have likely the most disasterous administration to the environment that we have ever encountereed

    • Jamonte R Cannon

      Obama’s silence on the DAPL, and Hillary Clinton’s stance on the Keystone pipeline and fracking, flipping back and forth with the political winds, were certainly worthy of criticism. But the Flint situation is NOT one of those places to rightfully badmouth him.

      What’s happening in my state of Michigan is ultimately a problem that the STATE government is responsible for, not Obama. He didn’t create the emergency manager position by sneaking it through the legislature after the voters already said no, and didn’t approve the shift to the Flint River without treating the water. That was all done by state-level officials.

      Sure, it’d be great to have the water problem resolved right now, but Obama can’t just jump in and demand control over the situation, or else the state government will fight him for control the whole way, making things even harder to fix. Then there’s the political fallout of “Emperor Obama’s exercise of tyranny over a state,” as some more staunch conservatives might label his actions. An effort like that done by the federal government to help would only end up delegitimizing it for its rash choices.

      And of course, standing back and letting a state clean up its own mess is WAAAY different from claiming climate change is a hoax and installing people in the EPA who benefit from the agency’s very destruction. However ‘anti-environment’ Obama supposedly is, those positions are on totally different degrees.

    • BoGardiner

      As an environmental scientist, I’ve seen some pretty extreme false equivalency in my day, but this rates pretty near the top.

    • Pingback: #FlintWaterCrisis #IndianaWaterCrisis Articles – All About Being Human (award-free zone)()

    • s k

      Obama should be in prison with all of the War and Wall St criminals that he did NOT prosecute. Trump should be in prison for fraud. Neither will go to prison because they are part of the Oligarchy.

    • Pingback: Continuity? Trump Is Anti-Environment, But So Was Obama | Counter Information()

    • Pingback: Links 30/12/2016: KDE for FreeBSD, Automotive Grade Linux UCB 3.0 | Techrights()

    • Pingback: #Trump Is Anti-Environment, But So Was #Obama http://www.mintpressn… | Dr. Roy Schestowitz (罗伊)()

    • Pingback: North Dakota Pipeline #NoDAPL Articles – All About Being Human (award-free zone)()

    • StupidNet

      Any author that continues to use words like “liberal” to prove their point is interjecting straw arguments, division and distraction. In other words, positing weak arguments. We are Americans. All of us. The labels do nobody any good, but they do a lot of harm. Get over it. I’m not a liberal, but have often been called that (because I understand climate science and its conclusions). I also support protecting the environment (which some claim is “liberal” – no, I like clean air, clean water and a clean environment). I didn’t vote Trump, but that doesn’t make me liberal either (I did not vote, period, which is my right). Guns – got lots of them, but no, I don’t support Trump and never will. Obama was a f’n disaster. So is Trump, but I’ll give him his opportunity to prove it (to you, it’s already evident to me). If you really want to protect the environment – which is what this article is supposedly about (or is it just to bash Obama?), drop the “liberal” slights, they’re worse then useless but will feed the brain dead sheep more fodder for their misfiring synapses. Don’t feed the morons in other words, you’re just making things worse for all of us.

      • Donnajscott

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj592d:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash592ShopClubGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj592d:….,…..

    • MountainMan23

      Just like the entire Obama administration – talks the talk but walks in the opposite direction. The examples are myriad. For instance – transparency, ending the wars in the Middle East, reset with Russia, etc. Instead of providing healthcare for all Americans he mandated everyone buy insurance in a broken system. Instead of protecting civil liberties he signed into law a provision in the NDAA allowing the US military, under the direction of the president (not just him, but all future presidents) to detain indefinitely anyone anywhere with no recourse to habeas corpus, in effect legitimatizing the kind of disappearances that occurred during the CIA’s Operation Condor in Latin America. He’s departed more illegal immigrants than any other president (2.5 million as of the end of 2015) half of whom had no criminal record, and left tens of thousands of women and children detained in squalid detention camps. Etc. Etc.

      • John Maggellan

        “But you know, he is a dem, so, he can do no wrong” that’s the deaf/blind crowd for you. Hypocrits!

    • dale ruff

      This article is very biased, misleading with a moral equivalency of Trump, who denies climate change, and Obama who signed treates and oversaw reductions in CO2, as well as rejecting the Keystone Pipeline and other pro-environment actions.

      “We have cut our carbon emissions more than any other country in the world in recent years — U.S. emissions fell 1.9 percent last year and are projected to fall 1.9 percent again this year, which will put us back at 1996 levels ” 2011

      “The White House welcomed the outcome (U.N. group agrees to aircraft standards to cut CO2 emissions). . “The U.S. pushed hard for a strong standard and I think we are very pleased with the result,” a senior administration official told reporters.

      Estimates for carbon emission reductions from applying the new standards vary widely. The White House said in a fact sheet it would reduce 650 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions between 2020 and 2040.”

      “Earlier this year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that U.S. energy-related emissions fell 12% from 2005, 2% in the last year, largely “because of the decreased use of coal and the increased use of natural gas for electricity generation.” Swapping coal with natural gas was responsible for 68% of CO2 emission reductions.
      The record reductions are even more impressive considering that the economy has increased 15% during the past two decades. Twenty-five million energy consumers have joined the U.S. population over the past twenty years, yet U.S. carbon emissions are now at their lowest in two decades.”

      Contrast Trump: “Global warming is a Chinese hoax” and his choice of an anti-environmentalist to head the Dept of Energy, appointing the CEO of Exxon, which discovered AWG, then buried it, while funding climate change denial, as Secy of State.

      NYTimes reported in September “Donald J. Trump on Thursday traveled to Pittsburgh, a city once synonymous with the rich coal seam that runs beneath it and now the capital of natural gas fracking, to promise the impossible: a boom for both coal and gas.”

      There are 83,000 coal miners in the US and 13,000 deaths from coal pollution. For every 100 new miners, there will be 15 new deaths. reported ” Last week, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection reported that mining in coal counties had damaged half of nearby streams and polluted groundwater. ”

      Dailycaller reported: “… companies have been forced by environmental regulation to shut down 400 mines due to decreasing demand. Companies opened 103 new mines in the U.S. in 2013 while 271 coal mines were idled or shut down, according to the U.S. Energy Information AdministrationIn 2007, researchers at West Virginia University showed that emergency rooms in coal-mining towns had higher admission rates for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and hypertension, even after controlling for factors like income and obesity. The following year, the same team surveyed more than 16,000 people about their health status and found similar results. People living in major mining areas suffered elevated risks of heart and lung disease, with especially high rates of hypertension and COPD. The risks are apparently unrelated to whether the respondent had worked inside a coal mine, because women, who represent a small fraction of miners, suffered at the same rates as men. Last year, a study linked proximity to mountaintop coal mines to increased risk for the same diseases, plus cancer.

      For most of the United States, life expectancy is skyrocketing. In some of the nation’s largest coal-producing counties, a 2011 study found, it’s barely creeping upward.


      Trump has promised to reverse this transition from the most lethal form of energy, coal, and instead increase it, even tho renewable clean energy (which pays for itself in 5 yrs and provides another 20 of free, clean energy) is at parity or lower than the lethal coal and fracking.

      Obama’s record is mixed but in general he supported reducing pollution and emissions and saw progress. Trump has threatened to reverse this trend and supports more dirty fuels while remaining silent about the cheaper, cleaner alternative: solar and wind.

      The cost of coal pollution in terms of deaths, sickness, medical treatment, and lost jobs and life expectancy, is passed on to the consumer. Clean energy poses no such threats and thus, if we included the externalized costs of dirty energy, much cheaper.

      This article cherry picks Obama’s worst decisions and overlooks the good ones, while giving Trump a pass on his denial of climate science and his threat to bring back more coal. I find this misleading, to say the least. This article could have been written by a Trump shill.

      Read more:

    • navre12

      Thank you for this article and the importance of not blindly following any political party’s Pied Piper.