August, 26 2015, 03:30pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Betsy Lopez-Wagner, Earthjustice, (415) 217-2159
Mark Magaña, GreenLatinos, (202) 230-2070
Arturo Carmona, Presente, (510) 500-0257 ext. 1
Alvaro Sanchez, Greenlining Institute, (510) 926-4018
Strela Cervas, California Environmental Justice Alliance, (323) 826-9771 ext. 104
Byron Gudiel, Communities for a Better Environment, (323) 826-9771 ext. 109
Martha Dina Argüello, Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles, (213) 689-9170 ext. 101
Overwhelming Majority of California Latino Voters Want Climate Action Now
81 percent support state measures to combat climate change
San Francisco, CA
According to a new poll conducted by Latino Decisions for Earthjustice, a national environmental nonprofit law firm, and GreenLatinos, a leading national nonprofit of Latino environmental leaders, 81 percent of registered Latino voters in California strongly support state clean energy standards to combat climate change. Further, 81 percent of California Latino voters are worried about climate change, and 79 percent say they are already directly experiencing the effects of climate change in California. This poll demonstrates that for California Latino constituents, climate change is real--it's happening now--and that they demand strong and decisive action by the state's lawmakers and leaders. (Read the California results polling memo and California results full survey.)
The U.S. Census shows that Latinos are largest ethnic group in California, with 14.99 million Latinos living in the state as of July 1, 2014. Additionally, Latinos are critical to the workforce for the state's $45 billion dollar agriculture industry.
Over two-thirds of Latino voters in California (68%) accept the science, acknowledging that climate change is a result of human activities. An even greater number, 77% of Latinos in the state, say they are more likely to support policies and politicians that protect the environment.
This community strongly rejects the false claim that increasing environmental protection has a negative effect on economic growth. In fact, the survey found that a majority of California Latino voters (64%) believe that enacting stronger environmental laws will have a positive impact on economic growth and create new jobs.
Nearly one out of every two Latinos lives in the country's top 25 most ozone-polluted cities. Latinos are three times more likely to die from asthma than other racial or ethnic groups. In California, Latinos are suffering the harms of air pollution even more acutely: California has six of the nation's 10 worst cities for air pollution, and Latino populations in the state are more likely to live in those areas overburdened by poor air quality and other pollution impacts. These problems are borne out in the polling data, as 77 percent of Latino residents in the state of California say air pollution is a serious threat to their health or that of their family members.
Latino voters in California are also willing to put their money where their mouth is: 79 percent are willing to pay $5 more on their monthly utility bill in order to get their electricity from clean energy sources such as wind and solar, and sixty-nine percent may even be willing to pay up to $10 more.
As California continues to battle a severe four-year drought, which scientists say is intensified by climate change, this recent study also sends a cautionary note to California's state legislature that inaction on climate change is not an option.
Trip Van Noppen, President of Earthjustice, issued the following statement: "Here in California, Latino voters have strong opinions about the need for California leaders to act boldly and swiftly on climate change. This powerful and growing community doesn't need to be told that climate change is a problem because they are experiencing the dramatic effects first hand. Our Latino communities in California and their children are facing some of the worst air quality in our country and as a result, this data tells us that 77% of Latino voters see air pollution as a serious threat to their health. The poll succinctly demonstrates that elected leaders must enact policies that promote clean energy and protect the air and water that Latinos breathe and drink."
Mark Magana, President and Founder of GreenLatinos, issued the following statement: "California is at the epicenter of the climate movement, both in the negative effects of climate change that they are experiencing daily and the ambitious, yet necessary, actions that they are taking to address it. This poll makes it clear why many California Latino elected officials are out front in addressing climate change; roughly four out of five California Latino registered voters say they are already directly experiencing the effects of climate change, are worried about the negative health effects on their family, strongly support state clean energy standards, are willing to pay more for clean energy if necessary, and are more likely to support policies and politicians that protect the environment. This is a community with significant commitment and consensus for demanding climate action now."
Lisa Garcia, Vice President of Litigation for Healthy Communities at Earthjustice, issued the following statement: "This poll reiterates the strong connection California Latinos have to the environment and the understanding that by enacting tougher environmental standards, we can protect the health of our people. Latinos understand that promoting a clean energy economy will only help California, their families and create green jobs. Latinos are saying it loud and clear--the time to act is now."
Earthjustice Staff Attorney Angela Johnson Meszaros issued the following statement: "This state's air pollution issues are worsening and Latinos and communities of color are bearing the brunt of them. California can no longer turn a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands of people who need clean air and are suffering from asthma and other chronic lung disorders. This research shows California's Latinos want action now."
This release is in coordination with Presente.org, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), the California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA), Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles (PSR-LA), and the Greenlining Institute.
Statement by Arturo Carmona, Executive Director of Presente.org: "We are thrilled by the data in this poll, which finds overwhelming support for key arguments in the environmental justice fight and validates strong Latino commitment to fighting climate change. Latino voters are sending a powerful message that we see a bright future without petroleum, with less pollution, where most resources and pollution reduction mandates benefit the most impacted communities in the state. Our community is demanding a healthier, greener, a more just and more equitable environmental transformation of our economy and society. But the poll also sends a chilling message of accountability to those elected officials still willing to advance the lies of Big Oil and their allies saying 'we don't support you and you do not speak for us'."
Statement by Martha Arguello, Executive Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles: "Community and individual health is threatened by poor air quality, the drought, wildfires, and extreme heat. Our use of fossil fuel comes with a steep price tag for asthma, cancer, low birth weight, and all chronic illnesses linked to poor air quality and climate change. Latinos want and expect strong climate policies that address air pollution, promote clean energy production and promote real economic opportunities. We know Latino health is threatened by the drought, extreme heat and other weather events. Additionally, climate change will make our current air pollution problem worse, as days get hotter we will see more ground-level ozone. With fires we will see increased particulate matter and with that will come more emergency room visits, hospitalizations and acute asthma attacks. As this poll suggests, addressing climate change is a public health imperative that Latinos understand and take seriously. Reducing health disparities and protecting the health of future generations is a major priority for Latinos who are calling for a rapid transition to a just and healthy economy by investing in clean energy solutions."
Statement by Strela Cervas, Co-Director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance: "California's new majority wants clean, equitable energy. Latino and other communities of color have been on the frontlines of fossil fuel pollution for decades and now our neighborhoods are among the most vulnerable to climate disruption and extreme weather. That's why we need to be on the frontlines of the solution: clean, renewable, local energy. This poll clearly demonstrates that Latinos see the need for renewable energy to combat climate change. Latinos want to see the economic benefits as well--living wage, sustainable and healthy jobs--and they want to see renewable energy investments and infrastructure spread equitably across all California communities. It's time to ensure that low-income communities of color no longer bear the disproportionate impacts of energy pollution. As California creates our 'next generation' of climate policies, we have the opportunity to build an even stronger renewable energy system that invests in the communities who need it the most. Equitable renewable energy can provide some of California's most over-polluted communities with a clean, healthy environment and create living wage economic opportunities."
Statement by Alvaro Sanchez, Environmental Equity Director at the Greenlining Institute: "California Latinos understand how clean energy investments can bring both jobs and cleaner air to Latino communities-- communities that now breathe some of the dirtiest air in the country. We've made a promising start, charging polluters and putting those dollars into clean transportation, energy efficiency and solar power for low-income communities, and Latinos want to see those investments grow. Every community needs a piece of the clean energy future."
Statement by Byron Gudiel, Executive Director of Communities for a Better Environment: "Oil industry operations and fossil fuel combustion in transportation accounts for more than half of greenhouse gasses emitted in California in addition to causing wide range of other serious health impacts in Latino communities as well as low income communities and communities of color. The community is fully aware of these negative impacts, and they strongly support urgent decisive action by their elected officials as demonstrated by this revealing poll results. We need massive and equity-based clean energy investments through a just transition away from fossil fuels towards a sustainable path in economic development, job creation and building healthy, safe and resilient communities."
Poll Documents
- California results, polling memo
- California results, full survey
- Latino Decisions slide deck: Highlights from the California Environmental Attitudes Survey
- National results, in English (full survey, polling memo and graphics)
- National results, in Spanish (full survey, polling memo and graphics)
BACKGROUND
During Summer 2015, Earthjustice and GreenLatinos joined forces to field this state research poll among U.S. Latino voters. The survey, fielded between June 24 and July 8, is based on a national sample of 1,200 Latino registered voters who were interviewed by landline, cell and on-line in English and Spanish. As part of that effort, California, Colorado and Florida were oversampled, with 300 interviews completed in each of those states. The state samples carry a nominal margin of error of +/-5.7 percentage points.
Read Spanish version.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Booze Hound! Lina Khan, Not Done Yet, Targets Nation's Largest Alcohol Seller
"The FTC is doing what our government should be doing: using every tool possible to make life better for everyday Americans," said one advocate.
Dec 12, 2024
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Thursday sued Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, alleging that the nation's largest alcohol distributor, "violated the Robinson-Patman Act, harming small, independent businesses by depriving them of access to discounts and rebates, and impeding their ability to compete against large national and regional chains."
The FTC said its complaint details how the Florida-based company "is engaged in anticompetitive and unlawful price discrimination" by "selling wine and spirits to small, independent 'mom-and-pop' businesses at prices that are drastically higher" than what it charges large chain retailers, "with dramatic price differences that provide insurmountable advantages that far exceed any real cost efficiencies for the same bottles of wine and spirits."
The suit comes as FTC Chair Lina Khan's battle against "corporate greed" is nearing its end, with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announcing Tuesday that he plans to elevate Andrew Ferguson to lead the agency.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of corporate power at Demand Progress Education Fund, said Thursday that "instead of heeding bad-faith calls to disarm before the end of the year, the FTC is taking bold, needed action to fight back against monopoly power that's raising prices."
"By suing Southern Glazer under the Robinson-Patman Act, a law that has gone unenforced for decades, the FTC is doing what our government should be doing: using every tool possible to make life better for everyday Americans," she added.
According to the FTC:
Under the Robinson-Patman Act, it is generally illegal for sellers to engage in price discrimination that harms competition by charging higher prices to disfavored retailers that purchase similar goods. The FTC's case filed today seeks to ensure that businesses of all sizes compete on a level playing field with equivalent access to discounts and rebates, which means increased consumer choice and the ability to pass on lower prices to consumers shopping across independent retailers.
"When local businesses get squeezed because of unfair pricing practices that favor large chains, Americans see fewer choices and pay higher prices—and communities suffer," Khan said in a statement. "The law says that businesses of all sizes should be able to compete on a level playing field. Enforcers have ignored this mandate from Congress for decades, but the FTC's action today will help protect fair competition, lower prices, and restore the rule of law."
The FTC noted that, with roughly $26 billion in revenue from wine and spirits sales to retail customers last year, Southern is the 10th-largest privately held company in the United States. The agency said its lawsuit "seeks to obtain an injunction prohibiting further unlawful price discrimination by Southern against these small, independent businesses."
"When Southern's unlawful conduct is remedied, large corporate chains will face increased competition, which will safeguard continued choice which can create markets that lower prices for American consumers," FTC added.
Southern Glazer's published a statement calling the FTC lawsuit "misguided and legally flawed" and claiming it has not violated the Robinson-Patman Act.
"Operating in the highly competitive alcohol distribution business, we offer different levels of discounts based on the cost we incur to sell different quantities to customers and make all discount levels available to all eligible retailers, including chain stores and small businesses alike," the company said.
Peterson-Cassin noted that the new suit "follows a massive court victory for the FTC on Tuesday in which a federal judge blocked a $25 billion grocery mega-merger after the agency sued," a reference to the proposed Kroger-Albertsons deal.
"The FTC has plenty of fight left and so should all regulatory agencies," she added, alluding to the return of Trump, whose first administration saw
relentless attacks on federal regulations. "We applaud the FTC and Chair Lina Khan for not letting off the gas in the race to protect American consumers and we strongly encourage all federal regulators to do the same while there's still time left."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Senate Prepares for NDAA Vote, Progressive Caucus Says It Is 'Past Time' to Slash Pentagon Budget
"This legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Dec 12, 2024
As Senate Democrats prepared to move forward with a procedural vote on the annual defense budget package that passed in the House earlier this week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus outlined its objections to the legislation and called for the Pentagon budget to be cut, with military funding freed up to "reinvest in critical human needs."
CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said following the passage of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2025 (H.R. 5009) that "it should alarm every American taxpayer that we are nearing a trillion-dollar annual budget for an agency rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse."
Jayapal, who was one of 140 lawmakers to oppose the package, emphasized that the Pentagon has failed seven consecutive annual audits.
Despite being the only federal agency to never have passed a federal audit, said Jayapal, the Department of Defense "continues to receive huge boosts to funding every year. Our constituents deserve better."
As Common Dreams reported last month, more than half of the department's annual budget now goes to military contractors that consistently overcharge the government, contributing to the Pentagon's inability to fully account for trillions of taxpayer dollars.
The $883.7 billion legislation that was advanced by the House on Wednesday would pour more money into the Pentagon's coffers. The package includes more than $500 million in Israeli military aid and two $357 million nuclear-powered attack submarine despite the Pentagon requesting only one, and would cut more than $621 million from President Joe Biden's budget request for climate action initiatives.
Jayapal noted that the legislation—which was passed with the support of 81 Democrats and 200 Republicans—also includes anti-transgender provisions, barring the children of military service members from receiving gender-affirming healthcare in "the first federal statute targeting LGBTQ people since the 1990s when Congress adopted 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act."
"This dangerous bigotry cannot be tolerated, let alone codified into federal law," said Jayapal.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that the legislation "has some very good things we Democrats wanted in it, it has some bad things we wouldn't have put in there, and some things that were left out," and indicated that he had filed cloture for the first procedural vote on the NDAA.
The vote is expected to take place early next week, and 60 votes are needed to begin debate on the package.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of exorbitant U.S. military spending, said in a floor speech on Wednesday that he plans to vote no on the budget.
"While middle-class and working-class families are struggling to survive, we supposedly just don't have the financial resources to help them," he said. "We just cannot afford to build more housing, we just cannot afford to provide quality childcare to our kids or to support public education, or to provide healthcare to all."
"But when the military industrial complex and all of their well-paid lobbyists come marching in to Capitol Hill," he continued, "somehow or another, there is more than enough money for Congress to provide them with virtually everything that they need."
Jayapal noted that the funding package includes substantive pay raises for service members and new investments in housing, healthcare, childcare, and other support for their families.
"Progressives will always fight to increase pay for our service members and ensure that our veterans are well taken care of," said Jayapal. "However, this legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction."
By cutting military spending, she said, the federal government could invest in the needs of all Americans, not just members of the military, "without sacrificing our national security or service member wages."
"It's past time we stop padding the pockets of price gouging military contractors who benefit from corporate consolidation," said Jayapal, "and reallocate that money to domestic needs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Urge Biden to Limit Presidential Authority to Launch Nuclear War Before Trump Takes Charge
"As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled," wrote Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Ted Lieu.
Dec 12, 2024
Two Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden Thursday, urging him to place more checks on potential nuclear weapons use by mandating that a president must obtain authorization from Congress before initiating a nuclear first strike.
The letter writers, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), argue that "such a policy would provide clear directives for the military to follow: A president could order a nuclear launch only if (1) Congress had approved the decision, providing a constitutional check on executive power or (2) the United States had already been attacked with a nuclear weapon. This would be infinitely safer than our current doctrine."
The two write that time is of the essence: "As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled."
The Constitution vests Congress, not the president, with the power to declare war (though presidents have used military force without getting the OK from Congress on multiple occasions in modern history, according to the National Constitution Center).
During the Cold War, when nuclear weapons policy was produced, speed was seen as essential to deterrence, according to Jon Wolfsthal, the director of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists, who wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last year that makes a similar argument to Markey and Lieu.
"There is no reason today to rely on speedy decision-making during situations in which the United States might launch first. Even as relations with Moscow are at historic lows, we are worlds removed from the Cold War's dominant knife's-edge logic," he wrote.
While nuclear tensions today may not be quite as high as they were during the apex of the Cold War, fears of nuclear confrontation have been heightened due to poor relations between the United States and Russia over the ongoing war in Ukraine, among other issues. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree lowering the threshold for potential nuclear weapons use not long after the U.S. greenlit Ukraine's use of U.S.-supplied long range weapons in its fight against Russia.
This is not the first time Markey and Lieu have pushed for greater guardrails on nuclear first-use. The two are the authors of the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, a proposed bill first introduced in 2017 that would bar a U.S. president from launching a nuclear first strike without the consent of Congress.
"We first introduced this act during the Obama administration not as a partisan effort, but to make the larger point that current U.S. policy, which gives the president sole authority to launch nuclear weapons without any input from Congress, is dangerous," they wrote.
In their letter, Markey and Lieu also recount an episode from the first Trump presidency when, shortly after the January 6 insurrection, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley ordered his staff to come to him if they received a nuclear strike order from Trump.
But Milley's ability to intervene was limited, according to Lieu and Markey, because his role is advisory and "the president can unilaterally make a launch decision and implement it directly without informing senior leaders." They argue this episode is a sign that the rules themselves must change.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular