The New York Times International - 31.07.2019

T HE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2019| 11

I’ve heard it my whole career, from pundits, special interests and even political consultants: Just shut up about climate change if you want to be elected. They set up a false dichotomy between the economy and the environment, saying you can’t fight for good jobs and for clean air. That was bad advice then, and it’s even worse advice now. There is a change happening: Americans really feel climate change in their daily lives — and they are demanding leadership from their politicians like never before. In my campaign, I’ve seen how climate change — and the coal, oil and gas industries fueling it — have become personal problems for many families. I met Marsha Maus, who showed me the pile of melted aluminum that once was her mobile home in Agoura Hills, Calif. — before a wildfire tore through town. I spoke with Regina Haddock, whose life work of helping domestic violence victims was swept away in a flood in Davenport, Iowa. And I heard from Shamar Pitts, who shared his worries about raising his newborn daughter near the pollution of an oil refinery in Philadelphia. The science is clear: We must take major action to reduce carbon pollution in the next decade, or our communities and our children’s lives will suffer dra- matic and irreparable harm. The next president will choose whether America leads the world in building a clean energy economy, or we leave our communities facing turmoil and destruction. Climate change cost the United States economy at least $240 billion per year during the past decade, and that figure is projected to rise to $360 billion per year in the coming 10 years. We cannot afford the costs of inaction. So it is time for Democrats to ignore the standard inside-the-Beltway think- ing that talking about the environment risks electoral defeat. The politics of climate change have changed. And the clearest proof point comes from an unlikely source: President Donald Trump himself. Earlier this month, in a bizarre news conference, Mr. Trump claimed that one of his priorities has been to ensure that America has the cleanest air and water in the world — ignoring his record of environmental damage. He has effec-

tively handed the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency over to the fossil fuel industry, eliminated vital environmental protec- tions and opened our coasts and public lands to drilling at the exact moment we need to stop burning fossil fuels and urgently transition to clean energy. So, why would the president give a big speech lying about his record on the environment? Because he is scared. He knows that climate change is his weak spot. According to a recent Wash- ington Post/ABC News poll, only 29 percent of Americans approve of Mr. Trump’s position on climate change, while 62 percent disap- prove — a wider gulf than on any other issue polled. And Mr. Trump’s own internal polling says his terrible record pillaging the environment is a huge obstacle to his re-election. Americans see climate change in the floodwater in their homes, the choking smoke from wildfires that envelop their skies and the devastating storms that hit their communities each year. They want us to act. They also know we can transform our energy systems and create millions of good, family-wage and union jobs by building a clean-energy economy. They know that our nation can rise to this challenge — that we’re still the America capable of accomplishing big things, just as we did when we defeated fas- cism, put a man on the moon and creat-

ed the internet age. The days of Democratic fear should end now: We’re not going to win on climate by running the same duck-and- cover campaigns of the past, nor by offering “middle-ground” approaches that fail to confront this challenge. More than ever, Americans want bold solu- tions to the climate crisis. Democrats can beat Donald Trump if we elect a nominee who will challenge him on this issue. My candidacy is unique: No other presidential candidate has said that defeating climate change must be our nation’s top priority. My plan will launch a national mobilization to move Amer- ica to 100 percent clean energy, create eight million jobs, end our addiction to fossil fuels, ensure a just economic transition for fossil fuel workers, assist the communities who are being hit worst by this crisis, and commit to a more ambitious Paris climate agreement. Putting climate first is critical: His- tory shows us that if an issue is not the top priority of an administration, it’s not likely to get done. I love being governor of Washington. But on my last day on earth, I want to be able to look my grandchildren in their eyes and say I did everything I could to solve the climate crisis. We will defeat Donald Trump by attacking his failures on climate change, not by running from the issue.

JAY INSLEE is governor of Washington and a Democratic candidate for president.

Climate is a winning issue

Democrats no longer should fear talking about climate change.

Firefighters trying to douse burning embers in November in Ventura County, Calif.

FREDERIC J. BROWN/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES

Jay Inslee

In response to growing criticism that the state of immigrant detention centers at America’s southern border is inhu- mane, President Trump this month tweeted a sweeping dictum meant to deter migration from Central America: “If Illegal Immigrants are unhappy with the conditions,” he wrote, “just tell them not to come. All problems solved!” But the two of us have seen firsthand that merely telling potential asylum seekers of the terrors that may await them in the United States will not work. This summer, we traveled across Honduras speaking about the asylum laws of the United States. We aimed not to influence decisions about fleeing but rather to inform potential asylum seekers of the legal obstacles they would face, and the rights to which they are entitled, if they chose to make the trip north. At the beginning of each presentation, we asked attendees to raise their hand if they could name five protected grounds of asylum — race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group — or if they had heard of the new “remain in Mexico” policy. Among all of our audiences — whether at an elite private university in San Pedro Sula, a rural church in the mountains or a firehouse on the coast — no one raised a hand. In our presentations, we did not hide the harsh realities of the current asylum process. We cautioned that asylum- seekers might be separated from their families, forced to wait for months in crime-ridden border towns in Mexico, placed in “perreras” (literally, “dog pounds”) and detained with no opportu- nity for bail. Even if they are released inside the United States as they wait for their case to be heard, we explained, life outside of detention can be exceedingly difficult. If Mr. Trump’s proposal were effec- tive, our audiences would have been discouraged. They would have accepted that the costs of fleeing outweigh the

benefits, and “all problems solved!” But this wasn’t the case. Instead, at the end of our presentations, dozens of participants discussed the sense of hopelessness that pervades their country. A firefighter told us he was considering fleeing because of threats against his daughter’s life after declining a local gang’s offer to sell drugs. A businessman from a rural town explained his plan to flee the death threats he expected for failing to pay an extortion fee. An administrator for a school described the huge drop in en- rollment after rival gangs recently battled over the surrounding territory. On some days during our travels, we found that Hondurans were blocking the roads to protest privatization of education and medi- cal services as well as the government’s rampant corruption. Only days after we left, the military opened fire at pro- testing university students. When potential asylum-seekers are faced with these kinds of horrors at home, simply com- municating with them about President Trump’s cruel border policies aren’t a deterrent. Indeed, around the globe, past and present, this tactic has rarely worked: Pirates roaming the seas did not deter countless Vietnamese migrants fleeing the American war. And the European Union’s interdiction policies in the Mediterranean didn’t stop Syrians or North Africans from boarding rafts and dinghies and jour- neying away from civil unrest at home, despite the threat of discrimination that often awaited them. The new bilateral agreement reached on Friday between the United States and Guatemala — under the threat of tariffs and a travel ban — that Guatema- la will now officially be designated as a safe third country will do little to stem the flow of migration because Guatema- la like the rest of the “Northern Trian- gle” countries is, in reality, not safe.

People will still leave. In El Porvenir, in northern Honduras, one young teacher spoke of her students’ “dream drawings.” The vast majority of her students, she explained, drew pictures of themselves living in the United States as adults. “They know there’s no future in Honduras,” she said to us at a small town hall meeting. “These barriers at your border won’t stop them from trying to achieve their dream.” As lawyers, we aren’t experts in foreign aid, international development or foreign policy. But based on what we saw and heard, to actually deter migrants, America must go to the root of the problem. That would mean a recom- mitment to support Honduras and the other Central American countries pro- ducing the vast majority of asylum seekers. In doing so, it cannot simply put money into the hands of a transpar- ently corrupt government that has failed the public and completely lost its trust. The United States could instead back the many local civil society organiza- tions we met with that are doing excep- tional work in job training, education and community building. With extra aid aimed at reducing violence, strength- ening infrastructure, getting desper- ately needed medicines back into hospi- tals and books back into schools, more people will stay. Many fairly argue that the United States should be making these investments anyway, as amends for its interventions in Central America throughout the 20th century, which significantly contributed to the pain these nations are experiencing now. Of course, this sort of extended strategy precludes overnight success. How- ever, with a long-term commitment the United States can help ensure that the “dream drawings” of the next genera- tion of Hondurans include drawings of themselves as presidents, doctors and firefighters in their home country.

FERNANDO CHANG-MUY , a former legal officer for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is a lec- turer at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where ADAM GARNICK is a second-year student.

Fernando Chang-Muy Adam Garnick

Forensic personnel at the scene where a student was murdered on her way to class, in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, last year.

ORLANDO SIERRA/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES

Cruelty can’t deter migrants

We told Hondurans of harsh U.S. asylum policies. They said it was still better than facing poverty and death threats at home.

opinion

squarely confront the president’s law- lessness and disloyalty to the country he purports to lead. Once he testified, congressional Democrats could no longer punt on the impeachment ques- tion by saying that they were waiting to hear from him. And even if Mueller’s appearance didn’t change many minds, it galvanized some voters. Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat, told me that in recent days, “The constituent calls that I have been getting have just increased, both in number and intensity, saying: ‘Enough is enough. It’s time for him to go.’ ” On Monday, she came out for beginning an impeachment inquiry. Perhaps even more significant than the growing number of calls for impeachment is a lawsuit filed by the Judiciary Committee on Friday. The filing, demanding access to grand jury material from the Mueller investigation, says that the committee “is conducting an investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment.” In other words, the Judiciary Committee, which would oversee any potential impeachment, announced, with surprisingly little fanfare, that an impeachment inquiry is already under- way. For months now, there’s been an acrimonious intra-Democratic debate about whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should call a vote to begin such an inquiry. Now, however, the Judiciary Committee is asserting that such a vote isn’t required, and as Nadler points out, Pelosi has signed off on the strategy. The House would have to vote on impeachment itself, but that would come only after the Judiciary Committee has done much of its work. “The Constitution does not delineate what a formal impeachment inquiry is, and the House rules don’t define what a formal impeachment inquiry is,” said

Jamie Raskin, a Democrat on the Judi- ciary Committee who was a professor of constitutional law. “We all looked up after Robert Mueller’s testimony and realized that we are in an impeachment inquiry. What is this if not an investigation into high crimes and misdemean- ors? That’s obviously what we’re doing.” This might seem a little too cute — it allows Democrats to satisfy their base’s demand that Trump be held accountable without forcing representatives from conservative districts to take a poten- tially perilous vote. “I just have a feeling that you’ve either got to do it or not; you can’t have it both ways,” said Titus. But Nadler argues that the Judiciary Committee started its impeachment inquiry into Richard Nixon before the full House voted to approve it. Impeach- ment proceedings for federal judges have begun in the Judiciary Committee without a House vote. Whatever you want to call it, Nadler is hoping that Mueller’s appearance is just the first in a series of high-profile hear- ings. Soon his committee will go to court to enforce a subpoena of Donald Mc- Gahn, the former White House counsel. If the Democrats prevail, Nadler argues it will clear the way for them to compel other former White House staffers like Hope Hicks to testify. So Mueller’s testimony last week wasn’t the end of the investigation into Trump. It was only the end of that investigation’s first phase. Now Phase 2 begins. “The numbers will continue to grow,” Raskin said of Democrats joining the call for impeachment. “The hardest place to be in politics is on the fence. And these members who are coming off the fence and calling me, tell me that they feel a great sense of relief.” The first step in solving a crisis of democratic governance is admitting you have one.

Impeaching Trump

G OLDBERG, FROM PAGE 1 The plight of women in China Re “As China Prospers, Women Watch Futures Fade” (World News, July 18), about Chinese women being squeezed out of the workplace: Traditionally, we Chinese would take care of our elderly in the comfort of home. There is nothing wrong with aging at home. But the issue is who bears the burden of providing home- care services. With the job market turning against women, women are coerced into bearing such a burden with no monetary compensation. That’s modern-day involuntary servitude. Moreover, Chinese women are treated worse than their ancient female ances- tors. In the good old days, one woman would only need to provide services to two old folks — her in-laws — because by marriage, a woman would be wedded into the husband’s family and sever her ties with her biological parents. However, under Communist laws, a woman is supposedly to be an equal partner in the marriage, and therefore has two sets of parents — her own and her husband’s — to lay the burdens on her shoulder. Chinese men, by the same token of traditional culture, do not per- form household services, either nowa- days or in the old times. XI LIAN, ITHACA, N.Y. The writer is a lawyer.

FROM READERS

An Opinion essay on July 21, “Science Fiction Put Man on the Moon,’’ about how science fiction inspired lunar exploration incorrectly described the estimated 20,000 prisoners who died at the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp during World War II. They came from a variety of ethnic and religious groups; they were not all Jewish.

CORRECTIONS

Order the International Edition today at

nytimes.com/discover

In unpredictable times, you need journalism that cuts through

the noise to deliver the facts. A subscription to The New York Times International Edition gives you uncompromising reporting that deepens your understanding of the issues that matter,

and includes unlimited access to NYTimes.com and apps for smartphone and tablet.

Newspaper subscription offer:

Save 66% for three months.

Whatever happens

next, we’ll help you

make sense of it.

Offer expires December 31, 2019 and is valid for new subscribers only. This offer is not available in all markets and hand delivery is subject to confirmation by local distributors. Smartphone and tablet apps are not supported on all devices.

РЕ

Лfrom a variety of ethnic and religiousЛfrom a variety of ethnic and religiousИ

camp during World War II. They came И

camp during World War II. They came from a variety of ethnic and religiousfrom a variety of ethnic and religiousИ

camp during World War II. They camecamp during World War II. They cameЗЗ from a variety of ethnic and religious

З from a variety of ethnic and religious

camp during World War II. They camecamp during World War II. They cameППО

the Mittelbau-Dora concentration О

the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp during World War II. They camecamp during World War II. They cameО

the Mittelbau-Dora concentrationthe Mittelbau-Dora concentrationДДГ

estimated 20,000 prisoners who died at Г

estimated 20,000 prisoners who died at the Mittelbau-Dora concentrationthe Mittelbau-Dora concentrationГО

estimated 20,000 prisoners who died at О estimated 20,000 prisoners who died at the Mittelbau-Dora concentrationthe Mittelbau-Dora concentrationО

estimated 20,000 prisoners who died atestimated 20,000 prisoners who died atТО

exploration incorrectly described the О

exploration incorrectly described the estimated 20,000 prisoners who died atestimated 20,000 prisoners who died atО

exploration incorrectly described theexploration incorrectly described theВВ estimated 20,000 prisoners who died at

В estimated 20,000 prisoners who died at

exploration incorrectly described theexploration incorrectly described theИЛ

how science fiction inspired lunar Л

how science fiction inspired lunar exploration incorrectly described theexploration incorrectly described theЛ

how science fiction inspired lunarhow science fiction inspired lunarАА how science fiction inspired lunarhow science fiction inspired lunarГГР

Fiction Put Man on the Moon,’’ about Р

Fiction Put Man on the Moon,’’ about how science fiction inspired lunarhow science fiction inspired lunarР

Fiction Put Man on the Moon,’’ aboutFiction Put Man on the Moon,’’ aboutFiction Put Man on the Moon,’’ aboutFiction Put Man on the Moon,’’ aboutУУПП П An Opinion essay on July 21, “Science П An Opinion essay on July 21, “Science Fiction Put Man on the Moon,’’ about П Fiction Put Man on the Moon,’’ about

An Opinion essay on July 21, “ScienceAn Opinion essay on July 21, “ScienceА

"What's

estimated 20,000 prisoners who died at

"What's

estimated 20,000 prisoners who died at the Mittelbau-Dora concentration "What's

the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp during World War II. They came "What's camp during World War II. They came from a variety of ethnic and religious "What's from a variety of ethnic and religious

News"

exploration incorrectly described the News"

exploration incorrectly described the estimated 20,000 prisoners who died atestimated 20,000 prisoners who died atNews" the Mittelbau-Dora concentration News" the Mittelbau-Dora concentration

VK.COM/WSNWS

exploration incorrectly described the

VK.COM/WSNWS

exploration incorrectly described the estimated 20,000 prisoners who died at

VK.COM/WSNWS

estimated 20,000 prisoners who died at the Mittelbau-Dora concentration

VK.COM/WSNWS

the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp during World War II. They came VK.COM/WSNWS

camp during World War II. They came from a variety of ethnic and religious VK.COM/WSNWS from a variety of ethnic and religious groups; they were not all Jewish.groups; they were not all Jewish.VK.COM/WSNWS

РЕЛИЗ ПОДГОТОВИЛА ГРУППА "What's News" VK.COM/WSNWS

The New York Times International - 31.07.2019

Climate is a winning issue

Whatever happens

next, we’ll help you

make sense of it.

Get our desktop app

Company

Features

Documentation

Resources