“How hot is it?”

July 7, 2023

          July 4, 2023, set the record for the warmest global temperature since scientists began tracking that measure forty years ago. Three days later, the “reddest” states are facing the most extreme temperatures in the US during a summer filled with extreme temperatures. Take a moment to review the charts included in The Washington Post, 41 million people in the U.S. may be exposed to dangerous heat today.

          A genre of jokes includes the set-up line, “How hot is it?”, but it is no joke when tens of millions of Americans are exposed to “dangerous” heat. Human-caused climate change is challenging to fight because its effects are often imperceptibly small and occur over long periods. But within the living memory of tens of millions of Americans, the length and severity of heat waves in the southern portion of the US have changed perceptibly—even dramatically. Spring arrives earlier, summers are hotter, and fall arrives later. See, e.g., Climate Change Indicators: Length of Growing Season | US EPA, and Seasonality and Climate Change | US EPA.

          So, what’s wrong with an extended, warmer growing season? Those indicators correlate with drier landscapes, more wildfires, more extreme hurricane seasons, and greater vulnerability to agricultural pests. (If you think the latter is not a grave threat to agriculture and the US economy, speak to a farmer.) Indeed, it is possible that the re-emergence of malaria-bearing mosquitos in Florida is the latest consequence of climate change. See The Guardian, Experts say climate change likely to increase US malaria cases.

          Climate change is the most daunting and complicated challenge we face. Fortunately, it is one of the areas where President Biden has demonstrated unparalleled leadership. His infrastructure bill and Inflation Reduction Act are the most significant investments in renewable energy by any country at any time in history.

          From a political standpoint, the good news is that most Americans agree with most efforts to confront human-caused climate change. A Pew Research survey conducted between May 30 to June 4, 2023, found the following:

• 74% of Americans say they support the country’s participation in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change.

• 67% of U.S. adults prioritize the development of alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and hydrogen power over increasing the production of fossil fuel energy sources.

• 76% favor providing a tax credit to businesses that develop carbon capture technologies and 70% support taxing corporations based on their carbon emissions.

• 61% favor requiring power plants to eliminate all carbon emissions by the year 2040.

• 69% of Americans say they’ve experienced at least one of five types of extreme weather in the past year: Long periods of unusually hot weather (45%), severe weather such as floods or intense storms (44%), droughts or water shortages (33%), major wildfires (18%) and rising sea levels that erode beaches and shorelines (16%).

          The fact that 60% of Americans have experienced extreme weather events in the last year alone suggests that climate change denialism should diminish over time—as it is in the US. (Sadly, the right wing’s growing acceptance of climate change has been re-purposed into grounds for anti-immigration policies. See The Guardian, Climate denial is waning on the right. What’s replacing it might be just as scary.)

          Despite the encouraging findings in the Pew Research survey, most Americans oppose the complete elimination of gasoline for cars and fossil-fuels for the electrical grid. So, we have our work cut out for us. In order to make significant progress, we must overcome public reluctance to eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels for electricity and transportation.

          What can we do? The most direct, effective step we can take is to elect representatives at every level of government who are committed to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Climate change cannot be a “background” or “secondary” issue for Democrats. It is a “kitchen table” issue that affects people where they live and work. Just ask red-state citizens who are struggling with dangerous heat this week.

          I invite readers to post in the Comments organizations and initiatives they are involved in to fight climate change. (If you are not a paying subscriber, email me and I will post.) If you want to encourage other readers to become involved, be sure to include a clickable link to the organization. (Copy and paste the address from the organization’s homepage.)

Thoughts on fixing the Supreme Court.

          No, this isn’t another plea by me to expand the Court. Instead, I want to highlight what others are thinking about how we can address the crisis of legitimacy created by the reactionary majority.

          The first approach is suggested by Lara Bazelon and James Forman in New York Magazine, Liberals Should Use State Courts to Check the Supreme Court. Professors Bazelon and Forman make a case for focusing our efforts on state supreme courts to protect rights being reduced or eliminated by the reactionary majority on the US Supreme Court.

          Their suggestion is sensible because in many states voters can elect supreme court justices in statewide elections (which are immune from gerrymandering that infects state legislative districts). It is more likely that voters can succeed in changing the composition of state supreme courts in the short term than changing the size of the US Supreme Court.

          The authors recognize the tension in advocating a political solution involving state supreme courts—which should aspire to be apolitical. They write,

Advocating for this approach makes us uncomfortable. Of course, judges are not apolitical, but we have always aspired to a world in which law could not be reduced entirely to politics. Now we are arguing for more politics in law. But we see no alternative to a Supreme Court that has gone rogue. . . . The law is already being used to achieve blatantly political ends, at such cost to so many vulnerable people, that refusing to fight back would be to surrender too much. State courts are one of the last lines of defense to protect us from the loss of our most fundamental rights.

          Bazelon and Forman highlight several recent successes and describe the real-world impact of those victories. Of the recent election of Judge Protasiewicz in Wisconsin, they write,

[Judge] Protasiewicz defeated her right-wing challenger by 11 points in April. Her messaging resonated with voters who had never cast a ballot in a judicial race before. . . It is now nearly certain that the court will strike down Wisconsin’s 173-year-old law banning abortion, which went back into effect immediately after the Dobbs decision and was the key issue in the election. It will also reconsider a lawsuit challenging the extreme gerrymandering of districts to disenfranchise Democratic voters and decide other cases affecting voting rights . . . .

          In the past, state courts have played a trailblazing role in recognizing liberties under the Constitution that were denied protection by the US Supreme Court. For example, the highest court in Massachusetts banned slavery in 1783, holding that it was inconsistent with the state’s constitution. (See this fascinating story of an enslaved woman—Mum Bett—who brought suit to declare her freedom in 1781 and won: Massachusetts Constitution and the Abolition of Slavery | Mass.gov.) And, yes, I recognize that the US Constitution was not enacted until 1789.

          More than two hundred years later (in 2003), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state constitution guaranteed same-sex marriage—the first state supreme court to do so. Other state supreme courts began to follow suit, culminating in a 2015 ruling by the US Supreme Court holding that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

          So, as we vent our frustration over the reactionary majority on the US Supreme Court, let’s focus on changing the partisan composition of state supreme courts—a strategy that can bring relief in the short term.

          But there also things we can do to demand immediate changes to the US Supreme Court. See Jessica Craven’s TikTok video (available on YouTube, here: How do we fix the Supreme Court?) Jessica is a master communicator when it comes to urging people to action. View and share her video with friends and colleagues.

          Finally, I share an eloquent monologue by Lawrence O’Donnell on the loss of faith in the US Supreme Court’s dedication to legal scholarship and intellectual honesty. Recommended by a reader (Terry P.), it is worth a few minutes of your time. See Lawrence: Justice Kagan shares our crisis of faith in SCOTUS (msnbc.com)

Join David Pepper in a BigTent event.

          David Pepper is the former chair of the Ohio Democratic Party and has recently published Saving Democracy: A User's Manual for Every American by David Pepper. David will be the featured speaker at an event hosted by BigTent USA and The New York Buddy Group. The event is part of a regular “Speaker Series,” but the timing is no accident: Ohio will hold two competing elections over the next four months that will determine whether the citizens of Ohio will have the right to reproductive liberty under the state constitution. See NYMagazine, Ohio’s Pro-Choice Majority Needs to Turn Out Twice This Year.

          The event should be interesting and informative. It will be held on July 12 at 7:00 PM Eastern. Sign up here: Spotlight Speaker: David Pepper, Saving Democracy - BigTent USA.

An alternative to Twitter?

          Elon Musk has made Twitter glitchier, nastier, and friendlier to hate groups and right-wing conspiracy theories. I have urged prominent progressive commentators to remain on Twitter to fight the good fight. And I continue to urge them to do so.

          But Twitter is not for me. As you know, I have not been a big presence on Twitter because I can’t stand the negativity. Indeed, some of that negativity seeped into the Comments section when I opened comments to everyone last weekend. It took about 48 hours for a troll to discover he could post bad-faith comments that were intended to start a Twitter fight. So, I deleted his post and locked down the Comments to paying subscribers (which seems to filter 100% of the trolls).

           On Wednesday of this week, Instagram launched an alternative to Twitter—called Threads--that seems robust and (for now) less Twitter-like in its “cage-match” mentality. I am going to experiment with posting the newsletter on Threads. My Threads user name Robert_B_Hubbell (note the underscores). Threads is in the Apple App Store.

          If you are using Threads, follow me for another avenue to receive the newsletter. Don’t be offended if I do not follow you back! I have no plans to comment, reply, or otherwise engage in discussion on Threads. I see it as another avenue to distribute the newsletter. I will continue to engage with readers in the Comments section and in emails sent in response to newsletters—an endeavor that currently takes about two hours a day!

          Despite all the really bad things about Twitter, it continues to be a democratizing influence in many spheres of American life—including academia, science, arts, music, and politics. Perhaps a robust challenge from Threads will cause Elon Musk to reconsider his strategy of offending a majority of Twitter’s users by posting homophobic, Christian nationalist, hateful comments. At this rate, Musk has a few months to turn Twitter around before it collapses.

Concluding Thoughts.

          In reading the article by Bazelon and Forman about focusing on state supreme courts, I was reminded that Judge Janet Protasiewicz won her statewide election for a seat on the supreme court by a commanding margin of 11%. Winning any election by 11% these days is remarkable, but especially so in a state where Republicans have control of both chambers of the state legislature (due to gerrymandering). Judge Protasiewicz’s victory reminds us that Democrats have a clear(er) shot at winning federal elections for US Senate and the presidency because those elections are determined on a statewide basis free from gerrymandered boundaries.

          In 2024, we need to retake the House and defend a bunch of Democratic Senate seats. Although the 2024 election will be hard fought, we should take hope and confidence from the fact that when Democrats have run in statewide special elections over the last year, they have performed remarkably well. The issues that propel Democrats to victory continue to expand with each new outrage from the Supreme Court. We have every reason to be hopeful but no reason to be complacent!

          Talk to you tomorrow!