As a former 2020 presidential candidate, Sen. Kamala Harris — now presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s running mate — was on our fact-checking radar this election cycle. Here’s a rundown of the claims we addressed.

No ‘Middle-Class Tax Hike’

This claim made our list of the 2019 whoppers of the year: In a tweet, Harris cited preliminary IRS tax refund data to criticize the Republican tax law as “a middle-class tax hike.” But that’s not what the data showed.

A day after the Washington Post reported in February 2019 that the average tax refund check was down $170 for 2019 compared with 2018, based on preliminary IRS data, Harris used that figure, and added: “Let’s call the President’s tax cut what it is: a middle-class tax hike to line the pockets of already wealthy corporations and the 1%.”

But, as Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, told us: “Refunds are not the same as taxes that you owe. Refunds tell you nothing about whether a person’s tax liability has changed.” In fact, the vast majority of “middle-class” taxpayers were expected to get a tax cut in 2018 under the new law, he said.

Special Prosecutor Law Unnecessary

In a CNN town hall on Jan. 28, 2019, host Jake Tapper asked Harris about “criticism we’re hearing of you from the left” during her time as the state attorney general. He asked why as attorney general she opposed state “legislation that would have required your office to investigate fatal shootings involving police officers.” 

Harris misleadingly claimed she “did not oppose” the 2015 bill. “I had a process when I was attorney general of not weighing in on bills and initiatives, because as attorney general, I had a responsibility for writing the title and summary,” she told Tapper. In fact, she said such a law would not be “good public policy.”

As we wrote, Harris at the time did not take an official position on the bill. But she made clear that “she does not support the idea of taking prosecutorial discretion away from locally elected district attorneys,” the Capitol Weekly wrote in a May 18, 2015, story, citing an interview she had with the San Francisco Chronicle in December 2014.

Capitol Weekly, May 18, 2015: [Harris] has said the current process of investigating civilian deaths by local law enforcement is effective enough. She also has said that the local district attorneys should have the authority to investigate officer-involved shootings, in part because they are elected by — and held accountable to — local constituents.

“I don’t think there’s an inherent conflict,” Harris said in an interview with The Chronicle back in December. “Where there are abuses, we have designed the system to address them.”

During that interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Harris said, “I don’t think it would be good public policy to take the discretion from elected district attorneys.”

Spinning Statewide Truancy Law

In a May 12, 2019, interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Harris acknowledged that a 2010 state truancy law she sponsored resulted in some parents being jailed. But she misleadingly claimed that jailing parents was an “unintended consequence” of the state law.

In fact, the law added Section 270.1 to the California Penal Code to allow prosecutors to fine and/or jail a parent “who has failed to reasonably supervise and encourage the pupil’s school attendance.” Under the law, which took effect in 2011, a parent could face up to a year in jail and $2,000 fine. 

As the San Francisco District Attorney, Harris sponsored a state Senate bill — SB 1317 — that was introduced by state Sen. Mark Leno, who is also from San Francisco. The state bill was modeled on her truancy initiative in San Francisco. She was San Francisco District Attorney from 2004 to 2011.

When Tapper asked about parents being jailed under the law, Harris said: “What ended up happening is, by changing the education code, it also changed — it, by reference then, was in the penal code. And then that was an unintended consequence.”

The possibility of jailing parents was not an “unintended consequence,” and the bill did not just change the education code. It also created a new section to the California Penal Code, as we have already noted.

Harris must have been aware of the new penalties, because she referenced them after taking the oath of office as the California attorney general in January 2011. In her inaugural address, Harris said that she was “putting parents on notice” that they could face “the full force and consequences of the law” if their kids miss too many days of school.

Paychecks

In launching her presidential campaign in California in January 2019, Harris said that “paychecks aren’t keeping up” with the cost of living. But as we reported, Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed inflation-adjusted weekly earnings had gone up in the previous year and since President Donald Trump took office.

According to BLS, real (meaning, inflation-adjusted) average weekly earnings for rank-and-file production and nonsupervisory workers, at the time, had gone up 2.5% since Trump took office. Those earnings rose 4.7% during Barack Obama’s last four years as president.

The average real weekly earnings of all private-sector workers had increased by 2.4% during Trump’s tenure; they went up 3.9% in Obama’s last four years.

So, paychecks, on average, had been keeping up with rising inflation.

Military Pay

Back in March 2019, Harris was one of several Democrats who claimed Trump was “raiding money from [military] pensions” to fund construction of his promised border wall. But as we wrote, the basis for their claims — a news story — said the Pentagon could use “leftover” funds in those accounts due to lower-than-expected recruits and fewer early retirements.

An Associated Press story said the Army missed a recruiting goal by 6,500 enlistees, and there were fewer take-ups of an early retirement incentive. The Pentagon wanted to move $1 billion from those funds to provide some of the money for the wall under Trump’s national emergency declaration.

Todd Harrison, director for defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told us it was not true that what the Pentagon had proposed would cut military pay or pensions. “It’s leftover money,” Harrison said. “The Army is going to have leftover money in its personnel account because it didn’t meet its recruiting goals.”

As for the pension money, Harrison said the Defense Department sets aside money every year to contribute to pension accounts. But when there are fewer service members than expected, because the Army didn’t meet its goal, the department doesn’t need to contribute as much to pension funds. “It absolutely would not affect anyone’s current pension,” he said. “When money gets paid out of the pension fund, it’s set by a formula in law.” That money has to be paid.

Biden vs. Harris on Release of ‘Prisoners’

Biden and Harris butted heads several times during early Democratic primary debates. One such confrontation occurred during the second of two Democratic debates in July 2019 in Detroit when Biden attacked Harris’ past record in California, describing police department abuse that occurred under her watch that led to the release of 1,000 “prisoners.” Biden’s account — which Harris said was “simply not true” — was broadly accurate, though he got a few important details wrong.

Here’s how Biden related things during the debate:

Biden, July 31, 2019: Secondly, she also was in a situation where she had a police department when she was there that in fact was abusing people’s rights. And the fact was that she in fact was told by her own people that her own staff that she should do something about and disclose to defense attorneys like me that you in fact have been — the police officer did something that did not give you information [that would exculpate] your — your client. She didn’t do that. She never did it. And so what happened.

Along came a federal judge and said enough, enough. And he freed 1,000 of these people. If you doubt me, Google 1,000 prisoners freed, Kamala Harris.

As we wrote in our coverage of the debate, Biden was referring to events when Harris was district attorney of San Francisco. In June 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that in 2005, against the advice of her staff, Harris did not institute a so-called “Brady policy” that would have required prosecutors to inform defendants of any past misconduct by law enforcement. In 2010, a crime lab tech was found to be stealing drug evidence from the lab, which led to a scandal in which 1,000 drug cases were dismissed.

A Superior Court judge reprimanded Harris, saying in a court order that the “District Attorney failed to disclose information that clearly should have been disclosed.” After the scandal, Harris did institute a Brady policy.

Biden’s version of events mostly hewed to what happened. But he erred in saying Harris never implemented a Brady policy and when referencing 1,000 “prisoners” being freed, when that was the number of cases that were dropped.

Workers with Multiple Jobs

In a June 2019 Democratic debate, Harris, pushing back against Trump’s claims that the economy was doing great, said, “Well yeah, people in America are working — they’re working two and three jobs.” 

But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of American workers who held multiple jobs at the time (5%) was virtually unchanged from the percentage (4.9%) when Trump was inaugurated in January 2017.

As of February 2020 — prior to the declaration of the coronavirus pandemic in March — 5.1% of employed individuals held multiple jobs.

Wrong on Autoworker Jobs

In an August 2019 CNN interview, Harris wrongly claimed that “as many as 300,000 autoworkers may be out of a job before the end of the year.” That was a high-end estimate for total job losses — not solely among autoworkers — due to the potential impact of the Trump administration’s trade policies, including actions not yet taken.

Harris was referring to a study by the Center for Automotive Research on the potential impact of Trump’s automotive trade policies. But the CAR study said as many as 366,900 total jobs “economy-wide” would be lost in its “worst-case scenario.”

Kristin Dziczek, vice president of industry, labor & economics at CAR, told us in an email: “300,000 auto workers out of a job before the end of the year is NOT what CAR is projecting,” confirming that the figure was an estimate for “job loss across the economy” from the impact of several proposed and implemented trade policies on the auto industry.

Pay Gap

In both the November and July 2019 debates, Harris wrongly suggested that figures representing the pay gap between full-time, year-round male and female workers were for men and women doing “equal work.”

“Since 1963, when we passed the Equal Pay Act, we have been talking about the fact women are not paid equally for equal work. Fast forward to the year of our lord 2019, and women are paid 80 cents on the dollar, black women 61 cents, Native American woman 58 cents, Latinas 53 cents,” Harris said in round two of the July debates. 

Harris appeared to be citing figures the National Partnership for Women & Families published in May 2019. But the statistics are not representative of men and women doing the same work.

“Nationally, the median annual pay for a woman who holds a full-time, year-round job is $45,097 while the median annual pay for a man who holds a full-time, year-round job is $55,291,” the NPWF fact sheet says.

And for women of color, the comparison wasn’t to all men, but to non-Hispanic white males working full-time, year-round.

An April 2019 report from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research analyzed the gap in median weekly earnings for male and female full-time workers doing the same job. It concluded that “[w]omen’s median earnings are lower than men’s in nearly all occupations,” but the gaps varied widely depending on the occupation.

False Amazon/Oxygen Claim

After news of a significant increase in the number of wildfires in the Amazon rainforest over the previous year, Harris repeated a popular, but false, factoid. “The Amazon creates over 20% of the world’s oxygen,” she said in an August 2019 tweet.

Scientists estimate the percentage is closer to 6 to 9%, and the Amazon ultimately consumes nearly all of that oxygen itself.

Harris was hardly alone in using this talking point, which we found had been spread by journalists, politicians and others.

Gordon Bonan, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, told us he’s been hearing the 20% factoid for at least a decade. It’s so pervasive, he’s even overheard it being said to schoolkids on tours at his workplace.

“People want to talk about the impact of deforestation,” he said. “Somehow they’ve latched on to this idea that forests create oxygen. That’s not what deforestation is doing.”

The Amazon isn’t critical because it makes oxygen for humans to breathe — that was largely done by phytoplankton in the sea over millions of years. Instead, it’s because of the area’s rich biodiversity, its vast stores of carbon and the way the forest influences the local and global climate.

Corporate Tax Cut Exaggeration

In her campaign announcement in Oakland last year, Harris exaggerated when she claimed that the Trump administration had given “a trillion dollars to the biggest corporations in this country,” a reference to the 10-year impact of the corporate tax rate reduction in the 2017 tax law. She didn’t account for tax increases that were part of that law.

According to a 2017 analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provided a tax reduction over 10 years of a net $653.8 billion for businesses.

As we wrote at the time, Harris’ campaign confirmed to us that she was referring only to the law’s reduction of the top corporate tax rate, from 35% to 21%, which JCT estimates will reduce corporate taxes by $1.35 trillion over a decade. But other provisions in the law that raised business taxes, such as changes in allowable deductions for net operating losses and interest, caused the net benefit for corporations to be hundreds of billions lower than that.

Military Operations in South Korea

In the November Democratic presidential primary debate, Harris accused President Trump of “shutting down the [military] operations with South Korea for the last year and a half.” In fact, those operations were scaled back significantly, but not eliminated.

It’s true that on June 12, 2018, Trump said he would stop “provocative” military exercises with South Korea. But in November 2018, about 500 U.S. and South Korean Marines took part in a joint drill. And in July 2019, the two countries said regular springtime drills would continue.

The new drills are reported to be mainly “computer simulated” training, but Harris was wrong to say that operations had shut down entirely.

Michael Brown’s Death

On Aug. 9, 2019, the fifth anniversary of the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old black man, Harris tweeted: “Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America. His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement.” 

But the Department of Justice under then-President Obama found that Brown was shot and killed by a white police officer in “self-defense,” not murdered.

The shots officer Darren Wilson fired “were in self-defense and thus were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” which prohibits unreasonable seizures and use of force, the 86-page Justice Department report said. It concluded that Wilson’s “actions do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, which prohibits uses of deadly force that are ‘objectively unreasonable,’ as defined by the United States Supreme Court.”

— by Lori Robertson, Eugene Kiely, Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore and Rem Rieder

The post FactChecking Sen. Kamala Harris appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

A post on social media falsely claims to show litter left behind by Climate Strike protesters in London on Sept. 20. The photo is from a completely unrelated event in April. 

Full Story

The Global Climate Strike, an international series of protests from Sept. 20-27, had thousands of participants in over 150 countries marching against climate change and the fossil fuel industry. Critics have labeled these protesters as hypocrites after a photo of a littered field went viral on Facebook and Twitter, supposedly showing the aftermath of one of the Climate Strike protests.

One Facebook post from Sept. 20 has over 130,000 shares and nearly 500 comments. The post reads: “Aftermath of ‘Climate Strike’ yesterday. Yes, listen to the kids, they will guide our planet, I guess they haven’t learnt the basics yet.” 

The photo also received considerable attention on the Australian Youth Coal Coalition Facebook page, which has since removed a post that said: “Look at the mess today’s climate protesters left behind in beautiful Hyde Park. So much plastic. So much landfill. So sad.”

Here are the facts: the photo shows Hyde Park in London, not the park of the same name in Sydney, Australia. It was taken April 20, not last week. And the trash was left behind by people attending an event celebrating the unofficial marijuana holiday 420 — not a climate protest.

Even in April, people falsely identified activists from Extinction Rebellion, a movement fighting against climate change, as the source of the litter. Those protesters were nearby at a different event at the same time as the cannabis festival in Hyde Park. Royal Parks, the charity that manages Hyde Park, addressed those false claims in an April 23 tweet.

“There’s a lot of incorrect information doing the Twitter rounds this morning,” the post reads. “This photo is the result of an unofficial event in Hyde Park on Saturday, not the #ExtinctionRebellion protestors in Marble Arch.” 

There's a lot of incorrect information doing the Twitter rounds this morning. This photo is the result of an unofficial event in Hyde Park on Saturday, not the #ExtinctionRebellion protestors in Marble Arch.

It costs us millions to clear #litter every year. Please take it home. pic.twitter.com/F1JtAqmnVO

— Royal Parks (@theroyalparks) April 23, 2019

The Hemp Trading Company, a hemp fashion brand based in London, also confirmed that the trash was from the 420 event. “This was the aftermath of Hyde Park 420 – and was *cleaned up* by Extinction Rebellion crew,” it wrote in an April 21 post on Facebook.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here.

Sources

Thomson, Lizzie. “420 Hyde Park 2019: What is 420 day? Everything you need to know about the London event.” Evening Standard. 18 Apr. 2019, accessed 26 Sept. 2019.

Royal Parks (@theroyalparks). “There’s a lot of incorrect information doing the Twitter rounds this morning. This photo is the result of an unofficial event in Hyde Park on Saturday, not the #ExtinctionRebellion protestors in Marble Arch. It costs us millions to clear #litter every year. Please take it home..” Twitter. 23 Apr. 2019.

Extinction Rebellion (@ExtinctionR). “This is from a totally separate event that took place in Hyde park. #ExtinctionRebellion activists went to help tidy up anyway because it grossed us out as much as it does you.”

THTC – The Hemp Trading Company. Trash in Hyde Park. Facebook, 21 Apr. 2019, www.facebook.com/THTC1/posts/10157525788004349:0. Accessed 26 Sept. 2019. 

The post Viral Photo Falsely Targets Climate Strike Protesters appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Making a point about Defense Department waste, Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang related a secondhand story about a Navy fighter pilot who said that airmen routinely dumped fuel into the Pacific Ocean at the end of the fiscal year as a way to preserve the following year’s fuel budget. But the story doesn’t add up.

Yang allowed that he could not verify it. Neither could we. The Navy denies it. And Navy budget experts we interviewed said that’s not how the department’s budget works.

Yang related the anecdote at CNN’s “Climate Crisis Town Hall” on Sept. 4.

Yang, Sept. 4: We’re spending $750 billion that we know of on our military industrial complex every year. And I’m going to share a story that I heard secondhand, so I can’t verify it. But there was a Top Gun, a fighter pilot, who said that his least favorite time of the year is at the end of the fiscal year, because he flies over the Pacific Ocean and dumps oil into the ocean. Now, why is he doing that? Because they have to use all the oil that’s budgeted, or else they won’t get the same amount budgeted the following year. So this broke his heart, broke my heart to even hear this story. What we have to do is, we have to take some of the $750 billion and start channeling it towards our infrastructure, which will be an evergreen need.

We reached out to Yang’s press office for more detail, and for the name of the pilot who is alleged to have made this claim, but we didn’t get a response.

The Navy said the story isn’t true.

“U.S. Navy aviators do not dump fuel to preserve budgets,” Cmdr. Ron Flanders, a spokesman for Naval Air Forces, told us via email. “Navy squadron budgets are based on flight hours, not fuel consumption. U.S. Navy aviators only dump fuel during emergencies to ensure safety of flight.”

The story also had other naval experts scratching their heads.

Charles Nemfakos, who served a long career in the Navy and was the senior civilian official for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Financial Management and Comptroller from 1998 to 2001, said the story Yang related must have resulted from a miscommunication.

“We do budget by number of flying hours per mission,” Nemfakos told us via email. “The flying hour calculated budget cost by type/model/series has a lot of components, including fuel. The pilot in question certainly would have known that the Top Gun school could not significantly fudge the flying hour cost by dumping at the end of the year. What he may have been trying to say is that he felt they were doing unnecessary flying at the end of the year to keep flying hour levels up. Since I never experienced the aviation community underflying their planned program short of maintenance issues, I am not sure what he was trying to say. I would venture there was a communication problem.”

Besides, he said, “I am sure the enviros in California would have raised hell if indiscriminate dumping was a practice.”

“I have not heard anything to this effect,” Richard Danzig, the former Navy secretary under President Bill Clinton, told us via email. “End of year budget reckonings do encourage last minute spending, but patterns I have heard about involve stockpiling things to be used in the future not discarding things.”

To be sure, some in-air jettisoning of fuel does happen. Aviation experts say that in some cases when planes need to make emergency landings, there is a need to offload the weight of fuel to facilitate a safe landing.

“Fuel dumping is common on both large commercial widebody airliners and virtually all military planes,” according to Aerospaceweb.org, a nonprofit website operated by engineers and scientists in the aerospace field. “Many aircraft require the ability to dump fuel because of landing weight restrictions imposed by the manufacturers. Although a plane may be able to takeoff at a certain weight, its structure and landing gear may only be able to withstand the impact of landing at a much lower weight. This difference between maximum takeoff weight and maximum landing weight may be tens of thousands of pounds or even over a hundred thousand pounds for very large planes. In other situations, an aircraft may be at an acceptable landing weight but forced to make an emergency landing at a runway that is too short. It may be necessary to dump fuel to reduce the plane’s weight low enough in order to make a safe landing on a shorter field.”

“It is easy for fighter aircraft to dump fuel, but as the spokesman said, it is usually done in emergencies,” Dave “Bio” Baranek, a retired naval flight officer, told us via email. Other times, he said, it is dumped to adjust aircraft weight for landing.

Sometimes, pilots perform what is known as “dump-and-burn” in which jettisoned fuel is ignited using a plane’s afterburner, a popular maneuver at air shows.

Baranek, who was an adviser for the movie “Top Gun” and flew aerial sequences used in the film, wrote about the visual effects of dumping fuel in his book, “Topgun Days: Dogfighting, Cheating Death, and Hollywood Glory as One of America’s Best Fighter Jocks.“

“While setting up for a filming pass, the camera crew had difficulty spotting the gray F-14 against the mountainous background,” he wrote. “Over the radio, Rat asked the pilot to blip the fuel dump switch and make a mini-cloud. The resulting effect of the atomized fuel swirling in the Tomcat’s vortices looked so good that this technique was used several times in the finished film.”

Here’s how it looked in the film:

At high altitudes, most jettisoned fuel evaporates before reaching the ground.

“Once released, the fuel trails behind the aircraft and creates a pattern that looks much like a contrail,” the Aerospaceweb.org article, which was written by aerospace engineer Jeffrey Scott, states. “Modern aviation fuel comes in many varieties but all are derivatives of kerosene. Kerosene evaporates rapidly in the atmosphere and very little typically survives in liquid form to reach the Earth’s surface. The exact evaporative characteristics of dumped fuel depends on a number of factors like the altitude at which it was released, the atmospheric temperature, and the dumping pressure. Kerosene dumped at high altitude on a warm day tends to evaporate fastest.”

According to a Federal Aviation Administration document, “Most of the fuel that is dumped turns into vapor within a few minutes. If jettisoned above 5000 feet in above freezing temperature calculations show that 98% will evaporate before reaching the ground. The fuel vapors rapidly dissipate and diffuse. This could contribute to photochemical oxidant pollution, smog. The portion that remains in droplet form could lead to condemnation of water, and possibly cause some local rain. When these droplets settle to the ground, usually they are spread over a wide area, minimizing their effect.”

Baranek, the retired naval flight officer, told us pilots try to avoid dumping fuel.

“Pilots are aware of the environmental impact of dumping fuel and make every attempt to avoid doing so,” he said. “When they do dump fuel, they attempt to dump it above an altitude of 6,000 feet so that it can atomize and be scattered before hitting the ground. The dumping in the movie ‘Top Gun’ was obviously below 6,000 feet, but it was a very brief dump, not much fuel.”

Flanders, the Naval Air Forces spokesman, said, “Depending on the area of operations, the Navy has guidelines which govern the jettisoning of fuel for safety in flight (including minimum altitudes). In times of emergency, pilots may be forced to jettison fuel below these prescribed minimums. The Navy always seeks to balance operational requirements with being good stewards of our environment.”

Baranek told us he was never aware of any Navy pilots dumping fuel at the end of the fiscal year to preserve the following year’s fuel budget.

“In my experience, aviators would use available fuel for training (i.e., use it to fly) before dumping it,” Baranek said.

The difficulty in fact-checking an anonymous secondhand claim like this, of course, is that it is nearly impossible to disprove. But the Navy and several former members of the Navy who were in positions of expertise say they never heard of such a practice, and that the accounting practices in the Navy created no such incentive. Yang himself noted that he could not verify the story. Nonetheless, he did relate the anecdote — one that, if true, suggests military waste and environmental indifference — in a nationally televised address.

The post Yang’s Top-Gun Tale appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Just as CNN was beginning its climate town hall event, President Donald Trump tweeted a list of “8 facts” boasting of the nation’s air quality and carbon emissions reductions. Several of his “facts,” however, are inaccurate or misleading.

Contrary to the president’s claims, the United States — not China — is responsible for having released more carbon pollution than any other nation. Trump also erred when he said that no Americans live in regions with air pollution above the World Health Organization’s guideline level.

The president’s counterprogramming arrived minutes after the first Democratic presidential candidate took the stage to talk about climate change. CNN dedicated seven hours to the event, which gave 10 of the top-polling candidates 40 minutes each to explain how they would approach the issue as president.

In his Twitter thread, Trump began with carbon emissions before moving on to some of his favorite topics, including energy production and clean air and water.

8 FACTS that #FakeNewsCNN will ignore in tonight’s “Climate Forum”

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2019

4. The U.S. now leads the world in energy production…

BUT…

5. Who's got the world's cleanest and safest air and water?

AMERICA!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2019

7. The badly flawed Paris Climate Agreement protects the polluters, hurts Americans, and cost a fortune. NOT ON MY WATCH!

8. I want crystal clean water and the cleanest and the purest air on the planet – we’ve now got that!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2019

Many of Trump’s claims are things we’ve heard before, so we’ll review the repeats here and also explain a few of the new ones. 

On carbon emissions. The president kicked off his list by touting America’s progress on reducing pollution and claiming that China “has dumped the most carbon into the air.” 

As we’ve explained before, since 2000, the United States did make the largest absolute reduction in emissions of any country. But large absolute reductions are only really possible in big countries full of people who pollute a lot per person. 

In terms of a percent decline in emissions, many industrialized nations in Europe have bested America. Denmark slashed its emissions by 34% between 2000 and 2016, while France scored a 20% cut, and the United Kingdom made a 29% cut. In comparison, the U.S. managed only a 14% decline over the same period, and remains the second highest overall polluter and the 10th highest per capita polluter.

Trump’s claim that China “has dumped the most carbon into the air” is false. China is currently the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, but historically, the United States has dumped more carbon into the atmosphere. According to the Global Carbon project, the U.S. has released 399 billion tons of carbon dioxide between 1751 and 2017, more than any other nation on Earth. China is second, with 200 billion tons. The U.S. accounts for 25% of global cumulative emissions, while China’s share is 13%.

International Energy Agency data for 2016 also show that China is not one of the biggest per capita polluters. It comes in at number 39 — 29 spots after the U.S.

For more, see: “Trump Twists Facts in Environmental Speech,” Nov 28, 2018

On air pollution. The president’s third fact was that 91% of the world’s population is “exposed to air pollution above the World Health Organization’s suggested level.” This is true. The WHO features the statistic on its website, and a nearly identical 90% appeared in a press release when the group announced updates to its ambient air quality database in 2018. But Trump went on to say that “NONE ARE IN THE U.S.A.!” That’s false. 

While most Americans aren’t exposed to air pollution above the WHO’s guidelines, some are. According to a fact sheet prepared by the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute, as of 2016, about 15% of the country lives in a county that fails to meet the WHO’s standards on particulate pollution. The sheet notes that Fresno, California, for example, has pollution levels that are twice the recommended level, and other places in California and the Midwest are also above the guideline level.

The WHO’s interactive map of air pollution also refutes the president’s categorical claim. While much of the country appears green, indicating the area meets the standard for the smallest and most dangerous form of particulate pollution known as PM2.5, there are patches of the nation that are yellow or orange and exceed those limits. Those places include multiple locales in California, an area outside of Chicago and scattered spots across the Midwest. Readings from individual cities such as Bakersfield, Houston and Steubenville, Ohio, also show places above the 10 micrograms per cubic meter guideline for PM2.5 and the 20 microgram per cubic meter guideline for PM10.

Overall, the WHO data make the case that there is much less air pollution in the United States than in most of the world. But Trump is wrong to say that no Americans suffer from air pollution levels above the WHO guideline.

On energy production. Trump also claimed, as he has before, that the U.S. “now leads the world in energy production.” 

The United States, however, is not the top energy producer, at least according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The most recent global figures from the EIA put the U.S. behind China in 2016 when counting total primary energy, or the total of all fossil fuels, nuclear power and renewables.

Under Trump, energy production has expanded, but not to a degree that eclipses China’s production in 2016. The U.S. produced 96 quadrillion Btus in 2018, which did not exceed China’s 2016 total of 107 quadrillion Btus.

The U.S. has become the largest producer of crude oil — a threshold the nation crossed last summer, although the title was long expected. The U.S. was already No. 1 for natural gas and petroleum production before Trump took office.

For more, see: “Trump’s Campaign Kickoff Claims,” June 19 and “FactChecking Trump’s Energy Boasts,” June 8, 2018

On clean air and water. The president twice referenced clean air and water in his list of purported facts, first claiming America has the “cleanest and safest air and water” and later implying that he is responsible for the accomplishment.

This is one of Trump’s favorite environmental subjects, but by several metrics, the U.S. does not rank first in the world. And there is little evidence to suggest the administration has made air or water quality better.

As we’ve written previously, the 2018 Environmental Performance Index positions the U.S. 10th overall for best air quality and 29th for water and sanitation. On drinking water, America is ranked No. 1 along with nine other nations. But on water resources, or a measure of effective wastewater management, the U.S. comes in at No. 39, and on air pollution, a middling 83rd.

Before ending his Twitter thread, Trump indicated he should be given credit for the nation’s air and water quality. “I want crystal clean water and the cleanest and the purest air on the planet – we’ve now got that!” he said, listing the sentence as his eighth fact. 

But the U.S.’s only top ranking for drinking water predates Trump. As we’ve said, the ranking used 2016 data, and therefore does not reflect any change under Trump. 

Data from the Environmental Protection Agency also do not document any meaningful improvement on air quality under Trump. Some air quality trends have gotten better between 2016 and 2018, according to the EPA’s latest report. But others, including concentrations of two kinds of particulate matter and the number of days with unhealthy levels of air pollutants for sensitive groups, have worsened.

For more, see: “Trump Twists Facts in Environmental Speech,” July 10, “Trump Bungles Climate Change in UK,” June 7 and “U.S. Not Ranked the ‘Cleanest’ Country,” Aug. 23, 2018

The post Trump’s False ‘Facts’ on the Environment appeared first on FactCheck.org.

In a July 8 speech dedicated to the environment, President Donald Trump made a series of misleading or false statements as he played up the U.S.’s environmental achievements, many of which predate his time as commander-in-chief.

• The president falsely claimed that in 2018 the EPA “completed more Superfund hazardous waste clean-ups than any year of the previous administrations.” There were more deletions every year between 1995 and 2001.
• Trump misleadingly claimed that the U.S. since 2000 has reduced energy-related carbon emissions “more than any other country on Earth.” That’s true, but only on an absolute basis — more than 10 other countries have larger percent declines.
• Trump also took credit for projected emissions declines in 2019 and 2020, even though the U.S. Energy Information Administration says those drops are expected because of “milder weather … and, consequently, less energy consumption.”
• Trump boasted about a newly completed regulation that would decrease exposure to lead dust. He neglected to mention that EPA action on the issue was court-ordered.
• The president claimed credit for the U.S.’s top ranking in access to clean drinking water, but the scores were based on data from 2016 — before Trump entered office.
• Trump repeated his misleading and exaggerated claim that the Green New Deal would “cost our economy nearly $100 trillion.” As a nonbinding resolution, the measure itself would not cost anything. The estimate, produced by conservative think tank, includes costs but not economic benefits.
• Trump said particulate matter, a form of air pollution, is “six times lower here than the global average.” That’s correct, but the global average is bumped up by high levels of dust coming from the Sahara Desert.

In remarks at the White House, the president and his top aides cast the administration’s environmental record in a positive light. “We’re making tremendous environmental progress under President Trump, and the public needs to know that,” said Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler, who was a lobbyist for coal and other energy companies. 

But many of the environmental victories Trump cited have been in the works for years or decades, such as the cleanup of Superfund sites or the court-ordered EPA regulations.

The president spoke of “revising the past administration’s misguided regulations to better protect the environment and to protect our American workers,” without specifying the impact of his many regulatory rollbacks. 

Trump has declined to support or sought to undo many of President Barack Obama’s signature environmental policies, including the Clean Power Plan. By the EPA’s own calculations, Trump’s replacement, the Affordable Clean Energy rule, provides very few carbon emissions reductions.

The Trump administration has also proposed freezing fuel economy standards at 2020 levels through 2026 — an action the EPA says would increase CO2 emissions by 7.4 billion metric tons by the year 2100.

The president also did not mention that he has proposed hefty cuts to the EPA’s budget each year, most recently proposing a 31% cut in fiscal year 2020 — including a 9 percent cut, or $109 million, to the Superfund program that Trump touted in his speech.

Superfund Cleanups

The president falsely claimed that his administration last year completed a record number of Superfund cleanups. 

“We’ve refocused the EPA back on its core mission,” he said, “and, last year, the agency completed more Superfund hazardous waste cleanups than any year of the previous administrations and set records in almost every year. We have done tremendous work on Superfunds.”

But there are several other years when the agency has removed more sites from the Superfund list than it did in 2018.

By calendar year, 2018 had 17 full site deletions; by fiscal year, which ran from Oct. 1, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2018, there were 18. When including partial deletions, the tally rises to 22 for fiscal year 2018. This is the number the EPA likes to cite, noting that it is more deletions in any year since fiscal year 2005. An EPA spokesman told us this is what the president was referring to. But the figure is not a historical record.

In calendar year 1996, the EPA removed 45 Superfund sites, or 34 when counting by fiscal year. Fiscal years 1997 and 2001 also each had more than 30 Superfund deletions. And every calendar year between 1995 and 2001 had at least 19 deletions. In 2017, there were just three calendar year deletions and two fiscal year deletions. So far in 2019, only one site has been deleted. 

As we’ve also noted before, Superfund cleanups often take decades to complete, so it’s inaccurate for Trump to take full credit for these deletions. In fact, of the 18 fully deleted sites in fiscal year 2018, all completed physical cleanup before 2016 and only two were made ready for reuse after 2016. The ready-for-reuse stage, regional EPA spokespeople previously told us, occurs when all of the remediation is complete and what’s left is contamination monitoring and paperwork.

Carbon Emissions

Trump did not once say “climate change” in his speech. But he did tout the nation’s progress over the past nearly two decades on reducing carbon dioxide emissions — even though Energy Information Administration data show energy-related CO2 emissions were 1.9% higher in 2018 than they were in 2016.

Trump, July 8: Since 2000, our nation’s energy-related carbon emissions have declined more than any other country on Earth.  Think of that.  Emissions are projected to drop in 2019 and 2020.  We’re doing a very tough job and not everybody knows it, and that’s one of the reasons we’re here today to speak to you.  Every single one of the signatories to the Paris Climate Accord lags behind America in overall emissions reductions.

Trump’s statistic is accurate, but it’s misleading because it refers to an absolute reduction in emissions, rather than a percent reduction. Absolute reductions fail to account for differences in population size or starting levels of emissions, rendering international comparisons meaningless.

The factoid may have come from the International Energy Agency, which noted in its 2018 report that despite rising in 2018, “emissions in the United States remain around their 1990 levels, 14% and 800 Mt [million metric tons] of CO2 below their peak in 2000. This is the largest absolute decline among all countries since 2000.” (Note: While IEA data shows that peak emissions were in 2000, the EIA says that milestone occurred in 2007. Either way, the drop is around 14%.)

While impressive, more than 10 other nations participating in the Paris Agreement have posted higher percent declines. IEA data, for example, shows Denmark’s emissions fell a whopping 34% between 2000 and 2016, while the United Kingdom and France posted declines of 29% and 20%, respectively.

Many industrialized nations taking part in the Paris Agreement have no chance of besting the U.S. on this particular bragging right. That’s because most of these nations are small relative to the U.S., and their residents already produce relatively few emissions per capita.

In some cases, it’s not even possible. In 2000, for example, France’s total emissions couldn’t have dropped by 800 million metric tons because they were only 365 million metric tons to begin with.

As the IEA report highlights, Trump also omits the fact that CO2 emissions rose in 2018, which the EIA attributed to “weather and continued economic growth.”

Finally, Trump took credit for expected emissions reductions this and next year. “Emissions are projected to drop in 2019 and 2020,” he said. “We’re doing a very tough job and not everybody knows it, and that’s one of the reasons we’re here today to speak to you.”

But according to the EIA, those drops are expected because of “milder weather … and, consequently, less energy consumption.” The agency says that even with two back-to-back declines, emissions are not projected to fall below 2017 levels.

Lead Regulations

The president also highlighted some recent EPA regulations designed to protect children from lead exposure. The World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say there is no safe blood lead level in children. 

Trump, July 8: And for the first time in nearly 30 years, we’re in the process of strengthening national drinking water standards to protect vulnerable children from lead and copper exposure — something that has not been done, and we’re doing it.  And last month, our EPA took the first major action in nearly two decades to reduce exposure to lead-contaminated dust.

Trump may very well be the first administration in almost three decades to substantially update the lead and copper rule, a 1991 regulation pertaining to drinking water. A proposed rule is expected in July.

But that doesn’t tell the whole story. According to the EPA, there were revisions to the rule in 2007 “to enhance implementation in the areas of monitoring, treatment, customer awareness, and lead service line replacement.” 

And the Obama administration conducted many of the preliminary actions, including a 2016 white paper outlining potential revisions. The Trump EPA repeatedly has delayed issuing the standards.

Trump also presents the rule on lead dust as an administrative initiative. But the lead-dust regulation was court-ordered, and health advocates say the resulting standards don’t go far enough. 

The final lead dust rule, which the EPA announced on June 21 and has yet to take effect, lowers the amount of lead dust allowed on floors and window sills in childcare centers and homes built before 1978 — the year the federal government banned lead paint in homes.

In December 2017, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the agency to review the standards “in light of the obvious need.” 

The lawsuit was filed during the Obama administration. But the Trump EPA fought the petition in June of 2017, and according to the decision, offered “a vague intention to issue a proposed rule in four years and a final rule in six” — a timeline the court considered “unreasonable.” The court gave the EPA 90 days to produce a proposed rule and an additional year to produce a final rule.

The new rule lowers the hazard levels, making them more stringent. But it kept in place higher clearance levels, or the standards that would have to be met after a lead removal project. This discrepancy has activists concerned that the regulation will fail to keep kids safe, according to E&E News, an energy and environment news site.

Drinking Water

Trump suggested that his administration was responsible for the U.S. placing first in drinking water rankings determined by university researchers.

“And today, the United States is ranked — listen to this — number one in the world for access to clean drinking water,” Trump said, after mentioning several things he said happened since he was elected or became president.

The White House told us Trump was referring to the 2018 Environmental Performance Index, which scores countries based on their performances in a number of categories covering environmental health and ecosystem vitality. It is jointly produced by Yale and Columbia universities in collaboration with the World Economic Forum.

The most recent EPI does show that the U.S. was tops in drinking water along with nine other countries. The drinking water indicator, the report says, is measured “as the proportion of a country’s population exposed to health risks from their access to drinking water, defined by the primary water source used by households and the household water treatment, or the treatment that happens at the point of water collection.”

But America’s score is not based on anything Trump has done as president.

The 2018 EPI report — which was published in January 2018 — says the data used for the sanitation and drinking water indicators predates the Trump administration. The EPI’s technical appendix designates 2016 as the year supporting the current scores for the drinking water category.

Green New Deal

Trump repeated his misleading and exaggerated claim that the Green New Deal will “cost our economy nearly $100 trillion.” As we have written, Trump is referring to a nonbinding resolution introduced in the House by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

As a “simple resolution,” Ocasio-Cortez’s measure would not cost anything. The House hasn’t taken up the resolution but, even if it passed, it would not go the Senate or to the president for his signature. It merely recognizes that climate change is a problem and calls for the U.S. to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions through a “10-year national mobilization.”

In addition, the $100 trillion is a high-end, rounded up estimate that comes from a conservative nonprofit policy group and coauthored by John McCain’s chief economic adviser during the 2008 presidential campaign. 

The estimate — which actually ranges from $51 trillion to $93 trillion between 2020 and 2029 — only includes costs, and doesn’t account for economic benefits or other effects. Experts have told us that attempting to put a specific price on the resolution is misleading, since the Green New Deal is so vague.

The Senate resolution, which was introduced by Sen. Ed Markey, failed to get a single supporter in a procedural vote taken in March.

Particulate Matter

In claiming that his administration is “proving” that “a strong economy and a vibrant energy sector” is compatible with “a healthy environment,” the president boasted that the level for particulate matter is “six times lower here than the global average.” The U.S. level is low, but the global average he cites is skewed by high levels of dust in countries located in North Africa and the Middle East. 

Trump, July 8: One of the main [measures] of air pollution — particulate matter — is six times lower here than the global average.  So we hear so much about some countries and what everyone is doing.  We’re six times lower than the average.  That’s a tremendous number.

The EPA told us that Trump was referring to a World Health Organization’s 2019 global air quality report on fine particulate matter, or PM 2.5, which are particles 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller.

Trump has a point. “The 10 countries with the lowest national PM2.5 exposure levels were the Maldives, the United States, Norway, Estonia, Iceland, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Brunei, and Finland. Population-weighted PM2.5 concentrations averaged 8 µg/m3 or less in these countries,” according to the 2019 report, which was based on 2017 data.

The global average, weighted by population, was 46 micrograms per cubic meter, or ug/m3, which is about six times higher than the U.S. level of 7.4 ug/m3. However, the report also indicates that the global average is skewed by high levels of dust — not industrial pollution — in some countries.

“The sources responsible for PM2.5 pollution vary within and between countries and regions,” the report said. “Dust from the Sahara Desert contributes to the high particulate matter concentrations in North Africa and the Middle East, as well as to the high concentrations in some countries in western sub-Saharan Africa.”

The regional average levels were higher than the global averages in North Africa and the Middle East (55 micrograms per cubic meter) and the western sub-Saharan Africa (59 micrograms per cubic meter). That includes countries such as Niger (94 ug/m3), Egypt (87 ug/m3) and Chad (66 ug/m3).

By contrast, the regional average for Western Europe was just 12 ug/m3, and includes four countries — Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden — that had lower levels of PM2.5 pollution than the United States.

The post Trump Twists Facts in Environmental Speech appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Joe Biden distorted the facts when he asserted that the auto industry thought the Obama administration’s fuel standards were “a good idea” and that automakers “didn’t even agree” with President Donald Trump’s proposal to roll them back.

Auto executives begrudgingly accepted the higher fuel standards adopted by the Obama administration back in 2011. They have repeatedly implored Trump to revisit and relax those standards, arguing that the current market makes the higher standards unfeasible and could cost more than a million jobs.

It’s true that automakers have not publicly embraced Trump’s plan to freeze the fuel standards, but the industry’s reticence is mostly tied to the administration’s failure to reach an agreement with California to provide uniform, nationwide fuel standards.

The former vice president, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, made his comments about auto industry support for ambitious Obama administration fuel economy standards — which would require autos achieve an average of 54.5 miles per gallon across all vehicles by 2025 — during a campaign speech in Philadelphia on May 18.

Biden, May 18: The automobile industry, they agreed when Barack and I came along and said, “We’re gonna double the CAFE [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] standards.” They thought it was a good idea. They didn’t even agree with the president [Trump] when he rolled it back. What in God’s … who’s he trying to please?

To be clear, the automobile industry has never been thrilled with federally mandated fuel efficiency standards. But in 2011, automobile manufacturing executives reluctantly agreed to the proposal by Obama to nearly double fuel economy standards by 2025.

Support for the Obama/Biden Plan

In 2009, the flailing auto industry was the beneficiary of a massive government bailout. When Obama proposed the higher fuel standards, Brett Smith of the Center for Automotive Research told us, it was “not politically acceptable” to publicly oppose the administration’s plan.

Auto industry executives “were not in a good bargaining position,” Smith, the director of CAR’s Propulsion Technologies & Energy Infrastructure Group, said. The Obama administration “had the auto industry over the barrel.”

That led to what Smith calls an “awkward” event in which auto executives attended Obama’s announcement of the new fuel standards to publicly show their support for the plan. At the announcement, executives from Ford, GM, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar/Land Rover, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota and Volvo flanked Obama onstage at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C.

“The companies here today have endorsed our plan to continue increasing the mileage on their cars and trucks over the next 15 years,” Obama said on July 29, 2011. “We’ve set an aggressive target, and the companies here are stepping up to the plate. By 2025, the average fuel economy of their vehicles will nearly double to almost 55 miles per gallon. So this is an incredible commitment that they’ve made. And these are some pretty tough business guys. They know their stuff. And they wouldn’t be doing it if they didn’t think that it was ultimately going to be good business and good for America.”

The executives seated next to Obama may have been smiling, but it was apparently through gritted teeth, automobile industry experts said.

A New York Times story at the time of the announcement noted that auto executives only four years earlier aggressively opposed higher fuel economy standards. The industry’s “meek acceptance” of the higher fuel standards proposed by the Obama administration came two years after “the $80 billion federal bailout of General Motors, Chrysler and scores of their suppliers, which removed any itch for a politically charged battle from the carmakers,” the article said.

“Detroit was faced with an undeniable political reality: there was no graceful way to say no to an administration that just two years ago came to its aid financially,” the New York Times wrote.

The auto industry also had won an important escape clause, an agreement for a “midterm review” in which the feasibility of the ambitious fuel efficiency standards would be revisited by April 2018. But in the waning days of the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency expedited its decision on the midterm review and locked in the higher fuel standards through 2025.

Trump’s EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt later reopened the decision on the review saying, “Obama’s EPA cut the Midterm Evaluation process short with politically charged expediency, made assumptions about the standards that didn’t comport with reality, and set the standards too high.”

Appeals to Trump

The auto industry vigorously opposed the Obama administration’s handling of the midterm review.

On Feb. 12, 2017, less than a month into Trump’s presidency, Reuters reported that the CEOs of 18 major automakers “urged President Donald Trump to revisit a decision by the Obama administration to lock in vehicle fuel efficiency rules through 2025.” In a letter, the executives warned the rules could “threaten future production levels, putting hundreds of thousands and perhaps as many as a million jobs at risk.”

On Feb. 21, 2017, two lobbying groups representing auto manufacturers sent letters to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, urging him to reopen the midterm review.

The Obama fuel standards “threaten to depress an industry that can ill afford spiraling regulatory costs,” wrote Mitch Bainwol, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “If left unchanged, those standards would cause up to 1.1 million Americans to lose jobs due to lost vehicle sales. And low-income households would be hit the hardest.”

In a personal meeting with the president, Ford CEO Mark Fields told Trump about a million jobs “could be at risk if we’re not given some level of flexibility on that — aligning it to market reality.” Fields said he did not ask to have the standards eliminated, though he did not say specifically what level was more appropriate.

“We think having one national standard on fuel economy is really important,” Fields added, according to a Jan. 28, 2017, story in Automotive News.

Indeed, much has changed in the automobile industry in the years since Obama announced the higher fuel standards. When Obama made his announcement in July 2011, gas was about $3.70 a gallon, and expected to go higher. Today, however, gas prices are about 80 cents per gallon cheaper.

In the meantime, sales of sport utility vehicles have skyrocketed, while the market for more fuel-efficient cars has declined.

“The EVs [electric vehicles] are not selling well, and neither are the hybrids,” Michelle Krebs, a Detroit-based senior analyst for Autotrader who has been writing about the automotive industry for 35 years, told us in a phone interview. “They are making them, but people aren’t buying them. [Auto manufacturers] lose money on every single one. The consumer demand is just not there.”

The Trump Plan

In August 2018, the Trump administration proposed freezing the fuel standards at about 37 miles per gallon.

Though automakers lobbied the Trump administration to ease the standards, they have not publicly embraced the administration’s proposed rollback, largely because it is expected to be challenged by California and other states in court, and could result in a “split-market” that “would be a logistical and financial nightmare” for auto manufacturers, the New York Times said.

As we explained in our story “The Facts on Fuel Economy Standards,” the U.S. fuel economy program includes two standards that are overseen by different agencies under different laws: The Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standard is set in miles per gallon by the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and greenhouse gas emissions standards, which limit emissions of carbon dioxide, are monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Under Obama, NHTSA and EPA worked together to set standards that would be essentially equivalent to each other. The agencies also collaborated with the state of California, which had been allowed to set a stricter standard under the Clean Air Act, so that the state would accept the federal standards, thereby creating a so-called “national program.”

In February, however, the Trump administration broke off talks with California officials over a compromise, likely setting up a court challenge to the administration’s proposed rollback of the standards.

The Washington Post reported that Joe Hinrichs, Ford’s president of global operations, issued a statement saying that “the company is ‘disappointed’ that California and federal regulators have not been able to find a compromise on future fuel efficiency standards.”

“A coordinated program with every stakeholder is in the best interest of Ford’s customers, and is the best path forward to achieve reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and support critical investments in new technologies,” the statement said. “The auto industry needs regulatory certainty, not protracted litigation.”

The car companies are in a tough position, said Smith, of the Center for Automotive Research. Automakers don’t want to be seen as anti-environmental, Smith said, so they appear to want a nationwide fuel standard somewhere in between the current regulations and Trump’s proposal.

“Clearly, they think they need relief [from the Obama standards],” Smith said. “The question becomes, what are they asking for specifically?”

The Washington Post noted that the Auto Alliance, whose members make most of the vehicles in the U.S., “has continued to voice concerns about the administration’s approach. Auto Alliance spokeswoman Gloria Bergquist said in an interview [March 7] that the group supports ‘year-over-year increases in fuel economy’ and a nationwide standard that includes California and its affiliated states.”

All of that nuance is lost in Biden’s summary.

The auto industry publicly supported the Obama standards back in 2011, though it’s debatable whether they thought the standards were a “good idea,” as Biden put it. Industry experts told us auto executives hoped to revisit the standards through a midterm review in 2018, when they might be in a better negotiating position. Those executives have made clear that they believe it is necessary to ease the fuel economy standards mandated in the Obama plan.

Biden’s claim that auto manufacturers “didn’t even agree with [Trump] when he rolled it back,” also ignores the context of the auto industry’s misgivings about the Trump plan. Auto executives do not oppose weakening the Obama standards, but they had hoped for a compromise standard that would be palatable to California and other states, and avoid the likelihood of lengthy court battles.

The post Biden Stretches Industry Support for Fuel Standards appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

Headlines shared widely on social media misleadingly tell readers New York City will “ban” hot dogs. A city spokesman told us a plan to phase out government purchases of processed meats and reduce purchases of beef “would not impact hot dogs” sold “at baseball games, street vendors, restaurants, etc.”

Full Story

New York City recently unveiled what it has dubbed its own “Green New Deal” — a reference to congressional Democrats’ proposal to address climate change.

The city’s plans are part of a larger effort known as “OneNYC 2050,” which also touches on issues such as economic inequalities and health. The initiative calls for a “nearly 30 percent additional reduction in emissions by 2030.” It contains numerous components – including a mandate that large buildings cut emissions, or face penalties, and a goal to “convert government operations to 100 percent clean electricity.”

But in some circles on social media, thousands of users shared headlines zeroing in on one supposed target of the plan: hot dogs.

“NYC To Ban Hot Dogs and Processed Meats To Improve Climate,” reads the misleading headline posted on a network of radio websites.

At least 20 various iHeart.com pages published the same story, which has an equally disingenuous opening sentence: “New York City is the first city in the United States to eliminate processed meats.”

In reality, the changes outlined apply only to meat purchases by the city government.

“This policy would apply only to City purchases. The plan is to phase out completely purchases of processed meats by agencies, and reduce how much agencies spend on beef by 50 percent,” a city spokesman, Phil Ortiz, told FactCheck.org in an email. “This would affect, for example, hamburgers in NYC public school lunches. It would not impact hot dogs at baseball games, street vendors, restaurants, etc.”

It’s not clear when the changes would be made; we asked and Ortiz said: “We will have more to say about the implementation in the coming weeks.”

The iHeart.com story only hints at what is truly happening in the second paragraph, which says: “The plan will cut purchases of red meat by 50 percent in its city-controlled facilities such as hospitals, schools, and correctional facilities.”

Other websites, such as thedcpatriot.com, carried similarly misleading headlines. And another post that appeared on an iHeart.com website — “NYC Banning Hot Dogs As Part Of Green New Deal” — further distorts the facts.

“Could this be the end of the dirty water dog?” it reads. “Who doesn’t love a dirty water dog before or after a show in the city … What are your thoughts on this proposed ban on hot dogs and processed meats?”

The full “OneNYC report” report doesn’t even specifically mention hot dogs. It does, however, repeatedly note that the changes regarding processed meats and beef relate to city operations.

The report states at one point that the city will lead “by example on climate change by ending City purchases of unnecessary single-use plastic foodware and phasing out the purchase of processed meat, cutting beef purchasing in half.”

It also notes that processed meat “has been linked with increased risk of cancer and is often high in saturated fat and sodium which is linked to heart disease. Processed meat will be replaced by healthier proteins, including an increase in plant-based options.”

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, does indeed categorize processed meats as a “Group 1” agent, which it defines as being “carcinogenic to humans.”

“In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer,” also known as colon cancer, the WHO reports.

While “Group 1” also includes tobacco smoking and asbestos, the WHO notes that being in the same classification “does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous.” Instead, the classification is based on “the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.”

Red meat, meanwhile, is listed in “Group 2A” — “probably carcinogenic to humans.” On that, the WHO says “the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.”

Livestock do indeed affect climate change, as we’ve reported before. Cows, for example, produce and release methane, a greenhouse gas, as a result of digesting food. Almost a third of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture are methane production from livestock. Methane is about 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a century.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on the social media network. Our previous stories can be found here.

Sources

“Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs, Volumes 1—123.” International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. 25 Mar 2019.

McDonald, Jessica. “The Facts on the ‘Green New Deal.’” FactCheck.org. 15 Feb 2019.

“OneNYC 2050: Building a strong and fair city.” City of New York. April 2019.

Ortiz, Phil. Assistant Director for external affairs, NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency. Email to FactCheck.org. 25 Apr 2019.

“Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat.” World Health Organization. October 2015.

The post ‘Ban’ on Hot Dogs in NYC? Not Quite. appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Falsely declaring that he has “always” been a supporter of the Great Lakes, President Donald Trump announced that he would fully fund the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative with $300 million, telling a Michigan crowd he would finally get done something they “have been trying to get for over 30 years.”

In fact, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has been around since 2010, and it has been fully funded in recent years despite — not because of — Trump’s efforts.  

At a rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan on Mar. 28, Trump began by announcing that he had “some breaking news.”

Trump, March 28: I support the Great Lakes. Always have. They’re beautiful. They’re big. Very deep. Record deepness, right? And I’m going to get, in honor of my friends, full funding of $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which you’ve been trying to get for over 30 years. So we’ll get it done. It’s time. It’s time. You’ve been trying to get it over 30 years. I would say it’s time, right?

Trump’s announcement was an about-face from the proposed 2020 budget he released just over two weeks ago, and which called for slashing the Great Lakes restoration budget by 90 percent. It was the third year in a row the president’s budget has proposed gutting federal funding for the program. To date, Congress has ignored those proposed cuts.

Trump is also wrong about his geography. While the Great Lakes are indeed big, they’re not exceptionally deep.

GLRI Funding

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, or GLRI, began in 2010 under President Obama with the aim of cleaning up the most polluted areas of the Great Lakes. Since then, more than 4,000 projects have focused on improving water quality, restoring habitats and combating invasive species.

In its first fiscal year, Obama recommended —  and the initiative received — $475 million. After that high point, funding dropped in fiscal year 2011 to just under $300 million. And funding has stayed steady around that level ever since.

In his last two budget proposals, including the fiscal year 2020 budget released this month, Trump proposed just $30 million — the equivalent of a 90 percent cut. In his first proposed budget for fiscal year 2018, the president allotted zero funding for the program.

In a document explaining the justification for the funding shift, the Environmental Protection Agency wrote in both 2018 and 2019, “This program change reduces support for the Great Lakes Program. This returns responsibility for local government efforts to state and local entities.”

It’s important to note that a president’s budget proposal is more a symbolic statement of priorities than something Congress would vote on. In the past, Congress has chosen to ignore the White House calls to slash the GLRI budget. The last two congressionally approved budgets — which Trump signed — retained funding of about $300 million a year.

Explaining Trump’s position change on Great Lakes funding, a senior administration official told us via email, “The President trusts his agencies and staff to implement his goals and vision, but when specific issues, like the Great Lakes restoration, are presented to him he has every right to take a different approach. His announcement last night to increase his funding request for this worthy project does not change the overall goals of the budget and we will work with Congress to ensure the President’s priorities and agenda are advanced on behalf of the American people.”

We also reached out to the EPA for comment, and John Konkus, a deputy associate administrator for public affairs at EPA, replied via email, “As the President stated, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is unique both as an inter-agency initiative and because it is an international watershed. It was because of constraints in our budget that it was not fully funded at the authorized amount, but we certainly agree with and support the direction of the President as it relates to this very important program.”

No ‘Record Deepness’

Finally, Trump exaggerated the depth of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes can claim a handful of superlatives, but depth isn’t one of them.

The deepest of the five lakes, according to figures assembled by the EPA, is Lake Superior, which boasts a maximum depth of 1,332 feet. That’s well short of Oregon’s Crater Lake, which at 1,949 feet is the domestic record holder. And globally, Lake Baikal, located in Russia just north of Mongolia, is the world’s deepest lake. It stretches down some 5,300-plus feet, or more than a mile.

Update, April 1: A reader suggested that Trump might have been referring to the current water levels of the Great Lakes, which have been high recently. We asked the White House to explain what the president meant by “record deepness,” but did not receive a reply.

But even if Trump was referring to the water levels, he’s still wrong about the depth. According to data posted on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s Detroit District website, none of the lakes are at record high water levels.

Lake Superior is the closest to breaking a record, but its average daily mean water level in March was still 1.8 inches below the 1986 record.

The post Trump’s Great Lakes Whoppers appeared first on FactCheck.org.

On Feb. 7, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced her Green New Deal in the House and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts introduced a companion resolution in the Senate.

The text of the legislation, which is a nonbinding resolution, lays out a broad vision for how the country might tackle climate change over the next decade, while creating high-paying jobs and protecting vulnerable communities.

Unlike a bill, this type of legislation is not presented to the president and cannot become law. Even if the Green New Deal passed in one or both chambers of Congress, separate legislation would have to be introduced to make any of the resolution’s goals a reality.

Much of the response to the proposal has focused on details that don’t appear in the resolution text. President Donald Trump, for example, suggested on Feb. 9 in a tweet that the plan would “permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military.”

I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military – even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2019

Two days later, at a rally in El Paso, Trump repeated some of those claims, saying that he really doesn’t like “their policy of taking away your car, taking away your airplane flights, of ‘let’s hop a train to California,’ of ‘you’re not allowed to own cows anymore!’”

Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming made similar claims when she warned in a subcommittee hearing on Feb. 12 that the Green New Deal would “outlaw” plane travel, gasoline, cars and “probably the entire U.S. military.”

The Green New Deal doesn’t call for any of these prohibitions. But documents about the resolution released by Ocasio-Cortez’s office did address some of the issues raised by Trump and others.  

In a Feb. 8 interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, an adviser to Ocasio-Cortez incorrectly said that an FAQ document promising all Americans economic security, even if they were “unwilling to work,” was doctored, and was not put out by Ocasio-Cortez’s office. Although the resolution does not include that language, it was part of a fact sheet Ocasio-Cortez provided to media outlets and at one time was available on a blog post on the representative’s website. Her adviser, Robert Hockett, later admitted he was wrong. 

Here we explain what the Green New Deal includes — and doesn’t — and why there is confusion over some of the content.

Goals of the Legislation

The Green New Deal is modeled in part after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which was a large federal program designed to stabilize the economy and recover from the Great Depression. The Green New Deal focuses on tackling climate change, but isn’t concerned just with reducing emissions.

There are five goals, which the resolution says should be accomplished in a 10-year mobilization effort:

• Achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers
• Create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States
• Invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century
• Secure for all people of the United States for generations to come: clean air and water; climate and community resiliency; healthy food; access to nature; and a sustainable environment
• Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (“frontline and vulnerable communities”)

The primary climate change goal is to reach net-zero greenhouse emissions in a decade. “Net-zero” means that after tallying up all the greenhouse gases that are released and subtracting those that are sequestered, or removed, there is no net addition to the atmosphere. The goal, then, is slightly less ambitious than calling for no greenhouse gas emissions at all.

In October, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in a special report that in order to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — and thereby avoid many climate change impacts — the world would have to reach net-zero emissions of carbon dioxide by the year 2050.

The resolution goes on to propose additional aims and projects to accomplish these overarching goals, but generally does not stipulate how the country will reach them. The resolution is also silent on cost and funding mechanisms.

We’ll go through some of the specific topics that have received the most attention.

Electricity

One of the most ambitious and prominent goals of the Green New Deal is to meet “100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

The resolution doesn’t offer any more details, other than to say that this would include “dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources” and “deploying new capacity.”

One point of confusion has been what sorts of energy sources the Green New Deal would allow for electricity generation. Ocasio-Cortez’s office released an FAQ document that specifically said that new nuclear plants would not be permitted, although existing nuclear plants could stay. And in response to a question about carbon capture, utilization and storage, or CCUS, the fact sheet read, “We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective.”

But the text of the resolution does not mention nuclear power or carbon capture, and as written, does not prohibit either method of generation.

In a press conference on Feb. 7 announcing the proposal, Markey told reporters that the fact sheet’s thoughts on nuclear power were not part of the resolution. He also added that while the resolution doesn’t mention carbon capture, “we are open to whatever works.”

The power sector is one of the biggest contributors to the nation’s carbon footprint, although in recent years emissions have begun to fall. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, generating electricity accounts for about 28 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Transportation

If the country wants to reach net-zero emissions in a decade, one of the most important areas in which emissions reductions need to occur is transportation. Transportation recently surpassed power generation as the sector with the highest greenhouse gas emissions, and is responsible for about 28 percent of the U.S. total.

As with electricity generation, the text of the resolution that discusses transportation is open-ended. The Green New Deal requires “overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in— (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and (iii) high-speed rail.”

Some people, including the president, have said that the Green New Deal gets rid of cars or air travel. And as we’ve detailed elsewhere, some popular memes online have even suggested that the plan advocates building “trains over the oceans.”

The resolution does not call for that. It only states that transportation emissions should be reduced “as much as is technically feasible,” and suggests three ways of reaching that goal, including high-speed rail and zero-emission vehicles, which would include electric cars. There is no mention of air travel.

But air travel was mentioned in various FAQ materials produced by Ocasio-Cortez’s office. 

In one FAQ that was given to NPR, one of the highlighted projects was to “totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle.”

At another point, the FAQ was trying to explain why the goal was net-zero emissions, rather than none at all, and said that was “because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”

Corbin Trent, Ocasio-Cortez’s communications director, said in a phone interview that any such interpretation of the fact sheets was not intended. “Obviously, no, we’re not trying to ban air travel,” he said.

Trent iterated that the Green New Deal does not include details in any other documents. “The resolution is what we’re focused on,” he said.

Agriculture

A third major industry the Green New Deal targets is agriculture. About 9 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gases stem from agricultural activities, including the release of nitrous oxide from soil and methane from livestock.

Once again, the agriculture section of the resolution is vague, stating only that one of the goals of the Green New Deal is “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including— (i) by supporting family farming; (ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and (iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.”

Although the resolution doesn’t say anything about cows, the animal is frequently mentioned by critics of the Green New Deal. The president referenced cows twice — once in his tweet, and again in El Paso. 

And on Feb. 12, Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming incorrectly said livestock would be banned and that ice cream was “another victim” of the proposal. “Say goodbye to dairy, to beef, to family farms to ranches,” he said. “American favorites like cheeseburgers and milkshakes will become a thing of the past.”

Cows were discussed in two FAQ documents, which likely explains the preoccupation. As mentioned earlier, the fact sheet sent to NPR reads, “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”

The same idea also appeared in a blog post on Ocasio-Cortez’s website, although the language was tweaked to omit “farting.” The post was taken down and no longer appears.

Cows are one of several animals that produce methane as a result of digesting food. In a process known as enteric fermentation, microbes in the cow’s stomach help break down cattle feed, releasing the gas. The majority of the gas is actually exhaled from the mouth, or belched, not released from the back end.

In the U.S., methane production from livestock accounts for almost a third of the greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, and more than a quarter of all methane emissions. Methane is about 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a century.

Economic Security

Along with its environmental goals, the Green New Deal aims to provide economic security for Americans.

One of the proposal’s key goals is to “create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.” The plan also guarantees “a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

Both FAQ sheets — the version sent to NPR and the one posted to Ocasio-Cortez’s website — however, go further, and include a provision guaranteeing economic security to “all who are unable or unwilling to work.”

There is nothing in the Green New Deal about providing for people who are “unwilling to work,” but the inclusion in the FAQ materials has proven to be one of the most contentious aspects of the Green New Deal’s rollout.

In his Feb. 8 interview on Fox News, Hockett, a Cornell law professor and adviser to Ocasio-Cortez, falsely said that no materials released by the congresswoman included the “unwilling to work” language, and must have come from a doctored version.

He later told the Daily Caller that he had been mistaken, and had been thinking of a doctored version of the Green New Deal that Ocasio-Cortez had tweeted about. That fake version of the Green New Deal falsely claimed that men would be required to urinate in “an empty milk jug instead of a toilet.”

On Feb. 9, after a Washington Post reporter noticed the disconnect, Ocasio-Cortez responded on Twitter, noting that there were various versions of the Green New Deal and the FAQs.

There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around. There was also a draft version that got uploaded + taken down. There’s also draft versions floating out there.

Point is, the real one is our submitted resolution, H.Res. 109: https://t.co/ZlgWmNQn57

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 9, 2019

Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, also replied, saying that “an early draft of a FAQ that was clearly unfinished and that doesn’t represent the GND resolution got published to the website by mistake.”

There separately IS a doctored FAQ floating around. And an early draft of a FAQ that was clearly unfinished and that doesn’t represent the GND resolution got published to the website by mistake (idea was to wait for launch, monitor q's, and rewrite that FAQ before publishing).

— Saikat Chakrabarti (@saikatc) February 9, 2019

“Mistakes happen when doing time launches like this coordinating multiple groups and collaborators,” he added. “But what’s in the resolution is the GND.”

Corbin Trent, Ocasio-Cortez’s communications director, told us, “There was a mistake on the FAQ,” and said that he was personally responsible, but would not comment further. He pointed us to Chakrabarti’s Twitter thread and the resulting Washington Post article, which he said explained things well.

Whether done accidentally or not, much of the confusion about what the resolution contains originates from discrepancies between the official resolution and documents that Ocasio-Cortez’s office distributed to news outlets and posted on her website, not because of “doctored” copies.

Military

The president’s Feb. 9 tweet also suggested that the Green New Deal would “permanently eliminate” the military. But the resolution does not mention the military at all, and neither do any of the FAQ materials Ocasio-Cortez’s office released or posted.

Where did the idea come from? When we contacted the White House, the press office did not provide us with an on-the-record explanation. But one possibility is a separate proposal by the Green Party of the United States. The party’s policy also goes by the name “Green New Deal” and includes cutting military spending “by at least half” and closing military bases overseas, although it does not call for a complete end to the military.

Despite some similarities, the two plans are distinct and should not be conflated.

The post The Facts on the ‘Green New Deal’ appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

A resolution before Congress outlining actions to address climate change prompted the misleading claim that the deal aims to “end” air travel and “build trains over the oceans.”

Full Story

The rollout of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” last week prompted no shortage of confusion and misleading claims on social media about what the ambitious environmental proposal would do.

One popular Facebook post spread the claim that “Sandy Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘NEW GREEN DEAL’ Calls For End To Air Travel & To Build Trains Over The Oceans,” referring to the New York Democrat by her high school nickname.

But the non-binding House resolution — which recognizes “the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal” — does not call for ending air travel or building rail lines over any ocean. A companion resolution was also introduced in the Senate.

The language of the Facebook post mirrors the text of a headline on the conservative website The Gateway Pundit, but it doesn’t come from the text of the actual resolution.

Instead, it might stem from an interpretation of, or confusion over, documents about the resolution circulated by Ocasio-Cortez’s office.

An “overview” of the resolution that was provided to NPR, for example, pledged to “begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to put the nuts and bolts on the plan described in this resolution.” The outline included this about infrastructure and industrial projects: “Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle.” (Italic emphasis ours.)

At another point, in explaining its 10-year greenhouse gas emission goal, the outline says “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” A now-deleted blog post on Ocasio-Cortez’s House website included similar language.

People can debate the choice of words used in those background materials, but the actual resolution introduced in Congress does not include any language suggesting an “end to air travel” or about building trains “over the oceans.”

The resolution outlines broad goals such as, reaching “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions”; creating “millions of good, high-wage jobs”; investing in infrastructure; guaranteeing future generations clean air and water, and “climate and community resiliency”; and more.

The only reference to trains is a call to invest in “high-speed rail” as part of an effort to overhaul “transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible.”

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on the social media network.

Sources

“Green New Deal FAQ.” Blog post, office of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 5 Feb 2019.

U.S. House. “H. Res. 109, Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.” (as introduced 7 Feb 2019.)

Kurtzleben, Danielle. “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline.” NPR. 7 Feb 2019.

The post ‘Green New Deal’ Doesn’t Call for ‘End’ to Air Travel appeared first on FactCheck.org.