The following post reflects the views of its authors and does not constitute an endorsement by The Aerogram. The Aerogram does not endorse any candidate or organization in connection with this campaign/election.
In the heart of Silicon Valley sits the most closely watched South Asian Congressional race in the coming November 4 elections. Residents of California’s 17th Congressional District, an Asian majority district with over 100,000 South Asian residents, will pick between two Democrats: incumbent Mike Honda, serving since 2001 and known for his work on civil rights, education, and labor, and challenger Ro Khanna, a former deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Commerce who teaches economics at Stanford.
Both our homes and our homelands are impacted by climate change, the biggest public policy challenge of the century. That’s why last month, members of Brown and Green: South Asian Americans for Climate Justice helped organize the South Asian contingent at the People’s Climate March in New York. Now we’re back home, and trying to figure out how to vote.
Which candidate is better for voters who care about climate justice? We reached out to both campaigns with questions on their stances on areas like public transit, fracking, and the United States’ responsibility as the #1 historical emitter. Honda’s campaign provided us with written responses, while we got on the phone with Khanna for a candid conversation.
Both candidates had strong responses. If every member of Congress talked about the climate crisis like Ro Khanna or Mike Honda, we might be in a very different place as a country and an international community. Here are some of our favorite responses…
- Mike Honda on the issues:
- On U.S. responsibility to developing nations, as the #1 historical climate polluter: “It is impossible not to acknowledge the role the United States and the rest of the developed world played in causing climate change…Our nation must lead by example and commit to policies that reduce our contribution to global warming, and we must help developing nations quickly adopt clean, renewable energy as they advance their economies, so that they skip the dirty fossil fuel driven phase of development and don’t make the same mistakes that the United States made that have exacerbated our climate problems.”
- On his record: “I introduced the Smart Electronics Act, which seeks to reduce the environmental impact of the growing number of consumer electronics; I helped found the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition to push Congress toward action on renewable energy; and am a member of the Safe Climate Caucus to further the dialogue on climate action in Congress.”
- On the campaign to have the University of California divest from fossil fuel industries: “the University of California, as the flagship university of our state, a leader on climate issues, should shift its investments from fossil fuels to those that address climate risk”
- On natural gas: “Many Members of Congress have supported the fracking boom and justified it based on natural gas being a cleaner fuel than coal or oil. I have not joined them because I believe that, while burning natural gas may reduce other forms of pollution, it is still a fossil fuel whose burning releases greenhouse gases that are changing our climate.”
- On fracking in California: “Fracking in the Monterey Shale is aimed at recovering oil, unlike in other parts of the country where fracking is used to drill for natural gas. As a result, fracking in California will have a much more significant impact on climate change than fracking elsewhere, and it is not consistent with California’s leadership on climate.”
- Ro Khanna on the issues:
- On U.S. responsibility to developing nations, as the #1 historical climate polluter: “We have to recognize that developing nations didn’t have the advantage of industrialization over the last century. We have an obligation to help with their economies so they can grow in environmentally responsible ways. It’s hard to make the case that they should stop all economic growth for environmental reasons — as part of a community of nations, we need to be ready to help.”
- On ending federal subsidies for oil, gas, and coal companies: “This is part of my proposal for corporate tax reform. The corporate tax code is skewed. We need to eliminate these kinds of tax breaks and subsidies, and support the innovation economy, including solar, wind, and geothermal.”
- On the campaign to have the University of California divest from fossil fuel industries: “I support that!”
- On tar sands infrastructure, including Keystone XL: “It’s terrible, totally sends the wrong message. We need to be investigating alternative energy, solar, and wind, and its a crutch to think that Keystone will solve our energy needs. It will create much more harm.”
- On learning of Stanford/UC Irvine research showing that natural gas will fail to reduce emissions: “I would look to scientific studies to help guide my thinking, and want to stay connected to experts. For example, a colleague at Stanford shared facts with me about the links between climate change and drought, which changed the way I think about both issues. If elected, I want to prioritize scientific leadership.”
- On regulating fracking: “If elected to Congress, I will support legislation to remove the so-called ‘Halliburton Loophole’ [oil and gas industry exemptions from the Clean Air and Clean Water Act]. Hydraulic fracturing needs to be subject to the same environment regulations as other fossil fuel extraction techniques.”
Our analysis:
Both candidates talked about wanting to end fossil fuel subsidies, investing in alternatives like solar, and opposing new dirty infrastructure like Keystone XL. We were happily surprised by some of their answers, like their joint support for the University of California fossil fuel divestment campaign, and their immediate acknowledgement of our responsibility to impacted developing nations as the #1 historical climate polluter.
There were also areas where we wished the candidates’ policy visions went much further. For example, while both sides talked about their support for expanding BART, the commuter subway system connecting suburbs to cities like San Francisco, neither candidate’s answers or websites address critical (and cheaper) solutions like improving buses or trying to fund free youth transit, to provide low-carbon lifeline mobility to our family and community members who are low-income, immigrant, youth, and/or seniors. (Climate justice is about reducing both emissions and inequity.)
Ultimately, as Brown and Green: South Asian Americans for Climate Justice, we’re choosing to endorse Rep. Mike Honda because of his proven track record of climate leadership in Congress (we join groups like Climate Hawks, the Sierra Club, and the League of Conservation Voters). Climate change is likely to be the defining environmental and public health crisis of the 21st century, and for over a decade, Honda has been doing exactly the the kind of work we need.
We liked a lot of what Ro Khanna had to say. However, what really gave us pause were Khanna’s published stances in favor of natural gas1 and “energy from waste”2—toxic false solutions to climate change which are bad for local communities, for the United States, and for our climate-vulnerable homelands. Climate change is a life and death issue for impacted communities in our homelands, and getting the details right matters.
Ro Khanna is one of us — a civic-minded Desi nerd — and we know he can do better than this. Khanna assured us that he’s willing to follow the science, and we’re hopeful that he’ll do so and reconsider his position on these false solutions, particularly if he wins the CA-17 Congressional seat on November 4. Whether it’s Honda or Khanna, we need real climate leaders in Congress.
Are you a South Asian American voter with environmental values? What choices are you making this November and beyond? Continue the conversation!
Anirvan is @anirvan, and Bhavik is @bhavikml. Stay connected with Brown and Green: South Asian Americans for Climate Justice via Twitter (@SouthAsianGreen), Tumblr, or Facebook, or email connect@brownandgreen.org.
1. What’s wrong with pushing investments in natural gas? “Abundant supplies of natural gas will do little to reduce harmful U.S. emissions causing climate change, according to researchers at UC Irvine, Stanford University, and the nonprofit organization Near Zero. They found that inexpensive gas boosts electricity consumption and hinders expansion of cleaner energy sources, such as wind and solar.” (source)
2. What’s wrong with “energy from waste”? A Brown and Green member notes: “‘Energy from waste’ is essentially the same as…old-fashioned incineration. The claim of ‘reducing pollution’ is ridiculous, as this would create a whole new massive pollution source, and ‘low cost’ is laughable as modern incinerators typically cost several hundred million dollars each. Also, with California under mandate to increase composting, recycling and waste reduction to 50%, this would create infrastructure that would need to be fed—meaning it would either negatively impact local recycling rates, or end up importing garbage to burn from other localities, as has happened often elsewhere.”
When I read this, I was confused and even briefly concerned about Honda. Now, however, my short response is, having read up on this,, my concern about Honda is allayed and I join in re-endorsing him. The long commentis I think the line explaining the subtle difference in their green policies is slightly confusing and misleading, representing them as disagreeing on several conflated issues rather than on one particular one. However, I am not sure if there’s a better way to rephrase it at this late date without rereporting the article.
GAIA is a fantastic resource on why incineration is bad, and http://no-burn.org/downloads/climatestatement.pdf is a very nice semi-technical exposition of the subject.I agree with Borwn & Green’s reliance on their policies for this endorsement of Honda, and corresponding suspicion of Khanna, but I do want to explain why I do not 100% agree with GAIA (and was thus slightly confused by the initial sentence.) I would like to explain this for three reasons: 1) I think it’s an important point, over all, in the fight for climate change. 2) I think others _might_ be confused the way I was, and not vote for Honda as a result and 3) I think, upon examination (and rexamination of Khanna’s campaign text) it illuminates some of the problems I fear re: Khanna.
I’ve been thinking and reading about methane capture from natural and anthropogenic decomposition processes for 12 years now, and I am actually utterly convinced that it’s the single most technologically and scientifically neglected issue (let alone policy-neglected issue, let alone politically neglected issue) in proportion to its potential significance to long term climate change, *anthropogenic _and_ natural*. *Especially* b/c of its connection to the energy/agricultural/sanitation needs of the poorer and more rural populations of the (rapidly) developing world, which is a particularly Desi issue.
To me the key sentence explaining their stance is accepting or rejecting the objections and endorsements on the basis of page 2, “While capturing some methane is better
than letting it escape into the atmosphere, a far better method is to avoid landfilling the organic waste in the first place, thereby avoiding the generation and emission of methane. ” I understand where the sentence is coming from, but do not accept the weighted policy/technical calculus that seems to go into the conclusion implied: in other words, I do not accept that it is realistic or optimal to pursue a no-waste policy *exclusively* rather than pursuing a no-waste policy aggressively while also pursuing a methane-capture policy (and even a *let’s figure out how to help people who must incinerate incinerate better* policy) *in parallel*. From a philosophical standpoint, obviously a no-waste policy *alone* is preferable, but from getting from here to there standpoint, and dealing with the state of the planet *as it is*, methane-capture technologies have absolutely got to be funded, worked on and pushed ahead—and working on them is *entirely* separate form the question of depending on or extracting natural gas via fracking or any other method. I am *very much* against opening up any new sources of mined/geological methane (aka natural gas) for the same reason. Remember, even when you take into account atmospheric lifetime discrepancies, iIt is *7 times worse* to let a methane molecule escape into the atmosphere rather than first oxidizing it (burning it) into carbon dioxide. So while I am very happy to find GAIA, impressed by their technical expertise, but still skeptical of their strategic calculus with respect to policy choices. I think it’s valuable to have a group passionately advocating for the no-waste position and keeping it at the fore, and if their organization has found that they can best advocating for a policy that properly prioritizesstrategies to reach zero waste, I do not judge them for it. But I’m not going to adopt that position myself or choose a politician on the basis of that position, and will vigorously oppose any attempt to further decrease research and development and implementation of methane capture and usage, whether from landfills or sewage or already existing geologic leaks or whatnot. I will also hold that *while* reduction is happening and being pursued, it has not happened incineration has to be judged vs. leave-alone-decomposition on a case by case basis.
THAT SAID, I am VERY dubious that Ro Khanna is thinking that clearly or precisely about the whole can of natural phenomena, technological processes, or policy issues wrapped up and conflated together in the buzzword of talking about “Energy From Waste.” That is certainly reflected in the confusing language of his campaign site’s two paragraphs on the subject, which doesn’t seem to reflect an understanding of the difference between carbon dioxide and methane, or between incineration and methane capture (or, for that, waste heat capture, another important topic). On one hand Khanna’s work in the Dept. of Commerce and his connections in Silicon Valley certain give him access to the kinds of technical expertise that _could_ improve his understanding and guide him in teasting apart these subtleties. On the other hand the confusion in his campaign language, the preponderance of his career being in corporate law or representing manufacturers/technologists as a whole rather than the small minority of tech companies and manufacturers committed to environmental technology, and his general rhabit of seeming of being blindly pro-business and technology rather than being intelligent pro _sustainable_, _fair_, business and technology is very troublesome. The confusing, vague, buzzwrod heavy language throughout the relevant paragraphs of Khanna’s campaign are all too like the kind of greenwashing PR that many technology corporations excel at. Whether that language reflects a candidate who is unintentionally vulnerable to such PR or one who is disingenously willing to go along it without delving into the issues, it does not bode well for Ro Khanna being an effective Representative when it comes to technical OR environmental issues.
Honda is not blatantly aligned with the wealthy and technologists-for-the-sake-of-money vs technology-for-the-sake–what’s-good; he has a lot of experience dealing with constituent services, including concerns about local air pollution and toxic landfill sites, his sponsorship of the Climate Change Education Act bodes well for his connections with the kind of scientists and policy thinkers who could tease apart the issues in the “energy from waste” discussion. He has a track record of making real public-interest technology innovation actually happen in the area
http://honda.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-michael-honda-supports-nasa-university-alliance and in advocating for good science that’s important for climate change: http://honda.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-michael-honda-supports-nasa-university-alliance , has fought for the EPA’s perogative to regulate CO2 emissions, and against the irresponsible exploitation of Hurricane Katrina to push through unsafe, sub-par landfills.
On a personal level, his daughter is a public health educator with experience in thinking about preventing children’s health problems.
Moreover, on this and any any other progressive issue, given the lack of severe difference in stated opinion (or even less progressive stance on the case of the younger candidate), progressive causes are better served by a more experienced Congressperson with committee seniority and a well-oriented staff, as are CA-17 constituents in particular. Khanna has no experience running *or* working in a legislative office, no experience working with fellow legislators, and no track record of taking truly tough stands in a legislative climate. Honda has been in Silicon Valley long enough to know that the technology community is not “one” thing, and that the interests of the biggest, flashiest corporations are not necessarily the interests of the whole community, its workers, or the valley. Given Honda’s excellent record on advocating for Asian-American communities of all ethnicities, not just Japanese-American, I have no reason to doubt his sincerity in advocating for any special *real* needs of the South Bay’s substantial South Asian community—and every reason to believe he would be much more effective.So for Green voters of any kind–South Asian or not–what Khanna brings to the table (browness and newness and bedazzlement by the noveau-tech community) are all disadvantages.
To put it more bluntly, I think Yasha Levine succinctly captured why Honda is to respected on any substantial issue more than Khanna given the same basic position:
“So I came up to Ro after speech and asked him directly: Is there anything specific that he thinks Rep. Honda has done wrong? Any legislation, policies and/or votes?
Honda’s got a decade of legislative history to choose from, so I figured Ro would at least find a couple of things he disagreed with.
I was wrong.
Ro couldn’t name anything — not a single vote nor a single piece of legislation that he took issue with.”
http://pando.com/2014/02/28/ro-khanna-silicon-valleys-owned-man/
So yes–Silicon Valley voters who care about the environment and the planet’s future, South Asian American or not, should vote for Mike Honda.