FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 26, 2018
For more information, please contact:
Yaël Ksander, Communications Director, firstname.lastname@example.org, (812) 349-4357; or Autumn Salamack, Assistant Director of Economic and Sustainable Development for Sustainability, email@example.com, (812) 349-3837
Mayor Hamilton supports IU scientists in objection to proposed repeal of environmental regulation and encourages public engagement
Bloomington, In. – As the Environmental Protection Agency proposes withdrawing the Clean Power Plan (CPP) of 2015, Bloomington Mayor John Hamilton is registering his objection to the repeal in allegiance with a group of scientists affiliated with Indiana University. Hamilton supports the view taken by the non-partisan organization of 850 scientists, students, and supporters of science known as Concerned Scientists @ IU (CSIU) in their letter of public comment to the EPA and encourages residents to join in the group’s objection to the proposed federal action by making their own comments on the agency’s website. The comment period ends Thursday, April 26 at 11:59 pm.
Hamilton endorsed the scientists’ judgment that the proposed repeal of the CPP is based on an intentional misreading of the Clean Air Act of 1970, from which the CPP was enacted. The CPP implemented standards for carbon emissions that favor the adoption of renewable energy over fossil fuels. CSIU argues that the CPP is not only consistent with the Clean Air Act, but that its elimination “is not justifiable in light of the strong scientific evidence on the contribution of fossil fuel combustion to Earth’s global climate balance.”
“I strongly support the IU scientists in their demand that environmental policy be based on scientific evidence,” said Hamilton, “and wholeheartedly endorse their assertion that the renewable energy sector will promote health and economic growth, while protecting the planet.”
Hamilton’s stand against the proposed repeal reprises his pledge in June 2017 to remain committed to the Paris Climate Agreement notwithstanding the withdrawal from the treaty at the national level. Hamilton was one of nearly 400 mayors across the country to have signed a statement expressing their continuing support for the accord and their dedication to environmental stewardship.
As part of that effort, the City of Bloomington is currently developing its first Sustainability Action Plan to identify strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and transportation-related areas of focus. The city has recently completed solar panel installations at 30 of its facilities and partnered with the Southern Indiana Renewable Energy Network (SIREN) to install solar panels at more than 100 Bloomington residences in 2017. A joint city-university bikeshare program will increase Bloomington’s transportation alternatives by 200 bicycles when it launches in June.
Comment on EPA’s Proposed Repeal of the Clean Power Plan
(In reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0355)
We are writing on behalf of Concerned Scientists @ IU, a grass-roots, non-partisan community organization consisting of over 850 members—scientists, students, and supporters of science—from the south-central Indiana region. While many of our members are faculty, students or staff at Indiana University, our organization does not officially represent the University. Concerned Scientists @ IU is dedicated to strengthening the essential role of science in public policy and evidence-based decision making. We believe that EPA’s proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) is not justifiable in light ofthe strong scientific evidence on the contribution of fossil fuel combustion to Earth’s global climatebalance. We find the proposed repeal to be based on unconvincing legal arguments, without appropriate consideration of the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change and the potential for mitigation through greenhouse gas reductions.
The EPA’s offered justification for repealing the CPP in its entirety hinges on a narrow, technical misreading of the Clean Air Act, in contradiction to past Congressional records, court decisions and theEPA’s own regulation history. It is a misreading favored by some fossil-fuel energy proponents, but which is not in the best public interest in light of clear and voluminous evidence that the emission of greenhouse gases from fossil-fuel burning is a strong contributor to ongoing climate change.1,2 The repeal proposal contests neither the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA that the CleanAir Act’s protections encompass greenhouse gas emissions, nor the EPA’s own previous science-based determination3 that these climate-destabilizing emissions endanger public health and welfare.
Rather, the repeal proposal chooses to interpret the words “best system of emission reduction” (BSER) in Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as allowing consideration for existing power plants only of “measures that can be applied to or at the source.” The proposal argues that the CPP “established performancestandards for coal-fired plants assuming a uniform emissions rate well below that which could be met by existing units through any retrofit technology of reasonable cost available at the time” (emphasis added). This narrow interpretation conflicts with the explicit Congressional rejection of terms more restrictive than the quite general “best system of emission reduction.” Furthermore, the CongressionalConference Committee that agreed on 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act clarified explicitly “thatstandards adopted for existing sources under section 111(d) of the act are to be based on availablemeans of emission control (not necessarily technological).”
“Available means of emission control” for power plants and greenhouse gases can be gleaned from the actions being pursued by the many States that are currently on track to meet or exceed the CPP standards by 2030. Those means include: technological efficiency improvements at fossil-fuel fired power plants; increasing the use of energy generation involving reduced carbon emissions (e.g., based on natural gas) or zero carbon emissions (renewable energy sources); and/or investing in efficiency improvements on the demand side, rather than at the source. All of these approaches address the same goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning plants and should be considered as part of a meaningful BSER. The EPA cannot meet its Clean Air Act statutory responsibility to offer a“best system” if its hands are tied by an unreasonably narrow interpretation that ignores most actions that a majority of States are already undertaking to meet the emission reduction standard in cost- effective ways.
The courts have also weighed in to favor a broad interpretation of the statute. In the D.C. Circuit Court 1981 decision in Sierra Club v. Costle, the opinion allowed EPA to weigh “cost, energy and environmental impacts in the broadest sense at the national and regional levels and over time, as opposed to simply atthe plant level in the immediate present.” That decision furthermore noted that EPA’s choice of BSERshould encourage the development of systems that achieve greater emission reductions at lower costs and deliver energy and non-air-related health and environmental benefits.
The CPP repeal proposal states that: “Notwithstanding the CPP, all of the EPA’s other CAA section 111regulations are based on a BSER consisting of technological or operational measures that can be applied to or at a single source.” That statement appears to explicitly ignore the EPA’s 1995 section 111(d)emission guidelines for existing municipal waste combustors, which allowed states to establish averaging and trading programs to meet standards for nitrogen oxide emissions. The same sort of averaging over multiple installations, sources, approaches and even regions provides States with the flexibility to meet the CPP standard in cost-effective ways. The repeal proposal’s narrow interpretationof BSERs would remove that flexibility from the States, and hence, would not allow definition of a meaningful BSER for greenhouse gas emission reductions.
The CPP’s three “building blocks” define a best system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, precisely by allowing States to engage in the same sort of emission averaging that previous EPA regulations have promoted. As required by the Clean Air Act, the CPP identifies emission reductions achievable with the published BSER, but allows States the flexibility to come up with their own plan to meet that reduction standard. According to a 2017 analysis by the Rhodium Group research firm, that flexibility, combined with market forces, have 25 States currently on track to exceed the CPP standard, with an additional 10 States likely to come at least close to meeting the standard by the 2030 deadline.
A 2016 analysis by PJM, the country’s largest power grid operator, supplying electricity to 13 States plusthe District of Columbia, examines seven different “pathways” to assure CPP compliance. The PJManalysis concludes that all of the considered pathways would allow States to ensure electricity supplies meeting demand at wholesale costs that rise only between 1.1 and 3.3 percent, depending on whether the States choose to meet the CPP targets individually or in regional cooperation with other States. The available scientific and economic analyses3,4 indicate that the long-term national benefits of greenhouse gas reductions would far outweigh those modest cost increases.
The availability of such analyses, together with the success a majority of States have already had in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, casts serious doubt on the warnings issued by “regulated entities and other stakeholders ... that the CPP threatened to impose massive costs on the power sector and consumers.” We disagree strongly with the EPA review that “raised substantial concerns that the CPP isnot consistent with the policy articulated in Section 1 of the Executive Order” 13783. That order requires that efforts “to promote clean and safe development of our Nation’s vast energy resources” should avoid “regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economicgrowth, and prevent job creation.” There is no evidence that the CPP, as written, would impose such unnecessary burdens. Rather, the narrow misreading of section 111 now promoted by EPA would go out of its way to enhance the burdens, precisely to make them inconsistent with EO 13783, in opposition to the public interest.
It is normal for regulated businesses to strongly overestimate the costs of meeting regulations and to underestimate the benefits. Job growth in the coal industry is certainly endangered, but far more by the low price of natural gas than by the CPP. There are currently far more jobs and much faster job growth nationally in the renewable energy sector than in fossil fuel-based energy production. The CPP wouldenhance net job growth by encouraging the lagging States to promote renewable energy more aggressively. Economic analyses5,6 have found that environmental regulations that may increase compliance costs in the short term often lead to technological innovation (as measured, for example, by patents on new environmental technologies) and economic growth over a longer term. In contrast, repeal of the CPP may slightly reduce the immediate rate of job loss in the coal industry, but is likely to suppress net job creation in the energy generation industry more generally, allowing other countries toreap the lion’s share of the economic benefits from the blossoming renewable energy sector.
In conclusion, we believe that the proposed repeal of the CPP would further erode U.S. leadership in combating global climate change, would likely lead to net job loss in the energy generation industry, and would conflict with regulatory traditions supported by the Congress, the courts and the EPA’s own pasthistory. Such repeal is not in the public interest and we strongly oppose EPA’s proposed repeal of theCPP.
1. USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [D.J. Wuebbles, D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6 (available athttps://science2017.globalchange.gov/).
2. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2013. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1.
3. EPA 2017 Summary of Climate Change Impacts, https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate- impacts_.html .
4. M. Ruth, D. Coelho, and D. Karetnikov, “The U.S. Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction,” Review and Assessment by the Center for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER) at the University of Maryland, 2007, http://www.cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation and references therein.
5. A. Jaffe and K. Palmer. “Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study,” Review of Economics and Statistics 1997, 610-9.
6. P. Lanoie, M. Patry, and R. Lajeunesse, “Environmental Regulation and Productivity: Testing the Porter Hypothesis,” Journal of Productivity Analysis, 2008, 30, 121-8.
You can find Dan Canon's answers to our Questions for Candidates’ Forum on Science and Policy below, in italicized text.
1) If you are elected, on what House Committees would you seek to serve, and why?
The real answer is the Judiciary Committee because of my background and the work that I’ve done in the federal court system. Also the Ethics Committee because that’s currently chaired by Susan Brooks, so you know they need some help there.
But I would also aim to serve on two committees that are germane to the topic at hand: House Science, Space, and Technology OR Committee on Natural Resources, and House Appropriations. Either of the first two committees would provide me with the opportunity to oversee the direction and vision of federal agencies engaged in scientific work. These are the committees that have a direct impact on our policies that affect how we approach climate change and new energy alternatives.
The latter would allow me to put the money in the right places to ensure that we’re investing in the long term scientific future of this country. Science policy must have direction and vision, and there must be money to back that up. A classic example of this is NASA in the 1960s vs. NASA today - in the 60s there was a clear purpose to the agency: develop human space travel and land on the moon. Today NASA’s vision is vague, and because of it, their projects are somewhat scattered.
2) Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Too often, however, members of Congress appear to impede healthy policy debates by insisting on competing facts dictated by each party, sometimes in opposition to relevant scientific evidence. What role would you see yourself playing to re-establish a mechanism or a protocol for basing policy debates on scientific evidence rather than ideology? Would you support linking climate change-related congressional policy to existing evidence identified by NASAor the IPCC?
Generally speaking, I’m not sure that it’s helpful to frame this discussion as a dichotomy between science and ideology. In my view, it's not that science should replace ideology, but rather science should be a factor in the framework of one's ideology. We have to live by a philosophy that helps us define the goals and future that we want. Decisions are part of that. Having a rational process for evaluating the variables and impact of those decisions is an important part of policy debate.
That said, there are two ways to answer the first part of this question. First, in terms of messaging, policy is shaped by the political climate in which it is written, and in the short run, this is not a good political climate for facts (as the question suggests). But for now, there are ways to frame policy debates to be more apolitical. For example, during the Obama Presidency climate change was identified as a grave risk to national security (for a lot of reasons, but it already has and will end up causing significant instability due to food scarcity, inhospitable territory, and so on). “National security risks” are generally much less partisan than “climate change.” And so one way that any congressperson can help to base policy debates on scientific evidence is to shape the argument in non-partisan terms that are pretty much universally agreed upon---like national security. Citizens Climate Lobby is doing a lot of good work on this front, and we should follow their lead, though I do not see this sort of “backing into” policy solutions as a particularly good long-term strategy.
Second (and this is a more long-term approach), we need to lessen the the influence of corporate lobbyists, and including respected members of the scientific community in the discussion would be a good start. Scientists and civil servants, who are respected/accountable to their peers and neighbors, need to have a visible seat at the table when writing policy. It is important that elected officials clearly demonstrate that those opinions are being relied upon, and where they come from, rather than maintaining the facade that all of these answers are just being generated by one elected official. Having respected, reliable members of the scientific community with a visible and close-to-direct role in policymaking is an important step to restoring the public’s faith in real evidence-based policies overall, and in ensuring the scientific and academic communities that elected representatives will act responsibly.
As to the second question: the answer here should, of course, be a resounding yes. Federal agencies like NASA, and international organizations like the IPCC exist to inform both lawmakers and the public. When the experts are repeatedly saying, “this a problem, please listen to us” lawmakers have an obligation to pay attention. A Congress that is almost entirely made up of non-scientists mustheed the advice of agencies and expert organizations when it comes to climate change---or any other policy, and we should actively try to foster a culture that encourages same.
3) What do you view as the appropriate role of the federal government, and of the House of Representatives specifically, in addressing climate change? How should Congress support national participation in the Paris Accord? Given the current political situation, how do you judge scientific research to be most effectively incorporated into the policy debates on climate change?
The federal government has two obligations when it comes to climate change: to set the general vision of the country going forward in this new era of changing climate, and to help influence foreign powers to do the same.
On the first point, the House has an obligation to be forward thinking when it comes to climate change because of their budget, and because of its oversight role with respect to federal agencies. In short: we’ve got to make sure the EPA and other executive branch agencies are actually doing the work they are supposed to be doing, and doing it in a meaningful way. In
addition, climate change will be the economy of the future; that is, if we are focused on growing the economy and providing jobs, we are going to need to act now to keep up with tomorrow’s technology. Other countries will move on with or without the U.S., and rather than protecting old, dying industries, the government is going to have the responsibility of ensuring that the jobs and businesses of tomorrow can thrive in our country. This touches on the previous question too; everyone cares about jobs and the economy writ large, regardless of party or ideology.
As to the second obligation, specific policies for the U.S. might be things like setting emissions standards, carbon capture programs, etc., to be instituted by a certain date, as an example and a message to other world leaders. Policies on the global stage are things like the Paris Accord - international agreements that, while perhaps making little progress in the short run, help push nations to confront the issue. Such agreements give us the platform for working with other nations on the development of global policies to advance more energy efficient technologies and improvement of air quality.
4) The Trump Administration is systematically reducing the role of scientific input to Executive Branch actions. One recent example, among many, is Scott Pruitt’s directive that any scientist who receives EPA funding is automatically too conflicted to serve on EPA Advisory Boards. What oversight role do you think the House of Representatives should play in ensuring that policy recommendations from the Executive Branch have sound scientific foundations?
The executive branch’s actions are not isolated to the executive branch. Federal agencies are overseen by congress, and laws are written by Congress. But Congress has repeatedly failed to use its power to rein in the President when it comes to scientific policy. Policy recommendations from the executive branch without sound science should provoke a vocal and sustained response from Congress. We don’t see that from this Congress, and certainly not from our current representative.
In addition, we need to have a real discussion over how much unchecked power the executive branch should get to appoint anyone, no matter how unqualified, to head up essential agencies. We can play a significant role as public figures in ensuring that people are better informed about these appointments, and that they respond accordingly by putting the appropriate pressure on the elected officials responsible for those appointments. If we had the same outcry over executive branch and judicial nominees that we did for the repeal of the ACA, we might see the quality of those nominees improve (albeit slightly). Scott Pruitt is a confirmed appointee, and that Congress must wield its considerable authority to ensure that agencies are provided with only the best appointees. Though this particular issue is the purview of the Senate, the point still stands that any effort on behalf of the executive branch to reduce the role of scientific input is done with a complicit Congress.
5) What are your thoughts on how best to balance the need for government regulations that provide long-term protection for human health, the environment or national security, against the shorter-term costs to industry? How would you convince skeptical constituents that you’re favoring the right balance?
There is a need for balance when it comes to government regulations, of course. But the fact is that majority of government regulations are necessary, popular, and not much of an impediment to business. Government regulations like the equal opportunity act and the clean air & water acts have been invaluable to American society, and businesses have adapted to do just fine in their wake. And any industry that has only a short-term, unsustainable growth model is simply not going to succeed in the 21st century and shouldn't be coddled, especially when health and welfare is at stake.
Skeptical constituents need to be convinced by stressing that sensible regulation will benefit them personally and their communities, rather than multi-billion dollar corporations. We can further these goals with a robust constituency services program here on the ground in IN-09 that emphasizes outreach, education, and transparency about what we are doing and why.
To that point, we should adopt a messaging strategy that: 1) accepts the fact that industries are going to die because of automation and/or other factors; 2) urges compassionate action for workers who have been displaced, in the form of forward-thinking policy solutions like universal basic income, a guaranteed jobs program, and other sustainable alternatives; 3) resists the unnecessary politicizing of job losses.
6) Steven Chu, when he was Secretary of Energy, stated that the U.S. National Labs had replaced institutions such as Bell Labs, which very few corporations could now afford to fund, as the critical incubators of long-term R&D on innovative technologies. What do you see as the proper roles of the federal government and the private sector in advancing scientific research and development, and maintaining a competitive U.S. edge over countries such as China? Do you consider current levels of federal R&D investment in FY2018 funding bills under consideration, or in the President’s proposed FY2019 budget, to be about right, too small, or too large?
The role of the federal government must be to ensure that basic research---the cornerstone of American scientific preeminence---remains fully funded, even when it provides no clear, short-term financial incentive. The U.S. government can also continue to effectively be a partner to private start-up institutions. Funding though organizations such as SBIR and STTR provides technological advances and should be increased/protected. Unfortunately our government has forgotten this; in 2007 the Senate commissioned a report by the National Academies which recommended doubling the federal budget for long-term basic research by 2014. That, of course, did not happen.
If America wants to maintain a competitive edge in the coming years we must be prepared to invest heavily in basic research - far beyond the proposed budgets for 2018-19. While China is increasing their investment in R&D and basic research dramatically, US spending has stagnated since 2005. Science will be done where there is money to do it, and our government’s goal should be to make the US the most favorable place for scientists to go. If history has shown us anything about science, it’s that it will get done in whatever country provides the opportunity. For example, the cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider in 1993 allowed Europe to sweep up the field of particle physics. If we want to avoid similar consequences in other fields we better be prepared to spend whatever it costs.
On top of that, we want to send a message to the world that scientists are welcome, and that science will always have a home in the United States. To that point, the elephant in the room is that the racist and xenophobic rhetoric of the current administration, no less than a regressive anti-science sentiment overall, is driving foreign students away. These losses will have dire consequences for the future of STEM careers in the United States.
7) How would you plan to keep abreast of the scientific and technical issues underlying policy debates you face in Congress? Do you have specific legislative priorities concerning issues with a strong dependence on science or technology, or with a significant environmental impact in southern Indiana? Do you have science advisors on your team presently, or have you thought about whom you might tap for that role if you win the nomination?
The Ninth District, with all of its professors, scientists and graduate students, is a fantastic resource for scientific consultation and advice and I intend to leverage it both during this campaign and when elected. I should acknowledge the following volunteers who helped me answer these questions:
Emma Clor, scientist from Franklin
Adam Reuter, scientist from Seymour
Jack Jenkins, PhD student in Physics at IU Bloomington
Josh Barnathan, PhD student in Physics/Biophysics at IU Bloomington
Jackie Trotier, intern and grad student at IUB who is devoted exclusively to public health issues and messaging
I intend to establish a scientific committee to assist me on matters of policy once in office, the members of which could consult in person or via video at regular intervals. This would have a dual benefit of providing me with scientific advice and giving members of the community hands-on experience with science policy.
As to the priorities for this District specifically, first and foremost, as discussed above, we need to make sure the EPA is doing its job. Examples of how this affects IN-09 abound, but one salient issue is that of coal ash ponds leaching harmful chemicals into groundwater in Morgan
and Floyd counties. A rollback of an Obama-era EPA rule has made it much easier for the companies responsible for such hazards to do nothing.
By Anne Hedin
Two major champions of the environmental movement visited IU Bloomington in January: Gina McCarthy, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama, and Janet McCabe, her colleague and EPA Acting Assistant Administrator, one of the lead architects of the Clean Power Plan.
If you missed Gina McCarthy's feisty speech on January 18, there is a video recording online, thanks to the Environmental Resilience Institute. The ERI and the Concerned Scientists @ IU co-sponsored both McCarthy’s and McCabe’s appearances. McCabe is now IU’s Assistant Director for Policy and Implementation at the ERI and Professor of Practice at the McKinney School of Law, IUPUI.
In her talk on January 25, McCabe spoke of the greatest threats facing the EPA and shared her view of where the Concerned Scientists group could have the greatest impact. Approximately 50 top-level people at the EPA (and other agencies) serve at the pleasure of the president and come and go with the administration, she said, but the civil servants and scientists remaining serve the mission of the agency. What is happening to them is a cause of great concern to her.
The EPA budget office has been cut 50%, to the detriment of funding for science. Morale is down and retirements – even from senior career positions – have increased. After one year in office, President Trump does not have a Science Advisor. The staff that carries on in the absence of a Science Advisor numbers 40 people. By contrast, Obama had a staff of 130 people in that office. EPA research used to be the gold standard in the courts and with policy makers. McCabe is worried that personnel losses and funding cuts will erode the credibility of EPA research. And what will happen to grad students and young scientists when grants go away?
McCabe’s advice to the scientists in the audience was to provide comments on proposed environmental rules, especially in areas such as clean fuel standards that the Trump administration has targeted. By law, the EPA has to respond to technical comments, to give reasons for accepting or rejecting them, and to cite evidence. Job impacts belong in the comments as well. By engaging in this fashion, scientists outside the agency can help ensure that proposed rules get the necessary level of scrutiny, thereby carrying some of the load for scientists inside the agency.
At the state level, for example, Indiana is scheduled to get $41 million from the Volkswagen emissions settlement, which is to be spent on mitigating damage due to burning diesel. McCabe urged the audience to look at a draft rule on the matter that IDEM (Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management) has just posted for public comment.
The role of scientist as citizen is more important than ever. McCabe recommended going to hearings and legislative meetings, writing op-eds and letters to the editor. Multiply your impact by volunteering to help the Hoosier Environmental Council analyze data and formulate talking points. Leverage resources such as the Environmental Protection Network (EPN.org) which focuses on budget documents and Denver-based Save EPA Alums (http://saveepaalums.info/Colorado+Impacts) which offers advice on rule-making and procedurals.
Last but not least: Keep doing science and keep the faith. The EPA’s 2009 Endangerment finding that greenhouse gases are pollutants has been challenged and upheld in court. So long as it remains in force, carbon dioxide has to be regulated.
Reprinted from Time to Choose Coalition newsletter, February 10, 2018
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS @ IU
in collaboration with
Union of Concerned Scientists,
Environmental Management & Sustainable Development Association (EMSDA), and
Students for Equity in Public Affairs (SEPA)
are proud to present
Union of Concerned Scientists
Are you a Scientist? An Advocate for Science? Proud of the work you do? We are! Join Concerned Scientists @ IU and Union of Concerned Scientists to let your member of Congress know that they should care too! Learn how to plan, conduct, and follow up on an in-person meeting with your United States senators. The training will be followed by opportunities to lobby in-district, including a lobby day the following day in Indianapolis on Friday, February 23rd.
Interested in taking part in the UCS/CSIU Lobby Day? RSVP and Questions:
Thursday, February 22, 12:30 – 2:00 PM
Room S201 (Patten Room) Geology Building
The workshop is free and open to all interested participants
Lunch will be provided!
What do the current candidates for office running in the 9th District think about Science and Science policy? Would you like an opportunity to hear their thoughts and ask questions?
CSIU will sponsor a Candidate's Forum on Science and Policy for 9th District House of Representatives candidates. The Forum will take place on Wednesday, March 28 from 6:30 to 8:30 pm at the Monroe County Public Library Auditorium. Democratic primary candidates Liz Watson, Dan Canon and Rob Chatlos are confirmed participants. We will be sending them, as well as all other candidates (including Trey Hollingsworth) who might want to supply written responses, a set of written questions at the beginning of March. These questions are envisioned to form the backbone of the Forum discussions, but will be interspersed with questions from written audience submissions either before or during the Forum.
You can find a video recording of Gina McCarthy's speech at Indiana University below, thanks to the Environmental Resilience Institute.
Union of Concerned Scientists
Defending science during the Trump Administration
Join the Concerned Scientists @ IU for a visit from Liz Schmitt of the Union of Concerned Scientists (Washington, DC) to find out how we’re working together to defend science, and scientists, from the latest attempts to sideline science in Washington. Get the latest update from Congress and the White House, and find out how you can get involved.
Thursday, September 14, 7:00 PM
State Room East, Indiana Memorial Union
Please join us for refreshments after the talk
For additional information about Concerned Scientists @ IU, please contact Michael Hamburger (firstname.lastname@example.org)