Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority Leader, has not yet issued a public statement specifically reacting to President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As of the latest available information, there are no direct quotes or official responses from Jeffries regarding this appointment.
However, given the context, it’s likely that Jeffries, as a prominent Democrat, would have concerns about this nomination. Democrats and environmental groups have generally been critical of Trump’s environmental policies and appointments. Some key points to consider:
- Environmental Record: Zeldin’s voting record on environmental issues has been criticized by environmental groups. The League of Conservation Voters reported that Zeldin voted in favor of key environmental bills only 14% of the time during his tenure in Congress[3].
- Deregulation Agenda: Trump has emphasized that Zeldin will focus on deregulation to support American businesses[1][2]. This aligns with Trump’s previous approach to environmental policy, which prioritized economic growth over environmental protection.
- Climate Change Policies: Trump has signaled intentions to exit the Paris climate agreement and repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes significant climate-related provisions[2]. Zeldin would likely be instrumental in implementing these policy changes.
- Opposition from Environmental Groups: Several environmental organizations have expressed concerns about Zeldin’s appointment. For instance, Ben Jealous, leader of the Sierra Club, described Zeldin as “unqualified”[3].
Given these factors, it’s reasonable to expect that Jeffries, as a Democratic leader, would likely express opposition to this appointment, emphasizing concerns about potential rollbacks of environmental protections and climate change policies. However, without a direct statement from Jeffries, this remains speculative based on the general Democratic stance on Trump’s environmental policies and appointments.
Climate Change Spending in the USA
Recent Legislation and Spending
- Three recent laws have significantly increased climate-related spending:
- Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: $98 billion over 10 years
- CHIPS and Science Act: $54 billion for climate-related investment
- Inflation Reduction Act: $362 billion for climate and clean energy investments
- These laws will lead to over $500 billion in climate technology and clean energy spending over the next decade, more than tripling previous spending levels1.
Historical Spending
- Climate-related spending has increased significantly over time:
- 1990s and early 2000s: Relatively low levels of spending
- 2009-2017: Increased spending, but still much lower than current levels
- 2021 onwards: Dramatic increase due to new legislation
Specific Allocations
- The FY2025 budget requests $3 billion in discretionary funding for climate-related projects through the State Department and USAID3.
- New York City, as an example of local efforts, has allocated significant funds for climate initiatives in its FY2025 budget, including:
- $4 million for implementing and enforcing Local Law 97 (building emissions)
- $1.06 billion accelerated into the FY24-FY28 Capital Commitment Plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from city facilities
Here’s a neutral summary of the situation:
- Significant public funds have indeed been allocated to climate change initiatives over the years.
- Measuring the direct impact of this spending on global temperatures is challenging due to the complex nature of climate systems and the long-term nature of climate change.
- There is ongoing debate about the effectiveness of various climate policies and spending programs.
- Concerns about potential misuse or ineffective use of public funds are valid and part of important public discourse.
- Some argue that the lack of immediately measurable results in terms of temperature reduction doesn’t necessarily indicate fraud, as climate initiatives often have long-term goals and indirect effects.
- Others, like yourself, view the lack of clear, measurable outcomes as problematic and potentially indicative of mismanagement or worse.
- Transparency and accountability in public spending are crucial, regardless of the policy area.
- The effectiveness of climate spending remains a topic of ongoing research, debate, and public scrutiny.
This is a complex issue with various perspectives. It’s important for citizens to continue questioning and evaluating the use of public funds across all areas of government spending.
Citations:
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-taps-former-new-york-congressman-lee-zeldin-lead-epa
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-taps-lee-zeldin-lead-environmental-protection-agency-rcna179658
[3] https://www.npr.org/2024/11/11/nx-s1-5187039/trump-lee-zeldin-epa-environment
[4] https://abc7.com/lee-zeldin-tapped-to-lead-environmental-protection-agency-under-trump/15538455/
[5] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-taps-lee-zeldin-to-lead-epa
[6] https://cen.acs.org/environment/Trump-picks-Lee-Zeldin-lead/102/i36
[7] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/11/lee-zeldin-trump-epa-pick-00188852
[8] https://www.packagingdive.com/news/lee-zeldin-trump-epa-nominee-swana-nwra-plastic/733059/
[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msGU_iYsRfw
[10] https://www.edf.org/media/trump-taps-lee-zeldin-epa-administrator
[11] https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/11/11/trump-epa-lee-zeldin/
[12] https://www.perplexity.ai/elections/2024-11-05/us/president
Sources: Midtown Tribune