US senator warns of fossil fuel coup, economic reckoning
In an interview, Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island blamed the sweeping rollback of environmental protections on a flood of unlimited, anonymous corporate political spending, and said exposing the scale of this "fraud" is key to breaking its grip.
His remarks came as the death toll from catastrophic flooding in Texas linked by scientists to climate change threatened to surge further.
"This isn't even government any longer," the 69-year-old told a small group of reporters ahead of an address to Congress Wednesday -- his 300th so-called "Time to Wake Up" speech, delivered as activists reel from Trump's actions.
"This is an occupying force from the fossil fuel industry that has injected itself into the key positions of responsibility," said the lawmaker.
"It has the appearance of being government -- they ride around in the black cars... they have the offices, they have the titles," he said. But in reality, "they're fossil fuel flunkies... and they care not a whit for public opinion or public safety."
Big Oil spent at least $445 million to help elect Trump, according to a recent analysis by Climate Power, which said its figure was likely a vast underestimate because of undisclosed donations.
- Dark money takeover -
In his second term, Republican Trump has pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord, gutted science agencies, fired researchers and forecasters, scrapped his predecessor Joe Biden's clean energy tax cuts and rolled back powerplant and vehicle efficiency standards.
Whitehouse calls it the oil, coal and gas industry's "most sordid dreams come true" and says the stage was set by the 2010 Supreme Court "Citizens United" ruling, which unleashed an era of unchecked corporate political spending.
A former state attorney general who battled corporate polluters, he recalled that when he first joined the Senate, climate bipartisanship flourished: John McCain, the GOP's 2008 presidential nominee, had "a perfectly respectable climate platform," while Republican senators proposed bills.
"These weren't little tiddlywinks, nibble-at-the-edges bills," he recalled, but would have genuinely changed the trajectory of climate emissions.
Citizens United reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and opened the floodgates to dark money.
"They were able to come into the Republican Party and say, 'We will give you unlimited amounts of money. You will have more money in your elections than you've ever seen before.'"
- The way forward -
Despite the bleak landscape, Whitehouse still sees a narrow path to climate safety — and points to several potential game changers.
First, he cites the possible emergence of a global carbon pricing effort, spearheaded by the European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which taxes importers based on their climate footprint.
Countries like the UK, Canada, Mexico and Australia could join this movement, creating a de facto global price on carbon, enforced through trade -- without US legislation.
Second, he says, Democrats can and must expose fossil fuel's stranglehold on the Republican party, a phenomenon he calls one of the "most grave incidents of political corruption and fraud that the country has ever seen," and pass a bill forcing donor transparency.
Third, what was once framed as a crisis for polar bears -- and later as an opportunity for green jobs -- is today directly hitting Americans where it hurts most: their wallets.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has warned that climate change will shrink mortgage availability across swaths of the United States in the coming years as banks and insurers retreat from fire- and flood-prone regions.
Risks could cascade from an insurance crunch into a broader mortgage collapse -- potentially triggering a 2008-style crash.
Whitehouse predicts the fossil fuel industry's hold on Republicans won't last forever.
"When it becomes clear what has been done here, then there's going to be a dramatic reset," he said. "A reckoning will come for this. There's no doubt about it -- it's just the nature of human affairs."
Trump himself, he added, was merely swept along by the dominant current of the post-2010 Republican Party, with no ideological stake in the issue. As recently as 2009, he co-signed a full-page advertisement in the New York Times demanding stronger climate action from then president Barack Obama.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
13 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Warning from Washington: Speak out about Chinese threat or risk AUKUS subs
Washington: Australia must speak more clearly about the threats posed by China, including how it would respond to a regional conflict, or risk the AUKUS submarine agreement, Indo-Pacific experts in the United States are warning. John Bolton, who served as Donald Trump's national security adviser in his first term, and held senior roles in other Republican administrations, said policymakers in Washington had noted the Albanese government was 'less vocal about what the problem is' compared with its predecessors. 'It is a little hard to get used to,' Bolton said in an interview. 'In the Cold War days, Labour governments in Great Britain were just as anti-communist as the Conservatives. When you see a leftist government that's not willing to talk as openly about what the real threat is, it does make some people nervous. 'I would be less than fully candid if I said it didn't make me a little nervous. Why the hell are we worried about talking about what the threat is? The struggle is on, and we ought to be candid about it.' Naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the AUKUS review was about putting Australia on notice that the US expected Australia to use the submarines it bought. 'The Australians have been a little reticent to explicitly call out that they might use them against China,' he told this masthead. 'If you're not willing to say it in public, then you're not going to put the Chinese on notice. It has been privately conveyed in the past, but the US would like Australia to make it more public.' Clark noted – as have other prominent defence experts in Washington – that AUKUS represented a significant portion of the Australian defence budget, especially at the current level of defence spending. 'That's the concern in the US – that you're spending 10 to 20 per cent of your procurement budget on this one system, yet you're not talking about how you might use it,' he said.
The Age
13 minutes ago
- The Age
Warning from Washington: Speak out about Chinese threat or risk AUKUS subs
Washington: Australia must speak more clearly about the threats posed by China, including how it would respond to a regional conflict, or risk the AUKUS submarine agreement, Indo-Pacific experts in the United States are warning. John Bolton, who served as Donald Trump's national security adviser in his first term, and held senior roles in other Republican administrations, said policymakers in Washington had noted the Albanese government was 'less vocal about what the problem is' compared with its predecessors. 'It is a little hard to get used to,' Bolton said in an interview. 'In the Cold War days, Labour governments in Great Britain were just as anti-communist as the Conservatives. When you see a leftist government that's not willing to talk as openly about what the real threat is, it does make some people nervous. 'I would be less than fully candid if I said it didn't make me a little nervous. Why the hell are we worried about talking about what the threat is? The struggle is on, and we ought to be candid about it.' Naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the AUKUS review was about putting Australia on notice that the US expected Australia to use the submarines it bought. 'The Australians have been a little reticent to explicitly call out that they might use them against China,' he told this masthead. 'If you're not willing to say it in public, then you're not going to put the Chinese on notice. It has been privately conveyed in the past, but the US would like Australia to make it more public.' Clark noted – as have other prominent defence experts in Washington – that AUKUS represented a significant portion of the Australian defence budget, especially at the current level of defence spending. 'That's the concern in the US – that you're spending 10 to 20 per cent of your procurement budget on this one system, yet you're not talking about how you might use it,' he said.
ABC News
13 minutes ago
- ABC News
Labor and the Coalition have very different ideas about ties to the United States
The prime minister's well-telegraphed announcement this week that Australia will recognise a Palestinian state surprised precisely no one in the end. Nor did the opposition's rejection of this diplomatic step. But the arguments from both sides this week revealed more than just a foreign policy split over the Middle East. The growing divide over how deferential Australia should be towards the United States has become a chasm. The prime minister and opposition leader have expressed starkly different views on whether Australia should be prepared to "break" with its great ally on such a major foreign policy question. The partisan divide over how closely to align with the US has been steadily building since Donald Trump's return to the White House. The Albanese government remains committed to the US alliance. It wants AUKUS to survive the ongoing Pentagon review and is confident it will. But at the same time, the prime minister is demonstrating greater independence from the US than any of his recent predecessors would have dared. The unpopularity of Trump in Australia has allowed him the room to move. Australia and the United States are now at odds on climate change (Albanese is sticking with net zero and the Paris Agreement), trade (Trump's tariffs are "not the act of a friend") and defence spending (Australia is resisting US calls to reach a 3.5 per cent of GDP target). In his John Curtin oration last month, Albanese spoke of this greater independence within the US alliance as a virtue. He sees a more sovereign stance benefiting Australia's relations in the region and Labor's political standing at home. When pressed this week on the implications of splitting with the US on Palestinian recognition, the prime minister's response was revealing. "We make our sovereign decisions as a nation state in Australia's national interest, and we are aligning ourselves with like-minded countries," he said. "Sovereignty" and "national interest" carry a patriotic appeal. Aligning with "like-minded countries" refers to the UK, Canada, France who have all committed to Palestinian recognition. The US, notably, is not regarded as "like-minded" here. Australia has been increasingly siding with this "like-minded" group as western nations navigate the turbulence of Trump. In statements condemning Israel, in discussions about how to support Ukraine without the US, on climate and trade — this "like-minded" coalition is finding more common ground. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley's view of how Australia should prioritise the US relationship could not be more different. The Coalition is already more closely aligned to Trump's world view on a range of fronts. It's considering joining Trump in dropping the net zero target. On trade, it seeks to blame the Albanese government, at least in part, for Trump's tariffs. On defence spending, the Coalition's pledge to reach a 3 per cent of GDP target was re-stated immediately after the election, while everything else remains under review. Barely a day goes by when the opposition isn't criticising the prime minister failing to secure a face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office. The Coalition views this as vital. It derided the length of Albanese's recent visit to China, on the grounds he should be in Washington instead. On Palestinian recognition, the opposition leader revealed just how heavily she thinks the US relationship should weigh in Australia's thinking. "There can be no breaking with our closest ally," Ley declared at a press conference after a shadow cabinet decision to oppose and reverse Palestinian recognition. "It's disrespectful of the relationship with the US," she told 2GB. Shadow Finance Minister James Paterson, incidentally, struck a somewhat different tone. While also strongly criticising the government's decision, he told Sky News Australia "of course, Australia's foreign policy is a matter for Australia, and we should decide it consistent with our own national interest, regardless of what our friends or allies might say". It was an acknowledgement the Coalition's position should still be framed as a sovereign decision, not one driven by deference to the United States. For his part, Trump is clearly not in favour of Palestinian recognition while Hamas remains in place and before a peace process. He agrees with those who argue recognition only rewards Hamas. He dismisses the significance of momentum amongst US allies who have taken this step. But Australia's decision to join the list hasn't caused much of a reaction from Trump at all. Indeed, the level of presidential concern appears to be subsiding as more allies take this step. A White House official told the Nine newspapers while the president's position is clear, he "is not married to any one solution as it pertains to building a more peaceful region". Still, Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. He may well say something much stronger if directly asked. This difference over Palestinian recognition could add to strains in the Australia-US relationship. The Albanese government has no doubt factored in that risk, along with all the other risks that go along with the decision to recognise a Palestinian state. The fear of upsetting Trump, however, isn't stopping US allies from moving towards Palestinian recognition. And here in Australia, this decision has exposed an even wider gap between the prime minister and opposition leader over whether "breaking with our closest ally" is OK. David Speers is national political lead and host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview.
