Kate Sheppard

Reporter

Kate Sheppard is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She was previously the political reporter for Grist and a writing fellow at The American Prospect. She can be reached by email at ksheppard (at) motherjones (dot) com.

Full Bio | Get my RSS | Follow @kate_sheppard

Her work has also been featured in the New York Times' Room for Debate blog, the Guardian's Comment Is Free, Foreign Policy, High Country News, The Center for Public Integrity, the Washington Independent, Washington Spectator, Who Runs Gov, In These Times, and Bitch. She was raised on a vegetable farm in southern New Jersey (yes, they do exist), but has adapted well to life in the nation's capital. She misses trees and having a congressional representative with voting power, but thinks DC is pretty great anyway.

Coal Exec Blames Obama As He Lays Off Miners

—By Kate Sheppard

| Fri Nov. 9, 2012 2:11 PM PST

Throughout the presidential campaign, Republicans repeatedly accused the Obama administration of waging a "war on coal." This despite the fact that the number of coal jobs is actually higher now than it was when President Obama took office, and that many of the reasons the industry has lost jobs in the past year have nothing to do with Obama—like the lower demand for coal because of cheap natural gas or declining quality in reserves.

Now that Obama won, at least one mining executive is aiming to make the "war on coal" real by laying off a bunch of workers. In Carbon County, Utah (yes, that's really its name), UtahAmerican Energy Inc. announced on Thursday that it has laid off 102 employees in response to Obama's reelection. It is a subsidiary of Murray Energy Corp., which is, as you may recall, the same company that told Ohio miners that they had to attend a Romney rally in August and that reportedly threatened employees' jobs if they didn't support the company's conservative-aligned political action committee.

The Deseret News reported on the layoffs, citing a statement from the company:

In its statement, UtahAmerican Energy blames the Obama administration for instituting policies that will close down "204 American coal-fired power plants by 2014" and for drastically reducing the market for coal.

"There is nowhere to sell our coal, and when we can, the market prices are far lower," the statement said. "Without markets, there can be no coal mines and no coal jobs."

Murray Energy also laid off 54 miners that worked for its American Coal subsidiary in southern Illinois on Wednesday. A Reddit poster says that he was among the workers laid off at one of those mines (he doesn't mention which). He posted a link to a press release that he says the company distributed to the laid off workers, as well as this statement:

I worked at a coal mine that decided today to layoff over 40 employees and the only reason that was given was that "America has betrayed coal miners" by re-electing President Obama. Despite the fact that nothing has changed in the two days since the election they decide to lay off employees. I've seen how corrupt the company can be over the years and am fairly certain the layoffs are just a way to make the President look bad.

The Washington Post reported today on the layoffs, which came directly from CEO Robert Murray, who read a prayer to staffers on the day after the election that said, "Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corp. for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build." Murray has been very clear about his political views. He doesn't like Obama. It's hard not to see the layoffs as political—especially since others in the coal industry aren't predicting quite the gloomy outlook that Murray is.

And in an ironic twist, one of the reasons coal demand is down in the US, according to the CEO of another coal company, is because warmer weather means people don't need to heat their homes as much.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

4 out of 5 House "Flat Earthers" Get the Boot

—By Kate Sheppard

| Thu Nov. 8, 2012 4:06 PM PST

Climate-lovers are happy about some of the hawks elected on Tuesday. But they're also cheering the unceremonious dismissal of several congressional climate villains. That includes four of the lawmakers that the League of Conservation Voters deemed the "Flat Earth Five" and spent $3 million to unseat:

1. Ann Marie Buerkle, a Republican from New York's 24th district. In 2010, Buerkle unseated Democratic incumbent Dan Maffei. But in a rematch this year, Maffai came out on top. Buerkle was a major target for environmental groups, thanks to her comments in a 2010 debate that "a lot of the global warming myth has been exposed." Cap and trade, she said, is a "tax on energy … based on some specious global warming. Whether or not there's real global warming has not been determined."

2. Francisco Canseco, a Republican from Texas' 23rd district. Canseco lost to challenger Pete Gallego in a race that included fights over rare eyeless spiders and the dunes sagebrush lizard. Canseco was not happy when the League of Conservation Voters went after his climate denial, telling a Christian news site, "It is really counterproductive to have a debate about whether or not there is climate change … What we should be having is a debate about policies that are promoted and implemented in the name of climate change and that negatively impact opportunities for our citizens and kill jobs."

3. Dan Lungren, a Republican from California's 7th district. Lungren, a four-term incumbent, appears to have lost his reelection bid to Democrat Ami Bera, though he is not conceding yet. He's wishy-washy on climate. "There is no doubt that there is global change, climate change," he said in a September debate. "The question is who causes it and is it caused predominantly by human activity."

4. Joe Walsh, a Republican from Illinois' 8th district. Walsh lost to Democrat and combat veteran Tammy Duckworth on Tuesday night, after a race that got pretty ugly. LCV targeted Walsh over his comments like "man's potential role in global warming has not been definitively determined." He has also said he thinks the government's only role in climate change should be to fund more science (which he would likely continue to ignore), and he thinks the Environmental Protection Agency "ought to be scrapped."

The fifth member of the "Flat Earth Five," Republican Dan Benishek of Michigan's 1st district, won by a narrow margin. Benishek, a physician who took office in 2011, says he's not really sure about this whole climate change thing. "I'm not sure how significant global warming is," he said at a debate last month. "You have to be very skeptical of science, OK?"

To be clear, there are still plenty of climate deniers in the House—these four just happen to be some of the loudest. "It's not just that these guys are deniers, but they're vocal in leading the charge against action on global warming," said Navin Nayak, LCV's senior vice president for campaigns. "The point of [the campaign] was to send a message. We took five races that were competitive and put real money behind trying to beat these guys."

5 Climate Hawks Who Won on Tuesday

—By Kate Sheppard

| Thu Nov. 8, 2012 12:48 PM PST

Screeeeeeee!

Climate-minded voters were pleased to see President Obama reelected on Tuesday, and to hear him call out "the destructive power of a warming planet" in his victory speech. But they also scored some notable wins in state houses and Congress this year. Here are five "climate hawks" that will take office in 2013.

1. Jay Inslee, Washington state's new governor (most likely). Inslee, a Democrat, who has represented Washington in the House of Representatives since 1993, has long been a champion of renewable energy and sound environmental policies. In 2007 he coauthored the book Apollo's Fire: Igniting America's Clean Energy Economy, on that very subject. He was a member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (back before the Republicans nixed it) and the co-chair of the House Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition. He was also a key figure in shaping the climate bill that passed the House in 2009. As governor, he has pledged to continue that leadership.

2. Martin Heinrich, New Mexico's next senator. Democrat Heinrich defeated Republican Heather Wilson in the race to succeed retiring Senator Jeff Bingaman. Heinrich authored the Clean Energy Promotion Act, a bill that would have expanded the number of renewable energy projects on public lands. (It didn't pass, but it was a nice idea.) Before joining Congress he was a board member of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance and was appointed to serve as the state's Natural Resources Trustee, who oversees the assessment and protection of the state's resources.

3. Angus King, Maine's next senator. King, an independent, is drawing attention because he won't say whether he plans to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans. But environmental groups are certain that he will be a strong voice for climate action, based on his record as governor of Maine. After leaving office, he went into the wind energy business, building a 50-megawatt wind farm in Oxford County. He won endorsements from the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club.

4. Pete Gallego, the next congressman from Texas' 23rd District. Gallego, a Democrat, defeated Republican incumbent Quico Canseco in this very close House race that featured fights about Jesus and a rare, eyeless spider. An outside group sent a mailer to voters accusing Gallego of siding with "left-wing extremists" in the debate over protecting this spider's habitat from the construction of a new highway. Gallego won the endorsement of the League of Conservation voters based on his record of, in his own words, promoting a "robust, environmentally-friendly economy."

5. Carol Shea-Porter, the once-and future-congresswoman from New Hampshire's 1st District. Shea-Porter served two terms in the House but lost her seat to Republican Frank Guinta in the tea-party surge of the 2010 election. She reclaimed it on Tuesday, rallying support with a poignant appeal for action on global warming: "If Americans want to fix this climate change problem, they will first need to fix Congress in November."

California Approves Clean Energy Measure; Michigan Voters Nix Theirs

—By Kate Sheppard

| Wed Nov. 7, 2012 12:46 PM PST

For green energy fans, Tuesday's vote on state-level ballot measures was a mixed bag. Michiganders voted down a measure to increase the state's clean energy mandate, while California voters approved an increase in taxes on out-of-state businesses in order to fund clean energy projects.

More on the Michigan measure, which aimed to raise the state's renewable energy standard to 25 percent by 2025, from the Detroit News:

With most precincts reporting, 63 percent of voters opposed the measure.

"Obviously, we're pretty happy with what we're seeing," said Steve Transeth, the former head of the Michigan Public Service Commission who has worked to defeat the ballot measure. "As we've said all along, it's very important we move forward with clean energy and a clean environment. But this proposal was just not the way to go about it."

Proposal 3 represented a doubling-down on renewable energy after state legislators voted in 2008 to reach a 15 percent standard by 2015. Those backing the ballot measure claimed the new standard would not only accelerate Michigan's move away from environmentally-damaging fossil fuels, but create jobs and investment from the construction and maintenance of wind turbines.

There was better news out of California, where voters approved Proposition 39. The measure is expected to generate $1 billion a year that will fund clean energy and other state programs by closing a loophole that currently allows out-of-state businesses to avoid some taxes. From the Sacramento Bee:

The initiative was leading 59 percent to 41 percent late Tuesday with 43 percent of the vote counted.

Proposition 39 was backed almost entirely by billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, who spent $32 million on the campaign.

The initiative would initially pump $500 million into the state budget and education in the first half of 2013. Thereafter, it would also devote about $500 million for clean energy, in addition to $500 million for the budget and education each year.

Gay Marriage Finally Wins at the Polls

—By Kate Sheppard

| Wed Nov. 7, 2012 12:23 AM PST

Tuesday was an historic first for gay marriage—three times over.

Voters in Maryland, Maine, and Washington all approved ballot measures—by significant margins—allowing gay marriage in their states. Never before have voters gone to the polls in any state and directly approved gay marriage.

Maryland's vote affirms the state legislature's passage of same-sex marriage in February. Maine's reverses a 2009 referendum that blocked gay marriage. Washington state's decision to approve marriage equality builds on its 2009 vote that expanded domestic partnerships to something called, at the time, "everything but marriage."

Meanwhile, marriage rights advocates await a final tally in Minnesota, where a ballot measure asked voters whether to amend the state constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage. Since the state already has a law banning same-sex marriages, a defeat of the measure wouldn't make gay marriage legal. But it would prevent the state from erecting yet another obstacle to approving them in the future.

UPDATE, 12:40 PDT: Minnesotans have defeated the attempt to amend the state's constituition to ban gay marriage, giving four victories to same-sex marriage supporters.