Pope Francis compares abortion to hiring a hitman

Pope Francis compared having an abortion to hiring a “hitman” and called the procedure always unacceptable on Saturday. 

“Is it legitimate to take out a human life to solve a problem?” he said Vatican conference according to The New York Times. “Is it permissible to contract a hitman to solve a problem?”

The pope characterized aborting an unhealthy fetus as “inhuman eugenics.” 

“Human life is sacred and inviolable and the use of prenatal diagnosis for selective purposes should be discouraged with strength,” Francis said, according to The Times. 

His remarks come as anti-abortion legislation sweeps across several U.S. states. In recent weeks, several state legislatures have advanced or passed bills outlawing abortion at about six weeks into a pregnancy. This month, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed a bill into law that would outlaw almost all abortions. 

On Friday, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) signed a bill on Friday prohibiting abortion at eight weeks into pregnancy. 

With the new legislation also comes a renewed debate in the U.S. around the issue, with several 2020 Democratic candidates proposing new ways to protect abortion rights. 

According to the National Catholic Register, a Catholic newspaper, Francis previously made the hitman comparison in October. 

Click Here:

Earthquake shakes parts of Tokyo before Trump arrival

An earthquake hit Japan on Saturday shortly before President TrumpDonald John TrumpPapadopoulos on AG’s new powers: ‘Trump is now on the offense’ Pelosi uses Trump to her advantage Mike Pence delivers West Point commencement address MORE arrived for his 4-day state visit, CNN reported.

The epicenter of the magnitude 5 earthquake was in Chiba, around 48 miles east of Tokyo, according to the country’s metrological agency.

Chiba is close to where Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe are scheduled to play golf on Sunday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The quake could be felt in Tokyo and caused buildings to shake, according to local media, but there is reportedly no visible damage and no threat of a tsunami.

Trump’s plane landed just before 5 p.m. local time at the Haneda Airport, with the president and first lady Melania TrumpMelania TrumpEarthquake shakes parts of Tokyo before Trump arrival Trump arrives in Japan to kick off 4-day state visit Trump to meet with Prince Harry during UK visit MORE greeted by multiple U.S. and Japanese officials on the tarmac, according to White House pool reports.

The president then headed to a reception with more than two dozen Japanese business leaders at the U.S. ambassador’s house.

Trump is also scheduled to attend a sumo tournament on Sunday after golf.

He is expected to offer a branded trophy, roughly 54 inches tall and weighing at least 60 pounds, to the champion. 

Click Here:

Kentucky to revisit language barring certain tattoos after backlash

Kentucky officials say they are revisiting a proposal that would restrict tattoo artists from creating tattoos that cover up scars after activists complained that the state’s language was too vague.

Department of Public Health (DPH) officials in the state said Friday that the proposed ban would have had “unintended consequences” for artists and consumers after the proposal faced backlash on social media.

“DPH plans to address the language regarding tattooing over scarred skin once the public comment period has ended on May 31st,” the department said in a press release, adding concerns about the proposed regulation “are being heard.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“We are glad to have the public’s input and we believe the final regulation will be improved by the comments we have received,” Dr. Jeffrey Howard said, adding that the ban would have “had some unintended consequences [that] will be addressed.”

The proposal, if put in place, would have barred tattoo artists from inking over any skin that was afflicted by a wide variety of skin conditions, including everything from basic acne to more serious medical scarring, The Courier-Journal reported.

Tattoo artists would be prohibited from performing “on skin which has a rash, pimples, evidence of infection, open lesions, mole, sunburn, or manifests any evidence of unhealthy conditions without written clearance by a medical physician licensed by the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure,” according to the proposal.

Officials announced the proposal earlier this month, while not providing any reasoning for the ban, according to the Courier-Journal.

Twitter users drew comparisons between the proposed ban and other state laws around the country restricting abortion services.

Click Here:

Trump denies knowledge of fake videos, says he can work with Pelosi

President TrumpDonald John TrumpPapadopoulos on AG’s new powers: ‘Trump is now on the offense’ Pelosi uses Trump to her advantage Mike Pence delivers West Point commencement address MORE on Friday said he was unfamiliar with doctored videos of Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPelosi uses Trump to her advantage Fake Pelosi video sparks fears for campaigns Trump goes scorched earth against impeachment talk MORE (D-Calif.) being shared on social media, saying he could “absolutely” work with the Democratic leader while accusing her of “not helping the country.”

“I don’t know about the videos. I can tell you that — what I’m here is to help the country,” Trump told reporters as he departed the White House for Japan.

Trump’s comments came one day after he retweeted a video from Fox Business Network that, while not doctored, had been selectively edited to combine clips of the California Democrat tripping over her words in a press conference.

The president shared the clip the same day that The Washington Post reported that videos altered to make Pelosi appear to be slurring her words have spread on social media at a rapid rate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump and Pelosi have been locked in a bitter war of words this week, exchanging insults and barbs amid an intensifying feud after the president walked out of a meeting at the White House.

The president was asked repeatedly on Friday whether his spat with Pelosi had gotten too personal. Trump said he can “absolutely” work with Pelosi moving forward, but simultaneously asserted she’s “not helping this country.”

Trump maintained that Democrats must abandon their investigations into his administration, campaign and finances before the two sides can work together on issues like infrastructure and drug pricing. But he indicated he’d be willing to come to the table once that happened.

“I can work with the Speaker,” Trump said. “Sure, I can work with the Speaker. I can absolutely work with [her].”

The president appeared particularly frustrated at the suggestion that he had instigated the escalating verbal spat.

“Did you hear what she said about me long before I went after her?” Trump responded after a reporter asked what he hoped to accomplish with “personal attacks” on Pelosi. “She made horrible statements. She knows they’re not true. She said terrible things, so I just responded in kind.

“Look, you think Nancy’s the same as she was? She’s not. Maybe we can all say that,” Trump continued. “I’m only speaking for myself, I want to do what’s good for the country. I think Nancy Pelosi is not helping this country. I think the Democrats are obstructionists. They’re hurting our country very, very badly.”

The growing divide between Trump and Pelosi was sparked Wednesday morning, when the president walked out of a planned meeting to discuss infrastructure after the Speaker accused him of being engaged in a “cover-up.”

Pelosi said Thursday at her weekly news conference that the president had used her comments as “an excuse” to abandon infrastructure negotiations. She has insisted Democrats can conduct investigations and work on legislation at the same time.

The Speaker went on to argue Trump is “crying out” to be impeached and suggested the president’s friends and family stage an “intervention.”

Trump was asked about her comments later Thursday at the White House, where he ratcheted up his attacks on Pelosi. He alleged that she could not grasp the complexities of trade policy while referring to himself as an “extremely stable genius.”

“I have been watching her for a long period of time,” Trump said of Pelosi. “She’s not the same person. She’s lost it.”

Click Here:

Judge halts Mississippi abortion law

A federal judge on Friday blocked a Mississippi law that banned abortions once a fetus’s heartbeat is detected, as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

Judge Carlton Reeves, an Obama appointee, wrote that the law “threatens immediate harm to women’s rights, especially considering most women do not seek abortion services until after 6 weeks.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“This injury outweighs any interest the state might have in banning abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat,” he wrote.

The law was set to go into effect on July 1.

Reeves had reportedly expressed anger and frustration during a court hearing on the law earlier this week. CNN reported Tuesday that the judge was upset over the rule not including exemptions for rape or incest.

Reeves reportedly pointed out that he struck down a 15-week ban on abortions just six months ago, saying the state legislature’s even stricter law “smacks of defiance.”

Reeves issued his ruling amid a national furor over strict abortion laws.

Several state legislatures in recent months have passed similarly restrictive laws blocking abortions early on in pregnancy. Alabama became the subject of national headlines earlier this month after lawmakers there passed the strictest abortion law in the country, effectively blocking the procedures altogether.

Many of the restrictive laws appear aimed at getting the Supreme Court to take up the issue, with the intent of overturning Roe v. Wade. Legal experts told The Hill that it’s unlikely the justices would overturn the landmark ruling on abortion rights at this time, but didn’t rule out it happening down the line.

Reeves’s ruling was issued as part of a lawsuit brought by the Jackson Women’s Health Organization against Mississippi officials. 

 

Mississippi Abortion Order by Jacqueline Thomsen on Scribd

 

Click Here:

Federal judge partially blocks Trump's $1 billion border wall plan

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction on Friday, partially blocking President TrumpDonald John TrumpPapadopoulos on AG’s new powers: ‘Trump is now on the offense’ Pelosi uses Trump to her advantage Mike Pence delivers West Point commencement address MORE‘s plan to fund a border wall with Mexico using money from the Defense Department.

California U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, who was appointed by former President Obama, issued the order, which does not fully halt construction but would limit additional border fencing to specific areas. It would also block the transfer of about $1 billion in Pentagon funds from various projects to pay for the construction of a wall.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Trump made an emergency declaration earlier this year to circumvent Congress and reallocate funding from the Defense Department to begin work on the wall.

The judge halted the Trump administration “from taking any action to construct a border barrier” using the reallocated Defense Department funds in parts of Arizona and Texas identified as Yuma Sector Project 1 and El Paso Sector Project 1.

Gillam argued “irreparable harm” would result if the administration were allowed to proceed while the case is pending.

“Because the Court has found that Plaintiffs are likely to show that Defendants’ actions exceeded their statutory authority, and that irreparable harm will result from those actions, a preliminary injunction must issue pending a resolution of the merits of the case,” he said in court.

Gillam cited the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches outlined in the Constitution, particularly Congress’s power of the purse, in making that determination.

“The position that when Congress declines the Executive’s request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds ‘without Congress’ does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic,” he wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which had asked the judge for the injunction in February on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition, celebrated its legal victory Friday. 

Click Here:

“This order is a win for our system of checks and balances, the rule of law, and border communities. The court blocked all the wall projects currently slated for immediate construction. If the administration begins illegally diverting additional military funds, we’ll be back in court to block that as well,” Dror Ladin, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in a statement.

The Sierra Club’s managing attorney, Gloria Smith, applauded the decision in a statement.

“Walls divide neighborhoods, worsen dangerous flooding, destroy lands and wildlife, and waste resources that should instead be used on the infrastructure these communities truly need,” she said. “The Sierra Club and our members are thrilled the courts put a rightful check on Trump’s abuse of emergency powers.”

The groups had argued in their lawsuit that Trump’s emergency declaration used to divert funding to the wall is unconstitutional.

“An injunction is necessary to prevent Defendants’ disregard for the statutes enacted by a coordinate branch of government, and their attempt to usurp its powers,” they argued when asking for the injunction. 

The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department and the White House for comment.

A wall along the U.S.-Mexico border was one of Trump’s campaign promises, and he initially pledged Mexico would pay for it. Funding for the proposed wall has since been a subject of debate among lawmakers and the administration.

Trump declared a national emergency in February to reallocate Defense Department funding to the border wall after Congress refused to provide him with his requested amount of funding for the project.

Trump admin investigating religious discrimination claims after Chick-fil-A excluded from airports

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) launched an investigation into two airports after they excluded Chick-fil-A from facilities. 

“The Department of Transportation has received complaints alleging discrimination by two airport operators against a private company due to the expression of the owner’s religious beliefs,” and the FAA said in a statement Friday.

“FAA’s Office of Civil Rights has notified the San Antonio International Airport (SAT) and Buffalo Niagara International Airport (BUF) that it has opened investigations into these complaints,” the administration added, noting that operators cannot exclude people on a religious basis if they receive FAA funds. 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

“We received a letter from the FAA advising us they were opening an investigation into the airport concessions contract,” City Attorney Andy Segovia told the San Antonio Express-News. “We will need time to review the letter and determine our course of action.”

Click Here:

The San Antonio City Council voted 6-4 in March to bar Chick-fil-A from the airport, citing the company’s anti-LGBTQ donations and history. Since then, Texas state lawmakers have introduced and advanced a “Save Chick-fil-A” bill that would prevent the government from punishing a person or company based on actions connected to a religious belief. 

Chick-fil-A told The Hill in a statement that it is “not involved” in the investigation.

“We are a restaurant company focused on food and hospitality for all, and we have no social or political stance,” the statement said. “We welcome and embrace all people, regardless of religion, race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.”

The Buffalo Niagra airport’s concessionaire Delaware North has also canceled plans for a Chick-fil-A at the airport, according to The Buffalo News. 

The Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority’s executive director said in a letter to commissioners obtained by The Buffalo News that “The decision not to move forward with Chick-fil-A at Buffalo airport was not made by the NFTA.”

Trump declassification move unnerves Democrats

Click:ecommerce web design

Click:polymer insulator

President TrumpDonald John TrumpPapadopoulos on AG’s new powers: ‘Trump is now on the offense’ Pelosi uses Trump to her advantage Mike Pence delivers West Point commencement address MORE‘s decision giving Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrPapadopoulos on AG’s new powers: ‘Trump is now on the offense’ House Democrats must insist that Robert Mueller testifies publicly Why Mueller may be fighting a public hearing on Capitol Hill MORE “full and complete authority” to declassify documents related to surveillance activities during the 2016 campaign has set off a wave of criticism in Washington.

Democrats and former intelligence officials are worried that the move could politicize the intelligence community and put sources and methods at risk, describing his action as “un-American” and “dangerous.” 

Trump on Friday defended his decision to grant Barr declassification authority in his investigation, declaring it would reveal the origins of special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Trump orders more troops to Mideast amid Iran tensions Trump: Democrats just want Mueller to testify for a ‘do-over’ Graham: Mueller investigation a ‘political rectal exam’ MORE‘s probe into Russia’s election interference. But Democrats, dismayed with Barr’s handling of the Mueller report, have raised concerns that the attorney general cannot be trusted with the task.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We still don’t have the full Mueller report, so of course the President gives sweeping declassification powers to an Attorney General who has already shown that he has no problem selectively releasing information in order to mislead the American people,” Sen. Mark WarnerMark Robert WarnerTrump declassification move unnerves Democrats Hillicon Valley: Assange hit with 17 more charges | Facebook removes record 2.2B fake profiles | Senate passes anti-robocall bill | Senators offer bill to help companies remove Huawei equipment Senators offer bipartisan bill to help US firms remove Huawei equipment from networks MORE (D-Va.), the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Friday.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffFive takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Trump declassification move unnerves Democrats Trump appeals order siding with House Democrats bank subpoenas MORE (D-Calif.) called the move “un-American.”

John McLaughlin, the former deputy director of the CIA during the George W. Bush administration, called it “a really bad idea” to give Barr declassification authority.

“The agencies can cooperate but must retain their legal responsibility for protecting sources,” McLaughlin tweeted late Thursday. “Congressional intelligence committees need to stand in the door on this one.”

The White House issued a memo Thursday evening directing the heads of U.S. intelligence agencies and several departments that include elements of the intelligence community to cooperate with Barr’s review into intelligence activities related to the 2016 presidential campaigns, which the attorney general has described as “spying.”

The memo also states that Barr has the authority to declassify information or intelligence relating to his probe. It instructs him to consult with the heads of intelligence agencies “to the extent he deems it practicable.”

The White House asserted that the declassification process would “restore confidence in our public institutions.”

Director of National Intelligence Dan CoatsDaniel (Dan) Ray CoatsFive takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Trump declassification move unnerves Democrats Hillicon Valley: Facebook co-founder calls for breaking up company | Facebook pushes back | Experts study 2020 candidates to offset ‘deepfake’ threat | FCC votes to block China Mobile | Groups, lawmakers accuse Amazon of violating children’s privacy MORE said in a statement on Friday that the intelligence community would provide the Department of Justice “all of the appropriate information” for its review. 

“I am confident that the Attorney General will work with the [intelligence community] in accordance with the long-established standards to protect highly-sensitive classified information that, if publicly released, would put our national security at risk,” Coats said.

Trump has espoused that his campaign was improperly surveilled by intelligence officials who were biased against him during the 2016 election, an unproven theory echoed by some of his conservative supporters. He has bandied the word “treason” to describe the origins of the Russia investigation, and on Friday defended the declassification order.

“People have been asking me to declassify for a long period of time,” Trump said as he departed the White House for Japan. “I’ve decided to do it and you’re going to learn a lot. I hope it’s going to be nice, but perhaps it won’t be.”

In Barr, Trump has found an attorney general who has lent credence to some of his long-standing beliefs. The attorney general sparked a furor when he said he believed “spying” occurred in 2016, but that he didn’t know if it was done improperly.

Democrats and FBI Director Christopher Wray are among those who balked at Barr’s use of the term “spying.”

Democrats have further raised concerns that Barr is acting more as Trump’s personal attorney than the nation’s top law enforcement officer. A number of Democratic senators called on Barr to resign after it became clear that Mueller felt Barr mischaracterized the special counsel’s findings.

“Trump dangerously politicizes intelligence declassification—giving his henchman AG sweeping powers to weaponize classified info against political foes,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) tweeted Friday. “No safeguards, no accountability, no respect for intel sources—a deeply perilous recipe to distract from mounting troubles.”

Trump scoffed at the suggestion that the attorney general was untrustworthy or potentially compromised, calling it “so false and so phony” to raise Mueller’s frustrations with Barr’s portrayal of his findings.

“The attorney general is one of the most respected people in this country, and he has been for a long period of time,” Trump said.

But former intelligence officials wondered whether Trump’s desire to unearth the origins of what he has frequently derided as a “witch hunt” will negatively affect the intelligence community’s ability to do its job.

James ClapperJames Robert ClapperTrump declassification move unnerves Democrats Comey: ‘The FBI doesn’t spy, the FBI investigates’ How I learned to love the witch hunt MORE, a former director of national intelligence and a regular target of Trump’s scorn, said Thursday that the Mueller report already made a significant amount of information public. He suggested further declassification “might risk jeopardizing sources and methods.”

But Trump’s allies in Congress hailed the president’s decision. Several Republicans praised it as a move in support of transparency, and suggested it would validate their claims of anti-Trump bias among former government officials.

“Americans are going to learn the truth about what occurred at their Justice Department,” Rep. Mark MeadowsMark Randall MeadowsFive takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Trump declassification move unnerves Democrats Conservative blocks House passage of disaster relief bill MORE (R-N.C.) tweeted.

Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamTrump declassification move unnerves Democrats Climate change is a GOP issue, too New Yorker cover titled ‘The Shining’ shows Graham, McConnell, Barr polishing Trump’s shoes MORE (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the declassification of documents “long overdue.”

“You’re going to find out the mentality of the people investigating the president,” he said on “Fox & Friends.” “You’re going to find out exactly what they did and said.”

Graham, who has made clear he intends to use his position to look into alleged surveillance abuses during the Obama administration, suggested the response when the documents are released will fall along partisan lines.

Click Here:

“You’ll be interested in it,” he told the Fox News co-hosts. “Not one Democrat will give a damn.”

Zuckerberg met with Winklevoss twins about Facebook developing cryptocurrency: report

Facebook founder and CEO Mark ZuckerbergMark Elliot ZuckerbergHillicon Valley: Facebook won’t remove doctored Pelosi video | Trump denies knowledge of fake Pelosi videos | Controversy over new Assange charges | House Democrats seek bipartisan group on net neutrality On The Money: Conservative blocks disaster relief bill | Trade high on agenda as Trump heads to Japan | Boeing reportedly faces SEC probe over 737 Max | Study finds CEO pay rising twice as fast as worker pay Zuckerberg met with Winklevoss twins about Facebook developing cryptocurrency: report MORE met with Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss recently as his company considers launching its own cryptocurrency.

Click Here:

The Financial Times reported Thursday that Zuckerberg met with the Winklevoss twins and executives with Coinbase, a popular online cryptocurrency exchange, as the company considers partnering with the company and others such as Gemini, the exchange founded by the Winklevoss brothers.

Zuckerberg’s past legal conflict with the twins was one of the defining plot points of “The Social Network,” the Academy Award-winning movie based on Zuckerberg’s rise to power as Facebook’s founder. The two brothers claimed in legal proceedings to have come up with the original idea for Facebook while students at Harvard with Zuckerberg.

Both Coinbase’s and Gemini’s spokespeople declined to comment to The Financial Times on discussions with Facebook.

At Facebook’s developer conference in April, Zuckerberg indicated that he was interested in Facebook becoming a tool for sending money quickly, a feature that would be a core part of the company’s entrance into the cryptocurrency realm.

“When I think about all the different ways that people interact privately, I think payments is one of the areas where we have an opportunity to make it a lot easier,” he said at the conference, according to CNBC.

“I believe it should be as easy to send money to someone as it is to send a photo,” he reportedly added last month.

Biden under pressure from environmentalists on climate plan

Former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenJames Carville: Biden represents ‘stability’ not ‘generational change’ Trump’s misspelling of Biden’s name trends on Twitter Trump says ‘I have confidence’ after past North Korea missile tests MORE is expected to unveil his climate change plan any day now, and he’s under increasing pressure from environmentalists who want him to take a strong position against fossil fuels.

The former Delaware senator has touted his decades-long environmental record in Congress and the Obama White House, but progressives argue that his approach to climate change is outdated and his record is anything but spotless.

Biden’s position on climate could open him up to further attacks from the left wing of the party and create an obstacle to winning the party’s nomination, especially since the environment is the main concern for liberal voters.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Joe Biden or any presidential candidate who wants to win over voters living though climate disasters today has to give us more than something he did 30 years ago,” said Charlie Jiang, climate campaigner for Greenpeace.

“Voters are going to be looking for candidates to make bold commitments and a fossil fuel phaseout,” he added. “If all Joe Biden has is to point to his record, that’s not good enough.”

According to media reports, his plan’s main goals will consist of keeping the U.S. in the 2015 Paris climate agreement and reversing the Trump administration’s rollback of Obama-era environmental rules.

Progressives and climate activists have criticized any approach that involves moderate or steady steps.

“This is a dealbreaker. There is no ‘middle ground’ w/ climate denial & delay,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezGOP amps up efforts to recruit women candidates Ocasio-Cortez, progressives trash ‘antisemitic’ Politico illustration of Bernie Sanders Biden under pressure from environmentalists on climate plan MORE (D-NY.) tweeted following reports that Biden’s plan would take a middle-of-the-road approach.

Biden has denied the characterization.

“You never heard me say middle of the road. I’ve never been middle of the road on the environment,” Biden told reporters in response to the criticism. “Tell her to check the statement that I made and look at my record.”

The record Biden has frequently pointed to since announcing his third White House bid includes a bill he authored in 1986 that’s considered by some to be the Senate’s first climate bill. The measure successfully pushed the Reagan administration to establish a climate task force.

“I’m proud to have been one of the first to introduce climate change legislation,’’ Biden tweeted in early May. “What I fought for in 1986 is more important than ever — climate change is an existential threat. Now. Today.”

But for environmentalists and the increasing number of liberal voters who see climate change as one of the biggest threats to public health, Biden’s record doesn’t prove he’s willing to do what it takes to stop global warming.

“It shows we knew back in 1986 that action needed to be taken, but for the rest of his time in the Senate and as vice president, the action was never really followed with the immediacy needed to combat climate change,” said Mitch Jones, climate and energy program director at Food and Water Watch. “It really shows his approach hasn’t changed over that time, but the problem has continued to get worse, and what needs to be done has only become more ambitious.”

Findings from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released last year warned that the world has about 10 years to stop the current rate of carbon emissions; otherwise, irreversible damage may follow. That study, combined with a handful of others released in the past year that back up the dire need for swift action, has most environmentalists looking for ambitious climate fixes instead of pragmatic, politically sound approaches.

“Biden is a person who in 2008 was backing things like clean coal. … And what he’s saying about what is forthcoming is largely pretty tepid,” said Varshini Prakash, co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate group that backs the progressive Green New Deal proposal on climate change.

“Biden’s middle-of-the-road approach is completely out of touch with the reality young people are seeing — we’re seeing massive super storms and hurricanes,” she said. “Our generation is clearly wondering whether we are going to have a future to graduate and grow up in.”

Some of Biden’s supporters in the Senate say he has evolved on climate from his decades on Capitol Hill.

“I think it’s important to note he left the Senate in January of 2009, a decade ago. And a lot has happened since … a lot more legislative vehicles to consider the challenge of climate change,” said Sen. Bob CaseyRobert (Bob) Patrick CaseyBiden under pressure from environmentalists on climate plan 2020 Democrats put spotlight on disabilities issues Why Congress needs to bring back tax deduction for worker expenses MORE (D-Pa.). “So I think he’ll be able to speak to what’s happened in the intervening 10 years.”

Casey also pointed to Biden’s work under former President Obama, including the Clean Power Plan, a capstone regulation to limit carbon emissions from coal fire plants.

“He was supporting all those policies. So I don’t think it ended with his Senate record,” Casey said.

But critics take issue with Biden’s role in shaping Obama’s climate policies. Many argue that Obama’s “all of the above” energy strategy, which pushed the use of “clean” natural gas over coal, was in some cases more harmful than helpful.

Click Here:

“The fact of the matter is it was the Obama administration that really pushed for fracked natural gas to become as big as it is in the U.S,” Jones said. “The Obama administration was what signed the lifting of the crude oil export ban, pushed for exporting natural gas.”

“This is not a legacy of the Obama administration that Biden should be embracing. It’s a legacy he should be distancing himself from,” Jones added.

Others raised concerns with who Biden has chosen as his campaign climate advisers. The list includes former Energy Secretary Ernest MonizErnest Jeffrey MonizBiden under pressure from environmentalists on climate plan Pelosi, Clinton among attendees at memorial reception for Ellen Tauscher 2020 is the Democrats’ to lose — and they very well may MORE and former top White House adviser on energy and climate change Heather Zichal — both from the Obama administration.

“His falling back with Obama advisers suggests that’s part of the problem. But it’s also a bit of who Joe Biden is when it comes to the policy and how he wants to position himself,” said Jones. “If you’re out there talking about middle ground, then you just really don’t understand the issue. Because with climate change, there isn’t a middle ground. It’s a ‘Which side are you on?’ moment.”

If anything, critics argue, Biden’s experience should make it clear to him that he can’t win progressive voters unless he offers a bold plan on climate.

“For someone running for president in 2019 — we really need to step up ambitions. In 2008 we didn’t think that plan was sufficient either, but the clock is ticking more so than ever before,” said Thanu Yakupitiyage, associate director of communications for the global climate campaign 350.org, founded by Bill McKibben. “For a candidate who has been engaged with this issue since the ’80s, Joe Biden should know better.”