Dear Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, et al,
If I understand correctly, the formal articles of impeachment used to remove someone from office can include any number of relevant charges and offenses. Indeed, I can see from some extremely thorough Wikipedia research that there were two articles of impeachment for Bill Clinton, three were written up for Richard Nixon before his resignation rendered them moot, and Andrew Johnson was rewarded for his general awfulness with eleven articles of impeachment.
Given that, I have some thoughts.
Article I: For conspiracy to commit (a shitload of) murder
By the Trump administration’s own EPA’s accounting, its overhaul of regulations on coal-fired power plants designed essentially to prop up a dying industry will kill as many as 1,400 people each year by 2030. This is due to the fine particulate matter that is emitted from coal plants, causing respiratory illnesses, heart disease, and many other health problems. Along with the 1,400 murders, this article would also cover the conspiracy to give 15,000 people new upper respiratory problems and cause tens of thousands of missed school days.
This is not some unfortunate byproduct of an industrialized society. Coal is on its way out thanks to the market anyway (not to mention the urgent moral and societal demand to stop burning fossil fuels yesterday), but the regulations put in place by previous administrations were both helping to usher its demise and also helping to not kill people. This was a proactive murder decision. They knew, without any doubt, that relaxing regulations would hurt actual people, kill actual people, and they did it anyway. I am no legal expert, but can you think of a higher crime?
Article II: For conspiracy to give your kid brain damage
Years after the EPA began to try and restrict the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos thanks to its apparent potential to harm people, children in particular, the Trump admin announced it would not ban the chemical. They had ample scientific reason to make this decision.
LOL just kidding, they had NO such reason. A federal court has said the EPA has no justification for the move. Former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt rejected his own agency’s science in 2017, just kinda unilaterally deciding they would conduct further review, though everyone knew what “further review” meant in this scenario.
All this for a chemical that has been shown to cause IQ deficits and memory problems in children even at low or moderate levels of exposure. Pregnant women exposed to chlorpyrifos have children who are more likely to develop autism. And once again, the wheels had already been turning to stop this bullshit.
Article III: For conspiracy to commit… I dunno, genocide? Can we do war crimes here?
As promised during his campaign, Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017. This can’t be fully implemented until next year, but the message was clear: the U.S. will not participate in international efforts to send oil drilling experts Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck up to an asteroid on a collision course with the earth, in spite of the obviously better idea of training actual astronauts how to drill a hole.
But seriously, this decision, and the overall administration position of “fuck your climate, we’re rich” is an ongoing crime against humanity. Impeach, but then consider the Hague.
Article IV: For general, unbridled scientific stupidity
I know this is not a crime. But it should be. I mean:
Not just that. The whole Hurricane Dorian/NOAA thing. It’s just so mindbogglingly dumb, so incredibly inane and absurd and just stupid. It’s also dangerous, of course: the next time a hurricane bears down on some deep red part of the Gulf Coast or wherever, people are going to stay home instead of following NOAA’s evacuation order because the president himself has not shown up on Hannity to tell them to leave. “NOAA was wrong the last time,” they’ll think, because a sentient pile of eraser shavings they worship like it’s Huītzilōpōchtli hasn’t yet told them the storm battering their front door is real.
But seriously his science advisor is an extreme weather expert.
Do not think that because I have run out of steam on this list of impeachable scientific offenses that there are not in fact more of them. There are. All those deregulatory actions, all those reports of scientists being silenced or fired or reassigned, the purges of certain words from websites and other words from peer-reviewed research from government scientists—I’d love to hear someone try to explain why these things don’t represent clear violations of the Constitution, or of individuals’ rights.
Nancy, Jerry, don’t skimp on your list. You might even get Trump to shut up for a minute if you tell him he beat out Andrew Johnson for the biggest, the best, the most amazing articles of impeachment. We love it, don’t we folks.
random bits
If you want to get a more full accounting, check out the Union of Concerned Scientists report on The State of Science in the Trump Era. It’s uh, uplifting reading.
Bill McKibben, who wrote probably the first popular book about climate change way back in the late 1980s (The End of Nature), gave up journalism for advocacy many years ago. That doesn’t mean he still can’t write circles around most other people on climate: read his latest in the New Yorker, an excellent, sobering, and occasionally hopeful piece about pressuring the real villains—big banks—to divest from fossil fuels.
If you press the little heart button on this post, and/or share it on Twitter or Facebook, I will personally send you one dollar out of the Equifax settlement money you know we’re all getting. Thank you.
notes from [gestures around]
All I’ve got right now is these two tweets:
Really good gecko, right? Well:
There’s another one of those cockroaches in our bedroom right now. [Sad face emoji]
Find me: