Bill Maher: "Donald Trump is like climate change - We knew it was coming, we didn't do anything about it, and now it's too late" - PLUS: Former general Michael Hayden says in a conversation with Bill Maher that the US military would refuse to obey "unlawful orders" by a President Trump

By Patrick

The US public, the US media and the GOP-candidates finally start to take Donald Trump more seriously, but is it too late? Bill Maher and his guests explored this question in a fascinating conversation, which is well worth watching. Bill Maher states that "Donald Trump is like climate change - We knew it was coming, we didn't do anything about it, and now it's too late." The website "Mediaite" also published the following clip.

Watch:

Also, in this clip, one of his guests asks whether Bill Maher really believes if Marco Rubio would be a better president than Donald Trump. In his reply, Bill Maher sort of "denies" that Rubio would be better, but at this point I have to "pull a Scalia" and strongly voice my dissent: Yes, Marco Rubio would be indeed a much, much better President than Donald Trump, because he is not an insane and unhinged fascist. Which, however, does not mean that Rubio would be a good President!

Today, a very interesting conversation that Bill Maher had with retired former four-star general and former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden made headlines. There is a very good reason that this conversation gets quite a lot of attention, because what Michael Hayden said was indeed quite "explosive."

The "Wall Street Journal" reports:

WASHINGTON – Retired Gen. Michael Hayden, who recently led the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, said the U.S. military would likely refuse to follow certain orders from Donald Trump if he is elected to the White House in November and follows through on campaign promises.

“I would be incredibly concerned if a President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that Candidate Trump expressed during the campaign,” Gen. Hayden said during an interview will Bill Maher on Friday.

Mr. Trump, the frontrunner in the GOP primary, has vowed to use torture techniques against suspected terrorists if he wins the White House, going beyond waterboarding and doing things he described as a “hell of a lot worse.”

He has also suggested he would order U.S. forces to kill the family members of terrorists, a charge that some have alleged would be in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Gen. Hayden, who had been an adviser to the presidential campaign of Jeb Bush, said the military would be required to refuse to obey these orders if Mr. Trump handed them down from the White House.

“You are required not to follow an unlawful order,” Gen. Hayden said. Some of Mr. Trump’s proposals “would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.”

Watch:

This statement by Michael Hayden did not come as a surprise to me, as I assume that many, if not most members of the military establishment will have similar thoughts. These are soldiers who were educated according to the values of the Western world, and the pure thought that a US President would make gross violations of the Geneva Convention like gruesome torture and summary executions (and potentially even worse) his "official policy" will certainly give some people in the military sleepless nights.

These are people who also studied closely how for example the German Army was abused by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, how professional soldiers, who were in many cases even opposed to the Nazis, fulfilled the demands of a ruthless dictator over and over again and openly resisted only when it was too late.

I do not believe that the US military would allow such a thing to happen in their own country.

Finally, as so often, some cartoons about Donald Trump. He just provides too much material...

Have a good weekend, everybody!

Finally, the last cartoon is particularly remarkable, because it is from 2015, and I think some of these predictions already came true...

Boots-on-the-ground at the People's Climate March in NYC

by BlueberryT

Climate change is a global crisis that is also emerging as the unifying issue of our time. Slow to become visible and the subject of a deliberate disinformation/denial campaign, nevertheless most people now recognize that all life on the planet is affected in some way – and "there is no Planet B.” This is obviously a huge challenge and threat, but also offers a remarkable opportunity to unite causes that have not worked together before, but are now recognizing that this is a common cause.

Climate change and its impacts are very complex. The earth's oceans are acidifying and warming, adversely affecting shellfish and ocean ecology and affecting climate patterns in complex ways that we don't yet fully grasp. Deforestation and melting permafrost release even more heat-trapping gases, creating adverse “feedback loops.” Glaciers that keep rivers flowing are disappearing, threatening ecosystems and the water supplies of many millions of people. Those living on islands and along coastlines are in danger of massive “superstorms,” storm surges, rising sea levels and saline encroachment into drinking water. Tornadoes and microbursts are frequent, severe and widespread. Indigenous people see their ways of life destroyed by intensive resource extraction and pollution. Farmers are experiencing severe droughts that may last decades. Wildfires threaten public lands and private property. Excessive groundwater pumping is depleting critical aquifers and causing shifts in the land. Native plant and wildlife communities are disrupted. Invasive plants and animals are spreading. So is disease. (More here on disease.) No area on earth is immune from adverse impacts.

No one is immune from impacts, either. People like our dear friend nycgirl, who lives in the Rockaways in New York, have already felt the brunt of this slow-moving global disaster. Superstorm Sandy was a wake-up call – horrors, even Wall Street was underwater! Our friends in California are in the midst of an extreme drought, affecting crops and water supply and worsening wildfires, with the increasing probability that this may evolve into a very long-term "megadrought."  In my own region, the five most extreme floods ever recorded on our rivers have occurred since 1987; one was ~30% higher than any prior flood, causing several deaths and extensive damage. We also have experienced numerous severe microbursts and even tornadoes, which are a new phenomenon in this area. Extreme weather is not unusual any more; it is becoming the norm. Many communities in the midwest “tornado belt” have been flattened. And that's just in the U.S. - the damage in countries around the world is just as extreme, if not more so.

There were early warnings of the crisis; most were ignored. In the 1970s and 1980s, scientists reported on climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988, but in 1989 the fossil fuel industry formed the deceptively named “Global Climate Coalition” to undermine confidence in scientific findings about global warming. IPCC's first report in 1990 stated that the globe was warming and future warming appeared likely. In 1992, the UN developed a Framework on Climate Change, but the U.S. Blocked meaningful action. In 1995, the IPCC issued their second report, expressing with more certainty that global warming was occurring and would accelerate in the coming century; this coincided with reports of the Antarctic ice sheet beginning to break up, attracting more public attention to the issue. The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 set emissions reduction targets, but the U.S. did not join the protocol. In 2000 the Global Climate Coalition dissolved as corporate interests began to split on the issue; for example, insurance companies recognized that increased storm damage represented a threat to their interests. The next year, the third IPCC report was even more conclusive, putting an end to the “debate” about climate change except among those who have a vested interest in denial.

Over the past decade, scientific findings have expressed increasing confidence and consensus not only that climate change is real, but that human activity is a significant contributing factor and that the need to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases is urgent. Many reports, books, videos and films as well as organizations and websites have brought the issue into the mainstream; Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth played a key role in educating the public. Public awareness was also galvanized by huge, impossible-to-gloss-over events like Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. The most recent IPCC report used the most urgent language yet, indicating that anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) is fully upon us and will dramatically worsen without immediate, effective action.

At the same time, the issue has become increasingly politicized as right-wing media and fossil-fuel interests implemented a strategic disinformation campaign to undermine the science and thwart global action. Due largely to our political dysfunction, the U.S. has until recently been the biggest impediment to meaningful action at a global scale. President Obama is trying to change that. It is my hopeful speculation that the politicization will bite the GOP where it hurts (in the voting booth), as it becomes increasingly apparent that they are promoting a fringe, extremist position.

Thankfully, there is a growing convergence of world leaders, businesses, environmentalists, peace and economic justice activists and others working together on this issue. Bill McKibben, Al Gore and other climate change activists are now joined by an increasing number of local, state, national and international leaders, including United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, whose call-to-action was a key driver of the People's Climate March. Equally important are those whose names we don't know – the millions of indigenous people, farmers, fishermen, students and teachers, cab-drivers, waitresses, medical professionals, linesmen, emergency responders, parents and grandparents, and grassroots activists – all those who care about the future enough to take to the streets of New York or other cities, towns and villages around the world to bring the “debate” about climate change to a close and move forward with truly bold action to reduce and address its consequences.

Of course, as the movement to address climate change broadens and enlists more of the power elite, it runs the risk of being co-opted, papering over core issues such as resource exploitation and pollution, and mixing positives and negatives in what might be presented as a “balanced approach.” 

I credit the President Obama for addressing several plenary sessions on climate change, promising bold action, presenting a plan to address climate change and implementing far-reaching executive actions to move forward without Congressional action, which is blocked by GOP obstruction. His message at the United Nations this week was powerful and provocative.  (Here is the video.) He touted significant progress in the United States to reduce emissions while also taking responsibility for our role in creating these problems and committing to lead efforts to address these problems. He called for a strong international effort and pushed China to take more responsibility to reduce emissions. I am very gratified that he explicitly acknowledged the marchers and said that "we cannot pretend that we don't hear them." Yes! It was a strong speech, stating definitively that the U.S. is committed to combating climate change. 

However, we cannot ignore the fact that his administration has also facilitated fracking, expanded drilling, including in sensitive off-shore environments, and re-subsidized nuclear energy. Let's be frank: these policies inherently conflict and attempt to offer palliatives to all interests, which serves none of us well. The President and his administration need to stop supporting these dirty energy sources, to bring their actions in line with their rhetoric.

Despite these conflicts and the risks of co-opting climate change, there is real progress. This is a truly international issue and effort, and the shift to renewable energy (RE) is accelerating; some countries are achieving remarkable results. Germany, for example, now produces 28.5% of its energy from renewables with short-term RE production at new record highs.  In the U.S., the percentage of new power generation from renewables is growing fast; this is also true internationally. Energy efficiency standards are helping to bring down emissions in the electricity, water, transportation and building sectors. Because money interests are behind the exploitation of fossil fuels, divestment is key. Thus the news this week that the Rockefeller Foundation is divesting of its fossil fuel industry holdings sends a really important message. As with other divestment campaigns, this is gaining steam and goes to the heart of the underlying financial interests that have so much power. Here is more on how college students have propelled the divestment campaign. 

Climate change is also now an issue with some seriously wealthy backers who have the resources to challenge the Koch Brothers. Former NYC Mayor Bloomberg has been an outspoken advocate and financial supporter, and helped build a coalition of mayors to fight climate change. Tom Steyer has also put his money where his mouth is, and worked to bring others into the fray, directly fighting back against Koch Brothers dollars. 

The People's Climate March was a huge event and will hopefully represent a “political tipping point,” which was the intent of people from Bill McKibben to Ban Ki-moon.  I'll recap my experience below, but first I want to mention that there were so many climate change actions in New York last week and this week that it was amazing! There were several “plenary sessions” with grassroots leaders from around the world. There were programs focusing on indigenous people, women as leaders of climate change action, corporatism's role in climate change, the nexus of climate change with social and economic justice, the role of faith-based organizations, and many more. This was an amazing organizing feat; kudos to 350.org and others who handled the logistics. Not only is the United Nations convening its summit on climate change, but the Clinton Foundation's Global Initiative is holding a series of programs on this issue as well. There are also protests, including civil disobedience, at Wall Street and at the U.N. to challenge corporate interests that underpin fossil fuel/big energy and that exploit the environment and the world's most vulnerable people. More here  on all the actions during “Climate Week.” Not to mention all the events in other places around the world!

Now to the march itself. It was epic, with estimates of 400,000 in NYC and hundreds of thousands more in marches around the world. Thousands of organizations took part, uniting in a call-to-action regardless of whether their core interests were religious, environmental, economic justice, peace, public health, water supply, farming, fishing – it was a display of unity that I thought I would never live to see.  There are some great photos here.  

In NYC, the “official” starting point was Columbus Circle (Central Park West and 59^th Street). Our group gathered farther uptown, at CPW and 77^th Street, as the march was generally arranged according to the core interests of all the groups involved, spreading a very broad umbrella:

• "Frontline" groups, including those people who are first and most impacted by climate change, including indigenous peoples, environmental justice organizations and other communities (59th-65^th St)
• Generational groups including labor organizations, families, students, elders, etc. (65-72^nd St);
• Environmental groups, including renewable energy, food and water justice and environmental organizations (72nd-77^th St);
• Protest groups including anti-corporate and peace and justice groups (77th-81^st St);
• Scientists, interfaith groups and related organizations (81^st- 82^nd St) [I found it interesting that science organizations were coupled with interfaith groups]
• Miscellaneous groups ("To Change Everything, We Need Everyone"), located between 82nd and 86th Street a includes LGBTQ groups and various geographic entities, including NY boroughs and communities, other U.S. city and state groups and groups from other countries.

There was an amazing level of organization, staying within the boundaries and barriers set up by the NYPD. In the end, the assembly area was longer – I was told it extended all the way along Central Park West, up to Frederick Douglass Circle at 110^th Street - more than 50 blocks! There were also some feeder groups coming in from downtown locations. The prediction a few days before the march was for 100,000 people, but at least four times that many people actually marched.

As a result, it was a very long wait from the time we assembled (at around 10:30) to the time we got moving, about 3 hours later. At this point, there was a great cheer, but we only moved about 20 feet - this was because so many people were joining the march! We didn't get to see Ban Ki-moon, Bill de Blasio, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Jane Goodall, Al Gore, Leonardo di Caprio, Sting or other well-known people who marched, but unbeknownst to us, we had a wonderful treat in store. Some musicians began setting up right behind us, and it turned out to be Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary – along with his daughter, son-in-law and grand-daughter. They led us in singing some great old march songs, including “We Shall Not Be Moved” and “This Land is Your Land.” Peter added some “verses” by singing out the words on the posters and banners, including my sign! He also kissed one of my friends on the cheek when she told him how much the music meant to us.

Amidst such a huge crowd, it was hard to imagine that the organizers could pull off a moment of silence at 12:58 p.m., in observance of all the people who are already victims of climate change. I thought it might not work, but it did. This was a crowd that was very energetic, at times boisterous, but also very disciplined and intent on sending a serious message to the “powers that be.”

Once we finally got moving, progress was slow at first, but we began making steadier progress toward Columbus Circle – the official starting point (!), which we reached about 2:45. Then, we headed east to 6^th Ave, then south to 42^nd Street, then back west to 11^th Ave and south to 34^th Street. All together, the march route is about 3.5 miles, but we didn't get to the end until 5 o'clock – almost 7 hours after we had gathered! All along the way, people lining the route or passing by gave us thumbs up and were very supportive.

The atmosphere, at least where we were, was as much street theater and block party as it was protest march. We were accompanied all the way by a marching band, made up mostly of young musicians and dancers dressed in red and black and full of energy and enthusiasm. Even toward the end of the march, they were dancing, jumping, spinning, and keeping the rest of us from obsessing too much about how much our feet hurt!

There were some great signs and costumes; here are just a few:

The biggest impression I had is that climate change is emerging as an issue and cause that transcends the divisions that affect many political causes; instead we now see that it unites people across the globe. The march was the most diverse political event that I have been part of since the Vietnam War - actually even more so than Vietnam. Most impressive: there were so many young people!! Many, many in their teens and twenties. Lots of college students. Many grey and white hairs too, and all ages in between. People of color – all colors. Gay and straight. Families with kids in strollers. People in wheelchairs. Artists, musicians, dancers. Organizations that ran the gamut from very old conservation organizations like the Appalachian Mountain Club, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund (just to name a few that were in my area of the march) to the New York Society of Architects, American Friends Service Committee, Workmen's Circle, Californians, Floridians, Peruvians, Brazilians, many faith-based groups, vegans, organic farmers, groups that fought nuclear power in the 1970s and 1980s and reconvened for this event – and many, many more.

After the march, I spoke to a number of New Yorkers – cab drivers, a cleaning person, several waiters and shopkeepers – and they all were so supportive of us marchers. Some had taken part themselves; others said they wanted to take part but had to work. All were full of smiles when they saw my friends and me with our signs.

To paraphrase Rosa Parks, my feet are tired, but my soul is rested. We feel proud of what we did. We think it made a difference in the political calculus. Now we need to get back to work - there's so much more to do!

Update: More good news on financial divestment from dirty energy/investment in clean energy.

Michele Bachmann: 'Don't Know Much About a Science Book'

by Sunnyjane

Jesus! I'm facing extinction and Bachmann thinks toxic carbon dioxide emissions are a natural by-product of nature.

I regret being the bearer of bad news, Mr. President, but unemployment numbers will rise in January 2015 after all of the Michele Bachmann fact-checkers are laid off from their jobs.  I guess you really do have to take the bad with the good.

It is not news that Bachmann has trouble with facts; hell, she has trouble with reality, why let facts get in the way?  For anyone who remains ignorant of this, um, fact, I suggest you simply go to your favorite search engine and type in Just How Stupid IS Michele Bachmann?  OK, I'll give you a few links here, here and here so you really don't have to go through that exercise. 

With humble apologies to the fabulous Sam Cooke, I will bastardize one of his greatest hits to explain Michele Bachmann in twenty-four words:

Don't know much about history,
Don't much biology.
Don't know much about a science book, 
Don't wanna talk about that list I took. 

Denying the Effects of Man-Made Climate Change

I can see God from my House seat and he says more carbon dioxide emissions are a GOOD thing!

After a hearty laugh and an exaggerated eye-roll, most of what Bachmann spews can be whisked away with a careless wave of the hand.  That she doesn't seem to know the difference between cowboy-film star John Wayne and serial-killer John Wayne Gacy is almost totally irrelevant.  Even her statement that the Founding Fathers, otherwise known as the writers of the United States Constitution, worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States has little consequence; that will surely be corrected for our nation's school children when they study American history -- well, except in Texas, of course.

But when she stands in the House of Representatives and states with authority that the threat of man-made global warming doesn't make sense because it is a natural byproduct of nature, and is part of the fundamental life cycle of Earth,  she is attempting to influence desperately needed legislation that would reduce man-made carbon dioxide emissions that are causing global warming that is devastating to the planet. 

It took Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon to school Ms. Bachmann on the issue: It’s interesting to listen to her say that something that was naturally occurring simply couldn’t be harmful, ignoring the fact that we have the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 2/3 of a million years.  The  consensus of the scientific community — not people making things up on the floor of the House — is that this has been profoundly influenced by human activity, starting with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, where we started consuming huge quantities of coal, burning fossil fuels, accelerating that over time.  The consensus of the scientific community is that this is in fact a serious problem.
   

I understand that there is absolutely no truth to the tittle-tattle that Bachmann believes that tearing down all greenhouses in America would reduce the effect of greenhouse gases.  That's totally a scandalous rumor -- maybe.

Congresswoman Bachmann has also claimed that there have been no scientific studies supporting the toxic effect of carbon dioxide on humans: But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows carbon dioxide is a harmful gas. There isn’t one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural. It is not harmful.   That is, of course, a totally bogus and stupid claim.  (Is Sarah Palin her fact-checker?  Just wondering.)  As far back as 2004, the New York Times reported in a scientific article that toxic carbon dioxide extends its harmful reach to the oceans.  Another report shows that Fossil fuel combustion releases carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, methane and other emissions in the air. Although some of these chemicals are naturally occurring, the high concentrations cause pollution and its effects.  And how do countries rank in CO2 emissions?  China is first and the United States is second.  That is not a record of which we can be proud.

Of course, Bachmann is only one of many climate-change deniers in the House of Representatives.  Organizing for America has done an excellent job of bringing them all together in one place.  There is even a click-on map that displays well-sourced quotes of who in your state is a climate-change denier.

End Note

As the National Journal pointed out recently, the subject of climate change may well become a huge issue in near-future elections, especially with young voters, an important  demographic that the GOP lost in 2012: 

...for a 22- or 23-year-old voter, being a climate denier is like opposition to gay marriage in the way it paints Republican politicians as completely out of touch with how they see the world. 

But how will the GOP repair that image when House Republicans passed a bill in 2010 declaring the science behind climate change a hoax?

And Michele Bachmann was a big part of that. 

 

Tornadoes and Koch Industries: An Elegant Solution

by Nomad
(originally posted in April 2011 at Nomadic View blog)

A Declaration of Emergency

On April 28th, 2011, tornadoes swept through the south of the United States, killing 128 people in Alabama and 32 others in Mississippi and leaving long trails of destruction. Homes and businesses were left as piles of rubble. Towns were plowed down the middle and many residents, having lost all they owned, felt
lucky just to be alive. My sympathies went out to the survivors and my condolences to the families that have lost loved ones.

This all came after a week in which storms torn through a half a dozen states in what meteorologists have called the deadliest season in nearly four decades. Republican Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama declared a state of emergency and said he was deploying 2,000 National Guardsman.

Similarly, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour declared a state of emergency for 39 counties. “Our thoughts and prayers are with the families who lost loved ones or property in these devastating spring storms,” Gov. Barbour said. “A large section of our state has been impacted, and our emergency responders are doing an excellent job in helping communities. This State of Emergency declaration will allow the state to offer aid to begin recovery efforts.”

The Mississippi Emergency Management Agency coordinates with the Federal emergency Management Agency, better known as FEMA in administering disaster recovery. Federal sources contributes at least 75% of damage repair costs while while state and local entities share the remaining 25 percent or less of repair costs.

Nobody can blame the governor for requesting money when it is urgently needed. However, there's a ugly, hypocritical side to Barbour's requests. Like numerous Republican politicians of late, Gov. Haley Barbour last March chastised Obama for "limitless government" and out of control spending. His stand against Big Government has made him something of a "politician of note" in the Republican party.

Mind you this is the same governor who easily took $15 billion in aid following Hurricane Katrina, which critics of Barbour have charged, was mishandled. Timothy J. Burger, writing for Bloomberg notes, the use of those funds has raised many questions.

No evidence has surfaced that Barbour violated the law; at the same time, the pattern that emerges from public records and interviews raises ``many red flags,'' said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a watchdog group in Falls Church, Virginia, that investigates the investments of government officials. ``At the minimum, the public is entitled to a full explanation of the facts,'' he said.

Exactly what Boehm is referring to is illustrated in an article from the website, The National Corruption Index :

The wife of Barbour’s nephew, Rosemary Barbour, was one of the biggest Mississippi-based winners of Katrina contracts. Her company, Alacatec LLC, picked up nearly $300 million in contracts from the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the General Services Administration, the bulk of it for trailer maintenance. The FBI began an investigation in 2007.

Of course, there's' nothing particularly remarkable about a politician being hypocritical. Of course, in Babour's case, in terms of hypocrisy, it is a little above the usual standard.

Should We Talk About The Weather?

But first of all, let's take a small step back and examine what on earth is going on with the weather. Most meteorologists have already declared this year to be something special in terms of storm activity and indeed, records seem to show an overall increase in the number of tornadoes from decade to decade. A 2011 preliminary count from all National Weather Service reports for the month of April is an eye-opening 654 tornadoes, compared to 2010 count of 139 and 2009 count of 226.

So what is the cause? NOAA 's answer is somewhat guarded.

Does "global warming" cause tornadoes? No. Thunderstorms do. The harder question may be, "Will climate change influence tornado occurrence?" The best answer is: We don't know. According to the National Science and Technology Council's Scientific Assessment on Climate Change, "Trends in other extreme weather events that occur at small spatial scales--such as tornadoes, hail, lightning, and dust storms--cannot be determined at the present time due to insufficient evidence."

Many researchers feel the evidence suggests a more direct influence.

Research Meteorologists found that the temperature changes brought on by global warming are significant enough to cause an increase in the occurrence of severe storms.

"What we found is that increases in human-induced greenhouse gases will lead to more frequent severe storms in the United States," Jeff Trapp, Ph.D., a meteorologist at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., said.

Based on the models, the researchers believe the number of days that favor the formation of severe storms could more than double in places like Atlanta and New York. These added storms will likely hit areas during already heavy storm seasons and extend wet weather seasons.

"This obviously impacts people in terms of potential hazards to their life and property," Dr. Trapp said.

Purdue University scientists are not alone in that assessment. NASA scientists have developed a new climate model that indicates that the most violent severe storms and tornadoes may become more common as Earth's climate warms.

"..[T]he model suggests that the most violent severe storms and tornadoes may become more common with warming.'

Clouding the Issue

This kind of research isn't universally accepted, especially by climate change deniers. According to a Greenpeace report, one of the largest private corporations in the country has spent a veritable fortune in undermining climate change research by funding organizations that spread inaccurate and misleading information about climate science and clean energy policies.

This report documents roughly 40 climate denial and opposition organizations receiving Koch foundation grants in recent years, including:

• More than $5 million to Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) for its nationwide “Hot Air Tour” campaign to spread misinformation about climate science and opposing clean energy and climate legislation

• More than $1 million to the Heritage Foundation, a mainstay of misinformation on climate and environmental policy issues.

• Over $1 million to the Cato Institute, which disputes the scientific evidence behind global warming, questions the rationale for taking climate action, and has been heavily involved in spinning the recent ClimateGate story.

• $800,000 to the Manhattan Institute, which has hosted Bjorn Lomborg twice in the last two years. Lomborg is a prominent media spokesperson who challenges and attacks policy measures to address climate change.

• $365,000 to Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) which advocates against taking action on cliimate change because warming is “inevitable” and expensive to address.

Additionally the report cites the tremendous political power that the Koch brothers have used to defeat carbon-limiting regulatory legislation, through direct federal lobbying and campaign contributions.

• Spent $37.9 million from 2006 to 2009 for direct lobbying on oil and energy issues, outspent only by ExxonMobil ($87.8 million) and Chevron Corporation ($50 million).

• Spent $5.74 million in PAC money for candidates, committees, and campaign expenditures since the 2006 election cycle.

• Contributed at least $270,800 to federal political party committees since the 2006 election cycle.

Flexing Muscles

It shouldn't surprise anybody that Koch Industries should be willing to invest a fortune to derail any legislation that might negatively affect its ability to do business, much of which involves the petro-chemical sector.

Koch Industries would certainly have a lot to lose if carbon emission industries were more carefully regulated.

According to SourceWatch, for example, Koch Carbon trades and transports petroleum coke, coal, cement, pulp and paper, sulfur and other commodities, the Koch Exploration Company acquires, develops and trades petroleum and natural gas properties in the United States, Canada and Brazil. Flint Hills Resources operate crude oil refineries in Alaska, Minnesota, and Texas and petrochemical plants in Illinois, Michigan and Texas. The Koch Pipeline Company owns and operates approximately 4,000 miles of pipelines used to transport crude oil, refined petroleum products, natural gas liquids and chemicals while the Koch Alaska Pipeline Company owns an approximate 3 percent interest in the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. Koch Industries also owns a 28% interest in the Colonial Pipeline Company which it describes as the "owner and operator of the world’s largest-volume refined products pipeline.

That's capitalism in action and with an estimated of $100 billion (2008 figures) Koch Industries can afford to flex its muscles.

And another way that the Koch brothers have flex their political muscle is through the funding of political organizations like Americans for Prosperity (mentioned above) which has been, among other duties, useful in campaigns against any legislation involving cap and trade or carbon emissions.

Purporting to be a grassroots group, AFP, founded and chaired by David Koch, is the "third largest recipient of funding from the Koch Family Foundations, behind the Cato Institute and the George Mason University Foundation,according to DeSmogBlog.

AFP is a non-profit organization who does not to disclose its donors. However, the Media Transparency project shows from 2003-2006, Americans for Prosperity received $1,181,000 from conservative foundations. $1 million of that funding was given by the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation--one of the Koch Family Foundations.

In the past years, the AFP has organized various Tea Party events throughout the nation. Koch was reported to have said at a Americans for Prosperity Conference in 2009 that in creating AFP:

"'we envisioned a mass movement, a state-based one, but national in scope, of hundreds of thousands of American citizens from all walks of life standing up and fighting for the economic freedoms that made our nation the most prosperous society in history.'"

In other words, the birth of the Tea Party.

A Fair Solution

Last year there was a string of weather related disasters, such as flooding in Nashville, tornadoes in the Midwest, extensive blizzards throughout the nation and powerful hurricanes in the southern states. The problem is simple: If Tea Party members wish to limit the role of big government and also wish to reduce taxes, who then is going to pay for clean-up and rebuilding? Not to mention preparedness training and search and rescue. Who is going to build the levies and the dikes that keep the waters back? Who is going to keep the snow off the streets if nobody is paying taxes?

Fear not, I come with what I consider a brilliant and fair solution to this problem. Why shouldn't Koch Industries pay for the clean up and rebuilding? The Koch Brothers do not seem at all hesitant about spending their fortunes on lobbying against climate change and cap and trade; they don't seem to worry about the vast sums of money for setting up fake grass roots organizations, or sponsoring phony science. After all, they are the ones that are making enormous sums of money by dumping more and more carbon into the environment which seems to be causing more and more dangerous weather.

Let's just drop the middle men. The government officials, the regulatory busy-bodies, and the corrupt politicians asking for their piece of the action.

With that problem solved, let's take a moment and return to Mississippi Governor Barbour. By decrying the sins of Big Government while happily taking federal emergency funds again and again, Barbour seems to want his cake and eat it too. but that's not all of it.

During the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill Barbour said he was not sure it was a good idea for the federal government to make BP put $20 billion into escrow to compensate victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Barbour said that BP needed to use its money to drill oil wells and produce revenue.

So, making the government pay for cleaning up tornadoes and hurricanes is okay, even while you are condemning Big Government spending.. but making oil companies clean up after their own spill is a question?

It's not all that remarkable really, I suppose. ThinkProgress points out:

Barbour raised significant amounts in campaign contributions from the industry, and from 1999 to 2003, was a lobbyist for various energy interests. Even as oil was touching Mississippi shores in the summer of 2010, Barbour downplayed the effects of the catastrophic spill. A ThinkProgress review of IRS documents revealed that with Barbour at the helm, the RGA received over $5 million in contributions from the oil and gas industry – including four of the Big Five oil companies – in just one year:

• $1,000,000 from David Koch, $25,000 from Koch Industries
• $625,000 from Exxon Mobil
• Over $150,000 from Chevron
• $50,000 from Shell
• $25,000 from ConocoPhillips

So, Koch Brothers, let's get those angry Tea Party members out there, let them burn off some of that anti-government fury. I imagine many of the people who have lost everything already belong to the Tea Party.

Just like Michele Bachmann, that popular Americans for Prosperity event speaker, said, “Do you see what we can do when we all work together?”

---