Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts

Thursday, November 3, 2011

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?

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?”


Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Am I Not My Brothers Keeper -- Susquehanna River Flooding-- UPDATE: Joe McGinniss Junior confirms media reports about Palin-Rice one-night-stand!

Guest Post By Marieke




I sometimes envy the Teabaggers: not only do they crave and enjoy the fear and anger to which they have been classically-conditioned, but life has got to be so much simpler when you're blind to the interconnectedness of the past, the present, the future and indeed of everything all around you. Our semi-forgotten rural area is just a dot on the map and actually weathered this disaster far better than places both above and below us, but there are probably few people in this country who won't ultimately be affected by the excess rain we've had all summer and the muddy mess of a river to whose calm beauty hubby and I were drawn for solace on 9/11/01

It's still raining off and on -- we just laughed hysterically at a thunderstorm last night when it cut off the power and threatened to bring a tree down on the house (obviously all is well or I wouldn't be typing this, but every tree in the Valley will be at huge risk for at least a week after it finally stops raining). Oh, and people are being warned not to pump out their basements because the water in them at least equalizes the pressure of all the glop outside and otherwise the walls could collapse. So there's that. We'll assess our damage as soon as we think the soil might be able to handle our walking on it, but I'm not sure how many trees, shrubs or flowers can be salvaged on our (once-lovely) three acres of pretty high and very wet ground.

The Susquehanna is the largest river east of the Mississippi and, like the Father of Muddy Waters, she likes to meander, regularly leaving her silt (etc.) on a half-mile or more of bottomlands on either side. Also too, much like with the Mississippi, the levees built in her wake actually compound the flooding problem by creating artificial bottlenecks upstream and a rampaging monster downstream once the water crashes past. But I just want to talk about one tiny example of something that happened here and how its effects will affect so many others.

First off, although floodplains in this area and elsewhere were identified quite a while back, all sorts of restrictions on them have been eased and re-eased so that a sewage plant in the city of Danville -- which was being rebuilt so as to reduce Pennsylvania's impact on Chesapeake Bay -- did not have and was not going to get ANY KIND of retaining wall sufficient to keep out the river and keep in the sewage. When the sandbagging in Danville failed, the sewage went everywhere, including both their Middle School and back into the river -- meaning of course that rich, rich bottomland where corn, beans, potatoes, tomatoes and fruit trees once grew and cattle once grazed -- and will again. The school is mandated to mitigate, but not the farmers: they will sell whatever they can salvage this year, but their soil will be contaminated from this and so many other unknown contaminants in that water for years to come.

So don't buy Pennsylvania (and New York and Delaware and Maryland) products? Not so fast. Your apples may be labeled (they won't be our Fujis or Galas in any case; they're shot), but not your canned tomatoes, if any of ours can be saved, and our corn is sold everywhere, by Cargill et. al., mixed in with everybody else's and used in everything. A lot of it was flattened, but there'll still be some kind of a crop, and whether you get it as a sweetener, a filler, or feed in whatever grain-fed meat you buy, you could very well be ingesting some of Danville's half- or non-treated sludge.

This is just one teeny, tiny example of how poor decision-making in the past, whether one poor choice or a cascade of them, can impact millions and millions of people in our interconnected world. The same thing happens, of course, every time the Mississippi floods, or any of its tributaries also too. And it's not just sewage -- the contents of an abandoned asbestos factory in Ambler, outside of Philadelphia, are also coursing into Chesapeake Bay along with Lord only knows what else, so likewise think twice also about eating any Maryland seafood. I haven't the heart to write more -- believe me, there are many such examples because we have been living the past thirty or forty years in the midst of a Randian crescendo.

The real issue is, what can be done?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

UPDATE: Sarah Palin and Glen Rice -- h/t to Ella

This update really should be a separate post but I do not want to take away from Marieke's important message so I will leave it here as an update.


Quite a story. Will it develop any further? Is there something more to learn about it in Joe's book? I really do not know, but we will all find out if we read Joe's book which will be released in less than a week.

If you do not have a copy you can purchase it here.





"On her first day of office, Sarah changed the screensaver on the mayor's official computer to read, 'GOD LOVES YOU, SARAH PALIN.'"
from The Rogue, by Joe McGinniss





+++

Comment by Patrick:

If only a small amount of Sarah Palin's personal secrets will be revealed in Joe's book, it should be enough to finish Sarah's "career."

I have never seen a person with so many personal secrets like Sarah Palin.

I find it interesting that it really seems to matter for the US media who publishes something, and not whether Sarah actually sued the media outlet in question. The media gives Joe McGinniss a lot of credibility, which is very good. They apparently didn't believe that the National Enquirer was credible when they revealed the affair with Brad Hanson three years ago - despite the fact that Palin never bothered to instruct her lawyer to sue the National Enquirer.

I once published inside info for example about the relationship of the Morlocks to the Palins, and I was quite excited about it, but in the end, nobody picked it up.

HERE and HERE.

With pictures intact: HERE.

Same of the course with my posts about Track and Curtis Menard Jr. But fortunately, there are enough other personal Palin secrets to pick from - it's like a big fat cherry tree!

It was a real shame that nobody picked these stories up, and I was disappointed...but I got over it. Other people experienced similar disappointments (including the National Enquirer, who in 2008 consistently reported very solid information about the Palins, which didn't find the audience it deserved. However, the same cannot be said about the reporting of the National Enquirer regarding the Palins in the following years!).

The sexual affair with Brad Hanson did happen, it's a fact. As I wrote for example in my earlier post about the Morlocks at Palingates which I mentioned above, I once spoke to a member of Brad's family on the phone who confirmed it - and several other sources from Alaska confirmed it as well.

So it's my hope that Joe's book will be the "final nail in the coffin" of Sarah Palin's already half-dead political career - and that we can all move on, once and for all. It's about time.

Ideally, I would of course like to see all her major secrets exposed, but it's probably unlikely that this is going to happen. However, I am hopeful now that a few really big secrets will be exposed by Joe McGinniss.

Who will pay all the psychiatrists for the Palinbots when they will need therapy for the next 10 years or so....?

I really wished I could look into the future. The suspense is killing me what will happen during the next weeks, months, years. So I guess it's quite difficult for me to move on as well. ;-)


+++UPDATE+++

Joe McGinniss Jr, son of the author Joe McGinniss, confirmed the media reports about the one-night-stand of Sarah Palin with Glenn Rice on his facebook - and adds additional, previously unknown information:







This comment by Joe McGinniss Jr. is particularly interesting:

interesting...yeah...he was in college and it was apparently a real crush...phone calls and letters, etc...

"Phone calls and letters!"

Now it becomes harder and harder to wait for Joe's book! :-)

+++

PLEASE RE-TWEET:


Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Is Mitt Romney a Closet Environmentalist?

by BlueberryT

Is Mitt Romney a closet environmentalist? Now that he is among the front-runners for the GOP nomination for President, I thought it might be interesting for everyone to learn a little about what he did on environmental issues while he was Governor of Massachusetts. I suspect that some (on both sides of the aisle) will be quite surprised or even shocked, as I was when I learned this. I want to acknowledge and thank my (anonymous) source who provided me with the information for this post.

As is typical, Romney’s appointments to environmental leadership roles gave the first inkling of where he stood on environmental protection. We have seen often enough from recent history that many Republicans appoint those who seem more likely to undermine or thwart environmental protection than to advance it. Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, was an early example of this phenomenon. Since then, it has become common to appoint anti-environmentalists to key roles, both at the state and federal level. Gale Norton is another good example, and the incompetent Bureau of Minerals Management under G.W. Bush, which helped pave the way for the Gulf Oil Spill last year, showed the cost we all pay when key environmental protections are weakened. This has been all-too-common under Republican leadership, in my opinion.

That is not what happened in Massachusetts under Romney’s Administration. Instead, he appointed some of the foremost environmentalists in Massachusetts to top posts in the environmental agencies. His was the best environmental team of any administration in the past two decades, including the current administration of Democratic Governor Deval Patrick. Romney appointed Douglas Foy, a tireless and effective environmental advocate who headed up the Conservation Law Foundation for 25 years, as the head of a new Office of Commonwealth Development (OCD). This was a unique office formed to bring together the often-warring factions of environment and development. Among other things, the office developed a system to rank projects according to their environmental impacts, and tied state approvals and funding to this scoring system. The Romney Administration also advanced “low-impact development,” which as the name implies, preserves natural features of a property and uses a range of techniques to reduce damage to the environment.

Romney’s other appointments included Robert Golledge as the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (and later as Secretary of Environmental Affairs). Golledge was one of the strongest environmentalists ever to hold either of those positions, and initiated several long-overdue reforms. Romney also appointed Stephen Burridge, another environmental advocate from the Conservation Law Foundation, and Katherine Abbott, a leader in land conservation, to other leadership roles in the environmental agencies. This was a strong leadership team.

In addition to forming the innovative OCD, Romney’s Administration took on several key issues that had long languished. For example, his Administration pulled together a diverse stakeholder group that developed the Massachusetts Water Policy. This was done very effectively with a minimum of politics, while adhering to a very tight timeline; it was one of the best examples of Romney’s no nonsense goals-timelines-get-things-done managerial style in action. His Administration also took on the update of the Massachusetts Water Conservation Standards, which were at that point very out-of-date, and developed a policy and guidelines to manage large water withdrawals that had been improperly managed by the state for decades, leading to a number of Massachusetts rivers being pumped dry on a regular basis. I'm sure these issues seem a little mundane, but this is the nitty-gritty of environmental management, and Romney's team had some excellent early successes.

Of course, not all was positive. Facing a budget crisis early in his tenure, he cut important environmental programs, including at least one that was considered a national model, and eliminated most discretionary environmental funding. He cut staff in several agencies and tried to eliminate programs that were only saved due to public outcry. Later in his one-term Governorship, as it became increasingly apparent that Romney had his sights on the Presidency, his tone on the environment (as on many other issues) began to shift toward a much more conservative approach. One of the first victims of this was Commissioner Kathy Abbott, who was forced to resign after Romney blamed her for a freak plowing accident that occurred during a snowstorm in Boston; many thought that the real reason she was ousted was because she was planning to marry her long-time female partner, which would be embarrassing for Romney among the conservatives he was trying to court. Even some of his Administration’s signature accomplishments in protecting the environment were weakened in the last two years of his term, as he began catering to more conservative voices. Given his recent pronouncements on other issues, it seems that he might even deny or disavow his Massachusetts record; after all, you can’t have a Republican candidate for President being a closet environmentalist, now can you?

*****

Here is a link to the excellent (but long) Boston Globe profile on Romney, which begins with the infamous "dog on the roof" episode that he is now trying to repackage by claiming the dog loved to ride on the roof. Sure he did.