The Blog

Bob Dinneen: The Days of Energy Malaise Are Over

2009-07-11T00:00:03Z

Wednesday, July 15th, marks the 30th anniversary of President Jimmy Carter's famous "malaise" speech.

As with many historic events, this speech was very different from the disaster that we now remember. First, Carter didn't use the word "malaise" even once in the speech. Second, his ratings in the public opinion polls went up after the speech. Third, it was largely about the energy crisis of the summer of '79 when Iran held U.S. hostages, OPEC restricted our oil supplies, and Americans were waiting in long lines at the gas stations.

Carter deserves credit for calling for decreasing our dependence on imported oil. As Americans learned when gasoline prices skyrocketed last summer -- and as we're reminded whenever Hugo Chavez or the Iranian ayatollahs threaten our petroleum supplies -- it is still costly and risky to rely on oil imported from unstable countries with unfriendly governments.

"Malaise" is better than denial. When Carter addressed the nation 30 years ago, he warned that "almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof." Now, nearly two-thirds of our oil is imported, at prices that are riding a roller coaster.

So when are we going to wake up to the fact that our dependence on imported oil is worse than in the days of malaise? And what are we going to do about it?

For all his courage in calling attention to the problem, some of Carter's prescriptions now seem just as dated as disco, pet rocks, and mood rings.

Back in 1979, Carter called for the country to "switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source." But now, as the Congress debates energy and climate change legislation, most policymakers see coal's carbon emissions as a major contributor to carbon emissions and global warming.

More prophetically, Carter also called for "twenty percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000." That is still a worthy goal. But, while solar, wind, and geothermal energy can generate electrical power, it would be costly and cumbersome for these energy sources to produce the electricity that would then power a significant share of the nation's cars, trucks, buses and other vehicles.

That leaves an energy source that Carter didn't mention, but supported, that was emerging in the late '70's -- biofuels, especially ethanol produced from corn and other grains. During the final year of the Carter Administration, the new domestic ethanol industry produced only 175 million gallons.

Last year, the U.S. ethanol industry produced more than 9 billion gallons of fuel, reducing oil imports by 321.4 million barrels. This year, we will produce more than 10 billion gallons. That's bad news for OPEC and good news for the USA.

Creating good-paying jobs is just as much of a concern now as it was during the economic stagnation of the late '70's and early '80's. From a handful of factories employing a few hundred workers, the U.S. ethanol industry has grown to nearly 200 biorefineries that support almost half a million jobs.

Not only in terms of energy independence and economic growth but also environmentally, ethanol is a success story. Academic studies show that ethanol produces far fewer carbon emissions than petroleum products, and ethanol production is reducing its own consumption of water, electricity and other energy sources and natural resources.

Thirty years after the grain ethanol industry emerged, the U.S. ethanol industry is beginning to produce fuels from "cellulosic" (non-grain) feedstocks, including grasses, woodchips, and even garbage. As our new President Barack Obama has explained, grain ethanol is still essential because the "transition to [the next generation] will be successful only if the first-generation biofuels industry remains viable in the near term."

Maybe if President Carter -- and all Americans 30 years ago -- had foreseen this promising part of the energy future, no one would have talked about "malaise." If we keep producing more and better biofuels, Americans thirty years from now will look back on today's Americans with gratitude, not grief.

Josh Dorner: Conservative Jokers Attack ACES

2009-07-10T21:57:33Z

In the two weeks after the historic House vote on a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan, conservatives and the far-right tea bag set have nearly self-immolated over what they see as the latest socialist plot to destroy America, one wind turbine and energy efficient hot tub at a time. Here are some of the lowlights.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of the party in the House, tried to put up a TV ad attacking Rep. Tom Perriello of Virginia for his vote in support of clean energy. Only problem was that it used the widely discredited $3,100 "national energy tax" number and the TV station refused to air it. Oops.

A teabagger activist from Louisiana started the www.capandt8tors.com website to attack the 8 House Republicans who had the temerity to stand up take the vote that was in the best interests of our economy and our environment.

Seizing on a provision regarding home energy audits brought up by Minority Leader John Boehner during his unsuccessful Fili-Boehner, Fox News and other far-right "news" sites took the hustings to cry socialism and even likened home energy auditors to the Gestapo.

(The National Association of Realtors debunks this particular myth here.)

By far the most serious response from conservatives is due to come on Monday, when a group of senators will unveil a plan that calls for the construction of 100 new nuclear plants. Not only is this a retread from the McCain campaign, but it would cost up to $4 TRILLION! The plan does not of course explain how any of this would be paid for or actually do anything to reduce emissions. Seems slightly odd coming from a group whose constant refrain has to do with criticizing excessive government spending.

Reverend Billy: Michael, Diana, John and Yoko

2009-07-10T19:22:27Z

The end of MJ's memorial, with Germaine Jackson singing "Smile" by Charlie Chaplin - said it all. When we have a figure that through luck and talent and tenaciousness gets out on that stage in front of us, with handlers like corporations and governments flailing at them from the wings but unable to control them, that star becomes a child of Peace.

When Michael, Diana, John and Yoko (and Charlie from an earlier time) worked free of society's conditioners, they turned to their world audience and spoke as Peace radicals. They also showed a child-like quality. They startled us with creative play in public, with no nay-sayers stopping them. They could touch untouchables in public, take limbless children onto their laps, act guileless about their sensual bodies, stay in bed for weeks for Peace, build amusement parks for orphans, travel nearly anywhere on the earth and connect with children. All the powerful could do was carefully watch, and deliver indictments or bad press when things got out of hand.

Do you remember when you were a child? War and the aggressions of expansive economies were something that we had to learn. At the age of, say four or five or six or seven, when we looked up at the night sky with wonder, we didn't populate that limitlessness with Darth Vaders and Star Wars missiles at the beginning. Did we? Or am I talking myself into this? Didn't we start out our lives, coming from our mother's womb, believing in Peace? Weren't we more like Michael, Diana, John and Yoko? And don't they reverse us in time, back to the nobility of our first instincts? Am I remembering this right? Am I just making this up?

Susanne Freidberg: Vote First, Eat Later

2009-07-10T18:51:24Z

The new documentary "Food, Inc." is the latest exposé of corporate food that aims to get us mad, disgusted, and running for the farmers' market. Even viewers who already knew about the sorry state of our food supply will likely wish they'd skipped the popcorn. But the filmmakers don't want us to lose our appetites for long. We have serious eating ahead. As the movie tells us right before the credits roll, we "vote to change the system three times a day."

Actually, no. Americans are used to thinking of themselves as powerful consumers; our collective purchases prop up the national and global economy. And consumers' concerns about their food have already transformed how many major suppliers do business. But eating is not voting. Equating these two vital activities devalues both, and won't achieve the needed changes. Worse, it vindicates the poorly regulated system that created the mess we're in.

Exactly what's wrong with the idea that we can fix the food supply just by shopping and eating better? A few things. First, it's an impractical and unfair burden on consumers. As the film shows, our supermarket shelves are full of products of dubious nutrition and safety, made by companies that mistreat farmers, workers, animals, and the environment. Careful label-readers can find apparent alternatives-often with hefty mark-ups-as well as a plenty of misleading information. The egg industry is notorious for plastering cartons with unregulated claims such as "cage free."

Stricter labeling laws are a start. Last year's introduction of mandatory country-of-origin labels for produce was long overdue. But only so much information fits on a label, and most consumers have only so much time and patience to read it. A trip to the supermarket should not require more background research than casting a ballot. We should not have to figure out which meat processors don't commit human rights abuses. We should not have to shop around to find products free of dangerous pesticides or factory filth. Our food regulatory system declined over the past several years partly because of administrations and corporate lobbies that celebrated consumer choice. Some choices we should not have to make.

Another limitation of market-driven change is that it only delivers changes that the market finds profitable. Take the organic label. It certifies products made without synthetic fertilizers, pesticides or hormones. Originally it was supposed to promote more sustainable agriculture as well as a safer food supply. Once the market took off, major manufacturers jumped in.

"Food, Inc" shows part of the story of what happened next: big brands acquired small ones, organic labels spread from the produce section to the snack food aisles, and from the natural food stores to Wal-Mart. It soon became clear that some of the most popular organic products-milk, bagged greens-came from mega-farms that barely met organic standards, if that. Then local food became the "new organic." Now Wal-Mart offers more-or-less local options, and Frito-Lay boasts of processing plants that source potatoes from nearby farmers (for the record, this is nothing new).

More big food companies may leap onto the local bandwagon if it will cut their fuel expenses. This is fine. But as foods labeled organic and local become more available, it's worth remembering that these alternatives do not guarantee better working conditions for farm and packhouse workers. They do not touch the crop subsidies that fuel overproduction at home and hunger abroad. They do not fix the weak food safety laws that sent consumers searching for alternatives in the first place.

Lastly, to suggest that each dollar we spend on food is a potential vote for change is fundamentally undemocratic. For one, some consumers have many more dollars to spend. But food inequality is also geographic. It's easy to be a virtuous eater in those New York or San Francisco neighborhoods where the grocery options include farmers' markets, home-delivered organics, and a Whole Foods every few blocks.

Are the people without such choices, whether due to income or location, somehow lesser citizens? Certainly they have had less say about what changes our food system needs. It is ironic that many leading food activists seem untroubled by this fact even as they rightly condemn the moneyed clout of agribusiness.

The makers of "Food, Inc." do call for policy reform. Many groups are working to overhaul the USDA, strengthen farm workers' rights, and counter the agribusiness lobby. These activities deserve our support, yet tend to get overshadowed by shopping tips aimed at "changing the world with every bite." Wouldn't it be better if we did not feel obliged to do this? Informed consumer buying power is not trivial. It is also no substitute for political actions to empower everybody to worry less about their food, and enjoy it more.

Jan Phillips: A Child Questions Us from the Future

2009-07-10T18:21:22Z

A conversation in the year 2050 between a boy and his grandfather

Grandpa, did you know it was happening?

Well, sort of. There was news about it, but it didn't seem too real.

How did it feel when you couldn't eat the fish anymore?

Well that was hard. We never thought that would happen.

Didn't they warn you?

Not really. I guess some tried to, but not in a big way. Not like on television, or even much in the newspapers. You had to really want to know, I guess. People just didn't care that much. We were pretty busy then. Pretty caught up in our own lives.

What about the forests? Didn't you know how much we needed them, just to breathe?

People never thought about that connection, son. We needed that timber. Companies needed it for their business. That's what was important back then. Business.

But why would you let them take away everything we needed? Why did you let them make all those stupid things out of plastic? Why didn't you save some of the oil for us?

I swear, we never thought we'd use it up. We weren't trained to think about the future. No one taught us how to think. We did the best we could do, day by day.

I thought you were smart. You had your own business, didn't you?

Yes.

If you were so smart, why didn't you stop them from ruining all the water? Didn't you ever think I might want to swim like you used to?

It's not like that.

Oh yes it is. If you were so smart you would have known what was happening. But you didn't care. It's your fault.

It's not my fault, son. There were millions of us here. Everyone was to blame.

Then why didn't they stop it? Why did they ruin things for us? Why didn't you care enough to do something? Why? Why? WHY?

an excerpt from The Art of Original Thinking-The Making of a Thought Leader by JanPhillips

Paula Crossfield: G-8 Promises $20 Billion in Agricultural Aid: Real Change or Business as Usual?

2009-07-10T17:34:16Z

Today, the Group of 8 meeting in L'Aquila, Italy pledged 20 billion dollars in agricultural aid, responding to a request made yesterday by President Obama. For the first time, instead of being given directly as food aid, these funds are set to be allotted for building an agricultural economy in nations in need, specifically in Africa. Just what this agricultural infrastructure entails (the fine print mentions fertilizer and seed, grain storage vessels and plant variety research) could be the key to whether the plan actually seeks to feed many of the billion people on earth who are now hungry, or whether the U.S. and other nations will, instead, further fuel the food crisis.

Yesterday in speaking with Allafrica.com, President Obama discussed today's trip to Ghana, and his ideas for alleviating hunger in Africa. In just a few words, he revealed a bit about his economic agenda there, too:

"Now, I also think on the ground in many of these countries, how we think about not high-tech stuff but low-tech technologies to, for example, improve food production is vitally important."

Low-tech technologies could imply better education around sustainable farming practices and food storage. But "improving food production" sounds a lot like boosting yields, similar to what Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in June ("If we can help countries become more productive themselves then they will be in a better position to feed their own people"). Both messages imply that not enough food is currently being produced to feed the world population. But as I've argued before, hunger is not a yield problem. Feeding people is about access, which is lacking even in the United States, where around 36 million people are food insecure. Speculation on commodities, the same practice that bottomed out our financial sector, has resulted in higher food prices and by extension, a food crisis, because people could not afford to buy food.

And yet these overtures are all too familiar. The president is echoing the wording featured in advertisements by companies like Monsanto, in whose interest it is that we continue to pursue GM seeds abroad (Monsanto holds 90% of seed patents) even though in the last 20 years these seeds have failed to produce the higher yields and drought tolerance they have promised. In an economic crisis, perhaps there is discussion that we can stimulate our economy by getting Africans hooked on our seeds and the herbicides/pesticides they require. But it will surely not be Africans who benefit from this arrangement.

Obama continued:

"And I'm still frustrated over the fact that the green revolution that we introduced into India in the '60s, we haven't yet introduced into Africa in 2009."

There are very good reasons why we have never introduced a Green Revolution into Africa, namely because there is broad consensus that the Green Revolution in India has been a failure, with Indian farmers in debt, bound to paying high costs for seed and pesticides, committing suicide at much higher rates, and resulting in a depleted water table and a poisoned environment, and by extension, higher rates of cancer. If President Obama is lacking this information, it is his cabinet that is to blame.

Agricultural development is a loaded phrase, vague in the way political phrases can be, because the way it is implemented depends on the viewpoints of those involved in decision making. President Obama is currently embedded in a bubble featuring some of the fervent promoters of the biotech industry and a Green Revolution in Africa, such as Nina Fedoroff, who is a biotechnology researcher currently serving as Hilary Clinton's adviser on science and technology, and Rajiv Shah who left his post at The Gates Foundation's Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to serve as the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics (REE) and Chief Scientist at the USDA. One can't help but wonder, then, if by requesting this money from the G8 in the name of charity we are instead trying to promote our own economy.

Right now, with most studies being sponsored by industry, millions of dollars being spent on lobbying by agribusiness in Washington, and a revolving door that brings people from private sector agricultural companies to Capital Hill, the public is being given one side of the story on biotechnology. Six European countries have now banned the planting of GMOs in their fields based on this lack of information, following what is called the "Precautionary Principle:" that if there is no scientific consensus, there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from possible harm. Instead, the U.S. is conducting a scientific experiment on its people, and the results have been alarming.

Aside from the the impact GMOs have on our health, on which study has been lacking, these crops are responsible for massive pollution and depletion of our waterways, and require high oil inputs and a stable climate to produce. This is not sustainable. Isn't it then a bit short-sighted to promote GMOs and commodity crops in Africa, where 80% of the population is rural, and 33 million farms each farming 2 hectares or less are producing 90% of the continent's food?

If we really want to help the hungry, we should invest in tools, arable land for communities, and education about sustainable farming in Africa. We should teach seed-saving and intercropping, so that diets will be diverse and healthy. Most of all, we should avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to hunger, as there are no easy answers. Empowering locals to work within their own climate, governance and culture will ensure that real strides are made in alleviating hunger. Otherwise, instead of teaching Africans to fish, we will be giving Africans fish with the hook of dependence still attached.

Update: The full G8 summit statement on food security can be read here. It is wide-sweeping, and a lot more focused on localized efforts than this piece had predicted. We shall see what the outcome of this statement will be.

[If you feel strongly that GMOs should not be a part of international development policy, sign the CREDO Action petition and let your legislators know!]

Originally published on Civil Eats

Maria Rodale: Ruthless Gardening: A Must!

2009-07-10T17:04:24Z

Every summer around this time the same thing happens. I head out to the garden after a busy work week (or three), and take a look at my vegetable garden and go, "Oh *%$!" Once again, I have let sentimental, kind-hearted generosity screw up my patch.

It starts simply enough, with the idea that I'll let that kale that came back from last winter go to seed and replant itself. Or look! There are baby tomato plants I didn't plant -- they're so cute! I think I'll keep them! Or worse, my husband thinks that the mystery dehybridized squash seed that sprouted is worth watching to see what comes out of it, and before you know it, there are scratchy, prickly tentacles climbing all over everything -- including the lawn -- like some creature from outer space. Suddenly, my expensive transplants shipped in from Seed Savers Exchange in Iowa are struggling for their very survival, I can't tell the heirloom tomatoes from the weed tomatoes, and I've lost all track of half the things I planted.

And I am reminded: Ruthlessness is required to be a really good gardener -- ruthless weeding, ruthless protection of the desired plants, and ruthless vigilance against pests, even if the pests would be perfectly good plants in other situations. Without discipline and tough decision-making, gardens turn into crazy jungles where the plants are so busy fighting for their space and survival they forget to make vegetables.

It's a tough lesson I relearn every year, but an important one. If we don't say no, or protect our spaces, before you know it our lives and gardens are out of control and nobody gets anything good to eat.

So here is what I am doing this weekend: I'm putting on my cowboy hat, slinging my weeding knife in its holster, and leaving the gloves off. I'm bringing in the big smart cart, and I'm prepared to fill it, even if I have to fill it again and again and again. And honey, that plant that you thought was eggplant? It's a frickin' weed, and I'm pulling all of them. (I never would have planted 40 eggplants!)

It's a cruel, tough job, but somebody has to do it -- and that would be me.

For more from Maria Rodale, go to http://www.mariasfarmcountrykitchen.com.

John F. Wasik: How Green Building Can Save the Housing Industry

2009-07-10T16:39:51Z

Green is gold. Why didn't homebuilders get this idea? They could be building new homes again, employing millions, making inner cities and suburbs habitable and bring down the cost of housing for everyone.

Homebuilding needs to join the 21st century and apply the best, efficient technologies to lower costs and reduce energy and resource consumption. But the vast majority of homes have been built using the very best 19th-century, stick-built/balloon frame methods. That's got to change if we want to revive the bedrock of the American Dream.

As it stands now, while you may have the most up-to-date flat-panel TVs, computers, cellphones and audio equipment inside your home, the basic way that most homes are built hasn't changed much in more than 170 years.

That's right. As microprocessors double in speed every 18 months, cellphones are becoming just as powerful as laptop computers and you can connect to nearly anyone on the planet through the internet, the box you live in is antiquated beyond belief and costs you more every year to heat, cool and maintain.

To change this deplorable situation -- and revive real estate, building and banking -- it will require a change in attitude. Think of your personal living space as ecodynamic. It could adjust to the exterior environment cybernetically, tell you when the cheapest electricity is available and program the entire house to use less energy.

Is this something out of the new Star Trek movie? Hardly. Ecodynamic homes are not only being built, they are being assembled. That's an important distinction.

Rather than building everything on site with framing and two-by-fours, modular units are pre-made to exacting specifications in factories, then loaded on flat-bed trucks and assembled on site. This not only cuts the construction time and cost from one-third to one-half, it eliminates tons of waste that end up in landfills. The end-result is energy-efficient, low-maintenance and will produce energy and conserve water.

An ecodynamic home is always working for you to reduce costs. It saves water in cisterns, prevents heat from leaking out in the winter and keeps a breeze flowing in summer. You use less energy because the house's computer is constantly monitoring conditions and directing resources to where they are needed. Don't need to heat or cool a spare bedroom? The system will know and cut your bills.

Sounds good so far, but aren't these homes really ugly trailers? Throw that image out of your mind. They are loaded and secured onto permanent foundations and can be stunning.

Take a look at architect Michelle Kaufmann's "Smart + Wired Home," a house so innovative it's now on display at Chicago's Museum and Science and Industry. It's an elegant example of a modular, green home that was factory built and constantly monitoring itself with its own eco-computer system. A flat-panel display in the living room can display a graphic that shows the cost of energy that moment, how much of it the house is consuming and the amount of electrons being produced on rooftop solar panels. If it makes more energy than you consume, you sell it back to the power company.

The Smart + Wired Home costs nine times less to heat and three times less to cool than a standard home of the same size. The gorgeous, spacious interior is full of low-voltage lighting, fixtures made of recycled materials and lets in generous amounts of light.

But this is not just a home for museums as Kaufmann hopes to mass produce these homes. If she succeeds (I'm rooting for her), she could become the Henry Ford of homebuilders. Make houses on assembly lines and their costs will come down as economies of scale will be realized. And because they are modular designs, you can easily change the layout or add on extra modules if you need to expand at a cost much lower than stick-built contracting.

What will it take to make green modular homebuilding a major industry? Policymakers will need to implement tax incentives over the next two decades, reward new home-energy technologies with grants and shift tax dollars away from wasteful road building projects into places like the inner city where decent, affordable housing is in short supply.

Some of this is already being seeded through the Obama stimulus plan and budget, although a comprehensive, long-range plan is needed. The upcoming energy/climate change bill would be an ideal place for these ideas. If we get really good at ecodynamic design and manufacturing, we'll be able to export these products to places where durable, inexpensive and green housing is desperately needed: China, India, Africa.

Back in the U.S., homes needn't be so capital intensive and push people into foreclosure and bankruptcy. They can be clean, green and affordable. They can pay us back when they produce energy. To accomplish that, we will need to re-envision the American Dream. Home is where the heart is. Now the political will needs to follow if we're to make homeownership widespread and sustainable.

Blaise Zerega: Carbon Capture a Pipe Dream

2009-07-10T16:34:08Z

The dirty truth about carbon capture: it's very expensive and it's a long way off. Speaking at the World Bank in Sydney, Mark Diesendorf of the Univeristy of New South Wales points to the Bush Administration's shuttering of the FutureGen project as an example of the escalating costs associated with this largely unproven technology.

Note that in June, Energy Secretary Steven Chu revived the FutureGen project with $1 billion and a directive that it come up with realistic cost estimates. Diesendorf also questions the wisdom of his country spending some $2 billion (AUS) on carbon capture, when the first commercial scale plants wouldn't be online until at least 2020.

There's much to love about carbon capture, in theory. (Michael Pollan is a fan.) But what most people love about carbon capture is also what's wrong with it. Carbon capture continues our dependence on coal-fired power plants, and does little to change the status quo. In other words, carbon capture does nothing to get us off the coal standard.

Furthermore, to echo a point made by Diesendorf, investing in carbon capture takes money away from the development of renewables like wind and solar, and from the development of energy efficiencies like CFLs and electric cars.

Given the global economic crisis, shouldn't we be investing in proven technologies first?

Watch the full program at FORA.tv.

Joseph Romm: NASA's James Hansen Recycles Myths in His Pointless Attack on U.S. Climate Action

2009-07-10T16:31:24Z

Much as I am happy to publicize Hansen's leading edge climate science (see links below), I am unhappy to have to waste any time debunking his bleeding edge climate policy analysis (see "Memo to Hansen: Your opposition to Waxman-Markey is ill-conceived and unhelpful. There isn't going to be a carbon tax nor should there be." and "Memo to Hansen 2: Why is the country's top anti-science blog reprinting your stuff?").

Still, his arguments need debunking because he is mostly recycling myths that others are pushing -- and with the country's top climate scientist putting his name on this collection of false and misleading statements, they will no doubt be parroted by yet more people. Hansen has just written, "G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change" for The Huffington Post.

UPDATE: Predictably, Swift Boat smearer Marc Morano has made Hansen's post his top story at ClimateDepotted, again revealing that Hansen is mostly providing aid-and-comfort to the deniers and delayers.

Let me go straight to his needlessly (and pointlessly) provocative attacks on the "counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey," which is filled with right-wing and left-wing myths -- and very little understanding of the basics of either this bill or cap-and-trade systems.

Hansen claims "For all its 'green' aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like 'cap-and-trade' scheme." Not so. I have previously explained why W-M takes us sharply off of the BAU emissions path over the next decade, probably reducing coal use more than 25% by 2020 (see "Game changer, Part 2: Why unconventional natural gas makes the 2020 Waxman-Markey target so damn easy and cheap to meet"). And then it requires a 42% emissions reduction by 2030 and an 83% reduction by 2050, which will drive a massive energy transition over the next few decades.

The global economy is indeed a Ponzi scheme, but this is the first piece of legislation by any major country that makes a serious effort to end that Ponzi scheme.

Hansen then lists "a few of the bill's egregious flaws":

It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.

No. The EPA doesn't have the "ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants." EPA might well use its recent endangerment finding to get that ability (partially and eventually), but it hasn't asserted that regulatory capability yet.

More importantly, the CAA authority is most readily translated into regulating emissions from new power plants. Regulating CO2 emissions from existing power plants would take a long time, engendering a great deal of litigation. As John Podesta, former Clinton Administration Chief of Staff and now CEO of CAP, recently said, "it would be difficult for the EPA to enact a CO2 cap and trade without congressional cooperation."

Moreover, for a man who wants to "phase out coal emissions over the next two decades," as Hansen does, this is a pretty pointless complaint. The Obama EPA was certainly never going to use the endangerment finding to do anything like that.

This "EPA can solve the problem on its own" myth is so commonplace that I will do separate post next week addressing it. I certainly agree with NRDC that the bill should be changed to allow EPA to retain its CAA authority, but I wouldn't list this among the bill's top 4 flaws, let alone put it first.

Hansen's next "egregious" flaw in W-M:

It sets meager targets -- 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year's level -- and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious "offsets," by which other nations are paid to preserve forests -- while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.

Not quite -- though the first part of this statement is the bill's biggest flaw (and the only truly serious objection Hansen raises here). The 2020 target is inarguably too weak from a scientific perspective (although using this deep-recession/near-depression year as the baseline and not the bill's 2005 base year is a critique that should be beneath Hansen). That unfortunate outcome came about principally because the Bush administration did nothing for eight years, which meant that any U.S. climate bill passed now that starts in 2012 was never going to have a 2020 target like Hansen (and developing countries) wanted, which would have required the equivalent of a 40% cut in 8 years. I guess Hansen and others can trash the Obama administration and leading environmental legislators like Waxman and Markey for that, but I see that as worse than pointless.

[Note to Hansen: Congress was never going to pass a carbon tax that would "phase out coal emissions over the next two decades." You can pretend it was -- and vent your misplaced wrath at cap-and-trade proponents -- but even if a carbon tax could pass Congress, it would ultimately be little different from W-M in its outcomes, and would lack the targets needed to move the international negotiations process forward.]

And it is really quite out of character for Hansen to make such a factually untrue assertion as

...sabotages even these by permitting fictitious "offsets," by which other nations are paid to preserve forests -- while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.

Of the more than 1000 Clean Development Mechanism projects funded and sold to date as international offsets (CERs) under the Kyoto process, 3 have been forestry. Hansen has repeated an absurd and rather destructive myth, which will no doubt resonate around the blogosphere.

Why destructive? Because one of the single best things in the entire W-M bill is that utterly separate from the offset provisions, it sets aside allowances to create a huge pool of money for the United States to contribute to a new international effort to stop deforestation using national-accounting based methods -- a strategy explicitly designed to stop the very problem Hansen (falsely) claims the bill will accelerate. Indeed, the funding in W-M is so great that the United States contribution alone is aimed at stopping deforestation equal to some 720 million metric tons of carbon dioxide -- equal to 10% of U.S. emissions in 2005 -- which is on top of the emissions reductions mandated by the bill.

Finally, the offsets complaint is a bit odd in a piece whose basic thesis is that the first-ever attempt by the United States to take climate action -- which includes a requirement that this country cut greenhouse gas emissions 42% in two decades and 83% in four decades -- is the entire reason for the failure of rich and poor countries to agree on an emissions pathway this week. Hansen writes:

With a workable climate bill in his pocket, President Obama might have been able to begin building that global consensus in Italy. Instead, it looks as if the delegates from other nations may have done what 219 U.S. House members who voted up Waxman-Markey last month did not: critically read the 1,400-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and deduce that it's no more fit to rescue our climate than a V-2 rocket was to land a man on the moon.

That, of course, is poppycock. The delegates haven't read the bill, and they certainly only care about the targets. They could care less about the other 1300 pages of the bill that so bother Hansen (which he hasn't bothered to read, or even read a summary of, as we'll see). Yes, the 2020 target is too weak, but that is true of Japan's new 2020 target -- and frankly even Europe's proposed target wouldn't satisfy what many developing countries have asked for.

More to the point here, the Kyoto process created international offsets, and the Europeans are committed to keeping them (and improving quality and oversight). Whatever complaints the developing countries have about Waxman-Markey, the fact that it makes use of international offsets is not high on their list. In fact, they want a mechanism by which rich polluters help them develop with clean energy.

I am not a big fan of offsets, but after much research and discussion with leading experts, I've come to the conclusion that they do not vitiate the targets (see "Do the 2 billion offsets allowed in Waxman-Markey gut the emissions targets?"). The bill is written in a manner that should allow the United States to strengthen oversight of international offsets, but in any case, it is difficult to blame the United States for the current state of the CDM. And again, what the bill does on global forest preservation is not an "egregious flaw" but a central contribution to stopping global warming.

Hansen's third "egregious" flaw:

Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, "has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives."

This is an utter falsehood. Indeed, it is a repackaged version of a falsehood that anti-scientific anti-clean-energy Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour put forward (see "Barbour utterly tries to scare public with wildly implausible Chinese scheme to manipulate the emissions market"). So let me repeat for the record:

There are many provisions (and realities) that would stop "insider trading" (whatever the heck that is in this case) and "a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives."

First off, the permit market is huge. Even purchasing 2% of the permits in, say, 2015, would probably cost $1 billion. And speculators would have to purchase several times that to significantly run up the price.

(As an aside, Hansen should really like speculators because they increase the price of the permit.)

Second, it will be so easy to meet the targets for at least the first decade (see here) that the "real" price of a permit will probably be slightly below the auction price (which has a floor). So it will be highly unprofitable to buy lots of permits, which would run up the price, in an effort to make money selling those permits sometime in the future. I can't imagine a plausible scenario in which this would make economic sense for any entity even if they could get away with it, which they cannot.

Third, the bill requires EPA to promulgate regulations to cover the auction. As CQ's summary of the bill explains:

Bidders must disclose all parties sponsoring their bids;

Individual bidders would be limited to purchasing up to 5% of allowances sold at any quarterly auction;

EPA would have to publish information about winning bidders

So it would be very difficult to do any major purchasing in secret, any major "insider trading," and virtually impossible to acquire a large fraction of the permits. Indeed, in this context, "insider trading" looks to be just a collection of meaningless scare-words. Hansen can do better.

Fourth, the bill has a whole section devoted to "Carbon Market Assurance." As the WRI summary describes it:

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is given regulatory authority over allowance and offset markets and allowance derivative markets (Sec. 761, pg. 449). The president is also delegated authority to instruct agencies to take on pieces of market regulation based on existing authority as long as regulations are consistent with this section. The draft makes it a federal crime to commit fraud or manipulate any carbon market. In addition, the regulations facilitate and maintain market oversight and transparency and require market monitoring to prevent fraud, manipulation and excessive speculation.

That section explicitly includes derivatives, with further oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Fifth, the bill has a Strategic Reserve (with tons originally skimmed off from each year's total target) that an entity can purchase permits from if the price sees a short-term run up of about 60%. So again the bill will is designed to prevent someone from cornering the market.

So this charge by Shapiro and Hansen is utterly false. Now Hansen apparently hasn't bothered to look at the bill or any of the many summaries. I would note that essentially all of these oversight provisions were in the original March draft -- so they should not be a surprise to anybody.

Since Hansen really doesn't follow this sort of policy issue closely -- even though he opines on it -- I can understand why he might just parrot Shapiro. But Shapiro is, as Hansen notes, former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs and co-chair of the U.S. Climate Task Force. So he should know better. Then again, one of the two (!) advisors listed for the U.S. Climate Task Force is "Kevin Hassett, Director of Economic Studies for the American Enterprise Institute."

Now AEI remains a leading anti-climate-action, anti-clean energy right wing think tank. For instance, AEI continues to assert (without any supporting evidence), "No matter what you've been told, the technology to significantly reduce emissions is decades away and extremely costly," and it continues to parrot utterly false denier talking points like "For the last decade, warming peaked, and has recently declined: we're back to the average temperatures that prevailed in 1978" (see "AEI: Still crazy with denial and delay after all these years"). I simply can't imagine any group that wants to be taken seriously on climate policy having a senior AEI staffer as an advisor. So for now, the analysis of "The U.S. Climate Task Force" and its leadership should be ignored by anyone who wants to be taken seriously on climate policy.

But Hansen isn't content to quote Shapiro's falsehoods once. No, his fourth and last egregious flaw is:

It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro notes, "businesses and households won't be able to calculate whether developing and using less carbon-intensive energy and technologies makes economic sense," thus ensuring that millions of carbon-critical decisions fall short.

Uhh, no. In fact, the bill does set a very predictable (and rising) floor on the auction price. And again, since the 2020 target is so easy to meet with abundant, low-cost domestic clean energy -- like efficiency, conservation, renewables, and fuel switching from coal to gas -- I think the carbon price is likely to hug the floor price through 2020. But that's what I think -- not what the industry believes.

Hansen has this argument exactly backwards. One of the biggest pluses of a cap-and-trade over a tax is that participants tend to think that the cost of meeting the targets -- and hence the cost of the permits -- will be much higher than they actually turn out to be. So they do more than is necessary, especially once they find out how easy it is to cut emissions. That is why in previous cap-and-trade programs, like sulfur dioxide, the targets were achieve faster and cheaper than anybody expected.

Remember the industry-funded economic models show very high permit prices. That's why the industry ends up acting as if the permit price is going to be high. I already know medium-sized energy-intensive companies that have done bupkes on energy for decades who are now scrambling to figure out what this bill means for them. They will inevitably put in place basic energy efficiency and carbon mitigation strategies of the kind that I detail in my book Cool Companies (see "Cool Companies, Part 1: How the best businesses boost profits and productivity by reducing greenhouse gas emissions" and "The United States of Waste"). That will be repeated by hundreds of different companies, ultimately leading to far more emissions reductions at a far lower cost than all the economic models project.

So it is sheer nonsense -- and the exact opposite of the truth -- for Hansen and Shapiro to claim this bill will ensure "that millions of carbon-critical decisions fall short."

Yes, those who like carbon taxes think that predictable prices are preferable. But I'm with Nobelist Krugman, who writes, "The claim that carbon taxes are better than cap and trade is, in my view, just wrong." In particular:

One objection -- the claim that carbon taxes are better than cap and trade -- is, in my view, just wrong. In principle, emission taxes and tradable emission permits are equally effective at limiting pollution. In practice, cap and trade has some major advantages, especially for achieving effective international cooperation.

Not to put too fine a point on it, think about how hard it would be to verify whether China was really implementing a promise to tax carbon emissions, as opposed to letting factory owners with the right connections off the hook. By contrast, it would be fairly easy to determine whether China was holding its total emissions below agreed-upon levels.

Now Hansen can keep pointlessly pushing his carbon tax if he wants to. Heck, he can argue the merits of Betamax and John McCain and Adam Lambert, if he wants. But trashing Waxman-Markey and its supporters based on recycled myths touted by others remains ill-conceived and unhelpful.

Right for 27 years: 1981 Hansen study finds warming trend that could raise sea levels

Stabilize at 350 ppm or risk ice-free planet, warn NASA, Yale, Sheffield, Versailles, Boston et al

Drilling off-shore is a "crazy thing" says Hansen on 20th anniversary of his famous testimony

'Tipping Point' -- A non-technical Hansen piece

Hansen's plea for leadership to Nevada Gov.

Hansen: Yankee Ticket Prices and Fossil Fuels

NASA's Hansen responds to NYT's Revkin

Hansen (et al) must read: Get back to 350 ppm or risk an ice-free planet

Hansen throws cold water on cooling climate claim

Hansen: The Shadow on American Democracy

Dr. Hansen to Dr. Merkel: Carbon is forever -- so ban new traditional coal plants now

Hansen's op-ed advice to Massachusetts

Hansen apologizes, warns against "averting our eyes"

Hansen's final Iowa testimony

More swiftboating of James Hansen

Another "Must Read" from Hansen: 'Long-term' climate sensitivity of 6°C for doubled CO2

A Must Read: "Global Temperature Change," by James Hansen et al.

Hansen 1: Sea Level Rise

Hansen 2: Iowa Edition of Declaration of Stewardship

Hansen on "civil disobedience"

Hansen on "Fossil Fuel Subsidies"

NASA's Hansen on Live Earth, Gore, and Coal

Memo to Hansen 2: Why is the country's top anti-science blog reprinting your stuff?

T. Boone Pickens: Now Is The Time: Pass the NAT GAS Act

2009-07-10T00:09:26Z

I've always said that the most important quality of a good leader is that you've got to be willing to make a decision. Too often, people fall victim to what I call the "ready-aim-aim-aim-aim" syndrome. Everything has got to be absolutely perfect. The truth is sometimes you've got to be willing to pull the trigger. Only afterward does it become apparent that the time was right.

Yesterday, I witnessed what leadership is all about firsthand. My good friends, Senators Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch, signed on as cosponsors of Senator Robert Menendez's new bill: the NAT GAS Act. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be introduced in the Senate over the last 40 years. It goes right to the heart of the question I've been asking since I launched the Pickens Plan a year ago on July 8:

When are we going to put in place the energy plan this country needs and deserves?

Now is the time.

The NAT GAS Act will extend and increase tax credits for natural gas vehicles and refueling. It will help encourage the development of natural gas vehicles, a much needed step for our beleaguered auto industry. NAT GAS will also save consumers thousands of dollars on fuel costs and protect our environment by utilizing cleaner burning natural gas.

This bill is the only way I know to quickly and effectively reduce our dependence on foreign oil. No other fuel can replace diesel and power a big semi or a garbage truck, including batteries. For too long, our dependence on foreign oil has been one of the leading factors influencing American foreign policy. If we can eliminate that issue by using our enormous domestic natural gas resources, I am confident that it will benefit our national security, our economy, and the environment.

As I have said many times before, natural gas is cleaner, cheaper, it's abundant, and it's American. That's why Senator Menendez's bill enjoys exceptional bipartisan support, starting at the top with Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch. The House version, which was introduced by Dan Boren, John Sullivan, and John Larson, now has a total of 71 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. We're pulling together on this one. Not as Democrats. Not as Republicans. But as Americans.

For almost four decades, this country has been floundering without an energy plan. Is now the best time to put one in place? No. The best time to do that was back in the 1970s when we were importing a small fraction of our crude from overseas. But as these leaders are demonstrating, now is the right time.

Mike Sandler: Waxman-Markey's "Postage Stamp" Costs Transfer Wealth from the Poor to the Rich

2009-07-09T22:39:34Z

The Democrats used a nice talking point during the House's Waxman-Markey climate bill debate. They said that the bill will only cost a "postage stamp per day." The basis for the talking point was a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimating an annual cost of "$175 per household in 2020" or "48 cents a day." This was parroted by Al Gore, Joe Romm and Climate Progress, and Think Progress. Paul Krugman's June 22 NYT blog cites the CBO study at just 18 cents a day per person.

But there are problems with the "postage stamp" approach. Dr. James Boyce of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, notes that the CBO arrived at the "postage stamp" cost by first assuming all costs are recycled to consumers, and then subtracting only the portion of costs that are explicitly directed elsewhere: the purchase of international offsets, the production cost of domestic offsets, true economic costs (e.g. of energy efficiency), and overseas spending on adaptation and mitigation. The CBO estimated the bill's "net impact" not the "cost to households" from higher fuel prices.

CBO assumed that when companies receive free allowances through Waxman Markey's giveaway, consumers would benefit from lower prices for goods and services, even though that did not happen in Europe. They also assumed that the value of the free allowances will be passed along to the shareholders (who live in households?) of the companies receiving the free allowances. The CBO understood that most shareholders are in the wealthiest income quintile. This leads to the next problem with allocation in Waxman-Markey, and you won't hear this in the Democratic talking points: the Waxman-Markey bill actually transfers wealth from the poor to the rich.

Let's contrast the CBO's estimates of consumer net impact across the 5 income quintiles (5 is the wealthiest) in the Waxman-Markey allocation (first set of numbers below) with a Cap and Dividend policy (second set - an equal per capita rebate to consumers of $605), as calculated by Professor Boyce. Comparing the two (third set), Boyce draws the following conclusion:

"Compared to a cap-and-dividend policy, the allocation of allowance value under Waxman-Markey takes $140 per household per year from the poorest fifth of American households, $95/year from the next fifth, $165/year from the middle fifth, and $130/year from the second-richest fifth, and transfers this money ($530/year in total) to households in the richest fifth of the population."

Waxman-Markey
Quintile | Dollars paid back | Share of payback

1 | $465 | 15.4% |
2 | $510 | 16.9% |
3 | $440 | 14.6% |
4 | $475 | 15.6% |
5 | $1135 | 37.5% |

Cap-and-Dividend
Quintile | Dollars paid back | Share of payback

1 | $605 | 20% |
2 | $605 | 20% |
3 | $605 | 20% |
4 | $605 | 20% |
5 | $605 | 20% |

Quintile | Difference (WM - C&D)
1 | - $140
2 | - $95
3 | - $165
4 | -$130
5 | +$530

Four out of five Americans would do better with a dividend.

The Democratic leadership painted themselves into a corner by deciding to give away permits (which are like money) to get votes. This is a typical Congressional strategy. But in this case, the short term strategy which got Waxman Markey the 219 votes it needed could hurt the Dems in 2010 or 2012 if prices go up. Fuel and electricity costs are highly visible, but under Waxman-Markey, the benefits to consumers will be mostly invisible. People will see the costs of the transition every time they fill up their gas tank and they hear the news report the latest gas prices. The CBO assumes that 65% of benefits of free allocation to local utility companies in Waxman-Markey go to the industrial and commercial customers, not to residents. Presumably savings filter back to people in prices of goods and services and in stock prices, but these signals are mixed in with other factors. In the end, people will be thinking about the gross costs, not net costs.

A better strategy would be to acknowledge that there will be costs, but to offer rebates and dividends that compensate consumers at all levels. Instead of gambling that the costs of addressing climate change will be low, proponents would level with the American people, "Yes, we know addressing climate change may have some costs. That is why we are giving you a rebate, and making sure the corporations don't profit off this important transition. It is only fair that if there are any profits to be had, they are recycled back to you, the people of America, who are funding this transition to clean energy and efficient transportation for our grandchildren and future generations." How would opponents respond?

Consumer compensation could be bi-partisan, with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) joining with Republicans such as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who like the dividend because it doesn't swallow revenues into the black hole of general fund deficits or go for more pork barrel spending.

There's still time. The Senate has just started to debate their version of the bill. The Senate version could give the permits directly to the people (the voters) through Cap and Dividend, Carbon Share, or a tax rebate similar to the payroll tax swap. A Senate consumer compensation strategy would be an improvement over the House's "postage stamp" strategy.

Avital Binshtock: Self-Care = Earth Care

2009-07-09T22:12:08Z

What's good for our bodies is good for the planet -- and what's bad for the earth is bad for our health. The idea that caring for the earth must include attending to our own wellness is worth exploring. These are ways to take better care of yourself and the environment.

Mind Your Mind

The link between mental health and environmental degradation isn't commonly discussed, but it's when people feel unsatisfied that they're likelier to overconsume, making the planet a hapless victim. And the unprecedented rates at which Westerners are taking antidepressants and stimulants are polluting our rivers and oceans.

Natural ways to feel better include exercising, getting enough sleep, developing a strong support system, talk therapy, heading outdoors, and pursuing a hobby. If you have to take medications, be sure to properly dispose of them.

Watch What You Eat

You can make dietary changes to help your health and please the planet. Eating less meat, for example, is a huge way to heal the earth (18 percent of greenhouse gases come from industrialized livestock production), as is reducing overall caloric intake.

The term "tread lightly" takes on new meaning now that there's research, written about here, here, and here, citing overeating and obesity as causes of global warming.

Choose Organic

When buying food, cosmetics, or clothing, try to ensure that anything you'll be putting in or on your body is free of pesticides and other chemicals that pollute the planet and your innards. Choosing purer products might cost more in the short term, but in the long run you'll be saving more than dollars. Just look for the seal.

Cut Out the Plastic

Many of us already know how devastating plastic can be for the planet, but most aren't fully aware that the synthetics can harm human health too. From heating food in plastic containers to reusing plastic bottles (and perhaps even using them the first time) to scientific concerns about BPA, there's an ocean's worth of reasons to steer clear. Instead of throwaway plastic, choose reusable glass or metal. If you do find yourself having to use plastic, do your best to recycle it.

Please comment: What are other ways to help your health and the planet?

Brendan DeMelle: 'Justice for Vieques': Resolutions Passed by Both Houses of Puerto Rican Legislature

2009-07-09T21:43:33Z

The United Nations and both houses of the Puerto Rican Legislature have now passed resolutions supporting the people of Vieques in their struggle with disease, contamination and neglect from the United States Navy's 60-year bombardment of the island.

When will the Obama Administration follow through on Obama's campaign promise to clean up the island and provide justice for the Vieques residents sickened by the Navy's actions?

The people of Vieques are experiencing an ongoing health crisis created by the U.S. Navy, which left behind a toxic brew of chemicals and heavy metals, including depleted uranium, napalm, mercury, arsenic, and lead from bombing and other military training activities. Residents of Vieques suffer from abnormally high rates of cancer, birth defects and other serious diseases. Scientific studies show this stems from their contaminated environment.

The U.S. government's ongoing neglect of the cleanup and health effects afflicting the people of Vieques have generated overwhelming public outrage in Puerto Rico and beyond. Groups which have called on the government to provide a just remedy for Vieques include the United Nations; the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC); the League of United Latin American Cities (LULAC); the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO); the National Council of La Raza (NCLR); the American Values Network and others.

The Senate of Puerto Rico passed a resolution on June 19, 2009 calling on President Obama to:

"recognize the extraordinary contributions and sacrifices made by the residents of Vieques to the preservation of our national security over a period covering more than six decades." The resolution further states that "it would be in the best interests of the United States of America to address the losses and ongoing medical and economic needs of the U.S. citizens on Vieques, which could be resulting from the U.S. Navy's long bombardment and contamination of the island" and suggests that "the fastest, fairest, and most efficient way to correct the injustice and health crisis is for the U.S. Government to resolve the claims pending in the US District Court in San Juan as well as those pending for the Municipality of Vieques before the Secretary of Navy." [unofficial translation, PDF]

A similar resolution passed the Puerto Rican House of Representatives a week later on June 25, 2009 [PDF]. And a resolution reaffirmed last month by a special committee of the United Nations:

"Urges the Government of the United States, in line with the need to guarantee the Puerto Rican people their legitimate right to self-determination and the protection of their human rights, to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques Island and in Ceiba to the people of Puerto Rico; respect fundamental human rights, such as the right to health and economic development; and expedite and cover the costs of the process of cleaning up and decontaminating the impact areas previously used in military exercises through means that do not continue to aggravate the serious consequences of its military activity for the health of the inhabitants of Vieques Island and the environment." [PDF]

During his campaign for President, Barack Obama promised the people of Puerto Rico in a February 2008 letter that his administration would:

"actively work with the Department of Defense... to achieve an environmentally acceptable clean-up of the former U.S. Navy lands in Vieques, Puerto Rico. We will closely monitor the health of the people of Vieques and promote appropriate remedies to health conditions caused by military activities conducted by the U.S. Navy on Vieques."

Instead of following through on his campaign promise to help Vieques, President Obama has not yet acted, and - perhaps emboldened by silence from the White House - the Justice Department has pursued a defense of "sovereign immunity" to protect the Navy and deny justice to the people of Vieques.

Hiding behind an archaic principle derived from the Middle Ages when, ostensibly ordained of God, "the King could do no wrong," is hardly the change that the people of Vieques expected from the Obama Administration. While there may be legitimate uses of national security arguments in defending the military's actions in other instances, the U.S. Navy's abhorrent conduct in Vieques does not merit such forgiveness.

Over 7,000 Vieques residents who are plaintiffs in an ongoing mass tort action have documented multiple failures by the Navy to comply with specific, mandatory environmental regulations. They also cite the Navy's failure to warn the people of Vieques of the harmful effects of toxins released into the island's air, water and soil.

But the government is now using the "sovereign immunity" defense to claim that:

"there was no specific and mandatory provision requiring any warning to citizens of Vieques regarding environmental hazards, and any warning would have required balancing competing concerns of secrecy and safety, national security and public health." [pg 21 of PDF]

The Justice Department even has the gall to suggest in a recent court document that:

"With respect to any warning, the Navy would have had to balance its military and national security needs against any perceived benefits to public health and safety in light of the risks and burdens of a warning program and the great public anxiety warnings could create." [pg 23 of PDF]

Yes, you read that correctly. In the government's twisted logic, warning people about the impending bombing that will contaminate their air, water, soil and bodies could harm them more than the toxic contaminants themselves.

How thoughtful. Viequenses now suffering from cancer and birth defects must feel grateful to the government for saving them from the anxiety of being warned about their exposure beforehand.

President Obama must quickly intervene in this matter and ensure that the people of Vieques are not denied their day in court. They have sacrificed greatly for our nation and deserve swift justice, attention to their health problems, and a thorough cleanup of their island.

It's time to deliver on that promise, Mr. President.

Christine Escobar: He's Back! Former VP at Monsanto To Advise FDA Commissioner on Food Safety

2009-07-09T20:58:33Z

Michael R. Taylor, the former Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto has returned through Washington's revolving doors and will now advise FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg on food safety.

We learn of this discouraging connection on the same day the White House announced its new commitment to upgrading the country's food safety system.

Much hope had been held out for a change in FDA perspective due to Commissioner Hamburg's lack of industry ties. Her career has consisted of public health research and policy positions. Prior to her appointment as FDA commissioner, she worked as the New York City health commissioner. Unfortunately, it appears that with the addition of Taylor, the FDA has remedied that problem.

It seems Taylor is just the man you'd want on the job, if you're concerned about unwanted industry regulation and corporate representation of toxic hormones in your dairy. But, examining bad industry practices that lead to salmonella and E. coli tainted foods? Not so sure about that.

According to a release Tuesday on the agency's website, Taylor will now serve as senior advisor to the FDA head. In the announcement, Hamburg, said of Taylor:

"I am pleased to welcome Mike Taylor back to the FDA," Commissioner of Food and Drugs Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., said in announcing Taylor's appointment. "His expertise and leadership on food safety issues will help the agency to develop and implement the prevention based strategy we need to ensure the safety of the food we eat."

Taylor's "long and distinguished career" is noted therein without mention of his 7 years of work as an attorney for Monsanto, the giant agricultural biotech corporation.

A few months ago, I posted a story here on The Huffington Post highlighting the insidious way rBGH (the bovine growth hormone) made it into our country's food supply, with the help of Michael R. Taylor. I wrote about the dangerous effects of the addition of rBGH to our dairy supply:

In humans, studies indicate milk from cows treated with rBGH may contain elevated levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IFG-1), which can increase the risk of breast cancer and other types of cancer.

Here is a portion of what I detailed about Taylor's connections in that story:

"An excerpt from a 1998 article in The Ecologist magazine details Taylor's journey and its significance:

"In March 1994, Taylor was publicly exposed as a former lawyer for the Monsanto corporation for seven years. While working for Monsanto, Taylor had prepared a memo for the company as to whether or not it would be constitutional for states to erect labeling laws concerning rBGH dairy products. In other words. Taylor helped Monsanto figure out whether or not the corporation could sue states or companies that wanted to tell the public that their products were free of Monsanto's drug."

So, just what will Taylor's duties be?

As Senior Advisor to the FDA Commissioner, he will be expected to:
* Assess current food program challenges and opportunities
* Identify capacity needs and regulatory priorities
* Develop plans for allocating fiscal year 2010 resources
* Develop the FDA's budget request for fiscal year 2011
* Plan implementation of new food safety legislation.

See this page to read more on Taylor's industry and political connections.