Tag Archives: council

Are Conservatives Serious About ISIS?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Over at The Corner, conservatives are using the opportunity of dozens dead in France to—what else? Blame it all on President Obama. Here’s a small sampling:

Mario Loyola: I don’t want my incandescent anger at Obama’s ISIS policy to get in the way of a simple observation: Obama thinks that more people die in bathtubs than in terrorist attacks, and accordingly, it would be disproportionate to make more than a minimal effort to eliminate the ISIS safe havens in Syria, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere. He thinks today’s elevated risk of mass-casualty terrorist attacks in Europe and the U.S. is more acceptable than the risks of really going to war against ISIS, and he thinks that going to war against ISIS won’t stop the terrorist attacks anyway.

Jeremy Carl: One sees how deeply unserious a country America has become. And this is true not just among politicians, but in our entire public culture, which has ultimately permitted as dangerous, divisive, and shallow a man as President Obama to occupy the highest office in the land….We’ve fallen so far that a French socialist dandy is teaching us about resolve in the face of terror, just as previously a bunch of French leftist cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo taught the simpering cowards in our mainstream media a lesson about the true purpose of and, sadly, the ultimate price that must sometimes be paid for, defending free speech and expression.

Jay Nordlinger: What I have to say is not very sophisticated. It would not pass muster at the Council on Foreign Relations. But I think you have to kill these jihadists, and kill them, and kill them, until they simply tire of being killed and leave civilization alone.

A final thought, for now: Al Haig used to say, “Go to the source. You gotta go to the source.”…Iraq, Syria, and Iran are home bases for terrorists worldwide. (And I have confined myself to three.) I know that, for more than ten years, we’ve been tired of the phrase “Either confront them over there or confront them here.” Yeah, yeah, yawn, yawn, warmongering neocons. But some clichés are true, whether we want them to be or not.

Peter Kirsanow: The JV team is whipping the Super Bowl champs because the latter’s coaches are weak, stupid, and deluded….At the same time the president wrings his hands about possible radicalization of American youth he moves heaven and earth to release the most dangerous of radicals from Guantanamo. The commander-in-chief can set red lines toward no purpose and apologize to enablers of terror but he can’t summon the interest or ability to secure a status of forces agreement. No place on the planet is more secure and peaceful than when the president took office.

All of these folks are fundamentally pissed off about our “seriousness” in going after ISIS—although I don’t think ISIS has yet been connected to the Nice attack. But put that aside. Whenever I read stuff like this, I have one question: What do you think we should do?

If you really want to destroy ISIS, and do it quickly, there’s only one alternative: ground troops, and plenty of them. This would be a massive counterinsurgency operation, something we’ve proven to be bad at, and at a guess would require at least 100,000 troops. Maybe more. And they’d have to be staged in unfriendly territory: Syria, which obviously doesn’t want us there, and Iraq, which also doesn’t want us there in substantial numbers.

Is that what these folks want? Anything less is, to use their words, unserious. But if they do want a massive ground operation, and simply aren’t willing to say so because they’re afraid the public would rebel, then they’re just as cowardly as the people they’re attacking.

This is the choice. Don’t bamboozle me with no-fly zones and tougher rules of engagement and better border security. That’s small beer. You either support Obama’s current operation, more or less, or else you want a huge and costly ground operation. There’s really no middle ground. So which is it?

View original article:

Are Conservatives Serious About ISIS?

Posted in alo, bamboo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are Conservatives Serious About ISIS?

Possible Clinton VP pick has a weird appeal with enviros, fossil fuel groups

Sen. Tim Kaine REUTERS/Jason Reed

citizen kaine

Possible Clinton VP pick has a weird appeal with enviros, fossil fuel groups

By on Jul 13, 2016Share

Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, one of Hillary Clinton’s potential picks for vice president, appears to have an uncanny ability to appease special interests across party divides.

Kaine is no Elizabeth Warren on the environment, but he’s no Jim Webb either, getting good reviews from surprising quarters. As Politico reports, he opposed the Keystone XL pipeline, protected 400,000 acres of land from development as governor of Virginia, supports the Clean Power Plan, and has worked to make coastal communities prepare for climate change and sea-level rise. The League of Conservation Voters has given him a lifetime score of 91 percent.

Kaine, however, has also supported offshore drilling in the Atlantic — contradicting Clinton’s position — and supported a bill to fast-track the construction of natural gas terminals. Even fossil fuel interests have taken a liking to him. “We’re encouraged by the reasonable approach he’s taken on oil and natural gas, that he hasn’t been swayed by politics and ideology,” Miles Morin, executive director of the Virginia Petroleum Council, told Politico.

Of course, being on good terms with the fossil fuel industry is a cause for concern among some greens. “If Kaine is the pick, Hillary will need to stake out much clearer positions on drilling, fracking, and new fossil fuel infrastructure,” said 350.org policy director Jason Kowalski. R.L. Miller, Climate Hawks Vote cofounder and a chair of California Democrats’ environmental caucus, responded to Kaine’s record with a resounding, “meh,” citing his mixed record on fossil fuels as why he’s a bad pick to lure progressive Democrats to the polls.

Clinton is expected to announce her choice after the GOP convention next week.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

This article is from: 

Possible Clinton VP pick has a weird appeal with enviros, fossil fuel groups

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, Jason, ONA, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Possible Clinton VP pick has a weird appeal with enviros, fossil fuel groups

John Cena Released a Video About "What Patriotism Should Mean"—And It’s Amazing

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

John Cena does a lot of things. He delivers a mean body slam, raps, and now has some pretty awesome things to say about what patriotism should mean in America.

“Patriotism is love for a country—not just pride in it. But what really makes up this country of ours? What is it we love?” he asks. “It’s the people.” In this video, released on July 4 as part of an Ad Council campaign, Cena challenges our biases about who we think the average American is and reminds us that “almost half the country belongs to minority groups.”

The main message? Throw out the labels. Love everybody. And stop imagining that the average American is a white man. Watch below:

Continue reading here: 

John Cena Released a Video About "What Patriotism Should Mean"—And It’s Amazing

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Cena Released a Video About "What Patriotism Should Mean"—And It’s Amazing

The crazy true story of how George W. Bush secretly tried to raise the gas tax

The crazy true story of how George W. Bush secretly tried to raise the gas tax

By on Jul 5, 2016Share

Remember that time the George W. Bush administration tried to sneak a new gas tax onto the books and sort of succeeded?

You probably don’t, because not even those fighting over this measure in Congress understood what was going on. As far as I can tell, the only person who knows the full story is Hanna Breetz, a political scientist at Arizona State University who wrote a dissertation on U.S. alternative fuel policy back in 2012. It’s a dissertation that — mirabile dictu — broke news. But, because it’s a dissertation, no one noticed.

Breetz’s research provides a rare glimpse inside the political sausage factory that churns policy proposals into laws for the good old US of A. In this episode, nobody saw the full picture, and nobody was pushing for the thing that emerged in the end. It’s a story that shows how sometimes there is no guiding plan behind this country’s policy. The politicians weren’t rational planners — they were more like ants tugging a leaf in haphazard directions until they reached a destination.

Back in January 2006, Bush held a one-man intervention with the United States, telling the country that it was “addicted to oil.” To help wean us off our addiction, he called for us to increase our alternative fuel consumption to 35 billion gallons by 2017. Where did this number come from? Conventional wisdom held that Bush pulled it from thin air.

“Tellingly, not one of the industry lobbyists, environmental advocates, Department of Energy analysts, or Congressional staff that I interviewed seemed to know where the 35 billion gallon goal came from,” Breetz writes. “Many of them derided it as a number made up for political purposes.” The people she interviewed described the target as “arbitrary,” “mythical,” and “mind-boggling.”

It’s tempting to believe that some young speechwriter suggested this number after Bush initially wrote “62 squigilliam gallons!”

In fact, the number had a purpose, and it wasn’t plucked from a hat. But the Bush administration seems to have kept silent about its rationale so that no one would figure out what it was actually proposing: doubling the federal gas tax.

Before the speech, Bush had asked his advisors for a proposal that could make dramatic change without dramatic government intrusion. Bush wanted to work with the market, not pick winners and losers. His advisors suggested a gas tax. Make gas a lot more expensive and people will start choosing other fuels. Of course, this would never fly because most members of Bush’s political party had sworn not to raise taxes of any kind. I imagine someone in the Council of Economic Advisors standing up to say, “Clearly, the best solution would be to tax oil but … we’re Republicans.”

Then, one of these advisors, Benjamin Ho, “reached into the economics literature for an almost subversively clever alternative,” Breetz writes. That alternative: Tell oil companies that they must use an unrealistically high quantity of alternative fuels or pay a penalty — in this case $1 per gallon. It’s functionally equivalent to a gas tax, but it doesn’t look like one. If that doesn’t make sense, you can read how it works here, but remember this is incomprehensible by design. The Bush administration didn’t expect the alternative fuels to emerge out of thin air — it chose a number so big that it would force companies to pay a penalty and push gas prices up. Setting a mandate for 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels would add about 20 cents to the price of gas, on top of the existing 18.6 cent federal gas tax.

When the Senate took up this proposal, however, it morphed into something different. Instead of allowing the market to choose the alternative fuels, senators picked the winner: biofuel — ethanol and biodiesel grown in the Midwest. Instead of creating a mandate for a wide variety of alternative fuels, senators expanded a mandate exclusively for biofuels — gas from plant juice — they had passed two years before. Environmentalists, concerned about the amount of land that we’d need to grow all these biofuels, successfully lobbied to get a mandate for cellulosic ethanol — which can, in theory, be produced without any additional land — into the law.

Along the way, lawmakers eliminated the $1-per-gallon penalty, the key feature required to make this policy an incognito gas tax. They replaced it with fines for companies that failed to meet the impossibly high oil displacement goals. These fines have driven up the price of gas, Breetz told me, but the entire process is inefficient and punitive. In the past, the companies have paid fines for failing to buy cellulosic ethanol that didn’t exist. The courts struck down that practice in 2013, but the EPA still requires oil companies to buy biofuels or pay a fee. Now the fees and volumes are much lower than Bush advisors envisioned, and probably too low to significantly budge the price of gas.

The bill President Bush signed into law on Dec. 19, 2007, Breetz writes, bore little resemblance to what most analysts thought was achievable, or what anyone had wanted to begin with (including the industry it purportedly helped).

The Bush administration deserves more credit than greens generally give it for passing an incognito gas tax. Of course, it didn’t exactly work, but it’s still interesting to see how factions with shared interests pulled this proposal in opposite directions. This case study challenges the notion that democratic governments make deliberate, rational choices. Perhaps we should think of public policy as emergent phenomena, like the formation of geometric patterns in snowflakes and the movement of schools of fish. Maybe democracies plan their political fate only to the same degree that termites plan the architecture of their mounds. For this termite, spending his days scribbling away about what ought to be done, that idea is at once terrifying and liberating.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link to original:

The crazy true story of how George W. Bush secretly tried to raise the gas tax

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The crazy true story of how George W. Bush secretly tried to raise the gas tax

Harry Potter implicated in first driverless car death

Harry Potter implicated in first driverless car death

By on Jul 1, 2016Share

A man died in a car crash while his Tesla sedan was in autopilot mode, the company announced on Thursday. It was the first known fatality involving a self-driving vehicle.

The accident, which occurred in on a Florida highway in May, killed Joshua Brown, 40, a former Navy SEAL from Ohio. Traffic safety regulators opened an investigation into the collision. Tesla described the accident on its website:

What we know is that the vehicle was on a divided highway with Autopilot engaged when a tractor trailer drove across the highway perpendicular to the Model S. Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied. The high ride height of the trailer combined with its positioning across the road and the extremely rare circumstances of the impact caused the Model S to pass under the trailer, with the bottom of the trailer impacting the windshield of the Model S.

Brown was an advocate for self-driving technology and maintained a YouTube page with videos of his Tesla Model S driving on autopilot. One video, now viewed more than 2 million times, shows his Tesla — which he called “Tessy” — narrowly avoiding a collision. “Tessy did great,” Brown wrote in a caption under the video. “I have done a lot of testing with the sensors in the car and the software capabilities. I have always been impressed with the car, but I had not tested the car’s side collision avoidance. I am VERY impressed.”

While Tesla recommends that drivers keep their hands on the wheel at all times, even while autopilot is engaged, Brown, according to the driver of the tractor trailer, was watching a Harry Potter film at the time of the accident. “It was still playing when he died and snapped a telephone pole a quarter mile down the road,” driver Frank Baressi said in an interview with the Associated Press. A portable DVD player was found in the car after the accident.

While self-driving vehicles have been heralded by some technologists as safer and more efficient than standard vehicles, others argue that the technology could have major negative impacts on transportation systems — including by putting more cars on the road. One study found that automated technology could increase vehicle miles traveled by as much as 60 percent. As Roland Hwang, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s transportation program, put it, “There’s a utopian vision of what this looks like, but there’s also a dystopian vision.”

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continued here: 

Harry Potter implicated in first driverless car death

Posted in alo, Anchor, eco-friendly, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Safer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Harry Potter implicated in first driverless car death

GE Capital Shrinks to Avoid the Cost of Being "Systemically Important"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

GE has been working on this for a while, and today they got their wish:

The U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council said Wednesday that it voted this week to remove its label on GE Capital as “systemically important financial institution,” which carries more stringent oversight. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, who chairs the council, said the change shows that designation is a “two-way process”—a rebuttal to critics who have said its process for branding “systemic” firms is opaque and doesn’t give firms a clear road map on how to reduce risk.

This is good news:

GE Chief Executive Jeff Immelt said changed market conditions and new regulations had caused GE Capital’s returns to fall below its cost of capital….Since deciding to wind down the finance arm, GE Capital has signed agreements for the sale of about $180 billion of businesses and has closed about $156 billion of those transactions.

In other words, new regulations made it more expensive to do business as a huge financial services firm, so they decided to shrink. This is exactly the way it should be. Higher capital requirements and other rules give financial firms a choice: either accept the more stringent rules as a way of making themselves safer, or else shrink enough that they don’t pose a systemic danger in the first place.

Most banks are paying the higher costs, and that’s fine. As long as the additional capital requirements are sufficient, they’re now safer and less likely to collapse during a financial crisis. GE Capital chose the other route, and that’s fine too. So far, this is all working out pretty well.

See more here: 

GE Capital Shrinks to Avoid the Cost of Being "Systemically Important"

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on GE Capital Shrinks to Avoid the Cost of Being "Systemically Important"

San Francisco Just Passed the Nation’s Toughest Ban on Styrofoam

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

San Franciscans, bid adieu to Styrofoam. On Tuesday, the city unanimously passed an ordinance banning the sale of any product made from polystyrene, the petroleum-based compound that’s molded into disposable dishware, packing materials, and beach toys—among other things. Even though it’s commonly known as Styrofoam, that’s just a name-brand owned by the Dow Chemical Company.

It’s not SF’s first such restriction. In 2007, the city prohibited the use of polystyrene use in all to-go food containers. More than 100 cities, along with Washington, DC, now have similar laws in place. (The first Styrofoam ban was passed in 1988 by the city of Berkeley.) But San Francisco’s new ordinance, part of the city’s goal of “zero waste” by 2020, is the broadest yet. As of January 1, 2017, it will be unlawful to sell polystyrene packing materials (those infuriating foam peanuts, for instance), day-use coolers, trays used in meat and fish packaging, and even foam dock floats and mooring buoys.

Polystyrene’s story begins in the first half of the 20th century, but it didn’t become a staple of our everyday lives until the second half, when world production of plastic resins increased 25 fold. Before long, polystyrene was synonymous with take-out food, barbeque plates, and disposable coffee cups—Americans today still use an estimated 25 billion foam cups each year.

This week’s ban is a victory for environmentalists, who since the late 1970s have been up in arms over polystyrene’s impacts on marine life and waterways. (Recent evidence suggests the resins may be problematic for human health.) Polystyrene breaks down into tiny pieces, easily blown into the sea, where birds and fish often mistake them for food. The nonprofit Agalita Marine Research and Education found that about 44 percent of seabirds have ingested plastic, and 267 species of marine life are affected in various ways by plastic trash. (Witness photographer Chris Jordan’s devastating bird photos.)

While polystyrene is said to never completely break down in landfills, it actually can decompose in the oceans. The stuff eventually sinks, which makes it difficult to know how much of it exists. And polystyrene contributes to the horrifying notion that by 2050, we may have more plastics in the ocean than fish.

Critics of the new ban are quick to point out that polystyrene is recyclable—a judge actually overturned New York City’s ban on to-go containers last year, ruling that the city could make big money recycling the stuff. But while San Francisco residents can bring large pieces of polystyrene to a transfer station free of charge, it rarely gets recycled. The problem, says Robert Reed, a local project manager for Recology, a company that helps cities manage solid waste, is that few people bother to bring in their Styrofoam, and when they do, it’s usually not in good enough condition to be repurposed. (It can be melted down and used as trim or molding for building construction.) “The few buyers who exist demand that the material be very clean,” Reed says in an email. “They don’t even want dust on it.”

The American Chemistry Council, the trade group for chemical makers, opposed the city’s ban, arguing that polystyrene’s light weight results in less carbon emissions when products are transported. The group urged the city to consider the environmental costs of all packaging materials, as polystyrene will likely be replaced with compostable foams. “All packaging leaves an environmental footprint,” Tim Shestek, the council’s senior director, said in a statement.

“Compostables are not the silver bullet,” concedes Samantha Sommer, a project manager with Clean Water Action California, which aims to curb single-use products. Even compostable products, she says, “come from resources; it takes resources to produce, it produces energy and water emissions throughout its life cycle, and then becomes difficult to manage.”

But Styrofoam all the more so.

View article:

San Francisco Just Passed the Nation’s Toughest Ban on Styrofoam

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on San Francisco Just Passed the Nation’s Toughest Ban on Styrofoam

New York City tries to end scourge of plastic bags. New York state says, “Nope.”

New York City tries to end scourge of plastic bags. New York state says, “Nope.”

By on Jun 8, 2016Share

In May, New York City became the largest American city to tackle the plastic bag problem by narrowly passing legislation adding a 5 cent fee to each bag, both paper and plastic.

But, the New York Post reports, that law is hardly a done deal: The Republican-led New York Senate blocked the measure this week by passing legislation that prevents municipalities from imposing their own bag fees.

City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito quickly responded that she would work around the bill by changing the language for the bag fee and amending it to start next year.

But even city-wide support for the fee is mixed. Some, including Democrats in the state Senate, say it will disproportionately effect low-income and minority shoppers, although those buying groceries with government benefits would be exempt.

Others object to where the money is going — namely, the retailers themselves. “I was in Washington, D.C., when the bag fee happened, and you know what? It was to clean up the river,” Bertha Lewis, a social justice activist who opposes the measure told the New York Times. “These funds are being dedicated to the pockets of the retailers.” Lewis’ group, the Black Institute, collected signatures against the bill, and they were backed by plastic bag lobbying group the American Progressive Bag Alliance.

Plastic bags have long been a source of ire for environmentalists and litter-haters, and it’s easy to see why: As my colleague Ben Adler wrote, “When they’re not piling up in landfills, they’re blocking storm drains, littering streets, getting stuck in trees, and contaminating oceans, where fish, seabirds, and other marine animals eat them or get tangled up in them.”

There’s still the question of whether paper or reusable bags are really that much better for the environment. Plastic is undeniably bad, but the paper isn’t great either: A 2007 study found that the carbon footprint of paper is actually higher than that of plastic, mostly due to manufacturing and transportation. The same study noted that reusable cotton has problems of its own: A pound of cotton takes over 5,000 gallons of water to produce on average, and cotton isn’t recyclable in most places.

Clearly, the bag debate is far from over in New York and elsewhere. But we can be sure about one thing: While the environmental cost of any bag is high, it’s nothing compared to what you put in it.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Original post – 

New York City tries to end scourge of plastic bags. New York state says, “Nope.”

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New York City tries to end scourge of plastic bags. New York state says, “Nope.”

Oregon explosion reminds us that oil trains are “weapons of mass destruction”

Oregon explosion reminds us that oil trains are “weapons of mass destruction”

By on Jun 6, 2016Share

An oil train that went off the tracks and burst into flames in the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon last week hasn’t been cleaned up yet, but the railroad is already back to business as usual. And many North Americans are feeling renewed anxieties about the danger of what activists call “bomb trains.”

On Friday, 16 Union Pacific train cars filled with highly combustible fracked oil from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota derailed outside Mosier, Ore. Multiple cars caught fire, and about 100 people were evacuated from nearby homes. Elizabeth Sanchey, one of the first responders, told Oregon Public Broadcasting that the scene “looked like the apocalypse.” This weekend, a sheen of oil was spotted on the Columbia River nearby.

Mosier city officials quickly passed an emergency motion calling on Union Pacific to remove all oil from the damaged cars before the line was reopened, but Union Pacific just pushed the disabled cars to the side of the track and restarted operations. As of this writing, the cars are still filled with oil.

Oil train derailment in Mosier, Ore.Columbia Riverkeeper

“Restarting trains before the high-risk carnage of their last accident is even cleared from the tracks is telling Mosier they are going to play a second round of Russian roulette without our town,” said Mayor Alrene Burns in a statement. “It’s totally unacceptable.”

Mosier’s citizens agree. Dozens of locals — including city officials, tribal representatives, faith leaders, and members of environmental groups — gathered in nearby Hood River, Ore., over the weekend to protest the oil trains moving through their communities.

Protesters gathered after Mosier oil-train explosion.Columbia Riverkeeper

Mosier, of course, isn’t the only town at risk.

Crude oil from the Bakken shale is especially flammable, and it is transported all across the U.S. and Canada. In 2013, a train moving Bakken crude derailed in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people and destroying much of the town center. It was the most deadly oil-train derailment in recent history, but it was far from the only one. In the past few years, more than a dozen derailments and explosions have occurred, leading to evacuations, oil spills, and, in some cases, fires that burned for days.

The 2013 oil-train disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. Public Herald

Though oil transport by rail is increasingly common, many residents have no idea that these trains are passing through their communities. (This map shows some rail lines that transport oil, as well as sites where accidents have occurred.) In 2014, national railroad operators agreed to eight voluntary measures to lower the risk of derailments, including reducing speed in some cities and increasing inspections, but communities still aren’t getting the information they would need to effectively respond to disasters, let alone prevent them.

Mosier has about 400 residents, but these oil trains aren’t only going through rural areas and small towns. They go through major American cities as well.

In Seattle, an oil train carrying nearly 100 cars derailed underneath a bridge in 2014. While all the cars were left intact and there was no public safety risk, according to officials, the incident underscored the potential for disaster. And that potential is huge: Last year, a KOMO News investigation captured video of more than a hundred train cars filled with oil rolling past the Seattle Seahawks football stadium as 32,000 fans watched a game inside. The Seattle City Council has called for railroads to curb oil train shipments through the city, but the companies have refused to comply, or even to release train schedules. And there’s no law that requires them to.

“The railroads are bringing weapons of mass destruction through our cities,” Fred Millar, oil safety and hazardous materials expert, tells Grist, and the only thing firefighters can do in the event of an explosion is to back off and let it burn.

As for Mosier, all evacuees have been allowed to return home, but their ordeal is far from over. The city’s wastewater treatment plant is offline, residents have a boil advisory for drinking water, and the full oil cars are still sitting there beside the tracks.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

More:

Oregon explosion reminds us that oil trains are “weapons of mass destruction”

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, organic, Safer, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Oregon explosion reminds us that oil trains are “weapons of mass destruction”

The US Wants to Send More Guns to Libya. No, Seriously.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In 2015, the United Nations Security Council expressed concern over the unchecked spread of weapons to militant groups plaguing Libya following the fall of Muammar Gaddafi. Fast-forward a year: The country has descended further into chaos, as dozens of militias, Al Qaeda and ISIS, and two rival governments backed by armed groups vie for power. So, naturally, the United States is ready to ease the UN arms embargo that was put in place in 2011.

The United States, along with many of its international partners, wants to be able to supply “necessary lethal arms” to Libya’s UN-backed interim Government of National Accord to fight ISIS and other terrorist organizations. “It’s a delicate balance. But we are, all of us here today, supportive of the fact that if you have a legitimate government and that legitimate government is fighting terrorism, that legitimate government should not be victimized by the embargo,” Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday.

The same day, Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook admitted that our military doesn’t have a “great picture” of what is happening in Libya. And a day later, the chief of US Africa Command, Army Gen. David Rodriguez, told the Washington Post that it is difficult to determine which militia groups are aligned with the government that the United States hopes to arm. “We’re really dependent on the Government of National Accord to figure out who is with them and who is moving over toward them,” Rodriguez said. “They’ve only been there a month, and they’re still struggling to get established in Tripoli.”

The conditions in Libya are ripe for arms proliferation, and some observers are concerned that flooding the country with more small arms and ammunition, which is what Rodriguez said is most needed, will only fuel the conflict. “The West’s provision of arms into Libya has been devastating to the country for years,” Andrew Feinstein, the executive director of Corruption Watch, told the Washington-based Forum on the Arms Trade on Tuesday. “When NATO airstrikes were launched in support of rebels fighting Colonel Gaddafi, they first had to target weapons, including ground to air missiles, that the West had supplied to Gaddafi. On the dictator’s overthrow, the huge number of surplus weapons provided to him soon found their way onto the black market. Will the West never learn that pouring weapons into an existing conflict only results in that conflict becoming bloodier and longer?”

At the same forum, Iain Overton, the executive director of Action on Armed Violence, said, “We know that the Pentagon lost track of about 190,000 AKtype assault rifles and pistols in Iraq. We know that it lost track of more than 40 percent of the firearms provided to Afghanistan’s security forces. And we know that the Pentagon is unable to account for more than $500 million in US military aid given to Yemen. What are the chances, then, of a headline in five years time stating that the Pentagon has lost millions of dollars worth of guns in Libya?”

The potential for losing control of American weapons has been highlighted in Iraq and Syria, where ISIS has captured large quantities of US equipment—everything from M-16s and mortars to armored vehicles and surface-to-air missiles. In June 2014 alone, ISIS captured enough weapons, ammunition, and vehicles to arm 40,000 to 50,000 soldiers, according to the UN Security Council. A year later, US-backed rebel forces entered Syria and handed over their arms to Jabhat al-Nusra, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate. In March, al-Nusra targeted another US-backed rebel group, detaining scores of fighters and stealing their weapons, including US-made anti-tank missiles.

“Controlling end users and end-use in a conflict setting, particularly the kind of chaotic, anarchic conflict that you have in states that are failed, is extraordinarily difficult, often impossible,” says Matt Schroeder, senior researcher at the Washington DC-based Small Arms Survey.

The announcement to ease the Libyan arms embargo drew skepticism not only from analysts, but from some lawmakers as well. House Armed Services member Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), expressed concern about “flooding Libya with American arms.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has proposed limiting weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, said, “This is an incredibly fragile government. I hope that we ask some very tough questions before we start arming a government that’s on ice that’s still pretty thin.”

Link:

The US Wants to Send More Guns to Libya. No, Seriously.

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The US Wants to Send More Guns to Libya. No, Seriously.