Tag Archives: obama

Watch out, Arctic: Shell is coming for you again

Watch out, Arctic: Shell is coming for you again

By on 13 Feb 2015 11:33 amcommentsShare

Even as Shell is talking a good talk about climate change, it is pushing ahead with plans to drill in the Alaskan Arctic as early as this summer. The company suspended operations there in 2012 after a series of minor disasters. Its contractor was hit with eight felony counts and fined $12 million late last year.

But now Shell is moving forward again, with what looks like a newly reaffirmed go-ahead from the Department of the Interior (DOI). One clear sign of its intent: The company has leased a port on the Seattle waterfront where it can base its Arctic operations.

On Thursday, the DOI released a revised environmental impact statement for drilling in the Chukchi Sea — which Shell won the rights to do in 2008. The report found that there’s a 75 percent likelihood that the operations will result in one or more large spills — that means more than 1,000 barrels — during the 77-year lease. The report also forecast 260 smaller spills.

This revised DOI report follows a court ruling that found that, back in 2008, the department lowballed the amount of oil Shell would be able to extract from the lease. Lowballing the amount of oil that could come out of the ground also meant lowballing the amount of damage the efforts to extract it could cause.

But despite the new environmental impact statement, and the strong likelihood of a spill, the department will likely allow drilling operations to move forward following a public comment period. The environmental groups that brought the suit don’t see this as a victory.

“There is no such thing as safe or responsible drilling in the Arctic Ocean,” said Marissa Knodel, a climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth. “Shell’s record of recklessness and the federal government’s own environmental analysis show that approval of Lease Sale 193 would be unsafe, dangerous and irresponsible.”

Greenpeace’s John Deans said the decision “will drastically undermine [Obama’s] recent proposals to protect parts of the Arctic, including the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, from oil drilling.”

Shell’s plans come, ironically, as the company is saying it will now engage seriously on climate, and is pushing other oil companies to do the same. Its recent decision to work with activist shareholders who are demanding that climate change factor into management decisions appears to be a first step in that direction.

“I’m well aware that the industry’s credibility is an issue,” said Shell CEO Ben van Beurden in a speech on Thursday. “Stereotypes that fail to see the benefits our industry brings to the world are short-sighted. But we must also take a critical look at ourselves.”

At the moment, however, it doesn’t look like the company’s plans to salvage its climate-related “credibility” extend to cancelling its designs on the Chukchi Sea — one of its more dangerous operations, and one that inspires quite a bit of ire in its critics.

Besides the danger that drilling poses to Arctic environments, there’s the contribution it would make to climate change. A recent study found that if the world hopes to avoid 2 degrees Celsius or more of global warming, 80 percent of the world’s untouched fossil fuel reserves would have to stay in the ground — including all of the oil left in the thawing Arctic.

But people who believe that will happen, van Beurden says, aren’t clued in to reality. “For a sustainable energy future, we need a more balanced debate,” he said. “‘Fossil fuels out, renewables in’ — too often, that’s what it boils down to. Yet in my view, that’s simply naive.”

If policymakers agree with that line of thinking, we’ll be in for some catastrophic warming.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Visit site:  

Watch out, Arctic: Shell is coming for you again

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, sustainable energy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch out, Arctic: Shell is coming for you again

Republicans and Democrats Are Both in Favor of Approval to Fight ISIS

Mother Jones

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

So what does the public think of President Obama’s request for an authorization to use military force against ISIS? According to a new NBC/Marist poll, they’re basically in favor:

Greg Sargent has a partisan breakdown, and approval of the AUMF is surprisingly bipartisan: 60 percent of Democrats approve and 52 percent of Republicans approve. So I imagine this is going to pass before long, probably without too many major changes.

The poll has some other responses that are a bit odd. Only 45 percent of the respondents have much confidence in President Obama’s strategy, but 66 percent think we’re going to be able to defeat ISIS anyway. Is this a triumph of partisanship over actual belief, or the other way around? Or just the usual incoherence you get in practically every poll about everything?

In any case, it will be interesting to see what line Fox News and the rest of the right-wing punditocracy take on this, and whether this affects future poll results. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a much bigger partisan split on this question a couple of weeks from now.

Continue reading – 

Republicans and Democrats Are Both in Favor of Approval to Fight ISIS

Posted in FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans and Democrats Are Both in Favor of Approval to Fight ISIS

GOP Lawsuit Says Obama’s Immigration Plan Costs States Big Bucks. That’s Wrong.

Mother Jones

The mostly GOP-run states suing to block President Barack Obama’s immigration actions have a shaky legal argument. But politically, their rationale sounds even worse.

Continue Reading »

Original link:

GOP Lawsuit Says Obama’s Immigration Plan Costs States Big Bucks. That’s Wrong.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on GOP Lawsuit Says Obama’s Immigration Plan Costs States Big Bucks. That’s Wrong.

Jason Chaffetz Opens Up Dumbest Investigation of Obama Yet

Mother Jones

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

I understand why net neutrality is a big deal for internet service providers, who oppose any new rules that restrict what they can do and how much they can charge. Ditto for content companies like Google, who support net neutrality because they don’t want to be extorted by ISPs for access to high-speed pipes. Ditto again for activists who believe internet access should be on a level playing field for everyone.

But it’s also become a bête noire of the tea party crowd, and it’s a lot less clear to me why these folks care. But maybe I’m overthinking it. Perhaps they oppose net neutrality simply because President Obama supports it. Here’s the latest evidence on this score:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has written to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler asking for all documents related to communications and meetings involving White House and agency officials concerning the issue….Republicans have charged that Obama unduly influenced Wheeler’s proposal. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said Wheeler “succumbed to the bully tactics of political activists and the president himself.”

….Chaffetz said in a letter dated Friday that he was investigating reports indicating “views expressed by the White House potentially had an improper influence” on development of Wheeler’s proposal. He cited a Wall Street Journal article last week that reported that two White House aides led a “secretive effort” to build support from outside groups for tough net-neutrality regulations.

Chaffetz must really be desperate. Does he seriously think that the president of the United States isn’t allowed to try to mobilize outside support for his policy proposals? Or even that the White House isn’t allowed to lobby FCC commissioners? That’s just crackers.

But Chaffetz is a certified up-and-comer in the Republican ranks, and I guess that means he has to make sure his tea party bona fides never get rusty from disuse. This time, though, he’s really digging through the bottom of the barrel. Unless he wants to join up with the crazytown contingent for good—something he’s managed to avoid so far—he should think twice about dumb theatrics like this. He’s better off when he keeps at least one foot planted in realityville.

Original link: 

Jason Chaffetz Opens Up Dumbest Investigation of Obama Yet

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, Jason, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jason Chaffetz Opens Up Dumbest Investigation of Obama Yet

John Boehner’s Big Triumph Is Now Just a Big Shit Sandwich

Mother Jones

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

I could use a good laugh, and this afternoon I got one. For starters, as the White House hinted yesterday, Joe Biden won’t be attending Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech next month before a joint session of Congress. Apparently he’ll be out of the country that day:

The vice president’s office on Friday confirmed the plans to skip the March 3 speech. “We are not ready to announce details of his trip yet, and normally our office wouldn’t announce this early, but the planning process has been underway for a while,” a spokesperson for the office said.

So where exactly will Joe be? Well, um, somewhere. The planning process “has been underway for a while,” the White House insists with a straight face, but they don’t know yet what country they’ve been planning to send him to. But they’ll think of one. Maybe Latvia or something.

This is all part of the mounting fury from Democrats in Congress and the White House over the speech, and it’s become increasingly clear that the whole thing is a major blunder for Netanyahu. But who to blame? The invitation came from Speaker of the House John Boehner, so why not blame him? Today Netanyahu did exactly that, throwing him under the proverbial bus with barely a passing glance:

A senior Israeli official suggested on Friday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been misled into thinking an invitation to address the U.S. Congress on Iran next month was fully supported by the Democrats….“It appears that the speaker of Congress made a move, in which we trusted, but which it ultimately became clear was a one sided move and not a move by both sides,” Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi told 102 FM Tel Aviv Radio on Friday.

Poor John Boehner. You almost feel sorry for the guy sometimes. President Obama has been running rings around him for months now, infuriating the Republican caucus and causing Boehner endless headaches over Cuba, immigration, net neutrality, Homeland Security shutdowns, and dozens of other subjects. No matter how hard he tries, Boehner just hasn’t been able to get ahead of any of this. Instead he’s been forced over and over to respond to Obama’s agenda while desperately trying to keep the peace among the tea partiers who control his future.

Then, finally, it looked like he’d pulled something off. He announced the Netanyahu speech two weeks ago, catching the president off guard and garnering huzzahs from every corner of the the conservative movement. Finally, a victory!

But now it’s all turned to ashes. His big spectacle is in tatters, with Democrats in open revolt and pundits of all stripes agreeing that he overreached by going around the White House on a foreign policy matter. It’s been nothing but a headache, and even Netanyahu has joined the lynch mob now. What’s worse, there’s nothing he can do. The speech is still four weeks away, and Boehner has no choice but to let the whole dreary debacle play out. He already knows his show is a flop, but the curtain has to come up anyway and Boehner has to keep a stiff upper lip the whole time.

Poor guy.

Source:  

John Boehner’s Big Triumph Is Now Just a Big Shit Sandwich

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Boehner’s Big Triumph Is Now Just a Big Shit Sandwich

Obama: Climate Change Is an "Urgent And Growing Threat" To National Security

Mother Jones

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

President Barack Obama listed climate change alongside international terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and infectious disease in a new national security strategy plan released today. The plan called climate change “an urgent and growing threat to our national security” and also called for the United States to diversify its energy sources to insulate the country from disruptions to foreign fossil fuel markets.

This isn’t the first time the Obama administration has singled out climate as a major national security risk: A Pentagon report in October said global warming has become a short-term priority for strategic military planning. But the issue gets much more airtime in today’s strategy than it did in the administration’s first, issued back in 2010, where it merited just a few passing references. Overall, the document is in line with the more aggressive climate message that has emerged this year from the White House. You can read it below:

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1657160-document-gw-01.js”,
width: 630,
height: 800,
sidebar: false,
page: 18,
container: “#DV-viewer-1657160-document-gw-01”
);

Document Gw 01 (PDF)

Document Gw 01 (Text)

Original post:

Obama: Climate Change Is an "Urgent And Growing Threat" To National Security

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama: Climate Change Is an "Urgent And Growing Threat" To National Security

Here’s the Big Problem With Liberals’ "Middle Class" Agenda

Mother Jones

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

President Obama recently advanced two proposals designed to help the middle class—part of a middle-class agenda that’s recently become something of a liberal rallying cry for the 2016 election. The first proposal was a mortgage plan available to anyone who bought a home. The second was a college tuition plan that would have helped middle-income workers with money saved by eliminating 529 college savings plans.

The mortgage plan has met with considerable enthusiasm. The tuition plan, by contrast, flamed out within days and has already been withdrawn. Mechele Dickerson comments:

While both of these proposals ostensibly targeted the middle class, the mortgage plan was lauded because its financial relief applies to all homeowners, regardless of how much they earned. The 529 proposal, by contrast, was doomed because of a fatal flaw: it actually tried to provide relief for just the middle class, carving it out by income.

The success of one and not the other was actually quite predictable. The mortgage proposal, though modest, was welcomed because it was designed to make it easier and cheaper for families to buy homes. Republicans, Democrats, Americans and the financial entities that benefit all agree that any plan that increases homeownership rates is good, even if most of the benefits go to higher-income households and barely reach the middle class.

….The same is true with 529 plans….Fewer than 3 percent of families save for college using 529 plans, according to Federal Reserve data….Since it’s the richest who have the largest accounts, most of the benefits of the tax break go to them. While the average account has about $20,000 in it, the accounts of the top 5 percent average more than $106,000.

This highlights one of the fundamental problems of liberal attempts to help the middle class. In theory, universal programs like Obama’s mortgage plan are designed to help the middle class, and this is what makes them both popular and politically palatable. In practice, though, the bulk of their benefits usually go to the well off, and this is what really makes them politically palatable. That’s why the tuition program met an instant death. It really did help the middle class—and only the middle class—and this meant it lacked the all-important political support of the well off. In fact, since the well off would be losing a benefit to pay for it, it attracted their instant opposition. And that was that.

As Dickerson says, the problem here is that the American definition of “middle class” is so broad. We basically have the poor on one end and the 1 percent on the other, and everyone in between considers themselves middle class. So if you say your program helps the middle class, it needs to help virtually everyone—including lots of people who make an awful lot of money. It’s a good bet that virtually all of those folks with $106,000 in their 529 accounts think of themselves as middle class even if they earn well more than six-figure incomes.

Needless to say, this makes “middle class” programs really expensive. In practice, they have to be effectively universal, and since benefits often scale with income (as with tax deductions and savings plans), including the top 5 percent of the income ladder in these programs balloons their price tag by a whole lot more than 5 percent.

There are answers to this. You can offer tax credits rather than tax deductions. You can cap savings programs. But if you do very much of this, you effectively eliminate benefits for the well off and you lose their support. And as plenty of research has shown, it’s the well off who really have political clout. This means you have to buy them off if you want to do something for the middle class, and that makes “middle class programs” a lot pricier than you’d think. It’s something that any liberal agenda to help the middle class is going to have to figure out.

Continue reading here: 

Here’s the Big Problem With Liberals’ "Middle Class" Agenda

Posted in ATTRA, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s the Big Problem With Liberals’ "Middle Class" Agenda

Renewable Fuels: Creating Jobs and Spurring Innovation

back

Renewable Fuels: Creating Jobs and Spurring Innovation

Posted 3 February 2015 in

National

Since its passage in 2005, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) has sparked innovation and investment in communities across the United States. More than just spurring growth in the traditional ethanol industry though, the RFS has also accelerated and encouraged the development of the next generation of clean, renewable fuel.

As an op-ed in Roll Call notes, at a time when overall foreign direct investment was falling in the United States, projects in the biofuels sector were attracting hundreds of millions of dollars from around the world. These investments were on the verge of launching a whole new era of economic growth for rural communities across the United States when the EPA threatened to change the way it administers the RFS.

Though the EPA has since delayed that decision, the uncertainty has led foreign investors to pause as they wait to see whether the Obama administration will recommit to a strong RFS.

The impact of this uncertainty has been immediate and damaging for this growing industry.

Despite the successful completion of a $500 million production facility in Kansas, Abengoa, a Spanish company, is no longer considering additional investments in cellulosic ethanol in the U.S.
After investing some $500 million in R&D and production in California, Nebraska, and North Carolina, Novozymes, a Danish biotech company, is not planning further investment in the U.S. advanced biofuels market.
After opening a cellulosic plant in Iowa with American partner POET, DSM, a Dutch company, now sees China as the best place to invest.

These projects show the promise and possibility of sustained commitment to cellulosic ethanol in the U.S. Now, more than ever, we need President Obama to stand up for a strong RFS.

It’s not too late to get the final rule right and to make sure the United States is the leader in producing the cleanest fuels in the world.

Read the Roll Call column.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
Read More: 

Renewable Fuels: Creating Jobs and Spurring Innovation

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Renewable Fuels: Creating Jobs and Spurring Innovation

Chris Christie: Parents Should Have "Choice" on Vaccines

Mother Jones

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

Update, February 2, 2015, 12:20 p.m.: In 2009, Christie wrote a letter in which he appeared to support the theory that autism may be linked to vaccinations. An excerpt from the letter, provided to MSNBC, below:

“I have met with families affected by autism from across the state and have been struck by their incredible grace and courage. Many of these families have expressed their concern over New Jersey’s highest-in-the nation vaccine mandates. I stand with them now, and will stand with them as their governor in their fight for greater parental involvement in vaccination decisions that affect their children.”

Update, February 2, 2015, 10:30 a.m.: Gov. Christie’s office released a statement amending his previous comments to reporters, saying there is “no question kids should be vaccinated.”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called for a “balanced” approach to childhood vaccinations, telling reporters on Monday that it’s important to provide parents a “measure of choice” in their decisions.

“Mary Pat and I have had our children vaccinated and we think that it’s an important part of being sure we protect their health and the public health,” Christie said during a press conference in Cambridge, England, where he is traveling on a trade mission. “I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that’s the balance that the government has to decide.”

“Not every vaccine is created equal and not every type of disease is as great a public health threat as others,” he added.

Christie’s comments come a day after President Obama urged parents to vaccinate their children in the midst of a widening measles outbreak that started in Disneyland. The highly contagious disease has since spread to 14 states with at least 102 cases reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“I understand that there are families that, in some cases, are concerned about the effect of vaccinations,” Obama said in an interview with NBC Sunday. “The science is, you know, pretty indisputable. We’ve looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren’t reasons to not.”

The rise in parents who choose not to have their children fully immunized has been cited as one reason for a growing number of vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks in recent years.

Credit:  

Chris Christie: Parents Should Have "Choice" on Vaccines

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chris Christie: Parents Should Have "Choice" on Vaccines

Attention Sunday Shows: Here Are 5 Republicans Who Won’t Lie to Your Viewers About Climate Change

Mother Jones

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

On Wednesday, I wrote about a new Media Matters for America study that shines a light on a big problem with how TV news shows cover climate change. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are warming the planet, but Media Matters found that the highly influential Sunday morning talk shows often feature misleading talking points from global warming skeptics. Frequently, these segments turn into bizarre debates between those who accept science and those who reject it.

On NBC’s Meet the Press, for example, almost two-thirds of the climate coverage last year included “false balance,” according to Media Matters. Fox News Sunday and ABC’s This Week had similar problems:

The Media Matters study drew the attention of Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). In a press release, he slammed the news networks for misleading viewers “by framing the facts of climate change as a ‘debate.'” He urged them “to stop creating a false debate about the reality of climate change and engage in the real debate about how we can solve it.”

This presents something of a dilemma for the Sunday shows. Interviewing elected officials from both sides of the aisle is a big part of the reason these programs exist in the first place; they can’t host a debate about climate policy and invite only Democrats. At the same time, however, global warming denial is so ingrained on the right that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find Republicans who can talk about the issue without misinforming viewers. The Media Matters report cites a couple examples of this: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) saying on Meet the Press that there’s no scientific consensus on climate change, and North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) saying on This Week that “the big debate is how much of it is manmade and how much it will just naturally happen as Earth evolves.”

Fortunately—thanks to Schatz—TV bookers now have a handy list of GOP senators who acknowledge the scientific facts surrounding climate change and who, presumably, can participate in an intelligent discussion of what should actually be done about the problem. Last week, Schatz introduced legislation declaring it the “sense of Congress” that climate change is real and that human activity contributes significantly to it. Five Republicans voted in favor of Schatz’s amendment: Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Mark Kirk (Ill.). The other 49 voted no.

There’s plenty of room for disagreement on policy matters, of course. Alexander and Graham, for example, have called on the Obama administration to withdraw its proposed greenhouse gas emissions rules, the centerpiece of the president’s climate plan. But if the networks are looking for Republicans who can speak accurately about the science, at least now they know where to find them.

(Disclosure: I used to work at Media Matters.)

More here: 

Attention Sunday Shows: Here Are 5 Republicans Who Won’t Lie to Your Viewers About Climate Change

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Attention Sunday Shows: Here Are 5 Republicans Who Won’t Lie to Your Viewers About Climate Change