Tag Archives: political

Running Away From Obamacare Is a Fool’s Errand

by Cheryle07G Posted on April 23, 2014

Mother Jones

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

Are red-state Democrat senators certain losers to Republican challengers in this year’s midterm election? According to recent polling, no. The races are all pretty close. But Greg Sargent points out that these Democrats do indeed have an Obamacare problem:

In Arkansas, 52 percent would not vote for a candidate who disagrees on Obamacare, versus 35 percent who are open to doing that. In Louisiana: 58-28. In North Carolina: 53-35. It seems plausible the intensity remains on the side of those who oppose the law. This would again suggest that the real problem Dems face with Obamacare is that it revs up GOP partisans far more than Dem ones — exacerbating the Dems’ already existing “midterm dropoff” problem.

However, in Kentucky, the numbers are a bit different: 46 percent would not vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on the law, while 39 percent say the opposite — much closer than in other states. Meanwhile, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear — the most outspoken defender of Obamacare in the south — has an approval rating of 56-29.

I’m keenly aware that I’ve never run for dogcatcher, let alone had any experience in a big-time Senate race. So my political advice is worth zero. And yet, polls like this make me more, not less, invested in the idea that running away from Obamacare is a losing proposition. Electorates in red states know that these Democrats voted for Obamacare. Their opponents are going to hammer away at it relentlessly. It’s just impossible to run away away from it, and doing so only makes them look craven and unprincipled.

The only way to turn this around is not to distance yourself from Obamacare, but to try and convince a piece of the electorate that Obamacare isn’t such a bad deal after all. You won’t convince everyone, but you don’t need to. You just need to persuade the 5 or 10 percent who are mildly opposed to Obamacare that it’s working better than they think. That might get the number of voters who would “never” vote for an Obamacare supporter down from the low 50s (Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina) to the mid 40s (Kentucky). And that might be enough to eke out a victory.

Needless to say, this works best if everyone is pitching in. And surely this is the time to start. The early website problems have been resolved and the initial signup period has been a success. Conservative kvetching has taken on something of a desperate truther tone, endlessly trying to “deskew” the facts and figures that increasingly make Obamacare look like a pretty successful program. There are lots of feel-good stories to tout, and there are going to be more as time goes by. What’s more, the economy is improving a bit, which always makes people a little more sympathetic toward programs that help others.

Obamacare isn’t likely to be a net positive in red states anytime soon. But it’s not necessarily a deal breaker either. It just has to be sold—and the sellers need to show some real passion about it. After all, if they don’t believe in it, why should anyone else?

Source: 

Running Away From Obamacare Is a Fool’s Errand

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Running Away From Obamacare Is a Fool’s Errand

Beloved Author Gabriel García Márquez Was Also a Go-Between for Colombian Guerrillas and the Government

by Tawanna55K Posted on April 18, 2014

Mother Jones

Gabriel García Márquez passed away on Thursday at his home in Mexico City. He was 87. The Nobel Prize-winning Colombian novelist was celebrated for such works as One Hundred Years of Solitude and Love in the Time of Cholera. “The world has lost one of its greatest visionary writers—one of my favorites from the time I was young,” President Obama said on Thursday.

When a literary figure as towering as García Márquez dies, there are too many fascinating things to write about—his writing, his political history, his wild ride of a life. (Hell, I could see myself writing an entire term paper on his friendly relationship with Colombian pop star Shakira!) I’m not going to attempt anything close to a definitive obituary of a man who gave the world so much through his art. I’ll leave that to others.

But I’d like to highlight one politically significant part of Gabo‘s life: García Márquez wasn’t just an acclaimed writer and passionate supporter of left-wing causes—for a time, he was an intermediary between Colombian leftist guerrillas and the government.

Here’s an excerpt from a 1999 New Yorker profile written by Jon Lee Anderson:

García Márquez who has often referred to himself as “the last optimist in Colombia,” has been closely involved in the peace negotiations. He introduced Colombian president Andrés Pastrana to his old friend Fidel Castro, who could facilitate talks with the guerrillas, and he helped restore good relations between Washington and Bogotá. “I won’t say that it was Gabo who brought all this about,” Bill Richardson, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, said early this summer, “but he was a catalyst.” García Márquez was invited by the Clintons to the White House several times, and friends say he believed that he was going to not only carry off the immediate goal of getting some sort of negotiated settlement between the guerrillas and the government but also finally help bring about an improvement in relations between the United States and Cuba. “The U.S. needs Cuba’s involvement in the Colombian peace talks, because the Cuban government has the best contacts with the guerrillas,” he explained to me. “And Cuba is perfectly situated, only two hours away, so Pastrana can go there overnight and have meetings and come back without anyone knowing anything about it. And the U.S. wants this to happen.” Then he smiled in a way that indicated he knew much more than he was telling me, as usual.

The whole profile, which you can check out here, is definitely worth a read.

I now leave you with this footage of García Márquez visiting Shakira and dancing:

R.I.P.

Read this article – 

Beloved Author Gabriel García Márquez Was Also a Go-Between for Colombian Guerrillas and the Government

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Hoffman, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Beloved Author Gabriel García Márquez Was Also a Go-Between for Colombian Guerrillas and the Government

Krauthammer Lights the Way for Tidal Waves of Secret Campaign Cash

by ColePiguenit Posted on April 18, 2014

Mother Jones

Charles Krauthammer writes today that he used to think there was a simple and elegant solution to the fight over campaign finance reform: “For a long time, a simple finesse offered a rather elegant solution: no limits on giving — but with full disclosure.” But now he’s changed his mind:

This used to be my position. No longer. I had not foreseen how donor lists would be used not to ferret out corruption but to pursue and persecute citizens with contrary views. Which corrupts the very idea of full disclosure.

It is now an invitation to the creation of enemies lists. Containing, for example, Brendan Eich, forced to resign as Mozilla CEO when it was disclosed that six years earlier he’d given $1,000 to support a referendum banning gay marriage. He was hardly the first. Activists compiled blacklists of donors to Proposition 8 and went after them. Indeed, shortly after the referendum passed, both the artistic director of the California Musical Theatre in Sacramento and the president of the Los Angeles Film Festival were hounded out of office.

….The ultimate victim here is full disclosure itself. If revealing your views opens you to the politics of personal destruction, then transparency, however valuable, must give way to the ultimate core political good, free expression.

Our collective loss. Coupling unlimited donations and full disclosure was a reasonable way to reconcile the irreconcilables of campaign finance. Like so much else in our politics, however, it has been ruined by zealots. What a pity.

I wonder if Krauthammer feels the same way about free speech? Or gun rights. Or fair trials. The scope of zealots to abuse the system in those cases is infinitely greater than the sparse, weak-tea “harassment” he points to in the case of campaign finance disclosure.

On a larger scale, I realize that the Koch brothers think they’ve suffered abuse akin to the Holocaust at the hands of Harry Reid, but that’s what happens when you enter the political arena in a big way. You take your lumps. That’s no reason to allow billions of dollars to influence the political system with not even the slightest shred of accountability for where it’s coming from. With allies as weak as Krauthammer, ready to cave at the slightest provocation, campaign finance disclosure is now just the latest victim of conservative goal post moving.

Read the article – 

Krauthammer Lights the Way for Tidal Waves of Secret Campaign Cash

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Krauthammer Lights the Way for Tidal Waves of Secret Campaign Cash

People Who Know the Koch Brothers Sure Don’t Like Them Much

by Celestinej5a Posted on March 25, 2014

Mother Jones

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

This is apropos of nothing in particular, but Dave Weigel draws my attention today to a new GWU/Battleground poll that gives us approval/disapproval ratings for an eclectic bunch of people that happens to include the Koch brothers. It turns out that they’re more unpopular than anyone on the list. Weigel comments on what this means for the Democrats’ anti-Koch offensive:

I generally agree that the Koch focus (Kochus?) is a poor substitute for a positive Democratic agenda, if such a thing is possible, but I don’t see anything in the poll that contradicts the Democratic strategy. Charles and David Koch never, ever do TV interviews, choosing to exercise their influence behind the scenes of political groups, and they’re known by two out of five Americans?

Given their low profile, you’d hardly expect the Kochs to be a household name. And yet, nearly half of all American have heard of them, and among those who are in the know they’re very unpopular. So maybe the Democratic strategy of personalizing the robber-baron right by demonizing the Kochs is paying off. Give it another few months and maybe the Kochs will be a household name.

On the other hand, keep in mind how unreliable these polls are. It’s possible that half the people who claim to have heard of the Koch brothers think they’re the rap duo who performed at the Grammys a few weeks ago. Maybe if Macklemore and Ryan Lewis were less annoying, the Kochs would have done better in this poll.

Visit source: 

People Who Know the Koch Brothers Sure Don’t Like Them Much

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on People Who Know the Koch Brothers Sure Don’t Like Them Much

“This Is The Era of The Empowered ‘One Percenter'”

by RowenaFowles Posted on March 21, 2014

Mother Jones

The Koch brothers. Citizens United. “Dark money.” Billionaire sugardaddies. A Republican takeover of Congress.

These are a few of the 2014-themed issues that Mother Jones senior reporter Andy Kroll and ProPublica’s Kim Barker discuss on the latest episode of Moyers and Company, the popular weekly show hosted by the acclaimed journalist Bill Moyers. They talk about the 2014 midterms, which could be the most expensive off-year election cycle in history; the influence of big-money politics on Congress and the White House; and the upcoming Supreme Court decision that could obliterate yet another campaign law and send even more money rushing into our elections.

As Kroll says in the interview, this is a great time to be a fired-up millionaire or billionaire. Today, these individuals have the ability to pump unlimited sums of cash into our elections through super-PACs and anonymously funded nonprofit groups. As they do, the center of gravity in our political system shifts from the political parties to these mega-donors spending big on the Democratic and Republican side. “This is the era of the empowered ‘one percenter,'” Kroll notes. “They’re taking action and they’re becoming the new, headline players in this political system.”

What’s the effect of all that money on our democracy? Watch the entire episode above or over at BillMoyers.com to find out. Throughout the weekend, you can catch the interview on your local PBS affiliate.

Visit source: 

“This Is The Era of The Empowered ‘One Percenter'”

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, ProPublica, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on “This Is The Era of The Empowered ‘One Percenter'”

Playing Political Games With Surgeon Generals Is Nothing New

by KaliWallwork Posted on March 18, 2014

Mother Jones

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

Vivek Murthy, President Obama’s nominee as surgeon general, supports regulations on gun use. This has earned him fierce opposition from the NRA and seems likely to sink his nomination entirely. Paul Waldman comments:

In the calculations over whether Murthy could get confirmed, it’s notable that everyone assumes, almost certainly correctly, that every Republican in the Senate will, of course, vote against the nomination. George W. Bush appointed only one surgeon general, Richard Carmona. He was confirmed by a vote of 98 to 0. But those days are gone — what do you expect Republicans to do, examine a nominee’s qualifications and vote to confirm if he’d obviously do a fine job? Please. The default used to be that a president will get the nominees he chooses unless there’s something really egregious in their past or what they’re likely to do if confirmed, but when it comes to this president and this Congress, that has been turned upside down. Now the Republican position is that every nominee should be rejected, unless there’s some kind of a deal that allows them to get something in exchange.

I’ve made similar kinds of comments in the past, so I can’t really object to seeing them repeated here. Still, it’s worth remembering a little history. First: although President Obama’s initial choice for surgeon general, Regina Benjamin, ran into some Republican opposition when her nomination came to the floor, she was confirmed unanimously within a few days, just like Richard Carmona, Bush’s first surgeon general. Second: after Carmona’s term expired, Bush’s next nominee for surgeon general, James Holsinger, ran into a buzzsaw of Democratic opposition based on a paper he had written in 1991 which argued that “homosexuality isn’t natural or healthy.” When the Bush White House suggested it might install Holsinger via a recess appointment, Harry Reid kept the Senate in pro forma sessions to prevent it. Eventually Holsinger’s nomination died.

There was more going on with Holsinger, including his refusal to answer written questions, but basically his nomination was killed because of his anti-gay views. He insisted that his 1991 paper no longer represented his current views, but it didn’t matter.

So do Murthy’s problems demonstrate the strength of the NRA? Sure. But Holsinger’s problems demonstrated the strength of liberal LGBT views among Democrats. There’s nothing very new going on here.

In fact, I half wonder if opposition to Murthy is partly payback for Democrats killing Holsinger’s nomination. I’d be curious to hear about this from reporters who cover the conservative movement. Down in the bowels of email lists and Sarah Palin fan clubs, do tea partiers still hold a grudge over Holsinger’s defeat? Or has that long since been forgotten?

Taken from:  

Playing Political Games With Surgeon Generals Is Nothing New

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Playing Political Games With Surgeon Generals Is Nothing New

You don’t have to live on a coast to get flooded out by climate change

by PiperNTZqsvydfw Posted on February 15, 2014

You don’t have to live on a coast to get flooded out by climate change

By

Shutterstock

Sub-Saharan? More like tragically submarinin’.

The landlocked country of Zimbabwe has been ravaged by deadly floods since heavy rains set in last month. It’s the latest soggy chapter in a climate-changed region where the number of people affected by cyclones and flooding has increased sixfold over two decades. SW Radio Africa reports on the Zimbabwean inundation:

Many parts of the country, from Muzarabani up in the north to Beitbridge down in the south, are now experiencing the worst floods in many years, as water inundates villages, farms, homes and major vital roads. …

Weeks of heavy rain have left large parts of the Masvingo, Midlands and Matabeleland South provinces under water with the levels of most dams and rivers appearing to have peaked, leaving the situation critical in many areas, particularly along rivers.

The crisis has prompted the country’s leaders to plead for international aid. They are asking for $20 million of assistance to evacuate more than 2,000 families living downstream from the Tokwe-Mukorsi dam, which is so overladen with water that experts fear it is about burst.

Such floods may be a symptom of climate change, which is also ravaging the impoverished country with rising temperatures and increasingly frequent droughts.

“When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it’s we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere, who gasp and sink and eventually die,” President Robert Mugabe said at the 2009 U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen. (Fair point. But he might have more credibility if he weren’t a corrupt and violent tyrant.)

The following graph from a paper published last year in the International Journal of Humanities and Social Science reveals how erratic the nation’s rainfall is becoming:

Philippe Rekacewicz, UNEP/GRID-Arendal

Click to embiggen.

The University of Zimbabwe researchers who authored the paper described global warming’s impacts on the nation’s farmers:

The past three decades have been characterized by an erratic rainfall pattern over Africa’s sub-tropics and a significant decline in the amount of rainfall. This has resulted in droughts which have significantly affected agriculture and food production. Crops and livestock have failed to quickly adapt to these harsh climatic conditions. Research on the impacts of climate change in Zimbabwe shows that the country’s agricultural sector is already suffering from changing rainfall patterns, temperature increases and more extreme weather events, like floods and droughts.

The rising frequency of floods in southern Africa isn’t limited to Zimbabwe, as the following chart from the paper shows:

International Journal of Humanities and Social ScienceClick to embiggen.


Source
Worst flooding in years swamps Zimbabwe, SW Radio Africa
Thousands at risk as rains strain Zimbabwe dam: government, Reuters
The Effects of Climate Change and Variability on Food Security in Zimbabwe: A Socio-Economic and Political Analysis, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Visit source:

You don’t have to live on a coast to get flooded out by climate change

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, Hagen, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on You don’t have to live on a coast to get flooded out by climate change

Here’s the Pitiful Micro-Drama Behind Yesterday’s Debt Ceiling Vote

by RafaelCatts Posted on February 13, 2014

Mother Jones

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

After the House finally decided to just pass a damn debt ceiling bill and head out of town, everyone figured the Senate vote wouldn’t produce any drama. But it did, though only in a sad, craven key. It all started when Ted Cruz insisted on filibustering the bill because it gave him a chance to pull off some cheap tea party theatrics, and that’s all Cruz cares about. (Apparently he’s under the sad delusion that this kind of thing might pave his way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.) Then the vote got up 58 ayes, and sort of stalled. Why? Dave Weigel points me to this report from Manu Raju and Burgess Everett:

Miffed that they have long been asked to take tough votes when the GOP leaders voted “no,” Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski, privately pressured McConnell and Cornyn to vote to break the filibuster, sources said. Murkowski resisted voting for the measure without the support of her leadership team.

As the drama grew in the chamber with the vote’s prospects in doubt, McConnell turned to his colleagues and said: “We’re not doing this again,” according to a source familiar with his remarks.

So McConnell and Cornyn — both facing reelection this year and battling tea party-inspired challengers in their states — took the plunge and risked the political backlash by voting to break a filibuster, the type of vote the two wily leaders have long sought to avoid in this election season.

It was a mini-revolt of the backbenchers. There’s a standard bunch of GOP moderates who keep getting asked to take one for the team, and they finally got tired of it. So they told Mitch McConnell they were through bailing out the party unless they got some help. McConnell and Cornyn caved, and that opened the floodgates for a bunch of other Republicans to follow suit. In the end, the debt ceiling increase passed 67-31.

But McConnell managed a small, almost touchingly meager victory. Apparently Harry Reid took pity on him and played along with a plan to keep the votes semi-private by not having the clerk call the roll. Everyone’s votes were still recorded, but at least they weren’t called out in stentorian tones on CSPAN-2. Weigel:

If this sounds pathetic, that’s because it is. Carl Hulse puts it very well here: Most Republicans want the country to keep running, but don’t want to provide tough votes if they can be used against them in primaries. But I’d go further than Hulse. More than ever, most members Congress are structurally protected from any consequences for any votes they take. Like I wrote yesterday, only four incumbent Republicans in the House and Senate, total, lost primaries in 2012. None of them lost only because they voted to raise the debt limit.

Individually, they’re totally safe. Collectively, they often can’t act. So the only real pressure exerted on a party is the external backlash that follows a big, collective failure — the definitive case this year being the government shutdown, the definitive case in 2011 being the collapse of a House Republican debt limit bill.

Four incumbents! But that’s all it takes to make all the rest of them petrified with fear of the Koch brothers and the Club for Growth. Senators these days are like our fabled youth who are supposedly so smothered with parenting that they’re afraid to face the real world on their own. Senators are so smothered with entitlement to their seats that they’re afraid of even the tiniest chance of a primary challenge. The result is a gutlessness in the face of mau-mauing from blowhards like Cruz that makes you want to avert your eyes. Even when it’s being done to a bunch of guys you can’t stand, it’s just too painful to watch.

More: 

Here’s the Pitiful Micro-Drama Behind Yesterday’s Debt Ceiling Vote

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s the Pitiful Micro-Drama Behind Yesterday’s Debt Ceiling Vote

How Conservative Brits Tried to Use the Beatles to Win Elections

by mlodyseo7 Posted on February 7, 2014

Mother Jones

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

February 9 marks the 50th anniversary of The Beatles‘ historic performance on The Ed Sullivan Show on CBS. It was one of the opening salvos of the British Invasion of the mid-1960s, and the broadcast drew 73 million viewers. It is consistently hailed as one of the most influential and biggest (if not the biggest ever) televised moments for rock n’ roll and popular music.

“The Beatles are delightful,” Sullivan said shortly after the performance. “They are the nicest boys I’ve ever met.”

You can watch their 1964 Ed Sullivan performance of “I Want to Hold Your Hand” (along with some other gigs) below, via Rolling Stone:

Many tributes and commemorative packages have been prepared for the anniversary. On Sunday, CBS will air a special all-star salute, featuring Stevie Wonder, Gary Clark, Jr., Katy Perry, and ex-Beatles Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, among others. The Ed Sullivan appearance was just one of many indicators of The Beatles’ immense popularity and influence. Concert promoters, cultural observers, and screaming teenage girls weren’t the only ones who understood this—British politicians did, too, and they weren’t shy about trying to exploit Beatlemania for electoral gain.

Continue Reading »

More: 

How Conservative Brits Tried to Use the Beatles to Win Elections

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Conservative Brits Tried to Use the Beatles to Win Elections

Shell will stay out of the Arctic this year

by KrystynaK18 Posted on January 31, 2014

Shell will stay out of the Arctic this year

By

NASA Goddard

Is the sun finally setting on a dreadful idea?

The Arctic will be safe from drilling efforts by accident-prone Shell this year, and the oil company says it is reconsidering its very future in the region.

Shell spent nearly $6 billion on plans to drill the Arctic, but it has yet to produce any oil. The federal government barred the company from Arctic waters last year following a series of accidents during exploratory drilling in 2012.

The company had hoped the suspension would be lifted this year. As it turns out, the suspension won’t matter.

The company announced on Thursday that it won’t pursue exploratory drilling in the Arctic this year, and its CEO told reporters that the company is “reviewing our options” in the Arctic.

The announcement followed declining profits, the hiring of a new chief executive, and a major court ruling. Last week, a federal appeals court sided with environmentalists over the federal government, ruling that an environmental analysis related to the 2008 Chukchi Sea lease sale was flawed because it included an arbitrary estimate of the amount of oil available to be drilled.

From Shell’s press release about the decision:

The recent Ninth Circuit Court decision against the Department of the Interior raises substantial obstacles to Shell’s plans for drilling in offshore Alaska. As a result, Shell has decided to stop its exploration program for Alaska in 2014. “This is a disappointing outcome, but the lack of a clear path forward means that I am not prepared to commit further resources for drilling in Alaska in 2014,” [CEO Ben] van Beurden said.

The Washington Post takes a look at the bigger picture:

But some analysts noted that the company has suffered a series of setbacks around the world that have led to write-downs in the value of projects. They said the delay fits the strategy of the company’s new chief executive, Ben van Beurden, who wants to put money into projects with more certain outcomes and shorter time horizons. …

Shell sent rigs to drill in the area in 2012, but the company got a late start after struggling to bring its drilling vessels in line with permit requirements. Then it had to deal with unexpected summer ice floes and decided to install only the top of wells in the Chukchi Sea because it was running out of time to drill before open-water season ended. Later that year, one of its vessels, the Kulluk, was damaged when it ran aground on its way to warmer waters. The company said it will be scrapped.

And here is the Anchorage Daily News with reactions:

“Shell is finally recognizing what we’ve been saying all along, that offshore drilling in the Arctic is risky, costly and simply not a good bet from a business perspective,” said Jacqueline Savitz, Oceana’s vice president for U.S. oceans. …

Political leaders faulted the federal government and court rulings and downplayed Shell’s own difficulties.

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she was disappointed that Shell wouldn’t be going ahead this year. She said it was understandable given the uncertainty due to the federal court ruling on its leases.

“Companies willing to invest billions of dollars to develop our country’s resources must have confidence that the federal agencies responsible for overseeing their efforts are competent and working in good faith. I’m not convinced that has been the case for Alaska,” Murkowski said in a statement.

Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark Begich blamed “judicial overreach” for the situation.

Aw, Shell. Better luck next year? Let’s hope not.


Source
New Shell CEO Ben van Beurden sets agenda for sharper performance and rigorous capital discipline, Shell
Shell says it won’t drill in Alaska in 2014, cites court challenge, Washington Post
Shell won’t drill offshore in Alaska Arctic this year; ‘reviewing our options,’ CEO says, Anchorage Daily News

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Link:

Shell will stay out of the Arctic this year

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Shell will stay out of the Arctic this year