Last night, I saw Harry Shearer's documentary The Big Uneasy. It told the story of Katrina from the point of view of the non-Corps of Engineers researchers who evaluated the human causes of Katrina. And the point of the documentary was that Katrina was NOTa natural disaster, but a completely man-made one that would have been much more mild had the Corps not messed around with the Mississippi River and greatly damaging the ecosystem of the wetland. This information has been around for several years, but it was an interesting packaging of it. My takeaway: the next time Robert Gates decides to cut budgets, he should start with the Corps of Engineers. It turns out that this is the only government entity where virtually 100% of the projects are earmarks. And the Corps, as many of us have long known, surpassed their own level of the Peter Principle 100 times over several decades ago.
There are no primaries today. Damn. The next good primary day will be 14 September. Both Guam and the Virgin Islands hold their primaries on Saturdays between now and then, but well...On the 14th, the states will be Delaware, DC, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Closer to the election, I'll have a rundown on the races, including the teabag challenge to Mike Castle. But I can tell you going in that my pick fave race of the night will be the NY 15th Democratic primary. (Yes, you should know, but if you don't: Rangel v Powell.)
Tonight President Obama will be making his second Oval Office address on the ceasing of the combat mission in Iraq. It will be at 8 pm eastern. Getting the troops out was a campaign promise: a really big one. Some people feel that he made this promise a reality, others believe that it doesn't count since there are still 50,000 troops there. What's your take?
Today, responsibility for the BP claims transfers from BP to Ken Feinberg. Feinberg is the man who headed the 9/11 claims project, and it appears he did a good job with that. Starting today, Feinberg will have all the information BP collected relative to claims paid and in process: he says that claimants will not need submit duplicate information. If you want to see what has been paid so far, or need to file a claim, click here.
However, taking money under this system may require that claimants give up their right to sue not only BP, but the other criminals contributory companies. Here's the quote:
Ken Feinberg told reporters that he has not yet decided whether the no-sue requirement will extend to other companies that may be responsible for the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
He insisted that payouts from the claims facility he will run will be more generous than those from any court. Feinberg also ran the government compensation fund created after the 9/11 attacks, and there was a similar no-sue provision.
"It is not in your interest to tie up you and the courts in years of uncertain protracted litigation when there is an alternative that has been created," Feinberg said.
He added, "I take the position, if I don't find you eligible, no court will find you eligible."
Here's where the train comes off the track and careens into the marshland.
There were not a lot of people to sue after 9/11: it wasn't going to be possible to sue Al Quada, for example.
When Feinberg says "if I don't find you eligible, no court will find you eligible", there is also the implication that if he does find a claimant eligible, so will a court. And a court, especially one with jurors and not solely a judge making determinations may well be more generous than Feinberg alone, and may easily allow for litigation against not just BP but all the other companies, too.
Finally, Feinberg has $20 billion. That seems really light for the amount of people and businesses affected now and going forward. If BP runs out of money, why shouldn't the other contributory factors pay?
The well is capped. The well still needs more work.
The water's fine, c'mon down. Tar balls are still under the sand.
The seafood is safe, eat, eat. The seafood is questionable.
It's all over. Ramifications will last for decades.
It's hard to know.
It appears our President thinks the water is okay. Not because he went swimming in it, but because he took Sasha with him. Politicians will do a lot to prove a point. They won't risk their children.
So the question becomes, what is the truth? Or more likely, what are the truths?
Some of the answers only time and research can tell us. But we all will make our decisions by ourselves. There is something to be said about supporting the Gulf and its people. The area has been decimated first by Katrina and other hurricanes, and now by the BP fiascoes. Yup, more than one. BP just agreed to pay a $50 million fine to Texas for a refinery explosion. Restaurants across the country have been raising prices on the seafood that they have in their freezers, and there have been shortages. Not just an industry, but a whole way of life is dependent on when and if the seafood business comes back. The fisherman and shrimpers will be starting out again soon: it's questionable what they'll find.
Someone set me a video of a 12 year old girl speaking to the UN Environmental Meeting in Rio in 1992. It's grainy, but you may find it interesting.
Her overall point relates to the environmental destruction of the world, and pleads with the audience of grown-ups to do something to preserve the world of her generation. She spoke as eloquently as any 12 year old I've ever heard. Her points were well-founded and valid: both then and now.
There is a line which asks the delegates what their world was like when they were 12. It stopped me cold. The man who sent me the video is someone I knew when I was 12. The last recollection I have of him was in 10th grade physics class: I was smart, he was smarter. I don't remember having seen him since, but in his Facebook photo, he is completely recognizable as the boy I knew when all the 5-year-old boys in the old neighborhood used to chase all of us 5-year-old girls with worms. (No, I don't know why, and they all claim they didn't do it.)
When we were 12, there was a war on. That year, as it happens, was the year of Tet. A year before Woodstock. The voting age was 21. Abortion was illegal. Stonewall was a few years in the future. Planning for the first Earth Day had not yet started. We didn't recycle per se - milk was still delivered in bottles, and that one soda a year was returnable for the nickel deposit. Disposable diapers were available, but most people still used cloth diapers and a diaper service. Newspapers were cut up and articles saved or mailed to others, leftovers were used to paper train puppies or line bird cages. There were no cell phones, personal computers, microwave ovens, answering machines, game boys, VCRs, DVDs, BluRays. It was a different world.
But some things have not changed, not one iota. More after the jump.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided several cases on Monday. One of them was worth noting on its own. In light of yesterday's decision (see Scott's post) and the apparent decision of the Department of the Interior to revise the moratorium on off-shore drilling, the second one may in the long run be even more noteoworthy.
The first case was Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. This case involves a federal statute that makes it illegal to give material support to terrorist groups. The statue defines material support as including "training," "personnel," and "expert advice and assistance." The plaintiffs were groups and individuals who wanted to provide training/legal advice to two terrorist groups -- one composed of Turkish Kurds and the other composed of Tamils from Sri Lanka. The proposed assistance would have been training in how to use non-violent political means in pursuit of their objectives. Given the statutory language, these individuals filed a law suit (and the law suit actually had several rounds as the statute was repeatedly amended to cover more activities) to determine whether the statute prohibited this type of activity. These individuals also claimed that, if these activities were within the reach of the statute, the statute would violate the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision did not have much problem disposing of the First Amendment claims. The gist of the Supreme Court's holding was that these individuals were free on their own to advocate for the needs of the Turkish Kurds and the Tamils. However, the US Government has concluded that this group of Kurds and this group of Tamils are criminal organizations. As such, the US Government is free to make, and has made, the determination that assistance given to the political side of these organizations aids them in their terrorist activities. (While not cited specifically in the opinion, Hamas, Hezbollah, and, prior to 1998, the Provisional IRA are good examples of groups in which the political wing's successes help enable the military wing to engage in activities that the US Government classifies as terrorist activities).
Given that news reports indicate that the Department of Interior has opted for new emergency regulations rather than appealing Judge Feldman's overly broad order
The more significant case may end up being Monsanto Company vs. Geertson Seed Farms. The background of this case is that Monsanto has a genetically engineered variety of alfalfa that is resistent to Round-Up (a major pesticide). Under federal regulations, genetically engineered plants are presumed to be "plant pests" and must prove to the Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS) that they are safe for use. Part of the proof is supposed to be an environmental impact statement. Apparently, APHIS under the previous administration granted Monsanto's petition for unlimited use of this new variety of alfalfa without requiring an impact statement. Some natural farmers filed a suit challenging the failure of APHIS under President Bush to follow the rules. The trial court granted the farmers relief entering an injunction precluding APHIS from permitting either limited or unlimited use of this new variety of alfalfa prior to the completion of an environmental impact statement. By the time that the case got to the Supreme Court, the case was focused on the narrow issue of whether or not that relief was excessive.
Yesterday, my neighborhood kept losing electricity for reasons seemingly unsolvable by the local power company. They'd get it back on, and then it would die out again. It made me remember how very dependent we all are on "power" - be it coal, oil, natural gas, electricity...it all comes from somewhere.
I am one of those people who don't think enough about "power" (the non-political type) enough. I expect that when I flip a switch, the light comes on. I am not sure whether the electricity I use in my house comes originally from nuclear power or coal or magic. I try to keep a small carbon footprint: you can calculate yours here.
So I was driving to stay somewhere else last night, and heard that the oil problems in the gulf might be a boon to Pennsylvania. Even those of us who are not constant power-watchers are appalled by what is happening in the gulf: the devasation of the ecosystem, the lost tourism and fishing jobs, the possibility that it could be decades, if ever, before the gulf returns to what it was. We who are political and who care about the environment have been screaming for years that off-shore drilling was bad.
What I heard on the radio related to Marcellus Shale. This is a large area in several states. albeit predominantly Pennsylvania, that could potentially provide a whole lot of natural gas. Which could be used to, say, heat houses in lieu of oil. It's not without environmental impact: it could ruin all the water in my part of Pennsylvania and into New Jersey. That's right kids, no potable water. Maybe. But on the radio they were all sunshine: the economic boon to Pennsylvania as the greatest cache of new power.
So there I was last night around 9 pm: Olivia and I had just left our all electric house, were driving in an environmentally friendly car (36 - 38 mph measured) off to a friend's house because Olivia is mostly blind, and needs some minimal light all night, and cannot breathe in high-humidity, high-temperature weather. Listening to the potential that to get power, we might lose water. All incongruous.
Can someone explain to me why we don't have an energy policy that includes solar, wind and hydro? Imagine if all of a sudden, everyone who could was required to have solar panels on their roofs...imagine the new jobs in manufacturing, installation, training, and marketing. Imagine the impact on using less non-renewable resources. Solar panels have become smaller and more efficient, far more accessible than they used to be. Imagine green roofs in cities: lower overall temperatures in the summer, more insulation from the cold in the winter. Maybe even roof-top gardens.
The objections, believe it or not, often are aesthetic rather than real. Many homeowners associations and zoning boards don't allow solar panels because they "don't look nice." Not kidding.
That's all I've got on the overall power issue. I leave you with two things. A fascinating article on Obama and the Democrats from today's NY Times. And this...
Today is the 40th anniversary of the first Earth Day. I don't have much to add to my Earth Day post from last year, except that the Pacific Garbage Dump is bigger still, and this year some environmental legislation launches. Most notably, lead paint removal for homes built before 1978.
So please use the comments to say what Earth Day means to you, or if it means nothing to you as it's not on your list of priorities.
And once again, I hope you will do SOMETHING for Earth Day: if you haven't already built a smaller carbon footprint into your everyday life.
We talk a lot about the role of government: what it should and should not be doing. Sometimes, while waiting for them to legislate action, there are things that we can do as individuals. Here are two of them:
1. Environment
You probably recycle. (Yes, if you don't, you should.) Trash is a big problem: not just the huge landfills, but the damage done to the ecosystem and especially our oceans, coral and sea life. (Click on the photo for a full sized view.) Likely one of the things you recycle are plastic bottles. I've never understood why water in a bottle is horrible, but soda in a bottle is okay, but that's a personal problem. Bottom line: likely you sometimes drink something from plastic bottles and then throw them in the recycle bin.
Turns out that those caps don't get recycled, they get sent to the landfills due to the difficulty in standard recycling. However, there is something you can do. Aveda Salons has set up a program, through local schools, to recycle those little caps. It's pretty simple: the school registers with Aveda, which sends the school mailers. Kids collect the caps, and they are sent to the company. Full information is here.
2. Health Care
Yes, we're all awaiting with bated breath the Congressional resolution of overall health care in America. While we're all waiting, there is something you should do if you are age 40 or over, and get your friends and relatives over 40 to do, too. It's quick, and it's free.
Cardiovascular disease is the biggest killer of Americans, a factor in about 50% of all deaths. According to the American Heart Association, over 81 MILLION Americans have some form of cardiovascular disease. Many people don't know that they do: hardening of the arteries and high blood pressure are silent, always silent in initial stages, sometimes right up to the moment of death.
Wouldn't it be nice if it was possible to simply and cheaply figure out if someone had hardening of the arteries early on? When changes in diet and exercise would be most effective? Turns out there is.
Sit on the floor, and see if you can touch your toes. A new study indicates that in people over 40, there is a direct correlation between arterial patency and the ability to touch one's toes. The patency issue doesn't seem to be applicable in younger people, however, if you're under 40 and you can't touch your toes, you should follow the advice, too.
If you can't touch your toes, go over to your local drug store and take your blood pressure: most have free machines. Take it 3 times, waiting a minute in between, and average the scores. If the average is above 140/90, call your doctor.
If you can't touch your toes, consider changes in what you eat and the amount of exercise you get.
So there you have it: save the environment, save your heart.
President to Attend Copenhagen Climate Talks Administration Announces U.S. Emission Target for Copenhagen
The White House announced today that President Obama will travel to Copenhagen on Dec. 9 to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference, where he is eager to work with the international community to drive progress toward a comprehensive and operational Copenhagen accord. The President has worked steadily on behalf of a positive outcome in Copenhagen throughout the year. Based on the President’s work on climate change over the past 10 months – in the Major Economies Forum, the G20, bilateral discussions and multilateral consultations – and based on progress made in recent, constructive discussions with China and India’s Leaders, the President believes it is possible to reach a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen. The President’s decision to go is a sign of his continuing commitment and leadership to find a global solution to the global threat of climate change, and to lay the foundation for a new, sustainable and prosperous clean energy future.
The White House also announced that, in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies, the President is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation. In light of the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030. This provisional target is in line with current legislation in both chambers of Congress and demonstrates a significant contribution to a problem that the U.S. has neglected for too long. With less than two weeks to go until the beginning of the Copenhagen conference, it is essential that the countries of the world, led by the major economies, do what it takes to produce a strong, operational agreement that will both launch us on a concerted effort to combat climate change and serve as a stepping stone to a legally binding treaty. The President is working closely with Congress to pass energy and climate legislation as soon as possible.
Underscoring President Obama’s commitment to American leadership on clean energy and combating climate change, the White House also announced today that a host of Cabinet secretaries and other top officials from across the Administration will travel to Copenhagen for the conference. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson are all scheduled to attend, along with Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, and Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner.
For the first time, the U.S. delegation will have a U.S. Center at the conference, providing a unique and interactive forum to share our story with the world. In addition to working with other countries to advance American interests, U.S. delegates will keynote a series of events highlighting actions by the Obama Administration to provide domestic and global leadership in the transition to a clean energy economy. Topics will range from energy efficiency investments and global commitments to renewables policy and clean energy jobs.
Today is Earth Day, although some people are now morphing it into "Earth Week".
The first Earth Day was back in 1970, and it started simply, with a grassroots effort of protests to bring attention to the environmental issues of the day. For a lot of us, it was a nice break from the regular protest and petition schedule related to getting out of Vietnam, lowering the voting age to 18 (which passed Congress later that year, and was the quickest Amendment added to the Constitution) and legalizing abortion. (The legalizing pot thing didn't actually get the traction we wanted.)
There was something rich and fulfilling about that first Earth Day. The idea of loving Mother Earth, and seeking to protect her (and ourselves) from ourselves. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Back then, we were concerned with over-population, and nuclear proliferation. We didn't have landfills full of plastics with a million year decomposition time, nor Styrofoam which never actually decomposes. In many places, we were still recycling glass soda bottles to get that nickel deposit back. Pampers existed, but not everyone used them. There were no PCs (or very few, you early adopters, you), answering machines, cell phones, microwave ovens, Game Boys, iPods, nor any of the other trash that is toxic if not recycled properly. There was a lot of air pollution due to the fact that we still used leaded gas (and it cost less than 50 cents a gallon.) There was no Pacific Garbage Patch.
We donned our bell bottoms and overalls, tie-dyed tee shirts and work shirts, clogs and earth shoes and brought out our hand lettered signs.
Maybe we accomplished something, maybe "progress" invalidated our efforts. My grandmother used to tell stories about her father who was, amoung other things, a bee-keeper. He sold honey. People would bring a jar, and he would fill it, and they would use the honey, clean the jar, and they would return to have it refill it again. Truly environmentally sound. Now, it's hard to find honey in glass bottles (and it tastes funny in plastic) and the bees are dying. The nuclear power we were so against back then is a necessary part of our never-ending, always-increasing energy wants. Everything has seemingly become disposable.
Still, in this time of war and crumbling economies, I am hopeful. Maybe the problems of today will cause changes that will work to help save Mother Earth (and us.) Imagine if we left plastic behind and went back to glass bottles: jobs created to manufacture them, to recycle them, to design new shapes and sizes. It would be good not only for the economy (yes, I know they cost more to ship, but bottling used to be local) but because glass is heavier than plastic, bottles would hopefully go back to 6 - 8 ounces, and we'd instead drink more water: as we should.
I hope you'll join me in doing something for Earth Day today. Maybe pick up some trash, or use a canvas bag you brought from home to do your grocery shopping, or bike to work instead of driving. If nothing else, get outside today, take a walk in a park (trust me, they're everywhere) and take a look at nature. And then commit to doing one environmentally-conscious thing on a regular basis. If each and every one of us does just one more thing every day, the difference will be huge.
It is expected that later this year, Congress will take up (and probably enact) some form of "cap and trade system" for carbon dioxide. The essence of a cap and trade system is a business will buy/get permits from the government to emit carbon dioxide. Once you have the permit, if you have excess permits, you can sell them to somebody else who needs them. If you don't have enough permits, you will have to buy permits from somebody else or face some consequence for reaching/exceeding your limit. While the sentiment seems to be to pass a "cap and trade" system, the devil will be in the details. There are major sub-issues to be decided that will impact whether or not it will work and whether or not it can pass.
1) Level of Carbon Dioxide Permitted -- At one level, this issue is the most important issue on the table. It is accepted, at least among those supporting cap and trade, that we need to reduce the level of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in this country over time. The bigger questions is by how much and how quickly. We have seen in other areas that, when deadlines for major changes are too quick, business will come back and try to get extensions. (There will probably be some of this anyway but, if the targets are realistic and there are excess permits available for purchase, they are less likely to succeed.) The likely way that these targets will be reached will be by permits of different length. Sort of like the bond market, there will be permits that expire in 20 years, in 15 years, in 10 years, and in 5 years.
2) What Uses Need a Permit -- This issue is probably the second most important issue. Most carbon dioxide currently being emitted comes from either energy production (primarily electricity) or energy consumption (primarily gasoline). You can reduce carbon dioxide both by encouraging producers to switch to cleaner alternatives and by reducing consumption. So do you include some incentive to switch to more fuel efficient energy consumers by requiring some permit based on estimated life time consumption for things like light bulbs, cars, computers, tvs, new homes, etc. or do you just hit the permits on the businesses that actually produce carbon dioxide. And how does gasoline fit into this mix?
3) How are Permits Allocated -- There are basically two options for the original allocation of permits -- government grant or auction of permits. From the point of view of businesses, they would rather a government grant. That limits the original expense of imposing the system and takes speculators out of the initial system. However, an auction is a way to raise revenue for the government and gets government out of selecting the winners and losers in the initial allocation. Right now it seems that the Obama Administration would rather an auction.
"Carbon Offsets" are proposed so that people can continue to pollute, but basically buy credits from those who do not. As a political idea, it certainly has merit: the question is, will it actually work?
Two guys have taken the idea, and looked at it from a different angle.
The question is, do you think that Karma Neutral Offsets are analagous to Carbon Offsets? Do you think either, both, or neither will work?
Think back to last July. Warm. Balmy. A GREAT election season.
Oh, and gas hit almost $150/barrel and it took a mortgage payment to fill the tank of an SUV. Baby Bush et al had the idea of expanding offshore drilling. They even set a drilling schedule.
HA! Twarted by the good guys. From the USA Today (11 February, page 6A):
The Bush administration's controversial plan to expand offshore oil and gas drilling was delayed at least six months by the Obama administration.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar suggested that some drilling will eventually be allowed, but he said his department will give the public until Sept. 23 to comment, instead of the Bush administration deadline of March 23. The agency will hold public meetings before a decision is made.
As I've written before, there are problems with the solvency of the MSM which may threaten their existance. This week, two investigative journalism reports were published which help prove how critical it is to find a way to ensure that investigative journalism never goes away.
The thing about investigative journalism is that it takes a long time, a lot of research, may not be "THE" topic of the day, and takes a while to read. Both of these series related to the environment, covering two different facets. The topics are:
USA Today: Toxic chemical exposure at U.S. schools
Using the government's most up-to-date model for tracking toxic chemicals, USA TODAY spent eight months examining the impact of industrial pollution on the air outside schools across the nation. The model is a computer simulation that predicts the path of toxic chemicals released by thousands of companies.
USA TODAY used it to identify schools in toxic hot spots — a task the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had never undertaken.
The result: a ranking of 127,800 public, private and parochial schools based on the concentrations and health hazards of chemicals likely to be in the air outside. The model's most recent version used emissions reports filed by 20,000 industrial sites in 2005.
The potential problems that emerged were widespread, insidious and largely unaddressed.
Read the full story here, including maps and interactive lists so you can find specific schools.
BECAUSE OF THIS STORY, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Senate Committe on Environment and Public Works, is launching an investigation.
"What's really disturbing is, if USA TODAY can do this, certainly the EPA can do this," she said of the newspaper's efforts to identify schools in toxic hot spots.
Philadelphia Inquirer: How the Bush Administration squashed official reports of global warming
And believe it or not, this investistigative piece explains why the EPA could would NOT do anything under the Bush Administration. Details after the jump. Before you jump, sit down and prepare to be appalled, more than usual.
The well is capped. 
While we're all waiting, there is something you should do if you are age 40 or over, and get your friends and relatives over 40 to do, too. It's quick, and it's free.
Today is Earth Day, although some people are now morphing it into "Earth Week". 
