Home Blog Page 3325

CLIMATE CHANGE CANNOT WAIT

This country and the planet cannot afford to delay climate and clean energy legislation. It is that simple. Every day Washington politics puts our clean energy future on hold our economy gets weaker, our enemies get stronger, and the planet gets more polluted. It has been almost a year since the House approved comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation to create jobs, cut our oil imports in half and reduce the carbon pollution that threatens us all, and we are still waiting for the Senate to act. The time is now for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that jump-starts our economy, strengthens national security, and leads to a healthier planet.

The petitions, rallies, e-mails and letters from around the country are sending a loud and clear message of broad support. The NRDC Action Fund has worked tirelessly to urge the Senate to stand up for a strong clean energy and climate bill. And just last week Capitol Hill saw a display of this commitment as “tens of thousands…gathered on the National Mall for a concert and rally” not only to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day but to call “for real leadership in the Senate”.

The President has also been crystal clear in his call to take action for passing “comprehensive clean energy and climate bill ‘that will safeguard our planet, and spur innovation and help us to compete in the 21st Century.”

Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman have dedicated months to pulling together a Senate bill. As Representative Ed Markey asserts, “Right now we’ve got the best chance [to pass the legislation] in a generation…and it would just be a shame to lose it”. A delay in climate legislation would be more than just a shame, but, in the words of Thomas Freidman, “a disaster”.

Of course, Mr. Freidman is giving voice to the concerns of many. Not passing comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation now means we are not only racing toward a potential tipping point ecologically, but we are postponing economic growth and threatening national security.

It has been almost two decades since 1,600 senior scientists from 70 countries signed the statement warning “all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.”

A comprehensive clean energy policy will “boost growth, create 2.8 million jobs, slash pollution” and drastically cut our dependence on foreign oil.

The U.S. Department of Defense declared “climate change a national security threat”, that will “contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.”

Our inaction also raises doubt in the rest of the world that America is still able to provide leadership on issues of global concern. We are already getting left behind as we continue to sit on the sidelines while “China is…leading the world…in wind production and…solar production.” This country was not built on the principle of inaction. Our founders were leaders who risked everything to make this country great.

The Senate has the historic opportunity to flip the switch and get onto a path to a prosperous and sustainable future. The truth is, “This generation of politicians is the last generation who have it in their power to secure the future of our planet, to safeguard the health and livelihoods of millions of people and the habitats that sustain their lives. History will not forgive them if they fail to act.”

So we need members from all parties, the officials elected to lead this country, to sit down now and get this bill back on track – for us and the generations to come.

Heather Taylor-Miesle is the director of the NRDC Action Fund. Become a fan on Facebook or Twitter.

The Need for More Women In Office and How to Make It Happen

0

Originally posted at SumofChange.com

Who needs women in office?  Everyone.

That was the title of one of the more powerful panels held at this year’s Pennsylvania Progressive Summit, in Harrisburg, PA.  Sam Bennett, Women’s Campaign Forum President/CEO and former congressional candidate, led the panel discussion which previewed several of the state’s female candidates and elected officials.  Largely discussing the various ways to get more women into public office, the candidates shared their personal stories on why they chose to run for office, how to personally fund your campaign, and discussed the reasons why more women in office is “essential to the health of our nation”.

In the first two videos, Sam Bennett and other panelists outline the major points on why we need more women in public office.  In the third video, Lois K. Herr illustrates how to support other women in running for office.  The final video offers advice on ways to support your own campaign, especially if its your first.

See all the videos through  SumofChange.com

For more videos from the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit, go to SumofChange.com/paprog

For more info on the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit and it’s organizer, Keystone progress, please go to paprogressivesummit.org and keystoneprogress.org

See all the videos through  SumofChange.com

Close the Gunshow Hoopla

0

It virtually shouts like a screaming child every time I log on to Blue Virginia:

“CLOSE THE GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE ACT NOW ” — it demands ,in bold white and red, from the top of the right hand margin.

“This loophole,” it whines, “has resulted in countless shootings, including those at Columbine and the recent shooting of Pentagon police officers.”

“Countless shootings?” Countlessness has a count, apparently: a click will route one to a page where “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” (MAIG) professes that 30% of illegally trafficked guns are “connected” to gun shows — a statistic we supposedly should keep in mind as we solemnly commemorate Columbine and Virginia Tech. .”

More below the fold!

Why do MAIG’s shrill internet ads so annoy? Its not because there isn’t a case to be made for the “loophole’s” closure: the majority of gun sales at gun shows already go through the “instant check” system. A modest law that would encourage private sellers on gun show premises to use such a system would not necessarily seriously burden the gun market and could do some modest good.

But the emphasis of such loophole proposals-and their anticipated results–should be on “modest:” According to the largest study conducted by the federal government, only a very small percentage of prison inmates — 0.7% — got their guns from gun shows. Moreover, not one of the shootings cited by MAIG turn out to be caused by the gun show loophole: Virginia Tech’s Cho passed his background check before he got his guns through a gun store; the Columbine killer’s guns (mostly) came from a straw purchaser. The Pentagon shooter – John Patrick Bedell – no one knows where he got his guns. Some of these guns passed through a gun show at some point, and so can be “connected” by MAIG to gun shows – in support of their “statistics” and dishonest claims. But insofar as anyone knows, not one of these criminals got their guns from gun shows and not one shooting would have been stopped by a “gun show loophole” bill.

Not one shooting prevented – and very little in the way of honest data — from MAIG. It’s the kind of thing one comes to expect from “Consumers for Competitive Choice,” “Conservatives for Patient Rights,” the US Chamber of Commerce, and the National Rifle Association: the moneyed interests that assault our intelligence every day with ads big on imagery and small on facts. But increasingly, it’s also the kind of thing one comes to expect from … well … from people like those behind the MAIG campaign– Michael Bloomburg, the former republican Wall Street maven; Mark Kirk, the Republican candidate for Senator from Illinois; Paul Helmke, formerly Republican mayor, now director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence; and Frank Luntz, Republican Pollster and author of a recent “Word Doctors” White Paper on how to sell gun control to the American people.

And as one might expect, the legislation now being peddled contains many surprises:  H.R. 2324 and S. 843 would define many people who bring a gun to show for sale as “vendors” and require them to sign a ledger open to inspection by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).  Many would refuse to do so, and gun show attendance would plummet. One of the bills would require the names of every such “vendor” to be disclosed to the Attorney General no later than 30 days in advance of the show — an impossibility. All gun shows would have to have to register and pay an unspecified fee to the BATFE. BATFE would be permitted to conduct warrantless inspections of all records of licensed firearm dealers while dealers are at shows to conduct business.

Now if one is of the opinion that there should be no such thing as private gun sales, or gun shows, or that all private gun sales should be registered with the government, such provisions probably cause little distress. For example, Sen. Carl Levin was recently on senate floor promoting S. 843 because he believes background checks should be required for all private gun transactions, which he claims, account for 40% of all gun sales. Gun control supporters propose requiring all private transactions to be checked with the government — and for the government to hold the records of these checks indefinitely — because they support the use of “loophole” legislation as a back door to general gun registration, and eventually, confiscatory policies.

Levin, at least, is honest about his intentions. But gun owners, and most American people, don’t want the government to register or remove their guns or control every private gun transfer. We are as sick of the lies and hidden agendas from Bloomburg, Helmke, Luntz et cetera, as we are from their equally demagogic counterparts.

So what will it be? Screaming blogads or modest claims in support of a modest – and doable — proposal?  

A Few Words About Malawi

0

Danielle Nierenberg is blogging everyday from across Africa for the Worldwatch Institute’s Nourishing the Planet blog. She is also writing with her partner Bernard Pollack at her personal blog: BorderJumpers.

In Malawi, we visited the Lilongwe Wildlife Centre, a project supported by companies like the Body Shop, providing sanctuary space for rescued, confiscated, orphaned and injured wild animals of Malawi. While touring their facility we met Kambuk (which means “leopard” in Chichewa), who was soundly sleeping in his 2,500 sq meter backyard of fenced green landscape. He was rescued by the Lilongwe Wildlife Centre after poachers shattered his knee in Nyika National Park (making it impossible for him to ever return to the wild.) As we toured the facility nearly every animal we saw – from baboons to alligators – had a similar Cinderella story of overcoming insurmountable odds to survive and, in most cases, return back to the wild.

The Center is one of the leading organizations in Malawi pushing lawmakers to enforce and enact legislation in support of wildlife conservation and environmental protection. They also develop local partnerships and training programs with the farmers and communities surrounding national parks. The struggle between protecting wildlife and agriculture is becoming especially evident as drought, conflict, and hunger continue to affect sub-Saharan Africa.

Malawi may actually be best known for its so-called “Malawi Miracle.” Five years ago the government decided to do something controversial-provide fertilizer subsidies to farmers to grow maize. Since then maize production has tripled and Malawi has been touted as an agricultural success story. But the way they are refining that corn, says Kristof Nordin who demonstrates permaculture techniques at him home with his wife, Stacia Nordin, makes it “kind of like Wonderbread,” leaving it with just two or three nutrients.

Most Malawians think of traditional foods, such as amaranth and African eggplant, as poor people foods grown by “bad” farmers. But these crops, being more nutritious and requiring less artificial fertilizer compared to hybrid varieties may hold the key for solving hunger, malnutrition and poverty in Malawi. Rather than focusing on just planting maize-a crop that is not native to Africa-the Nordins advise the farmers they work with that there is “no miracle plant, just plant them all.”

And indigenous crops can be an important source of income for farmers. Rather than importing things like amaranth, sorghum, spices, tamarinds and other products from India, South Africa, and other countries, the Nordins are helping farmers find ways to market seeds, as well as value added products, from local resources. “A lot of solutions,” he says, “are literally staring us in the face.” And as I walked around seeing-and tasting- the various crops at the Nordins’ home, it’s obvious that maize is not Malawi’s only miracle.

Thank you for reading! If you enjoy our diary every day we invite you to get involved:

1. Comment on our daily posts — we check for comments everyday and want to have a regular ongoing discussion with you.

2. Receive regular updates–Join the weekly BorderJumpers newsletter by clicking here.

3.Help keep our research going–If you know of any great projects or contacts in West Africa please connect us connect us by emailing, commenting or sending us a message on facebook.

What Would Gulf Coast Oil Spill Look Like Off Virginia’s Coast?

0

Thanks to the magic of Photoshop, we can cut the Gulf Coast spill & paste it, scaled to size, off the Virginia coast in the area where drilling is planned. Via Twitter’s Brad Johnson, here’s what it looks like proportionately.

Obviously this is not exactly what a Virginia oil spill would look like. There are many variables — wind direction & speed, water current patterns. This is not a forecast, it simply shows relative sizes.

What would all that oil do? Would it head out to sea? Towards the Chesapeake Bay & Virginia Beach? Up to Ocean City? Who knows.

But hey, at least oil spills come with a darkly comic side. Sen. Mark Warner, a relentless cheerleader for oil & gas drilling off Virginia’s shores, is now being listed among coastal-state senators who’ve “expressed concerns about the safety & environmental impacts of offshore drilling.” Who says you can’t have it both ways?

UPDATE by Lowell: Much, much better news!

In a groundbreaking decision that some say will usher in a new era of clean energy, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today he was approving the nation’s first offshore wind farm today, the controversial Cape Wind project off of Cape Cod.

“This will be the first of many projects up and down the Atlantic coast,” Salazar said at a joint State House news conference with Governor Deval Patrick. The decision comes after nine years of battles over the proposal.

Last I checked, wind power doesn’t cause environmental catastrophes like offshore oil drilling does.

Economy

0

I watch the stock market.

Some people say the landings on the moon were faked.

I think the landing really happened.

I think that any attempt to link the stock market with prosperity is fake.

Just musing while drinking coffee and testing this sites interface.

“Every Senate Republican Voted No”

0



“Tell Republicans, if they side with Wall Street over Main Street, you won’t be siding with them.”

Do Deficit Hawks Have a Point? 2010 Campaign, Part I

23

As always, the Republicans, rather than the Democrats, are establishing the issues for the 2010 campaigns, and so far two are emerging. Expect another huge, tiresome and perhaps violent uproar over health care, which may, however, burn itself out over the summer as a result of over-use during hearings on the new nominee to the Supreme Court, whoever that might be. Or, a black swan may trigger another flash point (immigration? volcano? Iran?)  

The other firestorm will probably be the national debt and all that can go with it: both budget and trade deficits, the debt itself, inflation, entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, decline of the dollar, and so on. This is, in many ways, a far more serious challenge than health care because it is part of a broad philosophical attack on “big government” and has a compelling narrative to tell, one which is alarming, based on historical data and a well-established economic theory.  Moreover, Republican data and graphs have a “truthiness”convincing to many, including some economists. How so?

Conservatives and libertarians do not believe the recovery being touted by President Obama is real. They believe (with good reason) the true unemployment figure is pushing 17+ percent, higher even in some regions, pointing out that employers still keep shedding jobs, which offsets new job creation—- hardly a sign of recovery. They say seemingly hopeful statistics one month are revised downward the next month, or wiped out by declines later, just as, for example, the consumer credit rebound in January disappeared in February. They contend the recovery will collapse, and a second downleg to a deeper recession will begin. Not content with constant grumbling, they try to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy by hammering away at undermining the confidence of business and by destroying public trust through endlessly repeating their points, among which are:

*The Bush tax cuts are ending, so small businesses face higher taxes which means they cannot afford to hire workers;

*Real estate (usually a leading indicator) is not recovering, there are over 6 million more home foreclosures coming and

*Commercial real estate is heading into a bust as big or bigger than what we saw in residential, all of which will trigger

*Higher unemployment which will bring  the banking industry to its knees, according to a report from the impeccable Elizabeth Warren (Head of the Congressional Oversight Panel);

*Our trade deficit continues, we are not selling enough abroad so we borrow to pay for imports;

*We have to borrow to pay for our domestic expenses as well since tax receipts are down;

       *Foreigners, previously eager to snap up our treasuries, have begun to shun buying them, so “unnamed” investors have bought them at recent auctions, which really means that the Fed itself is doing so;

*This effectively monetizes the debt, leading inevitably to inflation;

*Rating agencies have hinted they may lower America’s high credit rating, which means we will have to pay far higher interest rates, another expense we cannot afford;

*Foreign nations are beginning to default on their own sovereign debt, necessitating more bailouts which will adversely affect America’s economy; the fact that the dollar is the world’s reserve currency is the only reason we have been able to continue selling our treasuries so easily, and yet

*The dollar’s reign is coming to an end (China and Russia both are setting up non-dollar denominated international trade agreements), and this will be another factor forcing us to pay higher interest rates…. and all this is just for starters.

*Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans, and pensions are “contingent liabilities” amounting to about $108 trillion over and above the official national debt

*Add in state and local government debt of some $3 trillion, and our total, all-inclusive national debt is over $123.6 trillion

You can see the national debt clock for yourself: (http://www.usdebtclock.org/), When I checked it was over $12.797 trillion, or 89.3 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product. That is over $41,400 per person, or, more significantly, over $116,500 per taxpayer (many Americans do not pay any income tax, which galls libertarians no end—– neither do many companies, like GE, but that’s another story).

The conservatives also maintain that the health care bill results in immediate costs to both individuals and employers, and that any potential savings are smoke and mirrors, not even projected to show up for several years, if ever. The health care bill has no cost controls, they contend, and already the insurance companies are jacking up premiums because they will have to cover pre-existing conditions and they will need the money to do so. The GOP party line is that hitting employers and taxpayers with increased expenses at this point in the recession will just be another reason the recovery, “if it even exists,” will be aborted.  

All this creates quite a narrative.  It is based on a mix of some real and some partially truncated facts, along with some (occasionally questionable or partial) statistics, and it leaves out other factors, so the picture is not complete…. But it sounds compelling, especially to average citizens, particularly when it is repeated endlessly by politicians, think tanks, self-appointed worryworts, and professional pessimists.

Every few years American politics cycles through another spasm of budget crises. I even remember President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat, once sent a national budget back to the Hill in the 1940’s after World War II  to be pared down; he said Congress wanted to spend too much money. We all know President Clinton, also a Democrat, was talked into forgoing campaign promises in order to create an actual budget surplus after the deliberate spending-plus-tax cuts of Reagan and Bush I, Republicans.

Now, ten years later, here comes another round of hysteria about the national debt.  Thanks to the profligacy of Bush II, also a Republican, the Clinton surplus was destroyed, and Obama, another Democrat, faced the necessity of dealing with an inherited, job-killing economic meltdown.  He had to continue Bush II’s bailout of the financial sector, and he then applied deficit spending as a Keynesian stimulus to jump start the collapsing economy.  The recent pattern here would seem to be that Republicans run up budget deficits while cutting taxes, then demand Democrats reduce said deficit—- and yet somehow the Democrats are the ones with the reputation of being the big spenders (who also raise taxes).

It is true that this time the Democrat Obama  had to create the stimulus, adding to the deficits handed to him by Bush II for the simple reason that there was no other way to save the economy from falling into the abyss.  Our overall economic position is by no means as solid as during earlier times of deficit financing, thanks in no small measure to ongoing globalization which eviscerated American jobs, and Bush II’s double war whammy plus an unpaid-for prescription benefit combined with his huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.  

Some commentators are even saying America is in a dangerous bind that undermines not just our power, but our democratic capitalist system.  Yes, the “real economy” on Main Street (versus the paper economy of Wall Street) has not yet recovered, our international trade deficit as well as our ability to finance such a huge national debt are being openly questioned, and the almighty dollar is clearly in a long-term downtrend. On cue, here comes high dudgeon about “bloated government, bloated spending, bloated deficits”…. not to mention angry attacks on Keynesian economics with its emergency deficit spending, coupled with frantic defenses of Friedman’s dogma of an unregulated “free market”—– the very dogma which brought us the global meltdown in the first place, remember.

The deficit hawks do indeed have a point, just not quite as overwhelming as they seem to believe (as we shall see). The national debt has, however, become a sturdy rallying cry for Republicans,  Blue Dog Democrats, and frightened voters who themselves are facing unheard-of levels of debt, bankruptcy, and bleak personal futures as a result. Why, they argue, should the federal government, bloated as it is, be any different from profligate individuals?  Besides, they cry, what about the kids? Won’t they be saddled with trying to pay the bloated interest on such enormous debt, much less trying to pay it off? “Damn Washington! Damn politicians! Damn Democrats for all this touchy, feely Big Spending! Taxed Enough Already! Roll it all back, dismantle the New Deal and Obamacare!”

Exactly.

The subtext or hidden motives for such an attack on the whole budget deficit-national debt ball of wax is the ironclad intention of the plutocrats finally to achieve at long last their greatest dream of wiping out everything FDR accomplished, indeed, everything Teddy Roosevelt and other populists accomplished during the 20th century, thus returning America to its first gilded age, the rip-roaring, unregulated years of plunder after the Civil War.  Today’s plutocrats, the corporatists of the mega, globalized corporations, and the clever manipulators of Wall Street’s hyper-complicated paper, believe everything is coming together in a perfect storm for them to achieve that dream, thanks to the present crisis (i.e., the financial meltdown and consequent, cruel global economic collapse—- which is not yet over, witness Greece, for example). We are in the middle of a classic Milton Friedman crisis, of “disaster capitalism” writ large. And, as others have said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Just how should Obama and the Democrats respond to the Republicans’ campaign themes for 2010? Especially, what about this deficit-debt assault, the “Double D” battle that conceals the treacherous agenda of the corporatists, which is, at bottom, to suck the democracy out of our system, leaving behind a shell of the republic, which they will then control completely—- an oligarchy of global plutocrats.