2011 November

Bachmann: Teaching Only Evolution Is ‘Censorship’

At an education forum at the University of Northern Iowa this afternoon, GOP presidential hopeful Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said she favored the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in schools, saying that just teaching the science of evolution would be “censorship by government.” Asked by a Catholic student why it’s not a violation of the separation of church and state for a public school to teach the religiously-tinged theories, Bachmann said evolution is just a “theory” that even “evolutionists” are not sure of:

BACHMANN: I think what you’re advocating for is censorship on the part of government. So the government would prohibit intelligent design from even the possibility of being taught in questioning the issueof evolution. And if you look at scientists there is not a unanimity of agreement on the origins of life. … Why would we forstall any particular theory? Becuase I don’t think that even evolutionists, by and large, would say that this is proven fact. They say that this is a theory, as well as intelligent design. So I think the best thing to do is to let all scientific facts on the table, and let students decide.

Watch it:

Bachmann joins Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), who said evolution was merely “a theory that’s out there.”

Of course, the difference here is that evolution is science — creationism and intelligent design are not. All of the world’s leading scientific organizations have affirmed evolution and dismissed intelligent design, noting that teaching it alongside evolution is counterproductive, as it would give the pseudo-science credibility. As the American Association for the Advancement of Science has repeatedly stated, “evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science;” teaching intelligent design “would undermine” the teaching of science, just as teaching false mathematics or alternative history would.

"The Big Fix": New Documentary Takes on the BP Spill (Video)

Clean Energy Standards Can Scale Renewables and Reduce Pollution at No Cost to the Economy, Study Finds

EIA analysis finds that Senator Bingaman’s clean energy standard would reduce carbon emissions by 43% and lower GDP growth by just .02 percent.

by Richard W. Caperton

Imagine if we could create jobs, increase renewable energy generation, improve air quality across the country, and reduce our carbon dioxide pollution — all at effectively zero cost to our economy. Wouldn’t that be great? Well, the Energy Information Administration just informed us that we can do all of these things, by adopting a strong national clean energy standard. (In fact, as the map above shows, 29 states have already done so.)

If you were to believe the hyperbole from the fossil fuel advocates, you would think that a clean energy standard would ruin the United States.  For example, the Heritage Foundation recently declared that a similar policy “would be bad for families, bad for business, and bad for the economy.” As I said at the time, Heritage was simply building a straw-man that isn’t even a serious clean energy proposal, and they weren’t actually modeling our electricity system.

Fortunately, we now have an accurate study of a real clean energy standard proposal, and the EIA has given us some insight into how this policy could benefit our country. In response to a request from Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), EIA modeled a proposal to get 80% of our country’s power from low-carbon and zero-carbon sources. They allow all generation resources to qualify, and weight them based on actual carbon emissions (roughly, that means that natural gas only gets half of the clean energy credits of wind or solar power, for instance). EIA also models several different cases to identify the effects of specific policy choices, like including a cap on program costs or exempting some utilities from compliance.

Here are the top line findings:

• Under the Bingaman clean energy standard, electricity generation from renewable resources like wind, solar, and biomass are almost twice as high as the business-as-usual case.
• The clean energy standard reduces annual carbon emissions from the power sector by 43 percent by 2035.
• GDP growth is virtually unchanged with a CES. With a clean energy standard, America’s GDP grows at 2.67 percent from 2009 to 2035.  Without a clean energy standard, GDP grows at 2.69 percent over the same time period.
• Including a cap on the price for clean energy credits and pairing the CES with strong energy efficiency standards significantly reduces the impact on electricity prices.

These findings are not a surprise to those of us who know that clean energy is the best way to power our future. The Center for American Progress has previously advocated a strong clean energy standard with many of the same features as Bingaman’s proposal. But it also has a few important differences. Earlier this year, we laid out five characteristics that would define a successful clean energy standard:

• It must generate new, long-lasting jobs and grow the economy
• It must effectively spur development and deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies
• It must account for regional diversity in resources and electricity markets
• It must be simple and transparent, and minimize costs
• It must provide a floor not a ceiling for clean energy, strengthening and building on existing state leadership

To reach these goals, our clean energy standard proposal includes policy tools like different clean energy requirements for different regions (accounting for regional diversity) and a tiered system that sets a specific target for certain renewable energy and energy efficiency targets, so that natural gas doesn’t dominate new investments.

Spreading benefits across the country is critical. The EIA’s analysis finds that economic stimulus from the new infrastructure investments needed to shift our power system essentially balances out any cost to the economy from rising electricity prices.  But EIA finds that power price impacts vary across the country, and it’s important that places with increasing prices also see increasing stimulative investments.

EIA’s analysis confirms that Senator Bingaman’s proposal is a serious step in the right direction. The United States would benefit if Congress moved forward with a clean energy standard.

— Richard Caperton is Director of Clean Energy Investments at the Center for American Progress

Investigation Prompted After Reports of Chevy Volt Car Batteries Catching on Fire

Crash Test last May Reveals Volt Batteries May Not Be Safe-

With all the positive buzz surrounding the Chevy Volt these days, it was surprising to hear about the latest scandal linked to the new hybrid vehicle. Recently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tested three Volt batteries and one of them actually caught fire, with the other two reportedly overheating. The investigation was prompted to due the crash safety test performed last May, in which the Volt battery had allegedly caught on fire during routine inspections. NHTSA’s analysis aimed to mirror the circumstances surrounding the May battery incident. The NHTSA released a statement, in which they reported, “This past May, NHTSA crashed a Chevy Volt in an NCAP test designed to measure the vehicle’s ability to protect occupants from injury in a side collision. During that test, the vehicle’s battery was damaged and the coolant line was ruptured. When a fire involving the test vehicle occurred more than three weeks after it was crashed, the agency concluded that the damage to the vehicle’s lithium-ion battery during the crash test led to the fire.” The regulatory agency said its unknown at this time whether there will be a recall of any parts or the vehicle in its entirety. GM will be giving out free vehicles on loan to Volt owners who are apprehensive about driving the car until the situation has been resolved. It might be beneficial to note that other electric-powered vehicles on the market today, such as the Nissan LEAF or the Mitsubishi MiEV, have not reported any problems with battery packs.

Sun-Tracking Solar Trees Installed at GM Tech Facility

JP Morgan Chase Leads Wall Street In Building The Carbon Bubble

Wall Street executives like JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon have been dubbed “banksters” for their deliberate creation of a real-estate bubble that crippled the global economy. But that collapse is dwarfed by the looming destruction of the global ecosystem by carbon pollution. A new report by BankTrack finds that the world’s top banks, while claiming to be committed to fighting global warming pollution, have pumped $230 billion into the coal industry since 2005. “Low-carbon economy” JP Morgan Chase has financed $22,250,000,000 worth of coal mining and coal-powered electricity projects since 2005.

(HT: Grist)

Mayor Bloomberg: ‘I Have My Own Army In The NYPD’

Last night, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). During the MIT speech, he explained why he didn’t want to run for president, which included boasting of having his own army in the NYPD. “I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world. I have my own State Department, much to Foggy Bottom’s annoyance. We have the United Nations in New York, and so we have an entree into the diplomatic world that Washington does not have,” said Bloomberg. (HT: @resnikoff)

What ‘War On American Energy’? U.S. On Track To Be Net Fuel Exporter For First Time Since 1949

Conservatives would have you believe that President Obama has led “nothing short of a war on American energy,” as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said in May, repeating a common refrain. “Obama is waging war on American energy,” GOP presidential front runner Newt Gingrich agreed. Fellow candidate Rick Perry said Obama’s “draconian” energy policies don’t let Americans create energy “and sell it to the world.” “All of this killing of our energy supply,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), perhaps the industry’s biggest apologist in Congress. Of course, when conservatives say “energy,” they mean oil and fossil fuels, as they themselves have led a real war against American clean energy.

But like many conservative attacks on the president, the war on American energy is a fiction. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal reports today, U.S. exports of fossil fuels “are soaring” and the U.S. is on pace to be “a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011 for the first time in 62 years”:

According to data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration on Tuesday, the U.S. sent abroad 753.4 million barrels of everything from gasoline to jet fuel in the first nine months of this year, while it imported 689.4 million barrels.

That the U.S. is shipping out more fuel than it brings in is significant because the nation has for decades been a voracious energy consumer. It took in huge quantities of not only crude oil from the Middle East but also refined fuels from Europe, Latin America and elsewhere to help run its factories and cars. [...]

The reversal raises the prospect of the U.S. becoming a major provider of various types of energy to the rest of the world, a status that was once virtually unthinkable. The U.S. already exports vast amounts of coal, and companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. are pursuing or exploring plans to liquefy newly abundant natural gas and send it overseas.

This is, of course, good news, even though much of it has to do with the faltering U.S. economy, which has driven down demand for fuel. But the new data also demonstrates the absurdity of conservative energy policy, which starts with the (baseless) assumption that domestic fossil fuel production is too low and follows that it must be incentivized with taxpayer dollars and licenses to pollute and bend labor safety rules in order to increase output.

Meanwhile, U.S. oil production is up, despite Obama’s mythical war against the industry. American drivers have seen little benefit from this, however, because prices are set in a global market, where quickly developing countries are driving up demand and thus prices. So increasing production here would have negligible impact on prices as American refineries would just ship their product abroad where it could fetch higher prices.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich: ‘I Don’t Read Newspapers In The State Of Ohio’

Newspapers are historically a tricky subject for Republican governors, thus ever-unpopular Gov. John Kasich (R) wants you to know that he avoids them completely. “You should know, I don’t read newspapers in the state of Ohio. Very rarely do I read a newspaper,” he told an audience in Columbus, Ohio. “Because just like I think presidents have done in the past, reading newspapers does not give you an uplifting experience.”

Watch it via Ohio Capitol Blog:

Contempt for papers, transparency, and up-to-date information is a long-standing tradition with Kasich, but his frank confession that he avoids the news may explain why he continues to pursue policies that are unpopular in his state. “Time to time, people will send me articles and things I need to know about. I have found that my life’s a lot better if I don’t get aggravated about what I read in the newspaper,” he said.

Warming-Enhanced Texas Drought Is Once in “500 or 1,000 Years … Basically Off the Charts,” Says State Climatologist

Leading experts explain how human-caused warming exacerbate the drought

“With no previous points so dry it’s hard to say exactly what history would say about a summer such as this one.  Except that this summer is way beyond the previous envelope of summer temperature and precipitation.” — Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon

From October of 2010 through this September 2011, Texas saw its driest year on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

But these historic dry conditions stretch back even further than that.

After examining tree-ring data going back to 1550, researchers at Columbia University found that this year’s drought was only rivaled once in the last 461 years. According to the Palmer Drought Severity Index, a system for measuring wet and dry conditions, the last time Texas experienced a drought this bad was in 1789.

The state’s climatologist, John Nielsen-Gammon, explained the historical significance of the ongoing drought in an interview with CBS:

“This is basically off the charts. Based on past history, you wouldn’t expect to see this happening in maybe 500 or 1,000 years.  One more year and we’re already talking about a drought more severe than anything we’ve ever had. And this will become for them, the drought of record.”

The drought, which Nielsen-Gammon says could stretch over a number of years, has devastated cotton crops, livestock, pumpkin crops, and, as the below CBS story points out, Christmas trees. The dry conditions have been exacerbated by a combination of human-caused global warming and La Niña, which pushes unusually cold air from the Pacific Ocean and causes drier-than-average conditions in the Southern U.S.

A number of leading climate experts recently explained the role that they believe human-caused global warming is playing in this epic drought.

As Texas climatologist Katherine Kahoe put it in an email to Climate Progress, dumping ever-increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is setting the conditions for turning extreme-weather events into history-setting catastrophes:

We often try to pigeonhole an event, such as a drought, storm, or heatwave into one category: either human or natural, but not both. What we have to realise is that our natural variability is now occurring on top of, and interacting with, background conditions that have already been altered by long-term climate change.

As our atmosphere becomes warmer, it can hold more water vapor. Atmospheric circulation patterns shift, bringing more rain to some places and less to others. For example, when a storm comes, in many cases there is more water available in the atmosphere and rainfall is heavier. When a drought comes, often temperatures are already higher than they would have been 50 years ago and so the effects of the drought are magnified by higher evaporation rates.

The Why Files has comments on the drought from many leading experts:

Gammon:  “There is evidence that global warming has had an effect on the drought, primarily by increasing the surface temperature, which increases the drought severity by increasing evaporation and water stress, and by decreasing stream flow and water supply….

… “temperatures have been rising in Tex over past 30 years or so, and they are projected to continue rising at similar rates. We think that the hole is filling, and I am afraid of a rebound effect, where natural variability varies in the opposite direction and the temperature rise would be relatively rapid.”

Richard Alley, professor of geosciences, Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, The Pennsylvania State University

It sure looks like warming, wrote Richard Alley, an expert on climate and ice at Pennsylvania State University, via email. “Our usual scientific response is to say that human burning of fossil fuels has made the events more likely, and they happened,” but conclusive proof is not available. “You as journalists, and the public in general, HATE that. But it’s probably the best answer.

“In a warmer world, we expect more record highs and fewer record lows, more heat waves and fewer cold snaps. That pattern is being observed. Warmer air can ‘hold’ more water (saturation vapor pressure increases with temperature), so if air is warmer when a rainstorm happens, then the rain can be more intense.

“In addition, there is a fairly strong reason to expect that in a warming world the subtropical dry zones (which include the Sahara and the Kalahari, and influence the U.S. Southwest, including parts of Texas) will intensify and expand poleward at least somewhat.

“Suppose you’re playing dice with me, and after you lose, you discover that I stuck some carefully positioned weights inside them. Out in the climate, the dice are now loaded, but not nearly as much as they will be in the future if we keep burning fossil fuels and releasing the CO₂ to the air. It is hard to prove that any particular event was extreme because of global warming … but for many events (record heat, drought and flood) it is harder to prove that humans did not influence the outcome, just as it is very hard to prove that my loaded dice didn’t affect the game.”

Kevin Trenberth, distinguished senior scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Is the Texas drought and heat wave due to climate change or natural variation? “There is no doubt a modest component related to climate change, while natural variability plays a major role,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “Fifteen years ago we suggested that with ENSO [El Nino-Southern Oscillation; periodic variations in water temperatures in the Pacific] the floods and droughts would become more intense.”

… Although the drought is linked to La Nina, it is also exacerbated by climate warming, Trenberth adds. Human climate change adds “about a 1 percent to 2 percent effect every day in terms of more energy. So after a month or two this mounts up and helps dry things out. At that point all the heat goes into raising temperatures. So it mounts up to a point that once again records get broken. The extent of the extremes would not have occurred without human climate change.”

In short, Texas ain’t seen nothing yet, assuming we keep listening to their politicians….

Related Posts:

• State Climatologist: “It’s Likely Much of Texas Will Still Be in Severe Drought” Next August, With Worse Water Shortages
• West Texas Sees Worst Drought Since Dust Bowl
• Flood-gate: Perry Officials Try to Hide Sea Level Rise from Texans with “Clear-Cut Unadulterated Censorship”
• After Praying for Rain, Texas Governor Rick Perry Prays for the EPA to Stop Environmental Regulations

Intermission

Running around New Haven art museums today, so no links roundup. But you can thank the members of the Yale Political Union for this:

As 2 Million Britons Go On Strike, Federal Employee Strikes Are Illegal In The U.S.

Today, the 99 Percenters across the pond are out in force, with nearly 2 million public sector employees in the United Kingdom going on strike to protest austerity policies that would slash public worker pensions and raise the retirement age. Sixty percent of schools are closed and 6,000 out of 30,000 non-urgent operations of the National Health Service have been canceled. Not since 1979 has Britain seen such an enormous strike. Watch Sky News’s report about the strike and the resulting marches:

While the British 99 Percent can utilize this large-scale public sector strike to pressure their government, this option is all but unavailable to Americans. According to United States Code: Title 5,7311, federal employees are not allowed to strike against their government. Meanwhile, the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act makes it so that “a general strike in support of other workers is illegal.” This network of anti-labor laws has made it very difficult for 99 Percenters in Americans to utilize organized labor to fight for more rights in modern history, and is one reason why reforming labor laws is so important for American democracy.

Major Environmental Groups Say U.S. May Be ‘Major Obstacle To Progress’ In Durban Climate Talks

Leaders of 16 environmental groups sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticizing the administration’s negotiating stance on the international climate talks now taking place in Durban, South Africa. “America risks being viewed not as a global leader on climate change, but as a major obstacle to progress,” they wrote. “U.S. positions on two major issues – the mandate for future negotiations and climate finance – threaten to impede in Durban the global cooperation so desperately needed to address the threat of climate change.”

Download the letter.

Full text:

Earthjustice ● Environmental Defense Fund ● Greenpeace, USA ● National Tribal Environmental Council ● Natural Resources Defense Council ● Native American Rights Fund ● Oxfam America ● Physicians for Social Responsibility ● Population Action International ● Population Connection ● Sierra Club ● Union of Concerned Scientists ● The Wilderness Society ● World Wildlife Fund

November 29, 2011

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
State Department
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Clinton:

We are writing to express our concerns about the negotiating positions and strategy of the United States going into the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which starts this week in Durban, South Africa. These are concerns our organizations have previously raised with your negotiators in meetings and conversations over the past year, and that at the outset of the Durban meeting, we feel compelled to bring to your attention directly.

This is a critical meeting, as we are rapidly running out of time to avert the worst impacts of climate change. The IPCC special report on extreme events released just last week makes clear that climate change is already seriously affecting people, communities and ecosystems around the world. And the International Energy Agency recently reaffirmed that without more ambitious commitments to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases over the next decade, we are extremely unlikely to meet the goal set by President Obama and other leaders in Copenhagen of keeping global temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. In addition, without substantial new funding, many developing countries will not be able to confront the profound challenges climate change will pose, especially to their poorest citizens.

The Durban Climate Change Conference must build on the progress made last year in Cancun by advancing mitigation, adaptation, technology, and finance, and by increasing the transparency of mitigation actions taken by both developed and developing countries. Durban must also establish a clear roadmap towards negotiating a legally-binding climate regime that is both more comprehensive and more ambitious than the Kyoto Protocol alone, building on the experience gained and the architecture developed over the last decade.

Progress on these fronts is well within reach in Durban, but is by no means guaranteed.

In November, 2008, President-elect Obama gave an inspiring video address to the Bi-Partisan Governors Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles, California. He said that “Few challenges facing America – and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change,” and pledged that “once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.”

Three years later, America risks being viewed not as a global leader on climate change, but as a major obstacle to progress. U.S. positions on two major issues – the mandate for future negotiations and climate finance – threaten to impede in Durban the global cooperation so desperately needed to address the threat of climate change.

On the mandate issue, the U.S. has laid down a set of stringent pre-conditions that would have to be met for the U.S. to support a mandate for negotiations on a comprehensive long-term climate regime. These include legal symmetry, a clear process for developing countries to graduate to commitments similar to those of developed countries, and making commitments by major developing countries unconditional, rather than conditioned on financial or technological support. It will clearly not be possible to reach consensus on these issues in Durban; insisting on their inclusion in a mandate sends the signal that the U.S. does not support such a mandate. This is a lost opportunity. If China and other developing countries were to sign up to a mandate to negotiate legally binding commitments, it would be a major win for the United States, creating a level playing field in the future with other major economies.

The U.S. should be working with the EU, China and others to make this type of a mandate possible, not rejecting it out of hand because it doesn’t guarantee all of the U.S. negotiating objectives. Developing country positions on this issue have evolved significantly in recent years, and will continue to evolve over the course of any negotiating process launched in Durban, which would likely take three or four years to conclude. The U.S. shouldn’t require countries to agree to the specific parameters of the final agreement before negotiations even begin.

We urge you to instruct U.S. negotiators to show much greater flexibility on this issue and to work towards creating a Durban mandate, not blocking one. A framework of voluntary pledges, with no pathway to a binding agreement, would be a major step back from stated U.S. positions on climate change. On a variety of international fronts, the U.S. stands for strong rule of law, international norms, and real progress on major challenges. We should carry that vision forward in the climate change negotiations and insist that all countries, including the U.S., actively negotiate towards a strong legally binding system. The challenge of climate change requires that we utilize the strongest tools available.

With respect to climate finance, we are troubled that the US may block the important steps forward that can be taken in Durban. In 2009 you helped move the negotiations forward in Copenhagen by joining other developed countries in pledging substantial new financing – $100 billion per year by 2020 – to help developing countries address global warming. Since then, the Secretary General’s High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, prominent individuals such as Bill Gates, and many others have put forward credible proposals for innovative sources of public financing that can help reach this goal. One such proposal that deserves US support in Durban is pricing carbon pollution in the international shipping and aviation sectors, which can reduce global emissions while raising climate finance. US support for this concept should be part of a broader reform of the US position on international aviation pollution, including ending current US opposition to incorporating such pollution within the European Union Emission Trading System.

We recognize that detailed agreements on how to generate finance from specific sources may take some time. Yet as with the legal mandate, the current refusal of your negotiators to even allow a discussion to take place about the relative strengths and weaknesses of various proposals, and the technical issues related to implementing them, risks fostering the perception of bad faith. Notably, this is not a common position among key contributing countries, such as the European Union which has proposed a work program to identify sources of long-term finance that can help meet the $100 billion goal. For the US, such a discussion would provide a platform to bring forward its own best ideas for mobilizing capital at scale, and to help build the necessary coalitions of like-minded countries to more effectively implement the best alternatives. We strongly urge you to instruct your negotiators to allow these proposals to be discussed in Durban.

In addition, the US risks upending the critical step of launching the Green Climate Fund. Agreement to establish the Fund was among the most important achievements of the Cancun Agreements last year, and concrete steps towards getting the Fund up and running – particularly agreement on the Fund’s governing instrument, board, and transitional arrangements – are essential to the overall success of Durban and to progress on international climate action. Last month the US, joined only by Saudi Arabia, blocked consensus on the recommendations of the Transitional Committee for the design of the Green Climate Fund. We are deeply concerned that opening up these recommendations to renegotiation in Durban risks unraveling balanced compromises already made, and could foreclose agreement on a workable governing instrument. We urge you to instruct the U.S. negotiating team to work with the South African presidency, the co-chairs of the Transitional Committee, and others to resolve issues involving the Green Climate Fund early on in Durban, so as to build the confidence and trust needed to achieve an ambitious overall outcome at the end of the conference.

At the Copenhagen climate conference two years ago, you quoted a Chinese proverb which says that “when you are in a common boat, you have to cross the river peacefully together.” You challenged countries to rise above their differences, saying “all of us have an obligation to engage constructively and creatively toward a workable solution. We need to avoid negotiating approaches that undermine rather than advance progress toward our objective.”

Progress is possible in Durban, but only if the U.S. meets the standard you laid down in Copenhagen. We hope and trust that it will.

Sincerely,

Carroll Muffett, President & CEO
Center for International Environmental Law

Jamie Rappaport Clark, President & CEO
Defenders of Wildlife

Trip Van Noppen, President
Earthjustice

Fred Krupp, President
Environmental Defense Fund

Phillip Radford, Executive Director
Greenpeace, USA

Jerry Pardilla, Executive Director
National Environmental Tribal Council

Frances Beinecke, President
Natural Resources Defense Council

John Echohawk, Executive Director
Native American Rights Fund

Raymond Offenheiser, President
Oxfam America

Peter Wilk, MD, Executive Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Suzanne Ehlers, President & CEO
Population Action International

John Seager, President
Population Connection

Michael Brune, Executive Director
Sierra Club

Kevin Knobloch, President

Union of Concerned Scientists

William Meadows, President
The Wilderness Society

Carter Roberts, President & CEO
World Wildlife Fund

cc: Lael Brainerd, Under Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs
Michael Froman, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs
Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change
Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change

Report: Romney Misinforms Voters When He Promises To Repeal Health Reform Through Waivers

Mitt Romney is running around the country promising conservatives that he will repeal the Affordable Care Act through executives orders (or waivers) that will allow states to opt out of implementing the health reform law. Critics — including some within the Republican party — have argued that a president does not have the authority to eliminate a law passed by Congress, and today, a report from the Congressional Research Service confirms that while Romney would be able to alter certain regulations, issuing waivers through executive authority would “likely conflict with an explicit congressional mandate and be viewed ‘incompatible with the express … will of Congress’”:

A President would not appear to be able to issue an executive order halting an agency from promulgating a rule that is statutorily required by PPACA, as such an action would conflict with an explicit congressional mandate…However, Presidents have issued executive orders on regulatory review that have increased the President’s involvement in agency rule making generally. [...]

A President would not appear to be able to issue an executive order halting statutorily-required programs or mandatory appropriations for a new grant or other program in PPACA, and there are a variety of different types of these programs…However, there may be instances where PPACA leaves discretion to the Secretary to take actions to implement a mandatory program, and…an executive order directing the Secretary to take particular actions may be analyzed as within or beyond the PResident’s powers to provide for the discretion of the executive branch.”

Romney admits that he won’t be able to eliminate the entire law through executive authority and save a Republican majority in the senate, has pledged to use the reconciliation process to undo the rest of the measure. But that too isn’t possible, since “budget reconciliation bill would have to apply only to the budget-related elements of the new law” and would leave many portions of the law intact. Romney would end up “creating a chaotic environment driven by enormous uncertainty over just which parts of the new health care law would be implemented–for consumers, health care providers, and insurers.”

Unfortunately, this reality hasn’t stopped the former Massachusetts governor from telling voters that he will easily repeal Obamacare on “day one.”

New Alabama Law Encourages Neighbors To Spy On And Report Suspected Undocumented Immigrants Next Door

Law enforcement officials across Alabama were unsure how they would enforce — let alone pay for — HB 56, the state’s draconian immigration law, when it went into effect. Terry Davis, the president of the Alabama Association of Chiefs of Police, warned that officers were stretched too thin by the far-reaching demands of the new law, in addition to their regular duties.

One sheriff in Limestone County told the Athens News-Courier that his department’s resources are being strained to the breaking point by investigations prompted by the immigration law — including people asking police to investigate if their neighbors are undocumented immigrants:

Sheriff Mike Blakely said most of his department’s resources are not being stretched thin because of illegal immigration arrests, but instead because of investigations into the alleged mistreatment of illegal immigrants. [...]

In terms of the arrests of illegal immigrants, the sheriff said there hasn’t been a noticeable increase because he feels many illegal immigrants have left the community. However, he said the department’s call volume is rising because residents want officers to investigate neighbors who they believe are illegal.

“There’s a lot of people confused about the law and people are getting frustrated with us,” he said. “If they suspect someone is illegal, we can’t just go out and check them out. The law prohibits us from doing that. We can contact ICE, but unless they’re committing a crime, we have no authority (to arrest them).”

Alabama’s anti-immigrant law is already a clear disaster for community safety, distracting police from focusing on violent crime and leading immigrant communities to distrust law enforcement officials. Equally disturbing is the evidence that the law is undermining the fabric of communities by sowing suspicion and turning neighbors against each other.

Soda Companies Aggressively Target Black And Latino Kids, Fueling Childhood Obesity Epidemic

It’s well known that America’s obesity epidemic disproportionately affects poor and minority children because of the country’s glut of cheap, unhealthy foods. Soft drinks are such a major culprit in the childhood obesity epidemic that some local governments have tried to levy taxes on them to reduce consumption. The Obama administration announced a plan to ban candy and sweetened beverages from schools.

Now, a new study reveals that soda companies have been targeting black and Latino children in high numbers, diminishing parents’ attempts to encourage their kids to eat right:

A new report from Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity has found that beverage companies are aggressively targeting black and Latino kids with ads to promote sports, fruit and energy drinks. The products that are promoted to kids of color happen to be among the least healthy of the 644 products studied by researchers at the university.

Black children and teens saw 80 percent to 90 percent more ads compared with white youth, including more than twice as many for Sprite, 5-hour Energy, and Vitamin Water.

From 2008 to 2010, Latino children saw 49 percent more ads for sugary drinks and energy drinks on Spanish-language TV. Latino preschoolers saw more Spanish-language ads for Coca-Cola Classic, Kool-Aid, 7 Up, and Sunny D than older Latino children and teens did.

Colorlines notes that the two largest soda companies, Pepsi and Coca-Cola, have repeatedly promised to market less to children, who are more susceptible to advertising: “Coca-Cola, for example, has previously stated publicly that they wouldn’t market ads in TV, radio and print programming aimed at kids under the age of 12.”

But the report found that soda companies have just shifted to using more sophisticated and insidious forms of advertising that promise kids rewards for purchasing sugary drinks. Kids are exposed to these messages “often without their parents’ awareness.”

Companies’ targeting of minority children is a social justice issue as well as an economic one. Just like mortgage companies that focused their predatory lending on minority communities, soda companies are preying on a particularly vulnerable group (poor children) who are already suffering the ill effects of their product and have the most to lose from consuming more. For instance, these children are less likely to have health insurance to cover the numerous medical problems associated with obesity.

Kentucky Church Votes To Ban Interracial Couples From Becoming Members

A small church in Pike County, Kentucky voted not to accept interracial couples as members or allow them to take part in some worship activities, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader. Melvin Thompson, minister at Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church, explained that the resolution “is not intended to judge the salvation of anyone, but is intended to promote greater unity among the church body and the community we serve.” Thompson issued the ban after a white woman and her black fiance, a native of Zimbabwe, performed at the church in August.

Fox News Attacks ‘Failing’ Solar Company As Parent Company News Corp Invests In The Same Solar Company

Throughout the Solyndra proceedings, one of the biggest perpetrators of the “failing” solar myth has been Fox News. Fox has made wild claims in its coverage of Solyndra, including calling clean energy a “fantasy,” “pointless,” a “hoax,” and that “green energy is failing.”

Trying to dredge up another solar scandal, Fox recently pointed to another company, SunPower, as proof of solar’s failure. Here’s Megyn Kelly calling SunPower a “failing company“:

Well, if you thought the Solyndra loan scandal was bad, listen to this one. New questions being raised today as we learn that another failing company, SunPower, was given a government loan guarantee for $1.2 billion, which is of course more than twice the amount given to Solyndra, which is now bankrupt. And right now that company too, not looking good.

Watch the Fox News attacks on SunPower:

Not only is SunPower regarded as an industry success (one solar market expert called it “a pretty big success story”), but Fox’s sister company — also owned by News Corporation — is confident enough to hire SunPower. Last year, Dow Jones Company, a subsidiary of News Corp, enlisted SunPower to build a giant solar power system in New Jersey. Dow Jones claimed that at peak conditions, the installation would generate 50 percent of the energy needs for its corporate campus. On the News Corp Global Energy Initiative page, Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton is quoted saying the solar installation stands for the future:

“If this solar installation stands for anything at Dow Jones, it should stand as a testament to a company with vision. Dow Jones isn’t waiting for the future. We are making it. We are pioneering profitable digital business models, and we are developing innovative technology to make information more accessible and more useful and ultimately more interesting.

Clearly, companies like News Corp trust solar enough to invest in it. Experts call SunPower a “safe bet” and “strongly placed,” but News Corp’s attack on itself exemplifies how anti-innovation the conservative ideology has become. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has insisted, “We have to press forward … Not by clutching to the past but by seizing the future.” However, conservatives — like those on Fox — cling to conspiracy theories and special interests at the expense of clean energy innovation.

German Autobahn to be Covered with Giant Public Park

Fox News Host Suggests Barney Frank Will Open Sex Brothel Upon Retirement

Yesterday, Fox News host Greg Gutfeld seemed to suggest that retiring Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) — who was the first member of Congress to admit that he’s gay — will open some kind of sex hotel now that he’s out of public life, possibly referring to Frank’s 1985 Steve Gobie scandal. “Can I make a prediction? Where do we see Frank going,” he asked, adding, “I see a memoir in eight months called ‘Being Frank.’ [...] He’ll talk about being gay, struggling with his weight. And then, he’s going to later after that, opening up a bed and breakfast. There won’t be any breakfast, so it will just be beds. It would be highly successful.” Watch it: