Category Archives: Politics

AIR POLLUTION: EPA “completely blindsided” by President Obama’s decision to scrap tougher smog rules

Posted on
Reply

Image via Fanboy30 on Flickr

President Obama has, in the past, made decisions that have been unpopular with his base. For example, the President extended the unpopular Bush Tax Cuts, which were never paid for. Now, he’s unexpectedly scrapped the implementation of EPA’s tougher smog rules.

However, he’s undoubtedly made decisions that have been popular with his base. Though, it seems that the former have drawn more attention than the latter, because arguably, again, the American people lose at the expense of corporate favoritism or over some perceived threat that doesn’t actually exist.

The effects of air pollution are quantifiable. Air pollution costs governments millions in healthcare costs, and poor air quality costs people their lives. In fact, EPA “estimates indicate the stricter [smog] rule would have cut asthma attacks in [certain] areas, as well as reduc[e] premature deaths.”

The President is taking a huge gamble by compromising with Republicans too much and by compromising over issues that are considered significant to his base. Certainly, it doesn’t matter how much the President gives up, because Republicans would rather watch Obama fail even if the President’s policies could be helpful to the American public. Also, the Republicans never seem to give the President credit, without attacking him, even though he’s made huge concessions to them. In fact, although “Republicans said [that] scrapping the smog rule was the right thing to do . . . they hammered Obama anyway.”

Perhaps the President truly believes that abandoning tougher air pollution regulations will assist economic recovery. However, the economy is most certainly so damaged by Bush-era policies that I seriously doubt rolling back environmental policies and regulations will actually have a meaningful, positive effect on economic recovery or job recovery. In fact, rolling back environmental regulations will have the opposite effect or a negative impact, I believe, by making people sicker and less productive.

Obviously, sick people aren’t as productive as healthy people, so employers or corporations and small businesses lose profits when their employees can’t be productive due to sicknesses that have been brought on by environmental degradation. Furthermore, since some employers provide their employees with health insurance, employers certainly pay more when their employees suffer from sicknesses associated with environmental degradation.

Also, the healthcare system (or lack thereof) of the United States isn’t a system that’s affordable. People have lost their homes simply because they got sick. Thus, I believe it’s a terrible idea to abandon environmental regulations and policies that make (or will make) the environment cleaner and ensure that more people remain healthy.

Furthermore, by abandoning environmental policies, the President is sending the message to the American people and to the international community that the environment is less important than corporate profits — despite the fact that without the environment, there can be no corporations, markets, or societies, because all of the goods and services that we depend on come directly from the environment. Also, even though the new smog rules will certainly cost corporations capital to implement, these rules could spur the development of new, useful technologies and save corporations money for the aforementioned reasons. Ultimately, everyone loses when we abandon environmentalism for profit — people, employers, and corporate profits.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me, and their image is protected under an attribution license.

POLITICS: Did Republican shenanigans result in the United States’ credit downgrade?

Posted on
Reply

Image via

It appears that the manner in which the Republicans steered or conducted the debt-ceiling debate, or given the fact that Republicans refuse to end the crippling Bush tax cuts or implement measures to raise revenue for the U.S. government, resulted in the United States’ credit downgrade by Standard & Poor’s. Also, the Republican Party’s refusal to work with President Obama, or consider his policies, has certainly played a part in the overall uneasy attitude towards Congress regarding its inability to manage the U.S. economy, to implement policies to spur job growth, or to implement legislation to curb the United States’ debt. Also, the Tea Party, through it’s influence and inability to grasp the important role that government is supposed to play in managing the well-being of society, has been a major factor in generating political insanity and economic uncertainty. Via NationalJournal.com:

The big new element on Friday was an official outside recognition that U.S. creditworthiness is being undermined by a new factor: political insanity. S&P didn’t base its downgrade on a change in the U.S. fiscal and economic outlook. It based it on the political game of chicken over the debt ceiling, a game that Republicans initiated and pushed to the limit, and on a growing gloom about the partisan deadlock.   Part of S&P’s gloom, moreover, stemmed explicitly from what a new assessment of the GOP’s ability to block any and all tax increases.

S&P was remarkably blunt that its downgrade was mostly about heightened political risks:  “The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed,” it said.

(TEXT: Politicians React to Downgrade)

“The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.”

To be sure, S&P didn’t specifically single out Republicans. It criticized the overall $2.4 trillion deal as too limited, and it implicitly criticized both political parties for refusing to tackle their sacred cows – entitlements, in the case of Democrats; tax increases in the case of Republicans.

But it’s hard to read the S&P analysis as anything other than a blast at Republicans.  In denouncing the threat of default as a “bargaining chip,” the agency was saying that the GOP strategy had shaken its confidence.  Though S&P didn’t mention it, the agency must have been unnerved by the number of Republicans who insisted that it would be fine to blow through the debt ceiling and provoke a default.

As many other analysts have noted, the deficit-reduction deal wouldn’t stop debt from climbing faster than the nation’s GDP over the next decade.   It warned that the government’s publicly-held debt would climb from 74 percent of GDP at the end of this year to 79 percent by the end of 2011.

But one reason S&P said it had become more gloomy was that it had revised its assumptions about the most likely course of fiscal policy. In previous projections, it said, its “base case scenario” had assumed that Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would expire at the end of 2012, while tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 a year would be extended.  That, it said, would have reduced deficits about $950 billion over ten years.

But the new S&P base case assumes that Congress extends all the Bush tax cuts.   “We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act,” S&P said.

WILDLIFE: Are wild horses native to the U.S.?

Posted on
2

Both images are via Jeffrey K. Edwards on Flickr and can be found here and here.


The Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, is being challenged on its view that wild horses aren’t native to the United States. The argument rests on biology and not history. It is being argued that the wild horses, currently roaming the West, are genetically the same horses that roamed the West thousands of years before. Therefore, proponents of this view argue that wild horses should be managed as native wildlife and not as “‘feral weeds’ [or] barnyard escapees.”  According to one advocate of this view, “‘The Spanish [merely brought] them home.’” More via the San Francisco Chronicle:

The group In Defense of Animals and others are pressing a case in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that maintains wild horses roamed the West about 1.5 million years ago and didn’t disappear until as recently as 7,600 years ago. More importantly, they say, a growing stockpile of DNA evidence shows conclusively that today’s horses are genetically linked to those ancient ancestors.

The new way of thinking could carry significant ramifications across hundreds millions of acres in the West where the U.S. Bureau of Land Management divides up livestock grazing allotments based partly on the belief the horses are no more native to those lands than are the cattle brought to North America centuries ago.

Rachel Fazio, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told a three-judge appellate panel in San Francisco earlier this year that the horses are “an integral part of the environment.”

“As much as the BLM would like to see them as not, they are actually a native species. They are tied to this land,” she said. “There would not be a horse but for North America. Every single evolutionary iteration of the horse is found here and only here.”

Judge Mary Schroeder, former chief of the circuit, asked: “Just like polar bears?”

“Yes,” Fazio answered, “they belong there.”

.       .       .

“This isn’t about history, it’s about biology,’ Kirkpatrick said. “The Spanish were bringing them home.”

.       .       .

Kirkpatrick said Europe’s domestication of the horse over about 6,000 years may have changed the nuclear makeup of some genes but “it remains the same species and retains the same social organization and social behaviors that evolved over 1.4 million years.”

Continue reading this article at the San Francisco Chronicle. More on research that suggests wild horses should be managed as native wildlife via Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D. and Patricia M. Fazio, Ph.D. (emphasis added):

A study conducted at the Ancient Biomolecules Centre of Oxford University (Weinstock et al. 2005) also corroborates the conclusions of Forstén (1992). Despite a great deal of variability in the size of the Pleistocene equids from differing locations (mostly ecomorphotypes), the DNA evidence strongly suggests that all of the large and small caballine samples belonged to the same species. The author states, “The presence of a morphologically variable caballine species widely distributed both north and south of the North American ice sheets raises the tantalizing possibility that, in spite of many taxa named on morphological grounds, most or even all North American caballines were members of the same species.”

In another study, Kruger et al. (2005), using microsatellite data, confirms the work of Forstén (1992) but gives a wider range for the emergence of the caballoid horse, of 0.86 to 2.3 million years ago. At the latest, however, that still places the caballoid horse in North America 860,000 years ago. 5 The work of Hofreiter et al. (2001), examining the genetics of the so-called E. lambei from the permafrost of Alaska, found that the variation was within that of modern horses, which translates into E. lambei actually being E. caballus, genetically. The molecular biology evidence is incontrovertible and indisputable, but it is also supported by the interpretation of the fossil record, as well.

Finally, very recent work (Orlando et al. 2009) that examined the evolutionary history of a variety of non‐caballine equids across four continents, found evidence for taxonomic “oversplitting” from species to generic levels. This overspitting was based primarily on late‐Pleistocene fossil remains without the benefit of molecular data. A co‐author of this study, Dr. Alan Cooper, of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA, stated, “Overall, the new genetic results suggest that we have underestimated how much a single species can vary over time and space, and mistakenly assumed more diversity among extinct species of megafauna.”

The fact that horses were domesticated before they were reintroduced matters little from a biological viewpoint. They are the same species that originated here, and whether or not they were domesticated is quite irrelevant. Domestication altered little biology, and we can see that in the phenomenon called “going wild,” where wild horses revert to ancient behavioral patterns. Feist and McCullough (1976) dubbed this “social conservation” in his paper on behavior patterns and communication in the Pryor Mountain wild horses. The reemergence of primitive behaviors, resembling those of the plains zebra, indicated to him the shallowness of domestication in horses.

The issue of feralization and the use of the word “feral” is a human construct that has little biological meaning except in transitory behavior, usually forced on the animal in some manner. Consider this parallel. E. Przewalskii (Mongolian wild horse) disappeared from Mongolia a hundred years ago. It has survived since then in zoos. That is not domestication in the classic sense, but it is captivity, with keepers providing food and veterinarians providing health care. Then they were released during the 1990s and now repopulate their native range in Mongolia. Are they a reintroduced native species or not? And what is the difference between them and E. caballus in North America, except for the time frame and degree of captivity?

The key element in describing an animal as a native species is (1) where it originated; and (2) whether or not it co‐evolved with its habitat. Clearly, E. caballus did both, here in North American. There might be arguments about “breeds,” but there are no scientific grounds for arguments about “species.”

The non‐native, feral, and exotic designations given by agencies are not merely reflections of their failure to understand modern science but also a reflection of their desire to preserve old ways of thinking to keep alive the conflict between a species (wild horses), with no economic value anymore (by law), and the economic value of commercial livestock.

Native status for wild horses would place these animals, under law, within a new category for management considerations. As a form of wildlife, embedded with wildness, ancient behavioral patterns, and the morphology and biology of a sensitive prey species, they may finally be released from the “livestock‐gone‐loose” appellation.

—
The author or licensor of these images does not endorse my work or me, and their image is protected under an attribution license.

GLOBAL WARMING: Do trees cause global warming?

Posted on
2

U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican — naturally — from California’s 46th congressional district, doesn’t believe that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. However, he believes that if it is occurring, then governments should implement policies of deforestation to curb carbon dioxide emissions. He asks, “Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rainforests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?” He continued, “Or would people be supportive of cutting down older trees in order to plant younger trees as a means to prevent this disaster from happening?” Of course, “the focus of global warming policy actually centers [and should center] on keeping the world’s trees standing, especially in places like the Amazon, Congo and Indonesia.” According to Politico, Rohrabacher’s comments are reminiscent of “Ronald Reagan’s much-lampooned statement that trees cause pollution.”

The issue of energy availability, which is connected to environmental degradation and climate change, is perhaps the most important issue facing the world’s governments and their citizens today. However, ignorant statements from politicians such as Rohrabacher will not take us forward or allow us to solve the most pressing problems facing the world today. Ignorant, uninformed, and dithering politicians, who fail to do their homework in order to educate themselves on the most pressing issues, only take us backward at our detriment. More via Politico:

Jay Gulledge, a senior scientist at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said Rohrabacher is correct that 80 to 90 percent of gross greenhouse gas emissions do come from nature, with humans producing the rest. But it’s that small percentage that is changing the Earth’s climate — not to mention that trees help absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in huge quantities.

“How he’s using it is totally off the wall,” Gulledge said. “It’s beyond the pale. It makes no sense.”

And here’s a nugget from Bill McKibben:

Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections. When you see pictures of rubble like this week’s shots from Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala., or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that (which, together, comprised the most active April for tornadoes in U.S. history). No, that doesn’t mean a thing.

It is far better to think of these as isolated, unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advisable to try to connect them in your mind with, say, the fires burning across Texas — fires that have burned more of America at this point this year than any wildfires have in previous years. Texas, and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier than they’ve ever been — the drought is worse than that of the Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if they’re somehow connected.

If you did wonder, you see, you would also have to wonder about whether this year’s record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest — resulting in record flooding along the Mississippi — could somehow be related. And then you might find your thoughts wandering to, oh, global warming, and to the fact that climatologists have been predicting for years that as we flood the atmosphere with carbon we will also start both drying and flooding the planet, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold air.

It’s far smarter to repeat to yourself the comforting mantra that no single weather event can ever be directly tied to climate change. There have been tornadoes before, and floods — that’s the important thing. Just be careful to make sure you don’t let yourself wonder why all these record-breaking events are happening in such proximity — that is, why there have been unprecedented megafloods in Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan in the past year. Why it’s just now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of years.

.       .       .

Better to join with the U.S. House of Representatives, which voted 240 to 184 this spring to defeat a resolution saying simply that “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.” Propose your own physics; ignore physics altogether. Just don’t start asking yourself whether there might be some relation among last year’s failed grain harvest from the Russian heat wave, and Queensland’s failed grain harvest from its record flood, and France’s and Germany’s current drought-related crop failures, and the death of the winter wheat crop in Texas, and the inability of Midwestern farmers to get corn planted in their sodden fields. Surely the record food prices are just freak outliers, not signs of anything systemic.

It’s very important to stay calm. If you got upset about any of this, you might forget how important it is not to disrupt the record profits of our fossil fuel companies. If worst ever did come to worst, it’s reassuring to remember what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told the Environmental Protection Agency in a recent filing: that there’s no need to worry because “populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.” I’m pretty sure that’s what residents are telling themselves in Joplin today.

POLITICS: Government shutdown looms as Republicans refuse to compromise on conservative policy riders

Posted on
2

Political cartoon via Clay Bennett

Despite a looming government shutdown, Republicans are still using the budget bill process to impose right-wing policies on all Americans by inserting policy riders that have no place in a budget bill. These policy riders have included riders to defund healthcare reform, defund NPR, defund PBS, cut spending for Planned Parenthood, and cut spending to the Environmental Protection Agency, thereby attacking healthcare reform, women’s health, clean air, and clean water. Furthermore, these policy riders attack domestic discretionary spending that has nothing to do with avoiding a government shutdown or reducing the national deficit or the national debt and could actually result in more debt and put Americans at risk. Republican shenanigans to force a government shutdown could also hurt economic recovery. Undoubtedly, the spending cuts are more ideological in nature and have nothing to do with passing a budget or keeping the U.S. government running. Most recently, Tea Party members actually cheered for a government shutdown (and it appears that a majority of Republicans actually favor a government shutdown over a budget compromise), but a government shutdown would actually cost taxpayers money. According to U.S. Senator Jack Reed, “The Gingrich-led government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996 lasted 26 days and cost taxpayers over $1.4 billion.”

On the Net:

  1. Tea Partiers Cheer ‘Shut It Down,’ But Bachmann Says They Don’t Want A Shutdown
  2. Government shutdown in budget battle may hinge on clean air, abortion