The American Party

James Hansen

My remarks when receiving the Ridenhour Courage Award were written in Union Station on my way to the event. But my concluding comment -- that we are near a point when the American people should contemplate a centrist third party -- was not an idle spur-of-the-moment reflection.

I was in government 40 years, long enough to understand how aging organizations can evolve into self-licking ice cream cones, organizations whose main purpose becomes self-perpetuation rather than accomplishment of their supposed objectives. The public can see this tendency in our politicians, our Congress, and our major political parties.

Our government has failed to address climate, energy, and economic challenges. These challenges, addressed together, actually can be a great opportunity. Our democracy and economic system still have great potential for innovation and rapid adoption of improved technologies, if the government provides the right conditions and gets out of the way.

Read more→

Key Members of House and Senate Raise Alarm Bells on Climate Investments Cuts

by Jake Schmidt

In the middle of the House of Representatives' efforts to completely gut US international investments in addressing carbon pollution, two leading Members of Congress highlighted how the US would lose out from these draconian cuts.  US Representative Howard Berman (D-CA) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) both raised the alarm bells – and they are ringing very loud as the House just voted for these major cuts.  Now eyes are on the Senate and the White House to reject these cuts.

Rep. Berman took to the House Floor to remind us that these cuts would hurt Americans.   Continued...

[ [1] 2 ] Link to video

'Too Big to Fail' Fallout on Capitol Hill

by Janet Ritz

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) intends to introduce an amendment to the proposed House Financial Services Committee "Too Big to Fail" bill that will require large banks to fund their own insurance against failure. This came after smaller banks and economists raised concerns that the requirements for the smaller banks to pay into the fund would also require those smaller banks to carry the financial burden for the larger banks should they fail -- larger banks that would be helped through crises because they were too big to fail whereas the smaller banks would be left to fail under similar circumstances.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) will introduce an amendment to a bill in the House Financial Services Committee to raise the existing threshold to either $50 billion or $75 billion, he told Huffington Post on Wednesday night. Those thresholds could rise in the future should he make them inflation-adjusted, he said.

Policies and proposed legislation involving banks considered too big to fail have also seen bipartisan criticism which has led to the introduction of legislation to provide more transparency into the lending activities by the Federal Reserve:

House pushes for sweeping audit of the Fed

Bipartisan effort aims to get peek into secretive U.S. central bank

WASHINGTON - House lawmakers want to pry open the books of the famously secretive Federal Reserve with legislation that would subject the U.S. central bank to a sweeping congressional audit.

The effort is overwhelmingly bipartisan. Hardline conservatives and liberal Democrats have banded together in their criticism of the Federal Reserve as a major power broker in the financial system that does not answer to Congress.

Continued...

[1] [2] read more...

Senate Climate Bill: Two Futures, One Choice

by William S. Becker

Now that John Kerry and Barbara Boxer have introduced their climate bill in the United States Senate, this fall will be all about the dogs. To get the 60 votes they need to pass a bill, progressive Democrats will be trying to turn Blue Dog Democrats into Green Dog Democrats.

Welcome to the dog days of autumn. Watch for progressives to offer milk bones, kibbles and bits to coax their more conservative colleagues into commitments that conscience alone should be sufficient to dictate.

The challenge for leaders in the Senate, as it was in the House, will be to prevent the climate bill from being negotiated into something far less than required to reinvent the American economy and reverse our greenhouse gas emissions, and to do both quickly.

Whether Senate leaders succeed in producing public policy that averts climate disaster will depend in large part on how they frame the debate. Continued...

[1] [2] read more...

The Real Patriot Act, Part 1

by William S. Becker

MONDAY, MAY 18, 2009 -- If members of the U.S. Congress listen closely today, they will hear this sound.

That’s the cavalry (and the Navy, Air Force and Marines) coming to the aid of the green army that is so vastly outnumbered and out-funded by the oil and coal lobbyists on Capitol Hill.

A panel of 12 distinguished retired generals and admirals has just released the latest in a series of reports over the past two years warning that global climate change is not just an environmental issue, or an economic issue, or a public health and welfare issue. It’s an urgent matter of national security.

Put another way, any effort to further delay the world’s transition to a sustainable energy economy or to launch an aggressive response to global climate change is a national security threat.

The new report -- “Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security” -- is the work of the Military Advisory Board of the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA), a federally funded research and development center serving U.S. defense agencies. The Board consists of former admirals and generals who have served at the very top of America’s military structure and who know a security threat when they see one. (See their names and titles at the end of this post).

Among their conclusions:

· Our current energy posture causes military, diplomatic and economic vulnerabilities that are “exploitable by those who wish to do us harm.”

· A business as usual approach to energy security poses a “unacceptably high threat level from a series of converging risks”;

We should not pursue energy options “inconsistent with the national response to climate change” – in other words, fossil fuels, whether they are produced domestically or by other nations.

The 12 retired officers make clear that imported oil is not our only security problem. Coal and gas are liabilities, too, as are other fossil derivatives such as liquids from coal... Continued...

[1] [2] read more...

President Obama halts the Bush Administration's "Midnight Regulations"

by The Environmentalist Staff

Shortly after his inauguration, President Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, issued an order halting all regulations signed by President Bush that were still pending review.

One of President Barack Obama's first acts as president was to order federal agencies to halt all pending regulations until his administration can review them.

The order went out Tuesday afternoon, shortly after Obama was inaugurated president, in a memorandum signed by new White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

The so-called "midnight regulations" were orders signed by President Bush that included oil leases on public land, the weakening of environmental regulations, reversal of endangered species regulations (wolves), and many other last minute gifts to friends and cronies that set the environmental and land-owners in general to howl in protest.

• A finalized rule effectively deregulates industrial farms so that they can discharge animal waste into waterways.

• An adopted rule opens up public land to drilling preliminary to the development of oil shale extraction.

• A proposed rule provides for a conscience clause for workers at hospitals receiving federal money (particularly state hospitals), allowing them to refuse to perform abortions or dispense contraceptives.

• Several other rules have already been adopted, including one increasing truck drivers' maximum hours of service to eleven and another restricting employee time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The rules have attracted considerable criticism.

One student, Tim DeChristopher, went so far as to bid for the land at hurried Bureau of Land Management auction (without having sufficient funds to buy them) in an effort to put the proverbial spanner in the works and delay their sale until President Obama could get into office to do just what he did today -- put a stop to all the orders still under review. The student is now dealing with his own legal costs.

Robert Redford and the NRDC have also worked to stop a land lease (grab) in Utah. Continued...

[1] [2] read more...

In the Hands of Adolescents

by Janet Ritz

Cross-posted on The Huffington Post

There is a scene in Herman Wouk's book, War and Remembrance: a writer leaves a stockade following a beating to find the guards who'd brought him there engaged in an impromptu game of soccer.

The writer's epiphany comes in this assessment: "We're in the hands of adolescents."

I am not comparing anyone in today's government to those guards (or to the writer or Wouk, for that matter). I bring up the epiphany as parallel to one I felt as I watched today's self-serving rhetoric, the House Republicans' finger pointing, the White House WITHOUT A PLAN B, the overall failure of responsibility and leadership, the willingness to put individual electoral status before country, the whining, John McCain's through-the-looking glass attempts at twisting the truth and projecting his own failure upon his opponent after the bailout bill went down in flames amidst precipitous market drops (the Dow closed down 777.68) and the corresponding failures of banks in Europe that do not bear similar responsibility to Wall Street for this failure.

And the credit market which took its own hit today and which each of us will feel in ways we could never have imagined.

While no one mentions that hedge funds are due to reset soon, allowing investors to pull their billions out should they decide America is not where they want their money anymore.

One had to wonder about Congressional Republicans' maturity as they tried the excuse that a speech by Nancy Pelosi (one we can argue whether she should have made or not) had caused the exact number of their membership needed to pass the vote to walk because they had been offended.

I'M OFFENDED.

I'm offended that we're in the hands of adolescents and have been since late 2000, when Republican staffers went into the White House to find the w keys removed from their computers and, instead of laughing about the practical joke (if it even happened), as was the transition tradition from one party to another since time immemorial, they held press conferences to WHINE about their unfair treatment at the hands of the big bad Democrats that had proceeded them.

What the Republicans in Congress proved today (after Iraq, Katrina and, now, this fiscal failure) is that they haven't grown up since.

The Democrats in Congress are not faring much better. Was Pelosi's speech ill-advised? Given the Republican's need to point fingers, perhaps. But, as they pointed out, if all it takes is bruised feelings for them to fall short of the exact 12 votes they needed to meet their promised obligation, is it possible they didn't have the votes in the first place and were looking for an excuse???

And what an excuse! Pelosi was mean!!!! Whaaaa!!!!

Barney Frank: "I am appalled; frankly that's an accusation against my Republican colleagues I would never thought of making. Here's the story: There's a terrible crisis affecting the American economy. We have come together on a bill to alleviate the crisis. And because somebody hurt their feelings, they decide to punish the country. Give me those twelve people's names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are if they'll now think about the country."

Did Pelosi have the votes or not? It's hard to believe she would have brought the vote if she had not been assured that she had them. Did the Republicans lie about it? Or are they that immature, that a speech blaming the Bush Administration (who they're all trying to distance themselves from anyway) for the crisis would cause TWELVE votes, again, that EXACT number needed, to walk away.

McCain's message in all this? It's Obama's fault!!! (whaaaaaaaaaaa!!!).

Barack Obama's message? "It's important for the American public and for the markets to stay calm because things are never smooth in Congress and to understand that it will get done."

I don't presume to know the best course for our economy but I do know, that after eight years of being in the hands of adolescents, I'M EXHAUSTED.

I want a grown-up government. I want representatives who take responsibility for their actions, even if it means losing their seat. And I want the finger pointing and projection to stop (John McCain).

Barack Obama may have his detractors, but I know he's the only one in this whole mess that makes the pit in the bottom of my stomach ease in that: "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" way when he speaks about this financial mess.

Unlike his opponent.

I want a grown up in charge for a change. What we've seen now with Iraq, Katrina, Wall Street, is only the beginning if he fail to effect a change in leadership. The next crisis: a climate out of control.

Who do you want handling that? Continued...

[1] [2] read more...

EPA Documents Bombshell: EPA Administrator's global warming warning withheld by White House

by Janet Ritz

Published on Reuters, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Huffington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, Fox News, IBS

The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming subpoenaed documents that reveal EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson, had sent regulatory recommendations to the White House last year in which he unequivocally stated that global warming was occurring and that vehicle emissions were a danger to public welfare.

WASHINGTON (June 24, 2008) – The Environmental Protection Agency was on its way towards finding global warming emissions to be a danger to public welfare, and that these emissions should be regulated in vehicles and fuels, according to a review of subpoenaed global warming documents by the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The review of the documents follows a lengthy process of negotiation with the EPA and the White House, which started in January of 2008, and brings into serious question the administration’s u-turn on regulating global warming emissions.

The documents are the draft regulatory recommendations from December 5 and December 14 of 2007, and were sent to the White House and to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for approval before reports indicate all work was stopped on the recommendations. The White House is now in the process of completing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), which would be a step backwards in what the Select Committee has found to be an already advanced process towards regulating global warming emissions.

What makes this a bombshell: This is the same Stephen Johnson who denied California's request for higher emission standards waiver, stating that the lower Federal standard was enough -- the subject of an ongoing lawsuit between the EPA and at least 18 states plus environmental groups, resulting in a (different) subpoena for documents and eyewitness testimony by Henry Waxman (D-CA) to determine the extent of President Bush's intervention to lower those standards.

President Bush invoked executive privilege last week to avoid answering that subpoena.

“This administration has shown its contempt for Congress, its contempt for the rule of law, and this administration’s handling of the Massachusetts v. EPA decision has shown its contempt for science,” said [committee] Chairman [Edward] Markey (D-MA). “The president has a short amount of time to alter his legacy as running the most environmentally-unfriendly administration in history, and he can start by listening to his own climate scientists and take action on global warming.”

Among the findings in the documents:

* EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson determined that man-made global warming is unequivocal, the evidence is both compelling and robust, and the administration must act to prevent harm rather than wait for harm to occur before acting.

* EPA found that global warming risks include severe heat waves, sea level rise, reduced availability of water, increased wildfire and insect outbreaks, an increase in heavy precipitation events, an increase in regional ground-level ozone pollution, and changes in the range of vector-borne diseases.

* EPA proposed that regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles be implemented in order to achieve the equivalent of a 35 mpg car and light truck fleet average by 2018 (with the car fleet averaging 38.4 mpg by 2018 and the truck fleet averaging 29.5 mpg by 2017).

* When EPA used the EIA 2007 high gasoline price projections of $2.75 in 2017 to $3.20 in 2030 to calculate standards, it found that the car fleet could achieve a standard of 43.3 mpg by 2018 and light trucks could achieve a standard of 30.6 mpg by 2017.

This comes just after President Bush evoked executive privilege to withhold information on his intervention in the EPA's lowering of rural and California smog standards...

[1] [2]

Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near on Global Warming

We'll let Dr. Hansen speak for himself:

Today I testified to Congress about global warming, 20 years after my June 23, 1988 testimony, which alerted the public that global warming was underway. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.

Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.

The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next president and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation. Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control...

[1] [2]

Corporate Plea for Climate Legislation Ignored

by Janet Ritz

Cross-posted on The Huffington Post, Reuters

Eleven corporations have issued an open letter to the Senate urging the passage of the Climate Security Act (S. 3036), stating that it "represents a real effort to establish the regulatory framework that we need."

The June 2nd plea by: Allianz of America; Catalyst Paper Corporation; FPL Group, Inc.; JohnsonDiversey, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Levi Strauss & Co.; National Grid, Nike, Inc; Novo Nordisk; Tetra Pak; and Xanterra Parks & Resort, working in conjunction with the World Wildlife Fund, fell on deaf ears, as Senate Democrats fell short of the 60 votes required to overcome a Republican filibuster.

President George W. Bush has consistently opposed any economy-wide cap-and-trade plan and had vowed to veto this bill if Congress approved it.

Senate leaders opposed to the bill used a variety of tactics during weeklong debate on the Senate floor, including a rare maneuver by Republicans that forced clerks to read an updated version of the 491-page bill aloud. That took 10 hours.

The bill sought to require business to reduce emissions by 19 percent before 2020 escalating to a ~70 percent reduction around 2050 along with a carbon trading scheme to help with transition and costs.

The gamesmanship involved with this bill has been overt. Specifically with actions taken by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), labeled as "stonewalling" by Senator Reid, after McConnell forced a complete reading of the ~500 page bill on the senate floor, a process that required over eight hours to complete.

[1] [2]

EPA sued (again) by 18 states over greenhouse gas emission standards

by Janet Ritz,
Martin Muse

Cross-posted on Reuters

Eighteen states, two cities and ten environmental groups filed suit Wednesday against the EPA's refusal to issue a decision on emissions regulation. The filing asks the federal court to compel the EPA to act within 60 days, at which time, further action may be taken.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Eighteen states sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday for failing to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks, one year after the Supreme Court ruled that the agency had the power to do so.

The suit seeks EPA's response to the high court's April 2, 2007, ruling, a landmark decision seen as a sharp defeat for the Bush administration's policy on climate change.

This is another in a string of lawsuits that have been filed by various states to attempt to compel the EPA to take a position on greenhouse gas emissions, after the EPA's refusal to do so prevented California (and the other states that would use California's regulation as a standard) from lowering their own limit in a state regulation.

The plaintiffs include: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia, the city of New York, the city of Baltimore, the Sierra Club and nine other environmental groups.

The EPA has also received a subpoena from Congress to turn over their correspondence and other paperwork after reports came to light that President Bush had personally intervened on the decision to lower a key greenhouse gas regulation. The head of the EPA, Stephen Johnson, has also been accused of foot dragging by members of Congress...

THERE'S MORE

Congress grills Big Oil on prices

by Janet Ritz

and The Environmentalist Staff

Cross-posted on Reuters, IBS, USAToday, FoxNews


The top five oil companies, testifying before Representative Edward Markey's (D-MA) Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, insisted that their 125 billion dollar profit last was "in line with other industries."

Representative Markey's take on the profits:

“On April Fool’s Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on American families by Big Oil, while using every trick in the book to keep billions in federal tax subsidies even as they rake in record profits,” said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. [video]

As reported in this article, Congress to drill for answers on oil prices, both the House and the Senate are holding hearings this week regarding the record profits by oil companies. The House hearings are focusing on the actual profits by the big five oil companies; Exxon Mobile, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and Royal Dutch Shell.

The Senate investigation will be on the impact of investors on rising prices.

Lawmakers were looking for answers to the soaring fuel costs a day after the Energy Department said the national average price of gasoline reached a record $3.29 cents a gallon and global oil prices remained above $100 a barrel although supplies of both gasoline and oil seemed to be adequate.
~snip~

In November, 2005, Hofmeister and the top executives of the same companies represented Tuesday, sat in a Senate hearing room to explain high prices and their h&uge profits. The prices are of concern, Hofmeister said at the time, adding a note of optimism: "Our industry is extremely cyclical and what goes up almost always comes down," he told the skeptical senators on a day when oil cost $60 a barrel.

Oil recently reached a high of $111 a barrel.

The increase in the price of gasoline is hitting all sectors of the American economy. Truckers, dependent upon high diesel prices, have been particularly hard hit, leading to an increase in the inflation index for the products they carry. This ranges from milk to hardware to the price increase announced by Delta Airlines today due to high fuel costs...

THERE'S MORE

Congress to drill for answers on oil prices

by Janet Ritz
and The Environmentalist Staff

Congress will hold hearings this week where they will question the five biggest oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and Royal Dutch Shell, about tax subsidies, high prices and record profits.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Under the backdrop of record gas prices and record profits, Congress is set to grill executives Tuesday from the world's five biggest publicly traded oil companies.

Lawmakers are expected to focus their questions on why the cash-rich industry needs $18 billion in tax breaks over ten years with some in Congress looking to take them away and use them to subsidize renewable energy projects.

The hearings are set to open Tuesday before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming chaired by Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA):

On Tuesday, April 1, 2008, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) will bring top-level executives from the five largest oil companies to discuss the current state of oil and gas prices, oil company profits, and the need for clean, renewable fuels to ease demand for oil and cut global warming pollution. The Select Committee will hear from the number two officers worldwide for the three United States-based oil companies and the presidents of U.S. operations for the foreign companies.

Set to testify:

* Mr. J. Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corp.
* Mr. John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company
* Mr. Robert A. Malone, Chairman and President, BP America, Inc.
* Mr. Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman, Chevron
* Mr. John Lowe, Executive Vice President, ConocoPhillips

The hearing will start at 12 pm EST, Tuesday, April 1, 2008, at 210 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC and on the web at globalwarming.house.gov. On Thursday, the Senate committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hear testimony Thursday regarding the role investment money has on oil prices...

There's more

Auto fuel efficiency bill signed into law

by Janet Ritz
Martin Muse

A bill raising auto fuel standards for the first time in over thirty years was signed by President Bush today, requiring that automobiles average 35 miles per gallon by 2020 and raising federal support for alternative fuel and conservation programs.

It passed by a wide margin in the House, but was stalled momentarily in the Senate when Republicans filibustered out a provision that would have eliminated tax breaks for oil companies and required utility companies to provide a portion of their power from alternative sources.

After which, the head of the Sierra Club referred to the bill as a partial victory and vowed to put through the redacted provisions at a later date.

One area of the bill that has been praised is the instruction to use non-food sources for biofuels (i.e. switch grass and wood chips instead of corn). The other is the raising of the fuel standard itself, which should help to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases currently emitted.

More information here.

Pat Buchanan: 6,000 Future Voters versus a Dinosaur of the Past

by Janet Ritz

Cross-posted on The Huffington Post

Pat Buchanan faced off against Energy Action Coalition youth leader, Jessy Tolkan, on Hardball Monday, with a gentlemanly, albeit condescending, smile, which accompanied his insistence that global warming, while possibly real, is not as serious as she believed.

Ms. Tolkan, the Challenge Campaign Director for the Energy Action Coalition, a 'Youth United for Clean Energy" group, listened patiently while Buchanan went on to say that "global warming, if it happens, would not be "all that bad."

Ms. Tolkan's response: "Pat, with all due respect, I think you're living in the past."

This Hardball 'debate' was prompted by a session of Rep. Edward j. Markey's (D-MA) Select Committe on Energy Independence and Global Warming entitled: "Youth Leadership for Clean Energy and Healthy Climate." with testimony from several youth environmental groups (video), including Energy Action Coalition's co-Founder, Billy Parish, the youth leaders of Environmental Justice, Alaskan Youth, various student representatives and California's Public Interest Research Group. The committee members then moved to the West Lawn of the Capitol where they were greeted by ~6,000 young people who'd traveled to call for new energy legislation.

Later, on Hardball, Mr. Buchanan countered their enthusiasm by pointing out that the inaction vis-à-vis Kyoto implied a consensus lack of belief in the urgency of global warming and that Ms. Tolkan's 6,000 young people versus the 500,000 outside the Nixon White House protesting the Vietnam War, showed a lack of serious concern by her peers and by the world. He then referred to Al Gore's "little badge" (Nobel Peace Prize) and "awards" (Oscar) as something given while others do nothing (he may have something there on the 'others doing nothing' part).

Ms. Tolkan's response: "Pat's living in the past and I'm here to represent the future." She added: "It is my future."

Granted, 6,000 is a small number of protesters, especially when compared to the millions expected to be displaced by climate change in the future. But then, the environment has never been as emotionally charged an issue as war.

However, despite the relatively small number of protesters this week, it may be increasingly difficult to ignore the millions impacted by the many climate and energy warning signs of late. These include the reports on the increasing inability for the oceans to absorb C02 (carbon sinks), impending $100 oil, the underreported floods in Mexico, the wildfires in the West, the over forty percent of our country currently experiencing severe to extreme drought, the calls to arms by the world's religous leaders, and this report on how climate change threatens our national security.

So, while 6,000 youth voters may not compare to the half-million Pat Buchanan remembers descending upon the Nixon White House while he worked there, it could not have been, as Chris Matthews mentioned, an easy task for Ms. Tolkan and her colleagues to get that many of today's young people to drop what they were doing and come together in Washington for an environmental rally, and even Pat Buchanan had to acknowledge that.

It's Official: The HoneyBees are Gone [Congressional Testimony]

by Janet Ritz

Experts are gathering outside Washington, D.C. today for a two-day meeting to collectively scratch their heads about the Colony Collapse Disorder, aka 'Where have all the honeybees gone.'

The phenomenon was first noticed late last year in the United States, where honeybees are used to pollinate $15 billion worth of fruits, nuts and other crops annually. Disappearing bees have also been reported in Europe and Brazil.

Commercial beekeepers would set their bees near a crop field as usual and come back in two or three weeks to find the hives bereft of foraging worker bees, with only the queen and the immature insects remaining. Whatever worker bees survived were often too weak to perform their tasks.

http://www.cnn.com/...

There's been a lot of speculation about this lately. Others have written extensively on their ideas as to the cause. I don't know the cause, so I thought I'd write an article that addresses what we do know, what questions are being asked, what is being done, and what has been reported, so far, in Congressional testimony.

The scientists and researchers meeting in Washington today have formed working groups from several universities, government agencies and research facilities...

Read more

Shays vs. Hansen at Waxman's Global Warming Hearing

by Janet Ritz

During Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee's hearing today(the one Al Gore will be appearing at later this week) on Political Interference with Climate Science, Christopher Shays crossed the line when he stated to Dr. James Hansen (the NASA scientist who complained whistleblew that scientific findings on climate change had been politically edited by the White House, which brought the administration's manipulation of climate science to light):

"You're waving around the Constitution, saying 'I'm an American, I can say anything I want.'"

[Christopher Shays to James Hansen]

Shays went on to clarify that there are rules as to what Govt employees can say.

To which Hansen replied:

"Those rules don't extend to editing [of science] by the White House."

[Dr. James Hansen]

Now, in fairness to Shays, he did say that he didn't dispute the climate science or the implications therein (unlike other congressmen -- i.e. Sensenbrenner...), but there is NO excuse for treating a respected scientist like Dr. Hansen with such contempt or to cavalierly throw around (away) the constitutional right to freedom of speech.

But why are we surprised? Suppression of truth has been the hallmark of the global warming debate for years. In example: For those not familiar with the events that led up to this hearing, here's the info from the Wiki:

In 2005 and 2006, Hansen claimed in interviews with the Washington Post and the New York Times that NASA administrators have tried to influence his public statements about the causes of climate change. Hansen claims that NASA public relations staff were ordered to review his public statements and interviews after a December 2005 lecture at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

James Hansen has also appeared on 60 Minutes claiming that the White House edited climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening. He is unable to speak "freely", without the backlash of other government officials. "In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," he said in one of his many public appearances.

On July 30, 2006, 60 Minutes aired a story called "Rewriting the Science" revealed that:

Dozens of federal agencies report science but much of it is edited at the White House before it is sent to Congress and the public. It appears climate science is edited with a heavy hand. Drafts of climate reports were co-written by Rick Piltz for the federal Climate Change Science Program. But Piltz says his work was edited by the White House to make global warming seem less threatening...

[snip]

Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality."

Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney."

Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House,"

Cooney was also asked to testify today, as was the man whom had hired him, James Connaughton, who referred to Cooney (the former Oil Lobbyist) as a man of 'integrity.'

But it wasn't only Cooney putting the kabosh on scientist's vis-a-vis climate change. Here's a link to the Washington Post article on censorship at NOAA:

James E. Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who sparked an uproar last month by accusing the Bush administration of keeping scientific information from reaching the public, said Friday that officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are also muzzling researchers who study global warming.

The hearing closed with testimony by Dr. James Spencer of the University of Alabama, who referred to Hansen's and the IPCC's findings (that global warming is caused by man) as a matter of "faith not science."

Waxman then asked Spencer about his position on Intelligent Design.

Spencer was for it...

Sheesh.

Here's a link to Dr. Hansen's written testimony to the committee.

To the 60 minutes episode.

To the House Oversight's Committee's report on the hearing (with links to all the written testimony).