Buck Naked Politics

Climate Change Climax

posted by Cockney Robin | After days, of "bitter wrangling," they sealed the deal (BBC). Environmental groups are disappointed that there are no firm targets for emissions reductions  (BBC).  Canada, the US, and Japan rejected the EU's press for cuts of 35-40% by 2020  (BBC)  The final text doesn't set targets but acknowledges the need for "deep cuts in global emissions."(BBC)   And hey, at least they've got a roadmap---"the Bali roadmap"! (BBC)   And everyone agreed that delay in reducing emissions makes severe climate changes more likely (BBC).   

An Antidote to Partisan Bickering: Progress in Iraq, the NIE, & the Climate Change Conference

Posted by Damozel | Since I first started blogging (way back before Buck Naked Politics), Midtopia has been one of my favorite political blogs. Centrist blogger Sean Aqui, its author, has a way of getting straight to the core of the partisan bickerings of the day and quietly exposing the gaps, logical leaps, and factual errors on both sides of the argument.  This is why I'm so happy that---following a hiatus---Sean Aqui is back and posting.

Signs of Global Warming: Attack of the Jellyfish

Posted by Cockney Robin | Are the jellyfish, maddened by the impending climate change, organising themselves to take revenge?  Northern Ireland's only salmon farm has lost 100,000 fish at one site and 750,000 at another (BBC News) to an attack by billions of tiny jellyfish, travelling in "a dense pack 10 square miles and 35 feet deep." (BBC News)  At the Northern Ireland farm, a dozen workers tried to rescue the salmon, "but their three boats struggled for hours to push their way through the mass of jellyfish.  All the fish were dead or dying from stings and stress by the time the boats reached the pens..... The sea was red with these jellyfish and there was nothing [they] could do about it, absolutely nothing." (SeattlePi.com)   

Another Climate Change Wake-Up Call from the IPCC

Posted by Cockney Robin | And the human race needs a wake-up call in the worst way.  While you're fretting over your Christmas list, your credit card balance, your sex life, or your child's poor grades at school, the world you inhabit is going through its own sort of crisis.  Sadly, once the self-absorbed children of the Turn of the Millennium begin to notice the environment is affecting their ability to concentrate on their own problems, it will already be too late.

GOP Gets Schooled in Climate Change

Posted by Damozel | According to The Politico, Bob Inglis (R-SC) was told by his own children that they wouldn't carry on voting for him if he didn't change his position on global warming. (The Politico)  Subsequently he went to Antarctica and Greenland and took a look for himself, and now he's a believer. (The Politico) So that's what it takes, eh?  All the science in the world and Inglis is only able to get past his own partisan wishful thinking by having it bluntly called to his attention that the younger generation aren't keen on inheriting the earth without icecaps.

Other Republicans are recognizing that the party's days are indeed numbered if it continues to dig in its heels on global warming out of sheer habit and a penchant for jeering at  at Al Gore. Young people believe the science, and the Republicans who are not completely out of touch with their own tragic reality either believe it too or believe young voters believe it.  For example, Senator John McCain has recognized the problem from early on. (The Politico) Senator John Warner "has said his top goal for his remaining days in office is passing legislation to combat global warming."  He and Joe Lieberman have drafted a bill that would cap carbon emissions at 2005 levels by 2012, though it's not especially popular with either party. (The Politico)   It won't pass---"it is not clear whether the public is ready to stomach the pocketbook costs of curtailing greenhouse gas emissions"---but at least they're trying.

Now they've got to work out how they can flip flop without being accused of flip flopping ("reposition themselves," as The Politico puts it). What's wrong with blaming Bill Clinton?   It's worked every other time.

Climate Change: Ending an Irrelevant Argument

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of climate change, watch this video. It's not designed to change  -- or even address -- anyone's opinion.  It merely discusses the possible courses of action and their consequences, and it is possibly the most lucid thing I've heard anyone, pro or con, say on the subject. Watch it. It will be nine minutes well spent.

glumbert - The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

Global Warming "Over-Hyped"? And How Much Hype Would be Just Right?

Posted by Damozel & Cockney Robin | What, please, do people who argue that global warming (and specifically the role of greenhouse gases in accelerating or creating it) is "overhyped"?  Can somebody explain this? They're not arguing that the science is wrong or untrue; they're saying that the people who are worrying about the potentially imminent end of life as we know it are being alarmist---"Chicken Littles", one blogger says disdainfully---rather than dealing with the issue in an adult, mature, looking-at-all-sides-of-the-science fashion. Or so we infer. 

So here's what we want to know:  If there is a 20% chance that the consequences could be 20% as bad as Al Gore thinks they will, doesn't this generation have a duty to take whatever action it can to try to prevent the consequences to the next?   

More on Gore and Media Memes: Did "A Gaggle of Journalists" Misreport the "9 Errors" Case?

Posted by Damozel | At the science blog Deltoid, blogger Tim Lambert challenges the report that Gore's views on climate change have somehow been discredited by a British high court judge or indeed that the judge found nine errors.  As we explain in our own piece, the man who attempted to get An Inconvenient Truth banned from British schools argued that it contained nine errors, but the BBC and other papers don't seem to have read the judge's conclusions sufficiently closely.  Lambert---whose piece I  just found via Memeorandum--- goes after the misreporting of this decision and the consequent media misrepresentations.  In his initial piece, he alleges:

Unfortunately a gaggle of useless journalists have misreported this decision as one that AIT contained nine scientific errors. Let me name some of the journalists who got it wrong: Sally Peck in the Daily Telegraph, Nico Hines in the Times, Mike Nizza in the New York Times, James McIntyre in the Independent, PA in Melbourne's Herald Sun, David Adam in the Guardian, Daniel Cressey in Nature, the BBC, Mary Jordan in the Washington Post, Marcus Baram for ABC News, and (of course) Matthew Warren in the Australian.(Deltoid) 

Quoting directly from the opinion of Mr Justice Burton,

A Response to the Critics Acid Raining on Gore's Parade (UPDATED)

 A RESPONSE. Earlier today, my colleague D Cupples pointed out that now Gore has that Nobel Peace Prize, critics are "acid raining on his parade."   

Most of this vitriol-spraying seems to have got its impetus from the media coverage of the conclusions of a British high court judge who had been asked to decide whether An Inconvenient Truth should be banned from British schools.  The 'school governor' who asked for the ban seems to have alleged that it contained nine errors.  The judge eventually included that it should not be banned, but that it should be shown with appropriate caveats and British teachers have been accordingly directed to provide appropriate cautions (in the form of commentary) when they show it.  That's the source of the '9 scientific errors' ballyhoo:  the findings of one British high court judge who was being asked to ban the film from the schools.  Furthermore, Mr Justice Burton does not in fact conclude that the film contained nine scientific errors or that its central thesis was incorrect. 

Officials Allowed Oil Companies to Underpay Royalties Owed to Taxpayers

Posted by D. Cupples  |   Even Jed Clampet didn't give away oil. When oil companies drill on government lands, they're supposed to pay royalties, but for years they've underpaid.  It might be different if oil companies lowered gas prices out of respect for us taxpayers who allow them to drill on our lands, but they haven't.

Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaney recently reported on an investigation of the Bureau of Minerals Management Services (MMS), an agency that has failed to collect oil royalties. In May, after this scandal's seeds sprouted, MMS director Johnnie Burton resigned. 

Friday's NY Times reported that Devaney attributed MMS's failures largely to "lazy management, ethical lapses and a culture of secrecy that hid mistakes" and found that officials seemed more concerned with protecting the oil industry than the taxpayers. Some officials reportedly "blocked" auditors' efforts to recover unpaid royalties.

This is not a new issue: by 2001 fifteen oil companies had paid a combined $438 million to settle Justice Department lawsuits over underpaid royalties.  There's more.
.

Vehicle Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Progress

Posted by PBS Mind | From a press release issued by Friends of the Earth:

A federal district court in Vermont ruled this morning that automakers must comply with a state law that limits automobile greenhouse gas emissions. Today's ruling comes after a U.S. Supreme Court decision this spring held that greenhouse gas pollution from vehicles can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. This ruling foreshadows what's likely to come in an almost identical lawsuit being heard in California, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

In today's ruling, the court held that California's law is not preempted by federal standards. The court held that California and other states may legally adopt regulations reducing greenhouse gas pollution from cars, despite the fact that such regulations may have the effect of increasing fuel economy. The court also found that the automakers have the technological ability to comply.

Score One for Cooler Heads

Posted by PBS Mind | It's no secret by now that the Bush Administration's favorite way of dealing with trouble – or even with anything they don't want to think about or which doesn't go along with their peculiar world view – is to ignore it as long as possible. And it's become evident that their respect for the law is predicated on convenience.

So it should come as no surprise to you that the Bush Administration has been conveniently (there's that word again) ignoring (oh, and that one, too) a 1990 law that requires the United States Government to assess and report on global-warming data. Fortunately for us, someone was watching.

A New and Different Alarming Threat from Climate Change

  Posted by Cockney Robin | Before I get started, let me just say that this article raises an alarming question about the effects of global warming which it answers almost immediately by explaining that probably we don't need to be too fussed.

But I prefer to worry.  If I have enough different things to worry about it all at the same time, all my individual worries seem comparatively less urgent.  Perhaps the human mind is so constituted that it can only panic about one threat---or for the multi-taskers, at most three---at a time.  Or maybe it's just me.  If you look at all the things threatening your/our/humankind's dominance hold on life and dominance over nature, you start developing a certain detachment or at least a certain tolerance for different sorts and kinds of threat.  One day, terrorists; another day, avian flu; now, ancient microbes released from deep in the ice by global warming.

Speaking of which, according to this story, scientists have unfrozen some extremely old and nasty ice from glaciers. Ancient microbes 'revived' in lab (BBC News).   The ice ranged in age from 100,000 years to 8 milliion years.  It contained microbes, some evidently new to science.  And when the ice melted (under laboratory conditions), some of the microbes came back to life (BBC News). Showing that if climate change occurs, and the ice caps melt, "ancient bugs, long frozen in ice, will return to life as climate change causes the glaciers to melt, flushing their genetic material into the oceans."(BBC News).

Meanwhile, in the UK: That Rainy Day Feeling.

Posted by Cockney Robin | Some Americans are apparently aware that the UK has been suffering from record floods.  The Washington Post---which has evidently annoyed Damozel with a lengthy article discussing Hillary Clinton's recent unprecedented neckline--- also posted this concise article concerning the flooding. But don't think I am bitter; I am merely---as ever---bemused.

The Washington Post article says that the UK is beginning recovery after the worst floods in half a century.  (Washington Post)  This is partly true. Unfortunately, the rains---or, as The Guardian puts it, "the worst floods in modern British history"--- seem unlikely to let up just yet.  In fact, the Environment Agency has warned that another 24 hours of rain is in store.(Guardian) Prime Minister Brown attributes the flooding to climate change.(Guardian) He's promised to provide 200 million quid (pounds) to the Environment Agency over the next three years to improve flood defences.  Sadly, the Environment Agency seems to think solving the problem will take more in the area of one billion a year. (Guardian)

You can see photos here.   You can see an interactive map here.

What are These People Doing?

Posted by PBS Mind | I just watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?" (which I recommend), which is about the efforts of GM to kill demand for and sales of its own electric cars in California. You read that right.

Here's the thing I don't understand -- which lead to the title of this piece. Clearly, the oil industry has an interest in eliminating electric cars. No surprise there, and if the conclusions drawn in this documentary had been that Big Oil was the ringleader in shutting down the electric car, you and I would not be having this conversation. But the ringleader was not, apparently, big oil -- it was the automobile industry itself.

Oil, as should be painfully obvious to everyone over the age of three, is finite, and de facto, running out -- albeit not immediately. So it's in the automobile industry's best interests to get cars out there that don't rely on oil, so that regardless of what happens to the oil industry, the automobile industry can survive. You would think this would also be obvious, but if actions speak louder than words, this salient point has escaped the notice of the bigwigs at GM

The Politics of Candy

On my own blog, The Simple Activist, I recently wrote about the actual cost of a candy bar. Many of those costs are political, actually.

Think about it. While you’re standing in the checkout line looking over that rack of chocolate and doing battle with your temptations, you are not thinking about the political ramifications of that purchase. You’re thinking about your diet, you’re thinking about nutrition, you’re thinking about cravings, you’re thinking about your weakness, you’re thinking about what you won’t eat later today or how you will exercise to justify buying 300 calories worth of candy.

I bet buying candy being a political act never crosses your mind.

Senator Wants Oil Companies to Pay Royalties Owed

Yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) announced that she will try to close a legal loophole that enabled oil and gas companies to avoid paying royalties for drilling on government property since the 1990s. The loophole has cost the taxpayers $1 billion and is likely to cost billions more.  Good luck

Most people would instinctively guess that to extract minerals from someone else's land, you gotta pay. For years, oil companies have failed to grasp this simple business principle. By 2001, for example, fifteen oil companies paid a combined $438 million to settle Justice Department suits over failure to pay royalties -- including Exxon, Texaco, and Pennzoil.

Making the pill more bitter, some Bush Administration officials have been anything-but-diligent about ensuring that oil companies pay the royalties they owe to taxpayers. For example, an official at the Interior Department's Mineral Management bureau resigned in May, after an investigation was launched into the bureau's failure to enforce royalty obligations. For more info, see:

Explosive Oil Scandal in the Pipeline (BNP)

Gouged at the Gas Pumps (BNP)

Analysis of Burgenoning Oil Scandal (Buzzflash)

Part of the Answer

Posted by PBS Mind | The other day I posted A Question Worth Asking, which concerned Democrat in-fighting over a Congressional response to a California-based emissions initiative.

Some additional commentary: 1) Part of the answer has hit me. I freely admit it was a Time magazine reporter who put it together by reminding me that liquid coal is once again before the House and Rick Boucher comes from the heart of coal country. DOH!

A Question Worth Asking

Today, I read an article titled "Democrats Face Off Over Emissions Bill" in the Los Angeles Times. It seems Congress is wrangling over a bill that would make it illegal for states to enact legislation that outstrips the federal government's glacial pace at halting the vehicular emissions that contribute to global warming. Pelosi & Co. are battling members of their own party on this.

One of them is Congressman Dingell. Well, he's from Michigan, and he has all those auto workers staring him in the face, so I'd expect that reaction from him.

Another one puzzles me, though -- Congressman Rick Boucher from Virginia. Now, no one thinks "Virginia" and "bastion of the automobile industry" in the same sentence -- in fact, Virginia only has one automobile manufacturing plant in the state, and as far as I've been able to determine, it's not located in Boucher's district.

So why?
 

Heated Debate

Posted by Nicholas | There is more joy in heaven for a sinner who repents…   That’s a really good idea if you can get your timing right – have a life devoted to pleasure, sin as much as you like, look down on all the boring goodie goodies, and when your time is almost up, probably when you’re too frail to sin very much anyway, repent ad see the light.   Then up to heaven you go, to join in all the celebrations at your conversion, while all the virtuous prigs, whose arrival is no surprise to anyone, are let in by the side door and told to go sit on a cloud somewhere and shut up.  Of course, if you die early, before repentance time, you’re screwed, but you get the idea.