March 26 News: Prioritizing Climate Action Not On Congressional Agenda?

Here are five pieces of energy legislation that are likely to occupy Congress’ time before they directly address climate change. [National Journal]

Energy Efficiency: The House has started a bipartisan caucus aimed at passing energy efficiency legislation—bills that would require buildings that provide the same amount of light and heat with less fuel, for example.Offshore Drilling: Murkowski, the panel’s ranking Republican, has introduced a bill with Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana that would expand offshore drilling, give coastal states a taste of the profit, and require some of the money to go toward development of renewable energy.Nuclear Waste Storage: Proposals to build an interim “medium-term” nuclear-waste dump were also stalled until this year, as the most likely site for such a facility is New Mexico. But Bingaman, the New Mexican who chaired Senate Energy and Natural Resources, was not a fan. Now that he’s retired and been replaced by Wyden—whose state has a closed nuclear-power plant that still stores radioactive waste—plans for a “medium-term” nuclear-waste storage dump are suddenly on the move.Ethanol Reform: There’s growing opposition to the provisions of a 2005 law mandating that oil refiners blend an increasing share of plant-based ethanol into the nation’s gasoline mix…. Given those pressures, there’s a growing coalition of strange bedfellows—the oil industry, environmentalists, food manufacturers, and antipoverty groups—pushing for the law to be reformed. To that end, Upton and Waxman are working on a series of white papers aimed at opening up the issue for debate and, they hope, legislative action.Hydropower: In January, House Republicans brought to the floor a bill to speed construction of small hydropower plants in the Pacific Northwest…. Wyden has introduced a companion measure in the Senate. Members of both parties in both chambers are optimistic about its prospects.

Could the cooler spring have something to do with the dramatic Arctic sea ice loss seen this year? Scientists think so. [Guardian]

If you want to know what’s happening to clean energy, watch the Renewable Energy Standard fights in the states. [Washington Post]

Dave Roberts writes of the non-inevitability of fossil fuels, and how important it is to say this explicitly. [Grist]

More on Sen. Whitehouse’s “straw poll” of the U.S. Senate on the idea of pricing carbon. [LA Times]

A tax on carbon could bring the prices of goods into line with their true costs. [New York Times]

Australia merged its Climate Change Department with several other departments. [The Australian]

Global warming is leading to larger plants, more pollination, and increased allergies. [Fox 11 Reno]

The EPA has created the Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel, which will peer-review the agency’s research on fracking. [The Hill]

U.S. shale gas will be exported and used to heat homes in Britain, according to a deal struck yesterday. [Guardian]

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Rand Paul Is Right On Marijuana, And That Should Scare Democrats Into Action

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is one of America’s most radical ideologues. He endorsed a discredited, century-old Supreme Court decision that would give employers nearly limitless power to exploit their workers. He opposes bans on employment discrimination and on whites-only lunch counters. He backs nationwide anti-union legislation that would reduce both union and non-union wages by $1,500 a year. And he backs a dangerous constitutional amendment that would have doubled unemployment and caused the economy to shrink by 17 percent. Few, if any, politicians would do more harm to more people if given the opportunity to turn their preferences into law.

Which is why Democrats need to take his effort to outflank them on drug policy very, very seriously. In an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace this morning, Paul laid out an uncharacteristically sensible view of how the nation should approach drugs:

PAUL: The main thing I’ve said is not to legalize [drugs], but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. I’m working with Sen. Leahy. We have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 37, 50, 45 years for non-violent crimes. And that’s a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of non-violent criminals.

I don’t want to encourage people to do it. I think even marijuana is a bad thing to do. I think it takes away your incentive to work and show up and do the things you should be doing. I don’t think it’s a good idea. I don’t want to promote that. But I also don’t want to put people in jail who make a mistake. There’s a lot of young people who do this, then later on in their 20s they grow up and they get married and they quit doing things like this. I don’t want to put them in jail and ruin their lives.

Look, the last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use and I really think, you know, look what would have happened. It would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids. particularly in the inner city, they don’t get lucky, they don’t have good attorneys, and they go to jail for these things, and I think it’s a big mistake.

Watch it:

Later in the same interview, Paul — a likely GOP presidential candidate in 2016 — is quite explicit about what he hopes to get out of staking out a sensible view on criminal justice: “someone like myself, I think, could appeal to young people, independents and moderates, because, many of them do think it is a mistake to put people in jail for marijuana use and throw away the key.”

Paul is right on both counts. Incarcerating people who commit minor drug crimes makes no sense, and his stance is a winning issue politically. In 2011, a poll found for the first time that fifty percent of the nation supports outright legalization of marijuana, compared to only 46 percent who oppose it. Among voters under 30, nearly two-thirds support legalization. Since this poll was taken, two states legalized marijuana for recreational use, and numerous others had previously legalized it for medical use. According to one poll, nearly three in four Americans believe the federal government should back off enforcement against people who comply with state marijuana laws.

So if Democrats cede this issue to the likes of Rand Paul, they will give up a powerful opportunity to engage with young voters — and potentially empower one of America’s most dangerous politicians in the process.

Of course, there is another, even more important reason why Democrats should work to liberalize America’s drug laws — Rand Paul is right that ruining people’s lives if they commit common youthful transgressions is immoral. But if Democrats cannot be moved to think sensibly on drugs because it is the right thing to do, the least they could do is think sensibly on drugs because it is in their selfish political interests to do so.

View the original article here

Remarks by the President at Organizing for Action Event

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Adour Restaurant
Washington D.C.

6:44 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.  (Applause.)  Hello, hello.  Thank you.  Everybody have a seat. 

Well, it's good to see all of you.  I missed you.  (Laughter.)  Let me first of all thank Jim and Jon for organizing this.  I want to thank all of you.  I've got a bunch of friends in this room, people who have supported me even before I ran for President -- new friends, old friends, everybody here in it for the right reasons, folks who care deeply about this country and want to see us continue to move forward. 

I said in 2008 -- and I'm pretty sure I repeated in 2012 -- that you run elections not simply to get elected.  You run elections to have an opportunity to deliver on behalf of the American people.  And the central premise of our campaign was always that this great country of ours is built on some foundational ideas, the most important of which is that anybody, anywhere, if they're willing to work hard and take responsibility, can succeed, and that if we've got a growing, thriving middle class and ladders of opportunity into the middle class, then nobody can beat us.  That's the reason why we attracted immigrants from every corner of the world.  That's the reason why our culture has always been viewed as dynamic and forward-looking -- not looking backwards, but consistently looking at that next horizon.

And the good news is that America in 2013 is poised, as it always has been, to succeed in ways that will make us the envy of the world if we make good policy decisions. 

Since the election, since I saw many of you, we've made some progress on some fronts.  We have seen that there's actually a bipartisan commitment -- at least in the Senate -- to potentially overhaul our immigration system so that we can continue to attract the best and brightest from around the world. 

We are having terrific conversations around issues like cybersecurity and how we make sure that people's privacy and civil liberties are protected, but how we also protect our critical infrastructure and we make sure that the power of the Internet isn't used for ill as well as good.

We've seen some progress after the heartbreaking tragedy of Newtown, where people finally say we can do something about gun violence in a way that's respectful of the Second Amendment, but insists that no society should tolerate our children being gunned down, whether it's on the streets or in their classrooms. 

And when it comes to issues of the budget, we've made progress in making sure that those at the very top are paying a greater share of what is required to run a government and fund basic research, move education forward.

And so we've seen some progress.  And I laid out in both the inauguration and in the State of the Union a vision that doesn't require massive expansion of government, but does require us to do certain things that we can't do as well by ourselves -- whether it's providing early childhood education; whether it's investing in infrastructure so that our businesses can move goods and services more rapidly around the world; whether it's continuing to expand our manufacturing base and encouraging insourcing and not just outsourcing; whether it's making sure that we continue to be at the cutting edge of science and technology and research; or whether we are going to choose an energy future that doesn’t just look at the energy sources of the past, but also looks at the energy sources of tomorrow and addresses climate change in a serious way.

And some people remarked that I looked -- I had a little more pep in my step in the inauguration and in the State of the Union.  And I have to tell you it wasn't because I was off the campaign trail, because actually nothing energizes me like interacting with the American people day in and day out.  The reason was I felt like this is a vision that, if we can get it implemented, really would allow America to take off. 

Our economy is recovering.  It is resilient.  But it is not yet where it needs to be.  We've got millions of people who are still out of work or underemployed.  We've still got businesses that could be thriving if we were able to make sure that Washington doesn't engage in self-induced crises.

And so, we're going to have a lot of work to do.  And let's face it -- there are still a lot of divisions and arguments here in Washington.  And although we are doing our very best to reach out to the other side, and I think there's a genuine desire on the part of Republicans and Democrats to try to get something done, I think there is a weariness among membership in the Senate and in the House about this constant grind, day in, day out of argument and crises instead of productivity and movement forward.

The politics of a lot of these issues are tough, and members sometimes are scared about making the right decisions.  And they're particularly scared because they're subject to pressure from special interest groups and well-financed organizations that may be pushing in a different direction. 

And so, I think the idea here, the concept is, we've got 20 million people who got involved in the campaign or close to it.  We have 4 million people who actively contributed to the campaign in five-dollar and ten-dollar and 25-dollar increments.  Now, a sizable portion of those just wanted dinner with George Clooney -- (laughter) -- but I think there was a large number of them that believed in our vision for the future as well.

And part of what Jim and Jon and I have spoken about is just how do we make sure that people stay involved?  How do we make sure all those neighborhood groups are engaged, feel a sense of connection?  We did not do as good of a job in 2008 as I would have hoped in making sure they still felt a part of the process.
And it's not just a matter of lobbying Congress.  It's a matter of them taking ownership so that if we're setting up health care exchanges in their states, maybe they want to contact some friends in their -- or neighbors who don’t have health care and say, here's something that might help you.  If we've got a disaster like we had during Sandy, is that community built in that allows us to go out and immediately help relief efforts.  Can we sustain and maintain the sense of citizenship that arose during the course of the campaign outside of a campaign structure, outside of the immediate, okay, we're trying to win this many votes in this many states, but can, instead, we activate people around an agenda.

I think here in Washington, this idea has been viewed with puzzle -- some both suspicion and people have been puzzled about what it is that we're trying to do.  Because the usual idea is, well, this must just be a mechanism to try to win the next election in 2014.  And what we've tried to explain to people is, is that, no, I actually just want to govern -- at least for a couple of years -- (laughter) -- but I also want to make sure that the voices of ordinary people are heard in the debates that are going to be taking place. 

If you have a senator or a congressman in a swing district who is prepared to take a tough vote -- or what they consider to be a tough vote -- on immigration reform, or legislation around background checks for guns, I want to make sure that they feel supported and that they know that there are constituencies of theirs who agree with them, even if they may be getting a lot of pushback in that district.  If we move aggressively on an issue like climate change -- that’s not an easy issue for a lot of folks, because the benefits may be out in the future.  And I want to make sure that a congressman, senator feels as if they've got the information and the grassroots network that’s going to support them in that effort.

And so, that more than anything is what inspired this idea.  What we want is to make sure that the voices of the people who put me here continue to be heard -- that they're not just heard during election time, that they're not just heard in terms of dollar solicitations, that we are helping to build or sustain a network of citizens who have a voice in the most critical debates that are going to be taking place over the next year, year and a half, and if it works, potentially beyond.

So that's part of the reason why I’m excited about this and why I’m so grateful that all of you are participating.  One of the things I’m proudest of during the course of two campaigns where we raised an awful lot of money is that the people who got involved didn't ask me for stuff except to be true to my vision and true to our agenda.

And all of you represent, like it or not, a bunch of true believers who got involved and are still here after all the ups and downs of the campaign.  Well, there are going to be ups and downs in terms of governing, as well.  But if we do it well, then I’m confident that we can move strong immigration legislation through Congress.  I’m confident that we can get common-sense gun safety legislation through Congress.  I am confident that we can craft a budget that is responsible and reduces our deficit but also makes sure that we’re investing in those things that we need to grow and that our basic social safety net is preserved.  But I can't do that by myself.

So I’ll just close with this comment.  You remember during the campaign, at one point I was asked about gridlock in Washington, and I said one of the lessons I’ve learned in my first four years is that you can't change Washington from the inside.  And some people took that as saying, oh, Obama’s giving up -- no.  That's what I’ve always claimed. 

I’ve always said that I am representing people, and that change comes about because people are activated, people are involved.  People shape the agenda.  People determine the framework for debate.  People let their members of Congress know what is that they believe.  And when those voices are heard, you can't stop it.  That's when change happens.

Well, what was true back in 2008 is just as true today.  And what we don't want to do is repeat the mistake I think that I believe in 2008 we made where some of that energy just kind of dissipated and we were only playing an inside game, and I’m sitting in a room with a bunch of folks negotiating all the time, but those voices are no longer heard.

Over the last several weeks, the press here in Washington has been reporting about Obama’s charm offensive.  Well, the truth of the matter is all I’ve been doing is just calling up folks and trying to see if we can break through some of the gobbledygook of our politics here.  And I do believe that -- at this juncture, one of the things I believe is that we’ve got to get members of Congress involved in these discussions, not just leadership.  Because I think a lot of them feel as if they don't have the opportunity to break out of some of this partisan gridlock.  And ironically, I actually think some of the leadership want their membership to create a permission structure.  They don’t like getting too far ahead of their leadership, so we’re reaching out to these individual members so that they create a space where things can get done. 

But the same principle applies doubly when it comes to the American people.  And the only idea here that we’re promoting is the notion that if the American people are speaking out, organized, activated, that may give space here in Washington to do the kind of work -- hopefully bipartisan work -- that's required.  But in order to do that I’m going to need all your help.

I used to say that being friends with a politician is like perpetually having a kid in college, because you’re writing checks all the time and it doesn't seem like the kid ever graduates.  Well, I’ve graduated.  (Laughter.)  I’ve run my last campaign.  But we’re not done with the work that led me to run in the first place.  And I’m hopeful that with your continued ideas and support, your voices, that we can continue to make progress over the next several years.

Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.)

END
7:00 P.M. EDT

Do you know someone whose exemplary deeds are an inspiration for others to serve? If so, we want to hear from you.

Listen to a new audio series from Vice President Biden.

The DC Volunteer Lawyers Project provides free legal service to victims of domestic violence.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

February 22 News: Likely EPA Nominee Vows More Action on Climate Change

Gina McCarthy. (Photo credit: Alex Brandon/Associated Press)

Gina McCarthy, the current Environmental Protection Agency’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation and the front-runner to fill the top vacancy at the EPA pledged to push ahead with actions to confront climate change during a speech on Thursday. [The Hill]

McCarthy discussed a list of emissions rules rolled out during Obama’s first term, touting them for their public health benefits and effects on tackling climate change.

Among the rules were stronger fuel economy standards for vehicles, proposed rules for new coal-fired power plants and limits on mercury and other toxic air pollutants. [...]

Republicans have slammed the emissions standards, calling them economically burdensome.

McCarthy said, however, that tackling climate change “hasn’t hurt the economy,” and that “there are tremendous opportunities to address climate change that build the economy, that grow jobs.”

She challenged those in the audience to “be clear on the cost and benefits on all these programs moving forward.”

An analysis of weather station data shows that the coldest American states are warming the fastest, and across the country winter warming since 1970 has been more than four-and-a-half times faster per decade than over the past 100 years. [Climate Central]

The boom in cheap natural gas is undercutting the development of American nuclear power. Since 2010, the amount of electricity generated from U.S. nuclear reactors has fallen about 3 percent. [WaPo]

According to a paper published Thursday in Science, the melting of northern permafrost and consequent release of carbon dioxide could come sooner, and be more widespread, than experts previously believed. [Climate Central]

Time is running out to avert a third summer of drought in much of the High Plains, West and Southwest, unless significant bouts of heavy snow and rain come in the remaining days of winter. [Climate Central]

Affordable solar power is starting to make its way down the income ladder, and a pair of statewide California solar programs show how that’s good news for utility customers and taxpayers, too. [Clean Technia]

A new report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance uncovers a litany of biases in financial regulation that tilt markets in favor of conventional energy, and could potentially hold back the flow of investment into renewable energy technologies. [BusinessGreen]

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Big Oil Mocks Climate Action With Help From Big Media

So I go to read a Washington Post story online, “Climate change could burn a hole in the government’s finances, GAO says.” And there is this banner ad mocking humanity’s primary hope of avoiding climate catastrophe:

“Energy Tomorrow is brought to you by the American Petroleum Institute (API),” in case you were wondering.

We all need to “imagine life without fossil fuels,” since that is where we will are going to end up this century one way or another:

Either we will make the decision by choice fast enough to stabilize near  2°C (3.6°F) warming to avoid the very worst impacts — and that means the rich countries in particular will be essentially off fossil fuels by mid-century (see “Study Confirms Optimal Climate Strategy: Deploy, Deploy, Deploy, Research and Develop, Deploy, Deploy, Deploy.”Or we will be forced off fossil fuels soon after that by the ever-worsening reality of climate change — when we realize that we are headed toward 10+°F warming and a planet with a carrying capacity far below 9 billion (see “An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts“).

[Carbon capture and storage might enable the continued use of some fossil fuels until they run out, though it probably won't be a decisive player in the solution and in any case wouldn't save Big Oil.]

As the WashPost article explains:

As climate change leads to more frequent and destructive natural disasters and threatens crop yields, bridges and other infrastructure, the federal government faces big financial risks that it is poorly positioned to address, auditors said Thursday.

Try imagining life with more frequent and destructive natural disasters and threatened crop yields. It isn’t hard to do (see “We’re Already Topping Dust Bowl Temperatures — Imagine What’ll Happen If We Fail To Stop 10°F Warming.”

Now it appears the API ad is just appearing in rotation, but I did come across it again for another climate article:

The story on Tom Steyer (who is also on the CAP board) explains:

Steyer is convinced that global greenhouse gas emissions will have to begin to fall within the next few years or the world will suffer catastrophic consequences. But when he talks to many in his circle — including business leaders and prominent politicians — he finds them oblivious to what he sees as a monumental threat.

So yes this is a story about a billionaire investor who can imagine life without fossil fuels — and the business leaders who are oblivious to climate reality.

In short, the Washington Post is explaining that influential people are oblivious to a threat that the Washington Post runs ads regularly mocking.  You can’t make this stuff up (unless you are a fossil-fuel-funded denier, of course).

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

USA Today On Keystone XL Rally: ‘Tens Of Thousands Demand Action On Climate Change’

So that was a heck of a rally. I welcome readers who attended to share their thoughts and pics.

If you missed it, you can get details from USA Today‘s story “Tens of thousands demand action on climate change.” Or from the Sierra Club news release, “More Than 35,000 Strong March on Washington for Climate Action.”

And then there’s always the Climate Progress twitter feed — my first mass tweeting from an iPhone.

I loved the combination of passion and knowledge that was driving the day. I had the chance to talk to a bunch of the speakers and was impressed by the strength of their commitment on climate in general and Keystone XL in particular.

Van Jones made clear that all of President Obama’s other accomplishments would be wiped away if he approves Keystone, since future generations are going to judge all of us on the basis of the actions we take on climate.

I was very impressed with the celebrities who came, that they had substance to go with the style. How great to have Rosario Dawson explain that it is called “tar sands” and not “oil sands.” And in chatting with her afterwards, it’s clear she also understands the spectrum of clean energy solutions.

And Evangeline Lilly (aka Kate Austen from Lost) was there as a Canadian to apologize to all the Americans in the audience for her country’s ceaseless efforts to send the dirtiest of fuels our way. I have seen every episode of Lost but lost my nerve to tell her how much I enjoyed her show except for the last five minutes, that is. It’s not like she was one of the writers…. But I digress.

I had a long talk with Tom Steyer, the billionaire hedge-fund manager who helped lead the “No on Prop 23? campaign to save California’s climate law in 2010. He is also on the board of CAP. He is full throttle that we have to act — and act now — if we are to avert catastrophe. He said to the crowd that he has spent a lot of time reviewing investments and Keystone is a bad investment for this country.

It is good to see a movement with passion from the top all the way down to the roots.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

PHOTOS: 35,000 Protesters Demand Immediate Climate Action At ‘Largest Climate Rally In U.S. History’

Credit: 350.org

On Sunday, an estimated crowd of 35,000 people joined the Forward On Climate rally in Washington, DC, where protesters delivered a clear message to President Obama: Take immediate action on climate change by rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Organizers of the rally described as the “largest in U.S. history” also called on the president to issue overdue Clean Air Act standards to limit carbon pollution from power plants.

At the rally, 350.org President Bill McKibben said the “easiest, simplest, purest action” Obama could take on the climate is to reject”this long fuse to one of the biggest carbon bombs on earth,” the Keystone XL pipeline.

View more photos from today’s rally:

Credit: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

View the original article here

American Action Forum Survey Of Insurance Companies Warns Of 2014 Premium Sticker Shock

Printer-friendly version

WASHIGNTON – A new survey of major health care insurers, representing the vast majority of covered individuals in the U.S., conducted by the American Action Forum (AAF) answers the question: what impact will the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have on premiums in 2014? This survey aimed to illustrate real cases in a variety of regulatory environments, representing the spectrum of rate changes cross any given geographic area, rather merely average changes across demographics.

The findings highlight the sticker shock in health care premiums that awaits the relatively young and healthy in both the small group and individual markets as the ACA is fully implemented. The survey finds cost of premiums for this group will increase by an average of 169 percent. Conversely, the survey found that the premiums of older and sicker individuals in these markets will be relatively subsidized by the ACA, with that group seeing an average decrease in premium costs of just under 25 percent.

Summary Table: Average Premium Impacts for Individual and Small Group in 2014

Younger and Healthier Individuals and Small Employers

Older and Less Healthy Individuals and Small Employers

Note: Changes due to insurance market reforms alone and do not include annual medical trend increases.  It also does not include the fact that some individuals and small employers experiencing these changes will be eligible for taxpayer subsidies through insurance exchanges.

Read the complete results and survey methodology here.

###

View the original article here

IMF Chief: ‘Unless We Take Action On Climate Change, Future Generations Will Be Roasted, Toasted, Fried And Grilled’

Another day, another icon of the global financial system becomes a climate hawk.

You may recall World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said of the climate crisis: “If there is no action soon, the future will become bleak.”

Turns out IMF managing director Christine Lagarde is also a climate hawk — and she’s the former conservative finance minister of France.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, she said, “the real wild card in the pack” of economic pivot points is “Increasing vulnerability from resource scarcity and climate change, with the potential for major social and economic disruption.” She called climate change “the greatest economic challenge of the 21st century.”

Ms. Lagarde concluded with a call for a new kind of economic growth. “So we need growth, but we also need green growth that respects environmental sustainability. Good ecology is good economics. This is one reason why getting carbon pricing right and removing fossil fuel subsidies are so important.”

In response to a question from the audience, she said: “Unless we take action on climate change, future generations will be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled.”

Perhaps the IMF can release an analysis as blunt as the stunning World Bank Climate Report from November that concluded: “A 4°C [7°F] world can, and must, be avoided” to avert “devastating” impacts. Its 2012 release, “Fiscal Policy to Mitigate Climate Change: A Guide for Policymakers,” was kind of a yawner.

Then we need to see the IMF actually focus on environmentally sustainable growth, as opposed to say, our currently unsustainable trajectory, which will roast, toast, fry and grill countless future generations.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

WashPost And AP: Obama Is ‘Liberal’ Because He Agrees With Most Americans We Need More Climate Action

This Washington Post headline sums up so much that is wrong with the media and politics today:
I understand why fossil-fuel-funded conservatives assert that climate change is “liberal.” By why does the Associated Press and WashPost fall into that trap?

I guess it’s true, as Stephen Colbert famously said, “reality has a well-known liberal bias.” See also David Frum Tweets: ‘Horrible Possibility: If The Geeks Are Right About Ohio, Might They Also Be Right About Climate?’ [Though I'll leave it to others to explain just why it is liberal to want to let women be (officially) in combat!]

These remarks in Obama’s inaugural are, apparently, what the AP and Washington Post consider liberal:

We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.

Now even Rasmussen, a firm with a well-known conservative bias, found in a poll the day before the election that 68% of American voters see global warming as a “serious problem.”

Uber-wonk Nate Silver dismantles the media’s lame frame in his look “at the most recent polling on some of the agenda items Mr. Obama laid out:”:

The PollingReport.com database includes two polls on global warming conducted after the Nov. 6 presidential election. An Associated Press-GfK poll in the field from Nov. 29 to Dec. 3 found that 78 percent of respondents said they believed the planet had warmed over the past 100 years, and 49 percent said they thought global warming would be a “very serious” problem for the United States if left unaddressed (31 percent said they thought it would be “somewhat serious”).

Fifty-seven percent of the 1,002 adults surveyed said the United States government should do “a great deal” or “quite a bit” on global warming.

A United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection poll conducted Nov. 8 to 11 found that 57 percent of adults said they thought global warming was increasing the likelihood of storms like Hurricane Sandy.

I guess liberals are now a (silent) majority in this country!

Even the WashPost‘s own economic and White House reporter, Zachary A. Goldfarb, mocks this media spin in his piece, “Obama’s daring liberal agenda is neither daring nor liberal. Discuss”:

In his speech, by contrast, Obama hewed closely to public opinion. He defended “the commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security” — but did not propose expanding the safety net.

“Judged on an absolute scale, going back to Roosevelt, that’s a pretty centrist or conservative position: ‘I’m opposed to cutting it,’?” said James Stimson, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Back in the 1970s, the two parties jostled about who could be more generous in dispersing Social Security.”

… Obama’s call to battle climate change in his second term underscores a similar phenomenon. His position sounds liberal because it appeases the environmental base of the Democratic Party and because Republicans have increasingly opposed efforts to stem global warming. But there wasn’t always such an ideological gap between the parties. In the 2008 presidential race, Obama and his opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), had almost exactly the same plan to help solve the problem of a warming planet.

Looking at this history and today’s opinion polls, it would seem pretty easy to find consensus in America on a lot of big issues — not just “liberal” or “conservative” solutions.

Then again, in Washington, everything needs a label.

Yes, well, the media in particular need a label. Heck, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, where I work, is routinely called ”liberal leaning” by the media because we support things like climate action.

Goldfarb notes, “the central mechanism of Obamacare — the individual mandate, which Republicans blasted as a massive liberal exercise of power — began as a conservative idea.” And cap-and-trade was actually first put into law for controlling pollution by President George H. W. Bush.

Obama is basically pushing a moderate Republican agenda. It’s just that there aren’t any modern Republicans left, much as we don’t have any “below average temperature” years any more. Shifting baselines, indeed.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

World Bank President On Climate Crisis: ‘If There Is No Action Soon, The Future Will Become Bleak’

Jim Yong Kim Promises To Factor In Global Warming “With Every Investment We Make And Every Action We Take.”

You may recall the shocking World Bank Climate Report from November that concluded: “A 4°C [7°F] world can, and must, be avoided” to avert “devastating” impacts.

What impacts? The must-read report warns that “we’re on track for a 4°C warmer world marked by extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise.”

Now World Bank President Jim Yong Kim has a strong WashPost op-ed that warns “we need to get serious fast” to avoid the looming “climate catastrophe.” He explains:

The signs of global warming are becoming more obvious and more frequent. A glut of extreme weather conditions is appearing globally. And the average temperature in the United States last year was the highest ever recorded….

If there is no action soon, the future will become bleak. The World Bank Group released a reportin November that concluded that the world could warm by 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) by the end of this century if concerted action is not taken now.

A world that warm means seas would rise 1.5 to 3 feet, putting at risk hundreds of millions of city dwellers globally. It would mean that storms once dubbed “once in a century” would become common, perhaps occurring every year. And it would mean that much of the United States, from Los Angeles to Kansas to the nation’s capital, would feel like an unbearable oven in the summer.

What does the physician and anthropologist recommend we do?

The world’s top priority must be to get finance flowing and get prices right on all aspects of energy costs to support low-carbon growth. Achieving a predictable price on carbon that accurately reflects real environmental costs is key to delivering emission reductions at scale. Correct energy pricing can also provide incentives for investments in energy efficiency and cleaner energy technologies.

A second immediate step is to end harmful fuel subsidies globally, which could lead to a 5?percent fall in emissions by 2020. Countries spend more than $500?billion annually in fossil-fuel subsidies and an additional $500?billion in other subsidies, often related to agriculture and water, that are, ultimately, environmentally harmful. That trillion dollars could be put to better use for the jobs of the future, social safety nets or vaccines.

Kim certainly talks to the talk when it comes to the implications of the climate crisis for the Bank itself:

Just as the Bretton Woods institutions were created to prevent a third world war, the world needs a bold global approach to help avoid the climate catastrophe it faces today. The World Bank Group is ready to work with others to meet this challenge. With every investment we make and every action we take, we should have in mind the threat of an even warmer world and the opportunity of inclusive green growth.

Let’s hope he means it. The Bank’s inconsistency on climate has been widely noted — see “Why Does the World Bank Say it Cares About Climate Change, But Continue to Aggressively Push Coal?” The Bank has kept financing large coal plants — most infamously providing a $3.75 billion loan for one of the world’s largest coal plants, located in South Africa. The Bank also pushed a 600-MW coal plant in Kosovo.

Even after the report was released, many questions were raised about whether the Bank would walk the walk:

On the basis of the report and this new op-ed, the bank must stop funding all new fossil fuel plants. I use the word “must” because that is the word the report and President Kim repeatedly use.

And it must be “all new fossil fuel plants” because the International Energy Agency has made clear this year with detailed analysis that natural gas isn’t the solution if your goal is staying far from 7°F warming — see IEA’s “Golden Age of Gas Scenario” Leads to More Than 6°F Warming and Out-of-Control Climate Change. It must be noted that even that IEA gas scenario, which results in too much warning, assumes that not only does global oil consumption peak around 2020 — but so does coal! So if one or both of those peaks don’t happen — and they wouldn’t without a high price of carbon and aggressively clean energy deployment starting now — then the Golden Age of Gas is just Hell and High Water, the  “devastating” scenario laid out in the World Bank report.

The findings of the Bank report match those of PricewaterhouseCoopers, which found that limiting warming to even 7°F requires “nearly quadrupling the current rate of decarbonisation.” That means the only rational clean-tech strategy for a non-suicidal species is “Deploy, Deploy, Deploy, R&D, Deploy, Deploy, Deploy“ [yes, not in that order].

And 4°C [7°F]  is not even the high end of projected warming for 2100 if we stay near our current emissions path (see “The IEA And Others Warn Of Some 11°F Warming by 2100).”

Kim’s ending is simple but blunt:

After the hottest year on record in the United States, a year in which Hurricane Sandy caused billions of dollars in damage, record droughts scorched farmland in the Midwest and our organization reported that the planet could become more than 7 degrees warmer, what are we waiting for? We need to get serious fast. The planet, our home, can’t wait.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Less talk, more action: No budget, no pay

By Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) - 01/22/13 04:30 PM ET

The date: April 29, 2009. The time: 05:31 p.m. On that day, at that hour, the United States Congress did something it has failed to do ever since – pass a budget.
That’s why I’m pleased the House will vote on legislation this week to withhold congressional pay until a federal budget is passed.

While countless families and businesses across America have had to make the tough choices to spend within their means, Congress has operated over a thousand days without passing a fiscal blueprint to restore financial sanity to Washington. This blatant neglect of a fundamental duty has led to runaway spending, trillion-dollar deficits and has contributed to the worst jobs climate since the Great Depression.
Make no mistake, passing a budget is not a choice. The 1974 Congressional Budget Act obligates both chambers to adopt a budget resolution every year by April 15. The House has done its part, passing resolutions the past two years that cut trillions in wasteful spending. Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others in his chamber continue to sit on the sidelines – 1,364 days and counting.

During this time, the national debt has grown from $11 trillion to over $16 trillion – exceeding the entire U.S. economy. In fact, the United States recently joined Greece on the short list of seven developed nations with debt exceeding total economic output. The last time America’s debt topped the size of its overall economy was in 1947 due to the costs incurred fighting World War II. Today, there is no excuse for spending more than we’re taking in. Frankly, it’s a recipe for disaster. ?

The people deserve better.  And for that reason, I have four words: No Budget, No Pay.? ?The legislation I have co-sponsored is simple – members of the U.S. Senate and House do not get paid until they pass a budget. The appropriately named “No Budget, No Pay Act,” stipulates that if Congress does not approve a budget and spending bills by October 1st of each year, the paycheck for every single member of the Senate and House will be withheld until a budget is approved. Additionally, no member can retroactively receive pay that would have been earned during the time without a budget.? ?No small business would tolerate paying an employee who refuses to do his or her job.  So why should taxpayers pay a Congress that refuses to complete one of its most basic annual responsibilities? They shouldn’t, and that’s why I support the “No Budget, No Pay Act.” ? ?In Florida, passing a balanced budget is priority number one for the state legislature. In Washington, we need less talk and more action if we’re ever to remove the burden of debt that weighs so heavily upon us and future generations. ??It’s time to hold Congress’ feet to the fire.

View Comments

View the original article here

Four Ways The Virginia GOP’s Redistricting Power Grab Could Be Stopped By Legal Action

Yesterday, when Virginia state Sen. Henry Marsh (D) was away from the state capitol to attend President Obama’s inauguration, Virginia Republicans rushed through a gerrymandering bill that that could potentially transform the evenly divided Virginia senate into a 27-13 Republican majority. The Virginia senate is currently split 20-20 between Democrats and Republicans, and Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) indicated that he would have opposed the gerrymander if given the tiebreaking vote. Thus the bill would not have passed if Republicans had not used Sen. Marsh’s absence to push it through when a key opposing vote was absent.

This is not an isolated incident. A memo from the Republican State Leadership Committee openly bragged that U.S. House Republicans kept their majority because of gerrymandering, and, indeed, these gerrymanders were so effective that Democratic House candidates would need to win the national popular vote by more than 7 points in order to take back the chamber. Meanwhile, top Republicans are also pushing a plan to rig future presidential elections by reallocating electoral votes in blue states to the Republican candidates for president.

Nevertheless, it is not certain that the Virginia GOP’s underhanded move to gerrymander the state senate will survive contact with the courts or the Department of Justice. Although the fate of any challenge to this partisan gerrymander is uncertain, here are four ways the gerrymander could still go down:

No Mid-Decade Gerrymanders: The Virginia Constitution provides that “[t]he General Assembly shall reapportion the Commonwealth into electoral districts in accordance with this section in the year 2011 and every ten years thereafter.” When a constitution specifically instructs a legislature to take a particular action or grants a specific power to those lawmakers, courts sometimes read it to implicitly prevent them from taking other actions. Thus, when the state constitution instructs Virginia lawmakers to redistrict every ten years, it implicitly instructs them not to engage in mid-decade gerrymanders, and the new maps are invalid. The Virginia Supreme Court has not weighed in on this question, but a Virginia trial court concluded in 2012 that one purpose of this provision in the state constitution was “to preclude ‘politically convenient redistricting whenever one political party or the other might gain the upper hand and find it attractive to redraw political boundaries to consolidate power.’”Voting Rights Act: The Voting Rights Act not only forbids state voting laws which have a discriminatory impact on minorities, Section Five of the Act also requires new voting laws in some parts of the county to “pre-clear” those requirements with the Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington, DC before they can take effect. Much of Virginia remains subject to Section Five, so the maps could be stopped if they diminish minority voting strength in the covered areas. There’s only one problem: the conservatives on the Roberts Court are widely expected to strike down Section Five before the Court adjourns this June.What’s Left Of The Voting Rights Act: Even if the conservative justices strike down Section Five, Section Two of the Voting Right Act still prohibits redistricting that dilutes minority voting strength. To the extent that the new GOP maps dilute the minority vote, they could be subject to a lawsuit under Section Two. Such a lawsuit, however, would ultimately appeal to the same Republican-dominated Supreme Court that is expected to strike down Section Five.The U.S. Supreme Court Could Actually Do It’s Job: As a final note, the entire purpose of partisan gerrymanders is to weaken the voting power of people who hold one viewpoint (in this case, Democrats) while strengthening that of people who hold an opposing view (in this case, Republicans). This is a textbook violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition on viewpoint discrimination. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s conservatives have refused to even consider cases challenging partisan gerrymanders, although Justice Kennedy suggested that his opposition to gerrymandering lawsuits is not entirely absolute.

View the original article here

House Science Chair’s First Action Is To Hold A Climate Change Denier Hearing

Coming off of the hottest year in U.S. history and 333 months of higher-than-average global temperatures, Rep. Lamar Smith’s (R-TX) first move as the new chair of the House Science and Technology Committee includes a hearing on climate science, according to Dallas News.

For Smith, who criticized “the idea of human-made global warming,” the hearing will be an opportunity to give a platform to the committee’s climate zombies:

I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles, sun spots, and human activity. But scientists still don’t know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing. It is the role of the Science Committee to create a forum for discussion so Congress and the American people can hear from experts and draw reasoned conclusions. During this process, we should focus on the facts rather than on a partisan agenda.

Smith has blasted the media as “lap dogs” for not devoting enough airtime to climate deniers and implored networks to not “hide the facts.” Unsurprisingly, he has taken $500,000 from oil and gas over his political career and $10,000 from Koch industries last year.

GOP members of the committee “keep science at farthest arm’s length” with its long list of climate deniers. “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,” House Science Subcommittee Chair Paul Broun (R-GA) said. But the list also includes former Chair Ralph Hall (R-TX), Vice Chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and subcommittee chairs Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Larry Bucshon (R-IN).

If climate-denying Republicans want the facts and not “a partisan agenda,” they can just read the new draft National Climate Assessment, which dives into the consequences of a hotter, drier, disaster-prone climate.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Clinton finds warm reception for Organizing for Action comments

Former President Bill Clinton spoke to President Obama's national finance committee and other Democratic officials Saturday afternoon at the Newseum to discuss the newly launched Organizing for Action initiative, sources tell The Hill.

Organizing for Action is targeted at reaching out to past supporters of Obama's campaign and is the restructured version of the Obama for America organization. 

The former president talked about having courage to stand by Democratic leaders when dealing with hot-button issues this year, specifically mentioning the upcoming battle in Congress over gun-control legislation and comprehensive immigration reform. Clinton was received warmly by the crowd, which gave him a standing ovation following his comments. 

Clinton played a major role in helping Obama get reelected in November, despite the two having an tense relationship from the 2008 election. The former president gave a rousing speech at the Democratic National Convention about Obama's track record during his first term and even traveled to key swing states to campaign for him.

Clinton was joined by former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, according to sources in the room, which had an overflowing crowd. In a recent email to supporters, Messina said the group would host discussions aimed at strategizing how to use the campaign's infrastructure and voter database to support the president in his second term.

"Issues like immigration, climate change, and gun violence will be debated over these next four years, and President Obama is ready to take them on — but he needs us by his side," Messina wrote in the email. "Our goal is to help him get things done, but also to help change how things get done in Washington in the first place."

First lady Michelle Obama launched the restructured organization in a video posted on Friday. The group is expected to be registered as a 501(c)4 organization, meaning it's barred by federal law from having politics as its main purpose. 

“The relationships you’ve made, the tools you’ve built and the lessons you’ve learned have already begun to change our politics. And in the coming years, they can change our country. And that’s the mission of Organizing for Action,” the first lady said in the video.

"In terms of the specifics of what this organization will look like, a lot of that will be up to you. It will be determined by your energy and ideas and feedback," she added. "Because after all, this is your movement."

View Comments

View the original article here

Weekly Address: Now Is The Time to Take Action Against Gun Violence

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Hi, everybody. This week, I announced a series of concrete steps we should take to protect our children and our communities from gun violence.

These proposals grew out of meetings Vice President Biden and his task force held over the last month with more than 200 different groups – from parents and teachers; to law enforcement and sportsmen; to religious leaders and mental health professionals.

And in the weeks ahead, I will do everything in my power to make them a reality. Because while we may not be able to prevent every senseless act of violence in this country, if there is even one thing we can do to reduce it – if even one life can be saved – we’ve got an obligation to try.

My administration is taking a series of actions right away – from strengthening our background check system, to helping schools hire more resource officers if they want them, to directing the Centers for Disease Control to study the best ways to reduce gun violence.

But the truth is, making a real and lasting difference also requires Congress to act – and act soon.

First, it’s time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun. The law already requires licensed gun dealers to perform these checks, but as many as 40% of all gun purchases are conducted without one. That’s not safe, it’s not smart, and it’s not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers. An overwhelming majority of Americans agree that anyone trying to buy a gun should at least have to prove they’re not a felon, or someone legally prohibited from owning one. That’s just common sense.

Second, Congress should restore a ban on military-style assault weapons, and a 10-round limit for magazines. Many assault rifles, when combined with high-capacity magazines, have one purpose and one purpose only: to fire as many bullets as possible as quickly as possible. These weapons have no place in our communities. And a majority of the American people agree with me.

Finally, Congress needs to make it easier, rather than harder, for law enforcement to do its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns only to turn around and sell them to criminals. And at a time when many communities have been forced to make cuts to their police force, we should put more cops back on the job and back on the street.

Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. We have a strong tradition of gun ownership in this country, and the vast majority of gun owners act responsibly.

But I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from causing harm on a massive scale. That’s what these reforms are designed to do. 

None of this will be easy. Already, we’re seeing pundits, politicians, and special-interest lobbyists calling any attempt at commonsense reform an all-out assault on liberty – not because that’s true, but because that’s how they get higher ratings and make more money. And behind the scenes, they’re doing everything they can to protect the status quo.

But this time, it can’t be up to them. It’s got to be up to you. If, like me, you want this time to be different, then I need your help to make it different. Ask your Member of Congress if they support universal background checks and renewing a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.  And if the answer is no, ask them why not. Ask them why an A-grade from the gun lobby is more important than keeping kids safe in a first grade classroom. 

Since the tragedy in Newtown, I’ve gotten letters from all over the country – including many from our young people. One of them was from 8-year-old Rachel, who lives in Brooklyn, New York. She wrote: “Please do something so that bad people cannot get guns to kill other people. Children should be safe, especially in school.”

Rachel is counting on us. Let’s get this done for her, and let’s make this country a safer place for all our children to learn and grow. 

Thanks, and have a great weekend.

The Kids Inaugural Concert: Our Children, Our Future was held to show military kids how much the country appreciates the sacrifices they make while their parents are serving.

The First and Second families kick off Inauguration weekend by participating in the National Day of Service.

First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden hosted a roundtable for reporters from some of the leading magazines for kids to talk about Joining Forces.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

U.S. FDA chief urges action on drug compounding safety

* Agency has met with many stakeholders to press its plan

* Meningitis outbreak infects 620, killing 39

* House Republican accuses FDA of withholding documents

WASHINGTON, Dec 19 (Reuters) - The top U.S. drug regulator on Wednesday urged state officials to help close regulatory loopholes involving the safety of compounded drugs, such as the tainted steroid injections at the center of a deadly fungal meningitis outbreak.

At a day-long meeting with officials from all 50 states, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg called for new regulations to head off future public health disasters.

Health officials should have clear authority to monitor drug compounding operations and act before problems that endanger public safety erupt, she said.

"We have all been stunned and horrified by the magnitude of the devastation," Hamburg told state delegates.

"Clearly, it's imperative that we close the gaps in oversight," she added. "The fungal meningitis outbreak is the most tragic but not the only example of why we must act now."

In one of the biggest U.S. public health crises, 620 people in 19 states since mid-September have contracted fungal meningitis traced to epidural injections for back and joint pain produced by Massachusetts-based New England Compounding Center. Thirty-nine patients have died and as many as 14,000 other have been exposed to the tainted drugs, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Protection.

The state health and pharmacy board officials made up the latest gathering of stakeholders FDA has approached with a plan the agency hopes Congress will turn into legislation.

In the weeks before Wednesday's meeting, the FDA held discussions about the regulatory landscape with over 50 groups representing pharmacies, consumers, hospitals, clinics and medical professionals.

But states could be most central to the questions about regulation because they currently serve as the main regulators of drug compounders.

Drug compounding is a traditional pharmacy practice that occurs when a licensed pharmacist alters or recombines drug products in response to a physicians' prescription for a specific patient, who may be unable to take the standard version of a treatment due to age, allergies and other conditions.

In recent decades some compounding pharmacies, including the now-shuttered NECC, have dramatically expanded into large-scale production that rivals those of full-fledged manufacturers but escapes the stringent safety and efficacy standards that FDA imposes on drug makers.

ILLEGAL MANUFACTURING

The FDA plan would leave states with responsibility for overseeing traditional compounding pharmacies but impose new federal standards on large-scale compounders that could be carried out by the agency, or in partnership with states, with clearer congressionally mandated authority.

Experts say some state governments could be ill-equipped to take on large-scale compounding oversight, especially at a time of tight budgets.

State officials at the FDA meeting appeared to be divided, with some saying they are adequately funded and staffed while others said a new federal role may be necessary to ensure regulatory consistency across state lines.

"Do the states have the ability right now to provide oversight if you consider what an entity like NECC was doing?" said Cody Wiberg, executive director of the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy. "The answer to that question is that it depends on the states."

FDA officials say their current authority is limited by conflicting federal court rulings over the years that prohibit the agency from inspecting company records and facilities in some U.S. states but allow it in others.

But critics, including many Republican lawmakers, say FDA has enough authority and instead fell down on the job.

Last month Hamburg came under withering attack during a House of Representatives committee hearing from Republicans who accused FDA Of failing to exercise its authority to act against NECC, despite problems dating back a decade, including earlier instances of contaminated steroids.

On Wednesday, the Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee accused FDA of failing to provide requested internal documents dealing with meningitis outbreak.

"Without this information, we are unable to identify any possible weaknesses and as a result, the necessary corrections," committee chairman Fred Upton said in a statement.

Some critics also claim that Hamburg's plan could jeopardize drug safety, if new rules allow large-scale production to go forward under safeguards less strict than those now applied to drug manufacturing.

"The FDA's proposal for oversight of 'non-traditional' compounding, if implemented, would decriminalize what is now illegal drug manufacturing conducted under the guise of pharmacy compounding," Dr. Michael Carome of advocacy group Public Citizen's health research group said in a statement.

The window of opportunity for legislation is closing, but some experts remain optimistic about the prospect for action in 2013 given the scale of the meningitis outbreak and ongoing investigations in the House and Senate.

"They're working very hard on this," said Allan Coukell, medical programs director for the Pew Charitable Trusts. "All the signals are that this will be an issue for them to focus on in the next Congress."

View the original article here

Tech at Night: Cybersecurity action in the Senate, Soros squad on the move

In case you missed it, Friday’s Tech at night featured Q&A with Rep. Steve Scalise. Don’t miss is now.

Team Soros, assemble! Remember when it was “wrong” for AT&T to get spectrum by buying T-Mobile? Remember when I said it should be allowed because the Obama administration and the radicals were making it too hard to get spectrum any other way? Vindication, baby: The left unites to fight Verizon buying spectrum another way. Before the excuse was to prevent industry consolidation. Well, Verizon is buying from cable companies, not wireless phone providers.

Note that Verizon has strongly refuted their claims, including the dangerous, crypto-socialist idea that the FCC should be allowed to dictate to Verizon and Comcast an alternate transaction. Such as one to benefit T-Mobile.

Shocker! FTC changing the rules as it goes to suit its aim to grab more power. Every single regulatory agency is dangerously out of control under Barack Obama.

The Cybersecurity war is on now in the Senate. The House passed CISPA along with Darrell Issa’s FISMA reform. CISPA won’t past the Senate over an Obama veto threat though, and given the strong Republican opposition to Lieberman-Collins in the Senate, I can’t imagine it’d pass the House. So the fight is on to undermine Republican bills.

Incredibly, simply incredibly, it’s been declared that the McCain-Hutchison-Johnson SECURE IT is worse than Lieberman-Collins, even though the latter bill is the one that gives the President ‘emergency’ powers over the Internet, in a stunning threat to fundamental property rights in America. The Internet Kill Switch is there in all but name, but once again, attacking Republicans is paramount with these folks.

I’m also concerned that John Kyl and Roy Blunt are threatening to undermine the coalition behind John McCain on this. It’s an old point, but if you can get John McCain, Ron Johnson, and Kay Bailey Hutchison behind the same bill, and they’re all opposed to the Democrat alternative, then it’s time for the whole caucus to fall in line, because it’s probably a common sense bill. And it is.

LightSquared goes boom. Losing Sprint was too much. I’m still torn on this. The firm’s opposition to FCC transparency was a great, big, red flag that something was amiss, but greater 4G competition would have been nice. Also, LightSquared’s satellite service is the kind of thing that’s useful to put pressure on other firms like the oft-maligned HughesNet.

If Google has so many smart people, why are they still using blog shutdown metrics that allow so many false positives?

Copyright infringers beware: the Netherlands and Microsoft’s new Pirate Pay DoS effort are after you.

View the original article here

American Majority Action Unveils Killer GOTV Digital Technology

As a movement, we have enjoyed unparalleled growth over the past few decades, particularly, over the past few years with the advent of the Tea Party.  We have more conservative thinkers, writers, talk radio hosts, and organizations than Ronald Reagan would have ever imagined.  Most importantly, we have more passion and grassroots activism than ever.  However, the most direct way to affect conservative change is to win elections; both primary and general.  Writers, thinkers, and speakers help galvanize and unify the conservative movement, but we cannot win elections on superior ideas and arguments alone.

The seminal ingredient to electoral success has not changed; it all boils down to turning out the vote and establishing an efficient and effective ground game to connect with the most consequential voters in a given district.  What has changed is electronic communication.  The only way to run an effective campaign in this era of mobile devices and social media is to create the perfect synergy between the venues of communication, the voter information, and the GOTV operation.

Let’s face it; the left has been drubbing us in the race to harness technology for GOTV.  The entire Google establishment is married to the Obama machine.  In fact, they have been outgunning us in GOTV in general.  We crushed the Democrats in the war of ideas and the political narrative in 2010, yet we dramatically underperformed our historic potential for success due to a lopsided GOTV disadvantage.  We underperformed our polling numbers in key states because of the superior ground game of the leftist union machine.  We will never fully succeed if we only seek superior ideas and passion, especially when we are already at a disadvantage in terms of time, treasure, and talent.

This is where American Majority comes into play.  As Erick always says, American Majority and AM Action are among the few organizations that he wholeheartedly endorses without any reservations.  They think of all the key elements of affecting generational change from the local school board on up to statewide office – and implement them with overwhelming effectiveness. And most importantly, in this era of intra-fighting between Tea Party organizations and personal egos, they are true team players.

Today, American Majority Action unveiled “Gravity,” the most advanced campaign management software and voter database system on the market.  Developed together with Political Gravity TM , a leader in conservative political software technology, this all-in-one tool will allow Tea Party activists and conservative campaigns to communicate with and target the exact voters that are needed to win elections.  The most unique aspect of this is that they are giving out free subscriptions to any authentic local Tea Party organization.  National organizations and candidates can subscribe for a dramatically reduced rate.  Freedom Works counts among the earliest prominent subscribers.

All of the information and the voter surveys were built from scratch to conform to the needs of conservative organizations and candidates.  This was developed by conservatives for conservatives and will not be shared with anyone else.

Specifically, Gravity users can walk through neighborhoods with tablets or iPhones (and Droids) and have access to the most up-to-date information on any voter within the region, and can filter it based on any data point; from policy issues to income to voting history.  Not only does Gravity display an instant Heat Mapping capability, it filters the heat map by voter intensity.  Then, when the targeted audience is identified, Gravity provides the activist with the best route to canvass those voters.  So if you’re canvassing for a Tea Party candidate against an establishment Republican in a low-turnout primary, you can instantly see all of the information about the most intense Republican primary voters and have access to the most efficient canvassing plan.  In states that have early voting, you can track through the heat map which voters (filtered by any data point) have not voted yet.  The entire operation can be monitored by the campaign managers with one bird’s eye view through the lens of this App.

There are numerous other features embedded into this one-stop shop that would normally cost campaigns thousands of dollars per item without the seamless connectivity, that Gravity provides for a rate that even a candidate for local office can afford.  It contains everything from hard ID’ing micro-targeting technology, VOIP technology, to automatic direct mailing and even a function to file FEC reportings – all in one App.  You can literally manage every aspect of a campaign from Gravity.  American Majority Action is working on some new secret capabilities that will be added to the system and out in the field for this cycle.  They will all be shared with Tea Party organizations that share their intrepid vision of limited government.

This is what it looks like to take conservatism to the next level.  This is winning.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

View the original article here