ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Coal industry flack says mountaintop removal solves ‘lack of flat space’ in Appalachia.

Joe Lucas, ACCCEThe coal industry front group embroiled in an Astroturf scandal is now arguing that mountaintop removal coal mining helps communities “hampered because of a lack of flat space.” Joe Lucas, vice president of communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), told the Guardian that dynamiting the tops off of mountains is actually a boon to rural Appalachia:

I can take you to places in eastern Kentucky where community services were hampered because of a lack of flat space — to build factories, to build hospitals, even to build schools. In many places, mountain-top mining, if done responsibly, allows for land to be developed for community space.

Mountain-top mining has been more accurately described as the “rape of Appalachia,” as rural communities are destroyed economically and environmentally for coal industry profit. ACCCE’s Joe Lucas — who can’t even admit that coal pollution contributes to global warming — is giving new meaning to the idea of the Flat Earth Society. The Wonk Room has more.

Media

Local Fox Reporter Attends Town Hall And Finds ‘Some Attendees Admit They Don’t Live In The District’

Last night, Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) hosted a rowdy town hall meeting to discuss health care reform. Fox’s local Houston affiliate reporter, Duarte Geraldino, reported that he talked to the participants and found that “some attendees admit they don’t live in the district.” How did they get there? Geraldino noted “an internet campaign” by far right activists urging their allies to attend and heckle Democratic Representatives. Geraldino then aired a clip showing one participant acting disrespectfully towards Rep. Green. “Pay close attention to the man behind the congressman,” Geraldino says in this clip, “he seems to have forgotten the part about respect.” Watch it:

The crowd was so disrespectful that one frustrated attendee said he had come to the town hall with the intention of giving Rep. Green “a really hard time,” but changed his mind because he was fed up with another man who was “screaming behind my head for the last hour.” The attendee continued, “This is a free country, but I think there’s a certain degree of respect” required. “I won’t be quiet! I won’t sit down! And I won’t let this happen on my watch,” responded the angry conservative activist. Watch it:

During the town hall, one conservative activist turns to his fellow attendees and asks them to raise their hands if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Almost all the hands shot up. Rep Green quickly turned the question on the audience and asked, “How many of you have Medicare?” Nearly half the attendees raised their hands, failing to note the irony.

At another point, a small business owner who supported health reform asks the audience how many people in this room “do not have health insurance of some kind.” Only one hand seemed to be raised. “I think the people who are objecting,” she noted, “are the people who have insurance.”

Climate Progress

South Korea, a ‘developing’ country, embraces 2020 emissions cap, with important implications for a global deal in Copenhagen

This guest post is by Julian L. Wong and Dan Sanchez at the Center for American Progress.

South Korea may not be outdoing the United States’ clean energy commitments yet, but it has just announced intentions to adopt a 2020 emissions cap, the first developing (non-Annex I) country to do so. Reuters explains:

The government said it would choose a target this year from three options: an 8 percent increase from 2005 levels by 2020, unchanged from 2005, or 4 percent below 2005. Its emissions doubled from 1990 to 2005, the fastest growth in the OECD”¦.  Officials said they marked a big commitment to head off an estimated 30 percent rise in emissions that would result if no action were taken.

One might argue if South Korea is really a developing country””it is considered one under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was adopted in 1992, but was in 1996 subsequently admitted to the OECD, which is usually thought of as a club of the rich countries.

One might also question the choice of a 2005 baseline rather than 1990, which all the targets in the Kyoto Protocol are keyed to.  The reasoning behind the choice of a 2005 baseline is obvious from the quote above, which explains that South Korea’s emissions have risen steeply in the years since 1990.  The result is that none of the three choices will result in reductions from a 1990 level.

Nevertheless, the symbolic significance of the announcement cannot be overstated–South Korea is the first non-Annex I country to indicate that it will adopt quantifiable emissions targets for 2020.  While the article notes that South Korea’s commitment could be “voluntary,” the 2020 timeframe suggests that the country may be open to a binding emissions cap in the December round of international climate talks in Copenhagen, where a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, will be negotiated and likely to cover the period of 2013 through 2020.

Why is South Korea doing this?

Read more

Politics

New Fox Conspiracy: Cash for Clunkers Will Allow Gov’t To Seize ‘All Of Your Personal and Private Information’

Appearing on Glenn Beck’s Fox News show last week, Fox anchor Kimberly Guilfoyle proposed the latest right-wing conspiracy theory about the Car Allowance Rebate System (commonly referred to as “cash for clunkers”) — that it is a secret plot to allow the government to control your computer:

GUILFOYLE: They are jumping right inside you, seizing all of your personal and private information, and absolutely legal, Glenn, they can do it [...] They can continue to track you, basically forever, once they’ve tapped into your system, the government of course has, like, malware systems, and tracking cookies, and they can tap in any time they want.

Watch it:

Guilfoyle may be worried about the “Terms of Service” on a government site. But as Hugh D’Andrade at the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes, these agreements do not give the government the right to tap into your system “any time they want.” “Moreover, the law has long forbidden the government from requiring you to give up unrelated constitutional rights (here the 4th Amendment right to be free from search and seizure) as a condition of receiving discretionary government benefits like participation in the Cars [sic] for Clunkers program,” adds D’Andrade.

The Guilfoyle-Beck conspiracy theory has been making rounds at both conservative blogs and conspiracy websites.

It joins other conservative attacks against the CARS program, which has been so successful that it has spurred the first increase in sales from any U.S.-based automaker since November 2007. The House recently voted to add an additional $2 billion to the program, and the Senate is expected to vote this week on replenishing its funds.

Politics

Disgraced Bush-Era U.S. attorney still drawing a government paycheck.

paulose3425.JPG At the height of the crony Bush Justice Department era, the President appointed a 33-year-old attorney named Rachel Paulose, whose sole qualifications for the job appeared to be personal connections to high-ranking Justice Department officials, as the U.S. Attorney in Minnesota. Her tenure was an unmitigated disaster. Paulose mishandled classified information, retaliated against employees who were “disloyal,” and she “allegedly denigrated one employee of the office, using the terms ‘fat,’ ‘black,’ ‘lazy’ and ‘ass.’” At one point, four of her top lieutenants voluntarily demoted themselves in protest of her mismanagement of the office. Nevertheless, Paulose has somehow found a new job representing the United States in court. According to Main Justice, Paulose was hired last March as a senior trial counsel in the SEC’s Miami regional office. In light of her poor employment history, it’s unclear why Paulose was able to get this job now that her close friend Monica Goodling is no longer calling the shots.

Health

Doggett: Republican Party Orchestrated Ambush, ‘They Decided To Set All This Up As A Video Opportunity’

Over at ThinkProgress, Lee Fang has detailed how corporate and GOP funded right-wing extremists are orchestrating an astro-turf campaign to disrupt Democratic town halls and derail comprehensive health care reform. This past weekend, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) fell victim to the right’s strategy, where protesters followed him and chanted “just say no” to health care.

During an appearance on CNN, Doggett revealed that the Republican party filled the event with “volunteers” who shouted scripted bumper sticker slogans that were “totally as phony as the grassroots nature of this organization.” “There was never any willingness any give and take,” Doggett said, “we could write that bill any way one would want to write it nothing would satisfy them.” Some protesters even advocated overturning Medicare and Social Security:

Well, I know in reference to the Republican Party because its on the website of the local party chair, both urging them to come and thanking them for coming. It’s interesting that they decided to set all this up as a video opportunity. So that what you just showed was film taken by the Republican Party of Texas….They were waving the 10th amendment, the rights reserved to the states, and actually admitted to me, several of them, in the discussion, that they didn’t only want to stop health care reform, they wanted to repeal Medicare and social security.

Watch it:

Indeed, Republicans have a long history of opposing Medicare and demonizing health care reform as a socialistic government-takeover of health care — regardless of the actual proposal. As GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz admitted in an interview with the New York Times magazine, “we don’t know what he is proposing. We want to avoid “a Washington takeover.”

The overwhelming majority of Americans, however, support the tenets of comprehensive health care reform:

ruyt

As CAP’s Ruy Tiexiera points out, “Health care reform is still quite popular, contrary to what you may have heard. What’s taking a hit is the multiple reform plans being batted around in Congress, which have confused the public and given conservatives a terrific opportunity to road test every antireform argument they can think of. After all, with so many plans floating around, how can the public be sure that these arguments don’t apply to at least one plan or provision of a plan that might possibly become law?”

Transcript: Read more

Yglesias

Endgame

I fake it so real I am beyond fake:

— Contrary to this guy’s worries I think the problem is that proponents of military robotics aren’t paying enough attention to science fiction.

— Prospects for Chinese direct investment in the Iranian oil industry.

— A very bad song.

— Bill Simmons’ claim that Almost Famous is the best movie of the decade is one of those “so insane I can’t believe someone said it” things.

— Young Americans for Freedom kicks a CampusProgress reporter out of their event.

I think I’ve decided I’m going to start championing LoveLikeFire so here’s “Wish You Dead”

Politics

YAF organizer kicks progressive intern out of right-wing conference: ‘Why don’t you move to Canada?’

jason-mattera1 The conservative Young America’s Foundation (YAF) is currently holding its annual conference here in Washington, DC, featuring Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Ann Coulter, and former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Today an intern with CAP’s youth branch, Campus Progress, was kicked out of the conference by YAF spokesman Jason Mattera. The intern, Emily Rutherford, recounted her experience:

Mattera explained that the problem was that I’m a Campus Progress intern, and that since I’ve been liveblogging the conference all morning, I wouldn’t be allowed in, since blogging isn’t allowed at YAF’s conference (despite the fact that attendees have been tweeting about the conference all day). I told Mattera that struck me as bizarre, and a little bit like censorship. He suggested that I tell this to my “friends in the White House, and maybe they’ll pass a law to make us let you in.” Mattara is, apparently, unaware of the fact that it is Congress, not the White House that passes laws. [...]

Mattera laughed at me, and then replied, “Goodbye—oh wait, here, have an Obama fist bump.” I refused his proffered fist, and he added, “Why don’t you move to Canada?” He seemed to think this suggestion was hilarious.

As Rutherford noted, Campus Progress recently held its own annual conference and allowed any student — regardless of ideology — into the event. But this tactic seems to be standard for Mattera and YAF. In 2006, Mattera — who has described himself as “the surprisingly fresh face of conservatism” — refused to grant credentials to a University of Pennsylvania student who wanted to cover the conference on behalf of Campus Progress and ejected a Washington Monthly writer/Campus Progress blogger.

Yglesias

The Limited Relevance of Policy to Growth

With regard to yesterday’s California vs Texas dust-up, the Economist’s Free Exchange blogger argues that state-level comparisons are a bad idea:

One is that the state level is a very poor place to be doing these kinds of comparisons. New York state is home to Manhattan…and Buffalo. Texas has the remarkably successful metropolitan areas of the “Texas T-bone”…and 17 of the poorest 100 counties in the country. California is home to both San Mateo county, home of Silicon Valley and among the richest in the nation, and Imperial county, largely agricultural and poor. State policy isn’t entirely irrelevant, but metropolitan policy and regional geography (and the history of that geography) are far more important in determining economic success.

I think that’s right. But at the same time, I think that’s part of what makes the case for paying some attention to state-level phenomena. The point being made here is that states are not meaningful economic units, metropolitan areas are. But states most certainly are meaningful policymaking units. New York and Buffalo exist in different economic worlds, but they have the same state taxes, taxes which are very different from the taxes in Florida. And I think that what looking at economic performance on the state level does is mostly highlight how little difference these kind of policy issues makes.

Indeed, Charles Kenny argues that you see something similar on an international basis:

There is a high level of persistence of growth within the rich countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development as a whole. Lant Pritchett notes that, between 1870 and 1989, two thirds of the present high income industrialized countries had per annum GDP/capita growth rates within 0.2% of the US rate. In the post-war period, trade openness, investment, average years of education and literacy rates have all risen in these countries. According to theories of growth that suggest these are significant determinants of economic performance, then, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development should have seen increasing growth rates. And yet what minor change there has been in these rates has been downward. Furthermore, rich countries have followed a range of different policies at any one time. French economic policies look very different from US policies across a range of measures from labor law to industrial policy. And yet growth rates in the two countries have tracked remarkably closely.

People talk a lot about the economic impact of public policy choices because it’s not clear what else we would talk about. But the evidence seems to suggest that policy choices don’t impact growth as much as people generally assume.

Climate Progress

NYT’s Revkin persists in selling spin from long-wrong deniers that the IPCC overestimates the danger from warming, when the reverse is true

Environmentalists assert that the reports by the panel are watered down by a requirement that sponsoring governments approve its summaries line by line.

Some experts fret that the organization, charged with assessing fast-evolving science, has failed to keep pace with an explosion of climate research.

At the same time, scientists who question the likelihood of a calamitous disruption of the Earth’s climate accuse the panel of cherry-picking studies and playing down levels of uncertainty about the severity of global warming.

“It just feels like the I.P.C.C. has gone from being a broker of science to a gatekeeper,” said John R. Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and a former panel author.

Ah, journalistic “balance,” how scientifically — and morally — inappropriate you have become.  And quoting Long Wrong Christy?  Say it ain’t so.

The above excerpt comes from the front page of today’s NYT‘s “Science Times” section in a piece titled, “Nobel Halo Fades Fast for Climate Change Panel,” by our old friend Andy Revkin.  Now one can objectively accuse the IPCC of many things, but overestimating or overselling the threat of global warming is just not one of them.  Quite the reverse.

The world’s emission path this decade quickly soared higher than their worst case-scenario (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm “¦ the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised” “” 1000 ppm).

The IPCC has focused on a wide range of emissions scenarios without clearly explaining to the public the unmitigated catastrophe that faces us on the business as usual path:

As Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice for the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains on their website (here):

Contrast that with a world where no action is taken to curb global warming. Then, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise as high as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century.

Instead of such clarity, the IPCC provides this sort of gobbledygook to the public and policymakers in its 2007 Fourth Assessment:

Read more

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up