ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

House of Commons exonerates Phil Jones

By Joe Romm on Mar 30, 2010 at 8:11 pm

Based on their inquiry and evidence, “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason … to challenge the scientific consensus … that ‘global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity’.”

We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced….

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community….

Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.

These are quotes from the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee must-read report on Phil Jones and “the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.”

Climatologist Michael Mann called the report an “exoneration” of Jones and said:

Read more

Health

Why Antagonizing Insurers Could Backfire

By Igor Volsky on Mar 30, 2010 at 7:35 pm

robert-gibbsThe health insurance industry announced yesterday that it would accept new HHS regulations clarifying that “children with medical problems can get coverage starting this year.” Insurers had previously said that the new law “does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the ‘availability of coverage’ for all until 2014,” when the majority of law’s provisions come into effect. But a a harshly-worded letter from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius seems to have pushed the industry to publicly accept the change.

This morning, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced the industry’s stance in a tweet:

@PressSec: Kids 1, insurance 0 as companies agree to comply with new regs so kids with pre-existing conditions can get health ins http://bit.ly/dBkN48

Now clearly Gibbs didn’t want it to come off this way, but a glib, sarcastic tweet directed at the insurance companies isn’t the best course of action right now. Insurers never opposed the new regulations as long as lawmakers understood that covering children with pre-existing conditions would increase premiums and at least two large insurers — Aetna and Cigna — have already acknowledged that they will raise rates in anticipation of the new reform. The law’s rate review provisions may prevent the most egregious increases, but they won’t make premiums any more affordable.

The reality is, the administration will have to rely on insurers (and state insurance commissioners) to implement reform’s many provisions, including the all-important consumer protections. And while I’m not suggesting that a more conciliatory tone would override the insurers’ profit incentives, purposely antagonizing the industry certainly does not increase the chances that it will work effectively to increase access to coverage and adopt cost containment policies.

As I argued here, the administration was right to criticize insurers in an effort build political momentum for passing health care reform. But now that reform is reality, lawmakers will have to turn to work with the industry to enact the measure. The bill Obama signed isn’t strong enough to allow the administration or anyone else to just blow off the industry; it relies on insurers to make the whole thing work.

Politics

HHS Contracts With PR Firm Responsible For ‘Propaganda’ Videos During The Bush Administration

By Matt Corley on Mar 30, 2010 at 6:49 pm

ProPublica reports today that the Department of Health and Human Services has hired the massive PR firm Ketchum to help win consumer trust about electronic medial records with funds from the stimulus. But, as ProPublica’s Sebastian Jones and Michael Grabell note, Ketchum has a controversial history of pushing propaganda during the Bush administration:

The irony? The firm chosen for the job — Ketchum Inc. — was hip-deep in controversy a few years ago for producing a series of fake TV news stories that violated a federal ban on propaganda. The company also drew fire for channeling taxpayer funds to a conservative pundit to promote the Bush administration’s education policies.

In 2004, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that video news releases developed by Ketchum to tout changes to Medicare under Bush’s prescription drug benefit were “covert propaganda” because they did not identify that the government was the source of the news reports. A 2005 GAO report found that similar video releases developed by Ketchum to promote No Child Left Behind also constituted “covert propaganda.”

Nancy Szemraj, a spokeswoman for the government’s health IT initiative, defended Ketchum’s $25.8 million contract, which calls for a “comprehensive campaign for communications and education,” to encourage doctors and hospitals to adopt health IT and to assure the public that their information will be safe:

Company spokeswoman Alicia Stetzer declined to answer questions about the $25.8 million contract, funded by the federal stimulus package. Nancy Szemraj, a spokeswoman for the government’s health IT initiative, said the PR firm won the contract over four other companies because of its ability to attract public acceptance.

“Ketchum has a long rich history of doing outstanding communication outreach work for large social marketing endeavors,” Szemraj said. “They are very capable of moving the needle, with has to happen here.”

She noted that Ketchum’s work helped HHS enroll 35 million people in the Medicare prescription drug program. And she said all of the firm’s marketing ideas would be reviewed by senior managers at HHS.

Szemraj’s assurance that all of Ketchum’s ideas will be “reviewed by senior managers at HHS” doesn’t guarantee that the firm’s old tactics won’t be used again. According to GAO, the “propaganda” videos produced by Ketchum for the prescription drug benefit were “reviewed and approved by CMS and HHS.” That said, Ketchum is a huge, award-winning firm that “has continued to draw government work” since the “propaganda” scandal, so their hiring does not necessarily mean that the Obama administration is expecting, seeking or will tolerate misleading work like the Bush administration did.

PRNewser first reported on Ketchum’s contract on March 25, noting that it will include “paid media support” and the creation of “communication products.”

Health

AGs Say Constitutional Challenges To Reform Have ‘No Legal Merit,’ ‘Waste Of Scarce Taxpayer Dollars’

By Igor Volsky on Mar 30, 2010 at 5:57 pm

If Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) home state of Nevada sued the federal government over the health care bill he helped write and pass, it would make a difficult re-election campaign even more challenging. But thankfully, Nevada’s Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto has informed Governor Jim Gibbons that the current Florida-led effort to invalidate the health care law clashes sharply with Supreme Court precedent.

I’ve criticized the Florida lawsuit for failing to demonstrate that the Supreme Court actually agrees with their interpretation of the constitution, but Masto doesn’t pull any punches. This, in other words, is probably what an actual discussion of the state of law looks like:

One theory to consider is that Congress lacks authority under the Constitution’s Commerce and Spending Clauses. However, the authority give to Congress is extensive and appears strong enough to support the Act. Health care costs affect our nation’s economy, and the Act is Congress’ answer to alleviating those costs. The United States Supreme Court long ago determined that insurance is commerce and is therefore subject to federal regulation. United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass’n, 322 U.S. 533 (1944). Since the 1930s and the “long-rejected Louchner-era precedents,” MeadWestvaco Corp. ex rel. Mead Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 553 U.S. 16, 128 S.Ct. 1948, 1510 (2008) (Thomas, J. concuring), Congress’ broad authority has been acknowledge to, among other things, uphold mandatory contributions to the Social Security Act system, Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), and legislate many other federal programs.

The letter also notes that the lawsuit “would not come without a cost” — as Florida has hired a pricey Washington DC firm to handle the case — and argues that “it would be disingenuous for our state to make the argument that Congress does not have the authority to regulate health care under the Act” after the state “used the legal tools that Congress gave us under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the McCarran-Ferguson Act” to challenge a proposed acquisition of Sierra Health Services by UnitedHealth Group.

Other attorneys general have also refused to join the frivolous Florida lawsuit. Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway told the Hotline last week that he will not “waste taxpayer dollars on a political stunt” and Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray has said that the suit has “no legal merit” and would needlessly tie up the resources of his office. Similarly, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard issued a statement arguing that the “lawsuits have little merit and that participating in them would be a waste of scarce taxpayer dollars.”

Media

Fox Is Still Furious At WellPoint For Raising Rates And Inadvertently Helping To Pass Reform

By Lee Fang on Mar 30, 2010 at 5:31 pm

About a month before health reform passed last week, health insurance giant WellPoint announced record premium rate hikes all over the country, some as high as 39 percent. As an HCAN report detailed, the premium increases largely fed into insurer profits, rather than paying for actual health care costs. Democrats pointed to the hikes as a evidence of the need for reform, with President Obama and Democrats in Congress citing the massive hikes as another reason to pass sweeping legislation.

Today on Fox Business, WellPoint VP Brad Fluegel appeared to talk about the impact of health reform. But instead of a discussion of the legislation and its ramifications for business and customers, the hosts of Fox Business spent a large portion of the interview skewering Fluegel for helping to pass reform through rate hikes. Of course, WellPoint lobbied (directly and through front groups) aggressively against the bill.

The Fox Business hosts pointed to the hikes and whined, “you guys threw it. … [Y]ou had to know this was going to push this legislation over the top.” Fox host Charles Payne argued that WellPoint enjoys plenty of profits and could have held off the hikes “until maybe after the November elections” for Republicans to win enough to stop reform. Stu Varney, another Fox host, was more direct. Varney looked at the WellPoint executive and muttered, “it was a bad public relations move. … [Y]ou are one of the primary reasons why we did get a vote in favor of health reform”:

PAYNE: When I look at all the different operating margins in your industry, looks like WellPoint, you guys are enjoying one of the healthier, I mean you guys doubled year after year from the year before. Is there any regret about this rate hike at this time? I mean if this was a boxing match, I say you guys threw it. I mean you had to know this was going to push this legislation over the top.

FLUEGEL: Well again our premiums are reflecting underlying medical costs. So we’re not the only ones —

PAYNE: But I mean some of your rivals, Aetna, some of these other guys, I think they make net on a bottom line percentage wise less than you. Seems like everyone was willing to suck it up until maybe after the November elections. Do you think it was a strategic mistake?

FLUEGEL: We need those premium increases to remain solvent within those geographies. […]

VARNEY: It was a bad public relations move at a very bad time. Because that brought down demonization on you and all the other private health insurers. And you are the one of primary reasons why we did get a vote in favor of health reform.

Watch it:

Before health reform passed, Fox Business hosts had cautioned WellPoint that hiking rates might energize health reform advocates. In a segment on the hikes in February, Fox Business spent the entire program ignoring how the hikes would impact customers; instead focusing on how it might help Democrats politically.

Yglesias

Learning to Love Corporate Welfare

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 30, 2010 at 5:28 pm

Here’s a good post from Jacob Levy:

Back in the days of the Savings and Loan crisis, and again in the days of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, we saw lots of commentary from the right that the problems couldn’t be blamed on the free market. After all, in both cases massive moral hazard had been created by federal guarantees underwriting the debts, eliminating market discipline. Pains were taken to piously distinguish the free market from corporatism and corporate welfare (a distinction I take very seriously, I might add).

In the last two weeks, I haven’t seen any Republican official or Republican-leaning intellectual make the slightest reference to the problems with a system in which private [student] lenders make risk-free profits by lending on the back of a federal guarantee. The indictment of corporate welfare has been nowhere to be found. The view that there’s something distinctively unproblematic about private lenders with public guarantees has been completely lost. And the (misleading) headline, the reference to a Soviet-style takeover, crystallized this for me. Since there’s been no crisis in student lending, no collapse of the system, the status quo ante has been naturalized; there are people on the right who think that the subsidized revenue streams to which lenders had become accustomed were a kind of property that has now been seized. The ex post commentaries on FSLIC and Franny and Freddie have been forgotten.

And of course you see something similar in the fulsome conservative defenses of the prescription drug tax giveaway that the Affordable Care Act repealed. This is how the political right operates—there’s a lot of rhetoric about free markets, and a lot of institutions that are staffed by people who very sincerely believe in free markets, but no real organized political movement on behalf of free markets except insofar as market-talk bolsters Republican Party electoral fortunes or rich people’s desire to pay lower taxes.

Yglesias

Parking Spaces: The Ungreen

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 30, 2010 at 4:44 pm

Catching up on my local development news blog, I read that they’re going to replace the terrible strip mall around H and 8th Northeast with approximately 400 rental apartments over retail with a facade that will fit the surrounding area:

HST_StreetView

Below-grade parking will add 340 residential spaces and 65 retail spaces, with garage entrances off 8th and 10th Streets. According to ANC 6A Commissioner, Dr. Drew Ronneberg, “the city has a strong interest in having the site host 100 additional city-owned parking spaces that would serve retail establishments outside the building.”

Among other concessions, the developers agreed to a laundry list of community benefits to mitigate traffic congestion and encourage “green” living. The project will have to meet LEED silver requirements, though does not have to seek actual certification. There will be bicycle spaces aplenty in the parking garage, and lockers and showers for retail employees who bike to work. The developers agreed to provide one $20 SmartTrip Card to all initial and future residents up to $15,000, to fund up to $45,000 for a bike share station on undefined public property (quite a bit less than the Union Station bike hub cost), provide car sharing spaces, and pay for a one-time, one-year car sharing membership for initial occupants to max out at $19,000. We can see the marketing materials already.

Those concessions to mitigate traffic and encourage green living sound nice, but if Dr Ronneberg is serious about achieving those goals he should rethink his desire to further increase the quantity of parking spaces in the area. After all, the whole point of building parking spaces would be to encourage more people to drive to H Street. Indeed, the best traffic-mitigation strategy the community could possibly pursue would be to get the developer to reduce the number of residential parking spaces associated with the new building. To a small extent that would push new residents into competition with existing users of the area’s on-street parking, but to a much larger extent it would simply discourage people who are committed to car ownership from moving into the building.

Many DC households do not own cars, and if you build an apartment building with many fewer parking spaces than units, you’ll attract those households and similar ones. That will not only minimize the extra traffic burden in the area, but it will create additional customers for businesses that are close enough to access on foot. That, in turn, will spur the creation of neighborhood retail establishments and decrease the amount of time that even car-owning households in the area spend driving from place to place, further reducing traffic.

Now, living with a car in a dense urban area is still considerably greener than living with a car in a far-flung exurb (at a minimum, you’re driving to closer destinations) so I have no problem with developers building below-grade garages beneath new apartment buildings if that’s what they want. But insofar as community activists want to push things in a greener direction, they certainly shouldn’t be encouraging additional parking.

Politics

Gun Advocates Plan DC March On 15th Anniversary Of Oklahoma City Bombing

By Ben Armbruster on Mar 30, 2010 at 4:39 pm

sam-dc On April 19, the pro-gun group Second Amendment March (SAM) will lead a demonstration to the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC, “to remind America that the Second Amendment is necessary to maintain our right to self defense.” The group has sponsored several rallies across the country already, including ones last weekend in Frankfort, KY and Helena, MT. Second Amendment March founder Skip Coryell explained the group’s motives:

“I saw a lot of our freedoms being stripped away,” he said. “I was concerned about what the present Congress and administration were going to do. So were a lot of other people. [...]

“If you look at Barack Obama, he’s got the most anti-Second Amendment voting record of anyone who ever served. I just don’t trust him.

He said when George W. Bush was president, he didn’t feel as threatened.

Coryell claims he chose April 19 “because it is the 235th anniversary of Lexington-Concord.” However, the date also carries a rather unfortunate significance: the day militia sympathizers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. A reader of Andrew Sullivan’s blog The Daily Dish wrote in to express concern:

As a person from Oklahoma City, I find the entire idea upsetting beyond belief. These protests are going to take place on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. The idea of a bunch of armed right-wingers parading around on that day — especially here — makes me *ill*. Do any of these people know what actually happened here on that day?

Even some commenters on the Tea Party Patriot-linked SAM web page for the march in Oklahoma were troubled about any potential gun rights rally in Oklahoma City. “Everyone should *implore* the Oklahoma coordinator to schedule this march on a date that is NOT the anniversary of the Murrah Building attack,” said one commenter.

April 19 also marks the end of the weeks-long siege of the Branch Davidian compound outside Waco, TX. Dan Casey of the Roanake Times reported that “[s]ome activists in the gun-rights movement have tried to talk Coryell out of organizing” the march, fearing that the “political timing is bad” or that it “might lead people to believe the gun movement is a paper tiger with a few loud voices.”

Of course Coryell’s fears are completely baseless. Obama has no intention of taking any anyone’s gun rights. In fact, during his campaign for president, Obama said, “I believe in the Second Amendment, and if you are a law-abiding gun owner, you have nothing to fear from an Obama administration.”

Update

A separate gun rights group will also be holding a rally in Virginia on April 19th. Mike Vanderboegh, who has threatened congressional Democrats and called on Americans to “throw bricks through the windows of Democratic offices nationwide” because of health care reform, has said he will be speaking at the event.

Related Posts

Climate Progress

Report: Koch Industries Outspends Exxon Mobil On Climate Denial

By Brad Johnson on Mar 30, 2010 at 4:33 pm

Koch fundingThe Wonk Room has long detailed the role of the billionaire brothers of Koch Industries, Charles and David Koch, in destroying American prosperity. Their pollution-based fortunes have fueled a network of right-wing ideologues, from McCain mouthpiece Nancy Pfotenhauer to loony conspiracy theorist Christopher Monckton. In public, the Kochs like to burnish their reputations by buying museum and opera halls. In private, however, they’ve outspent Exxon Mobil to fund organizations of the climate denial machine, as Greenpeace details in a new report:

Although Koch intentionally stays out of the public eye, it is now playing a quiet but dominant role in a high-profile national policy debate on global warming. Koch Industries has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. This private, out-of-sight corporation is now a partner to Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute and other donors that support organizations and front-groups opposing progressive clean energy and climate policy. In fact, Koch has out-spent Exxon Mobil in funding these groups in recent years. From 2005 to 2008, Exxon Mobil spent $8.9 million while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding to organizations of the climate denial machine.

This report, “Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine” documents roughly 40 climate denial and opposition organizations receiving Koch foundation grants in recent years, including:

– More than $5 million to Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) for its nationwide “Hot Air Tour” and “Regulation Reality Tour” campaigns to spread misinformation about climate science and oppose clean energy and climate legislation.

– More than $1 million to the Heritage Foundation, a mainstay of misinformation on climate and environmental policy issues.

– Over $1 million to the Cato Institute, which disputes the scientific evidence behind global warming, questions the rationale for taking climate action, and has been heavily involved in spinning the recent ClimateGate smear campaign.

– $800,000 to the Manhattan Institute, which has hosted Bjorn Lomborg twice in the last two years. Lomborg is a prominent media spokesperson who challenges and attacks policy measures to address climate change.

– $365,000 to Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) which advocates against taking action on climate change because warming is “inevitable” and expensive to address.

– $360,000 to Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRIPP) which supported and funded “An Inconvenient Truth…or Convenient Fiction,” a film attacking the science of global warming and intended as a rebuttal to former Vice-President Al Gore’s documentary. PRIPP also threatened to sue the US Government for listing the polar bear as an endangered species.

– $325,000 to the Tax Foundation, which issued a misleading study on the costs of proposed climate legislation.

The blockbuster report covers the role of Koch’s dirty network in promoting the ClimateGate smear campaign, pushing junk science about polar bears, fueling supposedly independent Spanish and Danish studies that attacked green jobs, and selling a pack of lies about the costs of climate legislation.

Update

Koch Industries Communications Director Melissa Cohlmia responds:

In a consistent, principled effort for more than 50 years – long before climate change was a key policy issue – Koch companies and Koch foundations have worked to advance economic freedom and market-based policy solutions to challenges faced by society. These efforts are about creating more opportunity and prosperity for all, as it’s a historical fact that economic freedom best fosters innovation, environmental protection and improved quality of life in a society.

The Greenpeace report mischaracterizes these efforts and distorts the environmental record of our companies. Koch companies have long supported science-based inquiry and dialogue about climate change and proposed responses to it. Koch companies have put tremendous energy into achieving sound environmental stewardship and consistently implemented innovative and cost-effective ways to reduce waste and emissions, including greenhouse gases, associated with our manufacturing and products.

We believe the political response to climate issues should be based on sound science. Both a free society and the scientific method require an open and honest airing of all sides, not demonizing and silencing those with whom you disagree. We’ve strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases. We have tried to help bring out the facts of the potential effectiveness and costs of policies proposed to deal with climate, as it’s crucial to understand whether proposed initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases will achieve desired environmental goals and what effects they would likely have on the global economy.

Older

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

Sign Up