ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Arctic Assessment bombshell: “Global sea level is projected to rise by 0.9 to 1.6 meter by 2100″

By Joe Romm on May 4, 2011 at 9:40 pm

A major new multi-country scientific assessment of the Arctic has concluded that on our current greenhouse gas emissions path, we face 3 to 5 feet of sea level rise — far greater than the 2007 IPCC warned of.  This is fully consistent with several recent studies (see “Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100“).

The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme — formed in 1991 to advise the eight Arctic countries on threats to the Arctic from pollution — has released the Executive Summary of their Snow, Water, Ice and Permaforst in the Arctic (SWIPA) assessment on their website [big PDF here].  SWIPA “brings together the latest scientific knowledge about the changing state of each component of the Arctic cryosphere.”

The report notes that, “The observed changes in sea ice on the Arctic Ocean and in the mass of the Greenland Ice Sheet and Arctic ice caps and glaciers over the past ten years are dramatic and represent an obvious departure from the long-term patterns.”  I’ll have more to say shortly on the effort by the anti-science crowd to mislead on this key point.

Here are the “key findings” of this must-read warning to humanity:

Read more

LGBT

Advocates For LGBT Youth Homelessness Desperate For Support From LGBT Movement

By Zack Ford on May 4, 2011 at 9:30 pm

LGBT youth homelessness is an extraordinary problem, and advocates trying to treat the symptoms are saying that LGBT rights organizations and allies are not doing enough to address it. At a panel discussion in New York City last night entitled “Sleeping in the Streets or Walking Down the Aisle? Prioritizing LGBT Youth in Our Struggle for Equality,” panelists discussed the scourge of homelessness and how little attention it’s getting:

CARL SICILIANO (Ali Forney Center): I am proud to be part of the gay rights movement. I’m not proud of what we’ve done for our young people. We can do better. … We have to acknowledge we are in an adult-centric movement.

LEW FIDLER (New York City Councilmember): A responsible adult doesn’t leave a child sleeping on a subway grate at night.

KAI WRIGHT (Journalist): The problem is a handful of people in the queer movement who try to build a more positive space are small, underfunded, and not supported.

TOBIAS WOLFF (University of Pennsylvania Law Professor): [Unlike passing marriage equality or repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell,] this is an ongoing issue we’re going to have to continue engaging with.

It is estimated that 20-40 percent of all homeless youth are LGBT even though only 5-10 percent of youth are LGBT. This disproportionately high number is very much due to family conflict and abuse that leaves the youth feeling unsafe or unwelcome in their homes. There is also systemic discrimination and oversight in child welfare systems and homelessness programs. Unsurprisingly, the compounded discrimination leads to severe physical and mental health disparities for these youth.

Currently, there is very little support to address LGBT youth homelessness. New York City’s Ali Forney Center offers 57 beds, but its executive director, Carl Siciliano, is fighting desperately to keep Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) from cutting its funding in the state budget. Shelters in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Detroit offer an additional 10-20 beds each. At best, there are 200 beds available each night nationwide for the hundreds of thousands of LGBT homeless youth, who often find other shelters to be unsafe because of bullying and harassment from other residents.

In 2009, a Pew poll showed that more Americans perceive the LGBT community to be discriminated against than any other group. The progress of issues like marriage equality and nondiscrimination protections may help reverse this trend (thanks to millions of dollars channeled into advocacy campaigns) and minimize the impact of stigma, but in the mean time, LGBT homeless youth continue to struggle to find the support they need to survive.

Health

Santorum Doesn’t Understand Why Seniors Pay More Under Ryan’s Budget, But Would Still Expand It

By Igor Volsky on May 4, 2011 at 8:40 pm

Yesterday, in an interview with ThinkProgress’ Scott Keyes, Republican presidential aspirant Rick Santorum reiterated his support for Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to end traditional Medicare, even calling for the measure to be implemented “sooner than what he’s suggesting.” During an event in Iowa City, Iowa on Monday, Santorum clarified his position further, calling Ryan’s plan “timid” and suggesting that the government has to cap how much it pays out to seniors:

SANTORUM: The idea of saying to seniors, here are your benefits, use as much as you want, consume as much as you want, is not a good idea. And so what we need to do is to put some sort of, to say, ‘here seniors, here is our compact with you. You get into the system, you’re going to get a very nice and generous benefit. But it’s not an unlimited benefit. Here is how much money we have, we’ll give that to you, you go out and buy the policy that makes sense for you. And you have different policies… Seniors will get, in my opinion, better care. Will they pay more? Sure! If they want more health care. Will they pay less if they take a cheaper policy? Yes, they’ll pay less.

Watch it:

For somebody who’s advocating expanding Ryan’s reforms to today’s seniors, it’s telling that Santorum doesn’t understand why many seniors would have to pay more for their benefits packages. It’s not that they will pay more because they “want more health care” (although if they want more, they will obviously pay more); they’ll pay more because Ryan’s “premium support” does not keep up with health care costs and private plans charge more for the same benefits.

So-called dual eligibles — seniors who are of low-income and also receive a Medicaid subsidy — would also see significant increases because of Ryan’s plan. He would eliminate the Medicaid support and replace it with a $7,800 medical savings account. That amount would grow with inflation every year and would “fall short of what is needed to cover their expenses.” As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has concluded, “The savings account amount would cover only 62 percent of the typical 65-year-old’s out-of-pocket expenses in 2022; this beneficiary would still have to pay an additional $4,700 in health care expenses…This would consume 34 percent of the income of a Medicare beneficiary living at the poverty line (an estimated $13,620 for an individual in 2022).”

Climate Progress

Georgia Republican State Rep. Compares Tornado Victims To Idolaters Praying To FEMA

By Guest Blogger on May 4, 2011 at 7:55 pm

Our guest blogger is Brett Johns, a contributor to Georgia Politico, where this post originally appeared.

On Tuesday, Georgia Republican State Representative Bobby Franklin compared the victims of the massive super cell tornado system that ripped across the southern United States over the weekend to idolaters that “pray to their god, FEMA.” See it in his own words, from his Facebook page:


The death toll from the tornado system is over 340 people, and property insurance companies are estimating the total property damage in the range of $2 billion to $5 billion. The storm system was one of the largest and most powerful seen in the South, and the magnitude of the storm has overwhelmed the resources of many local communities. While FEMA certainly has flaws in its responses, it provides a vital service in times like these.

In Alabama alone, nearly 18,000 households have applied for aid from FEMA. The agency has approved more than $2 million in housing aid and repairs, and another $1.1 million for personal property. Victims of the storm system have praised the response from charities and federal programs.

Franklin’s remarks are not only offensive to the people who are working hard to help people put their lives back together, but also his fellow Christians across the south who have had their houses blown away and are accepting help from their fellow Americans. I wonder what Representative Franklin is doing to help?

LGBT

Pelosi Calls Santorum’s Anti-Gay Adoption Comments ‘Hurtful’, ‘Not Constructive’

By Igor Volsky on May 4, 2011 at 7:10 pm

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) condemned Rick Santorum’s suggestion on Monday that gay people aren’t entitled to the “privilege” of parenthood, telling bloggers and reporters on a conference call attended by ThinkProgress that the comments were “hurtful” and “not constructive.” Pelosi is also co-sponsoring Rep. Pete Stark’s (D-CA) Every Child Deserves a Family Act, which would “ban discrimination in adoption or foster care placement based on the sexual orientation, marital status or gender identity of the potential parent, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child.” Here is how she responded to Santorum’s remarks:

PELOSI: Pete Stark introduced a bill, in effect withholding funds from states that do not respect parenthood for gay people. There are six states plus the District of Columbia that allow both gay parents, a large number of other states have one parent. [...]

I can’t say that Santorum’s remarks surprise me, but it never fails to disappoint in a new fresh way every time you hear the proposals that they make. We have fought so long for gay people to adopt, or have foster children, have loving homes and the rest and for some reason there is some in the Congress or in the country which have not seen the wisdom of that. But the comments are hurtful, not constructive, and I don’t know how far this bill will go, but it will give us a place to continue the discussion about why gay people should be able to…adopt.

Santorum made the comments in Iowa City, Iowa at a forum sponsored by the anti-gay FAMiLY Leader, during which he also argued that children do better in households headed by two parents. But since Santorum opposes same-sex marriage and even civil unions, he seems to prefer that there be no obligation toward children on behalf of gay parents who are currently not the legal parents of their children because their relationships are not recognized by the law.

Yglesias

Adventures In Deadweight Loss

By Matthew Yglesias on May 4, 2011 at 7:01 pm

Will Wilkinson writes “Gerald Gaus’ new book The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom and Morality in a Diverse and Bounded World is a major event in moral and political philosophy. It is also very long. And stupefyingly expensive.”

How expensive? Well it’s on sale right now over Amazon and it costs $82.40 with the discount!

That’s a lot of money. And while I understand how it is that academic books sometimes come out with such stagering unit prices, I do wish people working in the academic world would think a bit harder about this economic/scholarly model. Professors employed at research universities are getting public and charitable funding because we think the production and dissemination of knowledge is important. That means it’s important to think about what’s actually a good way of disseminating knowledge. It’s true that making academic books and journals cheaper would entail a loss of revenue. But the vast majority of the revenue is either coming directly from other academic institutions or else out of the pockets of the staff of other academic institutions. If you shifted to a different paradigm, there’d be no net loss of financial resources available for scholarly purposes. There would, however, be positive spillovers in that people who aren’t employed by research universities would be able to get access.

Politics

House GOP Unanimously Passes Anti-Abortion Bill That Redefines Rape, Raises Taxes, And Creates Rape Audits

By Tanya Somanader on May 4, 2011 at 6:35 pm

In a 251 to 175 vote this evening, 16 anti-choice Democrats joined every House Republican present in passing H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act. A chief weapon in the House GOP’s “comprehensive assault” on women this bill proposes some of the most radical and draconian restrictions on women’s rights. They include:

– Redefinition Of Rape: The bill sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) faced serious backlash after he tried to narrow the definition rape to “forcible rape.” By narrowing the rape and incest exception in the Hyde Amendment, Smith sought to prevent the following situations from consideration: Women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator, women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped, and minors impregnated by adults.

Smith promised to remove the language and while it is not technically in the bill, Mother Jones reports that House Republicans used “a sly legislative maneuver” to insert a “backdoor reintroduction” of redefinition language. Essentially, if the bill is challenged in court, judges will look at the congressional committee report to determine intent. The committee report for H.R. 3 says the bill will “not allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape” — thus excluding statutory rape-related abortions from Medicaid coverage.

– Tax Increase On Women And Small Businesses: H.R. 3 prevents women from using “itemized medical deductions, certain tax-advantaged health care accounts or tax credits included in last year’s health care law to pay for abortions or for health insurance plans that cover abortion.” In doing so, the bill forces women and small businesses that provide health insurance that covers abortion to pay more in taxes than they would otherwise. Both economic conservative Grover Norquist and the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce noted that the bill is basically a tax increase.

– Rape Audits: Because H.R. 3 bans using tax credits or deductions to pay for abortions or insurance, a woman who used such a benefit would have to prove, if audited, that her abortion “fell under the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother exception, or that the health insurance she had purchased did not cover abortions.” Essentially, the bill turns Internal Revenue Service agents into “abortion cops” who would force women to give “contemporaneous written documentation” that it was “incest, or rape, or [her] life was in danger” that compelled an abortion.

– Bans D.C.-Funded Abortions: The most recent spending resolution contained a ban on abortions in the District of Columbia by redefining the D.C. local government as the federal government. Thus, health clinics in D.C. are banned from using public funds from D.C. taxpayers to provide abortion services. H.R. 3 “would enshrine the District ban into federal law.” According to the Office of Management and Budget office, such a restriction violates “home rule.”

Despite receiving nearly 135,000 signatures in opposition to the bill, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and the House Republicans leveled a serious blow on American women and their right to choose. Some Republicans even suggested holding the debt ceiling increase hostage over the passage of H.R. 3. The bill, however, is unlikely to pass as a standalone in the Democratic-led Senate. President Obama has also threatened to veto the bill.

Older

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

Sign Up