ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Around The Nation, Chambers of Commerce Promote Climate Denial

By Brad Johnson on Oct 1, 2009 at 4:28 pm

U.S. Chamber of CommerceYesterday, Nike became the latest major company to abandon the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over its opposition to global warming action. The Chamber has tried to stop the hemorrhaging by claiming that it has “never questioned the science behind global warming,” and that it “continues to support strong federal legislation and a binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change.”

The former claim is demonstrably false, and the latter claim is laughable. The Chamber’s “support” for federal legislation is “conditional on an international agreement that requires full international participation.” Since such an international treaty is profoundly unlikely unless the United States passes federal legislation, the Chamber’s “sensible” policy is a recipe for inaction. Paradoxically, the Chamber even opposes tariffs on imports from countries that don’t limit greenhouse gases, claiming that would “set off a trade war.”

Furthermore, the state-level chambers of commerce, affiliated with and supported financially by the U.S. Chamber, continue to promote extremist global warming denial, paying climate skeptics Roy Spencer, Glenn Beck, Steven Milloy, and Steven Hayward to speak before their members.

Kansas Chamber of Commerce, September 21:

Global warming? So what. That was the message Monday from research scientist and best-selling author Roy Spencer to legislative leaders, lobbyists and leading business officials at the Kansas Chamber of Commerce business and energy summit. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and author of “Climate Confusion.” Spencer doesn’t deny that Earth is warming, but he attributes that to natural climate cycles and not to the increase in greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.

Michigan Chamber of Commerce, September 15:

Although Glenn Beck’s race-baiting and McCarthyism have led a massive advertiser boycott of his Fox News program, the largest business lobby in the United States has chosen to embrace him as the “dinner keynote speaker” for the 2009 “Future Forum” at Michigan State University’s Kellog Forum on September 15th.

West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, September 4:

The Chamber announced last Wednesday that it was giving a major platform at the Business Summit to Steven J. Milloy, the founder of the Web site JunkScience.com. Milloy is expected to talk about his book, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them,” as an introduction to the “save coal” session. Steve Roberts, the Chamber president, said: “Steve Milloy’s remarks will be timely and interesting, given the current controversies that are being driven by the debate over environmental issues such as global warming, energy use and the economic impacts of all of this. West Virginia is one of the states that could be affected significantly depending on how things go with the scientific and political debate over current environmental issues.”

Indiana Chamber of Commerce‘s Economic Club, April 29:

More recently, environmental experts such as April 29 Economic Club of Indiana speaker Steven Hayward, have publicly disagreed with Gore and company. Hayward, an environmental researcher holding numerous prestigious fellowships and an adjunct professorship at Georgetown University, starred in a film rebutting Gore’s claims of pending disaster as a result of climate change. Hayward is of the belief that the planet goes through natural periods of warming and cooling and is not tremendously influenced by the activity of human beings.

Politics

Krugman on reducing long-term deficits: It’s not hard economically, but ‘politically impossible right now.’

By Pat Garofalo on Oct 1, 2009 at 4:15 pm

Yesterday, the Center for American Progress and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities held a conference to discuss when and how to begin addressing the country’s long-term deficits. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explained, “This is a really bad time to engage in fiscal retrenchment; it’s a bad time on almost every dimension.” But eventually deficits will have to be brought down to a sustainable level, which, according to Krugman, is fairly easy to do economically. The problem, he said during an interview with The Wonk Room, is that we have a political system in which you can’t talk about tax increases “without it being political suicide”:

If we can do health care reform…that really does limit the growth in health care cost, then what’s left is a problem that we can deal with with fairly moderate policy. Things that would be politically impossible right now, but economically aren’t hard at all. [...]

You would end up still with the U.S. having lower taxes than almost all other OECD countries. And you’d end up with our social programs enhanced, not reduced, because we’d have universal health care coverage and some other improvements in the social safety net, and we would be good for the foreseeable future. All of this hinges on being able to actually talk about tax increases, even modest ones, without it being political suicide. It requires that you be able to talk about spending health dollars wisely and not have people start screaming about death panels.

Watch it:

The Wonk Room has more.

Yglesias

Gerrymandering and Polarization

By Matthew Yglesias on Oct 1, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Tom Friedman becomes the latest in a very long string of pundits to blame congressional polarization on partisan gerrymandering of House districts. As Joshua Tucker points out no matter how many times people say this, there’s still no evidence that it’s true. You can see this pretty quickly if you consider that the Senate features perfect partisan sorting—Olympia Snowe is more conservative than all the Democrats and Ben Nelson is more liberal than all the Republicans. Senators are responsive to public opinion to some extent—Snowe is more liberal than other Republicans and Nelson more conservative than other Democrats—but only to a limited extent. You have lots of examples of two different senators representing the exact same state, and they amass very different voting records.

More rigorously, Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal have a paper called “Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?” The answer is no:

Both pundits and scholars have blamed increasing levels of partisan conflict and polarization in Congress on the effects of partisan gerrymandering. We assess whether there is a strong causal relationship between congressional districting and polarization. We find very little evidence for such a link. First, we show that congressional polarization is primarily a function of the differences in how Democrats and Republicans represent the same districts rather than a function of which districts each party represents or the distribution of constituency preferences. Second, we conduct simulations to gauge the level of polarization under various “neutral” districting procedures. We find that the actual levels of polarization are not much higher than those produced by the simulations. We do find that gerrymandering has increased the Republican seat share in the House; however, this increase is not an important source of polarization.

Note also that historically polarization has been the rule in American politics. The times we live in are typical, not exceptional. It just happens to be the case that a lot of people alive today were acculturated to the unusual non-polarized politics of the 1930s-1970s in which the salience of racial issues scrambled partisan/ideological configurations. I think polarization is a good thing but even if you disagree the only proven way to minimize it is to have a large and influential white supremacist movement obtain substantial congressional representation.

Climate Progress

A climate wish list on Chinas 60th birthday

By Climate Guest Blogger on Oct 1, 2009 at 3:47 pm

Today’s guest reposting is by CAP’s Julian L. Wong author of “Peaking Duck: Beijing’s Growing Appetite for Climate Action.”  In the photo, Chinese workers prepare decorations ahead of the 60th National Day celebrations in Beijing, China.

This week marks the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. The first 30-year phase was one of revolution, marked by one bloody internal purge after another, but the next 30-year phase was one of pragmatism, which underpinned economic and social reform leading to unrivaled rates of economic growth.

China now finds itself at a crossroads. As the country struggles to come to terms with its imminent status as a global superpower, it is staring in the face of vast, systemic resource challenges. China faces a triple threat to its energy, water, and food security, and there is one common thread: climate change.

Read more

Health

Does The Abortion Compromise Preserve The Status Quo?

By Igor Volsky on Oct 1, 2009 at 3:45 pm

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)

As Republicans prepare to introduce a series of amendments rationing abortion services out of health care reform, Jessica Arons — Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund — has compiled this very useful comparison of how the proposed reform bills would change current abortion restrictions. (I’ve summarized her report in the table below).

Democrats have argued that health care reform would preserve the status quo. In July, Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced an amendment in the House Energy and Commerce Committee “that attempted to strike a balance and preserve the status quo on abortion funding”; Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) has unveiled a bill that closely mirrors Capps’ amendment.

But as Arons points out, reform changes current law by mandating that at least one plan in each market area not offer any abortion services and jeopardizes the abortion coverage of women who transition form employer insurance to plans within the exchange:


Current Law House Bill (Capps amendment) & Baucus Bill
Hyde Amendment Federal dollars can only be used to pay for abortions when the pregnancy threatens life of mother or results from rape or incest. Nothing changes. Federal dollars can only be used to pay for abortions when the pregnancy threatens life of mother or results from rape or incest. Only private premiums could be used to pay for abortions beyond the Hyde amendment
Medicaid & Abortion States have the option to use their own money to pay for abortion services beyond what is permitted under Hyde, and 17 states currently do so. The federal money states receive to finance Medicaid cannot be used for these services. Nothing changes. No public money would be used to pay for abortion services not allowed by the Hyde Amendment.
Private Insurance 87 percent of employment plans currently provide abortion coverage. The federal government subsidizes these plans through an employer tax credit, even if the plans include abortion. Each plan in the exchange could decide whether to cover abortion services. At least one plan in each market area must offer abortion services and one plan must not. No abortion services—even those allowed by the Hyde Amendment —can be mandated as part of a minimum benefits package.

Read Arons’ full memo here.

Related Posts

Politics

Corker Tells Former Canadian Minister That Her Country Has A ‘Parasitic Relationship’ With The U.S.

By Zaid Jilani on Oct 1, 2009 at 3:20 pm

corkorian

One of the most ardent opponents of health care reform has been Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who has called it “a train wreck.” During a health care town hall, Corker told the audience, “The majority of the people in this country are waking up and realizing that we have a government that is out of control.”

Corker took his opposition to health care reform to new heights yesterday when he insulted a former Canadian Public Health Minister by telling her that her country, which has universal health care, has a “parasitic relationship” with the United States because of its supposedly inferior health care technology:

Republican Sen. Bob Corker suggested Wednesday that when it comes to health care, Canada and France have a “parasitic relationship” towards the United States.

During a hearing of the Special Committee on Aging, the Tennessee Republican told Canada’s former Public Health Minister, Dr. Carolyn Bennett, that her country is “living off of us” because they set lower prices for health care and “all the innovation, all the technology breakthroughs just about take place in our country and we have to pay for it.”

“It is not really our country so much is the problem, it’s sort of the parasitic relationship that Canada, and France, and other countries have towards us,” Corker said. “…You benefit from us, and we pay for that. And I resent that, and I want to figure out a way to solve that.”

While Corker is busy insulting other countries that we have a lot to learn from when it comes to health care, he’s also wrong on his facts. Although attacking the Canadian and European health care systems is a common tactic for conservatives, the fact remains that these countries have been leading health care innovators time and time again.

Canada brought the world insulin, developed bone marrow transplantation, and conducts more lung transplant surgeries than the United States. Meanwhile, of the twenty most profitable pharmaceutical manufacturers, only nine are from the United States — the rest are from western Europe, Japan, and Israel, all of which have universal health care systems that Corker so is opposed to.

Yglesias

On Lameness and the Public Option

By Matthew Yglesias on Oct 1, 2009 at 3:14 pm

Blog_Public_Option

Kevin Drum looks at the popularity of a public option and ponders the lameness of the Democratic Party:

If Democrats really do lose the House next year (about which more later), this will be why. If they don’t pass a healthcare bill at all, they’ll be viewed as terminally lame. If they pass a bill, but it doesn’t contain popular features that people want — like the public option — they’ll be viewed as terminally lame. At a wonk level, a bill without a public option can be perfectly good. But wonks aren’t a large voting bloc, and among people who do vote, the public option is very popular. So, um, why not pass it?

I’m largely in agreement, but I have a few responses.

One is that the status quo in American health care is very bad. A bill can easily be both “lame” and be an improvement over the status quo. I think politicians would be rewarded for improving on the status quo even with a lame bill. But in terms of the midterms the fact that any bill that’s passed won’t take effect until 2013 is obviously going to change the relevant considerations.

Another thing is that I’ve been pondering this and I actually think it’s wrong, on “a wonk level,” to conceive of effective regulation of private insurance as a second-best alternative to passing a public option. Unless you’re going to totally marginalize private insurance with a Canadian- or British-style system, the first-best alternative is to effectively regulate private insurance as they do in the Netherlands. Trying to introduce a public option is a second-best step that amounts to admitting that you lack confidence in the regulations and the regulators and are going to use the cruder measure of a public option in their place. And the real problem with the Finance bill is that it doesn’t really do either of these things. It improves on a very bad status quo, but the lameness is real.

Last, it’s worth recalling that the public option fight is a kind of proxy for the larger issue of can health reform master the health care interest group complex (which includes but is not limited to health insurance companies) or must it be a handmaiden of said interest group complex. There are other policy levels that can bring the interest groups to heel, but that’s not really what the Senate is debating. If what happened was that you had a block of senators who wanted to achieve this goal through some other method, that would be one thing. But that’s not what’s going on. A reform that works hand-in-glove with health care interest groups can improve on the status quo, but that says more about the lousiness of the status quo than it does about the merits of the bill.

Security

Brookings’ Pollack And O’Hanlon: Containment, Not Military Action, Is Better Iran Policy

By Matt Duss on Oct 1, 2009 at 2:44 pm

Surprising opposition to military action against Iran arose out of a joint American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Institution panel this morning. Entitled “Next Steps on Iran,” the panel featured three hawkish supporters of the Iraq war, Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack — whose book The Threatening Storm convinced many liberals to support the Iraq war — and AEI’s Danielle Pletka, a leading neoconservative activist behind the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

In his opening remarks, Pollack said he believed that by early next year “what the United States and our allies are going to be looking at is containment,” a long-term process of countering Iranian influence in the region, much as was done against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. “Implicit in the concept of containment, Pollack said “is the idea that there will be a change in regime over time.”

Remember George Kennan’s “Mr. X” article, the long telegraph, that was the ultimate focus of containment with the Soviet Union: Contain them until the regime changes, which it must because of its own internal problems. The same I think can be said of Iran, especially this Iranian regime after the events of June 12 and the rest of the summer.

O’Hanlon concurred. “The containment concept is ultimately where I wind up…it’s our most viable medium to long term option.” He continued that, although he believes there is “less of a downside to some of the military options” than many believe, “when I put them together, I do not ultimately support them.” He also said he doesn’t “consider it credible that Barack Obama will do this.”

Unsurprisingly, Pletka was somewhat more sanguine about the military option. “The fact is that the Iranians have told us where they’re going. The president of Iran has said that it would be worth sacrificing half of Iran to destroy the state of Israel. There’s no reason on earth not to believe him.” Compared to that, Pletka said, “military action starts to look a lot less unattractive.”

The president of Iran never actually said that, rather it was former Israeli national security adviser Giora Eiland in an interview with The Jerusalem Post characterizing what he believed to be Ahmadinejad’s views.

The consensus of the Brookings panelists regarding the preferability of containment to military action differed starkly from the alarmism of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who introduced the event. In his opening remarks, Lieberman insisted that “the fanatical regime” in Tehran “will only consider stepping back from the nuclear brink when they are convinced that if they fail to do so there will be consequences so severe that the continuity of their regime will be threatened.” Lieberman also warned that “A nuclear-armed Iran will overturn the balance of power in the Middle East and tilt this critical region toward extremism,” ignoring the fact that the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which he helped sell and continues to defend, has done precisely that.

“I promise you,” Lieberman went on, “in a globalized world, the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran will sooner or later come to threaten the American people here at home.”

We must be prepared to use all means at our disposal to prevent the Iranian regime from getting nuclear weapons. Everybody in a position of authority agrees with that last sentence.

That’s a questionable claim — not least because the U.S. intelligence community still maintains that there is no evidence that Iran actually wants a nuclear weapon, as opposed to breakout capacity — and at least two of the panelists who spoke after him disagreed.

Related Posts

Politics

Sen. Graham takes jab at Glenn Beck: ‘Only in America can you make that much money crying.’

By Amanda Terkel on Oct 1, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Today at the Washington Ideas Forum sponsored by the Atlantic, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sharply criticized “talk radio, MoveOn.org, the 24-hour news cycle” for the polarization in politics. He then specifically mentioned Fox News hosts Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck:

Can you imagine writing the Constitution — you know, O’Reilly says Ben Franklin’s giving in on something. Can you imagine having to do that in this environment? [Graham said]

Without missing a beat, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg next asked for Graham’s thoughts on Glenn Beck.

“Only in America can you make that much money crying,” Graham said.

Graham also claimed that Beck is “not aligned with any party as far as I can tell. He’s aligned with cynicism. And there’s always been a market for cynicism.” Watch it:

In recent weeks, there has been a conservative backlash against Beck. Right-wing radio host Mark Levin has called him “pathetic,” former Bush adviser Peter Wehner has said he’s “harmful to the conservative movement,” Rush Limbaugh characterized his role promoting the 9/12 march as “cheap and disingenuous,” and conservative pundit David Frum has warned conservatives against succumbing to Beck’s “mob rule.”

Related Posts

Yglesias

The Daddy Factor

By Matthew Yglesias on Oct 1, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Something you see a fair amount of in Sweden that’s pretty rare in the United States is men out on the streets walking around sans mom with babies in the middle of a weekday (see also this guy and this guy):

SDC10395

Sweden is one of the most feminism-influenced countries on earth. It has the world’s highest share of women in parliament (basically half) and what shows up in that kind of statistic is also visible on the streets. Sweden has both a high female labor force participation rate, and a total fertility rate that’s high by developed world standards. The way that happens seems to be in part that men do closer to their fair share of caregiving for children.

This kind of social phenomenon is reenforced by public policy. Sweden has a generous (albeit somewhat complicated) parental leave system that’s structured to encourage men to take part in it.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up