ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Extreme weather events help drive food prices to record highs

Food priceIn 2009, Lester Brown and Scientific American asked “Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?” This summer’s extreme global weather raised fears of a “Coming Food Crisis,” as CAP’s John D. Podesta and Jake Caldwell warned in Foreign Policy:  “Global food security is stretched to the breaking point, and Russia’s fires and Pakistan’s floods are making a bad situation worse.”

Now the Financial Times reports the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s “food price index, a basket tracking the wholesale cost of wheat, corn, rice, oilseeds, dairy products, sugar and meats, has jumped to a record high, surpassing in December the peak of the 2007-08 food crisis” (see figure).

As ClimateWire and SciAm explains,”world food prices hit a record high in December thanks to crop failures from a series of extreme weather events around the world“:

Read more

Politics

GOP Reps. Sessions And Fitzpatrick Fail To Take Oath Of Office, Disrupting Health Care Repeal Effort

Reps. Sessions and Fitzpatrick take the fake oath of office House Republicans are eager to make good on their campaign promise to hold a pointless vote on repealing President Obama’s health care law, but they’ll have to wait a little longer thanks to an embarrassing blunder by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX). Sessions failed to take his oath of office on the House floor alongside the other 430 congressmen yesterday, pretending to take it in the Capitol Visitors Center instead. However, Sessions was the (not quite) Member who offered the health care repeal motion today in the House Rules Committee forcing Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-CA) to “abruptly adjourn” a hearing on the bill:

Dreier is consulting with the parliamentarian about how to best craft a unanimous consent agreement to rectify the situation, [committee spokeswoman Jo] Maney said.

“We should have an agreement shortly,” she said.

Democratic aides pounced on the Republicans’ blunder.

Despite the fact that they read the Constitution today, they should have read it yesterday, actually,” one senior Democratic aide said. “I guess swearing in their Members wasn’t part of their pledge.”

In response, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) joked that Sessions “didn’t look as congressional as usual this morning.” Sessions was finally sworn in this afternoon by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), but freshman Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) also missed the official swearing in yesterday, taking part in the faux swearing in with Sessions. Fitzpatrick read a portion of the Constitution and took a vote on the House floor, despite not, officially, being a member of Congress. In response to the fiasco, “House officials were searching for a precedent to follow but had not yet found a previous instance of members-elect voting without having taken the constitutionally required oath of office.” ThinkProgress placed calls, which were not immediately returned, to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Sessions’ offices and will update with responses.

Update

The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim reports that Sessions and Fitzpatrick missed the swearing in yesterday because they were at a fundraiser in the Capitol Visitor Center. However, Politco reports “There has been no indication that Fitzpatrick raised money during the celebration in the Capitol Visitor Center.” ThinkProgress has inquired with Fitzpatrick’s staff regarding the event.


Update

,In a statement to ThinkProgress, Fitzpatrick spokesperson Darren Smith said the congressman in fact “took the oath of office” when he watched it on TV in the Capitol Visitors Center (CVC). Smith added that “when the oath was administered, Congressman Fitzpatrick had already signed the written oath of office provided by the Clerk of the House” and was only “re-administered the oath…out of an abundance of caution.” However, Dreier seemed to disagree. He awkwardly restarted the Rules Committee hearing this evening and deemed that the oath in the CVC was not official, and said that his committee will write a rule to address potential problems. Watch it:

Security

Welcome Back, Sadr

sadrThe populist Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr returned to Iraq yesterday after almost four years in Iran, to great acclaim from his followers, who make up one of the largest political movements in Iraq.

The New York Times’ Anthony Shadid, who was one of the earliest to report the significance of the Sadr movement in the wake of the U.S. invasion (much of it detailed in his excellent book Night Draws Near), notes that, upon his return, “Sadr becomes one of the few national leaders with the grass-roots support to compete with Mr. Maliki, whom Mr. Sadr’s supporters had derided only recently as an heir to Saddam Hussein and an American lackey”:

Mr. Sadr’s support for the prime minister came with a high price: hundreds of his followers were released from prison, and the movement was given leadership of a province, positions in the security forces and control of some ministries.

The Sadr-Maliki rivalry may become more intense as the deadline nears for all United States troops to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011. Some American officials have suggested that Mr. Maliki would be open to an extension for at least some troops — a position that Mr. Sadr would almost certainly refuse.

Babak Rahimi, an Islamic studies professor who is preparing a paper on Sadr’s religious development, told the Washington Post, “Sadr left Iraq because his political influence was waning and he thought he could regain that by achieving religious authority”:

“Now things have changed. He’s already gained that influence. He was able to get Maliki’s attention and he’s returning a confident man, thinking it’s time for him to play a significant role in Iraqi politics.” [...]

There are large gaps in what is known about Sadr’s Islamic tutelage in Iran, Rahimi said, including whether he ever worked one-on-one with [Grand Ayatollah Kazem Husseini] Haeri. Rather, there were suggestions in Qom that Sadr was actually studying more in Tehran, under Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s spiritual adviser, or that he was working with a combination of clerics, Rahimi said.

A senior Sadrist in Najaf said Wednesday that Sadr was studying under a cleric close to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The thing that seems most likely is that he trained under someone with hardline influence… and therefore he has the backing of Tehran,” Rahimi said.

Rahimi has done some great work on Sadr, including this piece in July 2009 on Sadr’s efforts to boost his scholarly credentials, and this article in 2007 on the evolution of Sadr’s relationship with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Najaf’s leading ayatollah, considered the most authoritative Shia jurist in the world.

In regard to Sadr’s relationship with Iran, it’s important not to confuse “backing” with “control” here. A number of analysts have made the mistake of treating Sadr simply as an instrument of Iran, when in fact his movement is deeply nationalistic, deriving significant credibility from the fact that leaders like Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Baqr al-Sadr and Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Sadeq al-Sadr remained in Iraq, opposed Saddam, and paid with their lives, while many other clerics fled to Iran or elsewhere. Iran’s considerable success at drawing the young firebrand cleric more closely into its own orbit has been one of the more under-recognized aspects of Iran’s multi-pronged strategy since 2003. (I dealt with this in some detail in my January 2009 report The Fractured Shia of Iraq.)

Given that Sistani is currently 80 years old, and has no immediately apparent successor among Najaf’s leading ayatollahs, Iranian influence among the clerical establishment will be a real concern in the event if Sistani’s passing. Indeed, WikiLeaks revealed that Sistani — himself an Iranian by birth — was so paranoid about IRGC infiltration in Najaf that he “does not allow Iranian students to enroll in the howzeh (religious seminary).” It’s pretty clear that Iran’s relationship with Sadr provides them a friend in Najaf with inherited legitimacy and street cred that even Sistani cannot dismiss, while also making Iran even more of a player in the inevitable jockeying to name Sistani’s successor. The potential implications of this for Iran’s influence among Shia communities throughout the Middle East, and therefore for U.S. policy in the region, are significant.

Finally, it’s important not to forget that, whatever the practical realities of Sadr’s political strength, there’s the still an outstanding warrant for his arrest for his alleged part in the murder of rival cleric Seyyid Abdel Majid al-Khoei back in 2003 shortly after the U.S. invasion.

In today’s Guardian, Hayder al-Khoei writes, “My father’s murder was not a mysterious assassination carried out in pitch-black darkness but rather shamelessly executed in broad daylight under the watchful eyes of hundreds of witnesses.”

It was the testimonies of some of these witnesses, who saw my father being dragged to Sadr’s office, and then to a nearby roundabout where he was killed, that led to the arrest warrants being issued for Sadr and a dozen of his lieutenants and followers.

Sadr himself denies having a role in the murder – in which case, why does he not go before an Iraqi court where he will have a chance to clear his name? [...]

The Iraqi government has a chance to send a strong signal to the Iraqi people by first enforcing the rule of law on itself before it does so on others. Or, it can rig the judicial file and whitewash this case before a kangaroo court in exchange for Sadr’s guarantee that he will calm down for the next four years and leave armed insurgency behind him for good.

Khoei also told Asharq al-Awsat today that the Khoei family is prepared to “internationalize” the case if the Iraqi judiciary fails to take action against Sadr.

Yglesias

Boehner’s Opening Bid On the Debt Limit

John Boehner’s office released a statement on the debt ceiling issue:

I’ve been notified that the Obama Administration intends to formally request an increase in the debt limit. The American people will not stand for such an increase unless it is accompanied by meaningful action by the President and Congress to cut spending and end the job-killing spending binge in Washington. While America cannot default on its debt, we also cannot continue to borrow recklessly, dig ourselves deeper into this hole, and mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren. Spending cuts – and reforming a broken budget process – are top priorities for the American people and for the new majority in the House this year, and it is essential that the President and Democrats in Congress work with us in that effort.

I think the smart play for the President here is to absolutely refuse to engage. Say the Treasury will hit the ceiling in mid-March and be unable to roll over the national debt in the normal way unless the limit is raised. The President has asked Congress to approve an increase in the debt limit and he thinks that’s the best resolution of the situation. If Congress fails to act on time, Treasury has at its disposal an array of debt-juggling methods of various degrees of legality and Secretary Geithner and his team will try their best to avoid defaulting. If John Boehner wants, as a separate matter, to try to work on a credible deficit reduction plan that can pass the senate, then good for him and that’s something that should be discussed separately.

The default presumption under divided government is simply that things won’t change. But there are a number of bumps on the road (debt ceiling, annual appropriations, “doc fix”) where unless some affirmative action is taken, something very undesirable takes place. It’s important to get ahead of the curve in defining the contours of these issues. To engage in any kind of back-and-forth with the Speaker about the debt limit is a way of construing the issue as if avoiding default requires joint action. But it doesn’t. The White House has already taken sufficient action to avoid the bad outcome, and now the question is whether the Congress will do so as well. If they don’t, that’s bad, but it’s also on them.

Alyssa

Pop Goes Celebrity

Of course Kim Kardashian has a single coming out, and of course Kanye is in the video. I think it’s fascinating that music has become totally unmoored from skill, or artistic sensibility, it’s a part of the celebrity production process. Producers and songwriters and editors and the people who do your hair and help you pick your dress before you hit the red carpet are essentially performing the same function. Releasing a single is the same thing as showing up for an event, or posing in Maxim, or whatever. I don’t know if that’s because popular music is so simplistic and formulaic that you can engineer anyone into achieving the basics and going through the motions, or because it’s much harder to fake acting skill, or because a single is obtainable, it’s three minutes. I just think it’s fascinating that people are shameless enough not to care if they sound good or not, or to consider faking it an essential part of the process of being a celebrity.

Politics

Broken Promises: The House GOP Breaks Several Of Its Own Pledges On First Day In Power

Yesterday, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) gaveled in the GOP takeover of the House. Christening his rein in tears, the self-proclaimed “most transparent person in this town” promised an era of more “honest” and “accountable” government with a set of new House rules to match. But that was yesterday afternoon. By nightfall, the House GOP leadership had already broken key pledges of transparency and accountability. Republicans have already walked back three key promises they touted up through the end of 111th Congress:

– Open Amendment Process Now Closed: Republicans have long complained that Democrats “abused their power in bypassing regular debate” by ignoring “the open rule” which “allows for nearly unlimited amendments and debate.” After a victorious November election, GOP leaders promised “to treat the Democratic minority far differently” by ensuring an open rules process. After all, they had included it in their “Pledge to America.” But now, with their first legislation to repeal the health care law, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is suggesting the GOP will skip the open rule to avoid potentially embarrassing Democratic amendments. The excuse? It’s a “straightforward document” of a “two-page, straight repeal” so “there’s nothing to amend.” According to Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), “there’s no ability” to have open rules because “if you want to have an up-or-down vote, this is how you have to do it. And that is what our pledge was: an up-or-down vote.” Despite demanding the same of the Democrats last year, Republicans now think “some things you don’t need a hearing on.” In response to backlash over his backtrack, Boehner said, “I promised a more open process. I didn’t promise that every single bill was going to be an open bill.”

– $100 Billion Spending Cuts Now “Hypothetical”: Confidently touting their “Pledge to America,” Boehner and his Young Gun squadron reiterated the promise that they’d “save $100 billion dollars in the first year.” Just yesterday, Cantor told reporters that Republicans will soon “spell out” the cuts to obtain that number. But, according to Republican aides, that promise is more “hypothetical” than literal and the actual number “is about HALF the original estimate.” When asked by how much, Ryan said “I can’t tell you by what amount.” When Fox News pressed Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) about GOP waffling, Pence said anyone who focuses on the $100 billion figure is just “number crunching” and trying to “parse words.”

– Public Access Committee Attendance Now Unfair: In the name of transparency, the initial rule package the House GOP proposed included a provision to make committee attendance public. But (fittingly) “behind closed doors” in the House GOP conference meeting yesterday night, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) stripped the provision. The excuse? Committees have to stop scheduling hearings at the same time first. Also, “some GOP lawmakers were concerned about getting slammed for missing hearings when they may have extenuating circumstances.” “That’s not a matter of transparency. It’s a matter of inherent unfairness,” Gohmert said.

On top of closing the amendment process, the GOP also will exempt the health care repeal bill from their own requirement that all bills be fully paid for. Because the health care law would reduce the deficit by $143 billion through 2019, not only are they backtracking on their own rules, but also their promise to reduce the deficit. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the repeal will increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next ten years. Of course — as Republicans prove time and time again — if any policy benefits the wealthy, that lower-deficit banner gets shredded.

But the GOP shows no sign of stopping its self-imposed hypocrisy. The visceral hatred of federal health care has only compelled a few Republicans to match rhetoric with action by forgoing federal health care, while members like Rep. Steve King (R-IA) leave it to others to “stand on principle.” The GOP instead voted down the idea to disclose whether members accept federal health care plan. And despite pledges of greater transparency and fewer backroom deals, House Republicans avowed Ryan, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, with the power to implement spending levels without ever having them voted upon. Another rule allows Republicans to reallocate the spending cuts that Republicans intend to make (whatever the amount) rather than pay down the deficit, a move some GOP members lambasted as “Washington-style gimmicks.”

The GOP is even undermining its own distorted understanding of the Constitution. Despite promising to include clauses citing the constitutional authority of each bill, not one of the three bills the GOP plans to introduce this week — health care repeal, congressional budget cuts, and instruction for new health care legislation — currently include the constitutional citation. Whether the citations will be available when the bills hit the floor remains to be seen.

While remarkably brazen, the hypocritical actions of the House GOP are not surprising. “That’s what they were going to do. Wasn’t it?” said former House Rules Committee Chair Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). “It’s the first day, and they’ve violated everything they said they were going to do.” Who knows what day two will bring.

Climate Progress

Spill Commission: Hubris, Greed, And Corruption Led To Gulf Disaster

The president’s commission on the BP oil disaster has found that it was an “avoidable” catastrophe “rooted in systemic failures by industry management” and “by failures of government to provide effective regulatory oversight of offshore drilling.” With a minute-by-minute retelling of the corners cut and mistakes made before the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, the bipartisan commission reconstructs how BP, Halliburton, and Transocean repeatedly chose profit-taking risks, then ignored the warning signs that the risks were going bad — while the hobbled Minerals Management Service, with limited oversight and access, trusted the oil officials’ judgment that everything was under control.

With a political system designed to protect oil companies from sufficient oversight, systemic greed, hubris, and corruption led to the deaths of 11 rig workers and the poisoning of the Gulf of Mexico, the preview of the commission’s final report, due next week, has found.

Greed: The spill commission identified nine different instances in which BP, Halliburton, and Transocean made decisions that saved time — and thus money — but increased the risk of catastrophe:

None of BP’s (or the other companies’) decisions in Figure 4.10 appear to have been subject to a comprehensive and systematic risk-analysis, peer-review, or management of change process. The evidence now available does not show that the BP team members (or other companies’ personnel) responsible for these decisions conducted any sort of formal analysis to assess the relative riskiness of available alternatives.

For example, BP chose to use an untested mixture of re-used fluids during the negative pressure test, in order to exploit a loophole in the Resource and Conservation Recovery Act to avoid having to dispose of them onshore as hazardous waste; Halliburton didn’t wait for test results confirming the safety of the cement mixture; and Transocean ran multiple operations while conducting the hazardous effort to close the well.

Hubris: Repeatedly, the drilling companies assumed that the choices they made didn’t increase risks, or simply believed that the likelihood of disaster was so low that warning signs were ignored. A central example was how they glossed over test results that the cement job that was supposed to seal the well had failed:

Given the risk factors surrounding the primary cement job and other prior unusual events (such as difficulty converting the float valves), the BP Well Site Leaders and, to the extent they were aware of the issues, the Transocean crew should have been particularly sensitive to anomalous pressure readings and ready to accept that the primary cement job could have failed. It appears instead they started from the assumption that the well could not be flowing, and kept running tests and coming up with various explanations until they had convinced themselves their assumption was correct.

Transocean had “an eerily similar near-miss on one of its rigs in the North Sea four months prior to the Macondo blowout,” when an apparently successful negative pressure test led rig workers to miss warning signs of a blowout. “Had the rig crew been adequately informed of the prior event and trained on its lessons,” the commission concludes, “events at Macondo may have unfolded very differently.”

Corruption: The commission also found fault with the Minerals Management Service, which left the companies largely to their own devices, deferring to their last-minute decisions that set the disaster in motion:

Many critical aspects of drilling operations were left to industry to decide without agency review. For instance, there was no requirement, let alone protocol, for a negative-pressure test, the misreading of which was a major contributor to the Macondo blowout. Nor were there detailed requirements related to the testing of the cement essential for well stability.

Responsibilities for these shortfalls are best not assigned to MMS alone. The root cause can be better found by considering how, as described in Chapter 3, efforts to expand regulatory oversight, tighten safety requirements, and provide funding to equip regulators with the resources, personnel, and training needed to be effective were either overtly resisted or not supported by industry, members of Congress, and several administrations. As a result, neither the regulations nor the regulators were asking the tough questions or requiring the demonstration of preparedness that could have avoided the Macondo disaster.

In what may turn out to be an act worthy of criminal prosecution, Halliburton covered up test results finding that the cement slurry chosen by BP for the Macondo well “was unstable.” Instead, “Halliburton personnel responded instead by modifying the test conditions—specifically, the pre-testing conditioning time—and thereby achieving an arguably successful test result.” Furthermore, “Halliburton documents strongly suggest that the final foam stability test results indicating a stable slurry may not even have been available before Halliburton pumped the primary cement job at Macondo. If true, Halliburton pumped foam cement into the well at Macondo at a time when all available test data showed the cement would be, in fact, unstable.”

Yglesias

Taxes and Population Growth Revisited

Last month I criticized Greg Mankiw and Michael Barone for attributing rapid population growth in many conservative-leaning states to their low income tax rates rather than to there construction-friendly regulatory regimes. Thinking harder on the question, I think there may actually be some growth/tax correlation running in the opposite direction.

Consider that the tax base of a given state not only needs to pay for current levels of public services, but also pensions and health care for retired state employees. Consequently, a faster-growing population will actually reduce the per capita tax burden of these retiree payments, allowing for lower taxes or higher levels of present-day services.

At any rate, consider that another small reason that liberals should rally behind Paul Krugman’s call for our states to become more density-friendly. I, personally, find Blue America to be a pleasant place and I think we should permit more people to live in it.

Security

Allen West Refuses To Retract Claim That Obama Should Put His Life In Harm’s Way

During an interview with the New York Times last month, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) — who has made no secret of his disdain for President Obama — said that the President should put himself in harm’s way with U.S. troops when he travels to war zones just to show that he is a true leader. “[I]f I’m asking my young men and women to go out there and put their lives on the line, I should be willing and able to do the exact same thing,” he said.

On MSNBC last night, host Lawrence O’Donnell asked West if he really believes that the President should risk his life on the battlefield. “If you disagree with the fact that I believe that leadership’s about leading from the front, then you can do that,” West said. O’Donnell noted that no President in West’s lifetime has ever done what he is asking Obama to do and offered the new GOP congressman a chance to retract his statement. However, West refused:

O’DONNELL: In your lifetime, you’ve never once had the opportunity to vote for a president who would, as you put it, put himself in harm’s way as president. You want to retract that. I’m going to give you a chance to retract that suggestion that the president of the United States should put his life in harm’s way while president when visiting war zones. This is a chance to just apologize for it and move on.

WEST: Lawrence, I’m not going to retract that statement, because I will tell you this — if I was sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I would fly into a combat theater and I would get out there and visit those troops wherever they are. That’s just the type of leader that I am.

“I’m sticking with my guns,” West said later, still refusing to apologize, although he acknowledged that “no one is going to allow the president of the United States to be in a dangerous situation.” Watch it:

West is correct — no one is going to allow Obama, or any other future president or high ranking government official, to be placed in a dangerous situation. So it seems that this is just another one of West’s baseless and gratuitous attacks on Obama. Perhaps we can look forward to seeing West join the troops on the front lines during an upcoming congressional delegation visit to Afghanistan?

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up