ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Salazar Defends America’s Great Outdoors: ‘Wilderness Is Not A Bad Thing’

By Public Lands Team on Feb 24, 2011 at 4:25 pm

By Tom Kenworthy, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Speaking today at the Center for American Progress, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the Obama administration will not shy away from pushing for expansions of the nation’s network of protected lands, including the designation of new national monuments. He also issued a strong defense of his department’s new policy giving interim protections to wilderness-quality federal lands just a few days after the House voted to block the use of funds to implement the policy this year.

In unveiling the America’s Great Outdoors initiative last week, President Obama laid the foundation for what could become a solid administration legacy on land conservation in the 21st century. Building on the broad national support for community-based efforts to protect America’s rich land and waterway resources, the initiative seeks to re-invigorate our connections to the outdoors, particularly among the young and urban residents, to facilitate local and state conservation programs, to look at land conservation in a broader, landscape-level context, and to begin managing federal lands to build resilience to climate change.

Interviewed by historian Doug Brinkley, Salazar said the initiative will rely heavily on what he called an extensive and broad-based “dialogue with the American people” about conservation priorities. He defended the administration’s new “wildlands” policy that seeks to provide interim protections for pristine federal lands as was done for several decades before the Bush administration relinquished that authority in a legal settlement with the state of Utah:

We need to manage the public estate for all purposes, including wilderness characteristics. . . . I think there are people who’ve made more of this issue than they should have, including people who are doing it for whatever political agenda they want to serve. . . . Wilderness is not a bad thing.

Watch it:

 

The launch of the America’s Great Outdoors initiative comes against a backdrop of Republican hostility on Capitol Hill to sensible land conservation efforts by the Obama administration. The House of Representatives has adopted a budget bill that would prevent the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management from implementing its wildlands policy, and only narrowly turned back a GOP-led effort to strip the president of his authority to designate national monuments, a power used by most presidents for more than a century.

Supporters of those extreme measures are so beholden to special interests that want to open treasured federal lands to more oil and gas drilling and other commercial development that they fail to understand how strongly the public supports stronger land conservation efforts.

Even in the midst of the great recession, voters across the country remain strongly committed to funding land conservation and acquisition measures. In 2010, according to the Trust for Public Land, 41 out of 49 state and local initiatives to fund land conservation were approved by voters, and those measures will provide nearly $2.2 billion for those purposes. Since 1988, voters across the country in local and state elections have dedicated more than $56 billion to conserving open space and other land conservation projects, approving bonding and pay as you go ballot questions more than 75 percent of the time.

And a new Colorado College poll conducted in five Rocky Mountain states finds that westerners are strongly committed to conservation and believe that environmental protections and a strong economy go hand-in-hand. The survey found that for 87 percent of western voters “having clean water, clean air, natural areas, and wildlife” is either extremely (47 percent) or very (40 percent) important to quality of life. And two-thirds say that boosting renewable energy production will create jobs in their state.

Westerners understand, Salazar said today, that protected areas like national monuments, are “economic generators” and that there is a direct connection between conserving land and economic development. “We can tone down the rhetoric,” he said. “We in the United States have some very special places — they are not Republican places, they are not Democratic places, they are not independent places, they belong to all of us.”

Climate Progress

China’s droughts nears worst in 200 years, adding pressure to world food prices

By Climate Guest Blogger on Feb 24, 2011 at 4:17 pm

The recent unrest in the Middle East, which has been attributed, in part, to high food prices, gives us a warning of the type of global unrest that might result in future years if the climate continues to warm as expected. A hotter climate means more severe droughts will occur. We can expect an increasing number of unprecedented heat waves and droughts like the 2010 Russian drought in coming decades. This will significantly increase the odds of a world food emergency far worse than the 2007 – 2008 global food crisis. When we also consider the world’s expanding population and the possibility that peak oil will make fertilizers and agriculture much more expensive, we have the potential for a perfect storm of events aligning in the near future, with droughts made significantly worse by climate change contributing to events that will cause disruption of the global economy, intense political turmoil, and war.

That’s meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters from his WunderBlog.  For background on these issues, see CP’s food insecurity series.

I reported two weeks ago that if China’s drought continued through the month it would be the worst in 200 years (see “UN food agency warns severe drought threatens wheat crop in China, world’s largest producer“).  Below, Masters discusses what’s happening now and what’s forecast to happen in the coming weeks in this repost.

Read more

Politics

Despite Once Agreeing With Democrats’ ‘Philosophy,’ McCain Is Now The Senate’s Most Conservative Member

By Guest Blogger on Feb 24, 2011 at 4:00 pm

According to the National Journal’s new ideological rankings of Congress members, released this afternoon, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — who once characterized himself as an independent “maverick” — has repositioned himself so far to the right that he is now tied with Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and John Barrasso (R-WY) as the Senate’s most conservative member. McCain earned an 89.7 out of 100, which even beat out the reliable right wingers like Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

McCain’s new radical-right stance contrasts heavily with preceeding years, when he was regularly ranked around the 45th most conservative member of the Senate. The difference grows even more when taking into account that McCain, in 2004, dissed his own party and said that he agrees with the Democrats’ “philosophy“:

‘I believe my party has gone astray,’ McCain said yesterday, singling out GOP stands on environmental issues and racial set-asides. ‘I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy,’ he said. ‘But I also feel the Republican Party can be brought back to the principles I articulated before.’ And he took another shot at President Bush. ‘You can’t fly in on an aircraft carrier and declare victory and have the deaths continue. You can’t do that.’

McCain’s conversion to the hard right is perhaps most evident through his changing stances on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). McCain was once an optimist for the repeal of DADT, even saying in 2006 that “the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, ‘Senator, we ought to change the policy,’ then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it.” That day arrived when both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen came out in favor of repealing DADT. Instead of considering their suggestions, as he said he would, McCain said that he was “disappointed.” When the Senate voted to lift the ban, McCain said “today is a very sad day.”

His shift is also apparent on immigration. In 2007, McCain said that building a “fence is [the] least effective” way to combat illegal immigration. On the eve of the 2008 presidential election, McCain told the Spanish-language station Univision that his immigration plan did not include “walls and fences.” Then, in a 2010 campaign ad, McCain completely changed his stance, infamously telling a sheriff to “complete the danged fence.”

Dropping a term he once embraced, McCain’s shift to the hard right is so drastic that he has even come out to say he “never considered [him]self a maverick.”

– Paul Breer

Yglesias

Will a Federal Government Shutdown Shut Down the District of Columbia, Too?

By Matthew Yglesias on Feb 24, 2011 at 3:46 pm

Here’s a disturbing release from Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton indicating that a federal government shut down may force DC’s municipal government to shut down as well:

As the likelihood of a federal government shutdown increased after the House of Representatives last week passed a full-year continuing resolution, we have been making every effort to ensure that the District of Columbia government would continue to be able to spend its local funds if the federal government shuts down on March 4. Because the District does not yet have budget autonomy, Congress technically appropriates to the District its own local taxpayer-raised funds, and the District is only allowed to spend such funds until the current continuing resolution expires on March 4. We have been in contact with the Obama administration, House and Senate leadership, and Mayor Gray to ensure that a federal government shutdown does not force a local government to close, even temporarily.

Surely in true Tea Party spirit House conservatives will see that this is a particularly acute case of DC’s unjust taxation without representation status. Right?

Health

Did The Eleventh Circuit Just Fire A Warning Shot Over Tea Party Judge Vinson’s Bow?

By Ian Millhiser on Feb 24, 2011 at 3:42 pm

Shortly after Tea Party Judge Roger Vinson issued an error-ridden opinion striking down the Affordable Care Act, a non-party to the lawsuit named Robert Smith attempted to appeal Vinson’s decision. Vinson promptly replied by dismissing Smith’s notice of appeal on the grounds that, as a non-party, Smith cannot appeal. Yet there’s a big problem with Vinson’s decision to dismiss this appeal — as a trial judge, Vinson lacks the legal authority to decide an appellate matter.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit released an order today reminding Vinson who is in charge:

A district court has a ministerial duty to forward to the proper court of appeals any notice of appeal that is filed. District courts cannot dismiss an appeal based on a perceived defect.

In light of these well-established principles, Respondents, including the District Judge, are directed to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus within 14 days of the date of this order.

It is, to say the least, unusual for a court of appeals to order a trial judge to explain why he failed to follow the law in handling a routine matter. While it is likely that Smith’s appeal will ultimately be dismissed by the Eleventh Circuit, Vinson’s inability to complete an easy and purely ministerial task raises questions about his competence.

Moreover, it is reasonably likely that the Eleventh Circuit issued this unusual order as a warning to Vinson against overreaching his own authority yet again. In Vinson’s erroneous decision striking down just one provision of the Affordable Care Act, Vinson not only reached the bizarre conclusion that the entire Act must be cast aside because one small piece is “defective,” he also implied that the federal government must immediately cease applying any part of the law. DOJ responded to Vinson’s legally-questionable opinion by pointing out that, among other things, Vinson did not take any of the legal steps that a judge is required to take before enjoining a party against future action — and seeking clarification about whether Vinson really meant that, despite his own failure to carry out these required legal steps, the United States is no longer allowed to enforce the ACA.

In light of this context, today’s Eleventh Circuit order pointing out a different, far less significant error on Vinson’s part could very well be a warning to the Tea Party judge that his judicial superiors are watching and they are prepared to put him in his place.

Yglesias

Death and Traffic

By Matthew Yglesias on Feb 24, 2011 at 3:28 pm

Highway 401 in Canada

The United States is a very rich place by global or historical standards, which means we need to pay more attention to directly addressing quality of life problems that can’t simply be solved with more money in your pocket. The myriad issues surrounding traffic jams ought to be high on the list, and here’s the latest news:

Air pollution triggers more heart attacks than using cocaine and poses as high a risk of sparking a heart attack as alcohol, coffee and physical exertion, scientists said on Thursday. Sex, anger, marijuana use and chest or respiratory infections and can also trigger heart attacks to different extents, the researchers said, but air pollution, particularly in heavy traffic, is the major culprit. The findings, published in The Lancet journal, suggest population-wide factors like polluted air should be taken more seriously when looking at heart risks, and should be put into context beside higher but relatively rarer risks like drug use. Tim Nawrot of Hasselt University in Belgium, who led the study, said he hoped his findings would also encourage doctors to think more often about population level risks.

When I say that America’s health care spending doesn’t deliver much in terms of improved health, I more had this sort of thing in mind than the question of trimming fat in the actual health care system. It’s of course true that there’s trimmable fat in our delivery of health care, but there are also lots of better ways to make people healthier. Expending resources on preventing heart attacks by creating cleaner air is a wildly more cost-effective way of improving quality of life than is treating heart attacks. After all, treatment costs aside any sensible person given the choice would avoid the heart attack rather than go see an excellent doctor once it happens.

Politics

Peter King Drops Controversial Witness From Hearings, Following Pressure From CAIR

By George Zornick on Feb 24, 2011 at 3:00 pm

Walid Phares


Rep. Peter King (R-NY) announced today that conservative terrorism scholar Walid Phares will not testify at his controversial hearings on radical Islam. Earlier this month, King told the National Review that Phares was one of two Muslim witnesses he intended to rely on. Many people quickly noted that Phares is not, in fact, Muslim, and yesterday, the Council on American Islamic Relations sent King a letter protesting Phares’ appearance based on his prior involvement with a Christian militia that tortured and killed Muslims:

Mr. Phares’s prior position in and association with organizations and militia groups known for carrying out massacres and systematic torture raise reasonable concerns regarding his relevance to any sober and objective hearing.

Mr. Phares is a “former official with the Lebanese Forces, a Christian militia.” This militia was implicated, by Israel’s official Kahan inquiry and other sources, in the 1982 massacre of civilian men, women and children at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. Regarding the massacre, the French news agency Agence France Presse (AFP) reported that, “Lebanese militias, notably the Lebanese Forces, went on a killing spree.” [...]

The threat of violent extremism to our nation is a profoundly serious issue. We agree with you that political correctness should not interfere in any serious investigation of threats to our nation. However, we do believe that reliable witnesses and verifiable information are crucial to properly evaluating the threat.

We therefore respectfully request that you drop Walid Phares as a witness for your planned hearing and reiterate our request that you meet with national leaders of the American Muslim community to discuss the negative impact your hearings could have on ordinary American Muslims.

Through a spokesperson, King told Politico today that “As of now, [Phares] is not testifying.” It’s not clear who will be testifying, besides Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an Arizona physician and military veteran, whom King also mentioned in the National Review article. King also planned to feature Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has said Islam is a “cult”, but he removed her from the witness list earlier this month following an outcry.

While Phares is apparently too controversial for King, he remains an attractive guest for Fox News, which employs him as a terrorism analyst. Just this week, Phares has done multiple segments on the unrest in Libya, and he frequently parrots stale conservative talking points about the Obama administration’s anti-terror policies, such as the (false) criticism that the administration purposely avoids the word jihadist.

LGBT

Huckabee: Had Obama Opposed DOMA In 2008, ‘He Might Not Have Been Elected’

By Igor Volsky on Feb 24, 2011 at 2:45 pm

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) appeared at the National Press Club this afternoon, where he promoted his new book A Simple Government and reiterated his opposition to President Obama’s decision not to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. “I think the President made an incredibly, amazing, inexplicable political error yesterday because he is out of touch with the voters in every state in which this has been on the ballot,” Huckabee said, before suggesting that Obama broke a campaign promise by refusing to uphold the Act in a court of law:

HUCKABEE: If he wanted to keep his promise, which he said this should be handled legislatively, he should have kept his promise. He broke it. He should also explain why this isn’t the position he took during the campaign. I’m convinced that had he taken this position in the campaign, he might not have been elected. But it is very different than the position he took during the campaign. He said he did not support same-sex marriage, in fact supported traditional marriage of man and woman.

Watch it:

But Obama openly opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as a candidate in 2008, pledging to “fully repeal” the law and grant LGBT couples federal rights. He is also still “grappling” with his position on marriage, which while not yet supportive of same-sex unions, is “evolving.”

Moreover, despite Huckabee’s claim that Obama followed the whims of a district court in finding DOMA unconstitutional, the administration argues that two new challenges to DOMA in November of 2010 brought about the change. As the New York Times explained, “Unlike previous challenges, the new lawsuits were filed in districts covered by the appeals court in New York — one of the only circuits with no modern precedent saying how to evaluate claims that a law discriminates against gay people.” The administration decided that sexual orientation deserved a higher level of constitutional scrutiny and that under that standard of review, Section 3 of the law was unconstitutional.

Huckabee is wrong in his assessment, but it’s worth pointing out that he didn’t call on the House or the Senate to step in and defend the law, suggesting that Republicans are reluctant to run on the issue in 2012.

Alyssa

Universal Desire

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Feb 24, 2011 at 2:41 pm

I’ve been thinking a lot about the Real Housewives franchise lately, and it so it was fortunate that Andy Cohen and the good people at Bravo gave me yet another entry in the series on Tuesday night to obsess over. Both the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills and the Real Housewives of Miami seem to signal a shift to me, a collapsing barrier between real celebrity and reality-television generated celebrity.

There have always been real famous people on the periphery of the Real Housewives universe. Usually, their appearances are a little manufactured. Someone else is at an event, someone’s interviewing celebrities as part of a job, someone dated someone famous once upon a time. But with Beverly Hills, the calculation changed. Kelsey Grammar may not be at the height of his career, but he is a bona fide Seriously Famous Person, and he went on this show, and behaved just as badly as anyone else, even if all of his bad behavior didn’t happen on-screen. Now, Sylvester Stallone’s wife is considering joining the cast. And Scottie Pippen may not be playing a huge role on Miami, but there he is in the first episode, gamely doing goofy-lookin’ yoga on screen while his wife talks about what a full-time job it is taking care of him and their kids.

This is the next step, people who are warmed in retirement by the glow of their fame on the edge of the screen. But I think, if Bravo keeps this up, that we’ll start getting those people as the stars. And eventually, we’ll see people going on these shows before they hit the downward curve of their fame. The boundaries between the kinds of celebrity will collapse.

Yglesias

The Immiseration of Capital

By Matthew Yglesias on Feb 24, 2011 at 2:30 pm

Something that I think we don’t hear enough about in the inequality debate is that it’s not just median wages that have been stagnating recently, it’s equity prices as well:

The basic trend of sluggish growth in the early 1990s, fast growth in the late nineties, and stagnation since then is the same as what we see in the wage data. Things were different in the 1980s where we had stocks do well amidst middling GDP growth and terrible wage performance. It’s a pretty classic “capital crushes labor” kind of story that goes along nicely with Ronald Reagan’s political agenda of helping capital to crush labor as an inflation cure. But for the past 20 years, median wages, stock prices, and per capita GDP have shown a similar basic pattern. The income gains have flowed to people in the third world and a tiny class of American financiers. The smart investment to make in 1990 was to buy land in New York or San Francisco (or, I suppose, Shenzhen).

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up