Democrats are abandoning the Middle Class

I found this Kevin Drum post, where Drum responds to this American Prospect story by Sean McElwee, on why the American voters vote against their self-interests, and whether the Democrats can use the environment as a centrist issue.  First, the American Prospect story:

For decades, thinkers on the left have wondered why the working class regularly votes against its own interests, upending what Marx believed would be an inevitable march from democracy to socialism. In his book, What’s the Matter with Kansas?, Thomas Frank argued that social issues obscure economic motives, and indeed the most salient non-economic one has always been race, at least in this country. In America, conservative politicians have exploited racism to their own benefit, first to disempower blacks with Jim Crow, then to undermine the union movement, and more recently to undercut support for welfare programs, as Ian Haney Lopez recently documented in Dog-Whistle Politics. Nixon’s “law and order campaign” played on racial fears, as did Reagan’s denunciation of “welfare queens.” Republicans played at race to win solid majorities for decades while actively working against the interests of the majority of Americans. The left has much to learn about this strategy. It needs to fundamentally re-align Americans around an issue with a deep and latent importance: the environment.

When asked about the most important global issue, 25 percent of Americans cite environmental degradation, while only 10 percent cite the economy. "Everyone studying American politics has been waiting for a new realignment because the last few decades have been marked by political apathy and the rise of a new voting bloc that is not strongly tied to either party,” says Dr. Benjamin Radcliff, professor of politics at Notre Dame and author of The Political Economy of Human Happiness: How Voters' Choices Determine the Quality of Life. “What is needed is some spark, either an event, like the Great Depression—or just a party capable of mobilizing this latent potential."

What I'm especially interested here is that Kevin Drum gets "peevish" at McElwee's story:

 Why is it that the working class often votes against its own economic interests? Well, let's compare the sales pitches of the Republican and Democratic parties when it comes to pocketbook issues:

• Republicans: We will lower your taxes.
• Democrats: We, um, support policies that encourage a fairer distribution of growth and....and....working man....party of FDR....um....

There are two problems with the Democratic approach. First, it's too abstract to appeal to anyone. Second, it's not true anyway. Democrats simply don't consistently support concrete policies that help the middle class. Half of them voted for the bankruptcy bill of 2005. They've done virtually nothing to stem the growth of monopolies and next to nothing to improve consumer protection in visible ways. They don't do anything for labor. They're soft on protecting Social Security. They bailed out the banks but refused to bail out underwater homeowners. Hell, they can't even agree to kill the carried interest loophole, a populist favorite if ever there was one. 

(....). 

And then Democrats will wonder yet again why a big chunk of the working class votes for Republicans. It's a stumper all right.

Apologies for being peevish. But honestly, Democrats have done virtually nothing for the middle class for three decades now. They're nearly as reliant on the business community for campaign funding as Republicans. Can we all stop pretending that there's some deep mystery about why lots of working and middle class voters figure there are no real economic differences between the parties, so they might as well vote on social issues instead?

If you want to know why the Democrats can't seem to win elections like the Republicans, this is it.  The Democratic Party no longer believes in policies to help the Middle Class, and barely advocates policies to help the poor and working class--Cat Food Commission anyone?  The Democrats will not "support concrete policies" in a no-compromising way that Republicans have done for three decades.  Instead, the Democrats cave and compromise to Republican demands on everything.  The Republicans know it, so they push their demands even further rightward into Crazyland, with the Democrats continuing to cave and shift rightward away from their core values.  Democratic congress critters are never primaried for compromising on their values the way that Tea Party voters primary their Republican congress critters.  And finally, both political parties have been purchased by corporations, Wall Street, and the ubber-rich.  Middle class policies and values will always be rejected for the interests of those who purchased their Democratic congressmen.

You can't expect voters to continue voting for you, if you don't give them something in return.  So far, the Democrats are not giving the Middle Class any policies to help them--not helping them with the lost jobs, improving education, bankruptcy, housing, crushing student debt, TBTF Banks, protecting Social Security, spiraling health care costs and single-payer insurance.  Social issues don't matter worth a damn--Not if people can't keep a roof over their heads and place food on their table.   And the "Vote-For-Us-We're-Not-As-Bad-As-The-Other-Guy" can only go so far--if you keep caving in and not standing for anything, then you're actually worst than "The Other Guy."  While I may know that the Republican policies are bad for the country, I also know that the Republicans are pretty consistent with their policies.  The Democrats?  They have no consistency. 

That is what's wrong with the Democratic Party.  I doubt that the Democratic Party can ever change--not with the way things are now.

Monday Afternoon Smackdown--Karl Rove verses Sheryl Crow

That's right! This has got to be one of the biggest smackdowns yet--President Bush's top political advisor takes on a rock and roll superstar. In the right corner, we've got our champion! He is the hard-charging, Turdblossomed, ultimate White House political advisor....Yes, we're about Bush's Brain here--Karl Rove:

Karl Rove

And the challenger--she's sexy! She's sassy! She is the nine-time Grammy winning American blues rock singer, guitarist, bassist, and songwriter! Every Day is a Winding Road for her--Sheryl Crow:

Sheryl Crow

They are in the Smackdown Ring now! And here is the bell!

Let's start with this New York Times article here:

WASHINGTON, April 22 — Put celebrity environmental activists in a room with top Bush administration officials and a meeting of the minds could result. At least that is a theoretical possibility.

The more likely outcome is that an argument will break out, as it did at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner on Saturday night between Karl Rove, the president’s deputy chief of staff, and the singer Sheryl Crow and Laurie David, a major Democratic donor and a producer of the global warming documentary featuring Al Gore, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Ms. Crow and Ms. David, who have been visiting campuses in an event billed as the Stop Global Warming College Tour, approached Mr. Rove to urge him to take “a fresh look” at global warming, they said later.

[....]

Ms. Crow was at the dinner as a guest of Bloomberg News. Ms. David and her husband, Larry David, a creator of “Seinfeld,” were guests of CNN. Mr. Rove was a guest of The New York Times.

The one thing all three parties agree on is that the conversation quickly became heated.

As Ms. Crow and Ms. David described it on the Huffington Post Web site on Sunday, when Mr. Rove turned toward his table, Ms. Crow touched his arm and “Karl swung around and spat, ‘Don’t touch me.’ ”

Oh what a spat! I guess the last thing you would want to do is place a sassy celebrity environmental activist with the Turdblossom himself. What is even more amazing is how Rove didn't want to be touched by Crow. What would have happened if someone as sassy and sexy as Sheryl Crow touched Karl Rove's arm--would Karl Rove's arm have burst into flaming conflagration, thus consuming Bush's Brain into the fiery depths of Hell? Come to think of it, Sheryl Crow can touch me anytime she wants!

But let's get back to our Smackdown! According to the NY Times:

Both sides agreed that Ms. Crow told him, “You can’t speak to us like that, you work for us,” to which Mr. Rove responded, “I don’t work for you, I work for the American people.” Ms. Crow and Ms. David wrote that Ms. Crow shot back, “We are the American people.”

OUCH! That left hook sent the Turdblossom down on the mat! Is Sheryl Crow an American citizen? According to Sheryl Crow's biography on her website, she was born in Missouri--that's about as country of a country gal that you can get! There are even more details in a Wikipedia biography on Crow's early life:

Crow was born Sheryl Suzanne Crow in Kennett, Missouri. Her parents were members of a local big band in which her father, an attorney, played trumpet. The family was very musical and owned three pianos. In school, she was active in the school choir, athletics, and school plays. She was a drum majorette, a member of the Pep Club, the National Honor Society, the Future Farmers of America, she was the Freshman Maid, the Senior Maid, and the Paperdoll Queen. She was a perfectionist who strove to please her parents. When her prom date was later questioned about her fame, he said that at the time he thought she "would be a doctor's wife someday". She graduated in 1984 from the University of Missouri, where she majored in music education with a concentration in piano and was a member of Kappa Alpha Theta, Sigma Alpha Iota, and Omicron Delta Kappa.

Looks to me like Sheryl Crow is an American citizen. And since Crow is not a convicted felon, that would mean that she is also an American voter. So Karl Rove does work for Sheryl Crow--that is, unless Rove has decided to embark on career change as rapper MC Rove. And Karl Rove certainly is a public servant. A July 11, 2006 National Journal article lists Rove's White House employment position as Assistant to the President, Deputy Chief of Staff & Senior adviser, drawing a salary of $165,200. I don't think the Republican National Committee paid for Rove's salary here--you, me, Sheryl Crown, and the rest of the American taxpayers are paying for Rove's employment. So Karl--you do work for Sheryl Crow here! And Ms. Crow has every right to criticize you and the Bush administration's failed policy on global warming. But it is obvious that you only want to listen to the 30-36 percent of Kool-aid drinking Bush supporters, Big Oil and Corporate interests--and not the rest of the American people that you supposedly claim to work for.

And our Monday Afternoon Smackdown winner is....Sheryl Crow!

But we've got more on our post-smackdown analysis. Here's the Bush White House PR-spin on our smackdown event:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Karl Rove, political strategist to President George W. Bush, just wanted to have fun at a weekend black-tie dinner, rather than debate global warming with singer Sheryl Crow, the White House said on Monday.

"I think Karl Rove just wanted to have some fun on Saturday night. And I think he wasn't the only one," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, in an apparent reference to lyrics of Crow's signature hit, "All I Wanna Do (is have some fun)."

Did Rove leave the dinner early in a huff over the confrontation? "Rove left to get in the motorcade to go home. That's what we all have to do if we're in the motorcade," she said.

"The president's record on climate change is very strong, Perino said.

Environmentalists have long assailed Bush, a former Texas oilman with close support in the industry, saying he failed to take climate change seriously.

I guess that somebody was a bad spoiled-sport here. Karl Rove just wanted to have fun, but apparently he couldn't handle a spirited debate on the Bush administration's own failed global warming policy. Not only does Rove reject the idea that he doesn't work for 2/3rds of the American public, but he stomps off as a sore loser while having the Bush White House spin another lie that Rove just wanted to go home. In fact, Karl Rove doesn't even give a quote or a comment to the press on this smackdown--the Bush White House has to provide the PR-spin. Then again, what did you expect from the Bush administration.

And as for the post-smackdown analysis from Sheryl Crow and Laurie David, let's go to The Huffington Post:

Last night Thelma and Louise drove the bus off the cliff or at least into the White House Correspondents Dinner. The "highlight" of the evening had to be when we were introduced to Karl Rove. How excited were we to have our first opportunity ever to talk directly to the Bush Administration about global warming.

We asked Mr. Rove if he would consider taking a fresh look at the science of global warming. Much to our dismay, he immediately got combative. And it went downhill from there.

We reminded the senior White House advisor that the US leads the world in global warming pollution and we are doing the least about it. Anger flaring, Mr. Rove immediately regurgitated the official Administration position on global warming which is that the US spends more on researching the causes than any other country.

We felt compelled to remind him that the research is done and the results are in (www.IPCC.ch). Mr. Rove exploded with even more venom. Like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum, Mr. Rove launched into a series of illogical arguments regarding China not doing enough thus neither should we. (Since when do we follow China's lead?)

At some point during his ramblings, we became heartbroken to think that the President of the United States and his top advisers have partially built a career on global warming not being real. We have been telling college students across the country for the past two weeks that government does not change until people demand it... well, listen up folks, everyone had better get a lot louder because the message clearly is not getting through.

In his attempt to dismiss us, Mr. Rove turned to head toward his table, but as soon as he did so, Sheryl reached out to touch his arm. Karl swung around and spat, "Don't touch me." How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow? Unfazed, Sheryl abruptly responded, "You can't speak to us like that, you work for us." Karl then quipped, "I don't work for you, I work for the American people." To which Sheryl promptly reminded him, "We are the American people."

At that point Mr. Rove apparently decided he had had enough. Like a groundhog fearful of his own shadow, he scurried to his table in an attempt to hibernate for another year from his responsibility to address global warming. Drama aside, you would expect as an American citizen to be able to engage in a civil discussion with a public official. Instead, Mr. Rove was dismissive, condescending, and quite frankly a bully.

Ultimately, we were left wondering what on Earth Mr. Rove was talking about when he said "the American people." If more than 60% of American voters, the Supreme Court, over 400 cities, the US National Academy of Sciences, numerous major US corporations, and others don't constitute the American people, then what does? The truth is, if this administration cared one iota about the American people, they would have addressed this problem long ago, and the sad reality is that this problem has been left to us, all of us, since the current administration has abandoned this issue entirely. In the absence of true leadership, we must guide ourselves. We can solve this, but we had better act fast.

That is it for Monday Afternoon Smackdown. Join us next time for another exciting episode!

Bush almost blows himself up with a hydrogen-powered hybrid car

Ford President Alan Mulally, right, had to be quick on his feet to make sure President Bush plugged a power cord into the right socket on a Ford hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid. Mark Wilson / Getty Images

I found this story through Crooks and Liars, so I went to the original source at The Detroit News:

Credit Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally with saving the leader of the free world from self-immolation.

Mulally told journalists at the New York auto show that he intervened to prevent President Bush from plugging an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank of Ford's hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid at the White House last week. Ford wanted to give the Commander-in-Chief an actual demonstration of the innovative vehicle, so the automaker arranged for an electrical outlet to be installed on the South Lawn and ran a charging cord to the hybrid. However, as Mulally followed Bush out to the car, he noticed someone had left the cord lying at the rear of the vehicle, near the fuel tank.

"I just thought, 'Oh my goodness!' So, I started walking faster, and the President walked faster and he got to the cord before I did. I violated all the protocols. I touched the President. I grabbed his arm and I moved him up to the front," Mulally said. "I wanted the president to make sure he plugged into the electricity, not into the hydrogen. This is all off the record, right?"

The only comment I would have on this story can be perfectly expressed with this classic YouTube video:



God bless Monty Python.

Supreme Court orders EPA to regulate car emissions

This is a major case. From The Washington Post:

The Supreme Court today ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, narrowly siding with 12 states and various environmental groups in a battle with the Bush administration over global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled after a four-year court battle that the EPA has "a statutory obligation" under the Clean Air Act to regulate cars' emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It said the agency based its refusal to do so on "impermissible considerations" in an arbitrary and capricious way and that it must take a fresh look at the issue, grounding its reasons for action or inaction on the law.

The ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA represented a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration, which has steadfastly resisted mandatory limits on greenhouse gases on grounds that such restrictions would harm the U.S. economy. The administration has also disputed scientific evidence that global warming is a largely man-made phenomenon, contending that the jury is still out on the extent of the role that natural factors are playing in the current climate change trend.

In reaching its decision, the court's majority ruled that carbon dioxide and other emissions that trap heat in the earth's atmosphere fit the definition of "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act and that the government thus has the authority to regulate them.

"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. Joining him were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Anthony M. Kennedy.

Dissenting were the four most conservative members of the court: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

What is important about this case is that it forces the EPA to set standards for regulating "greenhouse gases" emissions on the auto industry. The Bush administration has been hiding behind two arguments in resisting such greenhouse gases regulations--that such regulations would harm the U.S. economy, and that there is no scientific evidence supporting greenhouse gases as causing global warming. The Supreme Court has rejected the EPA, and the Bush administration's, arguments on this environmental issue. Now the EPA is being forced to set standards on these gases, thus requiring the auto industry to develop technologies reducing such gases to be incorporated into new cars for sale in the U.S. Now the Bush administration's EPA will probably set the most lax standards they can for curbing greenhouse gases on the auto industry. But if a Democratic president is elected in 2008, then you are going to see an EPA that will institute much stronger standards for curbing greenhouse gases on the auto industry. This is going to force the auto industry to develop new technologies to make their cars more environmentally friendly.

This is going to be interesting to watch.

Your Thursday Evening Smackdown--James Inhofe verses Nancy Pelosi

What a week of congressional smackdowns. I found this little smackdown between Rep. James Inhofe (R-OK) verses House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during former Vice President Al Gore's testimony in Congress on global warming. From YouTube:



Pelosi smacks down Inhofe--Elections have consequences!

One final note--the smile on Gore's face as Pelosi smacks down Inhofe is priceless.

Thousands protest Bush's trip to Brazil

Brazilian police take cover behind their shields while clashing with protesters demonstrating against the visit by U.S. President George W. Bush, scheduled to arrive later in the day for the first leg of a tour of five Latin American countries, along Sao Paulo's Paulista Avenue, March 8, 2007. (Caetano Barreira/Reuters)

This is off CNN.com:

SAO PAULO, Brazil (AP) -- Police clashed Thursday with students, environmentalists and left-leaning Brazilians protesting a visit by President Bush and his push for an ethanol energy alliance with Latin America's largest nation.

Riot police fired tear gas at protesters in Sao Paulo after more than 6,000 people held a largely peaceful march, sending hundreds of demonstrators fleeing and ducking into businesses to avoid the gas.

There were no immediate reports of injuries, but some protesters said they had been beaten by officers after marching two miles through the financial heart of South America's largest city just hours before Bush was scheduled to arrive.

Clashes between police and anti-Bush protesters were also reported in Colombia, where Bush is scheduled to visit on Sunday as part of his five-nation tour to Latin America.

Bush has spoken approvingly of Brazil's ethanol program, which powers eight out of every 10 new Brazilian cars. The proposed accord is meant to help turn ethanol into an internationally traded commodity and to promote sugarcane-based ethanol production in Central America and the Caribbean.

In Sao Paulo, some carried stalks of sugarcane -- used to make ethanol -- and a banner reading: "For every liter of ethanol produced, 4 liters of fresh water are consumed, monoculture is destroying the nation's greatest asset."

And in the southern city of Porto Alegre, more than 500 people yelled "Get out, imperialist!" as they marched to a Citigroup Inc. bank branch and burned an effigy of Bush.

[....]

Graffiti reading "Get Out, Bush! Assassin!" appeared on walls near the locations Bush will drive past as he begins a Latin American tour that also includes stops in Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico.

At National University in Bogota, Colombia, 200 masked students clashed with 300 anti-riot police and shouted "Out Bush!" Police fired tear gas, and the students hurled back rocks and small homemade explosives called "potato bombs" -- aluminum foil wrapped around gunpowder. There were no immediate reports of injuries or arrests.

And in Mexico City, which Bush is scheduled to visit Tuesday, about two dozen demonstrators gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy chanting slogans against the U.S. project to construct border fences and Bush's visit.

"Why is he coming here? It makes no sense, it's unreasonable, after all he's done," said protest leader Roman Diaz Vazquez, a lawyer. "We don't like him. Why is he coming, after he ordered the construction of the border wall?"

Carmelo Ramirez Reyes showed up for the protest in a devil's mask, carrying a placard reading "My name is George Bush, killer of Mexicans."

MSNBC News has more on Bush's Latin America trip:

WASHINGTON - President Bush sought to reverse an impression of U.S. neglect as he opened a weeklong tour of Latin America on Thursday. Street protests awaited him.

President Bush's trip through Latin America. From AP Graphics.

Bush's trip was intended to promote democracy, increased trade and cooperation on alternative fuels. The president and his advisers also hoped his visit would offset the growing influence of leftist leaders, such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

As he flew here on Air Force One, Bush's national security adviser brushed aside Chavez's provocations. "The president is going to do what he's been doing for a long time: talk about a positive agenda," said Stephen Hadley.

Bush played down the protests in interviews ahead of his trip with Latin American news organizations.

"I am proud to be going to a part of the world where people can demonstrate, where people can express their minds," he said in an interview with Univision. And he told CNN En Espanol: "The trip is to remind people that we care."

In other words, this is a political trip that was designed to hopefully bolster Bush's presidential legacy. For six years, the Bush administration had practically ignored the problems of Latin America, only now to "remind" Latin Americans that the administration really cares about their affairs. Think about the scandals and siege mentality this Bush White House has been under. The midterm elections were a disaster for President Bush and the Republicans, since the Democrats have taken control of Congress. New scandals have emerged with the horrendous conditions at Walter Reed, the political firings of eight U.S. attorneys, the Scooter Libby guilty verdict and the re-emergence of the White House involvement into the Valerie Plame scandal. And finally, we have the continued disaster in Iraq, with the congressional Democrats pushing stronger legislation for pulling the U.S. out of the war. President Bush's "legacy" is going straight into the toilet. This Latin American trip was designed to create some positive political news that the Bush White House and Republicans can spin.

But it appears that the positive news of President Bush's Latin American trip might just be overshadowed by a growing protest movement against the Bush White House. Keep your eyes on this one. For they are protesting against President Bush in Brazil even before Bush has arrived there. If we start seeing protest movements numbering 10-to-20 thousand or more, while Bush is visiting, then no amount of positive White House spin will be able to counter the even bigger story of the protest movement.

Friday Fun Stuff--Global Warming and the hypocrisy of Exxon

I just love the smell of hypocrisy on a Friday afternoon. It smells like....Global Warming. This story has been all over the blogosphere, on Shakespeare's Sister, Americablog, The Washington Monthly, and even Crooks and Liars. So what is the story?

Let's start off with this little CBS News story on global warming:

(AP) Global warming is so severe that it will "continue for centuries," leading to a far different planet in 100 years, warned a grim landmark report from the world's leading climate scientists and government officials. Yet, many of the experts are hopeful that nations will now take action to avoid the worst scenarios.

They tried to warn of dire risks without scaring people so much they'd do nothing _ inaction that would lead to the worst possible scenarios.

"It's not too late," said Australian scientist Nathaniel Bindoff, a co-author of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report issued Friday. The worst can be prevented by acting quickly to curb greenhouse gas emissions, he said.

The worst could mean more than 1 million dead and hundreds of billions of dollars in costs by 2100, said Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, one of many study co-authors. He said that adapting will mean living with more extreme weather such as severe droughts, more hurricanes and wildfires.

"It's later than we think," said panel co-chair Susan Solomon, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist who helped push through the document's strong language.

Solomon, who remains optimistic about the future, said it's close to too late to alter the future for her children _ but maybe it's not too late for her grandchildren.

The report was the first of four to be released this year by the panel, which was created by the United Nations in 1988. It found:

_Global warming is "very likely" caused by man, meaning more than 90 percent certain. That's the strongest expression of certainty to date from the panel.

_If nothing is done to change current emissions patterns of greenhouse gases, global temperature could increase as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

_But if the world does get greenhouse gas emissions under control _ something scientists say they hope can be done _ the best estimate is about 3 degrees Fahrenheit.

_Sea levels are projected to rise 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. Add another 4 to 8 inches if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

Sea level rise could get worse after that. By 2100, if nothing is done to curb emissions, the melting of Greenland's ice sheet would be inevitable and the world's seas would eventually rise by more than 20 feet, Bindoff said.

Yes, global warming is back in the news again--and it is even direr than we thought. The scientists are 90 percent certain that global warming is being caused by man--not by some natural cause. And even worst, it is through mankinds burning of fossil fuels that is causing the greenhouse gas emissions to trap sunlight within the earth's atmosphere, resulting in this warming trend. Can something be done to save us from this terrifying fate?

Yes! Something can be done! According to this Guardian Unlimited story, titled Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study:

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

[....]

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

That's right--Exxon is going to save us from the dangers of global warming by bribing scientists to write articles contesting the validity of the overwhelming scientific evidence showing the relationship between the burning of fossil fuels to global warming. Even better yet, Exxon is funneling this bribery money through its proxy think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute--can't allow Exxon to be directly linked to these bribes, even though Exxon's former CEO Lee Raymond is the vice chair of AEI's board of trustees. Of course, Exxon's not hurting by this global warming trend:

HOUSTON, Feb. 1 — Exxon Mobil reported a record annual profit today but a modest decline in fourth-quarter earnings because of falling oil and gas prices. Meanwhile, its competitor Royal Dutch Shell reported an unexpected rise in quarterly earnings, a sign that the industry is still going strong.

[....]

Exxon, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, reported profit of $10.3 billion in the fourth quarter. That represented a decline of 4.3 percent from its record profit in the fourth quarter of 2005 and was Exxon’s first quarterly decline in almost three years.

But for the year, Exxon’s profit rose 9 percent from 2005 results to a record of $39.5 billion, the largest annual profit ever for an American company.

Oil prices for the quarter ranged between $55 and $63 a barrel, averaging just shy of $60. That represented a 15 percent decline from the third quarter and was less than 1 percent lower than the fourth quarter of 2005.

Graph of Exxon's yearly profits for the past six years. From the New York Times.

Or perhaps we should understand that Exxon is not going to save us from the dangers of global warming, but rather save their own overly bloated corporate ass, and Exxon's former CEO Lee Raymonds own bloated retirement package from the evils of scientific facts that have a liberal bias.

Then again, maybe I should get involved in this debate on global warming--I mean, if Exxon's willing to pay me $10,000 to criticize this global warming report, I'll do it. I'll admit that I don't have a scientific background, but who really needs a scientific background to write such fiction that can be passed off as fact through the AEI? Global warming is not caused by the buildup of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. That is what these scientific think-tanks want you to think--remember, science has a liberal bias. The real truth of the matter is that global warming has been caused by the emission of certain gases from former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond, just after he consumed his $400 million pork retirement dinner. There has been a steady buildup of volatile, intestinal gas within Raymond, which is then expelled through the anus. It is the release of these gases that have trapped the sunlight within the earth's atmosphere, causing the planet to heat up. Instead of reducing the demand for burning fossil fuels, I have determined through rigorous, scientific study, that this global warming trend can be reversed if Raymond would use his $400 million retirement package to buy up the world's supply of Pepto-Bismol. The results are conclusive:



Thus, Exxon-Mobil can continue to drill for oil and gouge American customers at the gas pumps.



So can I have my $10,000 bribe?

Some more info on Bush's polluting the environment with leaded gas

This is off the December 8, 2006 Los Angeles Times:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday streamlined the way it updates regulations for the nation's worst air pollutants, a move that drew immediate charges that officials are trying to quash scientific review to benefit industry at the expense of public health.

The changes, some of which closely mirror requests by the American Petroleum Institute and Battery Council International industry groups, include shortening what is now an exhaustive scientific review, and replacing recommendations prepared by career scientists and reviewed by independent advisors with a "policy paper" crafted by senior White House appointees at the agency.

[....]

"EPA is bringing air rule-making into the 21st century … with a timely and transparent process that uses the most up-to-date science," said Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock, who approved the new procedures. "Everyone has found the current process is inefficient, and current delays are unacceptable."

[....]

[The] announcement came two days after the agency announced it would study whether lead should be taken off the list of the most serious pollutants.

It also follows controversial decisions this fall by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson in which critics said he had ignored scientific counsel on tightening standards for deadly soot.

For 30 years under the Clean Air Act, agency scientists have reviewed and recommended health standards for six major air pollutants: ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and lead.

The standards, which limit amounts of the pollutants that can be released into the air, are designed to protect children, the elderly and other "sensitive" populations, and curtail damage to animals, crops, vegetation, views and buildings.

Congress members, environmentalists and past EPA staff from Republican and Democratic administrations swiftly condemned this week's actions, saying they could undermine public health protections.

"EPA is downgrading the role of its own career experts and making sure that political appointees are running the show from the beginning," said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch in Washington. "It is little wonder that the oil industry pushed for exactly this sort of 'reform' to the process."

O'Donnell called the lead assessment "a political gift to the lead-smelting lobby…. It could threaten thousands of children who breathe toxic lead fumes."

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), incoming chairman of the Government Reform Committee, said in a statement Thursday, "EPA's efforts to roll back … the most fundamental provisions in the Clean Air Act make no sense, and fly in the face of last month's elections."

It makes perfect sense for the Bush administration. First, you pull out the scientific data and recommendations and replace it with political hack written by White House flunkies--all in the interest of giving corporate interests, such as the American Petroleum Institute and Battery Council International, the legal right to pollute indiscriminately. The oil and gas industry gave over $25 million in campaign contributions in the 2004 presidential elections. Eighty percent of those contributions went to the Republicans, with President Bush receiving over $2.6 million in campaign contributions. I don't have any information as to whether the Battery Council International gave any political campaign contributions to President Bush. Continuing with the LA Times article:

The Chicago-based Battery Council International asked the EPA in July to delete lead from the list of "criteria" pollutants, which are subject to tough health standards. The council said other existing regulations would preserve protection.

Emissions of lead have declined by 96% since its use in gasoline was banned. Agency staff this year found only two sites in the country where lead emissions still exceeded limits, both near smelting facilities used as part of battery manufacturing.

Recent studies have suggested that lead is more harmful than previously thought. But EPA staffers said in a draft paper this week that they would assess whether tough health standards could be revoked.

The ban on leaded gasoline will continue no matter what, agency staff said, as will other rules.

[....]

The American Petroleum Institute this year wrote the EPA saying the long-established staff paper on each key pollutant should not be a science-based document but "is a policy document, and as such should have input from senior EPA management."

On Thursday, the agency eliminated the staff papers and replaced them with a separate science assessment that will no longer include policy recommendations, and a "policy assessment" to be prepared by senior EPA managers.

Neither the battery council nor the petroleum institute returned phone calls and e-mails requesting comment.

It is interesting how the Battery Council International wants the lead standards lowered near the two lead smelting plants. In fact, the Battery Council's entire goal for increasing the amount of lead in gasoline is to take the two lead smelting facilities off the list where lead emissions exceeds the EPA limits. It is an end-run around a health and environmental cost that the Battery Council International doesn't want to pay.

And of course, you've got to love the American Petroleum Institute’s ideas on policy papers--take the science out of the staff papers, while playing up these "policy assessment" papers "prepared by senior EPA managers." Senior EPA managers--not scientists! EPA managers who are appointed by the Bush administration, and will certainly not take the time to read scientific data on these pollutants, but rather will make their decisions on policy recommendations bought and paid for by corporate interests.

Sickening--isn't it?

Bush's EPA: Leaded gas may return, along with lower standards

I'm filing this under WTF? I'm not sure I even have a comment on it, aside from the desire to throw up after reading this story. From CNN.Com:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration is considering doing away with health standards that cut lead from gasoline, widely regarded as one of the nation's biggest clean-air accomplishments.

The Environmental Protection Agency said this week that revoking those standards might be justified "given the significantly changed circumstances since lead was listed in 1976" as an air pollutant, claiming that concentrations of lead in the air have dropped more than 90 percent in the past 2 1/2 decades. Battery makers, lead smelters, refiners all have lobbied the administration to do away with the Clean Air Act limits.

But Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, called on the agency to "renounce this dangerous proposal immediately," because lead, a highly toxic element, can cause severe nerve damage, especially in children.

The Bush administration wants to bring back lead in gasoline, simply because the concentrations of lead have dropped for the past 25 years? Who in this administration has thought up this boondoggle for more pollution? Even better yet, who is paying the Bush White House for promoting this insane idea?

How about the corporate interests building batteries, smelting lead, and energy refiners? I wonder how much they paid into President Bush's campaign coffers?

Historian says peak oil production is still a quarter-century away

McClatchy graphics

This is off McClatchy Washington Bureau:

WASHINGTON - Far from being a nearly exhausted resource, the world's oil reserves are three times bigger than what some popular estimates state, and peak global oil production is still about a quarter-century away, according to a new study by Pulitzer Prize-winning oil historian Daniel Yergin.

The remaining oil resource base is about 3.74 trillion barrels, according to a report released Tuesday by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, which Yergin runs. That's more than three times the 1.2 trillion barrels that "peak-oil" theorists suggest.

CERA's report, titled "Why the Peak Oil Theory Falls Down," challenges an increasingly popular view that the world is about to run out of oil. On the contrary, CERA argues that the world is likely to begin running out of oil between 2030 and the middle of the century. Even so, CERA says, efforts are needed now to push that date back, such as new oil field discoveries, new technologies, energy conservation and alternative energy sources.

This is certainly a fascinating study where more details can be found in the press release. But the CERA report will cost you quite a few barrels of oil--priced at $1,000 for each 16-page report. This debate has been going on for years between the energy conservationists, who use the peak oil theory as evidence for demanding a reduction of U.S. foreign oil imports while increasing renewable energy sources and conservation, and the Big Oil companies intent on drilling everywhere for energy (Can you say ANWR?). In reality, both sides are wrong. I doubt that the world is going to run out of oil, as the peak oil theorists predict with gloom and doom. The CERA report shows that the peak oil theorists failed to include the incorporation of new technologies into their theory--technologies "that permit drilling more than 7,000 feet below the ocean's surface or extracting oil from tar-like deposits in sandy soil found in western Canada." We certainly do not know where future oil supplies may exist on the deep ocean floor, or in unexplored areas throughout the world. But that doesn't mean that the conservationists' calls for renewal energy production and conservation should be discarded--if anything, the United States should embark on a program to reduce its imports of foreign oil through conservation and renewed energy sources. Because there certainly is one argument to show why the U.S. should reduce its addiction to foreign oil, and that argument is Iraq.

At the same time, this report isn't the magic bullet for Big Oil. Increasing oil production isn't the magic cure-all for America's energy problems. One prime example is that for all the marketing spin showing how many steps Big Oil can take in protecting the environment, money and economics will always trump the environment for Big Oil. British Petroleum had to shut down its Prudhoe Bay operations due to pipeline corrosion. What is more, federal investigators have turned up documents showing that BP knew about the pipeline corrosion problems for years, and failed to do anything about the problem. In other words, cost-cutting on maintenance and repairs in order to increase profits were more important to BP than maintaining the environment surrounding the pipelines. In Canada, oil companies plan to strip-mine 50 percent of the entire 3,450-square-kilometer McClelland Lake Wetland Complex for oil and tar sands. The McClelland Lake Wetland Complex " is home to numerous rare plants, including five insect-eating species." This type of energy mining is already creating controversy between the oil companies and environmentalists. More than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled in 44 oil spills,ranging from industrial plants, oil storage depots, and other facilities in Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. These are just a few of the problems between the oil companies and their environmental record. There are also problems of corruption within the oil companies, where oil and energy companies have even scammed the federal government out of energy royalties, while the Bush administration has turned a blind eye away from regulation and enforcement. And there are certainly other examples of corruption within U.S. oil companies here, here, and here. Power corrupts.

So what does this report mean? It means that while the world may not run out of oil until 2030, the United States still has a problem with its dependence upon foreign oil. It has been our addiction to foreign oil that has caused us to become involved in a disastrous war in Iraq. We are going to have to find a way to balance the development of renewable energy sources, conservation, and the exploration of new oil reserves in order to resolve our energy problems. And right now, I don't see that happening for a long time.