Noam Chomsky offers a frightening perspective on the propoaganda being perpetuated by the few about Global Warming:
The 2010 elections could be interpreted as a “death knell for the species” because most of the new Republicans in Congress are global warming deniers. “If this was happening in some small country," Chomsky concludes, "it wouldn’t matter much. But when it’s happening in the richest, most powerful country in the world, it’s a danger to the survival of the species.”
In this sixth video in the series “Peak Oil and a Changing Climate” from The Nation and On The Earth Productions, linguist, philosopher and political activist Noam Chomsky talks about the Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute and other business lobbies enthusiastically carrying out campaigns “to try and convince the population that global warming is a liberal hoax.” According to Chomsky, this massive public relations campaign has succeeded in leading a good portion of the population into doubting the human causes of global warming.
Known for his criticism of the media, Chomsky doesn't hold back in this clip, laying blame on mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times, which will run frontpage articles on what meteorologists think about global warming. “Meteorologists are pretty faces reading scripts telling you whether it’s going to rain tomorrow," Chomsky says. "What do they have to say any more than your barber?” All this is part of the media’s pursuit of “fabled objectivity.”
Of particular concern for Chomsky is the atmosphere of anger, fear and hostility that currently reigns in America. The public’s hatred of Democrats, Republicans, big business and banks and the public’s distrust of scientists all lead to general disregard for the findings of “pointy-headed elitists.” The 2010 elections could be interpreted as a “death knell for the species” because most of the new Republicans in Congress are global warming deniers. “If this was happening in some small country," Chomsky concludes, "it wouldn’t matter much. But when it’s happening in the richest, most powerful country in the world, it’s a danger to the survival of the species.”
Go here to learn more about "Peak Oil and a Changing Climate," and to see the other videos in the series.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Buying a judgeship for $39,775?
In the wake of the Probation Dept. scandal and much else in Massachusetts politics that simply reeks with unqualified appointments and corruption, one might expect conduct to be beyond reproach. Not so when this issue raises questions about an unqualified candidate achieving a lifetime appointment.
The arrogance of Beacon Hill clearly needs some humility.
Hingham lawmaker’s wife gets judgeship
By Nancy Reardon Stewart
Patriot Ledger State House Bureau
BOSTON — Heather Marie Stone Bradley will be a Plymouth County judge, but half of the Governor’s Council says she’s unqualified and doesn’t deserve the job.
Heather Bradley, the wife of state Rep. Garrett Bradley, D-Hingham, narrowly won approval this afternoon from the eight-member council, which confirms all of the governor’s judicial nominees.
The council had a tie vote, so Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray, who serves as chair and is usually a non-voting member, cast a rare vote to break the tie.
Heather Bradley’s nomination has been controversial after The Patriot Ledger reported that her husband has donated heavily to Gov. Deval Patrick, Murray and the state Democratic Party. Several Governor’s Council members also expressed concern over the political contributions at Heather Bradley’s nomination hearing last month.
She first applied for a judgeship in East Boston in 2008. She applied for the current Plymouth County position in May 2009.
Since that first application three years ago, Rep. Bradley and his campaign have made $39,775 in political donations. More than half of that – or $20,575 – went to Patrick, Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray and the state Democratic Party.
Councilor Kelly Timilty received $100 from Rep. Bradley in September and was asked to recuse herself from voting, but she refused.
When asked to refrain, Timilty said, “I will not.”
Timilty voted to approve Heather Bradley’s nomination.
Three of the four dissenting members rose to explain their vote.
Heather Bradley most recently has led the forfeiture unit of the Plymouth County District Attorney’s office.
Councilor Marilyn M. Petitto Devaney said she researched the job and found that over the last five years, the office has seen only 99 forfeiture cases.
“Only one forfeiture case has gone to trial in the past five years, lasting one hour,” she said.
Councilor Jennie Caissie said she believes Heather Bradley lacks exposure to many areas of law and had concerned over her lack of civil experience.
She also said that the political contributions “create the appearance this judgeship was bought and paid for.”
Councilor Charles Cipollini, who said she is “grossly unqualified,” said he plans to file a complaint with the state Ethics Commission over the possible tie between the political donations and her nomination.
The arrogance of Beacon Hill clearly needs some humility.
Hingham lawmaker’s wife gets judgeship
By Nancy Reardon Stewart
Patriot Ledger State House Bureau
BOSTON — Heather Marie Stone Bradley will be a Plymouth County judge, but half of the Governor’s Council says she’s unqualified and doesn’t deserve the job.
Heather Bradley, the wife of state Rep. Garrett Bradley, D-Hingham, narrowly won approval this afternoon from the eight-member council, which confirms all of the governor’s judicial nominees.
The council had a tie vote, so Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray, who serves as chair and is usually a non-voting member, cast a rare vote to break the tie.
Heather Bradley’s nomination has been controversial after The Patriot Ledger reported that her husband has donated heavily to Gov. Deval Patrick, Murray and the state Democratic Party. Several Governor’s Council members also expressed concern over the political contributions at Heather Bradley’s nomination hearing last month.
She first applied for a judgeship in East Boston in 2008. She applied for the current Plymouth County position in May 2009.
Since that first application three years ago, Rep. Bradley and his campaign have made $39,775 in political donations. More than half of that – or $20,575 – went to Patrick, Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray and the state Democratic Party.
Councilor Kelly Timilty received $100 from Rep. Bradley in September and was asked to recuse herself from voting, but she refused.
When asked to refrain, Timilty said, “I will not.”
Timilty voted to approve Heather Bradley’s nomination.
Three of the four dissenting members rose to explain their vote.
Heather Bradley most recently has led the forfeiture unit of the Plymouth County District Attorney’s office.
Councilor Marilyn M. Petitto Devaney said she researched the job and found that over the last five years, the office has seen only 99 forfeiture cases.
“Only one forfeiture case has gone to trial in the past five years, lasting one hour,” she said.
Councilor Jennie Caissie said she believes Heather Bradley lacks exposure to many areas of law and had concerned over her lack of civil experience.
She also said that the political contributions “create the appearance this judgeship was bought and paid for.”
Councilor Charles Cipollini, who said she is “grossly unqualified,” said he plans to file a complaint with the state Ethics Commission over the possible tie between the political donations and her nomination.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
We've allowed this to happen because of lack of leadership
Why should anyone be surprised by the WikiLeaks' revelations when Peak Saudi production was widely written about several years prior to T. Boone Pickens' comments?
T. Boone Pickens, who made his first billions in oil, said this in 2008:
WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices
US diplomat convinced by Saudi expert that reserves of world's biggest oil exporter have been overstated by nearly 40%
By John Vidal, environment editor
The US fears that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil exporter, may not have enough reserves to prevent oil prices escalating, confidential cables from its embassy in Riyadh show.
The cables, released by WikiLeaks, urge Washington to take seriously a warning from a senior Saudi government oil executive that the kingdom's crude oil reserves may have been overstated by as much as 300bn barrels – nearly 40%.
The revelation comes as the oil price has soared in recent weeks to more than $100 a barrel on global demand and tensions in the Middle East. Many analysts expect that the Saudis and their Opec cartel partners would pump more oil if rising prices threatened to choke off demand.
However, Sadad al-Husseini, a geologist and former head of exploration at the Saudi oil monopoly Aramco, met the US consul general in Riyadh in November 2007 and told the US diplomat that Aramco's 12.5m barrel-a-day capacity needed to keep a lid on prices could not be reached.
According to the cables, which date between 2007-09, Husseini said Saudi Arabia might reach an output of 12m barrels a day in 10 years but before then – possibly as early as 2012 – global oil production would have hit its highest point. This crunch point is known as "peak oil".
Husseini said that at that point Aramco would not be able to stop the rise of global oil prices because the Saudi energy industry had overstated its recoverable reserves to spur foreign investment. He argued that Aramco had badly underestimated the time needed to bring new oil on tap.
One cable said: "According to al-Husseini, the crux of the issue is twofold. First, it is possible that Saudi reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described, and the timeline for their production not as unrestrained as Aramco and energy optimists would like to portray."
It went on: "In a presentation, Abdallah al-Saif, current Aramco senior vice-president for exploration, reported that Aramco has 716bn barrels of total reserves, of which 51% are recoverable, and that in 20 years Aramco will have 900bn barrels of reserves.
"Al-Husseini disagrees with this analysis, believing Aramco's reserves are overstated by as much as 300bn barrels. In his view once 50% of original proven reserves has been reached … a steady output in decline will ensue and no amount of effort will be able to stop it. He believes that what will result is a plateau in total output that will last approximately 15 years followed by decreasing output."
The US consul then told Washington: "While al-Husseini fundamentally contradicts the Aramco company line, he is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered."
Seven months later, the US embassy in Riyadh went further in two more cables. "Our mission now questions how much the Saudis can now substantively influence the crude markets over the long term. Clearly they can drive prices up, but we question whether they any longer have the power to drive prices down for a prolonged period."
A fourth cable, in October 2009, claimed that escalating electricity demand by Saudi Arabia may further constrain Saudi oil exports. "Demand [for electricity] is expected to grow 10% a year over the next decade as a result of population and economic growth. As a result it will need to double its generation capacity to 68,000MW in 2018," it said.
It also reported major project delays and accidents as "evidence that the Saudi Aramco is having to run harder to stay in place – to replace the decline in existing production." While fears of premature "peak oil" and Saudi production problems had been expressed before, no US official has come close to saying this in public.
In the last two years, other senior energy analysts have backed Husseini. Fatih Birol, chief economist to the International Energy Agency, told the Guardian last year that conventional crude output could plateau in 2020, a development that was "not good news" for a world still heavily dependent on petroleum.
Jeremy Leggett, convenor of the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security, said: "We are asleep at the wheel here: choosing to ignore a threat to the global economy that is quite as bad as the credit crunch, quite possibly worse."
T. Boone Pickens, who made his first billions in oil, said this in 2008:
WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices
US diplomat convinced by Saudi expert that reserves of world's biggest oil exporter have been overstated by nearly 40%
By John Vidal, environment editor
The US fears that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil exporter, may not have enough reserves to prevent oil prices escalating, confidential cables from its embassy in Riyadh show.
The cables, released by WikiLeaks, urge Washington to take seriously a warning from a senior Saudi government oil executive that the kingdom's crude oil reserves may have been overstated by as much as 300bn barrels – nearly 40%.
The revelation comes as the oil price has soared in recent weeks to more than $100 a barrel on global demand and tensions in the Middle East. Many analysts expect that the Saudis and their Opec cartel partners would pump more oil if rising prices threatened to choke off demand.
However, Sadad al-Husseini, a geologist and former head of exploration at the Saudi oil monopoly Aramco, met the US consul general in Riyadh in November 2007 and told the US diplomat that Aramco's 12.5m barrel-a-day capacity needed to keep a lid on prices could not be reached.
According to the cables, which date between 2007-09, Husseini said Saudi Arabia might reach an output of 12m barrels a day in 10 years but before then – possibly as early as 2012 – global oil production would have hit its highest point. This crunch point is known as "peak oil".
Husseini said that at that point Aramco would not be able to stop the rise of global oil prices because the Saudi energy industry had overstated its recoverable reserves to spur foreign investment. He argued that Aramco had badly underestimated the time needed to bring new oil on tap.
One cable said: "According to al-Husseini, the crux of the issue is twofold. First, it is possible that Saudi reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described, and the timeline for their production not as unrestrained as Aramco and energy optimists would like to portray."
It went on: "In a presentation, Abdallah al-Saif, current Aramco senior vice-president for exploration, reported that Aramco has 716bn barrels of total reserves, of which 51% are recoverable, and that in 20 years Aramco will have 900bn barrels of reserves.
"Al-Husseini disagrees with this analysis, believing Aramco's reserves are overstated by as much as 300bn barrels. In his view once 50% of original proven reserves has been reached … a steady output in decline will ensue and no amount of effort will be able to stop it. He believes that what will result is a plateau in total output that will last approximately 15 years followed by decreasing output."
The US consul then told Washington: "While al-Husseini fundamentally contradicts the Aramco company line, he is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered."
Seven months later, the US embassy in Riyadh went further in two more cables. "Our mission now questions how much the Saudis can now substantively influence the crude markets over the long term. Clearly they can drive prices up, but we question whether they any longer have the power to drive prices down for a prolonged period."
A fourth cable, in October 2009, claimed that escalating electricity demand by Saudi Arabia may further constrain Saudi oil exports. "Demand [for electricity] is expected to grow 10% a year over the next decade as a result of population and economic growth. As a result it will need to double its generation capacity to 68,000MW in 2018," it said.
It also reported major project delays and accidents as "evidence that the Saudi Aramco is having to run harder to stay in place – to replace the decline in existing production." While fears of premature "peak oil" and Saudi production problems had been expressed before, no US official has come close to saying this in public.
In the last two years, other senior energy analysts have backed Husseini. Fatih Birol, chief economist to the International Energy Agency, told the Guardian last year that conventional crude output could plateau in 2020, a development that was "not good news" for a world still heavily dependent on petroleum.
Jeremy Leggett, convenor of the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security, said: "We are asleep at the wheel here: choosing to ignore a threat to the global economy that is quite as bad as the credit crunch, quite possibly worse."
The cost of Global Warming
Paul Krugman offered this interesting commentary on Global Warming:
Droughts, Floods and Food
By PAUL KRUGMAN
We’re in the midst of a global food crisis — the second in three years. World food prices hit a record in January, driven by huge increases in the prices of wheat, corn, sugar and oils. These soaring prices have had only a modest effect on U.S. inflation, which is still low by historical standards, but they’re having a brutal impact on the world’s poor, who spend much if not most of their income on basic foodstuffs.
The consequences of this food crisis go far beyond economics. After all, the big question about uprisings against corrupt and oppressive regimes in the Middle East isn’t so much why they’re happening as why they’re happening now. And there’s little question that sky-high food prices have been an important trigger for popular rage.
So what’s behind the price spike? American right-wingers (and the Chinese) blame easy-money policies at the Federal Reserve, with at least one commentator declaring that there is “blood on Bernanke’s hands.” Meanwhile, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France blames speculators, accusing them of “extortion and pillaging.”
But the evidence tells a different, much more ominous story. While several factors have contributed to soaring food prices, what really stands out is the extent to which severe weather events have disrupted agricultural production. And these severe weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases change our climate — which means that the current food price surge may be just the beginning.
Now, to some extent soaring food prices are part of a general commodity boom: the prices of many raw materials, running the gamut from aluminum to zinc, have been rising rapidly since early 2009, mainly thanks to rapid industrial growth in emerging markets.
But the link between industrial growth and demand is a lot clearer for, say, copper than it is for food. Except in very poor countries, rising incomes don’t have much effect on how much people eat.
It’s true that growth in emerging nations like China leads to rising meat consumption, and hence rising demand for animal feed. It’s also true that agricultural raw materials, especially cotton, compete for land and other resources with food crops — as does the subsidized production of ethanol, which consumes a lot of corn. So both economic growth and bad energy policy have played some role in the food price surge.
Still, food prices lagged behind the prices of other commodities until last summer. Then the weather struck.
Consider the case of wheat, whose price has almost doubled since the summer. The immediate cause of the wheat price spike is obvious: world production is down sharply. The bulk of that production decline, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, reflects a sharp plunge in the former Soviet Union. And we know what that’s about: a record heat wave and drought, which pushed Moscow temperatures above 100 degrees for the first time ever.
The Russian heat wave was only one of many recent extreme weather events, from dry weather in Brazil to biblical-proportion flooding in Australia, that have damaged world food production.
The question then becomes, what’s behind all this extreme weather?
To some extent we’re seeing the results of a natural phenomenon, La Niña — a periodic event in which water in the equatorial Pacific becomes cooler than normal. And La Niña events have historically been associated with global food crises, including the crisis of 2007-8.
But that’s not the whole story. Don’t let the snow fool you: globally, 2010 was tied with 2005 for warmest year on record, even though we were at a solar minimum and La Niña was a cooling factor in the second half of the year. Temperature records were set not just in Russia but in no fewer than 19 countries, covering a fifth of the world’s land area. And both droughts and floods are natural consequences of a warming world: droughts because it’s hotter, floods because warm oceans release more water vapor.
As always, you can’t attribute any one weather event to greenhouse gases. But the pattern we’re seeing, with extreme highs and extreme weather in general becoming much more common, is just what you’d expect from climate change.
The usual suspects will, of course, go wild over suggestions that global warming has something to do with the food crisis; those who insist that Ben Bernanke has blood on his hands tend to be more or less the same people who insist that the scientific consensus on climate reflects a vast leftist conspiracy.
But the evidence does, in fact, suggest that what we’re getting now is a first taste of the disruption, economic and political, that we’ll face in a warming world. And given our failure to act on greenhouse gases, there will be much more, and much worse, to come.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on February 7, 2011, on page A23 of the New York edition..
Droughts, Floods and Food
By PAUL KRUGMAN
We’re in the midst of a global food crisis — the second in three years. World food prices hit a record in January, driven by huge increases in the prices of wheat, corn, sugar and oils. These soaring prices have had only a modest effect on U.S. inflation, which is still low by historical standards, but they’re having a brutal impact on the world’s poor, who spend much if not most of their income on basic foodstuffs.
The consequences of this food crisis go far beyond economics. After all, the big question about uprisings against corrupt and oppressive regimes in the Middle East isn’t so much why they’re happening as why they’re happening now. And there’s little question that sky-high food prices have been an important trigger for popular rage.
So what’s behind the price spike? American right-wingers (and the Chinese) blame easy-money policies at the Federal Reserve, with at least one commentator declaring that there is “blood on Bernanke’s hands.” Meanwhile, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France blames speculators, accusing them of “extortion and pillaging.”
But the evidence tells a different, much more ominous story. While several factors have contributed to soaring food prices, what really stands out is the extent to which severe weather events have disrupted agricultural production. And these severe weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases change our climate — which means that the current food price surge may be just the beginning.
Now, to some extent soaring food prices are part of a general commodity boom: the prices of many raw materials, running the gamut from aluminum to zinc, have been rising rapidly since early 2009, mainly thanks to rapid industrial growth in emerging markets.
But the link between industrial growth and demand is a lot clearer for, say, copper than it is for food. Except in very poor countries, rising incomes don’t have much effect on how much people eat.
It’s true that growth in emerging nations like China leads to rising meat consumption, and hence rising demand for animal feed. It’s also true that agricultural raw materials, especially cotton, compete for land and other resources with food crops — as does the subsidized production of ethanol, which consumes a lot of corn. So both economic growth and bad energy policy have played some role in the food price surge.
Still, food prices lagged behind the prices of other commodities until last summer. Then the weather struck.
Consider the case of wheat, whose price has almost doubled since the summer. The immediate cause of the wheat price spike is obvious: world production is down sharply. The bulk of that production decline, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, reflects a sharp plunge in the former Soviet Union. And we know what that’s about: a record heat wave and drought, which pushed Moscow temperatures above 100 degrees for the first time ever.
The Russian heat wave was only one of many recent extreme weather events, from dry weather in Brazil to biblical-proportion flooding in Australia, that have damaged world food production.
The question then becomes, what’s behind all this extreme weather?
To some extent we’re seeing the results of a natural phenomenon, La Niña — a periodic event in which water in the equatorial Pacific becomes cooler than normal. And La Niña events have historically been associated with global food crises, including the crisis of 2007-8.
But that’s not the whole story. Don’t let the snow fool you: globally, 2010 was tied with 2005 for warmest year on record, even though we were at a solar minimum and La Niña was a cooling factor in the second half of the year. Temperature records were set not just in Russia but in no fewer than 19 countries, covering a fifth of the world’s land area. And both droughts and floods are natural consequences of a warming world: droughts because it’s hotter, floods because warm oceans release more water vapor.
As always, you can’t attribute any one weather event to greenhouse gases. But the pattern we’re seeing, with extreme highs and extreme weather in general becoming much more common, is just what you’d expect from climate change.
The usual suspects will, of course, go wild over suggestions that global warming has something to do with the food crisis; those who insist that Ben Bernanke has blood on his hands tend to be more or less the same people who insist that the scientific consensus on climate reflects a vast leftist conspiracy.
But the evidence does, in fact, suggest that what we’re getting now is a first taste of the disruption, economic and political, that we’ll face in a warming world. And given our failure to act on greenhouse gases, there will be much more, and much worse, to come.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on February 7, 2011, on page A23 of the New York edition..
Are You Getting Screwed on Your Property Taxes?
Unfair Property Taxes from WGBY on Vimeo.
Are you being over-assessed on your property taxes?
WGBY's Connecting Point interviews Patricia Quintilian, author of “Are You Getting Screwed on Your Property Taxes?”
How many people are paying too much? Quintilian says, "I would venture a guess.. that close to 7 out of 10 homes are over-assessed."
Watch the video above to hear her explanation why.
Connecting Point airs weeknights at 7:30 PM on WGBY.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Ah...ever faithful Eric!
The Boston Globe presented an interesting comparison, not particularly meaningful, about paroles under recent Governors.
What is striking about the 'Fehrstrom' quote is the fantasy it creates, ignoring that Governor Romney began campaigning for President as soon as he became Governor, was always 'out of town' when catastrophe struck and was forced to return to pretend he was governing.
Also ignored is that he gutted the state lab, creating a scandal in the early days of the Patrick Administration. How many crimes were never prosecuted because the statute of limitations ran out on the evidence testing? How many cases were overturned?
On a personal note, it's always curious that 'pro-life' folks are pro-death penalty and see no contradiction.
Parole records under Romney, Patrick similar
Data on releases reveal little about politics
Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney, defended his boss’s record...Romney... tried to bring back the death penalty. And he noted that Cinelli first came up for parole in 2005, when Romney was governor, and the board rejected him.
“Mitt Romney was a law-and-order governor who time and again demonstrated his commitment to keeping the public safe from violent criminals,’’ Fehrnstrom said in a statement last week. Romney, he said, tried to appoint board members with law enforcement backgrounds but met resistance from council members and legislators.
What is striking about the 'Fehrstrom' quote is the fantasy it creates, ignoring that Governor Romney began campaigning for President as soon as he became Governor, was always 'out of town' when catastrophe struck and was forced to return to pretend he was governing.
Also ignored is that he gutted the state lab, creating a scandal in the early days of the Patrick Administration. How many crimes were never prosecuted because the statute of limitations ran out on the evidence testing? How many cases were overturned?
On a personal note, it's always curious that 'pro-life' folks are pro-death penalty and see no contradiction.
Parole records under Romney, Patrick similar
Data on releases reveal little about politics
Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney, defended his boss’s record...Romney... tried to bring back the death penalty. And he noted that Cinelli first came up for parole in 2005, when Romney was governor, and the board rejected him.
“Mitt Romney was a law-and-order governor who time and again demonstrated his commitment to keeping the public safe from violent criminals,’’ Fehrnstrom said in a statement last week. Romney, he said, tried to appoint board members with law enforcement backgrounds but met resistance from council members and legislators.
Finally! Koch owns Congress!
The U.S. has long lacked a sensible energy policy and been held hostage by corporate interests while the rest of the world moves on.
The article below is worth reading in its entirety and clearly displays the short-sightedness of the wealthy Koch brothers. Bear in mind that they have aggressively opposed Cape Wind.
As we gradually destroy the world and its environment, making it uninhabitable for humans, they must believe they're immune.
Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power
The billionaire brothers' influence is most visible in the makeup of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where members have vowed to undo restrictions on greenhouse gases.
By Tom Hamburger, Kathleen Hennessey and Neela Banerjee, Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Washington — The billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch no longer sit outside Washington's political establishment, isolated by their uncompromising conservatism. Instead, they are now at the center of Republican power, a change most evident in the new makeup of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Wichita-based Koch Industries and its employees formed the largest single oil and gas donor to members of the panel, ahead of giants like Exxon Mobil, contributing $279,500 to 22 of the committee's 31 Republicans, and $32,000 to five Democrats.
Nine of the 12 new Republicans on the panel signed a pledge distributed by a Koch-founded advocacy group — Americans for Prosperity — to oppose the Obama administration's proposal to regulate greenhouse gases. Of the six GOP freshman lawmakers on the panel, five benefited from the group's separate advertising and grass-roots activity during the 2010 campaign.
Claiming an electoral mandate, Republicans on the committee have launched an agenda of the sort long backed by the Koch brothers. A top early goal: restricting the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the Kochs' core energy businesses.
The article below is worth reading in its entirety and clearly displays the short-sightedness of the wealthy Koch brothers. Bear in mind that they have aggressively opposed Cape Wind.
As we gradually destroy the world and its environment, making it uninhabitable for humans, they must believe they're immune.
Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power
The billionaire brothers' influence is most visible in the makeup of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where members have vowed to undo restrictions on greenhouse gases.
By Tom Hamburger, Kathleen Hennessey and Neela Banerjee, Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Washington — The billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch no longer sit outside Washington's political establishment, isolated by their uncompromising conservatism. Instead, they are now at the center of Republican power, a change most evident in the new makeup of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Wichita-based Koch Industries and its employees formed the largest single oil and gas donor to members of the panel, ahead of giants like Exxon Mobil, contributing $279,500 to 22 of the committee's 31 Republicans, and $32,000 to five Democrats.
Nine of the 12 new Republicans on the panel signed a pledge distributed by a Koch-founded advocacy group — Americans for Prosperity — to oppose the Obama administration's proposal to regulate greenhouse gases. Of the six GOP freshman lawmakers on the panel, five benefited from the group's separate advertising and grass-roots activity during the 2010 campaign.
Claiming an electoral mandate, Republicans on the committee have launched an agenda of the sort long backed by the Koch brothers. A top early goal: restricting the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the Kochs' core energy businesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
