J.C. Moore Online

Current events from a science perspective.

Congress is perilously close to defaulting on the loans the United States has received from other countries. Not only is it irresponsible for our country to default on its loans, but the consequences would be serious for US citizens and for our financial institutions.  Although there has been much blaming, buck passing, and finger-pointing – the responsibility for the budget and the debt clearly lies with Congress. It was unwise to pass tax cuts while the country was fighting two wars and irresponsible to insist on extending the tax cuts while our country was still at war, deeply in debt, and trying to recover from an economic recession.

The Constitution is clear about the responsibilities of Congress. Article 1, Section 7  says:

 “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

 It goes on that the President must sign the bill for it to become law, and if he does not, it shall be returned to Congress to reconsider it – or to overcome the President’s objection by passing it in both houses by a two thirds majority .

Further, Section 8 continues:

 ” The Congress shall have Power: To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. “ Among the powers enumerated is:  ”To borrow Money on the credit of the United States”.

 Would it be wrong to assume that the body given the power to borrow the money would not also be responsible for paying the debt – particularly when that same body has the responsibility of creating the budget?

Congress is clearly responsible for raising the revenue to pay our debts and run our government. Amendment XVI to the Constitution, passed in 1913, says:

 “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” 

 However, many of our Legislators have sworn an oath not to carry out the responsibilities of their office. (1) As of 2009, 172 members of the House of Representatives and 34 members of the Senate had taken Grover Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes.  Clearly, the pledge conflicts with their responsibilities under the Constitution and those who took the pledge need to decide whether their loyalties lie with the U.S. Constitution or with an anti-tax ideology.

(1) Those who signed the anti-tax pledge at the federal level are listed at  http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/Federal%20Pledge%20Signers%20112th%20Congress.pdf

Look up those who signed in your state and contact them.  Those who signed from Oklahoma, my state,  are Sen. Tom Coburn* (R), Sen Jim Inhofe (R),  Representatives John Sullivan (R),  Frank Lucas (R), Tom Cole (R), and James Lankford (R).

And if your state is unable to meet its financial obligations, those at the state level who have taken the anti-tax pledge are listed at: http://fredericacade.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/list-of-your-states-signers-signed-to-grover-norquist-controversial–pledge/

* In all fairness, Senator Coburn has worked on a bi-partisan budget solution and recently drew Grover Norquist’s ire by suggesting we might have to raise revenue.

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

Research credit:  Barbara moore

Election season is coming up, and many of our representatives are, or will be, holding town hall meetings. It is important that voters attend as many of these as possible, not only to express their opinions, but to decide if they wish to return the representative to Washington in the elections in 2012.   

Congressman Frank Lucas (R – OK) held one of his town hall meetings at the Hominy City Hall on April 19, 2011. He reported that the war in Iraq is winding down, but that Afghanistan continues to be a quagmire without a definite ending in sight.  There is concern about our role in Libya, but the President does have power to take limited military action without a formal declaration of war. He reported that the Legislature has become even more divided and partisan over the last year, and it is becoming very difficult to carry out the business of government. This year, Congress is mostly going to be about the budget, and little else is likely to get done.

A scientist in the audience explained that Dr. Patrick Michaels, who testified before Congress that there was no consensus among scientist on climate change, had been exposed for taking large payments from power companies to lobby for them. There is a consensus among scientists.  A recent survey showed that 97% of climate scientists active in research agree that global warming is happening and that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause. Every major scientific organization in the world has adopted a statement in agreement. Research has also shown that global warming is the cause of some of our extreme weather events, and that higher CO2 levels and warmer temperatures may damage crop yields. After that long explanation, the question was whether the Congressman, who will chair the Agriculture Committee next year, would be willing to hold hearings to determine if global warming might put our food supply at risk. The Congressman replied he could not make a commitment as yet.  

Note:  Later, on June 16^th, Rep. Lucas voted to prevent the Department of Agriculture from planning for future extreme weather and crop loss that scientists say will be the result of climate change.  Apparently Congressman Lucas does not believe the scientific evidence and does not want the Department of Agriculture examining the issue, though it poses a danger to our food supply.

When asked about Social Security, Congressman Lucas explained that, over the years, the surplus collected has been put in a trust fund in U.S. Treasury bonds. Though the government has borrowed against the surplus, it must be repaid and will be available to make future payments.  After the trust fund is exhausted, Social Security will pay benefits as money is collected, and benefits may be reduced by about 30% unless the system is tweaked by reducing benefits or raising the retirement age. A little research after the meeting showed that the trust fund is expected to be solvent until about 2034 but that the most popular tweak, raising the cap on FICA contributions, will make this trust fund solvent to about 2080.

One lady explained that we had just spent billions of dollars developing Head Start centers and now the money needed to operate them may be cut from the budget. Head Start allows many low income people with children to work as it reduces some of the expense of child care. What sense does it make to extend the tax cuts for wealthy citizens and then cut programs that benefit disadvantaged citizens and may even cost jobs? The Congressman commented that the mood in Congress was to cut taxes and reduce spending.

Another lady asked about the wild horses on ranches west of town. Congressman Lucas explained it was a program, apparently one he questions, that moved the horses to save them from being euthanized. The horses are a non-native species that damage range-land and the program costs $5 billion dollars. The lady from Head Start asked why we could spend $5 billion on horses, but not $5 billion on the Head Start program benefiting children.  

One constituent complemented Congressman Lucas on the Tulsa World article where he defended raising the debt limit so that the U.S. would not have its credit rating lowered, which would be disastrous for the country. He asked about the monetary policy which benefited the stock market, but hurt many retired people by keeping interest rates low. The Congressman pointed out that the policy was set by the Federal Reserve and it benefits those who borrow and hurts those who save. He suggested the policy might change, and suggested it might be wise to be sure any loans you have were at a fixed rate.

When asked about a flat tax, the Congressman explained he favored a “fair tax”, a national sales tax on all purchases. The states would collect the tax and it would end income tax. Putting the IRS out of business sounds good except that a little research shows that the “fair tax” would have to be about 30% on all goods and services. It would shift more of the tax burden to middle and lower income citizens and would hurt seniors, who have paid income tax all their lives and would now be taxed more on their purchases. 

When asked about the wisdom of subsidizing ethanol from corn, the Congressman replied that the subsidy program benefits corn producing states but hurts everyone else. It costs tax money and it raises the cost of animal feed and food. He commented that the corn producing states have a lot of political clout, and the policy might be hard to change. 

The discussion was lively and it was good that voters could ask questions and express our concerns to Congressman Lucas. The third district covers a large area, the Western two thirds of the state, and it should be appreciated that he conducted town hall meetings at many towns in his district. Elections are coming up and Oklahoma voters need to weigh carefully what he says, and how he votes, in order to decide if we should return Congressman Lucas to Washington.

While Congress is wrestling with the problem of keeping our country from going bankrupt, some in Congress and our business community are concerned with the serious problem of  – light bulb standards. The Investor Business Daily posted an editorial “Let There Be Lights” on 07/08/2011. (1)  Although it is an opinion piece, it does not represent an informed opinion. The article claims that the ban on incandescent light bulbs sums up everything that’s wrong with intrusive, nanny-state government. However,  there is no ban- just efficiency standards that some incandescent bulbs cannot meet.

It is interesting  that the The Republicans for Environmental Protection are opposed to eliminating the standards while Republicans in Congress, such as Joe Barton and  Michelle Bachmann are pushing  HR 91, a bill which is designed to scuttle the efficiency  standards. The Investor Business Daily editorial uses many of the  politician’s arguments, apparently without checking the facts.  The article starts :

”Energy: The ban on incandescent light bulbs sums up everything that’s wrong with intrusive, nanny-state government.”

But, there is no ban- just efficiency standards that some incandescent  bulbs cannot meet.  The Republicans for Environmental Protection are opposed to eliminating the standards and here is what they say:

“There is no light bulb ban. There never has been. The bulb ban rhetoric misrepresents a 2007 law that sets efficiency standards for general-purpose, screw-in light bulbs. In fact, new, efficient incandescent bulbs that meet the new standards are already on the shelves of your local Home Depot. That fact has not prevented Barton, Bachmann and others from pushing legislation, HR 91, to scuttle the new standards. It is likely that HR 91 will come up for a vote in the House over the next few weeks.” (2)

The Investor Business Daily opinion article goes on :

” As the law stands, the incandescent light, the greatest invention by America’s greatest inventor, Thomas Edison, will disappear at the end of this year. It is being replaced with an unproven substitute — the compact fluorescent light, or CFL — that is both politically foolish and bad science.”

 Eh? The incandescent bulb will not disappear. It will still be available in more efficient designs. And CFL bulbs for home use are based on the same proven technology as other fluorescent light bulbs.  I cannot think of a company, school, or public building that does not use fluorescent light bulbs to save energy and avoid maintenance costs.

The editorial also puts words in the mouths of proponents:

 “Proponents claim CFLs would provide lots of healthy light but use as much as 30% less energy. Not true.” And “- because CFL bulbs cost as much as 20 times more than the reliable old incandescent bulbs, consumers will pay through the nose for pretending to be green. “

The article would like for you to believe that CFL’s are only 30% more efficient but no proponent would claim that.  CFL’s are three to four times as efficient as regular bulbs and last about 10 times as long. As to cost, where do they shop? Many electric coops sell CFL bulbs for $1.00 and they are less than $2.00 at most discount stores.  I doubt if you can find an incandescent bulb for  1/20^th of that. And, over the life of the CFL bulb, it will save approximately $9.00 in operating cost over the ten incandescent bulbs it will replace.

Finally, the editorial wants you to be afraid:

“As for safety and disposal, the CFLs are downright dangerous. They contain toxins such as mercury, arsenic, lead and cyanide. You can’t just throw them out — they have to be recycled in a way that’s expensive.”

 Do they realize that much of our electricity is produced by coal-fired power plants. Coal contains a trace amount of mercury, lead, and arsenic  - but considering that we burn 7 billion tons of coal each year -  50 tons of mercury  and many tons of other heavy metals are emitted into the air annually. The mercury and other pollutants are carried to the ground by rain and much of them end up in our lakes and streams where they enter the food chain.  It’s true that CFL’s should be recycled, but even if you don’t, using them will keep much more mercury and other pollutants out of the environment. (3)

(1)    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/577799/201107081902/Let-There-Be-Lights.htm

(2)    See : http://capwiz.com/repamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=51013516&queueid=7101172991 The article contains a link for you to contact your Legislator. 

(3)    http://jcmooreonline.com/2009/08/21/mercury-in-fish/

(c) 2011  J.C. Moore

The EPA has been charged with reducing the pollutants released into the environment, but they are meeting opposition from power companies, politicians, and people who want cheap energy, though other people’s health and the environment may suffer the consequences . The EPA is accepting comments on the issue through May 23, 2011.  (1)

The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking a 95 percent reduction in emissions at three of Oklahoma’s coal-fired power plants owned by OG&E and AEP. (2) This has brought howls from the utility companies and from Oklahoma’s politicians. Utility companies claim that installing scrubbers or converting to natural gas will cost them billions of dollars and drive the rates for electricity up by 10 to 12%. The utility companies have defined the costs for the plant conversions or upgrades in the worst possible terms, without considering the long-term savings of conversion to natural gas or the impact on people’s health.

EPA.  Stopping the EPA has been put forth as a Conservative and a Republican cause, but it really is neither. President Richard Nixon created the EPA to protect the environment as the United States developed industrially. The Clean Air Act was passed not only to reduce smog in our cities, but to ensure that the air was kept pure and clean in our national parks and wilderness areas. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has the right to limit sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, organic compounds, and particulates to ensure the quality of the air in our region. Limiting regional haze would have the added benefit of improving the health of people, wildlife, and plants in the region. Sulfur and nitrogen oxides are known to damage plants and those, along with small particulates, cause respiratory problems in people. Also, the particulates emitted contain mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium, dioxins, and radioactive isotopes, which are all health hazards.

Regional problem. The emissions from Oklahoma plants do not remain in Oklahoma, and some of the haze in Oklahoma likely comes from surrounding states, particularly Texas, which has a large number of unregulated power plants. Emissions from a source may remain in the air for many weeks and travel for hundreds of miles. Although each state in the region might wish to address its own air pollution problems, it is a regional problem and must be addressed as such. Some of the states in the region are regulatory averse, and may lack the political will to act in the matter. For instance, a fly ash disposal plant at Bokoshe Oklahoma was allowed to operate for seven years while it violated Oklahoma statutes and apparently caused health problems and possibly deaths among Bokoshe residents.

Cost. The main objection to limiting emissions at the power plants is the cost. However, the power plants have operated for years without paying the true cost of energy production, which should include the cost of limiting their air pollution. It also appears that the companies have overstated the costs by as much as two or three times over the EPA estimates.  AEP reported $1.2 billion in profit last year and OG&E $292 million, so they can apparently afford to address the problem without passing all the costs to  customers.

Timetable. Three years would be a reasonable time for the power plants to come into compliance. It has been known for several decades that the emissions are damaging to the environment and health, yet the companies did not act. Also, the EPA had previously informed the companies that they were out of compliance, yet they have failed to come up with a satisfactory plan. They should have made a move toward compliance long ago, and further stalling should not be allowed.

Alternate plan. The alternate plan of converting the power plants to natural gas is certainly an acceptable plan. Methane produces about 2 1/2 times as much energy per unit of carbon dioxide as coal. And, switching to methane would also alleviate the problem of properly disposing of fly ash, bottom ash, and scrubber sludge. Those, and carbon emissions will necessarily be regulated in the future. Addressing the haze, the solid and liquid waste, and the carbon emissions piecemeal will certainly be less effective and more costly in the long run. If the companies should choose to convert the plants to methane, the added benefits would justify an increase in the timetable of up to five years.

(1) Comments may be submitted to r6air_okhaze@epa.gov or at http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/oklahoma_coal_pollution/?r=7901&id=21282-3213732-Kunk_Zx

(2) http://jcmooreonline.com/2011/03/17/the-problem-with-coal-and-politicians/

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

V   Share This:

Sen. James Inhofe (R –OK) is famous for his statement, “Global warming is a hoax”. The local Tulsa newspaper often carries letters giving the opposing viewpoint. For example, Corey Cohen, recently wrote, “Sen. Inhofe, please cease your effort to stop EPA’s ability to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The science of global warming and climate change is obvious and known. For example, excessive CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs heat reflected from the ground and traps that heat in the atmosphere, melting glaciers and ice and snow packs all around the planet. A given molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere has a life of approximately 100 years. The implications are fairly obvious: rising sea levels, loss of fresh water for humans and unpredictable growing seasons for Oklahoma farmers and their winter wheat crops due to atmospheric heating.” (1)

Mr. Jack Williams replied (2) by “pointing out a few facts”  to defend Senator Inhofe’s position:

“1. More than 31,000 scientists signed a petition opposing the concept of man-made global warming.

2. More than 100 top climate scientists have expressed their opposition.

3. A dozen recognized scientists from nine countries who initially were global-warming proponents have changed their opinion and now oppose it in light of recently published information.

4. Earth has undergone many cooling and warming periods during its history.

5. Carbon dioxide constitutes less than 0.1 percent of the atmosphere while water vapor, at least as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2, ranges from about 20 to 100 times its concentration, and is quite variable.

6. There has been no measurable increase in global temperatures during the past decade.

7. The polar bear population dramatically increased during the past decade, as has ice thickness on Antarctica.”

It’s always nice to get alleged facts in a numbered list, where it is possible to check them one by one.

Endorsements: Facts one, two and three, fall into  the category of endorsements, and as with many endorsement, it is not always clear how well qualified those who endorse the position are, or whether the numbers listed are significant. There are about 23 million graduates with degrees in science and engineering. If 31,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition, that is about 0.13% of those – hardly significant. Even then, the petition appears to be a hoax. In 1989, the Petition was mailed to thousands of Bachelor of Science students. It was formatted to appear as if it came from the National Academy of Science, but the organization quickly responded that the information was misleading and “the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”  The mailing collected 17,000 signatures and 14,000 have been added since. Most anyone could sign it, many who signed were misled, and many were not scientists at all, as it is possible to get BS degrees in fields such as journalism, sociology, education, philosophy… (3)

Endorsements that matter: All the major scientific organizations in the world have endorsed a statement such as that of the American Chemical Society,  ”Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles. There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.” (4) A recent CNN poll found that 97% of scientists who are actively engaged in research in climate science agree that global warming is caused by man. (5) There is clearly a consensus among scientists on the matter and those making policy would be wise to heed it.

Warming and Cooling: Point four is a fact, but it is not relevant to what is happening today. The Earth has in the past had many natural warming and cooling periods but the current warming trend is not part of those. In the  past, ice ages and warmer interglacial periods have occurred in roughly 100,000-year cycles. These are attributed to the Milankovitch cycles. These cycles are small variations in the eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit that cause the amount of sunlight the Earth receives to increase and decrease in predictable cycles The cycles predict that a slow cooling trend, which began some 6,000 years ago, will continue for the next 23,000 years. The current warming trend is too rapid and in the wrong direction for the Milankovitch Cycles to be the cause. (6)

Greenhouse gases: Point five is also a fact, but it incorrectly downplays the role of  CO2  in determining the Earth’s temperature. In 1956, G.N. Plass calculated (7) that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the air would cause a 3 to 4 C increase in the Earth’s temperature. Many dismissed his work, as it seemed impossible that CO2, which made up only 0.03% of the air, could have such a large effect on temperature.   However, in 1997, J.T. Kiehl found (8) that, under clear sky conditions, CO2 accounted for 26% of the greenhouse effect – with water vapor accounting for most of the rest. More recent research (9) has confirmed their work, and CO2 has been labeled the “Control Knob” for the Earth’s temperature.  Recent research in the Journal of Climate, covering the last five ice ages, has experimentally confirmed Plass’ work. The Earth is warming because of the greenhouse gases we emit, and research finds the increase in CO2 is the main cause.

Temperature record: Fact six is based on the idea that 1998 was so hot, it couldn’t have been hotter since. However, NASA’s temperature record shows that 2005 and 2010 are tied for the warmest year on record and the last decade has been the hottest in recorded history – and the trend is yet upward (10). There have been attempts to discredit NASA’s temperature data by challenging the accuracy of the temperature recording stations, but a study of that issue by the American Geophysical Union found that claim to be false. (11) NASA has put men on the Moon and brought them home safely, and they certainly should be able to measure temperatures on the Earth correctly.

Polar Bears:  It’s true that the Polar bear population has increased, but not because the Polar ice is increasing. The bears were hunted nearly to extinction, and their population is increasing because restrictions were placed on hunting them from aircraft . Recently, Polar bears have been put on the threatened species list, not because of their numbers, but because their habitat is disappearing.  Satellite measurements of the Arctic sea ice have shown that both the volume and extent of the sea ice has decreased remarkably over the last 30 years. (12) Polar bears are uniquely adapted to live and hunt on the Arctic Sea ice. As it disappears, so will the Polar bears.

Claiming something as “fact” does not make it so. And, even facts can be misleading if the inferences drawn from them are in error.  If Senator Inhofe bases his position on facts such as those listed by Mr. Williams, it is easy to see why he incorrectly thinks global warming is a hoax.

(1)http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=62&articleid=20110313_222_G2_CUTLIN933913

(2)http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=62&articleid=20110403_62_G2_InhisM784632

(3) http://jcmooreonline.com/2010/01/29/the-oregon-petition-how-can-31000-scientists-be-wrong/

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#General_science

(5) http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity

(6) http://jcmooreonline.com/2010/12/31/science-global-warming-and-the-ice-age-mystery/

(7) http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#M_25_

(8) http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%281997%29078%3C0197:EAGMEB%3E2.0.CO;2

(9) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

(10) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/fig2.gif

(11)http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD013094.shtml

(12) http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/NSIDC-12-10.gif

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

V   Share This

Privatization. It is usually assumed that private enterprise will find efficient ways to do things and lower costs to the benefit of consumers and taxpayers.  That assumption is probably true when it comes to providing innovation and developing resources. The recent failure of some of our largest private companies have caused an  economic downturn which, along with tax cuts, have left the federal, state, and local governments with financial problems. Privatizing public services and resources is being considered as a way to reduce costs and raise money.

City Services: As a way to save money, many small towns and cities are considering turning their basic services such as water, trash and sewer over to private companies. This has not always worked out well.  As an example, Coatesville, Penn decided to sell off its drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in 2001 and invest the money in a trust fund to be used for city services. But privatization hasn’t been the economic boon the city hoped.  The residents have seen their water and sewer rates jump 85 percent since American Water, the largest water corporation in the country, took the helm. Last year the company proposed a 229 % rate hike for sewer services, forcing the city to cobble together money for legal fees to fight back. (1) Privatization doesn’t always promote efficiency. The trash in Wichita, Kansas is collected by several private trash companies, and customers in any part of town can contract with any of the companies. The result is that several large trash trucks navigate most streets of Wichita each week, resulting in increased noise, wasted energy, more exhaust fumes, and damage to the streets, which of course, the city repairs.  Even though residents of Wichita pay 30 to 50% more than residents of comparable cities with public trash services, a measure to franchise the trash system was defeated amid criticisms of “government control” and “loss of freedom to choose”.

CompSource. The state of Oklahoma gave its wealthiest citizen a nice tax cut in 2004, which, with the economic downturn,  has left the state government strapped for cash. One proposal to raise money was to sell CompSource Oklahoma, which has been providing workman’s comp to state workers for 76 years – apparently successfully. State Rep. Dan Sullivan pushed for privatization of CompSource because: “It’s a fundamental issue of what is the proper function of government . Is it to compete with private enterprise? We think not.”  He also claimed the increased competition would lower rates. That sounds good, except an expert in comp insurance pointed out it would cost more to insure state employees and 40% -70% more to insure workers in high risk categories, such as volunteer firefighters, oil field workers, and farm workers. The plan fell through, for the time being, when it was discovered that the state might not get the proceeds from the sale and that the politicians pushing the matter had ties to the insurance companies who would profit from the sale. (2)

Medicare and Social Security. Privatization of Government services for ideological reasons often fails as a practical way to lower costs. While privatizing Medicare was ostensibly done to reduce costs, the Medicare Advantage Plans created have increased the cost to the government by 14% and decreased the long term stability of the program. Also, to reduce costs, the plans created the infamous “donut hole“ that costs seniors an additional $25 billion annually. (3) The cost created by privatizing is not a mystery, as the VA and Medicare  have a 3-5% overhead while private insurance companies have an overhead of 15% or more. That is something that should be considered when thinking of health care reform.

Social Security is one of the most effective and popular government programs. It provides a safety net so that no matter how fortunate or unfortunate people are in their choices and investments, they will not be destitute when they retire.  The recent attempts to privatize SS would have been a boon to the financial services industry and money poured in for promotion and campaign donations. After the recent economic downturn, we should all be grateful that the plans to privatize Social Security failed. Some private pension accounts lost as much as 40%, while Social Security paid reliably. The idea that SS is going broke, part of the PR created to try to justify privatizing SS, still lingers on. (4)

Public Service: Our public servants, teachers, firefighters, police, military personnel, and the myriad employees that run our country, actually serve us well. Their pay is usually determined by their responsibilities, experience, and education, as in the GS ratings of federal employees that determine their compensation. Public servants seldom receive bonuses and sometimes little appreciation for doing their job well. The government does not make a profit so their services can be provided at lower cost. And, while we have little say about what goes on in the boardroom, our elected representatives are in charge of public employees.  While it may not be the role of government to compete with private industry, it is certainly not the role of government to make policies that favor private companies over the needs of our citizens. Certainly, privatization for purely ideological reasons is a bad idea that should not override practical considerations.

(1) http://www.alternet.org/story/149725/vision:_how_small,_mostly_conservative_towns_have_found_the_trick_to_defeating_corporations

(2) http://jcmooreonline.com/2009/10/01/will-privatizing-compsource-lower-costs/

(3) http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2917

(4) http://jcmooreonline.com/2010/08/04/is-social-security-going-broke/

(C) 2011  J.C. Moore

V  Share this

This year the contest was carried out on three websites and the results were combined.  Your votes have been tabulated to determine  the person who has most affected the environment through word or deed.

The 2010 Environmental Hall of Fame winner is RealClimate.org. As Physicist Retired said in his nomination, “This consortium of climate scientists has developed a comprehensive collection of data and analysis open to the public, with materials and discussions at basic, intermediate, and advanced levels of understanding. It is one of the most effective tools we currently have to combat – with real facts – the ongoing claims made by deniers.” The site will receive the Most Noble Prize in Environmental Science, a heartfelt thank you, and a recommendation from the sites where this will be posted. Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Kerry  were tied for second place, and should receive, as Dowser put it, “Thanks, for standing firm. May God bless you!”

The Environmental Hall of Shame recipients are the Koch Brothers. They could use the publicity as they have been secretly funding candidates who oppose environmental regulations through their Americans for Prosperity Organization. They also clandestinely fund a number of think tanks that produce white papers, written by scientists with compromised ethics, that dispute the scientific research on climate change. They will receive the “Ignoble Prize in Environmental Science” and in the spirit of Oz, we will petition the Wizard to give them a social conscience.

Second place goes to Jane Lubchenco. As one blogger put it, ” I nominate her as a key player in the cover up of the death and destruction of the Gulf of Mexico, and in the vilification of those Marine Scientists who have concluded that there is a huge amount of oil left in the Gulf.”  Her nominators were certainly the most creative in proposing prizes, and their names have been omitted, just in case. The proposed awards included: “The golden Tar Ball award . Yes , a big trophy cup over flowing with tar balls.”  ”A picture of ten moon’s hanging over the side of an oil stained shrimp boat , with a For Sale sign on the shrimp boat.” “The old oil from every thing you will change the oil in this coming year. Cars, boats, motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles whatever sits in your garage or drive way. Think of it as a new form of recycling. Mail it to her.” Finally, someone wished to combine Jane’s award with Tony Hayward’s: “An all expense paid yacht trip for the two across the Gulf at the height of the spill, with an eternal flame lighting the bow.”

Hall of Fame Nominations and Percentage of Votes :

RealClimate.org – For providing facts to counter the propaganda by climate change deniers. (45%)

Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger – For helping defeat Proposition 23, an effort to gut California’s environmental laws and heavily funded by Texas oilmen. (27%)

Senator John Kerry – For his efforts to usher a Cap-and -Trade bill through the .S. Senate. (27%)

China – For making real efforts to develop alternate energy sources. (0%)

Hall of Shame Nominations and Percentage of Votes :

The Koch Brothers, owners of Koch Oil – For slowing progress on a sound energy policy by funding climate change deniers. (46%)

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Head of NOAA – For her role in the Gulf oil spill, being too friendly toward the oil companies she was to regulate, and damage to the fishing industry. (38%)

Tony Hayward, ex-chairman of BP – For decisions leading up to the oil spill and for saying, “I want my life back.” (8%)

China – For surpassing the U.S as the number one country in pollution emissions. (8%)

Remember, check www.realclimate.org for the facts on climate science. And, keep in mind those who you wish to nominate for the 2011 Awards,  which  will be held next December.

The U.S. Republican leaders are blocking climate legislation, leaving the EPA in the position of having to regulate carbon emissions. Many Republicans in Congress are unhappy with the EPA and are now claiming the EPA regulation of CO2 is a “power grab”.

Progress has been limited at the climate meetings in Copenhagen and in Cancun because the U.S. has not acted to restrict its carbon emissions. The U.S. is second to China  in emissions but emits six times as much CO2 on a per capita basis. If the U.S. is not willing to reduce its emissions, why should other countries?  The U.S. came very close to passing cap-an-trade but it failed when John McCain (R Az) backed out of the deal because of a challenge from a far right candidate in the last election. Reducing CO2 emissions has been cast as a liberal issue and many conservatives oppose it for that reason. The wins by Republicans in the last election almost insure that action on a responsible policy will be delayed by at least two years. That is a shame as many Republicans in the past have been strong supporters of the environmental issues.

The Republican leadership adopted opposition to environmental regulations as a campaign strategy. They sent out propaganda based on slick reports produced by conservative think tanks, rather than science, and they inflated the cost of environmental legislation by a factor of twenty – while not mentioning any of the benefits. The propaganda has been passed along to voters in town hall meeting and press releases. The EPA has used science as a basis for its decisions and has moved to limit CO2 emissions as an air pollutant under existing regulations in the Clean Air Act. This has infuriated many Republicans anfd they have challenged the EPA’s right to do, calling it a “power grab”.

My Congressman,  Frank Lucas (R-OK), has spoken disparagingly of environmental regulations in his town hall meetings and in opinion pieces he has sent to the states major newspapers. He also writes a column that goes to many small town newspapers called “Frankly Speaking”. In his column, he has  labelled the EPA’s actions to limit carbon emissions as  “the EPA power grab” . That is hardly the case. The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, found the Environmental Protection Agency could make a determination as to whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The EPA has found, based on the best scientific evidence, that CO2 is an endangerment to public health and has moved forward to regulate it.

If Congress had acted to develop a sound energy policy and to curb pollution, the  EPA would not be forced to act in the matter. Regulations passed to limit carbon emissions would fall mainly on the coal industry and would favor a shift in the short term to petroleum and natural gas, both abundant in Oklahoma. Many from the petroleum and gas industries originally supported the cap-and -trade bill. However, all the OK Republican Congressmen sat out the process and let the Democrats from coal producing states load up the cap-and-trade bill with perks for coal producing states. Some of  Oklahoma’s industrial leaders see that limiting carbon emissions could be favorable to the Oklahoma economy, but apparently, the elected representatives have not caught on yet.

And, it is not just about the CO2 or climate change. Along with the 30 billion tons of CO2 we put into the air annually are large amounts of mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and radioactive isotopes of radon. Those end up in the air, the water, and the food chain. We are now finding mercury in fish and some places, even in Oklahoma, have limits on consumption. The oceans are now 20% more acidic and economically important fisheries are threatened. Whether we cap pollution, tax it, or strictly regulate it – something must be done and soon. The EPA regulation is a stop gap meaure and the U.S. Congress needs to stop the politics and pass a sound energy policy and meaningful environmental regulations.

(C) 2010 J.C. Moore