In The News
Inhofe critical of Obama's proposal to spend billions on transportation
Monday September 6, 2010
WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe on Monday predicted President Obama's latest proposal to spend billions more on transportation and revamp the way certain projects are selected will go nowhere in Congress.
Even Democrats will be outraged and view Obama's approach as an attempt to strip authority away from Congress, the Oklahoma Republican said.
Inhofe dismissed the significance of the president's announcement, pointing to its timing. "It is all show for the election," he said.
As the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Inhofe is a major player on transportation issues in Congress.
Senior administration officials, speaking to reporters several hours before Obama's announcement, emphasized the bipartisan approach that will be needed to get a new transportation bill passed.
Even Democrats will be outraged and view Obama's approach as an attempt to strip authority away from Congress, the Oklahoma Republican said.
Inhofe dismissed the significance of the president's announcement, pointing to its timing. "It is all show for the election," he said.
As the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Inhofe is a major player on transportation issues in Congress.
Senior administration officials, speaking to reporters several hours before Obama's announcement, emphasized the bipartisan approach that will be needed to get a new transportation bill passed.
Pachauri Is Damaging The World - Why It's Time For Change At The IPCC - Climate Panel Needs Credibility
Wednesday September 1, 2010
FT Editorial: Time For A Change In Climate Research - Now it is time to implement fundamental reforms that would reduce the risk of bias and errors appearing in future IPCC assessments, increase transparency and open up the whole field of climate research to the widest possible range of scientific views. ... A rejuvenated IPCC leadership could tackle the deficiencies in its review process. This should become more inclusive, welcoming alternative views where these are scientifically valid, and at the same time more exclusive, rejecting unsubstantiated claims of dramatic change. The many uncertainties need recognition, with IPCC assessments talking more about risks and probabilities than they have in the past. Then the debate can get back to the real issues posed by climate change.
Telegraph UK: IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri Is Damaging The World - Dr Shapiro said he was not criticising Dr Pachauri personally, but there is no doubt he should go. As the IPCC's leader, Dr Pachauri is ultimately responsible for the defects identified by the inquiry. Worse, he has done much to aggravate them. He has been in the vanguard of the panel's detour into policy pronouncements - for example, by calling a decision by President Obama not to try for a full climate treaty in Copenhagen "an abandonment of moral responsibility". And his bombastic rejection last winter of any criticism deepened the crisis.
Telegraph UK: IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri Is Damaging The World - Dr Shapiro said he was not criticising Dr Pachauri personally, but there is no doubt he should go. As the IPCC's leader, Dr Pachauri is ultimately responsible for the defects identified by the inquiry. Worse, he has done much to aggravate them. He has been in the vanguard of the panel's detour into policy pronouncements - for example, by calling a decision by President Obama not to try for a full climate treaty in Copenhagen "an abandonment of moral responsibility". And his bombastic rejection last winter of any criticism deepened the crisis.
Las Vegas Review-Journal: EDITORIAL: Job killer
Wednesday September 1, 2010
Despite the fact there's no evidence that reversing the industrial revolution in America -- eliminating our consumption of fossil fuels -- would lower the globe's temperature by a single degree, Democrats still desperately cling to their so-called American Power Act, which would use a carbon cap-and-trade mechanism in an attempt to reduce "greenhouse-gas" emissions.
But if the pending cap-and-trade bill passes, Nevada can expect to lose thousands more jobs, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in income, the American Council for Capital Formation predicted last week.
The council commissioned Science Applications International Corp. to formulate several scenarios using modeling data the federal government has cited.
The findings? The bill would cost Nevada 600 to 900 jobs in 2020, and 10,100 to 13,200 jobs in 2030. Job losses would come from lower industrial production due to higher power prices; the cost of complying with mandated emissions cuts; and competition from overseas manufacturers with lower energy expenses.
What's more, residential electricity costs could jump as much as 47.2 percent in Nevada, the report said. Residential natural-gas expenses could spike as much as 56.1 percent, and gasoline costs could increase by up to 18.5 percent.
But if the pending cap-and-trade bill passes, Nevada can expect to lose thousands more jobs, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in income, the American Council for Capital Formation predicted last week.
The council commissioned Science Applications International Corp. to formulate several scenarios using modeling data the federal government has cited.
The findings? The bill would cost Nevada 600 to 900 jobs in 2020, and 10,100 to 13,200 jobs in 2030. Job losses would come from lower industrial production due to higher power prices; the cost of complying with mandated emissions cuts; and competition from overseas manufacturers with lower energy expenses.
What's more, residential electricity costs could jump as much as 47.2 percent in Nevada, the report said. Residential natural-gas expenses could spike as much as 56.1 percent, and gasoline costs could increase by up to 18.5 percent.
FT Editorial: Time for a change in climate research
Wednesday September 1, 2010
Over the course of this year, six reviews have examined various aspects of climate research - most recently Monday's report on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by the world's scientific academies. While none has challenged the fundamental view that man-made global warming must be tackled by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, there has been harsh - and often deserved - criticism of the IPCC and the climate research centres that contribute to its assessments.
Now it is time to implement fundamental reforms that would reduce the risk of bias and errors appearing in future IPCC assessments, increase transparency and open up the whole field of climate research to the widest possible range of scientific views.
Restoring public confidence in the IPCC is essential, because it is the main intermediary between scientists and politicians who have to decide on climate policies that could cost the global economy hundreds of billions of dollars. Given that most scientists believe in the need to tackle global warming, the IPCC cannot hope to satisfy the most extreme "climate sceptics". But it must never again undermine its own credibility by sloppily repeating unsubstantiated statements that exaggerate the risk of climate change, such as the notorious claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
At its plenary meeting in South Korea next month, the 194 national governments that control the IPCC must push through a thorough overhaul of management and procedures. The IPCC needs stronger leadership to maintain credibility, including a new executive committee (with at least one member who is not a climate scientist) and a chief executive rather than a relatively powerless secretary. Although Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman since 2002, has been unfairly vilified in some quarters, his recent performance under pressure has not helped the cause of climate science; the time has come for him to move on.
Now it is time to implement fundamental reforms that would reduce the risk of bias and errors appearing in future IPCC assessments, increase transparency and open up the whole field of climate research to the widest possible range of scientific views.
Restoring public confidence in the IPCC is essential, because it is the main intermediary between scientists and politicians who have to decide on climate policies that could cost the global economy hundreds of billions of dollars. Given that most scientists believe in the need to tackle global warming, the IPCC cannot hope to satisfy the most extreme "climate sceptics". But it must never again undermine its own credibility by sloppily repeating unsubstantiated statements that exaggerate the risk of climate change, such as the notorious claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
At its plenary meeting in South Korea next month, the 194 national governments that control the IPCC must push through a thorough overhaul of management and procedures. The IPCC needs stronger leadership to maintain credibility, including a new executive committee (with at least one member who is not a climate scientist) and a chief executive rather than a relatively powerless secretary. Although Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman since 2002, has been unfairly vilified in some quarters, his recent performance under pressure has not helped the cause of climate science; the time has come for him to move on.
AP: Report: Climate Science Panel Needs Change At Top
Wednesday September 1, 2010
Scientists reviewing the acclaimed but beleaguered international climate change panel called Monday for a major overhaul in the way it's run, but stopped short of calling for the ouster of the current leader.
The independent review of the U.N. climate panel puts new pressure on chairman Rajendra Pachauri, who has been criticized for possible conflicts of interest, but shows no sign of stepping down.
"It's hard to see how the United Nations can both follow the advice of this committee and keep Rajendra Pachauri on board as head," said Roger Pielke Jr., a frequent critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The University of Colorado professor praised the review findings as a way of saving the climate panel with "tough love."
The InterAcademy Council, a collection of the world's science academies, outlined a series of "significant reforms" in management structure needed by the IPCC, a body that won a Nobel Prize with former Vice President Al Gore in 2007.
The independent review of the U.N. climate panel puts new pressure on chairman Rajendra Pachauri, who has been criticized for possible conflicts of interest, but shows no sign of stepping down.
"It's hard to see how the United Nations can both follow the advice of this committee and keep Rajendra Pachauri on board as head," said Roger Pielke Jr., a frequent critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The University of Colorado professor praised the review findings as a way of saving the climate panel with "tough love."
The InterAcademy Council, a collection of the world's science academies, outlined a series of "significant reforms" in management structure needed by the IPCC, a body that won a Nobel Prize with former Vice President Al Gore in 2007.
Inhofe Op-Ed: Bush's Response to Katrina Makes Obama Look Pitiful in Gulf
Monday August 30, 2010
With the five-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina this week, liberals are busy again blaming the disaster on former President George W. Bush. "Bush's Katrina," they said, stands in stark contrast to President Obama's superior effort to stop the BP oil spill. But as the facts surrounding both disasters make clear, nothing could be further from the truth.
First, the comparison between Bush's and Obama's performances is inapt. This fact has a lot to do with federal law. In the case of Katrina, the statute directing response efforts was the 1988 Stafford Act, which puts on-shore states-not the federal government-in charge. Louisiana officials received federal offers of help as Katrina approached, but they were rejected.
After Katrina hit, Louisiana's front-line responders, then-Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D.) and Ray Nagin (D.), then-mayor of New Orleans, had no serious emergency response plans. As thousands of citizens became stranded and homeless, Blanco and Nagin managed to do one thing, and only one thing, very well: They blamed Bush.
First, the comparison between Bush's and Obama's performances is inapt. This fact has a lot to do with federal law. In the case of Katrina, the statute directing response efforts was the 1988 Stafford Act, which puts on-shore states-not the federal government-in charge. Louisiana officials received federal offers of help as Katrina approached, but they were rejected.
After Katrina hit, Louisiana's front-line responders, then-Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D.) and Ray Nagin (D.), then-mayor of New Orleans, had no serious emergency response plans. As thousands of citizens became stranded and homeless, Blanco and Nagin managed to do one thing, and only one thing, very well: They blamed Bush.
Wash. Post: For green movement, a change in climate
Monday August 30, 2010
On Thursday, some of the country's most respected environmental groups - in the midst of their biggest political fight in two decades - sent a group of activists to Milwaukee with a message.
We're losing.
They put on what they called a "CarnivOil" - a fake carnival with a stilt-wearing barker, free "tar balls" (chocolate doughnuts), and a suit-wearing "oil executive" punching somebody dressed like a crab. It was supposed to be satire, but there was a bitter message underneath: When we fight the oil and gas industry, they win.
"We killed the clean-energy bill! There's still no cap on oil spills!" yelled Heather Brutz, the barker, who was pretending to speak for the industry. "And now, for our graaaaaaand finale, we're going to pass the diiiiiirty-air act!"
A year ago, these groups seemed to be at the peak of their influence, needing only the Senate's approval for a landmark climate-change bill. But they lost that fight, done in by the sluggish economy and opposition from business and fossil-fuel interests.
Now the groups are wondering how they can keep this loss from becoming a rout as their opponents press their advantage and try to undo the Obama administration's climate efforts. At two events last week in Wisconsin, environmental groups seemed to be trying two strategies: exhibiting defiance and pleading for sympathy.
We're losing.
They put on what they called a "CarnivOil" - a fake carnival with a stilt-wearing barker, free "tar balls" (chocolate doughnuts), and a suit-wearing "oil executive" punching somebody dressed like a crab. It was supposed to be satire, but there was a bitter message underneath: When we fight the oil and gas industry, they win.
"We killed the clean-energy bill! There's still no cap on oil spills!" yelled Heather Brutz, the barker, who was pretending to speak for the industry. "And now, for our graaaaaaand finale, we're going to pass the diiiiiirty-air act!"
A year ago, these groups seemed to be at the peak of their influence, needing only the Senate's approval for a landmark climate-change bill. But they lost that fight, done in by the sluggish economy and opposition from business and fossil-fuel interests.
Now the groups are wondering how they can keep this loss from becoming a rout as their opponents press their advantage and try to undo the Obama administration's climate efforts. At two events last week in Wisconsin, environmental groups seemed to be trying two strategies: exhibiting defiance and pleading for sympathy.
Tulsa World: EPA will not ban lead ammo
Monday August 30, 2010
WASHINGTON - Facing strong opposition from U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe and others, a key federal agency denied a petition Friday seeking a ban on lead ammunition used by hunters.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, however, said it would continue to review another section of the petition on the use of lead in fishing tackle.
In denying the request on banning lead ammunition, the EPA said the Toxic Substances Control Act does not give the agency the authority needed to address that issue.
"EPA is taking action on many fronts to address major sources of lead in our society, such as eliminating childhood exposures to lead," EPA Assistant Administrator Steve Owens said in a statement. "However, EPA was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife."
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, however, said it would continue to review another section of the petition on the use of lead in fishing tackle.
In denying the request on banning lead ammunition, the EPA said the Toxic Substances Control Act does not give the agency the authority needed to address that issue.
"EPA is taking action on many fronts to address major sources of lead in our society, such as eliminating childhood exposures to lead," EPA Assistant Administrator Steve Owens said in a statement. "However, EPA was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife."
Tulsa World: Effort to ban hunters' use of lead ammo irks Inhofe
Friday August 27, 2010
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe vowed Friday to take the lead against any effort by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban use of lead ammunition by hunters.
"They are just talking about taking away Americans' freedom,'' the Oklahoma Republican said. ""We are not going to let them get by with this foolishness.''
Inhofe actually was reacting to a petition filed several weeks ago with the EPA by a group that described itself as a coalition of conservation, hunting and veterinary groups.
"They are just talking about taking away Americans' freedom,'' the Oklahoma Republican said. ""We are not going to let them get by with this foolishness.''
Inhofe actually was reacting to a petition filed several weeks ago with the EPA by a group that described itself as a coalition of conservation, hunting and veterinary groups.
The Oklahoman: Op-Ed: U.S. energy policy needs to embrace all our energy resources
Friday August 27, 2010
It is unfortunate the political environment in Washington has deteriorated to the point that leaders in Congress are willing to compromise jobs, U.S. industry and our economic competitiveness to further an ideological agenda.
U.S. energy policy needs to embrace all our energy resources This seems to have become the standard in Washington and, sadly, our nation will continue to languish until lawmakers start adopting policies that advance our economy.
We saw this unfold again just before the Senate adjourned for its congressional break. Senate leadership tried to line up votes for a new energy bill cleverly adorned with just enough sugar to hide the sour, long-term impact it would have on the country's economy. Fortunately, Oklahoma Sens. Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn were among the Republicans and handful of Democrats who recognized Majority Leader Harry Reid's measure for what it was: a job-killing, industry-crippling bill that would ultimately make us more dependent on oil from countries that do not like the United States.
U.S. energy policy needs to embrace all our energy resources This seems to have become the standard in Washington and, sadly, our nation will continue to languish until lawmakers start adopting policies that advance our economy.
We saw this unfold again just before the Senate adjourned for its congressional break. Senate leadership tried to line up votes for a new energy bill cleverly adorned with just enough sugar to hide the sour, long-term impact it would have on the country's economy. Fortunately, Oklahoma Sens. Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn were among the Republicans and handful of Democrats who recognized Majority Leader Harry Reid's measure for what it was: a job-killing, industry-crippling bill that would ultimately make us more dependent on oil from countries that do not like the United States.
