The European Union's health chief proposed on Tuesday that uniform laws be drafted for all 27 countries in the bloc to regulate smoking more strictly in public areas and workplaces.
Many EU countries have laws limiting exposure to second-hand, or passive, smoking. The rules are strictest in Britain and Ireland, where smoking is banned in enclosed public places, public transport and workplaces, including restaurants and bars.
"Each and every European should be entitled to full protection from tobacco smoke," EU Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou told a news conference.
The recommendation calls on all member states to implement laws that will limit exposure to tobacco smoke in public places, workplaces and public transport, and aims to protect children.
"We have come a long way from the days when smoking was considered glamorous," Vassiliou said.
She said in countries with looser regulations on smoking, nearly one in five people were exposed to tobacco smoke in the workplace.
Second-hand, or passive, smoke has been linked to heart disease and lung cancer. According to estimates given by Vassiliou, 19,000 non-smokers in the EU died due to second-hand smoke at home and in workplaces in 2002.
Member states decide the level of their smoking restrictions. In Belgium, for example, smoking is allowed in restaurants in separate rooms where no food is served, and smoking is banned in all enclosed workplaces.
Greece, Europe's heaviest smoking nation, is to introduce a ban on tobacco in indoor public places from Wednesday. The country breaks all European records, with more than 40 percent of the population smoking and six out of 10 being exposed to smoking at work, according to an EU poll.
Only 10 member states have comprehensive laws, Vassiliou said.
A poll last year by EU survey group Eurobarometer said 84 percent of respondents supported smoke-free offices and other indoor workplaces, 77 percent were in favor of smoke-free restaurants, and 61 percent supported smoke-free bars and pubs.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Removing ovaries may boost lung cancer risk: Study
Surgically removing a woman's ovaries during a hysterectomy may nearly double her risk of developing lung cancer, according to a new Canadian study that surprised even the researchers.
The finding may help explain why only about 15 per cent of smokers eventually develop lung cancer, and it suggests hormones might play an important role in the leading cancer killer of women in Canada.
Hysterectomy — removal of the uterus — is the second most frequently performed surgical procedure for Canadian women, after cesarean sections. More than 36,000 women had a hysterectomy in 2007-08, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, and about 30 per cent had both ovaries removed as well.
About 90 per cent of hysterectomies are done for benign or non-cancerous problems such as irregular menstruation and fibroids.
"We found that women who experienced non-natural menopause are at almost twice the risk of developing lung cancer compared to women who experienced natural menopause," Anita Koushik, a researcher at the Universite de Montreal's Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, said in announcing her team's findings Tuesday.
"This increased risk of lung cancer was particularly observed among women who had non-natural menopause by having had both their ovaries surgically removed."
It's the second study this year to associate bilateral oophorectomy — removal of both ovaries — with higher odds of developing lung cancer.
A study published in April involving more than 29,000 women participating in the U.S. Nurses' Health Study found that oophorectomy increased the risk of lung cancer, as well as fatal and non-fatal coronary heart disease — compared to women whose ovaries were kept intact.
Researchers are at a loss to explain the findings.
"Many things, if not most things in medicine are found by serendipity," said Dr. William Parker, lead author of the American study and a faculty member at the John Wayne Cancer Institute at St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica, Calif.
"The smart people go, OK, we don't understand it, but let's try to figure it out. It may be true, it may not be true," Parker said. "But now that you've got two papers within a six-month period saying the same thing, you have to pay attention to it."
Doctors have long recommended removal of the ovaries at the time of hysterectomy to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer.
"People thought, you go through menopause, your ovaries stop working, you don't need them and you could get ovarian cancer," Parker said. But ovaries make hormones after menopause that are converted in the body to estrogens. "There's mounting evidence those hormones protect your heart to some degree," and possibly the lungs, he said.
"Ovarian cancer is a terrible disease," he said. "But heart disease and lung cancer are the major killers of women."
His team's study found that removing both ovaries decreased the risk of ovarian and breast cancer, but at no age was it associated with increased survival.
For women not at high risk for ovarian cancer, "There is no question the ovaries should stay in," Parker said.
The Canadian study, published this week in the International Journal of Cancer, involved 422 women with lung cancer and 577 without at 18 Montreal-area hospitals that together diagnose 98 per cent of all lung cancers that occur in the greater Montreal area.
The team looked at income, age, gender, occupational risk factors, medical and smoking history, menstruation and pregnancy histories.
Women were considered menopausal if their periods had stopped naturally, surgically (via hysterectomy with removal of both ovaries) or because of chemotherapy or radiation.
Having a "non-natural" menopause, usually as a result of having both ovaries removed, was associated with a 92 per cent increased risk of lung cancer, "which suggests almost a doubling of risk," Koushik said in an interview.
Lung tissue has receptors for estrogen. Surgical versus natural menopause happens at a younger age, so that women have reduced estrogen levels at an earlier than normal age. As well, with natural menopause, estrogen levels fall off gradually.
"When you have your ovaries removed, that's it," Koushik said. "Your natural estrogen levels just drop. It's very sudden."
All but 32 of the 422 women with lung cancer had smoked. But the finding held even after researchers took smoking into account.
"Smoking still remains the most important factor related to lung cancer," Koushik said. "But hormones may be part of this."
An estimated 10,700 Canadian women will be diagnosed with lung cancer this year, and 9,400 will die of it.
The finding may help explain why only about 15 per cent of smokers eventually develop lung cancer, and it suggests hormones might play an important role in the leading cancer killer of women in Canada.
Hysterectomy — removal of the uterus — is the second most frequently performed surgical procedure for Canadian women, after cesarean sections. More than 36,000 women had a hysterectomy in 2007-08, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, and about 30 per cent had both ovaries removed as well.
About 90 per cent of hysterectomies are done for benign or non-cancerous problems such as irregular menstruation and fibroids.
"We found that women who experienced non-natural menopause are at almost twice the risk of developing lung cancer compared to women who experienced natural menopause," Anita Koushik, a researcher at the Universite de Montreal's Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, said in announcing her team's findings Tuesday.
"This increased risk of lung cancer was particularly observed among women who had non-natural menopause by having had both their ovaries surgically removed."
It's the second study this year to associate bilateral oophorectomy — removal of both ovaries — with higher odds of developing lung cancer.
A study published in April involving more than 29,000 women participating in the U.S. Nurses' Health Study found that oophorectomy increased the risk of lung cancer, as well as fatal and non-fatal coronary heart disease — compared to women whose ovaries were kept intact.
Researchers are at a loss to explain the findings.
"Many things, if not most things in medicine are found by serendipity," said Dr. William Parker, lead author of the American study and a faculty member at the John Wayne Cancer Institute at St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica, Calif.
"The smart people go, OK, we don't understand it, but let's try to figure it out. It may be true, it may not be true," Parker said. "But now that you've got two papers within a six-month period saying the same thing, you have to pay attention to it."
Doctors have long recommended removal of the ovaries at the time of hysterectomy to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer.
"People thought, you go through menopause, your ovaries stop working, you don't need them and you could get ovarian cancer," Parker said. But ovaries make hormones after menopause that are converted in the body to estrogens. "There's mounting evidence those hormones protect your heart to some degree," and possibly the lungs, he said.
"Ovarian cancer is a terrible disease," he said. "But heart disease and lung cancer are the major killers of women."
His team's study found that removing both ovaries decreased the risk of ovarian and breast cancer, but at no age was it associated with increased survival.
For women not at high risk for ovarian cancer, "There is no question the ovaries should stay in," Parker said.
The Canadian study, published this week in the International Journal of Cancer, involved 422 women with lung cancer and 577 without at 18 Montreal-area hospitals that together diagnose 98 per cent of all lung cancers that occur in the greater Montreal area.
The team looked at income, age, gender, occupational risk factors, medical and smoking history, menstruation and pregnancy histories.
Women were considered menopausal if their periods had stopped naturally, surgically (via hysterectomy with removal of both ovaries) or because of chemotherapy or radiation.
Having a "non-natural" menopause, usually as a result of having both ovaries removed, was associated with a 92 per cent increased risk of lung cancer, "which suggests almost a doubling of risk," Koushik said in an interview.
Lung tissue has receptors for estrogen. Surgical versus natural menopause happens at a younger age, so that women have reduced estrogen levels at an earlier than normal age. As well, with natural menopause, estrogen levels fall off gradually.
"When you have your ovaries removed, that's it," Koushik said. "Your natural estrogen levels just drop. It's very sudden."
All but 32 of the 422 women with lung cancer had smoked. But the finding held even after researchers took smoking into account.
"Smoking still remains the most important factor related to lung cancer," Koushik said. "But hormones may be part of this."
An estimated 10,700 Canadian women will be diagnosed with lung cancer this year, and 9,400 will die of it.
Wealthy nations must lead on climate change
As Canada assumes its G8 presidency, following Italy, it has the opportunity to move beyond the false dichotomy of choosing to either protect the environment or ensure economic development. If the G8 countries do not make the global climate a priority, they neglect the long-term economic stewardship their people also elected them to ensure.
The G8 countries have an essential role to play in exercising the leadership required. A report just released by WWF, the international conservation organization, and Allianz, the global insurance firm, for example, ranks G8 countries performing at a level below proportional responsibility and expectations in action on global warming.
Some like Canada even backtracked on commitments to regulate industrial greenhouse gases (GHGs). Canada is also seeking to slow others' progress, by, for example, threatening to challenge the state of California's new fuel standards as well as U.S. efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through international trade law.
Yet Canadians, like many other people I meet wherever I travel, are anxious about the effects of global warming on themselves and others, willing to make changes in their own lives to address it, and keen for their governments to be at the forefront of action on climate change.
Compared to the G8, per capita GHG emissions in the least developed countries are negligible. Yet it is people in these poor countries who will be climate change's biggest victims, contending with drought, floods, erratic rainfall and desertification -- with the least capacity or means to adapt.
In May, hundreds of people in Bangladesh and India lost their lives and hundreds of thousands were flooded out of their homes by an unusually powerful cyclone. In Darfur, drought, land degradation and a spreading desert have led to a scramble over pasture, farmland and water. Fuelled by leaders competing for power, the conflict has led to displacement, sexual violence, and premature death on a massive scale.
In my own country, Kenya, the seasonal rains failed, again. Farmers' crops are withering before their eyes. Ten million Kenyans, almost a third of the population, are facing hunger, or worse.
Twenty-six million people already have been displaced as a result of climate change and 375 million may be at risk by 2015, according to a new report by Oxfam. Climate refugees could number 200 million by the middle of this century.
The report also documents the effects of climate change on individuals in poor countries, including a farmer in Haiti who no longer experiences a rainy season, only a "hurricane season"; and a young mother and her children in rural Zambia forced by flooding to flee their home.
Climate change will disproportionately affect women, who are most directly dependent on natural resources: water, wood for fuel and heat, good soils and rain for crops. Of course women aren't solely victims. They often lead their communities in adapting to, or rebuilding, after extreme weather and are quick to reduce, reuse and recycle. In Japan this concept of 3R is locally translated into a concept known as mottainai, which calls for respect, gratitude and a deliberate effort not to waste. Women are essential to developing climate solutions; many already are.
To take just one example, the Green Belt Movement is partnering with the World Bank's Community Development Carbon Fund Project to reforest two mountain areas in Kenya. At the centre of the project are networks of rural women. By 2017, the trees they plant will have captured an estimated 375,000 tons of carbon dioxide. Equally important is the campaign to save the Congo Basin Forest Ecosystem, of which I am the goodwill ambassador. G8 countries can support similar, women-led initiatives.
The world's wealthiest nations need to commit both to significant reductions in their GHGs, as well as a "green deal." Such a deal should include support for development, access and affordability of green technology, particularly for energy, and protection of intact forests, which absorb and store carbon dioxide. (Forest destruction and degradation contributes up to 20 per cent of global carbon emissions.)
In addition, the G8 needs to allot new financial resources for mitigation and adaptation, including an "emergency fund" of $2 billion, to build the capacity of poor countries to manage current and expected climate-related challenges.
Grappling with the human costs of global warming can't be done on the cheap. According to Oxfam, $150 billion a year will be needed by 2030 to help developing countries address climate impacts and create low-carbon economies. It is a significant sum, but many wars -- almost all of which have at their root a struggle over scarce natural resources -- exact a far higher price.
Even if the world's wealthiest and fastest-developing nations adopt the strict limits on GHGs that scientists say are essential, hundreds of millions of people will be affected by climate change. Millions already are.
The Italian G8 summit was moved to L'Aquila so the heads of state could demonstrate solidarity with the region's people, recovering from April's devastating earthquake. Climate change, too, threatens catastrophic disruption. Canada can lead the G8 in showing real solidarity by taking the essential action on climate change that the world urgently needs. Now is a moment not for delay or denial.
The G8 countries have an essential role to play in exercising the leadership required. A report just released by WWF, the international conservation organization, and Allianz, the global insurance firm, for example, ranks G8 countries performing at a level below proportional responsibility and expectations in action on global warming.
Some like Canada even backtracked on commitments to regulate industrial greenhouse gases (GHGs). Canada is also seeking to slow others' progress, by, for example, threatening to challenge the state of California's new fuel standards as well as U.S. efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through international trade law.
Yet Canadians, like many other people I meet wherever I travel, are anxious about the effects of global warming on themselves and others, willing to make changes in their own lives to address it, and keen for their governments to be at the forefront of action on climate change.
Compared to the G8, per capita GHG emissions in the least developed countries are negligible. Yet it is people in these poor countries who will be climate change's biggest victims, contending with drought, floods, erratic rainfall and desertification -- with the least capacity or means to adapt.
In May, hundreds of people in Bangladesh and India lost their lives and hundreds of thousands were flooded out of their homes by an unusually powerful cyclone. In Darfur, drought, land degradation and a spreading desert have led to a scramble over pasture, farmland and water. Fuelled by leaders competing for power, the conflict has led to displacement, sexual violence, and premature death on a massive scale.
In my own country, Kenya, the seasonal rains failed, again. Farmers' crops are withering before their eyes. Ten million Kenyans, almost a third of the population, are facing hunger, or worse.
Twenty-six million people already have been displaced as a result of climate change and 375 million may be at risk by 2015, according to a new report by Oxfam. Climate refugees could number 200 million by the middle of this century.
The report also documents the effects of climate change on individuals in poor countries, including a farmer in Haiti who no longer experiences a rainy season, only a "hurricane season"; and a young mother and her children in rural Zambia forced by flooding to flee their home.
Climate change will disproportionately affect women, who are most directly dependent on natural resources: water, wood for fuel and heat, good soils and rain for crops. Of course women aren't solely victims. They often lead their communities in adapting to, or rebuilding, after extreme weather and are quick to reduce, reuse and recycle. In Japan this concept of 3R is locally translated into a concept known as mottainai, which calls for respect, gratitude and a deliberate effort not to waste. Women are essential to developing climate solutions; many already are.
To take just one example, the Green Belt Movement is partnering with the World Bank's Community Development Carbon Fund Project to reforest two mountain areas in Kenya. At the centre of the project are networks of rural women. By 2017, the trees they plant will have captured an estimated 375,000 tons of carbon dioxide. Equally important is the campaign to save the Congo Basin Forest Ecosystem, of which I am the goodwill ambassador. G8 countries can support similar, women-led initiatives.
The world's wealthiest nations need to commit both to significant reductions in their GHGs, as well as a "green deal." Such a deal should include support for development, access and affordability of green technology, particularly for energy, and protection of intact forests, which absorb and store carbon dioxide. (Forest destruction and degradation contributes up to 20 per cent of global carbon emissions.)
In addition, the G8 needs to allot new financial resources for mitigation and adaptation, including an "emergency fund" of $2 billion, to build the capacity of poor countries to manage current and expected climate-related challenges.
Grappling with the human costs of global warming can't be done on the cheap. According to Oxfam, $150 billion a year will be needed by 2030 to help developing countries address climate impacts and create low-carbon economies. It is a significant sum, but many wars -- almost all of which have at their root a struggle over scarce natural resources -- exact a far higher price.
Even if the world's wealthiest and fastest-developing nations adopt the strict limits on GHGs that scientists say are essential, hundreds of millions of people will be affected by climate change. Millions already are.
The Italian G8 summit was moved to L'Aquila so the heads of state could demonstrate solidarity with the region's people, recovering from April's devastating earthquake. Climate change, too, threatens catastrophic disruption. Canada can lead the G8 in showing real solidarity by taking the essential action on climate change that the world urgently needs. Now is a moment not for delay or denial.
Torrey Pines's Tradition building gets green award
Torrey Pines Institute for Molecular Studies has received silver for going green.
The $40 million facility that opened in January was recognized Wednesday by the U.S. Green Building Council as being one of the most environmentally friendly facilities in the country.
Built by Suffolk Construction, the complex was awarded silver certification under the council’s Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design program.
The certification is considered the national benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high-performance green buildings that demonstrate an environmentally responsible, profitable and healthy place to work.
Richard Houghten, president of the biotechnology institute, said the expenses needed to meet the council’s silver level are expected to be repaid in energy cost savings within three years, with the recurring savings continuing beyond that point.
“The end result is definitely paying off in terms in the way the building is, the way the building feels and the way the building smells, and energy savings, water usage and all that,” Houghten said.
There are higher certification classifications than silver, but Hougthen said in the long run the cost to implement those higher green measures are not offset by future savings.
“Obviously everybody wants to do things for the environment, but it costs money and if you can’t get it back then there is a big barrier to doing the right thing,” Houghten said. “But if you get the money back, and you continue to save year after year, than the path of doing the right thing for the environment is open for you.”
Rex Kirby, president and general manager of Suffolk Construction’s Southeast Region, said the recognition affirms the company’s “commitment to building structures for our clients that conserve energy and are environmentally responsible in operations.”
In addition to conserving energy and resources through energy-efficient electrical systems, the buildings plans encourage walking or bicycling instead of driving.
Other buildings nationwide undergoing green certification include the Sear Tower in Chicago, the Bronx Library Center and the Clinton Library in Little Rock, Ark.
The 100,000-square-foot, three story facility in Tradition was designed to be energy-efficient in order to save both money and the environment.
Some of the green measures include:
Light brown water chestnut color on the exterior — comprised of a chemical composition that would emit fewer vapors and be less of a detriment to the environment — is said to absorb the least heat.
Materials on the roof use less asphalt than on most roofs and reflect heat.
Lighting fixtures burn low-wattage and environmentally friendly bulbs that use little if any mercury.
Wood used in construction comes from natural species, rather than a cross-mix of trees, as a means to reduce the impact on the ozone layer.
Carpets and ceiling tiles come from recycled materials.
Low-flow kitchen sinks and ultra low-flow laboratories.
A storm water management plan that filters 90 percent of the runoff.
The $40 million facility that opened in January was recognized Wednesday by the U.S. Green Building Council as being one of the most environmentally friendly facilities in the country.
Built by Suffolk Construction, the complex was awarded silver certification under the council’s Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design program.
The certification is considered the national benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high-performance green buildings that demonstrate an environmentally responsible, profitable and healthy place to work.
Richard Houghten, president of the biotechnology institute, said the expenses needed to meet the council’s silver level are expected to be repaid in energy cost savings within three years, with the recurring savings continuing beyond that point.
“The end result is definitely paying off in terms in the way the building is, the way the building feels and the way the building smells, and energy savings, water usage and all that,” Houghten said.
There are higher certification classifications than silver, but Hougthen said in the long run the cost to implement those higher green measures are not offset by future savings.
“Obviously everybody wants to do things for the environment, but it costs money and if you can’t get it back then there is a big barrier to doing the right thing,” Houghten said. “But if you get the money back, and you continue to save year after year, than the path of doing the right thing for the environment is open for you.”
Rex Kirby, president and general manager of Suffolk Construction’s Southeast Region, said the recognition affirms the company’s “commitment to building structures for our clients that conserve energy and are environmentally responsible in operations.”
In addition to conserving energy and resources through energy-efficient electrical systems, the buildings plans encourage walking or bicycling instead of driving.
Other buildings nationwide undergoing green certification include the Sear Tower in Chicago, the Bronx Library Center and the Clinton Library in Little Rock, Ark.
The 100,000-square-foot, three story facility in Tradition was designed to be energy-efficient in order to save both money and the environment.
Some of the green measures include:
Light brown water chestnut color on the exterior — comprised of a chemical composition that would emit fewer vapors and be less of a detriment to the environment — is said to absorb the least heat.
Materials on the roof use less asphalt than on most roofs and reflect heat.
Lighting fixtures burn low-wattage and environmentally friendly bulbs that use little if any mercury.
Wood used in construction comes from natural species, rather than a cross-mix of trees, as a means to reduce the impact on the ozone layer.
Carpets and ceiling tiles come from recycled materials.
Low-flow kitchen sinks and ultra low-flow laboratories.
A storm water management plan that filters 90 percent of the runoff.
Climate Change Legislation Requires Significant Changes to Protect Consumers and Environment
coalition of 25 leading national consumer groups and grassroots environmental organizations has formed to urge the Senate to improve sweeping climate change legislation passed by the House of Representatives by stripping out the corporate giveaways and including strong protections for struggling energy consumers and the environment.
In a letter sent today to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which is still crafting the Senate's version of the bill, the groups say that 100 percent of the carbon credits should be auctioned and revenues should be used for direct consumer relief as proposed in February by President Obama. To the extent that the committee builds on the House-passed bill, the groups, which include AARP, Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), Public Citizen, National Consumer Law Center and TURN, are calling on the Senate to establish a stronger system of consumer protection.
Thanks to backroom deals with polluting industries and corporate lobbyists, the current version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act is a loser for the environment and for consumers, said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program. The House version would give away 85 percent of the carbon credits for free to utilities, oil refiners and manufacturers. While consumers are offered no protection from price volatility or rate hikes in this version, industrial energy users secured protections to guarantee their bottom lines.
"Powerful interests got special protections in the climate legislation, leaving households inadequately protected from high prices," Slocum said. "We are calling for equitable treatment for families and no windfall profits for corporate interests."
Current accountability measures in the bill are inadequate to ensure that electric and natural gas local distribution companies use the proceeds from their carbon credit auctions to benefit consumers by lowering rates for low-income and middle-class households and by investing in sustainable energy for the future. As written, the bill will result in windfall profits for many large polluters and delay the country's transition to cleaner energy technologies.
"AARP is committed to improving the health of our environment so that all people, no matter their age, can enjoy healthy communities," said Elaine Ryan, vice president of government relations for AARP. "While we want to see a bill that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, we are acutely concerned for the well-being of middle, low and fixed-income individuals who would be negatively impacted by potential utility rate increases. Research and experience have shown us time and time again that an individual's inability to afford utility costs can have catastrophic and life-threatening results. This is why AARP urges the Senate to improve this bill and provide stronger cost containments for consumers."
Added Olivia Wein, staff attorney National Consumer Law Center, "Millions of families already struggle to balance their budgets or survive on fixed incomes. They can't afford to pay the higher energy costs that will result from cap and trade. The Senate needs to clearly direct utilities, which have been given free emission allowances, to use the resulting revenue to cut the utility bills of residential customers."
"Climate policy is consumer policy in America," said Mike Tidwell director of CCAN. "Unfortunately, the House version of the climate bill was a sweet deal for Big Oil and Big Coal but not for average consumers. The Senate needs to improve the House approach by rebating carbon permit money directly and without games to voters who want both clean energy and fairness for consumers."
Mark Toney, executive director of TURN, said, "Even David needed a slingshot - and ratepayers need a consumer protection fund to stand a chance against the deep pockets of the energy industry."
In a letter sent today to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which is still crafting the Senate's version of the bill, the groups say that 100 percent of the carbon credits should be auctioned and revenues should be used for direct consumer relief as proposed in February by President Obama. To the extent that the committee builds on the House-passed bill, the groups, which include AARP, Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), Public Citizen, National Consumer Law Center and TURN, are calling on the Senate to establish a stronger system of consumer protection.
Thanks to backroom deals with polluting industries and corporate lobbyists, the current version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act is a loser for the environment and for consumers, said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program. The House version would give away 85 percent of the carbon credits for free to utilities, oil refiners and manufacturers. While consumers are offered no protection from price volatility or rate hikes in this version, industrial energy users secured protections to guarantee their bottom lines.
"Powerful interests got special protections in the climate legislation, leaving households inadequately protected from high prices," Slocum said. "We are calling for equitable treatment for families and no windfall profits for corporate interests."
Current accountability measures in the bill are inadequate to ensure that electric and natural gas local distribution companies use the proceeds from their carbon credit auctions to benefit consumers by lowering rates for low-income and middle-class households and by investing in sustainable energy for the future. As written, the bill will result in windfall profits for many large polluters and delay the country's transition to cleaner energy technologies.
"AARP is committed to improving the health of our environment so that all people, no matter their age, can enjoy healthy communities," said Elaine Ryan, vice president of government relations for AARP. "While we want to see a bill that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, we are acutely concerned for the well-being of middle, low and fixed-income individuals who would be negatively impacted by potential utility rate increases. Research and experience have shown us time and time again that an individual's inability to afford utility costs can have catastrophic and life-threatening results. This is why AARP urges the Senate to improve this bill and provide stronger cost containments for consumers."
Added Olivia Wein, staff attorney National Consumer Law Center, "Millions of families already struggle to balance their budgets or survive on fixed incomes. They can't afford to pay the higher energy costs that will result from cap and trade. The Senate needs to clearly direct utilities, which have been given free emission allowances, to use the resulting revenue to cut the utility bills of residential customers."
"Climate policy is consumer policy in America," said Mike Tidwell director of CCAN. "Unfortunately, the House version of the climate bill was a sweet deal for Big Oil and Big Coal but not for average consumers. The Senate needs to improve the House approach by rebating carbon permit money directly and without games to voters who want both clean energy and fairness for consumers."
Mark Toney, executive director of TURN, said, "Even David needed a slingshot - and ratepayers need a consumer protection fund to stand a chance against the deep pockets of the energy industry."
The South Stream Pipeline and the Environmental Factor
The South Stream pipeline project is a complex technical endeavor which entails a wide array of factors, including that of environmental protection.The present assessment concerning South Stream's environmental impact reveals opposing views from multiple actors vying for answers, concessions and influence alike. Furthermore, the South Stream project in terms of environmental research lacks any detailed scrutiny, from either state authorities or civil organizations. This lack could be attributed to the fact that the project is still in the early stages of preparation.
The president of the Committee of the Black Sea Regional Energy Center (BSREC) and also director at the Center for Energy Policy & Development in Greece, Prof. Dimitris Mavrakis, holds an optimist view concerning the environmental viability of the project.
According to him, "Laying pipelines in the sea bed, either for developing subsea fields or for natural gas transportation is a common practice in our days."
Moreover, he explains that "the exploitation of North Sea natural gas reserves has led to the development of a dense network of subsea pipelines, without negative environmental implications, and the same applies for the Mediterranean Sea".
Mavrakis' overall final conclusion is that "South Stream does not include any environmental risks, as experience has shown from previous pipelines already deployed'.
The Italian partner in the project, ENI, has already released a press report underlying that the "strictest environmental criteria and the most advanced technologies will be carried out in cooperation with Gazprom". The Italian branch of Greenpeace, according to the local media, hasn't rejected the project in terms of its environmental prospects, though no definite report has been made by any Italian environmental organization so far.
On the other hand, there are those who objecting to the above by keeping a critical stance. According to the Moscow paper Kommersant, the press service of the Ukrainian Environmental Ministry has expressed that "the pipeline would require a close study and the conduct of a large-scale ecological assessment".
For the moment, further information has not been made available by Kiev, though diplomatic sources in Athens confirm that Ukraine will bring up the environmental issue in the future, and that this will certainly exacerbate strains in its relations with Moscow.
Further, the Polish member of the European Parliament, Mrs. Urszula Gacek, has made her country's reservations public by drafting a relevant question to the Commission in early 2008, stating that "South Stream [Pipeline] may have negative consequences concerning [the] Black Sea's ecosystem". The question was aimed at exploring the probabilities of an EU hand-out for South Stream, a development that hasn't occurred so far.
In Greece in early September 2008, when the South Stream agreement was voted on by the Parliament, the Left-wing party of Syriza voted against it, citing environmental reasons and more specifically "Physical degradation of the environment in places where the pipeline is going to cross, including the internationally protected "Natura 2000" zones".
Already the local authority of the scenic coastal Perdika region in Western Greece has proclaimed in an adamant manner that the construction of the pipeline traversing their territory, in combination with the creation of a natural gas compressor station, will "ruin their natural environment and damage extensively their well-formed tourist infrastructure".
The members of the municipal board have claimed that the existence of a preparatory report concerning the environmental consequences by a faculty member of the Athens National Technical University, though the authorities of the School were not able to verify such for the time being.
The WWF branch in Greece agrees in principle that "Natural gas should be encouraged as an alternate form of energy in comparison to lignite, oil or stone coal," but adds the caveat that the construction of the South Stream Pipeline should be "carefully assessed and become part of a public energy debate".
Bulgarian NGO's involved in environmental protection have not expressed their view on the project, but there are numerous weblogs, mostly by young university activists, calling against the construction of pipelines in general, citing environmental reasons. Similar resentment has largely come from residents of the port of Burgas, from where both South Stream and the Burgas-Alexandroupoli oil pipeline are projected to pass.
The president of the Committee of the Black Sea Regional Energy Center (BSREC) and also director at the Center for Energy Policy & Development in Greece, Prof. Dimitris Mavrakis, holds an optimist view concerning the environmental viability of the project.
According to him, "Laying pipelines in the sea bed, either for developing subsea fields or for natural gas transportation is a common practice in our days."
Moreover, he explains that "the exploitation of North Sea natural gas reserves has led to the development of a dense network of subsea pipelines, without negative environmental implications, and the same applies for the Mediterranean Sea".
Mavrakis' overall final conclusion is that "South Stream does not include any environmental risks, as experience has shown from previous pipelines already deployed'.
The Italian partner in the project, ENI, has already released a press report underlying that the "strictest environmental criteria and the most advanced technologies will be carried out in cooperation with Gazprom". The Italian branch of Greenpeace, according to the local media, hasn't rejected the project in terms of its environmental prospects, though no definite report has been made by any Italian environmental organization so far.
On the other hand, there are those who objecting to the above by keeping a critical stance. According to the Moscow paper Kommersant, the press service of the Ukrainian Environmental Ministry has expressed that "the pipeline would require a close study and the conduct of a large-scale ecological assessment".
For the moment, further information has not been made available by Kiev, though diplomatic sources in Athens confirm that Ukraine will bring up the environmental issue in the future, and that this will certainly exacerbate strains in its relations with Moscow.
Further, the Polish member of the European Parliament, Mrs. Urszula Gacek, has made her country's reservations public by drafting a relevant question to the Commission in early 2008, stating that "South Stream [Pipeline] may have negative consequences concerning [the] Black Sea's ecosystem". The question was aimed at exploring the probabilities of an EU hand-out for South Stream, a development that hasn't occurred so far.
In Greece in early September 2008, when the South Stream agreement was voted on by the Parliament, the Left-wing party of Syriza voted against it, citing environmental reasons and more specifically "Physical degradation of the environment in places where the pipeline is going to cross, including the internationally protected "Natura 2000" zones".
Already the local authority of the scenic coastal Perdika region in Western Greece has proclaimed in an adamant manner that the construction of the pipeline traversing their territory, in combination with the creation of a natural gas compressor station, will "ruin their natural environment and damage extensively their well-formed tourist infrastructure".
The members of the municipal board have claimed that the existence of a preparatory report concerning the environmental consequences by a faculty member of the Athens National Technical University, though the authorities of the School were not able to verify such for the time being.
The WWF branch in Greece agrees in principle that "Natural gas should be encouraged as an alternate form of energy in comparison to lignite, oil or stone coal," but adds the caveat that the construction of the South Stream Pipeline should be "carefully assessed and become part of a public energy debate".
Bulgarian NGO's involved in environmental protection have not expressed their view on the project, but there are numerous weblogs, mostly by young university activists, calling against the construction of pipelines in general, citing environmental reasons. Similar resentment has largely come from residents of the port of Burgas, from where both South Stream and the Burgas-Alexandroupoli oil pipeline are projected to pass.
Groups get grants to teach kids about environment
Two Illinois groups are getting federal grants to help teach students about environmental issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded $39,000 to Friends of the Fox River in Crystal Lake. Teachers and students will collect data on biological, chemical and physical water trends along the river. Angelic Organics Learning Center in Caledonia will receive more than $18,000 to provide hands-on food and farming activities for 6th- through 12th-graders and their teachers. The EPA grants are awarded annually.
AG Brown offers to mediate dispute over stalled Chevron project in Richmond
State Attorney General Jerry Brown is offering to help hash out a deal among Richmond, Chevron and environmentalists to resume construction at the local refinery, where about 1,000 workers have been laid off, but not everyone wants Brown at the table.
City officials and the environmentalists accepted Brown's offer; Chevron thinks settlement talks should continue without him.
"The parties agreed to private mediation, before a highly qualified mediator proposed by the plaintiffs and agreed to by Chevron and the city of Richmond," refinery spokesman Brent Tippen said Wednesday. "Chevron has invested significant time and effort in this mediation process and believes that the agreed-upon private mediation has the greatest likelihood for resolving this dispute."
Construction to replace the refinery's hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude stopped about two weeks ago under court order. A Contra Costa Superior Court judge ordered permits suspended until lingering questions in the project's environmental impact report are answered.
Chevron, the city and environmental groups have met multiple times to try to reach a settlement. The parties signed a confidentiality agreement and have been tight-lipped, but multiple sources say talks have reached an impasse.
It's not unusual for settlement talks to temporarily stop if everyone needs time to think about issues and solutions away from the bargaining table, Tippen said. He added that Chevron
hopes talks can resume soon.
Brown made his offer at Tuesday night's City Council meeting before a standing-room-only crowd of more than 350, most of them union workers recently laid off from the Chevron project. The crowd greeted Brown's offer with a standing ovation as they pleaded to return to work.
"The sides aren't that far apart," Brown said. "Give me a call and I'll be here, and we'll get it solved."
The council voted unanimously to accept Brown's offer. Councilman Tom Butt hopes a high-profile political figure such as Brown, who is familiar with the issue, can move talks forward.
"It sure wouldn't hurt to give it a shot," Butt said Wednesday. "He's a plain-spoken person. He won't beat around the bush. That's what a good mediator does."
Mimi Ho, program director with the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, speaking on behalf of the environmental groups, said: "We are ready, willing and able to join Jerry Brown in settlement talks. The health of Richmond's community and workers are at stake."
Brown stepped into the fray in early 2008 when he penned three letters stating that the EIR is flawed and pushing for reductions in air and greenhouse gas emissions. Brown hired a chemist, who studied the project and concluded the refinery would be able to refine heavier, more contaminated crude, echoing a concern that environmental groups have raised about increased pollution.
Chevron has insisted that replacing old equipment makes the refinery safer and more efficient, and that it will continue to refine light to intermediate crude. It has filed an appeal to the state to overturn the earlier court ruling.
A divided City Council approved the EIR and the project with a host of mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts. The environmentalists argued that the measures don't go far enough; in September, the West County Toxics Coalition, Communities for a Better Environment and Asian Pacific Environmental Network sued the city and Chevron.
The Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council urged the parties Wednesday to let Brown in the negotiating room.
"Over 1,200 Building Trades men and women have been laid off, over 3,000 secondary jobs related to this project will be lost," the council wrote in a statement. "lt is of the utmost importance that all parties act responsibly and reach a settlement as soon as possible. Our local Building Trades men and women and our local economy depend on it."
Reprint
City officials and the environmentalists accepted Brown's offer; Chevron thinks settlement talks should continue without him.
"The parties agreed to private mediation, before a highly qualified mediator proposed by the plaintiffs and agreed to by Chevron and the city of Richmond," refinery spokesman Brent Tippen said Wednesday. "Chevron has invested significant time and effort in this mediation process and believes that the agreed-upon private mediation has the greatest likelihood for resolving this dispute."
Construction to replace the refinery's hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude stopped about two weeks ago under court order. A Contra Costa Superior Court judge ordered permits suspended until lingering questions in the project's environmental impact report are answered.
Chevron, the city and environmental groups have met multiple times to try to reach a settlement. The parties signed a confidentiality agreement and have been tight-lipped, but multiple sources say talks have reached an impasse.
It's not unusual for settlement talks to temporarily stop if everyone needs time to think about issues and solutions away from the bargaining table, Tippen said. He added that Chevron
hopes talks can resume soon.
Brown made his offer at Tuesday night's City Council meeting before a standing-room-only crowd of more than 350, most of them union workers recently laid off from the Chevron project. The crowd greeted Brown's offer with a standing ovation as they pleaded to return to work.
"The sides aren't that far apart," Brown said. "Give me a call and I'll be here, and we'll get it solved."
The council voted unanimously to accept Brown's offer. Councilman Tom Butt hopes a high-profile political figure such as Brown, who is familiar with the issue, can move talks forward.
"It sure wouldn't hurt to give it a shot," Butt said Wednesday. "He's a plain-spoken person. He won't beat around the bush. That's what a good mediator does."
Mimi Ho, program director with the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, speaking on behalf of the environmental groups, said: "We are ready, willing and able to join Jerry Brown in settlement talks. The health of Richmond's community and workers are at stake."
Brown stepped into the fray in early 2008 when he penned three letters stating that the EIR is flawed and pushing for reductions in air and greenhouse gas emissions. Brown hired a chemist, who studied the project and concluded the refinery would be able to refine heavier, more contaminated crude, echoing a concern that environmental groups have raised about increased pollution.
Chevron has insisted that replacing old equipment makes the refinery safer and more efficient, and that it will continue to refine light to intermediate crude. It has filed an appeal to the state to overturn the earlier court ruling.
A divided City Council approved the EIR and the project with a host of mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts. The environmentalists argued that the measures don't go far enough; in September, the West County Toxics Coalition, Communities for a Better Environment and Asian Pacific Environmental Network sued the city and Chevron.
The Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council urged the parties Wednesday to let Brown in the negotiating room.
"Over 1,200 Building Trades men and women have been laid off, over 3,000 secondary jobs related to this project will be lost," the council wrote in a statement. "lt is of the utmost importance that all parties act responsibly and reach a settlement as soon as possible. Our local Building Trades men and women and our local economy depend on it."
Reprint
Evidence found of grand scale party by ancient humans 4,000 years ago
Researchers from the University of Missouri have found evidence of a grand scale party by ancient humans 4,000 years ago, in the form of remnants that still remain in the gourds and squashes that served as dishware at a Buena Vista site.
The researchers studied the residues from gourds and squash artifacts that date back to 2200 B.C. and recovered starch grains from manioc, potato, chili pepper, arrowroot and algarrobo.
The starches provide clues about the foods consumed at feasts and document the earliest evidence of the consumption of algarrobo and arrowroot in Peru.
"Archaeological starch grain research allows us to gain a better understanding of how ancient humans used plants, the types of food they ate, and how that food was prepared," said Neil Duncan, doctoral student of anthropology in the MU College of Arts and Science and lead author of the study.
"This is the first study to analyze residue from bottle gourd or squash artifacts. Squash and bottle gourds had a variety of uses 4,000 years ago, including being used as dishes, net floats and symbolic containers. Residue analysis can help determine the specific use," he added.
In the study, researchers recovered starch grains from squash and gourd artifacts by a method that currently is used to recover microfossils from stone tools and ceramics.
First, the artifact was placed in a special water bath to loosen and remove adhering residue. Then, the artifact's interior surface was lightly brushed to remove any remaining residue.
The residues were collected, and starch grains were isolated from each of these sediments.
"The starch residues of edible plants found on the artifacts and the special archaeological context from which these artifacts were recovered suggest that the artifacts were used in a ritual setting for the serving and production of food," Duncan said.
"The method used in this study could be used in other areas and time periods in which gourds and squash rinds are preserved," he added.
Scientists believe the Buena Vista site, where the starch grains were recovered, served as a small ceremonial center in the central Chillon Valley.
The social and ritual use of food is not well understood during this time period in Peru, but this research will enhance the potential for understanding, according to Duncan
The researchers studied the residues from gourds and squash artifacts that date back to 2200 B.C. and recovered starch grains from manioc, potato, chili pepper, arrowroot and algarrobo.
The starches provide clues about the foods consumed at feasts and document the earliest evidence of the consumption of algarrobo and arrowroot in Peru.
"Archaeological starch grain research allows us to gain a better understanding of how ancient humans used plants, the types of food they ate, and how that food was prepared," said Neil Duncan, doctoral student of anthropology in the MU College of Arts and Science and lead author of the study.
"This is the first study to analyze residue from bottle gourd or squash artifacts. Squash and bottle gourds had a variety of uses 4,000 years ago, including being used as dishes, net floats and symbolic containers. Residue analysis can help determine the specific use," he added.
In the study, researchers recovered starch grains from squash and gourd artifacts by a method that currently is used to recover microfossils from stone tools and ceramics.
First, the artifact was placed in a special water bath to loosen and remove adhering residue. Then, the artifact's interior surface was lightly brushed to remove any remaining residue.
The residues were collected, and starch grains were isolated from each of these sediments.
"The starch residues of edible plants found on the artifacts and the special archaeological context from which these artifacts were recovered suggest that the artifacts were used in a ritual setting for the serving and production of food," Duncan said.
"The method used in this study could be used in other areas and time periods in which gourds and squash rinds are preserved," he added.
Scientists believe the Buena Vista site, where the starch grains were recovered, served as a small ceremonial center in the central Chillon Valley.
The social and ritual use of food is not well understood during this time period in Peru, but this research will enhance the potential for understanding, according to Duncan
SC climate change forum features Sen. Warner
Former U.S. Sen. John Warner of Virginia is visiting the South Carolina coast for two days to discuss climate change and how it affects energy and the nation's security.
Warner arrives Wednesday for a Charleston forum sponsored by the Pew Environment Group which is holding sessions nationwide to listen and share information about the connection between national security and the environment.
A highlight of the Charleston session is a Thursday panel discussion at The Citadel. Besides Warner, panelists include Phyllis Cuttino of the Pew Environmental Group and Charleston Mayor Joe Riley.
Warner arrives Wednesday for a Charleston forum sponsored by the Pew Environment Group which is holding sessions nationwide to listen and share information about the connection between national security and the environment.
A highlight of the Charleston session is a Thursday panel discussion at The Citadel. Besides Warner, panelists include Phyllis Cuttino of the Pew Environmental Group and Charleston Mayor Joe Riley.
Kerry panel looks at climate change and national security
Massive crop devastation, melting glaciers, water shortages, millions of displaced people -- all of these will drag the US military into conflict if global climate change goes unchecked, a Senate panel was warned today.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, convened by Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, focused on what so far has received only modest attention in the climate change debate: the effect it is bound to have on national defense.
"Addressing the consequences of changes in the Earth's climate is not simply about saving polar bears or preserving the beauty of mountain glaciers," retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn, president of the American Security Project, told the panel. "Climate change is a threat to our national security."
Gunn and other military specialists said that climate change could have broad effects on how the US military operates. It will likely expand the number of humanitarian missions the Pentagon will have to undertake, they said, and even change how it deploys its fighting forces.
For example, they warned that rising sea levels could swamp critical US military bases in the Indian Ocean and even the headquarters of the Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, Va., which could be under water after just a one-meter rise in the ocean level.
From Africa to the Middle East and South Asia, dramatic changes in the weather will stress already unstable nations, creating what Gunn called "climate conflicts."
"International conflicts over resources, due to migrants, and/or as a means of distraction are not only likely," he added, "but likely to exacerbate the underlying climate change problem."
Kerry, since he took the helm of the committee earlier this year, has made addressing climate change a top priority. Several specialists said today that elevating the security aspect will help garner the kind of support necessary to make the difficult changes in energy and other global policies to stabilize the climate.
Sharon E. Burke, vice president for natural security at the Center for a New American Security, testified that the hearing was "an important demonstration of the fact that global climate change is now taken seriously as a strategic challenge."
Kerry, for his part, pledged to keep the shining the light on the issue.
"If we fail to connect the dots -- if we fail to take action -- the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world," he said.
Correction: This item has been revised because of a reporting error that misstated the title for Sharon E. Burke, vice president for natural security at the Center for a New American Security.
Kerry's full opening statement is below:
KERRY'S PREPARED OPENING REMARKS
We are here today to discuss a grave and growing threat to global stability, human security, and America’s national security. As you will hear from all of today’s witnesses, the threat of catastrophic climate change is not an academic concern for the future. It is already upon us, and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Earlier this year, a 25-mile wide ice bridge connecting the Wilkins Shelf to the Antarctic landmass shattered, disconnecting the Shelf from the Antarctic continent. In four years, the Arctic is projected to experience its first ice-free summer—not in 2030, but in 2013. The threat is real and fast approaching. Just as 9-11 taught us the painful lesson that oceans could not protect us from terror, today we are deluding ourselves if we believe that climate change will stop at our borders. Fortunately, America’s most trusted security voices—including those here today—have been sounding the alarm. In 2007, eleven former Admirals and high-ranking generals issued a seminal report from the Center for Naval Analysis, where Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn serves on the Military Advisory Board. They warned that climate change is a “threat multiplier” with “the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today.” This is because climate change injects a major new source of chaos, tension, and human insecurity into an already volatile world. It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a staggering scale. Places only too familiar with the instability, conflict, and resource competition that often create refugees and IDPs, will now confront these same challenges with an ever growing population of EDPs—environmentally displaced people. We risk fanning the flames of failed-statism, and offering glaring opportunities to the worst actors in our international system. In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us. Nowhere is the nexus between today’s threats and climate change more acute than in South Asia–the home of Al Qaeda and the center of our terrorist threat. Scientists are now warning that the Himalayan glaciers, which supply water to almost a billion people from China to Afghanistan, could disappear completely by 2035. Water from the Himalayas flows through India into Pakistan. India’s rivers are not only agriculturally vital, they are also central to its religious practice. Pakistan, for its part, is heavily dependent on irrigated farming. Even as our government scrambles to ratchet down tensions and prepares to invest billions to strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to deliver for its people—climate change is threatening to work powerfully in the opposite direction. Worldwide, climate change risks making the most volatile places even more combustible. The Middle East is home to six percent of the world’s population but just two percent of the world’s water. A demographic boom and a shrinking water supply will only tighten the squeeze on a region that doesn’t need another reason to disagree.Closer to home, there is scarcely an instrument of American foreign policy that will be untouched by a changing climate. Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean, a vital hub for our military operations across the Middle East, sits on an atoll just a few feet above sea level. Norfolk, VA, home to our Atlantic Fleet, will be submerged by one meter of sea level rise. These problems are not insurmountable, but they will be expensive, and they risk compromising our readiness. Of course, the future has a way of humbling those who try to predict it too precisely. But we do know, from scientists and security experts, that the threat is very real. If we fail to connect the dots—if we fail to take action—the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world. We are honored to be joined today by an old friend who needs no introduction in these halls. John Warner served five terms as a US Senator from Virginia. He enlisted in the Navy at age 17, served as a sailor in World War Two, fought as a Marine in Korea, and rose to become Secretary of the Navy. I met Secretary Warner when he presented me a Silver Star. Senator Warner became a friend, a colleague for twenty-four years, and one of the true gentlemen of this institution. When he retired and I was awarded his old office, Senator Warner’s gift to his fellow Navy man was a binnacle—a tool that sailors use to point out the right direction and light a path forward. Of course, none of us could ask for a better guide than Senator Warner’s own words and his life of service. I am pleased that he continues to use his extraordinary credibility to speak directly to the American people about the urgency of this issue. Our other witnesses are impressive in their own right. A decorated 35-year veteran of the US Navy, Vice Admiral Lee Gunn now serves as President of the American Security Project. Sharon Burke is Vice President for Natural Security at the Center for a New American Security, where she directs the Center’s work on the national security implications of global natural resources challenges. Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn is a member of the CNA Military Advisory Board and former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs. I look forward to hearing from each of you. But first let us turn to a Senator who, for years, has been a Senate leader in confronting non-traditional security challenges from loose nuclear material to food security: Senator Richard Lugar
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, convened by Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, focused on what so far has received only modest attention in the climate change debate: the effect it is bound to have on national defense.
"Addressing the consequences of changes in the Earth's climate is not simply about saving polar bears or preserving the beauty of mountain glaciers," retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn, president of the American Security Project, told the panel. "Climate change is a threat to our national security."
Gunn and other military specialists said that climate change could have broad effects on how the US military operates. It will likely expand the number of humanitarian missions the Pentagon will have to undertake, they said, and even change how it deploys its fighting forces.
For example, they warned that rising sea levels could swamp critical US military bases in the Indian Ocean and even the headquarters of the Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, Va., which could be under water after just a one-meter rise in the ocean level.
From Africa to the Middle East and South Asia, dramatic changes in the weather will stress already unstable nations, creating what Gunn called "climate conflicts."
"International conflicts over resources, due to migrants, and/or as a means of distraction are not only likely," he added, "but likely to exacerbate the underlying climate change problem."
Kerry, since he took the helm of the committee earlier this year, has made addressing climate change a top priority. Several specialists said today that elevating the security aspect will help garner the kind of support necessary to make the difficult changes in energy and other global policies to stabilize the climate.
Sharon E. Burke, vice president for natural security at the Center for a New American Security, testified that the hearing was "an important demonstration of the fact that global climate change is now taken seriously as a strategic challenge."
Kerry, for his part, pledged to keep the shining the light on the issue.
"If we fail to connect the dots -- if we fail to take action -- the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world," he said.
Correction: This item has been revised because of a reporting error that misstated the title for Sharon E. Burke, vice president for natural security at the Center for a New American Security.
Kerry's full opening statement is below:
KERRY'S PREPARED OPENING REMARKS
We are here today to discuss a grave and growing threat to global stability, human security, and America’s national security. As you will hear from all of today’s witnesses, the threat of catastrophic climate change is not an academic concern for the future. It is already upon us, and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Earlier this year, a 25-mile wide ice bridge connecting the Wilkins Shelf to the Antarctic landmass shattered, disconnecting the Shelf from the Antarctic continent. In four years, the Arctic is projected to experience its first ice-free summer—not in 2030, but in 2013. The threat is real and fast approaching. Just as 9-11 taught us the painful lesson that oceans could not protect us from terror, today we are deluding ourselves if we believe that climate change will stop at our borders. Fortunately, America’s most trusted security voices—including those here today—have been sounding the alarm. In 2007, eleven former Admirals and high-ranking generals issued a seminal report from the Center for Naval Analysis, where Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn serves on the Military Advisory Board. They warned that climate change is a “threat multiplier” with “the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today.” This is because climate change injects a major new source of chaos, tension, and human insecurity into an already volatile world. It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a staggering scale. Places only too familiar with the instability, conflict, and resource competition that often create refugees and IDPs, will now confront these same challenges with an ever growing population of EDPs—environmentally displaced people. We risk fanning the flames of failed-statism, and offering glaring opportunities to the worst actors in our international system. In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us. Nowhere is the nexus between today’s threats and climate change more acute than in South Asia–the home of Al Qaeda and the center of our terrorist threat. Scientists are now warning that the Himalayan glaciers, which supply water to almost a billion people from China to Afghanistan, could disappear completely by 2035. Water from the Himalayas flows through India into Pakistan. India’s rivers are not only agriculturally vital, they are also central to its religious practice. Pakistan, for its part, is heavily dependent on irrigated farming. Even as our government scrambles to ratchet down tensions and prepares to invest billions to strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to deliver for its people—climate change is threatening to work powerfully in the opposite direction. Worldwide, climate change risks making the most volatile places even more combustible. The Middle East is home to six percent of the world’s population but just two percent of the world’s water. A demographic boom and a shrinking water supply will only tighten the squeeze on a region that doesn’t need another reason to disagree.Closer to home, there is scarcely an instrument of American foreign policy that will be untouched by a changing climate. Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean, a vital hub for our military operations across the Middle East, sits on an atoll just a few feet above sea level. Norfolk, VA, home to our Atlantic Fleet, will be submerged by one meter of sea level rise. These problems are not insurmountable, but they will be expensive, and they risk compromising our readiness. Of course, the future has a way of humbling those who try to predict it too precisely. But we do know, from scientists and security experts, that the threat is very real. If we fail to connect the dots—if we fail to take action—the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world. We are honored to be joined today by an old friend who needs no introduction in these halls. John Warner served five terms as a US Senator from Virginia. He enlisted in the Navy at age 17, served as a sailor in World War Two, fought as a Marine in Korea, and rose to become Secretary of the Navy. I met Secretary Warner when he presented me a Silver Star. Senator Warner became a friend, a colleague for twenty-four years, and one of the true gentlemen of this institution. When he retired and I was awarded his old office, Senator Warner’s gift to his fellow Navy man was a binnacle—a tool that sailors use to point out the right direction and light a path forward. Of course, none of us could ask for a better guide than Senator Warner’s own words and his life of service. I am pleased that he continues to use his extraordinary credibility to speak directly to the American people about the urgency of this issue. Our other witnesses are impressive in their own right. A decorated 35-year veteran of the US Navy, Vice Admiral Lee Gunn now serves as President of the American Security Project. Sharon Burke is Vice President for Natural Security at the Center for a New American Security, where she directs the Center’s work on the national security implications of global natural resources challenges. Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn is a member of the CNA Military Advisory Board and former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs. I look forward to hearing from each of you. But first let us turn to a Senator who, for years, has been a Senate leader in confronting non-traditional security challenges from loose nuclear material to food security: Senator Richard Lugar
Economy in China Regains Robust Pace of Growth
Propelled by a big economic stimulus package and aggressive bank lending, China’s economy grew by 7.9 percent in the second quarter compared with a year ago, the government said on Thursday, a surprisingly strong showing during the global economic downturn.China’s growth spurt is also presenting a new set of challenges, including questions about the sustainability of the growth and worries that record bank lending could result in wasteful spending and a large jump in nonperforming loans.
Still, while most other major economies are contracting and suffering through the worst economic crisis in decades, China appears to have turned a corner, analysts say.
The gross domestic product figures, released by the National Bureau of Statistics in Beijing, suggest that the country’s stimulus policies are working and that the government will most likely achieve the 8 percent full-year growth target it set early this year, analysts say.
After a sharp slowdown this year, when the pace of growth dipped to 6.1 percent, down from 13 percent in 2007, China’s economy has rebounded.
“This is a stunning recovery,” said Andy Rothman, an economist based in Shanghai at the brokerage firm CLSA. “And it’s also not just the government money fueling the recovery. The private sector is also recovering, and that’s the key.”
Growth in the second quarter was driven by strong auto and property sales, a rebound in manufacturing and huge infrastructure spending, which is propping up global commodity prices.
“Demand for steel has rallied strongly in the last six months,” said Jim Lennon, a steel analyst at Macquarie Securities based in London. “Many Chinese steel producers are now operating at full capacity. The Chinese are the only growth market for steel.”
With exports still suffering a major slowdown, falling this year more than 20 percent from a year ago, they have not been a major growth driver this year, and that is a significant change from other years.
Many countries are relying on government-financed stimulus projects for growth this year. But China has turned to its state-owned banks, which have already made more than $1 trillion in loans through June, more than doubling lending from all of 2008. The most important step the government took late last year was to remove the credit controls it had put in place in 2007 and to tell banks to increase lending, Mr. Rothman said.
“This recovery is much more reliant on bank lending,” said Wang Tao, chief China economist at UBS Securities. “In the last few months, the bank lending has been massive — beyond anyone’s imagination.”
The dynamics of the economy have begun to shift slightly this year, away from the once-booming coastal provinces and toward less developed regions in central and western China.
But some analysts remain skeptical of China’s statistics, questioning whether the government is releasing overly rosy figures and masking serious troubles in the economy. They point to weak electricity consumption figures and a sharp drop in foreign investment as indications that growth may not be as strong as reported in official data. Also, the country does not report official unemployment figures, so it is difficult to gauge how workers are faring .
But many economic experts insisted there were more signs of strength than of weakness, and that record bank lending is filtering through the economy and helping drive growth.
“This is probably the only major economy in the world where manufacturing employment is rising,” said Mr. Rothman at CLSA.
Most analysts are now forecasting strong growth for the second half of this year, at close to 9 percent above a year earlier. But there are risks emerging, too.
Property prices are skyrocketing again in some parts of the country. And Shanghai’s stock market is up about 75 percent, after a huge drop last year.
Some experts say the stock market has been propped up partly by state-owned companies that are once again speculating on stocks rather than investing in their businesses.
The government and economists are also worried about asset price inflation and the possibility that aggressive lending from state-owned banks will result in a wave of nonperforming loans in the coming years.
“They are the two biggest worries for the government,” said Ms. Wang at UBS Securities. “It’s impossible to make so many loans in such a short period and not have problems.”
Still, while most other major economies are contracting and suffering through the worst economic crisis in decades, China appears to have turned a corner, analysts say.
The gross domestic product figures, released by the National Bureau of Statistics in Beijing, suggest that the country’s stimulus policies are working and that the government will most likely achieve the 8 percent full-year growth target it set early this year, analysts say.
After a sharp slowdown this year, when the pace of growth dipped to 6.1 percent, down from 13 percent in 2007, China’s economy has rebounded.
“This is a stunning recovery,” said Andy Rothman, an economist based in Shanghai at the brokerage firm CLSA. “And it’s also not just the government money fueling the recovery. The private sector is also recovering, and that’s the key.”
Growth in the second quarter was driven by strong auto and property sales, a rebound in manufacturing and huge infrastructure spending, which is propping up global commodity prices.
“Demand for steel has rallied strongly in the last six months,” said Jim Lennon, a steel analyst at Macquarie Securities based in London. “Many Chinese steel producers are now operating at full capacity. The Chinese are the only growth market for steel.”
With exports still suffering a major slowdown, falling this year more than 20 percent from a year ago, they have not been a major growth driver this year, and that is a significant change from other years.
Many countries are relying on government-financed stimulus projects for growth this year. But China has turned to its state-owned banks, which have already made more than $1 trillion in loans through June, more than doubling lending from all of 2008. The most important step the government took late last year was to remove the credit controls it had put in place in 2007 and to tell banks to increase lending, Mr. Rothman said.
“This recovery is much more reliant on bank lending,” said Wang Tao, chief China economist at UBS Securities. “In the last few months, the bank lending has been massive — beyond anyone’s imagination.”
The dynamics of the economy have begun to shift slightly this year, away from the once-booming coastal provinces and toward less developed regions in central and western China.
But some analysts remain skeptical of China’s statistics, questioning whether the government is releasing overly rosy figures and masking serious troubles in the economy. They point to weak electricity consumption figures and a sharp drop in foreign investment as indications that growth may not be as strong as reported in official data. Also, the country does not report official unemployment figures, so it is difficult to gauge how workers are faring .
But many economic experts insisted there were more signs of strength than of weakness, and that record bank lending is filtering through the economy and helping drive growth.
“This is probably the only major economy in the world where manufacturing employment is rising,” said Mr. Rothman at CLSA.
Most analysts are now forecasting strong growth for the second half of this year, at close to 9 percent above a year earlier. But there are risks emerging, too.
Property prices are skyrocketing again in some parts of the country. And Shanghai’s stock market is up about 75 percent, after a huge drop last year.
Some experts say the stock market has been propped up partly by state-owned companies that are once again speculating on stocks rather than investing in their businesses.
The government and economists are also worried about asset price inflation and the possibility that aggressive lending from state-owned banks will result in a wave of nonperforming loans in the coming years.
“They are the two biggest worries for the government,” said Ms. Wang at UBS Securities. “It’s impossible to make so many loans in such a short period and not have problems.”
Busting climate myths
majority of Americans continue believe that climate change is correctly portrayed or even underestimated in the news media, buIt's a vocal 41 percent, and they draw on a stock set of arguments to attack the credibility of scientists, politicians and environmentalists who claim that humans are spurring dangerous climate change. Like me, you may wonder where these arguments come from and whether they have any validity.
The most common argument, and the one I will focus on in this first of several installments, is that many credible scientists dispute the theory of anthropogenic (or human-caused) climate change asserted by U.N. scientists in the 2007 IPCC report that found that humans were almost certainly causing the climate to change.
This argument forms a part of any remotely reasonable rebuttal of climate change, because, most would agree, no one other than a qualified scientist can offer a credible argument on the point. A given dissenter may point to a claim that sun spots are causing climate change or that the climate simply isn't changing, but unless the argument originally came from to a qualified scientist, it's no more credible than citing Nostradamus, your neighborhood bartender, or "some guy."
The office of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla), the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, has aggressively advanced this argument, most recently releasing a report finding that nearly 700 scientists believed any efforts to stem climate change by changing human behavior were premature, because the science was still shaky at best.
The Center for Inquiry, a group advancing scientific study of human beliefs and culture, has taken up the question: What makes a qualified scientist?
They ought to have a degree, preferably a Ph.D. in a field related to the climate, and they ought to be publishing in peer-reviewed journals on topics related to climate. Of the 687 people Inhofe listed as credible dissenters, the Center for Inquiry found:
• Fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists. • Just 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science. • Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.• Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.
It also bears repeating that Inhofe's office claimed this his group of 700 outnumbered the 52 authors of the IPCC report. This claim itself showed a serious disregard for science and the fair use of statistics. 52 scientists wrote the IPCC report, yes, but they were explicitly summarizing the work of more than 2,000 scientists who contributed research.
But let's say that 69 of Inhofe's scientists were legit. Does that mean anthropogenic climate change is little more than a hunch? No. First, we would have to see what exactly their objections were. And, secondly, it's normal and acceptable for there to be some disagreement among scientists. Doubts and questions lead to research, and more research leads to a better understanding of the problem at hand. No one claims that we know everything to know about climate change. But we do know that we're playing an important role in causing it, and that it will likely lead to very bad outcomes.
We also know that acting to slow climate change won't break the world's economy—on the contrary. And it will also reduce other forms of pollution, including soot, that have been linked to serious health problems and lower IQs. a record high 41 percent believe risks are exaggerated.
The most common argument, and the one I will focus on in this first of several installments, is that many credible scientists dispute the theory of anthropogenic (or human-caused) climate change asserted by U.N. scientists in the 2007 IPCC report that found that humans were almost certainly causing the climate to change.
This argument forms a part of any remotely reasonable rebuttal of climate change, because, most would agree, no one other than a qualified scientist can offer a credible argument on the point. A given dissenter may point to a claim that sun spots are causing climate change or that the climate simply isn't changing, but unless the argument originally came from to a qualified scientist, it's no more credible than citing Nostradamus, your neighborhood bartender, or "some guy."
The office of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla), the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, has aggressively advanced this argument, most recently releasing a report finding that nearly 700 scientists believed any efforts to stem climate change by changing human behavior were premature, because the science was still shaky at best.
The Center for Inquiry, a group advancing scientific study of human beliefs and culture, has taken up the question: What makes a qualified scientist?
They ought to have a degree, preferably a Ph.D. in a field related to the climate, and they ought to be publishing in peer-reviewed journals on topics related to climate. Of the 687 people Inhofe listed as credible dissenters, the Center for Inquiry found:
• Fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists. • Just 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science. • Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.• Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.
It also bears repeating that Inhofe's office claimed this his group of 700 outnumbered the 52 authors of the IPCC report. This claim itself showed a serious disregard for science and the fair use of statistics. 52 scientists wrote the IPCC report, yes, but they were explicitly summarizing the work of more than 2,000 scientists who contributed research.
But let's say that 69 of Inhofe's scientists were legit. Does that mean anthropogenic climate change is little more than a hunch? No. First, we would have to see what exactly their objections were. And, secondly, it's normal and acceptable for there to be some disagreement among scientists. Doubts and questions lead to research, and more research leads to a better understanding of the problem at hand. No one claims that we know everything to know about climate change. But we do know that we're playing an important role in causing it, and that it will likely lead to very bad outcomes.
We also know that acting to slow climate change won't break the world's economy—on the contrary. And it will also reduce other forms of pollution, including soot, that have been linked to serious health problems and lower IQs. a record high 41 percent believe risks are exaggerated.
Battle Over Health Care Leaves 'Blood in the Water' for Climate Bill
President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats have spent the better part of this year juggling legislation on health care and climate change.
The two monster initiatives would be significant accomplishments if either one could pass, let alone both. But for now, each remains a long way from the finish line as Republicans and some Democrats push back against bills that have big price tags and questionable public support.
Obama will try to reclaim control over the story line tonight with his fourth prime time press conference since taking office in January, part of a media campaign to keep momentum going on the top pieces of his legislative agenda.
It won't be easy. Advocates for the two bills wonder if the combined pitch has zapped away each item's own strength. And there is also the Republican Party, which is working to score political points by packaging the entire Obama agenda as a grab for big government.
"It doesn't scare me at all," Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said yesterday when asked about the GOP attacks against the health care and climate bills. "There's blood in the water on everything you do here," she added. "We've got a whole party that is trying to do one thing, and that is bring the Democrats down. And that's what they do. So almost everything we do, there's blood in the water."
Sources tracking the two debates count several similarities between the climate and health bills. Both have been moved back and forth at the top of the congressional schedule this year. Both have had deadlines for floor action surrounding a recess (July 4th for the House climate bill, the August break for health care).
Both have some of the same political dynamics, including increasingly dire warnings about the costs of action and inaction. Both feature some of the same key players and committees, from House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) to Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
And both appear on track to dominate the fall calendar on Capitol Hill, where Democratic leaders can expect to get some version of the same question over and over again about which bill would they rather see cross the finish line first.
"That's a -- what is it called? -- a Hobson's choice," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters yesterday after being asked to pick between climate and health care. "I won't have to do that."
Looking for Obama's signal
Going forward, some senators say the White House will be instrumental in deciding which bill should have the top billing.
"I think so much depends on where the administration is going to be pushing and spending their political capital," said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). "What we're seeing right now from the White House is a very aggressive push on health care. Will they split their time in September and be pushing some folks on health care and some folks on climate change? I don't think you can do that. I think you've got to pick and choose."
David Axelrod, Obama's top political adviser, insisted in a June interview that there is no competition between the two top-tier items.
"Obviously, health care is in high gear right now, and we want to move that forward," he said. "But both of these are going to have a lasting impact on our future competitiveness, on our future as a country. So they're two valued children. We're not going to put one above the other."
But Obama and his Democratic allies have had to make decisions about which bill to move on first.
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went with climate. She scored a nail-biter of a floor victory last month that required help from eight Republicans while forcing some of her own moderates to take difficult votes.
Indeed, many in the Democratic caucus wanted Pelosi to start first with health care, arguing that it remains a higher priority for the American public.
"I think it's the wrong time for a cap and trade," Rep. Artur Davis, a candidate for Alabama governor in 2010, told E&E in May. "I think health care is achievable. It's doable. And when I move around my district, and my state, and people ask me what is Congress going to do to fix health care. They don't frankly ask me what Congress is going to do to fix climate change."
Frank Maisano, a lobbyist for the electric utility and petroleum refinery industries, said Pelosi and the House Democrats also gave encouragement to their opponents by forcing the floor debate before the July 4th recess.
"The bludgeoning the climate bill took on the House side, to get the squeaky vote that it got, that was the first cut in the fighter that put a little blood in the water," said Maisano, a principal at Bracewell & Giuliani, a Washington, D.C., law firm.
For many House Democrats, one of the biggest concerns as they voted on the climate bill was whether the Senate would sidestep the issue altogether and leave them vulnerable on a measure that won't ever become law.
Boxer tried to give House Democrats cover before the vote by promising a markup in her committee before the August recess. But she has since backed away from that schedule and now won't be introducing legislation until early September.
One of her explanations for the delay: Too many senators in the middle of the climate debate are focused on health care.
'Why Obama's numbers are going down'
As for health care, committee votes on both ends of the Capitol started earlier this month. And like climate, the legislative process has seen its share of fits and starts. The uncertainty over the health debate has prompted sources on and off Capitol Hill to calculate how a loss could influence the climate bill.
Given the power of centrist Democrats on both issues, some say that rejection of health care could embolden them to push for changes on climate bill that drive the left overboard. Republicans with a taste of victory could also use the win as a springboard to topple other pieces of Obama's agenda.
"It makes it more difficult," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said last week when asked about the prospects for global warming if faced with a defeat on health care. "But I think they are two separate issues. Maybe two different fates. I hope they both pass."
"I think it can float both ways," explained Chelsea Maxwell, a former aide to retired Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) who helped write last year's climate bill. Whoever wins, she said, would feel emboldened to push for a victory on the other issue.
Maisano said that a loss on health care -- or the resolution of the issue altogether -- would shift attention entirely back to climate change. "That'd be good for folks who want to push this and want to put momentum on people," he said. But it also could come with downsides.
"If you shined a bright spotlight on this issue, there's some things people wouldn't like to see," Maisano said.
On the hunt for political points, Republicans have taken to lumping all of Obama's agenda together, from health care to global warming to the $787 billion stimulus package the president signed in February.
"That's why Obama's numbers are going down," said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio). "Because the people are saying, 'We're in the soup and this guy is talking about health care reform that's going to increase the cost of health care in this country.' Everyone knows that it will. He wants to go ahead and get involved in a cap-and-trade program that's going to increase everyone's utility rates. They know they're going to go up and they're saying, 'Are those guys in Washington crazy? Don't they understand this?'"
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Democrats are "without adult supervision" when it comes to health care, and he sees similarities to the climate debate. "I think cap and trade is not much further along as far as being thoughtful than health care is," he said. "I think they're both certainly in jeopardy, and certainly both deserve a whole lot more thought than what we've seen so far."
Murkowski said she is not so sure how Democrats and Obama can keep up the pace come the fall, when both bills are likely to still be moving through the congressional meat grinder.
"I think they know they've got to let everyone have a breather," she said. "You've got two very, very significant issues back to back, and I think there has to be a consideration on how you advance that from the political perspective."
Yet even some of the very moderate Democrats who Obama still needs to court -- on health care and climate change -- say that all is not lost for the president's agenda.
"Each is a standalone bill," said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). "But they're both competing for the same time frame. So, one has to obviously watch that. But if there's a will for legislation here, there always seems to be a way."
The two monster initiatives would be significant accomplishments if either one could pass, let alone both. But for now, each remains a long way from the finish line as Republicans and some Democrats push back against bills that have big price tags and questionable public support.
Obama will try to reclaim control over the story line tonight with his fourth prime time press conference since taking office in January, part of a media campaign to keep momentum going on the top pieces of his legislative agenda.
It won't be easy. Advocates for the two bills wonder if the combined pitch has zapped away each item's own strength. And there is also the Republican Party, which is working to score political points by packaging the entire Obama agenda as a grab for big government.
"It doesn't scare me at all," Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said yesterday when asked about the GOP attacks against the health care and climate bills. "There's blood in the water on everything you do here," she added. "We've got a whole party that is trying to do one thing, and that is bring the Democrats down. And that's what they do. So almost everything we do, there's blood in the water."
Sources tracking the two debates count several similarities between the climate and health bills. Both have been moved back and forth at the top of the congressional schedule this year. Both have had deadlines for floor action surrounding a recess (July 4th for the House climate bill, the August break for health care).
Both have some of the same political dynamics, including increasingly dire warnings about the costs of action and inaction. Both feature some of the same key players and committees, from House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) to Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
And both appear on track to dominate the fall calendar on Capitol Hill, where Democratic leaders can expect to get some version of the same question over and over again about which bill would they rather see cross the finish line first.
"That's a -- what is it called? -- a Hobson's choice," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters yesterday after being asked to pick between climate and health care. "I won't have to do that."
Looking for Obama's signal
Going forward, some senators say the White House will be instrumental in deciding which bill should have the top billing.
"I think so much depends on where the administration is going to be pushing and spending their political capital," said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). "What we're seeing right now from the White House is a very aggressive push on health care. Will they split their time in September and be pushing some folks on health care and some folks on climate change? I don't think you can do that. I think you've got to pick and choose."
David Axelrod, Obama's top political adviser, insisted in a June interview that there is no competition between the two top-tier items.
"Obviously, health care is in high gear right now, and we want to move that forward," he said. "But both of these are going to have a lasting impact on our future competitiveness, on our future as a country. So they're two valued children. We're not going to put one above the other."
But Obama and his Democratic allies have had to make decisions about which bill to move on first.
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went with climate. She scored a nail-biter of a floor victory last month that required help from eight Republicans while forcing some of her own moderates to take difficult votes.
Indeed, many in the Democratic caucus wanted Pelosi to start first with health care, arguing that it remains a higher priority for the American public.
"I think it's the wrong time for a cap and trade," Rep. Artur Davis, a candidate for Alabama governor in 2010, told E&E in May. "I think health care is achievable. It's doable. And when I move around my district, and my state, and people ask me what is Congress going to do to fix health care. They don't frankly ask me what Congress is going to do to fix climate change."
Frank Maisano, a lobbyist for the electric utility and petroleum refinery industries, said Pelosi and the House Democrats also gave encouragement to their opponents by forcing the floor debate before the July 4th recess.
"The bludgeoning the climate bill took on the House side, to get the squeaky vote that it got, that was the first cut in the fighter that put a little blood in the water," said Maisano, a principal at Bracewell & Giuliani, a Washington, D.C., law firm.
For many House Democrats, one of the biggest concerns as they voted on the climate bill was whether the Senate would sidestep the issue altogether and leave them vulnerable on a measure that won't ever become law.
Boxer tried to give House Democrats cover before the vote by promising a markup in her committee before the August recess. But she has since backed away from that schedule and now won't be introducing legislation until early September.
One of her explanations for the delay: Too many senators in the middle of the climate debate are focused on health care.
'Why Obama's numbers are going down'
As for health care, committee votes on both ends of the Capitol started earlier this month. And like climate, the legislative process has seen its share of fits and starts. The uncertainty over the health debate has prompted sources on and off Capitol Hill to calculate how a loss could influence the climate bill.
Given the power of centrist Democrats on both issues, some say that rejection of health care could embolden them to push for changes on climate bill that drive the left overboard. Republicans with a taste of victory could also use the win as a springboard to topple other pieces of Obama's agenda.
"It makes it more difficult," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said last week when asked about the prospects for global warming if faced with a defeat on health care. "But I think they are two separate issues. Maybe two different fates. I hope they both pass."
"I think it can float both ways," explained Chelsea Maxwell, a former aide to retired Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) who helped write last year's climate bill. Whoever wins, she said, would feel emboldened to push for a victory on the other issue.
Maisano said that a loss on health care -- or the resolution of the issue altogether -- would shift attention entirely back to climate change. "That'd be good for folks who want to push this and want to put momentum on people," he said. But it also could come with downsides.
"If you shined a bright spotlight on this issue, there's some things people wouldn't like to see," Maisano said.
On the hunt for political points, Republicans have taken to lumping all of Obama's agenda together, from health care to global warming to the $787 billion stimulus package the president signed in February.
"That's why Obama's numbers are going down," said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio). "Because the people are saying, 'We're in the soup and this guy is talking about health care reform that's going to increase the cost of health care in this country.' Everyone knows that it will. He wants to go ahead and get involved in a cap-and-trade program that's going to increase everyone's utility rates. They know they're going to go up and they're saying, 'Are those guys in Washington crazy? Don't they understand this?'"
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Democrats are "without adult supervision" when it comes to health care, and he sees similarities to the climate debate. "I think cap and trade is not much further along as far as being thoughtful than health care is," he said. "I think they're both certainly in jeopardy, and certainly both deserve a whole lot more thought than what we've seen so far."
Murkowski said she is not so sure how Democrats and Obama can keep up the pace come the fall, when both bills are likely to still be moving through the congressional meat grinder.
"I think they know they've got to let everyone have a breather," she said. "You've got two very, very significant issues back to back, and I think there has to be a consideration on how you advance that from the political perspective."
Yet even some of the very moderate Democrats who Obama still needs to court -- on health care and climate change -- say that all is not lost for the president's agenda.
"Each is a standalone bill," said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). "But they're both competing for the same time frame. So, one has to obviously watch that. But if there's a will for legislation here, there always seems to be a way."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)