Who will fight global warming?

Dear Friends,

For reasons that are incomprehensible to me, President Obama has given Shell approval to drill in the Arctic.  After the approval was announced, Hillary Clinton broke her silence on the issue and said that permitting Shell to drill in the Arctic was not worth the risk.  Bernie Sanders has long opposed drilling in the Arctic.

Hillary Clinton is right that permitting Shell to drill in the Arctic is not worth the risk.  However, the more important reason for not permitting Shell to drill in the Arctic is that we need to move away from fossil fuels now not gradually over decades as fossil fuel reserves are drawn down.  We must leave most of the already know reserves in the ground.  We do not need to find new ones.  We need to focus on alternative renewable green energy.

An editorial in The Guardian (here) ends with this paragraph which I think is perfect.

This is depressing evidence of a reluctance to tackle the biggest challenge of keeping the increase in global temperatures below two degrees. Since March, the Guardian has been campaigning to persuade investors that ultimately the majority of known fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground. That requires a revolution not just in thinking now, but in the way we understand economic development. It can no longer be a question of exploitation of resources. Now sustainable economies must be built on a deliberate exercise in forgoing them. Every time a new area of fossil fuel exploitation is opened up, even if it is shale gas which appears less polluting than coal or oil, the risk is that the transition drifts a little further downstream. The Obama decision on Arctic drilling on the face of it is wrong because it jeopardises a unique environment. But it is even worse than that. It is another barrier to a change on which a sustainable future depends.

I think it is important to assess our Presidential candidates on whether or not they understand what the Guardian editorial is saying.  Since all of the Republican candidates are still focused on drill baby drill, I can exclude them from this analysis.  I will focus on Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

It is clear that Bernie Sanders understands that we need to stop drilling and focus on alternative fuels. He was one of 18 Senators that sent President Obama a letter urging him to deny Shell the right to drill.  The following is a quote from that letter:

Opening development on a new fossil fuel reservoir in the Arctic not only puts the natural resources, ecosystems and the dependent communities at risk, it also contradicts the President’s Climate Action Plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions and reduce climate change. It is an unacceptable and irresponsible decision,

In addition to the letter, Bernie Sanders issued a statement saying:

At a time when our planet is warming due to climate change, the last thing our environment needs is more drilling. What we need is for Congress and the White House to move toward clean energy such as solar, wind and biomass.

While Hillary Clinton has said drilling in the Arctic is not worth the risk and that she would dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, she has never made it clear that she understands that we need to stop drilling.  She has good plans for incentivizing alternative fuels, but they are vague at this time.  And then there is her refusal to take a position on the Keystone XL Pipeline.  An article in The New York Times (here) contains this quote which is a great summary of where Hillary Clinton is at this point in time.

"Hillary Clinton is just half the way there,” said Bill McKibben, head of the group 350.org, which has led the grass-roots movement calling for Mr. Obama to reject the Keystone pipeline. “This is a credible commitment to renewable energy, and a recognition that the economics of electricity are changing fast. Now, we need Clinton to show she understands the other half of the climate change equation — and prove she has the courage to stand up against fossil fuel projects like offshore and Arctic drilling, coal leasing in the Powder River basin, and the Keystone XL pipeline.”

Climate change is an existential issue for the earth and all of its inhabitants.  We need leaders who are bold and passionate about stopping global warming.  We need to end our reliance on fossil fuels now and that means no more approvals for fossil fuel projects.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Clinton/Sanders - Fracking, XL Pipeline and Fossil Fuels

Dear Friends,

Hillary Clinton continues to refuse to say what her stand is on the XL Pipeline.  Bernie Sanders has been an outspoken critic of the pipeline for years.  Hillary Clinton has not spoken recently about fracking but when she was Secretary of State she was promoting fracking technology around the world.  Bernie Sanders believes that fracking should be banned.

If you like President Obama's positions on fossil fuels, climate change, fracking, the XL Pipeline and alternative energy promotion, then you will like Hillary Clinton's positions as well.  Senator Clinton has an all of the above energy policy.

• She believes that humans are causing climate change and that we must act.
• She has supported President Obama's efforts to limit carbon emissions.
• She continues to support the use of fossil fuels, but has spoken generally about limiting the subsidies fossil fuels receive.
• She supports alternative energy subsidies.
• She rationalizes fracking with a better than coal argument.  
• She supported increased drilling off the coasts of the United States.  
• Her voting record in the Senate suggests that she opposes drilling in the Arctic, but she has not commented on Arctic drilling as a new Presidential candidate, and specifically she has not commented on the Obama Administration moving ahead to permit Shell to drill in the Arctic.
• She refuses to comment on the XL Pipeline, but supported it as Secretary of State.
• She acknowledges that clean coal is a possibility.

Senator Sanders positions are very clear and very much opposed to fossil fuels.

• He believes that humans are causing climate change and that we must act.
• He has supported President Obama's efforts to limit carbon emissions, but has also introduced significant legislation to force reductions.
• He clearly wants to eliminate fossil fuels eventually and has proposed legislation to eliminate all subsidies for them.
• He has a long list of legislation that he has introduced and supported promoting alternative and sustainable energy sources.
• He has proposed a ban on fracking.
• He opposed drilling off the Atlantic Coast.
• He opposes drilling in the Arctic.
• He opposes the XL Pipeline.
• He would end all subsidies for coal.

In my view on these issues, Senator Clinton is far better than all the Republican candidates for President, but Senator Sanders is much closer to my own view on these issues.  Senator Clinton will call herself a pragmatist.  Once again on these issues, I would say that she is a very slow incrementalist that will wait until she will not get too much criticism or anger her political and foundation donors too much by protecting the environment.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama, Global Warming and Shell Oil

Dear Friends,

As you undoubtedly know, President Obama recently granted Shell the right to drill in the Arctic Ocean.  You can read about it in The New York Times (here).  President Obama's decision is wrong on many levels.  The two biggest ones are that he is encouraging dangerous drillng for fossil fuels which will further accelerate global warming, and he is letting one of the companies with the worst safety records do that drilling.  What is he thinking?

While President Obama talks a lot about a balanced approach to energy and combating climate change, his actual policies are not balanced.  They support more fossil fuels.  In addition to permitting Shell to drill in the Arctic Ocean, President Obama is pushing to open up drilling on both the east and west coasts of the United States.  Under his watch, the United States has become the largest oil and gas producer in the world.  Is there really any hope that he will stop the Keystone XL Pipeline? There is no balance.  There is no attempt to fight climate change. There is only continued support and encouragement to the fossil fuel industry.  A simple Google search will confirm this fact, but if you want a quick read, here is an article published by U.S. News & World Report (here) entitled "Arctic Drilling Undercuts Obama's Global Warming Efforts, Experts Say".

There is no safe way to drill in the Arctic.  Here is ABC's summary of a widely quoted report by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the agency within our government (the Obama Administration) that is supposed to be the expert.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the agency that approved Shell’s plan for drilling in the Chukchi Sea, admitted in a February report that there was a “75% chance of one or more large spills” occurring in the area over the next 77 years.

The drill site is over 1,000 miles from the nearest Coast Guard site that could work to constrain a spill.  So we essentially know that we will do permanent and incredible damage to this area, and yet we are approving the drilling.

To add insult to injury, President Obama granted the right to drill in very dangerous conditions to Shell Oil whose safety record is abysmal.  Here are a few highlights of Shell's Arctic Ocean drilling for 2012 from the Natural Resources Defense Fund (here):

July 2012 - Shell Oil's Noble Discoverer drill ship drags anchor and nearly drifts ashore in Dutch Harbor, Alaska.
September 2012 - Caught off guard by sea ice, Shell is forced to halt drilling – just one day after it started.
September 2012 - In an initial test in Puget Sound, WA, Shell's Arctic oil spill containment system is "crushed like a beer can."
October 2012 - The CEO of French oil giant Total says drilling in the Arctic is too risky.
November 2012 - Noble Discoverer catches fire.
December 31, 2012 - Kulluk drilling rig breaks loose from tow lines five times in heavy storm and runs aground off Kodiak Island, Alaska.

The problem is clearly summarized in the following paragraphs from The New York Times article entitled "Shell's Record Adds to the Anger of Those Opposing Arctic Drilling" (here)

[Environmentalists] said that the company’s track record in the Arctic should rule out another chance for it. Shell tried to drill in the Arctic in 2012, and the company’s multibillion-dollar drilling rig, the Kulluk, ran aground. The operator of a drill ship hired by Shell also pleaded guilty to eight felony offenses and agreed to pay $12.2 million over shoddy record-keeping that covered up hazardous conditions and jury-rigged equipment that discharged polluted water.

“Shell has already proven itself not up to the challenge of development in the Arctic Ocean,” said Franz Matzner, the director of the Beyond Oil Initiative at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “But it’s not just Shell. The fact is, there’s no safe way to pursue oil exploration in the frozen wastes of the Arctic Ocean.”

He added, “This is an inexplicable decision to do something that is dirty, dangerous and unnecessary.”

Every day I wonder more and more what happened to the candidate Obama who I so wholeheartedly supported.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Q: Who Controls America? A: Big Business and Big Money

Dear Friends,

Recent news articles have made it very clear who actually controls America and most of its politicians from both parties.  While the following news stories are seemingly unrelated, consider them as evidence to support the fact that big business and big money control America.  While I would expect the Republican Party today to be in favor of control by big business and big money, I am dismayed at the lack of opposition by the mainstream Democrats.

Trans-Pacific Partnership
I have written before about the TPP and how terrible it is (here and here).  Each time more information is leaked about what is in this so-called trade agreement, there is another uproar about it. On March 25, The New York Times published an article by Jonathan Weisman entitled "Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S. (here).  The agreement has many advisors from big business but nobody is looking out for everybody else.  Here are a couple of the pertinent paragraphs from the article.  Keep in mind that the provision allowing suits against the US to stop the enforcement of US laws is only one of many really bad ideas in the TPP.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership — a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s remaining economic agenda — would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.
Backers of the emerging trade accord, which is supported by a wide variety of business groups and favored by most Republicans, say that it is in line with previous agreements that contain similar provisions. But critics, including many Democrats in Congress, argue that the planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere, giving greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers. The chapter in the draft of the trade deal, dated Jan. 20, 2015, and obtained by The New York Times in collaboration with the group WikiLeaks, is certain to kindle opposition from both the political left and the right. The sensitivity of the issue is reflected in the fact that the cover mandates that the chapter not be declassified until four years after the Trans-Pacific Partnership comes into force or trade negotiations end, should the agreement fail.Conservatives are likely to be incensed that even local policy changes could send the government to a United Nations-sanctioned tribunal. On the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, law professors and a host of liberal activists have expressed fears the provisions would infringe on United States sovereignty and impinge on government regulation involving businesses in banking, tobacco, pharmaceuticals and other sectors.

Why would you require that a provision not be made public for 4 years after enactment or the end of negotiations if you were not really embarrassed about it.  Please note that the TPP has the full backing of not just big business and the Republicans but also President Obama.  Secretary Clinton was a big supporter of TPP when she was the Secretary of State, and she was an enthusiastic backer of NAFTA during her husband's administration.  The progressives in the Democratic Party including Senators Sanders, Brown and Warren are all opponents of TPP.

 Shell Oil Arctic Drilling

Shell Oil is already moving a large drilling rig to the Arctic even though it has not yet received the approvals needed from the United States government.  Shell ran into big problems last year when it began its program and had to stop drilling operations.  The Obama Administration is about to grant approval for it to start drilling.  One paragraph from an article in The New York Times on August 28, 2014 (here) summarizes Shell's demonstrated ability to drill in the Arctic.

Over the last eight years, Shell’s Alaskan Arctic efforts have been plagued by blunders and accidents involving ships and support equipment, reaching a climax with the grounding of one of its drilling vessels in late December 2012 in stormy seas. Environmental groups seized on the episodes as evidence to support their claims about the risks.

It is not only President Obama that is ignoring the pleas of environmentalist to stop the drilling.  Recently the Port of Seattle (a separate governmental unit from the city of Seattle) entered into a contract with Shell to permit Shell to use the port to service its rigs that will be used in the Arctic drilling.  As soon as that agreement was made public, the outrage began in force from environmental groups and the city of Seattle.  Why is it that all these agreements are kept quiet until they are done?  An article in The New York Times on March 13, 2015 (here) makes the issue clear in the first two paragraphs.

SEATTLE — The environmental messaging never stops here, whether from a city-owned electric utility that gets nearly 98 percent of its power from sources untainted by carbon (and is not about to let residents forget it) or the fussy garbage collectors who can write tickets for the improper sorting of recyclables.
So when a lease was signed allowing Royal Dutch Shell, the petrochemical giant, to bring its Arctic Ocean drilling rigs to the city’s waterfront, the result was a kind of civic call to arms. A unanimous City Council lined up alongside the mayor to question the legality of the agreement with the Port of Seattle, a court challenge was filed by environmental groups, and protesters, in bluster or bluff, vowed to block the rigs’ arrival — though the exact timetable is secret, for security reasons — with a flotilla of kayaks in Elliott Bay.

The fight to stop Shell from drilling in the Arctic is not over but clearly so far big business is winning.

Big Banks

In a moment of amazingly transparent honesty, the big banks have made it clear that they expect to get a huge return on their investment in buying politicians.  It has been widely reported that big banks intend to withhold contributions to Democrats if Senators Warren and Brown do not tone down their rhetoric about "too big to fail" legislation.  This action by the big banks is a clear statement of what they expect in exchange for their political contributions.  They are buying support for their policies which are not good for America.  They are only good for the banks.  The following is Senator Warren's response as quoted tin the Boston Globe on March 27 (here):

WASHINGTON -- Senator Elizabeth Warren took aim at Wall Street on Friday after two banks reportedly decided to halt campaign contributions to Senate Democrats unless Warren and Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio tone down their rhetoric on breaking up large financial institutions.
“They can threaten or bully or say whatever they want, but we aren’t going to change our game plan,” Warren wrote to her supporters. “We do, however, need to respond.” 

Secrecy of Corporate Contributions

There was a great editorial in The New York Times on March 27 entitled "Which Companies Are Buying the Election? (here).  The impetus for the editorial was a recent Congressional hearing with the head of the SEC as the witness.  For the first 3.5 hours there were no questions about forcing disclosure of corporate political contributions from either the Republicans or the Democrats.  Eventually there was a question and the response was that the SEC does not have the time.  There are more pressing needs.  Once again clearly the Republicans do not want corporate or individual donors to be disclosed.  The Koch Brothers have done an incredible job of putting together a network of big donors that can contribute through all kinds of charades without having their names disclosed.  The response from the corporate wing of the Democratic party has been to remain silent.  Despite pressure from numerous advocacy groups President Obama is not taking any action to increase the transparency of political contributions.  Once again only the truly progressive Democrats including Senators Warren and Sanders are pushing for full disclosure of political contributions and limits.

Senator Reid and Senator Schumer

I have seldom praised Senator Reid as the Senate Majority Leader although he clearly did a lot of good things.  I recently listened to an interview of Senator Sanders who said that Senator Reid was a true progressive.  That is high praise coming from Senator Reid.  What worries me is that Senator Schumer is the heir apparent to Senator Reid as Majority Leader.  This CNN headline (here) tells you all you need to know:  "Wall Street welcomes expected Chuck Schumer promotion".

I could go on and on but I think these examples are enough, and I am sure that you can think of plenty of your own.  The United States of America is our country and our democracy is clearly in crisis as we become a plutocracy.  We, as individual citizens, are the only ones who can get our democracy back.  Get involved.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal