PoliticalAction.com Blog

By Jim Hightower
August 6, 2009
Straight to the Source

Here’s a great idea: Let’s bring into our country a genetically-engineered, non-native tree that is known to be wildly invasive, explosively flammable, and insatiably thirsty for ground water. Then let’s clone thousands of these living firecrackers and plant them in forested regions across seven Southern states, allowing them to grow, flower, produce seeds, and spread into native environments.

Yes, this would be irresponsible, dangerous, and stupid – but apparently “Irresponsible, Dangerous, and Stupid” is the unofficial slogan of the U.S. Department Agriculture. In May, with little consideration of the devastating consequences for our native environment, USDA cavalierly rubberstamped a proposal by a profiteering corporation named ArborGen to do all of the above.

Substantially owned by International Paper, ArborGen shipped tissue from Brazilian eucalyptus trees to its New Zealand laboratories, where it was genetically altered to have more cellulose. New Zealand, however, outlaws plantings of genetically-engineered crops, so ArborGen sought out a more corporate-compliant country: Ours. The engineered eucalyptus was waved right into the good ol’ USA to be cloned, and it’s now awaiting final approval for outdoor release in our land.

This has happened with practically no media coverage or public participation. It is happening solely because a handful of global speculators hope to profit by making ethanol from cellulose-enhanced eucalyptus – never mind that their self-aggrandizement would put America’s native forests in danger of irreversible contamination by these destructive, invasive Frankentrees.

Luckily, several scrappy grassroots groups have mobilized to bring common sense and public pressure to bear on USDA. For updates and action items, visit www.nogetrees.org.

“Public Overwhelmingly Rejects Genetically Engineered Trees,” Stop GE Trees Campaign, July 16, 2009.

Please click here to take action against ArborGen’s plan to plant 260,000 franken-trees.

Texas Straight Talk – A Weekly Column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

In my last column, I joked that with public spending out of control and the piling on of the international bailout bill, economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress. It is getting harder to joke about such a thing however, as the non-partisan General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated that the administration’s health care plan would actually cost over a trillion dollars. This reality check may have given us a temporary reprieve on this particular disastrous policy, however an equally disastrous energy policy reared its ugly head on Capitol Hill last week.

The Cap and Trade Bill HR 2454 was voted on last Friday. Proponents claim this bill will help the environment, but what it really does is put another nail in the economy’s coffin. The idea is to establish a national level of carbon dioxide emissions, and sell pollution permits to industry as the Catholic Church used to sell indulgences to sinners. HR 2454 also gives federal bureaucrats new power to regulate a wide variety of household appliances, such as light bulbs and refrigerators, and further distorts the market by providing more of your tax money to auto companies.

The administration has pointed to Spain as a shining example of this type of progressive energy policy. Spain has been massively diverting capital from the private sector into politically favored environmental projects for the better part of a decade, and many in Washington apparently like what they see. However, under no circumstances should anyone serious about economic recovery emulate an economy that is now approaching 20 percent unemployment, where every green job created, eliminated 2.2 real jobs and cost around $800,000 each!

The real inconvenient truth is that the cost of government regulations, taxes, fees, red tape and bureaucracy is a considerable expense that has to be considered when companies decide where to do business and how many people they can afford to hire. Increasing governmental burden directly causes capital flight and job losses, as Spain has learned. In this global economy its easy enough for businesses to relocate to countries that are more politically friendly to economic growth. If our government continues to kick the economy while its down, it will be a long time before it gets back up. In fact, jobs are much more likely to go overseas, compounding our problems.

And for what? Contrary to claims repeated over and over, there is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming is getting worse or that it is manmade. In fact over 30,000 scientists signed a petition recently directly disputing the claims on which this policy is based. Legitimate environmental claims should instead be directed towards the public sector. The government, especially the military, is the most serious polluter in the country, and is exempt from most EPA regulations. Meanwhile Washington bureaucrats have classified the very air we exhale as a pollutant and have gone unchallenged in this incredible assertion. The logical consequence is that there will come a time when we will have to buy a government permit just to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from our own lungs!

The events on Capitol Hill last week just demonstrate Washington’s audacity in manufacturing problems just so they can expand government power to solve them.

Richard Morrison
Competitive Enterprise Institute
June 29, 2009

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Internal EPA email messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.

The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.

New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.

The released report is a draft version, prepared under EPA’s unusually short internal review schedule, and thus may contain inaccuracies which were corrected in the final report.

“While we hoped that EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its Administrator has been talking transparency since she took office. So we are releasing a draft version of the report ourselves, today,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.cll

Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman’s many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership’s solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman’s co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO’s analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to “offset” their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.”

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn’t take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others — manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can’t repeal that reality.

June 24, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Congress is trying to skyrocket your cost of living while putting another 1 million-plus Americans out of work. And they want to do it before the week is out.

You see, the bill (HR2454) currently in the House is really nothing more than a thinly disguised energy tax that will hit every single American.

And now Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats are pushing this tax hike toward a vote that could come as soon as Friday.

That’s why we need to act now.

I have included the office number for your Representative, Allyson Y. Schwartz, but first I want you to understand the disastrous consequences of this Cap-and-Tax Scheme.

By invasively manipulating an already over-regulated energy industry, this legislation seeks to fix an alleged problem that has recently been discredited by over 31,478 scientists — including over 3,803 with specific expertise in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences.

All 31,478 of these scientists are trained to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis — and are speaking out against government remedies.

With this bill, Congress is once again just doing what it does best — fleecing taxpayers to further an alarmist agenda.

You see, energy companies just pass the costs of these draconian regulations through to the consumer in the form of huge price increases.

As a result, you will pay higher gas prices, higher electric prices, and higher costs for goods.

Barack Obama has estimated the costs of this legislation to American taxpayers to be over 650 BILLION dollars over the next eight years, and that figure is no doubt just a fraction of the real cost.

But even that modest estimate amounts to hundreds of dollars a year in increased living expenses for every family — and will more likely cost thousands a year.

And according to the Heritage Foundation, between 1.2 and 2.3 million jobs could be lost over the next ten-years due to the bill’s stifling regulations.

This current economic crisis is no time for Congress to consider both raising prices on hard-working Americans AND costing them jobs.

That’s why we must act now to send a message to Congress to reject this disastrous Cap-and-Tax Scheme.

Call now and ask for the staff member that deals with Energy policy. Politely but firmly tell them that you are opposed to this costly government power grab.

Supporters of the legislation are of course trying to downplay the cost of this scheme to the American people.

But if the bill does not directly and massively increase energy costs to consumers, how would it possibly achieve its stated aims?

It is only through these massive cost increases — mandated and enforced by the federal government — that the dubious goal of reducing carbon emissions could possibly be reached. The only alternative to huge energy price increases would be massive, government-ordered power outages, leaving Americans literally in-the-dark like some war-torn Third World Country.

So please call your representative at and speak out in opposition to this hidden tax.

You’ve shown what an impact grassroots action can make toward Auditing the Fed.

Let’s unleash that same R3volution in opposition to this Big Government Cap-and-Tax Scheme.

In Liberty,

John Tate
President

P.S. Congress is trying to skyrocket your cost of living with hidden taxes from the Cap-and-Trade Bill. Call your Representative and speak out in opposition of this hidden tax hike and expansion of Big Government.

Dear Congressperson, (Viewers please feel free to customize for your own purposes)

Please Vote NO on H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill because I can’t afford the increased expenses it would lead to for businesses in general and me in particular. It would serve as a new hidden tax on all Americans. As President Obama said in 2008,

“[U]nder my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

An expensive new “tax” bill will be considered on the floor of the House as early as this Friday, June 26. This bill is known as the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” H.R. 2454, also known as the Waxman-Markey climate change bill.

Most Americans know this bill as a “cap-and-trade” bill for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and global warming by creating a system of pollution permits that energy companies must buy before releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

There are several very important reasons for Americans to oppose this bill:

(1) At exactly the time when more and more Americans are realizing that our federal government is out of control, this bill would establish a whole new unconstitutional activity of the federal government and give it yet another regulatory tool for increasing the cost of doing business, which would necessarily translate into higher costs for consumers.

(2) This bill would lead to increased expenses for American households of thousands of dollars per year. A recent Congressional Budget Office report estimated that the cost per household would be as little as $175 per year. However, the Heritage Foundation has responded with “CBO Grossly Underestimates Costs of Cap and Trade,” in which they point out that the CBO study assumes nearly 100% of the increased costs for businesses will be rebated to consumers by the federal government (when has this ever happened?) and omits consideration of negative impacts on the economy of thousands of dollars per household. Bottom line, don’t rely on the CBO report to be an accurate forecast of the additional costs you’ll be paying each year due to this cap and trade bill. For additional analysis of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill, see “The Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill: Is the Economic Pain Justified by the Environmental Gain?”

(3) The whole reason for existence of the expensive cap and trade scheme in H.R. 2454 is based on the global warming myth that man’s activities are producing significant temperature increases. Take a cold bath in reality by reading “A Cooling Trend Toward Global Warming.”

We must not provide the federal government with new powers to regulate businesses that would lead to at least hundreds of dollars of new expenses per household each year and more likely to thousands of dollars of new expenses per year.

Take action now and help preserve your freedom and prosperity by telling your representative in the U.S. House that you are strongly opposed to the cap and trade bill, H.R. 2454!

Sincerely,
Your Constituents

Greener Cows: Farmers change their cows’ diets to reduce burps, major source of greenhouse gas

* By Lisa Rathke, Associated Press Writer
* On Sunday June 21, 2009, 11:22 am EDT

COVENTRY, Vt. (AP) — Vermont dairy farmers Tim Maikshilo and Kristen Dellert, mindful of shrinking their carbon footprint, have changed their cows’ diet to reduce the amount of gas the animals burp — dairy cows’ contribution to global warming.

Coventry Valley Farm is one of 15 Vermont farms working with Stonyfield Farm Inc., whose yogurt is made with their organic milk, to reduce the cows’ intestinal methane by feeding them flaxseed, alfalfa, and grasses high in Omega 3 fatty acids. The gas cows belch is the dairy industry’s biggest greenhouse gas contributor, research shows, most of it emitted from the front and not the back end of the cow.

“I just figured a cow was a cow and they were going to do whatever they were going to do in terms of cow things for gas,” said Dellert. “It was pretty shocking to me that just being organic wasn’t enough, actually. I really thought that here we’re organic, we’re doing what we need to do for the planet, we’re doing the stuff for the soil and I really thought that was enough.”

She learned it wasn’t. The dairy industry contributes about 2 percent to the country’s total greenhouse gas production, said Rick Naczi, a vice president at Dairy Management Inc., which funds research and promotes dairy products. Most of it comes from the cow, the rest from growing feed crops for the cattle to processing and transporting the milk.

To satisfy consumers’ demands for sustainable production, the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy in Rosemont, Ill., is looking at everything from growing feed crops to trucking milk to reduce the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. That would be the equivalent of removing about 1.25 million cars from U.S. roads every year, said Naczi, who manages the program.

One way is by feeding cows alfalfa, flax and grasses, all high in Omega 3s, instead of corn or soy, said Nancy Hirschberg, head of Stonyfield’s Greener Cow Project. The feed rebalances the cows’ rumen, the first stomach of ruminants, and cuts down on gas, she said. Another way is to change the bacteria in a cow’s rumen, Naczi said.

When Stonyfield first analyzed its contribution to global warming in the late 1990s, the company thought its factory in Londonderry, N.H., produced the most greenhouse gases.

“And when we got the report and our number one impact on climate change was the milk production, we were completely stunned,” she said.

A study showed that the single biggest source was the cow’s enteric emissions: gas.

The company funded energy audits on farms and research on small manure digesters so farmers could produce energy from methane gas.

But Hirschberg said she had no idea what to do about enteric emissions. Then she learned what Group Danone of France, majority owner of Stonyfield and best known in the U.S. for its Dannon products, was doing about its methane.

By feeding their cows alfalfa, flax and grasses, they were cutting down on the gas passed.

The milk is tested at a lab at the University of Vermont to determine its fat content, a process patented by French nutrition company Valorex SAS, through which the enteric emissions are calculated.

Since January, Coventry Valley Farm has reduced its cows’ belches by 13 percent. At another farm, they’ve gone down 18 percent.

Maikshilo and Dellert have also noticed a difference in Hester, Rosebud, Pristine and their other cows. The coats of the black and white Holsteins and brown Jerseys are shinier and they’ve had fewer foot problems and no stomach ailments, they say.

So far, it hasn’t cost them any more for their custom-made grain, which the cows only get in the winter. Now they’re out grazing on grass in the pasture, getting as many Omega 3s. And the farm’s vet bills have gone down.

It’s a win-win for farmers, said Naczi.

“It’s just the right thing to do,” he said.

Stonyfield Farm Inc.’s Greener Cow progam: http://www.stonyfield.com/GreenerCow/