Bipartisanship... The Good Kind

Yesterday we talked about how cowardly New Dem freshmen Patrick Murphy and Kyrsten Sinema, who Boehner and Cantor know they can count on to almost always betray progressive Democratic ideals and vote with the GOP in a way that allows them to claim their toxic agenda is "bipartisan," have a phony-baloney bipartisan caucus that helps round up naive Democratic freshman to vote with the GOP. That isn't bipartisan-- that's self-loathing surrender-monkey opportunism. And Murphy and Sinema are probably the two worst mistakes of 2012.

This week Alan Grayson (D-FL) showed the way real bipartisanship actually works, something people like Murphy and Sinema will never understand even if they manage to survive in 2014. For Grayson, it comes natural and reminds people of how he was able to work with Ron Paul and bring along enough Democrats to pass Audit the Fed legislation that neither corrupt party establishment wanted to see happen.

This week Grayson's amendment to H.R. 1613 (the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act) was suddenly reported out of the House Rules Committee and was voted on Thursday. The amendment is simple: "Nothing in this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, affects the right and power of each State to prohibit management, leasing, developing, and use of lands beneath navigable waters, and the natural resources within such lands, within its boundaries." His amendment makes sure that States can do what they wish within their own boundaries. If Florida or New Jersey want to ban offshore oil drilling off their own coasts, they should be guaranteed the right to. In fact, Grayson rallied nearly the entire Florida delegation-- Democrats and Republicans-- in a way that left the entire House in shock. The Thursday go failed-- primarily because Henry Waxman, who supports it, was out of the room when it was time to vote and no one could find him. It was an unprecedented 213-213 tie. Only 5 rotgut Blue Dogs-- John Barrow (GA), Jim Matheson (UT), Jim Cooper (TN), Collin Peterson (MN) and Jim Costa (CA), among the most corrupt Members in the history of a very corrupt institution-- voted against the bill on the Democratic side.

Meanwhile, Grayson was able to personally persuade state's rights-supporting Republicans, that this bill fit into their worldview. The Florida Republicans who went along with him:

• Gus Bilirakis
• Vern Buchanan
• Ron De Santis
• Mario Diaz-Balart
• John Mica
• Jeff Miller
• Richard Nugent
• Bill Posey
• Trey Radel
• Tom Rooney
• Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
• Dennis Ross
• Daniel Webster
• Ted Yoho

Doddering and incompetent imbecile Lois Frankel voted NO, but Pelosi woke her up and read her the riot act and she was quickly back on board. Today it was Hoyer, Israel and Pelosi that were corralling reluctant Democrats when Grayson introduced the same amendment for H.R. 2231, Doc Hastings' heinous Offshore Energy Act, It failed by one vote, 209-210 because the only two Democrats who wouldn't vote for it were the two biggest oil whores in the Democratic caucus, John Barrow and Jim Matheson. Barrow, especially-- coming from a state with a long coastline-- was happy to screw his own constituents and Georgians traditional preference for state's rights because Barrow takes more in bribes from Big Oil than any other Democrat in the House. Matheson, by the way, is #2.

Hastings freaked out that so many Republicans voted for the amendment Thursday and he got the GOP leadership to lean on Members. Doug LaMalfa voted against it yesterday but voted for it today-- until Hastings made him switch back to a NO voted again! Florida Republicans who voted for the amendment Thursday but were unable to resist leadership pressure Friday and switched to NO votes were:

• Ron De Santis
• John Mica
• Richard Nugent
• Tom Rooney
• Dennis Ross
• Daniel Webster

I wonder if GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy reminded Webster that it was Grayson's team who gave him the nickname "Taliban Dan." But the real culprit in this was clearly John Barrow, who had every reason in the world to vote for it-- and whose vote would have changed the outcome-- but who delivered for the oil companies that gave him $106,900 last year alone. Grayson doesn't get paid off by Big Oil the way Barrow and Matheson do and he works for us, not them. He's asking for contributions this weekend for his end-of-the-quarter FEC deadline. Give him a hand here.

Read More

Will We Have To Go Back To Drinking Wine Instead of Water Because Of Corporate Pollution?

If you were listening to NPR Saturday, you may have heard their report about water rights in the U.S. "Oil was probably the fluid of last century where there was a lot of turmoil, and I think water is the fluid of this century," explained Michael Walsh, a major general with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

So often, we take water for granted. We turn on the faucet and there it is. We assume it's our right in America to have water. And yet, water is a resource. It's not always where we need it, or there when we need it.

Rivers don't follow political boundaries-- they flow through states and over international borders. And there are endless demands for water: for agriculture, drinking, plumbing, manufacturing, to name just a few. And then there's the ecosystem that depends on water getting downstream.

So what are our legal rights when it comes to water? And who decides?

The NPR report talks about the role of Congress and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, municipalities, ranchers, fishermen and American Indian tribes. But they never got around to what trumps all of them: Corporate America, where the bottom line is... the bottom line. Greed and avarice trumps all, especially when you're talking about "the fluid of last century." Tom Kenworthy made the case over the weekend that fracking is already straining U.S. water supplies.

As the level of hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells in the United States has intensified in recent years, much of the mounting public concern has centered on fears that underground water supplies could be contaminated with the toxic chemicals used in the well-stimulation technique that cracks rock formations and releases trapped oil and gas. But in some parts of the country, worries are also growing about fracking’s effect on water supply, as the water-intensive process stirs competition for the resources already stretched thin by drought or other factors.

Every fracking job requires 2 million to 4 million gallons of water, according to the Groundwater Protection Council. The Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has estimated that the 35,000 oil and gas wells used for fracking consume between 70 billion and 140 billion gallons of water each year. That’s about equal, EPA says, to the water use in 40 to 80 cities with populations of 50,000 people, or one to two cities with a population of 2.5 million each.

Some of the most intensive oil and gas development in the nation is occurring in regions where water is already at a premium. A paper published last month by Ceres, a nonprofit that works on sustainability issues, looked at 25,000 shale oil and shale gas wells in operation and monitored by an industry-tied reporting website called FracFocus.

Ceres found that 47 percent of these wells were in areas “with high or extremely high water stress” because of large withdrawals for use by industry, agriculture, and municipalities. In Colorado, for example, 92 percent of the wells were in extremely high water-stress areas, and in Texas more than half were in high or extremely high water-stress areas.

“Given projected sharp increases in production in the coming years and the potentially intense nature of local water demands, competition and conflicts over water should be a growing concern for companies, policymakers and investors,” the Ceres report concluded. It goes on to say that:

Prolonged drought conditions in many parts of Texas and Colorado last summer created increased competition and conflict between farmers, communities and energy developers, which is only likely to continue. … Even in wetter regions of the northeast United States, dozens of water permits granted to operators had to be withdrawn last summer due to low levels in environmentally vulnerable headwater streams.

Another recent study by the University of Texas looked at past and projected water use for fracking in the Barnett, Eagle Ford, and Haynesville shale plays in Texas, and found that fracking in 2011 was using more than twice as much water in the state as it was three years earlier. In Dimmit County, home to the Eagle Ford shale development in South Texas, fracking accounted for nearly a quarter of overall water consumption in 2011 and is expected to grow to a third in a few years, according to the study.

Moreover, an April report by the Western Organization of Resource Councils found that fracking is using 7 billion gallons of water a year in four western states: Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, and North Dakota. “Fracking’s growing demand for water can threaten availability of water for agriculture and western rural communities,” said Bob Leresche, a Wyoming resident and board member of the group.

...As the Ceres report concludes:

Shale energy development highlights the fact that our water resources were already vulnerable before additional demands were introduced. Regulators, water managers and ultimately all significant economic players who rely on abundant supplies of water must double-down their efforts to better manage this limited and most precious resource.

Worse news: because of the role of money in our politcal system-- i.e., systemic bribery-- those charged with protecting our clean drinking watre supplies (something that basic) have given a green light to Big Oil and Gas to ignore previous clean water regulations and frack away to their hearts' content. I thought this might be a good time to mention the dozen most corrupt Members of Congress in terms of Big Oil shillery. These are the Oil and Gas whores still in Congress who have made sure our watre would be poisoned-- with the amounts they have taken from Big Oil in blatant, legalistic bribes:

• John McCain (R-AZ)- $3,043,404

• John Cornyn (R-TX)- $1,990,350
• Joe Barton (R-TX)- $1,734,255
• Steve Pearce (R-NM)- $1,479,701
• Jim Inhofe (R-OK)- $1,457,696
• Miss McConnell (R-KY)- $1,348,311
• Don Young (R-AK)- $1,193,613
• David Vitter (R-LA)- $1,144,385
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA)- $1,086,084
• Mike Conaway (R-TX)- $942,118
• Pete Sessions (R-TX)- $868,346
• Lord Charles Boustany (R-LA)- $803,655

Read More

If The Oceans Rise 40 Meters, Will Your House Be Underwater?

Sometimes I wonder why I bother following the deranged rantings of right-wing sociopath Bryan Fischer on twitter. I keep wanting to delete him from my twitter-feed but, it's like a 50 car pile up you just can't stop watching... or it's my cross to bear. Yesterday I woke up with him racing about how Republican are the science party:

The hate talk radio host and satan-worshipper is like a contrary indicator of reality. I'm am glad he reminded me about global warming today though. The science section of The Guardian has a warning for humanity that satanists and End-of-Times activists like Fischer cheer with glee. Climate warming greenhouse gas have reached 400 parts per million for the first time in human history, not the first time in the earth's history, the first time since humans walked the earth. The last time there was so much CO2 in the atmosphere, there was no ice in the Arctic and the Sahara Desert was a fertile savannah... "and sea level was up to 40 metres higher than today." 40 metres... that's high-- 131 feet. There wouldn't be much of Florida above the surface.

These conditions are expected to return in time, with devastating consequences for civilisation, unless emissions of CO2 from the burning of coal, gas and oil are rapidly curtailed. But despite increasingly severe warnings from scientists and a major economic recession, global emissions have continued to soar unchecked.

"It is symbolic, a point to pause and think about where we have been and where we are going," said Professor Ralph Keeling, who oversees the measurements on a Hawaiian volcano, which were begun by his father in 1958. "It's like turning 50: it's a wake up to what has been building up in front of us all along."

"The passing of this milestone is a significant reminder of the rapid rate at which-- and the extent to which-- we have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," said Prof Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which serves as science adviser to the world's governments. "At the beginning of industrialisation the concentration of CO2 was just 280ppm. We must hope that the world crossing this milestone will bring about awareness of the scientific reality of climate change and how human society should deal with the challenge."

The world's governments have agreed to keep the rise in global average temperature, which have already risen by over 1C, to 2C, the level beyond which catastrophic warming is thought to become unstoppable. But the International Energy Agency warned in 2012 that on current emissions trends the world will see 6C of warming, a level scientists warn would lead to chaos. With no slowing of emissions seen to date, there is already mounting pressure on the UN summit in Paris in 2015, which is the deadline set to settle a binding international treaty to curb emissions.

Edward Davey, the UK's energy and climate change secretary, said: "This isn't just a symbolic milestone, it's yet another piece of clear scientific evidence of the effect human activity is having on our planet. I've made clear I will not let up on efforts to secure the legally binding deal the world needs by 2015 to avoid the worst effects of climate change."

Two CO2 monitoring stations high on the Hawaiian volcano of Mauna Loa are run by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and provide the global benchmark measurement. Data released on Friday shows the daily average has passed 400ppm for the first time in its half century of recording. The level peaks in May each year as the CO2 released by decaying vegetation is taken up by renewed plant growth in the northern hemisphere, where the bulk of plants grow.

Analysis of fossil air trapped in ancient ice and other data indicate that this level has not been seen on Earth for 3-5 million years, a period called the Pliocene. At that time, global average temperatures were 3 or 4C higher than today's and 8C warmer at the poles. Reef corals suffered a major extinction while forests grew up to the northern edge of the Arctic Ocean, a region which is today bare tundra.

"I think it is likely that all these ecosystem changes could recur," said Richard Norris, a colleague of Keeling's at Scripps. The Earth's climate system takes time to adjust to the increased heat being trapped by high greenhouse levels and it may take hundreds of years for the great ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland to melt to the small size of the Pliocence and sea level far above many of the world's major cities.

But the extreme speed at which CO2 in now rising-- perhaps 75 times faster than in pre-industrial time-- has never been seen in geological records and some effects of climate change are already being seen, with extreme heatwaves and flooding now more likely. Recent wet and cold summer weather in Europe has been linked to changes in the high level jetstream winds, in turn linked to the rapidly melting sea ice in the Arctic, which shrank to its lowest recorded level in September.

"We are creating a prehistoric climate in which human societies will face huge and potentially catastrophic risks," said Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics. "Only by urgently reducing global emissions will we be able to avoid the full consequences of turning back the climate clock by 3 million years."

"The 400ppm threshold is a sobering milestone and should serve as a wake up call for all of us to support clean energy technology and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, before it's too late for our children and grandchildren," said Tim Lueker, a carbon cycle scientist at Scripps.

Professor Bob Watson, former IPCC chair and UK government chief scientific adviser, said: "Passing 400ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is indeed a landmark and the rate of increase is faster than ever and shows no sign of abating due to a lack of political committment to address the urgent issue of climate change-- the world is now most likely committed to an increase in surface temperature of 3C-5C compared to pre-industrial times."

The graph of the rising CO2 at Mauna Loa is known as the Keeling curve (see video up top), after the late Dave Keeling, the scientist who began the measurements in March 1958. The isolated Hawaiian island is a good location for measurements as it is far from the main sources of CO2, meaning it represents a good global average.

On February 16, 2012, House Republicans passed Greg Lamborn's H.R. 3408 to push forward the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and open up vast stretches of federally-owned territory to corporate oil and gas companies. It passed 237-187, with 21 right-wing Democrats joining most of the Republicans to pass it. The GOP made their point and then never bothered sending it to the Senate. These are the Democrats who backed it:

• Jason Altmire (Blue Dog/New Dem-PA)- defeated in primary
• John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA)- still hanging on
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
• Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)- forced to retire
• Leonard Boswell (Blue Dog-IA)- defeated
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog/New Dem-TN)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Mark Crtiz (PA)- defeated
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)- saved from political extinction by Richard Mourdock
• Al Green (TX)
• Gene Green (TX)
• Rubén Hinojosa (TX)
• Kathy Hochul (New Dem-NY)- defeated
• Larry Kissel (Blue Dog-NC)- defeated
• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT) came within 768 votes of defeat
• Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC)- came within 654 votes of defeat
• Bill Owens (New Dem-NY)- came within 4,985 votes of defeat
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Cedric Richmond (New Dem-LA)
• Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)- forced to retire

All day on the 15th and 16th of February, there were dozens of amendments offered to ameliorate the negative environmental impact of the bill. They were all voted down by Climate Change deniers and Big Oil's congressional shills. The first to be defeated was Anna Eshoo's amendment to put off approval of the Keystone XL pipeline until the completion of a safety report. 18 Democrats joined all but two Republicans voting against it. That was immediately followed by the defeat of Ed Markey's amendment to require all oil imported through the Keystone pipeline be used in the U.S. and not exported. Two dozen Democrats joined the GOP against that one. There were amendments defeated to prevent offshore drilling in California and off the coast of the Northeast. Everything was defeated by the Republican Party with the help of corrupt Blue Dogs and New Dems in the pockets of Big Oil. Next time tells you there's no difference between the parties-- or no difference between real Democrats and the toxic New Dems-- think about sea level rising 131 feet.

Read More

Sunbelt State Republicans In A Bind Over Solar Power

As we saw yesterday, the American conservative movement is a captive of-- and virtually inextricable from-- the self-sustaining, cash-soaked universe of Big Oil and Gas. Conservative politicians' careers have been financed by Big Oil and they will fight to the death for their corporate masters. Unfortunately, the death their fighting for is our death, our country's and our planet's death. As Bill McKibben mentioned in his sermon, tiny Bavaria in southern Germany (27,239 square miles-- smaller than South Carolina) now more solar panels functioning to create cheap, clean electricity than the entire United States (3.794 million square miles). Right-wing reactionaries and hatemongers accept that shilling for Big Oil is part of their job. When I woke up yesterday reactionary sociopath Bryan Fischer had just gratuitously tweeted:

Meanwhile, Juan Cole was pointing out that the rest of the world is sensibly forging ahead on the back of the incredibly shrinking cost of solar energy. Because the pace of technological innovation in the solar field has so rapidly accelerated, it is now as inexpensive to build a solar plant as a gas or coal one and in the Southwest solar is at grid parity, as it is in several European countries that have no oil, like Italy, Spain, Germany, Portugal.

By 2015, solar panels should have fallen to 42 cents per watt. Reneweconomy.com says that the best Chinese solar panels fell in cost by 50% between 2009 and 2012. That incredible achievement is what has driven so many solar companies bankrupt– if you have the older technology, your panels are suddenly expensive and you can’t compete. It is like no one wants a 4 year old computer. Conservatives shed no tears when better computers drive slower ones out of the market, but point to solar companies’ shake-out as somehow bad or unnatural. No wonder US solar installations jumped 76% in 2012. The reductions in cost over the next two years are expected to continue, at a slowing but still impressive 30% rate.

In the last election, the part of the Antelope Valley in CA-25, voted, for the first time, against the virulently anti-environmental Republican incumbent, Buck McKeon, and for environmental-friendly opponent, Lee Rogers. Had the rest of the district voted the way Antelope Valley did, McKeon would have lost and Rogers would be the congressman now. Both the congressmen from the Antelope Valley. McKeon and Kevin McCarthy, have taken considerable legalistic bribes from Big Oil and Gas, McCarthy $420,650 and McKeon $32,200 and now both are in an awkward situation back home. As Cole reports. the biggest solar plant in the world, the 579 megawatt Antelope Valley Solar Project is being built straddling their two districts. "It will provide electricity to 400,000 homes in the state (roughly 2 million people), and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 775,000 tons a year." McKeon and McCarthy, of course, both want to be seen leading the parade-- at least back home. Both their voting records in Washington are horrifically anti-environmental and pro-Big Oil. McCarthy's career-long ProgressivePunch score on crucial votes involving air pollution, biohazards, clean water, global warming, and renewable energy is a ZERO. McKeon's overall record on the environment is nearly as hideous, 3.68 (out of 100). McKeon's votes in favor of renewable energy have all been tied up in pork and kickbacks he can be on the receiving end of.

Important new research also shows that hybrid plants that have both solar panels and wind turbines dramatically increase efficiency and help with integration into the electrical grid. Earlier concerns that the turbines would cast shadows and so detract from the efficiency of the solar panels appear to have been overblown. Because in most places in the US there is more sun in the summer and more wind in the winter, a combined plant keeps the electricity feeding into the grid at a more constant rate all year round, which is more desirable than big spikes and fall-offs.

That Germany, then China, then the US are the world’s largest solar markets is no surprise. But that number 17 Japan will increase its solar installations by 120% in 2013 and so may be the second hottest solar market, just after China, this year, would mark a big change. Japan may well have 5 gigawatts of solar installed by the end of this year, even though the relatively new prime minister, Shinzo Abe, is no particular friend of the renewables. In my own view, if Japan made the right governmental and private investments, it could overtake China in the solar field and reverse its long post-bubble stagnation.

ABB has been commissioned a large solar electricity generating plant on the edge of the Kalahari Desert near Cape Town, South Africa. It will supply the electricity needs of around 40,000 persons and reduce annual emissions by 50,000 tons of carbon dioxide. South Africa emits 500 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, and is third in the world for per capita emissions. (Still, it only emits a 10th as much over-all as the US). But they just need a thousand more plants like the Kalahari one, and voila! South Africa is also imposing a carbon tax, which will hurry things along. (At the moment, South Africa is far too dependent on dirty coal plants, which not only fuel climate change but also spew deadly toxins such as mercury into the atmosphere, whence it goes into human beings.

Because of South African and Israeli demand in particular, demand for solar panels in the Middle East and Africa has risen over 600% during the past year. Saudi Arabia’s announced plans to save its petroleum for export by going solar at home will add a great deal to regional demand if it sticks to those plans. (In most countries, petroleum isn’t used much for electricity generation as opposed to transportation, but in oil states such as Saudi Arabia it often is used in power plants; but that cuts down on foreign exchange earnings.)

The two Indian states of Gujarat and Rajasthan are emerging as the solar giants in India, with each having now passed half a gigawatt in solar electricity generation capacity. The two account for some 88% of all of India’s solar power. But Rajasthan may soon outstrip Gujarat, given the state’s solar-friendly commitments, its ample amounts of scorching sunlight, and its vast deserts.

Read More

God's Day... And God's Taunt

Above is a sermon by guest preacher Bill McKibben from last Sunday, April 28, 2013. If you know much about McKibben it won't surprise you to know that the sermon is about Climate Change-- starting with the Hebrew Bible's story of Job, moving on to the Hindu Bhagavad Gita and winding up with the Christian Bible's Matthew 19. I'd go to church on Sunday if I knew of any preachers giving sermons like McKibben's.

The is the largest social justice issue that we have ever faced... When I started this work, one of the things I'd always heard was that environmentalism was something for rich white people who had taken care of their other problems and if you worried where your next meal was coming from you wouldn't be an environmentalist. What we found as we worked around the world is exactly the opposite. Rich people tend to feel themselves immune from these changes. Most of the people we work with around the world are poor and black and brown and Asian and young because that is what most of the world consists of and, what do you know, those people care as much about the future of the world as anybody else, maybe more so because if you are poor in this world right now, the future bears down harder on you than it does on anybody else...

As I've said, so far we've raised the temperature one degree but the same scientists who told us that would happen have shown quite clearly that that one degree would be 4 or 5 by century's end unless we act very swiftly to get off coal and gas and oil. And the larger question is why aren't we doing that? Why aren't we trying to make ourselves somewhat smaller? Why aren't we following, say, the lead of Germany, the only major country that's really pursued renewable power at an appropriate pace? There are now more solar panels in Bavaria than there are in the United States. [Population of Bavaria- 12,595,891 in 27,239.29 square miles; population of the U.S.- 316,668,567 in 3.794 million square miles.] There were days last summer when Germany generated more than half the power it used from solar panels within its borders and this is Germany. Munich is north of Montreal. Think what a country could do if it had... oh, I don't know... Florida or Nevada, Texas or California or Arizona to work with!

But we don't act; and for a particular reason-- one that will be clear to those who are used to reading the Gospels. Our richest people don't want to act because it would reduce their wealth somewhat. The fossil fuel industry is the one percent of the one percent, the richest enterprise in human history. Exxon made more money last year than any company in the history of money... These companies have more money than God.

And so far, they have been able to deploy those funds in political ways to make sure that nothing ever changes. They have bought, in our nation's capital and many others, a 25-year bipartisan effort to accomplish nothing. By all means listen to the rest of McKibben's sermon; it gets better from here.

I just want to follow up on one of his thoughts. Below are the dozen current Members of Congress who have taken the biggest legalistic bribes from Oil and Gas since 1990, a time when Oil and Gas deployed $198,833,341 in bribes to Members of Congress and to candidates for Congress.

• John McCain (R-AZ)- $3,043,404
• John Cornyn (R-TX)- $1,990,350
• Joe Barton (R-TX)- $1,734,255
• Steve Pearce (R-NM)- $1,479,701
• Jim Inhofe (R-OK)- $1,457,696
• Miss McConnell (R-KY)- $1,348,311
• Don Young (R-AK)- $1,193,613
• David Vitter (R-LA)- $1,144,385
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA)- $1,086,084
• Mike Conaway (R-TX)- $942,118
• Pete Sessions (R-TX)- $868,346
• Charles "Lord" Boustany (R-LA)- $803,655

These 11 extraordinarily corrupt men and this one extraordinarily corrupt woman have been career-long, absolute shills for Big Oil and Gas. They have carried their agenda faithfully and blocked any and all attempts to deal with Climate Change realistically. Is there anything we can do about it? Next year, McConnell and Landrieu are up for reelection, as are all 6 of the House Members above. Once there's a plausible candidate running against McConnell, Blue America will be working to help him or her defeat the corrupt old closet case and oil shill. Of the House incumbents, Joe "Oily Joe" Barton, Big Oil's #1 shill in the House, already has an opponent, progressive Democrat Kenneth Sanders. You can help him overcome Big Oil cash with small grassroots contributions here.

Joe Barton also claims to be a Bible scholar and he uses a simplistic interpretation of the story of Noah in the Bible to justify the Oil and Gas Industry agenda. The biggest newspaper in his district, the Star-Telegram reported on Ken Sanders' response.

Apparently Congressman Joe Barton is also a Biblical scholar and a climate scientist as he has looked into the Good Book and found evidence to deny the clear reality of human impact on climate change.

This is just another example of Rep. Joe Barton, placing his financial interest over the needs and concerns of fellow Texans in the 6th Congressional District. His statement does not come as a surprise considering how he has received $3.2 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industries, any number of plausible responses might well come to his mind. However, support of the Keystone Pipeline need not be conflated with the political rhetoric for the sake of Joe Barton's financial gain.

Joe Barton is a disappointment to Texans who count on him to represent their interest; his understanding of God’s holy word is somewhat suspect as well. As a person of faith, I'm personally disappointed that he has looked into the Good Book and found evidence to deny any human impact on climate change. I believe most people in the faith community consult the Bible to strengthen their faith and for instruction on how to live a moral and upright life, not to twist and misinterpret the Word of God for political purposes. He simply supports big oil without restrictions. We have to consider the environmental impact of oil drilling and pipeline construction. His comments lack sound judgment or logic.

This is typical rhetoric from "Smokey" Joe. Joe Barton is not new to debate and where his loyalty lies when it comes to the oil and gas industry. Congressman Barton is the same person who in 2010 apologized to BP after the Gulf oil spill. He simply supports big oil, its use without hazardous restrictions to humankind and the environment in which we must live. His comment, like his unfailing support for the oil industry, lacks reasoning.

The fact is that climate change is real, evident and supported more by scientific evidence daily. His comment, like his unfailing support for the oil industry, lacks reasoning.

In the year 2013 it is completely unacceptable that a backward thinking politician like Joe Barton is voting on legislation that will affect the quality of life for future generations. The science on this issue is not debatable. Joe Barton simply does not believe in science. Voters in the 6th Congressional District must get to the polls in 2014 to retire Mr. Barton. His political reasoning or lack thereof on this critical issue must not be supported.

Read More

Joe Barton (R-TX) And A Buy Bull Environmental Strategy-- Soaked In Oil, Of Course

Joe Barton (R-Oil)

I don't watch much TV but, aside from Rachel Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell and Chris Hayes, I spend most of my TV time watching the History Channel. Not Swamp People, Ax Men, American Pickers, Counting Cars, or that kind of garbage, but the quality stuff, like Ancient Aliens, Vikings and The Bible. I have this innate ability, though, to not mix up the real world with the TV world... even though I was tweeting back and forth a couple weeks ago with Ragnar Lodbrok and shieldmaiden Lagertha.

Texas Congressman Joe Barton (AKA, "Oily"Joe Barton, the former chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, who has taken more legalistic bribes from Big Oil and Gas than any other Member of the House, $1,727,055) is currently hoping to draw attention away from his latest ethics problems. So... out comes the clown makeup and the "Hey look over here; I'm bonkers" routine. Or maybe he really does have trouble distinguishing between what he sees on TV or reads in fairy tales and the real world-- which is fine, except that he's supposed to be a legislator helping set the country's policy agenda.

Like most Members of Congress whose careers are financed by Big Oil, Barton is a fanatic opponent of the findings of climate scientists. He claims, like the rest of the bribed "conservatives," that man has no responsibility for global warming if global warming even exists. (Barton admits it does.)

The Texas Republican Joe Barton stands out even among his fellow conservative Republicans who have made it an article of faith to deny the existence of a human component to climate change.

On Wednesday, Barton cemented that reputation by citing the Old Testament to refute scientific evidence of man-made global warming, drawing on the story of Noah's ark.

"I would point out that if you are a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the great flood was an example of climate change," Barton told a congressional hearing on Wednesday in a video first shown on the Buzzfeed website. "That certainly wasn't because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy."

Barton was speaking at a house subcommittee hearing called by the Republican leadership to promote a bill that would allow Congress to fast-track a controversial pipeline that would pump crude from the tar sands of Alberta to refineries on the Texas coast.

The Texas congressman began by reiterating his support for the Keystone XL pipeline. He went on to say that he did not dispute the existence of climate change-- just any connection to human activity, such as the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

"I would point out that people like me who support hydrocarbon development don't deny that climate is changing," he said. "I think you can have an honest difference of opinion of what's causing that change without automatically being either all in, that's all because of mankind, or it's all just natural. I think there's a divergence of evidence."

Barton has made a reputation for his outspoken rejection of man-made climate change, and for his support for the oil industry.

In 2010, in the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Barton became an object of ridicule for offering a profuse apology to the oil company Barton told then-BP-chairman Tony Hayward he was ashamed that the White House had reached a deal requiring the company to set aside $20bn for clean-up and restoration costs. "I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case, a $20bn shakedown," Barton said at the time. "I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any citizen or corporation that does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that, again in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologise."

The Democrat running against Barton is Ken Sanders. I've been talking to him on the phone a lot lately but religion and Bible studies aren't matters we've gotten into. Legislation is. Ken seems like the kind of guy who appreciates the essential message Jesus brought to man, nut whenever I talk to him, he seems focused on things like job creation, economic justice and equality. I reached him this morning about Barton's pontificating and he was already putting together a statement for the local media:

Apparently Congressman Joe Barton is also a Biblical scholar and a climate scientist as he has looked into the Good Book and found evidence to deny the clear reality of human impact on climate change.

Joe Barton is a disappointment to Texans who count on him to represent their interest; his understanding of God’s holy word is somewhat suspect as well. As a person of faith, I'm personally disappointed that he has looked into the Good Book and found evidence to deny any human impact on climate change. I believe most people in the faith community consult the Bible to strengthen their faith and for instruction on how to live a moral and upright life, not to twist and misinterpret the Word of God for political purposes. He simply supports big oil without restrictions. We have to consider the environmental impact of oil drilling and pipeline construction. His comments lack sound judgment or logic.

This is typical rhetoric from "Smokey" Joe. Joe Barton is not new to debate and where his loyalty lies when it comes to the oil and gas industry. Congressman Barton is the same person who in 2010 apologized to BP after the Gulf oil spill. He simply supports big oil, its use without hazardous restrictions to humankind and the environment in which we must live. His comment, like his unfailing support for the oil industry, lacks reasoning.

This is just another example of Rep. Joe Barton, placing his financial interest over the needs and concerns of fellow Texans in the 6th Congressional District. His statement does not come as a surprise considering how he has received $3.2 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industries, any number of plausible responses might well come to his mind. However, support of the Keystone Pipeline need not be conflated with the political rhetoric for the sake of Joe Barton's financial gain.

The fact is that climate change is real, evident and supported more by scientific evidence daily. His comment, like his unfailing support for the oil industry, lacks reasoning.

In the year 2013 it is completely unacceptable that a backward thinking politician like Joe Barton is voting on legislation that will affect the quality of life for future generations. The science on this issue is not debatable. Joe Barton simply does not believe in science.

Far be it from me to try to compete with the Biblical interpretations of a scholar like Joe Barton. What’s next for Joe Barton? Will Barton cite the Lord turning water into blood as an argument against clean water? Will Joe Barton refer to plagues of locusts, flies, lice and frogs as arguments against mosquito control?

While you're watching Barton make a fool of himself at the hearing (below), please consider making a contribution to Ken's congressional campaign, here at the Saving Social Security Act Blue Page. Yes, Ken opposes Chained CPI and other schemes to take benefits away from seniors. Barton, of course, is a longtime opponent of social safety programs that benefit working families and the elderly.

Read More

OK, The GOP Wants To Rape And Plunder The Environment-- What About The Democrats?

The wonders of tar sands oil comes to beautiful Michigan

I was uneasy about Obama right from the start. I did vote for him in 2008, despite my fears that he was a corporate shill masquerading as a progressive. When his first term proved me right, I had no problem at all voting for a third party candidate in 2012. But I must say, there was one policy area where I actually did trust Obama and believed everything he said: the environment, especially in regard to global warming. His administration hasn't lived up. They're obviously not a bunch of rapacious plunderers like any garden variety GOP administration but they haven't done half as well as what was desperately needed. What surprised me this week is that a Gallup survey indicates that a plurality of Americans agree that a lot more needs to be done to protect the environment.

Americans tilt toward the view that the government is doing too little to protect the environment-- at 47%-- while 16% say it is doing too much. Another 35% say the government's efforts on the environment are about right. These views have not changed much since 2010, although Americans in most years between 1992 and 2006 were more likely than they are today to say the government was doing too little to protect the environment.

...Significantly more Democrats (59%) than Republicans (33%) say the government is doing too little to protect the environment-- reflecting general philosophical differences in approach to the role of government across party lines. And, concomitantly, more than one in four Republicans vs. 2% of Democrats say the government is doing too much to protect the environment.

Of course it isn't only Republicans who sell out to the corporate special interests and criminally participate in wrecking the environment. The highest lifetime score for any Republican, a dismal 38.41, is held by New Jersey mainstream conservative Frank LoBiondo. There are 21 House Democrats with worse scores! With the exception of 4 astonishingly corrupt Blue Dogs-- John Barrow (GA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Collin Peterson (MN) and Jim Costa (CA)-- all the Democrats with the low scores are freshmen. In fact the only freshmen with 100% pro-environmental scores are

• Joyce Beatty (D-OH)
• Tony Cardenas (D-CA)
• Matt Cartwright (D-PA)
• Jared Huffman (D-CA)
• Alan Lowenthal (D-CA)
• Rick Nolan (D-MN)
• Donald Payne (D-NJ)
• Mark Pocan (D-WI)
• Mark Takano (D-CA)
• Mark Veasey (D-TX)

The only other freshman with a stellar progressive voting record is Carol Shea Porter (D-NH). No one else cuts the mustard, although only one has a zero rating similar to a few dozen Republicans: ConservaDem Gloria Negrete McLeod (CA). The House hasn't voted on the Keystone XL pipeline yet. The Senate kind of did. Last week, North Dakota Big Oil and Gas shill John Hoeven introduced an amendment promoting it and it cleared the Democratically-controlled Senate 62-37, every single Republican and 17 Democrats voted YES, these Democrats:

• Max Baucus (MT), who was actually a cosponsor with Hoeven (and has taken $375,315 from Big Oil and Gas)
• Mark Begich (AK- $185,205)
• Michael Bennet (CO- $149,920)
• Tom Carper (DE- $88,060)
• Bob Casey (PA- $131,350)
• Chris Coons (DE)
• Joe Donnelly (IN)
• Kay Hagan (NC)
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND- $58,250)
• Tim Johnson (SD- $130,006)
• Mary Landrieu (LA- $967,474)
• Joe Manchin (WV- $253,400)
• Claire McCaskill (MO- $84,208)
• Bill Nelson (FL- $93,617)
• Mark Pryor (AR- $197,800)
• John Tester (MT-$58,366)
• Mark Warner (VA- $82,700)

The video above is a campaign ad from Karl Rove protege Tim Griffin. He now represents Mayflower, Arkansas, the town drowning in tar sands oil. So... speaking of the Keystone Pipeline that the Republicans and other conservative whores are so eager to see approved, Brad Plummer wrote about a trip down the pipeline from Alberta to Texas in yesterday's Washington Post a kind of a synopsis of a book by his colleague Steven Mufson. Key points:

1) Extracting oil from tar sands is carbon-intensive, but Shell thinks it can be viable even with a carbon tax

2) In Alberta, the process of mining tar sands for oil has produced huge “tailings” ponds that can be a menace to birds.

3) TransCanada has been buying up rights-of-way across the Great Plains in anticipation that the pipeline will be approved-- and, when necessary, asking the courts to exercise eminent domain

4) The oil industry in North Dakota is now growing so fast that companies are struggling to find workers.

5) TransCanada is promising that it now has the technology to guard against pipeline leaks…

6) …But many environmentalists say that tar-sands pipelines are overly leak prone

7) The oil in the Keystone Pipeline is destined for Port Arthur, Tex., which has seen a boom in refinery capacity-- but without much benefit to the actual city

Serious tar sands oil spills in Arkansas and Minnesota last week serve as another warning to greedy politicians eager to please their corporate masters.

An ExxonMobil pipeline transporting heavy crude from Canada ruptured Friday dumping thousands of barrels of oil and water in an Arkansas subdivision, forcing the evacuation of almost two dozen homes according to Reuters. Exxon's Pegasus pipeline-- which has a capacity of more than 90,000 barrels per day-- was shut down shortly after the leak was discovered. Company officials had no estimate on when the pipeline might reopen as of Sunday. The incident in Arkansas came just days after a train carrying Canadian oil derailed in Western Minnesota spilling an estimated 30,000 gallons of crude.

Chris Hayes had more on the Arkansas catastrophe-- and what it says out our oil-soaked future-- on his new MSNBC show.

Read More