-
-
Senate passes $600 billion spending bill
The Senate overwhelmingly passed a spending bill Saturday that allows a 26-year ban on offshore oil drilling to expire, subsidizes federal loans for automakers and offers aid to Gulf Coast hurricane disaster victims.
The House already passed the $600 billion stop gap funding bill on Wednesday. The bill, which passed the Senate on a 78-12 vote, will continue government spending at the current level through March 6, 2009.
President Bush is expected to sign the measure.
The end to the ban on oil drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts is a major victory for Republicans. Speeches at the Republican National Convention last month were often interrupted with chants of "Drill, baby, drill."
The ban will be lifted October 1.
Republicans on Capitol Hill have seized on drilling as a major election year issue, citing multiple public opinion polls that show a majority of Americans support more offshore drilling. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, had incurred Republican wrath for originally blocking any vote on drilling before allowing a vote on limited drilling earlier this month.
The spending bill includes $25 billion in loan guarantees for U.S. automakers, $23-24 billion in disaster aid for flood and hurricane recovery efforts, $2 billion for Pell grants for student loans and $5.2 billion for low-income energy assistance.
Democrats decided to get a vote on this funding measure out of the way but plan to move an economic stimulus package separately. The stimulus package is still being crafted but would likely include an extension of unemployment benefits, food stamps, aid to states for Medicare and Medicaid and billions for infrastructure programs designed to add more jobs to a slowing economy. The Senate overwhelmingly passed a spending bill Saturday that allows a 26-year ban on offshore oil drilling to expire, subsidizes fed... more -
Genetically modified seeds pose more problems than natural varieties
The processes of hybridization involving repeated combinations of genetic material were limited for a long time by the fact that natural reproduction only takes place between plants of the same species. But Genetic Engineering took off with the unravelling of the full structure of the DNA 20 years ago. It became possible to insert a gene of one species into the DNA of another, thus offering immense agricultural possibilities.
Some examples include the modification of plants that fix the nitrogen of the air without belonging to the Leguminous family, plants resistant to certain diseases or to dry environments; the possibility of producing drugs and vaccines by genetically modifying bacteria, and many others.
Farmers were thus promised higher incomes; traders were promised lower costs of production and better quality of produce; and the companies producing such foods saw huge profits appearing on the horizon through monopolies and patents of such modified foods. Naturally, their research showed that there was no difference between the natural and engineered foods, that these were safe, and that they would solve the problem of famine in the world.
But if GM foods were all that their producers claimed them to be, why was the process conducted by stealth and sprung on the public without notice? This policy of the fait accompli began with the US government, which neither informed nor consulted its citizens about GM crops nor, worse still, did it require GM foods to be labelled, so as to give the public the democratic choice of whether to buy or not. After this GM foods were imposed on one country after another, in the same utterly undemocratic atmosphere of secrecy.
For a full understanding of the import of GM foods, two sets of results need to be considered: social results on the countries that have adopted them and biological results of the genetically modified foods. Further, GM foods must be analysed as part and parcel of the much touted globalization,to which we now turn.
Dr Vandana Shiva is an India physicist, founder and president of the Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology, and one of India's leading activists. She describes in one of her papers how the transformation of peasant agriculture in India to a globally industrialized model, which has GM foods as a supporting pillar, has reduced food security, threatened local businesses and biodiversity, driven farmers off their lands, and opened the door for global corporations to take over the nation's food processing.
The common claim by globalization enthusiasts is that it is natural, inevitable, and evolutionary. Dr Shiva sees it otherwise. Globalization is not a natural process of inclusion. It is a planned project of exclusion that has siphoned the resources and knowledge of the poor of India onto the global marketplace, stripping people of their life-support systems, livelihoods, and lifestyles.
Global trade rules, as enshrined in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) and in the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement, are primarily camouflaged rules of robbery.
The WTO's overall goal: promoting market competition serves two purposes. First, it transforms culture, biodiversity, food, water, livelihoods, needs, and rights into commodities for sale to be conveyed to markets. Second, it justifies the destruction of nature, culture, and livelihoods in terms of rules of competition.
Its officials attack ethical and ecological rules that sustain and promote life, dubbing them as protectionist barriers to trade.
Globalized food and agriculture in effect, means the corporate takeover of the food chain, the erosion of food rights, the destruction of the cultural diversity of food and the biological diversity of crops, and the displacement of millions from land-based, rural livelihoods. The processes of hybridization involving repeated combinations of genetic material were limited for a long time by the fact that natur... more -
Time: When the big hurricane hits Florida, we're f@#!ed
Floridians should learn how to turn pee into drinking water NOW.
Floridians that scare easily should be careful not to leaf through this week's Time Magazine while waiting at the Publix check-out counter. Because apparently- and I think we all knew this, but it's just not nice to talk about it- if Miami gets smacked by one big hurricane our state is seriously financially f@#!ed:
Ike could well be a Gustav-like bust rather than a Katrina-like disaster. But eventually, disaster will visit the peninsula, and it's still not clear who's going to pay the tab. "It's going to be a financial nightmare," says Cecil Pearce of the American Insurance Association. "Florida is the nation's basket case."
An Ike-sized hurricane hitting Miami, says reporter Michael Grunwald, could cost $70 billion in damages. And while big numbers and the government tend to cause our eyes to gloss over- Somebody will take care of it, right?- Time says, in this case, nope.
The blame, as is often the case, can be traced to Governor Charlie Crist- but in fairness, Florida's residents are his enablers.
After Andrew's destruction, most in-state insurance companies were put out of business, and national ones were scared away. With sky-rocketing premiums for Florida residents, Crist provided subsidized insurance to 1.3 million high-risk homeowners, and through his Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, reinsurance to the few remaining Florida insurance companies.
It's very complicated in a sort of so-this-is-why-I-don't-read-Time kind of way, buy the gist is: Crist has put Florida on the hook for some bills we won't be able to pay in the event of The Big One.
What Time doesn't say, is what going belly-up as a state will really mean. Will the rest of the country treat us like that cousin who likes bourbon and blackjack a bit too much, and cut us off? Will Florida turn into a apocalyptic Waterworld, where only those with boats or machines that turn urine into drinking water survive?
Or will we successfully beg for one of the biggest disaster bail-outs the government's ever handed out?
That sounds presidential. Maybe Florida's legislators should start sucking up to Sarah Palin now.
-Gus Garcia-Roberts Floridians should learn how to turn pee into drinking water NOW. ... more -
Obama's record on coal support
In May 1998, at the urging of the state's coal industry, the Illinois Legislature passed a bill condemning the Kyoto global warming treaty and forbidding state efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
Barack Obama voted "aye."
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee now calls climate change "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation," and proposes cutting carbon emissions 80% by 2050. But as a state senator, from 1997 to 2004, he usually supported bills sought by coal interests, according to legislative records and interviews.
Obama is not the only politician whose public stance has shifted on global warming, which a scientific consensus says has been caused chiefly by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, who now backs limits on carbon emissions, was among 95 U.S. senators who voted in 1997 to oppose the Kyoto Protocol, an emissions reduction scheme that had been negotiated by then-vice president Al Gore.
Still, Obama, who touts his independence from special interests, made a point of embracing the coal industry as part of his quest for statewide office. When he ran for U.S. Senate in 2004, he was flanked by mine workers to proclaim that "there's always going to be a role for coal" in Illinois.
snip
Obama's other votes on coal in the state Senate included:
• In 1997, he voted to divert sales taxes to a fund for grants to help reopening closed coal mines and "incentives to attract new businesses that use coal."
• In 2001, Obama voted for legislation that offered $3.5 billion in loan guarantees to build coal-fired power plants with no ability to control carbon emissions.
• In 2003, he voted to allow $300 million in taxpayer-backed bonds to build or expand coal-fired power plants.
"You know, I am a strong supporter, I think, of downstate coal interests and our need to prop up and improve the outputs downstate," Obama said on the Senate floor before voting on the 2001 bill.
~~~~~~~~~
I expect to see this from a Republican. I expected better from a Democrat. In May 1998, at the urging of the state's coal industry, the Illinois Legislature passed a bill condemning the Kyoto global warmi... more -
Destroying African Agriculture
Biofuel production is certainly one of the culprits in the current global food crisis. But while the diversion of corn from food to biofuel feedstock has been a factor in food prices shooting up, the more primordial problem has been the conversion of economies that are largely food-self-sufficient into chronic food importers. Here the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) figure as much more important villains.
Whether in Latin America, Asia, or Africa, the story has been the same: the destabilization of peasant producers by a one-two punch of IMF-World Bank structural adjustment programs that gutted government investment in the countryside followed by the massive influx of subsidized U.S. and European Union agricultural imports after the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture pried open markets. .
African agriculture is a case study of how doctrinaire economics serving corporate interests can destroy a whole continent’s productive base.
~~~~~~~~~
So this so called "secret" report by the World bank stating that "biofuels" are to blame for the world food shortage is in part propaganda to cover up their own participation in it. It is not 'biofuel' production in total that has caused it, but 'ethanol' production and mostly subsidized imports brought about by the destabilization of local economies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that are raising prices. Biofuel production is certainly one of the culprits in the current global food crisis. But while the diversion of corn from food to bi... more -
McCain Sets Goal of 45 New Nuclear Reactors by 2030
Senator John McCain said Wednesday that he wanted 45 new nuclear reactors built in the United States by 2030, a course he called “as difficult as it is necessary.”
Currently there are 104 reactors in the country supplying some 20 percent of electricity consumed. No new nuclear power plant has been built in the United States since the 1970s.
He said his ultimate goal was 100 new nuclear plants.
********
McCain, wrong on nuclear power, wrong for the country.
OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT (Obama, won't you consider returning that money to the nuclear power industry?) Senator John McCain said Wednesday that he wanted 45 new nuclear reactors built in the United States by 2030, a course he called “as d... more -
Is Nuclear Power Viable?
Nuclear power was the energy of Tomorrowland — in the 1950s it was going to make electricity too cheap to meter — until it came to a standstill over the past couple decades. It's now poised to make a dramatic comeback. At least, that's what many politicians and the media say. As the Senate this week debated the Warner-Lieberman carbon cap-and-trade bill, which would put a federal limit on greenhouse gas emissions, many doubtful senators said they wouldn't vote for the measure unless massive subsidies for nuclear were included. (The bill was shelved.) Even some veteran greens who were once dead set against atomic power, like Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, now see nukes as the only way to save civilization from climate change. And last month Wired magazine urged environmentalists to "Go Nuclear," claiming, "there's no question that nuclear power is the most climate-friendly industrial-scale energy source."
That's debatable, to say the least. There's no question that a nuclear plant, once it's up and running, produces comparatively little carbon dioxide — a British government report last year found that a nuclear plant emits just 2% to 6% of the CO2 per kilowatt-hour as natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel — but nuclear energy still seems like the power of yesterday. After a burst of construction between the 1950s and late 1970s, a new nuclear power plant hasn't come on line in the U.S. since 1996, and some nations like Germany are looking to phase out existing atomic plants. That reverse is chiefly due to safety concerns — the lingering Chernobyl fears of nuclear meltdown, or the fact that we still have yet to devise a long-term method for the disposal of atomic waste.
But to Amory Lovins — a veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute — there's a much better green reason to be against nuclear power: economics. Lovins, an environmentalist who is unusually comfortable with numbers, argues in a report released last week that a massive new push for nuclear power doesn't make dollars or cents. In his study, titled "The Nuclear Illusion," he points out that while the red-hot renewable industry — including wind and solar — last year attracted $71 billion in private investment, the nuclear industry attracted nothing. "Wall Street has spoken — nuclear power isn't worth it," he says.
More nuclear subsidies, which many on Capitol Hill are pushing for, won't do the trick either. Lovins notes that the U.S. nuclear industry has received $100 billion in government subsidies over the past half-century, and that federal subsidies now worth up to $13 billion a plant — roughly how much it now costs to build one — still haven't encouraged private industry to back the atomic revival. Nuclear power was the energy of Tomorrowland — in the 1950s it was going to make electricity too cheap to meter — until it came to a s... more -
EU to open anti-dumping probe into US biodiesel imports
BRUSSELS (AFP) — The European Union will on Friday open anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations into imports of biofuel from the United States, European sources said.
The move came after the European Commission investigated industry complaints that the US action was hitting Europe's biodiesel industry.
The European Biodiesel Board called for the investigation in April, complaining that the European market was being flooded with US exports of a 99-percent biodiesel blend, which can receive a subsidy of 300 dollars (192 euros) per tonne.
On top of the US aid, exports of the so-called B99 blend are also eligible for a subsidy in Europe as well.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,So US bio fuel producers potentially getting paid double whammy for off loading surpluss stock in Europe. If I was a bio fuel producer I would do that deal all day long. BRUSSELS (AFP) — The European Union will on Friday open anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations into imports of biofuel from the ... more -
India: strike over fuel price rise
Communist and opposition parties in India are holding nationwide protests against a 10% rise in fuel prices.
The Communist-governed states of West Bengal, Tripura and Kerala are badly hit by a strike called by the parties who say the rise will fuel inflation.
The government says it had no choice because of surging global oil prices. India imports nearly 75% of its crude oil requirements but subsidises the cost of domestic fuel products to help contain inflation and protect the poor.
India's Congress party-led government faces key state polls this year ahead of general elections due in 2009. Communist and opposition parties in India are holding nationwide protests against a 10% rise in fuel prices. ... more -
Food Crisis: Should the US Go on a Diet?
In this very interesting clip we hear what is going on at the current summit in Rome.
Finally the focus is on supporting local farmers world wide--stop dumping subsidized agriculture into the developing world.
FAO, Global Call to Action against Poverty and Vandana Shiva speak of what needs to be done right now to resolve this crisis.
Lack of food is a man made problem and women and children are the ones who suffer the consequences. In this very interesting clip we hear what is going on at the current summit in Rome. ... more -
Investors demand tougher US climate legislation
An influential coalition of investors has this week called on the US Senate to deliver binding emission reduction targets or risk undermining firms' long-term competitiveness.
The group of more than 50 institutional investors, including Deutsche Asset Management, F&C Asset Management, and the world's largest hedge fund the Man Group, wrote to senate majority leader Harry Reid and senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, calling for a national climate policy to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by between 60 and 90 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.
The targets are in line with those proposed under the Lieberman-Warner climate bill, which will be debated in the Senate early next month.
The letter also urges Senate leaders to increase pressure on regulatory bodies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue clear guidance on what climate change risks firms should disclose to investors.
The coalition, which has been organised by ethical investment lobby group Ceres, said there was a strong business case for enacting more stringent carbon targets and legislation.
"Investors hate uncertainty, and that is the problem they face today," said Mindy S Lubber, president of Ceres and director of INCR. "Strong and decisive action from Washington will open the floodgates on large-scale clean technology investments, enabling US investors and businesses to lead instead of lag on climate change solutions."
Oregon state treasurer Randall Edwards, whose office manages $80bn (£40bn) in assets, agreed that far from damaging the economy as its critics claim, the Lieberman-Warner bill would create opportunities for investors. "It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and tackle climate change. Any further delay is inexcusable," he said "The Lieberman-Warner bill would give investors such as myself the ability to see the risks involved so we can begin rebuilding our economy by investing in green technologies."
The calls come in the same week as Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer released an overview of a package of amendments to the Lieberman-Warner bill which are expected to form part of the proposed legislation. The amendments contain a number of measures designed to minimise the financial impact of the planned cap-and-trade scheme, including a mechanism to reduce the price of carbon credits if they hit a certain level and proposals for an $800bn (£400bn) tax relief fund to help consumers cope with rising energy costs.
~~~~~~~~
Yes, 90% by 2050... That's what I'm talking about.This bill is going to be debated on the floor starting tomorrow. Please contact your senators and tell them that even though this is a start, we need to do much better to pass a more comprehensive bill that truly meets the demands and addresses the adverse effects climate change will have on our country and our world if left unchecked. And that means new forms of energy aggressively brought to market to wean us off the destructive energies that pollute our planet and put us all at risk. An influential coalition of investors has this week called on the US Senate to deliver binding emission reduction targets or risk unde... more -
Don't be deceived, there's no such thing as 'clean coal'
Let's be real: "Clean coal" is a marketing slogan not a technological reality. Coal does currently provide us with a reliable source of electricity but at an astronomical price that is hidden from us consumers.
Maybe you pay for it with your child's asthma. Maybe you paid for it with your father's heart attack or your grandmother's stroke that took her speech away. Maybe you lost a baby to SIDS on a particularly bad air day.
Emissions from coal-fired power plants are a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, air toxins - and premature deaths. The EPA estimates that over 30,000 Americans are dying prematurely each year due to emissions from power plants, the majority of which are coal-powered.
This doesn't even address the high mortality rates associated with the mining process.
Thus, coal kills more people annually than homicides (16,000 in 2000) or AIDS (14,000) and nearly as many as traffic accidents (42,000). So when coal industry advocates like Joe Lucas, vice president of communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal, and Bountiful resident Bruce Taylor, co-owner of the proposed coal plant in Sevier County, say "cleaner coal," what exactly do they mean?
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a typical coal plant annually generates:
* 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2),
the primary human cause of global warming,
* 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2),
* 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death,
* 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), equal to what would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs,
* 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease,
* 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone,
* 170 pounds of mercury, an extremely potent neurotoxin; just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe for human consumption. The Great Salt Lake is already heavily contaminated with mercury.
* 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who regularly drink water containing 50 parts per billion,
* 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
None of these numbers sounds "clean" to me. So, does coal advocate Lucas consider a "clean" coal plant to produce only 7,000 pounds of annual sulfur dioxide emissions instead of 10,000 pounds? Does he consider 2 million tons of carbon dioxide instead of 3.7 million tons to be "clean" or how about 120 pounds of mercury instead of 170 pounds? Does "clean" coal only cause 20,000 premature deaths annually as compared to 30,000?
The reality is coal is dirty and will likely remain so. Let's be real: "Clean coal" is a marketing slogan not a technological reality. Coal does currently provide us with a re... more -
Amory Lovins: Congressional testimony on nuclear power
Energy expert Amory Lovins, Chair & Chief Scientist for the Rocky Mountain Institute testifies before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming about the danger of relying on nuclear energy as a solution to global warming. Energy expert Amory Lovins, Chair & Chief Scientist for the Rocky Mountain Institute testifies before the Select Committee on Ener... more
-
Oil chiefs say high prices not their fault
WASHINGTON - Don't blame us, oil industry chiefs told a skeptical Congress. Top executives of the country's five biggest oil companies said Tuesday they know record fuel prices are hurting people, but they argued it's not their fault and their huge profits are in line with other industries.
Appearing before a House committee, the executives were pressed to explain why they should continue to get billions of dollars in tax breaks when they made $123 billion last year and motorists are paying record gasoline prices at the pump.
"On April Fool's Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on American families by Big Oil," Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said, aiming his remarks at the five executives sitting shoulder-to-shoulder in a congressional hearing room.
"Our earnings, although high in absolute terms, need to be viewed in the context of the scale and cyclical, long-term nature of our industry as well as the huge investment requirements," said J.S. Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp., which made a record $40 billion last year.
"We depend on high earnings during the up cycle to sustain ... investment over the long term, including the down cycles," he continued.
The up cycle has been going on too long, suggested Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo. "The anger level is rising significantly."
Alluding to the fact that Congress often doesn't rate very high in opinion polls, Cleaver told the executives: "Your approval rating is lower than ours, and that means you're down low." WASHINGTON - Don't blame us, oil industry chiefs told a skeptical Congress. Top executives of the country's five biggest oil... more -
How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick Yo...
Social and financial inequality at your cost.
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston joins us to talk about his new book, 'Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill).' Johnston reveals how government subsidies and new regulations have quietly funneled money from the poor and the middle class to the rich and politically connected. [includes rush transcript] Social and financial inequality at your cost. ... more -
Why is Nuclear so Sick by 77 (Music Video)
Why the nuclear industry is not necessary in Australia... or the rest of the world.
-
What Crop Subsidies Say About American Diet Priorities.
"This fall, the Senate will have its turn debating and voting on the [farm] bill. ...Encourage senators to cut subsidies for unhealthy foods and increase support for fruits, vegetables, and vegetarian foods. Other groups, including the American Medical Association and the Presidents Cancer Panel, are also calling on Congress for sweeping reforms" "This fall, the Senate will have its turn debating and voting on the [farm] bill. ...Encourage senators to cut subsidies for unhe... more
-
Making Cocaine
Learn how Colombia's rural farmers make and sell cocaine.
-
related topics
Subsidies
Contributors (112)
Subsidies
