Doing Advance Work

News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Gearing up for global warming Earth Day celebration across Major League Baseball, perhaps fans will be asked to stop driving to ballparks to help save the planet


4/16/14, "Adrianne Ivey and Jacob Rohlf, both of Toledo, Ohio, stay bundled up against the cold during the Detroit Tigers game against the Cleveland Indians at Comerica Park on April 16, 2014 in Detroit, Michigan, Burleson, Getty. final, 3-2 Indians

4/16/14, "A Philadelphia Phillies fan looks on from the stands under a blanket during the game against the Atlanta Braves at Citizens Bank Park on April 16, 2014 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania," Garfinkel, Getty, final, 1-0 Braves

4/16/14, Baby spends first birthday at chilly Yankee Stadium, twitter pic. Doubleheader v Cubs, game one, 3-0 Yankees, game two 2-0 Yankees


MLB says: "Earth Day truly belongs on the list" with Jackie Robinson Day:
4/22/12, "Earth Day initiatives becoming commonplace,", Mark Newman,  

"Stadiums throughout MLB are adopting green programs"

[SportsIllustrCovGlobalWm307.jpg] 1/11/11, "Sports Illustrated – Wrong on Auburn, Wrong on Global Warming,", Ben Lieberman



Tuesday, April 15, 2014

EU to blacklist killer shrimp and other species predators threatening biodiversity and extinction of species. Border patrol to be beefed up to keep certain species out-BBC

4/15/14, "EU blacklist to stop spread of alien species," BBC, Claire Marshall

"The European Parliament is voting on a bill to draw up a blacklist to fight invasive alien species such as killer shrimp and Japanese knotweed spreading.

There will be a ban on the possession, transport, selling or growing of species deemed as of "Union Concern".

The list was going to be restricted to 50, but will now have no limit. It is not clear which species will be banned. 

A deal between EU member states effectively means the bill will pass and become law within a few months.

This comes as MPs slam current government policy on controlling alien species as "not fit for purpose".

Biodiversity loss
The economic and ecological damage caused by non-native species such as the so-called killer shrimp and demon shrimp originally from the Black Sea, the Asian Harlequin ladybird or Japanese knotweed are estimated to cost Europe some 12bn euros every year.

In the UK the bill is at least £1.7bn.

Experts say such insects, plants and animals are one of the major causes of biodiversity loss and species extinction.

They can also spread disease and cause health problems such as asthma, dermatitis and allergies. The new law will require member states to analyse how troublesome species enter the country and to improve surveillance systems.

Official checks at EU borders will be stepped up. Action plans on how to manage established invasive species also have to be developed.

MEP Pavel Poc, who is guiding the legislation through the European Parliament, said: "Efforts are very often not effective simply because those species do not respect geographical boundaries. Co-operation between member states is therefore crucial."...

"Species such as American crayfish, demon and killer shrimp are causing considerable damage to British ecosystems and we don't currently know whether they also pose a biosecurity threat in terms of parasites and disease they being with them.""

. MPs warn of invasion by non-native plant and animal species 5 hrs ago Killer prawn that could harm animals and even humans invades Britain 6 hrs ago 

Mail Online UK TEN new animals and plants arrive in Britain each year 7 hrs ago


Comment: No mention of global warming causing species extinction.


Still no drought in Philly, game v Braves postponed due to rain

4/15/14, "Players from the Philadelphia Phillies warm up as the tarp covers the infield before the start of a scheduled game against the Atlanta Braves at Citizens Bank Park on April 15, 2014 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The game was postponed due to heavy rain in the area," Getty, Rich Schultz. Game was postponed due to rain (ie, lack of imaginary global warming drought).


Mark Steyn v Hockey Stick on hold because Mann, for whom money is no object since the government is on his side, has case v National Review that NR needs to delay pending a decision on a related matter

4/12/14, "Mann the delayer," Watts Up With That, Anthony Watts

"Mark Steyn writes: "Breaking as-it-happens news about a trial that isn’t happening any day soon, or any half-decade soon. Previously on Mann vs Steyn et al, National Review had filed a motion asking for yet another stay in discovery pending the appeals court’s ruling on their appeal – or, indeed, the appeals court’s ruling on whether they’re allowed to appeal. Whatever. I’m bored by all this procedural flimflam and am anxious to proceed with discovery and go to trial, as I could have done by now in almost any functioning jurisdiction.
So I filed an objection. Michael Mann eventually filed an objection, too. He also wants to proceed with discovery but only against me, not against him. A voyage of one-way discovery. 

Anyway, yesterday Judge Weisberg announced his decision:

"Accordingly, it is this 11th day of April, 2014,

ORDERED that the motion of Defendant National Review, Inc. for a Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Appeal be, and it hereby is, granted; and all proceedings in this case are stayed pending the decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on the Defendants’ interlocutory appeals."

So we’re on hold for a while, again. I intend to use this period for trial preparation, including my investigation of Mann and my counterclaims against him. I’ve been immensely touched by the generosity of readers who understand how costly in time and money a campaign of this nature can be, and have supported the Steyn store to a degree I never expected.

Nevertheless, I explained in my objection why I was anxious to get on with it:

3. The charge that a man is a defamer is a serious one and profoundly damaging. With criminal charges, this nation provides a constitutional right to a speedy trial. It offers no such protections in civil court, even though to be accused as a defamer is certainly as damaging to one’s reputation and honor as all but the most serious criminal charges. For an independent writer such as Defendant Steyn, this is especially so: His livelihood depends entirely on his reputation, and as long as this charge stains his character without being answered he is being damaged. As the accused, he asserts his right to confront his accuser in open court in a timely manner.

4. Likewise, the Plaintiff is owed the courtesy of being received straightway without delay. As this Court noted in its Order of January 22nd, the allegedly defamatory statements “go to the heart of scientific integrity”, and thus to the heart of the Plaintiff’s character. If the Court truly believes that, then Dr Mann is entitled to a timely trial that settles the truth of the matter wheresoever it be.

Judge Weisberg acknowledged the unfairness of this in his ruling:

"To be sure, there has been too much procedural delay already in this case... A continuing stay of discovery will impose the burdens of additional delay on all parties, but particularly on Plaintiff and Defendant Steyn, who has distanced himself from the other Defendants and expressed his desire to proceed expeditiously, even if that means the case would go forward only on Plaintiff's claims against Steyn and Steyn's counterclaim, with the other Defendants left behind. Nonetheless, it would be costly, inefficient, and duplicative to have two rounds of discovery: one round between Plaintiff and Defendant Steyn, and a second round between Plaintiff and the other Defendants. The court is unwilling to sever Mr. Steyn's case from the other Defendants to accommodate his desire to go it alone. If it is not dismissed, there is no compelling reason to try this case more than once. The parties' interests are diverse and irreconcilable, in part because of the way they have chosen to exercise their legitimate procedural rights. A stay of discovery preserves the status quo long enough for the Court of Appeals to rule on the jurisdictional issue."

If you say so. Still, I like this footnote:

"Plaintiff opposes the motion to stay discovery and argues that, at a minimum, the court should permit him to proceed with discovery against Defendant Steyn. However, his idea of discovery against Steyn includes the right to take what he chooses to call "third party discovery" from the other three Defendants as it relates to Plaintiff's claims against Steyn. Beyond that, Plaintiff takes the ironic albeit legally correct – position that he should be able to proceed with discovery against Steyn, but Steyn should be precluded from taking discovery on his counterclaim

because Plaintiff's anti -SLAPP special motion to dismiss the counterclaim triggers an automatic statutory stay."

What's "legally correct" in this system isn't "ironic", it's tragic. That said, after the slapdash and incompetent Natalia Combs Greene, I regard a judge who sees Mann's discovery-for-me-but-not-for-thee stance as "ironic" as a positive development.""...

Read the entire piece here, including some frustration by the judge in the case:"

Blog editor's note: I included a few more paragraphs from SteynOnline above in addition to those provided on WUWT. There are more at SteynOnline. Susan


Among comments to Mark Steyn article at WUWT:


"Rud Istvan says: April 12, 2014 at 12:55 pm 
Steyn’s countersuit is not so easily dismissed by Mann. And now he has good semi pro bono counsel to pursue it. National Review needs to get out of the way, but cannot because Mann has a better Cause of action against them than against Steyn. It will take a while, but countersuit discovery will eventually come."


When money is no object and you have a bottomless pit of expensive, (subsidized) legal representation, you can delay matters ad infinitum if you’re the guilty party. Don’t all the elites work that way?"


 4/12/14, "Irony Alert," SteynOnline

Hockey Stick graph with Steve McIntyre correction via Volokh:


Comment: Mark Steyn's court case is happening because the US has only one functioning political party. Large countries with only one political party are dictatorships. The notion of "global warming" could've been laughed off the stage decades ago. The US has no political party whose interests are separate from massive, coercive, central government. George Bush #1 and #2 and their crowd merged the Republicans with the radical left Democrats. Rupert Murdoch is helping make sure the merger sticks and the peasants remain silent. By the Nov. 2008 election, the GOP was effectively dead. It's pretty obvious you have a problem when average Americans have to beg the so-called "Republican" presidential nominee, McCain, to act like he cares. The only reason you've heard from the GOP since then was to beat down the Tea Party which is simply the Silent Majority who figured out the Republican Party had sold the country out. Longtime Beltway "Republicans" like McConnell, Cochran, and Boehner have shepherded global warming for decades. Lugar was a big global warming and UN advocate and we were able to get rid of him. He's keeping busy supporting democrats. These corrupt politicians have stolen the lives of a generation over something that doesn't exist. Right now they're stealing Mark Steyn's life. They could put an end to CO2 fraud if they wanted to by simply listing the scientific facts via microphones to which they have access every day.




Monday, April 14, 2014

No debate, China 'historical emissions' expected to overtake those of US in next 10 yrs, (AP). UN rulers say country with most 'historic emissions' must pay. China has most CO2 now, rising fast, soon will have most 'historic.' Mitch McConnell has a microphone. Why doesn't he say China, not US, must pay most for non-existent global warming?

"China’s historical emissions are expected to overtake those of the U.S. in the next decade." 

4/14/14, "Cost of fighting global warming ‘modest,’ U.N. panel says," AP, Karl Ritter, via Portland (Maine) Press Herald

"In Berlin, a dispute erupted over whether to include charts that showed emissions from large developing countries are rising the fastest as they expand their economies. Developing countries said linking emissions to income growth would divert attention from the fact that historically, most emissions have come from the developed nations, which industrialized earlier....

In the end the charts were taken out of the summary, but would remain in the underlying report.

Counting all emissions since the industrial revolution in the 18th century, the U.S. is the top carbon polluter. China’s current emissions are greater than those of the U.S. and rising quickly. China’s historical emissions are expected to overtake those of the U.S. in the next decade.

The IPCC summary also refrained from detailed discussions on what level of financial transfers are needed."...


Per AP, key diagrams were omitted from the UN report because participants wanted alleged "harm" to go to Americans. More accurate terminology was also voted out in favor of fluff that could more easily fan hate and the myth of financial "responsibility" for alleged past CO2 on innocent Americans now said to be causing non-existent global warming

4/13/14, "Emissions rising to 'unprecedented levels,' UN climate change panel warns," AP, Karl Ritter, via CTV News (Canada)

"Leaked drafts of that document showed the biggest reason for the rising emissions is the higher energy needs resulting from population growth and expanding economies in the developing world, mainly in China and other large countries.  

However, diagrams that illustrated that trend were deleted by governments in the final version adopted during a weeklong IPCC session in Berlin.

"The problem for the governments was that they felt that these different perspectives can cause harm for them because they can be made at different scales responsible for the emissions," Edenhofer told The Associated Press.

The graphics divided the world into four categories -- low, lower-middle, upper-middle and high income countries. Participants in the closed-door session said many developing countries objected to using such income categories.

In UN climate negotiations only two categories are used -- developed and developing countries
The former want to scrap that firewall, saying China and other fast-growing economies can't be compared to the least developed nations and must face stricter emissions cuts, while most developing countries want to keep it....

Counting all emissions since the industrialized revolution in the 18th century, the U.S. is the top carbon polluter. China's current emissions are greater than those of the U.S. and rising quickly. China's historical emissions are expected to overtake those of the U.S. in the next decade.

There is plenty of material analyzing emissions from those and other perspectives in a larger scientific report that the IPCC will release this week, but it was kept out of the summary for policy-makers.

Oswaldo Lucon, a Brazilian scientist involved in the report, regretted that the diagrams were taken out, saying they are relevant to the "big picture." He said China, India, Brazil and Saudi Arabia were among the countries opposing using them in the summary.

Underlying the arguments "was a whole history of discussions on who was going to foot the bill of environmental damage," Lucon said."...


In 2012 $1 billion a day was invested in the notion of "global warming."  


Sunday, April 13, 2014

Seven months after being subpoenaed, EPA admits it can't produce scientific data justifying significant Clean Air Act regulations. EPA is required by law to provide the data which then must be able to be reproduced

4/11/14, "EPA Concedes: We Can’t Produce All the Data Justifying Clean Air Rules," CNS News, Barbara Hollingsworth 

"Seven months after being subpoenaed by Congress, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy conceded that her agency does not have -  and cannot produce - all of the scientific data used for decades to justify numerous rules and regulations under the Clean Air Act.

In a March 7th letter to House Science, Space and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), McCarthy admitted that EPA cannot produce all of the original data from the 1993 Harvard Six Cities Study (HSC) and the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) 1995 Cancer Prevention Study II, which is currently housed at New York University.
Both studies concluded that fine airborne particles measuring 2.5 micrograms or less (PM2.5) – 1/30th the diameter of a human hair – are killing thousands of Americans every year.

These epidemiological studies are cited by EPA as the scientific foundation for clean air regulations that restrict particulate emissions from vehicles, power plants and factories.

The agency has recently come under fire for exposing volunteers to concentrated levels of particulate matter without informing them of the risks, a practice Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, called “despicable.”

The full committee, which issued its first subpoena in 21 years last August after being stonewalled by the EPA for two years, wanted the raw data from the studies so that their results could be replicated by independent researchers. (See EPA subpoena.pdf)

However, despite “multiple interactions with the third party owners of the research data in an effort to obtain that data,” McCathy wrote, some of the data subpoenaed by the committee “are not (and were not) in the possession, custody or control of the EPA, nor are they within the authority to obtain data that the agency identified.”

“EPA has not withheld any data in our possession that is responsive to the subpoena,” McCarthy stated. “The EPA acknowledges, however, that the data provided are not sufficient in themselves to replicate the analyses in the epidemiological studies, nor would they allow for the one to one mapping of each pollutant and ecological variable to each subject.” (See EPA letter to Smith March 7 2014 (1).pdf) asked EPA whether the agency had turned over any data from the Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society studies in response to the subpoena.

“EPA provided to the Committee all the data that was in the possession of the agency or within the agency's authority to obtain under the Shelby Amendment,” which requires that results of federally-funded studies be made available to the public, an agency spokeswoman responded. “As such, the agency has now in good faith obtained and provided to the Committee all the requested research data subject to the Shelby Amendment and covered by the subpoena.”

A committee staff member confirmed to that “EPA gave us what they have of both studies, which is a significant amount of data, but not sufficient" to allow independent reproduction or verification of results.

"We’re at a point where EPA has conceded that they don’t have in their possession the data necessary to fully comply, and in some cases, never did possess the data,” he added.

The subpoena was issued as the EPA moves to finalize strict new regulations that could place 90 percent of the U.S. population in non-attainment areas and impose an additional $90 billion annual burden on the U.S. economy.

However, two newer studies cast doubts on the original research.

Stanley Young and Jessie Xia of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences published a paper last year questioning the EPA’s reliance on the Harvard and Cancer Society studies, both of which found that breathing fine particulate matter (PM2.5) resulted in increased mortality.

“There is no significant association of PM2.5 with longevity in the west of the United States,”Young and Xia  noted, adding that “our findings call into question the claim made by the original researchers.” (See young080113.pdf)

Another recent study by Johns Hopkins-trained biostatistician Steve Milloy that attempted to duplicate EPA’s findings also found “no correlation between changes in ambient PM2.5 mortality” and any cause of death in California between 2007 and 2010.

“Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims,” committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said in February, denouncing what he called EPA’s “secret science.

“The American people foot the bill for EPA’s costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying science. Costly environmental regulations should be based on publicly available data so that independent scientists can verify the EPA’s claims.”

Smith and Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) have introduced the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, which would prohibit EPA from “proposing, finalizing or disseminating regulations based upon scientific information that is not publically available in a manner sufficient for independent scientific analysis.”

HR 4012, which would amend the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, states that “the Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action is (A) specifically identified; and (B) publicly available in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”

At a February 11th hearing before the Subcommittee on Environment, Raymond Keating, chief economist at the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, testified in favor of the bill. (HHRG-113-SY18-WState-RKeating-20140211.pdf)

“The  U.S. has made enormous progress in cleaning the air over the last 40 years, so much so that we now are talking about reducing very small increments of pollution. Achieving those tiny reductions will no doubt be very costly—as EPA itself admitted when it released its cost analysis for ozone in 2010. The question is: will they be worth it?" Keating asked.

“We won’t know that unless we have the scientific data in front of us, unless scientists from all over the country can attempt to replicate it and determine its validity. Without that, EPA is hiding the ball, and imposing costs without truly knowing what the benefits are.”

Congress is expected to consider the bill sometime this summer." via Free Republic


Scientists warned US against planting so much corn for ethanol, that it would make emissions worse, but Obama and congress planted much more, have destroyed 5 million conservation acres. Republican Senators Thad Cochran and Mitch McConnell voted for ethanol in 2005 and again in 2007. World Bank and UN have begged US to stop its ethanol industry because it raises food prices, hurts the poor the most, causes global instability

"Scientists warned that America's corn-for-ethanol policy would fail as an anti-global warming strategy if too many farmers plowed over virgin land."....

11/13/2013, "Prairies vanish in the US push for green energy," AP, by Chet Brokaw and Jack Gillum, Roscoe, S.D.

"Robert Malsam nearly went broke in the 1980s when corn was cheap. So now that prices are high and he can finally make a profit, he's not about to apologize for ripping up prairieland to plant corn. Across the Dakotas and Nebraska, more than 1 million acres of the Great Plains are giving way to corn fields as farmers transform the wild expanse that once served as the backdrop for American pioneers.

This expansion of the Corn Belt is fueled in part by America's green energy policy, which requires oil companies to blend billions of gallons of corn ethanol into their gasoline. In 2010, fuel became the No. 1 use for corn in America, a title it held in 2011 and 2012 and narrowly lost this year. That helps keep prices high.

"It's not hard to do the math there as to what's profitable to have," Malsam said. "I think an ethanol plant is a farmer's friend."

What the green-energy program has made profitable, however, is far from green. A policy intended to reduce global warming is encouraging a farming practice that actually could worsen it.

That's because plowing into untouched grassland releases carbon dioxide that has been naturally locked in the soil.
It also increases erosion and requires farmers to use fertilizers and other industrial chemicals. In turn, that destroys native plants and wipes out wildlife habitats.

It appeared so damaging that scientists warned that America's corn-for-ethanol policy would fail as an anti-global warming strategy if too many farmers plowed over virgin land.

The Obama administration argued that would not happen. But the administration didn't set up a way to monitor whether it actually happened.

It did.

More than 1.2 million acres of grassland have been lost since the federal government required that gasoline be blended with increasing amounts of ethanol, an Associated Press analysis of satellite data found. Plots that were wild grass or pastureland seven years ago are now corn and soybean fields.

That's in addition to the 5 million acres of farmland that had been aside for conservation more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — that have vanished since Obama took office.

In South Dakota, more than 370,000 acres of grassland have been uprooted and farmed from since 2006. In Edmunds County, a rural community about two hours north of the capital, Pierre, at least 42,000 acres of grassland have become cropland — one of the largest turnovers in the region.

Malsam runs a 13-square-mile family farm there. He grows corn, soybeans and wheat, then rents out his grassland for grazing. Each year, the family converts another 160 acres from grass to cropland.

Chemicals kill the grass. Machines remove the rocks. Then tractors plow it three times to break up the sod and prepare it for planting.

Scattered among fields of 7-foot tall corn and thigh-high soybeans, some stretches of grassland still exist. Cattle munch on some grass. And "prairie potholes" — natural ponds ranging from small pools to larger lakes — support a smattering of ducks, geese, pelicans and herons.

Yet within a mile of Malsam's farm, federal satellite data show, more than 300 acres of grassland have been converted to soybeans and corn since 2006.

Nebraska has lost at least 830,000 acres of grassland, a total larger than New York City, Los Angeles and Dallas combined.

"It's great to see farmers making money. It hasn't always been that way," said Craig Cox of the Environmental Working Group. He advocates for clean energy but opposes the ethanol mandate. "If we're going to push the land this hard, we really need to intensify conservation in lockstep with production, and that's just not happening," he said.

Jeff Lautt, CEO of Poet, which operates ethanol refineries across the country, including in South Dakota, said it's up to farmers how to use their land.

"The last I checked, it is still an open market. And farmers that own land are free to farm their land to the extent they think they can make money on it or whatever purpose they need," he said.

Yet Chris Wright, a professor at South Dakota State University who has studied land conversion, said: "The conversation about land preservation should start now before it becomes a serious problem." Wright reviewed the AP's methodology for determining land conversion.

The AP's analysis used government satellite data to count how much grassland existed in 2006 in each county, then compare each plot of land to corresponding satellite data from 2012.

The data from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Agriculture identify corn and soybean fields. That allowed the AP to see which plots of grassland became cropland.

To reach its conservative estimate of 1.2 million acres lost, the AP excluded grassland that had been set aside under the government's Conservation Reserve Program, in which old farmland is allowed to return to a near-natural state. The AP used half-acre sections of earth and excluded tiny tracts that became corn, which experts said were most likely outliers.

Corn prices more than doubled in the years after Congress passed the ethanol mandate in 2007. Now, Malsam said, farmers can make about $500 an acre planting corn.

His farm has just become profitable in the past five years, allowing him and his wife, Theresa, to build a new house on the farmstead.

Four miles south, signs at each end of the town of Roscoe announce a population of only 324. But the town, which relies in part on incomes like Malsam's, supports a school, a restaurant, a bank, a grocery store and a large farm machinery store.

The manager of the equipment dealership, Kaleb Rodgers, said the booming farm economy has helped the town and the dealership prosper. The business with 28 employees last year sold a dozen combines at about $300,000 apiece, plus more than 60 tractors worth between $100,000 and $300,000, he said.

"If we didn't have any farmers we wouldn't have a community here. We wouldn't have a business. I wouldn't be sitting here. I wouldn't be able to feed my family," Rodgers said. "I think ethanol is a very good thing."

Jim Faulstich, president of the South Dakota Grasslands Coalition, said the nation's ethanol and crop insurance policies have encouraged the transformation of the land.

Faulstich, who farms and ranches in central South Dakota near Highmore, said much of the land being converted is not suited to crop production, and South Dakota's strong winds and rains will erode the topsoil.

"I guess a good motto would be to farm the best and leave the rest," he said."

"Gillum reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Dina Cappiello and Matt Apuzzo contributed to this report from Washington.

Editor's Note: _ This is part of an Associated Press investigation into the hidden costs of green energy."


2005 Ethanol bill, Yes from both McConnell and Cochran:

June 28, 2005, ""H.R. 6 (109th): Energy Policy Act of 2005 (On Passage of the Bill)," Senate Vote

Kentucky, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R, YEA
Mississippi, Sen. Thad Cochran, R, YEA

"The RFS (Renewable Fuel Standard) program was created under the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, and established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the United States. As required under EPAct, the original RFS program (RFS1) required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable- fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012.

Under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, the RFS program was expanded in several key ways."...

2007 Ethanol bill, "Aye" from both McConnell and Cochran: 

12/13/2007, "On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the Amendment of the House to the Amendment of the Senate to the Text of H.R. 6, with an Amendment)"

Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, R, Aye
Mississippi, Thad Cochran, R, Aye

Bill title: "H.R.6 - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007"

"An Act to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers from price gouging, to increase the energy efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes."


World Bank begs US to end ethanol quotas that are causing starvation for the world’s poorest:
8/9/12, Easing US ethanol mandate would help prevent food crisis-UN,” Reuters
Global pressure on the United States to relax its ethanol quota mounted on
Thursday as the top World Bank food official said an “immediate, temporary suspension” 
of the mandate could help head off another world food crisis.”…


Biofuels have driven up global food prices by 75%:
Biofuels have driven up global food prices by 75 percent, according to the Guardian report, accounting for more than half of the 140 percent jump in price since 2002 of the food examined by the study. The paper claims that the report, completed in April, was not made public in order to avoid embarrassing US President George W. Bush….Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises,” Oxfam policy advisor Robert Bailey told the Guardian on Friday.”…

  • UN official calls biofuels “a crime against humanity:”

4/4/2008, UN chief calls for review of biofuels policy,UK Guardian, Julian Borger

Ban Ki-moon speaks out amid global food shortage, 33 countries facing unrest as families go hungry”

The UN’s own special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler,  called biofuels “a crime against humanity”,and called for a five-year moratorium….The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has called for a comprehensive review of the policy on biofuels as a crisis in global food prices – partly caused by the increasing use of crops for energy generation -threatens to trigger global instability.”… 


Big banks love ethanol, say it’s a matter of national security to them:
“The facts, they say, show that ethanol is now bolted on to the core of three huge industries: energy, meat and banking…. 
Corn can be a national security issue for this  country,” said Curt Covington,
senior vice president for agricultural and rural banking at Bank of the West, the second largest commercial lender to U.S. farmers. “That’s where we are right now.””…


Even former Mayor Bloomberg who has financial interests in the CO2 industry says ethanol causes food price increases and mass starvation:
2/11/08, “Bloomberg slams U.S. energy law over corn ethanol Reuters by Louis Charbonneau and Timothy Gardner
“A new U.S. energy law will cause an increase in global food prices and lead to starvation deaths worldwide because it continues to promote corn ethanol, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Monday.

  • People literally will starve to death in parts of the world,
  • it always happens when food prices go up, Bloomberg told reporters
after addressing a U.N. General Assembly debate on climate change.”…


11/12/13,The secret, dirty cost of Obama’s green power push,” AP, By Dina Cappiello and Matt Apuzzo, Corydon, Iowa
The hills of southern Iowa bear the scars of America’s push for green energy: The brown gashes where rain has washed away the soil. The polluted streams that dump fertilizer into the water supply.

Even the cemetery that disappeared like an apparition into a cornfield.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way.

With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan

  • to slow global warming.
And when President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Bush predicted it would make the country

  • “stronger, cleaner and more secure.”
But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.
As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined —

  • have vanished on Obama’s watch.
Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies,

  • releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.
Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can’t survive.
In Kansas, for instance, farmers planted 1.35 million more acres of corn last year than they did the year before the ethanol mandate was passed.

  • More than 560,000 acres of conservation land were lost.
The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact."...



Blog Archive

About Me

My Photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.