White House Alters Scientific Evidence; Commits Fraud

Even in July 2008, when the extreme negative effects of global warming are well established and accepted as scientific fact, Cheney and the Bush Administration are trying to downplay the environmental report indicating such -- even going so far as to physically alter scientific documents and government agency findings before they are released.

Unfortunately, these actions are nothing new. As early as 2002, there were documented instances in which White House officials altered a government climate research draft, and in the following document, Phillip Cooney, then the White House chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality (formerly a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute), severely edited findings warning of extreme consequences to finally be no more than suggestions of possibilities.

View the drafts appearing in Sierra Magazine here.

View the drafts uncovered by the New York Times here.

After his editing became highly publicized, Cooney resigned and joined ExxonMobil.

One of the individuals at the center of outing Cooney's actions and brining the Bush Administration's desires to alter and restrict scientific findings on global warming was Rick Piltz -- a former senior associate on the U.S. Climate Change Science Program who resigned in 2005 in protest to interference in the program's reports.

The news blitz sparked by his resignation and by his congressional testimony on the matter has created much headway in exposing the scientific fraud being commited by the Executive Branch of the American government.

Read Piltz's memo describing his reasons for resignation here.

Read Piltz's testimony before the U.S. Congressional hearing here.

However, despite the continuing legal battles and negative publicity, it is surprising that the Bush Administration continues to try and alter public scientific documents on climate change. Even more surprising is that their actions are really not widely reported and realized. Unfortunately, probably due in part to the lack of general knowledge of the administration's action, it is entirely plausible that the White House's fraudulent activities aren't relegated to just climate change documents.

According to the deposition of Jason K. Burnett, a senior advisor on climate change at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Vice President Dick Cheney and "the Council on Environmental Quality were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony (concerning)... any discussions of the human health consequences of climate change." According to CNN, Cheney's office pushed for major deletions out of fear that the information, if released, would make it harder to avoid regulating greenhouse gasses."

Why the same legal ramifications are not in place for Cheney and his office as they are for Cooney, one can only guess.

What's more frustrating is that, even when faced with unalterable and undeniable evidence, the White House refused to act on the effects of global warming.

In a recent Supreme Court decision (ironically staffed by conservative judges, a couple of whom were themselves appointed by President Bush), the Court ruled 5-4 that if the EPA were to find evidence that global warming did indeed pose a threat to the public health and future of humans as whole, that the EPA under the White House must act to enforce restrictions on the harm.

(The Supreme Court, as the Judicial branch of United States Government, tells the President's Office, known as the executive branch, what laws to enforce and how. The White House is obligated to follow the Court's directions.)

In a surprise twist, the White House refused to act on the EPA's warnings -- by NOT OPENING THE EMAIL sent by the EPA. They simply refused to read it because if they did, they would be legally obligated to act.

According to the New York Times, "The White House succesfully put pressure on the EPA to elimate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation. including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years."

The obstinacy of the Bush Administration is simply amazing.

Gas Prices: Get Used to Them

Americans should realize by now that gas prices aren't going down anytime soon. Instability in the Middle East as a whole is increasing and is not headed towards a resolution short of a violent collision of ideas, ideals, religion, and cultures.

America's untapped oil resources in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, nor the offshore oil reserves, nor even the Green River Valley have anywhere near enough oil to assist the American dependence on oil -- what's more is that it would take at least 5-10 years for ANY of the domestic oil to even hit the market. As such, if the intention is to lower the current prices at the pump, any new domestic exploration and drilling would be ineffective.

President Bush and John McCain have good intentions in attempting to relieve America's dependable on foreign oil, but what what must be done to solve the problem is to relieve America's dependence on oil in general -- its usage is simply unsustainable.

As worldwide oil consumption increases year after year, with the United States being no exception, one must be conscious of the fact that oil takes millions of years to form -- and that it is not a renewable resource. One day it will run out. One day, humans will be forced to find an alternative; why not start now?

Nancy Pelosi, to her credit, has fought against offshore oil drilling since she joined congress in 1987. Disappointingly, however, she has an ill-rationed plan to lower the current gas prices: to release some or all of the 700 million barrels in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Bush counters that doing so would harm America's national security -- to good reason. The oil reserve is in place to protect against a national emergency, such as another terrorist attack or a natural disaster. It is not in place to ease gas prices for the average consumer, especially when the prices are simply a reflection of a sinking American and world economies and current events.

As of spring 2007, the United States uses near 21 million barrels of oil PER DAY. If America had to suddenly depend solely on the Strategic Oil Reserve, it would last for only one month. Gas prices reaching $4 a gallon is no justification for opening the emergency kit. The current situation is a grave problem, but it is not a national emergency.

So what is the answer? It is not a simple one, and is not one that is likely to appease the many Americans complaining of the high gas prices and the subsequent rise in the cost if living: to reduce America's dependency on oil and to increase our abilities to utilize American ingenuity and creativity to find and implement alternative forms of energy.

Gas prices aren't going anywhere, and Americans should get used to them now -- if not now, then when? Besides, Americans should still consider themselves lucky: consider these per-gallon prices from around the world.

Even the supermajors (commonly known as Big Oil -- Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Total) know that the future for oil is bleak and will require ever-advancing technologies to simply locate and produce it. Perhaps they might place some of their record-breaking profits towards the development of new, alternative, and sustainable energy, leading the world not simply in oil production and profits, but in energy production for the betterment of civilization and mankind as a whole.

Alternative sources of energy won't instantly solve the problem -- it has taken America decades to dig itself into this dependancy, and we won't easily nor quickly dig ourselves out.

We should look at using a multitude of different sources for our energy; each region of the United States has different natural resources and a different climate, and there is no miracle energy cure. As such, American's should consider utilizing many different sources at once, or have transportation devices uniquely suited to certain regions (i.e. solar power out west, wind power on the coast, etc.).

Times are a-changin' people. Get used to it.

Corn Syrup Industry Fighting to Regain Consumers

It is a well-established fact, at least in the health-food arenas, that corn syrup and its stickier twin, high fructose corn syrup, is bad news. Studies have linked corn syrup to a multitude of health problems as well to environmental damage from the overgrowing of the corn that is used to prude the sweet syrup.

Because this information is being disseminated quickly and more and more people are becoming aware of it, the Corn Refiners Association found itself facing the possibility of decreasing profits and an unfavorable outlook on their industry.

As a result, they are “launching a major advertising and public relations campaign designed to rehabilitate the reputation of high fructose corn syrup.”

HFCS has been linked by many scientists to the nation's obesity epidemic.

The group is spending $20 million to $30 million on the campaign, including running full-page ads in more than a dozen major newspapers, claiming that the product is no worse for you than sugar. The ad, which features a stalk of corn, carries the headline: 'And Now a Little Food for Thought.'

The Corn Refiners Association "has been trying to counter the bad publicity around HFCS since 2004," but concluded it "could no longer afford to rely on simple grass-roots marketing tactics such as talking with nutritionists and doctors."

Meanwhile, in June a nearly $5 billion merger of Corn Products International and Bunge Ltd. signaled that corn manufacturers mean business. Revenues were expected to increase 29 percent in 2008 to reach $4 billion.

(Noted by Mercola.com, PRWatch, and the Organic Consumers Association Mercola.com)

 

Some of the health-related problems that corn syrup can cause or contribute to are diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, an increase in LDL (the bad cholesterol), and liver disease. Interestingly, some people’s bodies can crave the sweetness, thus leading people to eat more of a food than they intended, which only increases the amount of corn syrup that they consume

The average American consumes almost 2 ounces of corn syrup per day (as documented by the Corn Refiners Association). Although it may not seem like much, consider that given the high-intensity of the fructose in the mixture, and the fact that high fructose corn syrup is easily and quickly metabolized into fat (over the rate of other sugars), even a little amount can have lasting impacts. And at that rate, the average American consumes almost 6 GALLONS of the stuff every year.

So next time that you’re buying your food in the grocery store, take care and look on the labels of your food. Check the ingredients – and don’t assume that corn syrup won’t be in it – it appears in everything from salad dressing to yogurt to breadcrumbs.

 

For more information, visit:

How High Fructose Corn Syrup Damages Your Body

High-Fructose Corn Syrup: Not so Sweet for the Planet

High-fructose corn syrup: Why is it so bad for me?

E-Waste: The Quiet Catastrophe

TIME magazine recently published an online article about E-waste and the abhorrent conditions that it creates. Most people, as indicated in the article, stereotype the electronics industries as "clean" and "environmentally friendly;" after all, just think of all the paper that the digital age saves! Or so they say.

As the digital age progress and newer and faster; better, electronics debut, the consumerist culture in industrialized nations discards their older electronics -- now at an ever-growing rate.

Just what happens to the computers, old mp3 players, cell phones, and other devices that we discard? Just try getting rid of your old CRT computer monitor (those really BIG ones that have been mostly replaced by the flat-panel LCD ones) at your local recycling center or even in trash. It's considered toxic waste.

The United States has a horrible tendency to ship their waste overseas to countries that will take it -- mainly those with largely impoverished sections, as they will do practically anything for U.S. dollars.

In the YouTube video below, Michael Zhao describes and shows us some of the footage from these countries and describes the paths that our trash takes. A journalist with ties to the Asia Society (which is "working to strengthen relationships and promote understanding among the people, leaders, and institutions of Asia and the United States), Zhao visited firsthand one of the small Chinese towns that has been ravaged by their own industry: E-Waste processing.

In those towns, one might imagine a factory-like building in which workers come to disassemble electronic waste in a controlled and safe environment; but that is not the case. Without clothing protection, eye goggles, or even a mask, the town's citizens burn leftover parts on home stoves, attempting to salvage the tiny amounts of gold within the product.

The toxic fumes are simply inhaled by the workers. Their town is surrounded by mountains of trash. Their waterways are BLACK, like sludge; full of dumped toxic waste. And yet the workers continue to welcome E-Waste imports, for it is a small yet steady stream of much-needed money.

I would agree with some critiques that the United States electronics companies that ship the waste to these impoverished countries are guilty of long-range dumping. They simply export the toxic waste to a location far from their own, and leave the mess for the poor to clean up.

Why? Because it costs less to ship the trash halfway around the world and pay people to take it, rather than dispose of it as best as possible here in the United States.

As an American citizen, I am glad that the toxic waste is not dumped in my country (and am somewhat somewhat guilty myself -- having written this post from my Dell laptop amidst a host of other elctronics), but we have NO RIGHT to expect the rest of the world to deal with our garbage. Even if it is "their" country rather than ours, it is still "our" world -- and our only one at that.

In 1989, the United Nations adopted a treaty to control the stream of hazardous waste that was then flowing from wealthy countries to impoverished ones (See the "Basel Convention on the Control of Trans boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal). But there is one problem: the United States (one of the main exporters) never agreed to it, and poor importer countries (like China) continue to accept the waste for the few dollars that accompany it.

 

This disgusting irrelevance for the environment and for our fellow humans, this love for the bottom line, and this irresponsible industry behavior is abhorrent! I don't know what can be done, especially with so much toxic waste-to-be still in American households, but we must end the dumping  -- yesterday.

 

WATCH THE BELOW VIDEO FOR MORE INFORMATION:

The TIME article referenced above is available here: Your Laptop's Dirty Little Secret

TIME's 10 Things to Like about $4 Gasoline

Humans are an extremely adaptable species. Although we're lazy and like comfort and convenience, we adapt to changes in our environment as best we can.

So when gas prices rise (as they are currently), it won't take long for us to change our ways to accommodate -- and those changes may be for the better.

Read TIME Magazine's 10 Things to Like About $4 Gas.

I have long held the view that, although the higher prices may cause a pinch in lifestyle, America needs more expensive gasoline. Honestly, we have nothing to complain about -- Great Britain has long had gasoline at over $8 a gallon, and Australia has been enduring $12 a gallon for quite a while.

Understandably, most American's disagree with me on this (some vehemently) -- but there is validity to the idea, as evidenced by the topics covered in the TIME article (over 3000 America lives have been saved THIS YEAR through decreased pollution and traffic deaths!).

The higher the prices, the less we drive. The less we drive, the fewer pollutants in the air. The less we drive, the fewer natural resources consumed for our convenience -- meaning that they will last longer. The less we drive, the more we take public transportation, bike, or walk -- resulting in better transportation (improvements stem from the additional demand and the additional revenue) and better health for the community (through more exercise and less pollution).

One could even make the argument that higher-priced gas is actually GOOD for the economy. It definitely has and is dropping stock prices (I look at my portfolio and wince) and home values, but that drop provides time for a much-needed rebalancing of the economy.

Everything requires checks and balances, and the American economy has been growing too fast for it to be rooted in stability -- we have shipped our jobs overseas (that are starting to return as shipping prices increase), the economy is based on speculation (stocks) rather than industry (again, solved by returning jobs), which results in a weaker dollar. As the dollar weakens, the remaining United States industries are bought (through stocks + real estate) by foreign companies and even foreign governments (China owns a surprising stake in some U.S. corporations). Does this sound anything like Ron Paul? If it does, just remember that the dire warnings he gave -- at which most of America scoffed -- are all becoming reality.

I could go on, but I will leave my complex ramblings for another day. In conclusion, I view rising prices as bad: short term, but good: long term.

I just hope that America hasn't grown too quickly since its last resettling that we can quickly bounce back into self-reliance and productivity -- and not more towards the 10% unemployment rate towards which we're currently headed.

Global Warming -- The Environmental Defense Fund's Take

While the topic of global warming is on the table, I thought that I would post (via YouTube) one of the more impressive ad campaigns that I've seen.

The below ad was created by the Environmental Defense Fund in conjunction with the Ad Council, and is my favorite of several. The ads are all based on hard scientific data, to which links are available on their website.



About the environmental Defense Fund:

"Environmental Defense, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 500,000 members. Since 1967, Environmental Defense has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems. We have a strong history of finding solutions, from our pioneering efforts to eradicate DDT to cutting-edge hybrid truck work with FedEx (see highlights of our work and visit our main Web site).

We've launched this campaign as a wake-up call. Global warming is the most serious environmental challenge of our time. It is more urgent and its dangers are more fundamental than most Americans realize. This campaign seeks to educate Americans about how quickly we must act, and give concrete steps that people can incorporate into their lives to fight global warming."

Learn more about the EDF here: http://fightglobalwarming.com

---

Personally, I consider the EDF worthy of support, and as important as the Sierra Club in the fight against those that consider the environment there to be taken advantage of, those that are too ignorant to realize the impact of their actions, and those that simply don't give a damn.

What Global Warming?

Although Global Warming is commonly considered fact and no longer a theory, there are still some people who obstinately consider it completely untrue. Well, below are some satellite photos of Greenland from NASA, taken over a span of 20 years.

The first was taken in 1985, the second in 2002, and the third (in which a new strait is visable - at the bottom left corner of the claw-like island) in 2006.







































Still don't believe in Global Warming?