|

Power to Build Border Fence Is Above U.S. Law

Banana Republic Alert…

Securing the nation’s borders is so important, Congress says, that Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, must have the power to ignore any laws that stand in the way of building a border fence. Any laws at all.

Last week, Mr. Chertoff issued waivers suspending more than 30 laws he said could interfere with “the expeditious construction of barriers” in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. The list included laws protecting the environment, endangered species, migratory birds, the bald eagle, antiquities, farms, deserts, forests, Native American graves and religious freedom.

Power to Build Border Fence Is Above U.S. Law – New York Times

I don’t know what to say, rule of law, so quaint, so pre 9/11…

Similar Posts

  • |

    Bush Administration to enshrine destructive coal mining practice

    Rule to Expand Mountaintop Coal Mining – New York Times

    The Bush administration is set to issue a regulation on Friday that would enshrine the coal mining practice of mountaintop removal. The technique involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the rubble into valleys and streams.

    The journalist who wrote this piece lets some unsupported talking points just slip by. First of all, coal does not solve the US dependence on “foreign oil”. Coal is used for electricity, oil is used for cars, there is little overlap. Secondly, he claims that mountaintop mining is safer. I guess it is safer because it is cheaper to ensure the safety of the miners above ground rather than underground. But, that does not make it inherently safer!

    For all the devastating effects of mountaintop removal mining, including death, water pollution, habitat destruction, flooding, landslides, read this grist article from 2006.

    The go-to site for activism relating to this issue is IloveMountains. Go see it!

    Technorati Tags: , ,

  • Rapture watch – Extremely weird weather edition

    Via the grist blog. Apparently, there has never been a cyclone in recent memory in this area.

    What if Hurricane Katrina had hit the Persian Gulf coast? | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

    Well, we might find out, according to an exclusive from The Oil Drum and Chuck Watson of KAC/UCF, also using a weather blog, where Margie Kieper writes:

    An unusual event is happening over the next 48 hours, as the first tropical cyclone with hurricane-force winds, and major hurricane-force winds at that, is approaching the Gulf of Oman, to strike the eastern coast of Oman, curve northward, and make landfall on the coast of Iran. In the tropical cyclone best tracks and the modern era of weather satellites, there is no record of such an occurrence.
    As the Oil Drum writer comments:

    Why might [Cyclone] Gonu matter? Well, that answer begins with the fact that the world production of petroleum plateauing around 85 mbbl/day, any slight blip in supply or exporting could be quite noticeable on the world markets. A sizable portion of the world’s petroleum exports go through the Gulf of Oman.
    Hmm … could global warming have something to do with it? Will global warming lead to higher oil prices and scarcer gasoline?

    Statutory Disclaimer: I do not actually believe in the concept of the rapture!

  • The emperor's "new" climate policy

    You mut have heard by now that the emperor of the US (I call him that because he thinks he is above the law and rules by fiat) announced a new meeting to tackle climate change issues. David Roberts of Grist broke it down and concluded that it was worse than nothing. It rejects targets, groups China and India with the developed world, which ensures that nothing will ever come out of his “meeting”, kicks everything down the road until after he has abdicated his throne in 2009, and tries to take advantage of climate change to push for free trade deals.

    But this article by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post caught my attention for the rather surreal exchange between a CBS reporter and the White House spokesman.

    Dana Milbank – As the World Warms, the White House Aspires – washingtonpost.com

    In this instance, you have a long-term, aspirational goal,” Connaughton answered.

    Aspirational goal? Like having the body you want without diet or exercise? Or getting rich without working?

    “I’m confused,” Axelrod said. “Does that mean there will be targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, and that everybody will be making binding commitments?”

    “The commitment at the international level will be to a long-term, aspirational goal,” the Bush aide repeated.

    Axelrod had his answer. “Voluntary,” he concluded.

    “Well,” said Connaughton, “I want to be careful about the word ‘voluntary.’ “

    Yes, please do be careful, let’s not over promise and under deliver like we always do!

    Connaughton may want to be careful, but the plan the White House outlined yesterday listed no concrete targets or dates, no enforcement mechanism and no penalties for noncompliance. It also wouldn’t take effect until four years after Bush leaves office. It was, rather, a call to spend the final 18 months of the Bush presidency forming an aspirational goal.

    Umm, we’re not in 1985 any more, aspirational goals have long since been established, stabilization at 450 ppm C anyone?

    I love the emperor and his merry band of climate advisers!

  • Liquid Coal – Flooding back to life!

    See, it was only a matter of time before liquid coal made its egregious way back to front and center of the “energy security” debate.

    Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process – New York Times

    Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry, lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big government purchases for the next 25 years.

    Liquid coal produces more CO2 than gasoline, so, all the coal makers are claiming that they will sequester the CO2, and use renewable energy to produce the coal, it’s a lie, and an expensive one at that.

    It is going to be more expensive, more polluting, and more profitable for big coal companies at tax payers expense than any other options available.

    In addition to construction loan guarantees, Mr. Boucher would
    protect the first six liquid plants from drops in energy prices. If oil
    prices fell below about $40 a barrel, the government would
    automatically grant loans to the first six plants that make coal-based
    fuels. If oil prices climbed to $80 a barrel, companies would have to
    pay a surcharge to the government.

    But the most important guarantee, many coal producers said, is the prospect of signing 25-year purchase contracts with the Air Force.

    Wow, why can’t solar or wind energy get these kinds of incentives?

    “There is financial uncertainty, which is inhibiting the flow of
    private capital into the construction of coal-to-liquid facilities,”
    said Mr. Boucher, who supports most of the proposals and is drafting
    portions of the energy bill.

    Yes, there is “financial uncertainty” because without the taxation of the American public, there is no hope of making money with this thing. It’s just a giant boondoggle to transfer money from the public sphere into coal companies.

    The US is losing its collective mind!

    Technorati Tags: ,

  • Oil Sands work even with carbon pricing

    via RAND_TR580.sum.pdf application/pdf Object.

    More on this later, but according to this lifecycle analysis, oil produced from the oil sands of Alberta can be cost competitive with crude oil even if carbon costs are taken into account.

    However, ramp up of production will lead to very high water usage and massive local and regional impacts.

    In other words, Alberta, you’re screwed, rest of the world, you’ll die at the same rate!

  • NY Times uses football columnist to diss Al Gore on global warming

    Ok, I exaggerate a wee bit, he’s also a scholar at Brookings.

    Al Gore’s Outsourcing Solution – New York Times
    Shorter Gregg Easterbrook

    1. Al Gore is a big fat phony, so let’s not listen to him
    2. China and India will emit a lot of greenhouse gases, so it is useless for the US to control itself

    This guy should stick to writing about football, simple fact, the country that is the so called “leader of the free world” and that is currently the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has to take the lead, or at least participate in the discussion.

    As my favorite economist Dean Baker points out, he even gets his facts misleading on China’s GDP using gross unadjusted GDP instead of numbers adjusted for purchasing power parity.

    To be fair, he makes the valid point that a lot of gains are to be had by investing in India and China to make processes more efficient and hence reduce energy needs and emissions, but it’s not an either-or scenario. Even if India and China pass the U.S in emissions at some point in time, that still makes the U.S the third largest emitter, and if you look at both per-capita and aggregate consumption together, the U.S has to take major steps in addition to helping China and India with offsets and tech transfers. But you have to play the game!

    Is Easterbrook saying the U.S can’t walk and chew gum at the same time? C’Mon!