Food security and global warming

Food security and global warming: Monsanto versus organic

Organic farming beats genetically engineered corn as response to rising global temperatures

Posted by Meredith Niles (Guest Contributor) at 1:57 PM on 16 Jan 2009

This week Science published research ($ub. req'd) detailing the vast, global food-security implications of warming temperatures. The colored graphics are nothing short of terrifying when you realize the blotches of red and orange covering the better part of the globe indicate significantly warmer summers in coming decades.

The implications of the article are clear -- we need to be utilizing agricultural methods and crops that can withstand the potential myriad impacts of global climate change, especially warmer temperatures. The article significantly notes, "The probability exceeds 90 percent that by the end of the century, the summer average temperature will exceed the hottest summer on record throughout the tropics and subtropics. Because these regions are home to about half of the world's population, the human consequences of global climate change could be enormous."

Whether you believe global warming is part of a "natural cycle" or a man-made phenomenon is irrelevant. The bottom line is that our earth is rapidly warming, and this is going to drastically affect our food supply. We must undertake both the enormous task of reducing our carbon emissions now to avert the worst, while at the same time adapting our society to the vast and multitudinous effects of unavoidable global climate change. Failing to do either will, as the Science article indicates, have dire effects on a large portion of our world's population.

Determining the best course of action for ensuring food security in the face of global climate change remains a challenging task. Recognizing that climate change is slated to affect developing countries and small-scale farmers the most is a crucial point. Such understanding enables people to realize that viable solutions must be accessible, affordable, and relevant to the billions of small-scale farmers in the developing world. Unfortunately, it appears that some of the solutions on the table fail to meet these criteria.

Last week, Monsanto made a big public relations splash by filing documents with the FDA regarding a drought-tolerant GM corn variety it is developing with a German company, BASF. Monsanto claims that in field trials, the corn got 6-10 percent higher yields in drought-prone areas last year, but the release is extremely short on details. Regardless of the reality, Monsanto is presenting the corn as a way to help improve on-farm productivity in other parts of the world, notably Africa.

Yet, absent from the media hype were the many technical and social problems with Monsanto's corn.

A little over a year ago, the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics held a conference specific to drought and drought-tolerant crops. As a follow up, the Australian government's Grains Research and Development Corporation published a piece detailing the research shared and lessons learned from the conference. One topic addressed was the potential of GM drought-tolerant varieties. In the analysis stated, "The most notable and problematic (effect) is the tendency of drought-tolerant GM lines to not perform as well under favourable conditions. This appears to be the case for CIMMYT's GM wheat and Monsanto's GM corn. The flaw is a profound one. It amounts to shifting the yield losses experienced in dry seasons onto the good years." In essence, farmers might get a small bump in yield during droughts, but will suffer yield losses when conditions are favorable. Considering that climate scientists continually point to increased erratic weather patterns as a symptom of global warming, this reality is clearly disastrous. Surely there must be better solutions that increase production under all weather conditions

One promising solution appeared in an article published in BioScience in 2005. The authors outlined the Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial, a long-term comparison of organic and conventional farming systems conducted between 1981 and 2002. Significantly, the trials found that organic production yielded equivalently to conventional systems after a transition period. Yet even more importantly, Rodale found that in drought conditions in which rainfall was 30 percent less than normal, organic systems yielded 28 to 34 percent higher than conventional systems. Rodale equates the yield gain to increased water retention as a result of higher soil organic carbon. Water volumes percolating through the various systems were 15-20 percent higher in the organic systems as compared with the conventional systems over the 12 year period.

The BioScience article additionally noted that the organic systems used 28 to 32 percent fewer energy inputs, retained soil carbon and soil nitrogen better, and offered a higher profitability over conventional systems. What is so significant about this research is that it demonstrates the ability of organic agriculture to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions with fewer energy inputs and withstand climate change impacts like drought with greater efficacy.

Most importantly, it offers an economical and accessible form of agriculture for billions of small-scale farmers. Scaling up agricultural development in rural areas like Africa can be accomplished with organic methods like manure, compost, and cover crops. Even the United Nations recognized the opportunity presented by organic production in a report late last year. Conventional breeding and improved seeds are also part of the solution. Between 1939 and 2005, conventional breeding contributed significantly to an almost six-fold yield-gain in corn in the U.S.

This point is crucial, since the seeds Monsanto is planning to release will be owned by the company and sold at exorbitant prices. GMO seeds cost from two to over four times as much as conventional seed varieties, and the disparity is increasing. How will small-scale farmers pay for such seeds? How will they pay for the chemicals and synthetic fertilizers necessary for such production? Shouldn't we be looking for solutions that are viable and realistic for those people who are most food insecure? Monsanto does not have the answers here, but organic methods can and should be a big part of the solution.

The future of food security in the face of warming temperatures cannot be based on a system of profits and research that fails to address the needs of food-insecure farmers. We need real solutions that will enable farmers to maintain and increase yields with those materials and techniques already available to them with little extra cost: animal manure, increased irrigation opportunities, cover crops, compost, and integrated pest-management systems. Organic agriculture will reduce, mitigate, and adapt to climate change impacts and still remain accessible and economic to the billions of subsistence farmers around the world. If we really want to fight the food crisis, let's start investing in and promoting organic production today to ensure better climate adaptation in the future.

Obama Has just 4 Years to Save the Earth

'We have only four years left to act on climate change - America has to lead'

Jim Hansen is the 'grandfather of climate change' and one of the world's leading climatologists. In this rare interview in New York, he explains why President Obama's administration is the last chance to avoid flooded cities, species extinction and climate catastrophe

• Robin McKie, science editor
• The Observer, Sunday 18 January 2009
• Article history

Along one wall of Jim Hansen's wood-panelled office in upper Manhattan, the distinguished climatologist has pinned 10 A4-sized photographs of his three grandchildren: Sophie, Connor and Jake. They are the only personal items on display in an office otherwise dominated by stacks of manila folders, bundles of papers and cardboard boxes filled with reports on climate variations and atmospheric measurements.

The director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York is clearly a doting grandfather as well as an internationally revered climate scientist. Yet his pictures are more than mere expressions of familial love. They are reminders to the 67-year-old scientist of his duty to future generations, children whom he now believes are threatened by a global greenhouse catastrophe that is spiralling out of control because of soaring carbon dioxide emissions from industry and transport.

"I have been described as the grandfather of climate change. In fact, I am just a grandfather and I do not want my grandchildren to say that grandpa understood what was happening but didn't make it clear," Hansen said last week. Hence his warning to Barack Obama, who will be inaugurated as US president on Tuesday. His four-year administration offers the world a last chance to get things right, Hansen said. If it fails, global disaster - melted sea caps, flooded cities, species extinctions and spreading deserts - awaits mankind.

"We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."

After eight years of opposing moves to combat climate change, thanks to the policies of President George Bush, the US had given itself no time for manoeuvre, he said. Only drastic, immediate change can save the day and those changes proposed by Hansen - who appeared in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and is a winner of the World Wildlife Fund's top conservation award - are certainly far-reaching. In particular, the idea of continuing with "cap-and-trade" schemes, which allow countries to trade allowances and permits for emitting carbon dioxide, must now be scrapped, he insisted. Such schemes, encouraged by the Kyoto climate treaty, were simply "weak tea" and did not work. "The United States did not sign Kyoto, yet its emissions are not that different from the countries that did sign it."

Thus plans to include carbon trading schemes in talks about future climate agreements were a desperate error, he said. "It's just greenwash. I would rather the forthcoming Copenhagen climate talks fail than we agree to a bad deal," Hansen said.

Only a carbon tax, agreed by the west and then imposed on the rest of the world through political pressure and trade tariffs, would succeed in the now-desperate task of stopping the rise of emissions, he argued. This tax would be imposed on oil corporations and gas companies and would specifically raise the prices of fuels across the globe, making their use less attractive. In addition, the mining of coal - by far the worst emitter of carbon dioxide - would be phased out entirely along with coal-burning power plants which he called factories of death.

"Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as other fossil fuels combined and it still has far greater reserves. We must stop using it." Instead, programmes for building wind, solar and other renewable energy plants should be given major boosts, along with research programmes for new generations of nuclear reactors.

Hansen's strident calls for action stem from his special view of our changing world. He and his staff monitor temperatures relayed to the institute - an anonymous brownstone near Columbia University - from thousands of sites around the world, including satellites and bases in Antarctica. These have revealed that our planet has gone through a 0.6C rise in temperature since 1970, with the 10 hottest years having occurred between 1997 and 2008: unambiguous evidence, he believes, that Earth is beginning to overheat dangerously.

Last week, however, Hansen revealed his findings for 2008 which show, surprisingly, that last year was the coolest this century, although still hot by standards of the 20th century. The finding will doubtless be seized on by climate change deniers, for whom Hansen is a particular hate figure, and used as "evidence" that global warming is a hoax.

However, deniers should show caution, Hansen insisted: most of the planet was exceptionally warm last year. Only a strong La Niña - a vast cooling of the Pacific that occurs every few years - brought down the average temperature. La Niña would not persist, he said. "Before the end of Obama's first term, we will be seeing new record temperatures. I can promise the president that."

Hansen's uncompromising views are, in some ways, unusual. Apart from his senior Nasa post, he holds a professorship in environmental sciences at Columbia and dresses like a tweedy academic: green jumper with elbow pads, cords and check cotton shirt. Yet behind his unassuming, self-effacing manner, the former planetary scientist has shown surprising steel throughout his career. In 1988, he electrified a congressional hearing, on a particular hot, sticky day in June, when he announced he was "99% certain" that global warming was to blame for the weather and that the planet was now in peril from rising carbon dioxide emissions. His remarks, which made headlines across the US, pushed global warming on to news agendas for the first time.

Over the years, Hansen persisted with his warnings. Then, in 2005, he gave a talk at the American Geophysical Union in which he argued that the year was the warmest on record and that industrial carbon emissions were to blame. A furious White House phoned Nasa and Hansen was banned from appearing in newspapers or on television or radio. It was a bungled attempt at censorship. Newspapers revealed that Hansen was being silenced and his story, along with his warnings about the climate, got global coverage.

Since then Hansen has continued his mission "to make clear" the dangers of climate change, sending a letter last December from himself and his wife Anniek about the urgency of the planet's climatic peril to Barack and Michelle Obama. "We decided to send it to both of them because we thought there may be a better chance she will think about this or have time for it. The difficulty of this problem [of global warming] is that its main impacts will be felt by our children and by our grandchildren. A mother tends to be concerned about such things."

Nor have his messages of imminent doom been restricted to US politicians. The heads of the governments of Britain, Germany, Japan and Australia have all received recent warnings from Hansen about their countries' behaviour. In each case, these nations' continued support for the burning of coal to generate electricity has horrified the climatologist. In Britain, he has condemned the government's plans to build a new coal plant at Kingsnorth, in Kent, for example, and even appeared in court as a defence witness for protesters who occupied the proposed new plant's site in 2007.

"On a per capita basis, Britain is responsible for more of the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere than any other nation on Earth because it has been burning it from the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. America comes second and Germany third. The crucial point is that Britain could make a real difference if it said no to Kingsnorth. That decision would set an example to the rest of the world." These points were made clear in Hansen's letter to the prime minister, Gordon Brown, though he is still awaiting a reply.

As to the specific warnings he makes about climate change, these concentrate heavily on global warming's impact on the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. These are now melting at an alarming rate and threaten to increase sea levels by one or two metres over the century, enough to inundate cities and fertile land around the globe.

The issue was simple, said Hansen: would each annual increase of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere produce a simple proportional increase in temperature or would its heating start to accelerate?

He firmly believes the latter. As the Arctic's sea-ice cover decreases, less and less sunlight will be reflected back into space. And as tundras heat up, more and more of their carbon dioxide and methane content will be released into the atmosphere. Thus each added tonne of carbon will trigger greater rises in temperature as the years progress. The result will be massive ice cap melting and sea-level rises of several metres: enough to devastate most of the world's major cities.

"I recently lunched with Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, and proposed a joint programme to investigate this issue as a matter of urgency, in partnership with the US National Academy of Sciences, but nothing has come of the idea, it would seem," he said.

Hansen is used to such treatment, of course, just as the world of science has got used to the fact that he is as persistent as he is respected in his work and will continue to press his cause: a coal-power moratorium and an investigation of ice-cap melting.

The world was now in "imminent peril", he insisted, and nothing would quench his resolve in spreading the message. It is the debt he owes his grandchildren, after all.

The climate in figures

• The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 385 parts per million. This compares with a figure of some 315ppm around 1960.

• Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that can persist for hundreds of years in the atmosphere, absorbing infrared radiation and heating the atmosphere.

• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's last report states that 11 of the 12 years between 1995-2006 rank among the 12 warmest years on record since 1850.

• According to Jim Hansen, the nation responsible for putting the largest amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is Britain, on a per capita basis - because the Industrial Revolution started here. China is now the largest annual emitter of carbon dioxide .

• Most predictions suggest that global temperatures will rise by 2C to 4C over the century.

• The IPCC estimates that rising temperatures will melt ice and cause ocean water to heat up and increase in volume. This will produce a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres. However, some predict a far faster rate of around one to two metres.

• Inundations of one or two metres would make the Nile Delta and Bangladesh uninhabitable, along with much of south-east England, Holland and the east coast of the United States.

Coal Ash Spill Leads to Arsenic Warnings for Tennessee Wells

Is there really such a thing as "Clean" Coal?
How many more "accidents" do we need to destroy our resources before we see how safe wind and solar energy are?

Coal Ash Spill Leads to Arsenic Warnings for Tennessee Wells

By Alex Nussbaum

Dec. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Water samples near a billion-gallon spill of coal ash in eastern Tennessee have found levels of arsenic and other heavy metals higher than drinking-water standards, prompting a warning against using private wells in the area.

Samples taken at the site of the spill in Harriman, 35 miles southwest of Knoxville, “slightly exceed” the standards for some metals, according to a statement from the Tennessee Valley Authority, owner of the coal power plant where the Dec. 22 accident occurred. Results from well-water and air tests won’t be known until later this week, the utility said.

The spill at the utility’s Harriman Fossil Plant deluged more than 300 acres of rural Roane County, destroying three homes and damaging 42 other properties. In nearby Kingston, that raised fears of fouled water and air, while 13 families wait to see if their homes can be salvaged, said Carolyn Brewer, finance director for the city of 5,300.

“Some of them are staying with families; some are working with real estate agents, leasing homes, buying homes,” Brewer said in a telephone interview today. “There’s two or three that will just never be able to get back in their homes. They’re just destroyed.”

The sludge-like spill, a mixture of water and residue from burned coal, escaped from a 40-acre holding pond after a retaining wall burst last week. After repeatedly saying the spilled material isn’t toxic, the TVA cautioned residents in its latest statement against touching or stirring up the material.

Samples from the Tennessee River, near the intake for Kingston’s water plant, found no violations of drinking-water standards, and any harmful levels of arsenic likely would be removed by treatment, the TVA said in its statement, issued jointly with state and local authorities and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The plant serves about 10,000 people in and around Kingston, Brewer said.

Well Warning

“Water from other sources that are not normally treated, such as private drinking wells or springs, may be contaminated if impacted by the release of the fly ash,” the agencies said in their news release. “These areas should not be used until they have been evaluated.”

Arsenic, a byproduct of coal burning that also occurs naturally, can cause a variety of ills when ingested, including nausea, numbness and partial paralysis, according to the EPA’s Web site. The metal has been linked to bladder, lung and kidney cancer in some studies, the EPA said.

Authorities are testing air quality in the area and “currently evaluating the potential for health effects,” the agencies said in the TVA’s statement. Anyone who touches soil, sediments or water affected by the spill should wash their hands thoroughly with soap and water and wash clothes separately from other items, according to the statement.

Generating Units Shut

The Kingston plant, completed in 1955, produces 10 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually, enough to supply 670,000 homes. The authority said today that seven of the plant’s nine generating units had been shut down, calling that a result of reduced demand due to warm temperatures and not the ash spill.

The TVA is a federal corporation that was created by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Congress in 1933. The public power company provides electricity to industry and about 9 million people in an area covering 80,000 square miles of the southeastern U.S., according to the TVA’s Web site.

To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Nussbaum in New York anussbaum1@bloomberg.net.

The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems

As we look toward the new year, our economy is in crisis and our environment is in distress. What we need from our next president is a plan of action that simultaneously saves our planet from pollution and puts our economy back on track. What we need is a "green" solution.

Free Electronics Recycling Saturday - Roseville, MN

Free Electronics Recycling
Saturday 11/22/2008 10:00 AM - 3:00 PM

Drop off your electronics at the Ecycle IT, Inc. truck, free of charge.

Computer Revolution will be evaluating and offering gift cards for
re-sellable computer equipment.

***The first 100 Participants that donate also get a 15% off coupon
from REI!***

The list of items you can drop off include:
Computers Laptops
Monitors
Electric Typewriters
Calculators
Printers
Scanners
Fax Machines
Copiers
Hard Drives
Telephones
Zip Drives
Cellular Phones
Digital Cameras
Televisions
Servers
VCR's
Modems
Stereos
Gaming Systems
CD Players
DVD Players
Network Cables
Computer Peripherals

For any questions regarding this event, visit
http://www.ecycleIT mn.com or call Mikaela Kramer (651) 635-0211.
* No home or kitchen appliances such as microwaves, vacuum cleaners,
toaster ovens, etc. will be accepted.
*We cannot accept hazardous waste materials such at motor oil, paint,
acetate, turpentine, etc.
*Ecycle IT, Inc. is not responsible for the destruction of your data.
Please be sure to remove any and all data from your unit before donating.

* Location:REI Roseville Overflow Parking Lot across the street from
the store
* Contact:Visit http://www.itexpres smn.com or call Gordy at 612-465-8556
* Cost: Free
* Registration Required? No.
* http://www.itexpres smn.com

What Bush is up to in his last days at the white house

Do you need more proof after these last 8 years that the Republican party agenda does not have your health or welfare in mind? After the de-regulation of the financial industry has lead to 3 trillion dollars of our savings and retirement lost in the past month, President Bush is pushing in the eleventh hour to de-regulate corporate business - the impact on the environment and our health will be just as disastrous.

Before you vote on Tuesday, take a close look at McCain's voting record. He has indeed voted with Bush 90% of the time, and especially in areas concerning Corporations and his history of de-regulation.

A Last Push To Deregulate
White House to Ease Many Rules
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004749.html

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2008; A01

The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.

Once such rules take effect, they typically can be undone only through a laborious new regulatory proceeding, including lengthy periods of public comment, drafting and mandated reanalysis.

"They want these rules to continue to have an impact long after they leave office," said Matthew Madia, a regulatory expert at OMB Watch, a nonprofit group critical of what it calls the Bush administration's penchant for deregulating in areas where industry wants more freedom. He called the coming deluge "a last-minute assault on the public . . . happening on multiple fronts."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said: "This administration has taken extraordinary measures to avoid rushing regulations at the end of the term. And yes, we'd prefer our regulations stand for a very long time -- they're well reasoned and are being considered with the best interests of the nation in mind."

As many as 90 new regulations are in the works, and at least nine of them are considered "economically significant" because they impose costs or promote societal benefits that exceed $100 million annually. They include new rules governing employees who take family- and medical-related leaves, new standards for preventing or containing oil spills, and a simplified process for settling real estate transactions.

While it remains unclear how much the administration will be able to accomplish in the coming weeks, the last-minute rush appears to involve fewer regulations than Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, approved at the end of his tenure.

In some cases, Bush's regulations reflect new interpretations of language in federal laws. In other cases, such as several new counterterrorism initiatives, they reflect new executive branch decisions in areas where Congress -- now out of session and focused on the elections -- left the president considerable discretion.

The burst of activity has made this a busy period for lobbyists who fear that industry views will hold less sway after the elections. The doors at the New Executive Office Building have been whirling with corporate officials and advisers pleading for relief or, in many cases, for hastened decision making.

According to the Office of Management and Budget's regulatory calendar, the commercial scallop-fishing industry came in two weeks ago to urge that proposed catch limits be eased, nearly bumping into National Mining Association officials making the case for easing rules meant to keep coal slurry waste out of Appalachian streams. A few days earlier, lawyers for kidney dialysis and biotechnology companies registered their complaints at the OMB about new Medicare reimbursement rules. Lobbyists for customs brokers complained about proposed counterterrorism rules that require the advance reporting of shipping data.

Bush's aides are acutely aware of the political risks of completing their regulatory work too late. On the afternoon of Bush's inauguration, Jan. 20, 2001, his chief of staff issued a government-wide memo that blocked the completion or implementation of regulations drafted in the waning days of the Clinton administration that had not yet taken legal effect.

"Through the end of the Clinton administration, we were working like crazy to get as many regulations out as possible," said Donald R. Arbuckle, who retired in 2006 after 25 years as an OMB official. "Then on Sunday, the day after the inauguration, OMB Director Mitch Daniels called me in and said, 'Let's pull back as many of these as we can.' "

Clinton's appointees wound up paying a heavy price for procrastination. Bush's team was able to withdraw 254 regulations that covered such matters as drug and airline safety, immigration and indoor air pollutants. After further review, many of the proposals were modified to reflect Republican policy ideals or scrapped altogether.

Seeking to avoid falling victim to such partisan tactics, White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten in May imposed a Nov. 1 government-wide deadline to finish major new regulations, "except in extraordinary circumstances."

That gives officials just a few more weeks to meet an effective Nov. 20 deadline for the publication of economically significant rules, which take legal effect only after a 60-day congressional comment period. Less important rules take effect after a 30-day period, creating a second deadline of Dec. 20.

OMB spokeswoman Jane Lee said that Bolten's memo was meant to emphasize the importance of "due diligence" in ensuring that late-term regulations are sound. "We will continue to embrace the thorough and high standards of the regulatory review process," she said.

As the deadlines near, the administration has begun to issue regulations of great interest to industry, including, in recent days, a rule that allows natural gas pipelines to operate at higher pressures and new Homeland Security rules that shift passenger security screening responsibilities from airlines to the federal government. The OMB also approved a new limit on airborne emissions of lead this month, acting under a court-imposed deadline.

Many of the rules that could be issued over the next few weeks would ease environmental regulations, according to sources familiar with administration deliberations.

A rule put forward by the National Marine Fisheries Service and now under final review by the OMB would lift a requirement that environmental impact statements be prepared for certain fisheries-management decisions and would give review authority to regional councils dominated by commercial and recreational fishing interests.

An Alaska commercial fishing source, granted anonymity so he could speak candidly about private conversations, said that senior administration officials promised to "get the rule done by the end of this month" and that the outcome would be a big improvement.

Lee Crockett of the Pew Charitable Trusts' Environment Group said the administration has received 194,000 public comments on the rule and protests from 80 members of Congress as well as 160 conservation groups. "This thing is fatally flawed" as well as "wildly unpopular," Crockett said.

Two other rules nearing completion would ease limits on pollution from power plants, a major energy industry goal for the past eight years that is strenuously opposed by Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups.

One rule, being pursued over some opposition within the Environmental Protection Agency, would allow current emissions at a power plant to match the highest levels produced by that plant, overturning a rule that more strictly limits such emission increases. According to the EPA's estimate, it would allow millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually, worsening global warming.

A related regulation would ease limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants near national parks.

A third rule would allow increased emissions from oil refineries, chemical factories and other industrial plants with complex manufacturing operations.

These rules "will force Americans to choke on dirtier air for years to come, unless Congress or the new administration reverses these eleventh-hour abuses," said lawyer John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

But Scott H. Segal, a Washington lawyer and chief spokesman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said that "bringing common sense to the Clean Air Act is the best way to enhance energy efficiency and pollution control." He said he is optimistic that the new rule will help keep citizens' lawsuits from obstructing new technologies.

Jonathan Shradar, an EPA spokesman, said that he could not discuss specifics but added that "we strive to protect human health and the environment." Any rule the agency completes, he said, "is more stringent than the previous one."

Obama vs. McCain on the environment

My commentary on a recent Wall St Journal op article

A Liberal Supermajority
Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.
(article from the Wall St Journal Opinion section, could not find the author's name) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional
majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to
it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the
House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

The current senate is essentially fillibuster-proof right now since we have a Dictator - er I mean President who threatens to veto (and does) any bill he doesn't like. Therefore rendering our system of checks and balances useless. Granted if I agreed with the Republican agenda, I wouldn't see it as a problem ; ) IMHO, a huge part of the problem is greed and corruption (lobbyists). I strongly favor term limits for the senate as it would help to keep some of this in check. I am reading this with a grain of salt as the Wall St Journal's readers for the most part are those in the top of the income brackets that would see a reversal of W's tax cuts. Seeing what the trickle down economy has done to fatten their wallets while people like you and I struggle even harder than we before bush Jr came into office. It is a theory that I strongly feel doesn't work.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the
most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history.
Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't
since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the
restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in
the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked
left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

This is an interesting comment. I feel very much that the media and major news networks are pushing the RW agenda. I do a lot of research into the issues and records. Lots of times I need to really dig to find facts rather than opinions. Also we spent the first 6 years under the bush administration under "Conservative" control which was a period of unchecked right-wing ascendancy. . . more hypocrisy from the conservatives. (BTW, do you have any idea why they are called conservatives? It isn't the environment, it definitely isn't spending . . . Just curious).

The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this
year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape
legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed
Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before
legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the
following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.

Another change I would like to see is more transparency and relevancy in making of bills. They tack so many things onto the bills you don't really know if they were voting against the original bill or one of the 72 things tacked onto it.

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the
Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

So only the rich have rights to health care?

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after

Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate
alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default
government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be
rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr.
Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

Not true.
Obama's plan:
- Create a national system
of competing, federally approved private insurance policies and a
public plan that offers coverage similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which provides coverage to federal employees and members of Congress. Individuals and small businesses could purchase coverage through this national exchange. (Not Medicare for all)
- Set national standards for private plans and forbid insurance companies from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions.
- Require that children have insurance, offer tax credits to low-income families, and expand
coverage under Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Obama has not specified what penalty parents would face if they don't have health coverage for their kids. (Kids can not help the situation they are born into. Don't all children have the right to see a doctor when they need to?)
- Impose a "pay-or-play" requirement under which large companies would either have to offer coverage or pay a portion of premiums for workers, or pay a percentage of payroll into the national public plan. Small businesses would be exempt from the requirement, but could qualify for a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent of premiums paid for their employees, to encourage them to offer coverage directly. Obama also wants to cover some of the costs of expensive health coverage businesses face for some employees.

McCain's plan:
- Give a health insurance tax credit of up to $5,000for couples and families and $2,500 for individuals. Those who chooseto buy insurance on their own would be able to use the credit to payfor their health coverage (personal note - pay towards the plan offered by my employer employee plus one (not family - just 2 of us) would cost me $8,160 a year), with payment going directly from the government to the insurance company. Nobody would be required to buy insurance for themselves or their children, and employers large or small would not be required to offer health insurance as a benefit.
- Tax the value of employer-provided health benefits. (personal note - so, my cost is $8160. My employer pays part of that as a benefit. Let's say for math sake the value is $10,000 a year. At a 33% tax bracket, my taxes have just increased by $3,300 - even though he just told me he will not raise my taxes). - Employees would pay federal income taxes (but not Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes) on the value of those benefits. The tax credit would offset those taxes (personal note - I thought the tax credit mentioned was to buy my own plan. Now it is to offset the taxes but is being sent to the insurance company and not to me. So, I will need to come up with an additional $3300 on April 15th.) Companies would not be taxed.
- Expand health savings accounts so that any money left over from the tax credit could be put into such an account, where it could be used for approved medical expenses (personal note - But the tax credit is going to the Insurance companies, so how will I have any to put into an HSA - which now is no longer pre-tax dollars).
- Allow the sale and purchase of insurance across state lines. No federal standards would be imposed, and insurance companies would not be required to cover preexisting conditions (personal note - More de-regulation. Why not, it worked so well for the banking industry).
- Expand high-risk pools that exist in many states to cover those who have been denied coverage or have high-cost health issues. Some financial assistance would be given to low-income people in such pools.
Source - http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/health_care_spin.html

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom

(Like the companies that just gave McCain free cell towers even though he is on the Commerce Committee that oversees them? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/10/exclusive_verizon_gave_cell_to.html),

biotech and drug makers

(this has already been happening for over 3 years. It also hit the medical device companies),

among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list. The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

Again, trickle down econimics has served us well, hasn't it? At $4 a gallon Exxon was raking in record profits. Possibly due to oil speculators. but, interestingly enough - senate mentions investigations and suddenly we are paying $2.51 a gallon (might also be related to the election neing 2 1/2 weeks away. Will be interesting to see what happens on Nov 5th)

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of
way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now
claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results
in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed
negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union
whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest
pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the
Wagner Act of 1935.

I haven't read much about the union issue because honestly, it doesn't directly affect my life, so I will refrain from commenting.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and
capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost
of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or
eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

Obama's tax plan:
- Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
- Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors,
homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or
looking to save and accumulate wealth.
- Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate
taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and
provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward
investments in innovation.
- Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits,
eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms,
and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class - - - Americans to do their
own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.
source: http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

A consumer based nation such as ours does not produce goods. We buy goods and provide services (at least the ones that haven't been sent to India). If the consumers continue on the same path with inflation, soaring unemployment rates, decreased home values and increasing property taxes, we suddenly can't support a consumer based economy. Consumers stop buying and then what happens to the Corporations when there is no revenue? I have been to Caribou ONE TIME in the last 6 weeks. I used to go once sometimes twice a week. I have only purchased necessary items gas, groceries, beer, and school clothes for Bren (yes, beer is a necessity!). One exception, I still receive my monthly scrapbooking kit. So I have gone from spending on whatever whenever, and now we maybe order out every other week instead of once or twice a week. And my extraneous shopping
is $40 a month on my scrapbooking hobby. I can tell you that my small business has taken a huge hit from the economy. People are not buying. I have probably lost 70% in order numbers since spring, and my average dollar sale has gone from about $45-50 to around $15.

John McCain's tax policy http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/taxes.htm
Keep Tax Rates Low: Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job security - a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away.
Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Small businesses are the heart of job growth; raising taxes on them hurts every worker.

"It may be true that 79% of upper-income taxpayers have some
income from business, but Gillespie's definition of "small" business actually includes big accounting firms, law firms and real-estate partnerships, and "businesses" that are really only sidelines – such as occasional rental income from a corporate chief's ski condo. In fact, tax statistics show that upper-income taxpayers get far more of their income from salaries, capital gains, stock dividends and interest than they do from small business." http://www.factcheck.org/puncturing_a_republican_tax_fable.html

Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent: A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. We now have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, making America a less attractive place for companies to do business. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe. (George bush cut corporate taxes already once from 38.6% to the current 35%). What was the outcome of that? The large corporations sent jobs oversea. The idea that cutting taxes on them will create more jobs here has not been the case historically.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the
name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

This goes back to jobs. The US has always been an innovator and a leader in new technologies. This is the opportunity of our generation to reclaim that title. (Outside of being a tree-hugger of course!) Seriously, we have an opportunity here to create new jobs that require skilled workers. We are seeing staggering unemployment rates. Business are closing and merging all over the place. Where are all of these displaced workers going to go? We need to create new jobs and this is a golden opportunity for the taking. Again, the word regulation keeps repeating itself over and over in this article. Remind me what happens when we keep de-regulating? BTW - I think carbon credits are BS, but renewable energy is our future.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority
would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally. Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness
Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

What is the problem with same day voter registration? MN has it. I am an election judge this year, and to be honest I would trust people registered the same day over peole registered on the street by someon who is paid by the number of cards they turned in. They show proper ID and are required to sign under oath that they are who they say they are. I really get the feeling the author of this article is prejudiced against the middle class. What is wrong with community organizers anyways? I am so Freaking tired of the fear and the hate that the RW are always propogating. Just let me hug my fu**ing trees and be happy becuase I have a job a family, friends, a home, and because I am a good person deep down.

The rest of the paragraph is pure speculation. What we should be concerned about are things like repealing the Patriot Act, the FISA bill, and other bills that have been passed that are unconstitutional.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of
No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National
Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in,
including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down
the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

If No Child Left Behind had been adequately funded it might have worked. Have a chat with a few teachers (I have a couple frineds who teach and have talked with them about it). It was mandated by Bush but never Federally funded. It becomes a bunch of bueracratic red tape that the school admistrators need to work through when they could be teaching. When programs are instilled and not paid for with federal tax dollars, your local taxes need to go up. Wonder why your property taxes keep skyrocketing (Ours have gone up 9-12% every year we have been here since we moved in - even though the value of our home is actually less now than when we bought in '03 regardless of the improvements we have made). What you need to look at is the actual spending done NOT the taxes, because those just get shuffled around in a variety of ways or proposed as levies, etc.

Want to email somebody a link to this photo?

It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

If all you ever do is all you've ever done, then all you'll ever get is all you've ever got.

I just signed up for wind generated electricity for my home!

Thanks to a friend of mine, I became aware of the fact that I can purchase renewable and sustainable energy to power my home! My electric company has not really made it well known that this is possible.

For a mere $6 a month, I am reducing my family's use of dirty coal to make our electricity and replacing it with clean wind power.

My electric company is Connexus Energy - you can read about it here
http://www.connexusenergy.com/wellspring.htm

If you have a different energy provider, go to their website and check into their renewable options. For the price of 2 small lattes a month, YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Say no to the Petroleum Dream Team - Drilling is NOT the answer

With the Republican mantra of "drill, baby, drill" ringing in our ears, let's take a closer look at what that irresponsible response to our energy dependence will do to our nation and our children.

Many people opposing more drilling are concerned about global warming from the CO2 emissions, and destruction of naturalized areas to procure the oil. Beyond the environmental concerns, the ability of future generations of Americans to enjoy a modern lifestyle throughout the 21st century and beyond. (A good read on this is Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - And How it Can Renew America by Thomas L. Friedman http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/hot-flat-and-crowded or for those Netflix users the DVD Crude Intentions http://www.amazon.com/Crude-Awakening-Oil-Crash/dp/B000PY52IG)

Alaskan oil will take several years to get it into the system and once it is online, we'll suck it dry in 4 months at the current rate we are consuming. Drilling is just a political distraction from the real solution, which is an ugly truth. We have to cut consumption.
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/09/30/afx5491081.html

The 2007 Annual Energy Outlook reports that production of offshore drilling would not start before 2017, but projects that access to Outer Continental Shelf will increase the lower-48 offshore crude oil production by only 200,000 barrels per day - a mere of the 21 million barrels of oil a day, a mere 9.5% of our consumption for a period of just 4 months.
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1510

A NY Times article states the following: "… The biggest problem is that much of the coastal United States, subject to a drilling ban since the early 1980s, has not been thoroughly explored for oil. Neither the industry nor the government has any definitive idea how much could be recovered. In order to hazard a guess for some areas of the Eastern Seaboard, the government has had to inspect geological maps from Morocco, which was connected to North America more than 100 million years ago…"

Congress has recently lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling. But,it currently costs $60,000 per day to rent an oil exploration platform IF you can find one that isn't already committed. In most instances the platforms are reserved for more than 10 years out.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4466

New drilling to solve today's energy problems fits the neoclassic definition of insanity. You keep doing the same thing and expect different results. The US consumes a quarter of the world's oil but owns only 3 percent of conventional world reserves. How much oil do we want to leave for future generations so they too can paint their homes, pave their roads with asphalt, make their medicines, drink from plastic bottles, wear rubber-soled sneakers, brush their teeth and enjoy multiple other applications of petroleum?

U.S. population is projected to grow by 60 million people in the next 30 years. Assuming that by 2030 we succeed in eliminating the need for oil in the ground transportation sector, enabling vehicles to run on alternative fuels and electricity, we will still need every single year, for other purposes, an amount of oil equivalent to more than 5 percent of all the technically recoverable oil contained in ANWR and offshore combined.

Something we could do right now to decrease our transportation fuel use by 7% is passing a national speed limit. That's right, a national speed limit at 55mph would put 7% or even MORE fuel back into the system.

Here is a very interesting article on drilling in ANWR and some other concerns realted to opening drilling up there http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2008/09/Sarah-Palin-Big-Oil-Arctic.html

Say no to the Petroleum Dream Team

Germany is rapidly approaching 22% energy production through renewables. Most of that from solar. Yes, Germany, a country not particularly well noted for its sunny climate. The United States, on the other hand, has not attained even 1% production from renewable energy technologies.

The US is a much larger country with many more complexities and the world's largest consumer of fossil fuels. We consume about 25% of the world's oil (21 million barrels of oil a day) with a fraction of the world's population. The point, however, is that the rest of the developed world is seriously looking to the future. While the rest of the world moves on, we in the US set here debating whether or not global warming is real while hopelessly clinging to the power sources from a bygone industrial age.

The world is moving to renewable energy with or without us. I hope we do not miss the boat. The opportunities for the country that takes the lead in renewable energy research and development will be the wealthiest most powerful nation on earth. I hope that nation is the US but we are going to have to move and move fast because the boat has already left the port.

A recent report showed that investment in a clean and efficient economy would "lead to over 3 million new green-collar jobs, stimulate $1.4 trillion in new GDP, add billions in personal income and retail sales, produce $284 billion in net energy savings, all while generating sufficient returns to the U.S. treasury to pay for itself over ten years."

There is so much information on the web about this issue. My main point is DRILLING IS NOT THE ANSWER. We need a sustainable solution for America's oil addiction. You can take small steps on your own to reduce your own use, but with this thirsty country sucking down 2 million barrels a day, the change needs to come from the top. Vote for the candidate who has an energy plan http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf



More references:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html
http://peakoil.com/
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?archive=1&storyid=1524&first=3435&end=3434
http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/solution/clean_energy_economy/
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
http://www.cleantechforobama.com/http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4466

America needs you - Vote November 4th

Spread the Message, Help Make the Switch

There's been a lot of pressure lately to open up protected areas for oil drilling. But common sense says drilling is not the answer. Switching is.

Switching to 100% clean, renewable electricity within 10 years.

visit we can solve it

McCain’s Green Economy: Drill, Baby, Drill

"I will oppose any tax breaks or good deals for the gas and oil industry also."--John McCain at a town hall meeting in Rindge, NH, 11/18/07

When it comes to the environment, John McCain only has the interests of Big Oil at heart. That's why he has over 22 Big Oil lobbyists advising him.

McCain's Big Oil Lobbyists

Number	Name of Lobbyist	Campaign Role	Firm or Company	Oil Clients
1	Rebecca Anderson	Women for McCain Steering Committee	Williams & Jensen	Sunoco
2	Wayne Berman	National Finance Co-Chairman	Ogilvy Government Relations	Amerada Hess Chevron Texaco American Petroleum Institute
3	Charlie Black	Senior Political Adviser	BKSH	Occidental Petroleum Corp. Yukos Oil Chinese National Off-Shore Oil Corp.
4	Carlos Bonilla*	Economic Adviser	Washington Group	Chesapeake Energy
5	Eric Burgeson**	Fundraiser	Barbour Griffith & Rogers	BP
6	Kerry Cammack	Fundraiser	Cammack and Strong	Exxon Mobil
7	Frank Donatelli	McCain Pick as Deputy RNC Chair	McGuire Woods	Exxon Mobil Dominion Resources
8	Melissa Edwards	Fundraiser	Washington Group	Chesapeake Energy
9	John Green	Congressional Liaison	Ogilvy Government Relations	Amerada-Hess Chevon Texaco El Paso Energy American Petroleum Institute
10	Robert Harding	Fundraiser	Greenberg Traurig	Chevron Murphy Oil Phillips Petroleum Company***
11	Richard Hohlt	Fundraiser	Hohlt and Associates	Chevron
12	James "Jim" Hyland	Fundraiser	Pennsylvania Avenue Group	BP America Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Assoc. Occidental Petroleum Corp. Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Assoc.
13	Peter Madigan	Fundraiser	Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart	Shell Oil
14	Susan Molinari	Women for McCain Steering Committee	Washington Group	Chesapeake Energy
15	Jack Oliver	Fundraiser	Bryan Cave Strategies	Shell Oil
16	Nancy Pfotenhauer	Adviser	Koch Industries	Koch Industries
17	Steve Phillips	Fundraiser	DLA Piper	BP America Occidental Petroleum
18	Elise Pickering	Women for McCain Steering Committee	Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti	Koch Industries
19	Sloan Rappoport	Fundraiser	Downey McGrath Group	Koch Industries
20	Matt Salmon	Fundraiser	Greenberg Traurig	El Paso Energy
21	Randy Scheunemann	Defense and Foreign Policy Coordinator	Scheunemann and Associates	BP Amoco
22	Jeffrey Weiss	Fundraiser	BKSH	Yukos Oil Company

[Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database]

That's why he favored lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling -- a move that prompted Big Oil to donate over $1 million to his campaign.

According to a Campaign Money Watch analysis of campaign finance data provided by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics Center, John McCain has accepted at least $1,069,854 from the oil and gas industry since 1989. [Source: Center for Responsive Politics via Campaign Money Watch]

The senate will likely be voting next week on these issues. Please call Senator McCain's office in Washington (202-224-2235), and tell him to stop siding with Big Oil and start supporting clean energy.

Check out some of the articles below to learn more about the raging battle between sustainability and Big Oil

* Congress Weans Us Off the Teat of Foreign Oil with Concessions to Offshore Drilling - Simran Sethi, Huffington Post
* Sarah Palin's Empty Promise- Simran Sethi, Huffington Post
*'Green' McCain's Hypocrisy: Senior Advisers Lobbied to Prevent Cape Wind Project - Brad Johnson, Think Progress
* A Telling Palin Scandal: Her Environmental Record - Leonard Doyle, AlterNet
* McCain Adopts Cheney's Energy Plan - Jason Leopold, Consortium News
* McCain's Million Dollar Big Oil Quid Pro Quo - Sierra Club

With all of this information, does it really look like it is "Country First"? I think it is McCain First, and whose future is at stake here? Yours and mine. Check out his record for yourself - http://mccainsource.com/ then vote for your future.

Repower America - visit http://www.wecansolveit.org/ to help the oil crisis.