Blog Archive

Showing posts with label Brad Johnson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brad Johnson. Show all posts

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Livestreaming Peoples Climate March! Announcing PeoplesClimate.tv: March Livestream and People's Videos

I'm excited to announce that I will providing livestreamed, on-the-ground coverage of the People's Climate March this Sunday and at follow-up actions in the days ahead at PeoplesClimate.tv.
The world needs a wake-up call. Climate change, and the destructive economy that propels it, must finally be taken seriously.
The People's Climate March hits New York City and hundreds of locations across the globe in less than 48 hours. Activists and organizers have labored for months to make this -- not just the biggest climate march in history -- but the wake-up call the world's been waiting for.
All sorts of amazing creative activism is in store, all with the singular goal of saving the world. The Act.tv team, the people behind PeoplesClimate.tv, are collecting the best #PeoplesClimate videos making it easy to find, share and amplify the most powerful messages.
PeoplesClimate.tv is the place to find it all: the craziest moments, the most powerful scenes, and the most inspiring calls to action.
And you're invited to contribute! Whether you're attending the march in person, or just in spirit, a few clicks is all it takes to add your video, and your voice, to the call for change.
We've had wake up calls before -- Hurricane Sandy woke up most of New York -- but our so-called leaders keep hitting the snooze button. We need a wake up call so powerful that leaders are forced to act; paradigms are forced to shift; and there's just no going back to sleep. 

Join me for livestream coverage starting Sunday morning and wake up the world at PeoplesClimate.tv. I'll also be tweeting from @climatebrad -- if you're in NYC, let's meet!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/19/1331034/-PeoplesClimate-tv-March-Livestream-and-People-s-Videos#

Thursday, March 20, 2014

A small sample of Roger Pielke, Jr.'s ad hominem attacks on the climate science community

by Brad Johnson, Hill Heat, March 20, 2014


Roger Pielke, Jr., the political scientist recently hired by Nate Silver’s new FiveThirtyEight “data journalism” venture, has a long record of harsh criticisms of the climate science community, impugning the motives, ethics, and honesty of climate scientists and communicators. Here is a small sampling of such remarks.
I do my best to ignore Joe Romm, but when he blatantly lies about me I sometimes feel compelled to respond. . . . It is long overdue for the environmental community to start pushing back on Romm as he continues to stain their entire enterprise. His lies and smear tactics, which are broadly embraced and condoned, are making enemies out of friends and opponents out of fellow travelers. Vigorous debate is welcome and healthy. Lies and character assassination not so much. [5/6/11]
The Political Philosophy of James Hansen: James Hansen of NASA has written an op-ed for the Guardian that, more than any other piece of his that I’ve seen, expresses his political philosophy. In a phrase, that philosophy can be characterized as “scientific authoritarianism.” . . . Hansen’s scientific authoritarianism becomes largely incoherent when he accuses political leaders of “tricking” their citizens when they say that climate policies include plans for the future development and implementation of carbon capture and storage from coal plants. [2/15/09]
Here We Go Again, More Cherry Picking by the CCSP: I am once again amazed at the brazen and willful misrepresentation of an area of climate change that I have some expertise in. The selective presentation of research on disasters and climate change by various assessment bodies leaves me convinced that such selectivity is a matter of choice and not simply incompetence. Such behavior damages the credibility of the entire climate science enterprise. [2/2/09]
Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt (a “real scientist” of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a “real scientist” of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it. [2/4/09]
Maybe Joe Romm’s employers over at the Center for American Progress have a vision for how his tantrums and fits serve their interests on advancing climate policy. [1/26/09]
Have Progressives Lost Their Moral Compass? I have seen some ugly, ugly things this week. Some of them have focused on me for views that I have, but others involve people I know and respect. People who know better, or should know better, are engaging in tactics that can only be described as bullying, strong arming, character assassination, threatening, and McCarthy-esque. [1/26/09]
The “policy neutral” IPCC is once again making a mockery of its role of an arbiter of scientific information, in favor of all out political advocacy. [1/19/09]
Overselling Disasters and Climate Change by Munich Re: Further, there may be good reason for Munich Re to want to increase its rates, but making grossly unsound appeals to the spectre of greenhouse gas impacts on disasters in the near term will both harm its own credibility as a business, and potenially [sic] harm efforts to secure a global climate treaty, as overselling the science will inevitably result in a backlash. [12/30/08]
Joe [Romm] apparently sees himself as a “thug,” smearing, sliming, and spreading lies about anyone who departs from his version of political reality. [12/22/08]
Here I’d like to explain why one group of people, which we might call politically active climate scientists and their allies, seek to shut down a useful discussion with intimidation, bluster, and name-calling. ... What is proper etiquette for allowing a response to slander? [5/16/08]
And this leads to the repugnant behavior of the attack dog climate scientists who otherwise would like to be taken seriously. . . . The climate science community – or at least its most publicly visible activist wing – seems to be working as hard as possible to undercut the legitimacy and the precarious trust than society provides in support of activities of the broader scientific community. [1/30/08]
According to various statements by its chairman Rajendra Pachauri over the past few years, one might be excused for thinking that the IPCC is really an advocacy document clothed in the language of science. [8/17/06]
http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2014/03/20/a-small-sample-of-roger-pielke-jrs-ad-hominem-attacks-on-the-climate-science-community

Monday, October 7, 2013

Click here to tell the State Department: fire ERM and conduct a study that accurately reports the environmental impact of Keystone XL.

Dear Tenney, 
According to any accurate evaluation of Keystone XL, the tar-sands pipeline would be a climate disaster. But President Obama is set to hinge his decision on an environmental impact assessment conducted by an oil-industry firm that has a vested interest in approving the pipeline.
Please take a few seconds to join us in speaking out. Our goal is to reach 30,000 signatures before we, along with our partners at SumOfUs.org and Friends of the Earth, deliver this petition to the State Department in person.
Thanks again,
Brad and the rest of the Forecast the Facts team
P.S. You can read more about the campaign by reading the below email.

Keep The Keystone XL Impact Assessment Clean

Tar sands contamination

Tell the State Department to investigate Keystone XL corruption.

Dear Tenney,
President Obama said he'd put the brakes on the Keystone XL if it's shown to "significantly exacerbate the climate problem."
“Great!” you say, “climate scientists agree that the pipeline will cause a significant impact on climate, so this is an open-and-shut case.” Except it’s not. That’s because the official study that the President will use to assess the environmental impact of KXL is being written by a firm with deep ties to the owners of Keystone XL, TransCanada, and other Big Oil Companies. Worse yet, the firm ERM is lying about its dirty ties to the State Department to secure the contract to conduct the study.
But word is leaking out about this massive conflict of interest, and the State Department has launched an investigation into ERM’s lies. 
ERM has heavy ties to TransCanada, the owner of Keystone XL. Even more shocking, as a dues-paying member of the American Petroleum Institute – the lobbyist for Big Oil – it has a clear vested interest in the pipeline’s approval. Of course, ERM knew that if it told the truth about its ties to oil companies, it never would have gotten the contract.
ERM has a history endorsing projects with shoddy records. The worse example of it greenlighting disastrous projects is the controversial 1,300 mile-long Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC) Pipeline that runs through the Caspian Sea. ERM assessed the pipeline as environmentally and socio-economically sound – yet, spills and explosions have occurred on a regular basis. Do we want the same type of spills to occur along the route of the Keystone XL because ERM okayed it?
A new environmental impact assessment of the Keystone XL is necessary anyway because the State Department admitted that it doesn’t even know the exact route of the pipeline. As such, the true environmental impacts of the pipeline on the water and land along the Keystone XL proposed route are not accounted for in ERM’s fraudulent assessment. Not only would a new assessment by a firm without influence from Big Oil reveal the dangers to our climate, it would also document TransCanada's notorious and lengthy record of oil spills and the impact those spills had on the land and water.
You could help prevent the next Exxon Mayflower spill. Let's call on the State Department to fire ERM and conduct a real assessment of the impacts of the Keystone XL.
Our friends at the corporate accountability organization SumOfUs.org have launched the campaign to get the State Department to enforce ethical practices. Now is a great opportunity to push this campaign to the next level.
Factually yours,
Brad, Emily, and the rest of the Forecast the Facts team
MORE INFORMATION:

‘State Department’ Keystone XL Report Actually Written By TransCanada Contractor, Grist, 6 March 2013
http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/425?t=7&akid=227.18311.f2dbyK
Conflict of interest: State Department contractor on Keystone XL study lied about ties to TransCanada & oil industry, Friends of the Earth, 10 July 2013
http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/426?t=9&akid=227.18311.f2dbyK
State Department Admits It Doesn't Know Keystone XL's Exact Route, DeSmogBlog, 8 July 2013
http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/427?t=11&akid=227.18311.f2dbyK
State Department's Keystone XL Contractor ERM Green-Lighted BP's Explosive Caspian Pipeline That Failed To Live Up to Jobs Hype, DeSmogBlog, 26 March 2013
http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/428?t=13&akid=227.18311.f2dbyK
Forecast the Facts is a grassroots organization that empowers people to fight climate change denial and promote accurate information about the climate crisis. You can follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Help us end climate denial once and for all by contributing here.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Arkansas AG McDaniel hires notorious private contractor Witt O'Brien's to clean up Mayflower tar sands spill, same firm covered up oil in Kalamazoo Keystone spill, is owned by Corexit BP spraying firm



by Steve Horn, DeSmogBlog, April 13, 2013

Arkansas' Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has contracted out the "independent analysis of the cleanup" of the ExxonMobil Pegasus tar sands pipeline spill to Witt O'Brien's, a firm with a history of oil spill cover-ups, a DeSmogBlog investigation reveals. 


At his April 10 press conference about the Mayflower spill response, AG McDaniel confirmed that Exxon had turned over 12,500 pages of documents to his office resulting from a subpoena related to Exxon's response to the March 29 Pegasus disaster. A 22-foot gash in the 65-year-old pipeline spewed over 500,000 gallons of tar sands dilbit through the streets of Mayflower, AR
McDaniel also provided the media with a presser explaining that his office had "retained the assistance of Witt O’Brien’s, a firm whose experts will immediately begin an independent analysis of the cleanup process." 
Witt O'Brien's describes itself as a "global leader in preparedness, crisis management and disaster response and recovery with the depth of experience and capability to provide services across the crisis and disaster life cycle."
But the firm's actual performance record isn't quite so glowing. O'Brien's has had its hands in the botched clean-up efforts of almost every high-profile oil spill disaster in recent U.S. history, including the Exxon Valdez spill, the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, the Enbridge tar sands pipeline spill into the Kalamazoo River, and Hurricane Sandy. 
Thus, if the Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline inevitably suffered a major spill, Witt O'Brien's would presumably handle the cleanup. That should worry everyone along the proposed KXL route.
[Text missing here describes vast connections with other oil companies made clear in the article's text: see link below.]

Enbridge Kalamazoo River Tar Sands Pipeline Spill: A Literal Cover-Up

In July 2010, one of Enbridge's tar sands pipelines spilled over 1 million gallons of tar sands dilbit into the Kalamazoo River in an incident now known by close observers as the "dilbit disaster," the worst inland pipeline spill in U.S. history. 
O'Brien's was hired for cleanup duties. A whistleblower later revealed that O'Brien's engaged in a literal cover-up on behalf of Enbridge. 
On...September 6, [2010], Jason Buford, a representative from O’Brien’s Response Management...called a meeting...[and] said that, if they were going to meet deadline now, they needed to stop wasting time with small oil-clogged areas. He directed [a] crew to go through the woods, thin out oily debris, and mix mud into the remaining oil so that the EPA would clear the site. 
The whistleblower was fired when he spoke out against O'Brien's demands to cover up oil and threatened to go to the press and government authorities.
“I want you to spread out the oil,” the whistleblower's attorney said to OnEarth in explaining O'Brien's demands in April 2012. “Rake it into the soil. Cover it with grass. Cover it with leaves. I want you to hide it -- to dupe the EPA and the (Michigan Department of Natural Resources).”

BP Deepwater Horizon Dispersant Cover-Up and Exxon Valdez

Witt O'Brien's was also involved in the cleanup effort for the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst oil spill in U.S. history, as well as for the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the second worst in U.S. history.
Seacor Environmental Services, which owns Witt O'Brien's, was one of the parties responsible for spraying the toxic chemical oil dispersant Corexit into the Gulf of Mexico during the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout, according to an August 2010 story in The Wall Street Journal
Anne Landman, writing for PR Watch, explained that Corexit does not actually clean up oceanic spills.
BP's Web site gives the impression that dispersants "clean and control" ocean oil spills by putting the oil in a state where "it becomes a feast for the naturally-occurring microbes that inhabit the ocean." But dispersants do not clean the water, nor do they remove oil at all, but rather re-arrange where it exists, and change where it goes. 
BP applied roughly 1.1. million gallons of surface dispersant in the Gulf and over 720,000 gallons of subsea dispersant. It is a "science experiment" -- as Aaron Viles of the Gulf Restoration Network put it -- whose impacts are still unknown on water, on water-based animals, and on water-based animals when converted into consumable food. 
Corexit was also applied during the Exxon Valdez oil spill, a disaster response O'Brien's helped oversee, according to its website. 
O'Brien's also helped with the damage control in the form of PR spin for the Deepwater Horizon disaster. 
Brad Johnson, then writing for Think Progress, explained that Witt O'Brien's PIER Systems was "being used by Unified Command for media and public information management” during the Deepwater Horizon spill in an article titled, "BP’s Secret Army Of Oil Disaster Contractors." BP was listed as one of PIER's clients in a 2008 version of its website. 
Former Bush Administration FEMA head of External Affairs, John "Pat" Philbin, got a gig as Senior VP of PIER upon leaving FEMA.  

Jeb Bush in the Fray

In September 2011, Jeb Bush (brother of former President George W. Bush and former Republican Governor of Florida) joined the O'Brien's team.
"Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, through his firm Old Rhodes Holdings LLC, and O’Brien’s Response Management (O’Brien’s), a wholly owned subsidiary of SEACOR Holdings Inc. (NYSE: CKH), today announced a strategic partnership to facilitate O’Brien’s growth into new markets," explained an O'Brien's press release
George W. Bush's first FEMA Director, Joe Allbaugh, called for privatization of FEMA's functions. 
"Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level," he once said. "We must restore the predominant role of State and local response to most disasters."
2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also called for the full-privatization of FEMA during one of the presidential debates.  

Crisis Communications and Keystone XL: Spill Cleanup or Image Cleanup?

Witt O'Brien's has been tasked by TransCanada to oversee spill response for its prospective Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that will bring the dilbit from Alberta to Port Arthur, TX, after which it will be placed on the global export market.
Yet its track record in Valdez, the Gulf of Mexico, Kalamazoo, and now in Arkansas indicates that O'Brien's is more interested in PR damage control than spill cleanup. Crisis management is a key aspect of Witt O'Brien's client offerings, and its spin machine is currently likely working just as hard as its actual spill clean-up team.
With Lake Conway and its accompanying cove now contaminated with tar sands dilbit, 22 households evacuated in Mayflower, it's no wonder ExxonMobil is running the show both by land and by air there. Yet, Attorney General McDaniel is taking spill cleanup advice from a firm known for cover-up and not clean-up, all under the guise of a robust independent investigation of Exxon.
This can't end well, and begs the unpleasant question as to whether the same situation can be expected for the Keystone XL. 
Photo Credit: Duncan Firm

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

What would Lincoln do? Obama must follow through on climate change challenge

by Brad Johnson, The Hill's Congress blog, January 28, 2013


President Barack Obama embarked on his second term with his inspiring inaugural promise to “respond to the threat of climate change” lest we “betray our children and grandchildren.” He can begin to turn ambition into action at this year’s State of the Union on February 12, the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Of all the bold political moves made by Obama, few are as audacious as his deliberate invitations to be compared to our nation’s greatest president Obama announced his candidacy for president at the site of Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech and was sworn into office on Lincoln’s Bible. Like Lincoln, President Obama is a great orator. But Lincoln is revered not for his great speeches, but for his actions at the moment of America’s greatest crisis. For President Obama to be remembered as a great leader, he must act decisively on the existential threat of our era, climate change.

It thus makes sense to look to Lincoln for guidance. In the decades before the Civil War, Americans struggled to reconcile deep qualms about slavery with the wealth it brought to the young nation. The country’s political class was dominated by the entrenched power of the wealthy southern “slaveocracy” committed to the preservation and the expansion of their “peculiar institution.” Failing to challenge the power of King Cotton, weak presidents instead accommodated the slave power. James Monroe ratified the Missouri Compromise, Millard Fillmore agreed to the Compromise of 1850, Pierce and Buchanan dithered as Kansas bled – until Lincoln drew a hard line against slavery’s expansion into the West.

Speaking on the steps of the Illinois State Capitol, two years before he was elected President, Lincoln described the urgency of the threat facing the Union. “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free, I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” Lincoln’s greatness derives from his willingness to force the nation to admit that freedom and slavery could not coincide — that continued inaction, indecision, and compromise meant the end of the nation. Through the nation’s deadliest war, against widespread demands for another round of compromises, another expansion of slavery, Lincoln held firm.

Today, we have again spent too long ignoring a looming crisis, one that threatens not just our nation, but the world. In 1863, the fate of the world’s only democracy was imperiled by the sin of slavery. Seven score and three years later, the fate of all the world’s people is imperiled by the poisoning of the climate. Over the course of two hundred years, hundreds of billions of tons of carbon have been dumped into our atmosphere, incurring a debt that is now being called for remittance.


Continuing on our fossil-fueled path, scientist Kevin Anderson warns, will take us into a world that is “incompatible with organized global community.” Already, New Orleans and New York, Nashville and Minneapolis, Vermont and Kansas have faced unprecedented floods, fires, and storms, with lives lost and families torn asunder. The maelstrom is now upon us.

Once again, our politics are dominated by a wealthy elite, this time a ‘carbonocracy’ of fossil-fuel corporations. Their money is freely spent to corrupt our democracy; Obama’s inaugural ceremonies this year were brought to us in part by a $260,000 contribution by Exxon Mobil. The profits of these companies depend on their capacity to convince Americans, against all evidence, that climate change is not an urgent problem, that the expansion of offshore drilling, tar-sands pipelines, and natural-gas fracking are acceptable compromises, that the challenge of global warming can be put off for another generation.

If we do not change course now, and instead continue to increase the burning of coal and oil as multinational energy companies desire, we will fundamentally transform the very land we live on, the water we drink, the air we breathe in ways that are beyond our ken.

To defend Americans from the devastating impacts of climate change, Obama must recognize that the fossil-fueled economy is a moral wrong in our society that requires action today. “The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult,” Obama said on Monday. But if he aims to be our generation’s Abraham Lincoln, Obama must do what is hard. If Obama doesn’t present a plan on climate, one that severs our ties to a morally unfathomable economic system of planetary destruction, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end, the union will be lost.

Brad Johnson is campaign manager of Forecast the Facts. 


http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/279415-obama-must-follow-through-on-climate-change-challenge

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Brad Johnson speaks truth to Valerie Jarrett at Rootscamp


For A Climate Activist, Rootscamp's Jarrett Appearance Was Chance To Change The Conversation

by Sarah Lai Stirland, TechPresident, November 30 2012
 Forecast The Facts' Campaign Director Brad Johnson (forefront) and Valerie Jarrett at RootsCamp
If anyone was wondering whether President Obama now has the unqualified support of the digitally-enabled organizers who helped get him re-elected, Brad Johnson demonstrated for some Friday that the answer would be no.
President Obama's Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, a keynote speaker at the New Organizing Institute's semi-annual Rootscamp get-together, was just launching into a bit about the fiscal cliff, and appealing for help from the assembled group of 2,000 when Johnson, a climate change activist, shot up from his chair in the front row of the cavernous ballroom, and shouted: "We need you to fight climate change!"
Jarrett tried to ignore him, but Johnson, Campaign Director for Forecast the Facts, kept going.
"We need you to fight climate pollution! You're opening more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico!"
There were a few moments of uncertain silence. Some in the audience shouted that Johnson should show Jarrett some "respect." Some started booing.
"I have something in here just for you Let me finish my remarks, and then if you want to talk about climate change afterwards ..." Jarrett responded.
Johnson kept going.
"I want the President of the United States to talk about climate change! I want the president of the United States to talk about global warming, and about climate pollution that's killing New York City, that's killing America!"
The other half of the room, it seemed, started clapping, amidst some ongoing boos.
Johnson finished and thanked the audience. Jarrett carried on with her remarks as if nothing had happened, after she told Johnson that she didn't think he would get very far by shouting. After she finished and got off the podium, she beckoned Johnson, told him that he needn't have shouted, and invited him to come and talk to her in the White House.
Johnson came back to the front-row seat, where friends and others came to talk to him. He talked about the urgency of the issue, and started crying.
Johnson's outburst highlights a fascinating question that haunts Obama's administration in its second term: Will he and his top lieutenants do more to listen to some of the more passionately-progressive wing of his party, many of whom worked to get him re-elected?
Obama officials talk a lot about "micro-listening" and figuring out what moves voters, and they did a lot of that at Rootscamp on Friday, but as has been noted by Van Jones (who served within the administration for nine months himself) and Daniel Kreiss, there was a feeling after he was elected that his supporter base was converted into just another lobbying arm for the White House' policies, instead of being truly empowered in the process of setting an agenda. To be clear, Johnson himself had spent the election challenging both presidential candidates to re-emphasize climate change and make it a top policy priority rather than being part of his activist army. But in a way that's the point: Johnson charges that climate change has essentially dropped off the policy radar for Obama, and he wants the President to make a much bigger effort to reverse the process.
His outburst, he said in an interview, was an effort to change the conversation.
He's achieved the first step of the process: He said that he fully intends to take Jarrett up on her offer. He said he'll be speaking on behalf of the 50,000 members of his e-mail list.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Meet Paul Ryan: Climate Denier, Conspiracy Theorist, Koch Acolyte

Meet Paul Ryan: Climate Denier, Conspiracy Theorist, Koch Acolyte


Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick, is a virulent denier of climate science, with a voting record to match.
favorite of the Koch brothers, Ryan has accused scientists of engaging in conspiracy to “intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.” He has implied that snow invalidates global warming.
Ryan has voted to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting greenhouse pollution, to eliminate White House climate advisers, to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture from preparing for climate disasters like the drought devastating his home state, and to eliminate the Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E):
Paul Ryan Promoted Unfounded Conspiracy Theories About Climate Scientists. In a December 2009 op-ed during international climate talks, Ryan made reference to the hacked University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit emails. He accused climatologists of a “perversion of the scientific method, where data were manipulated to support a predetermined conclusion,” in order to “intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.” Because of spurious claims of conspiracy like these, several governmental and academic inquiries were launched, all of which found the accusations to be without merit. [Paul Ryan, 12/11/09]
Paul Ryan Argued Snow Invalidates Global Warming Policy. In the same anti-science, anti-scientist December 2009 op-ed, Ryan argued, “Unilateral economic restraint in the name of fighting global warming has been a tough sell in our communities, where much of the state is buried under snow.” Ryan’s line is especially disingenuous because he hasn’t been trying to sell climate action, he’s been spreading disinformation.  [Paul Ryan, 12/11/09]
Paul Ryan Voted To Eliminate EPA Limits On Greenhouse Pollution. Ryan voted in favor of H.R. 910, introduced in 2011 by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) to block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas pollution. [Roll Call 249, 4/7/11]
Paul Ryan Voted To Block The USDA From Preparing For Climate Change. In 2011, Ryan voted in favor of the Scalise (R-LA) Amendment to the FY12 Agriculture Appropriations bill, to bar the U.S. Department of Agriculture from implementing its Climate Protection Plan. [Roll Call 448, 6/16/11]
Paul Ryan Voted To Eliminate White House Climate Advisers. Ryan voted in favor of Scalise (R-LA) Amendment 204 to the 2011 Continuing Resolution, to eliminate the assistant to the president for energy and climate change, the special envoy for climate change (Todd Stern), and the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation. [Roll Call 87, 2/17/11]
Paul Ryan Voted To Eliminate ARPA-E. Ryan voted in favor of Biggert (R-IL) Amendment 192 to the 2011 Continuing Resolution, to eliminate the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E). [Roll Call 55, 2/17/11]
Paul Ryan Voted To Eliminate Light Bulb Efficiency Standards. In 2011, Ryan voted to roll back light-bulb efficiency standards that had reinvigorated the domestic lighting industry and that significantly reduce energy waste and carbon pollution. [Roll Call 563, 7/12/11]
Paul Ryan Voted For Keystone XL. In 2011, Ryan voted to expedite the consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. [Roll Call 650, 7/26/11]
Paul Ryan Budget Kept Big Oil Subsidies And Slashed Clean Energy Investment. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed FY 2013 budget resolution retained a decade’s worth of oil tax breaks worth $40 billion, while slashing funding for investments in clean energy research, development, deployment, and commercialization, along with other energy programs. The plan called for a $3 billion cut in energy programs in FY 2013 alone. [CAP, 3/20/12]
In short, Paul Ryan stands with Big Oil against scientific fact and the future of human civilization.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Nucor CEO Daniel DiMicco joins flat-earth society, says giving over $500,000 to the faux science lobbying organization, Heartland Institute, is "entirely appropriate" in letter to shareholder


Nucor CEO: Funding Of Heartland Institute’s Climate Denial ‘Is Entirely Appropriate’


By Brad Johnson, campaign manager for Forecast the Facts.
Nucor Corporation (NUE), the third largest U.S. steel manufacturer, is defending its support for the Heartland Institute’s climate denial efforts. In a letter to a private shareholder, Nucor chairman and CEO Daniel R. DiMicco embraced the anti-science advocacy group, describing the $502,000 in recent contributions earmarked for Heartland’s climate program as “entirely appropriate”:
The issues surrounding the "climate" debate are real and difficult questions to answer, but Nucor has been consistent in its support for scientific answers instead of political consensus. Heartland is just such an institution, "bringing together the world's leading scientists and economists to study the issue." It is entirely appropriate for Nucor and other like-minded companies and groups to fund The Heartland Institute. Working together we will find solutions, so that our best days are still ahead of us.
Of course, the entire purpose of the Heartland Institute is to prevent people from finding solutions to climate change.

Nucor CEO Daniel DiMicco
In his letter, DiMicco blamed Forecast the Facts, the group mobilizing Americans against corporate support for Heartland, for ruining the organization’s reputation. His letter was written on May 3, just days before the Heartland Institute launched a billboard campaign equating everyone who believes in global warming to the Unabomber and Osama bin Laden. A letter from the shareholder to Nucor about the Unabomber billboard has not yet received a reply. Greenpeace has launched a petition to DiMicco calling on him to end his support for the Heartland Institute.
DiMicco’s annual compensation is more than $8 million a year. He is also on the board of Duke Energy, a major electric utility that supports action on climate change.
Who are the “world’s leading scientists and economists” claimed by Heartland and cited by DiMicco? Heartland president Joe Bast helpfully provided the list. Forecast the Facts has created this table of the supposed experts listed by Bast, alongside representative quotations revealing them to be ideological conspiracy theorists:

Go to link at bottom of post to see lengthy table of idiotic quotes from climate deniers.


Read the full letter:
CORPORATE OFFICE
3 May 2012
Mr.
Re: Letter to Peter C. Browning dated April 10, 2012
Dear Mr. :
Thank you for your letter to Mr. Peter Browning referenced above as Lead Outside Director of Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”). We appreciate your concern and we have discussed the issue. Please accept the following in response to your inquiry.
As you can see from Nucor’s website, We take environmental issues very seriously, including the debate surrounding “climate change.” (Seehttp://www.nucor.com/responsibility/environment/issues/Warming/) Nucor has been at the forefront these issues and of improving the carbon intensity of steel making. We have correctly noted that countries acting alone to regulate carbon do so at their own economic peril. In fact, such actions likely worsen the global environment by migrating emissions from regulated countries to non-regulated countries. Global issues require global solutions; but, solutions that do not provide true answers cannot be supported by Nucor and should not be tolerated by society.
It is most likely that the information that formed the basis of your inquiry concerning the Heartland Institute (“Heartland”) had its genesis with a group entitled “Forecast the Facts,” whose activities are chronicled at http://fakegate.org/the-heartland-institute-replies-to-forecast-the-facts/. As you can read from the webpage, much of the uproar is a result of stolen and fabricated documentation. Contrary to your assertion, Heartland “does not ‘deny the existence of climate change.’” “It supports research and scholarly debate on the causes and effects of climate change.” In fact, Heartland spokespersons have said repeatedly that: (i) “some warming occurred in the second half of the twentieth century,” (ii) “there is evidence of a small human impact on climate,” and (iii) that “carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.” Heartland’s views are only controversial because they encourage more debate before governments make policies restricting greenhouse gas emissions and governments and industry spend trillions of dollars. (For more information, go to http://heartlandorg/about.)
The issues surrounding the “climate” debate are real and difficult questions to answer, but Nucor has been consistent in its support for scientific answers instead of political consensus. Heartland is just such an institution, “bringing together the world’s leading scientists and economists to study the issue.” It is entirely appropriate for Nucor and other like-minded companies and groups to fund The Heartland Institute. Working together we will find solutions, so that our best days are still ahead of us.
Sincerely,
Daniel R. DiMicco,
Chairman and CEO
Nucor Corporation
cc: Peter C. Browning, Lead Outside Director
1915 REXFORD ROAD, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28211 PHONE 704 366 7000 FAX 704 362 4208
Sign the Greenpeace petition calling on Nucor CEO Daniel DiMicco to end his company’s support for the Heartland Institute.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Climate Activists Plan Coordinated Actions to Highlight Corporate Support of Heartlands Institute's Anti-Science Conference [fascist Pfizer -- we still support Climate Deniers]


Climate Activists Plan Coordinated Actions to Highlight Corporate Support of Heartlands Institute's Anti-Science Conference

by Forecast the Facts, May 21, 2012

The national campaign calling on corporations to end their support of the climate change-denying Heartland Institute has galvanized more than 150,000 people and led eleven companies to cut their ties to the radical group, including General Motors and State Farm. Now the organizations leading that campaign, including Forecast the Facts, are mobilizing around Heartland’s signature climate-denial conference to make sure the remaining corporate supporters continue to get the message.

“Given that the Heartland Institute’s conference is the preeminent gathering to promote conspiracy theories about climate science, it’s amazing that major corporations, many of which profess to care about climate change, continue to support their efforts,” said Brad Johnson, campaign manager of Forecast the Facts. “We are going to make sure those corporations are aware that huge numbers of people — including their customers and shareholders — find that unacceptable.”

Forecast the Facts, SumOfUs.org and 350.org have organized their members to “crowd-fund” bicycle-driven billboards that parody the Heartland Institute’s Unabomber ads. These people-powered ads, which feature Heartland supporters Pfizer, Comcast, and Microsoft, will circle downtown Chicago during Heartland’s climate change denial conference at the Hilton Chicago beginning Monday morning.

The ads include the logos of the aforementioned corporations, the amount of their recent contributions to the Heartland Institute, and the message, “We still support climate deniers. Do you?”

"The Heartland conference is one of the most brazen examples of how the fossil fuel industry funds climate change denialism for its own profit, at the expense of the millions of people around the world already suffering from massive climate disruptions -- floods, droughts, and more. Do Pfizer, Microsoft, and Comcast really want to be complicit in this human tragedy by continuing to fund Heartland?"

The bicycle ads will feature content that was rejected by Clear Channel Chicago. Clear Channel ran a Heartland Institute ad featuring the Unambomber on its digital billboard network in Chicago, but rejected the Forecast the Facts parody because it criticized a corporation. Clear Channel also rejected proposed alternative billboards from Forecast the Facts. Then Clear Channel executives falsely informed the press that they rejected the ads for legal concerns.

In addition to the ads, Forecast the Facts will be joining local activists as well as members of SumOfUs.org, the Sierra Club, and the League of Conservation Voters in a grassroots rally on Tuesday morning outside the Hilton Chicago.

Tuesday, May 22 schedule and photo opportunities:

10 a.m. — Activists gather at the Cloud Gate in Millennium Park’s AT&T Plaza, and begin march to Hilton Chicago

11 a.m. — Arrive at the Hilton Chicago Hotel and the Heartland Institute’s Conference on Climate Change Denial at 720 S Michigan Ave.

11:15 a.m. — Speakers discuss climate science and Heartland's denialism in Grant Park, across from the Hilton Chicago