inhofe bak 222

capt HP

inhofe222

Inhofe doesn’t mention Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s comment earlier that week referring to him as “Big Oil’s top call girl.”

tag added 2/14  (evil)

see inhofe2 for 2014 on

https://www.eenews.net/articles/inhofes-legacy-a-vast-alumni-network-on-climate-energy/

Andrew Wheeler is pictured shaking hands with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) in 2019 during a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on Wheeler's nomination to be EPA administrator. Andrew Harnik/Associated Press

Jim Inhofe is retiring from the Senate, but his legacy will live on for years in environmental policy circles through dozens of former staff members in key, influential positions.

The Oklahoma Republican established an international image for his denial of climate change, calling it a “hoax,” despite the overwhelming scientific consensus. That denial led him to fiercely oppose many sweeping climate and environmental policies and major legislation in areas like infrastructure and chemical safety.

Over his decades in the Senate, many people gravitated toward Inhofe and his message. The former Environment and Public Works Committee chair churned out a steady team of dedicated, ambitious staffers who are now in powerful positions in energy and aren’t afraid to argue passionately for their conservative, pro-business positions. They stand to continue dominating right-wing environmental spaces for years.  The alumni group, many of whom returned to Capitol Hill last month for Inhofe’s farewell speech, have worked at all levels of government and the private sector, in jobs ranging from climate science skepticism to fossil fuels, renewable energy and diplomacy (*E&E Daily*, Nov. 18).

Perhaps Inhofe’s best-known former staffer is Andrew Wheeler, currently the top environmental adviser to Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) and formerly EPA’s administrator. He was EPW’s Republican staff director under Inhofe from 2003 to 2009.

Other notable former Inhofe aides from EPW or his personal office include Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Annie Caputo; Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt; former Senate candidate Luke Holland; former senior House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis aide Marty Hall; and Donelle Harder, a former adviser to Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R).

Marc Morano, another former Inhofe staffer, has dedicated his career to denying climate change as founder and executive director of Climate Depot.

A host of past Inhofe aides are working as lobbyists or in government affairs.

The high number of staffers who went on to influential jobs could be attributed to a number of factors. For one, in the time Inhofe was the top Republican on EPW over the course of a dozen years, his committee stood practically alone as a place where Republicans did serious national environmental policy work, like passing the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, fighting the Paris Agreement and pushing to reduce regulations on hydraulic fracturing.

“The Inhofe staff was in the midst of every major environmental and energy policy development over the last 25 years or so,” said Scott Segal, a partner at Bracewell LLP who has not worked for Inhofe but has frequently worked closely with current and former staffers.

“That can only create a reservoir of experience that you can apply in other contexts,” he said.

The ‘has been’ network

Onetime aides to Inhofe are now serving in high-profile roles, many of them dealing with energy and the environment. | Claudine Hellmuth/POLITICO (graphic); Francis Chung/POLITICO (Inhofe photo)

Segal said Inhofe’s interest in environmental policy, both personally and because of Oklahoma’s place as a top oil and natural gas producer, gave him a good reason to build out a solid staff structure.

“It’s created both a constituent and professional interest of the subject matter, and therefore he’s attracted over the years some really exceptional individuals,” Segal said. “And so it’s not too surprising that when Republican administrations or the business community has looked to tap people who have that combination of expertise and political sense, they would turn to the Inhofe staff.”

Inhofe alumni — who refer to themselves as “has beens” — have nothing but kind words for the retiring senator, who recently turned 88. They say their work in major energy policy jobs stems directly from a boss who encourages staff to be ambitious, never shy from a fight but to recognize when to work with foes.

“He showed us how to stand by your principles in the face of opposition, whether it’s someone pushing back or watching activists yell at him on climate stuff and him maintaining his composure and sticking to his guns,” said Mandy Gunasekara, who was an EPW attorney and later served under Wheeler at EPA. She now works in conservative energy advocacy and is running for a spot on Mississippi’s Public Service Commission.

“He has built up the conservative approach to energy and the environment,” she said. “He’s built up a lot of people who are substantively a part of shaping that now and far into the future,”

Gunasekara, who worked on Trump administration efforts like exiting the Paris Agreement, repealing the Clean Power Plan and replacing it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, learned some of her communications strategies from working for Inhofe, who was frequently the target of harsh criticism for climate denial or other actions.

“Sen. Inhofe demonstrated courage,” she said. “And if you’re going to engage in these issues and stick by your guns, you have to have courage and you also have to communicate what you’re doing to the public.”

Holland, who was Inhofe’s chief of staff, said that his former boss “has been the CEO of a leader factory during his time in the Senate because of the way that he has empowered his staff to work together with him in a team. He has always prioritized investing in his team so that they can grow and develop as leaders.”

Holland stepped down from his position earlier this year to run in the special election to succeed him. Holland lost the primary to Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R), who went on to win the general election.

Inhofe gave staff the right mixture of support and autonomy for success, Holland said.

“We build our own brands within an ecosystem that is founded on integrity, hard work and being results-oriented, and getting the job done, no questions asked,” he said. “It’s been phenomenally helpful.”

Louis Renjel, now a lobbyist with Duke Energy Corp. and its vice president of external affairs, said of Inhofe: “When you get his confidence, he’s not holding your hand every day,” adding, “You have to have initiative, you have to have problem-solving skills, you have to be able to distill very complex issues down to why they really matter.”

‘Who’s who’ of D.C.

Morano, the Climate Depot executive director, said that Inhofe “helped me immensely to understand how to oppose bad ideas in Washington, and he aided me in launching my climate opposition career,” said Morano.

“He attracted high-level talented staff, and the proof of that is how his former staff members turned into a ‘Who’s Who’ of those running official Washington’s environmental policies many years later.”

Former staff also speak highly of the “has been” network, which they say is in frequent contact and had a long tradition of traveling to Washington for Inhofe’s birthday.

“We’re like family. I probably talk with at least one has-been a day, if not more than that,” said Holland, who had the support of numerous Inhofe alumni — and the endorsement of Inhofe himself — in his Senate bid.

“When you have a network of support like that, I can go anywhere and I can call on the ‘has beens’ to help me in the same way they’ve called on me to help them, and I have their back,” said Gunasekara.

Reporters Ellie Borst and Lamar Johnson contributed.

color below

many sp act nd?

html

Hollywood elite,”

nice overview

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/**2021/02**/biden-climate-change-actions-anger-big-oil/

President Joe Biden signed executive actions last week prioritizing solutions to the “existential threat” of climate change, drawing the ire of many key players in the politically powerful oil and gas industry.

Biden’s actions pressed pause on the leasing of federal lands and waters for oil drilling, set a goal of keeping 30 percent of federal lands for conservation purposes and announced the electrification of the federal government’s fleet of vehicles. The move comes a week after Biden revoked the permits for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline just hours after his inauguration, following through on a campaign-trail promise.

Leading up to the 2020 election, the oil and gas industry contributed around $1.6 million more to former President Donald Trump than to Biden. Trump painted himself as an ally to the industry on the stump and throughout his presidency — though industry insiders told Politico in 2020 that the Trump administration was “a mixed bag” and “more like ‘meh’” than the windfall they had hoped for in 2016.  

The oil industry spent millions in 2020 to try to keep a GOP majority in the Senate. Valero, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, among the few corporations that give to super PACs, gave at least $1 million each this election cycle to the Senate Leadership Fund, a conservative super PAC that spent $271 million to campaign against Democrats vying for the Senate.

Pausing land and water leases ‘to the extent possible’

Biden’s decision to halt future leases of federal land, pending a comprehensive review of the climate impact, caused an uproar among oil and gas companies and trade associations. Just hours after Biden formalized the order, theWestern Energy Alliance announced it would sue the Biden administration, alleging the move violates existing law.

Most drilling occurs on private land, rather than federal property. In 2017, approximately 24 percent of oil and 13 percent of natural gas extracted in the United States came from federal lands. According to analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey, around a quarter of U.S. emissions come from the combustion and extraction of resources from federal lands. 

Oil and gas companies rushed to stockpile drilling permits during Trump’s lameduck period — doubling the number of permit requests over the same period in 2019, according to an AP report.Under Biden’s order, oil and gas companies can continue to obtain new permits to drill on land that has already been leased. 

Experts say the executive action likely won’t immediately impact rates of oil extraction in the U.S. As of 2019, there were 38,294 leases active across the country, concentrated mostly in the American West. Once a lease has been issued, companies have 10 years to begin production on the land before the lease terminates.

The oil and gas industry’s leading trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, came out against the order. API President Mike Sommers criticized Biden’s suspension of federal agencies’ authority to issue leases of federal land to drilling companies in a Jan. 21 statement. 

“Restricting development on federal lands and waters is nothing more than an ‘import more oil’ policy. Energy demand will continue to rise—especially as the economy recovers—and we can choose to produce that energy here in the United States or rely on foreign countries hostile to American interests,” Sommers said.

In 2020, API’s PAC spent $88,200 to support Republican candidates, giving $5,000 to the Great America PAC, a Trump-aligned Carey committee.  API also dropped $5.3 million to employ 40 lobbyists, reporting lobbying 66 individual bills. The institute’s lobbying spending fell during Trump’s administration after trending upward throughout former President Barack Obama’s two terms in office.  

Another leading oil and gas industry association, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, has also come out in opposition to the action.

“We think it was really misguided,” Senior Vice President for Government Relations Dan Naatz told an Arkansas TV news team. “It impacts jobs and economies through the inner-Mountain West, all the way through the country.”

In 2020, the organization’s PAC spent $215,300 in campaign contributions, giving $10,000 each to Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and former Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Martha McSally (R-Ariz.).

Biden framed the executive action as a jobs package,remarking, “today is climate day in the White House which means today is jobs day at the White House,” just before he signed the executive actions. Labor leaders say they are waiting to hear how exactly Biden will replace jobs lost in energy sectors. 

“It’s too glib and easy to say someone working in the mines can get a solar job. That is too simplistic,” Jason Walsh, executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, told the Washington Examiner. “There is a mismatch between where energy jobs are getting lost and where they are created. We have to close that gap, but we also have to be real and help economies diversify their economies in ways based on their own assets.”

Oil corporations emphasize that gap. The Global Energy Institute, a subsidiary of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, came out against some of Biden’s climate actions, claiming it would lead to widespread unemployment.

“Without the prospect of future leases, investment and planning will begin to dry up immediately, thwarting job creation and the economic growth at the worst possible time,” the Institute’s President Marty Durbin said in a statement.

The Chamber of Commerce perennially favors Republicans and dropped $5.7 million in outside spending in 2020.

Keystone canceled, frustrating some oil companies

The Chamber of Commerce also condemned Biden’s action to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline, a project widely opposed by environmental advocates, indigenous communities and scientists.

“This is a politically motivated decision that is not grounded in science. It will harm consumers and put thousands of Americans in the building trades out of work,” Durbin said.

The Keystone XL pipeline was proposed in 2008, vetoed by Obama in 2015 and promptly re-initiated by Trump in 2016 along with another controversial project, the Dakota Access Pipeline. Environmental and indigenous rights advocates are now calling on Biden to cancel the latter pipeline, which abuts the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

That pipeline is owned by Energy Transfer Partners, an oil and gas conglomerate that gave more in campaign contributions than any other company in the industry. Ninety-nine percent of its donations went to Republican candidates and committees. In 2020, the company’s co-founder and board chair, Kelcy Warren, donated a whopping $10 million to America First Action, a Trump-affiliated super PAC.

Biden’s climate actions are also drawing criticism from Republican lawmakers from oil-rich states who have benefited from industry contributions. Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.) announced Jan. 22 that they would introduce legislation to overturn Biden’s executive action and re-issue permits to the Keystone XL Pipeline, which was slated to pass through Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska before connecting to an existing pipeline in Kansas.

“We came so far during the last administration – from prioritizing American energy development to ending the far-left’s war on fossil fuels,” said Inhofe in a statement announcing the legislation.

Throughout his career, Inhofe has received in excess of $2.2 million in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies. Daines and Barrasso have each received $1.2 million from the industry.

The group’s bill is a symbolic gesture to the industry and its supporters without any real hope of passing the Senate, where Democrats wield a majority, albeit narrowly. The oil and gas industry spent heavily to prevent the upper chamber from swinging blue, giving around $600,000 each to Republican Senate candidates in Georgia Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, who both lost narrowly to Democratic challengers in January runoffs. The American Petroleum Institute donated $5 million to the Senate Leadership Fund in late November, after every Senate campaign had concluded save the two ultra-expensive Georgia races. 

Faced with pressure from Washington, other corporations look to adapt

Some energy companies are taking a different tact, announcing plans to adapt their business model to thrive in a Biden administration that prioritizes conservation and climate action.

Industry giant Exxon Mobil announced Feb. 1, just days after Biden’s executive order, that it would initiate massive investments in carbon capture technology aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The company, whose employees favored Biden over Trump in 2020 campaign contributions, will spend $3 billion over the next five years to build up a new subsidiary business: ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions. 

General Motors has committed to only manufacturing zero-emissions vehicles by the year 2035, inline with Biden’s commitment to electrifying the government’s fleet. Ford’s new CEO has also pledged to restructure production plans, prioritizing the addition of electric vehicles to its portfolio, which currently features only one fully-electric model.

The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, an oil-refining trade association that spent $3.2 to lobby the government in 2019, responded to that provision by reaching out to an unlikely ally: biofuel manufacturers. AFPM reportedly hopes to create an alliance with the competitor industry to lobby Biden to revise his fleet electrification plans in order to include cars powered by low-emission gasoline made from a mix of gasoline and ethanol.

sep 2009

kate s

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/inhofe-climate-skeptic-roadshow/

as world leaders gathered in New York this week for a major United Nations summit on climate change, back in Washington, leading Senate global warming skeptic James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has been hard at work lining up a climate “truth squad” to travel to treaty negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

Inhofe told the National Review Online that his squad (he has not yet named any participants) will make it clear to world leaders that although the House passed the Waxman-Markey bill and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will probably approve a bill as well, the United States Congress isn’t going to pass climate legislation anytime soon—no way, no how. The senator, famous for his claim that global warming is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” took a similar group of skeptics to climate change negotiations in Milan, Italy in 2003. “I was the outcast at that time,” Inhofe told NRO. “Now, I want to make sure that those attending the Copenhagen conference know what is really happening in the United States Senate.”

And according to Inhofe, what’s really happening is nothing at all. “There may be enough votes to get a bill out of EPW,” said Inhofe, referring to the Environment and Public Works committee headed by Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), which he chaired until the 2006 Democratic take-over. “[B]ut there is far from enough support in the Senate. The Democrats don’t have the votes. There are too many newly-elected Democrats in the Senate who don’t want to go home and tell voters that they just voted for the largest tax increase in American history.”

Apparently President Barack Obama’s speech to the UN on Tuesday only spurred on Inhofe’s desire to send a truth squad, if only because the address didn’t include enough specifics (which, by the way, is also bugging environmentalists).

“I don’t know what he’s going to do,” said Inhofe. “It’s clear that he doesn’t know what he’s going to do, either.”

https://thinkprogress.org/house-votes-to-deny-climate-science-and-ties-pentagons-hands-on-climate-change-6fb577189fb0

Sea level rise impacting naval bases. Climate change altering natural disaster response. Drought influenced by climate change in the Middle East and Africa leading to conflicts over food and water — as in, for instance, Syria.

The military understands the realities of climate change and the negative impacts of heavy dependence on fossil fuels.

The U.S. House does not.

With a mostly party-line vote on Thursday, the House of Representatives passed an amendment sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) that seeks to prevent the Department of Defense from using funding to address the national security impacts of climate change.

“You can’t change facts by ignoring them,” said Mike Breen, Executive Director of the Truman National Security Project, and leader of the clean energy campaign, Operation Free. “This is like trying to lose 20 pounds by smashing your bathroom scale.”

The full text of McKinley’s amendment reads:

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to implement the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation’s Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order

In other words, the House just tried to write climate denial into the Defense Department’s budget. “The McKinley amendment would require the Defense Department to assume that the cost of carbon pollution is zero,” Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bobby Rush (D-IL) said in a letter to their colleagues before the vote. “That’s science denial at its worst and it fails our moral obligation to our children and grandchildren.”

The amendment forces the Defense Department to ignore the findings and recommendations of the National Climate Assessment and the IPCC’s latest climate assessment, specifically with regard to the national security impacts of climate change. It would also do the same for the Social Cost of Carbon, which provides a framework for rulemakers to take into account the societal, security, and economic costs associated with emitting more carbon dioxide.

If the Pentagon cannot use its funding to implement the recommendations from the NCA and the IPCC reports, the specific impacts on DoD would be vague — and troublesome — because the reports are crystal clear.

Earlier this month with the release of the National Climate Assessment, 300 leading climate scientists and experts told Americans in no uncertain termsthat time is running out to confront the dangerous impacts of climate change.

This week, 16 military experts agreed, telling Americans in a report that climate change is already threatening national security and the economy. The CNA Corporation Military Advisory Board authored the report, titled “National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change.”

The experts that authored the report have well over 500 years of combined military experience (580, according to a Climate Progress tally).

Military expertise like this hasn’t stopped gadflies in the Senate from trying to dismiss the report. “There is no one in more pursuit of publicity than a retired military officer,” said Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). “I look back wistfully at the days of the Cold War. Now you have people who are mentally imbalanced, with the ability to deploy a nuclear weapon. For anyone to say that any type of global warming is anywhere close to the threat that we have with crazy people running around with nuclear weapons, it shows how desperate they are to get the public to buy this.”

Despite criticism like this from the Senator from Oklahoma, many in the military understand the very real security threats posed by climate change, and have been taking action to address it. This isn’t idle talk. The steps the Department of Defense has been taking to cut its reliance on carbon-heavy fuels, however, are not just to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Vice Admiral Lee Gunn (Ret.), and president of CNA Corporation’s Institute for Public Research, said “the American military, the single largest user of oil in the U.S., has recently begun transitioning to renewable and more efficient energy to improve its operational effectiveness and flexibility, with the added benefit of beginning to reduce its fossil fuel dependence and mitigate climate change.”

“Civilian and uniformed leaders of our military know it is increasingly risky to depend on a single fuel source; these leaders are diversifying the military’s sources of power to make our bases more resilient and our forces more effective,” said Vice Admiral Gunn.

The Defense Department is beginning to take action. It recently started work on its largest solar project to date, and has been making progress on its “Net Zero” energy initiative. The goal? For bases to produce as much energy as they consume, and for forward combat operations to not have to rely on oil-heavy supply lines.

The McKinley amendment was added to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which later passed, 325–98. Only three Republicans (Garrett, Gibson, LoBiondo) voted against the amendment, and four Democrats (Barrow, Cuellar, McIntyre, Rahall) voted for it.

The Senate held first markup of their version of the bill on Wednesday. The NDAA sets out the budget for the Department of Defense, and details the expenditures it can make, though this is different than the budget that actually awards the appropriations. That will happen later this year.

The NDAA is one of the few pieces of legislation that actually work close to normal — the House passes its version, and the Senate passes its version. It remains to be seen if the Senate will take up and pass a similar amendment, but even if it does not, the final decision will come during conference. The two chambers go to conference to iron out the differences before final passage and the president’s signature.

==

==

The new clean air rules will create jobs building clean energy resources and updating power plants, and Senator Inhofe's attacks will only cause economic uncertainty. Please stand strong in favor of clean air and a healthy environment, and against this shutdown of the Clean Air Act.

Please vote "no" on Amendment No. 2615 to Senate Bill 1845.

latest assault on climate action? An amendment to the Senate's unemployment insurance extension bill that would put the brakes on the EPA's plans to regulate carbon pollution.

Don't let Inhofe derail climate action. Tell your Senators to reject his dirty air amendment.

The EPA regulations that Inhofe is attacking would, for the first time in American history, put national limits on climate pollution from power plants. They set the stage for the entire U.S. Climate Action Plan—which has made them quite the target for climate action opponents.

Sen. Inhofe is definitely one of them. Just recently, he called climate change "laughable" because of the cold temperatures caused by the polar vortex. What's not laughable? The severe droughts in his home state of Oklahoma and the extreme weather we are facing across the country.

inhofe

The new clean air rules will create jobs building clean energy resources and updating power plants, and Senator Inhofe's attacks will only cause economic uncertainty. Please stand strong in favor of clean air and a healthy environment, and against this shutdown of the Clean Air Act.

Please vote "no" on Amendment No. 2615 to Senate Bill 1845.   Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act

Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]* 01/08/2014

Sen. Vitter, David [R-LA]* 01/08/2014

Sen. Blunt, Roy [R-MO]* 01/08/2014

Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]* 01/08/2014

2013 heart attack, son killed

oil change int'l

Murray EnergyMurray Energy (COAL)$72,800Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Koch IndustriesKoch Industries (OIL)$72,750Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Devon EnergyDevon Energy (OIL)$48,750Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Anadarko PetroleumAnadarko Petroleum (OIL)$39,500Show ContributionsGo to Profile

OGE EnergyOGE Energy (COAL)$37,800Show ContributionsGo to Profile

ConocoPhillipsConocoPhillips (OIL)$35,700Show ContributionsGo to Profile

National Rural Electric Cooperative AssnNational Rural Electric Cooperative Assn (COAL)$33,644Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Oil & Gas ProducerOil & Gas Producer (OIL)$29,350Show ContributionsGo to Profile

FirstEnergy CorpFirstEnergy Corp (COAL)$29,000Show ContributionsGo to Profile

American Electric PowerAmerican Electric Power (COAL)$25,250Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Williams CompaniesWilliams Companies (OIL)$24,000Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Marathon OilMarathon Oil (OIL)$23,000Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Chesapeake EnergyChesapeake Energy (OIL)$22,800Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Occidental PetroleumOccidental Petroleum (OIL)$22,500Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Valero EnergyValero Energy (OIL)$22,500Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Chevron CorpChevron Corp (OIL)$21,200Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Exxon MobilExxon Mobil (OIL)$21,000Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Xcel EnergyXcel Energy (COAL)$21,000Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Southern CoSouthern Co (COAL)$20,000Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Ward PetroleumWard Petroleum (OIL)$18,250Show ContributionsGo to Profile

Alliance Resource PartnersAlliance Resource Partners (COAL)

press2:

2006

Inhofe attacks press: Brokaw on climate (Borenstein at AP asked one hundred scientists about An Inconvenient Truth; Inhofe criticized him for not including skeptical scientists).   Inhofe compared his 2006 Discovery Channel documentary on climate change to Big Lie Nazi propaganda; Kyoto would shut down agriculture and oil in Oklahoma.  In addition he said that the NYT would profit from coverage of climate because on of its reporters had written a book on the subject (Revkin).   A reporter who teaches journalism at NYU suggested that Inhofe and Morano's character assassination might be "ginning up the base" for the midterm elections, and that Inhofe's intimidation might scare some smaller newspaper radio and TV stations from running stories on climate. [note crypto/mirror: follow the money]

lone vote everglades rationale http://www.epw.senate.gov/107th/inh_091302.htm

huffpo

Mike Huckabee, Jim Inhofe Give How-To On Denying Climate Change Without Any Concern For Facts

Posted: 08/19/2013 8:48 pm EDT

The Senate's most prominent climate change skeptic, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), called in to Mike Huckabee's radio show on Monday to discuss conspiracy theories on global warming and the Obama administration's plans to deal with it.

In the segment, both Inhofe and Huckabee accuse the Obama administration and Organizing for Action -- the nonprofit created out of the Obama campaign to stump for the president's agenda -- of violating federal law in their push to combat climate change. Inhofe has called for an investigation into whether the administration is coordinating with OFA on political activities in violation of the Hatch Act. He claims that because the Environmental Protection Agency is working on climate rules and OFA is working to promote climate action, there must be some manner of illegal interaction.

Last week OFA delivered "Climate Denier Awards" in the shape of unicorns to members of Congress. Inhofe was on the list.

The senator's appearance on Huckabee's show was mostly a chance for him to rehash bad science on global warming, including claims such as:

"We go through these 30-year cycles." (The planet doesn't warm on its own; something has to force it, and scientists have found that the current warming is being driven by the build-up of human-produced greenhouse gases.)

"We went into a leveling-out period about eight years ago." (Nope. Sorry.)

"You have to have CO2. It's a form of fertilizer to grow things. It's actually sought after in many cases." (There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.)

Huckabee also threw in a few of his own theories:

"When I was in college, all the literature at that time from the scientific community said that we were going to freeze to death." (No, it didn't.)

"The volcano that erupted over in Northern Europe actually poured more CO2 into the air in that single act of nature than all of humans have in something like the past 100 years." (Even when it was erupting, the European aviation industry's emissions alone dwarfed the volcano's daily emissions.)

Back when he was running in the 2007 Republican presidential primary, Huckabee was much more open to the idea that climate change was an issue that needed to be addressed. He supported a cap-and-trade plan to cut emissions before flipping his position a few years later.

==

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/james-inhofe-climate_n_3582585.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

video

James Inhofe: Climate 'Alarmists,' Obama Bureaucrats Plot To Control Americans (VIDEO)

Posted: 07/11/2013 6:54 pm EDT  |  Updated: 07/11/2013 9:53 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- Denying climate change isn't new for Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe. But in a Senate floor speech Wednesday night, Inhofe added a conspiratorial wrinkle -- proposed new carbon dioxide regulations are meant not to curb greenhouse gases, but to curb people's freedom.

Inhofe was reacting to President Barack Obama's recent speech detailing his administration's intention to restrict emissions from coal-powered power plants. Inhofe pointed the language that officials were using as evidence they're trying to hide their true intentions, noting that environmental advocates and the administration are using the phrase "carbon pollution" rather than manmade global warming, which Inhofe said he doesn't believe in.

"Their goal is not to protect the American people, it is to control them," Inhofe said. "They want top-down control, and carbon dioxide regulations will give this to them."

Inhofe argued that the administration is furthering its ends by giving talking points to "alarmists" who, he explained, are "people who believe the world is coming to an end, and it's all man's fault."

For evidence of the ultimate goal, the senator cited controversial climate-change critic Richard Lindzen, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist at odds with most of his colleagues on the prospects of warming, including experts at NASA.

Citing Lindzen, Inhofe argued that bureaucrats want to control carbon dioxide because "if you regulate carbon, you regulate life -- you control life, and that's what bureaucrats want to do."

He also questioned the idea that carbon dioxide is pollution. If it's pollution, he argued, people are polluting the air by breathing.

Nearly all scientists consider excess carbon dioxide to be pollution, and have grown increasingly concerned with levels in the atmosphere that have recently passed an alarming milestone of 400 parts per million.

Obama argued in his speech that the nation has a moral obligation to lead the world in reducing carbon pollution.

politico:

Senators clear the air in a toxic dispute

By: Darren Goode

June 14, 2012 10:38 PM EDT

A disagreement between Republican Sens. Jim Inhofe and Lamar Alexander over circumventing the Environmental Protection Agency’s air toxics rule for power plants got personal this week.

Alexander was surprised at a news release that Inhofe’s Environment and Public Works Committee staff sent out Tuesday that questioned the political motives behind Alexander’s opposition to the Oklahoma Republican’s upcoming Senate vote challenging EPA’s so-called utility MACT rule.

People close to Alexander have also suggested that Inhofe or his staff might have been directly involved in an effort by tea party groups to pressure Alexander and other senators in both parties to vote for Inhofe’s challenge. And the same groups may go after Alexander in his 2014 primary.

Tuesday’s press advisory for a noon speech Inhofe was giving on the Senate floor that day — along with the speech itself — called an alternative plan offered by Alexander and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) a “cover vote” for senators in a tough spot over Inhofe’s challenge.

The advisory from Inhofe’s committee staff also embedded a POLITICO article describing television, radio and online ads by tea party groups targeting Alexander and several other senators regarding the vote.

That led to a direct confrontation between the two Republicans at a closed-door Senate GOP policy lunch Tuesday in the Capitol, multiple aides said.

“There was an honest misunderstanding between the two of us,” Inhofe told POLITICO on Wednesday.

Inhofe said Alexander was troubled by the implication that the Oklahoma Republican was personally working with outside groups to target fellow Republicans.

“I’ve got all the stuff here to give him so he knows exactly what I said,” Inhofe said while opening a manila envelope with papers in it as he headed into another Senate GOP lunch Wednesday. “Certainly, I was not implying that I would have had people call his office and all that, which I didn’t do. That was this large group of people that are supporting this thing.”

Inhofe was in the middle of pointing out the number of groups that support his effort when Alexander walked by on his way into Wednesday’s lunch.

Inhofe pulled him aside into an alcove, and the two spoke for a few minutes before heading into the lunch together.

Afterward, Inhofe said all is OK between the two.

“That was a misunderstanding of a press release, and it’s been clarified now and we’re very close, very good friends,” Inhofe said.

An Alexander aide echoed that there are no hard feelings. “They’ve been friends and colleagues for a long time and simply have a disagreement over policy,” the aide said.

But privately, some Republicans have grumbled that Inhofe stepped over the line and violated an unwritten rule by politically going after a fellow Republican.

For Alexander, this includes the insinuation by Inhofe that the Tennessee Republican’s alternative with Pryor is merely political protection for other senators.

Alexander has long argued that EPA regulations, if done properly, are essential to preserving the air quality in his state — which includes the Great Smoky Mountains and other tourist attractions. “Ever since I’ve been in the United States Senate, I’ve introduced legislation to clean up the air in Tennessee,” Alexander said on the Senate floor Tuesday afternoon.

Earlier Tuesday on the floor, Inhofe had said the point of the Alexander-Pryor proposal was “just to have something out there that senators in a tough spot can claim to support.” Their proposal would extend the compliance deadline for companies under the utility MACT to six years, while Inhofe’s would kill the rule altogether.

Inhofe said he isn’t backing away from that assertion. “I still say that,” he said Wednesday.

After he spoke with Alexander on Wednesday, Inhofe further emphasized that while he appreciates the effort of outside groups looking to scrounge up support for his challenge, he isn’t personally involved and doesn’t even know what they’re up to.

“They’re not even asking me for advice as to what to do,” he said. “They’re running their own ads. I don’t even know what they’ve run or where they’ve run.”

Inhofe said his staff “without my knowledge” included a copy of the POLITICO story in Tuesday’s press advisory, and Alexander “thought that was from me.”

“I had nothing to do with that. And I think he understands that now,” Inhofe said after Wednesday’s lunch.

The article described a pledged $1 million set of radio and TV ads from American Commitment, a group led by Phil Kerpen, a former vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity. Kerpen’s group has been running ads in Tennessee, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Maine.

Those include ads urging Alexander to “stand up for Tennessee” with his vote.

A separate online campaign from the tea-party-backing FreedomWorks is running in Tennessee, West Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Inhofe said FreedomWorks is “an independent organization, they can do anything they want.”

Inhofe had participated in an episode of “Tea Time with Max Pappas,” an online show hosted by FreedomWorks, that ran May 31 and included discussion of Inhofe’s utility MACT challenge. But Inhofe on Wednesday said he didn’t know how extensively the group was working around the vote.

“I’m glad they are. There may be some targets that they can influence,” he said.

But the effort may have broader implications. Tea party groups — like FreedomWorks — are potentially gearing up to target Alexander in his 2014 primary just as Sens. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) were targeted by the right this year.

The perception that Inhofe was tied to the groups’ activities was further enhanced given the background of one of his key committee aides. Inhofe’s deputy staff director on the panel, David Banks, was a partner for C. Boyden Gray’s Washington, D.C., law firm before coming to the committee. Gray is on the board of directors for FreedomWorks and has also had ties with Americans for Prosperity.

An Inhofe spokesman said it is committee practice not to have aides comment to the media but emphasized that Inhofe and Alexander have been longtime friends and that the Oklahoma Republican himself has had “no involvement in going after Sen. Alexander in any kind of capacity.”

Manu Raju contributed to this report.

--

clear skies: B2 claimed impressive # but BS; clear skies upped merc level (inhofe wanted more, 26 to 34 tons/yr  1/03 epa admitted 8% of childbear yrs wo had potentially toxic level lead 86 strat

food bill

Inhofe amendment to repeal the nutrition entitlement programs and establish a nutrition assistance block grant program. (#960)

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/vp/51837416#51824772 (ingram question inhofe)

guns:

Republican lawmakers are pushing legislation aimed at combating a threat to gun rights that even the National Rifle Association has described as pure fiction.

A bill introduced late last week by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) would ban federal agencies, excluding the Pentagon, from buying more ammunition during a six-month period if it currently possesses more than its monthly averages during the Bush administration.

The conspiracy theory that incubated the bill is that the Obama administration is trying to buy up bullets so ordinary Americans have less access to them in the marketplace.

“President Obama has been adamant about curbing law-abiding Americans’ access and opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Inhofe said in a statement. “One way the Obama Administration is able to do this is by limiting what’s available in the market with federal agencies purchasing unnecessary stockpiles of ammunition.”

Only it’s false — as no less a pro-gun organization than the NRA declared last year.

Last fall, the NRA issued a statement saying the claim was being pushed in an “Internet rumor mill” and was designed to “stir up fear.” The “more incendiary authors,” the group said, “suggest that these government agencies are preparing for a war with the American people.”

“As most gun owners will agree, skepticism of government is healthy. But today, there are more than enough actual threats to the Second Amendment to keep gun owners busy,” the NRA said. “[T]here is no need to invent additional threats to our rights.”

The GOP-led House oversight committee flirted with the conspiracy theory in March when it asked the Department of Homeland Security to explain its decisions regarding the procurement of ammunition. Republicans described it as an effort to “ensure that U.S. taxpayer funds are being spent effectively.”

The Department provided the committee a lengthy response, concluding: “While DHS spending on ammunition represents less than one tenth of one percent of the DHS budget, we continue to pursue measures that leverage all of the Department’s resources in order to best make use of taxpayer dollars.”

Sen. James Inhofe is taking criticism of his climate change denial as a compliment.

The Oklahoma Republican is one of the central targets in the newly released climate change documentary "Greedy Lying Bastards," which examines attempts by the fossil fuel industry to thwart emissions standards and mispresent the facts in the face of changing global climate conditions. The film airs Friday at a special screening in Tulsa, Okla.

"I was not surprised to see myself front and center on the promotional material for this climate change movie," he told the Tulsa World, "and quite frankly, I'm proud of it."

Inhofe has long called climate change a "hoax," insisting "we're in a cold spell" when it snows, despite the body of scientific evidence showing that humans contribute to global warming.

Inhofe is featured front and center in a promotional poster for the film, which is executive-produced by actress-turned-activist Daryl Hannah, and appears multiple times throughout its trailer. He is also "singled out for his obstructionist rhetoric" throughout the film, according to the Washington Post's review.

"Ever since my first speech on this topic, I have found it astonishing how organizations have credited me capable of single-handedly bringing about the end of the world," Inhofe said in his statement addressing his placement in the film.

Apparently, that's a badge of honor.

(h/t The Hill)

==

6 Oct 2012 8:07 AM

We’re No. 1! (In climate denier coverage)

By Stephen Lacey

Cross-posted from Climate Progress

America is unique when it comes to giving a platform to climate deniers and skeptics.

According to a new analysis of data released last year, American newspapers are far more likely to publish uncontested claims from climate deniers, many of whom challenge whether the planet is warming at all and are “almost exclusively found” in the U.S. media. The study was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The researchers were trying to answer three important questions: Is climate denial and disinformation as prevalent in the newspapers outside America? Is it mostly right-wing papers publishing these pieces? And what types of skeptics are being published in different countries?

In all three categories, the U.S. emerged as a unique leader in promoting climate denial in the press.

The newspapers surveyed were Folha de São Paulo and Estado de São Paulo in Brazil; People’s Daily and Beijing Evening News in China;  Le Monde and Le Figaro in France; The Hindu and Times of India in India; the Guardian/Observer and the Daily/Sunday Telegraph in the United Kingdom; and the New York Times and Wall Street Journal in America. The researchers looked at stories between 2009 and 2010, when the so-called “climategate” story was unfolding. They also compared their findings to coverage in 2007, when the IPCC released its assessment of climate science.

In both periods, the percentage of articles containing voices questioning human-made global warming in the U.S. were dramatically higher than other countries. Here’s a chart illustrating 2009 coverage:

The US newspapers had the largest number of articles in percentage terms (34%) which contained skeptical voices over the period examined, and nearly double the next country which was the UK at 19%. The Chinese newspapers came next with 7% of all articles, although the figures were taken from a low base. India and France followed with roughly 6%, with Brazil last at 3%. So, despite the high number of articles in the Indian and Brazilian press covering the issue, a very low percentage of these included skeptical voices.

So did the political leaning of a newspaper influence its coverage? It’s actually a very mixed picture. When factoring in non-opinion articles, the researchers actually found slightly more articles quoting climate skeptics or deniers in left-leaning newspapers than in right-leaning papers. But when looking at opinion pages, the articles tend to fall within traditional ideological camps — with far more right-leaning publications featuring “uncontested” skeptical voices than left-leaning ones. While France and the U.K. experienced a similar trend, the U.S. was the leader in this area as well:

In conclusion, we can say that from our sample, there is little evidence for much difference in the percentage of articles containing skeptical voices between left-leaning and right-leaning or centrist newspapers in Brazil, France and India. However, in the USA and the UK, where skeptical voices generally appear in much higher numbers, the differences are more marked.  The strongest evidence for a distinction between left-leaning and right-leaning newspapers can be found in the opinion pages in France, the UK and the USA, where right-leaning newspapers are much more likely to include uncontested skeptical voices.

So what kind of voices are being published in these papers? The findings here are also mixed. The researchers break down skeptics into three categories: Those who completely deny the planet is warming (trend skeptics); those who accept that the planet is warming, but question if it’s caused by humans (attribution skeptics); and those who falsely claim that increasing CO2 emissions and a warming planet will be a good thing (impact skeptics).

In Brazil, China, France, India, and the U.K., we see a mix of skeptics in the second and third categories who accept that the planet is warming, but question the cause and impact. In the U.S., we see a different trend: a much greater number of deniers who believe that there is no evidence that the planet is warming. (The researchers attribute this to the prominence of  Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the most outspoken climate denier in Congress, who often appears in news stories).

Such results would support the view that the USA is particularly notable for the presence of skeptics who question the need for strong climate change policy proposals.

The study, while only covering newspapers and only looking at two short time periods, shows that American climate denial is unique and more prevalent than in other countries, and that ideology does influence how the topic is covered. From the report’s conclusion:

There is some evidence for arguing that there is a strong correspondence between the political leaning of a newspaper and its willingness to quote or use uncontested skeptical voices in opinion pieces. The distinction between news pages and opinion pages is important as much of the skepticism in found in the latter category. In right-leaning newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal  and the Telegraph, there is very little uncontested skepticism in their news reporting.

There is also evidence for seeing a greater presence in the US media of the sort of skepticism which strongly attacks the scientific legitimacy of climate change policy proposals compared to all the other five countries (with the notable exception of the U.K.).

Along with the U.K., Australia is another country seeing American-style climate denial in the press. A recent analysis from the Australian Center for Independent Journalism found that 73 percent of articles and opinion pieces published in 2011 on a proposed carbon price were negative.

nrdc toxic 20 states:  Kentucky, Indiana, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi -- supported a resolution by Sen. James Inhofe, to limit mercury and other air emissions

Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 12:21 pm PDT • Views: 24,908 Rachel Maddow’s interview with leading Republican climate change denier Sen. James Inhofe

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40071_Rachel_Maddow_Interviews_James_Inhofe_Face_of_the_Anti-Science_Right/comments/

300-4 B/yr

refs nature artl 900m vs 1, bill 80% of media, study by Am univ; self-suffic

==

US Senate's top climate sceptic accused of waging 'McCarthyite witch-hunt'

James Inhofe calls for criminal investigation of climate scientists as senators prepare proposal that would ditch cap and trade

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 March 2010

The Republican James Inhofe during the Senate Environment and Public Works hearing on global climate change.

The US Congress's most ardent global warming sceptic is being accused of turning the row over climate science into a McCarthyite witch-hunt by calling for a criminal investigation of scientists.

Climate scientists say Senator James Inhofe's call for a criminal investigation into American as well as British scientists who worked on the UN climate body's report or had communications with East Anglia's climate research unit represents an attempt to silence debate on the eve of new proposals for a climate change law.

Inhofe's document ends by naming 17 "key players" in the controversy about CRU's stolen emails, including the Britons Phil Jones and Keith Briffa.

"I think this is like a drag net, just to try and catch everyone whose name happens to be on this list. It's guilt by association and I thought those days were over 50 years ago," said Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University, who is on the list of 17 scientists. "It looks like a McCarthyite tactic: pull in anyone who had anything to do with anyone because they happened to converse with some by email, and threaten them with criminal activity."

Inhofe is also accused of further fuelling a spike in hate mail and politically motivated freedom of information requests in the three months since the emails of climate scientists were stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

Rick Piltz, a former official in the US government climate science programme who now runs the Climate Science Watch website, said Inhofe and others were getting in the way of scientific work. "Scientists who are working in federal labs are being subjected to inquisitions coming from Congress," he said. "There is no question that this is an orchestrated campaign to intimidate scientists."

Michael Mann, a scientist at Penn State University who is on Inhofe's list of 17, said that he had seen a sharp rise in hostile email since November.

"Some of the emails make thinly veiled threats of violence against me and even my family, and law enforcement authorities have been made aware of the matter," he told the Guardian.

He said the attacks appeared to be a co-ordinated effort. "Some of them look cut-and-paste."

A university investigation largely cleared Mann of misconduct for his connection to the East Anglia controversy. However, a rightwing group in Pennsylvania are demanding further action.

Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at Nasa's Goddard Institute who is also on the list of 17, said he had seen an increase in freedom of information act requests. "In my previous six years I dealt with one FoIA request. In the last three months, we have had to deal with I think eight," he said. "These FoIAs are fishing expeditions for potentially embarrassing content but they are not FoIA requests for scientific information."

He said Inhofe's call for a criminal investigation created an atmosphere of intimidation. "The idea very clearly is to let it be known that should you be a scientist who speaks out in public then you will be intimidated, you will be harassed, and you will be threatened," he said. "The idea very clearly is to put a chilling effect on scientists speaking out in public and to tell others to keep their heads down. That kind of intimidation is very reminiscent of other periods in US history where people abused their position."

Other scientists on Inhofe's list of 17 admitted they were disturbed by the threat of criminal prosecution.

"I am worried about it, I have to say," said Raymond Bradley, director of the climate science research centre at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who is also on the list of 17. "You can understand that this powerful person is using the power of his office to intimidate people and to harass people and you wonder whether you should have legal counsel. It is a very intimidating thing and that is the point."

Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican on the Senate's environment and public works committee, released a document last week suggesting scientists be investigated for breaking three laws and four government regulations.

The document, produced by members of Inhofe's staff, recycles now familiar sceptic arguments about the stolen emails from East Anglia and the mistakes in the IPCC report.

But climate scientists say the report takes the campaign to a new level by threatening criminal prosecution. The report calls for the inspector generals of all US government agencies touching on the environment to investigate the scientists as a first step to possible prosecution.

"The minority staff of the Senate committee on environment and public works believe the scientists involved violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, may have violated federal laws," the report says.

A spokesman for Inhofe rejected the charges of a witch-hunt. But he said a criminal investigation was warranted and that it should not necessarily be limited to the 17 "key players".

"We are not saying that there are 17 scientists we should be calling criminals," said Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for Inhofe. "I'm not putting a number on 17."

He added: "The bottom line though is that there was manipulation of data and it appears that they violated a law." "In terms of what these email demonstrate, there are possible criminal violations here with FoIA and other laws."

Senate leaders are expected to release new proposals for action on climate change as early as this week. Environmentalists fear the proposal, crafted by a troika of Democratic, Republican, and Independent senators, would weaken a climate change bill passed by the house last June.

The Washington Post reported at the weekend that the senators could scrap a cap-and-trade bill that was the core of the house bill and bring in more limited measures.

publ 2012  WND books http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Hoax-Conspiracy-Threatens/dp/1936488493

popsci:

On a summery afternoon in mid-March, Senator Inhofe dashes onto the stage at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., to introduce his new book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. "Why?” he asks the crowd. “Why, when the United Nations IPCC is totally refuted, when Al Gore is totally discredited, when man-made global warming is totally debunked, when passing a global-warming cap-and-trade bill is totally shot down, why is this book necessary?” He veers off-topic for several minutes to rail against “liberal Republicans” and "an unelected bureaucrat at the EPA.” Then, suddenly, he looks around and asks, “Am I going to be introduced?”

I scan the room. Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Marc Morano, the ClimateDepot.com blogger and former Inhofe aide who is widely considered to have ghostwritten most of his book, are there. So are about 150 others, a mostly older crowd that’s captivated by Inhofe’s folksy outrage and his PowerPoint presentation, which begins with his famous 2003 quote: “With all the hysteria, all the fear, all the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it is.”

It’s an entertaining ride. Inhofe doesn’t mention Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s comment earlier that week referring to him as “Big Oil’s top call girl.” Instead he speaks of the current “war on fossil fuels” and about how the U.N.’s interest in climate is motivated by “power, autonomy and control.” He boasts of how, in 2005, he called science-fiction novelist Michael Crichton to the Senate floor to testify as an “expert witness” on climate change and about how in 2009 he flew to Copenhagen as “a one-man truth squad” to take the wind out of the U.N. Climate Change Conference. He shows a picture of the igloo his children built in front of their Washington, D.C., home in 2010 to mock Al Gore.

Throughout his presentation, Inhofe deftly manages to be simultaneously affable and outraged. “I love everybody,” he tells me after the crowd has departed, adding that he and Gore were “good friends” at one time. “I still am,” he says, “because I love everybody. That’s the difference between me and my adversaries.”

Just as in the rest of the country, belief in human-caused climate change in Oklahoma has been rising with the thermometer[--]according to Krosnick, a large majority of Inhofe’s constituents now believe that anthropogenic global warming is real. I ask Inhofe if he’s noticed any climate changes in his home state, such as last summer’s unprecedented heat and severe drought, withering crops, wild fires and dramatically expanded tornado season. “There’s not been any warming,” he snaps. “And there’s actually been a little bit of cooling. It’s all documented. Look at the Dust Bowl. Back then it was a lot hotter. Matter of fact, now they say the hottest time was actually during that time—1934, I guess.”

Actually, last summer’s average temperature of 86.9? was the highest ever recorded in Oklahoma. And last spring’s drought, when hundreds of farmers abandoned livestock they could no longer manage to feed or water, was the worst since 1921.

Many of the scientists I’ve spoken with say that no single act of harassment or intimidation has stung more than Inhofe’s "list of 17,” the call for the congressional investigation of prominent climate scientists. Mann, I tell Inhofe, said it “smacked of modern-day McCarthyism.”

“I’m not the guy that called for investigations, I don’t think,” Inhofe says. He quickly glances at his communications director, Matt Dempsey. “Did I ever call for investigations?” I study Inhofe’s face for a clue as to whether he’s joking   he brags about the episode in his book. It’s clear that he is not. Dempsey nods at his boss. “Okay,” Inhofe says. “Maybe right after Climate Gate, I said they need to be investigated.”

The room is nearly empty when I ask Inhofe, finally, if he could imagine the possibility, however remote, that science could provide any amount or type of evidence that could convince him that human-caused climate change could be real. The senator darts an impatient look at his watch, and his handlers rise. It’s clear that the interview is coming to an end. “When people like you ask that question,   Inhofe says, “I can tell you believe it.”huh?

wrecking crew shows he was in on savimbi jamba woodstock front of S afrika mil intel)

why does he care about eco-terrorists? beef  cow farts? owns? dude ranch; bunch of awards from farm groups; co-sponsor of tree spike law 87 w/ upton, cheney etc

co-sponsor w/ feinstein:richard blum (ellis group, pharma)

2005 testimony; Testimony of Senator James Inhofe

The first testimony at the hearing came from Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma. Although Inhofe is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works,[177]he has repeatedly expressed disdain for environmentalists and environmental protection efforts. Inhofe called the federal Environmental Protection Agency a "Gestapo bureaucracy."[178]He was the only Senator to oppose the restoration of the Florida Everglades.[179]He has called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people."[180]

Inhofe refers to mainstream environmentalists as "environmental extremists," "elitist organizations," "alarmists," and "fear-monger[ers]."[181]He has stated that nonprofit environmental organizations "demonstrate more interest in hyping apocalyptic environmental scenarios to raise money for raw political purposes" than in conserving the environment.[182]The highest private sector contributor to Senator Inhofe has been the oil and gas industry, which has donated at least $999,023 to him since 1989.[183]

At the hearing, Senator Inhofe asserted that ELF and ALF are the number one domestic terror threat in the United States "over the likes of white supremacists, militias, and anti-abortion groups."[184]Although he compares ELF and ALF to Al Qaeda, Senator Inhofe admits that not a single person has died as a result of direct action taken by ELF and ALF activists.[185]

national ambient air (ozone)  complaint about epa http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=d55fa42f-7c41-456e-893f-2963eb26e07e  cited on http://www.tcfa.org/newsletterlinks.htm also oped on climategate http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/03/23/inhofe-climategate-shows-theres-no-global-warming-consensus

dude ranch?

Inhofe Land & Cattle

2211 W Shawnee St, Muskogee, OK 74401

(918) 682-5568

Inhofe’s Resolution Focuses the Clean Air and Water Lobby

June 20, 2012 By Christina Lyons

Lobbyists on either side of the issue of controlling air toxins are picking up force as the Senate nears a vote — expected Tuesday — on a controversial GOP plan to block Environmental Protection Agency rules, finalized last December, that require cuts in mercury and other air pollutants from power plants.

Update: The resolution was voted down 46-53.

The White House has threatened to veto the plan — sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — that environmental groups oppose and some utilities and energy lobbying coalitions strongly support (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/19/fighting-protect-american-families-mercury-pollution).

First Street data shows that 516 firms on behalf of 804 clients have lobbied on clean air and water regulations or legislation in the current session of Congress. Those firms and clients include — among others — small and large power companies, agricultural organizations, manufacturers, universities, as well as environmental lobbying groups like the World Wildlife Fund Inc. and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

But in a report released Monday called, “The Price of Pollution Politics,” the NRDC has targeted eight specific power companies that it says have spent a combined $67 million on lobbying Congress between 2010 and the first quarter of 2012. The report details the lobbying expenses of each company and estimates the health effects and costs of the companies’ activities (http://www.nrdc.org/air/price-of-pollution-politics.asp). The NRDC timed its report to directly precede the scheduled vote on Inhofe’s proposed Senate Joint Resolution 37, which would block the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/utilitypg.html).

John Walke, NRDC’s clean air director, said during a conference call on Monday that the EPA had provided a timeline for compliance in the MATS rule which would “require rational planning by businessmen and businesswomen … but it appears these companies .. have decided it is in their interest to attack these public safeguards in Congress and in the courts.”

The “gang of eight,” as the NRDC referred to the companies in its report, "are putting profits above protecting kids,” said Pete Altman, climate and clean air campaign director for the NRDC. “We want to see these companies focus their money on cleaning up pollution rather than blocking, weakening and delaying” EPA regulations.

The following are the firms targeted in the NRDC report, the amount of lobbying expenditures the coalition estimated each firm spent from 2010 through the first quarter of 2012, and some facts about each firm’s connections and political activity based on First Street data:

American Electric Power (AEP), based in Columbus, Ohio, spent $22 million on lobbying. In the first quarter of this year, it reported hiring five other firms to help it with its lobbying efforts. Its political action committee so far this election cycle has distributed more than $924,000 to candidates, including Inhofe, House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland; Republicans Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, Jo Barton of Texas, and Fred Upton of Michigan, all members of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It also has donated to several other PACs, including the Nuclear Energy Institute Federal PAC and the Powerpac of the Edison Electric Institute.

Southern Company,based in Atlanta, Ga, spent $18 million on lobbying. Among its lobbyists are:

Stoney G. Burke, who worked for two years as a legislative assistant to former Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Tex., who served on the Appropriations Committee;

H. Adam Lawrence, who served in the 1990s as a legislative assistant and counsel to Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana, a member of the committees on Commerce and Finance;

Larry D. Nix, a former legislative aide to Sen. Jeff Session, R-Ala., a  longtime member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works;

Michael J. Riith, a former legislative director and district coordinator for Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, R-Ohio, a former member of the committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Financial Services but who now serves on Appropriations; and

Jeanne H. Wolak, a former legislative assistant and director for former Rep. James L. Chapman, D-Texas.

Southern Company during the past year also hired 16 other firms to help with its efforts, and it is affiliated with several PACs, including the Alabama Power Co. Employees Federal PAC and Georgia Power Company Federal PAC.

Ameren, based in Collinsville, Illinois, spent $7.5 million. It has hired four other firms to help in its lobbying efforts, including the Gephardt Group Government Affairs, led by former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, a member of the First Street 30. The firm has a PAC that has donated more than $270,000 this election cycle to candidates that members of the Missouri and Illinois delegations.

FirstEnergy Corp., based in Akron Ohio, spent $5.7 million lobbying, including $1.24 million in the first quarter of this year. Among its lobbyists are Martin Hall, former chief of staff for the Council on Environmental Quality and former staffer and deputy staff director for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. FirstEnergy also has hired five other firms to help in its lobbying efforts and has a PAC that has distributed nearly $1.2 million this election cycle to a range of members, including House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio; Whitfield, who has been a vigorous defender of coal interests from his seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee; Democratic Reps. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania and Bob Latta of Ohio, also members of Energy and Commerce; Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, member of the Natural Resources Committee;  and Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, ranking Democrat on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

DTE Energy, headquartered in Detroit, spent $3.6 million, including more than half a million dollars in the first quarter of this year. It also has hired two other lobbying firms — Bracy Tucker Brown & Valanzano and Bracewell and Giuliani, and has a PAC that has distributed $486,000 so far this election cycle, including to Upton, Michigan Republican Tim Walberg, and Michigan Democrat John D. Dingell, longtime member and former chairman of Energy and Commerce.

Energy Future Holdings spent $7 million. While the company has its own lobbying force, it also has hired 13 other firms to help further its causes. Lobbyists reported for Energy Future include Joel Kaplan, an executive vice president who left earlier this year to go to Facebook to head that company’s Washington office. Kaplan worked in the George W. Bush White House from 2006 to 2008 as assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff for policy, from 2004 to 2005 as deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.

GenOn Energy Inc, based in Houston, spent $1 million on lobbying. It has hired three other firms in the past year and has a PAC that has distributed more than $200,000 so far this election cycle and has nearly $230,000 cash on hand. Beneficiaries of its contributions also include several members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, including Chairman Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.

PPL, based in Allentown, Pa., spent $1. 9 million on lobbying. According to FirstStreet data, it spent $610,000 just in the first quarter of 2012, a big jump from the last three quarters of 2011 when it spent about $250,000 each quarter. It has hired just two other firms, and has a PAC that has distributed more than $480,000 so far this election cycle to a long list of members of the House and Senate, primarily those on the energy and environment panels, including Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., and Whitfield, as well as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

These companies, except for GenOn, are members of various larger lobbying organizations, including the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) and the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council (ERCC). Those groups themselves have spent a bundle on lobbying as well:

ACCCE spent more than $6.7 million between 2010 and the first quarter of 2012 lobbying Congress, including $380,000 in the first quarter of 2012 when it also paid Podesta Group Inc. another $90,000 in lobbying fees.  Among ACCCE’s lobbyists are Patrick Cavanagh, a former legislative director for Pennsylvania Democrat Mike Doyle. The council also paid $90,000 in lobbying fees that quarter to the Podesta Group Inc., where two of the top First Street 30 lobbyists — former Hill staffer Randall Gerard and Anthony Podesta work.

ERRC spent about $3 million between 2010 and the first quarter of 2012, including $340,000 in the first quarter of 2012. It focuses on Clean Air and Water Quality standards and Superfund issues. It hired Bracewell and Giuliani, LLP and Hunton and Williams.

The oil and gas industry has been the top contributor to Inhofe’s reelection campaign since 2007. Top individual contributors include: Koch Industries, Murray Energy and Devon Energy.

Senate Environment chair Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., meanwhile, has stood behind the EPA standards. And the NRDC has been joined by other environmental organizations, such as the National Wildlife Federation and the Environmental Defense Fund, that have been writing its members, testifying before Congress, blogging and tweeting to battle Inhofe’s proposal.

6/12

INHOFE GOES AFTER ANOTHER EPA OFFICIAL: Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) took to the Senate floor (http://cs.pn/NC3YHW) for 35 minutes on Monday to attack EPA Region 1 Administrator Curt Spalding over a video (http://bit.ly/M5XIZT) in which Spalding says the decision to set a greenhouse gas standard for new power plants will be “painful” for coal country.

WHAT SPALDING SAID: “Lisa Jackson has put forth a very powerful message to the country: Just two days ago the decision on greenhouse gas performance standard, and saying basically gas plants are the performance standard, which means if you want to build a coal plant you’ve got a big problem. That was a huge decision. You can’t imagine how tough that was. Because you   ve got to remember, if you go to West Virginia, Pennsylvania and all those places, you have coal communities who depend on coal. And to say that we just think those communities should just go away, we can’t do that. But she had to do what the law and policy suggested. It’s painful. It’s painful every step of the way.”

SECOND TIME AROUND: Readers will remember that it was Inhofe who promoted a video in April of former Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz suggested that EPA was out to “crucify” oil and gas companies that violate environmental laws. Armendariz resigned soon after, but will testify tomorrow before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on EPA’s enforcement practices.

Will Inhofe call on Spalding to resign? “I haven’t made that commitment yet,    he told POLITICO.

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE: “There are plenty of 'green generals’ for EPA like Armendariz, going into battle for EPA,” Inhofe said on the floor. “We have several other videos of EPA officials making similar statements, but I’m not going to talk about them today.” Instead, Inhofe lectured on EPA permitting issues and brought up United Mine Workers head Cecil Roberts’s comment comparing Lisa Jackson to SEAL Team 6 and the coal industry to Osama Bin Laden

AND ONE MORE THING: Inhofe says his Congressional Review Act vote on EPA’s mercury and air toxics standards for power plants (expected in the next two weeks) will show which of his “colleagues will have the courage to stand up to President Obama and put the brakes on his abusive, out-of-control EPA,” and  "which senators want to kill coal in favor of President Obama’s radical global warming agenda.”

http://grist.org/politics/james-inhofes-worst-idea-ever/

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), champion of climate denial in the world’s most dysfunctional legislative body, has a lot of terrible ideas. But this one may be the worst ever: He wants to require Senate confirmation for all of EPA’s 10 regional administrators.

You have to know a bit about contemporary U.S. politics to understand just how bad of an idea this is. One of the remarkable features of the last few decades has been the conservative movement’s abandonment of norms of conduct that used to enable the U.S. government to work, at least fitfully. For instance, there was never any legal impediment to the minority filibustering every single solitary bill the majority put forward. It just wasn’t done. It was understood that filibusters were to be reserved for matters of serious import. But conservatives have now abandoned that norm and the filibuster has become routine, a radical change in governance that the political media has barely seen fit to comment on.

Similarly, putting “holds” on, or otherwise refusing to confirm, executive-branch nominees used to be an extraordinary thing. Now conservatives do it routinely, to almost every nominee, prompting Brookings scholar Thomas Mann to refer to current GOP practice as “a modern-day form of nullification.” He says, “there is nothing normal or routine about this,” but in that, he’s wrong: The GOP has made it routine. (See James Fallows for more.)

For instance, you may have seen the news that Arun Majumdar, the guy who’s been running the Energy Department’s ARPA-E advanced energy research shop, is stepping down. What you may not have noticed is that he was also the Obama administration’s nominee to be undersecretary of energy, to replace Cathy Zoi. But while he acted in that role, he was never confirmed, because Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)     who just hates Big Government Spending, mind you — put a hold on his appointment to protest the Energy Department’s refusal to direct more pork to a local Kentucky uranium-enrichment company. Rand is so determined to get this spending that he has blocked five Energy Department appointments. It’s hypocritical, obviously, but not remarkable, not any more. The GOP has devoted itself to impeding the proper operation of government in every way possible ever since Obama took office.

And they want to bring more of the government’s operation under their power as well. As I wrote this year in Washington Monthly, one of the big recent GOP ideas is the REINS Act, which would require every “major rule” issued by an executive branch agency — between 50 and 100 a year     to be approved by both houses of Congress before it goes into law.

That law, and Inhofe’s proposal, are not, contra conservative rhetoric, about “accountability.” They are about the fact that Republicans want more ways to hobble the administration and prevent it from accomplishing anything. Just imagine if this Republican Party got the power to block the appointment of all 10 regional EPA administrators. It would cripple the agency.

And that’s just what Inhofe wants.

new book:

Did you catch the news? That renowned politician and self-appointed climate expert Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has written a new book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. Now, I've only read a free Kindle sample of it from Amazon.com, so I'm not about to comment on the book itself. But my dive into the first few pages did get a little something stirring deep down.

A Principled Stand for Good Science?

Two of the passages early on that caught my eye:

In the endorsements section Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, seems to disparage climate science by calling it a "global warming religion."

In the book's introduction, Inhofe quotes from a 2003 statement of his that blames "phony science" for propagating concerns about global warming.

OK, not bad, Senator. You may have your climate science wrong -- I don't know, I didn't read the whole book -- but I can certainly get behind your principled stand for good, solid science. And yes, just as Klaus seems to suggest, let's leave religion out of it. Right?

Not quite.

It seems that for the senator, religion is very much part a huge part of climate science, so much so that during a recent interview Inhofe pronounced that his beliefs on global warming are "biblically inspired," and he quoted from Genesis 8:22, where God made his covenant with Noah -- "As long as the earth remains, there will be springtime, harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night" -- Inhofe's point being, I suppose, that catastrophic global warming cannot happen because it would violate God's covenant, and that to even consider or register such a thought is sheer arrogance.

brad blog:

Inhofe: God Says Global Warming Is A Hoax

BY BRAD JOHNSON ON MARCH 9, 2012 AT 11:24 AM

In a radio interview with Voice of Christian Youth America, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) argued that his belief that global warming is a hoax is biblically inspired. Promoting his book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, Inhofe told interviewer Vic Eliason on Wednesday that only God can change the climate, and the idea that manmade pollution could affect the seasons is “arrogance“:

Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.

Listen here:

Inhofe went on to attack evangelical leader Rich Cizik, the former Vice President of the National Association of Evangelicals, who has made the religious case for fighting climate change pollution. Inhofe said Cizik has been “exposed as a liberal” and that he is like idolatrous Romans described in the Bible as those who “give up the truth about God for a lie.”

In the interview, Inhofe did not mention he has received $1,352,523 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, including $90,950 from Koch Industries.

VCY America also argues that Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud, Muslim extremists have infiltrated the federal government, and that the United Nations has engineered the Agenda 21 program to transform human society through population control and energy use.

(H/T Right Wing Watch)  http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/09/441515/inhofe-god-says-global-warming-is-a-hoax/

WND books: Founded in 2002 by WND’s Joseph and Elizabeth Farah, WND Books made an immediate impact with its first No. 1 New York Times bestseller, Michael Savage’s The Savage Nation. Several more bestsellers from the upstart rocked the publishing world. Within two years of its launch, every major U.S. publisher had created imprints to compete head-to-head with WND Books in its niche for edgy, controversial current events titles. After partnerships with Thomas Nelson and Cumberland Press, WND Books established a strategic alliance with Los Angeles-based World Ahead Publishing. In early 2008 WND acquired World Ahead, bringing WND Books in-house, as a wholly-owned subsidiary.

WND Books specializes in adult nonfiction titles with an emphasis on current events, politics, and history. Like WND, WND Books is “fiercely independent,” telling the stories that other publishers won’t.

With multiple New York Times bestsellers to its credit, including The Late Great U.S.A: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada by Dr. Jerome Corsi and Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists, and Other Anti-American Extremists, WND Books prides itself on providing to the reading public important, timely, and entertaining books that impact the public debate.

world ahead:

Teaching kids right from left

June 1, 2007 | Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer

PUBLISHING executive Eric Jackson's first foray into children's books was a cartoon tale of two brothers and a lemonade stand. Hoping to earn money for a swing set, young Tommy and Lou squeeze lemons until their little hands ache. But they are thwarted by broccoli-pushing, camera-hogging, Jesus-hating liberals who pile on taxes and regulations and drive the boys out of business. The book, "Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!," came out two years ago.

==

wiki bs:  Eric M. Jackson is the co-founder of CapLinked, focused on linking companies and investors.[1] He was founder and former CEO of WND Books (formerly World Ahead Publishing) and a former vice president of marketing at PayPal. He is one of the PayPal Mafia, a growing number of PayPal alumni who have started new ventures after eBay bought the online payments firm.[2]

In 1998, Jackson received a B.A. in Economics with honors from Stanford University.[3] He served on the board of directors of The Stanford Review.[4] Jackson maintains the book publishing industry blog called Conservative Publisher.[5]

As a publisher, Jackson has been known to embrace controversial books and tactics. A bestselling children's book published by World Ahead, Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed penned by Katharine Debrecht, portrayed Hillary Rodham Clinton as a cartoon villain, prompting a verbal clash with Clinton's spokesman. He once accused Google of political bias for censoring online ads for a book critical of Bill Clinton, a charge Google denied,[6] and he later paid to send Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick to the Bill Clinton Presidential Library along with the book's author.[7] In October 2006, Jackson and Joseph Farah, the founder of WorldNetDaily, announced that World Ahead Publishing would be partnering on the influential WND Books imprint.[8]

Jackson's own book The PayPal Wars (ISBN 0-9746701-0-3) chronicles PayPal's origins and discusses the legal, regulatory, and competitive threatsentrepreneurs must overcome in today's business environment.[9] It won the 2005 Writers Notes Book Award for best business book.[10] It has been profiled by Reason Magazine,[11] the Washington Times,[12] the Mises Institute,[13] Tech Central Station,[14] and Tom Peters.[15]

Jackson frequently appears as a conservative commentator on radio and television programs. In his public comments he is frequently critical of eBay, the company that purchased PayPal. He has been quoted in Forbes,[16] BusinessWeek,[17] TheStreet.com,[18] US News & World Report,[19] and Publishers Weekly, [20] among other publications.

References[edit]

^ Eric Jackson

^ "The PayPal Exodus". Forbes. July 12, 2006.

^ Jackson, Eric M. (June 6, 2003). "Stanford: Where Does the Money Go?". Stanford Review.

^ [1][dead link]

^ ConservativePublisher.com

^ Google Defends Not Running Anti-Clinton Banners - Direct Marketing News

^ "Clinton's Accusers Tour His Library". Fox News. October 26, 2005.

^ New publishing partner for WND Books

^ Paypalwars.com

^ "2005 Writers Notes Book Awards Announced". PRWeb. 30 March 2005. Retrieved 2 April 2012.

^ Who Killed PayPal? - Reason Magazine

^ 20th-century evils, Silicon Valley wars - Washington Times

^ "The Genius and Struggle of PayPal". Mises Daily. 4 January 2005. Retrieved 2 April 2012.

^ TCS Daily : Technology - Commerce - Society

^ PayPal | tompeters!

^ "PayPal's Growing Pains". Forbes. April 14, 2005.

^ PayPal Spreads Its Wings

^ eBay Grooms Another Phenom | The Signal and The Noise News | Print Financial & Investing Articles | TheStreet

^ Washington Whispers - US News and World Report

^ "'Liberals' Selling Right and Left". Publishers Weekly. 21 October 2005. Retrieved 2 April 2012.[dead link]

Inhofe Launches Defense Of Poisoning Babies

In the biggest not-new news of the day, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) filed a Congressional Review Act resolution to kill the EPA’s new mercury rule just entered into the Federal Register, which will limit for the first time air toxics from coal-fired power plants. Along with the corporate polluters and lobbyists who are working to kill the rule, Inhofe completely disregards the millions of babies exposed to toxic mercury pollution, and the 11,000 lives this rule will save each year. Inhofe trades public health for polluter money, with a career total of over $1.3 million in oil and gas money and another $460,000 from utilities.

==

Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011

Learn about corporate "speech" and other "rights" v. people's rights. And help put Americans before corporations.

This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy. See here for help on adding material to CoalSwarm.

Learn more from the Center for Media and Democracy's research on climate change.

The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 is proposed by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), who describe the bill as "a sensible, narrowly crafted 'fix' to clarify that the Clean Air Act was never intended to be used to impose cap-and-trade by regulation." The bill seeks to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.[1]

The House Energy and Commerce Committee, under Republican control, is holding a hearing on Feb. 9, 2011 to discuss the bill, chaired by Whitfield, who has received $9,000 from Koch Industries since 2008. Koch operatives reportedly met with Rep. Upton on the first day of the 112th Congress to discuss such a bill. Upton received $20,000 from Koch employees in 2010, making them among his top 10 donors. Nine of the 12 new Republicans on the panel signed the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity   No Climate Tax” pledge that opposed any government action to reduce carbon dioxide pollution.[1]

Among those the committee will reportedly hear testimony from include:[2]

National Black Chamber of Commerce president Harry Alford, who has received $425,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Margo Thorning, vice president and chief economist for the American Council for Capital Formation, or ACCF. ACCF has received $215,000 from Koch foundations and nearly $1.7 million from ExxonMobil.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a large recipient of oil and gas money who has sued the Obama administration to end an offshore oil-drilling moratorium following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and has taken the EPA to court three times in the past year.

Lonnie Carter, president of Santee Cooper, the largest single mercury polluter in South Carolina and the top consumer of mountaintop removal coal..

Steve Cousins, vice president of Lion Oil, which ranks 27 on the list of top 100 facilities releasing chemicals such as nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and benzene into the environment.

Peter Glaser of Troutman Sanders LLP, which works with the Washington Legal Foundation, whp has received $325,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Contents

[hide]

1 Articles & sources

1.1 SourceWatch articles

1.2 References

1.3 External articles

Articles & sources

SourceWatch articles

Cato Institute

Charles G. Koch

Climate change skeptics

David H. Koch

Koch Family Foundations

Meat & Dairy industry

Oil industry

Tea Party movement funding

References

↑ 1.0 1.1 Brad Johnson, "The Koch Committee’s Big Oil Witnesses For Upton-Inhofe Pollution Act" Wonk Room, Feb. 9, 2011.

↑ "The House Energy and Commerce 'Committee from Koch'" Center for American Progress, Feb. 2011.

External articles

Categories: Coal Issues | Energy | Climate change

revels in cop17? durban talks fail made video; called C&T biggest tax hike in US? hist

Lawyer Dara Lovitz discusses the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA),

co sponsored with feinstein, hubby astrozenaca and pharma

acton inst: http://www.grist.org/article/scherer-christian

attacks epa on fracking http://kowb1290.com/inhofe-asks-epa-about-pavillion-and-fracking/

2005: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act to stiffen penalties and expand the original law. It would include “tertiary targets,” with the goal of “prohibiting intentional damage of property belonging to a person or organization with ties to an animal enterprise.” Representative Thomas Petri (R-WI) introduced a similar bill (my testimony before Congress on this legislation can be read here).

desmog profile:

James M. Inhofe

Credentials

BA, Economics, University of Tulsa,1973

Source: Project Vote Smart.

Background

Senator Inhofe is the senior Senator from Oklahoma and a member of the Republican Party. He is the ranking minority member and former chairman (2003 to 2007) of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

According to Oilchange International, Inhofe has received $1,189,050 in political contributions from the coal and oil industry. One of his top contributors is Koch Industries ($62,750 since 1999). ExxonMobil has contributed over $16,000 since 1999.

In 2003, the Natural Resources Defense Council noted that Inhofe "scored zero with the League of Conservation Voters since 1997, was the only senator to oppose Everglades restoration, and once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo."

Inhofe has made regular speeches opposing global warming, and has voted in favor of big oil companies on many oil-related bills.

Stance on Climate Change

“I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists.”

The scientists that Inhofe mentioned include: Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, David Wojick, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Paul Reiter, David Legates, Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Frederick Sietz, as well as the signatories of both the Heidelberg Appeal and the Oregon Petition.

Source: "Catastrophic global warming alarmism not based on objective science." Press release of Senator Inhofe. July 28, 2003.

Inhofe has been described as "the first person to stand up and say this global warming is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated."

Source: "Colorado Climate Scientists Tell Ken Buck: Global Warming Is Not A ‘Hoax’." Thinkprogress. Oct 24, 2010.

Key Quotes

"The Kyoto Protocol has no environmental benefits; natural variability, not fossil fuel emissions, is the overwhelming factor influencing climate change; satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century; and climate models predicting dramatic temperature increases over the next 100 years are flawed and highly imperfect."

"Thus far no one has seriously demonstrated any scientific proof that increased global temperatures would lead to the catastrophes predicted by alarmists. In fact, it appears that just the opposite is true: that increases in global temperatures may have a beneficial effect on how we live our lives."

Source: "The Science of Climate Change." Senate Floor Statement. July 28, 2003.

On the subject of environmental groups: "To me it seems that it is more important to the leadership of these groups to turn their once laudable movement into a political machine by sending out their partisan snake-oil salesmen and misleading the American public regarding their purely politically partisan agenda under the guise of environmental protection.

"With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."

Source: "Partisan Environmental Groups." Senate Floor Statement. Oct 4, 2004.

"Is global warming causing more extreme weather events of greater intensity, and is it causing sea levels to rise? The answer to both is an emphatic 'no'."

Source: "Climate Change Update." Senate Floor Statement. Jan 4, 2005.

"for the alarmists, global warming has nothing to do with science or scientific inquiry. Science is not about the inquiry to discover truth, but a mask to achieve an ideological agenda. For some, this issue has become a secular religion, pure and simple."

Source: "First 'Four Pillars'." Senate Floor Statement. April 8, 2005.

Key Deeds

March 3, 2011

Introduced the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, a bill designed to limit the authority of the EPA over industry's greenhouse gas emissions.

Dec, 2009

Inhofe appeared at the International Climate Conference on Copenhagen to spread the message that "Global warming is a hoax, and there’s no way the Senate is going to pass a cap-and-trade bill."

Dec 20, 2007

Inhofe released a report claiming that over 400 scientists disputed man-made global warming. Senator Inhofe's list has since been debunked, and shown to include many individuals with no experience in climate science.

July 28, 2003

Made a floor speech titled "The Science of Climate Change." Inhofe was later criticized for misrepresenting the views of climatologist Stephen Schneider and meteorologist Tom Wigley in his speech.

October 4, 2004

Inhofe made a floor Speech, titled "Partisan Environmental Groups" where he accused environmental groups of having "more interest in hyping apocalyptic environmental scenarios to raise money for raw political purposes rather than working together to improve our environment for the benefit of all Americans. "

January 4, 2005

Made a floor speech titled "Climate Change Update." He critiqued the Mann hockey strick graph, saying how it had "severely underestimated past climate variability … . In other words, in obliterating the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, Mann's hockey stick just doesn't pass muster."

Inhofe also notes how "Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor has shown, Arctic temperatures are actually slightly cooler today than they were in the 1930s."

April 8, 2005

Made a floor speech, titled  "First 'Four Pillars'." Inhofe describes the four pillars as:

"1) the 2001 National Academy of Sciences NAS report summarizing the latest science of climate change, requested by the Bush Administration; 2) the scientific work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most especially its Third Assessment Report, released in 2001; 3) the recent report of the international Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; and 4) the data produced by climate models."

Inhofe claims that he will prove that "none of these pillars support the consensus view."

December, 2009

"Jim Inhofe vowed to crash the UN Climate Change Conference with a three man “truth squad” consisting of himself and two fellow climate-denying Senators (he was unsuccessful in securing a single meeting with conference delegates)" ("The Politics of Climate Science." O'Dwyer's. February, 2010).

April 28, 2004

Inhofe was honored for his "work in promoting science-based public policy" by the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, a think-tank that disputes man-made global warming. The Annapolis center has received $1,048,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

September 28, 2005

Inhofe introduced a Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works hearing titled "The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making". In his opening statement, Inhofe states that "Too often the environmental policy decisions made by EPA and other science-based agencies are driven by political or personal agendas."

2000

Inhofe was a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2000, trying to bar the distribution or use of the National Assessment, which analyzed potential impacts of climate change on the U.S. The Bush administration settled the lawsuit with a statement saying that the report didn't represent official government policy.

Source: "Earth Last," The American Prospect, April 13, 2004.

Affiliations

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works - Ranking Member

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) - Co-plaintiff with CEI

Annapolis Center - 2004 Center Honoree

Center for Security Policy - Member, National Security Advisory Council ?

Tech Central Station

Washington Legal Foundation - Represented Inhofe in urging the court to reject an appeal claiming that global warming is a "public nuisance."

Funding

According to Opensecrets, James M. Inhofe accepted $311,800 in oil contributions during the 110th congress. $160,800 of those dollars were from industry PACS. In total, Inhofe received $662,506 from oil companies between 2000 and 2008, which makes him a top recipient of oil money. In addition to oil, Inhofe has received $152,800 in coal contributions during the 110th Congress. $94,500 of those dollars were from industry PACS. See above for oil and energy voting record.

Opensecrets listed Ihofe's top five campaign contributors from 2005 to 2010 as:

1. Koch Industries: $41,800.

2. Murray Energy: $31,100.

3. Reed Elsevier Inc: $29,450.

4. OGE Energy: $21,800.

5. Contran Corp: $21,500.

Oilchange International  totalled contributions to Inhofe's campaign since 1998, and tallied contributions from the oil and gas industries at $1,189,050. Inhofe's top industry funders since 1998 include:

1. Murray Energy (Coal): $65,800.

2. Koch Industries (Oil): $62,750.

3. Anadarko Petroluem (Oil): $37,500.

4. OGE Energy (Coal): $31,800.

Publications

ClimateRealists has written articles following Inhofe's actions. Articles about Inhofe:

The Environment and Public Works Press Blog also tracks Inhofe's actions and publications.

Related DeSmog Posts

“Who Needs Scientists When You've Got James Inhofe?” Chris Mooney. 9 February 11.

“Gore and Inhofe, United at Last.” Jeremy Jacquot. 3 May 09.

Another 'Inhofian' moment for the head-in-sand Senator.” Kevin Grandia. 22 January 09. <>

“James Inhofe: The Senator for Oil and Gas.” Jim Hoggan. 22 March 07. <>

Current GOP Is 'Party of Science Deniers,' Waxman Says.    Brendan Demelle.  8 March 11.

“US War Veterans Denounce Senator Inhofe's Indifference.” Kevin Grandia. 30 November 09.

“US taxpayers on the hook for Senator Inhofe's conspiracy theories.”Keven Grandia. 4 February 09.

“Inhofe Wants to Prosecute 'Criminal' Scientists.” Ross Gelbspan. 2 March 10.

WaPo to Inhofe: 'It must be very lonely being the last flat-earther'.” Kevin Grandia. 28 October 09.

“Inhofe's Bizarre Cameo at Copenhagen.” Mitchell Anderson. 21 December 09.

“Inhofe Questioned About Manipulating Climate Polling Data.” Brendan Demelle. 24 December 09.

“Inhofe's Take on EPA C02 Ruling Typical Denialism.    Jeanne Roberts. 21 April 09.

“Lou Dobbs thinks Jim Inhofe deserved a round of applause.” Kevin Grandia. 24 February 10.

“U.S. Climate Envoy Slams Inhofe's Attempts To Influence Copenhagen.”  Brendan Demelle. 6 November 09.

greatest hoax: http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climateupdate.htm

floor speech:

Climate Change Update

Senate Floor Statement by

U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe(R-Okla)

January 4, 2005

As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, "much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science." I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations. I also pointed out, in a lengthy committee report, that those same environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes, raking in millions of dollars, even using federal taxpayer dollars to finance their campaigns.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582

Top 5 Contributors, 2007-2012, Campaign Cmte

Contributor Total Indivs PACs

Koch Industries $44,600 $37,100 $7,500

Murray Energy $31,100 $26,100 $5,000

Devon Energy $23,000 $14,000 $9,000

Contran Corp $21,500 $13,200 $8,300

Robison International $21,300 $21,300 $0

...view more data

Top 5 Industries, 2007-2012, Campaign Cmte

Industry Total Indivs PACs

Oil & Gas $473,600 $282,500 $191,100

Leadership PACs $322,136 $500 $321,636

Retired $314,456 $314,456 $0

Lobbyists $187,888 $180,280 $7,608

Electric Utilities $174,904 $29,704 $145,200

escalator:

http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-10-01-how-inhofe-turns-balloon-animals-into-news

The professional deniers are at it again. Every chance they get, the people who are paid to spread doubt and confusion about climate change take some minor report or news event, fill it with hot air and twist it up like a balloon animal, then try to persuade everyone that it is alive and kicking -- that it "proves" that the planet isn't warming or human activities aren't the big reason why.

This time, the professional deniers are seizing on a report [PDF] from the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general (IG).

In reality, the IG's report upholds EPA's efforts to address climate change, affirming that the agency followed the law when it determined that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

But Sen. James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who says he thinks global warming is a hoax, and his team of professional deniers have been trying to pretend that their latest balloon animal is living, breathing proof that the EPA process was faulty and the underlying science flawed. And some news organizations fell for it -- again.

To make his claim, Inhofe had to ignore the crystal-clear opening sentence of the IG's report, which concludes that EPA "met statutory requirements for rulemaking" when it issued its endangerment finding, the scientific basis for action under the Clean Air Act. The IG's report takes issue with some bureaucratic minutiae -- EPA procedures that have nothing to do with the validity of the agency's conclusions. These procedures were created by the federal Office of Management and Budget, and OMB agrees with the way EPA followed them, not with the IG's minor criticisms.

It's one agency squabbling with another over which boxes got checked.

Here's how my colleague Steve Hamburg, chief scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, put it:

Let's be clear on what this report does not do: it does not call into question any of the underlying science.  And the report affirmed that EPA complied with the law when making the endangerment finding.

EPA's endangerment finding is based on assessments by the National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program -- assessments that considered tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles and involved thousands of scientists.

Inhofe is peddling another balloon animal. No surprise there. But let's pull back the curtain and see how a balloon animal gets treated like news.

Step one. It all starts when Inhofe himself demands that the IG look into the endangerment finding. "This evaluation was initiated based on a request from Senator James M. Inhofe," the IG report says -- and to carry it out, "the estimated direct labor and travel costs for this report are $297,385." So Inhofe, a putative champion of small government and enemy of bureaucratic waste, triggered almost $300,000 in unnecessary spending for the report. That's an expensive balloon.

Step two. Inhofe breaks the IG's embargo by putting out an overheated press release claiming that the report "calls the scientific integrity of EPA's decision-making process into question and undermines the credibility of the endangerment finding." In fact, it does nothing of the kind.

Step three. Inhofe's former communications director, Marc Morano, who runs a climate denier website, trumpets the false charges, conservative outlets pick up the drum beat, and mainstream news organizations like The Washington Post and Politico quote Inhofe's specious charges. Headlines announce that EPA "cut corners" and "needed more data before ruling." Other journalists begin weighing in on the "wide-reaching political implications."

Now, an IG report is news, no doubt about that. But reporters should know better than to believe that Inhofe's balloon animal is real. Anyone who looks at it can tell it's just a balloon. Can't they?

Eric Pooley is the deputy editor of Bloomberg BusinessWeek. He has also served as managing editor of Fortune, editor of Time Europe, and national editor, chief political correspondent, and White House correspondent for Time.

2009? minority report 650 scientists oppose gw:

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf

Contact: Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.gov (202) 224-5762

Matthew Dempsey – Matt_Dempsey@Inhofe.Senate.gov (202) 224-9797

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)

cites spenser

http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-06-30-under-the-weather-inhofe-skips-climate-denier-conference

by Josesph xxx

You may recall last year that Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe's grandchildren built an igloo to mock a killer snowstorm, calling it "Al Gore's New Home." Of course, extreme precipitation is precisely what we expect from human-caused global warming, but the story still got a lot of play in the media.

What's more ironic is that the Senate's leading climate denier bailed on the annual Heartland climate science denial conference this morning -- saying "I am under the weather" (!) -- just as his home state is being slammed by a record-smashing heat wave and a drought more severe than the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

Yes, I know, it's just coincidence, not karmic backlash. But then again, climate science projects a permanent dust bowl for the Southwest if we keep listening to Inhofe. It also projects that by century's end, the state will be above 90 degrees F for 135 days a year!

What's also ironic is just yesterday I pointed out that the Texas drought is so bad that "in Austin, they are praying for a hurricane." Incredibly, meteorologist Stephen Mullens, aka Oklahoma City Weather Examiner, writes in his Wednesday post:

new bill with upton to stop epa:

their letter cites:

American Chemistry Council

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity

American Forest & Paper Association

American Iron and Steel Institute

American Petroleum Institute

Brick Industry Association

CropLife America

Industrial Minerals Association

National Association of Manufacturers

National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors

National Lime Association

National Mining Association

National Oilseed Processors Association

National Petrochemical and Refiners Association

The Aluminum Association

The Fertilizer Institute

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

grist:

green dragon

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-12-17-environmentalism-is-a-plot-to-take-over-the-world-says-coalition

GP

‘These reports are political documents, drafted by government representatives during intense negotiating

sessions,    Hagel said, claiming that in some cases the people negotiating the IPCC summary texts were the

same people negotiating terms of the Kyoto Protocol. ‘So you have the same people defining the problem who

are also trying to create a solution.’218

‘In short, some parts of the IPCC process resembled a Soviet-style trial, in which the facts are predetermined,

and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific rigour,’ said Sen. James Inhofe in a Floor Speech on 28 July 2003.219

Inhofe is one of the US congress’s top recipients of money from the oil and gas industry,220 receiving $1.7

million from the oil and gas industry in the 10 years to 2010. He is a mouthpiece on the Hill for the deniers

arguments, helped, from 2006-2009, by his assistant Marc Morano221 who left Inhofe’s employ in 2009 to run his

new website, http://www.climatedepot.com, is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow222,

one of the industry-funded denial front-groups funded and then dropped by ExxonMobil.

http://www.grist.org/list/2011-04-04-sen.-jim-inhofe-hates-planet-loves-dictators

by Jess Zimmerman

4 Apr 2011

Okay, sit down for this one, because it’s just twisted. Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma senator who called global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” and who was most recently seen trying to castrate the EPA, is practically besties with Ivory Coast despot Laurent Gbagbo, basically because they go to the same scary church.

Gbagbo lost an internationally certified election in November 2010, but he hasn’t reacted the way a normal sore loser would (recounts and Supreme Court cases). Instead, his forces have embarked on a campaign of violence that Human Rights Watch has called "crimes against humanity," including the execution of detainees and civilians. The number of Ivory Coast refugees has now topped 1 million.

But Inhofe’s not fussed. He’s met with Gbagbo a bunch of times, and on the strength of that, he says that Gbagbo won the election fair and square, and he’s refused to ask Gbagbo to stop his atrocities and leave peacefully. "I am aware that my position is different from that of the Obama administration, which has recognized Alassane Ouattara as the winner," he wrote last week to Hillary Clinton, leaving open the question of whether he’s aware that his position is also different from that of the United Nations and the African Union.

Inhofe’s dumb ideas about climate change don’t explain his support of Gbagbo -- they just explain why we already didn’t like him. Instead, he backs Gbagbo because they both have ties to the Fellowship, a shadowy fundamentalist Christian political organization that is actually totally really real even though it sounds like a David Icke book.

straight to the source

Why the Christian right is backing a brutal despot, Slate

Senator James Inhofe's C Street Madness: Supports Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast and wants a New Election!, Crooks and Liars

grist:

THE FAMILY?

Onward Christian Senators

James Inhofe might be an environmentalist's worst nightmare. The Oklahoma senator makes major policy decisions based on heavy corporate and theological influences, flawed science, and probably an apocalyptic worldview -- and he chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

That committee's links to corporate funders are both easier to trace and more infamous than its ties to religious fundamentalism, and it's true that the influence of money can scarcely be overstated. From 1999 to 2004, Inhofe received more than $588,000 from the fossil-fuel industry, electric utilities, mining, and other natural-resource interests, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Eight of the nine other Republican members of Inhofe's committee received an average of $408,000 per senator from the energy and natural resource sector over the same period. By contrast, the eight committee Democrats and one Independent came away with an average of just $132,000 per senator from that same sector since 1999.

But the influence of theology, although less discussed, is no less significant. Inhofe, like DeLay, is a Christian Zionist. While the senator has not overtly expressed his religious views in his environmental committee, he has when speaking on other issues. In a Senate foreign-policy speech, Inhofe argued that the U.S. should ally itself unconditionally with Israel "because God said so." Quoting the Bible as the divine Word of God, Inhofe cited Genesis 13:14-17 -- "for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever" -- as justification for permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and for escalating aggression against the Palestinians.

Inhofe also openly supports dispensationalist Pat Robertson, who touts every tornado, hurricane, plague, and suicide bombing as a sure sign of God's return; who accused both Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr. of being followers of Lucifer; and who makes no secret of the efforts of his Christian Coalition to control the Republican Party, according to Theocracy Watch.

A good fundamentalist, Inhofe scored a perfect 100 percent rating in 2003 from all three major Christian-right advocacy groups, while earning a 5 percent from the League of Conservation Voters (and a string of zeroes from 1997 to 2002). Likewise, eight of the nine other Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee earned an average 94 percent approval rating in 2003 from the Christian right, while scoring a dismal 4 percent average environmental approval rating. The one exception proves the rule: Moderate Lincoln Chafee (R.-R.I.) last year earned a 79 percent LCV rating and just 41 percent from the religious right.

As committee chair, Inhofe has subtly chosen scripture over science. The origins of his 2003 Senate speech attacking the science behind global climate change, for example, reveal his two masters: the speech is traceable to fossil fuel industry think tanks and petrochemical dollars -- but also to the pseudo-science of Christian right websites. In that two-hour diatribe, Inhofe dismissed global warming by comparing it to a 1970s scientific scare that suggested the planet was cooling -- a hypothesis, he fails to note, held by only a minority of climatologists at the time. Inhofe's apparent source on global cooling was the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, a Christian-right and free-market economics think tank. In an editorial on that site called "Global Warming or Globaloney? The Forgotten Case for Global Cooling," we hear echoes of Inhofe's position. The article calls climate change "a shrewdly planned campaign to inflict a lot of socialistic restriction on our cherished freedoms. Environmentalism, in short, is the last refuge of socialism." Inhofe's views can be heard in the words of dispensationalist Jerry Falwell as well, who said on CNN, "It was global cooling 30 years ago ... and it's global warming now. ... The fact is there is no global warming."

Inhofe's views are also closely tied to the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship, a radical-right Christian organization founded by radio evangelist James Dobson, dispensationalist Rev. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, Jerry Falwell, and Robert Sirico, a Catholic priest who has been editing Vatican texts to align the Catholic Church's historical teachings with his free-market philosophy, according to E Magazine.

The ICES environmental view is shaped by the Book of Genesis: "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the seas, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on this earth." The group says this passage proves that "man" is superior to nature and gives the go-ahead to unchecked population growth and unrestrained resource use. Such beliefs fly in the face of ecology, which shows humankind to be an equal and interdependent participant in the natural web.

Inhofe's staff defends his backward scientific positions, no matter how at odds they are with mainstream scientists. "How do you define 'mainstream'?" asked a miffed staffer. "Scientists who accept the so-called consensus about global warming? Galileo was not mainstream." But Inhofe is no Galileo. In fact, his use of lawsuits to try to suppress the peer-reviewed science of the National Assessment on Climate Change -- which predicts major extinctions and threats to coastal regions -- arguably puts him on the side of Galileo's oppressors, the perpetrators of the Christian Inquisition, writes Chris Mooney in The American Prospect.

"I trust God with my legislative goals and the issues that are important to my constituents," Inhofe has told Pentecostal Evangel magazine. "I don't believe there is a single issue we deal with in government that hasn't been dealt with in the Scriptures." But Inhofe stayed silent in that interview as to which passages he applies to the environment, and he remained so when I asked him if End-Time beliefs influence his leadership of the most powerful environmental committee in the country.

And the Cow Jumped Over the Moon

So weird have the attempts to hasten the End Time become that a group of ultra-Christian Texas ranchers recently helped fundamentalist Israeli Jews breed a pure red heifer, a genetically rare beast that must be sacrificed to fulfill an apocalyptic prophecy found in the biblical Book of Numbers. (The beast will be ready for sacrifice by 2005, according to The National Review.)

By Tim Dickinson

Inhofe to Rolling Stone:

Hey, I'm Earth Enemy No. 1

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe has a beef with Rolling Stone. The Senator is upset, not that he was included in our Climate Killers cover story, but that he wasn't named the Earth's top foe. "I should have been number one," he said in a radio interview. "I guess Buffett has a lot more money so he went first." [Rolling Stone should note that, strictly speaking, our package wasn't a ranking, although Warren Buffett does appear on the first page, while Inhofe rears his ugly mug a few pages later.]

Nonetheless, Inhofe also took his pity party to the Tulsa World: "My first response was I should have been No. 1, not No. 7. I am serious about that," he said. "I have spent now literally years on this thing, and it has been a long, involved thing.'' Inhofe bravely admitted he'd never before heard this magazine. "I shouldn't say this, but I really didn't know anything about Rolling Stone," he said. "I'd never even heard of the magazine." Proving he deserved a spot on our list, the senator sounded a triumphal note on the bleak future of climate legislation in the Senate: "We have won. We ought to rejoice in this," he said. "We've avoided the largest tax increase in history that wouldn't have accomplished anything at all."

SW

James Mountain Inhofe, usually known as Jim Inhofe, has been a Republican Senator for Oklahoma since winning a special election in 1994. (map)

Contents

1 Record and controversies

1.1 Oil

1.2 Iraq War

1.3 Environmental record

1.3.1 Climate change

1.4 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

2 Bio

3 Money in politics

3.1 Oil and Coal Money in Politics

4 Committees and Affiliations

4.1 Committees

4.1.1 Committee assignments in the 109th Congress (2005-2006)

5 More Background Data

6 Contact

6.1 Twitter

7 Articles and Resources

7.1 References

7.2 Resources

7.3 Local blogs and discussion sites

7.4 Articles

Record and controversies

General information about important bills and votes for can be found in Congresspedia's articles on legislation. You can add information you find on how James M. Inhofe voted by clicking the "[edit]" link to the right and typing it in. Remember to cite your sources!

Oil

James M. Inhofe has voted in favor of big oil companies on 100% of important oil-related bills from 2005-2007, according to Oil Change International. These bills include Iraq war funding, climate change studies, clean energy, and emissions.[1] See below for oil money in politics.

Iraq War

Inhofe voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in Oct. 2002.

March 20, 2003, on the Senate floor, Inhofe stated one of his justifying causes for War Upon Iraq:

"This is not a war on Iraq, it is a liberation of the Iraqi people who have been oppressed and tortured for decades.

[...]

A lot of people do not think of Saddam Hussein as a terrorist, but if you measure the severity of terrorism by the number of people someone has tortured or murdered, certainly no one can hold a candle to Saddam Hussein." [1]

On October 5, 2005, Inhofe was one of nine Senators who voted against Senator John McCain's anti-torture amendment to the FY 2006 Department of Defense Budget Legislation. When asked by the Washinton Post about his rationale for this opposition, Inhofe replied,

"From my first statement in the Senate Armed Services Committee in May of last year, I have made it clear that we are spending far too much of our time and effort on the prisoner abuse issue and not enough time on the quality of our interrogations. ...The military justice system was well into its investigations before the public was even aware of the issue. It is my feeling that the more we air this issue publicly, the more we are emboldening the terrorists. The more we talk about our methods of interrogation we must remember that the enemy is listening." [2]

After General Antonio M. Taguba had entered the non classified portion of his Abu Ghraib Report into the Senate Record Inhofe's first response that day was:

"as I watch this outrage -- this outrage everyone seems to have about the treatment of these prisoners -- I have to say, and I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment."[3] Inhofe continued, "...you know, they're not there for traffic violations. If they're in cell block 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands."

Inhofe further stated that these detainees should be grateful to be in the hands of American abusers, rather than Hussein's torturers: "I would guess that these prisoners wake up every morning thanking Allah that Saddam Hussein is not in charge of these prisoners. When he was in charge they would take electric drills and drill holes through hands, they would cut their tongues out, they would cut their ears off."

For more information see the chart of U.S. Senate votes on the Iraq War.

Environmental record

For more information on environmental legislation, see the Energy and Environment Policy Portal

Climate change

Inhofe has a history of opposing environmental groups and global warming initiatives. There are several transcripts of Inhofe speeches on the Senate floor regarding this, offered as documents by his official website:

July 28, 2003, "The Science of Climate Change"

October 4, 2004, "Partisan Environmental Groups"

January 4, 2005, "Climate Change Update"

April 8, 2005, "First Four Pillars Speech"

In December 2009, "Jim Inhofe vowed to crash the UN Climate Change Conference with a three man   truth squad” consisting of himself and two fellow climate-denying Senators (he was unsuccessful in securing a single meeting with conference delegates)." [2]

On April 28, 2004, Inhofe was honored for his "work in promoting science-based public policy" [4] by the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, a think tank that disputes the scientific consensus on the causes and magnitude of global warming. (The think tank has received $658,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998). [5]

Asked in writing in 2004 by journalist Chris Mooney whether Inhofe agrees that he's at odds with the scientific mainstream, his committee staff retorted, "How do you define 'mainstream'? Scientists who accept the so-called 'consensus' about global warming? Galileo was not mainstream." [6]

On September 28, 2005, The Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works held a hearing titled "The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making". Inhofe, the committee's chairman opened the hearing stating that: "Today's hearing will focus on one of the three objectives I set out when I assumed the Chairmanship of the Committee – to ensure that regulatory decisions are based on sound science.Too often the environmental policy decisions made by EPA and other science-based agencies are driven by political or personal agendas. You see this in types of research that gets funded or the types of grants that get awarded. It is my hope this hearing will help shed some light on how science is used by policy-makers and that we can arrive at some concrete suggestions for making the process better." [7]

In 2003, the Natural Resources Defense Council noted that Inhofe "scored zero with the League of Conservation Voters since 1997, was the only senator to oppose Everglades restoration, and once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo." [8]

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act became law on November 27, 2006 upon receiving President Bush’s signature. Its stated purpose is “to provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror.” Originally introduced by Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on September 8, 2006, the bill ultimately passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and a voice vote in the House.

Main article: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

Bio

Inhofe was born November 17, 1934 in Des Moines, Iowa and moved with his family to Tulsa when he was a child. He served in the United States Army from 1955 to 1956 (though some sources claim he served from 1957 to 1958) never rising above private and never leaving American shores. [9]

Several years later he became president of the Quaker Life Insurance Company. He became active in Republican politics in the mid-1960s. He was a member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives from 1967 to 1969, and a member of the Oklahoma Senate from 1969 until 1977, the last four of those years as minority leader. (He gained a degree in economics while serving as an Oklahoma State Senator.) [10] During his tenure there Inhofe ran twice for election to other positions: for Governor of Oklahoma in 1974, losing to Democrat David L. Boren, and in 1976 losing a race to represent Oklahoma's First Congressional District (which was based in Tulsa) to incumbent Democrat James R. Jones.

Inhofe's political career was revived in 1978 when he was elected mayor of Tulsa, a position he held until 1984. In 1986, he made another bid for the First District after Jones retired. This time he won, and he served there from 1987 until 1994, being handily reelected every two years in what rapidly became a strongly Republican district. He first came to national attention in 1993, when he led the effort to reform the House's "discharge provision" rule, which the House leadership had long used to bottle up bills in committee.

In 1994, Boren, who had been serving in the Senate since 1979, was elected president of the University of Oklahoma and announced he would resign as soon as a successor was elected. Inhofe won the Republican nomination for the special election that November, and swept to victory amid a strong Republican tide that saw the Republicans take both houses of Congress, as well as elect a Republican to the governorship for only the second time ever. He took office on November 17 to serve the last two years of Boren's term and won the seat in his own right in 1996. He was handily reelected in 2002.

Inhofe outraged federal employees on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building by stating on National television that there probably weren't very many casualties because federal employees wouldn't be at their desks at 9:00 instead they would be off having coffee somewhere. AFGE (American Federation of Government Employees) responded that maybe that was how Inhofe ran his office....

Inhofe is one of the most conservative members of either house of Congress; among other political stances, he strongly opposes abortion and is a critic of gay rights. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, he was among the panelists questioning witnesses about the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. There he made news by claiming he was "outraged by the outrage" over the revelations of abuse, suggesting that shock at the crimes was more offensive than the crimes themselves. He has also criticized the Red Cross as a "bleeding heart." Against the wishes of the Bush administration, the Pentagon, and the American Petroleum Institute, Inhofe has persistently blocked American ratification of the international Convention on the Law of the Sea, claiming that the treaty would infringe on American sovereignty.

He is also known for being an ardent supporter of Israel. In March 2002, he made a speech before the U.S. Senate which included the explicit suggestion that the 9/11 attacks were a form of divine retribution against the U.S. for failing to defend Israel. In his words: "One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our Government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them." [11]

Inhofe was one of the most vocal opponents to the withdrawal of the Navy from the Puerto Rican island of Vieques. The island had been used as a live fire training facility despite the opposition of local citizens and environmentalists. After the Navy-Vieques protests, President George W. Bush agreed that the Navy would withdraw as it was the wish of the American citizens of Puerto Rico. Reference: [12]

Inhofe has been labeled as an anti-environmentalist for his views on environmental change. In 2003, he called "catastrophic global warming" a "hoax" and stated that "natural variability, not fossil fuel emissions, is the overwhelming factor influencing climate change" - an assertion allegedly supported by more than 17,000 scientists who are signatories to the Oregon Petition. Inhofe also states that, "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century" and claimed that his conclusion was supported by the "painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists." [13].

Inhofe, citing the numerous uncertainties related to climate science and the adverse impact that mandatory emissions reductions would have on the U.S. economy, voted on June 22, 2005 to reject an amendment to an energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and created a mandatory emissions trading scheme. "Global warming is still considered to be a theory and has not come close to being sufficiently proven," he said.

Money in politics

This section contains links to – and feeds from – money in politics databases. cid=N00005582&cycle=2006

Links to more campaign contribution information for James M. Inhofe

from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org site.

Fundraising profile: 2006 election cycle Career totals

Top contributors by organization/corporation: 2006 election cycle Career totals

Top contributors by industry: 2006 election cycle Career totals

Revolving door profile for James M. Inhofe from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org website.

2006 privately funded travel profile for James M. Inhofe from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org website.

Personal finance profile for James M. Inhofe from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org website.

Oil and Coal Money in Politics

James M. Inhofe has accepted $311,800 in oil contributions during the 110th congress. $160,800 of those dollars were from industry PACS. In total, Inhofe received $662,506 from oil companies between 2000 and 2008, which makes him a top recipient of oil money. In addition to oil, Inhofe has received $152,800 in coal contributions during the 110th Congress. $94,500 of those dollars were from industry PACS. See above for oil and energy voting record.[3]

Committees and Affiliations

Committees

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works - Ranking Member

Senate Committee on Armed Services

Subcommittee on Airland

Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

Committee assignments in the 109th Congress (2005-2006)

Joint Committee on Taxation

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

Subcommittee on Marketing Inspection and Production Promotion

Subcommittee on Production and Price Competitiveness

Senate Committee on the Budget

Senate Committee on Finance - Chair

Subcommittee on Long-Term Growth Debt and Deficit Reduction

Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts

Subcommittee on Antitrust Competition Policy and Consumer Rights

Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs

Subcommittee on Immigration Border Security and Citizenship

Subcommittee on Technology Terrorism and Homeland Security

More Background Data

Background information on James M. Inhofe from Project Vote Smart

Interest group scorecard ratings for James M. Inhofe from Project Vote Smart

Voting record for James M. Inhofe from the Washington Post database

Information on James M. Inhofe from Congress Merge

Wikipedia also has an article on James M. Inhofe. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL.

James Inhofe posts on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jiminhofe/

Latest posts:

jiminhofe: News: Politico:    Obama and His Democratic Allies are Scouring the Pentagon for Cuts.”: Senator Inhofe belie.. http://tinyurl.com/6fvlqs

jiminhofe: Blog: Oklahoman: Good to Know Jim Inhofe will Be Waiting and Ready: An Oklahoman Editorial: http://tinyurl.com/57vf6v

jiminhofe: News: Green team: Obama’s choices will challenge Inhofe: No one enjoys debating global warming more than U... http://tinyurl.com/5hmdt9

See all the members of Congress who Twitter

Articles and Resources

References

Vote Tracker, Oil Change International.

↑ "The Politics of Climate Change", O'Dwyer Magazine, Feb. 2010.

↑ See "Follow the Oil Money," "Follow the Coal Money," and vote tracker from Oil Change International and Appalachian Voices.

Resources

Official website

Congressional biography

See how you compare to Jim Inhofe

Follow the Oil Money-Senate

Vote Tracker

Follow the Coal Money- Senate

Appalachian Voices

Local blogs and discussion sites

Okie Funk

OK Blawg - The Oklahoma Law Blog

Articles

David Corn, "Inhofe: America Deserved 9/11", Working For Change, May 22, 2002.

"Inhofe Honored by Exxon-funded 'science' organization," U.S. Newswire, April 2, 2004.

Chris Mooney, "Earth Last: James Inhofe proves 'flat Earth' doesn't refer to Oklahoma, The American Prospect, May 4, 2004.

"GOP Sen.: 'Outraged' At Outrage", Associated Press (CBS News), May 11, 2004.

Ed Henry, "GOP senator labels abused prisoners 'terrorists'", CNN, May 11, 2004.

Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Gavin Schmidt, Eric Steig, and William Connolley, "Senator Inhofe on Climate Change", Real Climate, January 10, 2005.

Alan C. Miller and Tom Hamburger, "Senator Seeks Bush Critics Tax Records", Los Angeles Times, February 20, 2005.

Ari Berman, "Inhofe's Idiocy", The Nation - The Daily Outrage, February 22, 2005.

Charles Babington, "Senator Critical of Focus on Prisoner Abuse", Washington Post, May 12, 2005.

Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, "Inhofe and Crichton: Together at Last!", Real Climate, September 28, 2005.

Majority Press Release: "AP Incorrectly Claims Scientists Praise Gore's Movie," U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, June 27, 2006. re Seth Borenstein's Associated Press article "Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy" (An Inconvenient Truth and Al Gore).

David Roberts, "Inhofe responds to AP with flurry of BS," Grist Magazine, June 27, 2006.

Jim Motavalli, "Climate Counterattack. For Global Warming Skeptics, U.S. Senate Committees are Bully Pulpits," eMagazine.com, June 27, 2006 (approx.)

Judd Legum, " Think Progres, June 28, 2006.

Hunter, "Murtha-Bashing CNSNews Hack Now On Senate Payroll, Denies Climate Change," Daily Kos, June 29, 2006. re Marc Morano

David Roberts, "Tax-funded press release 'highly partisan and political'," Grist Magazine, July 5, 2006.

Bob Kall, "Brokaw AND Global Warming Attacked by Gov Paid Media Attack Artist," OpEdNews, July 11, 2006.

David Roberts, "Inhofe press flacks 'worst people in the world'," Grist Magazine, July 13, 2006. See MSNBC video.

John Rennie, "Senator Inhofe's Pet Weasel," ScientificAmerican.com, July 20, 2006.

Holly Martins, "America's Dumbest Congressmen. Radar ranks the 10 biggest fools on the Hill," Radar, October 13, 2006.

The GOP Hypocrite of the Week: James Inhofe, BuzzFlash, March 30, 2007.

Chris Casteel, "Sen. Jim Inhofe joins group fighting to keep prisoners in Cuba," The Oklahoman, February 11, 2009.

Corresponding article on Wikipedia and Cause Caller. (If Cause Caller link does not work, pick from its list of senators and representatives.)

Current Office: U.S. Senate

111th Congress

Leadership Position:

Committees Chaired:

Committees,

Ranking Member On:

Caucuses:

Committees:

110th Congress

Leadership Position:

Deputy Whip Committees Chaired:

Committees,

Ranking Member On:

Caucuses:

Committees: Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senate Committee on Armed Services/Subcommittee on Airland, Senate Committee on Armed Services/Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, Senate Committee on Armed Services/Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,

Congressional Career

First Elected to Current Office:

November 8, 1994 First Took Current Office:

November 17, 1994 Next Election:

November 2, 2010 Term Ends:

Freshman Member?

No Previous Political Work?

US House of Representatives, Mayor of Tulsa, Oklahoma State Senate, Oklahoma House of Representa

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00005582&type=I

indirect pac

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00326082

Inhofe ctr brady bill, fam leave, nafta, assault weapons ban etc etc 121  going dirty

the senate: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=a928a877-802a-23ad-4c95-0dac27f15af1  imhofe on beck show oct `17

marc  imhof's dir of communications, swift boat promoter, also former Rush Limbaugh producer http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/environment/ jared diamond interview

Wednesday, December 6, 2006

Witnesses:

Dr. David Deming, College of Earth and Energy, University of Oklahoma

Dr. Daniel Schrag, Laboratory for Geochemical Oceanography, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University

Dr. R.M. Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Australia

Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Director, Science Studies Program, Professor, Department of History & Program in Science Studies, University of California - San Diego

Dan Gainor, The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow, Director, Business & Media Institute

also has: December 17, 2006

A Gathering of Liars and Charlatans

I will be glad when this nonsense ends. Government hearings should not be "a gathering of liars and charlatans, sponsored by those industries who want to protect their profits." This is Daniel P. Schrag, professor of earth and planetary sciences at Harvard and director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment recounting his recent experience testifying before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:

op ed:  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/12/17/on_a_swift_boat_to_a_warmer_world/

On a swift boat to a warmer world, by Daniel P. Schrag, Commentary, Boston Globe:

I am a climate scientist and an optimist. This may seem like a contradiction, with all the talk of scorching heat waves and bigger, deadlier hurricanes. But it's not.

Let's be clear: I am not a skeptic on climate change. In my earth science courses, I teach that burning fossil fuel is raising atmospheric carbon dioxide to levels not seen on Earth for more than 30 million years. In public lectures, I show pictures of what would happen ... if half the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, asking people to imagine abandoning New Orleans and Miami. I tell people that, unless we take action to reduce emissions, the question is not whether this is going to occur, but when.

Yet I am an optimist because I believe we can fix the climate change problem. We can deploy the technologies to meet our energy needs while slashing carbon emissions: plug-in hybrids, windmills, carbon sequestration for coal plants, and even nuclear power. ...

Unfortunately, I am a little less optimistic today than I was a couple of weeks ago, before testifying at the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. It was Senator James Inhofe's last hearing as chair of the committee, and the focus was on media coverage of global warming. I was invited by the Democratic staff to counter arguments that global warming is a hoax perpetrated on the American people by scientists like me.

Inhofe is a climate skeptic. But I still hoped I could help educate our lawmakers -- maybe not Inhofe, but perhaps some of the others. In my opening statement, I explained that global warming is not a partisan issue. America should lead the world and capitalize on an extraordinary business opportunity as we invest in new energy technologies, I said.

Then I watched in horror as Inhofe's witnesses spouted outrageous claims intended to deceive and distort. Two were scientists associated with industry-funded think tanks. They described global warming as a "mass delusion" among the scientific community, sowing confusion by misrepresenting the ... data... They even recommended burning as much fossil fuel as possible to prevent another ice age. ...

Some senators defended the integrity of the scientific community, including Barbara Boxer, who will become chair of the committee in January. But amid the collegiality and decorum that is the tradition in the Senate, no one stood up and called this hearing what it was: a gathering of liars and charlatans, sponsored by those industries who want to protect their profits.

Later that day, Inhofe issued a press release that specifically highlighted my testimony, claiming that I "agreed" with him that the Kyoto Protocol "would have almost no impact on the climate even if all the nations fully complied." In fact, I had interrupted him during the hearing to object to this claim...

I later learned that Inhofe's communications director, Marc Morano, was a key figure in publicizing the swift boat veterans' attack on John Kerry in 2004. Morano, it seems, is still up to his old tricks, twisting the facts to support his boss's outrageous claims. This made my visit complete: a glimpse at our government that sees the world only through glasses tinted by special interests, which treats science as a political football, no matter what is at stake.

I am still an optimist. We still have time to avert a climate catastrophe. But I am not counting on government, or at least this government, to lead us toward a solution. As our leaders accept the outrageous spectacle I saw the other day as just a normal day in Congress, we will have to take the first step without them.

Taking the first step without government isn't feasible - if it was, why haven't we taken it already? Voters sent a message in the last election -- we'll see if Congress and the rest of government hears it. Of course, nothing can be done on the global warming issue so long as The Decider has been told to side against it, but once Democrats take control of Congress the stage can be set in committees for a time when progress can be made, and legislation can be crafted to force Republican's hand on this issue.

The assault on the science underlying global warming is ongoing. For example, this is from Friday's American Spectator:

The Gore Who Stole Christmas, by Rob Bradley, American Spectator: The good news -- and a reason for holiday cheer -- is that the science behind rapid, disruptive global warming scenarios is murky at best. Though the debate is highly politicized and emotionally charged, good science is beginning to drive out bad. ... A sampling of recent issues of Science ... shows that peer-reviewed studies dispute virtually all the tenets behind climate alarmism. ...

Exaggerated forecasts of disrupted ocean circulation, rapid sea-level rise, and more intense hurricanes make for splashy headlines, but sober science suggests that these scares du jour may go the way of yesterday's alarms over global cooling, the population bomb, and mineral-resource exhaustion.

Nonetheless, one part of these scare stories is genuinely frightening: the heavy-handed government intervention that advocates always look to as the source of salvation. Yesterday's foes of the free market were socialists, communists, and Keynesians. Today's are greens who want government engineering to "stabilize" the climate and ensure "sustainability."

Yes, Keynesians are those awful people who brought us things like Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, and macroeconomic stabilization policy. And all those government regulations about polluting the air and rivers those commies put into place are such an inconvenience for business. It was so much better when they didn't have to care.

I am not anti-market. When there is market failure and markets are broken, they need to be fixed. I want markets to work efficiently and that requires some mechanism to force economic agents to internalize the costs they impose on the environment.

People who deny this basic point, or refuse to acknowledge the science that would justify such actions, should not promote themselves as advocates for well-functioning, efficient markets.

Posted by Mark Thoma on December 17, 2006 at 03:06 AM in Economics, Environment, Politics, Regulation

posted by JR @ 12:22 AM 0 comments links to this post

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Senate's top climate skeptic turns up heat on media

Sen. James Inhofe -- who calls human-induced climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind" -- is using his chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to spank journalists who fail to give equal time to global-warming skeptics. The Oklahoma Republican has used interviews and press releases to question the objectivity of reporters who cover climate issues. Two recent targets are former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw and Associated Press science reporter Seth Borenstein. Inhofe called Brokaw "a pawn of the Democratic Party" for keeping skeptics out of his recent Discovery Channel documentary. And Inhofe challenged Borenstein's article that asked more than 100 scientists for their views on former Vice President Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," for not including Gore's critics.

A 71-year old former insurance executive, Inhofe has never been shy about confronting climate scientists, environmentalists, Hollywood producers and fellow senators. But in setting his sights on the press, Inhofe appears to be incorporating a strategy hatched by the committee's new communications director, Marc Morano.

As a reporter for the conservative Cybercast News Service from 2001 until earlier this year, Morano peppered his climate reporting with skeptics' views that have surfaced as themes in Inhofe's recent press attacks. Earlier this year, for example, Morano wrote about NASA scientist James Hansen's contributions to the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.). Inhofe's press release questions why Brokaw failed to mention the political ties of Hansen and other scientists interviewed for the Discovery report.

During the 2004 United Nations conference in Buenos Aires, Morano wrote how environmental activists chastised him for asking skeptical questions about science during a session on global warming's effects on inhabitants of the Arctic Circle. Inhofe's release challenging the Associated Press included a demand for a list of the skeptics who the news service contacted to review Gore's film.

Morano, who worked as a producer in the mid-90s for radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, was also among the first reporters to write about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign scrutinizing Kerry's Vietnam War record. And earlier this year, Morano penned an article questioning the Purple Heart medals of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading critic of Bush's Iraq policy.

In an interview, Morano said Inhofe's latest statements target journalists because they have focused so heavily on the effects of global warming when the science is still open for debate. "The media has essentially white-washed the whole issue," Morano said. "There has been a love fest in the media on this."

Morano insisted the press does not give a fair shake to skeptics, particularly news organizations with reporters who he says have a financial stake in the issue. For example, he questioned The New York Times' coverage of climate since one of its science reporter, Andrew Revkin, has written a book on the effects of global warming on the North Pole. Sales of Revkin's book, Morano argued, would be enhanced by his paper's coverage of climate. "We're not just shooting arrows," Morano said.

Intimidation factor?

Inhofe's critics question the propriety of the efforts of the committee's chairman and communications director and wonder if it will have any effect on press coverage and public understanding of climate change. Some journalism professors say Inhofe's goal might be to intimidate reporters and editors, particularly in smaller markets that rely on the Associated Press for Washington coverage. This, they say, could damage the public's understanding of the issue at a time when scientific evidence of global warming is growing. "It strikes me that the public relations people for Senator Inhofe are trying to distract the media by attacking the media for fairly reporting what the vast majority of scientists are reporting," said Jim Detjen, director of the Knight Center for Environmental Journalism at Michigan State University. "It's a last ditch effort to now attack the journalists," Detjen added. "I really believe it's nonsense."

Dan Fagin, a former Newsday environmental reporter who now teaches journalism at New York University, said he did not think Inhofe's criticism would affect Brokaw or his reputation. But he said the attacks on the Associated Press might convince some small newspapers and radio and television stations against running the wire service's stories on climate issues rather than wrestle with a Senate committee chairman. Fagin also suggested Inhofe might be attacking the press to toss red meat to conservative activists before midterm elections. "It's about ginning up the base," he said. "That kind of character assassination goes a long way on both counts. It's reprehensive, but it's a very effective political strategy."

Detjen likened Inhofe's efforts to other historical events where politicians have taken aim at the media, from President Teddy Roosevelt dubbing investigative reporters "muckrakers" to former President Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew's condemnation of the press in the wake of the Watergate break-in. Media criticism has escalated during President Bush's time in the Oval Office amid news reports of several controversial secret domestic surveillance programs.

The Discovery Channel did not return calls for comment on Brokaw's report. The Associated Press, in a prepared statement, said Inhofe wrongly characterized Borenstein's article. The AP contacted more than 100 climate researchers, including skeptics. But it only quoted the scientists who said they had seen the movie or read the book, which turned out to be a far smaller number than those it surveyed. Generally, the AP said scientists were "positive toward Gore's scientific presentation." "The AP story reported facts," said Linda Wagner, director of AP media relations. "It did not take a position in a debate, whether political or scientific, about global warming."

Inhofe endorsed his press office's work and shrugged off a question over whether he was trying to intimidate reporters. "What are you talking about?" Inhofe said. "The media is 100 percent on the other side."

Outflanking Bush

Inhofe's drive to attack climate skeptics comes as the European Union and much of the industrialized world head full bore into implementing the Kyoto Protocol, the only mandatory program in the world aimed at mitigating rising greenhouse gas levels. And Inhofe's views on climate also run to the right flank of President Bush, who in 2001 pulled the United States out of Kyoto but has said he would address the global warming issue through voluntary programs and more funding for research and technological development.

David Sandretti, communications director for the environment committee's ranking member, Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), hesitated to discuss Inhofe's motivations for the press releases. "I'm not going to get into commenting on whether the tactic is appropriate," he said. "Clearly, the chairman's press release does not reflect the ranking member's opinion on the topic nor any of the Democrats on the committee." One of the committee's moderate Republicans, Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), said today he disagrees with Inhofe on the science of global warming, but he expressed support for the chairman's right to say whatever he wants. "It's America," Chafee said in an interview. Asked if Inhofe's moves were a waste of taxpayer money, Chafee replied, "He's elected by the people. If his constituents think it's a waste of taxpayer dollars, they can make a change."

One former Hill Republican aide said Inhofe's latest attacks are nothing new. "Give the guy some credit for integrity is my reaction," the former staffer said. "This is consistent with his position on the issue," the aide continued. "I don't think it's necessary to look for ulterior motive. His motives couldn't be more apparent." Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, said Inhofe's outrage could be a sign that the policy argument is entering a new phase -- one in which environmentalists may also start lashing out if they do not think the developing policy is strong enough. "When you have a debate like this that has been so forcefully engaged for a decade, before it moves to a point of constructive resolution, the last months before that are likely to be marked with peels of anger along the edges," Grumet said. "Maybe this is a sign we're getting close."

Another former Republican Hill aide who disagrees with Inhofe said skeptics have a right to speak out. But the aide added, "There's ways of making your case and there are ways of making your case. I'm not sure attacking the mainstream media is the way to go. "It's counterproductive," the former staffer added. "It's more based on personality and affiliation than it is on the science."

From "Greenwire" of 19th

pooley:

inhofe called uscap failed biz looking for gov't help 168  //CEI that it was wealth transfer

Inhofe staff sent memo to gop on waxman comm: big new tax, but also dem siding w/ big biz 386, lose jobs, giveaway to polluters; gop protect consumers

==

cop15 truth squad http://www.greenfudge.org/2009/12/22/the-rachel-maddow-show-u-s-diplomacy-and-inhofes-truth-squad-in-copenhagen/

Also mentioned in the Der Spiegel piece [note contrast from 2007 piece?]is would-be COP15 saboteur Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma:

He is not only ridiculous in describing climate change as made up by “the Hollywood elite,” but outright dangerous. He would rather sacrifice American natural beauty at home and American soldiers abroad than to push his country to the forefront of a green technology revolution.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#34473143

barasso and wicker dropped out; 3 hrs on gnd, no mtgs (one press

28 Sep 2011  |   Emma Brown

What’s a Senator Inhofe to do? After instructing the Inspector General to conduct a needless $300,000 investigation into how the EPA determined that climate change “endangers” the public and mandates action, Senator Inhofe is told that the EPA did their job correctly and that there’s actually no scandal.

The story began back in April 2010 when Senator Inhofe instructed the Inspector General’s office to investigate how the EPA vetted a technical support document that outlined how the agency concluded that climate change poses a threat to public health. The document, which basically listed and summarized peer-reviewed research by the National Research Council, the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as evidence that climate change poses a threat, was reviewed internally by a panel of 12 federal climate change scientists.

In their investigation, the Inspector General recently concluded that the EPA had “met statutory requirements for rulemaking and generally followed requirements and guidance related to ensuring the quality of the supporting technical information.” In simplest terms, the EPA did their job correctly. This assessment was later backed up by an analysis at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Yet, a press release from Senator’s Inhofe office following the investigation’s report, tells a much different story. The headline reads: “EPA IG Finds Serious Flaws in Centerpiece of Obama Global Warming Agenda. “

The “serious flaw” Senator Inhofe is referring to is that EPA didn’t submit the technical support document to the public to be peer-reviewed, noted by the Inspector General’s report. Bear in mind that current EPA policy, and its oversight agency, the Office of Management and Budget, did not require the document to be submitted for public peer-review. In fact the “corrections” recommended by the Inspector General’s office to the agency were relatively minor—revise a flowchart, update criteria for using outside science, and use more clarifying statements. Doesn’t sound like that much of a serious flaw.

==

kos

FRI OCT 12, 2007 AT 08:13 AM PDT

OK-Sen: Inhofe Leads Dirty Dozen List

byDocHocFollo

(Yes, please, Inhofe already.  It is time to send U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) into retirement. Check out his opponent in the 2008 election, State Sen. Andrew Rice (D-Oklahoma City), a true progressive who supports a full and open discussion on climate change and all environmental issues.)

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe has brought more embarrassment to Oklahoma.  The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has designated Inhofe as the leader of its "Dirty Dozen" list for possessing one of the worst anti-environmental records in Congress.

Unfortunately, the designation ultimately reflects on the state’s residents, many of whom do not support Inhofe’s radical anti-environmental agenda and ideology.  This must include some of his fellow Republicans here.  For example, in his ongoing gesture of absurdity, Inhofe calls global warming a "hoax" developed by liberals.

He has been admonished by U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) twice at Senate Environment and Public Works Committee meetings for acting rudely to former Vice President Al Gore and a fellow senator as they tried to speak candidly about climate change.

Inhofe not only denies global warming, he also wants to prevent any public discussion about the issue.

"Our future will be significantly impacted by how we work to fight global warming, yet Senator Jim Inhofe won’t even acknowledge that global warming exists," LCV Senior Vice President Tony Massaro said.  "During his tenure in Congress, Senator Inhofe has made it his mission to vote against commonsense solutions to global warming and our nation’s energy challenges, earning an abysmal 5 percent lifetime LCV voting score and a place on our ‘Dirty Dozen’ list."

Inhofe is at odds with the world’s scientific community and President George Bush, who believes humans have contributed to global warming problems. Since 2001, Inhofe has accepted $636,965 in campaign funds from "polluting energy interests," according to the LCV.

Inhofe responded to LCV’s designation by (what else, of course) trying to demonize the organization as a liberal special interest group, according to his personal public relations firm, The Daily Oklahoman.

Meanwhile, former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were awarded the 2007 Nobel Prize for Peace Friday for their work educating the world about global warming.

The contrast cannot be greater. Gore, who won the popular vote for president in the 2000 election, wins the Nobel Peace Prize; Inhofe brings more ridicule upon Oklahomans.  It is one thing to be a skeptic about the causes and effects of climate change.  Honest skepticism helps people get at truth.  But it is quite another thing for Inhofe to actively work to suppress basic information about climate change.

It should go without saying that the world needs to have a full and open discussion about global warming.  Fortunately, State Sen. Andrew Rice (D-Oklahoma City), who is running against Inhofe in 2008, will encourage such a discussion if he is elected.  He will not rubber stamp any particular global warming initiative or report without careful scrutiny, but he will allow all sides on the issue to be heard.

There are many reasons to support Rice over Inhofe in this race, but this issue alone should be enough for Oklahoma voters to send the 72-year-old Senator into retirement.

==

Air pollution is at all-time low; don’t tighten standards

Today’s announcement by EPA will have a severe economic impact on Oklahoma and the nation for too little environmental gain. Despite the fact that air pollution levels across the United States are at an all time low and our nation’s air quality continues to improve, the EPA decided to further tighten the standard. The consequence of the Rule means that hundreds of counties across the country will once again face potential stiff federal penalties.

Source: Press release, “EPA’s revised ozone standard” , Mar 12, 2008

Voted NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems.

Whitehouse Amdt. No. 803 to S.Amdt. 799 to S. 601 (Water Resources Development Act of 2013): To create the National Endowment for the Oceans to promote the protection and conservation of United States ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes: Mr. WHITEHOUSE: This measure was part of the RESTORE Act, [but] this piece of it fell out of the bargain. If you supported the RESTORE Act, you have already supported this bill. If you believe that deals should be deals in the Senate, then you should support this bill. It is very important that we as a body support this bill. It does not create a single extra bureaucracy or person. It works within the existing government, and it adds no funding.

MississippiRiverDelta.org Summary of RESTORE Act: The Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act (RESTORE Act) dedicates 80% of all Clean Water Act penalties paid by those responsible for the 2010 gulf oil disaster to Gulf Coast restoration.

Proponent's press release supporting Yes vote: The National Endowment for the Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes Act would provide steady funding that universities, non-profit organizations, and government agencies can count on every year to support research and restoration projects. It would be funded primarily by dedicating 12.5% of revenues from offshore energy development, including oil, gas, and renewable energy. Revenue is generated through offshore lease sales and production based royalty payments. Funds from the Endowment would be distributed through a competitive grant program to fund projects to restore habitat, manage fisheries, plan for sustainable coastal development, enhance ocean monitoring and research activities, acquire coastal properties for preservation, and relocate critical coastal infrastructure.

Inhofe says, "Inhofe (R-OK)"

Reference: National Endowment for the Oceans; Bill S.Amdt. 803 ; vote number 13-SV116 on May 8, 2013

Voted NO on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program.

Congressional Summary:Emergency supplemental appropriations of $2 billion for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Program.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. OBEY (D, WI-7): The cash for clunkers program has proven even more wildly popular than its strongest supporters had predicted. Just last month, Congress passed the program, which provided up to $4,500 if you trade in your old gas guzzler for a new car that gets better mileage. That was done in the hopes of spurring some new car sales and encouraging people to be a little more environmentally friendly. We provided $1 billion in the supplemental to get it going, enough for about 250,000 sales--which was just about exhausted in one week. This bill transfers $2 billion from the Department of Energy's Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee program, which doesn't expect to award funding until late next year.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. LEWIS (R, CA-41): In the majority's haste to slam legislation with no time for consideration or amendments, we are now seeing the effects of such shortsighted martial law tactics.

Senator Feinstein tried to negotiate some changes to improve the program but was told that it was this way or the highway. Not one hearing on the Cash for Clunkers program, not one hearing on how the first billion dollars has been spent, not one hearing on how much money the program will need to get through the fiscal year.

Many of my colleagues will say, This is a great program, and it is necessary for the revitalization of the car industry. I'm not really going to argue with those goals. However, are we sure this program is working like it's supposed to? I don't think so. This program has only been up and running 1 week. If that is how the government is going to handle billion-dollar programs affecting all Americans, I ask, Whatever will we do if the administration takes control of our health care system?

Reference: Cash for Clunkers bill; Bill H.R. 3435 ; vote number 2009-S270 on Aug 6, 2009

Voted YES on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land.

To prohibit the involuntary acquisition of farmland & grazing land by government for parks, open space, or similar purposes. Exceptions include takings for use by:

public utility

road or other right of way

an aqueduct or pipeline

a prison or hospital

national disaster

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. CRAIG: "Eminent domain was elevated greatly as an issue following a highly controversial 2005 Supreme Court decision known as Kelo vs. The City of New London. Since that decision, we as a nation have allowed state & local governments to utilize eminent domain to force landowners to yield their property to private development. Farmers and ranchers in particular have become vulnerable to state and local governments taking their property for economic development or open space designations. My amendment is a very targeted amendment. It addresses only cases in which private working agricultural land is taken and turned into public open space."

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. HARKIN: This amendment doesn't reach the Kelo decision [because Kelo was about taking open space for private development]. Under this amendment they can still do that.

CRAIG. Oh, I disagree totally. We reach a portion of Kelo that is now most frequently impacting farms and ranches, and that is open space for open space.

HARKIN. The amendment has the Federal Government telling a local government what it can and cannot do within its own jurisdiction.

Letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures & US Conference of Mayors:

"This amendment is not only ill-advised, but it is also unconstitutional [because it] preempts state & local land use laws. The 5th Amendment expressly permits the taking of private property for public use provided just compensation is provided to the owner. The power of eminent domain has always been, and should remain, a state and local power."

Reference: Craig Amendment to Farm Bill Extension Act; Bill S.Amdt. 3640 to H.R. 2419 ; vote number 2007-429 on Dec 13, 2007

Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.

A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 15, 2005, relating to the removal of coal- and oil-fired electric generating units from the list of major sources of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule:

Limits smokestack emissions in a two-phase program founded on a market based capping system

Calls for the first cap to limit mercury emissions to 38 tons in 2010

Requires the second and final cap to begin in 2018 and stay fix at 15 tons

Reference: EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule; Bill S J Res 20 ; vote number 2005-225 on Sep 13, 2005

Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior.

Vote to confirm the nomination of Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. [Ms. Norton generally favors conservative or libertarian stances on the environment.]

Reference: Bill Confirmation vote ; vote number 2001-6 on Jan 30, 2001

Voted YES on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat.

The Bryan Amdt (D-NV) offered an amendment to raise funding levels for Forest Service road maintenance and wildlife and fisheries habitat management programs. Senator Craig (R-ID) motioned to table this amendment. [A YES vote is considered pro-business].

Status: Table Motion Agreed to Y)54; N)43; NV)3

Reference: Motion to table Bryan Amdt. #1588; Bill H.R. 2466 ; vote number 1999-272 on Sep 14, 1999

Voted YES on transportation demo projects.

McCain amendment to the transportation reauthorization bill (S. 1173) would require that funding for demonstration projects be covered by their respective state allocations instead of being funded individually in the transportation bill.

Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)78; N)22

Reference: McCain Amdt #1726; Bill S. 1173 ; vote number 1998-29 on Mar 12, 1998

Voted NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests.

Vote on an amendment to cut the $47.4 million provided for Forest Service road construction by $10 million, and to eliminate the purchaser credit program [which provides credits to timber companies to offset what they owe the government].

Reference: Bill HR.2107 ; vote number 1997-242 on Sep 17, 1997

Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes.

Inhofe scores 5% by the LCV on environmental issues

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental movement and the only organization devoted full-time to shaping a pro-environment Congress and White House. We run tough and effective campaigns to defeat anti-environment candidates, and support those leaders who stand up for a clean, healthy future for America. Through our National Environmental Scorecard and Presidential Report Card we hold Congress and the Administration accountable for their actions on the environment. Through regional offices, we build coalitions, promote grassroots power, and train the next generation of environmental leaders. The 2003 National Environmental Scorecard provides objective, factual information about the environmental voting records of all Members of the first session of the 108th Congress. This Scorecard represents the consensus of experts from 20 respected environmental and conservation organizations who selected the key votes on which Members of Congress should be graded. LCV scores votes on the most important issues of the year, including environmental health and safety protections, resource conservation, and spending for environmental programs. Scores are calculated by dividing the number of pro-environment votes by the total number of votes scored. The votes included in this Scorecard presented Members of Congress with a real choice on protecting the environment and help distinguish which legislators are working for environmental protection. Except in rare circumstances, the Scorecard excludes consensus action on the environment and issues on which no recorded votes occurred.

Source: LCV website 03n-LCV on Dec 31, 2003

Allow critical feeding on Conservation Reserves.

Inhofe co-sponsored allowing critical feeding on Conservation Reserves

A BILL to require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out conservation reserve program notice CRP-598, entitled the 'Voluntary Modification of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Contract for Critical Feed Use'.

BACKGROUND: USDA announced that certain acreage enrolled in CRP would be available for hay and forage after the ending of the primary nesting season. Beginning June 2, 2008, CRP participants may request to voluntarily modify CRP contracts for critical feed use, such as haying and grazing. The increased demand for commodities and resulting higher prices has impacted the livestock industry.

Implement conservation reserve program notice CRP-598:

to modify conservation reserve program contracts of producers and operators; and

to allow harvesting or grazing on agricultural lands enrolled in the conservation reserve.

Source: Voluntary Modification of CRP (S3337/HR6533) 08-S3337 on Jul 25, 2008

Rated 0% by HSLF, indicating an anti-animal welfare voting record.

Inhofe scores 0% by the Humane Society on animal rights issues

112th Mid-Term Humane Scorecard: The Humane Society Legislative Fund has posted the final version of the 2011 Humane Scorecard, where you can track the performance of your federal lawmakers on key animal protection issues during last year. We rated legislators based on their voting behavior on measures such as agribusiness subsidies, lethal predator control, and the Endangered Species Act; their cosponsorship of priority bills on puppy mills, horse slaughter, animal fighting, and chimps in research; their support for funding the enforcement of animal welfare laws; and their leadership on animal protection. All of the priority bills whose cosponsorships we're counting enjoy strong bipartisan support; in the House, each of the four now has more than 150 cosponsors.

The Humane Scorecard is not a perfect measuring tool, but creating some reasonable yardstick and allowing citizens to hold lawmakers accountable is central to our work. When the Humane Scorecard comes out each year, it helps clarify how the animal protection movement is doing geographically, by party affiliation, and in other categories. It helps us chart our course for animals by seeing where we have been effective, and where we need to improve.

Source: HSLF website 12-HumaneS on Jan 13, 2012

Regulating 15 more contaminants under Clean Water Act.

Inhofe co-sponsored regulating 15 more contaminants under Clean Water Act

Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to publish a proposed list of at least 15 contaminants that may occur in public water systems and that are not currently subject to EPA regulation. Provides for proposed lists of at least 12 additional contaminants every four years. (Current law requires EPA to regulate 25 contaminants every three years.) Bases the determination to regulate a contaminant on findings that:

the contaminant is known to occur in public water systems;

the contaminant occurs in concentrations which may have adverse health effects; and

regulation of the contaminant presents an opportunity to reduce health risks.

Source: Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments (H.R.3392) 93-H3392 on Oct 27, 1993

Click here for definitions & background information on Environment.

Click here for a profile of James Inhofe.

Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by James Inhofe.

Click here for AmericansElect quiz answers by James Inhofe.

Click here for a summary of James Inhofe's positio

[note more after elite]

TWO

“theological,”

2014 post heart attack

see inhofe2doc (also sep node)

bak 420 end 3/16/2011

bad code html immature

see also tag

held up ebola money 10/14 ?!

promoted to evil for boosting safari club pick, eco-terror, formaldehyde

Kelvin Droegemeier sci adviser? OKl poster boy?!

are these gop origin myths ever true?

https://www.rawstory.com/jim-inhofe-retiring

[fox banner?]

Longtime GOP Senator James Inhofe retiring before the end of his term

Brad Reed

February 25, 2022

Longtime GOP Senator James Inhofe retiring before the end of his term

Longtime Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) announced his retirement on Friday.

The 87-year-old Inhofe said that he would be retiring at the end of the year after having served as a United States senator for nearly three decades.

"Thank you to everyone who has trusted me with your vote over these many years," Inhofe wrote in his announcement. "It has been an honor to serve you in the Senate."

Inhofe over the years has become known for making a number of controversial statements, such as his seeming dismissal of instances of torture enacted by American military servicemembers during the Iraq War.

"I'm more outraged at the outrage," Inhofe said after news of U.S. torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq broke in 2004.

Inhofe has also been a frequent denier of climate change, and in 2015 brought a snowball onto the Senate floor to argue that the climate couldn't really be warming because it happened to be cold that particular day.

See Inhofe's full statement below.

never intent to go into public--- but 27 offices to get dock permit

next 9 mos pentagon $? and hold biden acctable

E&E

The anniversary of the snowball both sides love to troll

By Timothy Cama | 03/13/2020

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) displays and tosses a snowball on the Senate floor in 2015.

"You know what this is?" Sen. Jim Inhofe rhetorically asked Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, who was presiding over the Senate one afternoon five years ago.

"It’s a snowball. It’s just from outside here. So it’s very, very cold out, very unseasonable," Inhofe said. "So, Mr. President, catch this."

With that, the Oklahoma Republican lobbed the snowball — to a Senate page, not to Cassidy — and into history.

The Snowball Speech, as it has come to be known, has since lived in infamy, which is notable for the author of "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future."

The five-year anniversary of the speech was last month, but it still serves Inhofe’s opponents as a mocking illustration of the Republican Party’s climate change policy. For his supporters, it’s an epic troll against Democrats.

Inhofe and his staff frequently bring up that the snowball and the speech were not meant to disprove climate science by showing that snow still falls.

Instead, they were meant to mock Democrats’ focus on climate, which then-President Obama had recently told Vox is deadlier than terrorism.

It came at an important moment for climate policy. EPA was working to make final the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s signature climate policy, meant to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

He was also preparing for the United Nations’ climate summit in Paris later that year, which resulted in the Paris Agreement.

And federal officials had recently concluded that 2014 was most likely the hottest year on record — a conclusion Inhofe mocked with the snowball.

Feb. 26, 2015, was a big day for memes and for the internet. "The dress," a photo of a striped dress that some saw as black and blue and some saw as white and gold, exploded on social media that day, as did a video of two loose llamas being chased in Arizona.

Inhofe made the trifecta. His speech and snowball quickly went viral, with mentions in news outlets around the world.

E&E News spoke with some of the figures involved in the speech and its aftermath. Inhofe’s staff declined multiple requests to make him available.

Mandy Gunasekara had just started working for Inhofe as majority counsel for the Environment and Public Works Committee.

"This was actually my first floor speech for the senator that I had written and that I was the designated staffer to escort him to the floor. I had started less than a month before," she recalled recently.

In videos from that 2015 day, Gunasekara is instantly recognizable as the staffer sitting just behind him during the speech, switching out his posters, including a 1974 Time magazine story predicting a coming ice age and a photo of his family building an igloo.

There was still snow on the ground outside the Capitol — pretty standard for February.

"I don’t know who made the snowball. I just know when I went to go brief him, I had the speech, got the poster and was handed the snowball," said Gunasekara, who is now EPA’s incoming chief of staff.

"It was his idea to bring in the snowball, because he was trying to point to the media’s dishonesty in covering weather events versus actual climate," she said.

"Whenever it’s hot in the summer, everyone’s like ‘Oh, my gosh, climate change!’ But if it’s something that doesn’t play into the global warming element, like a snowstorm in February, people don’t say, ‘Oh, my gosh, it’s climate change.’"

When he got to the Senate floor, Inhofe surveyed the pages there at the time to see who could catch the snowball, Gunasekara said. The pages were high school juniors or seniors, nominated by their home-state senators, helping with the day-to-day operations of the chamber.

One page mentioned he played baseball. He happened to be from Oklahoma. Inhofe had found his catcher.

The pages were now all in the loop, but Cassidy apparently wasn’t.

"No, not really. He just kind of pulled it out and threw it," he recalled. The mainly immovable cameras in the upper chamber didn’t show the recipient. Tracked down five years later, he, too, declined to comment for this story.

Another factor Cassidy could see that the C-SPAN viewer couldn’t: the reaction of Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate’s parliamentarian, to Inhofe’s use of a snowball as a prop during a floor speech. The parliamentarian is a nonpartisan referee who enforces the chamber’s rules, like one against using props.

"The parliamentarian was like, ‘What?! That shouldn’t be on here,’" Cassidy said, miming a frazzled reaction. MacDonough’s office didn’t respond to a request to confirm Cassidy’s recollection.

Later in Inhofe’s speech, he formally asked for retroactive unanimous consent to use his snowball, which Cassidy granted.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) responded to Inhofe’s speech later that day with one of his own, arguing that authorities including the Navy and NASA disagreed with Inhofe.

"You can believe NASA, and you can believe what their satellites measure on the planet, or you can believe the senator with the snowball," he said.

‘An illusion as to how far it went’

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla) and Mandy Gunasekara. Photo credit: C-SPAN[

Inhofe holding a snowball during a session of the Senate in 2015. To his right is aide Mandy Gunasekara, who is about to be EPA’s new chief of staff. | C-SPAN]

Cassidy also remembered seeing it on TV later. With the snowball going off the frame and the scale of the Senate chamber, the toss of a mere few feet looked much bigger.

"There was an illusion as to how far it went," Cassidy said. "Somehow, with the optics of TV, it looked different, as if it was more than it actually was, like Joe Burrow threw a touchdown pass," he said, referring to the Louisiana State University quarterback and 2019 Heisman Trophy winner.

In the coming days and weeks, mockery about the speech spread. Obama mentioned the speech in interviews to make fun of the GOP’s climate positions. Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" joined in, too.

"You think global warming is a hoax because you — in February — were able to collect one ball’s worth of snow," Stewart said on his show, calling Inhofe a "crazy old fuck."

Gunasekara said she wasn’t on Twitter at the time nor following the news closely, so she didn’t know that day what had happened.

"I was totally oblivious to it. And the next morning, Alex came in, and he said, ‘Sit down. You should know that millions of people saw your face last night.’ And I was like, ‘What? What are you talking about?’" she said, referring to Alex Herrgott, then deputy staff director at the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Herrgott is now executive director of the White House’s Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council. He’s not the only former Inhofe staffer from that time to land a job at the executive level.

Gunasekara, who starts her new job at EPA next week, is already facing fire from Democrats who question if she can be impartial, given her strong rhetoric against liberals and the secrecy behind the funding of her group (Greenwire, March 11).]

Andrew Wheeler, a former Environment and Public Works staff director under Inhofe, is EPA administrator, and Ryan Jackson, the staff director who hired Gunasekara, was EPA’s chief of staff until recently.

‘Boogeyman’

“Daily Show” host Jon Stewart commenting on Inhofe throwing a snowball. | Comedy Central

The snowball stuck with Obama. He revisited it throughout 2015 as he ramped up his climate agenda and advocated for what became the Paris Agreement.

He called Inhofe’s stunt "disturbing" in a Vice News interview the following month; said it was "stupid, shortsighted, irresponsible" in a comedy bit at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in April; and mentioned it again while touring a melting glacier in Alaska in September.

The next year, he said the country wouldn’t find solutions to climate change "if we pretend a snowball in winter means nothing is wrong."

Jesse Lee, the White House’s rapid-response communications leader at the time, said the video of the speech quickly made the rounds among staff members.

To them, the snowball speech served as a symbol of the GOP’s position on climate change. It occurred around the time that "I’m not a scientist" became a frequent refrain for Republicans looking to avoid controversy over climate science.

"We were all very prepared for a real tough, hard-fought debate on climate, since we never had that in the past," Lee said.

"This was the moment when it really crystallized that actually, Republicans really didn’t have anything to show for themselves. Rather than look ridiculous, they would rather ignore it, and that left Inhofe standing there alone as the spokesman for them," he continued.

"It was an indication that we had a clear path to drive agenda. And, if anything, it emboldened us to be aggressive about it."

Gunasekara, for her part, doubts the speech changed any minds.

"People either saw it like, ‘That’s so funny how upset it makes people’ or ‘Oh, my gosh, I can’t believe Republicans think that,’" she said. "It emboldened whatever position somebody already had."

Marc Morano, a former Inhofe communications staffer from his earlier stint atop the Environment panel and climate skeptic who cheers on the mocking of Democrats and climate activists, said the speech was an excellent act of trolling, even if it didn’t change minds.

"He was having fun. It was a lot of fun," said Morano, now an executive at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

"I don’t think it did anything; I just thought it was fun, and it was a great visual, and I think it really helped him," he said. "It gave the debate a lot of fun. It gave them their boogeyman, and he had fun being their boogeyman."

how Senator Vitter Battled the EPA Over Formaldehyde's Link to Cancer

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter has battled an EPA assessment that could label formaldehyde a 'known' carcinogen. The formaldehyde industry has been a generous campaign donor to Vitter.

by Joaquin Sapien April 15, 2010,

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-senator-david-vitter-battled-formaldehyde-link-to-cancer

when Sen. David Vitter persuaded the EPA to agree to yet another review of its long-delayed assessment of the health risks of formaldehyde, he was praised by companies that use or manufacture a chemical found in everything from plywood to carpet.

As long as the studies continue, the EPA will still list formaldehyde as a "probable" rather than a "known" carcinogen, even though three major scientific reviews now link it to leukemia and have strengthened its ties to other forms of cancer. The chemical industry is fighting to avoid that designation, because it could lead to tighter regulations and require costly pollution controls.

"Delay means money. The longer they can delay labeling something a known carcinogen, the more money they can make," said James Huff, associate director for chemical carcinogenesis at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Timeline: Formaldehyde's Convoluted Review

1989 The first health assessment of formaldehyde is written by the EPA.

1998 The EPA begins updating the assessment.

2004 Despite preliminary findings from a National Cancer Institute study linking formaldehyde to leukemia, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., persuades the EPA to delay a planned revision of the formaldehyde health assessment.

May 2009 The National Cancer Institute releases new results in its ongoing health study, showing that workers exposed to a higher amount of formaldehyde had a 78 percent greater risk of leukemia than those exposed to lower amounts.

June 29, 2009 Sen. David Vitter, R-La., urges the EPA to let the National Academy of Sciences review the formaldehyde assessment, a process that usually requires more time and money than the EPA's own external peer review panel.

September 2009 The International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Toxicology Program, a U.S. organization, both conclude that formaldehyde exposure is linked to leukemia.

Sept. 23, 2009 Vitter says he will delay the nomination of a senior EPA official until the EPA agrees to send the formaldehyde assessment to the National Academy. The EPA says the chemical doesn't need more review.

Dec. 23, 2009 The EPA agrees to Vitter’s demand, and Vitter releases his hold on the EPA nominee. The EPA says it asked the National Academy to move quickly, so the review could be done in about the same amount of time it would have taken for an internal review.

The EPA’s chemical risk assessments are crucial to protecting the public’s health because they are the government’s most comprehensive analysis of the dangers the chemicals present and are used as the scientific foundation for state and federal regulations. But it usually takes years or even decades to get an assessment done, or to revise one that is outdated. Often the industry spends millions on lobbying and on scientific studies that counter the government’s conclusions.

The EPA has been trying since 1998 to update the formaldehyde assessment, which was first written in 1989. But the agency’s efforts have repeatedly been stalled by the industry and Congress.

This time, the resistance came from Vitter, a Republican senator from Louisiana, where, ironically, thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims say they suffered respiratory problems after being housed in government trailers contaminated with formaldehyde. Last year Vitter blocked the nomination of a key EPA official until the agency agreed to ask the National Academy of Sciences to weigh in on the assessment. Vitter’s spokesman, Joel DiGrado, told the media that "because of the FEMA trailer debacle, we need to get absolutely reliable information to the public about formaldehyde risk as soon as possible."

Vitter’s ties to the formaldehyde industry are well known. According to Talking Points Memo, his election campaign received about $20,500 last year from companies that produce large amounts of formaldehyde waste in Louisiana. But ProPublica found that Vitter actually took in nearly twice that amount if contributions from other companies, trade groups and lobbyists with interests in formaldehyde regulation are included. Among those contributors is Charles Grizzle, a top-paid lobbyist for the Formaldehyde Council, an industry trade group that had long sought a National Academy review of the chemical.

Congress stalled the formaldehyde risk assessment once before. In 2004, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., persuaded (PDF) the EPA to delay it, even though preliminary findings from a National Cancer Institute study had already linked formaldehyde to leukemia. Inhofe insisted that the EPA wait for a more "robust set of findings" from the institute.

Koch Industries, a large chemical manufacturer and one of Inhofe’s biggest campaign contributors, gave Inhofe $6,000 that year. That same year Koch bought two pulp mills from Georgia-Pacific, a major formaldehyde producer and one of the world’s largest plywood manufacturers. The next year Koch bought all of Georgia-Pacific.

The "more robust" findings that Inhofe asked for weren’t released until five years later – in May 2009 – and they reinforced the 2004 findings. Of the nearly 25,000 workers the National Cancer Institute had tracked for 30 years, those exposed to higher amounts of formaldehyde had a 37 percent greater risk of death from blood and lymphatic cancers and a 78 percent greater risk of leukemia than those exposed to lower amounts.

The Formaldehyde Council immediately released a statement disputing those findings and calling for a full review by the National Academy of Sciences. Such an evaluation could take as long as four years, according to an EPA spokesperson.

But this time it wasn’t Inhofe who stepped in on the industry’s behalf, but Vitter, who like Inhofe sits on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

On the day the study came out, Grizzle, the Formaldehyde Council lobbyist, donated $2,400 to Vitter’s re-election campaign, the maximum an individual can give to a federal candidate in a single election cycle. Grizzle didn’t respond to phone calls and e-mails asking for comment for this story.

Grizzle started his own lobbying firm in 1993, after serving as an EPA assistant administrator in the late 1980s. He joined George W. Bush’s transition team in 2001, and raised more than $500,000 for Bush’s 2004 campaign, earning the title of fundraising "pioneer." A Philadelphia Inquirer investigation found that Grizzle used his friendship with Bush aide Karl Rove to help get Stephen Johnson the job as assistant administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances at EPA. When Johnson went on to lead the EPA, he changed the risk assessment system so other federal agencies could comment more frequently and forcefully on the EPA’s science, a move that prolonged the process. In the waning days of the Bush administration, Johnson asked the National Academy of Sciences to do a full review of the formaldehyde assessment.

DiGrado, Vitter’s spokesman, didn’t respond to questions about Vitter’s ties to the industry. Instead, he  sent ProPublica copies of two letters. One showed that three Democratic lawmakers also wanted the review. The other letter was written by an EPA official in the final week of the Bush administration, saying that the agency would "seek input" from the academy.

Several public health experts interviewed by ProPublica think the industry’s goal is to delay the assessment as long as possible and to undermine the credibility of the EPA’s chemical risk assessment program.

"This gives the appearance of another congressman being more interested in industry than the health of the public," said Dr. Peter Infante, a former director of the Office of Carcinogen Identification and Classification at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "The public should not think that because a government document is undergoing NAS review, that that review is going to be competent."

Other public health experts point to the National Academy’s recent review of the EPA’s assessment of perchloroethylene, or PCE, as an example of how additional studies can drag out the assessment process.

PCE is used in dry cleaning and is found in high concentrations at military bases. Like formaldehyde, it has been linked to leukemia, and the EPA has been trying to update the chemical’s assessment since 1998. In 2008 the agency submitted its findings to the National Academy, and in February the academy sent the assessment back to the EPA with a long list of questions. Although the academy agreed with the EPA’s conclusion that PCE was a "likely" carcinogen, it suggested that the safety standards should be significantly weaker than those the EPA had proposed. The EPA is now responding to the academy’s comments.

Democrats in Congress and public health watchdogs have criticized the academy in the past for being slanted toward industry, because some of the scientists who serve on its review panels have written studies paid for by chemical companies whose products they are evaluating. An academy spokeswoman said it thoroughly vets its panelists and has strict financial conflict of interest rules.

The Road to Review

Vitter began his push for a National Academy review of formaldehyde in a June 29 letter to the EPA. It included a list of questions about the formaldehyde assessment and urged the EPA to ask the National Academy to weigh in on it, according to documents ProPublica obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The EPA responded on July 8, defending its plan to have the assessment reviewed by its own external peer review panel, the Scientific Advisory Board. The letter noted that the advisory board could do the review in 12 to 16 months for about $200,000, while the average National Academy review takes 18 to 24 months and costs $800,000 to $1 million.

In September, two more major scientific reviews raised concerns about the dangers of formaldehyde. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of the World Health Organization, concluded it had enough evidence (PDF) to show that formaldehyde exposure can cause leukemia. And the National Toxicology Program changed its categorization of formaldehyde from "reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen" to "known carcinogen."

But Vitter continued pressuring the EPA for more review.

On Sept. 23, he confirmed to reporters that he had placed a hold on the nomination of Paul Anastas, the Obama administration’s choice to head the EPA’s Office of Research and Development. He said he wouldn’t release the hold until the EPA agreed to send the formaldehyde assessment to the National Academy. To smooth the way for that review, he tried to add an amendment (PDF) to an EPA appropriations bill mandating that the agency set aside $1 million for a National Academy review. Grizzle, the Formaldehyde Council lobbyist, worked to get support for the amendment, according to one of his lobbying disclosure forms (PDF). (The amendment wasn’t included in the final bill.)

On Sept. 24 EPA chief Lisa Jackson met with Vitter and offered a compromise: She would ask the National Academy for its advice on the formaldehyde assessment.

That same day, an EPA spokeswoman told the New Orleans Times-Picayune that the chemical didn’t need more review, and that the EPA was ready to begin finalizing its assessment.

"This is not the time for more delay," said EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy.

But Vitter didn’t budge.

In November, a political action committee created by the American Chemistry Council, whose members include formaldehyde producers Hexion Specialty Chemicals and DuPont, gave Vitter a $2,500 campaign contribution, in addition to the $1,500 it had given him earlier in the year. On Dec. 2, Koch Industries gave Vitter’s political action committee a check for $5,000. On Dec. 7, Grizzle gave Vitter (PDF) $200. On Dec. 17, the Society of the Plastics Industry, which represents formaldehyde manufacturers BASF and DuPont, hosted a fundraiser for Vitter at its headquarters, recommending donations of $1,000 per person.

On Dec. 23, Vitter got what he wanted. Jackson agreed to send the study to the National Academy. But in a letter Jackson sent to the Formaldehyde Council that day, she indicated it would not be the exhaustive study the industry had pushed for but would instead be done under a "compressed timeframe." Dr. Peter Preuss, who heads the EPA’s chemical risk assessment program, said it will likely be completed in a year.

Vitter removed his hold on Anastas’ nomination on Christmas Eve, and the Formaldehyde Council released a statement praising his work.

"Overcoming the agency's intransigence in engaging NAS on formaldehyde would have been impossible without the timely intervention of U.S. Senator David Vitter," Betsy Natz, the council’s executive director, said in the news release. The statement said Jackson had contacted the council directly to notify it of the news.

Last month the National Academy began gathering public comments about the 13 scientists it has selected for the formaldehyde panel. The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, has already written a letter raising questions about two of the candidates. One worked for the Hamner Institute, an industry-supported laboratory that lists the Formaldehyde Council as one of its sponsors. The other worked for more than a decade at Dow Chemical, which is a member of the Formaldehyde Council and has contributed to Vitter’s campaigns.

On March 24, Grizzle, the Formaldehyde Council lobbyist, co-hosted a fundraiser for Vitter at the Capitol Hill Club, an exclusive Republican gathering place. The suggested donation was $1,000 per person.

https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/jim-inhofe/

alexh

During a confirmation hearing on May 13, Radhika Fox — President Biden's nominee for a top position at the Environmental Protection Agency — was questioned by U.S. senators. One of them was Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who told Fox that if she didn't "behave" in the position, he would have to tell her "daddy."

According to Washington Post reporter Colby Itkowitz, "Inhofe's office said he was playing off Radhika Fox's opening statement where she mentioned that her father was in the room and credited her hard-working immigrant parents. The exchange between the 86-year-old male senator and the much younger female nominee to lead the EPA's Office of Water was not antagonistic, but drew attention from those who wondered whether he would have made the same quip to a man. CNN first reported Inhofe's remark."

Inhofe, Itkowitz notes, has been "one of the Senate's most vocal climate change deniers." And one of the things the Oklahoma Republican questioned her about was the Trump Administration's decision to roll back some of the environment policies of the Obama Administration.

Inhofe told Biden's nominee, "I appreciate your comments, particularly in your opening statement. I enjoyed that. And so, I will look forward to working with you. And if you don't behave, I'm going to talk to your daddy."

Leacy Burke, a spokesperson for Inhofe, told the Post, "He made a lighthearted joke at the end of his questioning to recognize her father again since he was present at the hearing. As he said in the hearing, Inhofe looks forward to working with Ms. Fox once she is confirmed."

Fox's parents immigrated to the United States from a rural area of India. During the hearing, Fox told U.S. senators, "My parents grew up without electricity. They relied on wells for drinking water and pit latrines for wastewater management. Everything I have accomplished is because I stand on the shoulders of my parents' hard work."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

The Republican quandary: How do you deny a 'pretty damning' case ... ›

'The Family': The truth about the 'secret theocracy' behind the ... ›

GOP Senator Inhofe: 'I've never seen Pence as angry as he was ... ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Jim Inhofe's snowball has disproven climate change once and for all ›

Jim Inhofe tells EPA nominee, 'if you don't behave, I'm going to talk ... ›

==

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-08/republican-senators-want-to-help-coal-get-u-s-bailout-money

Politics

Republican Senators Want to Help Coal Get U.S. Bailout Money

A group of 17 lawmakers sent a letter calling on the Fed to be “broad and flexible” in its distribution of bailout funds.

By Akshat Rathi

Cooling towers belonging to the Tennessee Valley Authority Paradise Fossil Plant, a generating station that used to burn coal mined by Murray Energy Holdings Co., are seen in Paradise, Kentucky, U.S., on Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2019.  Photographer: Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg

LISTEN TO ARTICLE

3:52

A group of powerful Republican senators wants to make sure the bailout program being administered by BlackRock Inc. on behalf of the federal government won’t leave fossil-fuel companies behind.

The U.S. government tapped BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, to become the buyer of corporate bonds as part of a $454 billion effort to bail out companies hit by the coronavirus lockdown. That triggered a letter from Greenpeace, Sierra Club, 350.org and other environmental organizations on March 27 urging Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to weigh climate risk in its guidelines for BlackRock as it decides what sectors of the economy get financial support.

Now, in a letter sent Tuesday, a group of 17 Republican senators, including James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Ted Cruz of Texas, are asking Powell and U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to ensure that fossil-fuel companies aren’t excluded from the bailout program being administered by BlackRock.

The pandemic has created an unprecedented upheaval in the global economy. With governments around the world pouring huge sums of money into propping up struggling companies, climate advocates see an opportunity to speed up the transition to clean energy and make entire industries as green as possible. Republican lawmakers have opposed this encroachment from environmental groups, pushing back and largely succeeding so far in separating stimulus spending from climate concerns.

Senate Leaders Meet As Secretary Mnuchin Sees Emergency Package On Track For Monday Passage

Senator Kevin Cramer, a Republican from North Dakota]

Led by Kevin Cramer, Senator from North Dakota, the group of Republican lawmakers seeking to safeguard fossil-fuel companies in the bailout draws heavily from states with concentrations of coal, oil, and gas extraction. Wyoming Senator John Barrasso, who also signed the letter, heads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

More From

Bloomberg Green

The letter calls for the Fed to ensure the relief program is “broad and flexible” and asserts that companies in the “energy and transportation sectors” deserve support. But the message appears particularly concerned with the possible exclusion of coal companies, noting that BlackRock decided in January to exclude any company from its actively managed holdings if it derives more than 25% of its revenue selling coal used in power plants. BlackRock has more than $7 trillion under management, although much of that is in passive holdings. A representative for the company declined to comment on the senators’ letter.

The flurry of exhortations are meant to influence the Fed’s planning, which has yet to be set in stone. Although the U.S. central bank is dedicated to buying newly issued corporate bonds, existing investment-grade bonds, and exchange-traded funds based on highly rated debt as part of its economic-relief efforts, it hasn’t laid out which specific sectors or companies will get the program’s attentions.

BlackRock Chairman Larry Fink shook the finance establishment in January when he called for a “fundamental reshaping of finance” in response to global warming. Last month he used his letter to shareholders to argue that the pandemic should be used by investors as an “opportunity to accelerate into a more sustainable world.” Within the environmental community, however, BlackRock isn’t always seen as a steadfast ally. The move to exclude coal companies from some investments drew ire from those who didn’t think the world’s asset manager was going far enough.

BlackRock was responsible for a similar, smaller bond-buying program on behalf of the Fed during the 2008 financial crisis. Even back then, some Republicans raised objections to selecting the asset manager. But it won out because Fed’s expertise is setting big-picture monetary policies, whereas firms like BlackRock are able to assess and manage different kinds of debts, such as corporate bonds.

On Tuesday, BlackRock also won a contract to develop strategies for including sustainability in the European Union’s banking system. The asset manager beat out eight other bids, and over the next year will help incorporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) measures in the EU banks’ processes for managing risks and assessing investment policies.

==

no lnx

at Least 2 GOP Senators Dumped Millions In Stock After Coronavirus Briefings

Sens. Richard Burr and Kelly Loeffler reportedly made dozens of stock trades shortly after private health briefings for Congress began in January.

By Nick Visser

At least two Republican senators sold hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in stock shortly after Congress began receiving regular briefings about the outbreak of coronavirus spreading around the globe, according to several reports and reviews of financial disclosures.

ProPublica first reported Thursday that Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chairman of the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee, offloaded between $628,000 and $1.72 million worth of holdings in 33 transactions on Feb. 13, shortly after he publicly assured Americans the government was prepared to deal with the novel coronavirus that has since been declared a pandemic. A week after the sales, the stock market began to precipitously fall, erasing about 30% of its value.

Just hours later, the Daily Beast first reported that Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) began selling stocks jointly owned with her husband on Jan. 24, the day the Senate Health Committee held a private, all-chamber briefing from top American officials about COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. In a series of 29 transactions ending in mid-February, documented in Senate financial disclosures, Loeffler and her husband sold between $1,275,000 and $3,100,000 in stock.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) reportedly sold hundreds of thousands in stock shortly after Congress began receiving regular briefings about the outbreak of coronavirus.

The Georgia senator also made two purchases, including one in a company that owns teleworking software, the Beast noted. Loeffler’s husband is Jeffrey Sprecher, the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. The pair are worth an estimated $500 million.

Two other senators made major stock sales around the same time: Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.). Feinstein’s office told The New York Times the lawmaker’s assets are held in a blind trust and she has “no involvement” in the sales.

Selling stock before a market crash can insulate stockholders from any potential losses. It’s against the law for lawmakers to use non-public information to influence financial decisions.

Burr’s office has pushed back against ProPublica’s reporting — which is also based on public financial disclosures required by law ? saying the forms were filed “several weeks before the U.S. and financial markets showed signs of volatility due to the growing coronavirus outbreak.”

“As the situation continues to evolve daily, he has been deeply concerned by the steep and sudden toll this pandemic is taking on our economy,” an aide said in a statement Thursday.

Early Friday, Loeffler called reports about the sales a “ridiculous and baseless attack”: ...

==

c street family?

==

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/06/impeachment-defense-bill-jim-inhofe-067150

11/06/2019 07:43 PM EST

Annual defense policy legislation would be in jeopardy if House Democrats move forward with the impeachment of President Donald Trump, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee warned on Wednesday.

In a floor speech, Sen. Jim Inhofe reiterated that time is running short for negotiators to reach a deal on the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. A staunch Trump ally, Inhofe dinged the House impeachment inquiry, arguing Democrats are placing partisan aims over national security.

Story Continued Below

"It concerns me to see them prioritizing their misguided attempts to undo the results of the 2016 election through impeachment instead of taking care of our troops with the NDAA," the Oklahoma Republican said. "If we can't get our defense authorizations free [from] the partisan gridlock, what kind of a message does that send Americans who rely on our troops for protection."

Story Continued Below

Moreover, partisan wrangling over the legislation hurts national security, he argued.

"Our adversaries, for them, they enjoy this dysfunction. That's what they want," Inhofe said. "They want defense funding mired in partisan debate. They don't want us to catch up."

==

https://www.alternet.org/2019/11/sen-inhofe-is-just-fine-with-flooding-his-neighbors-as-long-as-it-keeps-his-lake-view/

no lnx

Sen. Inhofe is just fine with flooding his neighbors as long as it keeps his lake view

Written by Sarah Okeson / DC Report November 27, 2019

Sen Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, tucked an amendment into the $750 billion defense spending bill that would benefit fellow wealthy homeowners at Grand Lake in northeast Oklahoma by keeping lake levels high but is expected to worsen flooding in nearby Miami, Okla.

The amendment, which starts on page 1,183 of the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act, would limit the ability of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to say how high the lake should be. The Grand River Dam Authority, which has board members who also own lake houses, is licensed by the commission to operate the dam.

“He’s helping his buddies to make sure the lake is full during summer so those very big boats do well,” said Rebecca Jim of Local Environmental Action Demanded which put up a billboard in Miami criticizing Inhofe.

Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees was created in 1940, when the federal government’s New Deal-era Public Works Administration built the Pensacola Dam on the Grand River. The 66-mile-long lake is so beloved by the wealthy and powerful of Oklahoma that one of its subdivisions is called Governors Retreat. Inhofe, a climate-change denier and vocal anti-environmentalist with an estimated net worth is $4.5 million, built a vacation house at Grand Lake in 1962. Former Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin and her husband bought a second home on Grand Lake in 2011. Dam authority board members Pete Churchwell, Jim Richie and Tom Kimball also have lake houses.

“For the better part of my career in the United States Senate I have been working to maintain higher lake levels on Grand,” Inhofe wrote the commission in 2016.

Law professor Richard Painter said the annual defense bill has been used before to try to get environmentally questionable projects through Congress. In 2018, the Senate defense bill included an amendment that would nullify lawsuits over a land exchange for PolyMet Mining Co. to build a copper-nickel mine in Minnesota. That provision was removed before the bill went to the president.

“That’s something that should not be dealt with in a defense appropriations bill,” said Painter, the former chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration.

The federal financial conflict of interest law exempts members of Congress, the president and the vice president. Miami officials learned about Inhofe’s amendment just before the July 4 holiday from the press.

“It’s just as unfair as it can be,” said Miami City Manager Dean Kruithof.

Since the early 1990s, Miami has flooded more than two dozen times, most recently in May. A 2015 study Miami paid for found that the dam worsened flooding.

“The economic and social fabric of the community is slowly being destroyed,” said Miami Mayor Rudy Schultz.

Natasha McKibben spent her oldest son’s eighth birthday packing up their house near Miami, shortly before it flooded in 2007, causing $30 million to $40 million in damage to Miami and the surrounding area. Some of her neighbors’ houses are still vacant.

“We had a FEMA trailer for probably two months before we could get back in the house,” McKibben said.

Miami officials had hoped to address flooding problems with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The license for the dam runs through March 2022. The dam authority now wants to extend the license until Dec. 31, 2026.

==

https://nondoc.com/2019/11/09/inhofe-applauds-withdrawal-from-paris-climate-agreement-urges-passage-of-defense-bill/

no lnx

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2019

NonDoc logoNonDoc

Home  Civics  Politics  Inhofe applauds withdrawal from Paris climate agreement, urges passage of defense bill

CIVICSPOLITICS

Inhofe applauds withdrawal from Paris climate agreement, urges passage of defense bill

By Addison Kliewer and Sarah Beth Guevara - November 9, 2019 206

paris climate

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) continues efforts on the Senate floor to pass a national defense bill that would authorize military appropriations for 2020. (Addison Kliewer/Gaylord News)

WASHINGTON — Amid Sen. Jim Inhofe’s (R-OK) efforts to pass a defense authorization bill this week, the senator commended President Donald Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Monday, Trump announced that the U.S. would officially begin withdrawing from the Paris climate accord — a promise he made in 2017. Nations worldwide signed the agreement in 2016 to increase international responses to climate change by setting carbon emission reduction plans.

Gaylord NewsThis story was reported by Gaylord News, a Washington reporting project of the Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Oklahoma.

As a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Inhofe applauded the announcement, saying the agreement only contained empty promises.

“The reality is America’s CO2 emissions have been falling. In fact, in 2017, the United States led the world in CO2 emission reductions while, notably, China led in emissions — and the Paris Agreement wouldn’t have done anything to rein in China,” said Inhofe in a statement. “Clearly the president’s environmental policies are working without heavy-handed, one-sided commitments.”

In September, the U.S. was ranked under the “barely trying” category in reducing carbon emissions by National Geographic. The countries that were listed in the “top of the class” category were Morocco, The Gambia and India.

Shortly after Trump announced his intent to withdraw from the agreement in 2017, Inhofe wrote a USA Today op-ed, praising the president’s decision.

In the 2017 article, Inhofe wrote that by pulling out of the Paris accord, Trump is prioritizing America’s energy dominance and steering the world away from relying on energy-rich countries such as Iran and Russia.

“Our abundance is a competitive advantage that we can share freely with our allies,” wrote Inhofe. “Remaining in the Paris Agreement could hinder Trump’s energy dominance agenda. This risk is not worth taking.”

White House science advisor and Oklahoma native Kelvin Droegemeier said on Tuesday that Trump has made a promise to pull out of the agreement since entering office. Now, he is simply following through.

“I just make sure the president has the best science in front of him anytime, whatever the policy issue is,” said Droegemeier.

Inhofe urges House to pass National Defense Authorization Act

Inhofe, who is also chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, spoke on the Senate floor Wednesday about the need to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that would authorize appropriations for the 2020 fiscal year and advance policies for defense programs.

“I’ve been asked in the last three days where we are with — what I consider to be the most significant bill of the year every year — which is the Defense Authorization bill. I’ve been having to give the same answer for the last three or four days, and it’s unfortunate,” said Inhofe.

The NDAA has been stalled in the House largely due to Democratic opposition to funding a wall at the Southern U.S. border using military appropriation dollars. Inhofe said he thinks the House will eventually pass the bill, which has passed with bipartisan support for 58 consecutive years.

“If, for some reason, we didn’t get this thing passed until December, our kids over there would not be funded. I am talking about payrolls, I’m talking about everything else. Our military would stop in its tracks,” said Inhofe.

Last week, Inhofe introduced a smaller version of the NDAA, excluding all parts of the larger bill that do not directly relate to defense. Because members of the House spent the week working in their districts, the smaller bill was unable to be voted on this week.

We need to get it in a matter of days now, as soon as the members of the committees in the House are back in town,” said Inhofe.

TAGSCONGRESSGAYLORD NEWSJIM INHOFENATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACTNDAAPARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

Addison Kliewer

Addison Kliewer is a champion equestrian and a member of the Chickasaw Nation. She hails from Cordell, Oklahoma, and is a student at the Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication.

Sarah Beth Guevara

https://www.ehn.org/peter-dykstra-happy-birthday-senator-inhofe-2641352753.html

[req interview in 15 yrs]

...Inhofe's parents moved the family to Tulsa during World War II. Young Jim attended the University of Tulsa, followed his Dad's footsteps as an insurance industry executive, and served a two-year Army hitch, terms in the state House and Senate, and as Mayor of Tulsa. He won a seat in the U.S. House in 1986, and rose to the Senate in 1994, serving two stints as Chair of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee.

I'll spare you the full chronicle of Inhofe's climate related activities, but here are a few high spots.

In May, 1978 as Tulsa Mayor, Inhofe issued a proclamation praising the hunt for clean energy. "I think we're all interested in looking for alternate sources of energy. And of course, we want clean sources," he said. "Solar energy is bound to be in our future. There's a kind of inevitability about it."

On July 29, 2003, He delivered a stemwinding speech on the Senate floor, concluding "could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? I believe it is."

With the assistance of Marc Morano, a political operative on Inhofe's committee staff, he became the go-to voice of climate denial. Morano, who had been a key conduit of information on the "swift-boat" claims against Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004, became a key voice on the so-called "ClimateGate" emails in 2009.

Inhofe has played the Hitler Card, characterizing environmentalists as the "Third Reich" and EPA as the Gestapo.

Several of Inhofe's family members built an igloo four blocks from the U.S. Capitol after a record-breaking 2010 snowstorm. They dedicated the structure to climate action advocate Al Gore.

He playfully lobbed a snowball on the Senate floor at the Senate's presiding officer during another snowstorm in 2014.

His lifetime voting score from the League of Conservation Voters in both the House and Senate is 5%.

Posterity will show at least two exceptions to Inhofe's treatment of environmental issues. In 2003, he co-sponsored the Marine Turtle Conservation Act, which funded efforts to protect the nesting areas of endangered Kemp's Ridley sea turtle. And in 2011, the environment treated him to hospitalization, when an unprecedented heat-driven outbreak of blue-green algae sickened him after a swim in Oklahoma's Grand Lake.

Jim Inhofe is alternately described as courtly and ruthless, and no doubt both qualities have helped carve out such a long political career. He is also a notoriously robust octogenarian, giving him a fair chance of beating the actuarial tables to live to 100. If he does, and he chooses to keep his Senate job until then, his re-election bids have been won by increasingly comfortable margins.

Hence, my standing invitation to the senior Senator from Oklahoma.

Midday Friday, I received my response from Leacy Burke:

I shared your inquiry with the Senator and he said: "Sure! How is 10 am on Friday, November 17, 2034?"

I'll pursue clarification whether it's 10am Eastern or Central time. Watch this space, or whatever information platforms exist, in November 2034.

==

racism new problem? ProEnglish tanton

The Southern Poverty Law Center reported on the group’s statement about the January 2018 meeting and also noted the July 2019 meeting in a piece about Tanton’s death.

On its 25th anniversary last month, the organization wrote that it “is very proud to have been able to have several meetings directly in the White House with a variety of aides to both President Trump and Vice President Pence.” Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) recorded a message of congratulations to the group for its work.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/watch-elizabeth-warren-grills-trumps-defense-nominee-on-ties-to-major-defense-contractor/

kos

Elizabeth Warren is keeping up a grueling presidential campaign schedule, but she has not lost a step in her day job in the Senate, as Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of Defense found out Tuesday. Mark Esper was a top lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon, but he’s not interested in resolving that conflict of interest by permanently recusing himself from decisions involving his former employer.

Warren zeroed in on that and on Esper’s ability to get a waiver from recusing himself while he’s still waiting for a final seven-figure payout from Raytheon, questioning Esper about why he’s not doing what former acting Secretary Pat Shanahan did when Shanahan permanently recused himself from decisions about Boeing, his former employer. (See a pattern in who Trump is elevating?) Warren pressed hard for yes or no answers as Esper fought to filibuster and evade. He really did not want to commit to stepping back from decisions affecting his former employer—having some loopholes is very important to Esper.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Jim Inhofe first stepped in to defend Esper from the questioning, then cut Warren off after Esper got up on a very wobbly high horse to make the case for why he should absolutely be allowed to mix million-dollar payouts from defense contractors with so-called public service. (Spoiler: Esper’s high horse involved his own past military service.) “This is outrageous,” Warren said as Inhofe dinged her on time after repeatedly creating space for Esper to filibuster.

But before that, Warren summed up the situation: “Let me get this straight. You’re still due to get at least a million-dollar payout from when you lobbied for Raytheon. You won’t commit to recuse yourself. You insist on being free to seek a waiver that would let you make decisions affecting Raytheon’s bottom line and your remaining financial interest. And you won’t rule out taking a trip right back through the revolving door on your way out of government service or even just delaying that trip for four years after you leave government.”[vid]

==

==

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/06/epa-formaldehyde-warnings-blocked-696628

many lnx

Trump administration is suppressing an Environmental Protection Agency report that warns that most Americans inhale enough formaldehyde vapor in the course of daily life to put them at risk of developing leukemia and other ailments, a current and a former agency official told POLITICO.

The warnings are contained in a draft health assessment EPA scientists completed just before Donald Trump became president, according to the officials. They said top advisers to departing Administrator Scott Pruitt are delaying its release as part of a campaign to undermine the agency’s independent research into the health risks of toxic chemicals.

Andrew Wheeler, the No. 2 official at EPA who will be the agency's new acting chief as of Monday, also has a history with the chemical. He was staff director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2004, when his boss, then-Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), sought to delay an earlier iteration of the formaldehyde assessment.

Formaldehyde is one of the most commonly used chemicals in the country. Americans are exposed to it through wood composites in cabinets and furniture, as well as air pollution from major refineries. The new assessment would give greater weight to warnings about the chemical's risks and could lead to stricter regulations from the EPA or class-action lawsuits targeting its manufacturers, as frequently occurs after these types of studies are released.

“They’re stonewalling every step of the way,” the current official said, accusing political appointees of interfering with the formaldehyde assessment and other reports on toxic chemicals produced by EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System. Industry has long faulted the IRIS program, the agency’s only independent scientific division evaluating the health risks of toxic chemicals, whose assessments often form the basis for federal and state regulations.

The current official and former official requested anonymity out of fear for their jobs and the impact that speaking out could have on the IRIS program.

Interfering with the formaldehyde study is one of several steps Trump's EPA has taken to side with the businesses the agency is supposed to regulate and undermine the agency's approach to science, critics say. Public health advocates also expressed alarm after Pruitt replaced academic scientists with industry advocates on the agency’s influential science advisory boards and sought to limit the types of human health research the EPA can rely on in rulemakings.

The officials said Trump appointees have required that career officials receive their permission before beginning the required internal review of the formaldehyde study and have canceled key briefings that would have advanced it. That interference came after EPA career scientists revised the study once already last year to insulate it from political controversy, they said.

In a statement, EPA denied that the assessment was being held back.

“EPA continues to discuss this assessment with our agency program partners and have no further updates to provide at this time," EPA spokeswoman Kelsi Daniell said. “Assessments of this type are often the result of needs for particular rulemakings and undergo an extensive intra-agency and interagency process.”

But as long ago as January, Pruitt told a Senate panel that he believed the draft assessment was complete.

Five months later, it has yet to see the light of day. Meanwhile, internal documents show, a trade group representing businesses that could face new regulations and lawsuits if the study were released had frequent access to top EPA officials and pressed them to either keep it under wraps or change its findings.

“As stated in our meeting, a premature release of a draft assessment … will cause irreparable harm to the companies represented by the Panel and to the many companies and jobs that depend on the broad use of the chemical,” Kimberly Wise White, who leads the American Chemistry Council’s Formaldehyde Panel, wrote in a Jan. 26 letter to top officials at the EPA. The panel represents companies including the Koch Industries subsidiary Georgia-Pacific Chemicals LLC that could face higher costs from stricter regulations or lawsuits.

Environmentalists: Pruitt's replacement 'should scare anyone who breathes'

By ERIC WOLFF

Nearly a million jobs “depend on the use of formaldehyde,” White’s letter argued.

The holdup is attracting attention on Capitol Hill, where Democrats have already expressed alarm, arguing that the Trump administration has allowed politics to interfere in EPA’s scientific assessments of threats such as toxic pollution and climate change.

The agency must “move past politics and focus on its job of protecting human health” by releasing the formaldehyde study, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement to POLITICO.

"Because formaldehyde can be found in everything from wood products to women’s hair straighteners, the public health risks are substantial,” Markey said. “Delaying the EPA’s latest assessment of the health risks of formaldehyde only further endangers the health of Americans."

Public health advocates have similarly expressed fears that the Trump administration has allowed EPA to be captured by the industries it regulates. The revelations about the formaldehyde study come after Pruitt removed academic scientists from the agency’s influential science advisory boards and in many cases replaced them with industry advocates, and after he proposed a policy to limit the agency's use of human health data while offering a carve-out for confidential industry studies.

“At every corner, you see the agency trying to either minimize the role of science or manipulate the role of science or just ignore the work of scientists in doing the critical work to ensure that human health and the environment is protected,” said Jennifer McPartland, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund’s health program.

POLITICO also reported in May that Trump administration officials, including EPA chief of staff Ryan Jackson, sought to delay an HHS study finding that nonstick chemicals pose health dangers at a lower level than EPA has said is safe.

Insiders anticipate few major policy changes under Wheeler, who is widely expected to continue Pruitt's deregulatory agenda and is well-versed in chemicals issues. He began his career in EPA's chemical safety office, and after leaving Inhofe's staff lobbied for several chemicals companies, including Celanese Corp., a major formaldehyde manufacturer and ICOR International, a refrigerants manufacturer that was recently acquired by Chemours Co., a DuPont spin-off. A Celanese spokesman said Wheeler worked only on the Renewable Fuels Standard for the company, although Wheeler’s disclosure forms describe his lobbying as being on the broad topic of “chemicals issues.” Wheeler is not barred from working on chemicals issues under the recusal statement he signed in May.

Decades’ of research has linked formaldehyde to nose and throat cancer and respiratory problems, and newer research has suggested the connection to leukemia — controversial conclusions that would gain significant credence if EPA formally adopts them. The new assessment affirms those links to leukemia, nose and throat cancer and other ailments, according to the current and former officials familiar with its findings.

The new assessment could lead the EPA to impose stricter regulations of chemicals refineries or wood products and could spur class-action lawsuits from cancer patients attempting to hold companies responsible for their illnesses.

The agency officials said the political aides blocking the assessment include Jackson and Richard Yamada, a former staffer for House Science Chairman Lamar Smith(R-Texas) who is now a top official in EPA’s Office of Research and Development. And they said Nancy Beck, who criticized the IRIS program in her previous job as a top chemical industry expert, is now helping to stymie the program’s assessments in her new post as head of EPA’s chemical safety office. Jackson, Yamada and Beck did not respond to requests for comment.

The EPA spokeswoman disputed the accusations and said Yamada and Jackson have, in fact, requested briefings on the assessment.

The current EPA official told POLITICO that political appointees have managed to avoid creating written evidence of their interference with the formaldehyde assessment by refusing to send emails or create other records that eventually could become public, instead using what the official described as “a children’s game of telephone."

By blocking the report at the first step of the IRIS review process, political appointees are keeping it from being reviewed by the National Academies of Sciences, an independent panel of the country's top scientists that must weigh in on all such risk assessments. EPA has already paid the academies $500,000 for that review, the highest level of scrutiny a scientific study can receive, but the work cannot start until Pruitt's aides send the study.

“If the administration was really keen on protecting public health, why wouldn’t they send this to the National Academy and give it a really good review?” the former EPA official asked. “If it survives that review, then there’s a public health problem that needs to be dealt with, and if it doesn’t survive the review, then they can point the finger at IRIS and say, ‘You’re dead.’”

How Scott Pruitt blew it

By ALEX GUILLÉN and ANDREW RESTUCCIA

The former official said there would be only one reason not to ask the country’s top experts whether they agree with the analysis: “You don’t want the answer.”

Public health advocates say the administration’s attacks on science have had especially significant implications for the IRIS program. The small office of about 35 experts pores over the huge body of existing research on chemicals, including industry-backed studies aimed at proving the substances safe, to independently assess their risks. While purely scientific, the program’s reviews are looked to by regulators not just at EPA, but also in the states and around the world, often paving the way for new or more stringent regulations.

But industry has long targeted the program, arguing it uses an opaque process to decide which studies to rely on and which research to give credence to when findings conflict.

The American Chemistry Council, Beck’s former employer, spent more than $7 million last year lobbying EPA and Congress on issues including IRIS, formaldehyde and the policy to limit EPA’s use of human health research. Chemicals manufacturers, including Hexion, one of the country’s largest manufacturers of formaldehyde, have also spent tens of thousands of dollars on lobbying related to the program this year.

A National Academies panel agreed with some of industry’s criticisms of the IRIS program in a blistering review of an earlier iteration of the formaldehyde assessment that recommended major changes to how IRIS decides how much weight to give conflicting studies, although it did not attack the substance of its findings about the health effects of formaldehyde. Critics of the IRIS program have pointed to that review frequently as they have sought to kill it, including in an appropriations battle this spring. The EPA spokeswoman also pointed to that assessment in her statement. "The National Academy of Science and Congress in legislative reports have for years been highly critical of EPA’s previous assessments involving formaldehyde," she said.

But te EPA has overhauled the program since then, hiring a new director for IRIS and a new head of the National Center for Environmental Assessment, in which it is housed. The changes have received high marks from the National Academies in two more recent reviews, one in 2014 and one this past April. The latest formaldehyde assessment is expected to demonstrate further progress implementing the academies’ recommendations, potentially undermining industry critiques of the overall IRIS program if it were to be released.

Although efforts to kill EPA’s independent scientific arbiter have so far failed, EPA officials and public health advocates say the program has been significantly hobbled under an administration with close ties to the chemicals industry.

White, the top staffer for the American Chemistry Council’s Formaldehyde Panel, wrote the EPA three times between September 2017 and January 2018, urging the agency to incorporate industry-funded research that found no link between formaldehyde and leukemia, and arguing that the studies shifted the scientific consensus away from the conclusion that it does. In November, Pruitt appointed her to the agency’s influential Science Advisory Board.

Less than a week after the council's Jan. 24 meeting with EPA, Pruitt himself confirmed that the report had been complete for months. During a Senate hearing at the end of January, Markey asked Pruitt for an update on the formaldehyde assessment, saying it was his understanding “that the EPA has finalized its conclusion that formaldehyde causes leukemia and other cancers and that [the] completed new assessment is ready to be released for public review, but is being held up."

“You know, my understanding is similar to yours,” Pruitt replied, promising to follow up.

Markey reminded Pruitt of the exchange in a May 17 letter. In a response Thursday, the agency’s principal deputy assistant administrator for science, Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, said EPA “continues to discuss the formaldehyde assessment internally and has no further updates to provide at this time."

==

==

7/18 lcv

. Republican leaders in Congress have just moved to backdoor a series of anti-environment provisions into law.

Their plan includes a policy to weaken public land protections without public review or input. There's a massive expansion of mining operations. Gutting the Endangered Species Act. Undermining protections for whales and other marine mammals.

They've added all these provisions to the National Defense Authorization Act bill. This is a must-pass military bill that isn't supposed to include riders on the environment.

There's a short window before a bill is finalized. We need to be flooding congressional offices with letters and calls, organizing in key districts, and getting teams to Capitol Hill. As it stands now, we can't do it all. Not without your help.

A major donor has agreed to triple every donation made to help stop this attack on the environment.

Please, Padraic, renew your membership with LCV today for $5 or more »

Adding these kinds of riders to a must-past military bill is nearly unprecedented.When Senator McCain led the Armed Services Committee, he didn't let unrelated anti-environmental riders into these bills.

But with McCain's ailing health, right now the committee is being chaired by vehement climate change denier Senator Inhofe. He's letting these riders in.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060084255

Trade, mining proposals in limbo in Senate mess

Nick Sobczyk, E&E News reporter

E&E Daily: Wednesday, June 13, 2018

The Senate defense authorization bill yesterday hit a procedural snag on several amendments, including a proposal to limit President Trump's authority to set tariffs.

The snafu could mean that a pair of controversial mining amendments filed by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) never get a vote.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has been pushing for an add-on to the National Defense Authorization Act that would require congressional approval of any tariffs imposed by Trump under the national security provisions contained in Section 232 of a 1962 trade statute.

But it has run into "blue slip" issues because of the Constitution's origination clause, which requires bills that raise revenue start in the House.

That led Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), managing the bill on the floor in the absence of Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), to object to Corker's attempt to offer the amendment and remedy the blue-slip problem yesterday.

Corker, in an impassioned floor speech, said he was disappointed that members of his own party were refusing to vote on the bill because it would "upset the president."

"I can't believe it!" he said. "I would bet that 95 percent of people on this side of the aisle support, intellectually, this amendment. I would bet that. I would bet more than 95 percent."

Corker said he would allow the process to move forward without his amendment, but the bill has hit a web of other roadblocks.

Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky are holding up the NDAA until they get votes on a pair of amendments related to indefinite detention at military prisons. Other senators, meanwhile, have threatened to hold up the process if Lee and Paul do get their votes, Inhofe said.

Corker estimated yesterday that there are "about 15 people blocking the bill." The situation has put the Senate in a bind and could effectively mean that no amendments get a vote.

"That's a possibility," said Inhofe.

That includes two proposals on critical minerals — elements deemed vital to national security — that have sparked an outcry from environmentalists.

One, from Heller, would make myriad changes to environmental permitting for mining, including designating a lead federal agency and slapping a 30-month time limit on National Environmental Policy Act reviews.

The other, from Murkowski and Heller, would require the Interior Department to determine which minerals are "critical" and address permitting delays.

Also included in a bipartisan manager's package of amendments awaiting approval is a proposal by Minnesota Democratic Sens. Tina Smith and Amy Klobuchar to codify a land exchange between PolyMet Mining Corp. and the Forest Service, paving the way for a major copper-nickel mine in Minnesota (E&E Daily, June 12).

For now, Corker's amendment is effectively dead and the rest on standby. And Majority Leader Mitch McConnell yesterday took a procedural step to move toward final passage.

Senate leaders had been hoping to finish up on the bill by Friday, but Inhofe acknowledged yesterday that it could bleed into next week.

"It could," he said. "I don't want it to."

no lnx

==

https://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-climate-disinformation-campaign-2534087685.html

ExxonMobil’s Climate Disinformation Campaign Is Still Alive and Well

By Elliott Negin

In a recent blog post, ExxonMobil executive Suzanne McCarron reiterated her company's claim that it fully accepts the reality of climate change and that it wants to do something about it.

"I want to use this opportunity to be 100 percent clear about where we stand on climate change," she wrote. "We believe the risk of climate change is real and we are committed to being part of the solution."

So why is the company still a part of—in fact, a major part of—the problem?

An exchange between Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt during a recent oversight hearing is a case in point, providing a window into how ExxonMobil's undue influence continues to block climate action.

During the Jan. 30 hearing, which was held by the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, Sen. Cory Booker inadvertently provoked Inhofe by raising the issue of environmental justice. The New Jersey Democrat cited the threat climate change-induced flooding poses to three dozen Superfund sites in his state and asked Pruitt if he was "taking into account the environmental burdens disproportionately impacting communities of color, indigenous communities and low-income communities."

Inhofe seized the opportunity to contradict Booker, claiming that minority and low-income communities are disproportionately harmed by environmental protections, specifically citing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which would have dramatically reduced carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants if Pruitt hadn't repealed it.

Booker, Inhofe said, was implying that Pruitt was trying to "punish" vulnerable Americans. "I wanted to just remind you," Inhofe told the committee, "that we had a guy I remember so well, Harry Alford. He was the president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. He provided some of the most powerful testimony that I have ever heard when it comes to the effects of the Clean Power Plan and some of the other regulations … on black and Hispanic poverty, including job losses and increased energy costs.

"[Alford] was very emphatic as to who was paying the price on these," the Oklahoma Republican continued, "and I think sometimes that the previous administration forgot that there are already people out there who are paying all they can pay just to try to eat and keep their house warm."

ExxonMobil's Echo Chamber

Inhofe's source for his assertion? A discredited, ExxonMobil-funded study by an Exxon-funded advocacy group that was based on discredited studies by other ExxonMobil-funded organizations.

Inhofe rested his argument on previous congressional testimony by Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC), a shoestring, mom-and-pop operation that is unapologetic about taking fossil fuel industry money. "Of course we do and it is only natural," Alford wrote on NBCC's website. "The legacy of Blacks in this nation has been tied to the miraculous history of fossil fuel…. [F]ossil fuels have been our economic friend."

One of NBCC's closest economic friends is ExxonMobil, which has donated more than $1.14 million to the group since 2001.

What did the company get for that money?

In 2015, NBCC commissioned a report that claimed the Clean Power Plan would "inflict severe and disproportionate economic burdens on poor families, especially minorities."

In fact, unchecked climate change would more than likely hurt those communities most, and investments in energy efficiency under the plan would ultimately lower electricity bills across the country.

How did NBCC arrive at its upside-down assessment? The Union of Concerned Scientists took a close look at the report and found it was based on several flawed fossil fuel industry-friendly studies. Two of those bogus studies were produced by ExxonMobil grantees: the Heritage Foundation, which received $340,000 from ExxonMobil between 2007 and 2013, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which received $3 million between 2014 and 2016.

The Chamber study, which came out just days before the EPA released a draft of the Clean Power Plan, was debunked not only by the EPA, but also by PolitiFact.com and The Washington Post. Among its many faults, the Chamber study—which was co-sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute—wildly inflated the cost of the plan and failed to consider the benefits of cutting carbon emissions.

ExxonMobil Spreads its Money Around

But there's more than just the fact that ExxonMobil financed deliberately flawed studies to try to derail the Clean Power Plan. The company also is a major supporter of a number of Senate EPW Committee members, including Inhofe, who are adamant climate science deniers.

Inhofe has deep ties to the oil and gas industry, which has donated $1.85 million to his campaign war chest over his long career in Congress, more than twice than any other industry. Three oil and gas companies are among the senator's top 10 corporate contributors: Koch Industries, Devon Energy and … ExxonMobil.

Six of the other 10 Republicans on the EPW Committee also are on ExxonMobil's donation list, including Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the current committee chairman. Roughly half of the $119,500 ExxonMobil contributed to the seven senators over the last decade went to Barrasso and Inhofe, the committee's previous chairman.

Then there's ExxonMobil's link to Pruitt, Oklahoma's attorney general before President Trump tapped him to run the EPA. From 2012 through 2013, he chaired the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and afterward served on the organization's executive committee. From 2014 through 2016, ExxonMobil gave RAGA $160,000 in three annual installments.

Just a few weeks after the company made its 2016 donation of $50,000, Pruitt and then-RAGA Chairman Luther Strange, at the time Alabama's attorney general, co-authored a National Review column attacking a coalition of state attorneys general investigating ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies for misleading investors and the general public about climate change. Parroting ExxonMobil's argument, Pruitt and Strange charged that the coalition was violating the company's first amendment right to free speech.

"The debate" over climate change, they wrote "is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged—in classrooms, public forums and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime."

Inhofe Upstaged

In this case, Inhofe's counterfactual comment didn't make it into the ensuing media coverage. Along with nearly everything else that was said during the two-and-a-half hour marathon, it was eclipsed by a bombshell dropped by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. The Rhode Island Democrat revealed that during a February 2016 radio interview, Pruitt said Trump would be "more abusive to the Constitution than Barack Obama, and that's saying a lot." Whitehouse read Pruitt's remark aloud and asked him if he recalled making it.

"I don't," Pruitt responded, "and I don't echo that today at all."

"I guess not," Whitehouse replied.

Not surprisingly, that embarrassing nugget was the story. There was no way that Inhofe's rambling, ExxonMobil-sponsored falsehood could compete in the media with red meat like that. But overshadowed or not, Inhofe provided yet another incontrovertible piece of evidence that—despite ExxonMobil's statements to the contrary—the company is still very much engaged behind the scenes in trying to stymie any government attempt to seriously address climate change.

Elliott Negin is a senior writer in the Communications Department at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

==

Here's Who's Getting Paid to Destroy the Endangered Species Act

By Rebecca Bowe

A small yet vocal group of congressmen are gearing up this summer to dismantle the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Campaign finance records of these lawmakers reveal that they have all taken significant money from extractive industries frustrated by the law's protection of critical habitat for endangered species.

The ESA has proven to be a powerful, effective conservation safeguard. More than 99 percent of species that have been designated for federal protection continue to exist in the wild today, including the bald eagle, grizzly bear, the leatherback sea turtle and the Florida manatee.

But the work of the ESA has only grown more urgent as many scientists agree that the planet is either on the cusp of or already experiencing a sixth mass wave of extinction. A study last week by Stanford scientists foundthat a significant number of plant and wildlife populations are growing dangerously thin.

Earthjustice is working with coalition partners to oppose efforts on Capitol Hill to weaken protections for endangered species. The public can also make a difference in this fight—despite the big money from fossil fuel industries funding opponents of the ESA—by contacting their Congressional offices (use this call-in tool to be directly connected).

The Anti-ESA Effort and the Money Behind It

The assault on the ESA comes in the form of dozens of legislative proposals and amendments tacked onto spending bills. One bill that's expected to be introduced in a matter of weeks is the handiwork of Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

A Republican from Wyoming, Barrasso shares something in common with other politicians who have made it a legislative priority to weaken or undermine this conservation law. He's received substantial campaign contributions from extractive industries that wish to exploit public lands for mining, drilling and other environmentally destructive operations. Across the American West, for instance, the fossil fuel industry is often pitted against conservationists because habitat for the imperiled sage grouse overlaps with lands eyed by industry for mining or drilling.

According to campaign finance records, from 2011 until 2016, Barrasso received $458,466 in total campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, plus $241,706 from the mining industry. The boost got him a good part of the way toward the $3.66 million he reportedly spent in that time. The Murray Energy Corporation, the nation's largest coal-mining company, was listed as a top donor.

Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma who also serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has also garnered substantial support from the fossil fuel industry, collecting $465,950 from the oil and gas industry and $111,275 from the mining industry in campaign donations from 2011 to 2016. Inhofe, who does not believe in climate change, recently went on national television and answered a question about U.S. Environmental Protection Agency budget cuts by suggesting that that the EPA is "brainwashing our kids."

Rep. Rob Bishop, a Republican congressman from Utah who has gone on the record saying he'd like to "repeal and replace" the Endangered Species Act, received $150,516 in total campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry in the 2015-16 cycle alone.

How You Can Help Protect Wildlife

Battles to protect wildlife are intensifying in the face of attacks from these and other lawmakers. However, they may be in for a bigger fight than they realize. A recent poll showed that 90 percent of voters across all demographics were supportive of the ESA.

Join the movement to defend the wild. Call today and tell your senators to stand strong in defense of imperiled wildlife and the lands and waters that sustain them!

==

==

https://www.ecowatch.com/koch-brothers-paris-agreement-2430226599.html

Paris Exit Was 'Victory Paid and Carried Out' by Republican Party for the Koch Brothers

nolink

The 22 Republican senators who sent a letter to President Donald Trump last week urging the United States' withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement received more than $10 million dollars in campaign funds from fossil fuel interests.

The two-page letter was signed by a number of Republican heavyweights from coal/gas/oil-rich states, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and Ted Cruz of Texas.

The Guardian calculated that the 22 senators received a total of $10,694,284 from oil, gas and coal money in just five years. (See the breakdown below.

However, that sum does not even come close to the amount of undisclosed funds coming from the deep pockets of Charles and David Koch's coal, oil and gas conglomerate, Koch Industries, and other outside groups.

As the Guardian explains:

"Visible donations to Republicans from those industries exceeded donations to Democrats in the 2016 election cycle by a ratio of 15-to-1, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And that does not include so-called dark money passed from oil interests such as Koch industries to general slush funds to re-elect Republicans such as the Senate leadership fund.

"At least $90m in untraceable money has been funneled to Republican candidates from oil, gas and coal interests in the past three election cycles, according to Federal Election Commission disclosures analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics."

Jeffrey Sachs, professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, shared recently his views on Trump's climate walkout.In an interview with Bloomberg Surveillance, Sachs referenced the senators' letter and specifically cast blame on the billionaire oil barons for pulling the strings of Republican party leaders such as McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, who both supported exiting the Paris accord.

"This is the victory paid and carried out for 20 years by two people, David and Charles Koch," Sachs said. "They have bought and purchased the top of the Republican party. Trump is a tool in this."

Notably, most of the Republican signatories of the letter do not support the belief that human activity contributes to climate change.

During an appearance on MSNBC, Democratic Sen. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts explained why he thinks his Republican colleagues do not believe in the science of climate change.

"This Conservative party in the United States is funded by the Koch brothers [and] it's funded by the coal industry," Markey said. "[They] insist that Scott Pruitt—the Attorney General of Oklahoma that actually sued the EPA 19 times on clean air, clean water, soot, mercury issues—becomes the head of the EPA in our country."

The 22 Republican signatories' funding from Big Oil, Gas and Coal in the past three election cycles (2012, 2014 and 2016):

James Inhofe, Oklahoma

Oil & gas: $465,950 + Coal: $63,600 = $529,550

John Barrasso, Wyoming

Oil & gas: $458,466 + Coal: $127,356 = $585,822

Mitch McConnell, Kentucky

Oil & gas: $1,180,384 + Coal: $361,700 = $1,542,084

John Cornyn, Texas

Oil & gas: $1,101,456 + Coal: $33,050 = $1,134,506

Roy Blunt, Missouri

Oil & gas: $353,864 + Coal: $96,000 = $449,864

Roger Wicker, Mississippi

Oil & gas: $198,816 + Coal: $25,376 = $224,192

Michael Enzi, Wyoming

Oil & gas: $211,083 + Coal: $63,300 = $274,383

Mike Crapo, Idaho

Oil & gas: $110,250 + Coal: $26,756 = $137,006

Jim Risch, Idaho

Oil & gas: $123,850 + Coal: $25,680 = $149,530

Thad Cochran, Mississippi

Oil & gas: $276,905 + Coal: $15,000 = $291,905

Mike Rounds, South Dakota

Oil & gas: $201,900 + Coal: none = $201,900

Rand Paul, Kentucky

Oil & gas: $170,215 + Coal: $82,571 = $252,786

John Boozman, Arkansas

Oil & gas: $147,930 + Coal: $2,000 = $149,930

Richard Shelby, Alabama

Oil & gas: $60,150 + $2,500 = $62,650

Luther Strange, Alabama (Appointed in 2017, running in 2017 special election)

Total: NA

Orrin Hatch, Utah

Oil & gas: $446,250 + Coal: $25,000 = $471,250

Mike Lee, Utah

Oil & gas: $231,520 + Coal: $21,895 = $253,415

Ted Cruz, Texas

Oil & gas: $2,465,910 + Coal: $103,900 = $2,569,810

David Perdue, Georgia

Oil & gas: $184,250 + Coal: $0 = $184,250

Thom Tillis, North Carolina

Oil & gas: $263,400 + Coal: $0 = $263,400

Tim Scott, South Carolina

Oil & gas: $490,076 + Coal: $58,200 = $548,276

Pat Roberts, Kansas

Oil & gas: $388,950 + Coal: $28,825 = $417,775

==

22 GOP Senators vs. World Leaders on Paris Agreement

Twenty-two GOP senators sent a letter Thursday urging Donald Trump to pull out of the Paris agreement. They argued remaining in the deal could "upend" the administration's ability "to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan."

Accounting for fewer than half of Senate Republicans, signers included coal-friendly politicians and prominent climate deniers, such as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Overseas, French president-elect Emmanuel Macron urged Trump not to make a "rushed decision" on the agreement at a Thursday meeting. White House economic adviser Gary Cohn predicts "fairly robust" talks on the Paris agreement at this weekend's G7 leadership summit in Sicily, and European leaders at the summit have indicated they will pressure Trump to remain in the deal.

As The Guardian reported:

"Some western powers are trying to frame the climate change discussion as a national security argument, pointing to the risk of war and terrorism if mass migration explodes out of drought-ridden Africa.

Trump's aides insist he remains in listening mode on climate change, and no decision will be made for a few weeks. The British, eternal optimists, at least sense he is moving on the issue. Results may have to wait for the G20 summit, to be attended by China in Hamburg in June."

For a deeper dive:

GOP letter: AP, Axios, The Hill; Macron: Reuters, CNBC; G7: The Guardian, Reuters, BBC

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html

==

==

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-jackson-22b8b874/

Chief of Staff

Company NameOffice of U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe

Dates EmployedJan 2011 – Present Employment Duration6 yrs 3 mos LocationWashington, D.C.

Office of U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe

Legislative Director

Company NameOffice of U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe

Dates Employed2007 – 2011 Employment Duration4 yrs LocationWashington, D.C.

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Counsel

Company NameU.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Dates Employed2003 – 2007 Employment Duration4 yrs LocationWashington, D.C.

Fourteenth Judicial District - Oklahoma

Assistant District Attorney

Company NameFourteenth Judicial District - Oklahoma

Dates Employed2001 – 2003 Employment Duration2 yrs LocationTulsa, Oklahoma

Education

Oklahoma City University School of Law

Oklahoma City University School of Law

Degree Name Doctor of Law (JD)

Dates attended or expected graduation 1998 – 2001

University of Oklahoma

University of Oklahoma

Degree Name Bachelor of Arts (BA)

Dates attended or expected graduation 1994 – 1998

Luke Holland  3rd degree connection 3rd

Legislative Director at U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe

Greg Slavonic

Greg Slavonic  3rd degree connection 3rd

Chief of Staff at Office of U.S. Senator James Lankford Washington, DC | Government Administration

Herrgott, Alex

Herrgott, Alex  3rd degree connection 3rd

Majority Deputy Staff Director, United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Susan Bodine

Susan Bodine  3rd degree connection 3rd

Chief Counsel at United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Daniel Hillenbrand

Daniel Hillenbrand  3rd degree connection 3rd

Legislative Assistant at United States Senate

Andrew Neely

Andrew Neely  3rd degree connection 3rd

Professional Staff Member at U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Andrew Wheeler

Andrew Wheeler  3rd degree connection 3rd

at Faegre BD Consulting

Stephen Aaron

Stephen Aaron  3rd degree connection 3rd

Senior Vice President at Mercury

Kozeny (Grassley)

Kozeny (Grassley)  3rd degree connection 3rd

Chief of Staff at U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Bettina Poirier

Bettina Poirier  3rd degree connection 3rd

Adjunct Associate Professor, American University Washington College of Law

LinkedIn

==

ays after his confirmation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt began stacking his department with conservatives, many of them climate deniers and all of them eager to axe environmental regulations—much like President Trump himself, the New York Times reported Tuesday.

To start, there's Ryan Jackson, former chief of staff to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), one of the most outspoken climate deniers in Congress, infamous for bringing a snowball into the chamber to illustrate that global warming was not real. Jackson will serve as Pruitt's chief of staff.

Then there's Byron Brown, another Inhofe staffer, who will now be Jackson's deputy.

Andrew Wheeler, formerly of Inhofe's team but now a fossil fuel lobbyist, is at the top of Pruitt's list to be deputy EPA chief, although he will require confirmation by the Senate.

And two Trump campaigners, Don Benton and Douglas Ericksen, are also taking on senior positions in the agency.

The Times' Coral Davenport wrote:

To friends and critics, Mr. Pruitt seems intent on building an EPA leadership that is fundamentally at odds with the career officials, scientists and employees who carry out the agency's missions. That might be a recipe for strife and gridlock at the federal agency tasked to keep safe the nation's clean air and water while safeguarding the planet's future.

It remains to be seen whether that kind of conflict will arise between Pruitt and EPA employees. Under Trump, the agency has already rolled back critical Obama-era regulations, effectively restricting the government's ability to prevent water pollution and collect data on methane emissions.

More anti-environmental plans and executive orders from Pruitt and Trump are expected to come this week as well. Meanwhile, the president's first draft budget includes a proposal to slash the EPA's annual funding by about 24 percent or $2 billion.

EPA employees say morale has plummeted, particularly for those who helped strengthen regulations under former President Obama and will now be ordered to undo their own work.

The changes have also come in more subtle ways. The day after Trump took office, WhiteHouse.gov scrubbed any mention of "climate change" and on Tuesday, the watchdog group Environmental Data and Governance Initiative reported that the agency's Office of Science and Technology Policy no longer lists "science" in its own description.

"This is probably the most important thing we've found so far," Environmental Data and Governance Initiative's Gretchen Gehrke told the New Republic. "The language changes here are not nuanced—they have really important regulatory implications."

Reposted with permission from our media associate Common Dreams.

==

OMG

Famous for repeatedly claiming climate change is a “hoax”, Inhofe is a senator and chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

He was part of the US advisory council of Atlantic Bridge, and though he has publicly ruled out getting a post in Trump’s administration, he told his local paper:

“I got a phone call on the 5th of October and it was Trump. … I am now in a position where I am giving him some advice on national defense”.

McConnell hired policy chief, koch lobbyist

Mitch McConnell owes the Kochs big time. The Kochs bought McConnell a slew of GOP Senate seats in the 2014 midterms and handed him his post as Senate Majority Leader. In addition, Koch Industries gave over $10,000 to buoy McConnell in his own Senate battle. Now McConnell is hiring a Koch crony to push the Koch agenda through Congress. McConnell has hired Hazen Marshall, a former lobbyist on behalf of Koch Industries, to serve as his new policy director.

Koch Industries spent a hefty $13 million on influencing the federal government last year. Marshall previously served as partner of the Nickles Group where he worked on behalf of Koch Industries. There, he lobbied on the Kochs’ pet issues, including against the Wind Production Tax Credit. The wind PTC has been crucial to the growth of the wind energy industry as it has boomed in recent years, providing more affordable energy, supporting thousands of new jobs, and protecting our environment. But self-interested fossil fuel titans like the Koch brothers are lobbying to crush the wind industry. The Kochs will stop at nothing to stave off threats to their petrochemical empire.

Since the midterms, Koch lieutenants have been dispatched to work in offices across Capitol Hill — demonstrating the deep ties between Koch-world and the GOP. Joni Ernst hired her chief of staff from the Koch-backed National Federation of Independent Small Business, Jim Inhofe tapped his Environment and Public Works Committee press secretary from the Koch-funded Generation Opportunity, and Tom Cotton’s former spokesman is the new director for Americans for Prosperity-Arkansas. It’s getting harder and harder to separate the Koch shills from the GOP.

Mitch McConnell's Policy Chief Previously Lobbied for Koch Industries

https://theintercept.com/.../mitch-mcconnells-policy-chief-previously-lobbied-koch-in...

May 18, 2015 - Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., appointed Hazen Marshall, a lobbyist for Koch Industries, as his new policy chief. Marshall, whose lobbying ...

McConnell Names Koch Shill to Key Senate Post | Real Koch Facts

realkochfacts.com/mcconnell-names-koch-shill-to-key-senate-post/

May 20, 2015 - McConnell has hired Hazen Marshall, a former lobbyist on behalf of Koch Industries, to serve as his new policy director. ... Joni Ernst hired her chief of staff from the Koch-backed National Federation of Independent Small ...

==

//lucas house

S. 543: EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015

Introduced:

Feb 24, 2015

Status:

Referred to Committee on Feb 24, 2015

This bill was assigned to a congressional committee on February 24, 2015, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Sponsor:

John Boozman

Senior Senator from Arkansas

Republican

Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]* 02/24/2015

Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK]* 02/24/2015

==

http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/12/inhofe-pope-francis-climate-change/

iccc 10th

They include discredited fossil fuel-funded scientist Willie Soon; Marc Morano, executive editor of the denial website ClimateDepot.com and one of the main subjects of the documentary Merchants of Doubt; and two congressmen, including the infamous, snowball-throwing chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, James Inhofe. When you’ve got the author of The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won’t Run the World and Bass Ackwards: How Climate Alarmists Confuse Cause With Effect (those are written by retired University of Connecticut physics professor Howard Hayden) and another speaker whose touted as “a popular guest of America’s number one radio show, the Rush Limbaugh Show,” it’s pretty clear what direction the event is going to take.

And according to The Guardian of London, “Lamar Smith, the Texas congressman who heads the science, space and technology committee, raised cheers from the room when he said he proposed a 40 percent cut in NASA’s budget for Earth sciences last week.” So the crowd clearly heard what they came for.

Inhofe opened the conference with a keynote address flogging the same narrative he’s been putting out there since the 2012 publication of his book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, passing out sheets with 12 talking points for those intent on refuting the evidence of climate change.

He dismissed the upcoming Paris climate summit as nothing  but a bunch of talk, saying, “They talked about it—very good. Now they say it is all going to come together in Paris, and I don’t think it is.” And he assured his audience that the Republican Party will stand firm with them on climate change, saying, “If you look at Republican candidates, they are all denying this stuff with the exception of Lindsey Graham. They’re all with the people in this room.”

He also took potshots at Pope Francis, who has spoken out repeatedly on climate change and is expected to deliver his long-awaited encyclical on the topic next week.

“Everyone is going to ride the Pope now. Isn’t that wonderful,” said Inhofe sarcastically. “The Pope ought to stay with his job, and we’ll stay with ours.”

“I am not going to talk about the Pope,” he said, immediately after doing so. “Let him run his shop, and we’ll run ours.”

Never mind that Inhofe’s “shop” is fueled by millions from the oil and gas industry, he’s already trespassed on the Pope’s “shop” to make his hoax argument. In 2012, he appeared on a Christian radio program where he said, “The Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’ My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.” He repeated the “God is still up there” line in his speech at the Climate Conference.

Inhofe also warned his audiences against “appeasers,” Republicans tempted by the money spent by people such as Republican businessman Jay Faison, who has committed $175 million to encourage them to address climate change as a reality.

“When they see how much money is there, and they see that the bureaucracy is on their side, they might be tempted to give them a vote,” said Inhofe. “This is why you have this last guy with $175 million claiming to be a Republican, and all it takes is one or two or three of the senators to say, maybe I’ll appease them.”

Not only was Inhofe honored with the opening keynote slot, he was also one of five individualsgiven awards by the Heartland Institute for “decades fighting the politicization and misinterpretation of climate science.” He joined three scientists—only one a climatologist—and a TV weatherman in receiving the honor.

“The Climate Change Awards were started in 2014 as a way to recognize individuals of extraordinary ability and unflagging commitment to restoring sound science and common sense to the debate over global warming,” according to the Heartland Institute. “The awards serve to increase public awareness of the global warming realism movement and send a signal to the academy and other elite institutions saying if they won’t recognize these genuine heroes, then the sponsors of these awards will. And finally, they encourage otherwise silent scientists, philanthropists, and civic and business leaders to speak up on behalf of sound science and common sense.”

Listen to Sen. Inhofe and other climate deniers speak at the Heartland Institute’s Climate Conference:

http://legalnewsline.com/issues/global-warming/256209-u-s-sen-capito-introduces-bill-to-roll-back-epas-proposed-clean-power-plan

May 14, 2015 8:30 AM

By JESSICA M. KARMASEK

WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) – West Virginia’s U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito has introduced legislation aimed at rolling back President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

Capito, a Republican and chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, introduced the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act, or ARENA, Wednesday.

Capito said ARENA will ensure reliable and affordable energy, put jobs and the economy first, and curb federal overreach.

“President Obama’s misguided ‘Clean Power Plan’ threatens to drastically reduce coal-related jobs, increase energy prices and reduce reliability,” she said. “After carefully considering the economic and legal implications of this unprecedented proposal, the need for action is clear.

“The Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act enables us to fight back against the assault on coal, and the broader threat to affordable, reliable energy nationwide. I am proud to lead the charge against the Clean Power Plan’s sweeping regulations and look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to move this very important legislation forward.”

Under the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal, new large natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, while new small natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour.

New coal-fired units would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, and would have the option to meet a somewhat tighter limit if they choose to average emissions over multiple years, giving those units additional operational flexibility.

The agency expects to finalize the rules this summer.

However, under ARENA, before the EPA can set a technology-based standard for new power plants, the standard must first be achieved for at least one year at several separate power facilities throughout the country.

The bill also prevents the EPA from using any demonstration projects — projects that are reliant on federal support — from being used to set the standard.

In addition, Capito’s proposed legislation:

• Extends compliance dates: The bill would extend the rule’s compliance dates pending final judicial review, including the dates for submission of state plans;

• Holds the EPA accountable: This bill would require EPA to issue state-specific model plans demonstrating how each state could meet the required GHG emissions reductions under the rule;

• Enables states to protect ratepayers: The bill would provide that no state shall be required to implement a state or federal plan that the state’s governor determines would negatively impact economic growth, negatively impact the reliability of the electricity system or negatively impact electricity ratepayers; and

• Protects highway fund dollars: The bill would prevent the EPA from withholding highway funds from any states for noncompliance with the Clean Power Plan.

ARENA also would require the federal agency to submit to Congress a report describing the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions the Clean Power Plan is expected to reduce, and to conduct modeling to show the impacts of the rule on the climate indicators used to develop the rule.

The bill is co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas; Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune, R-S.D.; Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.; John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Roy Blunt, R-Mo.; Roger Wicker, R-Miss.; Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.; Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; Rand Paul, R-Ky.; John Hoeven, R-N.D.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; Dan Coats, R-Ind.; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Jim Risch, R-Idaho; Deb Fischer, R-Neb.; Ted Cruz, R-Texas; John Boozman, R-Ark.; David Perdue, R-Ga.; Steve Daines, R-Mont.; Tom Cotton, R-Ark.; Tom Tillis, R-N.C.; Mike Rounds, R-S.D.; and Bill Cassidy, R-La.

“I applaud Sen. Capito for introducing legislation that would allow states to better protect middle class families from the ramifications of the Obama Administration’s regressive, and likely illegal, energy regulations,” McConnell said.

==

4/15

The traditional definition of chutzpah involves a guy who kills his parents, then pleads for mercy because he is now an orphan. The modern definition of chutzpah involves … Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK).

The chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has an Earth Day (!) op-ed arguing we should embrace carbon-free nuclear power because of the threat posed by global warming. You remember Inhofe, the guy who called global warming a hoax, the guy who for over a decade has trashed climate scientists, such as James Hansen, whom he called in 2006 a “NASA scientist and alarmist.”

Apparently, however, Inhofe no longer sees Hansen as radioactive. He writes, without a trace of irony:

James Hansen, the former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in 2013 that ‘continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.’

How cool is it that Inhofe is now apparently on board with top climatologist Hansen on the urgent need “to avoid dangerous climate change” by accelerated deployment of zero-carbon technologies? Presumably he’ll soon be on board with Hansen’s call for a high and rising carbon dioxide fee (returned to the public as a dividend), and a World War II scale effort to return CO2 levels back to 350 parts per million from their current level of 400 ppm (and rising 2+ ppm a year).

As an aside, what’s holding nuclear power back is its exorbitant price. Indeed, just this week a panel of experts unanimously agreed that nukes have all but priced themselves out of the market. Perhaps Inhofe should have supported the climate bill that came out of the House of Representatives in 2009, since its carbon pricing mechanism would have been nuclear power’s best chance at a resurgence.

As for Inhofe’s bromancing of Hansen, I suspect it is unrequited, but then they say politics does make for strange bedfellows. Or at least for new definitions of chutzpah

==

One of America’s most powerful and outspoken opponents of climate change regulation received election campaign contributions that can be traced back to senior BP staff, including chief executive Bob Dudley.

Jim Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma who has tirelessly campaigned against calls for a carbon tax and challenges the overwhelming consensus on climate change, received $10,000 (£6,700) from BP’s Political Action Committee (PAC).

Following his re-election, Inhofe became chair of the Senate’s environment and public works committee in January, and then a month later featured in news bulletins throwing a snowball across the Senate floor.

Before tossing it, the senator said: “In case we have forgotten – because we keep hearing that 2014 is the warmest year on record – it is very, very cold outside. Very unseasonal.”

==

The 'exclusive' photos of 'Russian invasion in Ukraine' in 2014 turned out to be easily found in the Web, with at least one of them dating back to 2008. Now, US senator James Inhofe is furious with the Ukrainian delegation for setting him up with the 'evidence'.

Questions have been raised about the veracity of reports that claim Russian troops have invaded Ukraine after US Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe confessed that several photos of Russian convoys he obtained from a Ukrainian parliamentary group were taken during the 2008 Georgia conflict, the Washington Free Beacon said.

On Tuesday, the Washington Free Beacon ran a story that unveiled "exclusive" photos of victims of militia bombs and Russian armed vehicles seemingly rolling into Ukraine.

The photos were provided to Inhofe's office in print by an obscure Ukrainian delegation, led by a Georgetown professor, who said the images were taken at the height of Russia's alleged military incursion between August 24 and September 5, 2014.

Inhofe's spokeswoman Donelle Harder was cited as saying they had checked back with their sources - none of them high-level Ukrainian officials - before releasing the photos. She said they had been quite confident about their authenticity since the imagery allegedly matched reports about the Ukraine conflict.

But speaking to The Mirror on Thursday, Sen. Inhofe confessed he was "furious" to learn that at least one of the photos was taken by Associated Press during Russia's military operation in Georgia back in 2008. Several other images are readily available elsewhere online and can be found using a Google Images search.

Among the Ukrainian delegation was Semen Semenchenko, the commander of the "Donbas" volunteer battalion and a newly elected member of the Verkhovna Rada. Earlier, he was known as Konstantin Grishin and was reportedly suspected of fraud in Crimea.

...

http://www.sott.net/article/292559-US-Senator-furious-over-duped-photos-of-Russian-invasion-in-Ukraine-still-wont-change-his-mind

==

3/15

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/james-inhofe-fracking_n_6957406.html

The following post first appeared on FactCheck.org.

Sen. James Inhofe says there has never been “an instance of ground water contamination” caused by hydraulic fracturing — fracking — for oil and natural gas. Inhofe’s office told us he is referring only to “the physical act of cracking rocks through hydraulic fracturing.” But drilling operations that involve fracking include other actions that have caused contamination.

peer-reviewed study published in 2014 found that drinking water wells near fracking sites in Pennsylvania and Texas were contaminated with methane that had the chemical signature of gas normally found only deep underground.

Rob Jackson, a Stanford University professor of earth system science who coauthored the 2014 study, told us that drilling that uses hydraulic fracturing has “contaminated ground waters through chemical and wastewater spills, poor well integrity, and other pathways.”

The Fracking Boom

Fracking involves injection of a large volume of water, sand and a cocktail of chemicals (known as fracking fluid) deep underground to fracture the rock and allow gas to seep out. It is also used for oil extraction. (See EPA diagram at bottom.)

In common usage, the term “fracking” is sometimes used to describe the entire process of drilling for natural gas, but that isn’t accurate. After a well is drilled, cemented and prepared in other ways, only then is the well “fracked” — the actual stimulation of rock far beneath the earth’s surface to allow extraction of the gas.

Although hydraulic fracturing has been in use since the late 1940s, better technology and changing economics have led to a recent boom in natural gas extraction, in particular from shale formations. U.S. production of shale gas rose by almost 500 percent between 2007 and 2013, according to the Energy Information Administration.

With this boom, however, have come questions regarding water contamination related to drilling activity. This could occur through a number of mechanisms, including spills of gas or fracking fluid at the surface that could leach into groundwater, faulty cement casings inside wells allowing seepage of gas into the water table, and failed pieces of the well, such as steel and cement.

Partially in response to those concerns, the Department of the Interior finalized a regulation on March 20 regarding hydraulic fracturing and related activities on public and tribal land. The regulation includes a number of provisions related to fracking and other aspects of natural gas drilling activity.

For example, the rule includes “[p]rovisions for ensuring the protection of groundwater supplies by requiring a validation of well integrity and strong cement barriers between the wellbore and water zones through which the wellbore passes.” It has specific requirements for constructing cement casings for wells, and monitoring pressure on certain well parts during fracking operations. And it also requires disclosure of the chemical contents of fracking fluids.

Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, opposes the regulation. He, along with 26 cosponsors, introduced a bill that would specifically put the responsibility for regulating relevant oil and gas operations in the hands of the states rather than the federal government.

In a statement, Inhofe claimed fracking operations have never resulted in any contamination issues:

Inhofe, March 20: Since 1949, my state of Oklahoma has led the way on hydraulic fracturing regulations, and just like the rest of the nation, we have yet to see an instance of ground water contamination.

A spokeswoman for Inhofe, Donelle Harder, told us in an email that “the physical act of cracking rocks through hydraulic fracturing, thousands of feet below ground, has never caused groundwater contamination. What we are not saying is that a surface spill, faulty casing, bad drilling practices cannot be a problem. There is a difference between the hydraulic fracturing process and rest of the well drilling process.”

But scientists we interviewed say that it doesn’t make sense to separate fracking from the entire gas and oil production process, and there is ample evidence that the overall process can cause contamination of water supplies. As we noted above, the new DOI rules cover the entire process including fracking, well casings and other activities.

Well Failures and Water Contamination

Anthony Ingraffea, a Cornell civil and environmental engineering professor, told us in a phone interview that discussing contamination related to the frack per se isn’t useful. “The simpler question to ask is, ‘Is there any instance in which oil and gas development, writ large, has contaminated peoples’ drinking water?’ And the answer is, thousands. Thousands of cases.”

For example, Pennsylvania — which has been at the center of the recent rapid growthin natural gas extraction – maintains a list of hundreds of cases where a “private water supply was impacted by oil and gas activities.” The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection list covers both conventional and unconventional drilling — unconventional gas development refers to drilling for gas in shale and other difficult-to-access geologic formations. But it does not address specifically how the contamination occurred.

Among the first studies specifically linking natural gas development and fracking to water quality was a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2014 that analyzed drinking well water near fracking operations in Texas and Pennsylvania.

In that study, which was coauthored by Jackson at Stanford, researchers identified the presence of methane — the primary component of natural gas — in drinking well water near unconventional drilling sites in the Marcellus Shale region in Pennsylvania and the Barnett Shale region in Texas. Using chemical signatures of certain gases, the researchers were able to determine in several cases that the methane was from deep underground — evidence that the drilling operations had caused the contamination.

The study found that faulty and leaky wells were likely to blame, and recommended studying “whether the large volumes of water and high pressures required for horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing influence well integrity.”

Ingraffea, of Cornell, said sending the water, sand and chemicals down the well puts an enormous amount of pressure on the casing, which could cause it to crack or separate from the steel surrounding it. Many wells are often fracked up to dozens of times, he added, and the repeated increase in pressure could cause failures as well. According to one 2014 paper published in Marine and Petroleum Geology, an estimated 6.3 percent of all Pennsylvania wells drilled between 2005 and 2013 suffered either a “well integrity failure” — meaning failures of barriers including casing, tubing and cement, and actual leakage of gas or fluids into surrounding soil and water — or a “well barrier failure” — meaning failure of one or more barriers with no information indicating actual leakage. The DOI points out that about 90 percent of all new wells are fracked.

Methane has been the primary culprit in proven cases of contamination, but other substances including heavy metals and chemicals related to fracking fluid have been found as well.

A paper published in Environmental Science and Technology in 2013 found higher levels of heavy metals such as selenium and arsenic in wells close to drilling activity in the Barnett Shale region compared with water that was farther from drilling. The researchers concluded that these contaminants could have arrived via a variety of mechanisms, including natural processes or failure of gas well components. Another study found fish kills and damage to other aquatic life following a surface spill of fracking fluid. The fracking process itself was not responsible, but in order to spill fracking fluid at the surface one must intend to frack a well.

Clearly, the DOI’s new regulation is designed to ensure water quality and safety as it relates to the entire process of extracting oil and natural gas, not just to the singular action of fracking. Inhofe is entitled to the opinion that such regulations should be left in the hands of the states, but he is wrong to say or imply that existing regulatory efforts have a perfect track record when it comes to preventing contamination of water supplies.

Editor’s Note: SciCheck is made possible by a grant from the Stanton Foundation.

==

1/2015 back in charge

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday voted 98-1 to approve a resolution stating that “it is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax.” Then, about 15 minutes later, the Senate rejected a second resolution that said climate change is real and caused by humans.

The first resolution was approved — and co-sponsored — by one of the most outspoken climate deniers in the Senate, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), a man who literally wrote a book about how climate change is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated.” The only Senator to vote against the resolution was Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS).

Sounds too good to be true, right? That’s because it is. At the last minute, right before a vote was taken, Inhofe took the floor to state that he would be co-sponsoring and approving the amendment on the grounds that yes, climate change is real, but human-caused climate change is not. “Man cannot change climate,” Inhofe said. “The hoax is that there are some people that are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful that they can change climate.”

The resolution was originally put forth by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) as an amendment to the bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. It was widely seen as a way to troll Republicans — a way for Democrats to say “Fine, if you want to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, you have to go on record about whether you think global warming is real.”

But Jim Inhofe out-trolled Sheldon Whitehouse. Jim Inhofe out-trolled us all.

Fortunately, the effort to get every Senator on the record about their stance on human-caused climate change was not all for naught. Shortly after the vote on Whitehouse’s resolution, the Senate also took up an amendment from Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), which stated that climate change is real and that humans contribute to it. That amendment failed, however, following a short speech from Sen. Lisa Murkoswki (R-AK) saying that the amendment’s inclusion of the word “significantly” — as in, humans “significantly” contribute to global warming — should warrant a “no” vote. Schatz’s amendment failed 50-49 (it needed 60 votes to pass), but it does mean that a slim majority of the U.S. Senate acknowledges that climate science is a real and valid thing.

Among the votes against Schatz’ amendment acknowledging that climate change is real were Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH). Republicans who voted to say that climate change is real and significantly caused by humans included Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mark Kirk (R-IL), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

==

mayfly bs MTR related?

argh 2014

As a consequence of Tuesday's election, the most aggressive climate change denier in the Senate, Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma, will be replacing Barbara Boxer of California as chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. That's like having an arsonist at the head of the local fire brigade. Except that arsonists usually hide in the shadows. And that's one thing Inhofe doesn't do.

Two years ago, WND Books published Inhofe's,The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.

In it he cites as his favorite Bible verse, Genesis 8:22: “As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.” About that, he said to a radio interviewer at the Voice of Christian Youth America: "My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

He hasn't changed his mind about what he wrote in his fantasy tome. Of the International Panel on Climate Change's Synthesis Report released last week, he said:

The idea that our advanced industrialized economy would ever have zero carbon emissions is beyond extreme and further proof that the IPCC is nothing more than a front for the environmental left. It comes as no surprise that the IPCC is again advocating for the implementation of extreme climate change regulations that will cripple the global economy and send energy prices skyrocketing. The United States is in the midst of an energy renaissance that has the potential to bring about American energy independence, which would strengthen our national security and energy reliability for generations into the future. At a time of economic instability and increased threats to American interests, the IPCC’s report is little more than high hopes from the environmental left.

If we were going to have a replacement for Boxer, who has shown excellent leadership on the committee and introduced climate legislation with Sen. Bernie Sanders, it should have been Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Starting in October 2011, when he gave this bullseye speech, he has been speaking every week on the floor of the Senate about climate change and what should be our response. Of course, most of those speeches are given to an empty chamber. Whitehouse also plans to introduce carbon pricing legislation in the near future. Obviously, that bill will go nowhere. It may not even get a hearing on the EPW committee.

This cannot all be blamed on Republican know-nothings.  metero b

==

Uganda

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/senator-inhofe-lied-to-rachel-maddow-about-his-knowledge-of-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill-says-author/politics/2012/03/16/36584

march 2012

Republican Senator James Inhofe in a rare GOP appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show, last night labeled as “hysterical” international concern over the Uganda “Kill The Gays” bill, while claiming he has never even heard of the three-year old bill and claiming he has never heard of the bill’s sponsor, MP David Bahati, one of the most powerful and the best-known Ugandan lawmakers. Senator Inhofe boasts that he has traveled to Africa, and primarily, to Uganda, almost two dozen times, and met with lawmakers and religious leaders there. A well-respected investigative journalist and popular author who has written two books on the topic says Inhofe is “lying.”

Rachel Maddow, in one segment of her extensive interview with the man who claims no one in his family has ever been divorced or gay, asks, now “that the Kill The Gays bill is back now, are you for it or against it?”

enator Inhofe, in a rather theatrical twist of emotion, responds with this diatribe:

Are you saying, are you suggesting, Rachel — I want to make sure everyone understands this — that I am for executing gays, that I somehow knew something about what their philosophy is over there and what they’re doing legislatively? I know Uganda , I know Ethiopia, I know Ghana, I know Benin, I know Africa better than anyone else certainly in the United States Senate. I’ve spent a lot of time over there, I’ve developed close relations over there. When 9/11 happened, I was the only member of the Armed Services Committee who knew where Africa was. We were making a decision to get into Africa to help train them to resist all the things coming into the state, into the country, into the continent. That’s what I did. So I do know Africa well.

It is not possible for these two statements to co-exist. If Senator Inhofe knows Africa well, then he knows David Bahati — and knows about the Uganda Kill The Gays bill — very well. Frankly, millions of Americans know about David Bahati and his Kill The Gays bill, so if Senator Inhofe doesn’t — after spending hundreds of thousands of you tax dollars on trips to Africa and Uganda, then something is desperately wrong and we should immediately stop paying for these excursions.

There is no possible way to deny this, and I all but guarantee that anyone feeling like doing a bit of FOIA research could easily prove it.

In fact, the one person best able to prove it might very well be journalist Jeff Sharlet, author of the groundbreaking book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. No other American journalist knows Inhofe better than Sharlet.

So, what does Sharlet say?

sharlet: t's also built around internal Family documents that ID Uganda as Inhofe's special responsibility for grooming leaders.

8:04 AM - 16 Mar 2012

==

American Culture Warriors in Africa

==

msg bd:

Inhofe seeks to force the EPA to report the costs of its rules

04/01/2014

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe introduced a bill to force the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce its own rules and report the costs of agency regulations.

Inhofe’s bill would prevent the EPA from issuing any new major rules until it follows the law and starts reporting economic costs.

“Americans are not as aware of the costs that have come from the regulations of this administration,” Inhofe told reporters on a conference call. “[They're] essentially putting people out of business.”

The Clean Air Act (CAA) already requires the EPA to report the impact of its regulations across the economy, but the Obama administration has failed to enforce this part of the law.

Inhofe aims to force EPA to enforce CAA Section 321(a) and report the costs of its rules.

“This would put teeth in Section 321(a),” Inhofe said.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/01/in...#ixzz2xfLLOzcR

then links to mayfly

larry bell

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/11/13/epa-charged-with-lethal-experiments-on-hundreds-of-unsuspecting-subjects/

A suit filed in federal court charges the Environmental Protection Agency with conducting illegal and potentially lethal experiments on hundreds of financially needy people who were paid $12/hour without even informing them of risks. Based upon thousands of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, procedures undertaken since 2004 and continuing through the Obama administration exposed subjects at the University of North Carolina’s School of Medicine to very high levels of toxic air pollutants. Many of these subjects were already health-impaired, suffering from asthma, metabolic syndrome, and aging (up to 75 years old).

One of the pollutants was a fine particulate substance known as PM2.5, a major component of diesel exhaust which EPA had determined to be unsafe for inhalation at any level, particularly for health-impaired and elderly populations. The administration’s own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council chairman, Jon Samet, stated that in a 2011 commentary published in the New England Journal of Medicine. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) reiterated EPA’s position on this in a February 2012 letter to EPA air chief, Gina McCarthy.

EPA has strictly regulated PM2.5 under its Clean Air Act since 1997.  Those air quality standards costing multi-billions of dollars are being dramatically tightened. Two of the biggest new ones under its recently D.C. District Circuit Appeals Court-rejected Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury Air Toxics Standard, are heavily premised upon condemnation of PM2.5 as a killer. As EPA Administrator Jackson testified in Congress in September 2011, “…particulate [PM2.5] matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.” She added, “If we could reduce particulate matter to levels that are healthy we would have an identical impact to finding a cure for cancer.”

So if this is the case, why did EPA fail to warn their test subjects that the substances they would be exposed to in high doses were so dangerous? While the administration has repeatedly told Congress and the public that PM2.5 can kill within hours of exposure, they only told them, for example, that “You may experience some minor degree of airway irritation, cough or shortness of breath or wheezing. These symptoms typically disappear two to four hours after exposure, but may last longer for particularly sensitive people.” ...One such “sensitive person” is an obese woman with a history of heart disease. She had to be rushed to a hospital for an overnight stay after suffering a cardiac arrhythmia during an experiment. And although EPA attributed her heart problem to PM2.5 in a published report, no one ever bothered to warn subsequent subjects of cardiac arrhythmia risk.

The American Tradition Institute (ATI) which filed the law suit against EPA and its administrator asserts that such practices are not only illegal, but run afoul of virtually every rule of ethical standard established since World War II and the Tuskegee syphilis experiments to protect human study subjects from rogue scientific research. The egregious Tuskegee experiments were influential in prompting Congress to pass the National Research Act of 1974 creating a commission to develop principles for protection of human subjects in scientific experimentation.

ATI believes that EPA has both civil and criminal liability. The litigation was filed on behalf of lead plaintiff Landon Huffman, an ATI member who participated in the EPA’s human experimentation after receiving a consent form that did not explain that he would be exposed to something that the agency claims to be lethal. He was also never informed that such human experimentation was only supposed to be conducted in a manner that would potentially and directly benefit the study subjects.

To the contrary,  Mr. Landon maintains that he was led to believe the experiment would help people with asthma, a condition he suffers…not told that the pollution that was forced into his lungs could actually cause an asthma attack. Nor was he ever given anything by EPA that would possibly relieve his asthma.

Since learning that EPA considers that the gases he was exposed to are lethal, Landon reports being distraught and consumed with emotional distress. This includes a fear of dying and future inability to support his wife and family. He is also distressed that other participants may suffer in the same way.[plag?]

Guided by painful lessons of such tragedies, it is difficult to imagine any possible justification for the EPA’s experiment program on plausible ethical or legal grounds. Section  42 of U.S. Code 3515b addressing prohibition on funding certain experiments involving human participants states that: “…[no]funds appropriated by this Act ….shall be used to pay for any research program, project, or course which is of an experimental nature, or any other activity involving human participants, which is determined by the Secretary or a court of competent jurisdiction to present a danger to the physical, mental, or emotional well-being of a participant or subject of such program, project, or course, without the written, informed consent of each participant or subject.”

Since three of the EPA researchers connected with its human experiments are North Carolina-licensed physicians, that state’s medical board is now investigating their participation. The University of North Carolina which provided the EPA with a required institutional review board (IRB) for approving the experiments is also conducting an inquiry. And while the Obama-appointed Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues has refused multiple requests to get involved in the issue, Senator Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is now calling for investigatory hearings on the matter.

In a letter to committee chair Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) Inhofe wrote: “It is extremely disturbing that EPA may have conducted illegal human experiments, exposing people with conditions such as asthma and metabolic syndrome to concentrated high levels of substances like fine particulate matter and diesel exhaust.” He then charged that: “EPA has repeatedly said that these substances can cause cancer and lead to death, so if these allegations of human experiments are true, it just validates the problem that the Obama-EPA’s mission is not about public health.”

So there it is. Either such devastating charges are warranted, or the agency’s assessments of toxic dangers presented by diesel PM2.5 emissions are greatly exaggerated and unsupportable. In the second event, EPA is at least guilty of gross scientific incompetence, public misrepresentation of facts, and costly abuse of regulatory authority. Either way, they must be required to clear the air and clean up their act.

==

7/14

Ryan is merely the latest Republican in Congress to calculate that disparaging the Administration’s efforts to confront climate change will play well in election year politics. With a split Congress unable to move basic legislation, let alone anything that would require actual cooperation across the aisle, the Obama Administration has focused on mitigation and adaptation efforts at the executive level through their Climate Action Plan.

This week Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) blocked a Senate resolution simply stating that climate change is real before receiving a highly informative rebuttal from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). Earlier this summer another potential Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), said he doesn’t agree with the notion that “there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate.”

This climate defeatist tact is a part of the Republican’s overall strategy this year — yesterday the House voted to sue President Obama for overstepping his legal authority, i.e. trying to get stuff done. The strategy also runs counter to international efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Investment in clean energy globally is at its highest point in several years and major economies like India and China are looking ramp up even further in the near term. China is also setting up pilot carbon reduction plans and Mexico recently hinted at possibly considering a carbon scheme of their own.

However, fossil fuel invested politicians in Canada and Australia have also managed to regress the conversation from how to make progress to how to maintain the status quo. In the meantime, greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb at an alarming rate and the world continues to see record high temperatures.

==

JUMPS THE SHARK:

AlterNet [1] / By Cliff Weathers [2]

GOP Senator Attacks Retired Military Brass for Saying Climate Change Threatens Security

May 16, 2014  |

Republican Sen. James Inhofe is once again dismissing a report on climate change, attacking the integrity of the report's authors. While that's not news in itself, the targets of Inhofe's derision are 16 retired three- and four-star generals and admirals. Inhofe claims that retired military officers are just desperate for publicity, and don't understand the defense needs of the nation.

The generals and admirals wrote a federally funded report on climate change, assessing the threats of global weather events on national security.

Other Republicans, however, have been notably quiet since the report's release. Typically, they form a chorus to shout down any climate-change report, claiming that man-made climate change is fraud perpetuated by the "liberal agenda.” This time, the authors of the report are not scientists and environmentalists, the typical targets of conservative derision. It would be political suicide for any Republican to categorize such a large group of career military officers as liberals, especially in an election year.

The authors of the climate change report focused solely on their area of expertise, national security. They serve as the military advisory board for the CNA Corporation, a non-profit research and analysis organization in Alexandria, VA. They warned that climate change is not only a menace to the environment but presents the U.S. with several new security threats. The advisory board's report said that climate change has already led to conflicts over food and water because of droughts and extreme weather, and it anticipates that the incidence of these conflicts will increase exponentially. The report also predicted that the increase in catastrophic weather events would create more demand for U.S. military troops, and could cause damage to naval ports and military bases.

“Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States,” says the report, adding that conflicts will likely be felt “even in stable regions.”

The report says that climate events like flooding, prolonged drought and rising sea levels could result in population dislocation, waves of refugees and food insecurity. These would serve as “catalysts for instability and conflict,” in more vulnerable regions, aggravating existing stressors such as poverty, political instability and social tensions. Such conditions can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence, according to the report.

The report concluded that the U.S. military should shift course, and adopt strategies to manage catastrophes and conflicts both domestically and internationally.

The report's forward was written by former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. They warned that “we no longer have the option to wait and see” and pleaded for a “bipartisan call to action.”

Responding to the report, Secretary of State John Kerry told the New York Times [3] that American foreign policy will need to adjust to respond to the climate events predicted. Kerry said, “The intelligence community takes it seriously, and it's translated into action.”

“Tribes are killing each other over water today. Think of what happens if you have massive dislocation, or the drying up of the waters of the Nile, of the major rivers in China and India,” Kerry said.

Pentagon officials also said they would use the report's findings to shape military policy; however, it is already moving in that direction. Last month, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel hosted 10 defense ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations at a meeting in Hawaii where they discussed how their militaries can work together to effectively tackle non-traditional security challenges, including climate change and natural disasters. And in March, the Department of Defense announced it had drawn a direct link between the effects of global warming and terrorism.

“The department certainly agrees that climate change is having an impact on national security, whether by increasing global instability, by opening the Arctic or by increasing sea level and storm surge near our coastal installations,” said John Conger, the deputy under secretary of defense for installations and environment. “We are actively integrating climate considerations across the full spectrum of our activities to ensure a ready and resilient force.”

One of the report's authors, retired Rear Admiral David Titley, the former oceanographer of the Navy, told the Huffington Post he hopes the message will be received differently by climate-change deniers as it comes from retired and respected U.S. military brass.

“This report is signed, not by environmentalists or climate scientists, but by 16 admirals and generals who collectively have over 500 years of service to our country,” said Titley, who is now a meteorology professor at Penn State University.

There is some speculation that the report could spawn a National Intelligence Estimate regarding climate change. NIEs are authored by the U.S.' 16 intelligence organizations and various military organizations and are used to evaluate security threats here and abroad, typically suggesting actions to be taken.

In 2007, then Sen. Hagel, a Republican, called for legislation requiring federal intelligence agencies to collaborate on a National Intelligence Estimate to evaluate the security challenges presented by climate change. He was joined by Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin. Although Hagel and Durbin's bill died in committee, a NIE was later released in 2008. No NIE on climate change has been released since.

Any mention of climate change by scientists, the media and the Obama administration is met with piranha-like attacks by Republicans that often climax in an abundance of media appearances to denounce the messengers. But with the exception of Inhofe, they've been notably hesitant to attack former top military officers.

Inhofe, of Oklahoma, is a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He calls himself "a vocal skeptic of the established science that greenhouse-gas emissions contribute to global warming." He claims to believe the science of climate change is a "hoax."

"There is no one in more pursuit of publicity than a retired military officer," said Inhofe of the CNA Corporation study. "I look back wistfully at the days of the Cold War. Now you have people who are mentally imbalanced, with the ability to deploy a nuclear weapon. For anyone to say that any type of global warming is anywhere close to the threat that we have with crazy people running around with nuclear weapons, it shows how desperate they are to get the public to buy this."

Climate change, which was once considered an issue that would only pose problems many years from now, has moved firmly into the present. Although scientists caution against linking any single atypical climate event to climate change, they note that together these aberrant and severe weather events are consistent with global warming.

In March, the United Nations released a report stating that climate change is already cutting into the global food supply and fueling wars and natural disasters. The report stated that political instability and riots in Asia and Africa in 2008 were a direct result of food-price shocks brought on by regional weather events. The UN report warned that governments are unprepared to protect those most at risk.

Syria's civil war is believed to have been spurred by the droughts which have distressed the country since 2006. Three-quarters of the nation's crops have failed and nearly all of its livestock have died of thirst or hunger. Syria’s farmers abandoned their farms, fleeing to the cities in search of jobs and critically insufficient food supplies, creating regional social unrest. UN observers estimated that between 2 and 3 million of Syria’s 10 million rural inhabitants were reduced to extreme poverty, and this is the core cause of recent national instability.

See more stories tagged with:

climate change [5],

terrorism [6],

national security [7]

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/inhofe-attacks-retired-generals-and-admirals-over-climate-change

in June, senator James inhofe (r-ok)

introduced a bill in the senate that would have

killed epa’s new mercury rule, which will slash

emissions 90% over the next three years.

moms Clean air force, a group of mothers and other clean

air supporters, now more than 100,000 strong, swung into action

to defend the rule, one of the biggest public health advances in a

generation. Inhofe claimed that the public health benefits of lowering

mercury emissions are “epa propaganda.”  edf

2011 looks like reprise of truth squad, this one in durban

On Wednesday, December 7, CFACT cosponsored a press conference with U.S. Senator James Inhofe at the UN climate change conference in Durban, South Africa. The UN broadcast it live on their website, and you can watch the highlights here:

...If you wish to view the full 30-minute press conference, the UN has it available as awebcast here.

On Tuesday, CFACT conducted a highly publicized parachute drop which called attention to Climategate 2.0.

The Wednesday press conference featured an analysis from Senator Inhofe of the prospects of a new climate treaty in the U.S. Senate. The conference also featured the release of Marc Morano's (publisher of ClimateDepot.com) new report “A-Z Climate Reality Check” which details troubles and failings in what has been falsely proclaimed by global warming advocates to be a “settled scientific consensus.”

“Climate Depot’s new A-Z report reveals that the great man-made global warming catastrophe that was predicted – has been cancelled.” Morano said. “The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim – from A-Z – the claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing and in many instances going in the opposite direction. The global warming movement is suffering the scientific death of a thousand cuts. This Climate Depot special report categorizes and indexes the full range of climate developments in a handy A-Z reference guide from the Antarctic to Polar Bears to Mount Kilimanjaro to Sea Levels to Global temperatures to hurricanes and tornados.”

Nobel Prize nominee, Leon Louw, Executive Director of South Africa's Free Market Institute, discussed the devastating impact climate policy has had on the economies of both the developed and developing world and the crippling hindrance it poses to the poor.

South African nuclear physicist Dr. Kelvin Kemm discussed global warming policy providing a unique South African analysis.

When a Greenpeace activist asked a question about ocean acidification, Lord Christopher Monckton, freshly rested from his parachute jump to call attention to Climategate 2.0, delivered a thorough scientific refutation of the idea that ocean acidification is a problem caused by man-made global warming.

“Secretary Figueres is telling the COP that she can obtain a new commitment period in Durban.” Said CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker. “After she hears what Senator Inhofe has to say, she may want to reevaluate her wishful thinking.”

Visit www.ClimateDepot.com, www.CFACT.org, and www.CFACT.tv for the latest developments here in Durban.

COSPONSORS(8):

Sen Manchin, Joe, III [WV] - 3/16/2011

Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 3/16/2011

Sen Toomey, Pat [PA] - 3/16/2011

Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 3/16/2011

Sen Johanns, Mike [NE] - 3/16/2011

Sen Portman, Rob [OH] - 3/28/2011

Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] - 3/28/2011

Sen Paul, Rand [KY] - 3/29/2011

S.AMDT.183

Amends: S.493

Amendments to this amendment: S.AMDT.244

Sponsor: Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] (submitted 3/15/2011) (proposed 3/15/2011)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.

The battle over an amendment to essentially strip the EPA of regulatory authority it arrogated to itself over the last two years deepened today when Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) blasted Republicans for abandoning his temporary measure.  Speaking from the Senate floor, Rockefeller angrily called the McConnell-Inhofe bill “theological,” “immature,” and warned that it had no chance of passage at all.  The full transcript will be at the bottom of the post, but here is the key portion ...COSPONSORS(8):

Sen Manchin, Joe, III [WV] - 3/16/2011

Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 3/16/2011

Sen Toomey, Pat [PA] - 3/16/2011

Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 3/16/2011

Sen Johanns, Mike [NE] - 3/16/2011

Sen Portman, Rob [OH] - 3/28/2011

Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] - 3/28/2011

Sen Paul, Rand [KY] - 3/29/2011

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S1686

Sen Manchin, Joe, III [WV] - 3/16/2011

Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 3/16/2011

Sen Toomey, Pat [PA] - 3/16/2011

Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 3/16/2011

Sen Johanns, Mike [NE] - 3/16/2011

Sen Portman, Rob [OH] - 3/28/2011

Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] - 3/28/2011

Sen Paul, Rand [KY] - 3/29/2011

S.AMDT.183

Amends: S.493

Amendments to this amendment: S.AMDT.244

Sponsor: Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] (submitted 3/15/2011) (proposed 3/15/2011)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S1686

STATUS:

3/15/2011:

Amendment SA 183 proposed by Senator McConnell. (consideration: CR S1641-1642, S1643-1644, S1649-1653, S1665-1668, S1669-1673; text: CR S1642)

3/16/2011:

Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S1715, S1726-1728, S1741-1744)

3/17/2011:

Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S1780, S1782)

3/28/2011:

Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S1883)

3/29/2011:

Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S1913, S1923-1925)

3/30/2011:

Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S1962)

4/5/2011:

Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S2111)

4/6/2011:

Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S2154, S2161-2165, S2165-2168, S2171-2177, S2179)

4/6/2011:

Amendment SA 183, under the order of 4/5/2011, not having achieved 60 votes in the affirmative, the amendment was not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 50 - 50. Record Vote Number: 54.

COSPONSORS(8):

Sen Manchin, Joe, III [WV] - 3/16/2011

Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 3/16/2011

Sen Toomey, Pat [PA] - 3/16/2011

Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 3/16/2011

Sen Johanns, Mike [NE] - 3/16/2011

Sen Portman, Rob [OH] - 3/28/2011

Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] - 3/28/2011

Sen Paul, Rand [KY] - 3/29/2011