States that will see the highest temperature increases due to climate change also overwhelmingly oppose a federal bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
By 2100, the biggest temperature spikes in the United States will be felt in the Midwestern states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, and Oklahoma, according to a report released this week by The Nature Conservancy. Each state will see temperatures rise at least ten degrees--up to twice the increase predicted in more liberal coastal states. The five hard-hit Midwestern states have only three Democratic senators among them; no Republicans in the region are expected to support a cap and trade bill. Climate change heat map from climatewizard.org
The Midwest is set to see the mercury rise because it's isolated from cooling ocean currents that will blunt the effects of a warming climate in other parts of the United States. In President Obama's home state, Hawaii, for example, temperatures will increase only 4.9 degrees. The temperature rankings come from an interactive heat map published by the Nature Conservancy this week on the website Climatewizard.org.
In a narrow sense, one could argue that the GOP is looking out for the Midwest's best interests; higher temperatures may ultimately be a boon to chilly states such as South Dakota. But adapting to a warmer climate could also prove painful. Temperature increases will likely shift farming zones, exacerbate outbreaks of pests, and tax the region's underground aquifers.
The one Midwestern state that would probably be most screwed over by warming is also the one inhabited by the Senate's leading climate change skeptic, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. He has called global warming a "hoax," trumpeted a fake EPA scandal involving a so-called climate whistleblower, and parroted the Chamber of Commerce's call for a "Scopes Monkey Trial" on the evidence for climate change. And yet temperatures in Oklahoma are set to rise 9.9 degrees by the end of the century. That wouldn't be so bad, except it means that Oklahoma City will experience 103-degree summers. Inhofe may keep alive the old Texas maxim about why the Lone Star State doesn't slip into the Gulf of Mexico: Because Oklahoma sucks.
University researchers and lab workers receive on average $33,417 per year in payments from the drug and medical device industry; researchers who lead medical trials fare even better, earning more than $110,000 per year, more than a quarter of their total funding. This is according to a survey of more than 3000 life science faculty at 50 leading universities, published yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Academics and medical researchers frequently claim that industry ties have no effect on their objectivity or results, but the report tells a different story: Researchers with ties to industry exhibited "a substantially greater portion of documented positive outcomes," the report notes. Other studies have made similar findings.
Basically, researchers backed by industry have little incentive to report negative results that could derail the profitable commercialization of their products. With university-corporate partnerships corrupting the ivory tower, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has called for the government to step in. Since the Vioxx scandal of 2005, it has pushed the Food and Drug Administration to conduct its own in-depth safety trials before drugs are approved. But that would mean creating a larger government health bureaucracy. And we all know how that's going.
Not long ago, Florida Republican Charlie Crist was known across the country as "the environmental governor." As his first major initiative, he brought in fellow moderate Arnold Schwarzenegger to headline a Summit on Global Climate Change. He created a climate "action team" that issued reports that could have come out of the Sierra Club. And he signed green executive orders and pledged support for cap and trade. Florida, after all, is set to be inundated by rising sea levels and hammered by stronger hurricanes. In 2007, Crist said "global climate change is one of the most important issues we face this century."
That was then. Now, as Crist prepares to enter the state's Republican Senate primary, he's starting to sound less like climatologist James Hansen than Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe. Last week, his administration told other states that Florida would not join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the East Coast's cap and trade scheme, or present a proposed cap and trade rule to the Florida legislature. A spokesperson for the state's Department of Environmental Protection said the decision was prompted by "the strong liklihood of federal action on climate policy."
Environmental groups aren't buying that explanation. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said the move was a major blow to the 10-state RGGI effort; Florida's participation would have increased the size of the program by 75 percent and likely raised the price of emissions permits. It also would have helped build a bipartisan case for federal legislation. "Gov. Crist’s retreat signifies that it is becoming increasing difficult for environmentally concerned citizens to advance in today’s Republican Party," said Florida PEER directory Jerry Phillips, "and that is a real shame."
A column in Tuesday's Orlando Sentinel notes that the 2009 legislative session in Florida was "a disaster for greenies." The House killed climate change legislation, and along with it, mandates for renewable energy. Crist says there may be no climate change summit this year. "Simply do the political calculation," writes Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas. "He would easily beat any Democrat in the Senate race. . .So environmentalists are of little use to him now. . .And when it comes to climate change, there is nothing in it for Crist anymore."
Cell phone carrier Verizon Wireless has prompted an online uproar and calls for a boycott over its sponsorship of the "Friends of America Rally," a Labor Day gathering in Logan, West Virginia organized by mountaintop-removal coal mining company Massey Energy that appears intended to rile up the troops against climate change legislation.
Under similar political pressure, Verizon has already dumped its ads on Glenn Beck's Fox News show as of last week, citing Beck's "controversial track record." Another Fox blowhard, Sean Hannity, is set to appear at the Logan rally along with global warming skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton and the inimitable Ted Nugent. The sponsorships seem out of character for Verizon, which, on its website, touts efforts to address "the entire global emissions problem" through measures like fuels cells, solar panels, and energy efficient technology.
Verizon spokesperson Laura Merritt told me the sponsorship of the rally was "a local decision that was intended to support the immediate community." She added that more than 100 companies had signed on to the event (though most are small businesses or part of the mining industry). "I insure you that this is not a statement of our policy on any public issue."
Merritt declined to say what kind of events Verizon would not sponsor. When I asked if there are people in West Virginia who oppose mountaintop removal mining and support a climate bill, she demurred. "All I can tell you is that this decision was based on support of that immediate, small community there," she said. "Beyond that, I really don't know."
It's perhaps unfair to be too hard on Verizon when 3 million businesses belong to the US Chamber of Commerce, a brutal foe of cap and trade. Still, the company comes off as duplicitous and amoral when it panders to local audiences in opposition to its stated values. Fortunately, many consumers know that there are phone companies that actually put the planet ahead of profits. That's what I'd call a true Friend of America.
UPDATE: Courtesty of Think Progress, here's Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship inviting people to attend the rally, where they'll learn about how "environmental extremists and corporate America are both trying to destroy your jobs."
A few days after I made fun of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for saying it wants a hearing on climate change that would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st Century," the group has backed off the comment. Chamber vice president Bill Kovacs blogs on the National Journal website:
My "Scopes monkey" analogy was inappropriate and detracted from my ability to effectively convey the Chamber's position on this important issue.
What is the Chamber's position on this important issue? According to Kovacs, the Chamber is not one of the business lobby's "Climate 'deniers,'" but is simply against an "endangerment finding" by the EPA--a conclusion that greenhouse gasses are a threat and should therefore be regulated as pollutants. As I stressed yesterday, the endangerment finding serves as a powerful political club for the Obama administration in pushing the cap and trade bill that the Chamber opposes. "[O]ne can be against an endangerment finding and still supportive of strong, effective action to reduce carbon emissions," Kovacs writes. "Indeed, the Chamber's platform of technology, efficiency, and a global approach would actually do more to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions than a finding by EPA ever could."
Assuming that's true--and there's no real evidence it is--when did "technology, efficiency, and a global approach" and an endangerment finding become mutually exclusive?
I continue to be appalled that the Chamber, which represents 3 million businesses, some of whom disagree with its stance on cap and trade, is run by people as short-sighted and blatantly dishonest as Kovacs. Even as he distanced himself from the "Scopes" comment and the "climate denier" label, he rolled out a list of "uncertainties" about human-generated climate change, ending in a mention of "the saga of Alan Carlin, the EPA whistleblower whose internal report criticizing the data behind the endangerment finding was ignored." As has been thoroughly addressed here and elsewhere, Carlin is an economist, not a climate scientist, and his report was read and discounted--"ignored," if you will--because it was based on false assumptions and flawed data. That the nation's largest business lobby is really that stupid doesn't bode well for the future of American commerce.