Kate Sheppard

Reporter

Kate Sheppard is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She was previously the political reporter for Grist and a writing fellow at The American Prospect. She can be reached by email at ksheppard (at) motherjones (dot) com.

Full Bio | Get my RSS | Follow @kate_sheppard

Her work has also been featured in the New York Times' Room for Debate blog, the Guardian's Comment Is Free, Foreign Policy, High Country News, The Center for Public Integrity, the Washington Independent, Washington Spectator, Who Runs Gov, In These Times, and Bitch. She was raised on a vegetable farm in southern New Jersey (yes, they do exist), but has adapted well to life in the nation's capital. She misses trees and having a congressional representative with voting power, but thinks DC is pretty great anyway.

Baby Steps Expected at Doha Climate Meeting

Negotiators meet for yet another year of slow progress on combating climate change.

—By Kate Sheppard

| Thu Nov. 29, 2012 4:08 AM PST

The skyline of Doha, Qatar

You're forgiven if you haven't heard that US negotiators are back at the table discussing global climate policy, this time in Doha, Qatar.

The 18th Conference of the Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (or, more simply, COP18) hasn't received nearly the attention of its predecessor in Copenhagen in 2009, or even the past two years in Cancun, Mexico, and Durban, South Africa. I've been at the past three COPs, but won't be traveling to Doha this year, for the simple reason that nothing big is expected to happen. Any progress this year will likely be decidedly small—but that's okay, too, since setting the hurdles low might mean negotiators can actually clear them.

First, let's do a quick refresher on negotiations to date. These things go back, as you might guess, 18 years, to the first meeting in Berlin. In 1997, major developed countries signed onto the Kyoto Protocol—though the US famously never ratified the treaty. Flash forward to 2007 (I said this was going to be quick), where the US negotiators representing the Bush administration got booed for blocking progress toward a Kyoto successor and made an about-face, agreeing to what became known as the "Bali roadmap," which said we would reach a new, binding commitment on a climate treaty that included the United States as well as major emerging economies like China and India by 2009. And then the US elected a new president who promised that his would be an era in which "the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal."

So, heading into 2009's meeting in Copenhagen, expectations were high (Like, we-put-it-on-the-cover-of-our-magazine high.) And then … spectacular failure. Or, marginal political progress, depending on how you looked at it. At the last minute, the United States and some—not all—other nations signed a political accord that laid out some goals (not to be confused with legally binding promises), like limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius and creating a $100 billion pool of money for poor nations dealing with climate change. The Cancun meeting in 2010 officially adopted the previous year's accord into the UNFCC framework, and made some progress on hashing out some of the points. And then last year in Durban, world leaders agreed to yet another new timeline that would have them drafting a legally binding global climate deal in 2015 that would not take effect until 2020. (Just take your time, guys. It's not like climate change is an urgent problem or anything, right?)

So this brings us to Doha. David Waskow, the climate change program manager at Oxfam America, described it rather diplomatically as a "steppingstone toward 2015." Indeed, a lot of the issues on the table this year are the same issues on the table last year.

One of the most important outcomes in Doha is likely to be a work plan for the next few years. If there's going to be a legally binding commitment in 2015, there needs to be an outline of how we get there from here, with deadlines and goals. There isn't one right now.

One issue Waskow is following closely is the climate finance negotiations. The "fast-start" financing—the initial $30 billion in pledges that developed nations agreed to put toward mitigation and adaptation between 2010 and 2012—effectively ends this year. Nations aren't going to stop providing that aid, but the initial commitments are over and they need to figure out how and how much they're going to provide additional funding between now and 2020, when the long-term financing through the Green Climate Fund is supposed to be fully mobilized. Meanwhile, there is still a lot of progress to be made on figuring out where those long-term financing dollars are going to come from.

Right now, the world is on a path that would blow right by the 2 degree warming target and head straight for 4 degrees, which would have disastrous effects.

Then there is still the question of ambition on the mitigation front. While the parties have put forward their own 2020 emission reduction targets, they still need to determine whether those targets are strong enough, and what comes after 2020. Right now, the world is on a path that would blow right by the 2 degree warming target and head straight for 4 degrees, which would have disastrous effects.

Another important issue facing negotiators is a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol. The initial period concludes at the end of 2012. Japan, Russia, Canada, and, most recently, New Zealand have said they won't sign onto another commitment period under Kyoto. All of them have said they want to wait for a new treaty that includes the United States and China before they'll make a new commitment. That leaves the European Union and Australia as the only major emitters still standing behind Kyoto, but it's better than nothing.

Lastly, there's the eternal X factor at these negotiations: the United States. Counterparts from European and vulnerable nation delegations routinely criticize the US as the major reason these negotiations lack ambition. Our ongoing standoff with China has been a key challenge, with both parties waiting on the other to take the lead. (And since the US has been a developed nation for much longer than China, other nations tend to give us the stink eye for continuing to drag our feet.)

Now that President Obama has won a second term, NGO observers are hoping negotiators will take a stronger approach. "I believe the US needs to push the reset button on international climate diplomacy," said Jennifer Morgan, director of the climate and energy program at the World Resources Institute. "I think right now the world sees the US strategy as pulling the world down to what's politically possible in the US on climate change, rather than working with the world on trying to avoid 2 degrees and building the politics to be able to respond to the challenge."

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Your Couch May Be Killing You

—By Kate Sheppard

| Thu Nov. 29, 2012 4:08 AM PST

It's not your imagination, or a bad trip: Your couch could be trying to kill you.

A new study in the journal Environmental Science and Technology found that 85 percent of the sofas researchers tested contained flame-retardant chemicals that have been identified as carcinogens and potential neurotoxins. The stats were even worse for newer couches—those made after 2005: 93 percent of those contained chemicals that were either confirmed toxic or had not yet been tested adequately enough to know if they pose a risk. The chemicals accounted for as much as 11 percent of the weight of the foam in the cushions, they found.

Manufacturers use 3.4 billion pounds of flame-retardant chemicals in couches, insulation, carpet padding, and electronics every year to, in theory, prevent them from catching fire. But studies have found that the chemicals aren't actually effective and only make the fumes from fires more toxic.

"Petty much everyone in the country with a couch or a chair with foam have as much as a pound of a chemical like DDT or PCB in their home," Dr. Arlene Blum, the executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute and a coauthor of the paper, told Mother Jones. "Most people think the government protects them, and that if something's in their couch it must be safe." (Blum's flame retardant work was the subject of an excellent New York Times profile in September.)

Twenty-four percent of the sofas tested positive for chlorinated Tris, a carcinogen banned from children's clothing back in the 1970s. While no longer in baby clothes, the chemical is still relatively common in mattresses and car seats and, as this study found, your couch. The researchers also found that some of the 102 couches they tested contained PentaBDE, a chemical that the United States phased out in 2004 because, as the EPA said, the chemicals are "persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to both humans and the environment." But as the researchers note, most people keep their couches for an average of 15 years, meaning the older couches are still in many people's homes.

The real problem is that the chemicals don't stay in your couch. They end up in dust and air in your house, which is particularly problematic for children that crawl around on the floor. And for you, too, if you spend a lot of time on your couch or crawling around on your floor.

The researchers also note that it's hard to tell if your couch contains these chemicals. If it has a label noting that it meets California's standards for flammability of upholstered furniture—that it can resist bursting into flames for 12 seconds—then it most likely does have a bunch of chemicals in it. But 60 percent of the couches they tested that didn't have those labels still contained the chemicals.

All of this raises interesting questions about what you should do with your couch. Blum tossed her chemical-laden furniture years ago, when she found out that she had 93 parts per million of toxic chemicals in her home, which was pretty high. After four years without the toxic furniture, she's is now down to 3 parts per million. The Green Science Policy Institute's primer on "cancer-free couches" is a useful place to start if you want to know more.

EPA Blocks New Gov't Contracts for BP

—By Kate Sheppard

| Wed Nov. 28, 2012 11:04 AM PST

The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Wednesday that it has temporarily barred BP and all its affiliates from new government contracts. This is significant news, as it comes at the heels of BP's settlement with the Department of Justice over criminal charges related to the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. One of the criticisms of the settlement was that it did not include penalties for the company beyond the $4.5 billion fine.

The EPA's announcement was a bit of a surprise. The agency said in a press release that the prohibition on new contracts is in response to BP's "lack of business integrity as demonstrated by the company's conduct with regard to the Deepwater Horizon blowout, explosion, oil spill, and response." That included neglect and misconduct that led to the death of 11 rig workers, and lying to Congress and shareholders about the extent of the damage from the spill.

The company will be barred from obtaining new contracts "until the company can provide sufficient evidence to EPA demonstrating that it meets Federal business standards." The company will, however, maintain its current contracts with the government. The Wall Street Journal reported during the 2010 spill that BP was "the single biggest supplier of fuel to the Department of Defense, with Pentagon contracts worth $2.2 billion a year."

Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project On Government Oversight, called the announcement "surprising but welcome" in a statement. "This is exactly the strong step the government should take to protect federal agencies, safeguard taxpayers, and establish expectations for responsible contractor behavior," said Amey. "BP had years to improve its business ethics and is paying the price for its inaction."

Servicewomen Sue Dept. of Defense Over Ban on Combat Roles

—By Kate Sheppard

| Tue Nov. 27, 2012 2:07 PM PST

Four female service members are suing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta over the military's exclusion policy for women in combat roles. Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Service Women’s Action Network, the women argue that the policy has created a "brass ceiling" that prevents them advancing as far as their male colleagues.

They also note that the policy does not fit the modern military, where women are often sent out into combat and performing the same jobs as male colleagues, without the ability to formally advance. "The modern battlefield means there are no frontlines or safe zones," said Capt. Zoe Bedell, 27, who serves in the US Marine Corps Reserves. "The combat exclusion rule does not recognize that reality." Bedell, who served in Afghanistan, said that women in her unit patrolled with men and carried the same equipment as men, even if they were formally barred from serving in combat units. She said she left active duty for the reserves because the combat exclusion policy "limits my future in the Marine Corps."

Current Dept. of Defense policy prohibits women from being assigned to units below the brigade level that engage in direct ground combat. In February 2011, the DoD announced a rule change that opened 14,000 more jobs to women in the military, but another 238,000 positions are still off-limits. That change "falls short," said Ariela Migdal, a senior staff attorney with ACLU's Women's Rights Project. "It just does a disservice to women who have put their lives on the line to say we're going to make some changes around the edges."

Also joining in the suit are Maj. Mary Jennings Hegar, 36, of the California Air National Guard; First Lt. Colleen Farrell, 26, of the U.S. Marine Corps; and Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt, 28, of the U.S. Army Reserves.

This suit is separate from a previous case filed in May on behalf of two Army reservists who said that the rule limited their ability to advance. The ACLU's Migdal said that their suit is intended to "demand that DOD bring policy in line with the rest of society, and with the realities of the modern military."

In Michigan, a Tax Break for Fetuses?

Lawmakers introduce a plan to include fetuses as "dependents" after 12 weeks of gestation.

—By Kate Sheppard

| Tue Nov. 27, 2012 4:08 AM PST

Michigan lawmakers are considering legislation that would let parents claim a tax deduction for fetuses, extending them the same benefits as children.

House bills 5684 and 5685 would amend the state's tax code to include fetuses that have completed at least 12 weeks gestation as of the last day of the tax year as "dependents." Doing so would allow the fetus' tax-paying parents-to-be to save an estimated $160 on their taxes. Critics of the bill, which had its first hearing in the House Tax Policy Committee on November 20, say that such a law is just another way to make it harder for women in Michigan to get abortions.

"It is a backdoor attempt to get personhood for a fetus," said Shelli Weisberg, legislative director for the ACLU of Michigan. "These are just ways to begin to build the record, so one day they can say there's enough in our legislative history to say that the intent is to say that a fetus is a person."

Dan Jarvis, research and policy director for Michigan Family Forum, a conservative, Christian public policy organization, said the bill was an idea that his group had discussed with "a number of lawmakers" since 2008. "It does cost money when you're pregnant," said Jarvis. "We thought it was a good thing for young families in particular to get that added tax credit a few months earlier."

Jarvis says that endowing "personhood" to the unborn was not the intent of the measure—the goal was to encourage women to seek prenatal care, and to decrease the tax burden on young families. "To be perfectly honest we were totally caught off guard by that," said Jarvis. "We had never talked about that with the sponsors. When it came up in committee we were all floored."

Despite Jarvis' claims of surprise, Meghan Groen, director of government relations at Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan, argues that the bill is intended as yet another "symbolic move toward personhood." (Groen and other reproductive rights groups are more worried about another piece of proposed legislation they've deemed the "abortion mega-bill," which lumps together a number of anti-choice measures and is expected to go to a vote in the state senate sometime in December.)

The National Conference of State Legislatures told Michigan Live that it was not aware of another state that had approved tax deductions for fetuses. Of course, other states have tested different measures that convey similar status on the unborn, including measures that extend protection from "justifiable homicide" laws to actions to protect fetuses and the more explicit "personhood" measures placed on state ballots.

Even if the tax deduction for fetuses is mostly symbolic, it still wouldn't be free. The House Fiscal Agency projects that it would cost the state between $5 and $10 million a year. What's more, it raises a number of interesting questions. For one, the federal government requires taxpayers to list the Social Security number of claimed dependents in order to qualify. A fetus would not have a number to list, which would likely create problems at the IRS. And what happens if a woman miscarries after twelve weeks? Does she have to give back the money? And what if she finds out later that she's carrying twins—does she get to claim two deductions?

"If they were really interested in people who really did have expenses, they would restore the earned income tax and the child tax credit."

The ACLU's Weisberg also notes that the measure would not be all that helpful for low-income women. In order to qualify for the credit, women would have to be under the care of a physician who could certify that they were in fact at least 12 weeks pregnant. But the women who would most benefit from the tax deduction are also least likely to be able to afford prenatal care. "It maddens me to no end when I hear them talk about this as some sort of great thing for women," said Weisberg. "It's great for women who have money, but for women and families that are struggling, it gives them nothing."

Meanwhile, the state has cut benefits for children outside the womb. Rep. Vicki Barnett, a Democrat who serves on the House Tax Policy Committee, notes that just last year Republicans, under the leadership of Gov. Rick Snyder, eliminated the state's $600-per-child tax credit. The tax overhaul also slashed the state's Earned Income Tax Credit, which benefits low- and middle-income individuals.

"If they were really interested in people who really did have expenses, i.e. living, breathing human beings outside the cervical wall, they would restore the earned income tax and the child tax credit," Barnett told Mother Jones.

Both the Michigan Family Forum and the bill's opponents predict that this bill won't end up passing in this lame duck session. But that's probably not going to be the end of it.

"If they don't move it now, I think they're going to come back with these bills," said Barnett, who also predicts that other states will offer copy-cat bills. "We'll see them start to proliferate. This will be used as model legislation with potentially very disastrous results in the next few years."

H/T Slate.