Construction of new coal plants is what I’m most worried about; that industry is still very powerful. I hope that Obama will stand up for the future, though it is difficult in this economic situation.

from savingseafood dot org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 8, 2009

CONTACT: Brigid O’Rourke, 617-565-8252

BOSTON – Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy, and Congressmen Barney Frank and John Tierney today released the following statements on the decision by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to commit $16 million to assist the Northeast Fishing Industry in the wake of the recently announced plan for managing New England groundfish stocks.

Earlierthis week, NOAA announced an interim management plan that will govern the New England groundfishery for the fishing year thatbegins on May 1. While the interim plan – which was issued by recently appointed NOAA Administration Jane Lubchenco – imposes fewer restrictions on fishing than the initial proposal that was made in the final days of the Bush Administration, the plan does call for a reduction of 18 percent in Days at Sea, along with certain other restrictions. It is estimated that the plan will reduce fishing income in the region by at least 9 percent.

The new funding will be used to enhance current research projects that allow both scientists and industry to improve surveys of fish stocks. The funding will also be used to develop data reporting and fishery monitoring systems to better monitor fishing efforts, document catches and track permit transfers.

“This relief will help cushion the blow of the new regulatory burdens on our fishermen. This wasn’t easy. I am deeply grateful to Dr. Lubchencoand NOAA for meeting with us, listening to us, developing a compromise and giving our fishing industry the financial help it desperately needs. We must continue to work on long-term solutions that create sustainable fisheries while maintaining our fishing heritage,” said Senator JohnKerry.

“ Massachusetts fishing families have been part of the fabric of our Commonwealth since its earliest days, and now more than any other time, the industry is confronting serious threats.” said Senator Kennedy. “Our fishermen deserve the very best from the federal government, and I will continue to work with Senator Kerry and the members of our Congressional Delegation to ensure the industryremains a part of our culture and heritage. This funding is a step in the right direction.”

”As with the interim rule, there is good news and bad news here. The good news is that the agency is making available funds that are aimed at helping the New England fishing industry, and I appreciate Dr. Lubchenco’s decision to release the funds. The bad news is that the money will go primarily for research projects that may be useful in the long run, but which won’t provide much in the way of direct, short-term economic benefits to fishermen who have to cut back further on how much they can fish. I am hopeful that the Obama Administration, in keeping with its views on the importance of offering financial help to those who are struggling in the current economic downturn, will identify additional sources of funds to help the industry. I will be consulting with my Congressional colleagues on the best options for achieving that goal, and continuing to push forimprovements in the underlying fishing laws that will help promote sustainable fish stocks and sustainable fishing communities,” said Congressman Barney Frank.

“Iam hopeful that this funding will provide some assistance for our fishing communities during this time of extreme economic hardship. I stand committed with my congressional colleagues to address the more immediate needs of the industry and, at the same time, will continue working together with fishermen and Dr. Lubchenco to further address the impact of the new regulations,”said Congressman John F. Tierney (D-MA).

NOAA also announced that it would work with local fishermen and communities to disseminate information about various grant and assistance program opportunities.

Taking cap and trade out of this years budget will not delay reaching CO2 450 ppm stabilization. Without cap and trade it is likely CO2 will continue to increase +/- 2 ppm/yr, reaching 450 ppm by or soon after 2035. Our sources for and usage of energy will be vastly changed for the better by 2035 even if cap and trade never happens.

There has just been an historic appropriation for replacing fossil fuel. Shouldn’t we be concentrating on maximizing deployment of existing technologies and efficiencies? The stimulus took the cap off the 30% tax credit for some of them.

The best technology ready for deployment is geothermal, which is a ground temperature fed electric heat pump system. It eliminates the need for natural gas or heating oil in the winter and greatly reduces air conditioning load in the summer. Geothermal is the most cost effective alternative technology. The in ground thermal component can be install almost anywhere including tight urban spaces. It is very affordable, especially in new construction, and has a pay back time short enough to make it a sound economic decision.

Recent polling suggests the appeal to climate catastrophe is ineffective. How much the temperature rises by 2035 is really anyone’s guess. Temperature and CO2 do not, after all, walk in lock step. The best climatologists say we are in a period of stability that could continue for up to thirty years. They also say it could then rise even more rapidly than in the post 1975 period. It is possible that by 2035 only a few years will have been above the 2005 anomaly.

April 16, 2009, 4:00 a.m.

Political Science
Despite his protestations, Obama’s science policy is driven by raw politics.

By David Freddoso

One of the most significant promises that President Obama made when he came into office was that science, not politics, would drive his administration’s policies. “We will restore science to its rightful place,” Obama said, and he has repeated this in various ways on various occasions. Although he famously used this pledge to make his case for scientific research that destroys human embryos, he has most often invoked it in the context of his environmental beliefs.

The promise has come with an unmistakable air of superiority and a hint of ridicule for his predecessor. No longer would knuckle-dragging, faith-based government officials ignore science, expecting Christ’s return to solve the problem of human damage to the environment. In an Obama administration, decisions would be based on science, not politics or ideology.

To make clear his serious intentions, Obama chose marine biologist Jane Lubchenco to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal government agency charged with mapping the oceans and conducting and funding a broad range of climate-related scientific research. Lubchenco’s selection cheered environmentalists concerned about the human role in climate change.

“Scientific knowledge should inform decision-making,” Lubchenco said at her April 9 swearing-in ceremony. “Scientists have an obligation to communicate . . . that management and policy decisions should focus on the common good and the long-term.”

But before this ceremony even took place, Obama’s administration had already begun cutting corners on its “science-based” rhetoric. Lubchenco’s very first regulatory decision in office, announced April 6, was to abandon, at least for now, her agency’s legally mandated goal to save certain New England fish-stocks. This decision was made with no scientific justification, but rather for political and economic reasons.

The Bush administration had developed a plan to end overfishing and replenish fish-stocks off the coasts of New England. The new regulations, which were to take effect this year, satisfied two major goals mandated under federal law: to replenish ten depleted stocks of New England fish by 2014, and to replenish seven other stocks on longer timeframes that stretch out to 2019 and beyond. Many of the stocks are not currently on pace to meet the deadlines set by the Stevens-Manguson Act, so the proposed regulations would have been onerous, costing the fishing industry as much as $35 million annually — about one-fifth of its total revenues.

But last week, Lubchenco drastically scaled back the Bush administration rules in order to help the fishing industry. Whether one agrees or disagrees with her decision, science is not driving it; as NOAA spokeswoman Maggie Mooney-Seus said, “the science is still the same.” Lubchenco’s downscaled rules, which will cost fishermen a mere $17.4 million per year, preserve short-term conservation goals but punt on long-term measures. They kick down the road the plans that scientists had proposed to rebuild stocks of pollock, witch flounder, Georges Bank winter flounder, and Northern windowpane.

The official NOAA explanation, contained in an economic analysis, is that the changes “are necessary to mitigate impacts on the fishing industry to the extent practicable, without fatally jeopardizing the likelihood that overfished multispecies stocks will achieve their rebuilding objectives.” Obscured by all the twenty-dollar words is the fact that Obama’s purportedly science-driven administration is overriding scientists for political reasons — in part because of the loud protestations of powerful members of Congress such as Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.).

To be sure, the curtailment of these regulations is probably a good idea. Fishermen and their families are still more important than fish, even in a purportedly “science-driven” administration. And someone, someday, will probably develop a plan that rebuilds these populations. The industry depends on it in the long run.

But if the new NOAA policy is any indication, Obama’s “science first” rhetoric contains far more bark than bite — and even if he would never admit it, he is far less different from Bush than he would have us believe. He meant literally his declaration that “promoting science is about . . . listening to what [scientists] tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient.” He will listen to the scientists, but that does not mean that his administration will actually do what they recommend when politics dictates otherwise.

— David Freddoso is an NRO staff reporter and author of The Case Against Barack Obama.

—

http://www.esablawg.com/ esalaw/ ESBlawg.nsf/ D6Plinks/ KSPT-7PT4QQ

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29862781/