January, 07 2010, 11:35am EDT
![Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012677/origin.jpg)
Scientists Request Meeting with American Farm Bureau President to Discuss Group's 'Inaccurate' Stance on Climate Change
CHICAGO
More than 40 scientists with expertise in climate, agriculture, soil, and entomological science today sent a letter
to American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman requesting a
meeting to discuss his group's "inaccurate and marginalized" position
on global warming.
The Farm Bureau maintains that "there is no generally agreed upon
scientific assessment on...carbon emissions from human activities,
their impact on past decades of warming, or how they will affect future
climate changes." According to the scientists' letter, that assertion
ignores the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change, a
problem that puts Farm Bureau members at risk.
"As scientists concerned about the grave risks that climate change
poses to the world and U.S. agriculture," the letter states, "we are
disappointed that the American Farm Bureau has chosen to officially
deny the existence of human-caused climate change when the evidence of
it has never been clearer."
The letter then points out the fact that scientific institutions
worldwide have concluded that human activity is causing global warming.
For example, 18 U.S. science organizations, including the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological
Society and the Crop Sciences Society of America, recently issued a
statement declaring that "human activities are the primary driver" of
climate change and "contrary assertions are inconsistent with an
objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The letter also stresses the threat that global warming poses to
agriculture. It cites a 2009 federal report that found any agricultural
benefits of climate change would be more than offset by the drawbacks,
including more frequent heat waves that would reduce crop yields and
stress livestock, more extreme rainfall that would prevent spring
planting and flood fields, and more widespread pest and weed
infestations that would require costly pesticides and herbicides to
keep them in check.
The scientists' letter stands in stark contrast to the opinions of
climate change denier Christopher Horner, who will be the only
scheduled speaker addressing climate at the annual American Farm Bureau
meeting later this week in Seattle. Horner is an attorney with the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded, anti-regulation
think tank that has received millions of dollars over the last decade
from the auto and oil companies, most notably ExxonMobil, to try to
block federal action on climate change.
"This letter is a wake up call to the American Farm Bureau of the
importance for them to take the concerns about climate change
seriously," said Don Wuebbles, a climate scientist at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and one of the letter's three
co-sponsoring signatories. "We think it's important to share our
knowledge directly with Mr. Stallman and hope he agrees to meet with
us."
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
'They've Done It Again': Israeli Strikes Kill Dozens in Tents Near Rafah
U.S. President Joe Biden "must stop sending weapons to Israel," said one critic. "This is egregious."
Jun 21, 2024
The Israel Defense Forces on Friday yet again shelled tents of displaced Palestinians near the city of Rafah in the Gaza Strip, killing at least 25 and wounding another 50, local health and emergency officials said.
"According to Ahmed Radwan, a spokesperson for Civil Defense first responders in Rafah, witnesses told rescue workers about the shelling at two locations in a coastal area that has become filled with tents," The Associated Pressreported.
"The locations of the attacks provided by the Civil Defense appear to be just outside an Israeli-designated safe zone," the news agency noted. "The Israeli military said the episode was under review but that 'there is no indication that a strike was carried out by the IDF' inside the safe zone, using an acronym for the Israeli forces. It did not offer details on the episode or say what the intended targets might have been."
The AP shared firsthand accounts from survivors of the Al-Mawasi attack, as did Al Jazeera:
"We had just eaten and were about to sleep and take some rest, and the next we knew was the sound of resounding explosions destroying our places! We find ourselves alone not knowing what to do. We still can't process what happened!" a survivor told Al Jazeera.
"Oh Lord, look at us, oh world, see our condition. There are a lot of injured still inside. We are no longer able to do anything. What is happening to us? The fire is consuming us from every direction."
Another survivor said that "today, before the afternoon, a bomb was thrown near the Red Cross. My husband went out after hearing the sound of the explosion. The second bomb was near the Red Cross building. All the young men went there because some people were injured."
"My husband went, and I looked for him but couldn't find him," the witness added. "Everyone was forced to flee in their clothes without taking their belongings. Some people took us with them in their car. We don't know what happened after that."
The International Committee of the Red Cross in Israel and the occupied territories announced on social media Friday that "the ICRC office—which is surrounded by hundreds of displaced civilians living in tents—was damaged by nearby shelling in Gaza" that the group said "caused a mass casualty influx" at its hospital, which received 22 of those killed and 45 of the people injured.
The Friday attack follows a pair of bombings that killed dozens of Palestinians and injured hundreds in and near Rafah late last month. Like with the attacks last month—which analyses suggest involved U.S.-supplied weaponry—there were swift calls for the Biden administration and other governments to cut off support for the Israeli assault on the Hamas-governed enclave.
"Israel has run out of buildings, schools, and hospitals to bomb and is once again targeting displaced civilians in tents," saidAJ+ senior editor Kareem Yasin. "Any Western government excusing or denying these intentional attacks is complicit."
The Israeli war on Gaza—launched after the Hamas-led October 7 attack on Israel—has killed more than 37,430 Palestinians and injured over 85,650 others, according to local officials. Survivors face devastated civilian infrastructure and limited food, water, shelter, and medical supplies, as Israel limits the flow of humanitarian aid.
South Africa is leading a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan is seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant as well as three Hamas leaders.
"They've done it again," U.S.-based policy analyst Omar Baddar said of Israel Friday. "Nearly every day for the past 260 days, Israel has committed another massacre against Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Fathers, mothers, siblings, children, their bodies burnt or torn apart, while our government gives more weapons for these atrocities."
Even before October 7, the United States gave Israel billions of dollars in annual military aid—but such support has increased during the war. U.S. President Joe Biden previously called an Israeli assault on Rarah a "red line," but as the IDF has killed Palestinians in and around the Gaza city, the White House has signaled that his boundary has not yet been crossed.
Biden "must stop sending weapons to Israel," Nina Turner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, declared in response to the Friday attack. "This is egregious."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Feds to Vote on CP2 Project as Climate Campaigners Protest LNG Buildout
"FERC's approval of this massive new LNG export facility would cut through the heart of President Biden's LNG pause, realizing one of the largest fossil fuel export projects ever proposed in the United States," an expert said.
Jun 21, 2024
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will formally consider issuing a permit for the Calcasieu Pass 2 export terminal, a major fossil fuel infrastructure project in Louisiana that environmental campaigners oppose, according to a notice the agency released Thursday.
It will come to a vote at the agency's June 27 meeting, E&E Newsreported.
Environmentalists campaigned against the project last year but quieted down after the Biden administration paused all liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to non-Fair Trade Agreement countries in January.
The planned terminal, owned by Venture Global and often called CP2, has been noticeably absent from FERC meeting agendas since last July, when the agency published the environmental impact statement. Venture and other corporate interests have pressured the agency to move the project, which is located near the Gulf of Mexico in western Louisiana, up on the agenda—and finally gotten their wish.
Advocacy groups urged the federal agency to deny the permit.
"FERC's approval of this massive new LNG export facility would cut through the heart of President [Joe] Biden's LNG pause, realizing one of the largest fossil fuel export projects ever proposed in the United States," Food & Water Watch policy director Jim Walsh said in a statement.
"Biden claims to be concerned by the devastating climate and environmental impacts of continued LNG development, yet the country is on track to export more and more LNG for years to come—with or without his temporary partial pause," he added.
FERC announced it will vote on the CP2 LNG export facility next week. While the current LNG export pause is still a hurdle for the facility, Venture Global could start construction if they get FERC's approval. https://t.co/p7C25drePj
— Sara Sneath (@SaraSneath) June 21, 2024
CP2 is modeled on the existing Calcasieu Pass terminal (CP1), which began operations in January 2022 and has been the subject of scrutiny not just for its role in the distribution of fracked gas but also for a series of deviations from permitted activities, including alleged flaring that the company didn't report and the accidental release of 180,099 pounds of gas.
The planned site for CP2 is an area of wetlands next to CP1. Venture says that it's already started off-site construction and spent billions of dollars on CP2 and, with speedy government approval, would begin shipping LNG from the facility in 2026, according toLNGPrime.
If FERC were to approve the project, the U.S. Department of Energy would still have a statutory duty to approve future exports, but DOE is required to do so quickly, Walsh of Food & Water Watch told Common Dreams. Still, a key holdup for Venture would be the pause on exporting LNG to countries without free trade agreements—many of the company's contracts are with such countries, Walsh said.
FERC's slowness to place CP2 on its agenda was "welcomed," Walsh said, but "a real victory will be FERC rejecting this project, and failing that, President Biden's DOE denying their export license."
Walsh expressed concern that the U.S. "continues to ramp up export capacity even as we have a pause on new LNG export approvals."
Environmental and community groups have called on the Biden administration to ban LNG exports permanently, as Common Dreamsreported last month, and a key part of that effort is blocking CP2 and closing CP1, they contend.
The groups have allies at the national level who've tried to draw attention to a project whose importance has often been overlooked.
Environmental campaigner and journalist Bill McKibben, who wrote a piece about CP2 for The New Yorker last year, has called the project "an environmental justice train wreck." He wrote in Common Dreams that CP2 is like Keystone XL "but with perhaps even more at stake." He also said that it could end up creating more than 20 times the emissions of the controversial Willow project in Alaska.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sotomayor: Ruling Against Foreign Spouses Will 'Most Heavily' Harm Same-Sex Couples
"The majority's failure to respect the right to marriage in this country consigns U.S. citizens to rely on the fickle grace of other countries' immigration laws."
Jun 21, 2024
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned Friday that her right-wing colleagues' finding that American citizens have no right to have their foreign spouses admitted to the United States will disproportionately harm same-sex couples—and could foreshadow a future reversal of federal LGBTQ+ marriage equality.
The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in Department of State v. Muñoz that Sandra Muñoz, a civil rights attorney and U.S. citizen, "does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country."
As Courthouse News Serviceexplained:
[Muñoz] argued that her right to live with her noncitizen husband, Luis Ascencio-Cordero, in the United States was implicit in the "liberty" protected by the Fifth Amendment, and that denying his visa request deprived her of that liberty and violated her due process rights.
The consular officer who denied her husband's application violated her right to due process by not disclosing the reason her husband was deemed "inadmissible,'" which opens the officer's decision to judicial review, despite visa denials normally being unreviewable.
Muñoz later found out during litigation in federal court that the decision was based on the officer's finding that Ascencio-Cordero's tattoos were associated with the transnational gang MS-13 and his concern that he would commit crimes upon entering the country.
In her dissent, Sotomayor cited Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
"The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition," Sotomayor wrote. "The majority today chooses a broad holding on marriage over a narrow one on procedure."
Sotomayor contended that her conservative colleagues were committing the "same fatal error" in "requiring too 'careful [a] description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest'" as they did in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the 2022 ruling that erased half a century of federal abortion rights.
"The majority's failure to respect the right to marriage in this country consigns U.S. citizens to rely on the fickle grace of other countries' immigration laws to vindicate one of the 'basic civil rights of man' and live alongside their spouses," she added. "Same-sex couples may be forced to relocate to countries that do not recognize same-sex marriage, or even those that criminalize homosexuality."
" Obergefell rejected what the majority does today as 'inconsistent with the approach this court has used in discussing fundamental rights' of 'marriage and intimacy'," Sotomayor opined. "The burden will fall most heavily on same-sex couples and others who lack the ability, for legal or financial reasons, to make a home in the noncitizen spouse's country of origin."
Sotomayor's assertion that the majority's decision erodes
LGBTQ+ marriage protections follows far-right Justice Clarence Thomas' suggestion in Dobbs that the high court should reexamine the right to same-sex marriage—and even the abolition of laws banning sexual relations between adults of the same sex—at some future date.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular