With Mike Pompeo, Trump will have a hardcore climate denier at State

Mashable – Science

With Mike Pompeo, Trump will have a hardcore climate denier at State

By Andrew Freedman March 13, 2018

A protest about climate change in New York City. Image: Lightrocket/Getty

The climate science and policy community was taken aback when President Donald Trump nominated Rex Tillerson, then the head of ExxonMobil, to take over the State Department in January 2017. Tillerson spent his entire career at the oil and gas giant, and was present at the company during the time when its scientists detailed the heat-trapping dangers of burning fossil fuels.Exxon is now under legal scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions for ignoring its own scientists and instead working with think tanks and other groups to convince the public that the science of climate change was unsettled at best, bogus at worst. The prospect of having Tillerson at State sparked protests outside the Capitol during his confirmation hearing, and significant opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

Now, climate advocates may miss the ex-oil man, considering his replacement. On Tuesday, Trump fired Tillerson via twitter and announced the nomination of CIA Director Mike Pompeo to lead the State Department in his place.

Pompeo has long-questioned the links between fossil fuel burning and climate change, which climate scientists regard as irrefutable.

In the scientific community, there’s virtually no debate about what is causing global warming based on multiple lines of observational evidence, as well as basic physics.

Next to the president and Environmental Protection Agency administrator, the Secretary of State is the U.S.’s most prominent official on climate change. The State Department is in charge of the nation’s role in international climate talks, including how to walk the delicate dance of working on the implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement while also planning to withdraw from it in 2020, as Trump plans to.

The U.S. is the only country in the world to announce its withdrawal from this agreement, which seeks to keep global warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, of warming compared to preindustrial levels by the year 2100.

For his part, Pompeo is a former Republican congressman from Kansas and a member of the Tea Party movement.

He also has longstanding, close ties to Charles and David Koch, the billionaire conservatives who continue to fund efforts to discredit mainstream climate science and sow doubt among the public. In fact, he is the duo’s top funding recipient currently in the Trump administration, having taken in more than $1 million during his time in Congress.

Pompeo declined to state his views on climate change during confirmation hearings for the CIA post, arguing it was outside the scope of the position despite the fact that global warming poses an array of national security threats.

He has made past statements, though, that clearly indicate where he stands on this issue.

“Look, I think the science needs to continue to develop. I’m happy to continue to look at it,” he said on C-SPAN in 2013. “There are scientists who think lots of different things about climate change. There’s some who think we’re warming, there’s some who think that the last 16 years have shown a pretty stable climate environment.”

He has also revealed that he questions whether global temperatures are increasing, and if so, if human activities are the main cause.

Pompeo also criticized the Obama administration’s work on the Paris Agreement, calling it a “radical” treaty.

Once in office, Tillerson was seen as a comparatively moderate voice on climate change, advocating that the U.S. stay in the Paris Climate Agreement, for example.

However, under Tillerson, the U.S. had not yet issued a report on its climate actions due to the U.N. on March 1, prompting a lawsuit from the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group. That group, and others, reacted with alarm at the Pompeo appointment on Tuesday.

“If Tillerson was a speed bump for our international cooperation on climate, Pompeo could be a wrecking ball,” said Jean Su, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, in a statement.

May Boeve, the executive director of 350.org, also came out swinging against Pompeo.

“We’ve gone from Exxon’s CEO to the Koch Brothers’ most loyal lapdog,” she said in a statement. “Pompeo received over a million oil and gas dollars during his political career, has deep ties to the Kochs, and is a climate denier to the core. Trump’s State Department is a vehicle for big oil and billionaires, regardless of whether Tillerson or Pompeo are at the helm.”

It’s possible that Pompeo could yank the State Department out of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, under which these negotiations are held, which would truly make the U.S. a pariah state on this issue. He could also scuttle a separate agreement on so-called super-greenhouse gases, which Tillerson supported.

Or, perhaps he’ll follow the course that Tillerson set in motion, and simply ignore the climate issue entirely, choosing instead to focus on higher priorities, like the nuclear agreement with Iran and participating in the delicate talks with North Korea.

Pompeo must be confirmed by the Senate to take his post, and he will likely face climate policy questions from Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The Koch Brothers Get Their Very Own Secretary of State

The Nation

The Koch Brothers Get Their Very Own Secretary of State

Trump’s pick to replace Rex Tillerson is an errand boy for billionaires.

By John Nichols March 13, 2018

Mike Pompeo testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 13, 2018. (Reuters / Aaron P. Bernstein)

In the Republican wave election of 2010, when Charles and David Koch emerged as defining figures in American politics, the greatest beneficiary of Koch Industries largesse was a political newcomer named Mike Pompeo. After his election to the House eight years ago, Pompeo was referred to as the “Koch Brothers’ Congressman” and “the congressman from Koch.”

Now Pompeo is positioned to become a Koch brothers–influenced secretary of state.

After serving for a little more than a year as Donald Trump’s top yes-man at the Central Intelligence Agency, Pompeo is Trump’s pick to replace Rex Tillerson, the administration’s listless placeholder at the Department of State.

In a measure of the extent to which Trump and Tillerson had disengaged from one another, the outgoing secretary of state apparently learned of his firing via Twitter Tuesday morning—when an aide showed the nation’s top diplomat a tweet from the president announcing the transition. A statement from the department indicated that Tillerson was “unaware of the reason” for his removal.

Tillerson displayed a measure of independence from Trump on issues ranging from Russian cyber attacks to the aggressive approach of Saudi Arabia to Qatar and other countries.

Donald Trump has decided to put “the congressman from Koch” in charge of the State Department and, by extension, the engagement of the United States government with a world in which the brothers Koch have many, many interests.

Pompeo’s pattern of deference to his political benefactors is likely to make him a better fit with a self-absorbed president. He will also bring to the position an edge that Tillerson lacked. Pompeo is a foreign-policy hawk who fiercely opposed the Iran nuclear deal, stoked fears about Muslims in the United States and abroad, opposed closing the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, and defended the National Security Agency’ s unconstitutional surveillance programs as “good and important work.” He has even gone so far as to say that NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden “should be brought back from Russia and given due process, and I think the proper outcome would be that he would be given a death sentence.”

Pompeo’s open disregard for privacy rights in particular and civil liberties in general, as well as his penchant for extreme language and more extreme policies, are anything but diplomatic. That’s likely to make him an even more troublesome Secretary of State than Tillerson, who was relentlessly corporate in his worldview but not generally inclined to pick fights—even when it came to standing up for a State Department that decayed on his watch.

In addition to being a hothead, Pompeo has long been one of the most conflicted political figures in the conflicted city of Washington, thanks to his ties to the privately held and secretive global business empire that has played a pivotal role in advancing his political career. Pompeo came out of the same Wichita, Kansas, business community where the Koch family’s oil-and-gas conglomerate is headquartered. Indeed, Pompeo built his own company with seed money from Koch Venture Capital.

More important, from a political standpoint, is the fact that Pompeo made the leap from business to government with a big boost from the Koch brothers and their employees. “I’m sure he would vigorously dispute this, but it’s hard not to characterize him as the congressman from Koch,” says University of Kansas political science professor Burdett Loomis.

In fact, that’s a generally appropriate characterization for the man whom Donald Trump is angling to make his secretary of state. (With due regard to the Kochs, they can be somewhat more nuanced than their caricatures suggest. As thoughtful observers with publications such as The American Conservative remind us, projects funded by the Kochs have over the years diverted from the bombastic language and stances of more-militaristic conservatives. Unfortunately, as is so often the case with Republican recipients of Koch cash and encouragement, it is the advocacy by these billionaire businessmen and their allies for domestic and international policies that favor multinational corporations that tends to influences the likes of Pompeo.)

As the Center for Food Safety, which has wrangled with Pompeo on food-labeling issues that are of tremendous interest to the global agribusiness and grocery industries, noted in 2014:

“Congressman Mike Pompeo was the single largest recipient of campaign funds from the Koch Brothers in 2010. After winning election with Koch money, Congressman Pompeo hired a Koch Industries lawyer to run his office. According to The Washington Post, Congressman Pompeo then introduced bills friendly to Koch Industries while Koch hired outside lobbyists to support them.”

Recalling the 2010 election, the Center for Responsive Politics explained that “Koch Industries had never spent as much on a candidate in a single cycle as it did on Pompeo that time around, giving him a total [of] $80,000. Koch outdid itself again in the 2012 cycle by ponying up $110,000 for Pompeo’s campaign.”

When Pompeo ran for reelection in 2014, he faced a tight primary contest with another local Republican who had Koch ties. One of the biggest turning points in that race came when the Kochs sided with Pompeo. “KOCHPAC is proud to support Mike Pompeo for Congress based on his strong support for market-based policies and economic freedom, which benefits society as a whole,” Mark Nichols, the vice president of government and public affairs for Koch Industries, told Politico.

Just as the Kochs have been loyal to Pompeo, so Pompeo has been loyal to the Kochs. He’s a regular at their behind-closed-doors gatherings, and he’s outspoken in their defense, claiming that President Obama and “Nixonian” Democrats have unfairly “vilified” Charles and David Koch.

But, of course, the supposed vilification has simply involved the appropriate questioning of the influence wielded by billionaires in general and the Kochs in particular over American politics and governance. That’s hardly an unreasonable concern, considering that, as one of the most prominent Koch-backed politicians in the country, Pompeo was called out just weeks after taking office for proposing legislative initiatives that “could benefit many of [the Kochs’] business interests.”

“The measures include amendments approved in the House budget bill to eliminate funding for two major Obama administration programs: a database cataloguing consumer complaints about unsafe products and an Environmental Protection Agency registry of greenhouse-gas polluters,” reported The Washington Post in 2011. “Both have been listed as top legislative priorities for Koch Industries, which has spent more than $37 million on Washington lobbying since 2008, according to disclosure records.”

“It’s the same old story—a member of Congress carrying water for his biggest campaign contributor,” Common Cause’s Mary Boyle complained at the time.

Now, however, it’s a different story, because Donald Trump wants to put “the congressman from Koch” in charge of the State Department and, by extension, the engagement of the United States government with a world in which the brothers Koch have many, many interests.

(This piece is being regularly updated with details and analysis regarding Tuesday’s transition at the State Department.)

Get unlimited access to The Nation for as little as 37 cents a week!

John Nichols is The Nation’s national-affairs correspondent. He is the author of Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America, from Nation Books, and co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy.

Court Rules Pruitt Broke the Law for Smog Rule Delay

EcoWatch

Court Rules Pruitt Broke the Law for Smog Rule Delay

Lorraine Chow March 13, 2018

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt. BipHoo Company/Flickr

A federal judge ruled Monday that Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), broke the law for failing to implement his agency’s ozone pollution rule.

Judge Haywood Gilliam of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said Pruitt violated the Clean Air Act for failing to announce by Oct. 1, 2017 which areas in the country have unhealthy levels of smog, a rule set by the 2015 ozone standard.

According to The Hill, Pruitt only announced findings for areas that complied with the Obama-era rule, but not for areas out of compliance. The EPA boss initially tried to stall the Oct. 1 deadline by a year but reversed course.

“There is no dispute as to liability: Defendants admit that the administrator violated his nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act to promulgate by October 1, 2017, initial area air quality designations,” Gilliam wrote, citing a Justice Department court filing in January that acknowledged the EPA failed to meet the deadline.

Gilliam ordered the EPA to finish the process for the entire country by April 30, with the exemption of areas in San Antonio, Texas, which the agency must comply with shortly thereafter.

In 2015, the Obama administration strengthened standards for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion based on extensive scientific evidence about the effect of smog on public health and welfare. Smog can exacerbate asthma attacks for children and vulnerable populations.

Sixteen state attorneys general as well as a broad coalition of health and environmental organizations—including the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club—sued Pruitt in December for failing to meet the deadline for designating areas.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led the litigation, celebrated Monday’s decision.

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency admitted in this case that it failed to do its job and meet its deadline under the Clean Air Act,” he said. “The stakes are high. The smog-reducing requirements at issue will save hundreds of lives and prevent 230,000 asthma attacks among children. That’s worth fighting for.”

New York Attorney General Schneiderman, one of the AGs who sued the administration, added: “We’ll keep a close eye on the EPA’s compliance with today’s order, and our coalition stands ready to act to protect our residents and our states from Washington’s toxic policies.”

Environmental groups also celebrated the ruling.

“Everyone deserves to breathe clean air. And because of the Clean Air Act, we’re legally entitled to it. The court got it right when it ordered the EPA to finish making ozone designations sooner than the agency requested,” said attorney Seth Johnson, who represented Earthjustice, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the groups. “Cleaning up ozone air pollution is especially important for kids, seniors, and people with asthma. Many of our largest metropolitan areas have unhealthy smog levels. These include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Cleveland, Denver, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and San Antonio. The court’s decision will help save hundreds of lives by getting the cleanup process going.”

Mary Anne Hitt, the director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, had a similar sentiment. “This is a victory for everyone who breathes, and is clear evidence that Scott Pruitt’s frequent attempts to delay and obstruct federal clean air safeguards is against the law. The severity of Pruitt’s attempts [is] a matter of life and death. Delaying the implementation of these life saving smog standards puts the health of thousands of kids at risk.”

EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman told Reuters, “We look forward to working with co-regulators to continue the designations process for the 2015 standards for ground-level ozone; we are evaluating the information provided by governors in February 2018 as part of that process.”

EPA’s proposed repeal will make Americans sicker

CNN

EPA’s proposed repeal will make Americans sicker

By Harold P. Wimmer and Stephen C. Crane March 13, 2018

Source: CNN

(CNN) Right now, the Environmental Protection Agency is in the midst of a process to repeal the Clean Power Plan, adopted in 2015 as the first national strategy to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. Taking steps to reduce carbon pollution, as outlined in the Clean Power Plan, not only limits this major driver of climate change, but reduces other toxic air pollution from power plants at the same time.

The EPA’s analysis that was published to support the proposed repeal outlines a flawed approach to evaluating the risks of pollution — specifically particulate matter, which is a mix of very tiny particles emitted into the air. When inhaled, this pollution can cause asthma attacks, lung cancer and even early death.

The EPA has cherry-picked data to conceal the true health costs of air pollution. Its revised calculations diminish and devalue the harm that comes from breathing particulate matter, suggesting that below certain levels, it is not harmful to human health. This is wrong.

The fact is: There is no known safe threshold for particulate matter. According to scores of medical experts and organizations like the World Health Organization, particle pollution harms health even at very low concentrations. Attempting to undercut such clear evidence shows the lengths the EPA, and by extension the Trump administration, will go to reject science-based policy that protects Americans’ health.

The EPA’s attempts to argue the contrary come as more medical reports affirm that climate change, at large, remains an increasingly dire threat to human health.The Clean Power Plan would result in significant reductions in carbon dioxide, which drives climate change, and an array of other dangerous pollutants, including particle pollution.

Across the globe, there is a resounding consensus among the health and medical community that climate change is already harming human health. This isn’t just a matter of seeing the looming future disaster; human health is suffering now as a result of damage to our climate caused by human activity — and some people are paying the ultimate price.

EPA cuts could risk a public health emergency

Health and medical professionals nationwide are seeing the effects of climate change on their patients. As far back as 2014, an American Thoracic Society survey of physicians found that 89% of respondents said climate change is happening, and 77% said they have seen increases in chronic disease severity from air pollution in their patients.

The EPA’s own analysis finds that repealing the Clean Power Plan could result in up to 4,500 premature deaths every year in the United States. How is this deadly outcome acceptable to President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, whose agency’s mission is to protect public health and the environment?

The EPA has a special responsibility to protect those who are most vulnerable, including children, the elderly and people with respiratory diseases — not increase their suffering. Instead, with the proposed Clean Power Plan repeal, the EPA appears to be granting power plants a license to pollute, at the expense of Americans’ health.

Simply put, America will measure the cost of repealing the Clean Power Plan in asthma attacks, emergency room visits and premature deaths that should have been and can still be avoided.

Unfortunately, the EPA has demonstrated its willingness to manipulate scientific evidence in such a way that benefits polluting industries, despite the negative consequences to Americans’ health. With relentless pressure from these industries to block, weaken or delay clean air safeguards, it is unlikely this will be the last time it tries this.

For the public, our doctors and our patients, the urgency of this issue cannot be emphasized enough. We urge the EPA to stand up for the health of all Americans and enforce, rather than repeal, the Clean Power Plan.

Harold P. Wimmer is the national president and CEO of the American Lung Association. Stephen C. Crane, Ph.D., MPH is the executive director of the American Thoracic Society. The views expressed in this commentary are their own.

Eating Highly Processed Foods Linked to Increased Cancer Risk

EcoWatch – Food

Environmental Working Group

Study: Eating Highly Processed Foods Linked to Increased Cancer Risk

By Dawn Undurraga March 12, 2018

The more highly processed foods you eat, the higher your risk of cancer.

That’s the takeaway from a new study that followed more than 100,000 French adults for eight years. It found that a 10 percent increase in consumption of foods like soda, sugary snack cakes, processed meats and breakfast cereals corresponded with a 10 percent increase in cancer risk.

The study, published last month in the London-based medical journal BMJ, is the first of its kind to link increased cancer risk to all “ultra-processed” foods, not just processed meats. Ultra-processed foods are defined as foods that undergo multiple physical, biological and mechanical processes to be highly palatable, affordable and shelf stable.

According to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, cancer is estimated to affect more than 1.6 million Americans each year, causing nearly 600,000 deaths. Dietary links to cancer have long been established, with about a third of cancer cases estimated to be preventable through more healthful diet and lifestyle choices.

Diets high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts and legumes are known to reduce the risk of cancer, while those high in processed meats increase cancer risk. Learn about EWG’s Cancer Defense Diet here.

According to the study, ultra-processed foods make up a significant part of modern diets, contributing one-fourth to one-half of the calories of an average diet. Ultra-processed are often high in chemical additives and preservatives, and low in fiber, beneficial vitamins and minerals, and cancer-preventative plant compounds called phytonutrients.

In a podcast discussion of the study, the researchers said they really don’t know the full impact of ultra-processed products on health. They hypothesized that these foods’ low nutritional quality, coupled with the high calorie, sodium and sugar content, could contribute to the increased risk of cancer.

But those factors alone didn’t account for the entire cancer burden. The researchers said that other contributing factors could be the prevalence of food additives in ultra-processed foods and the presence of other compounds created during food processing.

See EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Additives to learn which ones to avoid.

The science on the health effects of ultra-processed foods is just beginning to emerge. In the meantime, EWG’s Food Scores can help you to steer clear of ultra-processed foods by revealing the degree of processing for more than 80,000 food products.

EPA Considers Allowing Bee-Killing Pesticide to Be Sprayed on 165 Million Acres of U.S. Farmland

EcoWatch -GMO-

EPA Considers Allowing Bee-Killing Pesticide to Be Sprayed on 165 Million Acres of U.S. Farmland

Center for Biological Diversity December 19, 2018

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will consider allowing the bee-killing pesticide thiamethoxam to be sprayed on the most widely grown crops in the U.S. The application, if approved, would allow the highly toxic pesticide to be sprayed directly on 165 million acres of wheat, barley, corn, sorghum, alfalfa, rice and potato.

The proposal by the agrochemical giant Syngenta to dramatically escalate use of the harmful neonicotinoid pesticide came last Friday, on the same day the EPA released new assessments of the extensive dangers posed by neonicotinoids, including thiamethoxam.

“If the EPA grants Syngenta’s wish, it will spur catastrophic declines of aquatic invertebrates and pollinator populations that are already in serious trouble,” said Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program. “You know the pesticide-approval process is broken when the EPA announces it will consider expanding the use of this dangerous pesticide on the same day its own scientists reveal that the chemical kills birds and aquatic invertebrates.”

Neonicotinoids have long been known to pose serious harm to bee populations. But the new EPA assessments found the commonly used pesticides can kill and harm birds of all sizes and pose significant dangers to aquatic invertebrates.

Western bumblebee by Steve Amus, USDA.

Thiamethoxam is currently widely used as a seed coating for these crops. This application would allow it to be sprayed directly on the crops, greatly increasing the amount of pesticide that could be used.

The just-released aquatic and non-pollinator risk assessment found that the majority of uses of the neonicotinoid on currently registered crops resulted in risks to freshwater invertebrates that exceeded levels of concern—the threshold at which harm is known to occur.

The EPA did not assess risks associated with spraying the pesticides on the crops it announced it was considering expanding use to on Friday. But it is likely that increasing the number of crops approved for spraying would dramatically increase that risk.

In January the EPA released a preliminary assessment of on-field exposures to thiamethoxam that found all uses of the pesticide—on foliar, soil and seeds—result in exposures that exceed the level of concern for acute and chronic risk to adult bees. But the agency has taken no steps to restrict use of these products and is now considering expanding their use.

The EPA will review a proposal to spray a bee-killing pesticide that works by attacking the bee’s central nervous system. NICOLAS TUCAT/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Despite growing scientific and public concern about neonicotinoids, the application for expanded use of thiamethoxam was not announced by the EPA but quietly posted in the Federal Register.

“For years the EPA and pesticide companies bragged that by using treated seeds they were avoiding spraying insecticides, and despite the science showing that these treated seeds were deadly to birds, claimed that they were environmentally beneficial,” said Burd. “But we can expect the Trump EPA to now ignore the risks to birds and bees and approve these ultra-toxic pesticides to be sprayed across hundreds of millions of U.S. acres.”

Neonicotinoids are a class of pesticides known to have both acute and chronic effects on aquatic invertebrates, honeybees, birds, butterflies and other pollinator species; they are a major factor in overall pollinator declines. These systemic insecticides cause entire plants, including pollen and fruit, to become toxic to pollinators; they are also slow to break down and therefore build up in the environment.

A large and growing body of independent science links neonicotinoids to catastrophic bee declines. Twenty-nine independent scientists who conducted a global review of more than 1,000 independent studies on neonicotinoids found overwhelming evidence linking the pesticides to declines in populations of bees, birds, earthworms, butterflies and other wildlife.

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

The evidence points in one direction – we must ban neonicotinoids … ›

EPA: Neonicotinoid Pesticides Pose Serious Risks to Birds, Aquatic … ›

How Betsy DeVos Faceplanted on 60 Minutes

Esquire

How Betsy DeVos Faceplanted on 60 Minutes

From guns to race to school choice, Trump’s Secretary of Education failed on national television.

By Jack Holmes March 12, 2018

Getty Images

Betsy DeVos was referred to as “the most hated cabinet secretary” by Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes Sunday night. That was based on the Secretary of Education’s rough-and-tumble confirmation hearings—Vice President Mike Pence’s vote was required to break a Senate tie—and the constant protests that follow her on her visits around the country.

“Most hated” is quite an honor in this administration, which also features the climate-denying Scott Pruitt as EPA administrator. But DeVos is emblematic of Trumpism in its governing form: a member of the plutocratic class with limited expertise but unlimited, entrenched ideology, who attracts the suspicion that she simply bought her influence. At least, that was the opinion of Parkland survivor-turned-activist David Hogg on CNN yesterday.

Stahl’s questioning on 60 Minutes was an effective proving ground for DeVos. On a number of issues, but most prominently school choice, the secretary failed to convince the country of her qualifications. Often, it seemed like she’d just never thought about this before.

Stahl and DeVos started with guns, an issue that still enjoys a sense of urgency despite the NRA and its Republican allies running their post-massacre playbook. DeVos was asked to weigh in on her boss’ plan to arm teachers, which she first grappled with in her confirmation hearings. Back then, she suggested there would be a gun in a school in Wyoming “to protect from potential grizzlies,” which doesn’t seem like a universal issue facing America’s schools. This time was little better:

STAHL: They want gun control.

DEVOS: They want a variety of things. They want solutions.

STAHL: Do you think that teachers should have guns in the classroom?

DEVOS: That should be an option for states and communities to consider. And I hesitate to think of, like, my first-grade teacher, Mrs. Zorhoff, I couldn’t ever imagine her having a gun and being trained in that way. But for those who are—who are capable, this is one solution that can and should be considered. But no one size fits all. Every state and every community is going to address this issue in a different way.

STAHL: Do you see yourself as a leader in this—in this subject? And what kind of ideas will you be promoting?

DEVOS: I have actually asked to head up a task force that will really look at what states are doing. See there are a lot of states that are addressing these issues in very cohesive and coherent ways.

That “task force” is a commission established by President Trump. As an activist with Everytown USA, a gun-violence prevention group, illustrated on Twitter, the commission is probably not an honest attempt to find solutions to the gun violence epidemic in this country:

But DeVos’ most glaring professional shortcomings were laid bare on more traditional issues facing the education system. DeVos is unshakably committed to the concept of “school choice,” which involves using public, taxpayer money to get public-school students into private charter or parochial schools. When asked her basis for that ideology, DeVos seemed to be short on the facts:

DEVOS: We have invested billions and billions and billions of dollars from the federal level, and we have seen zero results.

STAHL: But that really isn’t true. Test scores have gone up over the last 25 years.

Things got significantly worse when Stahl asked about DeVos’ home state of Michigan. She and her family have spent huge sums of money to lobby for school choice in Michigan, but DeVos claimed not to know how the state’s public school system was doing.

STAHL: Now, has that happened in Michigan? We’re in Michigan. This is your home state.

DEVOS: Michi—Yes, well, there’s lots of great options and choices for students here.

STAHL: Have the public schools in Michigan gotten better?

DEVOS: I don’t know. Overall, I—I can’t say overall that they have all gotten better.

STAHL: The whole state is not doing well.

DEVOS: Well, there are certainly lots of pockets where this– the students are doing well and–

Getty Images

STAHL: No, but your argument that if you take funds away that the schools will get better, is not working in Michigan where you had a huge impact and influence over the direction of the school system here.

DEVOS: I hesitate to talk about all schools in general because schools are made up of individual students attending them.

STAHL: The public schools here are doing worse than they did.

DEVOS: Michigan schools need to do better. There is no doubt about it.

STAHL: Have you seen the really bad schools? Maybe try to figure out what they’re doing?

DEVOS: I have not—I have not—I have not intentionally visited schools that are underperforming.

STAHL: Maybe you should.

DEVOS: Maybe I should. Yes.

That’s right: when asked if she visits underperforming schools, the U.S. Secretary of Education’s answer was: never on purpose. This is an advertisement for what the Trump administration is all about. The data, the studies, even in-person observation—any way that we have of verifying whether a policy has worked or will work—are all irrelevant.

DeVos believes, deeply, that privatizing public education is the solution to all our problems. That she believes this, and is rich and influential enough to put her ideas into practice, is all that matters. The president’s thought processes are frequently an inversion of the scientific method, where his staff’s resources must be marshaled to find evidence to justify his ideology. It appears that ethos extends to his cabinet. DeVos championed school choice for years in her home state, and public schools there are now doing worse, but that has not impacted her calculus at all. The solution remains more school choice, just as the solution to gun violence is more guns.

The interview also exposed further downsides to having a (white) billionaire who never visits poorly performing schools as Education Secretary. One is that DeVos seems almost completely oblivious to the fact that whites and students of color are disciplined differently in schools—particularly, that misbehavior from black students is more frequently met with punishment that’s escalated to suspensions or even the criminal level, which then serves as a blemish on their record as they seek higher education or employment.

STAHL: That’s the issue: who and how the kids who disrupt are being punished.

DEVOS: Arguably, all of these issues or all of this issue comes down to individual kids. And—

STAHL: Well, no. That– it’s not.

DEVOS: —it does come down to individual kids. And—often comes down to—I am committed to making sure that students have the opportunity to learn in an environment that is conducive to their learning.

STAHL: Do you see this disproportion in discipline for the same infraction as institutional racism?

DEVOS: We’re studying it carefully. And are committed to making sure students have opportunity to learn in safe and nurturing environments.

This idea that racism is about individual interactions is foundational to modern conservative thought. It is also wrong. As Stahl points out, institutional racism is the more pressing issue in our society, as it is responsible for unequal treatment by law enforcement, the courts–and yes, schools. It’s not about an individual teacher’s prejudice, it’s about training and social conditioning that leads to subconscious bias. And it’s not about an individual kid’s behavior—as Stahl mentioned, this is about different punishments for the same offense. Like it or not, the color of the misbehaving kid’s skin matters. This might be lost on someone like Devos, who in a speech called historically black colleges “pioneers” of “school choice.” Historically black colleges were established because black students were shut out of other schools because of their race. There wasn’t much choice involved.

Devos never attended nor worked in any public school herself, and the evidence is fairly conclusive that she does not even believe in the concept of public education. In fact, she once called public education “a dead end.” Why else would she propose massive cuts to her own department? One answer, of course, is that she is a member of Donald Trump’s cabinet—which does not necessarily involve making sure your department is delivering better services to the public. But it does involve putting your pet ideology into practice, consequences be damned—if they’re even acknowledged at all. Long live the kakistocrats.

It’s the Golden Age of Climate Denial

The government is close to finishing a climate change report. President Trump won’t like it

The Mercury News

The government is close to finishing a climate change report. President Trump won’t like it

By Chris Mooney, Washington Post March 12, 2018

A traffic jam fills Interstate 880 in Milpitas in November. A new report says there is “no convincing alternative explanation” for climate change other than human activities such as fossil fuel burning. Dai Sugano/Bay Area News Group

The country’s top independent scientific advisory body has largely approved a major climate report being prepared by scientists within the Trump administration — suggesting that another key government document could soon emerge that contradicts President Donald Trump’s skepticism about climate change and humans’ role in driving it.

The U.S. National Academies on Monday released a public peer review of a draft document called the U.S. National Climate Assessment, a legally required report that is being produced by the federal Global Change Research Program. The document, which is in its fourth installment, closely surveys how a changing climate is affecting individual U.S. states, regions, and economic and industrial sectors. The final version is expected later this year; the last version came out in 2014 during the Obama administration.

The process highlights how despite the changing political context — and even hints that the Trump administration may try to subject federal climate science to additional, adversarial reviews — technical government studies of climate science continue.

The report, 1,506 pages long in draft form, says U.S. temperatures will rise markedly in coming decades, accompanied by many other attendant effects. It predicts that Northeastern fisheries will be stressed by warmer ocean waters, that the Southeast will suffer from worsening water shortages, that worse extreme-weather events will tax water and other types of infrastructure, and far more.

For the most part, all of this has received a check mark from a panel of scientific referees at the National Academies.

“We had 16 experts review it, go through it in detail, see if it meets the congressionally mandated requirements, and we agree that it did,” said Robin Bell of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, head of the committee that reviewed the report.

The draft document lays out the current and future effects on the United States at a higher level of resolution than before, Bell said, focusing closely on the Caribbean, looking separately at the northern and southern Great Plains, examining air pollution, and more.

“Coastal ecosystems are being transformed, degraded, or lost due to climate change impacts, particularly sea level rise and higher numbers of extreme weather events,” the document states.

“As the pace of coastal flooding and erosion accelerates, climate impacts along our coasts are exacerbating preexisting social inequities as communities face difficult questions on determining who will pay for current impacts and future adaptation strategies and if, how, or when to relocate vulnerable communities,” it continues.

Regarding agricultural communities, the draft states that “reduced crop yields, intensifying wildfire on rangelands, depletion of surface water supplies, and acceleration of aquifer depletion are anticipated with increased frequency and duration of drought.”

When it comes to the fundamental science of climate change, the National Climate Assessment is based, in significant part, on another report, dubbed the Climate Science Special Report, that was finalized and released by the Global Change Research Program late last year.

That document found that there was “no convincing alternative explanation” for climate change other than human activities such as fossil fuel burning. It also said a sea-level rise as high as eight feet is “physically possible” as an extreme by the year 2100, though there was no way to say how probable that is.

Many scientists initially feared that the Trump administration would in some way suppress or otherwise interfere with the release of the Climate Science Special Report, given that it so thoroughly appeared to undermine the president’s personally expressed skepticism of climate change and his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate change agreement. But the report was released as expected, and there were no significant cries of censorship or political meddling.

Now, the question is whether the same will occur with the longer National Climate Assessment, which goes beyond the Climate Science Special Report to locate the climate problem within specific U.S. communities and industries, describing both how they will suffer and how they are coping. The National Climate Assessment arguably has more potential for political ramifications, in that it exhaustively describes effects in specific places in the country.

“There are many stories about the change, and that’s the beauty of this, you can go to the document and find stories in your community no matter where you live in the U.S.,” Bell said.

Granted, the current review is not a 100 percent endorsement — for instance, it states that when it comes to discussing different types of scientific uncertainty, “improved differentiation and more standardized treatment is needed across the draft report.” The document also contains more than 40 pages of line edits to the longer report.

But this is not a fundamental undermining of the document — it just means more work has to be done for it to be improved before publication.

“They are meant to provide clarification and ease of use by the readers but not direction-changing sorts of recommendations,” said Daniel Cayan, a professor at UC San Diego and one of the peer reviewers.

Like our Facebook page for more conversation and news coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.

The report will be revised in light of these critiques by its federal authors — and move toward anticipated final-form publication later this year.

It’s not just that the water is rising — the land is sinking, too

Why the stock market’s good fortune may not be great for society

Letter: Trump’s tariffs on solar cells are not the answer

Letter: Courts alone can’t solve the climate change issue

Editorial: Liccardo’s ambitious climate plan is right move for San Jose

“There’s a tremendous interest and demand for updated information and also examples of how various communities are approaching climate issues,” Cayan said. “So, I believe that there’s a community of consumers that really are depending on the National Climate Assessment, and I would be very surprised if it does not continue and it is not sustained.”

20% of the Worlds Fresh Water!! Michigan’s deal with Enbridge isn’t end of Line 5 discussion

Detroit Free Press

DNR chief: Michigan’s deal with Enbridge isn’t end of Line 5 discussion

Keith Creagh March 12, 2018

(Photo: Neil Blake, AP)

Michiganders are passionate about the Great Lakes, understandably so. More than any other natural resource the lakes define who we are – geographically, culturally and historically. There is no more important task than properly protecting and managing the lakes for the benefit of future generations.

The shared passion for the Great Lakes has surfaced in public concern over Line 5, the 645-mile-long pipeline owned and operated by Enbridge Energy, Inc., that passes beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Along with the Michigan Attorney General, state agencies – the Michigan Agency for Energy and the Michigan departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality – have undertaken an analysis of Line 5 to determine its future. Hundreds of comments at public feedback sessions, and thousands of comments submitted electronically, will help the state formulate a final decision on the line.

Keith Creagh , director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Photo: David Kenyon)

Even as that process unfolded, however, we recognized that we could not wait for that analysis to be complete before compelling Enbridge to provide additional protections for the Great Lakes. So on Nov. 27 of last year, Gov. Rick Snyder signed an agreement that provides those protections.

There has been some confusion about what the agreement does and does not do. Let me be clear: The agreement does not represent the state’s final decision regarding Line 5. The process of determining the best future for Line 5 continues with public meetings of the Pipeline Safety Advisory Board and with an in-process risk analysis led by Guy Meadows of Michigan Technological University.

Opinion: Enbridge Line 5 problems draw strong words from state officials. Again.
More: Enbridge oil pipelines in Straits, St. Clair River could go in tunnels under new pact

The state has already commissioned an alternatives analysis that reviews alternatives to Line 5 beneath the Straits. In other words, the agreement with Enbridge is not final, but it is an important interim step to protect our natural resource treasures, especially the Great Lakes.

Just as important as what the agreement does not do is what it does. The agreement:

Leaves all options on the table, including the possibility of closing down Line 5 in the Straits.

Provides a deadline — set by the governor as September of this year — for further consideration of what should happen to Line 5 beneath the Straits of Mackinac and requires Enbridge to complete a study of the feasibility of tunneling beneath the Straits of Mackinac and other options to the current line.

Provides for additional transparency and truthfulness, including state-hired contractors who are working alongside Enbridge employees to verify the company’s data and due diligence.

Replaces the portion of Line 5 that crosses beneath the St. Clair River, a site where this action can be quickly accomplished. The St. Clair River is a primary source of drinking water for southeast Michigan and an environmentally sensitive location along the pipeline.

Temporarily shuts down operation of Line 5 in the Straits during periods of sustained adverse weather conditions, because those conditions do not allow for an adequate response to potential oil spills. This provision was already put to use in December.

Requires Enbridge, in partnership with the state, to evaluate other Line 5 water crossings in Michigan to identify additional measures to minimize the likelihood and consequences of an oil spill at these locations, and implement measures where appropriate. This provision extends the rightful concern and focus on the Straits to other water crossings along the entire length of Line 5 in Michigan.

To date there is no indication that Line 5 presents an immediate safety hazard. Nevertheless, all pipelines have a life-span. Our task as a state is to determine what the lifespan of Line 5 ought to be, and what, if anything, should replace Line 5 when that lifespan is complete. The state has a process for making that decision. There is no reason to wait for that process to play out to provide needed safeguards for the Great Lakes. Our children and grandchildren deserve no less.

Keith Creagh is director of the Department of Natural Resources and co-chair of the Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board.

UK official: Small traces of contamination found in spy case

Associated Press

UK official: Small traces of contamination found in spy case

Gregory Katz and Frank Griffiths, Associated Press – March 11, 2018

Investigators in protective clothing prepare to move an ambulance at the South Western Ambulance Service station in Harnham, near Salisbury, England, as police and members of the armed forces probe the suspected nerve agent attack on Russian spy double agent Sergei Skripal, Saturday March 10, 2018. Counter-terrorism police asked for military assistance to remove vehicles and objects from the scene in the city, much of which has been cordoned off over contamination fears of the nerve agent poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter. (Andrew Matthews/PA via AP)

LONDON (AP) — British health authorities said Sunday that small traces of contamination have been found in a restaurant and a pub in the English city of Salisbury, after a Russian ex-spy and his daughter were poisoned with a nerve agent.

The risk to public health remains low but there are concerns that the risk could build if people are repeatedly exposed to tiny trace quantities of the nerve agent, Dr. Jenny Harries of Public Health England told a news conference.

She said that people who were in the restaurant and pub on March 4 and March 5 should take “simple” precautions by washing their clothes and taking other measures to protect their skin from repeated exposure.

“This is just very practical advice” that should affect only a few hundred people, she said, adding that there is no proof people actually have trace elements of the nerve agent on their clothes.

Harries said the announcement of these precautions doesn’t mean the risk level to the public has been raised.

She was speaking shortly after Public Health England issued a statement with advice and precautions that should be taken. It was the first time British officials have urged the public to take specific actions as a result of the attack.

She deflected questions about why it took a week for health authorities to come out with the precautionary advice.

“It’s really important to understand the general public should not be concerned,” she said. “There is, on the evidence currently, a very low risk.”

Hospital officials in Salisbury also said there is no evidence of a wider risk beyond the three people hospitalized since the March 4 attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. Ex-spy Skripal and his daughter Yulia reportedly ate at a Zizzi restaurant before falling critically ill. A British police detective is also hospitalized in serious condition.

Health authorities also said contamination traces were found at The Mill pub.

“While there is no immediate health risk to anyone who may have been in either of these locations, it is possible, but unlikely, that any of the substance which has come into contact with clothing or belongings could still be present in minute amounts and therefore contaminate your skin,” the statement from Public Health England said. “Over time, repeated skin contact with contaminated items may pose a small risk to health.”

The health agency added that any clothing should be washed in “an ordinary washing machine using your regular detergent at the temperature recommended for the clothing.”

It also said to “wipe personal items such as phones, handbags and other electronic items with cleansing or baby wipes and dispose of the wipes in the bin.”

The government, meanwhile, hasn’t revealed what nerve agent was used in the attack.

A large-scale police investigation is underway in Salisbury as forensics experts wearing protective gear search for clues. Among the sites they are searching are the Zizzi restaurant, which is closed to the public, and the gravesites where Skripal’s wife and son are buried. Skripal’s house has also been extensively searched for clues and traces of the nerve agent.

Authorities haven’t revealed how or where the Skripals were exposed to the nerve agent. It’s not known if it happened in a restaurant, a pub, Skripal’s house or elsewhere.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd said Saturday evening it is still “too early” to determine who is to blame for the attack. Senior government officials have vowed to respond robustly if the Russian government is found to be responsible.

Rudd said more than 250 counterterrorism officers are on the scene evaluating more than 240 pieces of evidence and interviewing about 200 witnesses.

They are backed by roughly 180 military personnel providing logistical support, including the removal of ambulances feared to possibly be contaminated by the nerve agent.

Police are looking for precise clues to what sickened Skripal, 66, a Russian ex-military intelligence specialist who in 2006 was convicted in Russia of spying for Britain, and his 33-year-old daughter, Yulia.

Investigators hope they can pinpoint where the nerve agent was made, which could help determine who was behind the attack.

Skripal was imprisoned inside Russia until he was freed in a 2010 spy swap and settled in England. He had stayed out of the public eye since then.

The father and daughter were found unconscious March 4 on a bench in Salisbury. Skripal lived in the town, located 90 miles (140 kilometers) southwest of London.

Authorities haven’t said whether they expect the pair to recover.

Some British lawmakers have asked for a high-level investigation of a string of serious mishaps involving former Russia spies and foes of Russian President Vladimir Putin who have taken up residence in Britain.

Category: Environment