National Security Hypocrisy at Secretary of Defense Nomination Hearing

There was a small question but important at the end of part 1 of the nomination hearing for Ashton Carter to be the next Secretary of Defense.  I will get to more of Ashton Carter's nomination hearing in another post, but just quickly I wanted to point out something that freshman Senator Dan Sullivan from Alaska mentioned about oil exploration and national security.

From C-SPAN's transcript of the hearing (format edited by me)

Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) I think there was consensus that we certainly need to work on all instruments of American power to integrate those as part of a national strategy to address significant challenges that the President has not laid out. One of these instruments that we didn't have ten years ago but there was common agreement on is energy and being once again the world's energy superpower in terms of producing oil and gas and renewables. Last week the President took over 20 million acres of some of the most perspective lands in america for oil and gas development off the table. Do you agree that having energy and using that to help our national security is important and would you agree that taking such huge areas of land off the table, billions, potentially billions of barrels of oil, you think that helps or undermines america's national security?

Ashton Carter: I certainly think energy security is an important part of national security, and I'm incredibly encouraged by what the progress that the United States has made in developing new resources, both oil and gas in recent years I think it's showing up in terms of our economy and also it's showing up geopolitically. With respect to the particular issue you raise, Senator, I'm simply not knowledgeable about it and can't give you a knowledgeable answer.

Senator Sullivan: I think those kind of actions undermine our national security significantly.

Ashton Carter: I understand.

Senator Sullivan is talking about Obama's decision to ban drilling in Alaska's Bristol Bay while conveniently ignoring Obama's other announcement to allow drilling almost everywhere else instead

14 potential lease sales in eight planning areas – 10 sales in the Gulf of Mexico, three off the coast of Alaska, and one in a portion of the Mid- and South Atlantic.

Also notice that while some of Bristol Bay is off limits, there are still 3 sales proposed for Alaska

In Alaska, the draft proposal continues to take a careful approach by utilizing the targeted leasing strategy set forth in the current program, which recognizes the substantial environmental, social and ecological concerns in the Arctic. The draft proposal proposes one sale each in the Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and Cook Inlet areas.

Also today, President Obama – using his authorities under the OCS Lands Act – designated portions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas as off limits from consideration for future oil and gas leasing in order to protect areas of critical importance to subsistence use by Alaska Natives, as well as for their unique and sensitive environmental resources. In December, President Obama used this same authority to place the waters of Bristol Bay off limits to oil and gas development, protecting an area known for its world-class fisheries and stunning beauty.

The New York Times reported on the proposal here and here writing on January 26 that

BP is already facing a record $13.7 billion in potential fines under the Clean Water Act for its role in the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Despite the risks posed by offshore drilling, lawmakers in Virginia and other Southeastern states have pushed to open up their waters to oil companies, lured by the prospect of new revenues. Both of Virginia’s Democratic senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, support drilling off their state’s coast.

and on the 27th wrote that Obama

has tried to push a sweeping, aggressive and controversial plan to fight climate change while offering an appeasement to his opponents in the oil industry and the Republican Party.

State laws limit where drilling can occur, as the story on the 27th writes

Interior Department officials said the drilling in the Atlantic would take place a minimum of 50 miles offshore so that it would not get in the way of the Navy’s military exercises, offshore wind turbines, and commercial and recreational fishing.

Ms. Jewell said that since so little was known about the proposed Atlantic lease sale areas, the coming years would be devoted to exploration of the area to determine the extent of its oil and gas resources and ecological sensitivity. She said that the government was unlikely to sell a drilling lease before 2021, meaning it could be a decade before new drilling begins.

Here from BOEM is the definition of the limits of maritime drilling operations

The Federal Government administers the submerged lands, subsoil, and seabed, lying between the seaward extent of the States' jurisdiction and the seaward extent of Federal jurisdiction.

State jurisdiction is defined as follows:

• Texas and the Gulf coast of Florida are extended 3 marine leagues (9 nautical miles) seaward from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

• Louisiana is extended 3 imperial nautical miles (imperial nautical mile = 6080.2 feet) seaward of the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

• All other States' seaward limits are extended 3 nautical miles (approximately 3.3 statute miles) seaward of the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

Federal jurisdiction is defined under accepted principles of international law. The seaward limit is defined as the farthest of 200 nautical miles seaward of the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured or, if the continental shelf can be shown to exceed 200 nautical miles, a distance not greater than a line 100 nautical miles from the 2,500-meter isobath or a line 350 nautical miles from the baseline.

Outer Continental Shelf limits greater than 200 nautical miles but less than either the 2,500 meter isobath plus 100 nautical miles or 350 nautical miles are defined by a line 60 nautical miles seaward of the foot of the continental slope or by a line seaward of the foot of the continental slope connecting points where the sediment thickness divided by the distance to the foot of the slope equals 0.01, whichever is farthest.

Here are the types of drilling rigs from the same BOEM page

Here from the New York Times January 27th article (citing BOEM again) is a map of the proposed drilling sites and restricted areas

Democrats and environmental groups are crying foul (except for Virginia's Democratic Senators and a few others that for instance voted for the Keystone XL Pipeline)

These Senate Democrats voted yes on Keystone: Bennet, Carper, Casey, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin, McCaskill, Tester and Warner.
— Jeff Zeleny (@jeffzeleny) January 29, 2015

Nicole Dallara, Outreach Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club wrote

We support President Obama and the steps he has taken to combat climate change. However, by opening up various areas to drilling, he is undoing the work he has done to fight climate change. During his State of the Union address, President Obama called climate change the greatest threat to future generations. However, opening up areas to drill accelerates climate change, while undermining any advancement in renewable energy.

Democratic Senators Markey (Massachusetts) Menendez and Booker (New Jersey) and Cardin (Maryland) criticized the proposal as bad for the environment and citizens of their states while only benefiting oil companies.

“All of the risk is put on the backs of our shore communities, and all of the reward goes to Big Oil,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). “Oil companies don’t need another handout. They don’t need another gift from the federal government. They’re doing just fine with the billions of dollars of tax breaks that Congress won’t repeal.”

Mother Jones adds some more to the story

Cardin said that the reserves off the Atlantic Coast "are minimal compared to the risk." The Department of Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) estimated last year that there are 4.72 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 37.51 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf off the entire east coast. The Gulf of Mexico, in contrast, contains an estimated 48.4 billion barrels.

The senators cited a recent report from the environmental group Oceana, which found that offshore wind development has the potential to create twice as many jobs and energy as oil and gas development on the Atlantic coast.

Here is why all of this matters at the confirmation hearing for the new Secretary of Defense.

Climate change will affect the Department of Defense's ability to defend the Nation and poses immediate risks to U.S. national security. The Department is responding to climate change in two ways: adaptation, or efforts to plan for the changes that are occurring or expected to occur; and mitigation, or efforts that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

That is the description for this report from June which describes policy planning relating to military operations, readiness training, natural and built infrastructure and department acquisitions and the supply chain.

Rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events will intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict. They will likely lead to food and water shortages, pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and resources, and destruction by natural disasters in regions across the globe. In our defense strategy, we refer to climate change as a “threat multiplier” because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we are dealing with today – from infectious disease to terrorism. We are already beginning to see some of these impacts.  

The impact of global warming is already being felt

The third National Climate Assessment notes that certain types of weather events have become more frequent and/or intense, including heat waves, heavy downpours, and, in some regions, floods and droughts. Sea levels are rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, and glaciers and arctic sea ice are melting. Scientists predict that these changes will continue and even increase in frequency or duration over the next 100 years.

These climate-­‐related effects are already being observed at installations throughout the U.S. and overseas and affect many of the Department’s activities and decisions related to future operating environments, military readiness, stationing, environmental compliance and stewardship, and infrastructure planning and maintenance.

Climate change also will interact with other stressors in ways that may affect the deployment of U.S. Forces overseas and here at home. As climate change affects the availability of food and water, human migration, and competition for natural resources, the Department’s unique capability to provide logistical, material, and security assistance on a massive scale or in rapid fashion may be called upon with increasing frequency.

Global warming could lead to new threats in new locations as well as increased terrorism and unstable governments and affect how the military can respond

sea level rise may impact the execution of amphibious landings; changing temperatures and lengthened seasons could impact operation timing windows; and increased frequency of extreme weather could impact overflight possibility as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability. The opening of formerly-­‐frozen Arctic sea lanes will increase the need for the Department to monitor events, safeguard freedom of navigation, and ensure stability in this resource-­‐ rich area. Maintaining stability within and among other nations is an important means of avoiding full-­‐ scale military conflicts. The impacts of climate change may cause instability in other countries by impairing access to food and water, damaging infrastructure, spreading disease, uprooting and displacing large numbers of people, compelling mass migration, interrupting commercial activity, or restricting electricity availability. These developments could undermine already-­‐fragile governments that are unable to respond effectively or challenge currently-­‐stable governments, as well as increasing competition and tension between countries vying for limited resources. These gaps in governance can create an avenue for extremist ideologies and conditions that foster terrorism.

Besides global warming affecting military defense preparedness, there are also the increased threats to our health as laid out by the CDC

• Air Pollution

• Allergens

• Wildfires

• Temperature Extremes

• Precipitation Extremes

• Diseases Carried by Vectors

• Food and Waterborne Diarrheal Disease

• Food Security

• Mental Health and Stress-Related Disorders

Then there is also the fact that the body cannot withstand explosions, which happen a lot as well.  By January 27th there had already been 5 pipeline explosions, and a 2013 Chevron pipeline explosion needed a 1.5 mile evacuation zone.

Along with the 2010 BP spill which is widely cited as a concern in the Gulf, it is hardly the only incident even in recent months.

November 21 2014

(Reuters) - An explosion at oil and gas operator Fieldwood Energy's Echo Platform in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday killed one person and injured at least one, but no pollution was reported, a U.S. safety agency and the company said.

December 19 2014

An explosion and fire early Friday morning killed two people and critically injured two others at an oil rig in southeastern Oklahoma.

Authorities said the explosion occurred at the rig about two miles west of Coalgate in a remote area of rural Coal County, about 100 miles southeast of Oklahoma City.

And here is some safety news from Canada

Latest pipeline #statistics: 5 accidents from Jan to Nov 2014, compared with 10 for the same period in 2013 http://t.co/kyZINXhE5V
— TSB of Canada (@TSBCanada) January 26, 2015

And currently we only have to worry about the safety of 2.5 million miles of pipeline

There are 2.5 million miles of pipeline currently operating in the U.S.
— Strong facts (@RealStrongfacts) January 23, 2015

I can understand Senator Sullivan and Ashton Carter's concerns about energy security and I agree that we should be worried about the future of US energy security and homeland security, but Senator Sullivan and many Republicans, as well as some Democrats and President Obama see continued and increased oil and gas drilling as the solution to both problems, even as accidents kill workers and normal production ruins our health and we must reduce by “at least 40% below the 1990 level” our greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 in order to limit the already begun effects of the changing climate--remember that some of these leases won't start until 2021 (emphasis mine)

Ms. Jewell said that since so little was known about the proposed Atlantic lease sale areas, the coming years would be devoted to exploration of the area to determine the extent of its oil and gas resources and ecological sensitivity. She said that the government was unlikely to sell a drilling lease before 2021, meaning it could be a decade before new drilling begins.

**IF you are willing to share your name publicly then comment on the proposition HERE by March 16th

There are also 4 public meetings scheduled

 • New Orleans, Louisiana: Monday, February 23, 2015, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region,
1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123, one meeting beginning at 1:00
p.m. CST;

• Panama City, Florida: Tuesday, February 24, 2015, Wyndham Bay Point Resort,
4114 Jan Cooley Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida, 32408, one meeting beginning at 4:00 p.m. CST;

• Mobile, Alabama: Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Hilton Garden Inn Mobile West,
828 West I–65 Service Road South, Mobile, Alabama 36609, one meeting beginning at 4:00 p.m. CST;

• Gulfport, Mississippi: Thursday, February 26, 2015, Courtyard by Marriott, Gulfport Beachfront MS Hotel,
1600 East Beach Boulevard, Gulfport, Mississippi 39501, one meeting beginning at 4:00 p.m. CST. 

The Franken Amendment to Keystone XL Pipeline

I've been watching some of the debates around the Keystone XL pipeline and I wanted to say some things about the Franken Amendment, which requires that if built, steel for the pipeline be made in America, which sounds good for jobs, but with the environmental consequences is just making sure American companies profit from making more money on global warming.  But Republicans killed the amendment (I think) because of a caveat placed in the bill about cost

MinnPost

The American-made steel debate will be familiar to those who paid attention to Franken's re-election campaign last year. Franken has said he opposes bypassing the regulatory process for Keystone, but, either way, it should be constructed with American steel. During the campaign his Republican opponent, businessman Mike McFadden, said he didn't think that should be a precondition to constructing Keystone, a comment the DFL used against him throughout the campaign, especially on Minnesota's Iron Range.

Franken's amendment is short, requiring that: “to the maximum extent consistent with the obligations of the United States under international trade agreements, none of the iron, steel or manufactured goods used in construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and facilities approved by this act may be produced outside of the United States.” The big caveat: the amendment wouldn’t apply if using American-made products would increase the price of the project by more than 25 percent.

Here is the full text of the Franken Amendment

(Purpose: To requie the use of iron, steel, and manufactured goods 
 produced in the United States in the construction of the Keystone XL 
                        Pipeline and facilities)

       After section 2, insert the following:

     SEC. __. USE OF UNITED STATES IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED 
                   GOODS.

       (a) Limitation.--Subject to subsection (b), to the maximum 
     extent consistent with the obligations of the United States 
     under international trade agreements, none of the iron, 
     steel, or manufactured goods used in the construction of the 
     Keystone XL Pipeline and facilities approved by this Act may 
     be produced outside of the United States.
       (b) Nonapplication.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     extent that the President finds that--
       (1) iron, steel, and the applicable manufactured goods are 
     not produced in the United States in sufficient and 
     reasonably available quantities with a satisfactory quality; 
     or
       (2) inclusion of iron, steel, or any manufactured good 
     produced in the United States will increase the cost of the 
     iron, steel, or any manufactured good used in the Pipeline 
     and facilities by more than 25 percent.

The Hill

Senate Democrats are pressing amendments to legislation that would approve the Keystone XL pipeline, arguing their proposals would "actually make it an American jobs bill."

Because Keystone is a private company, CBO does not look at costs, writing in it's report 

Based on information from affected agencies, CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would have no significant effect on federal spending for regulatory activities related to the proposed pipeline. (Any such regulatory activities are subject to the availability of appropriated funds.) Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.

The Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.

so I am having a hard time finding out how much 100% American steel and iron would cost, if it would actually increase the price of the project by more than 25%.

Senator Franken talked about his amendment on the Senate floor

Congress has had a long history of using ``Buy American'' provisions in order to maximize the economic benefits of infrastructure projects. ``Buy American'' provisions ensure that more goods and manufactured items used in infrastructure and other projects are produced here at home. In fact, as recently as 2013 Congress passed a provision in the WRDA Act--the Water Resources Development Act--to require the use of iron, steel, and other domestically produced goods in water infrastructure projects. That is important because it means that we keep jobs and profits here at home instead of sending them abroad.

Unfortunately, there is no such requirement when it comes to construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. In fact, according to TransCanada itself, half of the pipe for the U.S. portion of the pipeline would be sourced from foreign countries. And for the other half that would be put together here in the United States, much of the raw material, such as the steel that goes into the pipe, could be sourced from overseas. This is the problem our amendment addresses. Our amendment would require the use of domestic iron, steel, and other manufactured goods in the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, provided the material is readily available and affordable.

If adopted, the amendment would create jobs for iron ore miners, such as the ones across the Iron Range in my State of Minnesota. It would create more jobs for shippers who ship the ore across the Great Lakes or by rail or down the Mississippi River. It would create more jobs for our steelworkers who work in steel mills across this country.

At the same time, we specify in our amendment that these requirements would be implemented consistent with our trade agreements.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said we shouldn't put such restrictions on a private company. But we have to remember that this isn't your typical private company. The underlying bill to authorize the pipeline would throw out the established approval process for the construction of a cross-border pipeline by a foreign corporation. That means all of the important assessments regarding things such as safety and the environment that our Federal agencies might have made on this project are tossed by the wayside. So if Congress is going to intervene on behalf of this foreign company, then the least we can do is to make sure the company building the pipeline uses American-made iron and steel. This is a very pragmatic amendment . We all have different views on the approval process for this pipeline, and while I believe Congress should not circumvent the approval process we have in place, I think we can all agree that we want jobs here in America.

Alaska Senator Murkowski who supports Keystone, added that TransCanada already committed to using 75% American steel

This pipeline is a private project. This is not a federally funded infrastructure project. This would be the first time that Congress has directed or forced private parties to purchase domestic goods and materials.

We actually asked the Congressional Research Service to look into this to see if there was any other instance at the Federal level where private parties were told that they must purchase 100-percent domestic goods and materials, and so far the answer to that inquiry has been that they can find no instance of that.

I think we need to be careful about this as a precedent because if we are going to direct this particular project--the Keystone XL--to have this requirement on it, where do we go next? What will happen to the next project that we have? Will it be the next pipeline or the next renewable energy project? Where does this slippery slope go?

I think it is fair to note that TransCanada has made a commitment to have 75 percent of the pipes for this project come from North America, and fully half of that--more than 332,000 tons of steel will come from the State of Arkansas.

I am with the Senator from Minnesota. We want to make sure we get as many jobs as we absolutely can and make sure they are good-paying jobs--whether it is in steel making or widget making or welders. This is about jobs. This is what we want to do to encourage jobs. I think we need to be very cognizant of what this particular amendment would do. This amendment --for the first time ever--would direct a private entity to utilize all American-made products throughout the process of the construction. It is important to note that the American Iron and Steel Institute has been a strong supporter of the Keystone XL Pipeline. We have all received a letter--they called it a Steelgram--from the American Iron and Steel Institute. They let us know very clearly and in no uncertain terms that they support Keystone XL. They said it is essential that Congress act to ensure the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline

Senator Durbin spoke about Republican hypocrisy concerning Keystone amendments (there are 247 by the way)

When the Democrats insisted that this pipeline's product--the oil that is refined and used for consumption--be sold in the United States, the Republicans voted no. The Republicans voted no. I have a lengthy memo on my desk of all of the Republican Senators who have come to the floor insisting that the Keystone Pipeline was going to create more gasoline, more diesel fuel, and help the American economy. Yet, when Senator Markey of Massachusetts offered an amendment to say keep the products coming from the Keystone Pipeline in the United States, the Republicans, to a person, voted no.

Then Senator Franken came forward and said, Well, let's agree that if this is about jobs in America that the Keystone Pipeline will use American steel. That seems reasonable to me, and I voted for it. The Republicans voted no. They defeated the notion that we would use American steel to build this pipeline.

This pipeline is Senate Bill 1 for the Senate Republicans. It is their highest priority. One would think that if it truly is a jobs bill, they would want American steel to be used to build the pipeline; let our steel mills build this pipeline in the future, create the jobs in America, and they voted no.

Yesterday I offered an amendment as well. We know at the end of this pipeline, if tar sands reach the United States through this means or otherwise, it is a pretty nasty process taking the tar and sand out of the oil, and what is left over is a nasty product known as petcoke.

Petcoke is now being stored in three-story-high piles in the city of Chicago. I have seen it. And the city is trying to get to the point where it is at least contained and covered. Yet, the company that owns it, which incidentally is a company owned by the Koch brothers--what an irony--this company has resisted the idea of covering these petcoke piles, so this nasty black substance blows through the community in southeast Chicago. The city of Chicago is in a battle.

I tried to put in an effort yesterday so that we would establish standards for transportation and storage of petcoke, and the Republicans insisted it was a benign substance, it isn't hazardous, not dangerous, don't worry about it. If some of the Senators who voted against my amendment , tomorrow, God forbid, face this issue in their community, I think they will have a little different view of petcoke and what it can do to people, the impact it has on respiratory disease and asthma.

Yesterday I didn't prevail. But I can tell my colleagues how over the years, as I fought the tobacco companies and they insisted there was nothing dangerous about tobacco, I heard those arguments from industry just as we are hearing the petcoke arguments from the petcoke industry. Ultimately, good sense prevailed, public health prevailed, and we moved toward regulation of tobacco products. We should do the same--basic regulation--to protect the public from any negative impact on their health relative to petcoke.

It's HOT! HOT! HOT! (but SHH! it's not Global Warming!!)

ABC World News on Wednesday June 18, 2014 reported on the "Heat Emergency" as well as severe storms and drought, but didn't mention Global Warming.

Video, Heat Wave Emergency

Video, Severe Weather

How many times will media show "people who work outside during heat waves" ??

UPS driver says "It's Hot, I'm keeping hydrated."

Construction crews say "It's hot, I'm keeping hydrated."

etc, etc,

Dear ABC News, maybe this from AP will help you!

FEDERAL REPORT: WARMING DISRUPTS AMERICANS' LIVES May 6, 2014

Global warming is rapidly turning America the beautiful into America the stormy, sneezy and dangerous, according to a new federal scientific report. And those shining seas? Rising and costly, the report says.

Climate change's assorted harms "are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond," the National Climate Assessment concluded Tuesday. The report emphasizes that warming and all-too-wild weather are changing daily lives...

the normal response from the normal groups

Some fossil energy groups, conservative think tanks and Republican senators immediately assailed the report as "alarmist."

climate change is happening now

"Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present," the report says. "Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington state and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience."

National Climate Assessment Home Page

Every region is affected by climate change

So yes, heat waves are increasing, and starting sooner, and storms are increasing in severity and frequency.  But this is not only just a weird story, nor just a weather story.  The story is global warming and the reports should reflect that.

Story on Iraq, then "pain at gas pump"
Video, ISIS approaching oil refinery
There was a report that ISIS was approaching an oil refinery--and yes while that may be a reason for some of the increase, you need to remind viewers, who are only scared by your story, that gas prices rise and fall all year, and typically rise and fall many times each year for various reasons, including market speculation and production increases or decreases.

Charts from Gas Buddy

Here is the 11 year Chart--before Obama, before Bush, before the war in Iraq or Recession

Here is the 2 year price chart as well, notice previous rises in prices in June 2012, February 2013 and February 2014