All Things Whistleblower: A GAP Blog

Climate-Gate Debunked?

An academic inquiry has cleared the climate scientist at the center of the so-called "climate-gate" scandal of scientific misconduct.

Climate science skeptics had jumped on hundreds of emails and other documents obtained by an unknown computer hacker from a British scientific center, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, in late November.

Climate skeptics claimed Dr. Michael E. Mann, author of some of the emails, seemed to indicate he destroyed some data and was using a "trick" to manipulate other data. The academic board at Pennsylvania State University, where Dr. Mann is employed, defined "trick" as a term used by scientists and mathematicians to refer to an insight that solves a problem in their ruling. Dr. Mann also produced data and emails that skeptics claimed he had destroyed to influence evidence.

Despite the ruling of the board, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), an outspoken climate science skeptic, is still calling for an independent investigation.

GAP’s Climate Science Watch program has been following this issue since the news first broke last year.

Concerns Over New Calls for Nuclear Power

President Obama and his administration are trying to win over Republicans and moderate Democrats on climate and energy legislation by signaling his support for nuclear energy plant production. However, the support for nuclear reactors has angered many liberals and environmentalists, who do not believe nuclear energy, in its current form, is safe. 

One concern this raises at GAP is the potential for a resurrection for the Bush administration's proposal and support of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP. In 2006, the Bush administration Department of Energy put forth a proposal for a GNEP, and international plan that sought to increase and promote the use of nuclear power in both the U.S. and abroad by offering foreign countries to opportunity to import their nuclear waste into the United States, at which point this “spent fuel” would be reprocessed further for American power uses.

With a long history of monitoring nuclear power and waste sites, and knowing the terrible turmoil that undeniably occurs with safety issues and nuclear waste, GAP teamed up with other groups to take a stand against this badly thought-out plan. In conjunction with other groups, GAP released two pivotal reports on the extensive problems with GNEP. Each report, Risky Appropriations: Gambling US Energy Policy on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and Radioactive Wastes and the Global Energy Nuclear Partnership point out the numerous, insurmountable flaws dealing with each program. These included:

• The lack of any economic analysis of the costs and benefits of the GNEP plan.
• None of the proposed GNEP technologies and processes existed in commercially viable applications. Few technologies that GNEP required had ever been shown to be viable in any large engineering-scale demonstration projects.
• The proposed schedule for GNEP was not feasible – the technologies that would be required to implement GNEP successfully would take decades to develop if, in fact, they can be made technically and commercially viable at all.
• GNEP would be an unreasonably expensive and slow option for addressing global climate change.
• GNEP would lock the United States into decisions to deploy certain nuclear technologies and processes much before research and development phases are completed, demonstration projects are tested, and technologies are shown to be feasible.
• GNEP will likely worsen the radioactive waste disposal problem and would make the United States the dumping ground for nuclear waste from the other participating nations.
• In April 2009, the Department of Energy, amidst much resistance from the public-interest and environmental community, announced the cancellation of any domestic part of the GNEP plan.

Mountain-Top Mining a Serious Issue Facing Obama

New EPA restrictions on mountaintop mining are leaving both environmentalists and the coal industry frustrated. Activists on both sides say the agency hasn't been clear about what criteria it is using for the restrictions, and has approved some mines while denying others, while not clarifying what the difference is between the "good" mines and "bad" mines.

The mountain-top mining removal is a horrific practice, in which the peaks of mountains in Appalachia are blasted off to access coal, and valleys are then filled with the resulting debris. The method has been proven to be significantly harmful to the environment. By law, the coal companies are required to rebuild the mountains. However, debris is usually left in nearby valleys, and when rainwater runs over the rock that had previously been far underground, it can release toxic metals, which can destroy the life in Appalachian streams and cause significant health problems for people who drink the water. Environmentalists condemn the mining and are angry that while the Obama administration called for its end, the EPA has analyzed about 175 proposed mines and still signed off on almost 50 of the mines.

The coal industry has argued that restricting the mining will harm the Appalachian economy.

Last week environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CEO of Massey Coal Don Blankenship contentiously argued the issue. Massey Coal is the fourth largest producer of coal in the United States and the largest in Appalachia.

Kennedy called the mining a "sin" that damages the Appalachian ecosystem and helps only a few people get rich. Blankenship responded that the environmentalists are trying to attack the "people who are teaching your Sunday schools and coaching your Little League."

The debate in West Virginia over this issue is so contentious, that city officials stationed 40 uniformed police officers at the event. Although they encountered no serious trouble, an October Federal featured parties shouting each other down and threatening one another.

On Monday, West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin III issued an appeal for an end to intimidation of people fighting mountaintop mining. "We will not in any way, shape or form in this state of West Virginia tolerate any violence against anyone on any side. If you're going to have the dialogue, have respect for each other."

However, at a march last year, a woman in coal-mining gear stepped past guards and slapped local environmental activist Julia Bonds. "They don't seem to understand the difference between nonviolence and violence," Bonds said.

Scientists Urge Coal Industry to Stop Mountain-Top Removal

After producing a study of mountaintop coal mining, a group of scientists concluded that the controversial practice should be stopped due to its destructiveness and long-term effects. Central to the study is the fact that mountaintop mining destroys the ecosystems in Appalachian steams. The report details how the ecological damage could last hundreds or even thousands of years. From NPR:

“Even after a site has been reclaimed and attempts have been made to re-vegetate it,’ a biologist with the study says, ‘the streams that remain below that, that weren't filled, have high levels of all sorts of nasty things’ Things, she says, like selenium, which in high amounts can harm fish and other aquatic life; and sulfates, which alter the water chemistry… Many animals in these valley streams — from algae to fish and birds — could be seriously harmed.”

The study was released in the same week that the Environmental Protection Agency supported a new mine permit for a site in West Virginia. From the L.A. Times:

“The permit that the EPA just released this week is not consistent with what the scientists are saying,’ said Joan Mulhern, counsel to Earthjustice, which has taken legal action to halt the practice. The Obama administration has pledged in general to…do what the science dictates. This unequivocal new study has got to drive them to phase out the practice,’ Mulhern said.

Chinese Nuke Plants; State Secrets

Two interesting and relevant stories from the New York Times today:

China plans to build three times as many nuclear power plants in the next ten years as the rest of the world combined. While China has not had a serious nuclear accident, the pace of the expansion has raised safety concerns around the world. The United States was the last country to attempt such a rapid nuclear expansion, which ended with the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979. China is also planning to build many of their plants close to major metropolitan areas, close to tens of millions of people.

In other news, the Obama administration is following a Bush-era precedent in asserting state secrets privilege to try to shut down a federal lawsuit. The Justice Department asked a federal court to throw out the case of five people who claim they were subject to forced disappearance, torture and inhumane treatment - otherwise known as rendition. However, the Amerian Civil Liberties Union, which is serving as defense counsel, is claiming that the secrets in question were no longer secret, as the government has declassified information about its interrogation methods and the Obama administration has prohibited abusive methods of interrogation and secret detentions.

A Better Alternative to Cap-and-Trade

NASA scientist and former GAP client Dr. James Hansen argues in a NYT op-ed against the proposed cap and trade approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, instead urging for the consideration of a “fee and dividend” method.

Cap and trade is an approach that allows power plants (and other gas generators) which reduce emissions below a set level to sell the credit for the unused reductions to others whose emissions are beyond the set level. Thus, the theory goes, the system provides plants a monetary incentive to cut back on their pollution.

However, Hansen argues that cap and trade actually enables the pollution it is supposed to eliminate, because it is enforced through the selling and trading of these permits to pollute. If, hypothetically, every polluter’s emissions fell low enough, then the price of pollution credits would collapse and its economic incentive would vanish.

Hansen argues instead for the consideration of a fee and dividend approach. In this approach, a fee on carbon would gradually increase and would be collected at the mine or port of entry for each fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas). The fee would be a certain number of dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in whichever fuel. The price of goods would rise in proportion to how much carbon-emitting fuel is used in their production, but the public would not have to pay any particular fee. All of the collected fee on carbon would then be distributed to the public. People who used their dividend wisely and chose less-polluting goods would receive more in the dividend than they pay in added costs. Thus in this system, every action to reduce emissions and to keep reducing emissions would be rewarded and prolong the approach itself.

Bush-Era Climate Policy Fiasco Revisted

The following op/ed was written by GAP President Louis Clark. It will appear in many outlets across the country, including the Register Citizen (Litchfield, CT).

In late October, lawyers Allan Zabel and Laurie Williams exercised their First Amendment right of free speech when they posted a YouTube video criticizing the proposed cap-and-trade emissions program. But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has employed both Zabel and Williams for 20 years, ordered them to take it down and remove from it mention of their work experience.

Zabel and Williams made it quite clear that their views were their own, and didn’t represent the views of the agency. In mentioning their work experience, they were doing no more than establishing their personal and professional identities—which is the right of all citizens to do. The EPA’s shocking reaction continues the legacy of notorious Bush-era policies which ruthlessly tried to limit free speech for government workers—especially those addressing climate change.

In 2005 the Bush administration attempted to muzzle Dr. James Hansen, the world’s most famous climate scientist. Hansen, a top NASA scientist, publicly commented on data that convinced him 2005 was one of the hottest years on record. He also drew attention to the Bush administration’s scientific censorship.

As Hansen courageously protested, public affairs offices at certain environmental science-oriented government agencies were imposing strict rules on employees. For example, they required that all media inquiries be referred to public affairs offices, which would then determine which staff could “most appropriately” answer them.

The public affairs offices went so far as to demand that public affairs officials sit in during all interviews with scientists.

Later, a 24-year-old NASA public affairs employee, whose only qualification for his position was that he had volunteered for the 2004 Bush reelection campaign, ordered the renowned Dr. Hansen to shut up and follow the rules or suffer “dire consequences.”

However, the scientist refused to remain silent about the dire consequences of climate change. When the official was found to have lied on his resume about having a college degree, the absurdity of such an under-qualified neophyte ordering a courageous, world-famous public servant to suppress his views became obvious even to the Bush administration.

NASA quickly backed down, largely reworking its policy and forcing the public affairs employee to resign.

At the same time, the EPA, which had established a similar gag on its employees, refused to reconsider its policy, and it still stands today—despite the rhetoric of a memorandum from its top administrator indicating a new day had arrived at the agency.

A few days ago, EPA managers apparently relied on this Bush-era public affairs relic to force Zabel and Williams to withdraw their video.

Simply put, by accepting government employment, federal employees shouldn’t be forced to give up their First Amendment freedoms, their safeguards under whistleblower protection laws, their freedom to communicate with Congress, or their rights under anti-gag legislation that protect them from government officials who abuse their authority.

On all four counts, the EPA actions against the San Francisco attorneys break the law.