On June 15, 2010 the US Department of Energy announced that a group of federal and independent scientists convened by Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and Chair of the National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) Dr. Marcia McNutt (Director of the U.S. Geological Survey) had developed a new estimate for the amount of oil gushing from the ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico that indicated the leak could be spewing up to 2.52 million gallons of crude oil per day into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico from British Petroleum's Macondo Well.
"This estimate brings together several scientific methodologies and the latest information from the sea floor, and represents a significant step forward in our effort to put a number on the oil that is escaping from BP's well," said Chu, who then expanded with "As we continue to collect additional data and refine these estimates, it is important to realize that the numbers can change. In particular, the upper number is less certain - which is exactly why we have been planning for the worst case scenario at every stage and why we are continuing to focus on responding to the upper end of the estimate, plus additional contingencies."
Estimates from both BP and from the US Government of the amount of oil gushing from the blown out wellhead on the gulf seabed have been almost continually revised upwards since the well blowout and leak began on April 20, with widespread suspicions that BP has deliberately understated the leak rate in attempts to limit liability for the company.
It now appears that Chu may have been somewhat prescient with his statement that "it is important to realize that the numbers can change", and that the estimate of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico may need to be increased again, since an undated internal BP document (.PDF) obtained by Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) was released by Markey on Sunday June 20 showing that BP's own internal analysis believed that a worst-case scenario, based on damage to the well bore, could result in a leak rate from the well of 55,000 to 100,000 barrels of oil per day.
... Young people, however, seem to have a special role to play. In many ways, to borrow a phrase from a fellow activist Ken Ward, we may be "the last generation."
Not the last generation on earth - - no doubt society will keep the babies coming until the very end. But maybe the last generation to see winter in Vermont (as I write, a slow drizzle has replaced the usual December snow), the last U.S. generation to grow up in a time of relative economic prosperity, or the last generation to live in a world not plagued by higher levels of disease. And in the face of all this, we're getting royally screwed by our governments. The Stern Report recently re-emphasized that the impact of global warming on the world economy will be like that of the Great Depression, World War I, and WWI . . . combined. Guess who's going to be paying for all of this out of pocket? ...
For all that Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. Ed Markey tried, and of their sincerity I have no doubts, the current Waxman-Markey bill, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, or ACES, fails this Last Generation.
In opening my case, I yield the floor to Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett, who today said the following:
Ok, so Democrat Ed Markey and Republican Chip Pickering just introduced a bill called the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008" which does a number of things to advance the notion of an open internet. Dana Blankenhorn at ZDNet sees the bill as weak tea, while Harold Feld has a more nuanced take. The bill does two things. It makes explicit that Federal policy is to keep the internet open, and it mandates that the FCC go out and hold hearings outside of DC on whether Federal policy is preserving the openness of the internet, followed by a report.
It has limited to no enforcement provisions, and it doesn't really have a lot of teeth. It's nowhere near as strong as Markey's amendment last cycle, or the Snowe-Dorgan bill introduced earlier this year in the Senate. So why is the SavetheInternet coalition excited, and why is telecom shill Scott Cleland in a lather, calling this a wolf in sheep's clothing?
The answer is that this is not about passing a law in Congress, but about establishing net neutrality, broadband deployment, and an open internet as priorities for the next administration. It's a setup for ambitious and progressive agenda at the FCC starting in 2009, one Obama has already outlined. The FCC is a regulatory agency with a fair amount of discretion, but it is responsive to Congressional hearings and possible legislation. When members sign on to a bill like this, or fight it, it has an impact on the range of options available to commissioners.
On a Congressional level, there is no reason at all to oppose this bill, as it simply says that a free and open internet is good, and that the FCC should hold public hearings and write a report to Congress. Who could oppose that? After all, both sides have the ability to organize the public on their behalf, it's a level playing field. All the bill is saying is that the FCC needs to listen more and that an open internet is good.
In other words, if you oppose this bill, as many members probably will, you are in the pocket of the telecom and cable industry and want to keep policy-making hidden. That could cost members at the polls; it certainly didn't help Al Wynn. Internal polling for Donna showed early on that the public, probably because most people have cell phone nowadays, are actually beginning to see excessive corporate power in the telecom industry as a voting issue. I was surprised by this, pleasantly so.
Anyway, this bill is an organizing vehicle for us to give the next FCC the political capital to move on a good number of important open media and open internet issues by helping the public ratify a different agenda through hearings and an official open internet Federal policy statement.
So a long-standing irritant has been the reluctance of Democrats to take up the issue of net neutrality in Congress. It was left off of Nancy Pelosi's Innovation Agenda, and there have been no hearings despite the Pearl Jam incident and the NARAL/Verizon censorship.
That is about to end. Ed Markey is putting forward a bill on the future of the internet. It's not clear exactly what is in it, and it is being framed as a 'net neutrality' bill by reporters, but it is unlikely this legislation is going to mandate net neutrality.
I'm very down about Ed Markey recently. He was championed as a real leader for progressives in Congress on telecom issues like net neutrality, but he's done nothing on it since the Democrats took Congress. This is intentional, since he doesn't want to pick a fight with Dingell when he's already engaged in a fight with Dingell over conflict between Energy and Commerce and his new Select Committee on Global Warming. That new committee, mind you, is entirely communications oriented with no legislative authority whatsoever. I figured I'd cut Markey some slack on net neutrality, since global warming is very important.
I'll be posting a few entries here detailing the most significant ground Markey's hearing covered. But the nickel version is that, though everybody from the governor of Wyoming to the wonks at the Center for American Progress think a cap-and-trade program is inevitable, they also think that many, many billions of dollars in subsidies for carbon capture and sequestration technology will be crucial to any greenhouse-gas reduction strategy.
Carbon capture is a completely mythical technology. It doesn't exist and is cover for a mult-billion dollar subsidy to the coal industry, the single worst industry in America when it comes to greenhouse gases.
This is coming, not from Dingell, but from Ed Markey's committee whose entire purpose is putting pressure on Congress to take a more liberal stance on global warming. I can't believe this. I really just can't. Sometimes I feel like we literally have no allies anywhere.
Last Monday, I wrote that there were two big fights in Congress to look out for, the reauthorization of poor children's health insurance and an increase in fuel efficiency standards. Both are cake. Easy. Progressive stuff. Popular. One looks like it will pass and one looks like it won't. Children will get insured, but we aren't near dealing with global warming. It's a pretty standard brew, actually, with Steny Hoyer and other conservative Democrats all in favor of spending money.
Last week, Bush threatened to veto Santa Claus, saying he'll block a bill that expands health care to poor kids, a program known as SCHIP.
President Bush yesterday rejected entreaties by his Republican allies that he compromise with Democrats on legislation to renew a popular program that provides health coverage to poor children, saying that expanding the program would enlarge the role of the federal government at the expense of private insurance.
The president said he objects on philosophical grounds to a bipartisan Senate proposal to boost the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has proposed $5 billion in increased funding and has threatened to veto the Senate compromise and a more costly expansion being contemplated in the House.
The House will pay for SCHIP with tobacco taxes, but also by gutting private oversubsidized Medicare plans known as 'Medicare Advantage', which are in the slow process of privatizing and strangling Medicare. SCHIP has bipartisan support, but that won't stop Bush from vetoing extra money for sick kids. Next Bush is going to launch a $500M PR campaign to let kids know that there is no Santa Claus.
A few unions and some internet groups are working on this one. Rahm Emanuel and Dick Durbin have this a priority.
The one measure most likely to pass Congress this year is some increase in fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, despite opposition from the auto industry. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and many House Democrats will push for the 35 mpg standard adopted by the Senate, and there's a chance they could take it up before the August recess.
This pits Dingell against Pelosi/Markey, and about 20-40 members are watching on the sidelines to see who comes out on top. It's a test vote. Pelosi may not want to risk going up against Dingell, so she may pull the vote. Dingell says he's going to come up with a comprehensive global warming bill later this fall, where 'every industry will have to tithe'. So this one's going to continue.
Anyway, that's what I'm seeing as the major policy initiatives and conflicts in Congress right now.
I'll have more on the hearings shortly in terms of their overall meaning. I have been blogging about telecom policy since 2005, and collectively we've been involved in an amazingly effective coalition that will be a model for progressive politics and governance for the next twenty years. If we're going to solve big problems like global warming, this is how we're going to have to do it
We had some big events happen yesterday. Here's Free Press lobbyist Ben Scott explaining them.
I spent all day producing and editing this video to make it as clear as possible. Let me know what you think, both on the issue and in terms of the video style. Ben's first video is here. Be gentle, I'm new to this video thing.
I'm editing a video with Ben right now, but I'm not going to get it done for a few hours. Here's what's important to know about the iPhone hearing yesterday. Republican Chip Pickering of Mississippi and Democrat Ed Markey both came out for the principle of 'open access' and 'wireless carterphone'. It's hard to describe what a big deal this is in Congress and to the FCC, as both Pickering and Markey are respected in this area for very different reasons. It's the political equivalent of Chuck Hagel coming out on Iraq, or to frame it in right-wing terms, Al Wynn co-authoring the Bankruptcy Bill. FCC decision-makers come from both parties, so the bipartisan aggressive framing is a HUGE deal. Those words are a giant red flag to telecom and cable lobbyists, and a sign that they must begin to think about adjusting their business model to an open internet. Chairman John Dingell's aggressive presence at the hearing only underscored the point.
The way to think about the policy issues at hand is that the government's job is to use the public airwaves to create a healthy market. A healthy market has rights for both buyers and sellers. 'Wireless Carterphone' is the right for the buyers of the iPhone to port their devices anywhere they want, to use their property without needing to ask permission. 'Wholesale Open access' is the right for entrepreneurs to lease the public airwaves to innovate without having to spend billions to buy spectrum or ask permission from incumbents.
In other words, buyers need to be able to buy and use property, and sellers need to be able to access the market without monopolists in the way. That's the frame. And yesterday, at the iPhone hearing, at least one powerful member in both parties said loud and clear that this is what they want from the FCC.
Powerful Democratic Congressman Ed Markey is holding a hearing on Wednesday titled 'Wireless Innovation and Consumer Protection'. But really, the hearing should be titled 'the iPhone Hearing', because that's what this is about. The launch of the iPhone is not just a consumer landmark, it's a significant moment in internet politics. Working Assets has already pointed this out with an action campaign, and their CEO Michael Kieschnick has a thoughtful post on the reactionary nature of the iPhone's locked in contract with AT&T.
Rather than explaining the situation myself, I'm going to turn to an expert, Ben Scott, the policy director for Free Press. Ben's a public interest lobbyist, and someone who has taught me a tremendous amount about telecom policy. Right now, there are a few confluent events that are inspiring a lot of debate around the public airwaves, and it all hinges on the iPhone and its immense significance.
I taped Ben's explanation of the situation in his office earlier today.
If you enjoyed this video, I'll try to tape other lobbyists and organizers in DC representing our interests. And don't forget to send a message to the FCC.
UPDATE: There's a potentially very important story out on the 700 spectrum auction, the massive airwaves being auctioned off this summer. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is reportedly circulating rules that would force an open wireless network for the spectrum being sold off. If this is true, and I'm working to verify the story with some sources, it means a number of things. Well first and foremost, it means that we took an unexpected big step towards an open internet. Two, our grassroots pressure, combined with the business pressure, really showed regulators that there was a hunger for a different type of communications structure, and they are responsive. Three, someone must have convinced Kevin Martin that an open network is a profitable and sustainable model for business operators. Once again, I'm working to verify this, but it could be a very big deal.
STATE BLOGS
