A Legal Battle Against California’s Climate Law

It is only until this century that we started thinking about the possibility of doomsday or the destruction of our planet. For thousands of years, Humans have inhabited and lived in this planet without acknowledging the consequences that are actions make which could harm the environment in the long run. We all know how important our environment is for our survival. The threat of Global Warming or Climate Change is not just an environmental concern but also involves the very survival of humans.

In this decade, we have already experienced some of nature’s destructive fury. The recent flashfloods in Pakistan that displaced over 7 million people and cut vital supply lines are a clear indication that climate change is already happening. Abnormal weather patterns, increasing temperatures and the rise of water levels have given us an idea of what to expect in the coming years. Scientists and researchers are worried on the frequent occurrences of natural calamities that endanger thousands or even millions of lives worldwide.

Global warming is caused by severe amounts of toxic Gas pollutants that are emitted to the Earth’s atmosphere. These toxic gases trap heat within the planet thus increasing the global average temperature. In turn, polar icecaps melt faster increasing water levels to record highs. It then creates a domino effect such as abnormal occurrences of natural calamities and abnormal weather. It is good to note that gas emissions coming from industrialized countries are now the ones being blamed for this environmental concern.

Today, several U.S. states such as California are strongly considering the implementation of certain regulations which will limit the carbon emissions of various companies. California's Global Warming Solutions Act, widely known as AB 32, imposes 80 percent carbon emission reductions by 2050 across all sectors of the economy. And because of its significant impact to businesses, various States have also strongly opposed such act stating that at a time of a recession, cutting carbon emissions would mean also cutting jobs.

The attorneys general of Alabama, Nebraska, Texas and North Dakota are now suing California and are submitting “Proposition 23” which is an initiative on the November ballot that would delay implementing the AB 32 act until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or below. The state’s current unemployment rate now stands at 12%. The opposing states argue that the act is ruining interstate commerce which is proven to be vital especially at a time where jobs are scarce.

David Farnsworth, a senior associate with the Regulatory Assistance Project, stated that California has a stronger case to pursue especially at this time where the world has recognized the health risks that Climate change may impose to humans. On the other hand, North Dakota's Stenehjem argue that by imposing such regulations, there is a huge possibility that the United States will be experiencing power shortages in the future.

Obama’s $300 Billion Tax Break for Business: A Political Move for November?

Unemployment and underemployment are perhaps the main reasons why a recession is very destructive to an economy. Without jobs or any source of living, people will not have enough money to spend for basic commodities and other luxurious things. Consumer spending will be very much limited and thus will reduce the profit of other businesses as well. This domino effect is proven to be the real hindrance for economic growth. The less money that revolves in the market, the more stagnant an economy is and the more it is prone to a double dip recession.

The U.S. economy has been one of the world economies most hit by the recession. Recent figures show that the unemployment rate has now stood at 9.6%. This figure is projected to rise as more federal workers and business employees are getting axed as the days passed by. Over 8 million jobs have already been lost and the Obama administration still hasn’t done anything significant enough to address this issue. In fact, large businesses are strongly protesting on the impending expiration of tax breaks which they say might add up to more job losses.

Pres. Obama and his administration previously passed the stimulus bill which granted over $800 billion to business firms and government institutions. The aim was to promote spending in order to generate jobs and stimulate economic growth. But many people believed that the stimulus bill was a failure resulting in the sudden dip of Obama’s trust and confidence rating. With intense pressure coming from American citizens and other lawmakers along with the upcoming November midterm elections, the Obama administration is strongly considering everything it can do to help save the economy and bring back the trust needed for his democratic party.

This Wednesday, President Barack Obama is set to propose $300 billion for tax breaks which will be given to various businesses. $200 billion will be for tax cuts while $100 billion will be allocated for expanding and making permanent a tax credit for research and development. He believes that if businesses will be able to reduce their costs, they will eventually start hiring people again and provide more jobs to the industry. This measure is expected to provide tax incentives to businesses who will be investing rapidly to the U.S. economy.

This measure comes along with another $50 billion aid for infrastructure development. It is interesting to note that because voter’s worries about the economy, the Democrats are strongly facing the possibility of incurring heavy losses on the upcoming November elections. The president is doing whatever he can to save the economy and provide a positive feedback for his democratic party on the upcoming elections. Besides, the control for Congress is at stake.

Anti-Obamacare Democrats and the November Midterm Elections

On March 23, 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Act (PPACA) or more commonly known as “Obamacare”. It is the byproduct of efforts from Congress to implement a reform on the U.S. health care system. The law included various provisions in health care such as Medicaid eligibility, insurance premium subsidies, incentives for business who effectively provide health benefits and strengthening medical research. Despite of its good intention, a lot of citizens and policymakers have rejected the bill stating that it is too expensive and will violate the freedom of citizens.

It was remembered that during the time where the House was about to finally pass the Obamacare bill, about 34 Democrats opposed it with 31 of them running for reelection. Some of these notable democratic personalities are Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, Bobby Bright of Alabama, Glenn Nye of Virginia, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota, Frank Kratovil of Maryland, and Glenn Nye of Virginia. Most of them have been constantly running television ads bragging about their “No” stand to the bill. Nye even stated that the bill will cost the American people too much money.

Currently, there are two petitions in the House to discharge the Obamacare bill. The first one was sponsored by Rep. Stephen King of Iowa which aims to simply repeal the act. The second one came from Rep. Wally Herger of California which not only repels the act but also replace it with other alternative proposals. While most Republicans decided to pick one petition, not a single one of the 31 Democrats have signed either of the petitions. Glenn Nye opposed the bill because he said it was very costly back then. With the projected cost rising to over $2.7 trillion, Nye seems to be a little confused by not signing the petition to repeal the act.

If these Democrats are strongly opposing Obamacare, why didn’t they sign any petition to repeal the act? Are they seriously opposing Obamacare or are they just doing this so as to get enough political support for their campaign? With the November midterm elections fast approaching, political candidates are busy persuading the public about their agendas and platforms. It has become a test for these policymakers to behave according to their principles especially if they are under pressure of criticisms from the voting sector. If their views are strongly opposed by public opinion, will they still be willing to fight for it or will they instead find some cover in order to get the much needed votes.

Burning Qurans and America’s Problem with Islam

By looking very closely, America certainly has a growing problem with religion more specifically with Islam. Since the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center which wasted the lives of over 3,000 people, America has intensified its efforts to fight terrorism and disband terrorist groups. Since these terrorist groups are widely considered as Islamic activists, more Americans now believe that Islam is indeed a violent religion and is a severe threat to America.

We heard about the recent controversy about the planned Islamic center to be put up two blocks away from Ground Zero. It was remembered that thousands of American lives perished on that single spot because of the terroristic acts of Islamic groups. We all heard the remarks of U.S. President Obama where he indirectly expressed his support to the Mosque stating that religious tolerance freedom should be upheld at all cost. He eventually received so many criticisms from fellow politicians and citizens for disrespecting the sacredness of the place (Ground Zero).

And just recently, a small group that is closely associated with fringe Christian church in Florida is planning to burn Qurans on Sept 11 in time for the commemoration of the Sept 11 attacks. Despite the refusal of the city of Gainesville to grant them permit for the protest, Florida pastor Terry Jones said they will continue with their plans on the burning of the Quran. They argue that Islam is indeed a work of the Devil and will only grant destruction to America. The Dove World Outreach Center says it is hosting the event to remember fallen victims of the 9/11 attacks and take a strong stand against Islam.

The burning event is now the subject of outraged protests from Afghan citizens. On Monday, about 500 protesters in Kabul burned an effigy of Jones and shouted “Long Live Islam” while also stating ”Death to America”. The top U.S. military in Afghanistan is pretty much concerned about the impact in could have to U.S. troops in the region. Taliban and other insurgent troops may stage retaliatory attacks on American bases and endanger the lives of over 100,000 American troops in the region. It might also hamper the already slow progress of the war effort.

There are also growing concerns with regards to national security. The U.S. might well become the target of anger and hated from Islamic communities all across the globe. There is indeed a growing problem with Islam in America. There is a need to settle this dispute as soon as possible so as to prevent a deadly confrontation between religions that could arise in the coming years.

Pres. Obama launches $ 50 Billion Aid for Infrastructure Development

The United States midterm elections are fast approaching. On November 2, 2010, about 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 33 or 34 seats in the U.S. senate will be filled with newly elected politicians who will serve in full term. Though there will be no presidential election to be held, this is a crucial moment for the Obama administration as they try to maintain the influence of the Democrats in Congress and Senate affairs. With a growing mistrust towards Washington, Democrats can’ help but seem worried about the upcoming elections.

It is indeed a trying time for Democrats as Pres. Obama’s administration is still incapable of devising the perfect solution to address the growing budget deficit, the declining economy and the problem with lack of jobs. According to the latest figures, the unemployment rate has now stood at 9.6% which is expected to increase as more business establishments, federal departments and state governments are cutting costs and manpower.

The low rating from Pres. Obama has also raised concerns on the political campaigns of numerous Democrats who are aspiring to get a seat in Congress or in Senate. On Monday, the president promised another 50 billion dollars to be spent for infrastructure development. He justified that this move will generate more jobs as more people will be needed to rebuild roads, railways and airports. It will provide a relief to individuals who have been suffering from unemployment for a long time.

Requiring the approval of Congress, the White House has called on Republicans to quickly support the passage of the bill which is seen as a first part of a broader effort to stimulate funding for the transportation sector over six years. There seems to be a growing problem with some Democrats already rejecting the possibility of spending more to add up to the huge budget deficit. A top Republican in the house of Representatives, John Boehner, has linked the new plan to Obama’s previous stimulus package which critics say was a failed attempt to save and revive the economy.

An administration official said the new projects would be funded without increasing the budget deficit by ending various tax breaks enjoyed by oil and gas companies. The 50 billion-dollar plan will also include improvements to the US air traffic control system, the promotion of high-speed railway projects and the establishment of an "Infrastructure Bank" to coordinate federal funding and planning for various government projects. Pres. Obama and his democrats hope that this bill will bring back the confidence which they certainly need come election time.

Another Offshore Explosion and Its Impact to Oil Politics

This decade is perhaps one of the busiest decades for any U.S. President. The economic recession has created a domino effect that affected not only business and financial institutions but various government departments and functions as well. The ballooning budget deficit along with the increasing unemployment rate has kept U.S. officials very busy in solving these potential dangers to the American society. You may have also heard about the BP Oil spill disaster. Just as we thought that luck will finally be in our side, another impending oil spill is waiting to happen.

On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig exploded spilling along tons of barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. It was considered as the worst oil spill by any offshore oil rig in U.S. history. The environmental impact was horrendous prompting the government to take immediate actions to contain the oil leak. And not long after, another similar disaster would happen in the same gulf where oil is ultimately abundant. The oil platform Mariner Energy, located west from the site of the April oil spill, exploded creating concerns about another possible oil spill to occur.

The explosion was first reported at 0930 local time (1330 GMT). Rescuers and firefighters were quick to respond to the scene saving 13 rig workers and were able to put out the fire immediately. An immediate investigation has been called upon to determine the presence of an oil leak and to assess the risk to the environment. Fortunately, investigators were quickly to point out that there is indeed no oil leaking from the platform. The owners of the platform, Mariner Energy, also said that the platform was undergoing maintenance and was not producing any oil or gas at the time of the explosion.

The recent disaster has created a major impact especially on the offshore oil production industry. Since the BP oil spill last April, the energy industry has been battling tough sanctions and regulations imposed by the government to offshore oil operations. Environmental groups and politicians are now more than determined to impose a permanent ban to offshore drilling. The hazards and dangers it impose not only to the environment but also to its workers are beyond the normal and safe operating levels. There is now an ongoing debate on how feasible these offshore oil platforms are.

The American Petroleum Institute is planning to stage rallies and protests nationwide next week to urge the Obama administration to lift its moratorium on deep-water drilling and to pressure Congress to avoid imposing new taxes and liability measures. BP has evened threatened that if the ban will continue, then they will lose the money to pay for the cleanup and recovery effort. Oil politics is gaining its popularity with a tough battle going on between the White House and Oil platform owners.

US Vice President Biden: Time to Shift Focus from the Iraq War to the US Economy

After almost 8 years facing fierce resistance, numerous criticisms and civil unrest, the U.S. armed forces will finally leave war-ton Iraq and go home to see back their families and relatives which they haven’t seen in such a long time. President Obama’s declaration to end U.S. combat operations in Iraq was a welcome message not only to the families of those who participated in the war but also to the American public who are already losing their jobs and experiencing difficulties at a time of recession. With so much criticisms on whether or not the Iraqi invasion was reasonable enough and with the rising death toll of American servicemen in Iraq, Pres. Obama was strongly pressured to end the war.

In a major address from the Oval office, Pres. Obama spoke of the U.S. disengagement and the shifting to adviser’s role to Iraq. There will be about 50,000 U.S. troops which will be left in Iraq to train and advise their Iraqi counterparts. He also made mention the sacrifices that U.S. troops have to make in order to serve and protect the nation from external threats. It is interesting to note that despite of Obama’s declaration to end the war in Iraq, there will still be a continued battle in Afghanistan. The U.S. believes that Afghanistan is the most crucial place to disrupt the movement of terrorist groups and ensure U.S. national security.

In a recent interview, U.S. vice president Joe Biden said that he believes that Iraq is now more than capable in taking care of their country and handle their internal and external affairs. He strongly believes in the capability of the Iraqis to form a legitimate government which will effectively govern the whole country. Biden also hinted that it is time for the Obama administration to focus on the internal affairs of the nation such as the economy. We all know that the combat operations in Iraq have cost the American taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. By ending the war, the U.S. is relieved of war and combat expenses. Biden then advised Pres. Obama to turn his focus from Iraq to the economy. With the struggles that the American citizens are facing now, it is just right that the U.S. president will dedicate much of his resources and attention in generating more jobs and saving the economy from peril.

With the pullout of combat troops which once stood at 165,000 during the height of the fighting, fewer than 50,000 American servicemen and women remain. Despite taking an advisers role in Iraq, the remaining troops will still most likely face insurgency attacks in the coming days. A total pullout is still the best solution to this never ending war. There has been enough bloodshed in Iraq and the Obama administration should set their priorities right. Instead of spending billions of dollars into foreign country, why not use it to save and generate jobs which will generate economic growth? In that way, the U.S. economy will be saved and the American dream will continue to live on.