Category Archives: Commentary

Colorado Proposition to Label GMOs

Posted on by

Colorado voters will determine whether to “mandate labeling of genetically modified food products that are sold in the state.” Those who favor the proposition believe it is needed to protect consumers. As one advocate wrote in a letter to the editors of the Denver Post, “Because GMOs are not natural, we simply don’t know what the long-term health consequences might be, and therefore consumers should have the right to know where their food comes from, so that they can decide whether they want to accept those risks.” Another supporter writes, “The GMO debate boils down to freedom—the freedom to chose what I eat. That freedom simply does not exist if food producers are allowed to deny me the information I need to make my choices.”

Those opinions are in opposition to an editorial by Don Ament, former Commissioner of the Colorado Department of Agriculture. He writes that approval of the proposal would “…give Colorado consumers inaccurate, unreliable and misleading information.” What sways my opinion so far is his further statements that “Consumers already have reliable options to choose foods made without GE (Genetically Engineered) ingredients. They can select from thousands of food products labeled ‘organic’ or ‘non-GMO’ under existing federal labeling standards.” Continue reading →

Climate Science is Not Settled

Posted on by

There was an excellent article by Steven E. Koonin by this title in the Wall Street Journal. The subtitle was “We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy…” The author refuses to be on either side of what has become an increasingly contentious argument about whether or not man’s activities are leading us to a climate disaster that, according to some of our politicians, beats terrorism as the greatest threat. The article adds refreshing reason to the discussion. He was undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy during President Obama’s first term. Perhaps those who are convinced that climate science is settled will dismiss his ideas because one previous position was chief scientist of British Petroleum. I suggest you will learn something regardless of your position if you chose to read his article.

The article leads with the statement that the claim that “Climate Science is settled” “…has distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment…it has also inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.” The author observes that the crucial question isn’t whether the climate is changing “The climate has always changed and always will.” The average global temperature did increase by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the 20th century, and there is little doubt carbon dioxide levels increased in the atmosphere and influenced the climate. But the author follows those observations with, “The impact of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.” He also writes that he has “…come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.” Continue reading →

As Kermit Says, It’s Not Easy Being Green

Posted on by

“Red or green” is supposed to be the official New Mexico question, asked about the chili you want smothering your meal. But in my little home town of Silver City, the question has been “paper or plastic,” and plastic lost.

At least, thin, filmy, single-use plastic bags lost. A ban against such bags will go into effect shortly, and since 90% of our bags come from inside the town limits, it will impact the whole county.

Silver City joins a list of cities worried about bags, for a variety of reasons. Mother Jones has an article out that says when stores charge for the bags, in one study “usage dropped to 27 percent (33 percent switched to reusable bags and 40 percent made do without).” Substitutes are not obviously better, depending on what parameter you are trying to make “better.” If your goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, versus single-use bags: Continue reading →

President Obama’s Use of ISIL Instead of ISIS

Posted on by

I’ve been baffled since the early days of the Obama administration’s about the focus semantics rather than policy. I think the first time I noticed was when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano began using the term “man-caused disaster” instead of “terrorist attack.” That was just the start. “War on Terror” became a forbidden phrase and was replaced by “Overseas Contingency,” which I still don’t understand. “Jihad” became a forbidden word and “violent extremism” replaced either “Islamists or Islamic terrorists.” I have come to believe that the original confusion about the attack on Benghazi was caused by Obama administration officials being convinced they weren’t allowed to use the term “terrorist attack.” Perhaps even they thought it would be silly to call it a “man-caused disaster” and instead referred to it as a “demonstration.”

The latest in the quest to use semantics is the conscious shift of the administration from the term ISIS (Islamic State in Syria) to ISIL (Islamic State In the Levant) to describe the terrorist organization creating carnage in Iraq. I had to look up “Levant” and learned it consists of the Eastern Mediterranean. Wiki describes that the Levant today “…consists of the island of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria Palestine, and part of southern Turkey.” I was even more confused, because I hadn’t heard of any of the ISIS or ISIL attacks being in any of those countries other than Syria. I thought most of the attacks that had made the news occurred in Iraq, which isn’t mentioned. Continue reading →

Efforts to Protect Rocky Flats Retiree Benefits

Posted on by

[Note: My first newsletter, which was recently sent to Rocky Flats retirees, dealt with upcoming changes to Rocky Flats retiree benefits and contained some of the content of the following posting.]

subscribe-to-rff-newsltr

Signup for Newsletter

Firstly, I want to mention that readers can signup to have future RockyFlatsFacts.com (RFF.com) newsletters on RF benefits and other issues sent directly to your email by typing your email address into the box in the upper right sidebar of this website’s landing page (just below, “Get RFF.com Newsletter”), and clicking the “Subscribe” button. You will receive an email asking you to confirm your subscription – which you need to reply to – in order to complete the signup process. (Of course, I won’t spam you or give your email address to others, and you can unsubscribe at any time, no hard feelings.)

I’m unsure at this point how many future RFF.com newsletters might be forthcoming since it will depend both on the availability of new information and the level of reader interest. There’s only about a month remaining until RF retirees should receive details of the new 2015 RF benefit plans by mail and that announcement will be followed by about six weeks until (Nov. 30, 2014) retirees are required to sign up…or lose health insurance coverage.

I mentioned in a recent commentary on this website that I was alerted to some efforts to reverse the recent move by the Department of Energy (DOE) to reduce medical insurance benefits for Rocky Flats retirees and/or their spouses who are 65 and older. I have received messages about efforts to forestall these retiree benefits changes. One message contained a link to a letter to Congress asking for exemption from the new changes for people who retired from Rocky Flats prior to 1995.

However, I have since received a personal email message that “…our letter seems to be falling on deaf ears. Politicians don’t seem to have much interest in an election year…We have also contacted an attorney and discussed legal action but don’t feel there are sufficient grounds to do so.” Don’t lose your health insurance waiting for someone to stop this! Perhaps something can still be done, and I’m certain many people are thinking of what that might be. Be prepared for the likely outcome that such efforts will fail and make certain you complete the sign up requirements ahead of the deadline.

I’m well aware that some retirees won’t be helped by a decision to defer or eliminate the benefits changes for pre-1995 retirees: I happen to be in that group. I had the “pre-1995” benefits until I returned to work at Rocky Flats as a “second-tier contractor.” I was required to forego my no-cost medical insurance benefits to be able to return to work at Rocky Flats. I still remember how upset I was. I expect many pre-1995 RF retirees may feel that same anxiety being forced to cope with this current benefits change.

I will once again recommend that affected Rocky Flats retirees review the new health insurance options carefully and be prepared to sign up for a “less generous” (i.e., higher upfront cost) medical insurance coverage. The no-action alternative is to lose all Rocky Flats benefits if retirees don’t sign up before the November 30, 2014 deadline. The letter in the above link does a fine job of expressing the feelings of many pre-1995 retirees.

On a contrary note, I have also received email comments to this weblog from pre-1995 Rocky Flats retirees who believe that the retirees should not be “complaining.” Their opinion, in brief, is that pre-1995 RF retirees have enjoyed many, many years of benefits far more generous than those of most retirees in the “private sector.” I mention this in the interest of fairness and diversity of opinion. Remember that I have no official capacity on this subject and am only attempting to be a conduit for information and community feedback on this challenging issue.

Important endnote: Please be aware that I’m not providing any legal, financial, or retirement planning advice nor do I profess any special expertise and am not acting in any official capacity to disseminate Rocky Flats retiree benefits information. Please conduct your own due diligence in this matter and consult your attorney or financial planning professional, as needed, before making important benefits decisions.

More Natural Methane Sources Discovered

Posted on by

climate change blue marble

Our regular readers know we have posted often on global warming and climate change. While I don’t think a single study warrants a lot of concern, I recently read about a discovery of methane vents off the US east coast that promises confirmation soon.

“The ease of access has set off an exploration stampede, with several new projects in planning stages or already funded… ‘We’re setting the stage for a decade of discovery.'”

Unfortunately, these vents do not mark gas pockets that drillers can extract.

A study of a few seeps in 2013 found “them teeming with crabs, fish and mussel beds,” which sounds good to me. In deeper, colder waters, the seeps could be a natural laboratory for studying how methane hydrates respond to warmer oceans. There’s little in nature that’s all good or all bad. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, so releases could accelerate the documented trends in global temperatures.

For me, this discovery demonstrates that there is a lot we don’t know about the world. Also, that science is the right process for learning more. I accept that I will never know enough to make 100% sure predictions about climate change, which is hardly unique.

I’ve observed that polemics lead people to take harder and harder positions on narrower and narrower arguments. I think old political habits are getting in our way. What the global warming debate needs is wider discussion; on mitigation measures as well as reductions in human contributions via pollution, land use, etc. Balancing costs and benefits is nothing new. Let’s do it.