EPA Releases '07 Climate Document Rejected by Bush Team - washingtonpost.com

Image via Wikipedia

By Dina Cappiello
Associated Press
Wednesday, October 14, 2009

An e-mail message buried by the Bush administration because of its conclusions on global warming surfaced Tuesday, nearly two years after it was first sent to the White House and never opened.

The e-mail and the 28-page document attached to it, released Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, show that the agency concluded in December 2007 that six gases linked to global warming pose dangers to public welfare, and wanted to take steps to regulate their release from automobiles and the burning of gasoline.

The document specifically cites global warming's effects on air quality, agriculture, forestry, water resources and coastal areas as endangering public welfare.

That finding was rejected by the Bush White House, which strongly opposed using the Clean Air Act to address climate change and stalled on producing an "endangerment finding" that had been ordered by the Supreme Court in 2007.

As a result, the Dec. 5, 2007, e-mail sent by the agency to Susan Dudley, who headed the regulatory division at the Office of Management and Budget was never opened, according to Jason Burnett, the then-EPA official that wrote it.

The Bush administration and then-EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson also refused to release the document, which is labeled "deliberative, do not distribute," to Democratic lawmakers. The White House instead allowed three senators to review it in July 2008, when excerpts were released.

The Obama administration made a similar determination in April but also concluded that greenhouse gases endanger public health. The EPA is currently drafting the first greenhouse gas standards for automobiles and recently signaled that it would attempt to reduce climate-altering pollution from refineries, factories and other large industrial sources.

In response, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Republican lawmakers have criticized the EPA's reasoning and called for a more thorough vetting of the science. An internal review by a dozen federal agencies released in May also raised questions about the EPA's conclusion, saying the agency could have been more balanced and raising questions about the difficulty in linking global warming to health effects.

The agency released the e-mail and documents after receiving requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

Adora Andy, a spokeswoman for EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, said the draft shows that the science in 2007 was as clear as it is today.

"The conclusions reached then by the EPA scientists should have been made public and should have been considered," she said Tuesday.

Plan to Have Vietnam Governed by PhDs - Thanh Nien Daily

Image via Wikipedia

A recent plan to have doctorate degree holders fill all top positions in the Hanoi government is “not quite viable”, local newswire VietnamNet quoted a senior official as saying Friday.

Le Quoc Cuong, deputy head of Hanoi Department of Internal Affairs, said the plan to increase the city’s talent pool announced earlier this month would be reconsidered as “some targets need to be adjusted.”

All managers from Hanoi’s Communist Party Unit, the highest local government body, must hold PhDs by 2020, Le Anh Sac, an expert with the Department of Internal Affairs, said in an interview with VietnamNet on September 17.

The plan has sparked a torrent of criticism among experts and residents, who said the target of 100 percent was too high and impractical.

Cuong said “a target of 50 percent is practical” as right now more than 30 percent of 500 officials in the Party Unit hold master’s and doctorate degrees.

According to Sac, among the city’s 7,500 civil servants, only 56 currently have doctorates. He said he would like Hanoi’s civil service to follow the lead of neighboring countries that have more advanced bureaucracies.

Indian Actor's Questioning at Airport Draws Criticism

By Emily Wax
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 16, 2009

NEW DELHI, Aug. 15 -- One of India's biggest movie stars said he was detained and questioned at Newark Liberty International Airport early Saturday, causing outrage across his home country and reigniting discussion of the hardships many Indians say they face while traveling abroad.

Shah Rukh Khan, 43, known here as the King of Bollywood, was on his way to Chicago for a parade later Saturday to mark India's Independence Day when immigration officials at Newark pulled him aside and interrogated him. The star of scores of top-grossing films was released after Indian consular officials vouched for him.

"I was really hassled -- perhaps because of my name being Khan," he said in a text message to reporters in India. "These guys just wouldn't let me through."

Khan recently finished a shoot in the United States for his upcoming film, "My Name Is Khan," which happens to be about a Muslim's harrowing experience with racial profiling. Khan told reporters that in real life he "felt angry and humiliated."

Jen Friedberg, a spokeswoman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the airport, said the agency did not request that Khan be detained, the Associated Press reported.

A spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection said Khan was questioned for 66 minutes as part of the agency's routine process to screen foreign travelers and was not detained, the AP reported.

The incident followed another recent example of an Indian coming under suspicion for what talk show pundits here call "flying while brown." Last month, Continental Airlines apologized to former Indian president Abdul Kalam for frisking him at the New Delhi airport.

News of Khan's detention broke on a day of national pride, marked by parades, family picnics and girls wearing bangles in green and orange -- the colors of the Indian flag. News channels aired nonstop coverage of Khan's troubles, along with reactions from Bollywood A-listers, civil rights officials and security experts, some of whom defended the questioning in a post-9/11 world.

U.S. Ambassador to India Timothy J. Roemer released a statement Saturday saying the American government was "trying to ascertain the facts of the case -- to understand what took place."

"Shah Rukh Khan, the actor and global icon, is a very welcome guest in the United States. Many Americans love his films," Roemer said.

India's information and broadcasting minister, Ambika Soni, suggested that Americans should be treated the way Khan was when they arrive in India.

"There have been too many instances like these in the U.S. concerning Indians," Soni said on television.

Actress Priyanka Chopra, a friend of Khan's, expressed on Twitter a widely held view: "Its such behavior that fuels hatred n racism. SRK's a world figure for Gods sake. GET REAL!!" But not everyone appeared upset.

Meghnad Desai, an Indian-born economist, member of Britain's House of Lords and author of books on Indian cinema and globalization, joked in an interview in New Delhi that the whole thing seemed like a publicity stunt for Khan's new film.

"The U.S. government was an inadvertent accomplice to 20th Century Fox, which is investing millions in this movie," he said.

"This was a no-no for India-U.S. relations."

Wikipedia entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahrukh_Khan

Communities Seek Routes to Save Post Offices From Being Stamped Out

By Caitlin McDevitt
The Big Money
Sunday, June 28, 2009

A rallying cry can be heard across the country, from the swanky streets of SoHo to the tiny town of Randolph, Kan. -- "Save Our Post Office!" As the United States Postal Service, weighed down by a crippling multibillion-dollar deficit, shrinks its operations, post offices across the country are on the chopping block. Each year, hundreds of postal operations shutter, but this fall could be the single biggest consolidation in USPS history. Over the next three months, more than 3,200 post offices and retail outlets -- out of 34,000 -- will be reviewed for possible closure or consolidation.

Downsizing is a business imperative, says Linda Welch, acting vice president of delivery and post office operations at USPS. "Revenues have declined, and mail volume continues to decline," she says. Not only have e-mail and electronic bill-paying made for a thinner mail stream, the recession has added a sharp pullback in advertising mail, which has hurt the Postal Service even more. In March, Postmaster General John E. Potter asked Congress for permission to reduce the mail week from six days to five, projecting $3.5 billion in savings. Shutting down post offices will have similar cost-saving effects. And most Americans say they're fine with the cutbacks, as long as they're not paying more to send mail. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll revealed that more Americans would rather the Postal Service curtail operations than seek a bailout or raise stamp prices.

At least, that's what everyone says -- until it's their own beloved post office at stake. Consider the case of the Hawleyville, Conn., post office. After years of negotiations, this January, the Postal Service notified the community that its 166-year-old post office would officially close on Feb. 14. An article in the local newspaper poignantly noted, "The long love affair between the Hawleyville post office and its loyal customers will come to an end on -- of all days -- Valentine's Day." The post office was rickety, but the small community embraced it as a gathering place. One resident told the Newtown Bee, "The Hawleyville post office is like Cheers in Hawleyville." Fearing the loss of their precious haunt, the Hawleyville citizens mobilized. A Web site was created. A petition was circulated. They got Congress involved. And lo and behold, the community won approval for a new post office, to be opened this summer.

Every time a post office is slated for closure or consolidation, the Postal Service is legally obligated to inform its customers well in advance. "There's a very long process that they have to go through," says Mario Principe, the post office continuance consultant at the National League of Postmasters. That gives the communities plenty of time -- usually at least two months -- to stage a rescue.

The Postal Service will typically send out a survey or host a town-hall meeting before an endangered office closes. Perhaps a closing would cut too many jobs in an already hurting community. The office might house the bulletin board with important local announcements. Or perhaps the next-closest post office may be far away. If customers alert officials to such concerns, there's a better chance their office will be spared. Appealing the decision to the Postal Regulatory Commission often works, too -- but it's a step many communities don't know to take.

It's also important to check out why a post office is on the chopping block. Those under review this summer are mostly metropolitan. But in the case of small post offices, federal law states that the reason can't be solely that the office isn't bringing in enough revenue. Often, post offices face closure because their leases expire. That's the case in Deer Harbor, Wash. After failed attempts to find a new location for the post office, the community bought the property "in desperation" just to keep it running. If they can raise the $250,000 purchase price by the end of this month, the Postal Service has agreed to continue operations.

The Postal Service seems willing to negotiate, and it's not really bothered by the protests.

"It actually makes us very proud to know that we are a valuable member of the community," says Welch. She says that the USPS appreciates the great lengths that some communities will go to just to ensure that their services can continue. What would the Postal Service appreciate even more? If people would just send more mail. Oddly enough, that seems to be the unthinkable last resort.

Iraq Set to Invite Bids From Foreign Oil Companies

By Ernesto Londoño and K.I. Ibrahim
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, June 28, 2009

BAGHDAD, June 27 -- Iraq is poised to open its coveted oil fields to foreign companies this week for the first time in nearly four decades, a politically risky move in a country eager to shake off the stigma of occupation.

Iraqi politicians and some veteran oil officials have said the deals are unduly beneficial to oil giants, which are viewed warily by many in this deeply nationalistic but cash-strapped country.

Oil executives have been following the matter with apprehension, industry analysts said, but they are eager to get a foothold in Iraq, which has the world's second-largest proven crude reserves and is seen as the only major penetrable market.

"It's something the industry really wants," said Ben Lando, editor of Iraq Oil Report, an Iraq energy news Web site. "The number of reserves around the world that they have access to is declining. And Iraq has so much oil."

Iraq's Oil Ministry is expected to auction eight contracts for six active oil fields and two largely undeveloped gas fields Monday and Tuesday. Thirty-five companies have been selected to submit bids for the 20-year service contracts.

The winners will be required to give the Iraqi government a total of $3 billion in loans. They will be compensated for costs and will earn a per-barrel fee for boosting production at the fields, ravaged by years of war and sanctions.

Although the terms for investors are less than ideal, analysts said, those who get picked in the first round are likely to receive more lucrative contracts in the future. The companies are also preparing bids for a second round of contracts for work at undeveloped fields, which Iraqi officials expect to award in coming months.

Companies that secure the contracts will be wading into a country with a latent insurgency, endemic corruption and deeply divided political leaders who have been unable to enact a hydrocarbons law.

The man leading the effort to bring in foreign investors, Oil Minister Hussain Shahristani, has come under attack in recent days by some lawmakers and oil officials, who argue that Iraq should rebuild its crippled oil sector without substantial help from foreign companies.

Iraq's parliament does not have a formal role in awarding the contracts, whose legality has been questioned by some lawmakers and the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq.

Critics say that Saddam Hussein-era laws that stressed nationalization of Iraq's oil industry remain in effect until a new law is passed.

"There is a majority opinion inside parliament that opposes these bids," legislator Alia Nusaif said in an interview, adding that the Oil Ministry should have given lawmakers more time to examine the terms. "We must think ahead and ensure that our future generations are not left empty-handed because of the ill motives of some."

Shahristani, who was questioned by lawmakers last week during a sometimes contentious two-day hearing, argued that Iraq cannot afford to rebuild its oil sector without help. The recent drop in oil prices, which has stymied government initiatives and triggered a freeze on the hiring of security forces, has underscored the urgent need for foreign cash and expertise, he said.

"All experts inside and outside the government agree on the need to repair the oil infrastructure and expand exploration development and production," Shahristani said. "The country depends almost exclusively on its oil reserves."

Iraq expelled foreign oil companies in 1972 amid a regional movement toward nationalization. Its national oil company performed well until the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which was preceded by sanctions imposed by the United Nations.

Violence and the exodus of scores of technocrats after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 have taken a toll on the industry. Pipelines in northern and southern Iraq are in dire need of repair, and much of the equipment at functioning oil fields is outdated or underperforming.

Iraq pumps an estimated 2.4 million barrels of oil a day. With foreign capital and expertise, oil experts said, the figure could grow to 10 million in a few years.

Iraq has an estimated 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia. Other attractive markets, such as Venezuela and Russia, have in recent years asserted more state control over the industry.

The government, keenly aware of the potential for controversy and political fallout, has sought to portray the process as transparent. Bidders will submit sealed proposals that will be evaluated using a set formula during televised sessions.

The bidding process and its outcome could have political consequences for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is expected to seek reelection in January. Many Iraqis still view Maliki as somewhat beholden to the U.S. government, and his rivals could use the oil issue to portray him as a sellout.

"The nationalization of Iraq's oil sector was extremely popular, but national capacity was hurt by wars during Saddam Hussein's time and his misuse of the oil sector," Lando said. "They had great talent, great coordination. So Iraqis see that and say: Why can't we re-create that rather than rely on foreign companies?"

Former oil minister Ibrahim Bahr Uloom said the government would have been wise to delay the process until after the election.

"What will happen if a new government comes and a new prime minister and a new parliament don't go ahead with these contracts?" he asked.

Homeland Security, Pentagon Clash on Military's Role at Mexico Border

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 28, 2009

A proposal to send National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to counter drug trafficking has triggered a bureaucratic standoff between the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security over the military's role in domestic affairs, according to officials in both departments.

The debate has engaged a pair of powerful personalities, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, in what their subordinates describe as a turf fight over which agency should direct the use of troops to assist in the fight against Mexican cartels and which one should pay for them.

At issue is a proposal to send 1,500 additional troops to the border to analyze intelligence and to provide air support and technical assistance to border agencies. The governors of Texas, Arizona, California and New Mexico began making the requests in January, drawing support from Napolitano but prompting objections from the Pentagon, where officials argue that it could lead to a permanent, expanded mission for the military.

President Obama has signaled that he is open to the idea, asking Congress for $250 million to deploy the National Guard while also saying he was "not interested in militarizing the border." In the war supplemental funding bill that Obama signed last week, lawmakers appropriated the money for other Justice and DHS border security but said the president could ask again when he reached a decision. The issue has been stalled before a National Security Council policy committee, after which it would go to Obama for a decision.

Neither Napolitano nor Gates has made the disagreement personal, although some of their aides have privately expressed exasperation at what one called an interagency "food fight."

"It should not be that we always rely on the Department of Defense to fulfill some need," said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., head of U.S. Northern Command, which is responsible for defending the continental United States.

Border law enforcement agencies should have adequate funds to do their job, he said. If the Guard is tapped, it should be for capabilities "that do not exist elsewhere in government," Renuart said. "When we send the National Guard, they go with specific missions, with specific purposes. And we put some duration on that so there is an end state."

Homeland security officials and governors counter that there is a legitimate need for troops to back up border agencies against the most serious threat to the Southwest and that a deployment would not represent a new military mission. Under a 1989 law, the National Guard assigns 577 troops to help states with anti-drug programs, which "can easily expand," the four governors wrote Congress in April.

Napolitano, who as governor of Arizona prompted President George W. Bush to send 6,000 guardsmen to the border in 2006, has supported the governors.

Brian de Vallance, senior counselor to Napolitano, said she "feels we have an obligation to do whatever we can do to disrupt those forces that are destroying lives in over 200 American cities. . . . It comes down to whether folks want to be as aggressive as we can be against the cartels and take every advantage of this historic opportunity" of cooperation between Mexico and the United States.

The debate goes to the heart of the military's role, which has expanded since the 2001 terrorist attacks, with an increasing commitment of troops and resources to homeland defense, particularly to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear attack or other domestic catastrophe. Deploying new troops to the border would represent a mission the military has not traditionally embraced.

"What we're seeing here is a move toward reframing where defense begins and ends," said Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership. "Traditionally the military looks outward, but looking outward has begun a lot closer to home, and it may involve looking just across the border."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) requested 1,000 guardsmen in January who he later said could form 24 border reconnaissance platoons, support Texas Ranger and parks and wildlife tracking teams, and back up air and marine operations. Perry, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) subsequently asked Congress to add personnel to the National Guard's Counter-Drug Program in their states. Troops provide translators, reconnaissance and administrative support, relaying aircraft surveillance images, for example.

Border states bear "unique and/or disproportionate" costs of dealing with illegal immigration, drugs and violence, Brewer wrote.

"It is abundantly clear that additional resources are needed -- and needed now," the governors wrote in a separate letter.

The fight is largely over money. For two years, Pentagon budget officials have tried to slash funding for state drug-fighting operations, citing the financial strain of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And military officials say governors could pay for their own Guard units.

But governors contend that securing the border is a federal responsibility.

Paul McHale, Gates's assistant secretary for homeland defense until early this year, said the broader worry is strategic. "The real concern is . . . at some point a temporary mission becomes permanent," he said. "Do it four or five times over a decade, and the political and military repercussions are likely negative."

A senior White House national security official said the president is comfortable with the disagreement. "It's the president's view that . . . frankly, that kind of debate among two Cabinet officers like Secretary Gates and Secretary Napolitano, both of whom he holds in high regard, will inevitably lead to a better policy," the official added.

The official noted that the administration has already taken steps, sending 450 DHS and Justice Department agents to the border in March to fight cash and weapons smuggling. And, he pointed out, crime in U.S. border communities and border arrests have fallen.

For now, administration officials are working through differences. Paul N. Stockton, McHale's successor, said the two departments are working closely to resolve their differences. In response to the Pentagon concerns that the troops could become permanent, DHS officials are searching for benchmarks that would end a deployment, such as a drop in cartel violence or improved Mexican enforcement.

When the Bush administration sent Guard units to the border, they went as a stopgap measure, backing up the U.S. Border Patrol for two years while it added 6,000 agents. The troops rotated through non-law enforcement duties.