US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1340

Almost 3 billion gallons of oil industry wastewater have been illegally dumped into central California aquifers that supply drinking water and farming irrigation, according to state documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity. The wastewater entered the aquifers through at least nine injection disposal wells used by the oil industry to dispose of waste contaminated with fracking fluids and other pollutants.

The documents also reveal that Central Valley Water Board testing found high levels of arsenic, thallium and nitrates — contaminants sometimes found in oil industry wastewater — in water-supply wells near these waste-disposal operations.

“Clean water is one of California’s most crucial resources, and these documents make it clear that state regulators have utterly failed to protect our water from oil industry pollution,” said Hollin Kretzmann, a Center attorney. “Much more testing is needed to gauge the full extent of water pollution and the threat to public health. But Governor Brown should move quickly to halt fracking to ward off a surge in oil industry wastewater that California simply isn’t prepared to dispose of safely.”

The state’s Water Board confirmed beyond doubt that at least nine wastewater disposal wells have been injecting waste into aquifers that contain high-quality water that is supposed to be protected under federal and state law.

Thallium is an extremely toxic chemical commonly used in rat poison. Arsenic is a toxic chemical that can cause cancer. Some studies show that even low-level exposure to arsenic in drinking water can compromise the immune system’s ability to fight illness.

“Arsenic and thallium are extremely dangerous chemicals,” said Timothy Krantz, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Redlands. “The fact that high concentrations are showing up in multiple water wells close to wastewater injection sites raises major concerns about the health and safety of nearby residents.”

On October 10 2014 11:14 sc2isnotdying wrote:


I dunno, man. Maybe I'm just jaded, but this sounds like business as usual to me. Would it have made any sense to pursue an investigation of what was basically a non-incident, especially when it could have been politically damaging? Now, I'm not sure why it would have been politically damaging, but if I can tell you if a were a lawyer working for the administration and was made aware of the incident, my advice wouldn't have been any different. Would you really have had this guy subject to a thorough Secret Service investigation for hiring a prostitute? Would you really have advised the Secret Service to publicly acknowledge the incident? Squashing a non-story hardly seems scandalous to me. The White House is after all a political institution and we should expect them to make decisions with respect to potential political fallout. What administration would have handled this differently?

On October 10 2014 08:13 GreenHorizons wrote:


Source

Or we could do the whole $1.2 trillion in student debt thing instead...

On October 11 2014 02:16 Yurie wrote:


Not sure if that will keep being free or not. Sweden used to have the same deal (which I think was good). It was then stopped due to too many international students coming, studying for their 3-5 years and then leaving. (I still saw it as a good thing even with that being the case.) It still is free for a lot of nations to study in Sweden, not all though.

On October 11 2014 05:37 Saryph wrote:
The chart below is from a quick search, I believe those numbers are from the 2011-2012 season, listing the pre-season top-25 poll teams.

www.forbes.com

+ Show Spoiler +

The latest Reason-Rupe poll finds nearly eight out of 10 Americans—77 percent—favor eliminating mandatory minimum prison sentences for nonviolent offenders so that judges instead have the ability to make sentencing decisions on a case-by-case basis. Only 17 percent of Americans oppose the idea. Support for eliminating mandatory minimum sentences has increased by 6 percentage points since Reason-Rupe asked this question in December 2013.

The federal government and a number of states have enacted mandatory minimum sentencing laws over the past few decades, most of which were applied to drug offenses. These laws require judges to sentence offenders convicted of certain crimes to a minimum term of imprisonment, regardless of whether or not the judge agrees the sentence is in the best interest of justice. These types of sentencing laws prohibit judges from evaluating the circumstances of individual cases and assigning the punishment they find most appropriate.

Instead, mandatory minimums transfer sentencing authority from judges to prosecutors, who pressure defendants to plead guilty in exchange for a shorter sentence, rather than go to trial and risk receiving a much longer mandatory minimum sentence if convicted. According to a report by the United States Sentencing Commission, an average of 98.7 percent of offenders who were convicted of a federal drug offense pleaded guilty in FY 2013 to avoid going to trial.

The poll found that Americans of all races and political parties favor eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, and that support among all groups has grown since the end of last year.

WASHINGTON, Oct 10 (Reuters) - The United States may make a major contribution in November to a fund to help poor countries prepare for and combat climate change, said the foreign minister of Peru, the country hosting a round of climate negotiations in December.

Peru Foreign Minister Gonzalo Gutierrez said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told him on Oct. 8 that the world's second biggest greenhouse gas emitter behind China may announce a major injection of money into the Green Climate Fund (GCF) created by the United Nations.

"He (Kerry) says that the U.S. is considering seriously to make a significant announcement even before the Lima conference, probably next month," Gutierrez said in a speech at Johns Hopkins University's Washington conference on Thursday evening.

The State Department declined to comment.

Scanning a map of the world must give President Obama a sinking feeling as he contemplates the dismal state of troubled bilateral relationships his administration has sought to turn around. He would be smart to take a hard look at Cuba, where a major policy shift could yield a significant foreign policy success.

For the first time in more than 50 years, shifting politics in the United States and changing policies in Cuba make it politically feasible to re-establish formal diplomatic relations and dismantle the senseless embargo. The Castro regime has long blamed the embargo for its shortcomings, and has kept ordinary Cubans largely cut off from the world. Mr. Obama should seize this opportunity to end a long era of enmity and help a population that has suffered enormously since Washington ended diplomatic relations in 1961, two years after Fidel Castro assumed power.

In recent years, a devastated economy has forced Cuba to make reforms — a process that has gained urgency with the economic crisis in Venezuela, which gives Cuba heavily subsidized oil. Officials in Havana, fearing that Venezuela could cut its aid, have taken significant steps to liberalize and diversify the island’s tightly controlled economy.

They have begun allowing citizens to take private-sector jobs and own property. This spring, Cuba’s National Assembly passed a law to encourage foreign investment in the country. With Brazilian capital, Cuba is building a seaport, a major project that will be economically viable only if American sanctions are lifted. And in April, Cuban diplomats began negotiating a cooperation agreement with the European Union. They have shown up at the initial meetings prepared, eager and mindful that the Europeans will insist on greater reforms and freedoms.

On October 12 2014 04:02 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I mean, is there really any reason not to unfreeze relations with Cuba now that there's no longer a threat of the Russians using them as a proxy pylon?