Senators: Leave the GOP for the sake of the nation

Repost from the San Francisco Chronicle

GOP senators, now is a time for integrity: leave your party

Photo of Robert Reich
Robert Reich

To: Sens. Jeff Flake, John McCain,
Bob Corker and Susan Collins
From: Robert Reich

Senators, I write you not as a Democrat reaching out to Republicans, or as a former Cabinet member making a request of sitting senators.

I write you as a patriotic American concerned about the peril now facing our democracy, asking you to exercise your power to defend it.

A foreign power has attacked our democratic institutions and, according to American intelligence, continues to do so.

Yet the president of the United States is unwilling to fully acknowledge this, or aggressively stop it.

Most of your Republican colleagues in the Senate will not force his hand. As a result, because your party has control of the Senate, there is no effective check on the president — or on Vladimir Putin.

What is America to do? We will exercise our right to vote on Nov. 6. But by that time our system may be compromised. The president must be constrained, now. Putin’s aggression must be stopped, now.

If just two of you changed parties — becoming independent and caucusing with the Democrats — the Republican Party would no longer have a majority in the Senate.

The Senate would become a check on the president, as the framers of the Constitution envisioned it would be. And the president could be forced to defend the United States, as the framers intended.

I implore you to do so.

There is precedent. I’m sure you remember Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who served as a Republican senator from 1989 until 2001. He then left the GOP to become an independent and began caucusing with the Democrats.

Jeffords’ switch changed control of the Senate from Republican to Democratic. Jeffords left the Republican Party because of issues on which he parted with his Republican colleagues and the George W. Bush administration. As he said at the time, “Increasingly, I find myself in disagreement with my party. … Given the changing nature of the national party, it has become a struggle for our leaders to deal with me and for me to deal with them.”

I knew and admired Jeffords years before he switched parties. We worked together on a number of initiatives when I was secretary of labor. He was a humble man of principle and integrity. He retired from the Senate in 2007 and died in 2014.

I appeal to the four of you to follow his noble example.

The stakes for the nation are far higher than they were in 2001. The issue today is not one on which honorable people like Jeffords may reasonably disagree. The issue now is the fate of our system of government.

All of you recognize the danger. All of you have expressed deep concern about what is occurring.

Sen. Flake recently introduced a non-binding resolution acknowledging Russian involvement in the 2016 elections, expressing support for the Justice Department investigation and calling for oversight hearings about what happened in Helsinki. But Flake’s fellow Republicans blocked that resolution.

Sen. McCain said the president has “proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin”; that Trump “made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world”; and that the president has “failed to defend all that makes us who we are — a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad.”

Sen. Corker has likened the Republican Party to a “cult” and conceded that “it’s not a good place for any party to end up with a cult-like situation as it relates to a president that happens to be of purportedly of the same party.”

Moreover, the three of you have decided against seeking re-election. You have no reason not to follow your consciences.

Sen. Collins represents a state that has had a long and distinguished history of independent-minded politicians. (The other senator from Maine, Angus King, is an independent.) Her constituents will surely forgive her if she leaves the Republican Party.

There is a scene in the Robert Bolt play “A Man for All Seasons” in which Thomas More, having angered Henry VIII, is on trial for his life. After Richard Rich commits perjury against More in exchange for the office of attorney general for Wales, More says: “Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. … But for Wales?”

You have not pledged your souls to the Republican Party. You have pledged yourselves to America. Now is the time to deliver on that pledge.

© 2018 Robert Reich

Robert Reich, a professor of public policy at UC Berkeley, is co-creator of the new Netflix documentary “Saving Capitalism” and author of “The Common Good.” To comment, submit your letter to the editor at SFChronicle.com/letters.

Loss of local news coverage by Benicia Herald & Vallejo Times-Herald

Newspapers cut back on Benicia reporting

Image result for print journalism
Hard times for print journalism

These are hard times for print journalists, reporters and home delivery newspapers.  Especially so in Benicia.

On July 6, the Benicia Herald announced a cutback in print publication to 3 days per week.  And this week I asked the editor of our larger neighbor newspaper, the Vallejo Times-Herald who on their staff is currently covering Benicia and the editor replied, “Nobody is covering Benicia.”  The East Bay Times, formerly the Contra Costa Times, quit covering Benicia long ago.

These days, knowing what goes on in Benicia is pretty much a do-it-yourself operation, with amateurs doing the reporting.  For the most part, we need to log in to a social network on a computer or subscribe to alerts on a smart phone.  It’s hit or miss at best.

The editor of the Vallejo Times-Herald is open to publishing stories about Benicia.  In editor Jack Bungart’s words, “We’ll try and pick up what we can.”  I take this to mean that we will see official press releases from the Benicia Police or City Hall.  Hopefully, they will print stories and press releases authored by citizens, too?

Nick Sestanovich, editor at the Benicia Herald, has been responsive in publishing news generated by citizens, but he has no staff reporters other than himself.  He has done a good job covering City Council meetings lately, but he can’t possibly attend the large number of other commissions, organizations and events, not to mention reporting on human interest stories, sorting out the facts regarding local controversies, doing interviews, and following up on investigative leads.

Now that the Herald will only go out on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday, the number of Benicia stories will clearly decrease.  We haven’t been told whether Nick’s hours will be cut – hopefully not.  Will he continue to cover some – if fewer – important events, or, like the Vallejo paper, will he need to rely increasingly on official press releases?

This is important: city press releases don’t begin to approximate the important role of a free press.  Nothing against our City staff, but news should be ABOUT the city, not BY the city.  Same could be said of citizen initiatives and watchdog activities.  Independent reporting is a foundation of American democracy.

The Benicia Independent can’t do it.  I’m a one-person operation, and my work here has been and continues to be advocacy on select issues that are important to me, mostly local and mostly on the environment.  I report on gun violence and a few other important issues of our times, but I don’t pretend to cover Benicia in the way that a local news periodical can and should.

Image result for benicia
Benicia, California

It’s a sad day when there is next to no one actually reporting on the affairs of our beautiful and interesting, newsworthy town.

Roger Straw
Benicia

Investment execs: Oil and gas must face its future as a ‘declining industry’

Repost from The Energy Mix, originally from Financial Times

Fossils Must Face Their Future As A ‘Declining Industry’, Investment Execs Assert

June 18, 2018, primary Author Anton Eser and Nick Stansbury
lalabell68/Pixabay

Oil and gas must prepare to “face its future as a declining industry” and leave it to finance and investment professionals to allocate the US$29 trillion that will be needed by 2050 to decarbonize the global energy system, two senior investment executives argue in a recent post for the Financial Times.

Capital investment markets, in turn, will need the policy certainty to get on with the job, write Chief Investment Officer Anton Eser and fund manager Nick Stansbury of Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM), an arm of the UK’s Legal & General insurance company.

“Whilst the 2015 climate agreement in Paris offers some help, we still lack clear policy signals on what the long-term price for carbon is going to be, and when there will be an effective mechanism to implement it,” they write. “Without this certainty, pricing carbon risks and opportunities is going to remain highly complex.”

While the biggest challenges facing oil and gas are “a reasonable distance in the future”, Eser and Stansbury say the industry will no longer be able to rely on growing demand and production declines in mature oilfields to keep global markets in balance. Peak demand, in particular, is on the way, and “will have a big, and under-appreciated, destabilizing effect” when it arrives.

That leaves two choices for oil and gas companies—trying to reinvent themselves as renewable energy businesses, or beginning to ramp down their investments and return more cash to shareholders. But the two analysts declare themselves skeptical that fossils can make the transition to the renewable energy sector.

“The business models are very different, and the oil industry is likely to have a different cost of capital to the renewable sector,” the write. “We see few oil companies with a record of creating real shareholder value in this area.”

In that light, they see the second option as more promising. “The time to stop investing is not today,” they write, “but that point is coming. The industry needs to be clear that its future is one of long-term decline—whilst returning increasing sums of cash to investors. There is a possibility that the industry over-invests as we reach that point of peak demand, leaving an oversupply that persists for a long time. Fighting for market share in a declining market would be even worse.”

To maintain a place with the growing number of investment funds that emphasize environmental, social, and particularly climate strategies, Eser and Stansbury say oil and gas companies will have to “articulate a much clearer long-term strategy and the role they have to play in the energy transition.” More realistically, they say fossils can play a “positive part” as a “cash-generating engine that can be used to power the transition when the time comes, and we urge the industry to make a clear commitment to this future.”

ISO Working Group – reflections on Council’s NO vote… and WHERE from here?

Benicia City Council: 3 to 2 against Industrial Safety Ordinance

By Benicia’s ISO Working Group, submitted by Ralph Dennis
[See also Video: Benicia Council votes NO.]

Another 3-2 vote. Very disappointing, again. The Council majority voted again, 3-2, not to consider an industrial safety ordinance for Benicia. Now, we wait for a yet-to-be determined date in November or December for Council to reconvene and review the progress Valero has made toward its commitments.

It appears the Council majority on these votes thinks another one or two monitors will address Benicia’s “monitoring issue” and that the “communication issue” is already taken care of. What monitoring is out there, or soon to be, is in no way comprehensive or sufficient for our community. Better communication? Thank you, Valero, for sharing all that information at the July 17 Council meeting – after 14 months of Council’s two-step process, and more than 10 years of community requests for Valero to address air monitoring.

Disappointing Council vote, yes. But, now we at least know how many monitors Valero has, and where they are located. And, three are community monitors, not just for fence line. Valero even says it has mobile monitors available. Probably more information than any of us had 14 months ago, certainly 10 years ago.

But this is of little value unless Council takes the next step, uses the data from these monitors (and other monitors perhaps to come), as well as all the other information Valero committed to share on a real-time, easy to access and use, public web site with the City as a “partner”, to address community health and safety concerns. With or without an ISO, Council has already started this process, and Council cannot go back. Council now knows the resources are out there.  We’ll see what Council does with them.  Passage of a Benicia ISO is the most effective tool for ensuring the community’s health and safety.

So, what now?  Over the next 6 months, let’s keep in mind what’s been left on the table or yet to be considered by virtue of Council’s 3-2 vote. What are the deficiencies an industrial safety ordinance would correct?

  1. Progress report. The minutes from June 19th Council state that there will be a progress report in November and then in December there will be (or should be) a meeting with choices of moving forward with an ISO or not depending on the progress report. What are the performance measures for that report? What choices will be presented to Council?  More questions than answers, which is why Terry Mollica said, “we are kicking the can down the road” if we don’t have the rehearing to set the parameters and future steps and outcomes.
  2.  Funding:  For the City to meaningfully “communicate”, i.e., have knowledge, skills set, and be copied and comment on reports, the City will need to increase staff which requires funding. An ISO would provide the funding through fees assessed on businesses subject to the ISO. How will staff follow up without funding?
  3. Promises:  The record is clear that Valero does not fulfill its promises and conditions of approval for permits.  Watch and see….
  4. Confusion and misdirection:  Valero distracts the staff, Council and public with their pat on their own back for their community contributions and their expressions of concern for public health protection.  The City and community recognizes these actions on the part of Valero and its contribution to the City’s tax base. It is nice to have non-governmental groups receive Valero money, but the issue we are talking about is air quality.
  5. Monitors:  There is great confusion about monitors – what they monitor, how they monitor, and when they do it. Council members in the 3-2 majority did not receive the benefit of Eric Stevenson’s recent meeting in Benicia discussing air monitors, nor do these Council members seem familiar with or understand the work of Air Watch Bay Area which is a data resource much more nuanced than understood.  Will the City and public be kept in the loop as Valero acquires and installs air monitoring equipment?  Will the City and public be asked for input?
  6. Regulations:  It is true that we have good state regulations, but the recent KQED story where the California Public Utilities Commission found PG&E at fault because it did not follow those regulations, makes the point of why Benicia needs an ISO.  When will state regulations be implemented?  Will public utilities and private enterprises like Valero follow the regulations?  Who will report to us, how and when?  We should have reports of the required training, the fulfillment of the training, and periodic protocol reviews to be assured that new regulations are adequate, and that they are being followed.
  7. Missing in Benicia. Finally, as an important point of reference and comparison, the Mayor of Martinez says his city has a great relationship with Shell, who invites city people to training exercises, shares reports, and offers meetings and a myriad of other “communicating” actions.  Without Contra Costa County’s ISO, his city would not be included in these ways.  Absence of news is rarely news.  That is, we won’t be seeing newspaper headlines like “Benicia did not get a quarterly report yesterday.”  Or, “On Saturday, Valero did not train City Staff on emergency response.”  Stay alert for what we DON’T hear over these next months.

So, the fight continues for a Benicia ISO. Let’s keep our eyes and ears open for the next piece of information that supports the need for an industrial safety ordinance in Benicia.