Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

The White House: Kicking off National Health Week

Tags:

From the White House, “Our Endangered Climate”:

On Monday, President Obama issued a Presidential Proclamation declaring this week, April 6-12, 2015, as National Public Health Week.

As part of the effort to support public health with a sense of purpose and determination, the Obama administration has focused on how climate change affects our environment. Our public health is deeply tied to the health of our environment. As the planet warms, we face new threats to our health and well-being, and the President is taking steps to counteract those threats.

Tuesday, President Obama spoke at Howard University Medical School in Washington, D.C., joined by the Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murphy, and Gina McCarthy, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, at a roundtable. The President explained what the Administration has already done to reduce the dangerous levels of carbon dioxide that are contributing to climate change, and discussed ways to prepare our communities for the impacts that cannot be avoided.



President Barack Obama gives remarks to the press during a roundtable discussion on climate change and public health at the Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, D.C., April 7, 2015

In keeping with the President’s directive to make government as open as possible, as well as his commitment to combating climate change, the Administration also announced this morning that it’s expanding its Climate Data Initiative to include more than 150 health-relevant datasets on climate.data.gov.

Feel free to share other news stories in the comments.

FACT SHEET: Administration Announces Actions To Protect Communities From The Impacts Of Climate Change

President Obama is committed to combating the health impacts of climate change and protecting the health of future generations. We know climate change is not is not a distant threat, we are already seeing impacts in communities across the country. And while most Americans see climate change hitting their communities through extreme weather events – from more severe droughts and wildfires to more powerful hurricanes and record heat waves – there are other threats climate change poses to the American people. In the past three decades, the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled, and climate change is putting these individuals and many other vulnerable populations at greater risk of landing in the hospital.  Certain people and communities are especially vulnerable, including children, the elderly, the sick, the poor, and some communities of color. Rising temperatures can lead to more smog, longer allergy seasons, and an increased incidence of extreme-weather-related injuries.

That is why the President is taking action now. The sooner we act, the more we can do to protect the health of our communities our kids, and those that are the most vulnerable. As part of the Administration’s overall effort to combat climate change and protect the American people, this week, the Administration is announcing a series of actions that will allow us to better understand, communicate, and reduce the health impacts of climate change on our communities, including:

 –  Convening Stakeholders: The Administration is bringing together health and medical professionals, academics, and other interested stakeholders through a series of convenings this week-including a workshop to develop data and tools to empower people and communities with the science-based information and tools they need to protect public health in the face of climate change and another on mental health and wellness impacts of climate change-all leading up to a White House Climate Change and Health Summit later this spring that will feature the Surgeon General.

 –  Identifying Solutions to Minimize Impacts: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is releasing an Adaptation in Action Report highlighting successful actions state and local leaders are taking to reduce the health impacts of climate change in New York City, San Francisco, Maine, Minnesota, Arizona, Michigan, California and New York. The CDC is also releasing a Health Care Facilities Toolkit illustrating best practices for promoting resilient health care infrastructure.

 –  Expanding Access to Climate and Health Data: The Administration is expanding its Climate Data Initiative to include more than 150 health-relevant datasets, challenging innovators to use them to better inform scientists and communities about how to identify, minimize and prevent the health impacts of climate change. Today, private-sector leaders across the country are committing to leverage these data sets to generate tools, apps, and insights to help communities and businesses reduce the health impacts of climate change.

 –  Preparing the Next Generation of Medical and Health Professionals: The Administration is announcing a coalition of Deans from 30 medical, public health, and nursing schools around the country, who are committing to ensure that the next generation of health professionals is trained to address the health impacts of climate change.

 –  Releasing Draft Climate and Health Assessment Report: The interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program is releasing a draft Climate and Health Assessment report synthesizing the best available scientific literature on the observed and projected impacts of climate change on human health in the United States. This report covers weather and climate extremes, air quality, vector borne diseases, water- and food-related issues, mental health and well-being, and risks facing vulnerable segments of the population, such as children, the elderly, and people with existing health conditions. It will be open for public comment and formal peer review.

More at the link.


Categories: Uncategorized.

/ 13 Comments

13 comments

  1. JanF

    NTSB issues recommendations to boost oil train safety

    The National Transportation Safety Board on Monday called for the faster replacement of rail cars that carry flammable liquids such as crude oil and ethanol – one of four urgent recommendations stemming from an investigation of recent derailments.

    The NTSB is seeking an “aggressive schedule” to replace or retrofit the current fleet of rail tank cars, which it says rupture too easily in derailments and allow flammable liquids in undamaged cars to explode if there is a fire.

    “We can’t wait a decade for safer rail cars,” said NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart. “Crude oil rail traffic is increasing exponentially. That is why this issue is on our most wanted list of safety improvements.” The fleet of oil and ethanol tank cars is projected to top 115,000 by the end of 2015.

    The NTSB news release:

    The Board said the current fleet of DOT-111 tank cars rupture too quickly when exposed to a pool fire caused by a derailment or other accident with resulting spillage and ignition. And based on a series of accidents the Board has investigated in recent months, performance of the industry’s enhanced rail car, the CPC-1232, is not satisfactory under these conditions.

    “The NTSB concludes that the thermal performance and pressure relief capacity of bare steel tank cars that conform to current federal and industry requirements is insufficient to prevent tank failures from pool fire thermal exposure and the resulting overpressurization,” said the letter that included the recommendations from the Board to Acting Administrator Timothy P. Butters of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

    The Board also called for swiftness in changing the fleet and called for intermediate deadlines and transparent reporting to ensure the tank car fleet is being upgraded as quickly as possible.

    Trackside residents would like to see more regulations more quickly:

    Officials say they can’t take that step because nobody really knows how to reduce or properly measure the oil’s volatility.

    Roughly a dozen oil trains have exploded in the United States and Canada in the past 21 months, including one in Quebec that left 47 people dead. The U.S. Department of Transportation has repeatedly warned of the unusual volatility of North Dakota’s oil. But the draft of the new rule that was released in July didn’t include anything to limit the oil’s volatility, and officials say the final rule won’t either.

    That falls in line with the urging of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry’s largest trade group, but it’s likely to anger those residents and activists living near rail lines on which the oil trains travel.Nancy Casler, who lives near tracks in Menands, New York, says the DOT needs to address her concerns about both tanker standards and volatility before she and her family can feel safe again living next to what she considers an immense rolling pipeline.

    “I’m especially concerned that the [new tankers] that pass 30 feet from my house are … the same type that have exploded in recent derailments,” she said. “It perturbs me greatly that the API is aggressively lobbying against a national volatility standard, not missing a beat with recent derailments.”

  2. JanF

    Greg Sargent: On Iran and climate change, Obama puts stamp on 2016

    As you may recall, Scott Walker has pledged to undo any Iran deal on Day One of his presidency, even if our European allies want the deal to continue. In a new interview with NPR that aired this morning, President Obama responded, arguing that Walker is being “foolish” and may revise his views “after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy.”

    Lurking beneath this exchange is a preview of how the argument over an Iran deal – presuming one is reached – will help define the 2016 presidential race. […]

    Walker’s attack is a reminder that Republicans continue to frame their opposition to any Iran deal in narrow terms – I pledge to stick it to Obama and undo his capitulation to Iran on Day One!!! – when in fact the talks also involve major allies, meaning all sorts of consequences could result from blowing up an international deal to which they are parties. Obama’s response did hint at the general idea that recklessly undermining our agreements with other countries would “embolden our enemies.”

    The view of 2016:

    If Obama gets his way, two of the most important pieces of his legacy – an Iran deal, and a global climate treaty – will involve comprehensive international settlements. Hillary Clinton will all but certainly support an eventual Iran deal, and she’s already pledged to protect all of Obama’s climate actions “at all cost.” Thus, she will be for international engagement as the solution to two of the most pressing problems the country faces: The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and climate change. Meanwhile, on Iran and climate, the eventual 2016 GOP presidential nominee will probably have pledged to undo whatever Obama has achieved – locking him on both fronts into a position of staunch opposition to international engagement.

    Smartypants, on this piece and what it means:

    President Obama is charting new territory with some of his most important actions coming in the fourth quarter of the game. Those include not only a potential Iran deal and global climate treaty, but his actions on immigration, net neutrality and normalization of relations with Cuba. […]

    … the President’s agenda sets the tone for a lot of the narrative that will consume 2016 candidates. I am reminded of the fact that this is exactly how one Obama advisor described their “to do list” a few months ago.


       One senior Obama adviser says the administration “To Do list” after 2012 included thinking “about how you lock in the Obama coalition for Democrats going forward. Because it’s not a 100 percent certainty that they come out for the next Democrat.” Part of the answer, the adviser said, was to pursue aggressive unilateral action on “a set of issues where we have an advantage … and believe are substantively the right thing to do” and dare Republicans to oppose him.

    The next nominee will need the Obama coalition and to embrace Democratic Party principles.

    Peace … climate change action. It will be impossible for any Republican to be for either of these policies and easy for us to defend.

  3. JanF

    Key senator says Iran bill needs fixes

    The new top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Wednesday that legislation allowing Congress to reject any deal with Iran on that country’s nuclear program must be modified to win his support.

    Sen. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland said he’s working with Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., to smooth out “rough edges” of the bill, which President Obama has pledged to veto.

    The Foreign Relations Committee is set to vote on the bill on April 14.

    “I want to make sure that it’s clear that this bill is a congressional review-and-notification bill and not one that takes on directly the substance of the agreements being negotiated,” Cardin said during an interview.

    It is good to see that some Democrats respect the right of the president to work out international agreements. Really, the only thing that Congress has a say in is lifting or not lifting the sanctions that they put in place.

    “Some (issues with the bill) have been brought to our attention by the administration and some were ones that we knew from the beginning that we were going to have to deal with,” Cardin said. “If I can get this bill to do what it’s intended to do, I support it. I would hope to get to that point, but we’re not there yet.”

    Cardin said he wants to address provisions in the bill that aren’t related to the ongoing negotiations with Iran and may not be appropriate.

    The White House has similar concerns. On Tuesday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest specifically objected to a provision that would make any agreement contingent upon Iran renouncing terrorism. Earnest said the goal of negotiations is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, not to resolve all concerns with the country’s behavior.

    The president wants to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, period, and Congress wants regime change added to the list.  

  4. JanF

    Young Tom Cotton

    Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a strong opponent of President Barack Obama’s diplomatic efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear program, suggested on Tuesday that armed conflict with Tehran could be easily contained to “several days of air and naval bombing” and would not require the deployment of American ground troops. […]

    American military leaders – who worked for lawmakers of both parties – strongly disagree with Cotton’s assessment, arguing that an attack could actually prove a regional war and further push Iran towards the bomb.

    General Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM commander, put it more clearly, “I think anybody that believes that it would be a clean strike and it would be over and there would be no reaction is foolish,” he said in 2009. And former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained that “such an attack would make a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable. They would just bury the program deeper and make it more covert.” “The results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could, in my view, prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world,” he said.

    Donald Rumsfeld, in 2002, on Iraq:

    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared Thursday, and rejected concerns that a war would be a quagmire.

    “The idea that it’s going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990,” he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program.

    He said the U.S. military is stronger than it was during the Persian Gulf War, while Iraq’s armed forces are weaker.

    “Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that,” he said.

  5. JanF

    Groups backing Ted Cruz raise $31 million in a single week

    GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz vaulted to the top tier of the 2016 money race Wednesday as supporters announced that super PACs backing his bid had raised $31 million in a single week.[…]

    The influx of funds comes amid a string of successes for the first-term Texas senator, who announced his candidacy to fanfare last week and ranks just behind Bush in the latest polls. Cruz, 44, has quickly become one of the hard-right’s favorites in early primary and caucus states while leaping ahead of his conservative rivals with his launch.

    Quite a few Republican veterans view Cruz, who helped instigate the 2013 federal government shutdown, as a wily gadfly with limited appeal to a broader electorate. But the prolific fundraising over the past two weeks suggests Cruz is running not as a longshot ideologue, but rather as a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

    Cruz should test this theory!

    Cruz’s argument to GOP donors in those sessions is that the Republican Party has stumbled in the past two presidential campaigns because it did not get enough conservatives to the polls. To get those voters off the sidelines, he believes the party should lurch to the right rather than the center.

    Let’s see … the last time that happened …

  6. JanF

    Petition Response: On Conversion Therapy

    Thank you for taking the time to sign on to this petition in support of banning the practice known as conversion therapy.

    Conversion therapy generally refers to any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.1 Often, this practice is used on minors, who lack the legal authority to make their own medical and mental health decisions. We share your concern about its potentially devastating effects on the lives of transgender as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer youth.

    When assessing the validity of conversion therapy, or other practices that seek to change an individual’s gender identity or sexual orientation, it is as imperative to seek guidance from certified medical experts. The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that conversion therapy, especially when it is practiced on young people, is neither medically nor ethically appropriate and can cause substantial harm.

    As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this Administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors.[…]

    While a national ban would require congressional action, we are hopeful that the clarity of the evidence combined with the actions taken by these states will lead to broader action that this Administration would support.

Comments are closed.