February, 10 2010, 05:10am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Elliott Negin,Media Director,enegin@ucsusa.org
Nuclear Experts, Arms Control organizations Urge Obama to Transform U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
WASHINGTON
In anticipation of a major nuclear weapons policy review expected to
be completed March 1, former government officials, nuclear weapons
experts, and leaders of arms control organizations representing more
than 1 million Americans have sent a letter
to President Obama, urging him to fulfill his April 2009 pledge to "put
an end to Cold War thinking" and "reduce the role of nuclear weapons in
our national security strategy."
In the letter, sent to the White House and key cabinet members on
February 1, the group called on the president to ensure that the
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) "advances the highest security priorities:
preventing terrorists or additional states from obtaining of using
nuclear weapons; reducing global stockpiles, and moving toward a world
without nuclear weapons."
The authors of the letter include Richard Garwin, recipient of the
National Medal of Science and a long-time government consultant; Morton
H. Halperin, former State Department director of policy and planning;
Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, former president of the National Defense
University; Jan M. Lodal, former principal deputy secretary of defense
for policy; Charles Ferguson, president of the Federation of American
Scientists; Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned
Scientists; and Christopher Paine, Nuclear Program director at the
Natural Resources Defense Council.
The signatories expressed concern that the "Nuclear Posture Review
will preserve rather than put an end to Cold War thinking, and
undermine the important agenda you [President Obama] set forth in
[April 2009 in] Prague."
The letter asks President Obama to promote "transformational rather than incremental changes" in four key areas:
First, regarding U.S. policy on the fundamental role of nuclear
weapons: "The new NPR should clearly narrow the purpose of nuclear
weapons to deterring nuclear attacks on the United States and our
allies," the authors write. "Ambiguity about the purpose of U.S.
nuclear forces provides little deterrent value at a high cost; it
undermines the credibility of our conventional deterrent, complicates
our nonproliferation diplomacy, and can be used by other countries to
justify their pursuit or improvement of nuclear weapons."
The United States still deploys more than 2,200 nuclear warheads,
mainly to counter a Russian attack and, if necessary, defend U.S.
forces or allies against conventional attack or counter chemical or
biological threats.
Second, with regard to further nuclear weapons reductions, the
letter states: "If the United States adopted a core nuclear deterrence
posture, it would facilitate a shift to a stockpile of hundreds rather
than thousands of nuclear weapons.... The NPR should make clear...that the
United States is able and willing to undertake further significant
reductions in its deployed nuclear warheads provided that Russia is a
willing partner."
The letter also states that "the NPR should signal that
forward-deployed U.S. nuclear weapons are no longer essential to
preserving the security of the NATO alliance." That recommendation was
bolstered recently when, over the last few weeks, German, Norwegian,
Polish and Swedish foreign ministers urged that the next round of
U.S.-Russian arms reduction talks lead to the removal of all tactical
nuclear weapons still in Europe, including approximately 200 U.S. bombs
at several NATO bases.
Third, the letter urged the president to eliminate the current
requirements and plans for rapid launch in response to a nuclear
attack. President Obama himself noted during the presidential campaign
that "keeping nuclear weapons ready to launch on a moment's notice is a
dangerous relic of the Cold War. Such policies increase the risk of
catastrophic accidents or miscalculation."
Fourth, the letter urges President Obama "to clarify his January
2009 pledge 'not to authorize new nuclear weapons' by establishing that
it is U.S. policy not to develop or produce newly designed warheads, or
to modify existing warheads for the purpose of creating new military
capabilities." In the fiscal 2003 Defense Authorization Bill, Congress
defined a "new nuclear weapon" as one with "a pit or canned
subassembly" not yet in the stockpile or already in production.
"Efforts to pursue newly designed warheads," the letter states, "are
technically unnecessary and would undercut our efforts to convince
other nations to forgo nuclear weapons or to refrain from developing
new and more advanced types of nuclear warheads."
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
Biden Urged to 'Hold the Line' Against For-Profit Medicare Advantage Industry
"Do not let them bully you," said Alex Lawson of Social Security Works. "Corporate insurers are holding the country's health hostage and demanding bags of cash."
Mar 28, 2024
Opponents of healthcare privatization gathered at the White House on Thursday to send President Joe Biden a message from tens of thousands of Americans: "Do not give in to corporate insurers."
With the Biden administration set to unveil its final payment rate for privatized Medicare Advantage (MA) plans on April 1, Alex Lawson of Social Security Works and Brittany Shannahan of Public Citizen delivered around 28,000 petition signatures to the White House imploring Biden to "reduce MA rates to a level commensurate with traditional Medicare and recoup all overpayments."
"Do not let them bully you," Lawson said during a livestream in front of the White House on Thursday. "Corporate insurers are holding the country's health hostage and demanding bags of cash."
Medicare Advantage is a privately run program funded by the federal government, and the major for-profit insurers that dominate the MA industry are notorious for denying patients necessary care and overbilling the government by making patients appear sicker than they are—a practice known as "upcoding."
One recent study estimated that Medicare Advantage plans overcharge U.S. taxpayers to the tune of $140 billion per year, which would be enough to zero out Medicare Part B premiums.
"Medicare is under threat from greedy corporations that are more focused on profit than providing patient care," said Brittany Shannahan, a Medicare for All organizer. "This is a threat to Medicare. This should be on campaign ads."
The Biden administration is expected to propose a 3.7% payment increase for Medicare Advantage in 2025. More than 30,000 people have submitted comments opposing that rate, according to Social Security Works.
Insurers, a powerful lobbying force in Washington, D.C., are also pushing back on the administration's plan—demanding that they receive more, not less, government money.
"Taking our money and denying our care: That's their business model," Lawson said Thursday.
Lawson and Shannahan welcomed the Biden administration's recent efforts to curb Medicare Advantage overbilling and other abuses.
Survey results released earlier this week by Data for Progress show that the Biden administration's efforts to curtail MA plans' wrongful care denials and overbilling are overwhelmingly popular across party lines.
In a blog post on Tuesday, Just Care USA president Diane Archer noted that "since its inception," MA has "cost the Medicare program more per enrollee than traditional Medicare" even as it imposes "obstacles to care that don't exist for people in traditional Medicare, including burdensome prior authorization requirements and restricted physician and hospital networks."
"Our government is spending more and enrollees are too often getting fewer Medicare benefits than they would in traditional Medicare," Archer wrote.
In their remarks in front of the White House on Thursday, Shannahan and Lawson urged the Biden administration to take bolder action to rein in Medicare Advantage plans, which now cover half of all eligible Medicare beneficiaries.
"We need to see more," said Shannahan. "We know that Medicare Advantage insurers are throwing around cash trying to make sure that they can continue to exploit their patients undetected and unchecked."
Carmen Rhodes, senior adviser and programs director at Be A Hero—a group founded by the late Medicare for All champion Ady Barkan—wrote in an op-ed for Common Dreams on Thursday that the Biden administration must hold Medicare Advantage plans "accountable for their greed, not give them a raise."
"Hundreds of our grassroots supporters have shared their painful stories of being delayed or denied care by faceless, cruel insurance companies," Rhodes wrote. "Others reveal feeling tricked or even forced onto a Medicare Advantage plan and then being stuck in the 'Hotel California.' Their heartbreaking stories called Ady and now call all of us to take action."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Court Rules Racist Florida Voting Map Backed by DeSantis Can Remain for 2024 Election
“This is not only disappointing, but it sets a perilous precedent," said Ellen Freidin, CEO of FairDistricts NOW.
Mar 28, 2024
A federal three-judge panel unanimously ruled on Wednesday that Florida's congressional map may remain after it was challenged by former Rep. Al Lawson and the watchdog group Common Cause.
Lawson is a black Democrat whose district was dismantled when the map was created in 2022. Lawson and Common Cause alleged that the map was discriminatory against Black voters, but the federal court rejected those claims. Two of the three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.
“After clearly recognizing Florida’s history of racial discrimination, the court ignored its most recent iteration, greenlighting legislative adoption of the Governor’s racially motivated map,” says @CommonCauseFL’s Amy Keith, on the discriminatory map ruling.
— Common Cause (@CommonCause) March 28, 2024
The plaintiffs argued that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was acting with racial animus when he called for Lawson's district to be dismantled. The court ruled that even if DeSantis was acting with racial animus, the plaintiffs couldn't prove the Legislature was when it created the map.
"This is not only disappointing, but it sets a perilous precedent. The court is saying that a state legislature can erase a performing Black district for political gain as long as it can blame the governor for coming up with the racist scheme in the first place," said Ellen Freidin, CEO of FairDistricts NOW. "The ultimate result permits legislators to conspire with the governor to keep themselves and their party in power while remaining insulated from the law."
A Florida judge had ruled the map was unconstitutional in 2022 because "it diminishes African Americans' ability to elect candidates of their choice."
One of the judges on the federal court panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan, did say he believed DeSantis had racist reasoning behind his actions.
"I do not think that Governor DeSantis harbors personal racial animus toward Black voters," Jordan wrote. "But I do believe that he used race impermissibly as a means to achieve ends (including partisan advantage) that he cannot admit to."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Leads Charge as Surge of Oil and Gas Projects Threaten Hope for Livable Planet
"The science is clear: No new oil and gas fields, or the planet gets pushed past what it can handle," said one analyst.
Mar 28, 2024
Fossil fuel-producing countries late last year pledged to "transition away from fossil fuels," but a report on new energy projects shows that with the United States leading the way in continuing to extract oil and gas, governments' true views on renewable energy is closer to a statement by a Saudi oil executive Amin Nasser earlier this month.
"We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas," the CEO of Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil company, said at an energy conference in Houston.
A new report published Wednesday by Global Energy Monitor (GEM) suggests the U.S. in particular has abandoned any plans to adhere to warnings from climate scientists and the International Energy Agency (IEA), which said in 2021 that new oil and gas infrastructure has no place on a pathway to limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C.
Despite the stark warning, last year at least 20 oil and gas fields worldwide reached "final investment decision," the point at which companies decide to move ahead with construction and development. Those approvals paved the way for the extraction of 8 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe).
By the end of the decade, companies aim to sanction nearly four times that amount, producing 31.2 billion boe from 64 oil and gas fields.
The U.S. led the way in approving new oil and gas projects over the past two years, GEM's analysis found.
An analysis by Carbon Brief of GEM's findings shows that burning all the oil and gas from newly discovered fields and approved projects would emit at least 14.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.
"This is equivalent to more than one-third of the CO2 emissions from global energy use in 2022, or all the emissions from burning oil that year," said Carbon Brief.
GEM noted in its analysis that oil companies and the policymakers who continue to support their planet-heating activities have come up with numerous "extraction justifications" even as the IEA has been clear that new fossil fuel projects are incompatible with avoiding catastrophic planetary heating.
The report notes that U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) "supported ConocoPhillips' Willow oil field, arguing that the Alaskan oil and gas industry has a 'better environmental track record,' and not approving the project 'impoverish[es] Alaska Natives and blame[s] them for changes in the climate that they did not cause.'"
Carbon Brief reported that oil executives have claimed they are powerless to stop extracting fossil fuels since demand for oil and gas exists for people's energy needs, with ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods tellingFortune last month that members of the public "aren't willing to spend the money" on renewable energy sources.
A poll by Pew Research Center last year found 67% of Americans supported the development of alternative energy sources. Another recent survey by Eligo Energy showed that 65% of U.S. consumers were willing to pay more for renewable energy.
"Oil and gas producers have given all kinds of reasons for continuing to discover and develop new fields, but none of these hold water," said Scott Zimmerman, project manager for the Global Oil and Gas Extraction Tracker at GEM. "The science is clear: No new oil and gas fields, or the planet gets pushed past what it can handle."
Climate scientist and writer Bill McGuire summarized the viewpoint of oil and gas executives and pro-fossil fuel lawmakers: "Climate emergency? What climate emergency?"
The continued development of new oil and gas fields, he added, amounts to "pure insanity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular