Last year for the first time in history, organized labor in the United States represented more government workers than private-sector employees.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, private-sector unionization fell to 7.2 percent in 2009, down from 7.6 percent the previous year.

Labor’s declining relevance to workers in the private sector has many roots: Generally improved wages and job conditions, the imperative of workplace flexibility, global competition, and union corruption all play a part.

There’s another important but less recognized factor: Organized labor’s leadership has abandoned the very reason unions first came into existence, which is to represent the economic interests of its workers. In their drive to amass political power, union leaders have aligned themselves with left-wing and “progressive” groups who often agitate against the interests of union workers and show contempt for their deeply held beliefs.

Take the “One Nation” march scheduled for Saturday in Washington. The unions are major sponsors and organizers, busing in union members and doing PR for the effort. The SEIU touts its leadership, the AFL-CIO is making a huge online push for the march, and AFSCME is promoting the effort.

Then take a look at other groups on the list of endorsing organizations, the “partners.”

(continue reading…)

A few environmental groups today made a bid to use government regulation to achieve essentially political ends of reshaping the economy.  It’s a horrible power play to turn the already imperial EPA into the mightiest jobs-killing agency in the history of the United States, but to be expected. If you can’t achieve your goals through the policymaking branch of government, turn to the regulators.

Still, you would think the Climategate scandal sending shock waves through the scientist/activist/political/space-time/continuum would have given these groups pause. They’re building their case on shaky grounds.

From “EPA Petitioned to Cap Carbon Dioxide Pollution at 350 Parts Per Million Under the Clean Air Act“:

WASHINGTON— The Center for Biological Diversity and 350.org today petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to set national limits for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act. The petition seeks to have greenhouse gases designated as “criteria” air pollutants and atmospheric CO2 capped at 350 parts per million (ppm), the level leading scientists say is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.

From page 9 of the petition:

Authoritative synthesis reports and data sources which should form the foundation of the Section 108 endangerment finding include but are not limited to the following:
The Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 18886 (April 24, 2009) (hereinafter proposed Endangerment Finding);
The Technical Support Document for the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (April 17, 2009), Docket No. OAR-2009-0171;
The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC AR4”);²⁶ [Our emphasis]

But didn’t we just learn that the IPCC’s data rest heavily on the manipulated and politicized data from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia? As Declan McCullough wrote at a CBS News blog, covering the scientific scandal now called Climategate.

In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it “relies on most heavily” when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

The petitioners seem aware of the threat to their case posed by Climategate. The footnote (26) to the IPCC citation (in extended entry below) makes painful effort to demonstrate the IPCC’s seriousness in producing the “standard works of reference on climate change.”

Which may be a big problem for the activists. See also:

AP, “Appeals court cancels offshore drilling program“:

WASHINGTON (AP) A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Bush administration did not properly study the environmental impact of expanding oil and gas drilling off the Alaska coast and canceled a program to find new reserves.

A three-judge panel in Washington found that the Bush-era Interior Department failed to consider the effect on the environment and marine life before it began the process in August 2005 to expand an oil and gas leasing program in the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi seas.

April 17, 2009 will go down as a day to remember, when the Executive Branch and Judicial Branch both found ways to turn against the use of the domestic energy that helped make America a prosperous nation, extended U.S. lifespans 30 years in the 20th Century, and fueled the military that defeated tyranny.

Will the Legislative Branch listen to the public and recognize the value of mobility, jobs and economic growth? We better hope so. Otherwise, artificial scarcity and falling standards of living will be imposed on all of us.

The opinion from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, in Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior is here.

Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) has raised an important point about any legislation to open up new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for oil and natural gas development: Enact a law and you still face scores of environmental groups eager to block exploration and development through legal action.

In an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, Shadegg notes that that Earthjustice, a green lobby group that employs more than 150 people, has filed hundreds of lawsuis. Earthjustice boasts: “Because lawsuits can be so effective, we have a team of policy experts in Washington, D.C. that work hand-in-hand with our attorneys to stop legislative backlash . . .”

Shadegg’s office has compiled a summary of the anti-energy lawsuits, and he comments further in today’s op-ed.

In February 2008, the administration issued 487 leases in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, which holds an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and other groups used the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act to challenge and delay progress on all 487 leases. In a separate lawsuit, they challenged the entire national outer continental shelf (OCS) leasing program, seeking to block all future leases.

Even if a lease makes it through these challenges, it isn’t clear sailing. Right now, there are 748 leases in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Exploration activities in every single one were challenged in May of this year by EarthJustice in conjunction with others.

The Alaskan OCS contains 26 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Not one offshore lease has escaped litigation.

Shadegg’s solution? Citing political and legal precedent — construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline, for one — he argues for legislative provisions that would limit abusive lawsuits through waivers of environmental laws. On the House floor yesterday, he said, “We can allow lawsuits. But they don’t have to be dilatory. They don’t have to be such that no oil will ever be produced.” (Floor statement here.)

Puzzled by the sudden prominence of such a significant point, we asked the NAM’s energy policy expert about the litigation issue. Why now? Well, it’s because all these Outer Continental Shelf areas had been locked up legislatively, so the environmenal litigators didn’t have to sue. But if development is actually possible, bring out the briefs!

Earlier this month, Shadegg introduced H.R. 6887, to authorize the President or a designee of the President to waive any legal requirement under any provision of Federal law otherwise applicable to a covered energy project as the President or such designee determines necessary to ensure expeditious conduct of such project. (Statement here.) Any realistic, substantive, actually energy-focused “energy bill” will need language of this sort.

Happened to stop by the 2008 news release page for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the big-money environmental groups. We knew the environmentalists devote tremendous resources to fighting their cause in the courts, but, after looking at the list of releases, well, we’d say, “Holy Moley” except we’d probably be sued for threatening the Holy Black-Fringed Mole.

It almost makes you want to ask what’s the point of legislating if everything goes to the courts, but that’s what these groups want — to force advocates of multiple use and reasonable resource development to abandon their arguments and venues.

Anyway, just a sample of the news releases chronciling court action taken by the Center and its cohorts among the environmentalists. It’s enough to make you spitting earthworm mad.

• September 5, 2008 – Conservationists’ Lawsuit Gains Critical Habitat for Atlantic Salmon
• August 19, 2008 – Alpine ‘Boulder Bunny’ Imperiled by Global Warming: State and Federal Lawsuits Filed to Protect American Pika
• August 14, 2008 – Southern California National Forests in Peril; Lawsuit Seeks Protections for Wildlife and Roadless Areas
• August 13, 2008 – Court Ruling Threatens Protections for 58 Million Acres of Pristine Forest
• August 12, 2008 – Judge Dismisses Inyo County Lawsuit to Open Roads in Remote Death Valley Wilderness: County Waited Too Long to Press Its Claims
• August 11, 2008 – New Threats to the Spotted Owl Prompt Lawsuit on the Elliott State Forest
• August 5, 2008 – Statement of the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, and Natural Resources Defense Council on the State of Alaska’s Lawsuit to Overturn Endangered Species Act Protection for the Polar Bear
• July 30, 2008 – Conservation Coalition and States Will Sue EPA to Reduce Global Warming Pollution From Ships and Planes: Concerted Effort Launched to Force EPA’s Hand in Regulating Major Pollution Sources
• July 30, 2008 – Lawsuit Aims to Force Wal-Mart to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• July 8, 2008 – Lawsuit Filed to Protect Polar Bears and Pacific Walrus From Oil Drilling in Chukchi Sea: Rule Exempting Oil Industry Activities From Marine Mammal Protection Act Challenged
• July 2, 2008 – Lawsuit Filed to Stop Disastrous Army Relocation Project From Killing More Desert Tortoises
• June 30, 2008 – Conservation Groups Plan Legal Action to Prevent the Extinction of the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow
• June 30, 2008 – Lawsuit Filed to Protect Endangered Whales: Alaska’s Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Protections Illegally Delayed
• June 18, 2008 – Conservationists File Suit to Protect Whales From Ship Strikes off the California Coast; Coast Guard Must Do More to Protect Endangered Whales (continue reading…)