SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jlallen who wrote (474186)10/10/2003 12:05:52 PM
From: sylvester80  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
NEWS: Bush covers up climate research
Sunday, September 21 @ 09:14:12 EDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White House officials play down its own scientists' evidence of global warming

By Paul Harris, The Observer

White House officials have undermined their own government scientists' research into climate change to play down the impact of global warming, an investigation by The Observer can reveal.

The disclosure will anger environment campaigners who claim that efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions are being sabotaged because of President George W. Bush's links to the oil industry.

Emails and internal government documents obtained by The Observer show that officials have sought to edit or remove research warning that the problem is serious. They have enlisted the help of conservative lobby groups funded by the oil industry to attack US government scientists if they produce work seen as accepting too readily that pollution is an issue.

Central to the revelations of double dealing is the discovery of an email sent to Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, by Myron Ebell, a director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The CEI is an ultra-conservative lobby group that has received more than $1 million in donations since 1998 from the oil giant Exxon, which sells Esso petrol in Britain.

The email, dated 3 June 2002, reveals how White House officials wanted the CEI's help to play down the impact of a report last summer by the government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in which the US admitted for the first time that humans are contributing to global warming. 'Thanks for calling and asking for our help,' Ebell tells Cooney.

The email discusses possible tactics for playing down the report and getting rid of EPA officials, including its then head, Christine Whitman. 'It seems to me that the folks at the EPA are the obvious fall guys and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible,' Ebell wrote in the email. 'Perhaps tomorrow we will call for Whitman to be fired,' he added.

The CEI is suing another government climate research body that produced evidence for global warming. The revelation of the email's contents has prompted demands for an investigation to see if the White House and CEI are co-ordinating the legal attack.

'This email indicates a secret initiative by the administration to invite and orchestrate a lawsuit against itself seeking to discredit an official US government report on global warming dangers,' said Richard Blumenthal, attorney general of Connecticut, who has written to the White House asking for an inquiry.

The allegation was denied by White House officials and the CEI. 'It is absurd. We do not have a sweetheart relationship with the White House,' said Chris Horner, a lawyer and senior fellow of CEI.

However, environmentalists say the email fits a pattern of collusion between the Bush administration and conservative groups funded by the oil industry, who lobby against efforts to control carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of global warming.

When Bush first came to power he withdrew the US - the world's biggest source of greenhouse gases - from the Kyoto treaty, which requires nations to limit their emissions.

Both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are former oil executives; National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was a director of the oil firm Chevron, and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans once headed an oil and gas exploration company.

'It all fits together,' said Kert Davies of Greenpeace. 'It shows that there is an effort to undermine good science. It all just smells like the oil industry. They are doing everything to allow the US to remain the world's biggest polluter.'

Other confidential documents obtained by The Observer detail White House efforts to suppress research that shows the world's climate is warming. A four-page internal EPA memo reveals that Bush's staff insisted on major amendments to the climate change section of an environmental survey of the US, published last June. One alteration indicated 'that no further changes may be made'.

The memo discusses ways of dealing with the White House editing, and warns that the section 'no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change'.

Some of the changes include deleting a summary that stated: 'Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.' Sections on the ecological effects of global warming and its impact on human health were removed. So were several sentences calling for further research on climate change.

A temperature record covering 1,000 years was also deleted, prompting the EPA memo to note: 'Emphasis is given to a recent, limited analysis [which] supports the administration's favoured message.'

White House officials added numerous qualifying words such as 'potentially' and 'may', leading the EPA to complain: 'Uncertainty is inserted where there is essentially none.'

The paper then analyses what the EPA should do about the amendments and whether they should be published at all. The options range from accepting the alterations to trying to discuss them with the White House.

When the report was finally published, however, the EPA had removed the entire global warming section to avoid including information that was not scientifically credible.

Former EPA climate policy adviser Jeremy Symons said morale at the agency had been devastated by the administration's tactics. He painted a picture of scientists afraid to conduct research for fear of angering their White House paymasters. 'They do good research,' he said. 'But they feel that they have a boss who does not want them to do it. And if they do it right, then they will get hit or their work will be buried.'

Symons left the EPA in April 2001 and now works for the National Wildlife Federation as head of its climate change programme. The Bush administration's attitude was clear from the beginning, he said, and a lot of people were working to ensure that the President did nothing to address global warming.

Additional reporting by Jason Rodrigues

Reprinted from The Observer:
observer.guardian.co.uk



To: jlallen who wrote (474186)10/10/2003 12:07:40 PM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 769667
 
BUSH THE MISLEADER
misleader.org

ON TAX CUTS:
George Bush: "The tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes...Americans will keep, this year, an average of almost $1,000 more of their own money."
The Truth: Nearly half of all taxpayers get less than $100. And 31% of all taxpayers get nothing at all.

ON JOBS:
George Bush: "Our first goal is...an economy that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job."
The Truth: Bush is the first President since Hoover to preside over an economy that has lost jobs, not created them - more than 2.9 million since 2001.

ON THE ENVIRONMENT:
George Bush: "[My] Clear Skies legislation...mandates a 70% cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years."
The Truth: The Bush plan will allow more than 100,000 additional premature deaths by 2020 than alternative legislation developed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The plan does not regulate carbon emissions and allows far more sulfur and mercury emissions.

ON EDUCATION:
George Bush: "[W]e achieved historic education reform - which must now be carried out in every school and in every classroom."
The Truth: Bush cut $8 billion from the promised funds for education.



To: jlallen who wrote (474186)10/10/2003 12:08:22 PM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 769667
 
Bush Administration to Gut Clean Air Act: Rule Would Allow More Pollution at 17,000 Facilities
commondreams.org

WASHINGTON - August 22 - Next week the Environmental Protection Agency plans to release its final rule on the Clean Air Act's definition of "routine maintenance" that would allow more air pollution from approximately 17,000 industrial facilities across the country, according to NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council).

NRDC obtained a leaked copy of the final rule, which essentially repeals the "new source review" provision of the Clean Air Act. That provision requires industrial facilities to install modern pollution controls when they make upgrades to plants that increase air pollution. The new final rule would allow facilities to avoid installing pollution controls when they replace equipment -- even if the upgrade increases pollution -- as long as the cost of the replacement did not exceed 20 percent of the cost of what the EPA broadly defines as a "process unit." For example, if a coal-fired power plant replaced a boiler whose cost was less than 20 percent of the replacement cost of the entire process unit -- the boiler, turbine, generator and other equipment that turns coal into electricity -- the company would not have to control the resulting pollution increases.

Under this scheme, all of the Clean Air Act violations the Justice Department is prosecuting at nine Tennessee Valley Authority power plants and those at a recently convicted Ohio Edison plant would have been allowed, according to NRDC. The upgrades at those plants increased air pollution by hundreds of thousands of tons, but because they cost less than 20 percent of the replacement value of the process units, TVA and Ohio Edison would not have had to install modern pollution controls under the new rule.

"The Bush administration, using an arbitrary, Enron-like accounting gimmick, is authorizing massive pollution increases to benefit Bush campaign contributors at the expense of public health," said John Walke, director of NRDC's Clean Air Project. "Corporate polluters will now be able to spew even more harmful chemicals into our air, regardless of the fact that it will harm millions of Americans."

New Source Review and Enforcement

The Clean Air Act's new source review provision was instituted in 1977 to reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and other large industrial facilities. The provision requires companies to install modern pollution control technologies in new plants, and in old plants when they make significant emissions-increasing modifications. While facilities operating at the time the rule was implemented were exempt from the new requirements under a "grandfather" clause, policymakers assumed that either they would be eventually replaced by new, cleaner facilities or upgraded with modern-day pollution controls. But the rule was inadequately enforced, so many older facilities are still operating without proper emissions reduction technology.

At the same time that the Bush administration has been preparing this new rule, the Department of Justice, state attorneys general, NRDC and other organizations have successfully prosecuted or settled new source review lawsuits that the Clinton administration brought against the 12 owners of the country's oldest, largest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants. According to a study performed by Abt Associates, a technical consulting firm that frequently works for EPA, the failure to install modern pollution controls at the 51 plants at issue in the enforcement cases is responsible for 5,000 to 9,000 premature deaths and 80,000 to 120,000 asthma attacks every year.

The Justice Department has obtained settlements from five of the companies, and, on August 7, won a landmark case against another -- Ohio Edison. The five settlements will force the companies to reduce their annual emissions of smog- and soot-forming pollution by more than 500,000 tons each year. Meanwhile, the victory over Ohio Edison is expected to force that company to reduce its annual emissions by tens of thousands of tons.

Altogether, EPA officials have estimated that if it won all of the enforcement cases involving the 51 plants, it would cut nearly 7 million tons of harmful air pollution annually. That would amount to a 50 percent reduction of air pollution generated by U.S. electric utilities.

The Timing of the Announcement: Protecting Gov. Leavitt?

NRDC also pointed out that the timing of the final rule announcement is likely motivated by the fact that Congress is on recess and much of the nation is on vacation and, perhaps most important, by the Bush administration's desire to insulate its nominee for EPA administrator from criticism. The nominee, Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt, is an exponent of what he has coined "enlibra" principles, which include empowering states to protect the environment without federal interference and developing environmental policy collaboratively with all stakeholders.

At March 31 EPA public hearings, state and local officials blasted the proposed rule for violating the very principles Gov. Leavitt espouses. EPA developed the rule without state or public input, they pointed out, and noted that it would interfere with states' abilities to protect their residents from harmful air pollution. Gov. Leavitt's own air quality director, Rick Sprott, testified in opposition to what is now the final rule, calling it a "train wreck."

Campaign Contributors

The same companies that are currently being prosecuted for new source review violations are major contributors to the Republican Party and had easy access to Vice President Cheney's secret energy task force. For example, the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group comprising the power plant defendants in the Justice Department new source review cases, had at least 14 contacts with the Cheney task force and contributed nearly $600,000 to the Republican Party from 1999 to 2002. (For more information, see this May 2002 NRDC press release.)

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, non-profit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 550,000 members nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco.



To: jlallen who wrote (474186)10/10/2003 12:09:33 PM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 769667
 
EPA Issues Rosier 'Clear Skies' Analysis, Based on New Model
Agency Denies Hiding Data on Rival Bill

BLOWING SMOKE

EPA Issues Rosier 'Clear Skies' Analysis, Based on New Model
Jeffrey R. Holmstead, assistant EPA administrator for air and radiation . . . acknowledged that the new model would show the same proportionate increase in benefits for the competing Senate plans as it did for Clear Skies, but "we think this proposal [Clear Skies] is far superior from a public policy perspective."

That's because Clear Skies goes beyond the simple formulation that cleaner air results from tighter controls on emissions, Holmstead said.

When, of course, all good conservatives know that cleaner air results from increasing emissions.

Posted by billmon at 10:35 AM
billmon.org
washingtonpost.com

By Guy Gugliotta and Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 2, 2003; Page A06

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a new, optimistic assessment of the benefits of President Bush's anti-air-pollution bill yesterday and disputed claims that it had intentionally hidden data showing that a competing Senate plan would provide greater long-term public health benefits at only a slightly higher cost.

Administration officials predicted that Bush's "Clear Skies" proposal, now languishing in a Senate subcommittee, will win passage this year despite Congress's preoccupation with taxes, Medicare and other pressing issues.

"Given the number of legislative days left, it's a challenge," said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, assistant EPA administrator for air and radiation. "But the White House is working hard, and we remain confident."

The Clear Skies Act calls for reducing three pollutants emitted by power plants over the next several years. Some environmental groups have criticized it, saying the existing Clean Air Act, if vigorously enforced, would do a better job of controlling harmful emissions. Senators have offered two competing bills. One, by Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), would provide health benefits superior to those envisioned under Clear Skies and would achieve reductions more rapidly, according to an EPA internal analysis.

The new assessment, released yesterday at an EPA news conference, used "modeling" assumptions different than those employed in the initial analysis last year, Holmstead said. The assumptions take into account new state regulations, 2000 census data, more recent air-quality data and new economic information from the power industry, he said.

Holmstead acknowledged that the new model would show the same proportionate increase in benefits for the competing Senate plans as it did for Clear Skies, but "we think this proposal [Clear Skies] is far superior from a public policy perspective." That's because Clear Skies goes beyond the simple formulation that cleaner air results from tighter controls on emissions, Holmstead said. Clear Skies takes into account the economic and security effects of emissions reductions, he said. "We look at energy security and energy diversity," Holmstead said. If emission controls are too tight, power companies may have to switch from coal to natural gas, which burns more cleanly but also drives up the costs of heating homes and other consumer needs. With Clear Skies, by contrast, "you can achieve all these benefits without increasing reliance on natural gas," Holmstead said.

He denied a Washington Post report Tuesday that the EPA had withheld information from its earlier analysis showing that the Carper bill would achieve greater reductions than would Clear Skies at only a marginal increase in retail prices. Holmstead did not address the Post report on the EPA's failure to provide Carper with data showing that his bill yielded substantially greater health benefits than Clear Skies.

The new analysis showed that Clear Skies by 2020 would provide $110 billion annually in health benefits through power plant reductions in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury emissions. The program would cost $6.3 billion per year by 2020. These findings projected a greater benefit than did the 2002 EPA analysis. Clear Skies has no carbon dioxide emissions control plan, a major feature of the two Senate alternatives.

The administration and its industry allies are lobbying aggressively for Clear Skies, with Bush and congressional leaders meeting periodically to drum up support in Congress.

The Edison Electric Institute, which represents producers of 70 percent of the nation's electrical power, is organizing grass-roots lobbying in key states and plans to bring utility company executives from across the country to meet with lawmakers once committee action begins. In a June 10 e-mail, EEI President Thomas Kuhn outlined plans for an industry outreach to utility employees, retirees and shareholders to build support for Clear Skies.

Clear Skies has drawn support from about a dozen labor and government groups, including the boilermakers' and electrical workers' unions, the National Conference of Black Mayors and the Adirondack Council, a leader in the fight against acid rain.

But the utilities and manufacturers are far from united, which helps explain why Clear Skies has found few Senate or House co-sponsors. Some northeastern utility companies that use clean-burning natural gas or nuclear power -- and do not produce large amounts of carbon dioxide -- favor Carper's approach.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company



To: jlallen who wrote (474186)10/10/2003 12:10:27 PM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 769667
 
'Bush fries climate change'
Friday, June 20 @ 10:06:27 EDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Boston Globe

UNDAUNTED BY accusations of cooking the books for war, President Bush deep-fried the data on global warming.

The New York Times reported yesterday that the White House took a draft report on the state of the environment by the Environmental Protection Agency and deleted critical portions on climate change. The White House knocked out references to studies that directly mentioned industrial pollution and vehicle exhaust as contributors to global warming.

The administration took out a phrase that said, "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment." It replaced it with gobbledygook. The White House wrote, "The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future. Because of these complexities and the potentially profound consequences of climate change and variability, climate change has become a capstone scientific and societal issue for this generation and the next, and perhaps even beyond."

Bush is trying to fry climate change until the issue is seemingly so tough to comprehend that Americans dismiss it. Two and a half years into his presidency, this recipe has worked magnificently. In the first few months of his presidency, Bush let EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman tell the world that the United States took seriously the carbon dioxide emissions that are such a major source of global warming. But when Bush himself spoke, it was either to back out of the Kyoto global agreement on climate change or reverse a pledge to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Bush said he needed to wait until he had "sound science" on the subject.

Over the months, evidence continued to mount in scientific journals that global warming could have dramatic and potentially catastrophic results for coastlines and cause a spread of disease. The evidence was so overwhelming that the 2001 report by the National Research Council that Bush himself commissioned said, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities." The report later said, "Global warming could well have serious adverse societal and ecological impacts by the end of this century." The report warned that temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise even under conservative scenarios. It also supported a full assessment of global warming lest anything less "may well underestimate the magnitude of the eventual impacts."

Since then Bush, with his campaign coffers lined with fossil fuel energy interests and his administration bursting with oil connections, has done his best to suppress the magnitude of the possible impacts. Late in 2001 the council added a report that said global warming may increase the chance of abrupt climate change, changes that could place poor countries at particular risk.

Then, a year ago, Whitman sent a report to the United Nations that reconfirmed that "human activity" is a real cause of the greenhouse effect. While the first victims of global warming are assumed to be poor people in low-lying countries, this report predicted a crazy quilt of long-term disruptions and destruction of ecosystems throughout the United States, from the drying up of ponds in the Midwest to the disappearance of forests in the South to the death of fish in the Pacific Northwest.

Bush crumpled all those reports and threw them into his political incinerator. He embarrassed Whitman even more definitively, saying: "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy." This was obviously too much for Whitman to take. She recently announced her resignation and is leaving her post next week. So giddy over having gotten rid of the one person who showed at least minimal concern for the environment, the White House now appears to be depending much more upon so-called facts from organizations who have obvious reasons to dismiss global warming, such as the American Petroleum Institute.

With the neutering of the EPA report, it should make one wonder. This deletion of data on climate change should raise even more questions as to whether Bush cooked the books for war. Bush is in the control of oil interests in Washington. With the presence of our troops, President Bush for practical purposes now controls the oil of Iraq.

America's lust for oil hangs so ominously around the invasion of Iraq and in the denial of the impact of global warming that facts from intelligence agencies and scientific journals have become meaningless. One day, the dismissal of the facts will come back in a disastrous way. Bush and the United States may have the oil now. Meanwhile, the planet is cooking and frying.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.

Reprinted from The Boston Globe:
boston.com



To: jlallen who wrote (474186)10/10/2003 12:11:23 PM
From: sylvester80  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Report by the E.P.A. Leaves Out Data on Climate Change

More ‘selective filtering’ to suit Bush’s policies without regard for human life sort of like the ‘selective filtering’ used in Iraq and for that matter almost everything else this administration touches.

Someone tell this born again flake Jesus was into truth.

By ANDREW C. REVKIN with KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

June 19, 2003

The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to publish a draft report next week on the state of the environment, but after editing by the White House, a long section describing risks from rising global temperatures has been whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs.

The report, commissioned in 2001 by the agency's administrator, Christie Whitman, was intended to provide the first comprehensive review of what is known about various environmental problems, where gaps in understanding exist and how to fill them.

Agency officials said it was tentatively scheduled to be released early next week, before Mrs. Whitman steps down on June 27, ending a troubled time in office that often put her at odds with President Bush.

Drafts of the climate section, with changes sought by the White House, were given to The New York Times yesterday by a former E.P.A. official, along with earlier drafts and an internal memorandum in which some officials protested the changes. Two agency officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the documents were authentic.

The editing eliminated references to many studies concluding that warming is at least partly caused by rising concentrations of smokestack and tail-pipe emissions and could threaten health and ecosystems.


Among the deletions were conclusions about the likely human contribution to warming from a 2001 report on climate by the National Research Council that the White House had commissioned and that President Bush had endorsed in speeches that year. White House officials also deleted a reference to a 1999 study showing that global temperatures had risen sharply in the previous decade compared with the last 1,000 years. In its place, administration officials added a reference to a new study, partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, questioning that conclusion.

In the end, E.P.A. staff members, after discussions with administration officials, said they decided to delete the entire discussion to avoid criticism that they were selectively filtering science to suit policy.

Administration officials defended the report and said there was nothing untoward about the process that produced it. Mrs. Whitman said that she was "perfectly comfortable" with the edited version and that the differences over climate change should not hold up the broader assessment of the nation's air, land and water.

"The first draft, as with many first drafts, contained everything," she said in a brief telephone interview from the CBS studios in Manhattan, where she was waiting to tape "The Late Show With David Letterman."

"As it went through the review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change," Ms. Whitman said. "So rather than go out with something half-baked or not put out the whole report, we felt it was important for us to get this out because there is a lot of really good information that people can use to measure our successes."

James L. Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, a White House advisory group, said, "It would be utterly inaccurate to suggest that this administration has not provided quite an extensive discussion about the state of the climate. Ultimately, E.P.A. made the decision not to include the section on climate change because we had these ample discussions of the subject already."

But private environmental groups sharply criticized the changes when they heard of them.

"Political staff are becoming increasingly bold in forcing agency officials to endorse junk science," said Jeremy Symons, a climate policy expert at the National Wildlife Federation. "This is like the White House directing the secretary of labor to alter unemployment data to paint a rosy economic picture."

Drafts of the report have been circulating for months, but a heavy round of rewriting and cutting by White House officials in late April raised protest among E.P.A. officials working on the report.

An April 29 memorandum circulated among staff members said that after the changes by White House officials, the section on climate "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change."

Another memorandum circulated at the same time said that the easiest course would be to accept the White House revisions but that to do so would taint the agency, because "E.P.A. will take responsibility and severe criticism from the science and environmental communities for poorly representing the science."

The changes were mainly made by the Council on Environmental Quality, although the Office of Management and Budget was also involved, several E.P.A. officials said. It is the second time in a year that the White House has sought to play down global warming in official documents.

Last September, an annual E.P.A. report on air pollution that for six years had contained a section on climate was released without one, and the decision to delete it was made by Bush administration appointees at the agency with White House approval.

Like the September report, the forthcoming report says the issues will be dealt with later by a climate research plan being prepared by the Bush administration.

Other sections of the coming E.P.A. report — on water quality, ecological conditions, ozone depletion in the atmosphere and other issues — all start with a summary statement about the potential impact of changes on human health and the environment, which are the two responsibilities of the agency.

But in the "Global Issues" section of the draft returned by the White House to E.P.A. in April, an introductory sentence reading, "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment" was cut and replaced with a paragraph that starts: "The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future."

Some E.P.A. staff members defended the document, saying that although pared down it would still help policy makers and the agency address the climate issue.

"This is a positive step by the agency," said an author of the report, who did not want to be named, adding that it would help someone determine "if a facility or pollutant is going to hurt my family or make it bad for the birds, bees and fish out there."



To: jlallen who wrote (474186)10/10/2003 12:13:16 PM
From: sylvester80  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
BUSH HAS PROVEN THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE PRESIDENT IN HUMAN HISTORY!!!