http://homelandsecurity.tamu.edu/outreach/ichs-weekly-radio-programs/homeland-security-inside-and-out/audio-matrix/threat-vulnerability-critical-infrastructure-risk-assessment
A remarkable resource, one of some use for online classrooms!
Showing posts with label critical infrastructure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label critical infrastructure. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Friday, February 29, 2008
Minnesota takes charge over its infrastructure
So the Minnesota legislature took matters into its own hands and passed a state-specific gas tax that will help to improve infrastructure. INCREDIBLE. This spells certain doom for Pawlenty's career as politician in MN, and probably clears the way for him to act as McCain's running mate. (assuming the RNC doesn't take his decoder ring away for not being able to keep his legislature from increasing tax burden) Either way, my prediction is he is out of a job as it relates to running the state of Minnesota.
Governor Pawlenty ripped DFL lawmakers on Tuesday for over-riding his veto of the transportation package, which comes with a $6.6 billion price tag and a gasoline tax increase of at least five and a half cents.
The Minnesota Legislature voted Monday to override Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of a $6.6 billion bill, paving the way for higher gas taxes and other fees to bring in more money for roads, bridges and transit.
http://www.kare11.com/news/ts_article.aspx?storyid=500264
Governor Pawlenty ripped DFL lawmakers on Tuesday for over-riding his veto of the transportation package, which comes with a $6.6 billion price tag and a gasoline tax increase of at least five and a half cents.
The Minnesota Legislature voted Monday to override Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of a $6.6 billion bill, paving the way for higher gas taxes and other fees to bring in more money for roads, bridges and transit.
http://www.kare11.com/news/ts_article.aspx?storyid=500264
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Bush's myopia and the call for national infrastructure investment
Argh, POTUS and his crew of myopic yes-men once again demonstrates he simply "doesn't get it" ... creating a new national infrastructure investment project may be the best way to stimulate the economy in the LONG TERM by providing jobs that CANNOT be outsourced to India and improves our aging and decaying infrastructure. This strikes me as win-win ... but you see what the press lap dog says below: "There's no short term gain."
When do we toss these guys out again?
(BTW, we are also not helping to "harden" any of these infrastructure targets either, which is ANOTHER thing that could be done with such an investment)
February 26, 2008
Bush Cool to States’ Call for Public Works Projects
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — President Bush rebuffed appeals from the nation’s governors on Monday to increase spending on roads, bridges and other public works as a way to revive the economy.
Governors said Mr. Bush had told them at a White House meeting that he wanted to see the effects of his economic stimulus package before supporting new measures.
A bipartisan group of governors is pushing for major road and bridge projects as a way to create jobs and foster economic development. But the White House says the money could not be spent fast enough to be of much immediate help.
“There’s no short-term stimulus to the economy for some of these projects,” Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said.
Full article from the NYT found here.
Furthermore, it is not just the Governors that POTUS ignores on this matter, it is the Congress as well .... see below: (very informative blog post, full version here)
A unique solution to the bureaucratic and financial problems that often beset large-scale infrastructure projects has been proposed by Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel. On the morning of the Minnesota bridge collapse, as New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pointed out, the senators announced their sponsorship of legislation to create a National Infrastructure Bank. The Bank would issue bonds to raise funds for infrastructure projects that would be selected based on a strict set of criteria. Applications would be accepted only for projects that cost at least $75 million, have a public sponsor (a state or local government), and are of regional or national significance. The Bank would then rate each application based on its promotion of economic growth, its mobility improvements, its reduction of poverty concentration, its environmental benefits, its potential to promote smart urban growth, and its regional or national significance (the criteria vary slightly for each type of infrastructure project).
The National Infrastructure Bank is a first step in creating a coherent vision of American infrastructure. First, the use of bonds – rather than a pay-as-you-go system that relies on yearly revenues – allows the federal government to develop a stable, long-term strategy for economic growth based on infrastructure improvements. Such a financing stream is less subject to political whims and to revenues, which fluctuate with the economy and with legislative action (and inaction). Second, federal funding for infrastructure – in particular, for the transportation system – is often diverted by state governments to other (sometimes) worthy, yet non-infrastructure, projects. Puentes of Brookings points out that the Government Accountability Office has called the federal transportation fund a “cash transfer, general purpose grant program,” and that “the U.S. code neuters the federal role and states specifically that the appropriation of highway funds ‘shall in no way infringe on the sovereign rights of the States to determine which projects shall be federally financed.’” The National Infrastructure Bank would ensure that federal funds are used by state and local governments for specific infrastructure projects, rather than diverted to make up for, say, underfunded federal mandates.
Perhaps most importantly, the selection criteria required by the National Infrastructure Bank would encourage the federal government to undertake projects that are significant to the country’s long-term well-being: rather than stop-gap measures to repair existing problems, such projects would take into account new challenges like climate change, the growing importance of urban areas, and the need for more affordable housing, while at the same time confronting the more typical concerns associated with economic growth (increased air, highway, and port traffic). A database with details about each infrastructure project and its funding would provide at least some public oversight.
Interestingly, political support for an infrastructure bank is growing. The day after Senators Dodd and Hagel announced their plan – and the day after the Minnesota bridge collapse – Senator Hillary Clinton signed onto the bill as a co-sponsor. A week later, Senator Clinton gave a major speech entitled “Rebuilding America: Improving Our Infrastructure” and endorsed the legislation, lamenting that we in the United States “are treading water and being swept backwards.” Her specific plan – like her economic stimulus package – includes a panoply of measures to repair the “backlog” of deficient transportation structures, to conduct safety reviews, to increase public transit funding (and to link these funds to local land use policies), to invest in intercity passenger rail systems, to modernize seaports, to increase funding for congestion reduction programs, and to improve broadband deployment. Senator Barack Obama’s proposal was – like his economic stimulus package – more straightforward.
In his “Keeping America’s Promise” economic speech on February 13th, Senator Obama proposed a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to invest $60 billion in transportation infrastructure over ten years. He has previously called for increased Amtrak funding, high-speed railways, metropolitan planning to reduce traffic congestion, and improved transportation access for low-income commuters. On February 13th, a day after his speech, he signed onto Dodd and Hagel’s bill as a co-sponsor.
Additionally, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska proposed an amendment to the Senate’s economic stimulus package that would have directed $5 billion to states for infrastructure projects to be used before October of 2008. Senator Nelson suggested that “An investment in infrastructure and public works projects will not only achieve a much-needed boost to our economy, but will also promote long-term economic growth.”
Pronouncements by presidential candidates and a rather optimistic amendment to fast-tracked legislation are positive, if modest, indicators that a national movement to invest in infrastructure is mounting. Even relatively insignificant problems with infrastructure have received ample attention recently. Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that two bridge inspectors in Georgia had been falsifying inspection records because of a fast approaching federal deadline. Officials were alerted when they noted that the two were inspecting bridges at a rate of 18 per day; the average is 12 per week. Admittedly, there are significant issues to work out with a national infrastructure bank. The European Investment Bank, an infrastructure-financing behemoth established in 1953 and a likely model for an American infrastructure bank, is criticized for its lack of transparency and its lack of social and environmental standards.
When do we toss these guys out again?
(BTW, we are also not helping to "harden" any of these infrastructure targets either, which is ANOTHER thing that could be done with such an investment)
February 26, 2008
Bush Cool to States’ Call for Public Works Projects
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — President Bush rebuffed appeals from the nation’s governors on Monday to increase spending on roads, bridges and other public works as a way to revive the economy.
Governors said Mr. Bush had told them at a White House meeting that he wanted to see the effects of his economic stimulus package before supporting new measures.
A bipartisan group of governors is pushing for major road and bridge projects as a way to create jobs and foster economic development. But the White House says the money could not be spent fast enough to be of much immediate help.
“There’s no short-term stimulus to the economy for some of these projects,” Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said.
Full article from the NYT found here.
Furthermore, it is not just the Governors that POTUS ignores on this matter, it is the Congress as well .... see below: (very informative blog post, full version here)
A unique solution to the bureaucratic and financial problems that often beset large-scale infrastructure projects has been proposed by Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel. On the morning of the Minnesota bridge collapse, as New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pointed out, the senators announced their sponsorship of legislation to create a National Infrastructure Bank. The Bank would issue bonds to raise funds for infrastructure projects that would be selected based on a strict set of criteria. Applications would be accepted only for projects that cost at least $75 million, have a public sponsor (a state or local government), and are of regional or national significance. The Bank would then rate each application based on its promotion of economic growth, its mobility improvements, its reduction of poverty concentration, its environmental benefits, its potential to promote smart urban growth, and its regional or national significance (the criteria vary slightly for each type of infrastructure project).
The National Infrastructure Bank is a first step in creating a coherent vision of American infrastructure. First, the use of bonds – rather than a pay-as-you-go system that relies on yearly revenues – allows the federal government to develop a stable, long-term strategy for economic growth based on infrastructure improvements. Such a financing stream is less subject to political whims and to revenues, which fluctuate with the economy and with legislative action (and inaction). Second, federal funding for infrastructure – in particular, for the transportation system – is often diverted by state governments to other (sometimes) worthy, yet non-infrastructure, projects. Puentes of Brookings points out that the Government Accountability Office has called the federal transportation fund a “cash transfer, general purpose grant program,” and that “the U.S. code neuters the federal role and states specifically that the appropriation of highway funds ‘shall in no way infringe on the sovereign rights of the States to determine which projects shall be federally financed.’” The National Infrastructure Bank would ensure that federal funds are used by state and local governments for specific infrastructure projects, rather than diverted to make up for, say, underfunded federal mandates.
Perhaps most importantly, the selection criteria required by the National Infrastructure Bank would encourage the federal government to undertake projects that are significant to the country’s long-term well-being: rather than stop-gap measures to repair existing problems, such projects would take into account new challenges like climate change, the growing importance of urban areas, and the need for more affordable housing, while at the same time confronting the more typical concerns associated with economic growth (increased air, highway, and port traffic). A database with details about each infrastructure project and its funding would provide at least some public oversight.
Interestingly, political support for an infrastructure bank is growing. The day after Senators Dodd and Hagel announced their plan – and the day after the Minnesota bridge collapse – Senator Hillary Clinton signed onto the bill as a co-sponsor. A week later, Senator Clinton gave a major speech entitled “Rebuilding America: Improving Our Infrastructure” and endorsed the legislation, lamenting that we in the United States “are treading water and being swept backwards.” Her specific plan – like her economic stimulus package – includes a panoply of measures to repair the “backlog” of deficient transportation structures, to conduct safety reviews, to increase public transit funding (and to link these funds to local land use policies), to invest in intercity passenger rail systems, to modernize seaports, to increase funding for congestion reduction programs, and to improve broadband deployment. Senator Barack Obama’s proposal was – like his economic stimulus package – more straightforward.
In his “Keeping America’s Promise” economic speech on February 13th, Senator Obama proposed a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to invest $60 billion in transportation infrastructure over ten years. He has previously called for increased Amtrak funding, high-speed railways, metropolitan planning to reduce traffic congestion, and improved transportation access for low-income commuters. On February 13th, a day after his speech, he signed onto Dodd and Hagel’s bill as a co-sponsor.
Additionally, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska proposed an amendment to the Senate’s economic stimulus package that would have directed $5 billion to states for infrastructure projects to be used before October of 2008. Senator Nelson suggested that “An investment in infrastructure and public works projects will not only achieve a much-needed boost to our economy, but will also promote long-term economic growth.”
Pronouncements by presidential candidates and a rather optimistic amendment to fast-tracked legislation are positive, if modest, indicators that a national movement to invest in infrastructure is mounting. Even relatively insignificant problems with infrastructure have received ample attention recently. Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that two bridge inspectors in Georgia had been falsifying inspection records because of a fast approaching federal deadline. Officials were alerted when they noted that the two were inspecting bridges at a rate of 18 per day; the average is 12 per week. Admittedly, there are significant issues to work out with a national infrastructure bank. The European Investment Bank, an infrastructure-financing behemoth established in 1953 and a likely model for an American infrastructure bank, is criticized for its lack of transparency and its lack of social and environmental standards.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Nat'l Academy of Engineers identifies top tech challenges for 21st century
Several of these recently identified techy challenges touch upon infrastructure issues, including the nuclear, healthcare and cyber sectors. Very interesting panel, including Ray Kurzweil and Craig Venter.
A National Academy of Engineering panel of big thinkers, including Google co-founder Larry Page, has identified 14 top technological challenges for this century and securing cyberspace is among them.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/021908-top-technological-challenges.html
More info on the list of challenges, including a short video clip can be found here:
http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/challenges.aspx
A National Academy of Engineering panel of big thinkers, including Google co-founder Larry Page, has identified 14 top technological challenges for this century and securing cyberspace is among them.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/021908-top-technological-challenges.html
More info on the list of challenges, including a short video clip can be found here:
http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/challenges.aspx
Thursday, February 14, 2008
"FBI deputizes business"
InfraGard is not something that gets mentioned enough. I'm still too
ignorant to this to have an educated opinion, but if the gov't embraces
this then they must embrace the Minutemen-like groups along the border
between US and Mexico.
12/02/08 " The Progressive"
Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does—and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to "shoot to kill" in the event of martial law.
In November 2001, InfraGard had around 1,700 members. As of late January, InfraGard had 23,682 members, according to its website, www.infragard.net, which adds that "350 of our nation's Fortune 500 have a representative in InfraGard."To join, each person must be sponsored by "an existing InfraGard member, chapter, or partner organization." The FBI then vets the applicant. On the application form, prospective members are asked which aspect of the critical infrastructure their organization deals with. These include: agriculture, banking and finance, the chemical industry, defense, energy, food, information and telecommunications, law enforcement, public health, and transportation.
FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005. At that time, the group had less than half as many members as it does today. "To date, there are more than 11,000 members of InfraGard," he said. "From our perspective that amounts to 11,000 contacts . . . and 11,000 partners in our mission to protect America." He added a little later, "Those of you in the private sector are the first line of defense."
http://www.grandestrategy.com/2008/02/2349048-fbi-deputizes-business.html
ignorant to this to have an educated opinion, but if the gov't embraces
this then they must embrace the Minutemen-like groups along the border
between US and Mexico.
12/02/08 " The Progressive"
Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does—and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to "shoot to kill" in the event of martial law.
In November 2001, InfraGard had around 1,700 members. As of late January, InfraGard had 23,682 members, according to its website, www.infragard.net, which adds that "350 of our nation's Fortune 500 have a representative in InfraGard."To join, each person must be sponsored by "an existing InfraGard member, chapter, or partner organization." The FBI then vets the applicant. On the application form, prospective members are asked which aspect of the critical infrastructure their organization deals with. These include: agriculture, banking and finance, the chemical industry, defense, energy, food, information and telecommunications, law enforcement, public health, and transportation.
FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005. At that time, the group had less than half as many members as it does today. "To date, there are more than 11,000 members of InfraGard," he said. "From our perspective that amounts to 11,000 contacts . . . and 11,000 partners in our mission to protect America." He added a little later, "Those of you in the private sector are the first line of defense."
http://www.grandestrategy.com/2008/02/2349048-fbi-deputizes-business.html
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
plenty of software available for NIMS/all-hazard emergency plan generation and compliance
I hate to shill for specific companies when I don't intimately know
their products, but there are many great tools available out there
to develop federally-compliant all-hazards emergency plans for a
number of sectors - includign privately owned components of our
national infrastructure.
(for little to no cost often, depending on where you live and how involved
local and state governments get)
Anyway, here's an example of such software from Safe Plans:
http://www.safeplans.net/services/online/
their products, but there are many great tools available out there
to develop federally-compliant all-hazards emergency plans for a
number of sectors - includign privately owned components of our
national infrastructure.
(for little to no cost often, depending on where you live and how involved
local and state governments get)
Anyway, here's an example of such software from Safe Plans:
http://www.safeplans.net/services/online/
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
CIA: Hackers Shook Up Power Grids
This in last week from Wired Blog:
Earlier this week, the nation's chief spy screeched about of the danger of cyber attacks -- and the need to monitor what everyone does online, in response. Now, the CIA has made an usually public warning about the perils that network strikes can pose. Hackers have tried to extort money from overseas utility companies. At least in one case, the Washington Post reports, the online attackers messed with an electrical grid, disrupting ing power in several cities.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/hackers-take-do.html
Very scary indeed. Water systems and nuclear facilities (to name just a few snippets
of US infrastructure) have many computer-absed systems that, if accessed, could be
used for some badness.
Earlier this week, the nation's chief spy screeched about of the danger of cyber attacks -- and the need to monitor what everyone does online, in response. Now, the CIA has made an usually public warning about the perils that network strikes can pose. Hackers have tried to extort money from overseas utility companies. At least in one case, the Washington Post reports, the online attackers messed with an electrical grid, disrupting ing power in several cities.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/hackers-take-do.html
Very scary indeed. Water systems and nuclear facilities (to name just a few snippets
of US infrastructure) have many computer-absed systems that, if accessed, could be
used for some badness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
