Author Archives: Gwenn Record

Congressional Committee Says We Should Draft Women

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last year, the Pentagon announced that women would be allowed to join men in front-line combat positions in the military for the first time. This year, women may also have to join men in registering for the draft.

The House Armed Services Committee narrowly passed an amendment to the 2017 defense spending bill on Wednesday that would require women to register with the Selective Service System, the federal agency that administers military drafts. A draft hasn’t been held since the Vietnam war, but all American men between the ages of 18 and 25 are still required to register. Some members of Congress now want women to share the burden.

“If we want equality in this country, if we want women to be treated precisely like men are treated and that they should not be discriminated against, then we should support a universal conscription,” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), according to The Hill. The Army and Marine Corps’ top generals have already endorsed making women register. Most countries that draft soldiers only do so for men, but a handful, including Norway and Israel, also conscript women.

The amendment, introduced by former Marine officer Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), essentially backfired for him. In fact, Hunter does not support drafting women or allowing them to serve in jobs like the infantry, but has said that Congress should debate the issue of women in combat instead of allowing the Obama administration to simply change the military’s regulations. This amendment was his attempt to push the issue to the limits and thereby dissuade others from supporting putting women on the front lines. “The draft is there to get more people to rip the enemy’s throats out,” Hunter said. “I don’t want to see my daughters put in a place where they have to get drafted.”

Other members want to do away with draft registration altogether, saying a volunteer military is more effective. “The bar would have to be dramatically lowered if we were to return to conscription again,” said Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), according to the Washington Post. Coffman co-sponsored a bill introduced in February that would end Selective Service altogether. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who also sponsored the bill to end selective service, argues the draft also needlessly punishes those who don’t register by cutting them off from federal aid and jobs. “It’s mean-spirited, stupid, unnecessary, and a huge waste of taxpayer money,” DeFazio told Mother Jones.

The Selective Service System currently costs about $23 million dollars per year. Lawrence Romo, the director of the Selective Service System, estimates the agency would require another $8 million per year if women were included in the draft.

Link:  

Congressional Committee Says We Should Draft Women

Posted in Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Congressional Committee Says We Should Draft Women

NBC Should Ask Bernie and Hillary These Questions at Tonight’s Debate

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

It’s the Sunday night of a three-day holiday weekend, which can only mean one thing: the three remaining Democratic presidential candidates are having a debate. With the Iowa caucuses less than a month away and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders leading in some early-state polls, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sanders have increasingly turned their fire on each other, fighting over past votes and current positions on universal health care and gun control. Why stop now? We at the Mother Jones‘ politics desk have put together a by-no-means-comprehensive list of questions we’d put to the candidates if we were on stage:

Bernie Sanders:

* In 2005 you voted to give immunity to gun makers from lawsuits. But the next day you voted against giving immunity to companies in the fast food industry, like McDonald’s. Why exempt guns but not Big Macs?

* Your home state of Vermont adopted a single-payer health care system in 2011. But last year the state scrapped the plan citing rising costs. Now you’re proposing single-payer for the nation. What went wrong in Vermont and how would you have fixed it?

* You’ve promised to reduce America’s prison population by more than 500,000 people by the end of your first term. But more than 90 percent of America’s 2.2 million inmates are in state and local facilities. What can a president do about them?

* You’ve said that the United States should take a backseat in the battle against ISIS, and instead leave the fighting to a coalition of Muslim nations including Iran and Saudi Arabia. In light of the most recent dust-up between the two countries and their deep political and religious differences, how will you get two nations that hate each other to take up arms together?

* Even with a Democratic super-majority in the Senate, President Obama struggled to deliver incremental change in Washington, ultimately accepting stripped-down versions of the Affordable Care Act and the Stimulus. How do you expect to push through an even more ambitious health-care proposal in a Republican-controlled Congress still trying to repeal Obamacare?

Hillary Clinton:

* A supporter of yours, Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, reportedly worked to suppress a video of the killing of Laquan McDonald by Chicago police until after his re-election, and even used public funds to pay the victim’s family to keep quiet. Sen. Sanders has said that “any elected official with knowledge that the tape was being suppressed or improperly withheld should resign.” Should Mayor Emanuel resign?

* In October you said the Australian model of compulsory gun buy-backs “is worth looking at.” Have you looked at it? And would you entertain the idea of a compulsory gun re-purchase in the United States?

* Colorado residents will vote next fall on a ballot initiative on whether or not to institute a single-payer health care system. If you lived in Colorado, would you vote to approve that measure?

* You’ve pledged to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year, and criticized your opponents for proposing to raise taxes on people you’ve termed middle class. What is your actual definition of middle class? Why include a household making $150,000—the top 10 percent for annual income—in the middle class?

* In 2005, you went to war against violence in video games, introducing legislation to restrict sales of games. You said: “We need to treat violent video games the way we treat tobacco, alcohol, and pornography.” Do you still hold that view?

* David Brock, the head of a super-PAC that’s supporting your candidacy, made news yesterday for a report suggesting he’d demand Bernie Sanders release his medical records. Brock’s group, Correct the Record, has said it is coordinating with the campaign thanks to a special exemption in federal election law. Why is a candidate who has pledged to repeal Citizens United using a legal loophole to openly coordinate with a super-PAC?

All candidates:

* The Atlantic‘s Ta-Nehisi Coates argued in 2014 that African-Americans deprived of wealth through decades of federal housing discrimination should be able to apply for reparations from the government—similar to the program offered to Japanese-Americans who lost their homes and businesses during internment. Would you consider such a program if elected? And if not, what will you do to alleviate the lingering damages caused by formal government discrimination in the housing market?

* A recent poll found that 52 percent of Americans believe genetically-modified food to be “unsafe.” Are they right?

* The Obama administration is currently reviewing a proposed rule to expand overtime to most workers who earn less than $50,000 a year. Is that number too high, or too low?

* Over the last half decade pro-life groups have fundamentally re-written abortion laws at the state level, resulting in shuttered women’s health clinics and forcing women to crisscross state lines to get an abortion. Aside from appointing more pro-choice Supreme Court judges, what can a president do to reverse these setbacks at the state level and insure the right to an abortion established by Roe?

* Two years ago, Harry Reid and Senate Democrats used the so-called “nuclear option” to remove the filibuster for judicial nominees. Should the filibuster still exist for legislation and Supreme Court nominees, or should it be wiped out entirely?

See original:

NBC Should Ask Bernie and Hillary These Questions at Tonight’s Debate

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on NBC Should Ask Bernie and Hillary These Questions at Tonight’s Debate

WATCH: Anti-Gay Evangelical Calls Protesters "Homo-Fascists"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Friday, hard-line anti-gay activists gathered at the National Press Club in Washington to announce the formation of a new organization to fight what they call the “global LGBT agenda.” Known as the Coalition for Family Values, the group is the brainchild of two extreme anti-gay advocates: Scott Lively, a Massachusetts-based pastor who is running for governor of the Bay State, and Peter LaBarbera, the founder of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. The coalition’s aim is to spread Russian-style anti-gay legislation throughout the world. Lively kicked off the event by praising Russia’s “much needed leadership in restoring family values,” and urged other countries to follow its “excellent example” by passing laws against gay-rights “propaganda” and banning adoption by gay parents. But the event did not go as planned.

About 20 minutes into the program, a young gay Russian man named Slava Revin stood up and yelled, “Vladimir Putin is a dictator!” After that, the conference dissolved into chaos, with Revin and the speakers shouting over each other. “Stop killing us,” cried a Lively supporter. “Stop killing speech. Stop killing freedom.” Eventually, Lively launched into a diatribe about “homo-fascists,” and Press Club staffers ushered Revin and another activist named Ellen Sturtz out of the room. Below is video of the exchange:

This kind of rhetoric is not unusual for Lively. The anti-gay crusader co-authored a book called The Pink Swastika, which argues that homosexuals were the driving force behind the Holocaust. In the United States, Lively’s ideas haven’t gotten much traction. But he has forged deep ties to religious and political leaders in Uganda and former Russian republics, where he has helped pave the way for anti-gay bills. Uganda’s main gay-rights organization is suing him for crimes against humanity for allegedly fostering anti-gay sentiment and legislation in that country. (Last week, President Yoweri Museveniâ&#128;&#139; of Uganda declared that he would sign a bill that makes homosexuality a crime punishable by life in prison.)

Through the Coalition for Family Values, Lively and LaBarbera intend to promote other types of legislation, including a bill to protect discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Lively casts it as a matter of religious freedom.) So far, they say, 75 pro-family organizations around the globe have signed on. Those listed in press materials are mostly obscure groups, but a few prominent social conservative outfits have joined, including Liberty Counsel Action and the American Family Association. “Other nations, including the United States, could learn form Russia and stop the homosexualization of our nation,” Diane Gramley, a representative of the AFA’s Pennsylvania affiliate told the crowd at Friday’s event. “It’s time for the United States to stop using our children as lab rats to see how they react to homosexual propaganda.”

Lively noted at the press conference that he considers most family-values crusaders too timid and said that he believes strong laws, such as the recently-passed Russian measure that criminalizes public support of same-sex relationships, are the only way to keep gay activists from “tearing down the fabric of society.”

After the event, the crowd spilled out onto the sidewalk. Revin, the gay Russian activist, was standing in the rain, holding a rainbow banner, and reciting the speech he had intended to give inside. “Putin is corrupted thief who invents scapegoats and deflects attention from his crimes” he declared. “His latest invention is the anti-gay law, so gays in modern Russia feel like Jews back in the USSR.” Then Sturtz handed Lively a miniature rainbow flag.

Lively tucked the flag into his pocket.

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1020824-defend-the-family-statement.js”,
width: 630,
height: 500,
sidebar: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-1020824-defend-the-family-statement”
);

Defend The Family statement (PDF)

Defend The Family statement (Text)

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1020830-american-family-association-of-pennsylvania.js”,
width: 630,
height: 500,
sidebar: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-1020830-american-family-association-of-pennsylvania”
);

American Family Association of Pennsylvania statement (PDF)

American Family Association of Pennsylvania statement (Text)

Read original article – 

WATCH: Anti-Gay Evangelical Calls Protesters "Homo-Fascists"

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on WATCH: Anti-Gay Evangelical Calls Protesters "Homo-Fascists"

There Will Be No Congressional Fix For Canceled Health Care Policies

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This is just a quick note to anyone who’s worried and/or hopeful that Congress will pass some kind of legislative fix for people whose health insurance has been canceled due to Obamacare. It won’t happen. Republicans are interested only in Obamacare’s failure and will refuse to support any Democratic bill that genuinely addresses the problem. Conversely, Democrats are interested only in improving Obamacare and relieving the political pressure they’re feeling. They will refuse to support any Republican bill that contains an obvious poison pill. Unless I’m missing something, the intersection of these two positions is the null set. Thus, there is no bill that can pass Congress.

This is not a joke. No one should waste any time reporting or commenting on the various bills that are likely to pop up over the next few weeks. It’s all just posturing. Obama’s regulatory fix is the only one we’re going to get.

This article is from: 

There Will Be No Congressional Fix For Canceled Health Care Policies

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on There Will Be No Congressional Fix For Canceled Health Care Policies

It continues: Two Pennsylvania coal plants will close for good next week

It continues: Two Pennsylvania coal plants will close for good next week

FirstEnergy

The Hatfield’s Ferry power plant in Greene County. Goodbye and good riddance.

The coal sector is in its death throes, thanks to cheaper alternatives and a growing distaste for what is the worst of the global-warming fuels. The latest casualties: two coal-burning power plants in Pennsylvania that will pump their last energy into the grid, and cough their last pollution in to the air, this weekend.

Officials with FirstEnergy Generation told state lawmakers on Thursday that their 370-megawatt plant in Washington County and its monster, 1,710 megawatt facility in Greene County will shutter next week, with little to no hope of them being sold or reopened.

“Those plants are losing money today and will lose money in the future. Our plans are not to run those units again,” said James Lash, FirstEnergy’s president, according to a report in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Lash painted a grim future for coal-fired power plants, saying electricity is priced too low in a market where demand for power has dropped and the capital investment needed to meet environmental regulations is too high. Electricity prices have dropped 10 percent from summer to fall, while the cost of natural gas – which also is used as a fuel for power generation – remains at historic low levels because of the abundance of gas from supplies such as the Marcellus shale reserves, Lash said.

It would take another $270 million investment to make the two plants compliant with environmental regulations, including the pending Mercury and Air Toxic Standards rule, which would result in the plants being greater money losers if the company were to make those investments, Lash said.

The previous owner of the plants, Allegheny Energy of Greensburg, spent $715 million in 2009 to install scrubbers at Hatfield’s Ferry.

While the plants’ closure is good news for the climate, it will mean a lot of pain for workers. An estimated 380 union jobs will be lost. Here’s hoping those workers can find better, more healthful jobs in the fast-growing renewable energy sector, which is being supported in Pennsylvania with nine-year-old renewable energy standards that include what the NRDC describes as one of the most ambitious solar provisions in the eastern United States.


Source
FirstEnergy affirms plan to shutter 2 plants, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

This article is from: 

It continues: Two Pennsylvania coal plants will close for good next week

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It continues: Two Pennsylvania coal plants will close for good next week

Coal companies have gotten good at wrangling their way out of federal fines

Coal companies have gotten good at wrangling their way out of federal fines

Reuters / Danny MoloshokCoal boss Robert Murray, probably contemplating how to minimize his company’s latest safety fine.

Back in high school, I had a great strategy for dealing with parking tickets I couldn’t afford to pay: I went down to city hall and challenged them — sometimes with a legitimate excuse, sometimes not (“The two-hour sign was obscured by a flowering cherry tree!”). I had figured out that bureaucrats cared less about the reliability of my sob story than they did about getting on with their day, so often they’d just roll their eyes, reduce the fine, and shoo me out the door.

Turns out the same tactic works for coal companies facing fines for safety infractions. A Cleveland Plain Dealer investigation found that when federal regulators fine mine operators for violating safety standards, those companies “are fighting significant fines as a matter of course and getting them reduced, if not dropped,” which means “clogging up the appeals process and wearing down a system that lacks resources to match the challenge.” You know, just like a privileged teenager exploiting an overburdened traffic court — except with hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention miners’ lives, at stake.

The Plain Dealer reports:

Reviewing [Mine Safety and Health Administration] data dating to 2007, the Plain Dealer examined the agency’s practice of levying large fines and the Ohio mines’ practice of challenging the fines. The newspaper found repeated success for mine owners. Just counting four years in which nearly every case is now resolved — 2007 through 2010 — the government wanted $1.59 million from Murray Energy for citations at its two Ohio underground mines. Murray wound up paying $1.05 million, saving more than $531,000, according to an analysis of the federal data. It did so by seeking negotiations and, if that failed, filing appeals. …

Murray is contesting nearly $1.1 million more for citations issued in 2011, 2012, and early 2013, records show.

That’s the same Murray Energy, by the way, that forced employees to take an unpaid day off to attend a Romney rally last year and pressured them to donate to pro-coal politicians; the same Murray Energy whose Crandall Canyon mine in Utah collapsed in 2007, killing nine people — six miners and three rescue workers. The Murray subsidiaries operating that mine negotiated a proposed $1.6 million fine for the accident down to $1.15 million.

The Plain Dealer writes that this pattern of challenging fines, often getting them reduced by 50 percent or more, “raises questions about how sensible and effective the mine-safety system is.” The MSHA responds that “inspections and citations, regardless of how the fines are resolved, create safer mines.” But the fact that Murray has racked up millions in fines since the Crandall Canyon collapse indicates that the company didn’t exactly get its shit together after that fatal accident.

Despite criticism from Congress for clogging the appeals system, Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray “staunchly defends his practices and views, including what he says are increasingly harsh and unnecessary environmental regulation.” The Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 — the first major reform to mine safety regulations in 28 years — did substantially toughen penalties for safety violations. But it appears that instead of prompting mining companies to take stricter precautions, the prospect of harsher penalties only encouraged them to automatically challenge all but the most minor citations.

For mine owners, as the Plain Dealer puts it, “violations, like points on a driver’s record, are costly and have severe consequences,” providing incentive to challenge them. Just as your license can be taken away after enough traffic infractions, a mine can be shut down after enough serious safety violations.

The MSHA maintains that its safety system is working, reporting that 2012 saw the lowest ever rate of reported on-the-job injuries for coal miners, and the second-lowest number of deaths: 19.

Still sounds like 19 too many to me.

Claire Thompson is an editorial assistant at Grist.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Taken from: 

Coal companies have gotten good at wrangling their way out of federal fines

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, Safer, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Coal companies have gotten good at wrangling their way out of federal fines

Anthony Foxx, Charlotte’s transit-friendly mayor, tapped to be transportation secretary

Anthony Foxx, Charlotte’s transit-friendly mayor, tapped to be transportation secretary

City of Charlotte

Anthony Foxx in front of one form of transportation: an electric vehicle.

Today President Barack Obama will nominate the mayor of Charlotte, N.C., to the post of transportation secretary.

If confirmed by the Senate, Anthony Foxx will succeed Ray LaHood, who is stepping down from the position. Early media reports paint the Charlotte mayor and former city council member as a bright up-and-coming leader who has prioritized public transportation projects in the city that he has led for almost four years.

From The Washington Post:

[A] White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement had not been made, said, “As mayor of one of America’s most vibrant cities, Anthony Foxx knows firsthand that investing in world-class infrastructure is vital to creating good jobs and ensuring American businesses can grow and compete in the global economy.”

Foxx, whose city hosted the Democratic National Convention last year, has pushed to expand public transit options for Charlotte while serving as mayor. The city has started building the Charlotte Streetcar Project, one of several electric trolley systems underway in the country, and is expanding the LYNX light-rail system so it can reach the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

Christopher Leinberger, a professor at the George Washington University School of Business, said Foxx and his team worked closely with Charlotte business leaders to develop economic hubs around the city’s light-rail system.

From The New York Times:

Mr. Foxx, who was raised by a single mother and his grandparents, became the first black student body president at Davidson College and earned a law degree from New York University. He worked as a lawyer for a private firm as well as for the House Judiciary Committee and the Justice Department before returning to Charlotte to begin his career as an elected politician.

He has said that during his four years as mayor, he has turned around an economically afflicted city, adding 13,000 jobs, making Charlotte more hospitable to business and hosting the Democratic National Convention last year.

While Mr. Foxx does not have a transportation background, he did work as mayor to extend a light-rail line, open another runway at the airport, complete a major highway widening, improve a major bridge and bring streetcars back to Charlotte.

Not only a fan of public transit, Foxx also appears to be enamored with electric vehicles. Last year, he unveiled EV charging stations around the city.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Cities

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continue at source:

Anthony Foxx, Charlotte’s transit-friendly mayor, tapped to be transportation secretary

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Anthony Foxx, Charlotte’s transit-friendly mayor, tapped to be transportation secretary

Why Do Conservatives Like to Waste Energy?

green4us

Want to sell a Republican a greener light bulb? Don’t tell them it’s green. Shutterstock Back in 2011, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) declared war on energy-efficient light bulbs, calling “sustainability” the gateway into a dystopic, Big Brother-patrolled liberal hellscape. When the lights went off during Beyoncé’s halftime set at the last Superbowl, conservative commentators from the Drudge Report to Michelle Malkin pointed blame (erroneously) at new power-saving measures at New Orleans’ Superdome. And one recent study found that giving Republican households feedback on their power use actually encourages them to use more energy. Why do conservatives, who should have a natural inclination toward conservation, have a beef with energy efficiency? It could be tied to the political polarization of the climate change debate. A study out today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them. The researchers first quizzed participants on how much they value various benefits of energy efficiency, including reducing carbon emissions, reducing foreign oil dependence, and reducing how much consumers pay for energy; cutting emissions appealed to conservatives the least. The study then presented participants with a real-world choice: With a fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to “buy” either an old-school light bulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb (CFL), the same kind Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that into climate pros and cons. When the bulbs cost the same, and even when the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says “Protect the Environment,” and “we saw a significant drop-off in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option,” said study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. The chart below, from the report, shows how much liberals and conservatives value each argument for efficiency: While liberals (gray) valued all three equally, conservatives (white), were significantly less moved by and most at odds with liberals over the carbon-saving argument. Courtesy Gromet Gromet said she never expected the green message to motivate conservatives, but was surprised to find that it could in fact repel them from making a purchase even while they found other aspects, like saving cash on their power bills, attractive. The reason, she thinks, is that given the political polarization of the climate change debate, environmental activism is so frowned upon by those the right that they’ll do anything to keep themselves distanced from it. “When we’re given an option where the choice is made to represent a value that we don’t identify with or that our ideological group doesn’t value,” she said, “this can turn the purchase into something undesirable. By making [the environment] part of the choice, even though they might see the economic benefit, they no longer want to put their money toward that option.” This graph, lifted from the report (on the x-axis, -1 is liberal and 1 is conservative), shows the damage the wrong messaging can do: With no messaging, roughly 60 percent of all participants picked the CFL; a pro-environment message boosted support in liberals but cut it sharply in conservatives: Courtesy Gromet That gap could represent real lost opportunities in the private sector: the EPA’s Energy Star label, for example, perhaps the most prominent label for energy-efficient products, puts greenhouse gas savings front and center in its packaging, and proudly boasts that products with the label helps Americans “protect our climate.” This isn’t just a problem for businesses trying to push energy-efficient products, but also for environmentalists and policymakers pushing to write efficiency or other climate-friendly policies into law, said Jessica Goodheart, director of RePower LA, which advocates for energy-saving practices in the Los Angeles power utility. Goodheart said while tackling climate change is driving force behind her lobbying, she more often finds herself talking about jobs and the economy, especially when addressing small business owners. “It’s always important to speak to people where they are, and with energy efficiency there are so many positive messages you can use,” she said. And there’s no shortage of opportunities to roll those messages out: Last week, Energy Department researchers found that rules requiring utilities to use renewable energy were under attack in over half the states they exist in; such laws might have better luck fending off Bachmann-esque fusillades if they re-focus their rhetoric around their cost-savings, energy independence, or other benefits, Gromet’s research suggests, especially in conservative states. That doesn’t necessarily mean green advocates need to somehow cover up the environmental benefits of a policy or product: A study from Stanford psychologists released last December found that re-framing environmental messaging in terms of preserving the “purity” of the natural world resonated morally with conservatives. “There’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all message that will appeal equally,” Gromet said. “It’s important to know the market you’re appealing to; there are some messages you may want to avoid.”

Taken from – 

Why Do Conservatives Like to Waste Energy?

Related Posts

Obama Campaign Launches Plan to Shame Climate Sceptics in Congress
How Thatcher Made the Conservative Case for Climate Action
Survey Finds Most Republicans Seek Action on Climate Change
CHARTS: ‘Messy’ US Climate Policy is Kinda Working
Keystone XL: The Science, Stakes, and Strategy Behind the Fight Over the Tar Sands Pipeline
Zemanta

Share this:

Original article: 

Why Do Conservatives Like to Waste Energy?

Posted in ATTRA, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Do Conservatives Like to Waste Energy?

Chart of the Day: Twitter Crashes the Stock Market

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here’s what happened at 1:09 pm today when the Associated Press’s Twitter feed was hacked and reported: “Breaking: Two Explosions in the White House and Barack Obama is Injured.” Matt Yglesias sees a moneymaking opportunity.

Read original article: 

Chart of the Day: Twitter Crashes the Stock Market

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Chart of the Day: Twitter Crashes the Stock Market

Chris Christie slams ‘selfish’ homeowners blocking coastal protection measures

Chris Christie slams ‘selfish’ homeowners blocking coastal protection measures

Shutterstock /

Glynnis Jones

Some waterfront residents would rather risk devastating storm surges than lose their views.

Would you like a dose of utter destruction with that view?

In the wake of Superstorm Sandy, some New Jersey residents living in vulnerable oceanfront properties are stymieing efforts to build sand dunes and widen beaches along the coastline to block storm surges. Some fear losing their views. Others worry that new public-access beach areas could be opened up adjacent to their properties.

Gov. Chris Christie (R) said on Tuesday that he has “no sympathy” for property owners standing in the way of a $3 billion federal project to widen beaches and build protective dunes. He announced plans for dealing with these “selfish” property owners during a town hall meeting in Middlesex Borough.

State of New Jersey

Chris Christie tells them what’s what.

“We will go town by town and if we have to start calling names out of the selfish ones who care more about their view than they care about the safety and the welfare of their neighbors, then we are going to start doing that,” Christie said, according to CBS. “I will use my normal sense of gentle persuasion to try to make sure that we bring people along.”

From The Star-Ledger:

Christie has credited sand dunes — some man-made and others the work of nature — with protecting homes and businesses during Hurricane Sandy in October.

Towns without dunes were left vulnerable to devastating wind and rain …

Although Christie has said he will not condemn homes to buy out residents in flood-prone areas, he said last week in Manasquan that he would resort to eminent domain for beachfront property if necessary.

The Asbury Park Press reported in January that about half of the coastal homeowners in one town were resisting dunes and other beach restoration efforts:

[O]fficials are struggling to persuade half of the 127 oceanfront property owners here to sign construction easements that will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild a wider beach and thick, 22-foot-high dunes against the next storm.

To skeptics, the issue of easements always has been one of ceding private property rights. But to borough and state officials, it’s about saving the community.

Go get ‘em, governor.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Visit site:

Chris Christie slams ‘selfish’ homeowners blocking coastal protection measures

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chris Christie slams ‘selfish’ homeowners blocking coastal protection measures