Author Archives: AbelMESLimmugw

Fewer Americans Are Buying Guns Without Background Checks Than Previously Thought

Mother Jones

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

Is the case for background checks for gun buyers gaining momentum? In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on Tuesday, public health researchers from Harvard and Northeastern universities found that 22 percent of all gun sales in the past two years around the United States were conducted without background checks—nearly half as many as previously thought. The new study asked 1,613 gun owners about when and where they acquired their most recent firearm, and whether they were asked to show a firearm license or permit, or to pass a background check. (The researchers note that the self-reporting study may have limitations, as it is based on the respondents’ memory rather than documentation.) The study is the first national survey of its kind since 1994, when an extrapolation from a survey of 251 gun owners estimated that 40 percent of all guns sales occurred without any background checks.

Yet, despite the lower percentage shown by the research, many Americans continue to purchase guns through so-called private sales with no official scrutiny: According to the study, 50 percent of people who purchased firearms online, in person from an individual, or at gun shows did so without any screening. That occurs most often in states with looser regulations on sales, where 57 percent of gun owners reported buying guns without background checks, compared to 26 percent in the 19 states that now mandate universal background checks.

The decades-old 40-percent figure was long a point of contention in the gun debate, criticized by gun groups as false (the NRA called it a “lie”), yet also widely cited among researchers and policymakers in the absence of any updated studies.

Despite a lack of federal legislation regulating private gun sales, the study’s authors suggest that state and local efforts to mandate universal background checks are making progress. And Philip Cook, a Duke University gun violence researcher who conducted the 1994 survey, told The Trace that the new results should be encouraging for advocates of stricter gun laws. “The headline is that we as a nation are closer to having a hundred percent of gun transactions with a background check than we might have thought,” he said. Referencing his previous survey, he noted that the updated figures mean “it’s more attainable, and cheaper, to pass a universal requirement than it would be if 40 percent of transactions were still being conducted without these screenings.”

Studies have shown that background checks can help curb gun violence, as well as limit interstate gun trafficking; it’s been well documented that guns originating in states with lax gun regulations inundate states with tougher laws and fuel gun crime. But even with a solid majority of Americans now undergoing background checks, the researchers note that millions of Americans continue to acquire guns free of any government oversight.

Original link – 

Fewer Americans Are Buying Guns Without Background Checks Than Previously Thought

Posted in alo, aquaculture, FF, GE, LG, Northeastern, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fewer Americans Are Buying Guns Without Background Checks Than Previously Thought

Fossil fuels are terrible investments, says top energy economist

Fossil fuels are terrible investments, says top energy economist

By on 9 Jul 2015commentsShare

A lot of things are better when tapped at the source. Spring water. Maple syrup. Apple advice from the Genius Bar. So when the chief economist at the International Energy Agency warns that you might be making a bad energy investment, it’s worth listening up.

Speaking in Paris today at the largest climate conference before December’s flagship U.N. climate negotiations, Fatih Birol, also the agency’s incoming executive director, dealt some strong words to energy companies and groups invested in fossil fuels. In a nutshell: As climate policies change, fossil fuel investments are likely to tank.

The Guardian reports:

“Any energy company in the world, whatever they do – oil, gas, renewables, efficiency, coal – climate policies will impact their business,” said Birol. “So in order not to make the wrong investment decisions, in terms of making the investment decisions which may not bring the right returns, or in terms of missing investment opportunities, businesses may need to take climate policies and the impact for their businesses more seriously. Without solving the carbon [emissions] in the energy sector, we have no chance to solve the climate change problem.”

The World Bank and Bank of England have already warned of the serious risk climate action poses to trillions of dollars of fossil fuel investments and the G20 is investigating the risks. The think-tank Carbon Tracker has estimated that over $1tn (£0.6tn) of oil investments and $280bn of gas investments would be left uneconomic if the world’s governments succeed in their pledge to limit global warming to 2C.

Also known as stranded assets, these uneconomic investments arise when demand and price drop at the same time — exactly the effect predicted for fossil fuels as the world transitions to a low-carbon economy and regulatory environment.

The business case for fossil fuel divestment and clean energy and infrastructure investment has been made most recently by groups and publications like the New Climate Economy report, Risky Business (convened by billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson), and the We Mean Business coalition. You wouldn’t invest in compact discs after witnessing the rise of the iPod, the argument goes. Why invest in fossil fuels when we’re on the edge of a clean energy revolution?

More, from The Guardian:

Professor Frank Geels, from the University of Manchester, told the Paris conference that many technological transitions involve “creative destruction”, with new businesses replacing old ones.

“But we have not focused enough on the destruction part. The fossil fuel companies are some of the most powerful companies in the world and it is going to be very difficult to persuade them to keep it in the ground, but not impossible,” he said. “In many transitions you need to compensate the losers, or they will fight tooth and nail.” Geels cited the example of the Dutch government paying for workers in closing coal mines to be retrained.

Persuasion, compensation, destruction. It’s true that turning the tide is no easy task, but as fossil fuel divestment momentum builds, it will only get easier.

And on the off-chance that you were hinting at creative destruction in “Wrecking Ball,” here’s to you, Miley.

Source:
Fossil fuel firms risk wasting billions by ignoring climate change, says IEA

, The Guardian.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read this article:

Fossil fuels are terrible investments, says top energy economist

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fossil fuels are terrible investments, says top energy economist