Author Archives: ansonsten

Humans Have Already Set in Motion 69 Feet of Sea Level Rise

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

Last week, a much discussed new paper in the journal Nature seemed to suggest to some that we needn’t worry too much about the melting of Greenland, the mile-thick mass of ice at the top of the globe. The research found that the Greenland ice sheet seems to have survived a previous warm period in Earth’s history—the Eemian period, some 126,000 years ago—without vanishing (although it did melt considerably).

But Ohio State glaciologist Jason Box isn’t buying it.

At Monday’s Climate Desk Live briefing in Washington, D.C., Box, who has visited Greenland 23 times to track its changing climate, explained that we’ve already pushed atmospheric carbon dioxide 40 percent beyond Eemian levels. What’s more, levels of atmospheric methane are a dramatic 240 percent higher—both with no signs of stopping. “There is no analogue for that in the ice record,” said Box.

Continue Reading »

This article: 

Humans Have Already Set in Motion 69 Feet of Sea Level Rise

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Humans Have Already Set in Motion 69 Feet of Sea Level Rise

Will 2013 be the year of ag-gag bills?

Will 2013 be the year of ag-gag bills?

The U.N. has declared 2013 to be the Year of Quinoa. But it’s also shaping up to be the Year of Ag Gag, those bills that make it illegal to covertly investigate factory farms for animal and ecological abuse. From Bruce Friedrich of Farm Sanctuary:

In 2011, the meat industry backed laws in four states to make taking photos or videos on farms and slaughterhouses illegal. In 2012, the industry pushed similar laws in 10 states. This year, we expect even more.

Shutterstock

In 2011 and 2012, Iowa, Utah, and Missouri all enacted some version of an anti-whistleblower ag-gag law, while similar proposals were struck down in Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, and Tennessee.

This year, more such laws are proposed in Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Wyoming.

Ag-gag laws are hardly the first attempt to keep the prying eyes of the public — activists, journalists, eaters all — away from the truths about animals raised en masse for food. Kansas, Montana, and North Dakota passed less restrictive versions of these laws back in the early ’90s, when the Animal Liberation Front was running around in balaclavas, being surprisingly organized and effective at freeing moneys and minks and smashing up butcher shops. In 1992, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, boosting penalties for these crimes.

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, passed in 2006, went even further — like, way way further — making it illegal to “intentionally damage” a company’s physical property or its potential profits, even by nonviolent civil disobedience. Under the AETA, activists have been arrested and held for running websites and peacefully protesting animal testing.

But the corporate- and Koch-backed American Legislative Exchange Council wanted to crack down even further. In 2003 it proposed model legislation that would make it illegal to “enter an animal or research facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera, or other means with the intent to commit criminal activities or defame the facility or its owner.” Today’s ag-gag bills are a direct descendant of that far-reaching legislation. From Alternet:

Ag-Gag laws passed 20 years ago were focused more on deterring people from destroying property, or from either stealing animals or setting them free. Today’s ALEC-inspired bills take direct aim at anyone who tries to expose horrific acts of animal cruelty, dangerous animal-handling practices that might lead to food safety issues, or blatant disregard for environmental laws designed to protect waterways from animal waste runoff. In the past, most of those exposes have resulted from undercover investigations of exactly the type Big Ag wants to make illegal.

The three state bills proposed so far this year would require people with knowledge of animal abuse to promptly report it to officials. But if you just upload those photos and video and don’t report them to the government within a day or two, you’ll be breaking the law. Friedrich again:

It’s certainly possible that animal-friendly legislators are supporting [these kinds of bills] out of concern for animals, but of course undercover investigations, whether of a drug ring or organized crime syndicate or factory farm, require that the investigator document the full extent of the illegal activity. If the FBI or CIA stopped an investigation at the first sign of criminal activity, wrong-doers would be inadequately punished, if they were punished at all, because the full extent of the criminal behavior would not be known. Similarly, if an investigator witnesses illegal abuse of animals and immediately turns in that evidence without thorough documentation, the plant may receive a slap on the wrist (at best), the investigator leaves the plant, and business-as-usual continues.

The more of these laws that pass, the more free speech is chilled, and the less likely we are to see the uncovering of abuses. (Activists, you are fucking badass, but I know you also don’t want to go to jail.)

So is 2013 the Year of Ag Gag? Or is that actually every year now?

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Food

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Credit: 

Will 2013 be the year of ag-gag bills?

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will 2013 be the year of ag-gag bills?

Charming Megalomaniac Ed Koch Is Ready for His Close-Up

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

Koch
Zeitgeist Films
95 minutes

This fiercely honest tribute to Ed Koch, the hard-nosed and exuberant figure who ruled New York City from 1978 to 1989, briskly strings together interviews with the former mayor, grainy archival footage, harshly critical testimony from Koch’s contemporaries, and a rollicking classic-rock soundtrack. The result is a documentary that intrigues and intoxicates like a David Mamet stage play.

The finest moments in the film, which premieres Friday in New York City, focus on Koch’s rise to power in the late ’70s, when the Big Apple was a powder-keg metropolis engulfed in financial disarray and a crime wave. Koch—a closeted homosexual and iconoclastic liberal—is depicted as the consummate political shark, siphoning off key constituencies during a gang-fight-like mayoral election in 1977. Neil Barsky, a former hedge fund manager and economic reporter for the Wall Street Journal, directs with a gritty cinematic zeal.

Ed Koch is today as he always was: charmingly megalomaniacal. “This belongs to me…Thank you, God,” Koch, now 88, says as he reminisces about his tenure as chief of the Empire City—where he pissed off scores of feminists, Jews, African Americans, and hardened lefties alike. Overall, Koch is a riveting portrait of a towering and polarizing man.

It’s also great fun, so watch it with plenty of buttered popcorn. Trailer here:

Click here for more movie and TV features from Mother Jones.

This article: 

Charming Megalomaniac Ed Koch Is Ready for His Close-Up

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Charming Megalomaniac Ed Koch Is Ready for His Close-Up

Marco Rubio: ‘Changing the weather’ isn’t something government can do

Marco Rubio: ‘Changing the weather’ isn’t something government can do

We got so caught up in our excitement over John Kerry’s comments on climate and clean energy last week that we completely missed Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) take on the topic.

gageskidmore

According to Politico, here’s how Rubio responded after Kerry argued at his confirmation hearing that clean energy is a $6 trillion market.

That’s too much effort to put on climate change, according to Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a leading early contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

“I don’t think it’s the most pressing foreign policy issue facing America,” Rubio told POLITICO outside Kerry’s confirmation hearing on Thursday. “There’s a lot of things government can do but changing the weather isn’t one of them.”

Rubio is a guy who took a quarter of a million dollars from fossil fuel interests for his campaign. A guy who called for more offshore drilling as he lamented the Gulf oil spill. A guy who shortly after Election Day declared that the age of the Earth is “a dispute amongst theologians” and said he couldn’t weigh in because “I’m not a scientist, man.”

Rubio wants to run for president. He is savvy enough to spearhead immigration reform after looking at 2012 demographics, but still toes a hard-right line on energy and climate, as he has since at least 2010.

To that end, his statement last week on climate change is cleverly crafted. He rolls two conservative tropes — anti-climate and anti-government — into one sweeping pronouncement. Government can’t fix things, including the weather. Two kisses on the cheeks of Republican primary voters in Iowa.

His statement is also deeply ironic. Government isn’t trying to change the weather. Government is hoping to intervene, to make the already-changing climate — and its ancillary weather manifestations — as non-damaging as possible. Rubio and his fossil fuel backers are the advocates for changing the weather, through passivity.

Rubio is betting that four years from now voters will be as dispassionate about addressing climate change as they are today. The odds that bet pays off will probably only decline. And Rubio’s embrace of immigration reform should be instructive: Even as recently as the 2012 GOP primaries, candidates were betting that an anti-immigration platform would be a winner. It wasn’t. Things changed. And if attitudes on the climate shift as rapidly, Rubio will lose his bet big.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link:

Marco Rubio: ‘Changing the weather’ isn’t something government can do

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Marco Rubio: ‘Changing the weather’ isn’t something government can do

Music Review: "Blood Side Out" By Ben Harper with Charlie Musselwhite

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

TRACK 7

“Blood Side Out”

From Ben Harper with Charlie Musselwhite’s Get Up!

STAX/CONCORD MUSIC GROUP

Liner notes: All hell breaks loose on this raucous track as crashing drums, Musselwhite’s blistering harmonica, and Harper’s furious vocals forecast impending disaster.

Behind the music: Versatile California singer-songwriter Harper won a Grammy for his 2004 collaboration with the gospel group Blind Boys of Alabama. Born in Mississippi, Musselwhite has long been a leading exponent of the driving blues style pioneered by Little Walter, the only harmonica player ever inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Check it out if you like: Bands such as the Black Keys, North Mississippi Allstars, and Alabama Shakes—all experts at updating primal sounds.

This review originally appeared in our January/February issue of Mother Jones.

Original post – 

Music Review: "Blood Side Out" By Ben Harper with Charlie Musselwhite

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Music Review: "Blood Side Out" By Ben Harper with Charlie Musselwhite

Does Obama Mean It This Time on Climate?

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

President Obama pleasedâ&#128;&#148;and surprisedâ&#128;&#148;many environmentalists with his remarks on climate change in his second inaugural speech on Monday. “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” Obama said. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.” It wasn’t just a fleeting mention, an obligatory nod to climate change alongside a host of other base-pleasing agenda items. In a short, 2000-word, 15-minute speech, Obama used nine separate sentences to lay out his belief that dealing with climate and finding sustainable energy sources are an obligation to posterity.

“I was pleasantly surprised,” says Felice Stadler, senior director of the climate and energy program at the National Wildlife Federation. “It was the first time that we heard a clear signal from him that he believes in the science.”

But like other enviros, Stadler tempers her enthusiasm with caution. She hopes Obama’s comments on climate change mean he will put serious political weight behind the issue in his second term. But what Obama will actually propose in terms of policyâ&#128;&#148;and how hard he’ll push for those proposalsâ&#128;&#148;remains to be seen. “I think the time is now to continue the conversation and not to sit quietly and wait for some undefined moment in the future,” Stadler argues.

There are good reasons to believe Obama may act. The economy now looks brighter than it did four years ago, and health care reform is out of the way, which creates an opportunity for Obama to deal with a legacy issue like climate change. But “the proof is in pudding,” says Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth. “We’ll know in next few months how serious he is on climate change.” Pica, whose group was the first environmental group to formally endorse Obama back in 2008, now dubs himself a “skeptical Obama environmentalist.” He gives the president’s first term a “C, maybe a C+,” noting that he’s “feeling a little generous… because of the inaugural address.”

Melinda Pierce, deputy national campaign director for Sierra Club, says her group is now putting all its attention on Obama. Congress “has become a place where good ideas go to die,” Pierce says. “We are narrowly, myopically focused on the kind of actions that can come from the executive branch… I don’t have great hopes of what Congress can deliver.”

As Pierce hinted, there’s a long list of things Obama could do fairly quickly to demonstrate his commitment to the environment: denying the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, finalizing greenhouse gas rules for new power plants, writing rules for planet-warming emission from existing power plants, and improving fuel economy standards for long-haul trucks and other heavy vehicles like they did for cars and light trucks, to name a few.

The first few weeks of his second term will provide an opportunity for Obama to prove his commitment to the goals he voiced Monday morning, Pierce notes. Nearly all of the members of the “Green Dream Team” he appointed in the first term have signaled their plans to leave: the heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made formal announcements, and several others are expected to follow suit. Green groups will look at the president’s choices to head those agencies as an early indicator of his plans for the second term.

“We’re happy that President Obama was reelected, but we can’t let that happiness overshadow the amount of work we have to do,” said FOE’s Pica. “We can’t give him free passes.”

Continued here:

Does Obama Mean It This Time on Climate?

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Does Obama Mean It This Time on Climate?

Harry Reid Might Change the Rules of the Senate. Here’s What You Need to Know.

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

The calendar says the 113th Congress began almost three weeks ago, but as of Tuesday morning, the Senate was still not done with its first legislative day. That’s because Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader, wanted to leave open the option of changing the Senate’s rules with a simple majority vote—a maneuver that many legislators believe will only pass constitutional muster if it is performed on the first legislative day of a new Congress.

Here’s why Reid wants to change the rules. Over the past several years, Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the minority leader, have objected to ending debate on almost every major bill and presidential nomination to come before the Senate. Since ending debate and moving to an up-or-down vote requires 60 votes, and there are fewer than 60 Democrats, these objections—called filibusters—have allowed the GOP to effectively block much of the Dems’ agenda.

Because of this, some Democrats have advocated dramatically reducing the power of the filibuster. Others have pushed less-ambitious reforms they say will make the Senate run better. Most Republicans, of course, want to hold on to their ability to obstruct the Democratic agenda—and some Democrats are worried that scrapping the filibuster now will reduce their ability to obstruct Republicans once the GOP regains the majority.

But although the Senate has had 19 days to ponder what to do at the end of the (legislative) day, little actual work has been done. Dick Durbin (D-Ill), the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, has speculated that Reid will negotiate with McConnell to come up with a final package that satisfies both parties. But as of last week, the two men didn’t seem to have met on the issue. The minority leader is still waiting for Reid to back a specific proposal, according to a McConnell aide.

Continue Reading »

View original post here – 

Harry Reid Might Change the Rules of the Senate. Here’s What You Need to Know.

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Harry Reid Might Change the Rules of the Senate. Here’s What You Need to Know.

Obama: ‘We will respond to the threat of climate change’

Obama: ‘We will respond to the threat of climate change’

majunznk

Just before noon Eastern time, President Barack Obama was (ceremonially) sworn in to his second term of office.

His second inaugural address was strong in its embrace of progressive values — gay rights, addressing poverty, opposing gun violence, stopping voting restrictions. You can read the whole thing here.

Obama’s message, at its broadest, was that America is built and progresses through united action. That our government must actually be “of the people.” In that vein, the president devoted a paragraph to climate change.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries — we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure — our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

It is fair to find this heartening. It is the strongest, broadest argument for responsible stewardship of the planet: that we have an obligation to the future.

It also contrasts strongly with Obama’s words during a less public event shortly after his reelection. From his November 14 press conference:

There’s no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices and understandably, you know, I think right now the American people have been so focused and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth that if the message somehow is that we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anyone’s going to go for that. I won’t go for that.

That’s a different theme. That theme suggests that we shouldn’t make a sacrifice in the moment to preserve the future. That we have primacy over our children.

What Obama said in November suggests a series of small adjustments and minor political fights. What he said today, with the whole world listening, was that those fights must be big, and that we as Americans must fight them.

Lines from his address to that effect will almost certainly be featured in appeals from his reconstituted campaign structure, Organizing for America. His argument today — while a reflection of the president’s long-standing philosophy — was a tacit “ask what you can do for your country” call that OFA will undoubtedly repeat over the coming months. Considering that call in light of a recent assessments of why key climate legislation failed during Obama’s first term is revealing.

Two different messages at two not-very-different moments. Which fight we see, only time will tell — and could hinge on who shows up for the fight.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continued here – 

Obama: ‘We will respond to the threat of climate change’

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama: ‘We will respond to the threat of climate change’

Another Massey executive will go to jail for his role in the Upper Big Branch explosion

Another Massey executive will go to jail for his role in the Upper Big Branch explosion

A former superintendent at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch Mine pled guilty today to his role in the 2010 explosion that killed 29 miners. From NPR:

[F]ormer Upper Big Branch coal mine superintendant Gary May was sentenced to 21 months in prison and ordered to pay a $20,000 fine. …

May pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and admitted to ordering a company electrician to disable a methane monitor on a mining machine so it could continue to cut coal without automatic shutdowns. The monitor is a safety device that senses explosive amounts of methane gas and automatically shuts down mining machines when dangerous levels of gas are present. …

May also pleaded guilty to deceiving federal mine safety inspectors and hiding safety violations.

TV 19

A sign near the Upper Big Branch mine in 2010

Last November, another Massey executive, David Craig Hughart, pled guilty to conspiracy. At the time, we speculated that his co-conspirators might include former Massey CEO Don Blankenship; now we know that the conspiracy at least included May.

What May did — basically the equivalent of shutting off a home carbon monoxide detector that kept sounding its alarm — is reprehensible. There is some belated recognition that it should also have been preventable. Shortly after the announcement of May’s plea deal, the Mine Safety and Health Administration announced a new rule that could prevent similar situations in the future.

MSHA calls it the “pattern of violations” rule and it’s supposed to identify coal mines with serious, persistent and habitual safety violations and then target them for heightened scrutiny. But MSHA failed to enforce the rule in the first 33 years of its existence, in part because of a self-imposed and cumbersome regulatory step. …

Investigators concluded that the Upper Big Branch mine qualified for preliminary “pattern of violations” (POV) status before the April, 2010, explosion. But regulators failed to apply the rule, blaming a “computer glitch” that has never fully been explained.

The revised rule eliminates preliminary steps so that regulators will have a much easier time citing and sanctioning habitual violators of serious safety standards. The new rule also triggers automatic and immediate shutdowns of mining areas if serious and substantial violations are found in mines with POV status.

Unsurprisingly, those mining industry executives who have not pled guilty to conspiracy charges spoke out against the tightened rule. From The Hill:

The National Mining Association (NMA) panned the rule, saying MSHA ignored the group’s concerns about the rule. Among them is the loss of mine operators’ due process when responding to a violation notice.

“Because any unsafe conditions must be remedied under current regulations, no miner is put in harm’s way if a citation is appealed,” the NMA said in a written statement. “As such, the loss of due process rights serves no safety objective.”

The group said some operators would unjustifiably be found in a pattern of violation, with little recourse.

It could be worse.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continue reading:  

Another Massey executive will go to jail for his role in the Upper Big Branch explosion

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Another Massey executive will go to jail for his role in the Upper Big Branch explosion

Aaron Swartz Case is About a Lot More Than Just Aaron Swartz

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

I haven’t said anything yet about the Aaron Swartz case because I wasn’t sure I had anything much to say that hadn’t already been said better by others. But Orin Kerr has written a couple of lengthy posts about the case over at the Volokh Conspiracy, and I think he makes an important point about the accusation that federal prosecutors basically hounded Swartz to his death:

I think it’s important to realize that what happened in the Swartz case happens in lots and lots of federal criminal cases. Yes, the prosecutors tried to force a plea deal by scaring the defendant with arguments that he would be locked away for a long time if he was convicted at trial. Yes, the prosecutors filed a superseding indictment designed to scare Swartz evem more in to pleading guilty (it actually had no effect on the likely sentence, but it’s a powerful scare tactic). Yes, the prosecutors insisted on jail time and a felony conviction as part of a plea.

But it is not particularly surprising for federal prosecutors to use those tactics. What’s unusual about the Swartz case is that it involved a highly charismatic defendant with very powerful friends in a position to object to these common practices. That’s not to excuse what happened, but rather to direct the energy that is angry about what happened. If you want to end these tactics, don’t just complain about the Swartz case. Don’t just complain when the defendant happens to be a brilliant guy who went to Stanford and hangs out with Larry Lessig. Instead, complain that this is business as usual in federal criminal cases around the country — mostly with defendants who no one has ever heard of and who get locked up for years without anyone else much caring.

I don’t know what the answer is here. I think a lot of us have an intuition that hardball tactics are probably defensible when you’re dealing with Tony Soprano, but not so much when you’re dealing with a guy whose only crime was to download a bunch of academic research as an act of civil disobedience. But how do you make that distinction in a way that’s workable, and in a way that’s enforceable?

I’ll leave that to others, for now, because I simply don’t have the legal chops to address it. But I agree with Kerr: the problem here isn’t Aaron Swartz. The problem is with all the other people you’ve never heard of because they aren’t Aaron Swartz.

See original article here: 

Aaron Swartz Case is About a Lot More Than Just Aaron Swartz

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , | Comments Off on Aaron Swartz Case is About a Lot More Than Just Aaron Swartz