Author Archives: HartkePoundstone568

Electronics Recycling Program Has Real Community Impact

According to a recent informal poll, 84 percent of Earth911 readers said they would be more likely to recycle if it benefited a charitable cause. Are you more likely to donate your old electronics knowing it benefits your local job market?

If you are one of millions of Americans with old computers or electronics gathering dust in your home, there’s never been a better time to get rid of your stockpile – and for a good cause.

Photo: Shutterstock

Dell’s free computer recycling program, Dell Reconnect, makes it easier than ever to donate your old computer or electronics through its partnership with Goodwill Industries, whose primary focus is putting people back to work in their local communities. Because all profits from the Dell Reconnect program go directly to Goodwill, you can make your donation knowing it’s good for the planet and your community.

In 2011, Goodwill provided employment training, services, support and resources to over 4.2 million people.

As a non-profit, Goodwill works to assist those with disabilities and disadvantages earn a living and improve their lives through employment and orchestrate educational opportunities, counseling and other resources.

This was a first-hand experience for Goodwill employee Robbie McKolanis, who oversees the Dell Reconnect program at Goodwill of North Central, Penn.

McKolanis started out in his local Goodwill’s school-to-work transition program, Goodwill Works, and was hired by Goodwill after he graduated high school in 2007. Despite struggling with communication challenges with his speech and extreme shyness, his hard work as part of the production team at the Retail Processing Center in Falls Creek got him noticed, and once the Dell Reconnect program started, he was a tapped to apply his skills in a new direction.

Now responsible for all aspects of sorting, weighing and tracking electronics for more than 30 Goodwill locations, McKolanis has come into his own. He is now well known for having great interaction and communication with his co-workers and community, and can attest to the benefits Goodwill’s programs can provide for education and job advancement.

“It took me a while to learn and get used to everyone,” said McKolanis, adding that now, “It’s exciting talking to people and convincing them, ‘don’t be shy!’”

Having come full circle, McKolanis now mentors others participating in Goodwill Works and provides information to visiting guests.

“As Robbie has grown as an employee and taken on the additional responsibilities of the Dell Reconnect program, his potential for opportunities within the employment sector have increased tremendously, “ said Jason Marshall, executive VP of workforce development and retail services for Goodwill of North Central, Penn.

“This partnership with Dell has allowed for Robbie to find his voice and provided another opportunity for us to witness the power of work.”

The power of work is invaluable to those receiving assistance from Goodwill. In 2011, Goodwill helped place more than 23,000 people in need of employment at Goodwill locations, and 189,000 more were placed in jobs within their communities – including tens of thousands of veterans – a new demographic of people facing unique employment challenges.

In 2012, Goodwill expanded its effort to serve post- 9/11 veterans by rolling out Operation: GoodJobs, a program designed specifically for returning military servicemen and women and their families. In addition to job training and placement, the program offers transition assistance programs to help vets re-acclimate to civilian life and individual development plans to assess and assist with personal needs.

Since 2004, Dell Reconnect has diverted more than 250 million pounds of e-waste from landfills. With more than 2,000 participating Goodwill locations throughout the U.S. and Canada the program allows you to simply drop off used computer electronics of any brand and in any condition for free. The trained staff at your local Goodwill will determine whether each item should be refurbished and resold or responsibly recycled.

Editor’s Note: Earth911 partners with many industries, manufacturers and organizations to support its Recycling Directory, the largest in the nation, which is provided to consumers at no cost. Dell is one of these partners.

Continue reading: 

Electronics Recycling Program Has Real Community Impact

Posted in Citizen, GE, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Electronics Recycling Program Has Real Community Impact

Energy-efficiency program killed in Louisiana

Energy-efficiency program killed in Louisiana

Facebook

This guy just killed an energy-efficiency program.

Ooh, so close. Louisiana was about to become the 47th state to help electricity customers buy efficient appliances and make other energy-saving investments.

The Louisiana Public Service Commission had voted 3-2 to in December to approve an energy-efficiency program. Money raised from a new fee on electricity sales would be funneled back to customers in the form of energy-saving subsidies. But then longtime board member Jimmy Field, a supporter of the program, retired from the commission. He was replaced by Scott Angelle, Gov. Bobby Jindal’s former natural resources secretary.

And then commission chairman Eric Skrmetta, who opposed the energy-efficiency program, decided it was time for the commission to cast new votes.

Angelle voted “no” on the program, killing with a 3-2 vote what the Baton Rouge Advocate newspaper described as “the product of an alliance between consumer groups, environmentalists, privately owned utility corporations and the major manufacturers to provide discounts for many home improvements.”

Skrmetta refused to allow the public to voice their support (or opposition) to the program before the commissioners cast their new votes Wednesday, saying they had heard plenty enough testimony back in December, which was before Angelle joined the commission. And that wasn’t the extent of the funny business. From The Advocate:

Jordan Macha, associate regional organizer for the Sierra Club, said the issue was added to the PSC agenda late Friday, giving proponents only two business days’ notice of the move to abandon the program that took three years to put together.

And with that bastardization of democracy, Skrmetta dashed the Cajun State’s glorious prospects of making history by becoming not quite the very last state to adopt such an energy-saving program.

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:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See original:  

Energy-efficiency program killed in Louisiana

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Energy-efficiency program killed in Louisiana

This Supreme Court Case Could Give Corporations Even More Power to Screw Consumers

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

On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court will hear a case that has the potential to give big corporations free rein to write contracts that prevent consumers from ever holding them accountable for fraud, antitrust violations, or any other abuses of consumer and worker protection laws now on the books. It’s a case that hasn’t gotten much attention, but should.

The case, Italian Color v. American Express, was brought by a California Italian restaurant and a group of other small businesses that tried to sue the credit card behemoth for antitrust violations. They allege Amex used its monopoly power to force them to accept its bank-issued knock-off credit cards as a condition of taking regular, more elite American Express cards—and then charging them 30 percent higher fees for the privilege.

The small businesses claims were pretty small individually, not more than around $5,000 per shop. So, to make their case worth enough for a lawyer to take it, they banded together to file a class action on behalf of all small businesses affected by the practice. In response, Amex invoked the small print in its contract with them: a clause that not only banned the companies from suing individually but also prevented them from bringing a class action. Instead, Amex insisted the contract required each little businesses to submit to the decision of a private arbitrator paid by Amex, and individually press their claims. (Arbitration is heavily stacked in favor of the big companies, as you can read more about here and here.)

The restaurants estimated, with good evidence, that because of the market research required to press an antitrust case, arbitration would cost each of them almost $1 million to collect a possible maximum of $38,000, making it impossible to bring their claims at all. After a lot of litigation, the little guys prevailed in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the arbitration clause was unconscionable because it prevented the plaintiffs from having their claims heard in any forum. The court said the arbitration contract should be invalidated and that the class action should go forward in a regular courtroom. (Sonia Sotomayor sat on one of the appeals before heading to the high court and is recusing herself from the case as a result.) Now Amex is appealing and arguing that some of the high court’s recent decisions in favor of big companies mean it has every right to use contracts to deprive the little guys of access to the legal system.

Consumer advocates are worried about how the court’s going to decide this case. Under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has been especially amenable to the sorts of arguments Amex is making, and the results have been pretty damaging to consumers. The Alliance for Justice has a list here of some of the types of cases that were thrown out after the court’s last pro-business decision about mandatory arbitration, which allowed companies to use arbitration clauses to trump state consumer and worker protection laws. It’s not pretty.

If the court rules in favor of Amex, big companies will essentially be able to immunize themselves from any legal accountability, simply by forcing customers and employees to sign a contract to get a job or a cellphone or a bank account. Civil and consumer rights laws will stay on the books, but big companies will be able to ignore them.

Taken from: 

This Supreme Court Case Could Give Corporations Even More Power to Screw Consumers

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on This Supreme Court Case Could Give Corporations Even More Power to Screw Consumers

The Supreme Court Won’t Hear "Citizens United on Steroids" Case

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

That whooshing sound you just heard was campaign finance reformers breathing a deep sigh of relief. On Monday morning, the Supreme Court declined to take up a lawsuit named Danielczyk v. United States, a challenge to one of the oldest laws in campaign politics: the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates.

The case stems from donations that two Virginia businessmen, William Danielczyk and Eugene Biagi, made to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. Danielczyk and Biagi gave to Clinton’s campaign under the impression that they would be reimbursed by the private equity firm that employed them. Instead Danielczyk and Biagi were prosecuted by the Department of Justice for violating the century-old ban on corporate contributions. They responded by fighting to dismiss the charges. Their attorneys argued that the Supreme Court’s logic in the Citizens United case—that independent expenditures do not corrupt or create the appearance of corruption—applied to donations directly to candidates. Thus the ban on corporate donations, they argued, was unconstitutional. In 2011, a federal district court agreed with Danielczyk’s lawyers and dismissed the charges, but the case was later reversed on appeal.

When Danielczyk reached the Supreme Court, supporters of tougher campaign finance laws feared that the court might go even further than Citizens United by demolishing the ban on direct corporate donations, one of the last remaining pillars of campaign finance law in US. They had reason to worry: Last week, the high court agreed to the hear the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, another troublesome case in the eyes of the reformers. McCutcheon challenges the overall cap on what donors can give to candidates, parties, and political action committees, currently set at $46,200 to federal candidates and $70,800 to parties and PACs over a two-year election cycle. That limit is nearly 40 years old, dating back to the post-Watergate era, and if it falls, the reformers fear that future challenges to, say, the limit on donating to a candidate (now at $2,600 a year) could fall, too.

The Supreme Court could, sometime down the road, reconsider the corporate donation ban. But for now, the reformers have received a small bit of good news at an otherwise bleak point in the political money wars.

Read article here:

The Supreme Court Won’t Hear "Citizens United on Steroids" Case

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court Won’t Hear "Citizens United on Steroids" Case

The Strategic Importance of Keystone XL

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

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

Presidential decisions often turn out to be far less significant than imagined, but every now and then what a president decides actually determines how the world turns. Such is the case with the Keystone XL pipeline, which, if built, is slated to bring some of the “dirtiest,” carbon-rich oil on the planet from Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the US Gulf Coast. In the near future, President Obama is expected to give its construction a definitive thumbs up or thumbs down, and the decision he makes could prove far more important than anyone imagines. It could determine the fate of the Canadian tar-sands industry and, with it, the future well-being of the planet. If that sounds overly dramatic, let me explain.

Sometimes, what starts out as a minor skirmish can wind up determining the outcome of a war—and that seems to be the case when it comes to the mounting battle over the Keystone XL pipeline. If given the go-ahead by President Obama, it will daily carry more than 700,000 barrels of tar-sands oil to those Gulf Coast refineries, providing a desperately needed boost to the Canadian energy industry. If Obama says no, the Canadians (and their American backers) will encounter possibly insuperable difficulties in exporting their heavy crude oil, discouraging further investment and putting the industry’s future in doubt.

The battle over Keystone XL was initially joined in the summer of 2011, when environmental writer and climate activist Bill McKibben and 350.org, which he helped found, organized a series of non-violent anti-pipeline protests in front of the White House to highlight the links between tar sands production and the accelerating pace of climate change. At the same time, farmers and politicians in Nebraska, through which the pipeline is set to pass, expressed grave concern about its threat to that state’s crucial aquifers. After all, tar-sands crude is highly corrosive, and leaks are a notable risk.

Continue Reading »

Source:

The Strategic Importance of Keystone XL

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Strategic Importance of Keystone XL

New Study: Common Pesticides Kill Frogs on Contact

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

To me, there are few more comforting sights on a farm or in a garden than a frog hopping about amid the crops. Frogs and other amphibians don’t just look and sound coolâ&#128;&#148;they also feast upon the insects that feast upon the plants we eat. These bug-scarfing creatures are a free source of what is known as biological pest control.

But modern industrial agriculture doesn’t have much use for them. It leans on chemistry, not biology, to control pestsâ&#128;&#148;and in doing so, it’s probably contributing to the catastrophic global decline of amphibians, a natural ally to farmers for millennia. The irony is stark: in industrial agriculture’s zeal to wipe out pests, it is helping to wipe out those pests’ natural predators. The latest evidence: a new study showing that exposure to common pesticides at levels used in farm fields can kill frogs rapidly.

For a decade or so, it has become increasingly clear that widely used herbicides like Syngenta’s atrazine, in tiny amounts found in streams after running off from farm fields, do crazy things to the sexual development of frogs. Such “endocrine-disrupting chemicals” have what scientists call chronic, not acute, effects on amphibiansâ&#128;&#148;that is, they don’t kill them outright, but they alter them profoundlyâ&#128;&#148;even change their gender. (See Dashka Slater’s profile of a scientist who documented atrazine’s impact on frogs, earning a backlash from Syngenta.) Monsanto’s blockbuster herbicide Roundup also exerts subtle but important harm on amphibians, research suggests.

Again, this research focuses on what happens to amphibians when they encounter agricultural poisons at low levels in ponds and streams. But what happens when they are actually sprayed with chemicals in farm fields? That’s where the new study, a recent peer-reviewed paper by a group of German and Swiss scientists, comes in. They write that the phenomenon of frogs experiencing direct contact with pesticides has been little-studied, even though the scenario is quite common on the groundâ&#128;&#148;farmland has become one of the “the largest terrestrial biomes on Earth, occupying more than 40% of the land surface,” and thus represents an “essential habitat for amphibians.”

Continue Reading »

See original article here:

New Study: Common Pesticides Kill Frogs on Contact

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on New Study: Common Pesticides Kill Frogs on Contact

Will Your Waiter Give You the Flu?

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

Fifteen minutes before Victoria Bruton’s lunch shift at a busy Philadelphia dining joint, she began to feel dizzy and hot. “I had gone to my boss and asked if I could leave because I wasn’t feeling well,” Bruton, now 41, remembers of her first case of what she assumed to be the flu. “They asked that I finish the shift. And frankly, I couldn’t afford not to.” The sole source of income for her two daughters, Bruton powered through the shift—and spent the next two days confined to a sickbed.

Like most of the country, Philadelphia doesn’t require restaurants to pay sick leave for its food handlers, though long-time food workers like Bruton, advocacy organizations, and lawmakers are currently fighting for a law to do so in Pennsylvania. Councilmen in Portland, Oregon are also currently debating a similar initiative. But these two proposals are the exception rather than the norm: According to a study from the Food Chain Workers Alliance, 79 percent of food workers in the United States don’t have paid sick leave or don’t know if they do. And it’s not just flu that sick servers can spread—a study out this week from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that the food industry’s labor practices may be contributing to some of the nation’s most common foodborne illness outbreaks, and moreso than previously thought.

Continue Reading »

View post: 

Will Your Waiter Give You the Flu?

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Will Your Waiter Give You the Flu?

BP’s federal penalty for the Gulf spill is final: $4 billion

BP’s federal penalty for the Gulf spill is final: $4 billion

And that’s that. From CNN:

A federal judge in New Orleans Tuesday approved a $4 billion plea agreement for criminal fines and penalties against oil giant BP for the 2010 Gulf oil spill, the largest criminal penalty in U.S. history.

U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Vance imposed the terms that the Justice Department and BP had agreed to last November, which include the oil company pleading guilty to 14 criminal counts — among them, felony manslaughter charges — and the payment of a record $4 billion in criminal penalties over five years.

Once you add in the $1.4 billion levied against Transocean, the total bill for polluting the Gulf of Mexico and killing 11 workers is $5.4 billion. Or, if you’re so inclined, $5.3 million a day since the explosion on April 20, 2010.

Over the same time period, including BP’s $17 billion loss at the time of the explosion, BP has earned $25.966 billion in profit. Meaning that it’s made $25.5 million in profit a day since the explosion. Take out the BP settlement, and that’s $21.57 million every day, from the day the Deepwater Horizon exploded until today, that BP has earned selling oil. That’s $898,000 an hour. About $250 a second, every second.

In other words — I think they’ll survive this “largest criminal penalty in U.S. history.”

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

See original article:  

BP’s federal penalty for the Gulf spill is final: $4 billion

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on BP’s federal penalty for the Gulf spill is final: $4 billion

Losing Nemo: Great Barrier Reef At Risk From Coal

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

Coral reefs already have a lot on their plate: ocean acidification and warming, damage by extreme storms, water pollution from industrial runoff, even crazy invasive starfish. Now, it seems, the big momma of all reefs, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, is also under siege by fossil fuel development being pushed by the recently elected conservative Queensland state government. The risk is great enough that UNESCO has threatened to strip the reef of its World Heritage Site status this year, if not more is done to protect it.

“It would be an international shame for Australia and send a shocking message that even the wealthiest nations can’t manage their reefs,” Felicity Wishart, director of Fight for the Reef, said. The campaign is a newly-formed coaltion between the World Wildlife Fund and the Australian Marine Conservation Society to pressure the state and federal governments to curb industrial development near the reef.

Comparative size of Great Barrier Reef World Heritage site. Courtesy Australian Government

Wishart said a suite of more than 60 proposed industrial facilities, mostly to facilitate coal exports, are being considered for the Queensland coast, off of which the reef is located. If built, she said, they would nearly double the amount of ship traffic over the reef, posing the risk of physical collisions and oil spills, and necessitate dredging the ocean floor nearby, adding to sediment contamination that can block the sunlight the corals need to thrive.

Last year UNESCO decided the threats were enough to warrant dispatching a team to investigate; it drafted a series of recommendations for the state and federal governments, which are due to issue a response by Feb. 1. If the World Heritage folks aren’t sufficiently impressed, they could demote the reef to “World Heritage in Danger” status, along with another large reef in Belize where chunks were sold off for development, a historic Buddhist landmark in Afghanistan that was sacked by the Taliban, and a host of other brutalized spots. World Heritage listing doesn’t confer any specific legal protection per se (in the way that, say, officially designating habitat for an endangered species in the US would); rather, UNESCO provides guidance for local governments to better manage the sites. Still, the demotion could deal an embarrassing blow to the $5 billion tourism industry the reef supports—designation is largely seen as a major tourist draw, and getting booted from the list could send the signal that the reef just ain’t what it used to be.

Continue Reading »

More:  

Losing Nemo: Great Barrier Reef At Risk From Coal

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Losing Nemo: Great Barrier Reef At Risk From Coal

GOP Judges’ Ruling Could Blow Up Obama’s Consumer Watchdog

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

On Friday, a federal appeals court ruled that President Barack Obama’s appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, which regulates and oversees labor disputes, were unconstitutional. The Constitution allows the president to make temporary appointments, called recess appointments, while the Senate is on break—or recess, in DC terms. Obama did make the NRLB appointments while the Senate was on vacation. But Senate Republicans claimed that the Senate was technically still in session over their vacation because they were holding brief, minutes-long meetings over the course of the break. The three judges on the panel—all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents—agreed with the challengers. Now all the decisions Obama’s NLRB appointees made since they joined the board are at risk of being invalidated.

The court’s decision doesn’t just affect labor law: it could also have an impact on the White House’s broader economic agenda. The sweeping ruling throws into question the future of regulatory decisions made by one of the administration’s most aggressive agencies, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Richard Cordray, the CFBP’s director, was appointed at the same time and in the same manner as the three labor board members. That means the appeals court’s ruling could put the enforceability of his decisions in question, too. Since Cordray’s appointment, the CFPB has set rules preventing mortgage lenders from lying to borrowers about rates, fined credit card companies for violating consumer protection laws, and forced debt-relief services to refund illegal fees they charged to their cash strapped clients.

In other words, the Bureau has done what liberals hoped and Republicans feared: Prevented companies from gouging consumers with the kind of unscrupulous business practices that caused a nationwide economic meltdown four years ago. Although Cordray’s appointment is being challenged separately, Friday’s ruling gives companies impacted by the CFPB’s decisions an opening to argue that some of the CFPB’s actions should be invalidated. Cordray has been renominated as the CFPB’s director, but Republicans could easily filibuster him again.

Last January, when Senate Republicans held their brief vacation sessions, there was little pretense that it was anything more than an obstructionist gimmick: Rep. Dianne Black (R-Tenn.) complained that Obama only put forth the names of his appointments “two days before the Senate recessed for the holiday.” That would be the same recess that the Senate—and now the DC Circuit Court—has said technically didn’t happen. Democrats have tried similar vacation meetings, which are called pro-forma sessions, in the past. But as with the filibuster, Republicans have perfected the practice.

Obama only turned to recess appointments because Republican obstructionism was blocking major government agencies from doing their jobs. The NLRB had no power to make decisions absent at least three of the five members of the board, and the CFPB’s regulatory authority was similarly hampered by the absence of a director. As my colleague Kevin Drum noted at the time, this was nothing less than the Republicans nullifying a duly-passed financial regulatory law they didn’t like.

Friday’s ruling takes the sweeping view that recess appointments made during Senate breaks, like vacations, are unconstitutional. The court found that the recess appointment power can only be used during breaks between Senate sessions—and those only happen once a year, usually over the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. It also holds that the president can only make recess appointments for positions that become open during a recess—as opposed to ones that already were open. The court’s position would invalidate the vast majority of recess appointments made by Republican and Democratic presidents over the course of the last century, including that of John Bolton, George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations.

“That is really a radical position to take,” says Caroline Fredrickson, president of the liberal American Constitution Society. “A president could be prevented from having any of his nominees confirmed.” Fredrickson says she expects the administration to ask the Supreme Court to take up the case as soon as possible.

Here’s the best part: If the decision holds, then Senate Republicans just acquired even more power to block presidential appointments than they already had. Good thing the Democrats decided to cave almost entirely on filibuster reform just a day earlier.

Read more: 

GOP Judges’ Ruling Could Blow Up Obama’s Consumer Watchdog

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on GOP Judges’ Ruling Could Blow Up Obama’s Consumer Watchdog