Author Archives: Larissaiyb

New Obama Admin. Report on Keystone XL Pipeline Has Enviros Worried

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

On Friday afternoon, the State Department released a draft of its much-anticipated new analysis of the environmental impact of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Although the report makes no firm statement one way or the other about whether the controversial pipeline from Canada to Texas should be approved, some of its conclusions have enviros worried that a greenlight is inevitable.

The administration has spent more than two years considering whether to approve the 1,600-mile pipeline that would carry oil from Canada’s tar sands to refineries in Texas. Because the pipeline crosses an international border, the State Department gets to decide whether it should be built. Climate change activists have been holding rallies and civil disobedience actions outside the White House for the past year and a half in an effort to convince the administration to block the project. Obama delayed a decision on the pipeline in November 2011, asking the State Department to produce more research on the pipeline’s potential environmental impact—the report, a “supplemental environmental impact statement,” or SEIS, that was issued Friday afternoon.

Enviros immediately seized on the new report, arguing against its claim that any spills associated with the pipeline are “expected to be rare and relatively small,” and said it underestimated the project’s contribution to planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. They also challenged the idea that TransCanada’s pipeline will not make a huge difference in the development of the tar sands, pointing to the industry’s own claims that the pipeline is essential to their plans to expand export of this type of oil.

“If they don’t have Keystone XL, they won’t be able to expand the tar sands like they’ve been planning to,” said Bill McKibben, the author and activist whose group, 350.org, has organized the pipeline protests. He called the pipeline “the most important issue for the environmental movement in a very long time,” noting that it has brought “huge numbers of Americans into the streets.”

Michael Brune, president of the Sierra Club, noted the timing of the draft’s release. “You know the news is bad when it’s buried at 4 o’clock on a Friday afternoon,” he said on a call with reporters shortly after the release. Enviros have framed the pipeline as a test of Obama’s sincerity on dealing with climate change. Brune acknowledged that the SEIS likely “makes the president’s job more difficult” because it will increase pressure on him to approve the pipeline.

But, Brune added, “this is the president’s decision. He can either lead our country to a clean energy future … or he can approve a pipeline that will bring the dirtiest oil on the planet through the US, and for the next decades we will know that the Keystone XL was approved under Obama at the time that we needed strong leadership on this issue.”

The report is in draft form and will be open for public comment for 45 days. After that, the State Department will issue a final report and, eventually, a final decision on whether the pipeline should be built.

McKibben said the pipeline’s critics will not be deterred by Friday’s draft report. “I don’t think anybody is going to walk away form this fight,” McKibben said. “My guess is this will produce more determination in a lot of people.”

Link to original – 

New Obama Admin. Report on Keystone XL Pipeline Has Enviros Worried

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Obama Admin. Report on Keystone XL Pipeline Has Enviros Worried

For Valentine’s Day Weekend 2013: Witches, Zombies, Nicholas Sparks, and "Die Hard"

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

It’s Valentine’s/Presidents Day Weekend 2013, and your lover or spouse wants you to spend money on a night on the town. For some, that might involve a couple of hours together in a crowded air-conditioned chain movie theater, gorging yourself on pails of butter-slathered junk food.

If that’s your reality, here are the options, three of which were released on Valentine’s Day.

The first is Beautiful Creatures (Warner Brothers, 124 min.), a new romantic fantasy about a young human boy falling head over heels for a young female witch in rural South Carolina. (In the Beautiful Creatures universe, good witches prefer the more politically correct term “caster.”) The film is a irreverent and genuinely interesting entry into the ever-bloated “Teen-Human-Falls-In-Forbidden-Love-With-Teen-Supernatural-Being” subgenre, so comparisons to the über-profitable Twilight franchise are inevitable, and the studio’s ad campaign predictably tries to make Beautiful Creatures look like as much like Twilight as possible.

Such comparisons are bunk. Unlike any of the five movies in the Twilight saga, Beautiful Creatures is funny, sexy, and not a heaving pile of savage unbearability. And unlike any of the various Twilights, the cast here is uniformly excellent (Viola Davis, Emmy Rossum, Emma Thompson, Jeremy Irons, Zoey Deutch, and the two romantic leads Alden Ehrenreich and Alice Englert).

It’s more fitting to compare Beautiful Creatures to two other films also now in theaters. The newly released (and quite lovely) Warm Bodies—a romantic zombie comedy that includes the best use of Bruce Springsteen music in recent cinema—is essentially the same movie as Beautiful Creatures, if you swap the latter’s witches for zombies. Both films are human/non-human teen romances, are based on a novel, are helmed by a talented writer/director, have an Australian actress in the lead female role, and were released within a few weeks of each other. You could also appropriately compare Beautiful Creatures to the new 3D action flick Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters, seeing as how both films prominently feature a Bloodlusting Witch Hitler -type character (Emma Thompson plays the genocidal witch character in the former, Famke Janssen in the latter).

Continue Reading »

See more here:  

For Valentine’s Day Weekend 2013: Witches, Zombies, Nicholas Sparks, and "Die Hard"

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on For Valentine’s Day Weekend 2013: Witches, Zombies, Nicholas Sparks, and "Die Hard"

I Think Voldemort Has Put a Curse on SOTU Responses

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

Last week I wrote that everyone fails when it comes to delivering a reply to the State of the Union address. “I would run, not walk, if party leaders asked me to give the SOTU response,” I said. “My kid has a piano recital that night. It’s my anniversary. Anything. I think you’d have to be nuts to agree to do this.”

Nonetheless, it never occurred to me that Marco Rubio would take a big swig of water right in the middle of his response. That’s a failure mode that I never anticipated. Still, the rule remains unbroken: don’t give a SOTU response. Period. It’s only slightly less dangerous than agreeing to be the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher at Hogwarts.

Link:

I Think Voldemort Has Put a Curse on SOTU Responses

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , | Comments Off on I Think Voldemort Has Put a Curse on SOTU Responses

In State of the Union, Obama Presents a Powerful Progressive Agenda

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

In the first State of the Union address of his second term, President Barack Obama sent a clear signal: he will vigorously pursue an unambiguous progressive agenda in his final years as president. Universal preschool, boosting the minimum wage, passing gun-safety legislation—Obama delivered a left-of-center demand list for Congress and his administration. He talked far more about jobs than taming the debt. He certainly cited his own efforts to reduce the deficits and hinted at another version of the grand bargain—pairing cuts in entitlements with a boost in tax revenues—the holy grail of the inside-the-Beltway set. But he advocated “modest” Medicare reforms, citing limits on payments, not benefits, and decried those calling for deep cuts in this program and Social Security. And he declared he would not yield to those seeking such cuts to stave off the soon-to-hit sequestration.

“We can’t just cut our way to prosperity,” Obama insisted, once again drawing the line between his progressive view of government as a source of investment in jobs-creating innovation and infrastructure and social development and the tea party-ized GOP’s belief that the only solution to the nation’s economic woes is slashing government and the tax bills of the well-to-do. This was the face-off he established after the shellacking of 2010 to set up the campaign of 2012. And that certainly worked out as he intended. Now re-elected by a healthy margin, Obama is willing to defy the conventionalists of Washington who fixate on debt and, instead, speak of other priorities: educating children, enhancing the purchasing power of low-income Americans, and protecting citizens from gun violence. This is a president setting his own course.

The speech was more than a Clintonesque recital of favorite policy initiatives. It was a thematic presentation of a to-do list. He nodded toward the deficit hawks, defied the Republican tea partiers, and forged ahead with the vision of America that he repeatedly explained during last year’s campaign. Having won a three-quarters-loaf victory in the fight over the Bush tax cuts weeks ago, Obama pivoted from using that tussle over tax rates for the rich to cold-cock GOPers to confronting them over private interest tax loopholes. You want to cut programs for middle- and low-income Americans to deal with the nation’s debt? he said. Well, that’s not going to happen, especially if you won’t support ending tax breaks for the well-heeled: “After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks?” He essentially dared House GOPers to play chicken with him again over government spending and the debt ceiling:

So let’s set party interests aside, and work to pass a budget that replaces reckless cuts with smart savings and wise investments in our future. And let’s do it without the brinksmanship that stresses consumers and scares off investors. The greatest nation on Earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next. Let’s agree, right here, right now, to keep the people’s government open, pay our bills on time, and always uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The American people have worked too hard, for too long, rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause another.

Obama has said this before. When he proclaimed, “let’s be clear: deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan,” he was not breaking new ground in his ongoing stand-off with the Rs.

What made this speech different was his forceful advocacy of fundamental progressive proposals. He called for an infrastructure-boosting bridge-building program and the launching of high-tech manufacturing hubs. He beefed up his demand for climate change action—and cornered Senator John McCain by urging “Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago.” He added, “if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

Noting that fewer than three in ten four year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program, Obama proposed working with states “to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America.” That is, as Joe Biden might say, a BFD. The president renewed his call for comprehensive immigration reform and insisted that Congress pass legislation that addresses the gap in pay between women and men. And Obama said it was time to boost the minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. (This, though, does represent a scaling-back of ambitions: In 2008, he called for it to be raised to $9.50 an hour by 2011.) He announced the formation of a commission to address the rampant problems in the nation’s voting system—and hailed a 102-year-old North Miami woman named Desilene Victor, who endured hours of waiting to vote in the last election.

On the foreign policy front, Obama also took a liberal line. He announced that he would be pulling 34,000 troops out of Afghanistan this year and that the war there would indeed be over by the end of next year. (Or at least the current version of the war.) And he addressed the criticisms of his administration’s drone program with a direct promise:

We must enlist our values in the counterterrorism fight. That is why my Administration has worked tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations. Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts. I recognize that in our democracy, no one should just take my word for it that we’re doing things the right way. So, in the months ahead, I will continue to engage with Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention, and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.

These are just merely words and will not on their own satisfy civil libertarians and others troubled by the drone strikes. But this is certainly not a sentiment that the Bush-Cheney crowd held. And it is a marker that Obama can be called on in the months ahead.

More MoJo coverage on guns:


More Guns, More Mass Shootingsâ&#128;&#148;Coincidence?


The NRA Surge: 99 Laws Rolling Back Gun Restrictions


A Guide to Mass Shootings in America


How the NRA and Its Allies Helped Spread a Radical Gun Law Nationwide


Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.


Flashback: How Republicans and the NRA Kneecapped the ATF


Mass Shootings: Maybe What We Need Is a Better Mental-Health Policy

The emotional highlight of the speech came when the president turned to an issue American politicians have long ducked: gun violence. Obama ended the speech with a demand that the Congress take action on proposals he has put forward:

It has been two months since Newtown. I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans—Americans who believe in the Second Amendment—have come together around commonsense reform—like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because they are tired of being outgunned.

No recent president has focused on gun violence with such passion in a state of the union speech. Obama cited the tragic case of Hadiya Pendleton:

She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette. She was so good to her friends, they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house.

Her parents were in the House chambers. “They deserve a vote,” he said. And he went on: “Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence – they deserve a simple vote.”

It was a powerful moment in a speech that offered a muscular progressivism, one centered firmly on values.

A speech, of course, won’t win the tough political and policy fights that Obama will confront in the coming months and years. But with this address, he didn’t hold back. And if he only succeeds in placing this nation on the road to universal preschool, that in itself would be a historic accomplishment of fundamental consequence. With this address—which seemed to bore House Speaker John Boehner—the president was not trying to win over recalcitrant Republicans and nudge them toward the compromises they have by and large eschewed. He was trying to lead.

Continue at source – 

In State of the Union, Obama Presents a Powerful Progressive Agenda

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on In State of the Union, Obama Presents a Powerful Progressive Agenda

It’s fast-food fish season — and no, it’s not sustainable

It’s fast-food fish season — and no, it’s not sustainable

Marine Stewardship Council

McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish sandwich was originally introduced in 1962 to appeal particularly to Catholic customers who eschew meat every Friday during Lent, which lasts for about 40 days. This year, McDonald’s will have new Fish McBites on hand, too. But it’s not just Lent, which begins this Wednesday, that’s been a boon for fast-food fish. From Time:

In recent months, fast food establishments have demonstrated a taste for chicken. Poultry has reached a new level of popularity among fast food restaurants and diners alike because it’s a cheaper and healthier alternative to beef (or at least it’s perceived to be so). Chicken is also easily prepared in bite-size portions (nuggets, dippers, McBites, etc.), making it a perfect fit for the rising culture of on-the-go snacking.

If one affordable, quick, and healthy (or at least healthier) snack proves to be a hit with customers, fast food restaurants are sure to see if similar offerings can succeed as well. That’s why we’re seeing a big push for fish lately.

And it’s not just McDonald’s.

This week, Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s introduced the Charbroiled Atlantic Cod Fish Sandwich at all locations around the country. The company announced the new sandwich was aimed directly at consumers tweaking their diets during Lent, and also folks concerned about eating more healthfully in the new year…

Meanwhile, next week, Wendy’s will begin advertising its Premium Fish Fillet Sandwich, which the chain has made available for a limited time around Lent for a few years in a row. None of this means that fish will come anywhere near the popularity of chicken at fast food establishments anytime soon. But more and more, the February-March period is clearly peak season for fans of fast food fish treats.

Here’s Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s sandwich commercial featuring a scantily clad swimsuit model, which might make you think twice about this whole “appealing to pious Christians” thing:

According to Seafood Watch, depending on how and where it’s caught, that Atlantic cod may be either a middling “good alternative” or a big “avoid” when it comes to sustainable fish-eats, which puts Carl’s Jr. just slightly behind McDonald’s greenwashed pollock when it comes to not destroying the oceans.

For the planet’s sake, Lent observers, maybe you could try going veg for a few weeks? It won’t hurt too much, I promise.

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

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Food

,

Living

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Read original article – 

It’s fast-food fish season — and no, it’s not sustainable

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s fast-food fish season — and no, it’s not sustainable

7 Small Greenhouse Ideas

Julie W.

on

Apple Peels Turn On Anticancer Genes

31 minutes ago

customize your newsletter

causes & news
animal welfare
global warming
environment & wildlife
human rights
women’s rights
news
submit news story
healthy living
food & recipes
health & wellness
healthy home
family life
true beauty
pets
shopping
take action
browse petitions
create a petition
daily action
volunteer
jobfinder
click to donate
community & sharing
people
groups
singles
photos
blogs
polls
ecards
my care2
my account
my groups
my page
my friends
my petitionsite
my messages
join care2
about us
advertise
partnerships
careers
press
contact us
terms of service
privacy
subscription center
help
rss feeds

Copyright © 2013 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved

healthy living
food
health
love + sex
nature
pets
spirit
home
life
family
green
do good
all recipes
appetizers & snacks
basics
desserts
drinks
eating for health
entrees
green kitchen tips
raw
side dishes
soups & salads
vegan
vegetarian
videos
ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES
AYURVEDA
CONDITIONS
DIET & NUTRITION
FITNESS
GENERAL HEALTH
HEALTHY AGING
Mental Wellness
MEN’S HEALTH
NATURAL REMEDIES
WOMEN’S HEALTH
VIDEOS
dating
friendship
relationships
sex
videos
environment
lawns & gardens
natural pest control
outdoor activities
wildlife
videos
Adoptable Pets
Animal Rights
Behavior & Communication
Cats
Dogs
Everyday Pet Care
Humor & Inspiration
Less Common Pets
Pet Health
Cute Pet Photos
Safety
Wildlife
Remedies and Treatments
Videos
Biorhythms
Deepak Chopra’s Tips
Exercises
Global Healing
Guidance
Inspiration
Peace
Self-Help
Spirituality & Technology
Videos
home
life
family
beauty
green
do good
crafts & designs
news
videos
conscious consumer
blogs
astrology
my favorites
my Care2 main
my account
my butterfly rewards
my click to donate
my eCards
my friends
my groups
my kudos
my messages
my news
my page
my petitionsite
my photos
my sharebook
my subscriptions

View original post here:  

7 Small Greenhouse Ideas

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 7 Small Greenhouse Ideas

Anti-Evolution Missouri Bill Requires College Students to Learn About Destiny

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

Late last month, Rick Brattin, a Republican state representative in Missouri, introduced a bill that would require that intelligent design and “destiny” get the same educational treatment and textbook space in Missouri schools as the theory of evolution. Brattin insists that his bill has nothing to do with religionâ&#128;&#148;it’s all in the name of science.

“I’m a science enthusiast…I’m a huge science buff,” Brattin tells The Riverfront Times. “This bill is about testable data in today’s world.” But Eric Meikle, education project director at the National Center for Science Education, disagrees. “This bill is very idiosyncratic and strange,” he tells Mother Jones. “And there is simply not scientific evidence for intelligence design.”

HB 291, the “Missouri Standard Science Act,” redefines a few things you thought you already knew about science. For example, a “hypothesis” is redefined as something that reflects a “minority of scientific opinion and is “philosophically unpopular.” A scientific theory is “an inferred explanation…whose components are data, logic and faith-based philosophy.” And “destiny” is not something that $5 fortune tellers believe in; Instead, it’s “the events and processes that define the future of the universe, galaxies, stars, our solar system, earth, plant life, animal life, and the human race.”

The bill requires that Missouri elementary and secondary schoolsâ&#128;&#148;and even introductory science classes in public universitiesâ&#128;&#148;give equal textbook space to both evolution and intelligent design (any other “theories of origin” are allowed to be taught as well, so pick your favorite creation mythâ&#128;&#148;I’m partial to the Russian raven spirit.) “I can’t imagine any mainstream textbook publisher would comply with this,” Meikle says. “The material doesn’t exist.”

The bill also establishes a nine-person committee (who must work for free) responsible for developing ad-hoc textbook material until appropriate textbook material is found.

Another bill introduced in the Missouri House, HB 179, has more in common with anti-evolution bills that have been proposed this year in states like Montana and Colorado. It asks teachers to “create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions”â&#128;&#148;but doesn’t explicitly mention intelligent design. This is hardly the first time the Missouri House has tried to get evolution theory out of the classroom. Brattin and other cosponsors tried to get similar legislation passed last year, but the bill died in committee. In 2003, another bill with near-identical language to to HB 291 was sponsored by Rep. Robert Wayne Cooper (R-Mo.), but it also said that teachers who didn’t comply would be fired. It was so controversial that more than 450 Missouri scientists and educators supported a statement that said “intelligent design…isn’t science.”

Brattin argues that there are “numerous college professors within biology, school science teachers” who are “banned from the science community” because they want to teach other theories of origin. The National Center for Science Education’s Meikle agreesâ&#128;&#148;the bill really could “open the door for teachers who are opposed to evolution to bring in creationist materials.” That’s why his group is “hoping it doesn’t pass.”

Jump to original – 

Anti-Evolution Missouri Bill Requires College Students to Learn About Destiny

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Anti-Evolution Missouri Bill Requires College Students to Learn About Destiny

The Iron Triangle Meets the Sequester

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

Over at NRO, Robert Costa and Katrina Trinko catch up with Tom DeLay, who makes a point so obvious about the sequester that I’m surprised I hear this so seldom:

Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader, who was meeting with a few of his former colleagues on Wednesday at the Capitol, says Boehner’s playbook is “sharp,” since defense spending “can always be replaced during the appropriations process, after the cuts are put into place.”

“You can always put money back in for defense,” DeLay says. “I think Boehner is going to stick with the sequester since the cuts are already happening, and if he needs to do something later, he can. I don’t think the president realizes how Boehner has the upper hand.”

Dave Weigel quotes a Republican “spending hawk” who’s furious about this. “I cannot tell you what a disaster I think it is for Republicans to take a year of cuts and play the same game we’ve been playing,” he says. “It erodes every ounce of credibility on our side.”

Meh. I guess this is possible. But I doubt it. There might be a few genuine deficit hawks in the conservative movement, but they’re few and far between. It’s hardly a secret that of the three options for reducing the deficitâ&#128;&#148;cutting domestic spending, cutting defense spending, and raising taxesâ&#128;&#148;conservatives only favor the first. They’re welfare hawks, not deficit hawks. I doubt that the Republican leadership will lose any points among the base for increasing the defense budget.

The question, then, is whether Democrats can stand up to the pressure to reverse the Pentagon cuts. I don’t think they’re as vulnerable as they once were to appeasement demagoguery, but they’re still vulnerable. I don’t know for sure how this will play out, but DeLay definitely has a point.

See the original post: 

The Iron Triangle Meets the Sequester

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , | Comments Off on The Iron Triangle Meets the Sequester

Want to fight climate change? Don’t work so hard

Want to fight climate change? Don’t work so hard

Shutterstock

Here’s one way to stop global warming: SMASH CAPITALISM!

That is how I choose to read a study released this week by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which found that switching to a “more European” work schedule, i.e. working fewer hours and taking more vacation, could prevent as much as half of “global warming that is not already locked in.” From U.S. News:

“The relationship between [shorter work hours and lower emissions] is complex and not clearly understood, but it is understandable that lowering levels of consumption, holding everything else constant, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” writes economist David Rosnick, author of the study. Rosnick says some of that reduction can be attributed to fewer operating hours in factories and other workplaces that consume high levels of energy. …

Rosnick says a move toward the European system would result in a trade-off of up to one quarter of income gains in exchange for increased leisure time and vacation. His best-case scenario, which predicts prevention of up to a 1.3 degree Celsius temperature increase, assumes that Americans would begin working about 0.5 percent less each year, starting with a 10-hour reduction in 2013. “We can get a similar amount of work done as productivity and technology improves,” he says. “It’s something we have to decide as a country—there are economic models in which individuals get to decide their hours and are still similarly productive as they are now.”

Rosnick didn’t consider the impact of telecommuting, so it’s not clear how emissions might be affected by fewer people driving to their workplaces, or by companies expecting telecommuters to put in longer hours.

But if everyone did work less, that could mean reductions in all kinds of pollution and pillaging. I don’t see “Smash Capitalism!” catching on at Chevron, though. Maybe “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Capitalism”?

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

Twitter

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Living

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View original:

Want to fight climate change? Don’t work so hard

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Want to fight climate change? Don’t work so hard

Here’s a Potential GOP Senate Candidate Playing Beer Pong

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

On Tuesday, after a handful of Republican candidates with statewide name recognition had signaled they weren’t interested, Massachusetts state Rep. Dan Winslow announced he was forming an exploratory committee for the special election to replace former Democratic Sen. John Kerry. Winslow, who is pro-choice and has been previously endorsed by gay rights groups, has been viewed as a rising star in the state party for a few years now (see this profile in Commonwealth magazine in 2011), but would face an uphill challenge if he runs. Reps. Stephen Lynch and Ed Markey are vying for the Democratic nomination.

Prior to launching his exploratory committee, though, Winslow’s most noteworthy political move was becoming perhaps the only pol in American history to hold a photo op while playing beer pong. The “Beer Pong and Politics Networking and Fundraiser,” held at Boston’s Battery Park Bar and Lounge in September 2011, gave attendees a chance to mingle with their representative while partaking in the national sport of 18â&#128;&#147;24-year-olds. As Winslow told the Medfield Press, “The idea is to encourage participation by people not typically involved in politics. It’s as much a ‘friend-raiser’ as a ‘fund-raiser'”â&#128;&#148;hence the low ticket price ($25, open-bar included). Per the Press, Winslow played with water in his cups instead of beer.

Here’s the logo for the event, per its Facebook page:

“Sink it / drink it” Facebook

And here’s Winslow’s promotional tweet:

Winslow isn’t the only Republican interested in the race. The Hill reported that the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee has also approached former Navy SEAL Gabriel Gomez about running for the seat.

Winslow hasn’t responded to a Mother Jones inquiry about the his pong skills, but we’ll update if we hear back.

Read article here:  

Here’s a Potential GOP Senate Candidate Playing Beer Pong

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s a Potential GOP Senate Candidate Playing Beer Pong