Tag Archives: agency

Trump’s win is a deadly threat to stopping climate change.

by MackenzieTarr9 Posted on November 9, 2016

A President Clinton would have faced a divided Congress, limiting what she could accomplish in terms of advancing climate action. But with both houses in GOP hands, Donald Trump has no such limitations in what he could do to reverse it.

Most of President Obama’s efforts on the clean energy front were made using his executive powers — powers that will now allow Trump to fulfill many of his promises to completely defund climate action and gut environmental protection.

He’s pledged to pull the United States from the Paris climate agreement. He’s vowed to cut all federal climate spending. He is going to appoint a known climate denier, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell, to head the Environmental Protection Agency’s transition team.

Under Trump’s appointees, the EPA’s powers will be rolled back, with weaker enforcement of regulations mandated by the Clean Air Act and upheld by the Supreme Court. Of course, Trump will have his pick on the Supreme Court, too — which could soon decide the fate of Obama’s central climate accomplishment, the Clean Power Plan.

All of this could set the world back another decade or more on tackling climate change. Democrats can filibuster some. Environmentalists, in full defense mode in the courts, might be able to limit the damage. But limiting is the best we can hope for now.

Originally posted here: 

Trump’s win is a deadly threat to stopping climate change.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Ringer, solar, Uncategorized, Wiley | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s win is a deadly threat to stopping climate change.

Exclusive: The Democratic National Committee Has Told the FBI It Found Evidence Its HQ Was Bugged

by CristinDraper Posted on November 4, 2016

Mother Jones

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

In an episode reminiscent of Watergate, the Democratic Party recently informed the FBI that it had collected evidence suggesting its Washington headquarters had been bugged, according to two Democratic National Committee officials who asked not to be named.

In September, according to these sources, the DNC hired a firm to conduct an electronic sweep of its offices. After Russian hackers had penetrated its email system and those of other Democratic targets, DNC officials believed it was prudent to scrutinize their offices. This examination found nothing unusual.

In late October, after conservative activist James O’Keefe released a new set of hidden-camera videos targeting Democrats, interim party chairwoman Donna Brazile ordered up another sweep. There was a concern that Republican foes might have infiltrated the DNC offices, where volunteers were reporting to work on phone banks and other election activities. (For some of their actions, O’Keefe and his crew have used people posing as volunteers to gain access to Democratic outfits.)

The second sweep, according to the Democratic officials, found a radio signal near the chairman’s office that indicated there might be a listening device outside the office. “We were told that this was something that could pick up calls from cellphones,” a DNC official says. “The guys who did the sweep said it was a strong indication.” No device was recovered. No possible culprits were identified.

The DNC sent a report with the technical details to the FBI, according to the DNC officials. “We believe it’s been given by the bureau to another agency with three letters to examine,” the DNC official says. “We’re not supposed to talk about it.”

A Democratic consultant who has done work for the DNC, who asked not to be identified, says he was recently informed about the suspected bugging.

The DNC officials will not say what countermeasures were subsequently taken. “As a general policy, we don’t talk about such efforts,” the other DNC official says. But this official adds, “You have to take all of this incredibly seriously.” The first DNC official notes, “We are the oldest political party in this country, and we are under constant attack from Russia and/or maybe others.”

Adam Hodge, a spokesman for the DNC, says, “The DNC is not going to comment on stories about its security. In all security matters, we cooperate fully with the appropriate law enforcement agencies and take all necessary steps to protect the committee and the safety and security of our staff.”

The FBI did not respond to a request for comment.

View article: 

Exclusive: The Democratic National Committee Has Told the FBI It Found Evidence Its HQ Was Bugged

Posted in Cyber, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Exclusive: The Democratic National Committee Has Told the FBI It Found Evidence Its HQ Was Bugged

It’s a good day to be a seal, for once.

by KevinJackson Posted on October 25, 2016

According to a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), renewable energy, mostly solar and wind, accounted for more than half of all new electric capacity added in the world last year, a 15 percent jump from 2014. Globally, there is now more renewable power capacity than coal power capacity.

Clean energy growth was especially high in China, which was responsible for about 40 percent of all new clean energy capacity. Get this: In China in 2015, two wind turbines were installed every hour.

This surge in renewables, according to the IEA, can be attributed to policy changes, lowered costs, and improvements in technology.

So renewable energy hit some big milestones last year, but it’s still just the beginning: The IEA — which has been accused of underestimating the growth of renewables — expects 28 percent of electricity to come from renewables by 2021, up from 23 percent today.

“I am pleased to see that last year was one of records for renewables and that our projections for growth over the next five years are more optimistic,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “However, even these higher expectations remain modest compared with the huge untapped potential of renewables.”

So let’s keep this moving, folks.

Link to article:

It’s a good day to be a seal, for once.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Ringer, solar, solar panels, solar power, Springer, Uncategorized, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s a good day to be a seal, for once.

Fossil fuel favorite Lamar Smith just lost a big ol’ endorsement.

by Nathanmlm Posted on October 19, 2016

The San Antonio Express-News, the fourth-largest daily newspaper in Texas, has refused to repeat its prior endorsement of Rep. Smith, who has represented Texas’ 21st congressional district since 1987.

Smith is chair of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee — and a climate change denier. The paper’s editorial board accuses him of “abuse” of that position and “bullying on the issue of climate change”:

[L]ast year Smith threatened the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Kathryn Sullivan, with criminal charges if she didn’t release emails from scientists about a certain climate change study. That study refuted gospel by deniers that global warming slowed between 1998 and 2012.

Smith said he was shielding scientific inquiry. But the real effect would be to chill such efforts. And in 2015, Smith sought to cut NASA funding for earth science — a science that includes climate science research. He said the agency should focus on space exploration. Both are necessary.

The non-endorsement ends with an acknowledgment that Smith will probably win in his largely conservative district anyway.

Luckily for Smith, he has other friends in high places: namely, the fossil fuel industry, which has donated more than $92,000 to his campaign this season.

Read the article – 

Fossil fuel favorite Lamar Smith just lost a big ol’ endorsement.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Ringer, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fossil fuel favorite Lamar Smith just lost a big ol’ endorsement.

This Simple Change Slashed England’s Plastic Bag Use By 90%

by MaeChatterton9 Posted on October 12, 2016

Although the mere suggestion of making people pay a fee to bring their groceries home in a plastic bagcauses nothing short of outragein most American communities, a fellow developed nation’sexperiment with just such a bag fee recently provided definitive proof that such “taxes” can be shockingly effective.

See, we have this idea that plastic bags are free, a bonus gift provided by the store so that we can get our eggs home in one piece. Truthfully, thecost of offering disposable bags is simply passed on to the consumer in the form of higher product prices.(According to The Wall Street Journal, the estimated cost is somewhere around$4 billion.)

We say “cost” in the traditional sense, of course, becauseif you factored in the cost of what these bags are doing to the environment AFTER our eggs are safely in the fridge, it would make your eyes water.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, over 380 billion plastic bags, sacks and wraps are consumed in the U.S. each year.

Producing all of these bags requires upwards of 2.2 billion pounds of fossil fuel and 3.9 billion gallons of fresh water. The manufacturing of these bags alone produces a billion pounds of solid waste and 2.7 million tons of CO2 per year. And that’s all BEFORE the bagger at the grocery store tucks your eggs inside.

Most of those 380 billion plastic bags are only used for 12 minutes, before being tossed into the trash (few recycling programs accept them) and making their way into our waterways.

“The mass consumption of plastic products has created a plastic wasteland in our oceans. Globally, there is now more plastic in our oceans than plankton, with 46,000 pieces of plastic in every square mile of ocean. Marine and avian are choked and strangled by discarded bags, and are killed by consuming partially broken-down plastic pieces. This plastic pollution negatively impacts 267 species of marine life,” reports Citizens Campaign for the Environment.

If you feel like shouting “STOP THE MADNESS!” you’re not alone.

So how do you get billions of people around the world to start bringing their own reusable bags to the store? Hit ‘em where it hurts: their wallets.

England instituted a 5 pence (approximately 7 cents USD) fee for bag in October 2015, and since then, around 90 percent of people now take their own bags with them when food shopping as a result of the plastic carrier bag charge.

NINETY PERCENT!

In addition to this shocking drop in plastic bag use, less than 1 in 15 shoppers (7 percent) are now regularly taking single-use carrier bags at the checkout as opposed to 1 in 4 shoppers before the charge.

Accordingresearchers at Cardiff University, the study indicates that thecharge made shoppers stop and think whether they really need to use a single-use plastic bag for their shopping.

And the answer, contrary to what many in the plastic bag industry might say, is a resounding ‘no.’

Image Credit: Thinkstock

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Link – 

This Simple Change Slashed England’s Plastic Bag Use By 90%

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Simple Change Slashed England’s Plastic Bag Use By 90%

We fact-checked what Trump and Clinton said about energy at the debate

by gjrrkjujp Posted on October 10, 2016

Donald Trump told a few lies about energy during the debate Sunday night, while Hillary Clinton reiterated her warm feelings for natural gas.

In the last substantive question of the town hall–style debate, an audience member asked how the candidates’ energy policies would “meet our energy needs while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?”

Trump

Trump went first, cramming an impressive number of false and nonsensical statements into his two-minute answer. (On the upside, he demonstrated that he now knows what EPA stands for, correctly referring to it as the Environmental Protection Agency instead of “Department of Environmental.”) Here are the highlights:

• Trump: “[E]nergy is under siege by the Obama administration. … We are killing, absolutely killing, our energy business in this country.”

In fact: Total U.S. energy production has increased for the last six years in a row. The oil and gas sector has been booming during the Obama presidency, as have the solar and wind industries. Coal companies have been struggling — but that is largely not the fault of President Obama, just as the oil boom is largely not something he can take credit for.

• Trump: “I will bring our energy companies back. … They will make money. They will pay off our national debt. They will pay off our tremendous budget deficits.”

In fact: There is no remotely credible economic analysis to suggest that Trump’s proposals for expanded domestic fossil fuel extraction would generate enough additional tax revenue to close the budget deficit, much less pay off the existing national debt. It’s particularly implausible when you consider Trump’s massive tax-cut plans that would make both the deficit and debt considerably larger.

• Trump: “I’m all for alternative forms of energy, including wind, including solar, etc.”

In fact: Trump’s energy plan offers nothing to increase solar or wind energy production, but instead focuses on boosting fossil fuels.

• Trump: “There is a thing called clean coal.”

In fact: The hope that coal plants’ carbon emissions can be drastically reduced — either through technology that captures and sequesters the emissions or that converts coal to synthetic gas — burns eternal for the coal industry’s cheerleaders. But no one has actually significantly cut emissions at an economically viable coal plant. The promises of “clean coal” projects have not been fulfilled.

• Trump: “Foreign companies are now coming in and buying so many of our different plants, and then rejiggering the plant so they can take care of their oil.”

In fact: What is Trump trying to say with this gibberish? We have no idea.

Clinton

Clinton’s answer was, as one would expect, more cautious and tempered. She said, among other things, that she supports “moving toward more clean, renewable energy as quickly as we can, because I think we can be the 21st century clean-energy superpower and create millions of new jobs and businesses.” And her climate and energy plan would indeed promote renewable power.

But she also made some dubious statements herself:

• Clinton: “We are … producing a lot of natural gas, which serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels, and I think that’s an important transition.”

In fact: This comment surely set many climate activists’ teeth on edge — and not for the first time, as Clinton has been saying similar things for years. Many activists strongly disagree that natural gas should be part of a plan to shift to renewables and fight climate change. Multiple studies have indicated that natural gas is no better for the climate than coal when you consider the high rates of methane leakage in natural gas production and transport. 350.org, the aggressive anti–fossil fuel group, swiftly issued a statement criticizing that comment while praising the rest of Clinton’s response.

• Clinton: “[W]e are now, for the first time ever, energy independent. We are not dependent upon the Middle East. But the Middle East still controls a lot of the prices.”

In fact: Clinton was pandering to voter ignorance with her claim that the U.S. has become “energy independent.” Though U.S. oil production is up and oil imports are down, the country is still a net importer of crude oil and petroleum products. And as Clinton herself acknowledged, global oil prices are set by global supply and demand, so we will not be disentangled from the Middle East until we stop using so much oil, regardless of where it is drilled.

Climate?

Clinton, unlike Trump, did say that her energy plan includes “fighting climate change, because I think that’s a serious problem.” That was the entirety of either candidate’s nod to the “environmentally friendly” portion of the question.

Political discussion of energy still revolves mainly around how to produce more of it rather than how to produce it without burning up the planet.

Election Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this election

Original article: 

We fact-checked what Trump and Clinton said about energy at the debate

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We fact-checked what Trump and Clinton said about energy at the debate

The Government Says This Popular Pesticide Doesn’t Cause Cancer. Here’s the Problem With That.

by EstelaDuckworth Posted on September 20, 2016

Mother Jones

Back in 1996, seed and chemical giant Monsanto introduced crops engineered to withstand a weed killer called glyphosate (brand name: Roundup). Soon after, glyphosate emerged as by far the globe’s most prolific pesticide, its use spiking ninefold in the United States and nearly fifteenfold globally. All the while, it enjoyed a reputation as a relatively benign agrichemical compared with older, harsher herbicides like 2,4-D and dicamba.

Last year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which evaluates potential carcinogens for the World Health Organization, detonated a stink bomb in global agriculture and public-health circles by declaring glyphosate “probably carcinogenic to humans,” after completing a lengthy assessment of the existing science.

But in a report released last week, staff scientists for the US Environmental Protection Agency—which is in the middle of reevaluating glyphosate and a host of other commonly used chemicals—pushed back, declaring that their own review of the scientific literature found the weed killer “not likely” to be carcinogenic to humans. The EPA will host a panel of outside scientists in October to evaluate the report.

The EPA’s in-house assessment criticized the IARC report, claiming that some of the more damning studies that led to the “probably carcinogenic” conclusion were “low quality” and therefore irrelevant.

The EPA isn’t the first major public authority to contradict the IARC’s finding. The European Food Safety Agency concluded last year that glyphosate is “unlikely” to cause cancer, though it did propose a “new safety measure that will tighten the control of glyphosate residues in food.” In May, another arm of the WHO teamed up with the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to assemble a panel to evaluate glyphosate. The joint WHO/FAO team, too, found it an unlikely carcinogen.

One subtle difference between the IARC’s review and that of the EPA, the EFSA, and the FAO involves the question of whether to evaluate glyphosate as an isolated chemical or the way it’s actually used in farm fields. To make a usable herbicide, agrichemical companies mix an active ingredient like glyphosate with other chemicals, called adjuvants and surfactants, that help ensure the pesticide penetrates beneath a weed’s surface, or coats its leaves, to administer the poison. As I’ve shown before, these chemical additives are lightly (at best) regulated by the EPA, and can have harmful effects.

The IARC indicates that it took data from studies that used both “pure” glyphosate and real-world formulations of glyphosate with other chemicals. The group found “strong” evidence that in both isolated and mixed forms, the famed herbicide can cause cancer.

While the EPA and the EFSA disagree with that conclusion about pure glyphosate, they have so far not taken a position on the stuff as it’s actually used. In its assessment, the EPA states that it evaluated only the “human carcinogenic potential for the active ingredient,” not that of “glyphosate-based pesticide formulations.” As for the EFSA, its conclusion, too, was based on pure glyphosate, and it acknowledged that one common ingredient in glyhpsate-based herbicides, POE-tallowamine, is more toxic than glyphosate itself. The carcinogenic potential of real-world glyphosate formulations “should be further considered and addressed,” EFSA added.

The European Union banned POE-tallowamine in July. In a blog post a few weeks later, Monsanto claimed that it had “already been preparing for a gradual transition away from tallowamine to other types of surfactants for commercial reasons,” adding that “tallowamine-based products do not pose an imminent risk for human health when used according to instructions.” (For more on this, see this excellent piece from the Intercept‘s Sharon Lerner.) The company did not say what it planned to replace POE-tallowamine with.

Here in the United States, more than 3.5 billion pounds of pure glyphosate have been applied since 1974, about two-thirds of that in the last decade alone. It’s great to know that on its own, glyphosate doesn’t likely trigger cancer. It would be better still to know more about its effects as it’s actually used, mixed with other, lightly studied chemicals.

Excerpt from: 

The Government Says This Popular Pesticide Doesn’t Cause Cancer. Here’s the Problem With That.

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ringer, Springer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Government Says This Popular Pesticide Doesn’t Cause Cancer. Here’s the Problem With That.

What Will You Eat if Disaster Strikes?

by TerriEQGovxtdc Posted on September 11, 2016

September is National Preparedness Month. It comes around every year, but most peoplemaybe including youare still surprised when some kind of disaster strikes and they find themselves totally UNprepared to deal with the situationespecially when it comes to food. Here’s what you should have in your pantry in the event you lose power or can’t get to a grocery store for a while.

Water – The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages people to store one gallon of water per person for at least three days. You’ll still have to ration that amount, since you’ll use it for drinking, maybe cooking and personal hygiene. Plus, children, nursing mothers and the sick may need a little more. Living in a hot climate might also affect how much water you need to drink. And don’t forget that your pets will need water to drink, as well.

FEMA recommends that you buy commercially bottled water that you keep in its original container in a cool, dark place. If you want to store water from your own tap, you can get food-grade water storage containers online or from a camping supplies store. Just make sure to wash them well with hot soapy water and rinse well so there is no residue left when you fill them. Don’t reuse old milk jugs or soda bottles. They’re hard to clean thoroughly and may leak. Also, keep a water filter on hand in the event that you can get water, which might not be safe to drink.

Dried Food – Rice, lentils, peas, kidney beans, chickpeas, black beans, pasta and quinoa are among the dried foods you can store, as long as you have water to reconstitute them. The benefit is that they don’t need refrigeration, last a very long time in their dried state, provide a lot of good nutrition and can be cooked in a pot over a camping cookstove if you don’t have gas or electricity coming into your kitchen.

Dried cereals, nuts, raisins, cranberries and other dried fruits– These are also handy staples for the emergency-focused pantry. You can eat cereal for almost any meal and feel satisfied, and the nuts and dried fruits make a good substitute for a sweet snack when more perishable cookies and treats aren’t available.

Buy sealed bags of driedfoods, then store them in larger plastic containers with lids on them so they won’t be tempting to rodents or bugs that occasionally infiltrate a pantry. The jugs will also keep them dry in the event water gets into the house. It might be handy to have salt, pepper and other spices on hand, also in a sealed container, as well as a small cookbook to give you ideas for some delicious recipes so you won’t be reduced to eating just rice and beans.

Food in Cans or Glass Jars – The advantage of preparedfood like soups, fruits, pasta sauces, juices, olives, condiments and tuna is that they contain liquid, which might be in short supply in a true emergency. Plus, they last a very long time, usually far past the designated expiration or “use by” date on the packaging. Cans are easier to stack than jars, so if space is limited, cans might be the best option. If possible, choose cans whose linings don’t contain the chemical BPA, which can leach into food and have toxic consequences.

Freeze Dried Food – The advantage of freeze dried food is that it takes up so little space. The disadvantage is that it needs to be reconstituted with water, which might not be available. But it might take less water to reconstitute some freeze dried foods than to say, make a big pot of pasta or soak a few cups of beans. Here are some organic freeze dried foods you could add to your pantry for variety in the event disaster strikes.

Aseptically Packaged Drinks – You can get milk, juice, protein drinks and power drinks in aseptic packages, which are essentially cartons that are sealed in such a way that they don’t require refrigeration. This is particularly important where dairy products are concerned. If you love milk with your morning coffee, tea or cereal, stock up on some single serving size cartons. Don’t aim for larger cartons, since once they’re opened they can’t be stored without refrigeration.

Powder for Drinks – Powdered milk is terrific to have in an emergency pantry; you can reconstitute it with as much or as little water as you want, or add the powder to something else you’re cooking to get the calcium and protein it contributes. Many powdered “juice” mixes contain more sugar than anything else, so read the label carefully before you buy. Whey powder and other protein powders are another option.

Don’t stock your emergency pantry willy nilly. Think about the foods you and your family like to eat, so if needed, the meals you make can provide comfort as well as nourishment. Keep a list by category of the foods you stock; an emergency throws people into a state of confusion, but being organized will help you stay calm and reassure the people around you. Pull together some recipes in advance so you’re sure you have the ingredients you need to produce a meal.

Also, keep some traps on hand in case rats, mice, roaches or flour moths, also known as pantry moths, show up. The last thing you want to do is have your food supply spoiled by vermin!

Related:

What’s the Best Freeze-Dried Food?
Which Canned Foods Still Contain BPA?

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

View original post here: 

What Will You Eat if Disaster Strikes?

Posted in Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Will You Eat if Disaster Strikes?

20 Percent of Seafood Is Mislabeled

by DeanSealey Posted on September 10, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Do you ever wonder where the seafood on your plate really came from? Or whether it’s the species of fish that was advertised? New evidence proves you have every reason to be concerned: A report has found that 1 in 5 samples of seafood are mislabeled worldwide. And the mislabeling happens at every sector of the supply chain—from how the fish is sold, distributed, imported and exported, and packaged, to how it’s processed.

The report, released Wednesday by the conservation agency Oceana, analyzed 200 studies on fish fraud from 55 countries. It found fraud in (wait for it!) every investigation except one. The deception happens in different ways: for instance, by disguising a cheaper, farmed fish as a pricier, wild-caught variety, by mislabeling packaging, or by lying about the origin of the fish.

This deception gyps consumers, and it can also pose a risk to their health—fish full of mercury, for instance, might be subbed in for another variety, unbeknownst to the buyer.

Here are some of the report’s highlights, via Oceana:

The average rate of fish fraud in the United States is 28 percent, according to studies released since 2014.
In cases where a different fish was substituted for another, more than half the samples were a species that posed a health risk to consumers.
Sixty-five percent of the studies showed clear evidence that there was an economic motivation for mislabeling seafood.
You’re probably eating more catfish than you realize: Asian catfish has been substituted and sold as 18 different types of fish. The three most common types of fish used as substitutes worldwide were Asian catfish, hake, and escolar.

Not all the news is bad, however. The report highlighted that at least in the European Union, the fight against seafood fraud seems to be working. Beginning in 2010, the European Union began requiring catch documentation for all imported seafood and enacted stringent labeling and traceability requirements. The measures seem to be having an effect: Oceana found that between 2011 and 2015, overall fraud rates decreased from 23 percent to 8 percent, a low for the region.

This map from Oceana’s report shows places where seafood fraud is happening. Clicking on each fish shows a summary of each study the agency analyzed (the darker the color of the fish, the more severe the mislabeling):

For more on how fishermen are using tech to fight back against fish fraud, read this piece and listen to our Bite episode “Fishy Business” here.

Link:  

20 Percent of Seafood Is Mislabeled

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 20 Percent of Seafood Is Mislabeled

Women Say EPA Officials Sexually Harassed Them—and Their Bosses Did Nothing

by Maddiso5893 Posted on September 2, 2016

Mother Jones

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

More than a year after troubling allegations of sexual harassment at an Environmental Protection Agency office were exposed in a congressional hearing, the agency’s watchdog says it will conduct an audit of how this office handles sexual-harassment complaints. The office under scrutiny? The same one embroiled in the Flint, Michigan, water crisis months ago.

In a letter sent in August to the EPA’s Region 5 office in Chicago, the agency’s inspector general’s office said it plans to “determine whether Region 5 managers appropriately handled allegations of sexual harassment.” The audit was first reported by the Washington Examiner.

Allegations of rampant sexual harassment in the scientific community have gained prominence in recent years, with institutions such as the University of Arizona and the University of California-Berkeley investigating science professors for alleged harassment of students. Last year, Rajendra Pachauri resigned as head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change following an accusation of sexual harassment. (Pachauri has denied the allegations.) A 2014 study found that roughly two-thirds of female scientists said they had faced inappropriate sexual pressure during field research, and one quarter said they had been sexually assaulted.

In the case of the EPA, some of the allegations stem from claims made by several whistleblowers who testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in July last year. According to two of the whistleblowers, in 2011 an intern approached Ronald Harris, the Region 5 Equal Employment Opportunity officer at the time, who helped her file an informal complaint alleging that she had been harassed by Paul Bertram, an environmental scientist then employed at the agency. “It bothered her,” said Harris in his testimony to the committee. “She was strong…She kept saying to me, ‘I just want it to stop. How do I get it to stop?'”

Carolyn Bohlen, who was Harris’ supervisor at the time of the allegations, told the committee that the harassment the intern experienced included “touching, groping her, kissing her.”

After more than a dozen attempts to contact Bertram through public records searches, former colleagues, and his former employer, he could not be reached for comment. Bertram retired from the EPA in 2011, according to the House Oversight Committee’s summary of the hearing.

Harris and Bohlen also told the committee that they had been retaliated against by their superiors after raising concerns about allegations brought by the intern and other women. In a written statement to the committee, Harris alleged that he and Bohlen were subjected to bullying and intimidation. Both have since been reassigned within the agency.

On September 1, 2015, the House Oversight Committee sent a letter to the office of the EPA inspector general requesting “a thorough investigation and finding of facts” in the wake of the allegations made at the hearing. The letter included a request to investigate “whether Region 5 managers appropriately handled allegations of sexual harassment, and whether managers retaliated against employees who raised concerns.”

The committee’s chairman, Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), has been an outspoken critic of how the EPA has been run by the Obama administration, blasting the agency for issuing what he described as “unlawful” regulations aimed at combating climate change. He previously voted to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change. When it comes to the issue of possible harassment and mismanagement at the agency, however, Democratic House members such as Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), have shown solidarity with the chairman in questioning certain practices at the EPA. “Perhaps, and you may not see it, but it sounds like there’s a culture problem,” Cummings said at the hearing.”At least in some of the regions, there’s a culture problem.”

In addition to the newly announced audit of the Region 5 office’s sexual harassment policies and practices, a separate EPA inspector general investigation of the specific retaliation allegations made at the hearing is still ongoing, according to a source with knowledge of the issue. A spokesman from the inspector general’s office said it is agency policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.

This isn’t the only recent controversy involving the Region 5 office. In January, Susan Hedman resigned as the Region 5 administrator, after she was criticized for not having released a report that showed high levels of lead in Flint’s drinking water. The crisis over Flint’s toxic water led to criminal charges filed against state and city employees.

The EPA has faced other recent sexual-harassment allegations as well. Three months prior to the July 2015 hearing, the committee heard testimony from EPA officials, including EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins, alleging that a high-level employee in the EPA Office of Homeland Security in Washington, DC, had sexually harassed multiple women. When senior officials in the agency were made aware of the man’s alleged conduct, they “did not take any actions” against him, according to Patrick Sullivan, an official with the inspector general’s office who testified at the April 2015 hearing.

The inspector general’s investigation found that the man, Peter Jutro, had “engaged in unwelcomed conduct” with more than a dozen women over the course of 10 years, “including touching, hugging, kissing, photographing, and making double entendre comments with sexual connotations,” according to Sullivan’s testimony before the committee.

In an email to Mother Jones, Jutro called the testimony a “vast exaggeration” and said it “contains many elements that are simply untrue.” Jutro added:

It is true that I have hugged many people, both men and women, and have done so since childhood. My parents were German Jewish refugees who detested the coldness of their former country in the 1930s and strongly encouraged this warmer behavior in me. I also learned to sometimes kiss a person on the cheek or head as a greeting or farewell. In no case was there ever a sexual component to this. I recognize in retrospect that my behavior might have made someone uncomfortable and I feel bad and embarrassed about that, but it was never my intent. There may be actual sexual harassment at EPA, but I was not a part of it.

Karen Kellen, the former president of the largest union representing EPA employees, testified at the July 2015 hearing that during a staff discussion about the sexual-harassment allegations against Jutro, “EPA senior management did not want to hear about the extent of the harassment.”

A spokeswoman for the EPA told Mother Jones in an email, “Harassment of any kind is prohibited at the EPA and will not be tolerated.”

But Chaffetz doesn’t think the agency is doing enough to deal with the issue.

“One of the most toxic environments we have is at the EPA,” he said at the July 2015 hearing. “The mission of the EPA is to protect the environment, protect the people. The problem is the EPA doesn’t protect its own employees.”

This article is from: 

Women Say EPA Officials Sexually Harassed Them—and Their Bosses Did Nothing

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Women Say EPA Officials Sexually Harassed Them—and Their Bosses Did Nothing