Tag Archives: americans

Surprise! A third of Congress members are climate change deniers

Surprise! A third of Congress members are climate change deniers

By on 8 Mar 2016commentsShare

An annual tally of climate deniers in Congress just came out, and there’s good news and bad news. The good news: You’re smarter than 34 percent of Congress. The bad news: You’re smarter than 34 percent of Congress.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund found that there are 182 climate deniers in the current Congress: 144 in the House and 38 in the Senate. That means more than six in 10 Americans are represented by people who think that climate change is a big ‘ol liberal hoax — including some leaders at the highest levels of government, like Senate Majority Leader Mitch “I Am Not a Scientist” McConnell and senator and presidential candidate Marco “I Am Not a Scientist” Rubio. (And those are just the members of Congress who are out-and-out deniers, so it doesn’t include the many more who kinda sorta admit that something might be going on with the climate but still don’t want to do anything about it.)

Not surprisingly, many of these same climate deniers have been handsomely rewarded by the fossil fuel industry. In total, these climate-denying congresspeople have received more than $73 million in contributions from oil, gas, and coal companies over the course of their careers. To get the specifics, check out this handy interactive map, which breaks down exactly who in each state is a climate change denier — and exactly how much cash they’ve gotten from dirty energy.

Take Oklahoma, for example, where five out of seven of the current crop of congresspeople are climate deniers. Sen. James Inhofe, who holds the dubious distinction of being the most infamous denier in Congress, has received more than $2 million from fossil fuel interests. He not only called climate change “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” he actually threw a snowball on the Senate floor last year in a hilarious attempt to disprove climate change. He did not disprove climate change, but perhaps the stunt earned him an extra check from Oklahoma’s natural gas industry.

Dylann Petrohilos / ThinkProgress

If there’s a silver lining to this dark news, it’s this: Even though a healthy portion our nation’s leaders continue to perpetuate the dangerous myth that climate change isn’t real, the people know better. Nearly 70 percent of Americans support climate change action, according to the Center for American Progress Action Fund — and that includes many Republicans. Last year, a survey conducted by Republican pollsters found that even most conservative Republicans both believe climate change is real and support clean energy.

The problem is, not the ones in office.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Excerpt from: 

Surprise! A third of Congress members are climate change deniers

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Surprise! A third of Congress members are climate change deniers

TV coverage of climate change fell last year — but climate denial coverage increased

TV coverage of climate change fell last year — but climate denial coverage increased

By on 8 Mar 2016commentsShare

The medium by which most Americans get their news is sorely failing them in one very important category: climate news.

According to a report released Monday, big-name television networks — namely, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox — decreased the amount of airtime they devote to climate change by five percent from 2014 to 2015, despite public promises to cover the issue more. In 2015, climate-related issues took up just 146 minutes total of the network’s evening and Sunday news shows.

The problem isn’t just the lack of climate segments on television, either. It’s that what coverage there is is misleading. In 2015, the major networks aired a total of nine segments on Sunday and nightly shows that included climate science denial.

On the Sunday shows in particular, the number of segments featuring climate science denial increased from the previous year, from four segments in 2014 to six in 2015.

The numbers are especially significant when you consider the fact that television is the staple of the U.S. news diet — according to the American Press Institute, the TV is the device Americans use most frequently to get their news. Survey respondents preferred TV news over other sources, like smartphones or tablets.

But these days TV audiences are skewing older and older. In 2014, the median age of a broadcast or cable television viewer was 44.4 years old — a 6 percent increase from four years previous.

Advertisement – Article continues below

And TV viewers tend to be more conservative — 2013 Gallup poll found that Republicans are more likely than Democrats or independents to report that TV is their main source of news. Republicans most often chose Fox News when describing their main news source — the same network that, according to the Media Matters report, included climate denial or criticism of climate actions in nearly every segment it ran related to climate change.

Luckily, the younger generation may not actually be the audience for these segments. More and more, millennials are cutting the cord, leaving cable for streaming services instead. A 2015 survey found that one-fourth of respondents ages 18 to 29 have never had a broadcast TV subscription.

In other words, millennials may soon be too busy binging House of Cards to catch the latest idiocy on Fox news.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Read this article:  

TV coverage of climate change fell last year — but climate denial coverage increased

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on TV coverage of climate change fell last year — but climate denial coverage increased

What Instagram reveals about your access to healthy food

What Instagram reveals about your access to healthy food

By on 1 Mar 2016commentsShare

If you’ve ever stepped inside a convenience store to pick up some groceries, you may have noticed that it’s much easier to find Almond Joys than arugula.

Food deserts — places where fresh produce is not nearly as easy to come by as chips and candy — are home to millions in the United States. To see what these Americans are actually eating, a recent study turned to an unexpected source: Instagram. Researchers analyzed the content and location of 3 million public Instagram posts tagged with food words like “kale” and “Takis.”

In all regions of the U.S., Instagram posts from food deserts depicted grub that was 5 to 17 percent higher in cholesterol, sugar, and fat, even after controlling for cultural dietary variation by comparing each food desert to a non-desert of similar demographic and socioeconomic standing, The Atlantic points out. Even so, the distinction was so pronounced that the researchers could predict whether or not any given food post came from a food desert with 80 percent accuracy.

Each region of the United States had a unique Instagram food flair that differed inside and outside of food deserts. From The Atlantic:

… In the southeast U.S., food-desert dwellers posted a lot of bacon, brisket, and grits, while non-food-desert dwellers posted more peaches, beans, and collard greens. In the Midwest, food deserts were full of hamburgers, hot dogs, and the generic descriptor “meat,” while kale, turkey, and spinach were more popular outside of food deserts.

These findings suggest that people who live further from grocery stores are eating very differently from the rest of the country — and that’s a problem.

But the solution isn’t super-complicated: Studies have shown that if you open up farmers markets in areas accessible to low-income folks and have vendors accept food stamps, plenty of customers will come. 7-11 Slurpees just aren’t going to cut it when it comes to meeting America’s nutritional needs.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Source:  

What Instagram reveals about your access to healthy food

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Instagram reveals about your access to healthy food

When I Was a Prisoner in Iran, I Came to Fear the Sound of Hillary Clinton’s Voice

Mother Jones

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

I rarely think about being a prisoner in Iran anymore. I’ve been free for more than four years. It’s been a long time since the sounds of hard soles on a cement floor would remind me of my interrogator or I would suddenly need to bolt from a restaurant because I couldn’t take the throngs of people after so much time in a prison cell.

Kidnapped by Iran: Read Shane Bauer’s account of how he was captured and held by Iran for more than two years.

Last Saturday, I was dripping coffee on myself during an early morning drive when I heard that four Americans were being released from Iran as part of a prisoner swap. Suddenly, my eyes welled up. I could feel the knot of excitement and confusion that had turned in my gut when my plane from Tehran hit the tarmac in Muscat, Oman, in September 2011. I pictured the way my and my friend Josh’s families looked small in the distance, their little hands waving, as we taxied toward them. I remembered the force that pulled me—running!—down the stairs of the airplane and how, at the bottom, I laughed and cried at the same time. Everyone else did too.

I was elated for these men and their families.

Later, the joy was tempered by an old, familiar frustration. While scouring the internet for updates on the four Americans, I read that shortly after their release, Hillary Clinton called for new sanctions on Iran for testing two ballistic missiles last year. I was shocked. The prisoners had not yet been let out of the country. Why would she provoke Iran when their freedom was still on the line?

I remembered sitting in my cell in 2009—I think I was trying to memorize a family tree from Greek mythology or something equally random—when I heard then-Secretary of State Clinton’s voice from a television in a neighboring cell. I ran to the door and pressed my ear into its little window. She was commanding Iran to release us immediately. My heart sank. I imagined my interrogator bringing me into his padded room, blindfolded, and ranting about how Iran would not be bossed around by America, “The Great Satan.” I came to fear the sound of Clinton’s voice. Whenever I heard her publicly slam Iran about something, I would mentally prepare for at least another couple of months in prison.

Though I didn’t know it at the time, I wasn’t the only one who felt that way. Many of our family members grew frustrated with their meetings with her and White House officials. My wife, Sarah, who was released a year before Josh and I were, shared this frustration. Once, during a meeting with us in the prison, Swiss Ambassador Livia Leu, who represented American interests in Iran, broke from her usual reassuring demeanor and said, “They will never respond to your government demanding they release you. They need to talk to the Iranians.”

Then there was Salem Al Ismaily. He was the envoy from Oman, the country most responsible for our eventual release. “No one wanted dialogue to happen,” he said to me recently. “Not Iranians. Not the US.” Our freedom was part of a larger calculus for Oman. Sitting at the mouth of the Persian Gulf just a couple hundred miles from Iran, Oman’s government believed that if tensions between Iran and the United States escalated to the point of military conflict, it would damage its economy—or worse. Salem believed that if he could get the two countries to negotiate over our case, it would provide an opening for talks on Iran’s nuclear program. To call what ended up happening in our case “negotiation” would be a stretch: It mostly took the form of Salem flying between Washington, DC, and Tehran to convince each side to do something, or sending messages to the White House through Sarah after her release.

Shane Bauer, left, Josh Fattal, and Sarah Shourd after meeting with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in October 2011 AP Photo/Ann Heisenfelt

This was not gratifying work. On one occasion, Sarah passed on a message from the Iranian government to Special Assistant to the President Dennis Ross, saying that if President Barack Obama would write a letter to then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad describing a general wish to improve relations between the two countries—without naming specific measures—then Iran would release us. Ross called it a “non-starter.” The two sides didn’t speak directly to each other, but it was through this channel that the groundwork for nuclear talks were ultimately laid.

During Salem’s efforts to free us, he was repeatedly frustrated by Clinton. “Why can’t your Hillary just keep quiet?” he blurted to me once, in a break of his characteristic poise, on a visit to Evin Prison. It was a paternalistic sounding outburst, but the stakes were high. He believed he was going to be bringing us home with him on that occasion. He said he was so close to convincing the Iranians, but they backed out at the last minute after another blustery statement by Clinton.

So far as we know, the extent of Clinton’s role in our ordeal was limited to making public demands and speaking to our families. In fact, there isn’t evidence of much action from the US government on our case. Two years ago, I filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the State Department, CIA, and FBI for records on our case. I received some records only after suing. The lawsuit is ongoing, but the records I have received over the last year indicate State Department officials did little beyond meeting with our families and receiving news reports from staffers.

Thankfully, the United States’ relationship with Iran has improved since then. Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly speaks regularly with his Iranian counterpart. A monumental agreement over the nuclear issue is in place and the international sanctions on Iran’s oil and finances have been lifted. The tension is easing, and the release of these four Americans is further proof of that.

For years, Iran has operated a revolving door of American captives; one gets released and then another is picked up. Amir Hekmati was arrested just days before Josh and I were released. The charges against these captives are inevitably bogus and the reasons for their detention are always political. My interrogator was frank about that: After two months of blindfolded interrogations, he told me he knew I was innocent, but that our release was dependent on political negotiations. The correct term for people in that situation is “hostages.”

It’s too soon to say whether the era of Iranian hostage taking is over. The unjust imprisonment of innocent people will always be Iran’s responsibility, and it’s up to its government to end it. But we don’t need to make things worse. Right after these four Americans flew out of Iran, the Obama administration announced it would be applying new sanctions on Iran—the same sanctions Clinton had called for. It had been planning to do this, it turns out, for some time, something the former secretary of state and presumptive Democratic nominee was likely aware of. To be sure, these sanctions, which target just a few individuals and small companies that send crucial technologies to Iran, are nothing like the ones that were just lifted. The old ones cost Iran $30 million a day, draining its economy and weighing on the lives of regular Iranians, many of whom oppose their government. But these sanctions send the wrong signal. There may have been a time when they would have made sense as a way of putting pressure on Tehran. But if our goal is to move forward with Iran, the day after such a breakthrough is the wrong time.

View original article: 

When I Was a Prisoner in Iran, I Came to Fear the Sound of Hillary Clinton’s Voice

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, Everyone, FF, GE, green energy, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on When I Was a Prisoner in Iran, I Came to Fear the Sound of Hillary Clinton’s Voice

NBC Should Ask Bernie and Hillary These Questions at Tonight’s Debate

Mother Jones

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

It’s the Sunday night of a three-day holiday weekend, which can only mean one thing: the three remaining Democratic presidential candidates are having a debate. With the Iowa caucuses less than a month away and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders leading in some early-state polls, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sanders have increasingly turned their fire on each other, fighting over past votes and current positions on universal health care and gun control. Why stop now? We at the Mother Jones‘ politics desk have put together a by-no-means-comprehensive list of questions we’d put to the candidates if we were on stage:

Bernie Sanders:

* In 2005 you voted to give immunity to gun makers from lawsuits. But the next day you voted against giving immunity to companies in the fast food industry, like McDonald’s. Why exempt guns but not Big Macs?

* Your home state of Vermont adopted a single-payer health care system in 2011. But last year the state scrapped the plan citing rising costs. Now you’re proposing single-payer for the nation. What went wrong in Vermont and how would you have fixed it?

* You’ve promised to reduce America’s prison population by more than 500,000 people by the end of your first term. But more than 90 percent of America’s 2.2 million inmates are in state and local facilities. What can a president do about them?

* You’ve said that the United States should take a backseat in the battle against ISIS, and instead leave the fighting to a coalition of Muslim nations including Iran and Saudi Arabia. In light of the most recent dust-up between the two countries and their deep political and religious differences, how will you get two nations that hate each other to take up arms together?

* Even with a Democratic super-majority in the Senate, President Obama struggled to deliver incremental change in Washington, ultimately accepting stripped-down versions of the Affordable Care Act and the Stimulus. How do you expect to push through an even more ambitious health-care proposal in a Republican-controlled Congress still trying to repeal Obamacare?

Hillary Clinton:

* A supporter of yours, Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, reportedly worked to suppress a video of the killing of Laquan McDonald by Chicago police until after his re-election, and even used public funds to pay the victim’s family to keep quiet. Sen. Sanders has said that “any elected official with knowledge that the tape was being suppressed or improperly withheld should resign.” Should Mayor Emanuel resign?

* In October you said the Australian model of compulsory gun buy-backs “is worth looking at.” Have you looked at it? And would you entertain the idea of a compulsory gun re-purchase in the United States?

* Colorado residents will vote next fall on a ballot initiative on whether or not to institute a single-payer health care system. If you lived in Colorado, would you vote to approve that measure?

* You’ve pledged to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year, and criticized your opponents for proposing to raise taxes on people you’ve termed middle class. What is your actual definition of middle class? Why include a household making $150,000—the top 10 percent for annual income—in the middle class?

* In 2005, you went to war against violence in video games, introducing legislation to restrict sales of games. You said: “We need to treat violent video games the way we treat tobacco, alcohol, and pornography.” Do you still hold that view?

* David Brock, the head of a super-PAC that’s supporting your candidacy, made news yesterday for a report suggesting he’d demand Bernie Sanders release his medical records. Brock’s group, Correct the Record, has said it is coordinating with the campaign thanks to a special exemption in federal election law. Why is a candidate who has pledged to repeal Citizens United using a legal loophole to openly coordinate with a super-PAC?

All candidates:

* The Atlantic‘s Ta-Nehisi Coates argued in 2014 that African-Americans deprived of wealth through decades of federal housing discrimination should be able to apply for reparations from the government—similar to the program offered to Japanese-Americans who lost their homes and businesses during internment. Would you consider such a program if elected? And if not, what will you do to alleviate the lingering damages caused by formal government discrimination in the housing market?

* A recent poll found that 52 percent of Americans believe genetically-modified food to be “unsafe.” Are they right?

* The Obama administration is currently reviewing a proposed rule to expand overtime to most workers who earn less than $50,000 a year. Is that number too high, or too low?

* Over the last half decade pro-life groups have fundamentally re-written abortion laws at the state level, resulting in shuttered women’s health clinics and forcing women to crisscross state lines to get an abortion. Aside from appointing more pro-choice Supreme Court judges, what can a president do to reverse these setbacks at the state level and insure the right to an abortion established by Roe?

* Two years ago, Harry Reid and Senate Democrats used the so-called “nuclear option” to remove the filibuster for judicial nominees. Should the filibuster still exist for legislation and Supreme Court nominees, or should it be wiped out entirely?

See original:

NBC Should Ask Bernie and Hillary These Questions at Tonight’s Debate

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on NBC Should Ask Bernie and Hillary These Questions at Tonight’s Debate

Gun Safety, Climate Change Are Top Priorities for Millennials in 2016

A new poll commissioned by USA Today and Rock the Vote has given some insight into millennials top concerns for the 2016 election season. The survey was given to 1,141 young adults aged 18 to 34, and asked participants to identify their political leanings, social and economic policy preferences, and priorities for the country. As it turns out, millennials are less likely than previous generations to be affiliated with a particular political party. Their priorities include climate change action, gun safety laws and the economy (presidential candidates, take note.)

Millennials political leanings

Young Americans are less staunch on partisan issues than their parents or grandparents, and USA Today notes that the under-35 crowd is less ideological than previous generations. Even conservative millennials tend to lean left (42 percent) on social issues, while the majority of young adults (38 percent) identify as economically conservative.

Despite being collectively liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal ones, young adults do seem to havepartisansympathies. Forty-one percent of millennials identify as Democrat, while just 28 percent consider themselves Republican.

Favored presidential candidates

Its no secret that political outliers have shaken things up in the race to the White House, and millennials voting preferences are case in point. The majority of young Democrats are Feeling the Bern for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, while most young Republicans support business mogul Donald Trump.

Top national priorities

So what do millennials want for their country? Overwhelmingly (and across partisan lines), they demand action on gun safety and climate change. About 82 percent of young voters want to enforce mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, and 80 percent would like the country to transition to a green energy landscapeby the year 2030. Other popular issues include requiring police officers to wear body cameras (with 76 percent support), prison sentencing reform for perpetrators of non-violent crimes (68 percent) and pathways to immigration for refugees (53 percent).

Millennials: Less partisan, more demanding of action, less likely to vote

What do the results of the survey tell us about millennial voting patterns? Whether due to more open minds or a lack ofknowledgeonpoliticalideologies, young Americans care less about typical partisan agendas and more about middle-of-the-road policies. They are socially tolerant, yet economically conservativelikely due to the impending threats of student and national debt.

Unfortunately, though, theyre also not very likely to vote. Fifty-five percent of millennials asserted that there are better ways to make a difference than to vote, and as few as four in 10 millennials plan to vote in the presidential primaries. Well have to see how young voters priorities and affiliations will play out in November.

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

Continue reading: 

Gun Safety, Climate Change Are Top Priorities for Millennials in 2016

Posted in alo, FF, GE, green energy, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gun Safety, Climate Change Are Top Priorities for Millennials in 2016

Matt Lauer Asked If Obama Could Imagine Trump Giving a State of the Union. Here’s His Response.

Mother Jones

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

Matt Lauer asked President Barack Obama if he could imagine Donald Trump giving a State of the Union address. His response:

“Well, I can imagine it in a Saturday Night Live skit.”

Snap.

Obama also dismissed Trump’s chances of winning the presidency.

“I’m pretty confident that the overwhelming majority of Americans are looking for the kind of politics that does feed our hopes and not our fears, that does work together and doesn’t try to divide, that isn’t looking for simplistic solutions and scapegoating but looks for us buckling down and figuring out, ‘How do we make things work for the next generation?'”

He also gave a preview of what will be his final State of the Union tonight: “Part of what I want to do in this last address is to remind people, you know what, we’ve got a lot of good things going for us and if we can get our politics right, it turns out that we’re not as divided on the ideological spectrum as people make us out to be.”

He’s right: America is in pretty good shape.

Watch:

Originally from:

Matt Lauer Asked If Obama Could Imagine Trump Giving a State of the Union. Here’s His Response.

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Matt Lauer Asked If Obama Could Imagine Trump Giving a State of the Union. Here’s His Response.

Will the New Dietary Guidelines Make School Food Healthier?

Mother Jones

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

Who decides what kids eat at school? The answer is complicated, but one big piece of the puzzle is the US dietary guidelines, the nutritional recommendations released by the federal government every five years. Last week, the Obama administration dropped the long-awaited guidelines, urging Americans to cut down on sugar.

Many of us don’t pay much attention to the recommendations, but they guide the food served to millions of people through federal programs for women, children, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations. And overall, they’ve remained relatively consistent for decades: Americans should eat more vegetables, whole grains, and fruits, and less saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars. The suggestion to cut back on sugar this year sticks out because it is so specific: Americans are supposed to limit added sugar to no more than 10 percent of total daily calories. (In the past edition, Americans were simply encouraged to “reduce the intake” of added sugars.) For an American on a 2,000 calorie diet, 10 percent means no more than 12 teaspoons a day—a dramatic drop from the 30 teaspoons consumed by many Americans.

Here’s a comparison of how much added sugar the average American eats versus how much they should be eating, according to the most recent guidelines:

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2015-2020

The guidelines call for a pretty dramatic change—so can we expect school cafeterias to do a major sugar purge? Not necessarily—at least not anytime soon.

For starters, senior officials with the US Department of Agriculture don’t expect the new guidelines to affect school lunches—no surprise, since sugar doesn’t tend to be a big problem for lunch. But school breakfast is a different story—think sugary cereal, flavored yogurt, and pastries. Waffles and pancakes often come prepared with added sugar so schools don’t have to deal with messy maple syrup dispensers. The result is that school breakfasts often contain more than half of the recommended daily amount of sugar—and yet, currently, there are no sugar standards for school meals, says Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Snacks at schools can also be supersweet—foods compliant with the current federal standards include cereal bars, chocolate chip cookies, and frozen yogurt. There are sugar standards for school snacks, but they’re relatively weak—foods are supposed to be no more than 35 percent sugar by weight. (The typical sugary cereal bar is, by weight, about one-third sugar.)

But changing snacks and breakfasts so they align with the latest guidelines would likely take years—and such a change would be far from automatic. First, the USDA would need to issue rules requiring schools to comply with the dietary guidelines, and then schools would need to be given time to implement the changes. Timing is tricky, since, over the past five years schools have had to make dramatic changes to meals to comply with the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act—which was passed in 2010 but was not fully implemented until 2014. Many school nutrition directors weren’t great fans of those reforms—they resisted making meals healthier, claiming kids won’t eat more wholesome food.

What’s more, any changes to school food standards are sure to get significant pushback from the sugar lobby, which has already spent nearly $3 million on the upcoming elections—far more than other agricultural industries. The Sugar Association, the industry’s main trade group, released a statement last week calling the guidelines “agenda focused, not science focused.” And school food is big business for Big Sugar, says Wootan. “The cereal makers won’t want to reformulate for schools, and snack food companies—they’re not going to want to change.”

Read More:

Will the New Dietary Guidelines Make School Food Healthier?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will the New Dietary Guidelines Make School Food Healthier?

How to Throw an Eco-Friendly Party

We love throwing down as much as the next guy, but aside from the occasionalhangoverthe morning after, whatreallyhurts is seeing the amount of waste generated from a singleawesome night.

Dont get us wrongthe memories of a great party are worth the effort we put into throwing it, but plain and simple, we can do better when it comes to greening our events. Every year, Americans throw away 21.5 million tons of food and dispose of enough paper and plastic serveware tocircle the Equator 300 times.

Throwing a party that’s less wasteful and more earth-friendly is pretty simplethese five tips will get you started.

Skip paper invites, save trees

First, theres a guest list to deal with. Paper invites are the very first thing to cut out when it comes to trimming the environmental impact of an event. In 2012, Americans threw away24.4 million tons of paperthat could beas many as 585 million trees.

Know whats classier than snail mailing paper invites? Calling up each and every guest to invite them personally. Then, send those who are available the details via email. If aesthetics areimportant to you, design a graphic for the email or usePaperless Post. Online invitescan also make it a little easier to connect guests with each other to set up carpoolsfeel free to encourage that.

If physical invitations are still a must, be sure to use post-consumer recycled paper, which helps keep used paper items out of landfills.

Use all-natural decorations

Decorating with plants is a lot prettier than using plastic accessories and other manufactured materials. Shop for flowers from the local farmers market to make sure youre getting the best seasonal options. Bunches of perennialred river liliesare a lovely alternative to poinsettias.Hellebores, also known as the Christmas roses, are beautiful for a white Christmas.Calendulasand tulips also start to bloom in December.

For an even smarter centerpiece, try potted succulents and herbs. Succulentslast long andrequire very little water, and they’re just asshow-stopping as traditional bouquets. Fresh herbs add a nice dimension of scents to the table, and can be used during a meal and post-party for future dinners. Both of these green options also make greatparty favors for guests.

As for lightingan essential aspect of the party moodkeep the switches off and opt for the amber glow of candles instead. Just be sure to choose beeswax candles (or make your own) instead of conventional wax ones, which are made from petroleum-derived paraffin.

Get creative with DIY hanging lanterns by tightly tying wire or string to the rims of small jars (underneath the notch where the cap stops in order to keep the jar from slipping out). Strew the strands wherever you want ambiance, drop a beeswax tea light into each jar, and light them.

Mind the dinnerware

Of course, the greenest way to go if this is a dinner party is to stick with your regular dishes, flatware, and glasses. Hitting up the thrift store to look for mismatched plates can add an eclectic vibe to the table. Invest in some nice cloth napkins to cut paper waste.

Expecting this party to be a big rager? Then reusable dinnerware might not be the practical way to gobut disposables dont have to be a complete waste.Sustainable, compostable plates, cups, and utensilsare a more earth-friendly choice.

Source food locally

Now to the most important element of any party: food!Finger foodscan help minimize flatware use. (Seriously, who doesnt love eating with their hands, anyway?)

Putting together a killer cheese plate? Imported camembert from Normandy is not the most eco-friendly choice. Go withartisan cheese from a local farmandshop locally as much as possible for any food that will be featured at your fete.

Serve seasonal, sustainable drinks

Hold up, we lied. The drinks are pretty crucial to a party, too. Create a seasonal cocktail using in-season fruit (winter options include cherimoya, grapefruit, kiwi, or pomegranate). Not into being a cocktail chemist? Olives are in season in December, too, so shake up an old standby: the dirty martini.

As far as beer and wine, going local should be pretty easy, sinceevery single state in the U.S. produces wineandhas multiple craft beer breweriesthese days. Pretty cool, huh? Whenever possible, select organic and biodynamic winesthoseproduced at vineyards that focus on every aspect of sustainability, from soil to the surrounding flora and fauna. For an added charm, use real fresh fruit slices as bottle stoppers.

In the end, going green doesnt requirea complete overhaul of your party prep. Even followingjust a few of these tips can go a long way towarda greener, healthier world this holiday.

byDana PobleteforThrive Market

More from Thrive Market:
Make Home Smell Like Christmas: 8 Natural DIY Tricks
Hot Cocoa Will Never Be the Same Once You Try These Chocolate Dipped Spoons
Sweet Orange and Aromatic Cardamom Add Wintry Flavor to Madeleines

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

Continued here: 

How to Throw an Eco-Friendly Party

Posted in alo, Aroma, Casio, eco-friendly, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How to Throw an Eco-Friendly Party

How the Fed Raising Rates Will Affect You—And Everyone Else

Mother Jones

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

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday raised its benchmark interest rate for the first time in nearly a decade. Citing rising employment and economic activity, the central bank’s Federal Open Market Committee voted to raise its target for the federal funds rate (the rate that banks pay to loan each other money overnight) to between 0.25 and 0.5 percent. Interest rates across the economy are expected to climb along with it.

This may not sound significant, but the Fed’s interest rate decisions have a huge impact on the American and global economies. The rate is one of the main mechanisms that the Federal Reserve uses to cool the economy and quell inflation. The last time the Fed raised it was in 2006. Then came the housing market crash, the Great Recession, and the Fed’s unprecedented response: nine years of near-zero rates aimed at spurring economic growth.

A growing contingent of influential economists believe that it is too soon to take moves that will slow economic growth, arguing that raising rates now will do the most damage to those who can least afford it: the poor and minorities. They say the Fed should only step in when there are clear signs of rising inflation, the traditional trigger for tightening monetary policy, which hasn’t happened yet.

The decade of near-zero interest rates have brought the economy into such unfamiliar territory, however, that other economists say we can’t predict the consequences of this move by the Fed. “The environment we’re in is just so out of the range of our models that we are a bit in the dark,” says Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

The one point everybody agrees on is that while the impact of this first hike may be minor, Yellen has indicated that more may follow and those will shift gears in the American economy. Everyone will be affected, with some clear winners and losers.

The big winners are likely to include:

The financial sector: Big banks and financial institutions have already seen a bump from the anticipated rate hike. Banks typically benefit from rising rates, because that means they are able to lend at higher long-term interest rates while borrowing at lower short-term ones. The financial sector also benefits from hard-on-inflation policies, since high inflation erodes the value of their investments. “Unexpected increases in inflation are wealth transfers from creditors to debtors,” explains Josh Bivens, research and policy director at the progressive Economic Policy Institute. “The finance sector really, really dislikes unexpected inflation.”

People with savings in the bank: Ralph Nader recently published a condescending letter that he wrote Yellen, urging her to raise rates for the sake of “the savers of America.” (Yellen responded with her own letter defending the Fed’s policies). Nader was onto something though: An extended period of low rates hits hardest ordinary people who keep their savings in bank accounts. With interest rates near zero, their savings stagnate. But there’s a twist. The very poor are generally unable to save much, which means that they don’t have much to lose. People with significant savings tend to put their money in the stock market, which has soared over the past few years.

“If you’re talking about people that have any significant savings at all—more than $5,000 or $10,000—they’re not keeping it in a checking account, they’re doing things like putting it in stock and bonds. And the price of stocks and bonds have actually been driven higher by the Fed’s policies,” says Bivens.

Small businesses (maybe): This seems counterintuitive. After all, “cheap money,” or low interest rates, are supposed to benefit borrowers. But since the financial crisis, big banks have all but cut off lending to small businesses. The lack of bank loans has pushed small business owners into the open arms of non-bank lenders, who charge far higher rates. (The Wall Street Journal cites a lender that charges 39 percent, as opposed to the 5 percent to 6 percent a bank would charge.) Some commentators have pointed out that higher rates could encourage banks to loosen their purse strings.

But at the same time, small businesses will be among the first to suffer if domestic demand drops—and some are worried that this could happen with higher interest rates. The Fed is betting that the economy is strong enough, but only time will tell.

The economy as a whole (maybe): The big question mark is whether so-called bubbles are already forming in some areas of the economy. There is no agreement on this point, but cheap debt historically encourages a rapid rise in prices in certain sectors followed by a sudden drop, which is what happened when the bubble “burst” in the housing market during the Great Recession. Some economists are worried that we could make the same mistake again. Calabria from the Cato Institute, explains that even though he has been arguing in favor of a rate hike for several years, he is concerned about this rate hike and the implications for “financial stability.” The discussions about it remind him of those from 2003 and 2004, before the last crisis. Some economists see a bubble growing in the housing market, while others, including former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, have sounded alarms about a potential bubble in the bond market.

The losers include:

Low-wage workers and the unemployed: Many pro-rate hike economists point to the unemployment rate as a reason to support the Fed’s move. The economy has been steadily adding jobs in recent months—including 211,000 in November—and unemployment, now at 5 percent, has returned to pre-recession levels. The point of low rates is to create jobs, so with unemployment down, some say the Fed has already done its job.

But although unemployment has dropped, underemployment—or the rate of people working in jobs that don’t match their skill level or working part time when they would prefer to work full time—is still high at 9.9 percent, according to Jared Bernstein, former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden. What’s more, wages are rising well below target levels.

Some economists argue that it’s worth keeping rates low until their benefits spread to a greater number of low-income workers. “If this hike sets off a too-steep series of interest rate increases, I think the big losers are the literally couple of a million Americans who would not have jobs 12 to 18 months from now…and really tens of millions of Americans who will have slower wage growth over that time if we restrict economic growth too much,” says Bivens. Another argument for keeping rates low is that high employment disproportionately benefits black workers, who have been hit the hardest by the past two recessions.

Emerging markets: Developing economies such as Russia, Turkey, and Brazil may also take a hit from the rate hike. By attracting investors to the United States with higher returns, the Fed’s rate hike is expected to strengthen the dollar relative to other world currencies. For the many companies in emerging markets who have taken out dollar-denominated debt, this could be a major problem; they will have to pay more on their loans even as their own countries’ currencies remain weak. International investors are already expected to pull more than $500 billion out of emerging markets this year, making 2015 the first year in nearly three decades that more money has left emerging markets than entered them.

Exporters: The United States is tightening monetary policy just as the European Union, Japan and China move in the opposite direction, which will make the dollar even more attractive to foreign investors. A stronger dollar would push up the price of US exports, leaving some American companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Taxpayers: Finally, raising rates will push up one cost we all share—the cost of servicing government debt. Borrowing costs will rise along with interest rates, which will make it just that much harder for the government to close its deficit.

Originally posted here:  

How the Fed Raising Rates Will Affect You—And Everyone Else

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the Fed Raising Rates Will Affect You—And Everyone Else