Tag Archives: california

California’s cap-and-trade program pays loggers to clearcut old-growth forests

by BrandonVonDouss Posted on April 3, 2014

California’s cap-and-trade program pays loggers to clearcut old-growth forests

By

Ebbets Pass Forest Watch

Does this look climate-friendly to you?

Timber industry lobbyists clinched a nice little victory in Sacramento four years ago, and now forests and the climate are paying the price.

Under California’s cap-and-trade program, which began in late 2012, timber companies can earn carbon credits by felling forests and chopping down old-growth trees — and then replanting the razed earth with younger trees. Which they will eventually chop down, again, after they have grown. The idea was that the younger trees would suck up a lot of carbon dioxide as they grew. But that flies in the face of scientific findings, published earlier this year in the journal Nature, that older trees are far better than their younger cousins at sucking carbon out of the sky.

A coalition of environmental groups sent a letter on Tuesday to the California Air Resources Board and Climate Action Reserve, the state’s carbon-offset registry, urging them to reconsider the wrongheaded rules:

Ignoring objections and calls from nongovernmental organizations like Sierra Club California, Center for Biological Diversity, and others to remove or modify these provisions, the Air Resources Board rubber-stamped the Forest Protocol and incorporated it intact as an integral part of the ARB’s cap and trade rules. We believe these actions by CAR and ARB were misguided policy decisions, and should be reconsidered in light of the new scientific findings.

In our view, the flawed Forest Protocol undermines the credibility of California’s cap and trade system by incentivizing the destruction of old-growth forests in the state and in North America.

“It’s time to cut the incentives for clearcutting from the cap and trade program,” said John Trinkl of Ebbets Pass Forest Watch, which works to protect forests from clearcutters, including Sierra Pacific Industries, which lobbied for the logging-friendly provisions. “SPI stands to gain $100 million for selling offset credits from growing tree plantations after clearcutting old growth forests. They should be punished, not rewarded.”

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

See the original post – 

California’s cap-and-trade program pays loggers to clearcut old-growth forests

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California’s cap-and-trade program pays loggers to clearcut old-growth forests

Program Looks to Give Bees a Leg Up (or Six)

by Myrna Posted on April 2, 2014

In California’s Central Valley, researchers are trying to find assortments of bee-friendly plants that local farmers and ranchers can easily grow. More here:  Program Looks to Give Bees a Leg Up (or Six) ; ;Related ArticlesSteelhead Drive Is Gone After Mudslide, Along With Many Lives Lived on ItSteelhead Drive Is Gone, Along With So Many Lives Lived on ItLandslide Death Toll Hits 27, with 22 Missing ;

More:

Program Looks to Give Bees a Leg Up (or Six)

Posted in alo, Bunn, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, Mop, ONA, organic, organic gardening, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Program Looks to Give Bees a Leg Up (or Six)

WATCH: Is This Man the Greenest Governor in America?

by nowabazaBS1 Posted on April 1, 2014

green4us

If Jay Inslee succeeds in his ambitious climate and energy goals, the impacts will extend far beyond Washington state. When Jay Inslee was elected governor of the state of Washington in November of 2012, climate campaigners rejoiced. As a congressman, Inslee had a top-tier environmental record, and not just that: He knew climate and clean energy issues inside-out. The co-author of the 2007 book entitled Apollo’s Fire: Igniting America’s Clean Energy Economy, he also worked closely on the 2009 passage of cap-and-trade legislation in the US House of Representatives and was a co-founder of the House’s Sustainable Energy Caucus. No wonder that upon his election in Washington, the League of Conservation Voters declared that Inslee was poised to become “the greenest governor in the country.” Sure enough, Inslee’s term got off to a great start: Last October, he joined the governors of Oregon and California and the Premier of British Columbia in endorsing the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy which pledges that those states (or, in BC’s case, that province) will set a consistent price or cap on carbon dioxide emissions (something California and British Columbia have already done), adopt low-carbon fuel standards, and more. But there’s just one problem: Shortly after Inslee’s election, two Democrats elected to caucus with the Republican minority in the Washington state senate, thus thwarting what otherwise would have been a Democratic majority in both houses. Instead of holding a 26-23 majority in the Senate, Democrats instead became a de facto 25-24 minority. And that razor-thin edge in the Washington state Senate is currently blocking Inslee from achieving many of his objectives. The partisan tension became apparent with Washington state’s Climate Legislative and Executive Workgroup, or CLEW, a bipartisan panel composed of two Republican and two Democratic legislators, along with Inslee as a non-voting member. Their task was to recommend a set of policies that would let Washington state adhere to greenhouse gas emissions goals that had been enacted in 2008: a reduction to 1990 emissions levels by 2020, then 25 percent below those levels by 2035, and finally, fifty percent below by 2050. The workgroup convened sessions and public deliberations around the state—but reached no bipartisan consensus. “We had over 900 citizens come out speaking overwhelmingly in favor of climate action, and close to 10,000 comments,” says Becky Kelley, deputy director of the Washington Environmental Council. “So, evidence that people really are calling for action.” Yet the Democrats and Republicans on the working group could not find common ground. They issued two separate reports, with the Democrats and Inslee endorsing strong climate action and the Republicans suggesting a variety of options, but not a central policy to cap greenhouse gas emissions, citing a “currently insufficient analysis of costs.” There has been more friction on the issue of a proposed low carbon fuel standard. In a January 2014 letter, Inslee charged Republican State Senator Curtis King, who co-chairs the Transportation Committee, with having misrepresented the governor’s policy goals by incorrectly labeling the standard a “tax.” In fact, the idea is to require a gradual reduction in the carbon content of fuels through a variety of means, ranging from blending in biofuels to encouraging more electric vehicles. “There is no element of a clean fuels standard that could in any way be called a ‘tax,’” wrote Inslee, later adding that a standard “would include cost containment measures to ensure that fuel prices are not significantly affected.” King responded by asking Inslee to “categorically deny” any intention to impose a fuel standard by executive action, in effect bypassing the legislature. King later charged that Inslee “refuses” to take this option off the table. And even as Inslee faces Republican resistance at home, his climate action partners may be growing a little impatient. British Columbians, for instance, have already put a price on carbon through a carbon tax, and are waiting for their southern ally to catch up to them. In the meantime, there are frequent charges that drivers who go across the border into Washington to gas up are partially undermining the tax’s effectiveness, and at least some evidence that this is happening, at least to a modest extent. All of which underscores that if Washington acts strongly on climate, the impact will extend far beyond Washington. For the state will be strengthening and reinforcing what California and British Columbia have already done, and the more these Pacific coast states are unified, the more the United States and even the world will have to take notice. “The sense is that if the west coast as a bloc acts, if we’ve got real climate policy from BC to Baja, that’s the world’s fifth largest economy,” says Kelly of the Washington Environmental Council. In the meantime, though, Inslee’s position within his state is much like that of President Barack Obama nationally, observes David Roberts of Grist magazine. “He wants to act, but he’s got no Republicans in the legislature on his side,” says Roberts, “so if he gets anything done, it’s going to be through executive powers.” So what happens next? Eric de Place, policy director of the Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based environmental think tank, thinks that if gridlock persists beyond 2014, there’s a chance that a citizen-led ballot initiative in Washington state could allow the public to vote directly on how to curb carbon emissions. Before, that, though, he thinks that Inslee may ultimately try to opt for a policy, like a carbon tax, that might be made palatable to state Republicans: The tax could be designed so that the revenue that it brings in would go towards other state budget shortfalls, such as in the transportation sector and in education. In his inaugural address as governor, Inslee declared that on leading the nation in green policy, “It is clear to me that we are the right state, at the right time, with the right people.” But now, that delicate balance may have shifted. “I’m certain the governor feels that not enough is getting done on climate action,” says Eric de Place of the Sightline Institute. The question is what Inslee plans to do about it. Image: Joe Mabel/Wikimedia Commons

See original article here: 

WATCH: Is This Man the Greenest Governor in America?

Related Posts

2 Former Premiers Try to Use Tokyo Election to Rally Public Against Nuclear Power
Climate Pact Is Signed by 3 States and a Partner
Which States Use the Most Green Energy?
How Science Can Predict Where You Stand on Keystone XL
California governor signs bill legalizing hemp farming in the state

Share this:

View article:  

WATCH: Is This Man the Greenest Governor in America?

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Citizen, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, Monterey, ONA, organic, Oster, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, sustainable energy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on WATCH: Is This Man the Greenest Governor in America?

A high seas fishing ban scorecard: (Almost) everybody wins

by NicholeCa Posted on March 28, 2014

A high seas fishing ban scorecard: (Almost) everybody wins

By

Shutterstock

When it comes to fishing, most of the ocean is lawless. Fish in the high seas — the half of the world’s oceans that fall under the control of no single nation, because they’re more than 200 miles from a coastline — are being plundered with aplomb by fishing fleets that observe virtually no fish conservation rules.

Some very smart people think that might be a very stupid way of managing the world’s fisheries. They say it’s time for the world to ban fishing on the high seas.

Many of the world’s brawniest fish and shark species migrate through these open waters, where they are being targeted and overfished. Bluefin tuna are becoming so rare that a single fish sold last year for $1.8 million.

Last month, McKinsey & Company director Martin Stuchtey suggested during an ocean summit that banning fishing on the high seas would cause an economic loss of about $2 for every person on the planet. But he said the benefits of more sustainable fisheries, if such a ban was imposed, would be worth about $4 per person, creating a net benefit of $2 apiece. From Business Insider:

Hard numbers reveal that today’s fishing industry is not profitable, and as fleets work harder chasing fewer fish, the losses grow and stocks are further depleted in “a race to the bottom,” the economist explained.

Stuchtey’s numbers were approximations. But the results of a study published in the journal PLOS Biology this week put some flesh on the economist’s back-of-the-envelope calculations. An economist and a biologist, both from California, modeled the effects of such a ban and concluded that the move could double the profitability of the world’s fishing industries — and boost overall fishing yields by 30 percent. It would also boost fish stock conservation and improve the sustainability of seafood supplies.

“The closure will probably result in short-term losses of protein from the sea,” Christopher Costello, a University of California at Santa Barbara environmental and resource economics professor who coauthored the paper, told Grist. “But the key point is that these short-term losses are likely to be followed by significant long-term gains because of the rebuilding of fish stocks.”

The greatest human beneficiaries of such a ban would be residents of developing countries — nations that can’t afford the types of hulking vessels needed for high-seas fishing expeditions. The scientists say these developing nations would benefit from a rise in fish stocks in the waters they control, as would be the case for other countries.

The biggest potential losers, according to the researchers, would include Japan, China, and Spain, which operate large offshore fishing fleets. And that could make a high-seas fishing ban a difficult sell at the United Nations.

“Whether a country like Japan or China would stand to gain or lose is an empirical question that will require careful country-by-country analysis,” Costello said. “It may disadvantage a few politically powerful countries, while it advantages many smaller countries.”

Global Ocean Commission

High seas are shown in dark blue. Click to embiggen.


Source
ECONOMIST: Ban Of High-Seas Fishing Saves $2 Per Person On The Planet, Business Insider
Close the High Seas to Fishing?, PLOS Biology
Could Closing the High Seas to Fishing Save Migratory Fish?, UC Santa Barbara

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Food

Source – 

A high seas fishing ban scorecard: (Almost) everybody wins

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, Keurig, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A high seas fishing ban scorecard: (Almost) everybody wins

Is this train the “little engine that could” for clean energy storage?

by GretchenBamford Posted on March 26, 2014

Track star

Is this train the “little engine that could” for clean energy storage?

By

ARES

In Greek mythology, the story of Sisyphus endlessly rolling a boulder uphill is meant to be a cautionary tale. Gravity, in this case, worked against the poor chump. But the smart folks at Advanced Rail Energy Storage North America (ARES) asked: Why not make gravity your friend?

ARES has pioneered a train full of rocks that climbs up a hill, only to roll back down again and repeat the process, Sisyphus style. But instead of a metaphor of futility, this new train technology offers a breakthrough opportunity in clean energy storage.

It isn’t easy to find feasible solutions for storing grid-scale renewable energy loads for when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Pumping water through turbines only returns about 70 percent on energy inputs, while the big battery business comes with its own set of environmental and cost concerns.

That’s what makes the ARES technology all the more exciting. The group repurposed train cars originally meant for (ironically) Australian ore mining to use gravity and friction to store renewables. Each car can haul up to 230 tons of rock up a hill (heavier is better since it will generate more energy when it inevitably rolls downhill).

Here’s how it works: When electricity is at low demand, surplus energy gets sent from the grid to power a chain that hauls the weighted rail cars uphill. Then, when energy demand climbs, the train car’s motor becomes a generator as it rolls downhill, and the momentum pushes the stored energy back through the grid via regenerative braking. Scientific American reports:

 ”They go up, they go down, Slinky fashion,” said Francesca Cava, chief operating officer at Advanced Rail Energy Storage North America, the company behind the Nevada project. “For the most part, the technology we’re using is over a hundred years old – we’re not waiting for any scientific breakthroughs to be profitable.”

The benefits are that it’s less expensive than other storage solutions like pumping hydro through turbines, and it has a small environmental footprint — no water, no emissions, and no synthetic methane needed. ARES says that the energy stored can stabilize the grid and help make the power generated by renewables less intermittent.

The new railcars have been piloted in California, which recently approved a plan to use energy storing technologies to meet the goal of having 33 percent of its power supply from renewable sources by the year 2020. Now ARES has big plans for a large-scale commercial venture that could help the state get on track with its energy-on-demand needs. If this pilot program is successful, other states and countries could soon be riding this gravy train to clean energy storage.


Source
Energy Storage Hits the Rails Out West, The Scientific American

Amber Cortes is a Grist fellow and public radio nerd. Follow her on Twitter.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Link:  

Is this train the “little engine that could” for clean energy storage?

Posted in Anchor, FF, Free Press, G & F, GE, Keurig, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, TOTO, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is this train the “little engine that could” for clean energy storage?

How Big Banks Rake in Millions on the Backs of California’s Poorest Families

by VirginiGrills Posted on March 25, 2014

Mother Jones

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

It’s expensive to be poor. A new report out from the California Reinvestment Coalition concludes that the big banks are charging some of California’s poorest families hefty ATM fees to access monthly benefits from the state welfare program known as CalWORKs, skimming at least $19 million a year, the group estimates, from this taxpayer-funded program.

The average CalWORKs family is an adult with two children who gets $510 a month worth of benefits, or about $6,120 a year. That’s not enough to live on, not even close, and the benefits are 8 percent lower now than they were in 2011. On top of that, accessing the funds costs them as much as $4 per ATM transaction, fees they really don’t have any alternative but to pay. That’s because California doesn’t ask its vendors to do much by way of accommodating the recipients. A $69 million contract with Xerox to administer an electronic benefit transfer card system has helped make these EBT cards the default way to deliver public assistance, and there’s no state requirement that banks waive ATM fees for people who use them.

In a press release, Andrea Luquetta, author of the report, explained:

For families trying to escape poverty, these fees siphon away money that could be used for school supplies, transportation or medicine. The current system leads too many people to pay fees just to access the very benefits they need to survive. It is a diversion of taxpayer dollars away from their intended use of supporting families. That’s why we’re calling on the state, banks, county offices, and nonprofit partners to work together to address this pressing issue.

The average EBT user pays about $5 a month in fees, but Luquetta says that figure masks the real story, as some people successfully avoid paying the fees while others pay a lot more. “It is typical for someone to pay the fee at least twice in a month in order to withdraw all of the cash in as few transactions as possible. At a Bank of America ATM that will cost $6. And then, of course, there is the challenge of what to do with that cash—load it onto a prepaid credit card? Buy money orders? All of that costs fees as well that we don’t capture. I even know a few people who pay the fee at a Bank of America or Wells Fargo ATM and then turn around and deposit the cash into their account at the same bank,” she said in an email.

In theory, someone receiving CalWORKs benefits could have the money deposited directly into a checking account for free. In fact, most of the beneficiaries don’t have checking accounts, largely because they can’t afford them. More than 96 percent of beneficiaries use the EBT cards. Many welfare recipients are leery of bank accounts, having previously suffered high overdraft fees and other fees charged by banks.

Some of the banks benefiting from the EBT fees have helped play a role in stoking those fears of traditional banking. The largest beneficiary by far of EBT-related ATM fees in California is Bank of America, which hosted 12 percent of the transactions in 2012, earning $3.6 million, according to the coalition. Back in 2004, a California jury hit the bank with a verdict that would have potentially exposed it to $1.2 billion in damages in a class action lawsuit filed by Social Security recipients who’d had their federal retirement or disability benefits seized directly from their accounts to pay excessive overdraft fees—a practice that left many low-income seniors and disabled people in dire straits. Plaintiffs showed that, like many banks at the time, BofA processed checks in a way that often made more of them bounce, thus increasing the fees it could automatically deduct. (A BofA spokeswoman says the bank no longer processes checks that way.)

The Obama administration came to BofA’s defense in the case, which went all the way to the California Supreme Court; the verdict was overturned on appeal. But publicity around the case went a long way in exposing the sorts of problems low-income people encounter when they do business with big banks. Given this history, it’s hard to blame families for not wanting to entrust these institutions with their meager benefit checks. But the banks have figured a way to make them pay anyway.

Visit site:  

How Big Banks Rake in Millions on the Backs of California’s Poorest Families

Posted in Anchor, Anker, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Big Banks Rake in Millions on the Backs of California’s Poorest Families

SPECIAL EVENT: Gov. Jay Inslee on Climate Solutions in the Pacific Northwest

by AliceLandreneau Posted on March 24, 2014

Mother Jones

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

Let’s say you’re tired of climate inaction. Let’s say you want to see somewhere in the United States that is actually, you know, doing things.

If so, then your focus probably ought to be on the states of the Pacific Coast. Recently Washington state, Oregon, California and the Canadian province of British Columbia reached an agreement to harmonize their climate and energy policies, a development that has the potential to not just accelerate greenhouse gas reductions, but also to catalyze a strong, clean, and resilient economy. That’s a big deal for a region that is home to 53 million people, and whose GDP is $2.8 trillion.

But there are challenges as well: While California and British Columbia have set a price on carbon (through a cap-and-trade program and a carbon tax, respectively), thus far Oregon and Washington have not. Meanwhile, a new battle is brewing over coal exports, one that potentially pits the Obama administration itself against the states of Oregon and Washington.

To discuss the climate outlook for the region, please join Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and other distinguished speakers and panelists for a special installment of Climate Desk Live—a partnership between the University of Washington’s College of the Environment, Climate Access, and Climate Desk, sponsored by Bloomberg BNA. Hosted by award-winning journalist Chris Mooney, the discussion will cover a range of key climate policy issues from coal terminals, to fuel efficiency standards, to carbon pricing, with an eye toward innovation and new energy solutions. The event will follow a March 27 Climate Desk Live panel in Vancouver, which will focus on the lessons learned from the first five years of British Columbia’s carbon tax.

The Seattle event will be Tuesday, April 1, from 3 pm to 5 pm Pacific Time, at the University of Washington Tower Auditorium, 4333 Brooklyn Ave NE, Seattle, WA, 98105. Advanced registration for this event is required. You can RSVP here, and join the event on Facebook here (but you will still need to RSVP). The event will be live-streamed here and also at climatedesk.org.

Featured Guests and Speakers:

Jay Inslee. A fifth generation Washingtonian, Jay Inslee was first elected to Congress in 1998, serving until 2012. He is the coauthor of Apollo’s Fire: Igniting America’s Clean-Energy Economy, a book about the job-creating potential of the clean tech industry. As governor, Inslee’s top priority is growing Washington’s innovative industries such as clean energy, IT and life sciences, and strengthening existing industries such as aerospace, agriculture, maritime, and military.

Lisa Graumlich. Dr. Lisa J. Graumlich is the inaugural dean of the College of the Environment at the University of Washington, and the Prentice and Virginia Bloedel Professor. As a scholar, Graumlich pioneered the use of tree-ring data to understand long-term trends in climate, focusing on the mountains of western North America. She is actively engaged with a broad range of stakeholders to understand and respond to the impacts of climate change.

David Roberts. David Roberts is the senior staff writer at Grist, where he covers energy and energy politics. He has contributed to outlets including The New York Times, Outside, and Scientific American, and been featured on programs including MSNBC’s Up with Chris Hayes and The Rachel Maddow Show. His work has been hailed by thought leaders including Al Gore, Paul Krugman, and Michael Levi.

Paul Shukovsky. Paul Shukovsky is Pacific Northwest Correspondent for Bloomberg BNA. He previously worked as a reporter for the Miami Herald, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Tampa Tribune, UPI, and as a public television news producer/anchor alternately covering the environment, indigenous tribes, federal courts, federal investigative agencies, terrorism and national security issues.

(Other speakers may be announced.)

Moderated by:

Chris Mooney, Chris Mooney is an award-winning science and political journalist and the host of Climate Desk Live. He is the author of four books and the co-host of Inquiring Minds, a weekly podcast exploring where politics, society, and science collide.

Partners

Climate Access is a nonprofit network aimed at leveraging the public’s role in addressing climate disruption by increasing support for policy and involvement in shifting energy and sustainability behaviors. Climate Access consists of more than 2,000 leaders from nonprofits, government, and academia located in Canada, the United States, and 43 countries around the world. @climateaccess

Climate Desk is a journalistic collaboration between The Atlantic, the Center for Investigative Reporting, Grist, the Guardian, The Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Slate, and Wired aimed at exploring the consequences of a changing climate. It has a collective reach of more than 200 million people. @ClimateDesk

Bloomberg BNA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bloomberg, is a leading source of legal, regulatory, and business information for professionals. Bloomberg BNA has been delivering cutting-edge news and expert reference materials to EHS professionals for more than three decades, always with unstinting attention to detail and complete objectivity. Bloomberg BNA’s Energy and Climate Report continues this tradition, with specialized news and analysis on the legal requirements and policy developments surrounding climate change mitigation and adaptation, clean energy and energy efficiency, and corporate sustainability practices in the United States and abroad. @BBNAClimate

University of Washington College of the Environment is the largest environment-focused college in North America, with unparalleled depth and breadth in environmental systems: from the forests to the seas and from the depths of the earth to the edges of the solar system. In partnership with industry, government and nonprofits, the College is creating new leaders, advancing knowledge and forging sustainable solutions to the critical environmental challenges of our time. @UW_CoEnv

Read this article: 

SPECIAL EVENT: Gov. Jay Inslee on Climate Solutions in the Pacific Northwest

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, RSVP, solar, The Atlantic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on SPECIAL EVENT: Gov. Jay Inslee on Climate Solutions in the Pacific Northwest

It’s Time For Some Obamacare Success Stories

by cassidy281 Posted on March 24, 2014

Mother Jones

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

Vincent Rizzo, who suffers from Type 2 diabetes, has gone without health insurance for 10 years. “We got 30 denial letters,” his wife says. But then along came Obamacare, and now both Rizzos are covered for $379 a month, with a $2,000 family deductible. Michael Hiltzik compares their story to that of all the Obamacare horror stories making the rounds:

You haven’t heard Rizzo’s story unless you tuned in to NBC Nightly News on New Year’s Day or scanned a piece by Politico about a week later. In the meantime, the airwaves and news columns have been filled to overflowing with horrific tales from consumers blaming Obamacare for huge premium increases, lost access to doctors and technical frustrations — many of these concerns false or the product of misunderstanding or unfamiliarity with the law.

While Rizzo was working her way to thousands of dollars in annual savings, for example, Southern California Realtor Deborah Cavallaro was making the rounds of NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, Fox and public radio’s Marketplace program, talking about how her premium was about to rise some 65% because of the “Unaffordable” Care Act. What her viewers and listeners didn’t learn was that she hadn’t checked the rates on California’s insurance exchange, where (as we determined for her) she would have found a replacement policy for less than she’d been paying.

So why do we hear so much about folks like Cavallero, and Bette from Spokane, and the infamous Julie Boonstra? Good question. More to the point, with Obamacare’s website problems largely solved, and with the initial signup period coming to a close with a relatively high participation rate, will we start hearing these stories soon? Especially in swing states where the horror stories are getting so much play? Click the link for some speculation.

Link:  

It’s Time For Some Obamacare Success Stories

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s Time For Some Obamacare Success Stories

Was the Los Angeles Earthquake Caused by Fracking Techniques?

by VictorF32nso Posted on March 17, 2014

Mother Jones

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

The epicenter of today’s L.A. quake was 8 miles from oil waste injection wells Kyle Ferrar, FracTracker Alliance

Was the 4.4-magnitude earthquake that rattled Los Angeles this morning caused by fracking methods? It’s hard to say, but what’s clear from the above map, made by Kyle Ferrar of the FracTracker Alliance, is that the quake’s epicenter was just eight miles from a disposal well where oil and gas wastewater is being injected underground at high pressure.

Don Drysdale, spokesman for the state agency that oversees California Geological Survey, told me that state seismologists don’t think that the injection well was close enough to make a difference (and the agency has also raised the possibility that Monday’s quake could have been a foreshock for a larger one). But environmental groups aren’t so sure.

In other states, injection wells located 7.5 miles from a fault have been shown to induce seismic activity, points out Andrew Grinberg, the oil and gas project manager for Clean Water Action. “We are not saying that this quake is a result of an injection,” he adds, “but with so many faults all over California, we need a better understanding of how, when, and where induced seismicity can occur with relation to injection.”

“Shaky Ground,” a new report from Clean Water Action, Earthworks, and the Center for Biological Diversity, argues that the close proximity of such wells to active faults could increase the state’s risk of earthquakes. According to the report, more than half of the state’s permitted oil wastewater injection wells are located less than 10 miles from an active fault, and 87 of them, or about 6 percent, are located within a mile of an active fault.

Scientists have long known that injecting large amounts of wastewater underground can cause earthquakes by increasing pressure and reducing friction along fault lines. One of the best known early examples took place in 1961, when the US Army disposed of millions of gallons of hazardous waste by injecting it 12,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver, Colorado. The influx caused more than 1,500 earthquakes over a five year period in an area not known for seismic activity; the worst among them registered at more than 5.0 on the Richter scale and caused $500,000 in damage. Geologists later discovered that the Army well had been drilled into an unknown fault.

As Mother Jones‘ Michael Behar detailed in-depth last year, fracking is now a leading suspect for a spate of serious earthquakes in places that hardly ever see them, such as Oklahoma, where in 2011, a 5.7-magnitude temblor destroyed 14 homes and baffled seismologists.

“In some locations of the US, the disposal of wastewater associated with oil/gas production, including hydraulic fracturing operations, appears to have triggered some low-magnitude seismic activity,” concedes Drysdale, Geological Survey spokesman. But in California, he adds, oil companies are required to evaluate surrounding geology before disposing of wastewater underground, and can’t inject it at dangerously high pressures.

Yet Grinberg, a co-author of the “Shaky Ground” report, says that the existing regulations don’t go far enough now that quake-prone California is poised for a fracking boom. Though he’d like to see a moratorium on fracking while the risks are studied, he wants any eventual regulations to at least require seismic monitoring at or near injection wells and to look at the cumulative earthquake risk of entire oil fields.

Original source – 

Was the Los Angeles Earthquake Caused by Fracking Techniques?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Was the Los Angeles Earthquake Caused by Fracking Techniques?

Will frackers cause California’s next big earthquake?

by Niki95Guqssevo Posted on March 14, 2014

Will frackers cause California’s next big earthquake?

By

The Ring of Fire, an earthquake-prone area around the edges of the Pacific Ocean, might not be the best spot for earth-rumbling fracking practices. But fracking is exploding in the ringside state of California, raising fears that the industry could trigger the next “big one.”

More than half of the 1,553 active wastewater injection wells used by frackers in California are within 10 miles of a seismic fault that has ruptured within the past two centuries, according to a jarring new report. The fracking industry’s habit of injecting its wastewater underground has been linked to earthquakes. (And Ohio officials are investigating whether fracking itself was enough to trigger temblors early this week.)

From the report:

shakyground.org

“Some of California’s major population centers, such as Los Angeles and Bakersfield, are located in regions where high densities of wastewater injection wells are operating very close to active faults,” according to the report, which was conducted by Earthworks, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Clean Water Action. It further notes that California has “no plan to safeguard its residents from the risks of earthquakes” induced by injection wells or drilling and fracking operations.

“This isn’t rocket science,” said report coauthor Jhon Arbelaez. “We’ve known for decades that wastewater injection increases earthquake risk. … [O]ur only option to protect California families is to prevent fracking altogether.”

shakyground.orgClick to embiggen.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

More:

Will frackers cause California’s next big earthquake?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will frackers cause California’s next big earthquake?