Tag Archives: canadian

A Brief History of the Idea That Everyone Should Get Free Cash for Life

Mother Jones

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

From the window of his university office in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, philosophy professor Philippe Van Parijs—considered by many to be Europe’s most prominent advocate for the idea that the state should provide a regular income to every citizen—can see the mailbox where he sent off invitations to the first “basic income” conference more than 30 years ago. “I’m quite amazed by the seed we threw on the ground now,” he says.

After decades of obscurity, the idea is suddenly in fashion. Politicians around the world are interested and a handful of governments, such as Finland and the Canadian province of Ontario, are planning or considering basic-income pilot projects.

But the idea of basic income has been around for more than 200 years, rising on waves of political and economic turmoil only to disappear in calmer times. Here are some of the highlights of its long, turbulent history:

Thomas Paine Wikicommons

1795-97: As the Industrial Revolution widened the gap between rich and poor, land reform was seen by some as an answer to social inequity. Thomas Paine, who two decades earlier had written Common Sense, drafted Agrarian Justice in the winter of 1795 and 1796. The earth by right belongs to all people, Paine argued, but the private ownership of land has stripped us of this “natural inheritance”; at 21 years old, citizens should be compensated for their loss with a sum of 15 pounds. A year later, fellow British-born radical Thomas Spence responded with a pamphlet titled The Rights of Infants. Writing in the character of a woman (“because the men are not to be depended on”), Spence said society should be organized into parishes that would lease out all houses and lands and then, after the community’s expenses had been paid, distribute their remaining funds equally among members.

1848: Revolutions erupted across Europe, Karl Marx penned The Communist Manifesto, and Joseph Charlier, a Belgian variously identified as a “writer, an “accountant,” or a “merchant,” wrote The Solution of the Social Problem, now considered the first fully fledged proposal for basic income. His book received little attention and disappeared until two European academics stumbled upon it 150 years later and wrote an article that established Charlier’s place in history.

Late 1910s and 1920s: Social movements demanded a radical redistribution of resources after the devastation of World War I. In England, two young Quakers published a pamphlet calling for a weekly “state bonus” for all citizens of the United Kingdom. The idea gained a following and was considered by the Labor Party in 1920 but ultimately rejected.

Sen. Huey Long Wikimedia Commons

1930s: The Great Depression swept across the industrialized world, wiping out jobs and sending poverty soaring. In 1934, populist (and famously corrupt) Louisiana Sen. Huey Long addressed the country on the radio and called for the confiscation of wealth from the richest and guaranteed annual incomes for all families, a program he called “Share Our Wealth.” The movement was cut short by Long’s assassination in 1935. That same year, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the landmark Social Security Act, creating the anti-poverty program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children—or “welfare.”

1940s: Conservative economists Milton Friedman and George Stigler, both future Nobel laureates, developed the idea of a “negative income tax” (NIT), essentially a guaranteed income administered through the tax system. Low-income filers would receive checks from the government rather than pay taxes; as their earnings increased, so would their tax burden, but also the total amount the filer took home. Friedman’s plan may come as a surprise to his small-government acolytes, but the economist firmly believed an NIT would address poverty without adding to the state bureaucracy he reviled.

1962-63: Basic income went mainstream as attention turned to poverty, unemployment, and the massive northern migration of African Americans. In 1963, critic Dwight Macdonald argued for the necessity of a guaranteed income for all families in an influential review of Michael Harrington’s The Other America in The New Yorker. Friedman made the case for an NIT in his book Capitalism and Freedom, while on the left, economist Robert Theobald outlined his “Basic Economic Security plan”—a proposal strikingly similar to modern basic-income schemes. Economists in the Kennedy administration embarked on a federal anti-poverty campaign, which, after Kennedy’s assassination, became Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty.

1964-68: Racially charged riots, with demands for economic justice, erupted in cities across the country. In a 1967 speech, Martin Luther King Jr. called for a guaranteed minimum income for all people. Protests organized by welfare rights groups raised the pressure on government to address poverty and guaranteed income gained popularity within the administration. In a 1966 report, Johnson’s Council of Economic Advisers said a negative income tax “would be the most direct approach to reducing poverty” and “deserve(s) further exploration.” By 1968, a surprising cast of characters, including heads of major companies, had lent support to the idea. John Kenneth Galbraith and Paul Samuelson joined more than 1,200 economists in signing a statement advocating a “national system of income guarantees and supplements.”

1969-71: Richard Nixon repudiated guaranteed income on the campaign trail, but after his election, he was persuaded that it might be the best solution to the so-called “welfare mess.” In a televised address in August, Nixon presented his Family Assistance Plan (FAP). While Nixon insisted that it was “not a guaranteed income” because it included work requirements, the plan owed its central tenets to the guaranteed-income debate and would have made a radical break with past poverty policy. Families headed by both working and unemployed adults were eligible, erasing a historic line between the “deserving” poor (the old, disabled, and mothers with young children) and “undeserving” (people who are physically able to work).

Daniel Patrick Moynihan Marion S. Trikosko / Library of Congress

In 1970, Nixon’s bill easily passed the House but stalled in the Senate Finance Committee, which was chaired by Huey Long’s son, Sen. Russell Long of Louisiana. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a proponent of the plan within the administration, wrote in a memo to Nixon that for Southern committee members “it would very likely mean the end of those political dynasties built on poverty and racial division.” Nixon’s plan died in committee. A revised version met the same fate the following year.

Late 1960s to the early 1980s: Beginning in 1968, the US government ran four groundbreaking negative income tax trials involving nearly 9,000 families. In Canada, between 1974 and 1979, the government turned the tiny, isolated town of Dauphin into a living laboratory where qualified residents received a guaranteed annual income equivalent to about $15,000 for a family of four. (The Canadian data was never analyzed; a determined academic discovered the documents in the early 2000s, packed away in 1,800 dusty boxes in a Winnipeg warehouse.) The US experiments, which were primarily intended to study an NIT’s impact on labor, found only small reductions in work effort. But researchers reported that the trials in Seattle and Denver appeared to increase the rate of marriage dissolution by 40 percent to 60 percent. Although the results were later disputed, the damage was done. Moynihan, now a senator and once an avid supporter in Congress, renounced guaranteed income. But Nixon’s welfare reform efforts did have a lasting impact: Supplementary Security Income (income support for the aged, blind, and disabled) and the Earned Income Tax Credit (an NIT applied solely to the working poor) were enacted in 1972 and 1974.

Jay Hammond Wikicommons

1982: In 1976, as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline neared completion, Jay Hammond, a professional hunter turned governor, proposed a system of dividends to be paid to all Alaskans from a state oil fund established in 1976. The program dispensed its first dividends in 1982, in effect becoming the first basic-income system in the United States. Last year, the state sent checks of $2,072 to nearly 650,000 residents. In June, current Gov. Bill Walker capped payments at $1,000 per person this year to help cover Alaska’s budget deficit.

Early 1980s to 1990s: In 1982, Philippe Van Parijs, then a young Belgian academic losing sleep to fears of unfettered capitalism, landed on the idea of a basic income. He found like-minded thinkers across Europe, and in 1986 they scraped together enough money for the first basic-income conference. At that meeting, the Basic Income Europe Network (“BIEN,” or “good” in French) was born. In 2004, at the insistence of a growing international contingent, the organization was renamed the Basic Income Earth Network.

1997: Mexico launched a large-scale conditional cash transfer program (CCT), or a system of direct cash payments to poor households, followed in 2001 by Brazil and Colombia. While CCTs are not identical to basic income—the grants come with requirements, such as sending children to school, and are only given to the poor—they also operate on the assumption that people can be trusted to spend cash grants wisely. CCT programs spread rapidly across Latin America in the early 2000s and on to parts of Asia and Africa. Tens of millions of impoverished people worldwide now receive financial assistance through CCTs funded by governments, international aid organizations, and nonprofits.

Zephania Kameeta Wikicommons

2006-11: At a BIEN conference in Cape Town, South Africa, Zephania Kameeta, then head of the Namibian Evangelical Lutheran Church, shouted in frustration: “Words! Words! Words!” Kameeta was fed up with the endless scholarly discussions and lack of progress, so after the conference he set about organizing a real-life basic-income trial. By early 2008, a basic-income coalition assembled by the bishop had launched a pilot project in an impoverished settlement. Two years later, a group of researchers began a series of basic-income experiments in rural India involving more than 6,000 individuals.

2015-Present: The Canadian province of Ontario pledged to roll out a basic income trial in 2017, with the Dutch city of Utrecht to follow in 2017. The Finnish government mulled a pilot project with up to 10,000 participants. In the United States, where Silicon Valley bigwigs were among basic income’s most vocal supporters, the startup incubator Y Combinator in June announced plans to start a pilot project this year in Oakland, California, that will distribute up to $2,000 a month to a few dozen people. Another private enterprise, the US-based nonprofit GiveDirectly, is planning an extended trial in Kenya that will span 10 to 15 years and involve at least 6,000 participants.

2016: On June 5, Switzerland became the first country to vote on, and roundly defeat, a national basic income. Opponents argued that the policy would have discouraged work and undermined the Swiss economy. But for basic-income advocates, the referendum was remarkable. Just a few decades ago, Van Parijs remembers, it was “difficult to find 30 people who had heard of the idea.”

See original:  

A Brief History of the Idea That Everyone Should Get Free Cash for Life

Posted in Citizen, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, ProPublica, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Brief History of the Idea That Everyone Should Get Free Cash for Life

Surprise! Trump wants a coal booster and climate change denier to head the Interior Department.

The company recently admitted that it has invested heavily in Canada’s tar-sands oil reserves, InsideClimate News reports — and it was not a good bet.

Tar-sands oil is difficult, expensive, and energy-consuming to extract, making it especially bad for the climate. It’s only profitable when oil prices are high. Exxon acknowledged in a public financial disclosure report this fall that it could be forced to take a loss on billions of barrels of tar-sands oil unless prices rise soon.

The company made this unwise investment despite long knowing, as InsideClimate News previously reported, that burning oil causes climate change and future climate regulations could make tar-sands oil unprofitable or impossible to drill.

In 1991, Exxon’s Canadian affiliate Imperial Oil commissioned an analysis that found carbon regulation could halt tar-sands production. “Yet Exxon, Imperial, and others poured billions of dollars into the tar sands while lobbying against government actions that would curtail development,” according to InsideClimate News.

This news comes just after Donald Trump nominated ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to be secretary of state. The State Department is responsible for reviewing proposed pipeline projects that cross international borders, like Keystone XL, which would have carried tar-sands oil from Canada down toward U.S. refineries.

Continue reading here:  

Surprise! Trump wants a coal booster and climate change denier to head the Interior Department.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, InsideClimate News, KTP, LAI, ONA, organic, Oster, oven, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Surprise! Trump wants a coal booster and climate change denier to head the Interior Department.

Canada Just Took a Big Step Toward Banning a Nasty Pesticide

Mother Jones

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

While President-elect Donald Trump ponders which anti-regulation stalwart to place at the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Health Canada—our northern neighbor’s version of the EPA—just took a bold step toward protecting the environment. Last week, the Canadian agency declared in a preliminary assessment that a high-profile insecticide should be banned within five years, because it’s turning up in waterways “at levels that are harmful to aquatic insects”—the base of the food chain for fish, birds, and other animals.

Health Canada is soliciting public comment on its assessment through late February, after which it will decide whether to proceed with a phased-in ban. The chemical is imidacloprid, widely marketed by Bayer, the German chemical giant that recently bought US seed/agrichemical titan Monsanto in a deal pending approval by US and European antitrust authorities. Bayer was not amused by the finding, declaring itself “extremely disappointed.”

Imidacloprid is part of a class of chemicals known as neonicotinoids, the globe’s most-used insecticides—and one that has been linked by a growing body of research with the declining health of honeybees and other pollinators.

The Canadian assessment has nothing to do with pollinators, though. The agency is conducting a separate evaluation of how the chemical affects them. It’s striking that the agency decided that the risk imidacloprid poses to waterborne insects is so great that the chemical should be banned. Mark Winston, a professor of apiculture at Simon Fraser University and senior fellow at the university’s Centre for Dialogue, told CBC News that the recommendation “really surprised” him, because “to take an action to phase out a chemical that is so ubiquitous, and for which there is so much lobbying pressure from industry…that’s a really bold move.”

Based on similar concerns, Health Canada has initiated reviews of two other prominent neonics, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. They, too, have potent corporate interests behind them—Bayer is a major producer of clothianidin, while the Chinese agrichemical giant Syngenta is the sole maker of thiamethoxam products on the Canadian market, according to Health Canada.

Meanwhile, south of the border, imidacloprid has also generated serious concern among regulatory agencies. Back in January, the EPA released a preliminary assessment finding that in two crops where it’s commonly used, cotton and citrus, imidacloprid harms bees and lowers honey production. As for the most prominent crop for imidacloprid, soybeans, the EPA noted that they’re “attractive to bees via pollen and nectar,” meaning they could expose bees to dangerous levels of imidacloprid. But the agency revealed that it doesn’t know whether it causes harm, because data on how much of the pesticide shows up in soybeans’ pollen and nectar are “unavailable” both from Bayer and independent researchers—even though it’s been on the market for 20 years.

Overall, the assessment was so dire that an EPA spokeswoman told me at the time that the agency “could potentially take action” to “restrict or limit the use” of the chemical by the end of this year. Such a move has yet to happen.

Meanwhile, Hurricane Trump has descended upon Washington. His main ag adviser during the campaign, Charles Herbster, regularly denounced regulation of agriculture. The man leading Trump’s EPA transition is an anti-regulation zealot, and according to Politico, the president-elect is mulling candidates of that ilk to head the agency. Soon, it may not just be disappointed Democrats who fantasize about emigrating north. Bees and aquatic insects may join them.

This article: 

Canada Just Took a Big Step Toward Banning a Nasty Pesticide

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Canada Just Took a Big Step Toward Banning a Nasty Pesticide

TransCanada’s latest move perfectly illustrates why so many people hate free-trade deals

Ceci n’est pas une pipeline

TransCanada’s latest move perfectly illustrates why so many people hate free-trade deals

By on Jun 27, 2016Share

TransCanada is demanding that the U.S. fork over $15 billion to make up for the fact that the company didn’t get to build the Keystone XL pipeline. That’s one damned expensive temper tantrum.

On Friday, TransCanada filed a formal request under NAFTA seeking to recover costs and damages related to the thwarted pipeline project, following through on a threat it made in January. The Canadian firm claims that the Obama administration’s decision to reject the pipeline was unjustified and violated the U.S.’s obligations under NAFTA. “[T]he rejection was symbolic and based merely on the desire to make the U.S. appear strong on climate change,” TransCanada complained in its filing.

Climate activists and other environmentalists say this is a perfect example of why they oppose many trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which Obama is currently trying to get approved. “The TPP would empower thousands of new firms operating in the U.S, including major polluters, to follow in TransCanada’s footsteps and undermine our critical climate safeguards in private trade tribunals,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.

The State Department argues that the Keystone rejection was consistent with NAFTA requirements, but some trade experts say there’s a real chance TransCanada could win its case.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading here – 

TransCanada’s latest move perfectly illustrates why so many people hate free-trade deals

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on TransCanada’s latest move perfectly illustrates why so many people hate free-trade deals

Oil and gas are a bad bet, warns Canadian government group

Oil and gas are a bad bet, warns Canadian government group

By on May 31, 2016 5:40 pmShare

One of the world’s largest fossil fuel producers is on the verge of cleaning up its act.

In coming years, Canada can expect a switch from oil and gas to renewables, according to a draft policy report from a government group. Even more importantly, the report notes, Canada should expect some of its oil to likely “remain in the ground.”

Sound familiar? That phrase just so happens to mimic the rallying cry of the U.S. environmental movement.

The dose of reality for Canada’s tar sands industry comes from Policy Horizons Canada, which provides advice to the federal government on emerging policy issues. CBC News obtained the report via an access to information request.

“It is increasingly plausible to foresee a future in which cheap renewable electricity becomes the world’s primary power source and fossil fuels are relegated to a minority status,” the report reads. It urges against investment in new oil and gas infrastructure projects, calling them “high risk” for becoming unprofitable. Electric cars like Tesla even made an appearance in the report, with forecasts showing that cars that use lithium-ion batteries would become affordable sooner than previously expected.

If the report’s takeaways stand, it means a big turnaround for a country that was until recently all-in on fossil fuels. Canada is the world’s fifth largest producer of oil, providing an estimated 6 percent of global energy supplies.

Get Grist in your inbox

Source article:

Oil and gas are a bad bet, warns Canadian government group

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Oil and gas are a bad bet, warns Canadian government group

In battle over new Canadian pipeline, it’s Trudeau vs. tribes

In battle over new Canadian pipeline, it’s Trudeau vs. tribes

By on May 24, 2016Share

The ghost of the Keystone XL pipeline is hovering over every new fossil fuel project — and it’s haunting the Canadian prime minister’s office.

In the latest action against new Canadian oil and gas infrastructure, a coalition of First Nations groups publicly asserted their right to block the construction of pipelines that cross their land — and informed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that they fully intend to do just that. Led by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the group’s assertion follows a legal challenge that North Vancouver’s Tsleil-Waututh Nation filed earlier this month, which argued that the government has not sought proper consent for development projects on their lands.

In response to the tribes’ announcement, Trudeau told Reuters, “Well, communities grant permission. Does that mean you have to have unanimous support from every community? Absolutely not.”

It’s not the first time Trudeau has found himself caught in the middle of Canadian pipeline politics. Aboriginal objection is a growing element of the “Keystone-ization” of fossil fuel infrastructure in Canada. The term for the spread of opposition to major oil and gas infrastructure projects takes its name from the failed TransCanada Keystone XL project, which President Barack Obama vetoed last February.

A fitting example of Canadian Keystone-ization is Enbridge Inc.’s ever-delayed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would export diluted bitumen from northern oil sands to Asian markets, and has been blocked for years by both aboriginal and climate activists. Another is TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline, which has been tied up with opposition lawsuits since 2013. 

But in terms of the strength of its opposition, the Canadian project most reminiscent of Keystone XL belongs to Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion project — the one most recently contested by tribes in British Columbia. It’s a proposed pipeline that would stretch 715 miles between Alberta and British Columbia, alongside the existing Trans Mountain pipeline system. The controversial project was conditionally approved by Canada’s National Energy Board last Thursday. If construction goes through, Kinder Morgan would increase its transport of bitumen from oil sands from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels per day.

Now, Trudeau finds himself at an impasse. In 2014, he told Metro Calgary, “I certainly hope we’re going to get that pipeline approved,” in reference to the Trans Mountain project. But after his election, the Prime Minister’s stance on oil and gas infrastructure has grown more complex. In January, Trudeau’s administration began requiring all new pipeline projects to pass a tougher environmental review, one that takes into account the emissions produced by the fossil fuels that the pipeline would carry. But despite this more stringent vetting process, Trudeau remains firmly in the pro-pipeline camp, reportedly calling the approval of the Trans Mountain project a top priority during his tenure.

In Vancouver last March, when asked about the potential for these proposed pipelines to damage the environment around them, Trudeau dodged the question:

“We have hundreds and hundreds of pipelines across this country carrying all sorts of different things, and we need to make sure that we’re getting the reassurance of communities, Indigenous people, environmentalists and scientists that we’re doing it responsibly.”

As of this week, it’s clear that reassurance has not arrived for many indigenous groups. And if the Trudeau administration goes ahead with their pipeline plans, that reassurance will probably never come.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Read the article:  

In battle over new Canadian pipeline, it’s Trudeau vs. tribes

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In battle over new Canadian pipeline, it’s Trudeau vs. tribes

4 reasons Alberta’s wildfire is such a nightmare

4 reasons Alberta’s wildfire is such a nightmare

By on May 10, 2016Share

Officials say the massive wildfire raging across Canada’s oil capital of Alberta will take months to extinguish. The fire has already destroyed 24,000 buildings in Fort McMurray and forced nearly 90,000 people to flee their homes, but what’s making it so hard to control?

It seems the “perfect storm” trope is appropriate here. Or, as Slate’s Eric Holthaus wrote, there’s a “messy mix of factors” behind the fire:

Land temperature anomalies from NASA satellite data April 26 to May 3, 2016.

  1. Humans. High temperatures, little rain help fuel a longer and larger-than-life wildfire season, and each are symptoms of climate change. But it’s possible the fire itself was manmade: Though the exact cause is unknown, according to The Canadian Press, “the fire’s proximity to the city, as well as data that shows there were no lightning strikes in the area” led a fire researcher to believe that human activity set off the initial spark.
  2. El Niño. The region’s exceptionally dry winter and prolonged drought is linked to a major El Niño, which turned the forests around Fort McMurray into a “tinderbox.” Of course, climate change exacerbates El Niño extremes.
  3. The forest. Fort McMurray is best known for its proximity to tar sands oil fields (which drove up its population in the last decade, during the oil boom). It is also surrounded by boreal forests that are really, really dry after the last few years. How could that get even worse? Well, by the species of trees that populate the area — black and white spruce — which are especially prone to spreading fire, reports the The Globe & Mail.
  4. The wind. Winds of 37 miles per hour over almost doubled the size of the blaze last weekend.

If there’s one thing that didn’t cause this fire, it’s karma. Seriously, why would anyone gloat that an oil town in tar sands country is getting leveled by a climate-induced disaster? As The New Yorker’s Elizabeth Kolbert notes, “we’ve all contributed to the latest inferno” because we all guzzle oil, not to mention gas and coal.

The irony is while entire communities have been destroyed by the fire, oil sands and energy facilities have remained pretty much intact.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Originally from:  

4 reasons Alberta’s wildfire is such a nightmare

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Jason, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 4 reasons Alberta’s wildfire is such a nightmare

Celebrating Bats on Bat Appreciation Day

Bats do a whole lot more than cruise the skies at night. They play an important role in balancing our ecosystem, eating harmful insects and acting as natural pest control. And although some people think bats are freaky looking, there are hundreds of reasons to love these flying mammals.

5 Fun Bat Facts For Bat Appreciation Day

1. Bats are the only flying mammals. Talk about bragging rights! These guys can cruise up to 60 miles per hour.

2. Bats use echolocation. Consider bats the dolphins of the sky. They use echolocation not for communication, but for finding food in the dark.

3. A quarter of all mammals are bats. There are over 1,000 bat species in the world, making up 1/4th of all mammals! However, over 50 percent of these species are declining, either already endangered or on their way.

4. Bats have only one baby per year. Similar to humans, bats typically only have one bat baby (called a pup) per year. Just like people, bats will occasionally have twins.

5. Bats often eat their body weightsdaily. Insect-eating bats can consume over 1,000 insects every night. That’s one efficient mosquito trap!

Unfortunately, many once-abundant bat species in the U.S. are now endangered, and all of them are threatened.

Why Are They at Risk?

Bats are at risk for two main reasons. The first is habitat loss, which unfortunately is no one’s fault but our own. As we continue to develop more and more forest land, bats are losing their homes.

The second reason we’re seeing fewer bats is due to a fatal and fast-spreading fungal disease called white-nose syndrome, which attacks bats during hibernation, invading their skin, causing dehydration and creating a need for the critters to leave their caves early in search of food and water. Caused by a fungus from Eurasia, the disease has killed at least 5.7 million bats since it arrived to North American in 2006. White-nose syndrome has been found in 26 U.S. states and 5 Canadian provinces.

How You Can Help

1. Don’t use pesticides. While you may be using poison to keep pests off your plants, insects are bats top food sources, so chemicals are easily transferred to our flying friends.

2. Stay out of caves. By accidentally entering a hibernation site, you can disturb a bat’s natural cycle and harm the overall population.

3. Fight for forest conservation. Habitat loss is a huge contributor to the decline in bat population. Do all you can to fight for our natural forest reserves to help promote safe spaces for bats to live.

4. Adopt a bat. Don’t worry, you don’t have to take it home. These virtual bat adoption kits range from 25 to 55 dollars, and your donation will go toward protecting bat habitats and educating the public on why these flying friends are so important.

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

See the original article here:

Celebrating Bats on Bat Appreciation Day

Posted in alo, Bragg, Casio, Dolphin, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Celebrating Bats on Bat Appreciation Day

Sick of the Presidential Elections? Here Are Some Photos of the Canadian Prime Minister

Mother Jones

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

The Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is in Washington this week to wine and dine with the Obamas and announce a new climate deal, and Twitter has been absolutely thirsty for his arrival. If you can’t afford to flee across America’s northern border upon the ascent of President Donald Trump to the White House, here, instead, are a few photos of Canadian Bae-minister-in-chief Trudeau. He pulls off the exact embodiment of everything NOT-American so flawlessly, it sort of hurts. Enjoy.

“Kindness,” for example. On a pink sweater. Come on:

He unreservedly loves the gays:

I meeeeeeean:

He’s a self-described feminist. Aw:

Here he is, fighting for your rights (he used to be a boxer):

They’re like the freaking Canadian Kennedys:

Oh, and don’t forget this one:

You’re welcome.

Source article: 

Sick of the Presidential Elections? Here Are Some Photos of the Canadian Prime Minister

Posted in Anchor, Bragg, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sick of the Presidential Elections? Here Are Some Photos of the Canadian Prime Minister

Canada and U.S., longtime frenemies on climate change, join forces at last

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (L) and U.S. President Barack Obama conclude remarks in Manila, Philippines, November 19, 2015. Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Canada and U.S., longtime frenemies on climate change, join forces at last

By on 8 Mar 2016commentsShare

At long last, two countries that share a border will also share a comprehensive plan for climate action.

Serious climate conversations between the U.S. and Canada have been few and far between over the years. This week, the two countries are expected to present a unified front with a climate change agreement, a rare event, given that they have long been on opposite ends of the climate action spectrum.

The two nations’ leaders, U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, will announce a series of joint measures this week during a meeting at the White House. According to The Guardian, the agreement is expected to include pledge to cut up to 45 percent of methane emissions — a greenhouse gas that is roughly 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide — from oil and gas industries. During a White House press call on Tuesday, Todd Stern, U.S. special envoy for climate change, said that the meeting would focus on short-lived pollutants like methane, hydrofluorocarbons (potent greenhouse gases used in refrigerators, aerosols, and air conditioners), and black carbon (a particulate component of soot). Officials also expect the agreement to call for a decrease in diesel fuel and more funding for Arctic climate research.

Advertisement – Article continues below

One major focus for the two Arctic neighbors is addressing warming at the pole, a region which is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.

“There’s a kind of canary-in-the-coalmine quality to the Arctic, and it’s important to let people around the world know what’s going on there and the impacts there, which will, in turn, have impacts around the world,” Stern told reporters.

It’s a rare breakthrough for the two leaders — one at the end of his tenure and the other just four months in. For much of the past decade, the two countries have been at odds on climate policy. Before Trudeau’s election last October, Canada was led by conservative Stephen Harper, who steered Canada into a pit of dirty oil. Harper kept the oil sands industry afloat throughout his tenure, beginning in 2006. Harper turned Canada into a booming petrostate, muzzling climate scientists who spoke out and  pushing hard for companies to be able to suck up the dirty substance lying under massive tracts of forest in Alberta. At the very same time, Canada’s neighbor to the south elected a Democrat in 2008, Obama, who promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions, amp up investments in clean energy, and was rumored to veto the Keystone pipeline (an action that he did in fact take in February 2015).

Before Harper’s administration, Canada had more of an appetite to fight global warming. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin, a liberal who served in office from 2003 to 2006, ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty to cut emissions. But the U.S. was under the eight-year reign of President George W. Bush, who opposed Kyoto, allegedly tried to block public scientific data on climate change, and broke campaign promises to limit carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants. “To the reticent nations, including the United States, I say this: There is such a thing as a global conscience,” Martin said about his southern neighbors in a 2005 conference in Montreal.

It’s not yet know exactly how far-reaching the terms will be in the expected climate agreement announced this week. But in a town hall hosted by The Huffington Post this week, Trudeau said that the moment was a “nice alignment between a Canadian prime minister who wants to get all sorts of things done right off the bat and an American president who is thinking about the legacy he is going to leave in his last year in office.” If all goes well, that legacy will finally include climate policy that crosses both country borders and longstanding ideological divides.

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 – 

Canada and U.S., longtime frenemies on climate change, join forces at last

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Canada and U.S., longtime frenemies on climate change, join forces at last