Tag Archives: center

More Americans Ditching Organized Religion

Mother Jones

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

According to a new study published by the Pew Research Center today, the largest shift in religious demographics over the past seven years is in the number of Americans who don’t affiliate with any religion at all. The study, which started in 2007 and surveyed more than 35,000 people, saw this group jump from 16.1 to 22.8 percentage points—with young, college-educated Americans being the most religiously unaffiliated:

While many U.S. religious groups are aging, the unaffiliated are comparatively young – and getting younger, on average, over time. As a rising cohort of highly unaffiliated Millennials reaches adulthood, the median age of unaffiliated adults has dropped to 36, down from 38 in 2007 and far lower than the general (adult) population’s median age of 46.4 By contrast, the median age of mainline Protestant adults in the new survey is 52 (up from 50 in 2007), and the median age of Catholic adults is 49 (up from 45 seven years earlier).

The findings had some disappointing news for Christians. While the number of people who identify with the religion has been waning for decades, the drop in the Christian population has been the sharpest of all in recent years with fewer Americans than ever before identifying themselves as Christians.

Pew

Other interesting details include: Religious intermarriage is up. Christians are getting more diverse. And Muslims and Hindus are seeing significant increases in their numbers. For more, head over to the Pew Research Center here.

Excerpt from:  

More Americans Ditching Organized Religion

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on More Americans Ditching Organized Religion

Climate-denying scientist got piles of money from fossil fuel interests

Climate-denying scientist got piles of money from fossil fuel interests

By on 23 Feb 2015commentsShare

Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon has long been a favorite among the climate-denier crowd. He’s an aerospace engineer who works part-time for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and publishes papers that try to poke holes in the scientific consensus on climate change. But now information in newly released documents is casting serious doubt on his credibility, as The New York Times reports:

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The bundle of documents, released by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center, gives a fresh reminder how the climate-denial industry functions, throwing huge sums at researchers whose work challenges the vast majority of climate science and claims we’re not on course for dangerous global warming.

Soon’s work tries to show that global warming is attributable to the sun, not humans. He has denounced the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore for overstating the threat our current fossil fuel consumption poses to the climate. And his work, it turns out, has been funded almost entirely by businesses and groups that don’t want governments to take action fighting climate change, including the ExxonMobil Foundation, the American Petroleum Institute, Southern Company, the Texaco Foundation, and the Koch-affiliated Donors’ Trust.

Soon’s affiliation with Harvard and the Smithsonian is prized by the conservative politicians and pundits who cite his work, while really pissing off the environmental community. Suzanne Goldenberg elaborates at The Guardian:

In the relatively small universe of climate denial Soon, with his Harvard-Smithsonian credentials, was a sought after commodity. He was cited admiringly by Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who famously called global warming a hoax. He was called to testify when Republicans in the Kansas state legislature tried to block measures promoting wind and solar power. The Heartland Institute, a hub of climate denial, gave Soon a courage award.

Soon did not enjoy such recognition from the scientific community. There were no grants from NASA, the National Science Foundation or the other institutions which were funding his colleagues at the Center for Astrophysics. According to the documents, his work was funded almost entirely by the fossil fuel lobby.

The newly released documents contain emails between Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian staff who assisted Soon, and Soon’s funders. In the emails, Soon’s research is framed as a sort of trade — the research is referred to as “deliverables.” His funding contracts specified, in some cases, that fossil fuel companies be allowed to review and give input on his work before he publish it, or that the source of his funding be kept secret.

Soon has denied that his funding influences his conclusions. But it certainly keeps his conclusions coming, even though the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which researches climate change, described Soon’s findings to The New York Times as “almost pointless” to the scientific community. The opinion of the scientific community, however, has proven not to matter much when it comes to sowing doubt among voters and policymakers — in that, the climate change deniers who capitalize on Soon’s findings have been very successful.

These new disclosures have lead some to point out that both research institutions and journals are too lax about declaring their researchers’ conflicts of interest. It remains to be seen how Harvard-Smithsonian and the journals that published Soon’s work will respond to the documents, which, because the Smithsonian is a government agency, were obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. Will Harvard-Smithsonian drop Soon? Will the journal articles be retracted?

Meanwhile, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) is calling for a different sort of action. “For years, fossil fuel interests and front groups have attacked climate scientists and legislation to cut carbon pollution using junk science and debunked arguments,” he told The Boston Globe. So Markey is launching an investigation and asking coal and oil companies to reveal their role in funding research related to climate change.

We’re sure they’ll do that right away.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

More here:  

Climate-denying scientist got piles of money from fossil fuel interests

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Smith's, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate-denying scientist got piles of money from fossil fuel interests

Poll: Republicans More Likely Than Dems to Say Vaccinations Should be Parents’ Choice

Mother Jones

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

According to a new report from the Pew Research Center, vaccine beliefs are divided along party lines. A poll found that 1 out of 3 Republicans and Independents said the decision to vaccinate should be a parent’s choice, compared to 1 out of 5 Democrats.

The poll also found that young adults are more likely than their older counterparts to believe that parents should be able to choose whether to vaccinate a child. An estimated 41 percent of 18-to-29-years olds believed it should be a parent’s decision, compared to just 20 percent of adults 65 years or older.

Some attribute this divide to the fact that Measles have become rare since 1963, when the first Measles vaccine was introduced. In 1958, there were 750,000 cases of the disease. By 1968 this number had fallen to 22,000. By 2000 there were only 86 confirmed Measles cases reported to the CDC. Number stayed low until 2014 when the Center for Disease Control reported an outbreak of more than 600 cases. It was the first spike in a decade and was largely linked to unvaccinated Amish communities in Ohio.

This is Pew’s first report on this question since 2009; however, it is interesting to note that the data was amassed in August 2014—months before the current Measles outbreak that has resulted in more than 100 cases across 14 states.

Original article:

Poll: Republicans More Likely Than Dems to Say Vaccinations Should be Parents’ Choice

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Poll: Republicans More Likely Than Dems to Say Vaccinations Should be Parents’ Choice

More women are choosing more effective birth control — here’s why it matters

More women are choosing more effective birth control — here’s why it matters

By on 15 Dec 2014commentsShare

Good news for people who want to have sex without the whole making-a-baby hassle: The percentage of women choosing LARC (long-acting reversible contraption) methods in the United States is at an all-time high!

While the percentage of women using contraception has not changed since 2006, the percentage of those using LARCs (which include IUDS, or intra-uterine devices, and hormonal implants) in the United States has gone up. In 2002, 2.4 percent of American contraceptive users chose LARC methods, but new data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows that figure has grown to 7.2 percent — and calculations from the Guttmacher Institute indicate that it could be closer to 12 percent. However, U.S. LARC usage is still significantly lower than the international average; 25 percent of global contraceptive users choose IUDs alone.

Why does this matter? Well, LARCs are more effective than any other reversible form of contraception, with a success rate of approximately 99 percent. Why? No matter how cautious you are with a method of birth control that’s susceptible to human error, mistakes can happen. Ask any woman who has some experience with birth control if she’s forgotten to take a pill, or had a condom break (I’m raising both hands). With an IUD or hormonal implant, however, a woman may never have to think about getting pregnant after the implantation procedure — until she chooses to get the device removed, of course. Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out in support of doctors recommending LARC methods for teen patients seeking contraception.

The increase in LARC usage could have something to do with the fact that the Affordable Care Act covers contraceptive methods without out-of-pockets costs for many, many women. Another fun fact: Between 2008 and 2011 — as LARC usage began to increase most sharply — the abortion rate dropped 13 percent. In a country where the rate of unintended pregnancy (51 percent, in case you forgot) is higher than the global average, this trend toward more reliable forms of birth control is not a small deal.

What a wacky idea — remove barriers to birth control, and women will choose safe, effective methods of contraception! Hard to believe this has never occurred to anyone before!

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

×

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

See more here:  

More women are choosing more effective birth control — here’s why it matters

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on More women are choosing more effective birth control — here’s why it matters

BREAKING: The US and China Just Announced a Huge Deal on Climate—and it’s a Gamechanger

Mother Jones

In a surprise announcement Tuesday night, the world’s two biggest economies and greenhouse gas emitters, United States and China, said they will partner closely on a broad-ranging package of plans to fight climate change, including new targets to reduce carbon pollution, according to a statement from the White House.

The announcement comes after President Obama met in Beijing with Chinese President Xi Jinping, and includes headline-grabbing undertakings from both countries which are sure to breathe new life into negotiations to reach a new climate treaty in Paris next year.

According to the plan, the United States will reduce carbon emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, nearly twice the existing target—without imposing new restrictions on power plants or vehicles.

Tuesday’s announcement is equally remarkable for China’s commitment. For the first time, China has set a date at which it expects its emissions will “peak,” or finally begin to taper downwards: around 2030. China is currently the world’s biggest emitter of carbon pollution, largely because of its coal-dependent economy, and reining in emissions while continuing to grow has been the paramount challenge for China’s leaders.

The White House said in a statement that China could reach the target, even sooner than 2030. It “expects that China will succeed in peaking its emissions before 2030 based on its broad economic reform program, plans to address air pollution, and implementation of President Xi’s call for an energy revolution.”

This is also the first time such a policy has come from the very top, President Xi Jinping. Previously, the first and only mention of “peaking” came from Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli at the UN climate talks in New York in September.

“This is clearly a sign of the seriousness and the importance the Chinese government is giving to this issue,” said Barbara Finamore, Asia director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, the environmental advocacy group, in an interview from Hong Kong. “The relationship between the US and China is tricky, but climate has been one of the areas where the two sides can and are finding common ground.”

The US also called China’s goal of reaching the goal of 20 percent total energy consumption from zero-emission sources by 2030 “notable,” but painted a picture of the challenges ahead for the energy-hungry giant: “It will require China to deploy an additional 800-1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero emission generation capacity by 2030 – more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States.”

The announcement also sets the stage for conflict with the Senate’s new Republican leadership, which just today signaled that attacking Obama’s climate initiatives will be a top priority in 2015.

The plan does not entail using the US Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, as the bulk of Obama’s existing climate strategy does. Instead, it involves a series of initiatives to be undertaken in partnership between the two countries, including:

Expanding funding for clean energy technology research at the US-China Clean Energy Research Center, a think tank Obama created in 2009 with Xi’s predecessor Hu Jintao.
Launching a large-scale pilot project in China to study carbon capture and sequestration.
A push to further limit the use of hydroflourocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas found in refrigerants.
A federal framework for cities in both countries to share experiences and best practices for low-carbon economic growth and adaptation to the impacts of climate change at the municipal level.
A call to boost trade in “green” goods, including energy efficiency technology and resilient infrastructure, kicked off by a tour of China next spring by Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

NRDC’s Finamore said the magnitude of the agreement—which was made well in advance of expectations—will provide fresh impetus to the drive for a new global climate agreement in Paris next year. “Hopefully this will give new ambition to other countries as well to move forward quickly,” she said. The agreement “sends a powerful signal to every other country that they are serious and are willing to come to the table to reach a global agreement.”

“Even if the targets aren’t as ambitious as many might hope, the world’s two largest carbon emitters are stepping up together with serious commitments,” said Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a Washington policy group. “This will help get other countries on board and greatly improves the odds for a solid global deal next year in Paris.”

“For too long it’s been too easy for both the US and China to hide behind one another,” he said.

Original source: 

BREAKING: The US and China Just Announced a Huge Deal on Climate—and it’s a Gamechanger

Posted in Anchor, Bunn, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on BREAKING: The US and China Just Announced a Huge Deal on Climate—and it’s a Gamechanger

The Chinese people care more about the environment than Americans do

The Chinese people care more about the environment than Americans do

17 Oct 2014 2:21 PM

Share

Share

The Chinese people care more about the environment than Americans do

×

Those who oppose action on climate change in America are fond of complaining about how futile our own efforts to cut greenhouse gases are when China doesn’t give a hoot about its own emissions. But a new poll finds that the Chinese people do want action to cut pollution — even more than we do in America.

The Pew Research Center asked people around the world to rank five global threats. A full third of respondents in China think that issues related to “pollution and the environment” present the greatest danger to the world. Compare that to 15 percent of Americans. (We Americans, according to Pew, are most concerned about inequality — which, incidentally, is a related issue because inequality both makes climate change harder to tackle, and will be made greatly worse as poor communities and nations face the brunt of a climate run amok.)

And increasingly, the Chinese people are making their voices heard. This summer, Stephen Vines reported for Al Jazeera on the growing number of environmental protests in China:

The latest official State of the Environment report recorded 712 cases of “abrupt environmental incidents” in 2013, up 31 percent from the previous year. Many of these “incidents” are in fact protests, and the level of protest in the current year is, if anything, on the up. Yang Chaofei, the vice-chairman of the Chinese Society for Environmental Sciences, told members of the powerful Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress that environmental protests have been growing 29 percent annually from 1966 to 2011.

Maybe the folks running the country with the world’s highest greenhouse gas emissions and some of the filthiest air are starting to listen to their people. This June, just a day after the U.S. announced its own plans to cut power plant emissions, a Chinese government advisor stated that, for the first time, his country would limit its emissions. And China’s Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli outlined the country’s plans at the U.N. summit in New York last month. Mashable’s Andrew Freedman writes:

China has a goal to reduce its carbon intensity, which is a way of measuring the carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product, by up to 45% by 2020. Zhang said that China will reveal its goals for reducing emissions post-2020 during the first quarter of 2015, as the United States also intends to do.

Zhang said that in 2013, carbon intensity dropped by nearly 29% from the 2005 level, and that installed renewable energy capacity increased significantly as well.

“Responding to climate change is what China needs to do to attain sustainable development at home,” Zhang told the throngs of dignitaries, corporate titans and representatives of civil society groups at the U.N.

So not only have the Chinese beaten us in emitting, they’ve beaten us in being concerned about what those emissions do. Will they now beat us in doing something about it?

Source:
Global Attitudes Project

, Pew Research Center.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

View article:  

The Chinese people care more about the environment than Americans do

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Chinese people care more about the environment than Americans do

Thanks to Obamacare, Way Fewer Women Have To Pay Extra For Birth Control

Mother Jones

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

There’s some good news for women who would rather not pay an arm and a leg to keep from getting pregnant.

The Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health costs, has been periodically surveying a group of 1,800 privately insured women ages 18-39 about how much they pay out of pocket for various kinds of birth control. The first survey was in the fall of 2012, just before the Affordable Care Act required insurance plans to stop applying co-pays or deductibles to most contraceptives. At the time, only 15 percent of the women said they didn’t have to pay anything over and beyond their monthly premiums. By the spring of 2014, that percentage had more than quadrupled.

It’s not just women who benefit. Given that contraception is far cheaper than the cost of unintended pregnancies, there are also plenty of savings for employers and insurers. So why do roughly one out of three women with private insurance still have to pay extra for the Pill, say, when the ACA supposedly forbids it? According to Judy Waxman, vice president of health and reproductive rights at the National Women’s Law Center, many women are still on plans established before March 2010 that were “grandfathered” into the law, meaning they don’t have to comply with the new rules. If an insurer wants to change a plan significantly, however, it’ll lose the exemption. About a quarter of health plans still have the grandfather status, Waxman says, but they’re disappearing fast.

Then, of course, there’s the Hobby Lobby contingent: employers who say their religious objections to birth control should excuse them from covering some, if not all, forms of it. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, 90 religious challenges are now pending in the federal courts, and judges have allowed many employers to withhold coverage of contraceptives until their cases are resolved. (The ACA already exempts churches, religious colleges, and certain other institutions from its mandate.)

There are a handful of insurers still charging extra for birth control in violation of the law, says Adam Sonfield, a public policy analyst at Guttmacher and an author of the study. Either they don’t understand the rules, haven’t yet updated their billing procedures, or are breaking the law deliberately. “The way insurance is regulated is pretty diffuse,” he says. “We know there are still insurers out there inappropriately interpreting the rules.”

The National Women’s Law Center has a step-by-step guide on its website for women who think they’re being charged when they shouldn’t be. It’s unclear, Waxman says, how many women have convinced their insurers to fix the problems, but the center is applying pressure and working with insurers and state officials when they catch wind of a conflict.

Overall, Sonfield and Waxman see the Guttmacher numbers as a big win. And given how surprisingly expensive it can be just to cover the out-of-pocket costs, the report makes the recent GOP push for over-the-counter contraceptives—leaving women to pay the full price—even less attractive. “This analysis shows that the contraceptive coverage guarantee under the ACA is working as intended,” Sonfield writes. Adds Waxman: “It’s a great improvement.”

Continue at source – 

Thanks to Obamacare, Way Fewer Women Have To Pay Extra For Birth Control

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Thanks to Obamacare, Way Fewer Women Have To Pay Extra For Birth Control

A Scary Super Typhoon Is Bearing Down on Japan…and Its Nuclear Plants

Mother Jones

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

Japanese forecasters are calling it a “once in decades storm.” And at Kadena Air Base, a US military installation on the island of Okinawa, one commander dubbed the storm “the most powerful typhoon forecast to hit the island in 15 years.”

Super Typhoon Neoguri, currently sporting maximum sustained winds of nearly 150 miles per hour and just shy of Category 5 strength, is heading straight at Japan’s islands, and its outer bands are currently battering the island of Okinawa. Here’s the forecast map from the Navy’s Joint Typhoon Warning Center. As you can see, the forecast for tomorrow brings the storm up to maximum sustained winds of 140 knots (161 miles per hour), or Category 5 strength (click for larger version):

Joint Typhoon Warning Center.

The Western Pacific basin, home to typhoons (which are elsewhere called tropical cyclones or hurricanes), is known for having the strongest storms on Earth, such as last year’s devastating Super Typhoon Haiyan. July is, generally, when the Western Pacific typhoon season really starts getting into gear, but August, September, and October are usually busier months.

Neoguri will weaken by the time it strikes Japan’s main islands, but as meteorologist Jeff Masters observes, “the typhoon is so large and powerful that it will likely make landfall with at least Category 2 strength, causing major damage in Japan.”

One pressing issue is the safety of Japan’s nuclear plants. In the wake of the 2011 tsunami and the subsequent disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, it’s important to consider whether a similar vulnerability arises here.

Fukushima is located north of Tokyo on Japan’s largest island, Honshu. By the time the typhoon reaches that point, it is forecast to be considerably weaker. But there are a number of other reactors spread across the islands; perhaps most exposed will be the southwestern island of Kyushu, where the current forecast has the typhoon making its first major landfall.

According to reporting by Reuters, there are two nuclear plants on the island. A company spokeswoman for Kyushu Electric Power Co. told the news agency that it “has plans in place throughout the year to protect the plants from severe weather.”

Will that be good enough? According to Edwin Lyman, senior scientist in the global security program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, the good news overall is that Japan’s nuclear plants are currently shut down, awaiting permission to restart as they institute stronger safety protections, including the construction of higher seawalls. A shut-down plant is still not without risks, because “you still have to provide cooling for the fuel,” says Lyman. But overall, he thinks that the newer protections, combined with the fact that the plants have been cooling while shut down, suggests less vulnerability than existed in 2011.

“I would say that they’re probably in a better position than they were to withstand massive flooding from a typhoon, and the fact that the reactors have been shut for some time, increases the level of confidence,” Lyman says. “But there’s still issues, and we’ll just have to hope that if there’s a massive flooding event at one of the reactors, that the measures they’ve already put into place will be adequate to cope with them.”

Here’s a stunning NASA image of Neoguri, snapped yesterday:

Typhoon Neoguri on July 6 NASA

Continued here: 

A Scary Super Typhoon Is Bearing Down on Japan…and Its Nuclear Plants

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Scary Super Typhoon Is Bearing Down on Japan…and Its Nuclear Plants

Happy first birthday, U.S. Climate Action Plan!

It’s just a baby

Happy first birthday, U.S. Climate Action Plan!

Shutterstock

Anthropogenic climate change is as old as a tortoise – it’s been more than a century since our fossil-fuel pollution started raising temperatures and melting snow and ice. Global action to temper climate change is considerably younger. It hasn’t been a quarter of a century since the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was launched to help thrash out global climate treaties.

And here in the U.S., climate action is little more than a disoriented baby. It has been exactly one year since President Barack Obama unveiled his Climate Action Plan, circumventing Congress and setting 75 goals for reducing carbon pollution, bracing for the impacts of climate change, and leading international climate efforts.

Since then, as the administration notes in a progress report, it has proposed carbon pollution rules for new and existing power plants, ramped up efforts to use federal land for renewable energy projects, leased out federal waters for a planned wind farm, published an overdue National Climate Assessment, embarked on an effort to reduce methane pollution, and proposed a $1 billion climate adaptation fund. Meanwhile, Obama and other Democrats and their progressive allies have begun a campaign of ridiculing Republicans on their climate-change denialism, using the issue as a wedge.

None of which has made much of a dent in the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, which the U.S. lamely aims to reduce by just 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. But, hey, climate action in the U.S. is just a baby! Here’s how the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions assesses Obama’s efforts so far in a new report:

One year after its launch, the administration has made significant progress toward achieving many of the goals of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, but overall, the record has been mixed. The plan demonstrates a commitment toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and is important to meeting the U.S. goal of reducing emissions 17 percent by 2020, especially in the absence of congressional action. If progress in the first year is mirrored in future years, the United States could achieve its emission reduction goal. However, additional actions must be undertaken or completed before success can be assured.

In other words, if climate action continues to be nurtured in the U.S., it could grow into something that could make a meaningful difference — the type of wild-eyed adolescent capable of busting heads and taking out the trash.

One of the most effective ways of nurturing climate action here would be to replace much of Congress with lawmakers who actually care about climate change, like the nation’s mayors. Getting rid of all those fossil fuel–friendly climate skeptics and deniers would allow federal laws to be passed and funds appropriated to help tackle global warming, beyond the kinds of federal regulations that Obama can implement on his own.

“One of the main premises behind the climate action plan is it has required no new money and no congressional action,” Dan Weiss, director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress, told Bloomberg BNA. “[T]hat also means some important things can’t happen.”


Source
President Obama’s Climate Action Plan Progress Report, White House
One Year Into Obama’s Climate Action Plan, Limits on Executive Actions Remain Obvious, Bloomberg BNA
President Obama’s Climate Action Plan: One Year Later, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

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: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

More here – 

Happy first birthday, U.S. Climate Action Plan!

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Optimus, organic, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Happy first birthday, U.S. Climate Action Plan!

Here’s What the Battle Over Iraqi Oil Means for America

Mother Jones

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

As deadly sectarian violence continues to sweep through Iraq, the country’s oil industry is reeling from a brazen attack on one of its key domestic refineries. Here are five things you need to know about the role of oil in the current conflict, and what it means for the United States and the global economy.

UPDATE Thursday, June 19, 2:50pm EST: In a press conference this afternoon in which he announced the deployment up to 300 additional military advisers to Iraq, President Obama was asked how Iraq’s civil war affects the national security interests of the United States. In response, Obama listed several factors, including “issues like energy, and global energy markets.”

1. Oil infrastructure is a major flash point in the Iraq crisis. After a week-long siege, Sunni extremists from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, known as ISIS, fought their way into Iraq’s largest oil refinery in the northern city of Baiji on Tuesday and Wednesday. There are conflicting reports about how much of the facility was seized by the militants in the ensuing chaos, and whether Iraqi forces have in fact repelled the attack, as Iraqi military officials claim. Previously, repeated attacks shut down the major Turkey-bound Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline in the north.

A 2003 photo shows a guard tower outside the Baiji oil refinery. Ivan Sekretarev/AP

2. The Iraq crisis is already affecting oil and gasoline prices. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the country has steadily increased its oil production. It’s now the second biggest producer of crude oil in OPEC, exerting a growing influence on the global price of oil. And while the White House said Wednesday that there have been no “major disruptions in oil supplies in Iraq,” the crisis has clearly spooked the global market. Bloomberg reported last week that one international benchmark used by traders surged above $114 a barrel for the first time in nine months.

USA Today reported that even before the battle over the Baiji refinery, Iraq’s oil production had already fallen by about 10 percent, or 300,000 barrels a day, since March. The China National Petroleum Corporation, the giant state-run company that is the biggest foreign investor in Iraq’s oil industry, is now nervously watching for any threats to its $4 billion worth of oil interests.

And there are signs that oil market worries are already being reflected at your local gas station.

“I warned people on my Facebook, friends and family,” says Robert Rapier, an energy analyst and regular columnist for the Wall Street Journal. “I said: If you need to get gasoline, go get it now, because gasoline prices will be going up this week.”

3. But long-term impacts on global oil supply are unlikely, unless the insurgency spreads. For now, the insurgency is limited to the part of the country north of Baghdad. Unless there’s an increased threat of instability in the south, deeper and longer-lasting seismic shocks to the world energy market are unlikely, according to Luay al-Khatteeb, an energy and politics analyst with the Brookings Doha Center and a senior adviser to the Iraqi parliament. While Baiji is the country’s largest refinery, the overwhelming bulk of oil production in Iraq is centered around the city of Basra, in the country’s south, “far from the fault lines,” he said. Khatteeb called the recent oil price increases “baseless,” adding that “there is zero threat whatsoever to oil production.”

But if the conflict does spread south, the effect on oil markets could be severe. “If all Iraq’s production got taken off line, for example, I’m pretty sure you’d see oil prices rise very quickly to $120, $130, maybe even higher,” Rapier said.

Moreover, the battle for the Baiji plant is likely to make the situation in Iraq worse because Baiji mainly refines oil for the domestic market. “The lack of oil products is likely to further the misery and discontent and my prediction is that a lot of that will be directed toward the central government,” said James F. Jeffery, a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former US envoy to Baghdad, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.

President Barack Obama speaks about energy security and his climate plan at a Walmart in Mountain View, California. Jeff Chiu/AP

4. America imports much less Iraqi oil than it used to. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he said that America’s dependence on the “tyranny of oil” helped fund terrorism in both Iraq and around the world. “One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil,” he said. “We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil. It pays for terrorist bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut.” His opponent that year, John McCain, said at a town hall that his plan to “eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East” would “prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”

As president, Obama has continued to emphasize independence from foreign oil. “Today, America is closer to energy independence than we have been in decades,” he told an audience at Walmart in Mountain View, California, last month. “And for the first time in nearly 20 years, America produces more oil here at home than we buy from other countries.”

Indeed, in October, domestic crude oil production surpassed imports for the first time since 1995. More specifically, even though Iraq’s oil production has increased, the US now imports far less Iraqi oil than it did around the time of the 2003 invasion.

That’s not just the story in Iraq. America is now importing less oil overall—20 percent less, in fact—than in 2003. “We’re getting more of that oil domestically,” Rapier said, pointing to increased local production facilitated by the fracking boom, especially in Texas and North Dakota.

And America’s own neighbors are also chipping in to help, says Rapier, pointing to Canadian crude. “We’ve got lower cost production in our neighborhood here.”

This means the United States is now somewhat insulated from big shocks to the market like the 1970s oil crisis, in which oil-producing Arab states imposed a crippling embargo against the US.

“The increase of unconventional oil supplies from new emerging assets in the US, all of this has created some sort of a comfort zone,” said Khatteeb from the Brookings Doha Center.

John Duffield, who authored a 2008 book called Over a Barrel: The Costs of US Foreign Oil Dependence agrees: “I would say we are not as much over the barrel.”

5. But the United States is still tied to global oil markets, and that means what happens in Iraq can have an economic impact here. One thing every expert I spoke to agreed on is this: Even with decreasing oil imports, the US is inextricably linked to world markets. That means that if the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, the US economy may not be immune.

“The cost to the United States of a big oil shock…will be lower than they were in the past,” Duffield said. “Our main vulnerability is not so much the direct impact on oil, but the impact on the rest of the world’s economy, if there’s a big oil supply disruption.” He added that “as long as the world oil market is pretty highly integrated, the US is vulnerable to an oil supply disruption in the Middle East or the Persian Gulf, regardless of the amount of oil it imports from the region.”

Why? Because even though the United States has reduced its use of Middle Eastern oil, many of America’s key trading partners have not. “The oil production in Iraq has risen for seven years in a row,” Rapier said, and that oil is going somewhere. Much of it’s going to Asian economic powerhouses whose economies are deeply tied to our own.

â&#128;&#139;

A US soldier stands guard at a burning oil well at the Rumeila oil fields after the 2003 American invasion. Ian Waldie/Pool/AP

“The United States, strategically, is a major trading power,” said Anthony Cordesman, an energy analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It is particularly dependent on the import of manufactured goods from three countries which are extremely dependent on energy imports. Those happen to be China, South Korea, and Japan.”

That’s why Middle Eastern oil still plays an important role in US policy, says Cordesman. “It is precisely because US security is global. It is not a matter of direct US dependence on foreign oil,” he said. “Because what really counts is global prices, and what counts is the steady and predictable flow of oil to a global economy.â&#128;&#139;”

Credit:  

Here’s What the Battle Over Iraqi Oil Means for America

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s What the Battle Over Iraqi Oil Means for America