Tag Archives: convention

Keeping Up With British Folk Rocker Richard Thompson

Mother Jones

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

As guitarist and songwriter Richard Thompson, 66, was coming of age as a musician in 1960s England, the majority of British rock bands tended to cover and repurpose American rock and roll and R&B. With their 1967 band Fairport Convention, Thompson and fellow bandmates instead chose to draw from Britain’s own history—its broadside ballads, field recordings, and social and religious tunes. The result was a new “folk-rock” hybrid grown from British soil.

Throughout his career, Thompson continued to incorporate distinctly British sounds in his songwriting and guitar playing. Following five albums with Fairport and an interim solo record (featuring the artist dressed as a fly on the cover), Thompson recorded five studio albums with his wife, Linda, including 1974’s luminous I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight. After their separation in the early ’80s, (their turmoil laid bare on 1982’s Shoot Out the Lights), Thompson continued with a steady output of excellent solo albums, including such highlights as 1991’s Rumor and Sigh and 1999’s Mock Tudor.

Released in June, Thompson’s 15th solo studio album, Still, was produced with an unobtrusive hand by Wilco’s Jeff Tweedy. The album features Thompson’s signature wry and reflective songs, and his stunningly original guitar work.

I spoke with Thompson when he came through New York on his current tour, which continues in the United States and Europe through October.

Mother Jones: From Fairport Convention to the duo with Linda Thompson and your solo work, how did your approach to music and songwriting change?

Richard Thompson: I started out being happy in a band. Like many others, we started out as a cover band but were very fussy about the covers we did. We were into lyrics. We’d find obscure stuff like Ewan MacColl songs and Richard Fariña songs. We covered Joni Mitchell’s songs before even she recorded them.

At a certain point we thought that to be taken seriously by our audience, we needed to be writers. That was a shift that probably started with the Beatles. They were the first band to do everything and they presented a new paradigm for people to aspire to. After them, everybody had to become writers or your audience didn’t take you seriously. “What’s your voice? What are you saying?”

We became collective writers; even if we were writing as individuals, we were writing for the band. We wrote about universal things, or about a band experience, or something very obscure, which was quite permissible in 1967. We were quite influenced by the Band, and the way Robbie Robertson and the other band members could write about their mutual experiences on the road.

When I write for myself, sometimes as an exercise I think, “I’m going to write a song for somebody else—a friend of mine, or a famous singer.” It’s kind of projecting someone else’s blueprint onto the song. But then if it’s a good song, you end up keeping it for yourself.

MJ: Most of the British bands from the ’60s used American R&B and blues music as their primary template, but it seemed very central to Fairport to embrace the history of British music. How did that evolve?

RT: At the beginning, the band followed the money. If there was a job at the blues club, we’d become a blues band. But we’d be doing the most obscure blues stuff we could possibly find. We were always interested in roots music. We loved jug bands, we loved jazz. Three of us grew up with strong Fats Waller influences at home from our parents. He was huge in Britain; our bass player’s father had his own trio playing Fats Waller numbers.

We were white suburban intellectual kids. We thought about art and our concept. We used to do interviews in bizarre ways. We’d bring an alarm clock and we’d only answer questions with quotations from famous people, that sort of thing. We felt we really had to revive the British music tradition. No one had done it. We thought the traditional music of Britain should be the popular music of Britain. Our popular music had been imported since before the jazz age. So we were trying to play to the mainstream, to turn it into popular music. We always thought it was going to be chart stuff, a big thing, but it never was.

MJ: Was there interest in British traditional music prior to what Fairport was doing?

RT: It was invisible from the mainstream of music. There was a folk revival around ’58, ’59, with people like Ewan MacColl and Burt Lloyd. But they were basically rescuing traditional folk music and finding the last of a generation of those singers.

After the folk revival in the late ’50s, a lot of folk clubs sprung up, hundreds. And people started to play what was probably called folk music. In some cases this was traditional music, in some cases just acoustic music. You had people like Martin Carthy, Davey Graham, Shirley Collins, the Watersons, and some of the people who Burt Lloyd and Ewan MacColl had already found.

MJ: What is it about British music that you connect to?

RT: It’s older. Some of what you hear in American folk music, a song like “Black Jack Davey,” goes back to Scotland in the 1600s. When you sing a traditional song, you feel the history behind it. It’s an extraordinary thing. You feel this reverberation down the corridors of history. Once you feel that, you get addicted to it, nothing else seems the same. These are some of the best songs you could ever hear, in the sense that these songs have been polished and honed by successive singers. The verses that don’t advance the plot have been erased.

You have these extraordinary songs from a time when sitting around and singing in a pub would be an evening’s entertainment. It was the news: A ballad would be telling you about a battle, or the incestuous goings on of the aristocrats up the road. There are songs of people getting carried away by the fairies, songs of social injustice, and, of course, simple, beautiful love songs.

MJ: The songs on I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight are all based on imagined characters. What was going on with the songwriting at that time?

RT: I was really immersing myself in field recordings, the real raw stuff. So a lot of it comes from that. And a lot of that kind of weird stuff is in folk music anyway. I was just kind of recycling the weirdness of it. But again, that’s an album that’s trying to bridge that gap between traditional and popular. It’s a fun record. We made that in three days. It cost £2,500 ($3,910) to produce.

Jacob Blickenstaff

MJ: What’s the story behind the Henry the Human Fly album cover? It’s quite a weird one.

RT: It’s kind of a train smash, you know—it’s just a mess, really. The then-art designer at Island Records—this was sort of in the hippie era—I’m not sure how well qualified she was to be anything of the sort. I said I want to call the record Harry the Human Fly. She says, “Okay, I’ll get you this fly costume, we’ll go out to this house in Cambridgeshire.” You could rent the house very cheap. It was basically this bankrupt aristocratic family’s house, still full of stuff. But the fly costume was woefully inadequate; I had expected something a bit grander. It’s just a headpiece and a couple of flimsy wings she made, utterly hopeless.

MJ: How did Jeff Tweedy approach producing your new album?

RT: He kind of accepted the songs pretty much as they were. We tweaked a few things; we’d leave out verses, change the rhythm here and there, add harmonies where none were originally intended. He did some keyboard overdubs and guitar overdubs that I thought worked really well. But we basically just tried to record live as much as possible. It’s a fully naturalistic approach where what’s performed is pretty much what you get, sonically. There’s no big tweaking going on. I think Jeff’s a very sympathetic producer because he cares about the artists being the center of their own music.

MJ: You’ve created your own musical language as a guitarist. How did that develop?

RT: I play in slightly different modes and scales. Some things overlap, pentatonic scales that you associate with the blues also work for some English or Scottish music. Some of the bent notes are different as well. There’s a lot of bending up, from the root up to the second, rather than from the seventh up to the root. I try to avoid blues guitar clichés. Inevitably there are some, because it’s a guitar and you’re bending notes and that’s what happens, but I do try to think differently about it.

Musical vocabulary is very important. I still feel I’m trying to establish a vocabulary that sits into that world between traditional and popular again. I’m still trying to do now what I was trying to do in the 1960s.

MJ: Having recorded steadily over a long career, what helps you keep going?

RT: You have to be interested in the song as an idea. You have to keep your ears open. You have to be ready when something comes along and grab it and not say, “Oh I’ll remember that later,” because you won’t. Write it down and use it. If you’re going to write a lot of songs, you have to think about repeating yourself and how to avoid that if possible. I’m looking for different subjects, different ways to write that love song. Different angles all the time.

MJ: In the ’70s you became involved in Sufism, even appearing on an album cover in religious dress. Is that spirituality still in your life?

RT: Yes. I’ve been a spiritual person since I was a kid. I think when I was 15 I picked up a book in the bookshop about Zen. I started reading and thought, “Oh that’s fascinating.” There was a great bookshop in London that carried books about esoteric religions and philosophy called Stuart and Watkins. It was up a little alley, very Harry Potter. I read my way through the whole thing and took my preferences from there.

MJ: How does that relate to your music?

RT: Music is very spiritual stuff. No question. Kurt Vonnegut had said, “Should I ever die, God forbid, I want my epitaph to read: ‘The only proof he needed for the existence of God was music.'” I feel the same. Music is the thing that can lift you beyond this world in extraordinary ways. Nobody quite knows how this happens, but it’s extraordinarily powerful stuff.

MJ: You’ve described yourself as very shy when you were younger. How do you think shyness affects creative people?

RT: It’s a funny thing. I can never tell who’s shy and who isn’t. Danny Thompson, a bass player I’ve worked with, will say, “I’m really quite a shy person.” What? He’s always the loudest person in the room!

A lot of shy people end up on stage. Being on stage has done me a lot of good. It took me a long time—I used to kind of hide in the back. Even though you’re shy, there’s this thing in you that wants to get up there. I remember being six years old and getting up at a party and singing something. This is me, a kid with a bad stutter, but somehow I get up on stage and do this.

This profile is part of In Close Contact, an independent documentary project on music, musicians, and creativity. You can also follow the series on Facebook.

From – 

Keeping Up With British Folk Rocker Richard Thompson

Posted in alo, Anchor, Brita, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Smith's, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Keeping Up With British Folk Rocker Richard Thompson

Will the Tea Party Shoot Itself in the Foot Yet Again?

Mother Jones

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

Paul Waldman notes today that although Jeb Bush is substantively pretty conservative, his tone on the campaign trail has remained resolutely moderate and affable. Waldman explains how this leads to Bush winning the nomination:

If you’re Bush, your path to victory looks like this: Trump soaks up all the attention for a while, but eventually gets bored (and hasn’t bothered to mount an actual campaign that can deliver votes), and either fades or just packs it in. Meanwhile, the conservative vote is split. Once the voting starts, the failing candidates will begin to fall away one by one. But by the time most of them are gone and their supporters have coalesced around a single candidate like Scott Walker, it’s too late — Jeb has built his lead and is piling up delegates, has all the money in the world, and can vanquish that last opponent on his way to the convention in Cleveland.

In other words, a repeat of 2012, when all the hard-core conservatives split the tea party vote ten ways while Mitt Romney quietly vacuumed up the entire moderate vote. By the time Rick Santorum was the last tea partier standing, it was too late. Romney coasted to victory.

This is the great conundrum of the tea-party wing of the Republican Party. What they should do is coalesce immediately around Scott Walker. He’s the most plausible winner among the tea partiers, and if the race was basically between him and Bush from the start, there’s a pretty good chance he could win. On the other hand, if he has to fight off a dozen challengers for months on end, it’ll just be rerun of 2012. He’ll get a share of the tea party vote, but it won’t be nearly enough to fend off Bush, who will have his own share of the tea partiers plus the vast majority of the wing of the GOP that’s disgusted that their party has been taken over by loons. And there are still quite a few of those folks around.

I guess this is where a smoke-filled room would come in handy. This is a classic collective action problem, but without party bosses who can step in and take charge, there’s really no answer to it. The tea-party candidates keep thinking that they can run and win because there are so many tea partiers among the Republican primary electorate. Unfortunately, there are too many of them who think so. The end result is that they tear each other to shreds and end up with John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Jeb Bush. And then they whine and complain about how “the party” has betrayed the conservative cause yet again.

This isn’t inevitable, of course. It’s possible that Walker or one of the other mean-boy candidates will break out and become the de facto tea party standard bearer. It’s just not as likely as it should be. It’s a shame the tea partiers can’t get their act together, isn’t it?

See the article here:

Will the Tea Party Shoot Itself in the Foot Yet Again?

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will the Tea Party Shoot Itself in the Foot Yet Again?

Chris Christie Is Officially Running for President. Here Is Everything You Need to Know About Him.

Mother Jones

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

New Jersey’s brash and outspoken Gov. Chris Christie is expected to officially launch his presidential campaign today, making him the 13th contender in the crowded GOP field. Christie will launch this effort in his hometown of Livingston, New Jersey, at Livingston High School, where he was class president for all four years he went there.

In 2011, Christie was widely considered a leading presidential contender. The Koch Brothers were early supporters, and David Koch was “inspired” by him, describing him as a “hero” and “my kind of guy.” Christie didn’t end up running in that campaign cycle and backed Mitt Romney instead. Still, even after his lackluster and Christie-centric speech at the 2012 Republican Convention in Tampa, Christie, though not embraced by the conservative wing of the GOP, was seen as a strong potential candidate for the 2016 race.

Then in 2013 Christie became entangled in the Bridgegate Scandal. An internal investigation cleared the New Jersey governor of any direct connection to the politically motivated traffic jam (two political aides took the fall), but he could not shake suspicions that he used his office (or allowed his underlings to use his office) to inconvenience thousands of people in order to punish political foes. More importantly, the episode raised questions about Christie’s dealings in other matters and prompted investigations that are still under way.

Now Christie consistently ranks toward the back of the pack in polls, and the Koch brothers have found other “heroes.” However, as Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum put it, he “could maybe catch on if something really lucky happens.” But it might have to be really, really lucky.

From Bridgegate to bullying to battles with journalists, here is what you need to know about Christie:

Christie is currently waging 23 court battles to keep state documents secret. What does the New Jersey governor not want you to know?
His Social Security proposal is cruel and callous.
Here’s a look at his bridge scandal, explained. (In short: Emails indicate that a senior aide ordered a nasty traffic jam in Fort Lee as political payback.)
He has denied a bridge for political revenge nine times.
Good news! He actually believes in global warming 🙂
That said, he also believes parents should have a “choice” when it comes to vaccines.
Check out this audio of Christie letting loose at a 2011 Koch Brothers confab.
Here’s how the right will try to destroy him.
Christie once endorsed the use of cruel pig crates. Jon Stewart proceeded to skewer him on the Daily Show.
Mother Jones DC Bureau Chief David Corn spoke with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews about what Christie’s bridge scandal means for 2016.
Here are some reasons why Christie will NOT be our 45th president.
Watch eight videos of Christie yelling, belittling, and name-calling.

This article – 

Chris Christie Is Officially Running for President. Here Is Everything You Need to Know About Him.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chris Christie Is Officially Running for President. Here Is Everything You Need to Know About Him.

How US Cluster Bombs Banned by Most Countries Ended Up in Yemen

Mother Jones

On April 29, three adults and a child came across some fist-sized canisters on the ground outside of Baqim, a Yemeni town controlled by Houthi rebels. To the 10-year-old boy among them, they “looked like toys.” Out of curiosity, they picked up the cannisters, which then exploded. All four were injured; a nurse told Human Rights Watch that the child was wounded in the stomach, and one of the adults received injuries to his face, torso, thigh, and crotch. Considering the kind of damage that cluster-bomb submunitions can cause, they’re lucky to still be alive.

Fighter jets from the Saudi Arabia-led coalition have been carrying out strikes against Houthi rebels since late March, when Yemeni President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi fled the country. Now, according to two recent Human Rights Watch investigations, they are also using cluster munitions, some supplied by the United States. The first HRW report was published on the heels of mounting concern over the growing toll of civilian casualties from the air campaign—more than 1,800 people have been killed as of late May; at least 135 of them were children. The second report found evidence that US-supplied cluster munitions deployed near populated areas are harming civilians.

Here’s a look at why American cluster bombs, which have been banned by more than 100 countries, are being used in Yemen.

How cluster bombs work: Cluster bombs can be dropped from aircraft or fired from rockets, mortars, and artillery. When they open in mid-air, as many as several hundred submunitions, or bomblets, spread out over a wide area and explode. While the weapons are designed to target military installations and convoys, anyone nearby can be struck. Bomblets that fail to detonate or self-destruct can become de facto land mines. Bombs like those found in Baquim, explains Megan Burke, director of the Cluster Munition Coalition “remain on the ground until someone or something comes along and triggers that explosion.”

Why they’ve been banned: Cluster munitions were first deployed in 1943, when Soviet forces dropped them on German tanks. Due to the danger they pose to noncombatants, they were banned by the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a 2008 treaty signed by 116 nations. Tens of thousands of civilians—a third of them children—have been maimed or killed after encountering the unexploded ordnances in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Kosovo, Iraq, and beyond.

Continue Reading »

Jump to original:

How US Cluster Bombs Banned by Most Countries Ended Up in Yemen

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How US Cluster Bombs Banned by Most Countries Ended Up in Yemen

The whole world is breaking the law by ignoring climate change

The whole world is breaking the law by ignoring climate change

By on 30 Mar 2015commentsShare

The countries of the world are violating national and international law by polluting the atmosphere and heating up the planet, according to a group of respected lawyers. Regardless of what kind of climate deal the U.N. comes up with in Paris later this year, governments already have a legal responsibility to take action, the jurists argued today in London as they launched what they’re calling the Oslo Principles on Global Climate Change Obligations.

From a Guardian column by two legal experts:

What the Oslo principles offer is a solution to our infuriating impasse in which governments — especially those from developed nations, responsible for 70% of the world’s emissions between 1890 and 2007 — are in effect saying: “We all agree that something needs to be done, but we cannot agree on who has to do what and how much. In the absence of any such agreement, we have no obligation to do anything.” The Oslo principles bring a battery of legal arguments to dispute and disarm that second claim. In essence, the working group asserts that governments are violating their legal duties if they each act in a way that, collectively, is known to lead to grave harms.

Governments will retort that they cannot know their obligations to reduce emissions in the absence of an international agreement. The working group’s response is that they can know this, already, and with sufficient precision.

The Oslo Principles’ signatories include legal experts from around the world. The project was spearheaded by Yale University professor Thomas Pogge and the advocate-general of the Netherlands’ Supreme Court, Jaap Spier.

The lawyers point to the idea of common but differentiated responsibility, a concept first outlined by the U.N. in its 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change. It notes that each nation should be tasked with cutting climate-changing gases, but the level of cuts should be determined by taking into account both the country’s historic responsibility for causing climate change — i.e., how much has the country been polluting, and for how long? — and how the country’s economy would be affected. Rich countries that have been polluting for years, like the U.S. and many European nations, have a higher responsibility to cut emissions. For developing countries, like India, the responsibility is lower.

In addition to calling for mitigation, the experts suggest that governments have a legal duty to work on climate change adaptation, and to educate their citizens about the threats they face.

From the Oslo Principles:

No single source of law alone requires States and enterprises to fulfil these Principles. Rather, a network of intersecting sources provides States and enterprises with obligations to respond urgently and effectively to climate change in a manner that respects, protects, and fulfils the basic dignity and human rights of the world’s people and the safety and integrity of the biosphere. These sources are local, national, regional, and international and derive from diverse substantive canons, including, inter alia, international human rights law, environmental law and tort law.

The hope, it seems, is that governments around the world will consider these legal responsibilities as they make policy going forward. In the U.S., where some leaders are throwing snowballs to suggest climate change isn’t happening, that seems like a long shot — at least at the moment. But the Oslo Principles are yet another compelling argument that our political leaders need to get moving, now.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Jump to original: 

The whole world is breaking the law by ignoring climate change

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, global climate change, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The whole world is breaking the law by ignoring climate change

Climate change is laying waste to water supplies, warns Farm Bureau

Climate change is laying waste to water supplies, warns Farm Bureau

By on 13 Jan 2015commentsShare

The American Farm Bureau represents conventional agriculture, and a conservative base. But, unlike some members of Congress, it accepts the reality that climate change is real, and having an impact on its members. The Washington Examiner reports that the group is already planning for climate change.

Here’s what has caught the Farm Bureau’s attention: Snowpack is the biggest reservoir in the west. It efficiently stores water, in the form of snow, in the winter, then releases it slowly throughout the spring and summer. If all that snow turns to rain (or even a major percentage of it), there’s no way we’ll have enough reservoir space to store water for the dry seasons when farmers need it.

From the Examiner:

The influential American Farm Bureau, citing climate change, said a shift to collecting rain must happen now because it could take up to 30 years to build a new infrastructure.

At a meeting in San Diego, California Farm Bureau Federation President Paul Wenger said that up to now about 70 percent of water storage has been in mountain reservoirs filled with melting snowpack.

“As climate change comes, we have to adapt, and that means we’d better have lower-level capturing systems to be able to capture that water, because it’s going to come as rainfall, not snowpack,” he warned, at a workshop at the American Farm Bureau Federation’s 96th Annual Convention and IDEAs Trade Show.

This doesn’t mean that the Farm Bureau is going to be campaigning for a carbon tax. It doesn’t want government to use cap-and-trade, or taxes, or the Clean Air Act to prevent climate change. As a rule, it basically opposes any kind of regulation. It would like the government to help farmers adapt by building dams, however.

The Farm Bureau is not exactly a climate hero, but at least it’s not pretending it can’t see lightning and hear thunder. Let’s hope those thundershowers come with a little rain.

Source:
Drought-plagued West warned to collect rain as snowpack disappears

, Washington Examiner.

More by Nathanael Johnson

← PreviousChange 100 businesses, and the world’s food system will change with themShare

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

sponsored post

In 2015, make a New Year’s resolution that will actually change the world

How the power of positive energy turns you into a climate superhero.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Read this article:

Climate change is laying waste to water supplies, warns Farm Bureau

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate change is laying waste to water supplies, warns Farm Bureau

RIP Mario Cuomo

Mother Jones

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

Former three-term governor of New York Mario Cuomo died Thursday, the same day his son Andrew was inaugurated to a second term of his own as governor of the Empire State.

Here is Mario Cuomo’s famous speech criticizing Ronald Reagan from the 1984 Democratic Convention.

Link:  

RIP Mario Cuomo

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on RIP Mario Cuomo

The 3 Things the Media Gets Wrong When It Covers Torture

Mother Jones

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

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

It’s the political story of the week in Washington. At long last, after the endless stalling and foot-shuffling, the arguments about redaction and CIA computer hacking, the claims that its release might stoke others out there in the Muslim world to violence and “throw the C.I.A. to the wolves,” the report—you know which one—is out. Or at least, the redacted executive summary of it is available to be read and, as Senator Mark Udall said before its release, “When this report is declassified, people will abhor what they read. They’re gonna be disgusted. They’re gonna be appalled. They’re gonna be shocked at what we did.”

So now we can finally consider the partial release of the long-awaited report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the gruesome CIA interrogation methods used during the Bush administration’s “Global War on Terror.” But here’s one important thing to keep in mind: this report addresses only the past practices of a single agency. Its narrow focus encourages us to believe that, whatever the CIA may have once done, that whole sorry torture chapter is now behind us.

In other words, the moment we get to read it, it’s already time to turn the page. So be shocked, be disgusted, be appalled, but don’t be fooled. The Senate torture report, so many years and obstacles in the making, should only be the starting point for a discussion, not the final word on US torture. Here’s why.

Continue Reading »

View this article: 

The 3 Things the Media Gets Wrong When It Covers Torture

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Casio, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The 3 Things the Media Gets Wrong When It Covers Torture

Adapting to climate change will cost much more than we thought

Adapting to climate change will cost much more than we thought

By on 8 Dec 2014commentsShare

Poor countries will need at least twice as much money as we thought in order to successfully adapt to climate change — and possibly five times as much by mid-century. That’s according to a new, more comprehensive assessment by the U.N. Environment Program. The findings shake things up quite a bit.

Some history, real quick: Back in 2009, at the Copenhagen climate summit, rich countries agreed that they would need to do something to help poor countries deal with what centuries of spewing carbon into the atmosphere had wrought. The rich countries were largely responsible for said spewing, while the poorer countries only recently started spewing themselves, if they ever started at all. The U.N. agreed upon a $100-billion-per-year price tag — worked out over the next few summits based on calculations by the World Bank — for helping poor countries to adapt while developing their economies along sustainable lines. Wealthy countries agreed to start contributing that much each year by 2020.

But according to the new UNEP report, rich countries only mobilized around $25 billion between 2012 and 2013 to help poor countries adapt. This year, Christiana Figueres, head of of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, also set a goal of getting $10 billion into the Green Climate Fund, a mechanism for funneling funding to climate change–related projects in the developing world, and that goal has just been met. But these sums are only a fraction of the amount that countries are supposed to pony up six years from now. And now, using the new report’s figures for what adaptation will cost (somewhere between $200 billion and $500 billion per year), that fraction just got even smaller. Eek.

And there’s further bad news: These $200-billion-to-$500-billion-a-year figures assume that negotiators are able to strike a deal to avoid 2 degrees Celsius of warming, the cutoff point scientists have suggested to keep the effects of global warming somewhat contained. Increasingly, it is looking like an emissions-reducing U.N. deal may come, but it will not be sufficient to stay below that 2-degree target. And if we don’t stay below it, climate change will strike harder, and the cost of helping poor countries adapt will be even higher. Put bluntly: “If you don’t cut emissions, we’re just going to have to ask for more money because the damage is going to be worse” — that’s Ronald Jumeau of the Seychelles, a small-island nation off the east coast of Africa, during this month’s U.N. negotiations, where he is a spokesperson for a coalition of small-island states.

The report notes that estimating the cost of adaptation is a lot harder than estimating the cost of greening the international economy. Even so, the numbers in this report are not likely to be an overestimation — if anything, they’re an underestimation. As climate change continues, more and more frequently, to rear its ugly head, researchers will realize that there are components of adaptation that have not yet been studied and priced, but that nonetheless will have to be paid for.

Where will that money come from? That’s a question that negotiators aren’t much closer to answering now than they were back when they agreed to raise $100 billion a year. But it’s on the agenda for the climate conference currently underway in Lima, Peru, where “high-level” talks begin this week.

Source:
UN: climate change costs to poor underestimated

, The Associated Press.

Cost of Adapting to Climate Change Much Higher Than Thought

, InsideClimate News.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

×

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

This article: 

Adapting to climate change will cost much more than we thought

Posted in alo, Anchor, eco-friendly, FF, GE, Hagen, InsideClimate News, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Adapting to climate change will cost much more than we thought

Music Review: “To Turn You On” by Robyn Hitchcock

Mother Jones

TRACK 3

“To Turn You On”

From Robyn Hitchcock’s The Man Upstairs

YEP ROC

Liner notes: Hitchcock gives Bryan Ferry’s morose love song a charming, irony-free makeover, setting his surprisingly tender vocal to a delicate chamber-folk arrangement.

Behind the music: The former Soft Boys leader teamed with producer Joe Boyd (Fairport Convention, Anna and Kate McGarrigle) for this vibrant mix of originals and covers (Doors, Psychedelic Furs).

Check it out if you like: Vital vets like Richard Thompson and Marshall Crenshaw.

This review originally appeared in our September/October issue of Mother Jones.

This article is from:  

Music Review: “To Turn You On” by Robyn Hitchcock

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Music Review: “To Turn You On” by Robyn Hitchcock