GreenEnergy4.us

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

All Trump-ed out, Chris Christie goes home to block funding for lead-poisoned families

Get Grist in your inbox

View original:

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged alo, democratic, director, governor, hampshire, Ona, radius, sierra, solar | Comments Off

The Nation’s Election Watchdog Just Hit a New Level of Dysfunction

by BarbraRodriquez Posted on March 7, 2016

Mother Jones

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

In 2011, former Bain Capital executive Edward Conrad decided to give $1 million to the super-PAC supporting the presidential bid of his pal Mitt Romney. But he didn’t contribute the cash directly. Instead, he put the money in a generically named shell company he had recently created, which then cut a check to the super-PAC, Restore Our Future. Election law prohibits donors from taking steps to hide their identities, and campaign finance activists pressed the Federal Election Commission to investigate. Five years later, the FEC—which since at least 2010 has been existing in a fugue state of partisan paralysis—has finally rendered a decision on whether it will probe the matter, which is something of a post-Citizens United test case. Nah, we’ll pass on this one, the FEC decided on Monday.

In a letter sent to the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog that complained about the donation in 2011, the FEC reported that its six commissioners deadlocked 3-to-3 on whether to open an investigation into the donation. Keep in mind that they didn’t split on whether there had been a violation of law, or if Conrad should be punished—just whether they should open an inquiry. The FEC also informed the Campaign Legal Center that the commission had deadlocked on a similar case from 2011, involving donations made via two other shell corporations to Romney’s super-PAC.

The FEC has been mired in a messy standoff for years now. With three Republican commissioners and three Democratic commissioners, it deadlocks on nearly every question put to it, even the minor ones. But this case was essentially a big softball. Conrad eventually publicly acknowledged he was behind the shell corporation. Donations from anonymous corporations to super-PACs are becoming increasingly common, but it is rare that the original source of the money reveals himself.

The FEC’s inability to open an investigation ends this case, but it doesn’t create a legal precedent. The commission could theoretically pursue future cases over the use of limited liability companies to fund campaigns. But don’t hold your breath, says Paul S. Ryan, the deputy executive director for the Campaign Legal Center.

“We have seen a pretty dramatic increase in the use of the LLCs to contribute to super-PACs, and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon,” he says, noting that the Campaign Legal Center has filed three similar complaints in the last two weeks alone. “But I think the dismissal of these complaints from 2011 will be viewed as a greenlight to continue laundering money into super-PACs.”

For the gridlocked commission, Ryan fears that this is far from rock bottom. “I’ve thought on several occasions that we’ve reached bottom, and they continue to surprise me with greater and greater dysfunction every year. This is a new low, that’s for sure. This does seem to be a million-dollar violation with an admission, and the FEC won’t even do anything about that. If they won’t do this, what hope is there for them to do any investigations in the context of less clear-cut violations?”

Ryan says the Campaign Legal Center will decide in the coming weeks whether to sue the FEC over its failure to act in this case.

Charlie Spies, an attorney for Restore Our Future, the Romney super-PAC that took the donation, told Mother Jones that the organization had followed the law.

More here –

The Nation’s Election Watchdog Just Hit a New Level of Dysfunction

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged campaign-legal, Casio, conrad, democratic, lai, pac, pur, romney, united, venta | Comments Off

Here’s Who’s Looking Strong in Today’s "Super Saturday" Contests

by NevilleLocke2 Posted on March 5, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Voters headed to the polls in five states today as Donald Trump looked to continue his march to the GOP nominating convention and Republican party leaders scrambled for ways to stop him. On the Republican side, 155 delegates were at stake in Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Maine; candidates need 1,237 delegates to wrap up the nomination. Donald Trump, who began the day with 329 delegates according to the Associated Press, was looking to extend his lead over Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who have 231 and 110 delegates respectively. Ohio Gov. John Kasich—who has won only 25 delegates so far—has begun angling for a contested convention in Cleveland while Ben Carson all but dropped out on Wednesday.

For the Democrats, 109 delegates were up for grabs in Louisiana, Kansas, and Nebraska. Clinton headed into these states with 1,066 delegates, the Associated Press reported, nearly half of the 2,383 needed to wrap up the Democratic nomination. (Clinton’s count includes 458 superdelegates, who may vote for any candidate, as the New York Times reports.) Sen. Bernie Sanders started the day with 432 delegates and was hoping to make a strong showing in Nebraska and Kansas: The Huffington Post reported that Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook sent a memo to staffers saying Clinton could lose in those states.

We’ll be here with updates as the results come in.

UPDATE 9, March 5, 8:50 p.m. PT: Speaking to supporters in West Palm Beach, Florida, Trump called for Rubio to drop out of the race after losing all but one of the 19 Republican contests so far. “I think it’s time for Marco to clean the deck,” he said. “I would love to take on Ted one on one. That would be so much fun…That would be easy.”

After commenting that he would order military personnel to torture terror suspects and then backpedaling on Friday, telling the Wall Street Journal that he would be “bound by laws,” Trump returned Saturday to the subject of torture. “I am totally in favor of waterboarding, and if we can, I’d like to do much more than that,” he said. “I will try to get the laws extended, broadened…so we can better compete with a vicious group of animals.”

One journalist brought up Thursday’s Fox News debate, in which Rubio made a jab at Trump’s “small hands”—and Trump reassured voters that “there’s no problem.”

“Marco just made it up, because he’s a politician, and politicians lie,” Trump said Saturday night. For those worried about the tone of a presidential campaign in which the front-runner reassured voters about the size of his manhood, Trump also had an answer: “I will be the most presidential candidate in history.”

UPDATE 8, March 5, 7:55 p.m. PT: The final race of the night has wrapped up. Trump won Kentucky with 35.1 percent of the vote, followed closely by Cruz with 31.4 percent, networks are reporting. Eighty-four percent of results have been counted.

UPDATE 7, March 5, 7:07 p.m. PT: Sanders, who tonight adds victories in Kansas and Nebraska to his wins in Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma, told the Associated Press that his campaign is bearing out its promise of a “political revolution.” In the coming months, Democratic candidates will turn their sights on New York, California, Oregon and Washington state. “I think in all of those states, we’ve got a shot to win it,” Sanders said, adding that wins in those states could convince some of Clinton’s superdelegates to switch their allegiance to his campaign.

UPDATE 6, March 5: 6:53 p.m. PT: Trump has won the Louisiana primary with 45.7 percent of the vote, networks are reporting, with 16 percent of results in. Forty-six delegates are up for grabs in the state. Cruz is in second with 29 percent of the vote, with Rubio trailing at 15.8 percent.

UPDATE 5, March 5: 6:23 p.m. PT: Networks quickly projected a Clinton win after polls closed in Louisiana, which, with its prize of 51 delegates, is the most important Democratic contest of the night. With just 8 percent of results in, Clinton had won 71.1 percent of the vote. Sanders trailed at 21.4 percent.

UPDATE 4, March 5: 6:10 p.m. PT: Sanders appears to be edging out Clinton in Nebraska, earning 54.8 percent of the Democratic vote to Clinton’s 45.2 percent, announced Vince Powers, the state Democratic Party chair. Seventy-five percent of polling locations are reporting, and the results are not final yet, Powers said.

UPDATE 3, March 5, 5:55 p.m. PT: Cruz picked up his second win of the night, earning 45.8 percent of the vote and 12 delegates in Maine, state GOP party chairman Rick Bennett announced in a speech in Lewiston, Maine. In second, Trump gained nine delegates and 32.5 percent of the vote, while Kasich picked up two delegates and 12.2 percent. Rubio failed to gain any delegates in the state, trailing at just 8 percent in the polls.

UPDATE 2, March 5, 5:30 p.m. PT: The Kansas Democratic Party has called Kansas for Sanders, with 90 percent of the vote in, CNN is reporting.

UPDATE 1, March 5, 2:45 p.m. PT: With just more than half the vote in, the Associated Press has called Kansas for Cruz, with 51 percent of the vote. Forty delegates are up for grabs in the state.

Read this article:

Here’s Who’s Looking Strong in Today’s "Super Saturday" Contests

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged 2016 elections, associated, democratic, kansas, king, lai, louisiana, press, update, vote | Comments Off

14 debate questions for Sanders and Clinton on climate, justice, and Flint

by MilfordEdgell Posted on March 4, 2016

14 debate questions for Sanders and Clinton on climate, justice, and Flint

By Rebecca Leberon 4 Mar 2016comments Share

It’s not that expectations were very high for the Republican debate in Detroit on Thursday night. Even so, the debate hardly paid attention to the city’s troubles with lead poisoning. Aside for brief comments from Marco Rubio (in which he defended Republican Gov. Rick Snyder), the GOP brushed the issue aside, while standing a mere 70 miles from Flint. Instead, we heard about more pressing topics — like presidential penises.

Democrats have their own debate in Flint on Sunday, when environmental justice activists have higher hopes for a substantive discussion on both race and the environment.

“If Flint is not the place that this happens, it probably is not going to happen in a controlled format with two presidential candidates, ever,” Anthony Rogers-Wright, policy and organizing director of Environmental Action, told Grist.

A coalition of groups partnering with Environmental Action delivered a petition with 85,000 signatures that calls on the Democratic National Committee to focus solely on racial and environmental justice. Sierra Club, the NAACP, and local community leaders are holding their own event Sunday to draw attention to other “Flints” around the country.

Both Environmental Action and Sierra Club gave Grist separate lists of sample questions they’d like to hear answers to — the topics include hydraulic fracturing, the future of fossil fuels, and equitable policy to help communities of color.

Here’s what Environmental Action wants answers on:

1. Robert Bullard, known as the “father” of environmental justice in America, has said that climate change impacts communities of color “first and worst.” As president, what specific steps would you take to make sure your policies to fight global warming better protect communities of color on the front lines of this global crisis?

2. Secretary Clinton, you just released a bulletin that calls for more use of natural gas as well as carbon capture and sequestration. But wouldn’t this plan mean increased fracking across the country and the potential for drinking water sources to be tainted as it is right here in Flint? Is there a safe way to frack, and if so, what steps would you take to ensure safety and minimize disproportionate impacts to communities of color?

3. Last December, nearly 200 world leaders signed an agreement you both support to cap global warming at 1.5-2 degrees Celsius. To accomplish that goal, scientists tell us we must leave 80 percent of proven fossil fuel reserves in the ground. As president, what specific policies would you implement to limit new oil, gas, and coal development and keep America under this “carbon budget”? Secretary Clinton, will you support Sen. Sanders’ plan to ban drilling and mining on public lands and waters, the so-called “Keep It In The Ground” act?

4. Sen. Sanders, how will you enforce a ban on fossil fuel extraction without the support of Congress — which has voted in favor of the Keystone pipeline, oil exports, gas exports, and other fossil fuel extraction in the last six months?

5. Solutions to climate change such as electric cars and efficient lightbulbs are predicated on economic resources that are unavailable to many low-wealth communities of color. What climate change strategies would each of you implement to ensure that people of all income levels can take part in and benefit from living sustainably?

6. Policies like President Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 12898, created to address environmental racism, have been never been ratified or implemented as a national law. If elected, how would you overcome political obstacles that stand in the way of equitable and efficient environmental policy?

7. Secretary Clinton, your past statements, referring to men of color as “super-predators,” and past polices that you supported that resulted in the mass incarceration of largely Latino and African American [men] have caused some to question your commitment to racial justice. Do you regret your previous statement and support of that policy, and how would you correct it as president?

8. The GI Bill, New Deal, and favorable housing policies created generational wealth for white Americans. These programs were largely not made available to people of color, which in part contributes to the vast wealth disparity between white people and people of color. What are some specific policies you would implement to not only increase incomes for people of color, but also allow them to generate similar generational wealth as their white counterparts?

9. Native Americans who live on sovereign land have seen treaties broken time and time again, which has exposed them to toxic air and water as well as unequal protection and due process. As president, what commitment will you make to ensure tribal sovereignty and that treaties are respected and maintained?

10. Free trade agreements like NAFTA have not only contributed to increased carbon emissions, but they have also had significant impacts on jobs in communities like Flint, Detroit, Cleveland, and others. Some studies have shown that communities of color were hit the hardest from jobs shipped overseas as a result of these agreements. Where do each of you stand on free trade agreements, and if you advocate for them, how will you ensure they have environmental standards and do not result in the loss of American jobs essential to maintaining the middle class?

11. Should immigration enforcement should be suspended until the 1,000+ undocumented people in Flint get the services and help they need, should the Border Patrol should continue setting up in and around the city while this crisis is ongoing?

Sierra Club added three questions of its own that its members on the ground in Michigan want answered:

12. Do you think emergency manager laws, like the one in Michigan, are compatible with democratic ideals?

13. How should the government ensure that rebuilding after a disaster like Flint provides good paying local jobs that help lift up the community?

14. How should the federal government get involved when a crisis like Flint occurs?

Hold out some hope that CNN, which is moderating the debate, is listening. Rogers-Wright spoke to a network representative earlier this week about the questions the network should ask on Sunday, so a couple of these may indeed get prime-time attention.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders hopefully won’t need too much prompting, though: Ahead of Michigan’s primary next week, Clinton has drawn attention to Flint’s problems as a main focus of her campaign, and Sanders has also called on Snyder to resign.

Please

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

14 debate questions for Sanders and Clinton on climate, justice, and Flint

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading here:

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged 2016 presidential race, action, color, democratic, detroit, grist, michigan, news, oven, politics, sanders, secretary | Comments Off

FBI could investigate Exxon Mobil for climate change cover up

by WindyLlyyh Posted on March 3, 2016

FBI could investigate Exxon Mobil for climate change cover up

By Katie Herzogon 3 Mar 2016comments Share

Last year, an investigation by InsideClimate News found that scientists employed by Exxon Mobil warned the company about the connection between burning fossil fuels and a warming climate all the way back in 1977. Even more damning, reporters found that the company systematically ignored what it knew, even allegedly misleading the public about the science as it continued to pump carbon into the atmosphere unabated. Exxon, one of the most profitable companies in history, was handsomely rewarded for the subterfuge. But now, the oil giant may have to answer to for their actions. To the FBI.

InsideClimate News now reports that the U.S. Department of Justice has forwarded a request for a federal investigation to the FBI’s criminal division from two Democratic members of Congress. In a letter to Reps. Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier, Joseph Campbell, the DOJ’s assistant director for criminal investigation, wrote:

As a courtesy, we have forwarded your correspondence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI is the investigative arm of the Department, upon which we rely to conduct the initial fact finding in federal cases. The FBI will determine whether an investigation is warranted.

This doesn’t mean we’ll see the well-heeled executives at Exxon in shackles any time soon. John Marti, a former federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota, called the Justice Department’s response a “punt,” according to InsideClimate News, and said that the DOJ “appears to be reluctant to engage in this matter.”

But should the FBI decide to look into Exxon, the future for the company could be bleak. “This is turning into a nightmare for Exxon,” wrote 350’s co-founder Jamie Henn in a statement, “No company wants to hear their name and ‘criminal’ in the same sentence. This FBI investigation must quickly lead back to a full Department of Justice inquiry and, ultimately, legal action. There’s too much public pressure and action by state Attorney General’s for this case to disappear into a bureaucratic blackhole. Exxon knew about climate change, they misled the public, and it’s time for them to held to criminal account.”

But will they be? In a nation where white-collar criminals are more likely to see Christmases bonuses than jail time, the idea that anyone from Exxon will be held accountable seems unlikely. Then again, at least one U.S. politician is intent on changing this culture: Sen. Elizabeth Warren recently released a report on criminal justice and the lack thereof among corporate criminals. “The failure to prosecute big, visible crimes has a corrosive effect on the fabric of democracy and our shared belief that we are all equal in the eyes of the law,” wrote Warren.

Clearly, as the justice system operates now — when nonviolent drug offenders get more jail time than major polluters — we aren’t all equal in the eyes of the law. Maybe a probe into Exxon will be the start.

Please

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

FBI could investigate Exxon Mobil for climate change cover up

Get Grist in your inbox

View original post here:

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, InsideClimate News, LAI, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged company, democratic, department, district, general, grist, mobil, radius, special | Comments Off

California Democrats are raising the bar on climate action

by JosefGolden Posted on March 1, 2016

California Democrats are raising the bar on climate action

By Clayton Aldernon 29 Feb 2016comments Share

In a presidential election season that has already managed to run the gamut from mildly infuriating to unequivocally bonkers, it’s easy to forget that run-of-the-mill state politics both a) exists and b) matters. California Democrats proved both of those points on Sunday with the adoption of a reinvigorated platform, bundled into which is an aggressive energy and environment plan. It’s a case study in an aggressive environmental agenda filing its already sharp teeth.

While a previous energy and environment plank called for “reduced reliance on dirty forms of energy such as coal,” the new platform calls for its total end. Language in the new plan opposes all investment in “new fossil fuel infrastructure projects” — the blanket nature of which covers everything from coal export terminals to natural gas plants. It also calls for the expansion of decentralized energy generation (think plenty of rooftop solar panels), especially in disadvantaged communities.

“Our platform is very forward-thinking,” said Eric C. Bauman, vice chair of the California Democratic Party. “It reflects the best values of Democrats and progressives, and it sets a standard against which candidates, elected officials, and activists all across the country look to measure themselves.”

California’s government is blue across the board. With a Democratic governor, Democrats in control of both state houses, and no real prospect of electoral upsets, the state party’s platform promises to appeal to voters who are ready to usher in real action to fight climate change.

Last September, the California state legislature’s passage of Senate Bill 350 offered a mixed bag for environmentalists. While the law requires utilities to generate 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030, it fails to rein in the state’s heavy gasoline consumption, thanks to pressure from the oil lobby. The new energy and environment platform revives the goal of cutting fuel use in half by 2030 and pushes the state to generate a whopping 100 percent of its electricity from “renewable and sustainable energy sources” by the same year. This is a platform that “gives hope to people that their political party and its elected officials, candidates, activists, and leaders will actually consider what makes life better for everybody,” said Bauman.

California often shines as a beacon of climate action in the United States, and the release of the Democrats’ environmental plan just turned up the wattage. As the state faces the 2018 election of a new governor to replace climate champion Jerry Brown, it will be enshrined values like these that will ensure the expansion of his already substantial environmental legacy.

In the wake of a Supreme Court stay on the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, local initiatives like these take on even greater importance. The Paris Agreement — discussions around which were broadly led by the United States — requires buy-in from all its signatories if it’s to succeed. In other encouraging news, Maryland’s state Senate passed a bill last week on a 38-to-8 vote to cut greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030, compared to 2006 levels. That, too, is the kind of state effort that lends itself to the kind of international credibility the United States needs to maintain as the U.N. agreement enters its implementation phase.

Raising the bar at the state level is always good news on the climate front, especially when federal action gets stuck in gridlock. Bauman argues that California Democrats can do so because they don’t have to use “the same kind of coded language” that he suggests crops up in national platforms. “We don’t have to do that. We get to give voice to the issues we believe in and we get to do it in an authentic way.” Here’s to hoping, as usual, that other states can follow California’s lead.

Please

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?