Tag Archives: democrats

Paul Ryan Votes Against the Debt Ceiling Increase

by KristinaRosenba Posted on February 11, 2014

Mother Jones

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

With John Boehner finally crying uncle over the debt ceiling and dumping the whole thing on Democrats, the only suspense left was which members of the Republican leadership would suck it in and vote yes to get the bill over the finish line. Here’s the answer:

Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy voted for the increase. House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, on the other hand, voted against the bill.

There you go. Even Eric Cantor gritted his teeth and voted for the increase, but Paul Ryan didn’t. Kinda makes you think he might still be keeping a presidential run in the back of his mind, doesn’t it?

More: 

Paul Ryan Votes Against the Debt Ceiling Increase

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Paul Ryan Votes Against the Debt Ceiling Increase

Will Democrats Kill the Filibuster Entirely Next Year?

by AlannahBeaulieu Posted on February 11, 2014

Mother Jones

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

After the 2000 election, with the Senate divided 50-50, Democrats demanded a power-sharing agreement in which both parties would have the same number of committee members and the same budget. Even though Dick Cheney provided the tiebreaking vote in favor of Republican control, Democrats got their way by threatening to filibuster the organization of the Senate.

So what if this happens again after the 2014 election? Joe Biden will provide the tiebreaking vote this time, but Republicans will threaten to filibuster unless they get equal representation. Richard Arenberg thinks this could lead to the end of the filibuster:

Here’s the interesting question. Last November the Democratic majority used the so-called “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster for presidential nominations (with the exception of the Supreme Court). This established the principle or at least demonstrated the means by which any rule could be changed at any time by a simple majority. In the wake of a hard-fought election to determine control of the Senate, would the temptation to eliminate the filibuster in order to gain clear control using the simple majority (with the vice president’s vote) be irresistible? Would the Democratic base tolerate any less?

I have long argued that the use of the nuclear option would place the Senate on a slippery slope. I believe that the elimination of the filibuster on legislative matter is close to inevitable.

A tied Senate could be the test.

Maybe! But I’m not sure that either party has much motivation to kill the filibuster entirely at this point, regardless of what their bases demand. Let’s examine the two parties separately.

Democrats: Killing the filibuster for presidential nominees made sense because nominations require only Senate approval. But what’s the value of killing the filibuster for legislation? With the House under Republican control, it wouldn’t do them much good. Nor would it be worth it just to avoid power-sharing during the last two years of Obama’s term, when little is likely to be accomplished anyway. That simply isn’t a big enough deal. And as unlikely as it seems, Democrats do need to be concerned with the possibility of complete Republican control after 2016. It’s a slim possibility, but it’s a possibility. If that happens, why hand over the rope to hang themselves?

Republicans: Suppose Republicans win the Senate outright in 2014. A lot of liberals take it as an article of faith that they’ll immediately kill the filibuster completely. But why? With Obama still in office, it wouldn’t do them any good. And they have to be deeply concerned about complete Democratic control after the 2016 election. It’s not just a slim possibility, it’s a very real possibility. If that happens, why hand over the rope to hang themselves?

Bottom line: There’s nothing new about the procedure Harry Reid used to kill the filibuster for nominations. It’s always been available, and everyone has always known it. But it hasn’t been used before because both parties have always been afraid of what the other party would do in a filibuster-less world. That fear would continue to far outweigh the negligible benefits of killing the filibuster while government remains divided.

But what about after 2016? What if one of the parties wins total control of Congress and the presidency? That’s harder to predict. I still think that fear of what the other party could do without a filibuster runs deep, and may well prevent either party from axing it. But I wouldn’t bet on it. Both Republicans and Democrats will be chomping at the bit to break the grinding deadlock of the post-2010 era, and either party might decide to finally take the plunge.

But if it happens, it will be after 2016. The benefit of killing the filibuster after the 2014 election is just too slim to make it worthwhile.

Source article:  

Will Democrats Kill the Filibuster Entirely Next Year?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will Democrats Kill the Filibuster Entirely Next Year?

In the Republican Party, the Yahoo Wing is Winning

by anjunonstennyao Posted on February 10, 2014

Mother Jones

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

Thanks to massive internal disarray, Republicans are unable to agree on any kind of immigration reform plan. They can’t say that, though, so they’re blaming it on the fact that President Obama is a rogue despot who can’t be trusted to enforce the law no matter what it is. He’ll implement the parts he likes and ignore the rest, just as he’s been doing for years with his sun-king presidency. So no immigration reform.

Also thanks to massive internal disarray, Republicans are unable to agree on a plan to raise the debt limit. Plan A was to demand the end of risk corridors in Obamacare (aka the “insurer bailout”), but that went nowhere. Plan B was to repeal the benefit cut for veterans that was enacted last month, which might have gone somewhere since Democrats are probably willing to go along with that in any case. But that didn’t make the cut either because it would have made it tough for tea partiers to vote against the bill. Plan C is to “wrap several popular, must-pass items around a provision to extend the federal government’s borrowing authority beyond the November midterm elections.” But even this plan is looking shaky.

The common thread here is that the Republican Party is unable to get its act together enough to look beyond next week. Both immigration reform and a quiet debt limit increase would benefit the GOP in the long term. But both would also infuriate the yahoo wing of the party in the short term. So far, the yahoo wing is winning.

Jump to original:  

In the Republican Party, the Yahoo Wing is Winning

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In the Republican Party, the Yahoo Wing is Winning

Quote of the Day: Why Immigration Reform Is Probably Going Nowhere

by ManuelXNZotpv Posted on January 31, 2014

Mother Jones

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

In the Republican Party, immigration reform is basically a battle between the tea party, which opposes it, and the Chamber of Commerce wing, which supports it. In a nutshell, Dave Weigel explains why this means it’s doomed:

The chamber wing does want immigration reform, badly, but not as intensely as it wants to defeat Democrats in 2014. So it’s easy for the party to fall into a holding pattern, with new rhetoric, without actually passing a bill.

I guess anything is possible, and immigration reform has always been the one big legislative priority that I give a nonzero chance of passing Congress. But Weigel is right. The business wing of the GOP just doesn’t want it badly enough to risk starting a bloody, party-rupturing fight with the social conservatives. For once, I’d say that Ted Cruz probably has the right take on this.

From – 

Quote of the Day: Why Immigration Reform Is Probably Going Nowhere

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Why Immigration Reform Is Probably Going Nowhere

Koch-Tied Groups Funded GOP Effort to Mess With Electoral College Rules

by JuliaPage Posted on January 31, 2014

Mother Jones

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

Last election season, a shadowy nonprofit pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into a campaign to change how electoral votes are counted. The group didn’t disclose who was funding its efforts—a fact that Mother Jones highlighted in a story titled “Who’s Paying for the GOP’s Plan to Hijack the 2012 Election?” But now, thanks to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonpartisan government watchdog, it’s clear that organizations with ties to billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch footed at least some of the bill.

Each state and the District of Columbia has a certain number of electoral votes, based on their population, and they get to decide for themselves how those votes should be allotted. Currently, every state except Maine and Nebraska gives all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote. But in 2011, GOP lawmakers in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin introduced bills that would divide electoral votes among candidates based on how many congressional districts they won. Because Republicans drew the boundaries of the districts in those states, this scheme would be almost certain to hand Republican presidential candidates the majority of their electoral votes—even if more voters cast ballots for Democrats. (Read more about how the plan would work here.) Presuming the race is close enough, this could decide the nationwide outcome.

In the case of Pennsylvania, a mysterious nonprofit called All Votes Matter spent large sums lobbying for these changes. Local officials wondered about its funding sources. “They raised an awful lot of money very quickly—$300,000 in just a few days,” Democratic Pennsylvania state Sen. Daylin Leach told Mother Jones at the time. “We’re all curious where that level of funding comes from.” But All Votes Matter didn’t disclose its donors, nor did it have to. The group is organized as a 501(c)4 “social welfare” nonprofit, which means that it can spend money on politics while keeping its donors secret. (Such groups are not supposed to spend more than half of their budget on political causes, but IRS enforcement is slack.) Thus the public knew little about the agendas behind this effort to upend the mechanics of presidential elections.

Continue Reading »

More here – 

Koch-Tied Groups Funded GOP Effort to Mess With Electoral College Rules

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Koch-Tied Groups Funded GOP Effort to Mess With Electoral College Rules

How 2 Inches of Snow Created a Traffic Nightmare in Atlanta

by ManieFerrell Posted on January 29, 2014

Mother Jones

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

This article originally appeared on Conor Sen’s personal site and was published by the Atlantic. It is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

I know what you’re thinking (I grew up outside of D.C. and Boston): “How can 2 inches of snow shut down Atlanta?”

Before I got here, I thought that too. I wonder it every time there’s a run on the grocery stores before a storm, or when some other city cancels schools before a flake has even hit the ground.

And surely, the drivers play a part. I was out getting coffee around noon yesterday, just when things were starting to get bad (at the time there was, at most, a half inch of snow on the ground), and set out to drive my 2 miles home, a straight shot on a fairly major surface street. It took me around 30 minutes. Part of the reason was one of the drivers in front of me (with Tennessee plates) was going 5 miles-per-hour in a 35 miles-per-hour zone with no cars in front of them. But even with my car—2013 model, 10,000 miles on it—I was skidding at times on the gentle incline of a street that hadn’t been treated with sand/salt/gravel at all.

My wife left work in Woodstock, a city 30-35 miles northwest of here, a little after noon yesterday, and took 3.5 hours to get home. She was one of the lucky ones.

Yes, Atlanta has many drivers who are inexperienced in the snow, but for a region that gets a storm (I know, I know “2 inches = storm”) like this at most once every few years, how is anyone supposed to be experienced in the snow? How do you think San Francisco would handle a couple inches of snow? Going north/south on Franklin or Gough, or east/west on Fell or Oak? How do you think the N-Judah out in Cole Valley or the Sunset would handle it? This is a metro area of 6 million people, and it’s time to think beyond “those silly southern drivers.”

Metro areas of 6 million people need to be prepared for anything.

Which leads into the blame game. Republicans want to blame government (a Democrat thing) or Atlanta (definitely a Democrat thing). Democrats want to blame the region’s dependence on cars (a Republican thing), the state government (Republicans), and many of the transplants from more liberal, urban places feel the same way you might about white, rural, southern drivers. All of this is true to some extent but none of it is helpful.

How much money do you set aside for snowstorms when they’re as infrequent as they are? Who will run the show—the city, the county, or the state? How will preparedness work? You could train everyone today, and then if the next storm hits in 2020, everyone you’ve trained might have moved on to different jobs, with Atlanta having a new mayor and Georgia having a new governor.

Regionalism here is hard. The population of this state has doubled in the past 40-45 years, and many of the older voters who control it still think of it as the way it was when they were growing up. The urban core of Atlanta is a minority participant in a state government controlled by rural and northern Atlanta exurban interests. The state government gives MARTA (Atlanta’s heavy rail transportation system) no money. There’s tough regional and racial history here which is both shameful and a part of the inheritance we all have by being a part of this region. Demographics are evolving quickly, but government moves more slowly. The city in which I live, Brookhaven, was incorporated in 2012. This is its first-ever snowstorm (again, 2 inches). It’s a fairly affluent, mostly white, urban small city. We were unprepared too.

The issue is that you have three layers of government—city, county, state—and none of them really trust the other. And why should they? Cobb County just “stole the Braves” from the city of Atlanta. Why would Atlanta cede transportation authority to a regional body when its history in dealing with the region/state has been to carve up Atlanta with highways and never embrace its transit system? Why would the region/state want to give more authority to Atlanta when many of the people in the region want nothing to do with the city of Atlanta unless it involves getting to work or a Braves game?

The region tried, in a very tough economy and political year (2012), to pass a comprehensive transportation bill, a T-SPLOST, funded by a sales tax. It wasn’t perfect, but it was an attempt to do something. The Sierra Club opposed it because it didn’t feature enough transit. The NAACP opposed it because it didn’t have enough contracts for minority businesses. The tea party opposed it because it was a tax. That’s politics in the 2010s. You may snicker, but how good a job has any major city done with big transportation projects over the past 30 years?

As anyone paying attention knows, Atlanta’s finally moving in the right direction. The Beltline build-out is underway and reshaping neighborhoods. Downtown is finally getting some investment, and we’ll see how useful it is, but it’s building a streetcar that will be up and running this year, with plans in the works for extensions. More and more counties in the region are tipping from red to purple/blue (Henry, Gwinnett, soon Cobb), which should help ease some of the racial and partisan tensions associated with regionalism. Most of the development dollars in a region driven by real estate are now flowing to urban, walkable projects. There are increasingly serious conversations about extending MARTA to the north and east. We’ve become one of the top 3 markets in the country for electric vehicle sales.

But clearly, there’s work to be done.

See original article here: 

How 2 Inches of Snow Created a Traffic Nightmare in Atlanta

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How 2 Inches of Snow Created a Traffic Nightmare in Atlanta

House GOP’s New Anti-Abortion Strategy: Let’s Try NOT Talking About Rape

by FilomenaBrother Posted on January 28, 2014

Mother Jones

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

Three years ago, House Republicans pushed a bill to permanently eliminate taxpayer funding for abortions. The proposed legislation included an exception for women who had been raped—but only if it the rape was “forcible.” That language—and later, off-color comments about abortion and rape by two GOP Senate candidates, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock—kicked off a national backlash against the Republican party. So this year, the House GOP is trying a new strategy: introducing almost the exact same bill to limit abortion rights, while hoping that cutting out controversial rape provisions will limit the political blowback.

To that end, the GOP-run House of Representatives will vote late Tuesday afternoon on the 2014 version of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, a bill that would permanently ensconce the Hyde Amendment—a temporary measure that has been around since the 1970s and bans federal funding for abortions—in federal law. The bill doesn’t just ban federal funding for abortions, though—it also promises to limit Americans’ ability to buy private-sector health insurance that covers abortion.

Like previous versions of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act that passed the House in 2011 and 2012, this year’s measure has no chance of becoming law so long as Democrats hold the Senate and President Barack Obama occupies the White House. The bills, introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), are designed to signal the Republican party’s priorities to its most hardcore supporters—and more broadly, to provide a taste of what the GOP would have to offer if it gained control of the Senate and the White House. (House Republican leaders have given this year’s version of the bill the number H.R. 7; the low number is a symbolic nod to its high priority.)

Previous versions of Smith’s bill have cost the party politically. The 2011 version launched the “forcible rape” furor. And this year’s bill, which Smith introduced last May, appeared again to raise questions about what counts as rape. An earlier version of the proposal would have required the IRS to verify that a woman claiming a medical expense deduction for abortion on her tax return was not committing fraud. Women may only claim these deductions if their abortions were the result of rape, incest, or life-threatening medical situations—leading anti-abortion activists to assail the bill’s sponsors for mandating IRS “rape audits.”

The bill the House will vote on Tuesday drops the “rape audits” provision. But Sharon Levin, the director of federal reproductive health policy for the National Women’s Law Center, says this is more of a face-saving measure than an improvement.

“They took out the provision that the public had been focused on to make this more palatable, politically,” she says. “The core of what this bill is about has not changed—making it as difficult as possible for women to get access to abortion.”

Continue Reading »

Original link:  

House GOP’s New Anti-Abortion Strategy: Let’s Try NOT Talking About Rape

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Smith's, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on House GOP’s New Anti-Abortion Strategy: Let’s Try NOT Talking About Rape

Medicaid Expansion May Be a Sleeper Issue for Democrats This Year

by FranciscaDGY Posted on January 23, 2014

Mother Jones

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

Once Obamacare has been in place for a while, will it become popular enough that Republicans will finally give up their opposition? Maybe, maybe not. But how about the Medicaid expansion? The evidence there might be a little clearer. Here’s Greg Sargent:

The Medicaid expansion, as an issue, is kind of taking on a life of its own, independent of Big Bad Obamacare. In Louisiana, Senator Mary Landrieu has aggressively criticized the rollout of the law, but has also attacked Republicans for refusing to implement the Medicaid expansion. In Georgia, Dem Senate candidate Michelle Nunn has called for fixes to the law while also saying the state should expand Medicaid.

….Meanwhile, the expansion could hold pitfalls for Republicans, because as enrollment mounts, they may be pressed to say whether they really support taking that coverage away from people. Mitch McConnell was recently asked to comment on Kentuckians benefitting from the law, and he filibustered. The GOP Senate candidate in West Virginia is gung ho for repeal but has hedged on the expansion.

Hmmm. Jonathan Bernstein took a quick look at the websites of Republican gubernatorial challengers in blue states that have expanded Medicaid but look like possible Republican pickups. After all the appropriate caveats, he tells us what he found:

And the answer? Nada. Zip. Nothing. None of these Republicans is pledging to repeal the Medicaid expansion put in place by a Democratic governor….I don’t want to make more of this than the evidence can support. But for what it’s worth, early evidence supports the liberal optimist (and conservative pessimist) view: that where it’s in place, Medicaid expansion is here to stay.

If that’s truly the case, then sooner or later Obamacare’s Medicaid component will expand to all 50 states. Eventually, every state will have a governor who is willing to embrace it. Provided that trend is not counteracted by reversals in states that were in the first wave of Medicaid expansion, we’re talking about a one-way street. The only question is how long it takes.

Pushing for Medicaid expansion in the holdout states could turn out to be a solid populist issue for Democrats this year. The argument is simple: It’s free medical care and it doesn’t cost the state anything. Who’s against that? We’ll find out later this how well that argument works.

Original link:  

Medicaid Expansion May Be a Sleeper Issue for Democrats This Year

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Medicaid Expansion May Be a Sleeper Issue for Democrats This Year

We’re About to Find Out If the Senate Is Working Again

by RefugioBeavers Posted on January 16, 2014

Mother Jones

Now that Democrats have done away with the filibuster for nominations, how are we doing on getting vacancies filled? Jonathan Bernstein is tentatively optimistic:

There’s some movement on judges today, with the Senate Judiciary Committee sending 29 nominations, including five appeals court picks, to the full Senate….We’ll see, when the Senate returns in February, just how committed Republicans are to delaying and obstructing these future judges….Cloture procedures, which can eat up plenty of Senate floor time, are still in place for both judicial and the even more numerous executive-branch nominations.

Republicans are not “shutting down” the Senate; for example, they aren’t insisting that bills be read aloud. They did, however, drag out nominations back in December after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went nuclear, which meant that while Democrats were able to power through high-profile positions, lower-priority ones were held over to this year. It’s still not clear to what extent Republicans will continue to obstruct; as Twitter-based nominations maven @Mansfield2016 points out, we’ll know more after Reid tries to confirm some low-level executive-branch nominations through unanimous consent later today.

If Republicans insist on cloture for every nominee, it will tie the Senate in knots since it eats up a few days of time to work through each cloture vote. Democrats will win them eventually now that it only takes 51 votes, but they can’t afford to spend two months of floor time in order to confirm 29 nominees. So if Republicans play hardball, they could still block most of Obama’s nominees.

It only takes one senator to demand cloture, so who knows what will happen? But my guess is that Republicans will let most of the nominations through. If they demand cloture votes, all that will happen is that Democrats will go ahead and confirm the nominees that conservatives hate the worst and let the others slide. That’s a net loss. Besides, a Republican will be president someday. At this point, with the initial outrage over the rules change mostly spent, they might prefer to just go along with the new precedent. We’ll see.

Link:  

We’re About to Find Out If the Senate Is Working Again

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We’re About to Find Out If the Senate Is Working Again

Major newspaper coverage of climate change plummeted last year

by AshelyStory Posted on January 15, 2014

Major newspaper coverage of climate change plummeted last year

By

Shutterstock

We were feeling optimistic a couple of weeks ago when we reported that mainstream media coverage of climate and energy issues was up last year. But it turns out that if you remove the “and energy,” the numbers are actually pretty depressing.

The University of Colorado’s Center for Science & Technology Research monitors mentions of “global warming” and “climate change” in five major U.S. newspapers: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. Check out the following sad graph showing its latest findings:

University of ColoradoClick to embiggen.

ClimateProgress breaks down bad news:

The final numbers for the year are in and NY Times climate coverage — stories in which the words “global warming” or “climate change” appeared — has plummeted more than 40 percent. That is a bigger drop than any of the other newspapers monitored by the University of Colorado, though the Washington Post’s coverage dropped by a third, no doubt driven in part by its mind-boggling decision to take its lead climate reporter, Juliet Eilperin, off the environment beat.

And remember, this drop happened from levels of climate coverage that were already near a historical low and in a year that was HUGE on climate news. We’ve had devastating extreme weather around the planet. In May, CO2 levels in the air passed the 400 parts per million threshold for the first time in millions of years. In June, President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan. And in September, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest alarming review of the scientific literature.

As the chart above shows, when the IPCC released its previous reports (2001, 2007), media coverage spiked at the major newspapers. These days, the media herd is not to be heard from.

Meanwhile, TV news coverage of climate change flatlined. According to Robert Brulle of Drexel University, the nightly news programs at ABC, NBC, and CBS aired 30 climate stories in 2013, compared to 29 in 2012.

A new Climate Action Task Force in the U.S. Senate is going to try to reverse the trend. It announced yesterday that it will push to get more climate coverage in the mainstream media, particularly on Sunday morning political talk shows. “Sunday news shows are obviously important because they talk to millions of people,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a task force member, “but they go beyond that by helping to define what the establishment considers to be important and what is often discussed during the rest of the week.” We wish them good luck.


Source
Media coverage of climate change / global warming, University of Colorado
Silence Of The Lambs: Climate Coverage Drops At Major U.S. Newspapers, Flatlines On TV, ClimateProgress
Democrats Plan to Pressure TV Networks Into Covering Climate Change, National Journal

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

,

Living

View article: 

Major newspaper coverage of climate change plummeted last year

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Major newspaper coverage of climate change plummeted last year