Tag Archives: environmental

Cities and companies have pledged to fight climate change. Now what?

by MichaleClaudio Posted on May 10, 2016

Cities and companies have pledged to fight climate change. Now what?

By on May 10, 2016Share

Since the Paris Climate Conference wrapped up last December, 50 cities and companies have posted new climate initiatives in a United Nations-sanctioned registry called the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action (NAZCA). By spotlighting some 11,000 commitments cities, companies, regions, and investors have made since 2014, the U.N. hopes NAZCA becomes an essential tool in motivating more entries in the future.

But not everyone is so jazzed about it.

Angel Hsu, director of Yale’s Data-Driven Environmental Solutions Group, spends a lot of time thinking about how to use data transparency to ease the troubles of fighting climate change. And as the registry currently stands, it’s more laundry hamper than database.

In April, Hsu and her colleagues published an article in Nature laying out the risks of “unevenly or idiosyncratically” reporting climate action data. The gist: If there aren’t clear reporting requirements for cities and companies, we have no way of knowing what’s working, what isn’t, and who’s pulling their fair share.

Take carbon prices, for example. The authors write that less than one-sixth of the carbon-pricing initiatives registered with NAZCA actually cite a specific carbon price. When companies do name a price, it can range from $0.01 to $357.37 per metric ton of carbon dioxide.

The inconsistency matters because it implies a lack of accountability. Without a sense of what’s reasonable, freeloading becomes that much easier. NAZCA does not require companies or cities to report or track implementation data, so there’s no easy way of knowing whether or not they are actually following through on their commitments. Clear reporting standards can foster this kind of accountability, argue the researchers.

Hsu also cites consumer pressures in developed countries as motivating companies like Shell and BP to take action. But for cities, there’s no analogue of corporate social responsibility. City officials — and voters — just have to buy into climate action.

Selling that climate action can be easier said than done. In an analysis released last Thursday, C40 Cities — a coalition targeting urban climate action — details the barriers cities face when attempting to combat a changing climate. The group cites a lack of city-country coordination, a failure to make a convincing case for climate action, and, importantly, an inability to secure funding for green projects as among the hurdles facing efficient and effective climate action. For instance, write the authors, “only 1 in 5 C40 cities are able to borrow from the state, and only 1 in 4 to issue municipal bonds.”

Cracking this nut is important because cities are well-positioned to do things that national governments can’t. “Sub-national governments have more flexibility to experiment with potentially risky policy tools,” write Hsu and colleagues.

Cities are a “living laboratory for sustainable prosperity,” Samuel Adams, director of the U.S. climate initiative at the World Resources Institute, told press last week. The lab could just use a bit more rigor.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Originally from:  

Cities and companies have pledged to fight climate change. Now what?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, ONA, Oster, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Cities and companies have pledged to fight climate change. Now what?

Why Buying Local Flowers is Just as Important as Buying Local Food

by LeandroHogle Posted on May 5, 2016

You may not realize it, but flowers are a part of the buy-local movementand with good reason.

Seventy percent of the cut flowers sold in the U.S. are imported from Latin America. Though the hot climate is just what the flowers need, those constant high temperatures are also conducive to bugs and disease. Consequently, growers in Columbia, Ecuador and many other countries rely on pesticides that have long been banned in the U.S. to produce flowers worth selling in international markets.

As with other crops, applying pesticides to flowers takes its toll on people, especially on mothers who work in the flower fields when they’re pregnant and unavoidably expose their fetuses to the toxic chemicals. Not only that, but researchers found that children whose mothers were exposed to pesticides during pregnancy tended to have higher blood pressure than unexposed children, increasing the chance of risk of cardiovascular disease later in life.

Consumers may be exposed to those chemicals as well. Roses can contain as much as 50 times the amount of pesticides legally allowed on the food we eat, reports the Environmental News Network.When flowers are imported into the U.S., they’re checked for bugs, but not for pesticide contamination. You could bring a lot of unwanted toxic chemicals into your home when you buy a bouquet produced outside the U.S., particularly when you stick your nose right into them.

Importing flowers from Latin America, Europe, Africa and even Australia and New Zealand has another significant environmental impact: climate change.

Blooms coming from south of our borders may be hauled in temperature-controlled trucks or perhaps flown from one continent to another, stored overnight in refrigerators, then driven on to various marketplaces. In a study done for Valentine’s Day, Flowerpetal.com, an online flower vendor, calculated that shipping100 million roses around the U.S. generated some 9,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2). On the other hand, flowers grown in warmer clients do save the energy that might be consumed if the plants were raised in a northern greenhouse.

Still, if it’s possible to purchase flowers grown locally, overall, you’ll probably use less energy, suffer less pesticide exposure and funnel more money back into your local economy. The question is, where to find them?

Farmers Markets – In spring, summer and fall, most farmers markets teem with flowers grown nearby. Some farmers interplant their crops with flowers to attract beneficial insects that will prey on produce-devouring bugs. But other “flower farmers” grow both annuals and perennials as their crop. You can find the nearest source of local flower growers at LocalHarvest.org.

Your Own Yard – As long as you have adequate sunshine and water, you can grow many of the flowers you enjoy, including both perennials and annuals. Real Simple put together this useful guide on how to create a low-maintenance cutting garden that can help you get started.

ACommunity Garden – Don’t have your own yard? Don’t let that stop you. You can rent a plot of land in a community garden and plant to your heart’s content. The American Community Gardening Association makes it easy to find the nearest locale to you.

Garden Club Swaps – Join the local garden club, where you’ll end up swapping seeds and plants with other gardeners in your community. You’ll save money, get rid of your own excess plants, get access to new plants and keep the neighborhood green and in bloom.

Related:

Why Buy Organic Flowers?
8 Beloved Flowers for Every Soil Type
12 Mother’s Day Gifts That Aren’t Flowers or Perfume

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

Visit source: 

Why Buying Local Flowers is Just as Important as Buying Local Food

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Buying Local Flowers is Just as Important as Buying Local Food

Obama Visits Flint, Tells the Truth

by AveryWinder Posted on May 4, 2016

Mother Jones

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

President Obama visited Flint today and told residents, “It’s not too much to expect for all Americans that their water is safe.”

Obama made the comments during a speech in the city on Wednesday, a few hours after he drank filtered Flint water after a briefing by federal officials on the city’s lead-contaminated water. He also requested a glass of filtered water during his speech, saying “I really did need a glass of water. This is not a stunt.”

The president vouched for the safety of certified filters and encouraged most city residents to start drinking filtered water instead of bottled water. “If you’re using a filter … then Flint water at this point is drinkable,” Obama said after taking a brief sip of filtered water, adding that the Environmental Protection Agency says using the filter makes the water safe and drinkable.

The only exception is pregnant women and children under 6, who should continue to use bottled water “out of an abundance of caution,” he said.

Good for Obama. He told them the truth: Flint water is safe to drink. My own take is that Flint water is safe for children too, but if I were president I suppose I might back off on that a little. A president’s words carry a bit more weight than a blogger’s. Still, residential testing shows that lead levels in Flint water have been well below 15 ppb since the beginning of the year. Obama is right about the precautions residents should take (flush your pipes, get blood tests for your kids, etc.), but the bottom line is that most Flint residents should feel comfortable drinking, cooking, and bathing with tap water.

Visit source: 

Obama Visits Flint, Tells the Truth

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Visits Flint, Tells the Truth

Earth is getting greener. Here’s why that’s a problem.

by MaribelGregson Posted on May 2, 2016

Earth is getting greener. Here’s why that’s a problem.

By on May 2, 2016Share

This story was originally published by Slate and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

A new study just published in the journal Nature Climate Change reached an interesting, if not totally surprising, conclusion: The Earth has become significantly greener over the past 33 years.

The main reason? All the extra carbon dioxide we humans dump into the air.

Let me be clear right away: This is a kinda sorta good thing, but don’t celebrate the positive aspect of climate change just yet. The effect almost certainly won’t last, and this small positive is completely buried under a long, long list of negatives.

The research used satellites to examine vegetation growth over time, assuming that the extra green is coming from leaves on plants and trees. Using a computer model to estimate leaf growth, they find the extra greening is equivalent to adding about 18 million square kilometers of vegetated land to the globe, more than twice the area of the mainland U.S. That’s pretty astonishing.

Map showing vegetation across the globe.

Myneni et al.

The growth is due to added CO2 in the air. Plants use sunlight for energy and convert CO2 (plus water) into sugar, which is stored for food. In a naive sense, more CO2 means more food for plants (this is called carbon dioxide fertilization), so there’s more growth.

The good news, such as it is, is that this means plants are able to soak up more carbon from the atmosphere. The bad news is, it’s not nearly enough. This is made clear by a graph showing atmospheric carbon dioxide content, as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii:

Scripps Institute of Oceanography

As you can see, the amount of CO2 in the air is still increasing, even with this extra vegetation. Worse, look at the increase from 1980 (roughly the start of the new study’s time range) to 1995. If you extend that slope, you’ll see that the increase has increased since 1995; in other words, we’re putting out even more CO2 per year than we did 35 years ago.

All that extra plant growth can’t keep up with the 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide humans dump into the atmosphere every year.

Incidentally, some of that greening is in the Arctic. That place is usually covered with snow and ice, except warmer temperatures have been causing it to melt away. That’s not a place we want to see green. White would be way better.

Of course, this hasn’t stopped the deniers, who tend to ignore inconvenient facts like that, and instead just tout how the Earth getting greener must be a good thing. World News Daily and the Cato Institute were two sources I found pretty easily making this fallacious claim. It’s cherry-picking in the worst sort of way, but then deniers have been making this ridiculous claim for a long time now.

What I find funny is that in the press release, one of the authors of the research preemptively smacks down the deniers [emphasis mine]:

The beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilization in promoting plant growth has been used by contrarians, notably Lord Ridley (hereditary peer in the U.K. House of Lords) and Mr. Rupert Murdoch (owner of several news outlets), to argue against cuts in carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, similar to those agreed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris last year under the U.N. Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC). “The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change, namely global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice, more severe tropical storms, etc. are not acknowledged. Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time,” says coauthor Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suvYvette, France, and contributing lead author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report 5.

Of course, deniers gonna deny. Using this study to say that climate change is good is like getting in a massive car accident and being happy you don’t have to vacuum out the car anymore.

But hey, if you’re willing to ignore rising sea levels, more extreme weather, melting polar ice, deoxygenation of the oceans, droughts, floods, acidification of the oceans and coral bleaching, more heatwaves, and the displacement of potentially hundreds of millions of people, then y’know, a little more green in your life is just great!

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Original source:

Earth is getting greener. Here’s why that’s a problem.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Eureka, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Earth is getting greener. Here’s why that’s a problem.

Watch Emma Thompson take on fracking … with cake

by ArnoldDunne564 Posted on April 28, 2016

Watch Emma Thompson take on fracking … with cake

By on Apr 28, 2016Share

In the first and only episode of The Frack-free Bake Off, actress Emma Thompson and her sister Sophie turned baking into a new form of environmental activism.

They filmed The Great British Bake Off parody on land leased for drilling activity in Lancashire, England, where activists were banned after a 2014 protest. Thomspon, a longtime Grist crush, held the event in collaboration with Greenpeace to bring attention to the British government’s inconsistent commitment to the climate (“Lancashire voted for its favorite cake. But the government won’t let them have the final vote on fracking”).

In the process of whipping up confectionery feats — scrumptious renewable-energy-themed cakes — the sisters’ operation was sprayed with manure by a retaliatory local farmer.

So whose cake won: Emma’s wind-power cake or Sophie’s solar? Watch the video above to find out — and remember that in the game of fracking, really, none of us win.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Source:

Watch Emma Thompson take on fracking … with cake

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch Emma Thompson take on fracking … with cake

“Keystone-ization” is the fossil fuel industry’s new nightmare

by EdisonWJOkpkr Posted on April 26, 2016

“Keystone-ization” is the fossil fuel industry’s new nightmare

By on Apr 25, 2016commentsShare

“Another Pipeline Rejected” is now the go-to headline for updates on new fossil fuel infrastructure in the United States. Does the growing file of scrapped pipeline plans forecast the “Keystone-ization” of our energy future? Yes — proposals for pipelines to transport oil and natural gas are being brought down by public protest so frequently, we now have a term for it.

A quick review: On Friday, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation announced that it would not grant a necessary permit for the 124-mile Constitution Pipeline proposed to run through the northeastern United States. The Earth Day announcement came after backlash regarding potential safety issues from residents, as well as from Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who said that the plan would be “catastrophic to our air and our climate.” The DEC ultimately refused to grant the permit after concluding that the pipeline would interfere with water resources in its path.

This latest decision follows the rejection, just days prior, of a $3.1 billion natural gas plan proposed by Kinder Morgan. Before that, the 550-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which would have run through Virginia and West Virginia, was delayed earlier this year. Georgia’s 360-mile Palmetto Pipeline and Oregon’s 232-mile Pacific Connector Pipeline were both thwarted in March. All that went down in 2016 alone.

The mother of all these killed projects is, of course, the Keystone XL pipeline, a $7 billion undertaking that would have ferried 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast — had President Barack Obama not vetoed it last November. Since that decision, the phrase “Keystone-ization” has come to connote the death of a proposed oil and gas pipeline — often due to public backlash.

“Fifty years ago, people in the U.S. were much more accepting of new pipelines and new infrastructure,” Rob Jackson, a professor at the Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment who studies energy use and climate change, told Grist. “Today, people don’t want new pipelines and nuclear power plants near their homes and schools. The failure of Keystone emboldened people to fight the next project.”

“Keystone-ization” has become a rallying cry for writer and climate activist Bill McKibben, who uses it to encourage activists to protest new fossil fuel infrastructure. (Editor’s note: Bill McKibben is a member of Grist’s board). McKibben, however, repurposed it — how green of him — from Marty Durbin, President and CEO of America’s Natural Gas Alliance. Durbin said last year that the pipeline had become a model for climate activists, noting that it has changed the way fossil fuel companies operate:

“These aren’t new issues. These are things that pipeline developers have had to deal with for a long time. But we’ve seen a change in the debate. I hesitate to put it this way, but call it the Keystone-ization of every pipeline project that’s out there, that if you can stop one permit, you can stop the development of fossil fuels. That’s changing the way we have to manage these projects.”

Killing a pipeline plan, Jackson explained, could prevent fossil fuel extraction on the condition that there is no other way for the resources to reach the market. But in the case of oil, it also could backfire. If no pipeline is available, oil may travel by train. According to Jackson, pipelines look like a safer option when considering the terrible track record of oil train derailments — and therefore, the “Keystone-ization” of proposed pipelines may not be such a good thing after all.

At the same time, if oil prices remain low (as they are now), the cost of rail transport can be prohibitive — and when a pipeline is rejected, extracting the oil it was meant to transport may no longer be a profitable decision. If this is the case, Jackson explains, nixing a pipeline may help keep fossil fuels in the ground.

“Some people fight pipelines because they oppose any fossil fuel use. Viewed through that lens, blocking oil and gas pipelines makes sense,” said Jackson. “You will see a fight for every new pipeline from now on, I guarantee it.”

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link – 

“Keystone-ization” is the fossil fuel industry’s new nightmare

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Northeastern, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Safer, The Atlantic, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on “Keystone-ization” is the fossil fuel industry’s new nightmare

Officials face criminal charges for the first time in Flint water crisis

by CarleyHannan Posted on April 20, 2016

Officials face criminal charges for the first time in Flint water crisis

By on Apr 20, 2016commentsShare

Three city and state officials are now facing felony and misdemeanor charges in the wake of the Flint water crisis, almost two years to the date after the drinking water catastrophe began.

The employees in question, according to the Detroit Free Press, include Michael Glasgow, the city’s laboratory and water quality supervisor. Glasgow faces multiple charges, including tampering with evidence to hide tests that showed dangerous levels of lead in the water supply. The other two officials, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality official Michael Prysby and Steven Busch, a district coordinator for the DEQ’s Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance, face charges of misconduct in office, tampering with evidence, and violating the Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act, among others.

In an effort to save an estimated $5 million over two years, in 2014 the city began supplying its water from the contaminated Flint River instead of Detroit’s municipal water system, which it had used for the past half-century. Flint leaders continued to claim that the water was safe to drink, despite residents’ complaints about the smell and taste. In September 2015, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) publicly acknowledged the problem for the first time, promising to take action in response to the higher-than-average lead levels seen in children’s blood.

Gov. Snyder is not facing any charges, criminal or otherwise. He will be drinking Flint’s tap water, though, in a show of solidarity for a month — well, when it’s convenient.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link to article:  

Officials face criminal charges for the first time in Flint water crisis

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, Free Press, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Officials face criminal charges for the first time in Flint water crisis

The EPA met its match: Amateur race car drivers

by ElizabeAlbrecht Posted on April 19, 2016

The EPA met its match: Amateur race car drivers

By on Apr 19, 2016commentsShare

The Environmental Protection Agency is used to hysteria whenever it rolls out a new regulation or clarification to existing law.

Most recently, the EPA caved to protests from an unusual corner: Amateur race car drivers who insisted the EPA was inadvertently outlawing their favorite pastime. Last week, the EPA announced that it would be dropping a part of a 629-page proposal limiting vehicle emissions that related to converted race cars, released last July.  

Would-be Dom Torettos were incensed over a tiny piece of text that clarified that regular street cars converted into racing cars would still have to follow emissions rules:

Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their emission control devices must remain in their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition or if they become non-road vehicles or engines; anyone modifying a certified motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine for any reason is subject to the tampering and defeat device prohibitions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 42 U.S.C.

Racers insisted that these pollution controls would outlaw these cars, while the EPA maintained that that wasn’t its intention. The trade association representing a portion of the automobile industry came out strongly against the proposal last February.

The issue quickly caught the attention of members of Congress who regularly use the EPA as a punching bag. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who opposes environmental regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions, responded with a bill to ensure that street cars can be legally converted into race cars. His campaign gained steam as three Republican representatives sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, fearing that amateur racers “may be considered lawbreakers.” There was even a petition to the White House, signed by 168,000 people, demanding that the proposal be withdrawn.

The EPA responded with a clarification that there was a longstanding Clean Air Act prohibition on “tampering with or defeating the emission control systems” of racing vehicles. Now, the agency has reversed its direction entirely, saying in a statement that as its “attempt to clarify led to confusion, the EPA has decided to eliminate the proposed language from the final rule.”

Even after caving, the EPA stresses that protesters missed the point of these regulations in the first place: “EPA’s focus is not on vehicles built or used exclusively for racing, but on companies that don’t play by the rules and that make and sell products that disable pollution controls on motor vehicles used on public roads.”

It isn’t the first time opponents insisted the EPA intended on banning a product or practice it had no intention of banning. But rest easy, and know that the federal environmental regulators have nothing but respect for the sweet, souped-up car.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Original article: 

The EPA met its match: Amateur race car drivers

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The EPA met its match: Amateur race car drivers

Everything You Need to Know About Pot’s Environmental Impact

by Myrna Posted on April 19, 2016

Lots of energy. Lots of water. Amelia Bates/Grist Americans smoke a lot of weed. It’s a little tricky to get a handle on the actual numbers — there’s that whole “illegal” thing in a lot of places — but we can say there are at least 20 million users in the country. Colorado alone had nearly $1 billion in recreational and medicinal marijuana sales in 2015, enough to rake in more than $130 million in taxes and fees. Weed’s becoming a hefty industry, and like any other, it’s going to have a hefty environmental footprint. So as decriminalization makes its THC-laden way across the United States, Grist is here to show you just how big that footprint is. Read the rest at Grist. Original source:   Everything You Need to Know About Pot’s Environmental Impact ; ; ;

Source article:  

Everything You Need to Know About Pot’s Environmental Impact

Posted in alo, Cyber, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Everything You Need to Know About Pot’s Environmental Impact

The Supreme Court Justices Are in a Jam on Immigration

by EzraWhitmore Posted on April 18, 2016

Mother Jones

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

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a critical case, the justices often provide hints in their questions about how they might rule. But after Monday’s arguments in United States v. Texas, a challenge by 26 states to President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration, the only thing that seemed clear was that the court was in a massive bind, having been asked to settle a contentious political question that it was not keen to address.

There were few, if any, hints—and this probably doesn’t bode well for the president’s attempt to bring 4 million immigrants out of the shadows and allow them a foothold into the legal employment market. The questions from the justices showed a marked lack of consensus on all the key issues at play. And if the court ends up deadlocked with a 4-4 vote, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling against the administration will stand, and Obama’s immigration action will be eviscerated.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed in December 2014, a month after the Obama administration ordered immigration officials to defer the deportation of millions of law-abiding immigrants who had come to the country illegally but had children who were US citizens or legal permanent residents. The action, which was blocked by the lower court before it could be implemented, wouldn’t grant any immigrants legal status, but it would permit many of them to apply for legal work authorizations and the ability to participate in the Social Security system.

Continue Reading »

Originally posted here: 

The Supreme Court Justices Are in a Jam on Immigration

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court Justices Are in a Jam on Immigration