Tag Archives: george

Donald Trump Roundup For Tuesday Evening

Mother Jones

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

I just got back from dinner. I wonder if there’s any breaking Donald Trump news? Well, now, let’s just—oh my:

Jesus Christ. The Trumpsters are still going after the Khans? Does anyone else have anything to say about the death of Captain Khan in Iraq?

“It was under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that changed the rules of engagement that probably cost his life,” spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said in an interview Tuesday with CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer. Khan died during the presidency of George W. Bush, while Obama was a state senator in Illinois.

Did any other other Trump surrogates melt down today? How about that Corey guy that CNN hired, the one who assaulted a reporter. Has he said any—oh God, no. Not that:

And how about Trump himself? How did he do in his Washington Post interview today? It sounds like he was a little distracted:

Trump looks at a nearby television, which was tuned to Fox News.

Trump looks up at the television

Trump watches himself on TV

Looks at the television again Look at this. It’s all Trump all day long.

Trump looks at the TV.

That’s our Donald. Aside from checking himself out on TV, though, he also made time to tell the world that he wouldn’t endorse Paul Ryan, John McCain, or Kelly Ayotte in their primary races. What do other Republicans think about this? How about you, Reince Priebus? You’re the head of the Republican National Committee. Any thoughts about Trump declining to support the Republican Speaker of the House?

Anyone else?

Meg Whitman joins chorus of Republicans supporting Hillary Clinton

Meg Whitman, the Hewlett-Packard chief executive who ran unsuccessfully for governor of California in 2010, will back Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, joining other prominent Republicans troubled by Donald Trump’s candidacy.

….Sally Bradshaw, an influential GOP strategist in Florida who advised former Gov. Jeb Bush during his primary campaign, announced Monday that she would leave the party. A day later, Maria Comella, a top former advisor to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, also called Trump a demagogue and signaled her support for Clinton.

And that’s a wrap for Tuesday. See you in the morning.

View article: 

Donald Trump Roundup For Tuesday Evening

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Roundup For Tuesday Evening

Kremlin Spokesman Says Vladimir Putin "Has Never Had Any Contacts With Trump"

Mother Jones

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

After days of speculation about Donald Trump’s relationship with Vladimir Putin—generated by the GOP nominee’s own wildly conflicting statements on the subject—the Russian President has finally weighed in: According to Putin’s press secretary, the leader has never met nor spoken to the GOP nominee.

In the past, Trump has boasted of knowing and communicating with Putin. But last week, Trump sharply reversed himself, telling reporters, “I don’t know anything about him.” In an ABC News interview that aired on Sunday, George Stephanopoulos confronted Trump with instances in 2013, 2014, and 2015 when Trump contradicted himself.

On Monday, in response to an inquiry from NBC News, Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, set the record straight on behalf of his boss. “President Putin has never had any contacts with Trump, never spoken to him, including by telephone,” Peskov told the network. “The same goes for all of his staff. We don’t have dealings with them.”

Peskov also added a comment about Trump’s statements that US intervention to help Ukraine take back control of Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, could lead to a third world war: “We’re trying not to comment on that, not to get involved in their internal affairs. Regretfully, Russia-bashing is becoming a habit in American elections,” Peskov told NBC.

From:

Kremlin Spokesman Says Vladimir Putin "Has Never Had Any Contacts With Trump"

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Kremlin Spokesman Says Vladimir Putin "Has Never Had Any Contacts With Trump"

Is Donald Trump’s Campaign Manager Still on the Payroll of a Ukrainian Political Leader?

Mother Jones

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

Is Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, still on the payroll of a Ukrainian politician or party?

According to the New York Times, which on Monday published an investigation into Manafort’s decadelong involvement in Ukrainian politics, the answer is unclear. As the Times detailed, Manafort—who has a lengthy history of helping dictators and strongmen rehab their reputations—once represented Ukraine’s former President Viktor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian politician with ties to Vladimir Putin who fled Ukraine in 2014 as demonstrations and uprisings raged in the country. But Manafort’s work in Ukraine didn’t end with Yanukovych’s ouster. He subsequently went to work for Serhiy Lyovochkin, Yanukovych’s former chief of staff, to revitalize Yanukovych’s beleaguered political party. The Times reported this intriguing detail near the end of its article:

It is not clear that Mr. Manafort’s work in Ukraine ended with his work with Mr. Trump’s campaign. A communications aide for Mr. Lyovochkin, who financed Mr. Manafort’s work, declined to say whether he was still on retainer or how much he had been paid.

Hope Hicks, Trump’s spokeswoman, did not respond immediately to questions about whether Manafort is currently involved in any work related to Ukrainian politics. If Manafort does have active ties to Lyovochkin or other Ukrainian politicians, this would raise conflict-of-interest questions and fuel the controversy surrounding Trump’s foreign policy stance on Russia and his relationship with Putin.

The Trump campaign has raised the eyebrows of the press and many foreign policy experts by repeatedly advocating a softer stance toward Russia. Over the weekend, for instance, Trump told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that he would look into recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea and that the people of Crimea would rather be part of Russia (which also happens to be the official line of the Kremlin).

Another example of the Trump campaign’s pro-Russia maneuvering came last month while the Republican Party was drafting its platform in Cleveland. According to the Washington Post, Trump aides removed a provision from the platform that called for the United States to provide “lethal defensive weapons” to Ukraine’s military to defend itself against Russia and dissidents. Instead, the campaign worked behind the scenes to replace the pledge to provide weapons with a call for “appropriate assistance.”

When Stephanopoulos asked Trump about this change in the platform, Trump said he had not been involved. But he added, “It’s, well, you know, I have my own ideas.”

Visit source – 

Is Donald Trump’s Campaign Manager Still on the Payroll of a Ukrainian Political Leader?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Donald Trump’s Campaign Manager Still on the Payroll of a Ukrainian Political Leader?

Republicans are trying to scare you about crime, but cities have been getting safer

Republicans are trying to scare you about crime, but cities have been getting safer

By on Jul 19, 2016Share

The first night of the Republican National Convention had a clear theme: be afraid, be very afraid. Officially, the theme was “Make America Safe Again.” There was a lot of discussion of terrorism and Benghazi, but many speakers also invoked rising crime as a reason to elect Donald Trump.

“The vast majority of Americans today do not feel safe,” former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said. “They fear for their children. They fear for themselves. They fear for our police officers, who are being targeted.”

Fortunately for America, but unfortunately for Trump, our cities are in fact safer than they have been in decades. Violent crime rates have dropped by about half since 1991. Murders have fallen 13 percent since Obama took office. Murders of police officers have been at a lower annual average under President Obama than under George W. Bush.

While the United States still has a high crime rate for a developed country, as Matt Yglesias points out in Vox, neither Trump nor his surrogates have presented substantive proposals to address it. Rather, the GOP raises racially tinged fears of crime, insecure borders, and terrorism. Meanwhile, they ignore the biggest gathering threat to humanity: climate change.

Election Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

View this article – 

Republicans are trying to scare you about crime, but cities have been getting safer

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Safer, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans are trying to scare you about crime, but cities have been getting safer

The Charmed Second Act of David Petraeus

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.

I ran into David Petraeus the other night. Or rather, I ran after him.

It’s been more than a year since I first tried to connect with the retired four-star general and ex-CIA director—and no luck yet. On a recent evening, as the sky was turning from a crisp ice blue into a host of Easter-egg hues, I missed him again. Led from a curtained “backstage” area where he had retreated after a midtown Manhattan event, Petraeus moved briskly to a staff-only room, then into a tightly packed elevator, and momentarily out onto the street before being quickly ushered into a waiting late-model, black Mercedes S550.

And then he was gone, whisked into the warm New York night, companions in tow.

For the previous hour, Petraeus had been in conversation with Peter Bergen, a journalist, CNN analyst, and vice president at New America, the think tank sponsoring the event. Looking fit and well-rested in a smart dark-blue suit, the former four-star offered palatable, pat, and—judging from the approving murmurs of the audience—popular answers to a host of questions about national security issues ranging from the fight against the Islamic State to domestic gun control.

While voicing support for the Second Amendment, for example, he spoke about implementing “common sense solutions to the availability of weapons,” specifically keeping guns out of the hands of “domestic abusers” and those on the no-fly list. Even as he expressed “great respect” for those who carried out acts of torture in the wake of 9/11, he denounced its use—except in the case of a “ticking time bomb.” In an era when victory hasn’t been a word much used in relation to the American military, he even predicted something close to it on the horizon. “I’ve said from the very beginning, even in the darkest days, the Islamic State would be defeated in Iraq,” he told the appreciative crowd.

I went to the event hoping to ask Petraeus a question or two, but Bergen never called on me during the Q&A portion of the evening. My attendance was not, however, a total loss.

Watching the retired general in action, I was reminded of the peculiarity of this peculiar era—an age of generals whose careers are made in winless wars; years in which such high-ranking, mission-unaccomplished officers rotate through revolving doors that lead not only to top posts with major weapons merchants, but also too-big-to-fail banks, top universities, cutting-edge tech companies, healthcare firms, and other corporate behemoths. Hardly a soul, it seems, cares that these generals and admirals have had leading roles in quagmire wars or even, in two prominent cases, saw their government service cease as a result of career-ending scandal. And Citizen David Petraeus is undoubtedly the epitome of this phenomenon.

Celebrated as the most cerebral of generals, the West Point grad and Princeton PhD rose to stardom during the Iraq War—credited with pacifying the restive city of Mosul before becoming one of the architects of the new Iraqi Army. Petraeus would then return to the United States where he revamped and revived the Army’s failed counterinsurgency doctrine from the Vietnam War, before being tapped to lead “The Surge” of US forces in Iraq—an effort to turn around the foundering conflict. Through it all, Petraeus waged one of the most deft self-promotion campaigns in recent memory, cultivating politicians, academics, and especially fawning journalists who reported on his running stamina, his penchant for push-ups, and even—I kid you not—how he woke a lieutenant from what was thought to be an irreversible coma by shouting the battle cry of his unit.

A series of biographers would lionize the general who, after achieving what to some looked like success in Iraq, went on to head US Central Command, overseeing the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. When the military career of his subordinate General Stanley McChrystal imploded, Petraeus was sent once more unto the breach to spearhead an Afghan War surge and win another quagmire war.

And win Petraeus did. Not in Afghanistan, of course. That war grinds on without end. But the Teflon general somehow emerged from it all with people talking about him as a future presidential contender. Looking back at Petraeus’ successes, one understands just what a feat this was. Statistics show that Petraeus never actually pacified Mosul, which has now been under the control of the Islamic State for years. The army Petraeus helped build in Iraq crumbled in the face of that same force which, in some cases, was even supported by Sunni fighters Petraeus had put on the US payroll to make The Surge appear successful.

Indeed, Petraeus had come to New America’s New York headquarters to answer one question in particular: “What will the next president’s national security challenges be?” Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, Iraq, Afghanistan: precisely the set of groups he had fought, places he had fought in, or what had resulted from his supposed victories.

“What can you do with a general, when he stops being a general? Oh, what can you do with a general who retires?”

Irving Berlin first posed these questions in 1948, and Bing Crosby crooned them six years later in White Christmas, the lavish Hollywood musical that has become a holiday season staple.

These are not, however, questions which seem to have plagued David Petraeus. He retired from the Army in 2011 to take a job as director of the CIA, only to resign in disgrace a year later when it was revealed that he had leaked classified information to his biographer and one-time lover Paula Broadwell and then lied about it to the FBI. Thanks to a deal with federal prosecutors, Petraeus pled guilty to just a single misdemeanor and served no jail time, allowing him, as the New York Times reported last year, “to focus on his lucrative post-government career as a partner in a private equity firm and a worldwide speaker on national security issues.”

In the Bing and Berlin era, following back-to-back victories in world wars, things were different. Take George C. Marshall, a five-star general and the most important US military leader during World War II who is best remembered today for the post-war European recovery plan that bore his name. Fellow five-star general and later president Dwight Eisenhower recalled that, during the Second World War, Marshall “did not want to sit in Washington and be a chief of staff. I am sure he wanted a field command, but he wouldn’t even allow his chief President Franklin Roosevelt to know what he wanted, because he said, ‘I am here to serve and not to satisfy personal ambition.'” That mindset seemed to remain his guiding directive after he retired in 1945 and went on to serve as a special envoy to China, secretary of state, and secretary of defense.

Marshall reportedly refused a number of lucrative offers to write his memoirs, including the then-princely sum of a million dollars after taxes from Time and Life publisher Henry Luce. He did so on the grounds that it was unethical to profit from service to the United States or to benefit from the sacrifices of the men who had served under him, supposedly telling one publisher “that he had not spent his life serving the government in order to sell his life story to the Saturday Evening Post.” In his last years, he finally cooperated with a biographer and gave his archives to the George C. Marshall Research Foundation on “the condition that no monetary returns from a book or books based on his materials would go to him or his family but would be used for the research program of the Marshall Foundation.” Even his biographer was asked to “waive the right to any royalties from the biography.” Marshall also declined to serve on any corporate boards.

Marshall may have been a paragon of restraint and moral rectitude, but he wasn’t alone. As late as the years 1994-1998, according to an analysis by the Boston Globe, fewer than 50 percent of retiring three- and four-star officers went to work as consultants or defense executives. By 2004-2008, that number had jumped to 80 percent. An analysis by the Washington DC-based nonprofit, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, found that it was still at a lofty 70 percent for the years 2009-2011.

Celebrity generals like Petraeus and fellow former four-star generals Stanley McChrystal (whose military career was also consumed in the flames of scandal) and Ray Odierno (who retired amid controversy), as well as retired admiral and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, don’t even need to enter the world of arms dealers and defense firms. These days, those jobs may increasingly be left to second-tier military luminaries like Marine Corps general James Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now on the board of directors at Raytheon, as well as former Vice Admiral and Director of Naval Intelligence Jack Dorsett, who joined Northrop Grumman.

If, however, you are one of the military’s top stars, the sky is increasingly the limit. You can, for instance, lead a consulting firm (McChrystal and Mullen) or advise or even join the boards of banks and civilian corporations like JPMorgan Chase (Odierno), Jet Blue (McChrystal), and General Motors (Mullen).

For his part, after putting his extramarital affair behind him, Petraeus became a partner at the private equity firm Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. LP. (KKR), where he also serves as the chairman of the KKR Global Institute and, according to his bio, “oversees the institute’s thought leadership platform focused on geopolitical and macro-economic trends, as well as environmental, social, and governance issues.” His lieutenants include a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and campaign manager for President George W. Bush, as well as a former leading light at Morgan Stanley.

KKR’s portfolio boasts a bit of everything, from Alliant Insurance Services and Panasonic Healthcare to a host of Chinese firms (Rundong Automobile Group and Asia Dairy, among them). There are also defense firms under its umbrella, including TASC, the self-proclaimed “premier provider of advanced systems engineering and integration services across the Intelligence Community, Department of Defense, and civilian agencies of the federal government,” and Airbus Group’s defense electronics business which KKR recently bought for $1.2 billion.

KKR is, however, just where Petraeus’s post-military, post-CIA résumé begins.

“Nobody thinks of assigning him, when they stop wining and dining him,” wrote Irving Berlin 68 years ago.

How times do change. When it comes to Petraeus, the wining and dining is evidently unending—as when Financial Times columnist Edward Luce took him to the Four Seasons Restaurant earlier this year for a lunch of tuna tartare, poached salmon, and a bowl of mixed berries with cream.

At the elegant eatery, just a short walk from Petraeus’s Manhattan office, the former CIA chief left Luce momentarily forlorn. “When I inquire what keeps him busy nowadays his answer goes on for so long I half regret asking,” he wrote.

I evidently heard a version of the same well prepared lines when, parrying a question from journalist Fred Kaplan at the New America event I attended, Petraeus produced a wall of words explaining how busy he is. In the process, he shed light on just what it means to be a retired celebrity general from America’s winless wars. “I’ve got a day job with KKR. I teach once a week at the City University of New York—Honors College. I do a week per semester at USC University of Southern California. I do several days at Harvard. I’m on the speaking circuit. I do pro bono stuff like this. I’m the co-chairman of the Wilson Institute’s Global Advisory Council, the senior vice president of RUSI Royal United Services Institute, a research institution focused on military issues. I’m on three other think tank boards,” he said.

In an era when fellow leakers of government secrets—from National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden to CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou to Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning—have ended up in exile or prison, Petraeus’s post-leak life has obviously been quite another matter.

The experience of former NSA senior executive Thomas Drake who shared unclassified information about that agency’s wasteful ways with a reporter is more typical of what leakers should expect. Although the Justice Department eventually dropped the most serious charges against him—he pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor—he lost his job and his pension, went bankrupt, and has spent years working at an Apple store after being prosecuted under the World War I-era Espionage Act. “My social contacts are gone, and I’m persona non grata,” he told Defense One last year. “I can’t find any work in government contracting or in the quasi-government space, those who defend whistleblowers won’t touch me.”

Petraeus, on the other hand, shared with his lover and biographer eight highly classified “black books” that the government says included “the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings, and defendant David Howell Petraeus’s discussions with the President.” Petraeus was prosecuted, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to two years of probation and fined $100,000.

Yet it’s Petraeus who today moves in rarified circles and through hallowed halls, with memberships and posts at one influential institution after another. In addition to the positions he mentioned at New America, his CV includes: honorary visiting professor at Exeter University, co-chairman of the Task Force on North America at the Council on Foreign Relations, co-chairman of the Global Advisory Committee at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, member of the Concordia Summit’s Concordia Leadership Council, member of the board of trustees at the McCain Institute for International Leadership, member of the National Security Advisory Council of the US Global Leadership Coalition, and a seat on the board of directors at the Atlantic Council.

About a year ago, I tried to contact Petraeus through KKR as well as the Macaulay Honors College at the City University of New York, to get a comment on a story. I never received a reply.

I figured he was ducking me—or anyone asking potentially difficult questions—or that his gatekeepers didn’t think I was important enough to respond to. But perhaps he was simply too busy. To be honest, I didn’t realize just how crowded his schedule was. (Of course, FT’s Edward Luce reports that when he sent Petraeus an email invite, the retired general accepted within minutes, so maybe it’s because I wasn’t then holding out the prospect of a meal at the Four Seasons.)

I attended the New America event because I had yet more questions for Petraeus. But I wasn’t as fortunate as Fred Kaplan—author, by the way, of The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War—and wasn’t quite speedy or nimble enough to catch the former general before he slipped into the backseat of that luxurious Mercedes sedan.

Irving Berlin’s “What Can You Do With A General?” ends on a somber note that sounds better in Crosby’s dulcimer tones than it reads on the page: “It seems this country never has enjoyed, so many one- and two- and three- and four-star generals, unemployed.”

Today, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff retiring after 38 years receives a pension of about $20,000 a month, not exactly a shabby unemployment check for the rest of your life, but one that many in the tight-knit fraternity of top officers are still eager to supplement. Take General Cartwright, who joined Raytheon in 2012 and, according to Morningstar, the investment research firm, receives close to $364,000 per year in compensation from that company while holding more than $1.2 million in its stock.

All of this left me with yet more questions for Petraeus (whose pension is reportedly worth more than $18,000 per month or $220,000 per year) about a mindset that seems light years distant from the one Marshall espoused during his retirement. I was curious, for instance, about his take on why the winning of wars isn’t a prerequisite for cashing in on one’s leadership in them, and why the personal and professional costs of scandal are so incredibly selective.

Today, it seems, a robust Rolodex with the right global roster, a marquee name, and a cultivated geopolitical brand covers a multitude of sins. And that’s precisely the type of firepower that Petraeus brings to the table.

After a year without a reply, I got in touch with KKR again. This time, through an intermediary, Petraeus provided me an answer to a new request for an interview. “Thank you for your interest, Nick, but he respectfully declines at this time,” I was told.

I’m hoping, however, that the retired general changes his mind. For the privilege of asking Petraeus various questions, I’d be more than happy to take him to lunch at the Four Seasons. With that tony power-lunch spot closing down soon as part of a plan to relocate, we’d need to act fast. Getting a table could be tough.

Luckily, I know just the name to drop.

Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch, a fellow at the Nation Institute, and a contributing writer for the Intercept. His latest book is Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead: War and Survival in South Sudan.

Read original article:  

The Charmed Second Act of David Petraeus

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, Panasonic, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Charmed Second Act of David Petraeus

Brexit could have serious repercussions for the climate

Brexit Stage Right

Brexit could have serious repercussions for the climate

By on Jun 24, 2016 10:41 amShare

Britain has voted to leave the European Union by a 52–48 margin. Environmentalists and climate hawks are worried about what that might mean.

Many green leaders had called on voters to oppose a British exit from the EU — or Brexit — arguing that the EU has raised environmental standards in the U.K. and the rest of Europe. They noted that environmental problems are international in nature, so international cooperation is necessary to fight them effectively.

Outgoing United Nations climate head Christiana Figueres also warned against Brexit, saying earlier this week that the U.K. increased the ambition of European climate negotiators before and during the Paris climate talks last December.

So now what happens?

With respect to the climate, the short-term effects of Britain’s decision could potentially be positive. Economists have predicted a Brexit-driven, economy-wide slowdown, which almost certainly implies a drop in Britain’s carbon emissions. During the 2008 recession, for example, global emissions fell by about 1.5 percent. Already today the British pound fell to its lowest level since 1985, and global financial markets have taken a big tumble.

It’s unclear how Brexit will affect energy markets. Oil prices plummeted on Friday. Businesses and investors planning new energy developments in the U.K. — renewable energy projects and fracking projects alike — may postpone them, Politico notes. In the EU emissions trading system (ETS), carbon prices have already fallen more than 15 percent.

Another big unknown is how this will affect the Paris climate agreement. Britain’s climate-action pledge was included in the EU’s pledge. “From the point of view of the Paris agreement, the U.K. is part of the EU and has put in its effort as part of the EU, so anything that would change that would require then a recalibration,” said Figueres. As it sorts out what to do without the U.K., the EU will likely see a slow-down in its ratification process.

Climate hawks are also concerned that a new government in Britain could be less committed to climate action. Prime Minister David Cameron pushed for the Paris Agreement, but he won’t be around for much longer. He had led the failed “Remain” campaign, and on Friday morning, after the results of the referendum came in, he announced his intention to resign in October. At that point, another member of the Conservative Party will become prime minister. Many of the conservatives who had campaigned for Brexit are also climate deniers, and they will likely have more power in a new government.

The impact could go beyond the climate. Farming minister George Eustice, a notable Brexiteer, previously announced his desire to get rid of EU environmental directives that protect birds and habitats. He and other campaigners have advocated for a new, more flexible approach to environmental protection, but opponents of the Vote Leave campaign are skeptical that such an approach will be equally effective.

“Don’t tell me that a new Brexit-led British government is going to put environmental regulations at top of its pile on June 24,” Stanley Johnson, co-chair of Environmentalists for Europe, told the Guardian late last month. “It is not going to happen.”

Other energy experts, though, point to Britain’s leadership on clean energy and climate action and argue that the vote will ultimately be good news for the climate. Michael Liebreich, founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, called the referendum a “historic opportunity to loosen the ties that bind” Britain to Europe’s “anti-innovation bias.”

Britain’s exit from the EU won’t be immediate; first comes a two-year exit negotiation process. As the U.K. cuts and restitches ties to Europe, the world will be watching to see if the nation emerges as a climate leader.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continued: 

Brexit could have serious repercussions for the climate

Posted in alo, Anchor, Brita, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Oster, OXO, solar, solar power, The Atlantic, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Brexit could have serious repercussions for the climate

California’s drought isn’t going away anytime soon

California’s drought isn’t going away anytime soon

By on Jun 15, 2016

Cross-posted from

Climate CentralShare

Several months after storms fueled by a fierce El Niño exploded over the northern Sierra Nevada, California’s mountain snowpack has nearly disappeared.

Scientists bid adieu last week to an El Niño that had been among the strongest on record, but that brought disappointingly few wintertime snowflakes and raindrops to the Southwest. Snow that bucketed down in northern California during a string of March storms has largely withered during a sunny and warm spring.

Snow-free conditions in late May near Lake Tahoe in the northern Sierra Nevada.jcookfisher

Those unexpected meteorological forces pushed California into the fifth year of a drought that has already cost the state billions of dollars and thousands of farm-related jobs. The prolonged crisis is illuminating the need to reimagine how water is stored and used in the West as the world warms up.

As summer begins, California’s snowpack is “pretty much getting close to bare,” said Frank Gehrke, California’s chief snow surveyor. “This is coming off of last year being the worst year on record in terms of snowpack.”

Most of California is unusually dry for this time of year, and large swaths of southern California remain in “exceptional drought,” the federal government’s Drought Monitor shows. The projected arrival of El Niño’s counterpart, La Niña, is triggering fresh drought concerns throughout the region.

Californians and their landscapes depend on winter storms to deliver much of their annual water needs. The Sierra Nevada snowpack serves as a giant natural water reservoir, gradually releasing water dumped by winter storms during warmer months.

The state is naturally predisposed to endure protracted droughts, and climate scientists say climate change is exacerbating those hazards.

Figures from Gehrke’s department show the Sierra Nevada snowpack contains about 6 percent as much water as is normal for this time of year. That’s down from 90 percent in March, following storms that eased drought in northern California but did little for the southern part of the state.

The drought monitor published last week showed 21 percent of California remained in “exceptional drought,” shown in the darkest shade of red, while 96 percent of the state was abnormally dry.National Drought Mitigation Center

“The conventional wisdom was that a strong El Niño, which we did have, portended a wet winter for southern California,” Gehrke said. “That just didn’t happen.”

Rising temperatures caused by greenhouse gas pollution are projected to reduce California’s snowpack, because more rain will fall instead of snow, and because snow that falls will melt more quickly. That means Californians will need to learn to store more water in aquifers and reservoirs or use less water year-round.

Benjamin Cook, a researcher at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said it remains unclear what roles climate pollution and natural variation played in the unusual conditions that have left California in drought. “This does not look like a typical El Niño year out West,” he said.

A flurry of research will be published in the months ahead that could help explain any links between climate change and the latest chapter in California’s enduring drought.

One thing is already clear, however: Warmer weather in the West caused by global warming will mean less water for farms, homes, and factories. Warmer weather accelerates the melting of snow and hastens the evaporation of water from rivers, lakes, and soils.

Climate change has pushed up average temperatures by nearly 2 degrees F worldwide. Most of California was warmer than that from March through May, with federal data showing some patches of the state were more than 4 degrees F warmer than average during the three-month period.

“The last couple of years especially have shown the role that temperatures really play in some of these drought events,” Cook said.

El Niño winters normally flood southern and northern California alike with rain and snow, but a high pressure ridge over the Pacific Ocean deflected storms from this year’s record-breaking El Niño northward, leaving southern California parched.

“The atmospheric response to El Niño was very different this winter than in winters historically that have had strong El Niño events,” said Daniel Swain, a PhD candidate at Stanford who researches California’s weather.

The snow that coated the mountains of northern California in March has all but melted away.Mitch Barrie

“There were a lot of expectations that we might have a very wet winter in California,” Swain said. “The Pacific Northwest ended up getting firehosed. It got a remarkable amount of winter rain and snow this year and California got less than expected.”

Meanwhile, unusually warm and sunny spring weather has already caused late winter snow that fell over montane northern California to melt nearly into oblivion. That helped top up reservoirs in northern California but left those further south unusually dry.

Early summer is not a time of year when California’s snowpack is ordinarily bursting with aqueous bounty. But what has surprised scientists is how quickly the northern snowpack has virtually disappeared.

“The snowmelt was already underway by mid-March,” said Michael Dettinger, a U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist. “The snowmelt since has been pretty quick.”

Although California remains in drought, conditions have improved since last year, prompting the state government to ease water rules and restrictions.

With evidence already showing Californians continued to conserve water after the March storms, George Kostyrko, spokesperson for the State Water Resources Control Board, said “ongoing conservation” of water in California is expected to become “a way of life.”

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

View original: 

California’s drought isn’t going away anytime soon

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California’s drought isn’t going away anytime soon

Massive sinkholes in Texas could combine to form even massiver sinkhole

Everything’s bigger in Texas

Massive sinkholes in Texas could combine to form even massiver sinkhole

By on Jun 15, 2016Share

Welcome to West Texas, where sometimes the ground just opens up under your feet.

Two existing sinkholes — one in the adorably named town of Wink, the other in the absurdly named town of Kermit — are about a mile away from each other, but data suggests they might be expanding. Researchers from Southern Methodist University analyzed radar images of the area and found some hints of movement in the surrounding ground. If the sinkholes keep growing, it’s possible they will merge into one supermassive sinkhole.

And that would be a big problem indeed.

“This area is heavily populated with oil and gas production equipment and installations, hazardous liquid pipelines, as well as two communities,” said study author Jin-Woo Kim in a press release. “A collapse could be catastrophic.”

Sinkholes are not uncommon in this part of West Texas, thanks to the area’s prolific oil and gas industries. These particular sinkholes, however, are large even by Texas standards: The hole in Wink, which formed in 1980, is 361 feet across — or the length of a football field — and its neighbor in Kermit varies between 600 and 900 feet across. Both are over 100 feet deep.

Sinkholes occur when water dissolves bedrock over time, and then — sometimes suddenly — the ground collapses. They can be just a few feet across, or, like these ones, big enough to hold buildings. (A 2013 sinkhole opened up under the National Corvette Museum in Bowling Green, Ky., and swallowed eight classic cars.) And while sinkholes can form naturally, they are also created by human activity like oil and gas extraction.

The expanding sinkholes are, naturally, some concern for local residents. In 2014, Winkler County Sheriff George Keely told the local news that cracks were forming in the roads around the sinkhole. “This looks like something from the moon or Jules Verne or something,” Keely said on a visit to the larger of the two. “I do not like being out here.”

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

See the original post: 

Massive sinkholes in Texas could combine to form even massiver sinkhole

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Massive sinkholes in Texas could combine to form even massiver sinkhole

Clinton Blasts Anti-Muslim Bigotry in Aftermath of Orlando Attack

Mother Jones

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

Hillary Clinton never mentioned Donald Trump’s name, but in her first speech since Sunday’s massacre at an Orlando gay club, Clinton sharply rebuked the anti-Muslim sentiment that has been at the center of his presidential campaign.

In a somber foreign policy speech in Cleveland on Monday, Clinton laid out a broad outline of her anti-terrorism strategy, one that mostly targets ISIS. “The attack in Orlando makes it even more clear: We cannot contain this threat, we must defeat it,” she said at a rally that had already been scheduled and was adjusted in the aftermath of Sunday’s events. Referring to the attacks in Paris and Brussels, as well as the one in Orlando, Clinton warned that the “threat is metastasizing.”

Clinton stressed that Muslim communities need to be treated as allies by law enforcement, because extra surveillance or profiling “plays right into the terrorists’ hands.” She noted that hate crimes against Muslims have increased after past terrorist attacks. She singled out Trump’s “inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric” and his call for a ban on Muslim immigrants, which Clinton said “hurts the vast majority of Muslims, who love freedom and hate terror.” With the threat of ISIS, she added, the country should be “strengthening our alliances, not weakening them or walking away from them,” a not-so-subtle rebuke of Trump’s penchant for dismissing the importance of NATO and other longstanding alliances.

When President George W. Bush responded to 9/11, she recalled, he reached out to the Muslim community, even visiting a mosque six days after the attack. “It is time to get back to those days,” she said, drawing another contrast to Trump, who reiterated his proposed travel ban over the weekend.

Clinton also used the speech to push for increased gun control, including reviving the ban on assault weapons that lapsed in 2004. “I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets,” she said, noting that the AR-15 rifle, which was used in Orlando, was also employed in the San Bernardino and Sandy Hook attacks. The presumptive Democratic nominee also pushed to bar individuals on the FBI watch list and the no-fly list from being able to purchase weapons. “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links,” she said, “you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.”

Though the bulk of Clinton’s speech focused on the foreign policy implications of domestic terrorism, she did note that the attack in Orlando targeted the LGBT community. “To all the LGBT people grieving today: You have millions of allies who will always have your back,” Clinton said. “I am one of them.”

Jump to original: 

Clinton Blasts Anti-Muslim Bigotry in Aftermath of Orlando Attack

Posted in bigo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clinton Blasts Anti-Muslim Bigotry in Aftermath of Orlando Attack

Stanford Audience Unmoved by an Informed Debate Over the Need for a Nuclear Renaissance

A vibrant debate, including a couple of Nobel Prize winners, tests the merits and drawbacks of nuclear power in a post-carbon world. The audience? Unchanged. Source –  Stanford Audience Unmoved by an Informed Debate Over the Need for a Nuclear Renaissance ; ; ;

Original source – 

Stanford Audience Unmoved by an Informed Debate Over the Need for a Nuclear Renaissance

Posted in alo, alternative energy, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Stanford Audience Unmoved by an Informed Debate Over the Need for a Nuclear Renaissance