View this article:
Photo: ReuseNYC
If you’d rather not shell out your holiday shopping dollars at the big-box stores this year, why not skip Black Friday and try hunting for great deals on Green Friday instead?
On Nov. 29, nonprofit retail locations throughout New York City will participate in ReuseNYC Green Friday — a community-oriented answer to Black Friday that focuses on supporting those in need and preventing waste through secondhand shopping.
More than 40 retail locations will take part in the event by offering a variety of sales in locations across the five boroughs.
Participating retailers include common names like Goodwill and The Salvation Army, and some you may have never heard of, such as the Arthritis Foundation Gift Shop, Cancer Care Thrift Shop, Lower East Side Ecology Center and more.
Deals range from 10 percent off to 50 percent off storewide — meaning you’ll not only score rock-bottom deals but also rest easy knowing your dollars supported causes you care about.
Click here for a map of all participating locations and more information.
Homepage Image: Flickr/Play Among Friends
earth911
More here:
Taken from:
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
It’s refreshing when a neoconservative says what he really wants. Hours after the Obama administration announced an interim agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program, John Bolton, the hawk’s hawk of the neocon crowd (remember when he practically yearned for terrorists to blow up Chicago with a nuclear device to teach Barack Obama a lesson?), was busy penning a piece for The Weekly Standard decrying the deal as an “abject surrender” of President Obama to the mullahs of Iran. Bolton essentially makes the familiar (and hyperbolic) conservative case that any deal that does not start with Iran trashing all of its nuclear equipment is yet another Munich moment. From this perspective, there can be no bargaining with Tehran—that is, no diplomacy. The only acceptable path is absolutist demands from the United States and its allies and total capitulation from Iran. Now what are the odds of that yielding success?
Bolton is honest enough to acknowledge that talking, as he sees it, will lead to nothing but an Iran armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. Thus, his article ends with this assertion: “in truth, an Israeli military strike is the only way to avoid Tehran’s otherwise inevitable march to nuclear weapons.” Thank you, Ambassador, for such candor. He is acknowledging that from his perch there is nothing Obama can do short of giving Bibi Netanyahu the green light for a military assault on Iran. Consequently, Bolton’s critique of the details of the negotiations deserves little attention, for he’s set on war, not diplomacy—a view that may well be reflected throughout hawkish conservative circles.
If this is not enough to discount Bolton’s take on the interim accord, there’s also history. Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, he declared, “We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq,” noting that the US role in Iraq after any invasion would be “fairly minimal.” For years afterward—after no WMDs were found in Iraq—Bolton continued to claim the WMD case for that war was justified. Despite this lousy track record, Bolton, like other neocons, is hardly bashful when it comes to making dire statements about Iran’s nuclear programs and dismissing ongoing efforts at peaceful resolution. But give him credit for being clear about his bottom-line: let’s skip all the chatting and get right to war.
From:
The New York Times rang in the new year by disbanding its environment desk. Then in March it pulled the plug on its Green blog.
In doublespeak that would make any Times journalist scoff, newspaper management claimed at the time that the changes were being made in an effort to improve environmental coverage. “We have not lost any desire for environmental coverage,” the paper’s managing editor for news operations told Inside Climate News in January. “This is purely a structural matter.”
By killing the environment desk, other desks would take a heightened interest in such wonky issues as national climate policy, greenhouse gas emissions metrics, and adaptation challenges in the Philippines. At least, that was the idea — taking environmental coverage out of its “silo.” (That, and saving money.)
As the first anniversary of the Times’ environment desk-free approach to covering environmental news approaches, the paper’s public editor has called bullshit. Analysis indicates that the number of articles dealing with climate change in the New York Times has fallen by about a third. From a column published Saturday:
Beyond quantity, the amount of deep, enterprising coverage of climate change in The Times appears to have dropped, too. … With fewer reporters and no coordinating editor, what was missing was the number and variety of fresh angles from the previous year — such as a September article on what is being revealed beneath that Arctic ice melting at a record pace.
The Times, which has published many groundbreaking series on the environment, has not had such a series since Mr. Gillis’s “Temperature Rising” ended in January. Such series not only provide especially deep reporting, but their presence also shows the subject is a high priority.
Fortunately, a refreshing change in the weather appears to be undeway beneath the Grey Lady’s austere cloak. The public editor, Margaret Sullivan, notes the addition of three dedicated environment reporting roles, and she reports that a science desk editor was recently tasked with coordinating environmental coverage.
Meanwhile, climate scientist Michael Mann points to something that’s arguably more worrying than a decline in dogged environmental reporting at the New York Times. That’s a rise in the attention it’s paying to climate deniers. From Mann’s op-ed in the Huffington Post:
Rather than objectively communicating the findings of the IPCC to their readers, the New York Times instead foisted upon them the ill-informed views of Koch Brothers-funded climate change contrarian Richard Muller, who used the opportunity to deny the report’s findings.
In fact, in the space of just a couple months now, the Times has chosen to grant Muller not just one, but two opportunities to mislead its readers about climate change and the threat it poses.
The Times has now published another op-ed by Muller wherein he misrepresented the potential linkages between climate change and extreme weather–tornadoes to be specific, which he asserted would be less of a threat in a warmer world. The truth is that the impact of global warming on tornadoes remains uncertain, because the underlying science is nuanced and there are competing factors that come into play.
Meanwhile, do you know which newspaper has been boosting its climate and environmental coverage over the past year? The same one that clinched the Edward Snowden scoops — The Guardian. And if print isn’t your thing, Al Jazeera America has been widely praised for its coverage of climate change.
Source
After Changes, How Green Is The Times?, New York Times
Something Is Rotten at the New York Times, Huffington Post
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
Jump to original:
Confirmed: Climate coverage fell after New York Times killed environment desk
Visit site:
Delegates agreed to the outlines of a system for pledging emissions cuts and supported a new treaty mechanism to tackle the human costs of global warming. Taken from: Deals at Climate Meeting Advance Global Effort ; ;Related ArticlesU.N. Talks on Climate Near EndPentagon Releases Strategy for ArcticU.N. Climate Talks Near End, With Money at Issue ;
Continue at source –
Duke Energy pleaded guilty to violating a law protecting migratory birds, and will pay its fines to conservation groups. Link to article: Wind Energy Company to Pay $1 Million in Bird Deaths ; ;Related ArticlesStrong Rules on Fracking in Wyoming Seen as ModelExperts Say Poaching Could Soon Lead to a Decline in the Rhino PopulationWorld Briefing | Europe: Russia: Most of Greenpeace Crew Have Now Been Released on Bail ;
Continue reading:
Western officials say a proposed agreement would force the dilution or other conversion of 20 percent enriched uranium. Read article here: Iran Would Eliminate Stock of Some of Its Enriched Uranium Under Deal ; ;Related ArticlesUrbanites Flee China’s Smog for Blue SkiesBloomberg Wants Restaurants to CompostWorld Briefing | Europe: Russia: Most of Greenpeace Crew Have Now Been Released on Bail ;
Taken from:
Iran Would Eliminate Stock of Some of Its Enriched Uranium Under Deal
Libros
