Tag Archives: grist

James Inhofe blames Flint water crisis on Obama’s climate agenda

James Inhofe blames Flint water crisis on Obama’s climate agenda

By on 24 Feb 2016commentsShare

James “Snowball” Inhofe, the Oklahoma senator who once compared the EPA to the Gestapo, has announced an amendment to the Energy Modernization Act that will provide low-interest loans for Flint, Mich., and other communities facing water crises.

The bipartisan amendment will increase much-needed funding to communities with inadequate water infrastructure, but lest you think Inhofe grew a heart (or a brain) for a moment: Nope! The senator seems to be less concerned with the toxic water coming out of America’s pipes that with throwing shade at Barack Obama. In a statement, Inhofe said:

As a result of misplaced priorities of President Obama, who has consistently failed to partner with the states to address our nation’s real needs, stories are emerging in East Los Angeles, Baltimore, communities across Ohio, and elsewhere about lead pipes and other infrastructure problems that put the health of our citizens at risk.  In my leadership role on the EPW Committee, I have watched the Obama administration prioritize more than $120 billion for the president’s global warming agenda at the expense of real investment in critical infrastructure.

Ya hear that, liberals?? Contrary to common sense and all expert opinions, Flint’s water crisis isn’t because the conservative local government changed the city’s water source in order to save money, it’s because of Obama’s “global warming agenda.”

While it’s true that the EPA’s reaction to the crisis was troublingly slow, and that Obama’s proposed 2017 budget does cut the EPA’s water infrastructure funding by a quarter billion dollars, we have a really hard time believing that this had anything to do with global warming. Is it a problem? Yes. But is it because of excessive attention to climate change? No.

Let’s recall that this is the president who has tried to invest the EPA with more regulatory oversight, in the service of fighting climate change and improving environmental health around the country. Both have been priorities of Obama’s administration, and both have been staunchly opposed by a Republican Congress. And not only does climate change action not distract from clean drinking water, but the two are directly related, as drought can concentrate contaminants in dwindling water reservoirs.

If the senator’s logic seems flawed, maybe we should give him a break: All those fracking-induced earthquakes in Senator Snowball’s home state might have rattled his brain.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue at source: 

James Inhofe blames Flint water crisis on Obama’s climate agenda

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on James Inhofe blames Flint water crisis on Obama’s climate agenda

A group of bicycling women are defying norms in the Middle East

A group of bicycling women are defying norms in the Middle East

By on 23 Feb 2016commentsShare

Amid piles of rubble and past the hostile attentions of local men, a group of women are taking to the backroads and paths of the Gaza Strip on two wheels, leading a movement with every turn of the spokes.

The New York Times published a curious piece on the group on Monday, following the four women as they biked to an olive grove for lunch, ignoring stares and catcalls all along the way. In Gaza, the rule of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organization, has brought with it stringent restrictions for women, including a ban on openly practicing sports or exercising. Societal norms even bar women from biking after they’ve reached puberty.

Many applauded the women on bicycles, but far from everyone in Gaza approves, according to the Times:

“The role of our women is to obey their husbands and prepare food for them inside the house, not to imitate men and ride bikes in the streets,” said the man, 33, who refused to give his name but echoed the view of many Gaza men interviewed, and of multiple comments on social networks, after news of the cycling group reached the Palestinian news media.

The situation is unique in Palestine, where women face a slew of both formal and informal rules that bar them from participating in civic life in many ways. In other countries, bicycling and women’s liberation have gone hand-in-hand: Throughout U.S. history, bicycles have given women the opportunity to leave home and to freely move about the cities in which they live. As such, the simple act of a woman riding a bicycle has been met with significant pushback from those who really hate to see women in control — but contempt from traditionalists hasn’t stopped the Gaza bikers yet.

Susan B. Anthony, famous feminist, suffragette, and writer, may have said it best in 1896: “Let me tell you what I think of bicycling. I think it has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world. I stand and rejoice every time I see a woman ride by on a wheel.” For Palestinian women, the path to women’s rights may involve taking the velocipedic approach.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Read the article: 

A group of bicycling women are defying norms in the Middle East

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A group of bicycling women are defying norms in the Middle East

Watching coal plants crumble to a Tchaikovsky score is insanely satisfying

Watching coal plants crumble to a Tchaikovsky score is insanely satisfying

By on 23 Feb 2016commentsShare

Hearing the news that a coal plant, a facility that once belched CO2, mercury, sulphur, nitrogen oxides, and other hazardous chemicals into the air, is shutting down is certainly a cause to celebrate. Seeing it explode in glorious high definition and set to lively classical music is another thing altogether.

Duke Energy, the largest electric power holding company in the U.S., released a video this week showing the death of four of its old coal power plants, giving environmentalists an awesome soundtrack to the death of the coal industry.

The video shows the demolition of Weatherspoon, H.F. Lee, Cape Fear, and Cliffside, all facilities in North Carolina. The demolitions, set to a rousing rendition of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture, are nothing short of transfixing.

A spokesperson for Duke Energy told Grist that the plants were mainly operated from the 1930s to the ’60s, and were destroyed as a way to celebrate “modernizing the way we generate power for the past decade.” But as the company transitioned away from coal, it looked to natural gas as its main money-maker and maintained its spot atop the country’s worst carbon emitters in 2015.

Thanks in large part to cheap natural gas, many of America’s coal plants have been reduced to rubble — or are about to be. As of last November, over 200 coal-fired stations had been retired or were scheduled for retirement. According to an analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance last year, about 17 percent of U.S. coal-fired power generation is expected to disappear over the next few years. It’s been said that the coal industry is “in terminal decline,” and there’s no better way to visualize that than the crumbling of an enormous, dirty power plant.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Excerpt from: 

Watching coal plants crumble to a Tchaikovsky score is insanely satisfying

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watching coal plants crumble to a Tchaikovsky score is insanely satisfying

The Island of Nauru Could Live or Die at the Hands of COP21

Over the years, this tiny Pacific island has been devastated by war, phosphate mining, and now climate change. Years of strip-mining have left three-quarters of Nauru’s land useless. Sosrodjojo/JiwaFoto/ZUMA You’ve probably never heard of Nauru. But you might want to learn its name. It may not be around much longer. Nauru is a speck in the South Pacific. It’s the tiniest island nation and the third smallest nation in the world. At roughly 8 square miles and with just over 10,000 residents, Nauru isn’t exactly a political heavyweight on the world stage. But Nauru is sinking, drying out, and generally in peril due to the ever-accelerating effects of climate change. And it may spark a debate at the Paris climate talks currently underway about what to do with populations on the verge of becoming climate refugees with literally nowhere to go. Nauru is not your typical drowning-island scenario. What used to be a Pacific island oasis is now, by many accounts, a physical example of how quickly paradise can be destroyed. In the early 1900s, a German company began strip-mining the interior of the island for phosphate, the main component of agricultural fertilizer. Then came Japan, which occupied the country during World War II, and continued the phosphate mining. The U.S. bombed Japan’s airstrip on Nauru in 1943, preventing food supplies from entering the island. Less than a year later, Japan deported 1,200 Nauruans to work as forced laborers on a nearby island—only 737 of them survived the ordeal to be repatriated after the war just three years later. After the war, Australia took control of the country, and phosphate mining resumed as an Australian enterprise, before mining rights were transferred to Nauru when the nation became independent in 1968. Read the rest at Newsweek. More:   The Island of Nauru Could Live or Die at the Hands of COP21 ; ; ;

Visit source – 

The Island of Nauru Could Live or Die at the Hands of COP21

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, Landmark, Monterey, ONA, OXO, Paradise, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Island of Nauru Could Live or Die at the Hands of COP21

Explained in 90 Seconds: Why 1.5 Degrees Matters

green4us

Negotiators are pursuing a far more ambitious limit on global warming. But can that really be achieved? Update—December 10, 2015, 4:50 pm ET: Delegates in Paris appear to have agreed on Thursday to “pursue efforts” to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit)—a target that US negotiators had been pushing for. That’s substantially less warming than the 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) limit that was agreed to in Copenhagen in 2009. Here’s the latest text from Thursday evening’s draft agreement: However, the document also “notes with concern” that the actual actions that countries have so far agreed to take to reduce their emissions fall well short of both the 1.5 degrees C target and the 2 degrees C limit. Original story: The international climate summit in Paris may be getting too ambitious for its own good. There are a lot of numbers flying around at Le Bourget, the modified airport in the northern Paris suburbs where diplomats from around the world are racing toward an unprecedented international agreement to limit climate change. Many of the most important are dollar figures: the need for wealthy countries to raise $100 billion annually to help vulnerable countries deal with climate impacts; promises by the US to double spending on clean energy research and climate adaptation grants for developing countries. But right at the top of the draft agreement is another number that, in the big picture, could be the most important. That’s the overall limit on global temperature increase that the accord is designed to achieve. At the last major climate summit, in 2009 in Copenhagen, world leaders agreed to cap global warming at 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, based largely on findings from scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that anything above that level would be totally catastrophic for billions of people around the world, from small island nations to coastal cities such as New York. All the other moving pieces in the agreement, which officials here hope to conclude by late Friday or Saturday, are more or less aimed at achieving that target. It’s the number that is really driving the sense of urgency here, since earlier this year the world crossed the halfway point toward it. In other words, time is running out to keep climate change in check. As the negotiations push into their final hours, something unexpected is unfolding: That target might get actually get even more ambitious. There’s a very good chance, analysts and diplomats say, that the final agreement will call for a limit of 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F)—a crucial half-degree less global warming. Here’s the relevant section of the text; negotiators need to pick one of these options: The US delegation is supporting Option 2, according to an official in the office of Christiana Figueres, the head of the UN agency overseeing the talks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official is not authorized to speak to the press about the negotiations. That aligns with the announcement, made yesterday by Secretary of State John Kerry, that the US will join the European Union and dozens of developing countries in the so-called “High Ambition Coalition,” a negotiating bloc that has emerged to push for the strongest outcome on several key points, including the temperature limit. Negotiators in that bloc have realized, the official said, that “if they move the long-term goal further out, it will move politics in the short term closer to where they need to be.” If the 1.5 degrees C target makes it into the final agreement, that would be a massive win for climate activists and delegates from many of the most vulnerable nations, especially the small island nations. Since the 2 degrees C goal was set in Copenhagen, the leaders of low-lying countries like the Marshall Islands and the Maldives have increasingly protested that even that level of warming would essentially guarantee the destruction of their islands. The fact that the US is now backing a more ambitious target is a sign that President Barack Obama is hearing that message, said Mohamed Adow, a Kenyan climate activist with Christian Aid. “Paris is meant to indicate the direction of travel, and the US giving in on this point demonstrates their solidarity,” he said. “You’re talking about a level of warming that we can actually adapt to.” But here’s where things get problematic. There’s a huge difference between including the 1.5 degrees C limit in the agreement, and ensuring that it could actually be met. That’s because other key pieces of the agreement, that could actually make that level of ambition possible, are still far from clear. The biggest obstacle could be the hotly debated “ratchet mechanism,” which would require countries to boost their targets for greenhouse gas reductions over time, and which the US delegation appears to be resisting. The current draft of the text includes language directing countries to provide an update of their progress every five years or so, which would be compiled into a global “stock-take,” a kind of collated update, sometime after 2020. But the enforcement stops there; there’s nothing in the agreement to penalize countries that lag behind or to compel them to boost their ambitions. Yesterday, Kerry offered a confusing take on that problem when he said that in the agreement, “there’s no punishment, no penalty, but there has to be oversight.” Everyone here seems to agree that Paris is only a starting place: Without an incremental ramping-up of climate goals, 2 degrees C—not to mention 1.5—will remain out of reach. The current set of global greenhouse gas reduction targets only limit global warming to roughly 2.7 degrees C (4.9 degrees F). That’s a big gap. “It’s not looking good,” Adow said. “If the US means business, are true to their support, they need to agree to an annual review starting in 2018.” Instead, it seems that the US could be trading a concession on the 1.5 degrees C target for steadfast resistance to increasing its funding for climate adaptation in developing countries. The US is also standing in the way of a “loss and damage” component, which would require heavily polluting countries to compensate countries that have been wracked by climate impacts. Without extra money on the table to invest in clean energy, developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere won’t be able to contribute to the 1.5 degrees C target, said Victor Menotti, executive director of the International Forum on Globalization, a San Francisco-based activist group. “The US is pretty clear they want 1.5,” he said. “The question is what’s going to accompany it, and at what price. They’ll be able to claim climate leadership, but without any means of implementation.” The upshot is that the whole Paris accord risks losing credibility if it comes up with a really ambitious target and no way to reach it. All of these pieces are essential, because even with the best possible outcome in Paris, 1.5 degrees C is going to be really hard to meet, said Guido Schmidt-Traub, executive director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. In a recent report, Schmidt-Traub found that meeting the 2 degrees C limit means ceasing all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide by 2070. And because most coal- and natural gas-fired power plants have multi-decade lifespans, that means we need to start planning to cease building them as soon as possible. “The bottom line is that 2C requires all countries to decarbonize their economy at a very rapid rate, but in our analysis there is some wiggle room,” he said. “If you go to 1.5C, it becomes very hard to have any wiggle room left. This is a very fundamental point that is not being discussed at all in the negotiations.” Master image: A climate activist at the Paris conference calls for limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Michel Euler/AP

Read this article:  

Explained in 90 Seconds: Why 1.5 Degrees Matters

Related Posts

The Paris Climate Agreement Could Be More Ambitious Than Anyone Expected
A Diplomatic, Apocalyptic Game of Jenga
Paris Talks May Set an Ambitious—and Meaningless—Goal on Climate Change
2014 Was the Year We Finally Started to Do Something About Climate Change
A Massive Climate Summit Is About to Happen in Paris. Here’s What You Need to Know.
A Massive Climate Summit Just Started in Paris. Here’s What You Need to Know.

Share this:






See original article here: 

Explained in 90 Seconds: Why 1.5 Degrees Matters

Posted in eco-friendly, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Explained in 90 Seconds: Why 1.5 Degrees Matters

Here’s Why the Words “Loss and Damage” Are Causing Such a Fuss at the Paris Climate Talks

It’s not just mitigation and adaptation anymore. Rich Carey/Shutterstock PARIS, France — There’s a big sticking point in the negotiations over a global climate deal, and it centers around this little phrase: “loss and damage.” The concept has become hugely important to developing countries and climate justice advocates at the COP21 talks — and a big headache for developed countries. The conversation around climate aid — money and assistance that goes from rich countries to poorer ones for climate change–related programs — has traditionally focused on two areas: mitigation, which means cutting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions by doing things like building up renewable energy capacity and halting deforestation; and adaptation, which means preparing for future climate changes, by taking steps such as building better drainage systems to deal with higher seas and more severe storms, and shifting to heartier crops that can withstand higher temperatures and lower rainfalls. But now developing countries are pushing for assistance in a third area: loss and damage. This refers to irreparable losses (loss of lives, species, or land taken over by rising seas) and recoverable damages (damaged buildings, roads, power lines) — basically, to what happens when mitigation and adaptation fall short and climate disaster strikes. At this point, no matter how much we cut emissions or how much we prepare for coming changes, there will still be significant loss and damage from climate change. Already, the devastating effects of rising sea levels, hotter temperatures, and extreme weather events are growing rapidly. Small Pacific island nations are experiencing regular flooding, which submerges roads, batters houses and seawalls, and sends populations fleeing. In nations like Bangladesh, farms are ruined by the infiltration of salt water. Read the rest at Grist. Follow this link: Here’s Why the Words “Loss and Damage” Are Causing Such a Fuss at the Paris Climate Talks ; ; ;

Original article: 

Here’s Why the Words “Loss and Damage” Are Causing Such a Fuss at the Paris Climate Talks

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, OXO, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s Why the Words “Loss and Damage” Are Causing Such a Fuss at the Paris Climate Talks

Take a hint, “clean coal.” The world is so over you

Take a hint, “clean coal.” The world is so over you

By on 4 Dec 2015 4:05 pmcommentsShare

Like that old classmate still hanging around your hometown pub, playing pool, and talking about the great business idea that he had back in high school, clean coal is about to sidle up to the world’s barstool and — in a slightly slurred and defeated voice — tell you that, despite a few setbacks, it could still work.

You’ll smile and nod and pretend to be interested, but in truth, a lot’s happened since your days of joyriding around the suburbs and late-night Kmart runs. It’s 2015, and an old Volkswagen bus-turned-mobile Blockbuster just doesn’t seem like a lucrative idea anymore. Likewise, the promise of guilt-free fossil fuels in a time of dropping renewable energy prices and mounting clean coal disappointments seems a bit passe.

For a quick refresher, the basic idea behind clean coal is this: Instead of pumping CO2 directly into the atmosphere, coal plants equipped with carbon capture technology would just grab that CO2 on its way out of the plant and shove it back into the ground from whence it came. Simple, right? Well, not really. Here’s more from the AP:

In 2013, Norway pulled the plug on a major carbon capture project it had likened to the moon landing, citing spiraling costs. Another big setback came on Nov. 25, just days ahead of the U.N. climate talks in Paris, when Britain abruptly canceled 1 billion pounds ($1.5 billion) in funding for carbon capture technology, raising doubts about the fate of two projects competing for the money.

There’s currently only one clean coal plant up and running — the Boundary Dam power station in Saskatchewan, Canada — that was designed to capture about 1 million tons of CO2 annually, but managed less than half that during its first year, the AP reports.

Not to be left out, the U.S. has been working on its own clean coal plant down in Mississippi for almost a decade. Check out this Grist Special Report from former Grist fellow Sara Bernard for an in-depth look at that whole mess. The project has been mired in construction delays and unexpected costs since it was first proposed in 2006. Its initial price tag of $1.8 billion has risen to about $6.5 billion, and its construction, which began in 2010 and was supposed to be done by now, still trudges on.

According to the International Energy Agency and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, carbon capture technology on its own — as in, not necessarily attached to a power plant — might be a necessary tool in avoiding a 2-degree Celsius temperature rise. Fortunately, the independent technology has had somewhat more success than its clean coal application, although not by much. Here’s more from the AP:

There are 13 large-scale carbon capture projects in the world, collecting 26 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, according to the International Energy Agency. But that’s less than one one-thousandth of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.

“There’s activity out there, but it’s not what various organizations would have hoped for,” said Juho Lipponen, who heads the IEA’s carbon capture unit.

In Paris, only eight of the 170 action plans submitted by individual nations point to carbon capture technology as a necessary mitigation tool, the AP reports:

Bill Hare, who heads the Climate Analytics institute in Berlin, said carbon capture may have missed its moment when investments didn’t take off despite a lot of “hype” a decade ago. Now, he said, the falling costs of renewable energy mean carbon capture has a lot of catching up to do.

“It’s probably harder to get this moving now than 10 years ago,” Hare said.

Likewise, Netflix and that VW emissions scandal will probably make your old buddy’s Blockbuster bus a harder sell today than it was 10 years ago. Although, let’s be real, it was a pretty killer idea back then.

Source:

‘Clean coal’ technology fails to capture world’s attention

, The Associated Press.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.


A Grist Special Series The Paris climate talks: Yes oui can!

Get Grist in your inbox

Advertisement

View post: 

Take a hint, “clean coal.” The world is so over you

Posted in Anchor, Brita, FF, GE, ONA, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Take a hint, “clean coal.” The world is so over you

How to sell the gas tax to people who hate taxes and love driving

How to sell the gas tax to people who hate taxes and love driving

By on 10 Nov 2015commentsShare

Trying to get Americans to raise the gas tax is like trying to get kids to eat healthy. Deep down, both suburban car lovers and sticky little humans know that their respective standoffs are nothing more than ideological grandstanding, and that paying a bit more at the pump and knocking back those peas and carrots won’t actually be the worst thing ever. But here we are, cruising around crumbling infrastructure with our cheap gasoline. And there’s little Joey, starving to death at the kitchen table.

Here’s Grist’s own Ben Adler laying out the very real problems with this standoff — the tax one, not the peas and carrots one:

There is perhaps no more vicious, self-reinforcing cycle in American life today than our dependence on automobiles. We subsidize suburban sprawl through favorable tax treatment, we mandate it through zoning codes, and we socialize the costs of the pollution it causes. We then end up with communities segregated into shopping, offices, and homes, so spread out and car-oriented as to make walking impractical.

… With so much driving necessary to get anywhere, and far too many SUVs on the road, it’s no surprise that Americans are averse to raising taxes on gasoline.

Gas taxes are how we fund federal transportation spending. Currently, the gas tax is just 18.4 cents per gallon, the same as it was in 1993 — and one-third less once adjusted for inflation. Because we haven’t raised it for two decades, we have developed a shortfall for currently authorized spending — and that doesn’t even begin to address the considerably larger amount we should appropriate to fix our crumbling transportation infrastructure.

But a new study published in the journal Energy Policy has revealed a glimmer of hope. Through a series of online surveys conducted between 2012 and 2014, two sociologists at Michigan State University found that people were significantly more likely to support a gas tax hike if they were told that a) the money would go toward energy-efficient transportation, b) the money would go toward infrastructure repair that current taxes couldn’t cover, or c) the money would be refunded equally to all Americans, rather than given to the U.S. Treasury’s General Fund.

(Note to Joey’s parents: One thing that didn’t work was telling survey respondents how much other countries paid for gas. So, you know, maybe stop talking about how much the neighbor girl loves her broccoli.)

To design these surveys, the MSU researchers used what’s called “fear appeal literature.” This is mostly worth pointing out because the world should know that such a thing exists. But also, it’s kind of important. According to the researchers, the findings of such literature show that: “for people to take action against a threat, it is not sufficient that they believe that the threat is severe and that they are susceptible to its consequences. They also must believe that there are practical ways of protecting themselves against the threat.”

Makes sense. People want to know that their sacrifices actually matter. That’s why if I ever have kids, I plan to convince them that we’re all constantly on the verge of spontaneous combustion and that a healthy diet is the only thing keeping the flames at bay. I’ll practically have to pry those Brussels sprouts out of their terrified little hands!

Source:

How voters would accept higher gas tax

, MSU Today.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.


Industrial Evolution: A Grist special seriesWe speak with the scientists, artists, and thinkers who see a high-tech, sustainable future on the horizon.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read more: 

How to sell the gas tax to people who hate taxes and love driving

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, organic, Radius, Sprout, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How to sell the gas tax to people who hate taxes and love driving

2 GOP Candidates Have Reasonable Positions on Climate Change. They Won’t Be in Tonight’s Debate.

Pataki and Graham aren’t invited. Workers stand in at the candidates’ podiums in preparation for Tuesday’s Republican debate in Milwaukee. Morry Gash/AP If you were hoping for a reasonable discussion about science during Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debates, you’re probably going to be sorely disappointed. That’s because the only two candidates with serious positions climate change have been excluded from the event. Last month, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former New York Gov. George Pataki made news when they called out their own party for rejecting the science behind climate change. “I’ve talked to the climatologists of the world, and 90 percent of them are telling me the greenhouse gas effect is real, that we’re heating up the planet,” said Graham during CNBC’s Republican “undercard” debate—the early-evening consolation prize for candidates who aren’t polling high enough to land a spot in prime time. “It’s…not appropriate to think that human activity, putting CO2 into the atmosphere, doesn’t make the Earth warmer,” added Pataki. “It does. It’s uncontroverted.” Out of all the candidates in the crowded GOP field, Graham and Pataki also have the strongest track records when it comes to actually fighting climate change. In the Senate, Graham once sponsored a cap-and-trade bill intended to reign-in greenhouse gas emissions. As governor, Pataki helped create a regional cap-and-trade program in the Northeast. So I was excited to hear what they would have say on the issue during the debates that will air Tuesday on the Fox Business Network. Like its sister network Fox News, Fox Business is a major epicenter of climate science denial. Unfortunately for science, Graham and Pataki won’t be on stage Tuesday. Neither of them are averaging anywhere close to 2.5 percent in the polls—the threshold Fox established for the main debate. They aren’t even managing the 1 percent required to participate in the undercard debate. Instead, viewers will hear from an array of global warming deniers. Ted Cruz believes that climate change is a “pseudoscientific theory”; Donald Trump calls it a “hoax”; and Ben Carson insists there’s “no overwhelming science” that it’s caused by humans. Viewers will also hear from candidates like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (who was recently demoted to the undercard stage). Christie acknowledges that climate change is real but seems to oppose any realistic plan to deal with it. Then there are the folks who will be asking the questions. Last year, Fox Business managing editor Neil Cavuto—one of the moderators for Tuesday’s main debate—explained how he first became a climate change “doubter”: Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com Here’s what Trish Regan, one of the moderators for Tuesday’s undercard matchup, had to say when Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) called climate change the country’s top national security threat during a Democratic debate earlier this year: #Bernie says #climatechange is our biggest #1 threat. Maybe he should run for office in #Denmark? #DemDebate — Trish Regan (@trish_regan) October 14, 2015 So since you’re not likely to hear this tonight, here’s Pataki explaining why you really should believe what climate scientists are saying—and why you should vaccinate your kids, too: Read more: 2 GOP Candidates Have Reasonable Positions on Climate Change. They Won’t Be in Tonight’s Debate. ; ; ;

Original article – 

2 GOP Candidates Have Reasonable Positions on Climate Change. They Won’t Be in Tonight’s Debate.

Posted in bamboo, cannabis, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, horticulture, Jason, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, Prepara, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 2 GOP Candidates Have Reasonable Positions on Climate Change. They Won’t Be in Tonight’s Debate.

The Keystone XL Pipeline Isn’t Dead Yet. Here’s What You Need to Know About What Comes Next.

Excerpt from:  The Keystone XL Pipeline Isn’t Dead Yet. Here’s What You Need to Know About What Comes Next. ; ; ;

Link:  

The Keystone XL Pipeline Isn’t Dead Yet. Here’s What You Need to Know About What Comes Next.

Posted in cannabis, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, Hagen, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Keystone XL Pipeline Isn’t Dead Yet. Here’s What You Need to Know About What Comes Next.