Tag Archives: grist

The Constitution doesn’t care about your uterus

The Constitution doesn’t care about your uterus

By on 21 May 2015commentsShare

There’s a moment in almost every American woman’s life when she thinks to herself: “Hold up — why are we still arguing about what I can and cannot do with my uterus?” And then she realizes that there is no sense-making answer to that question, and that the fact that the debate exists at all is definitively absurd.

Jill Lepore, in this week’s issue of The New Yorker, sheds some light on why we’re stuck in a hellish tango around the constitutional validity of our reproductive rights:

The Constitution never mentions sex, marriage, or reproduction. This is because the political order that the Constitution established was a fraternity of free men who, believing themselves to have been created equal, consented to be governed. Women did not and could not give their consent: they were neither free nor equal. Rule over women lay entirely outside a Lockean social contract in a relationship not of liberty and equality but of confinement and subjugation. As Mary Astell wondered, in 1706, “If all Men are born free, how is it that all Women are born Slaves?”

Essentially, the Constitution is inadequate. It speaks directly only to the sort of people who were enfranchised in 1787; the rest of us are left to make arguments by amendment and, failing that, by indirection.

I’m not going to waste your time with my take on it — just go read the whole thing.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading here: 

The Constitution doesn’t care about your uterus

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Constitution doesn’t care about your uterus

How the Fukushima Disaster Crippled Japan’s Climate Plans

Japan’s climate strategy is broken. Can President Obama help fix it? Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited the Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2013. Japan Pool/ZUMA Japan used to have a pretty good reputation on climate change. Thanks to its robust industrial economy, it has the fourth-largest carbon footprint in the G20 nations. But it gets a sizable chunk of its power from zero-carbon sources like hydro dams and, at least until the 2011 disaster at Fukushima, nuclear plants. And in 2009, the country agreed, along with the other G8 nations, to reduce its carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. Back in 1992, Japan played host to the negotiations that led to the Kyoto Protocol, the first time a group of countries agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Even though the United States never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it was a groundbreaking agreement. But today, in the context of a decade and a half of additional scientific research, policy advances, and public pressure, it’s woefully insufficient to ward off the worst effects of climate change. That’s why the international community is planning to craft a new agreement to replace it in Paris later this year. And this time around, Japan isn’t looking so hot. Today, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is in Washington to address Congress about his plan to expand his country’s military operations in Asia. He’ll also meet privately with President Barack Obama. According to the White House, climate change is on the agenda. It seems likely that the two leaders will discuss what Japan plans to bring to the table in Paris: Last week deputy national security adviser Caroline Atkinson told reporters that one of the main goals of the meeting is “to help build momentum towards a successful and ambitious climate agreement.” The United States met a United Nations deadline at the end of March to announce its carbon contribution—that is, how much it will be willing to cut its carbon footprint—in preparation for the Paris talks. But a month after the deadline, Japan has yet to make an official announcement (some disappointing clues have leaked out; more on that in a minute). In fact, recently Japan has found itself at the center of several unflattering climate stories. Last year, the country pledged $1.5 billion to a UN-controlled fund that aims to help poor nations adapt to climate change. But a couple of months later, the Associated Press revealed that a separate pot of money Japan designated as “climate finance” actually contained $1 billion in investments in coal-fired power plants overseas. In March, the AP uncovered another half billion dollars of coal investments that Japan had labeled as climate finance. The Japanese government maintained that the funds were in fact climate-friendly, because even though coal is indisputably the greatest source of carbon emissions, these funds went toward cutting-edge coal technology that is cleaner than what might have been built otherwise. Japan’s coal spree is also playing out inside its own borders. The country has 43 coal-fired power plants either planned or under construction, according to Bloomberg News. If built, those plants would have a combined carbon footprint equal to 10 percent of Japan’s current total emissions, and equal to 50 percent of the total emissions it aims to have in 2050. Even now, the country’s coal consumption is on the rise, and its emissions in 2013, the year for which the most recent data is available, were the second highest on record. “Japan appears to be backsliding at the moment,” said Taylor Dimsdale, head of research at the sustainability nonprofit E3G, in a call with reporters yesterday. “There’s a risk for Japan that it’s leaving itself marginalized in an issue [climate change] that’s increasingly an international policy priority.” Which brings us back to the Paris talks. Over the past couple weeks, unnamed government officials have leaked various figures for Japan’s carbon reduction target to the Japanese media. They aren’t looking very ambitious, and the reaction from analysts has been roundly critical. The most recent leak, reported Friday by the Asahi Shimbun, a leading national daily newspaper, said the stated goal is going to be a 25 percent reduction from 2013 levels by 2030. That’s weak compared to the US goal of 28 percent by 2025 and the EU goal of 35 percent by 2030. (Even the US and EU targets are probably insufficient to keep global warming below the internationally agreed-upon threshold of 2 degrees Celsius.) What’s more, the 25 percent emissions cuts being floated would set up Japan to miss its preexisting 2050 emissions target, said Naoyuki Yamagishi, head of the climate division at World Wildlife Fund Japan. Meanwhile, the country’s most recent energy strategy, which is a key part of how these carbon targets are reached, envisions a future with increased dependence on coal and with no designated targets for renewable energy. What the heck went wrong? In a word: Fukushima. In the aftermath of that disaster—in which an earthquake caused a tsunami that flooded the plant and led to meltdowns in half of its nuclear reactors—Japan decided to indefinitely shutter all of its nuclear power plants. The last one closed in September 2013, completely eliminating an energy source that had once provided nearly a third of the country’s power. That hole has since been filled by coal, oil, and natural gas, which goes a long way toward explaining Japan’s poor performance on emissions in recent years. It may also explain why the government has been reluctant to set more aggressive targets for Paris: Heavy-duty emission cuts aren’t possible without nuclear power, and although Prime Minister Abe is pushing to reopen some of the closed plants, nuclear power remains deeply unpopular with the Japanese people. Moreover, the increase in fossil fuel use has made Japan more dependent on imports (it has no fossil fuel resources of its own), which, in combination with a weak yen, has driven up electricity prices. And rising energy prices, Yamagishi said, have eroded support for renewable energy incentives that could cost ratepayers even more. Overall, since Fukushima, political will to address climate change has evaporated, Yamagishi said. Even among the general public, what was once a popular issue now barely makes the news in Japan. “After Fukushima, everyone’s attention shifted away from climate change,” he said. “That’s why we’re having a hard time pushing on this issue.” View original:  How the Fukushima Disaster Crippled Japan’s Climate Plans ; ; ;

Continued here: 

How the Fukushima Disaster Crippled Japan’s Climate Plans

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, Prepara, Smith's, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the Fukushima Disaster Crippled Japan’s Climate Plans

This gorgeous video will remind you what an ugly mess the BP oil spill made

This gorgeous video will remind you what an ugly mess the BP oil spill made

By on 17 Apr 2015commentsShare

Disasters (natural or human-caused) are like TV shows. As soon as get into one, your friend tells you about another one that you just have to check out, and then by the time you’re caught up with that one, you start seeing headlines all over the place for a new one, and so on forever until one day you see an article about that one you haven’t thought about in a year, and you’re like, “Huh. Is that still happening?”

Monday is the five-year anniversary of the start of the BP oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. It was the worst oil spill in U.S. history, lasting for 87 days and spewing more than 200 million gallons of oil into the surrounding environment.

Here to remind us that, yes, the disaster is still a thing and probably will be for a while is renowned doodler and science communicator Perrin Ireland. In this video, she (literally) paints a pretty bleak picture. Basically, scientists are still trying to account for all the leaked oil and expect it to be years before they fully understand the spill’s impact on the local ecosystem.

Check out the video, and be sure to stay tuned for next season, when scientists continue the hunt for those pesky dispersants!

Oh, and by the way, have you heard about all those exploding oil trains?

Source:
Where’d the oil go?

, onEarth.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

See original article: 

This gorgeous video will remind you what an ugly mess the BP oil spill made

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Keurig, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This gorgeous video will remind you what an ugly mess the BP oil spill made

Florida and the Science Who Must Not Be Named

Typing around Florida’s ban. wsfurlan/iStock The oceans are slowly overtaking Florida. Ancient reefs of mollusk and coral off the present-day coasts are dying. Annual extremes in hot and cold, wet and dry, are becoming more pronounced. Women and men of science have investigated, and a great majority agree upon a culprit. In the outside world, this culprit has a name, but within the borders of Florida, it does not. According to a Miami Herald investigation, the state Department of Environmental Protection has since 2010 had an unwritten policy prohibiting the use of some well-understood phrases for the meteorological phenomena slowly drowning America’s weirdest-shaped state. It’s…that thing where burning too much fossil fuel puts certain molecules into a certain atmosphere, disrupting a certain planetary ecosystem. You know what we’re talking about. We know you know. They know we know you know. But are we allowed to talk about…you know? No. Not in Florida. It must not be spoken of. Ever. Unless…you could, maybe, type around it? It’s worth a shot. The cyclone slowdown It has been nine years since Florida was hit by a proper hurricane. Could that be a coincidence? Sure. Or it could be because of…something. A nameless, voiceless something. A feeling, like a pricking-of-thumbs, this confluence-of-chemistry-and-atmospheric-energy-over-time. If so, this anonymous dreadfulness would, scientists say, lead to a drier middle layer of atmosphere over the ocean. Because water vapor stores energy, this dry air will suffocate all but the most energetic baby storms. “So the general thinking, is that that as [redacted] levels increase, it ultimately won’t have an effect on the number of storms,” says Jim Kossin, a scientist who studies, oh, how about “things-that-happen-in-the-atmosphere-over-long-time-periods” at the National Centers for Environmental Information. “However, there is a lot of evidence that if a storm does form, it has a chance of getting very strong.” Read the rest at Wired. Excerpt from: Florida and the Science Who Must Not Be Named

See original article:

Florida and the Science Who Must Not Be Named

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Florida and the Science Who Must Not Be Named

How the US Embassy Tweeted to Clear Beijing’s Air

The American government exposed just how “crazy bad” China’s air really was. Hung_Chung_Chih/iStock When the US Embassy in Beijing started tweeting data from an air-quality monitor, no one could have anticipated its far-reaching consequences: It triggered profound change in China’s environmental policy, advanced air-quality science in some of the world’s most polluted cities, and prompted similar efforts in neighboring countries. As the former Regional Strategic Advisor for USAID-Asia, I have seen first-hand that doing international development is incredibly difficult. Billions of dollars are spent annually with at best mixed results and, even with the best intentions, the money often fails to move the needle. That is why I was so inspired by the story of the US embassy’s low-cost, high-impact development project. They tapped into the transformative power of democratized data, and without even intending to, managed to achieve actual change. Here’s how it happened. In 2008, everyone knew Beijing was polluted, but we didn’t know how much. That year, the US Embassy in Beijing installed a rooftop air-quality monitor that cost the team about as much as a nice car. The device began automatically tweeting out data every hour to inform US citizens of the pollution’s severity (@beijingair). Read the rest at Wired. Read the article: How the US Embassy Tweeted to Clear Beijing’s Air ; ; ;

Link to original: 

How the US Embassy Tweeted to Clear Beijing’s Air

Posted in Citizen, eco-friendly, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, Monterey, Omega, ONA, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the US Embassy Tweeted to Clear Beijing’s Air

The Cost of Clean Coal

A Mississippi power plant promises to create clean energy from our dirtiest fuel. But it will come at a price. Sara Bernard/Grist On December 14, 2006, Barbara Correro was at home drinking tea, reading the paper. She had spent the past five years and most of her savings on a long-cherished retirement dream: a small mobile home on 24 acres of pine and hardwood forest, a large organic garden, and a pack of friendly dogs in rural Kemper County, Miss. The acres once belonged to her grandmother, who kept cows and chickens, sold the hand-churned butter and eggs, and grew a bale of cotton every year to pay the taxes on the land. “It was hard work, and she was a good woman,” says Correro, a former oncology nurse with bright, quizzical blue eyes, a shock of white hair, and an unflinching voice. By 2006, she’d built 27 raised beds, and was thinking about apple trees. And then, there it was, on the front page of the Kemper County Messenger: “Gasification plant would be ‘world’s largest’: Coal mine could be in future.” Mississippi Power, the largest utility in the state and a subsidiary of Southern Company, one of the largest electricity producers in the country, had announced its intentions to build a $1.8 billion power plant fueled by Mississippi lignite coal, dug out of the ground right next to Correro’s homestead. By converting coal into synthetic gas, the plant would be much safer and cleaner than traditional coal-burning power plants. It would also (although this came out later) be designed to capture 65 percent of its carbon emissions. Read the rest at Grist. Read more: The Cost of Clean Coal

Follow this link:

The Cost of Clean Coal

Posted in alo, bamboo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, organic, OXO, Safer, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Cost of Clean Coal

EPA to Obama: You gotta reject Keystone

EPA to Obama: You gotta reject Keystone

By on 3 Feb 2015commentsShare

Extracting tar-sands oil from Canada would lead to “a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions,” says the U.S. EPA.

Since the Keystone XL pipeline would facilitate tar-sands extraction, and President Obama said he would only approve the proposed pipeline if it “does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution,” the EPA is in effect saying to the president, “Reject it!”

Right now the pipeline project is being reviewed by the State Department, which will make a recommendation to Obama on whether to give it an OK or a KO. State asked eight other federal agencies, including EPA, to offer their views on the project by yesterday. EPA did so, arguing as it has before that the pipeline would have major environmental and climate impacts. The EPA’s use of the word “significant” is, well, significant, as that’s the same word Obama used in laying out his criteria for making a decision.

Says climate activist (and Grist board member) Bill McKibben, “In a city where bureaucrats rarely say things right out loud, the EPA has come pretty close. Its knife-sharp comments make clear that despite the State Department’s relentless spin, Keystone is a climate disaster by any realistic assessment.”

The EPA has been unenthusiastic about Keystone for years, but it’s even more skeptical now that oil prices are so low. Fuel Fix explains:

In a letter to the State Department released Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency said plummeting crude prices could make the proposed pipeline vital to Canadian oil sands developers who face higher costs to ship their crude by rail.

An earlier State Department analysis of the project found that Alberta, Canada’s oil sands likely would be developed with or without Keystone XL. But the EPA noted that “this conclusion was based in large part on projections of the global price of oil.”

With domestic West Texas Intermediate crude hovering around $50, it’s important to revisit that analysis, said EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement Cynthia Giles.

Says the Natural Resources Defense Council, “There should be no more doubt that President Obama must reject the proposed pipeline once and for all.”

Now we just have to wait to see if Obama agrees.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Excerpt from:

EPA to Obama: You gotta reject Keystone

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on EPA to Obama: You gotta reject Keystone

Conservative Lobby Group ALEC Plans Anti-Environmental Onslaught

Bills will reportedly aim to expand offshore oil drilling and cut EPA budget. wellesenterprises/Thinkstock The corporate lobbying network American Legislative Exchange Council, commonly known as Alec, is planning a new onslaught on a number of environmental protections next year when Republicans take control of Congress and a number of state legislatures. The battle lines of ALEC’s newest attack on environmental and climate measures will be formally unveiled on Wednesday, when the group begins three days of meetings in Washington DC. ALEC, described by its opponents as a corporate bill mill, has suffered an exodus of tech companies from its ranks recently because of its extreme positions – especially its promotion of climate denial. Read the rest at the Guardian. This article: Conservative Lobby Group ALEC Plans Anti-Environmental Onslaught

Link:

Conservative Lobby Group ALEC Plans Anti-Environmental Onslaught

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LG, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Conservative Lobby Group ALEC Plans Anti-Environmental Onslaught

In California, it’s Chevron’s $3 Million Vs. a Green Slate

green4us

The city of Richmond is home to a big fight over Big Oil. Heather Smith/Grist In old films about Richmond, Calif., MacDonald Avenue is a bustling pedestrian corridor. During the peak of the World War II shipbuilding boom at the docks, businesses stayed open 24 hours a day, so that they could sell groceries to people on the late shift. That was then. On a Sunday afternoon, MacDonald Avenue is a run-down looking strip of fast-food restaurants, taquerias, and four lanes of fast-moving car traffic. Also, today: one brass band. The band is the brainchild of the Richmond Progressive Association (RPA) – an eclectic group of community organizers who have, over the last nine years, managed to gain significant power in local politics. In that time, Richmond, which used to be the kind of scruffy industrial town that no one who didn’t live there had heard of, became a poster child for environmental justice. The RPA has showed a particular interest in the local Chevron refinery, which has a history both of dubious safety practices and of dabbling in local politics in a way that seems to work out to its own frequent advantage. Much of the last eight years have been a cat-and-mouse game between the currently RPA-dominated city council and other, Chevron-backed political movers and shakers. The city councilors pressured Chevron into installing equipment that reduced emissions from the refinery. They tried to rewrite the city’s business tax structure so that Chevron paid a higher rate. When that didn’t work, they hired an independent firm to audit Chevron’s utility tax payments to the city, which turned out to be so low that Chevron settled with the city for $28 million. Now that might all be coming to an end. In the last two mayoral elections – in 2006 and 2010 – RPA member and Green Party candidate Gayle McLaughlin won, in part because third-party candidates entered the race and split the vote. That’s not happening this time. What is happening is that Chevron, which put $1.2 million into defeating the RPA and electing its own candidates in 2010, has doubled down and is spending $3 million on the race this year. Read the rest at Grist.

Originally from: 

In California, it’s Chevron’s $3 Million Vs. a Green Slate

Related Posts

Why Do Conservatives Like to Waste Energy?
How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World
Business Briefing | Company News: Chevron Earnings Sag on Poor Refining Results
Just 90 Companies Caused Two-Thirds of Man-Made Global Warming Emissions
Big Greens Are Spending Big Green In 2014 Midterms

Share this:






Visit source: 

In California, it’s Chevron’s $3 Million Vs. a Green Slate

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, horticulture, Monterey, ONA, Oster, oven, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In California, it’s Chevron’s $3 Million Vs. a Green Slate

Why climate rap actually improves the dreaded school assembly

SCHOOLED

Why climate rap actually improves the dreaded school assembly

29 Oct 2014 5:07 PM

Share

Share

Why climate rap actually improves the dreaded school assembly

×

Grist wrote about the Alliance for Climate Education (ACE) and its upbeat school presentations back in 2009, just after the program got rolling in a handful of San Francisco Bay Area high schools. The “ACE Assembly” revamps the deadly school assembly — and a deadly topic like climate change — with animation, music, and freestyle rapping to inspire students to get up and do something.

Since then, the program has spread all over the country and reached almost 2 million students. And it just got major accolades: A study published in the academic journal Climatic Change found, after surveying 2,847 students in 49 high schools, that this kind of thing works (… well, if you can measure “engagement” in hard numbers). A before-and-after survey found some impressive changes:

– Students demonstrated a 27 percent increase in climate science knowledge.

– More than one-third of students (38 percent) became more engaged on the issue of climate change.

– The number of students who talked to parents or peers about climate change more than doubled.

Mostly, though, the research underscores something teachers have known for a lonnngggg time: Make learning fun, and it’ll stick. “Exposure to climate science in an engaging edutainment format,” the researchers claim, “changes youths’ knowledge, beliefs, involvement, and behavior positively.”

I’d venture to guess that educating anybody, at any age, could fall under that rubric. There’s a reason why the adults at Grist love depressing yet adorable animations and raps about Monsanto. Just sayin’.

Source:
New Study: The ACE Program Works

, Alliance for Climate Education.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Source article: 

Why climate rap actually improves the dreaded school assembly

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Ringer, Springer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why climate rap actually improves the dreaded school assembly