Tag Archives: guatemala

California is shattering renewable records. So why are greenhouse emissions creeping up?

The green beacon that is the state of California is making clean-energy strides, according to new stats out this week. It’s harnessing a record amount of solar power, building more turbines to capture wind power records, and closing in on the moment when the grid goes 100 percent carbon free.

And yet it’s also starting to generate more greenhouse gases. WTF?

Every month California’s electricity managers put out a report showing what that climate-conscious state is up to. And this one brings sunny signs of progress, unheralded achievements, and fun factoids. Earlier this month, for instance, California set a new record for solar power generated.

And on April 28, at precisely 1:25 p.m., renewables provided 72.7 percent of California’s electricity needs. That’s also a record, but not an aberration. It’s consistent with a longstanding trend as California’s policies connect more solar panels and wind turbines to the grid. As you can see in the next graph, California keeps hitting new records — usually around noon — when renewables provide the majority of the electricity for a few hours.

California Independent System Operator

Since 2015, renewables have helped California decrease the amount of greenhouse gases its power plants released into the atmosphere. But this past February, the state’s electricity was more carbon intensive than it was in 2017, and in March it was even worse:

California Independent System Operator

What’s that all about? There’s a hint in the report. California had to dump about 95,000 megawatt hours of renewable power in April, because all that power would otherwise have flooded onto the grid when people didn’t need it — blowing fuses, igniting fires, and melting every computer without a surge protector. That’s a lot of energy, enough to provide all of Guatemala’s electricity for the month.

Transporting electricity and storing it is expensive, so the people managing the electrical system ask power companies to stop putting power on the grid, to curtail their production. It’s called “curtailment” in electric-system jargon. As the number of solar panels feeding the grid increases, so do curtailments.

The thing is, every new panel sending electricity to the grid is still displacing fossil fuel electricity. So that can’t explain why California is burning more fossil fuels than in the last couple of years.

What’s the real problem, then? It’s almost certainly the lack of water. When wind and sun stop generating electrons, we’d like to have other low-carbon source of electricity that we could turn to — what some energy wonks call a “flexible base” of power generation.

California’s big source of reliable low-carbon electricity has been hydropower. But the state is bracing for a drought after a warm, dry winter. So California is hoarding water behind dams, rather than letting the water run through turbines to generate electricity. As a result, hydropower generation is down. And the state’s nuclear, geothermal and biomass plants are already running at capacity. As a result California is replacing the missing waterpower with fossil-fuel generation, namely natural gas.

All this serves as a good reminder that renewables can’t provide us with all of our electricity needs alone. We’ve also got to create bigger and better batteries, string up international transmission lines and build more low-carbon power plants that we can ramp up and down to complement those renewables. If California gets that done, its power grid will be cleaner and more energizing than a $5 shot of wheatgrass juice sold from a food truck by a man with a well-conditioned beard.

See the original article here: 

California is shattering renewable records. So why are greenhouse emissions creeping up?

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California is shattering renewable records. So why are greenhouse emissions creeping up?

Bernie Sanders Passed on Hitting One of Hillary Clinton’s Biggest Weaknesses

Mother Jones

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

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign has signaled for months that it doesn’t want to go negative against former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. At the second Democratic presidential debate on Saturday, Sanders took the gloves off—hitting the former secretary of state for her support among Wall Street donors. But early on, he took a pass on underscoring a major point of distinction between them.

The first half hour of the second Democratic presidential debate was focused on how the United States should deal with ISIS and international terrorism. It could have been an opening for Sanders to highlight Hillary Clinton’s early support for the Iraq war. And out of the gate, Sanders did emphasize his opposition to the 2003 invasion. “I don’t think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the instability we are seeing now,” he said. “I think that was one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in the history of the United States.”

But when the CBS moderator, John Dickerson, pressed him specifically about Clinton’s support for the war, he didn’t take the gloves off:

I think we have a disagreement, and the disagreement is that not only did I vote against the war in Iraq if you look at history, John, you will find that regime change, whether it was in the early ’50s in Iran, whether it was toppling Allende in Chile, whether it was overthrowing the government of Guatemala way back when, these invasions, these toppling of governments…regime changes have unintended consequences. I will say, on these issues I am a little bit more conservative than the secretary in that I am not in favor of regime change.

That was it. It was a history lesson—and a true one—but it was hardly a powerful indictment of her record.

By contrast, in 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama hammered Clinton over and over again for her vote to authorize the war; on Saturday, Sanders spoke right past her.

View original:  

Bernie Sanders Passed on Hitting One of Hillary Clinton’s Biggest Weaknesses

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Sanders Passed on Hitting One of Hillary Clinton’s Biggest Weaknesses

Top Immigration Court Hands Huge Win to Battered Women Seeking Asylum. Conservatives Freak Out.

Mother Jones

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

On Tuesday, the country’s top immigration court ruled that some migrants escaping domestic violence may qualify for asylum in the United States. The decision, from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), is a landmark: It’s the first time that this court has recognized a protected group that primarily includes women. The ruling offers a glimmer of hope to asylum-seekers who have fled horrific abuse. The decision has also infuriated conservatives, who claim that the ruling is a veritable invitation to undocumented immigrants and marks a vast expansion of citizenship opportunities for foreigners.

The case involved a Guatemalan woman who ran away from her abusive husband. “This abuse included weekly beatings,” the court wrote in its summary of her circumstances. “He threw paint thinner on her, which burned her breast. He raped her.” The police refused to intervene, and on Christmas 2005, she and her three children illegally entered the United States.

Before Tuesday’s decision, immigration judges routinely denied asylum to domestic violence victims because US asylum law does not protect people who are persecuted on account of their gender. The law only shields people who are persecuted because they are members of a certain race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. Tuesday’s ruling, however, recognized “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” as a unique social group—giving the Guatemalan woman standing to make an asylum claim.

Continue Reading »

Continue at source – 

Top Immigration Court Hands Huge Win to Battered Women Seeking Asylum. Conservatives Freak Out.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, Oster, Pines, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Top Immigration Court Hands Huge Win to Battered Women Seeking Asylum. Conservatives Freak Out.

Migrant Kids Need a Good Lawyer. But Who’s Gonna Pay?

Mother Jones

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

As the Obama administration continues to grapple with the humanitarian crisis surrounding unaccompanied immigrant children, some have suggested processing the children faster and moving them quickly through the immigration courts. One problem: The vast majority don’t have lawyers. The ACLU and several other groups, including the American Immigration Council, filed a lawsuit Wednesday to force the government to provide these kids with counsel as they deal with the wildly complex immigration system.

More MoJo coverage of the surge of unaccompanied child migrants from Central America.


70,000 Kids Will Show Up Alone at Our Border This Year. What Happens to Them?


What’s Next for the Children We Deport?


This Is Where the Government Houses the Tens of Thousands of Kids Who Get Caught Crossing the Border


Map: These Are the Places Central American Child Migrants Are Fleeing


4 Reasons Why Border Agents Shouldn’t Get to Decide Whether Child Migrants Can Stay in the US

The ACLU’s suit represents eight children, ages 10 to 17, from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Mexico, but is also trying to force representation for the thousands of children who go through the same thing each year. The suit alleges that the children are being deprived of due process, citing previous case law ruling that children should have legal representation in legal matters. A 2014 report (PDF) from the University of California-Hastings and Kids in Need of Defense argues, “Without counsel, the children are unlikely to understand the complex procedures they face and the options and remedies that may be available to them under the law.”

Part of Obama’s $3.7 billion plan to address immigration issues is to provide $15 million to fund legal representation for unaccompanied children. (Notably, a 2012 report said that 40 percent of them were eligible for some sort of deportation relief.) The government says it’s also trying to recruit lawyers and paralegals to help these children, but according to Ahilan Arulanantham, the deputy legal director of the ACLU of Southern California and the senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, “it’s pretty clear that it’s not enough.”

“Obviously, we’re happy the government is trying to do more, but this is entirely within government control,” Arulanantham says. “These are complex cases, and the question at the core isn’t about money. The question is about whether it’s fair to have them present their cases on their own.”

US Attorney General Eric Holder—a named defendant in the case—seems to agree, saying in March 2013 that it is “inexcusable that young kids…six-, seven-year-olds, 14-year-olds—have immigration decisions made on their behalf, against them…and they’re not represented by counsel.” More than a year later, though, unaccompanied kids still struggle to find pro bono legal representation, either because they and their families can’t afford it or there is simply none available.

One child mentioned in the complaint, a 10-year-old boy from El Salvador, watched his father get killed by gang members in front of his house, and was threatened by that same gang a few years later at the age of nine. Another, a 14-year-old girl from El Salvador, was also threatened by gang members after her uncle, a police officer, refused to supply gang members with supplies.

“I wish we could have a judge or a government attorney question her about her case and about how immigration law works,” Arulanantham says. “It’s laughable.”

Read the full complaint below:

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1214306-counsel-complaint.js”,
width: 630,
height: 540,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-1214306-counsel-complaint”
);

Unaccompanied children lawsuit ACLU (PDF)

Unaccompanied children lawsuit ACLU (Text)

See original: 

Migrant Kids Need a Good Lawyer. But Who’s Gonna Pay?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Migrant Kids Need a Good Lawyer. But Who’s Gonna Pay?

These Breakfast Cereals Will Get a Lot More Expensive Thanks to Global Warming

Mother Jones

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

The price of popular breakfast cereals is set to soar over the next 15 years as a result of climate change, argues a new report from Oxfam International.

If left unchecked, the effects of climate change on basic crops—like rice, wheat and corn—could drive up the cost of Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes in the US by up to 20 percent by 2030, according to Oxfam’s analysis. Corn Flakes could also rise up to 30 percent in the US, and up to 44 percent in the UK, while the cost of General Mills’ Kix cereal could go up by between 12 and 24 percent in the US. And that’s on top of any other price increases due to inflation.

The new report, called “Standing on the Sidelines,” also calls out what Oxfam dubs the “Big 10” food and beverage companies for not doing enough to combat climate change by cutting emissions from their agricultural supply chains and lobbying for governmental action.

Oxfam argues that warming is already having an impact on the American breakfast table. “In rich countries at the moment, we’re starting to see the impacts in people’s pockets, having to pay more for the products that they are used to consuming on a daily basis,” says Oxfam’s Tim Gore, who is one of the report’s authors.

Staples like corn and rice will double in cost by 2030, with half of that increase due to climate change, according to the report. To estimate the impact this will have on the retail prices of specific products, Oxfam constructed a model using “historical grain and consumer product prices, product ingredient lists and nutrition labels, and historical examples of how rising commodity prices affect retail prices.”

Earlier this year, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that changes in temperature and precipitation together could contribute to global food cost increases somewhere in the wide range of 3 to 84 percent by 2050.

“As yields fall, prices rise, and so what this is going to translate into is higher prices for things like breakfast cereals,” Gore says.

Oxfam says climate impacts can be felt elsewhere on the breakfast table, too.

“Look at your cup of coffee,” Gore says. “Certainly coffee is one of the crops that is most vulnerable to climate impacts. We’re seeing that right now across Central America, and Guatemala in particular, where, as temperatures increase, there’s a particular fungal disease called coffee rust, which is devastating the coffee crop across the region.”

According to the Oxfam study, high temperatures killed up to 40 percent of Guatemala’s coffee harvests in 2013–2014. The IPCC recently stated that the amount land suitable for growing coffee in Costa Rica, Nicaragua and El Salvador will be reduced by more than 40 percent, while coffee crops in Colombia will be forced to higher altitudes.

“What this means for consumers in the US and elsewhere is that the very high-quality Arabica coffee beans that we like to enjoy will become more scarce and therefore more expensive,” Gore says.

Oxfam says there’s evidence to suggest that the breakfast cereal industry is already vulnerable to bad weather. General Mills told investors in March that recent brutal winter had dampened economic performance: “We lost 62 days of production…Trucks could not move, and the rail system becomes less efficient,” said Ken Powell, the CEO of General Mills. “It disrupted plant operations and logistics,” he explained.

So what are the major food producers doing to limit the threats posed by climate change?

Oxfam analyzed the emissions from 10 companies, including Associated British Foods, Coca-Cola, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg, Mars, MondeleÌ&#132;z International, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Unilever, and found that their combined greenhouse gases, if thought of as a single country, would rank them as the 25th most emitting country in the world, with 263.7 million metric tons of greenhouse gases per year. These 10 companies derive their emissions from a number of different sectors, broken down in the chart from Oxfam below:

An analysis of food system emissions, from Oxfam’s new report. Oxfam

One of Oxfam’s major findings is that while these companies have all set targets to reduce some of their emissions, they are failing to take the necessary steps to rein in the biggest proportion, on average, of their footprint: the so-called “Scope 3” emissions that come from their supply chains. (Scope 1 and 2 emissions, by contrast, come directly from the companies’ own operations). These Scope 3 emissions can include things like direct emissions from land use—cow flatulence, for example—and the indirect carbon emissions caused by ripping down forests for farmland. In total, these Scope 3 emissions account for around 50-60 percent of the emissions footprint of the 10 companies combined, according to Oxfam. That’s equivalent to the emissions of about 40 coal-fired power stations.

Significantly, according to Oxfam, none of these companies “have committed to a target to reduce their total agricultural emissions or require their suppliers to make reduction targets.”

“Those targets that they’ve set are only covering a very small proportion of their total emissions footprints,” Gore says. “So really what we’re asking them to do is face up for the significant emissions that they are responsible for, to get their own house in order.”

Below is a table from the report that compares the policies of these 10 companies for reporting and reducing agricultural emissions:

Rating the “Big 10” food companies on how they deal with their agricultural emissions. Oxfam

There is one example Oxfam wants these major brands to follow. When PepsiCo’s UK operation discovered that half its emissions came from its upstream supply chain, the company committed to a 50 percent reduction in its water use and carbon emissions over five years, swapping out inefficient crops and helping farmers monitor their yields more accurately.

“If the Big 10 took on that commitment, they could reduce emissions by a further…80 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, below business-as-usual emissions, by 2020,” Gore says. “That’s a pretty substantial additional savings; it would be a significant contribution to the global effort to close the emissions gap.”

The report also commends Coca-Cola for setting a goal of reducing emissions by 25 percent across the entire lifecycle of the the “drink in your hand.” But Oxfam says such targets “do not guarantee that emissions from agricultural production will decline (as reductions could all be delivered elsewhere in the product’s life-cycle).”

A Coca-Cola spokesperson acknowledged in a statement that not all reductions across their entire operations “will be equal” but says the company is “engaging with 150 of our key supplier partners and exploring options to reduce emissions from our agricultural supply chain.”

Of the 10 companies analyzed in the report, Oxfam accuses Kellogg and General Mills in particular of being “climate laggards,” faulting them for not directly engaging with governments to “positively influence climate change policy.” Oxfam’s argument is based on an analysis of lobbying reports filed for major pieces of legislation, like the 2009 US Clean Energy and Security Act, and whether or not the company has signed the Trillion Tonne CommuniqueÌ&#129;, a document that recognizes the importance of the carbon budget outlined by the IPCC. General Mills told Climate Desk the company is “mischaracterized in Oxfam’s report,” arguing the company applies pressure on governments in a variety of ways around the world. General Mills spokeswoman Kris Patton told Climate Desk in an email:

We serve on the steering committee of The Consumer Goods Forum, and as a member of the Tropical Forest Alliance, which is actively engaging governments in Asia and Africa on the important issue of climate change. We are also a member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which engages governments on issues related to deforestation and climate change in Indonesia and Malaysia.

General Mills also participates in the US Department of Energy’s Better Buildings Challenge with the goal of reducing its energy intensity by 20 percent over 10 years. The company claims to have cut its energy usage rate by 10 percent since 2005 and to have trimmed its greenhouse gas emission rate by 20 percent.

Earlier this year, Kellogg announced plans to only use palm oil—a cheap ingredient used in many packaged foods that is blamed for rampant deforestation—from sustainable sources. The company says it also requires suppliers to support Kellogg’s corporate responsibility commitments as outlined in their the company’s global supplier code of conduct. “Suppliers must strive to reduce or optimize agricultural inputs; reduce greenhouse gas emissions, energy and water use; and minimize water pollution and waste, including food waste and landfill usage,” Kris Charles, Kellogg Company spokesperson, said in a statement. The company also pushed back against Oxfam’s argument that the company does not influence policymakers:

We regularly engage with stakeholders on the important topic of climate change, along with a wide range of issues. This includes Consumer Goods Forum, Global Environmental Management Initiative, Carbon Disclosure Project and Sustainable Agriculture Initiative, and others. We are also members of The Sustainability Consortium, a network of leading companies seeking to promote sustainability throughout the product lifecycle of consumer goods.

Oxfam’s Tim Gore acknowledged that some companies were performing better than others, but said that his organization’s overall aim in pitting them against each other in this way was to provoke a “race to the top.”

“We want them to be competing against each other to improve, and to drag up the standards across the industry.”

Link – 

These Breakfast Cereals Will Get a Lot More Expensive Thanks to Global Warming

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These Breakfast Cereals Will Get a Lot More Expensive Thanks to Global Warming

Is McDonald’s coffee really going greener?

Is McDonald’s coffee really going greener?

avlxyz

Over the past few years, McDonald’s has grown its subsidiary coffeehouse brand McCafe like a juiced-up Starbucks — there are now 1,300 Mc-coffee shops worldwide. That’s a lot of coffee! And now the company says it wants that coffee to be greener.

Over the next five years, McDonald’s plans to invest $6.5 million to help about 13,000 Guatamalan coffee growers produce fancier, more sustainable beans, to be used in a proprietary arabica blend. The company says it aims “to promote the environmental, ethical and economic long-term sustainability of coffee supplies.” From Bloomberg:

“Investing in both certification and sustainable agriculture training addresses the immediate need to assist farmers today, expands capacity for greater sustainable coffee production in the future and helps assure our customers we will continue to provide the taste profile they have grown to love and expect from McDonald’s,” Susan Forsell, the vice president of sustainability, said in the statement.

The company, which buys coffee from Colombia, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Brazil and Sumatra, said it already gets all of its Rainforest Alliance Certified espresso from sustainable farms. The [new] initiative seeks to address root causes of poverty among farming communities by expanding the use of techniques that will promote sustainable, profitable agricultural, McDonald’s said.

It’s not clear if this is on par with McDonald’s much-lauded switch to “sustainable seafood,” which, it turns out, is not super-sustainable.

As it happens, climate change could wipe out arabica beans. Central American growers are already having problems with higher temps and humidity that are making fungus grow like gangbusters across the region. Drink up while you still can, Ronald, because when arabica’s gone, all we’ll have is bitter but caffeine-jacked robusta.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continue reading:  

Is McDonald’s coffee really going greener?

Posted in ALPHA, Amana, GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is McDonald’s coffee really going greener?

Week in the News: Is 2013 the Year for Biofuel?

Week in the News: Is 2013 the Year for Biofuel?

Posted 11 January 2013 in

National

2013 is here and so is our first weekly news roundup! Here are the top stories in renewable fuel this week:

Scientists at Texas A&M University have been awarded a $2.4m grant from the Department of Energy to research converting lignin (a plant-waste product) into a renewable fuel.
Jan Koninckx of DuPont spoke with Consumer Energy Report to discuss his company’s pioneering work on the commercial production of cellulosic ethanol.
An article in the New York Times and a follow up post on Mother Jones attempted to blame renewable fuel for hunger issues in Guatemala. In response, the Renewable Fuels Association put together a point by point takedown of the NYT piece and our own blog featured a rebuttal to Mother Jones.
The Auto Channel struck back against AAA and Fox Business News for spreading misinformation about the safety of E15 renewable fuel.
Researchers revealed this week that the world’s first 100% biofuel powered civilian flight (which took place last October) reduced aerosol emissions by 50%.
Jim Lane at Biofuels Digest took time to debunk six of the top renewable fuel myths circulating online and in the media.
Thomson Reuters read the tea leaves (as well as industry reports showing significant progress) and determined that 2013 could be the “year for biofuel.”
An analyst at The Motley Fool called the Renewable Fuel Standard “one of the most successful – and important – partnerships of private industry and state in recent years.”

Have a terrific weekend, and if you haven’t already, please sign our pledge to help us support fuel already growing in the USA!

Back to Blog Home
Share:

Join the Fight

Renewable fuel is more important than ever – driving economic growth in communities that need it, improving our nation’s energy security and attracting millions in new technology dollars to invest in America’s future.

Pledge to Support Renewable Fuel

Fuels
See the article here: 

Week in the News: Is 2013 the Year for Biofuel?

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Week in the News: Is 2013 the Year for Biofuel?

Notorious Mexican drug cartel branches out into a ‘more lucrative’ venture: Coal mining

Notorious Mexican drug cartel branches out into a ‘more lucrative’ venture: Coal mining

Los Zetas are a notorious cartel that evolved from a paramilitary force created by the Mexican government. In 2009, the U.S. government labelled the gang the “the most technologically advanced, sophisticated and dangerous cartel operating in Mexico.” Savvy and brutal, the Zetas don’t constrain themselves to making money off drugs. They also seek other lucrative opportunities.

Like coal mining. From Al Jazeera:

Speaking to Al Jazeera, [Coahuila ex-governor Humberto] Moreira says that the Zetas gang is fast discovering that illegal mining is an even more lucrative venture than drug running.

“They discover a mine, extract the coal, sell it at $30, pay the miners a miserable salary … It’s more lucrative than selling drugs.” …

His accusations have been borne out by the federal government, which also announced that it has found evidence of criminal infiltration in Coahuila’s mines. Two hundred government inspectors are heading to the region to investigate mines it suspects are tied to organised crime. …

The State of Coahuila presents a tempting target for any organised crime group looking to diversify from drug smuggling, kidnapping and extortion. It produces 95 percent of Mexico’s coal, churning out 15 million tons a year. Unregulated “pozos”, small roadside mines which are often little more than a hole in the road, abound; easy targets for those looking to make quick money.

lololulula

A member of the Zetas is arrested in Guatemala.

There is no equivalence between the actions of the Zetas and domestic coal production. There is no equivalence between the Zetas and the rest of Mexico’s coal industry. The group is criminal, horrifying.

But the fact that mining coal could be as lucrative as trafficking drugs is at least astonishing and certainly ominous. As the global market for coal expands, prices will go up. If criminals can continue to extract and sell coal illegally and without concern for treatment of the miners, the urge for criminals to exploit those economics will only grow.

Source

Mexican drug gangs dig into mining industry, Al Jazeera

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Visit source:

Notorious Mexican drug cartel branches out into a ‘more lucrative’ venture: Coal mining

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Notorious Mexican drug cartel branches out into a ‘more lucrative’ venture: Coal mining