Tag Archives: illinois

How to make coal companies pay to clean up their messes

How to make coal companies pay to clean up their messes

By on 6 Apr 2016commentsShare

Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private-sector coal company, is not in great financial shape. Last month, it casually skipped a $71 million interest payment, and analysts are speculating that it may be edging toward bankruptcy. Standard and Poor’s recently downgraded Peabody’s credit rating to a “D.” The company has $6.3 billion in outstanding long-term debt.

If you’re cheering for the death of coal, that might sound like good news. But there’s a nasty catch: Peabody’s financial troubles mean it might not be able to pay to clean up its messes, and restoring landscapes and repairing streams and rivers can be expensive. The company has “self-bonded” to pay up to $1.4 billion in reclamation costs at its mines in the United States — and self-bonding means we’re trusting it to do so.

While coal companies usually offer up collateral or contract out in order to guarantee that cleanup will be paid for, it has become common in recent years for companies to simply pledge that they’re going to deal with the costs. These self-bonds (as opposed to, say, surety bonds, which rely on third-party insurers) only rely on the name and financial stability of the company itself. In other words, they’re basically billion-dollar IOUs, written on fancy letterhead instead of Post-it notes.

At this point, you’re probably wondering why a demonstrably financially unstable company is able to get away with just promising to pay $1.4 billion in cleanup costs. That’s because the federal government and many states have loose rules that allow self-bonding instead of a more reliable mechanism to ensure that reclamation is paid for. And even troubled companies like Peabody can often meet requirements for self-bonding by applying through subsidiaries that look fine on paper.

“These rules were created in a different era, when nobody thought that coal companies could go out of business,” Clark Williams-Derry, director of energy finance at the Sightline Institute, told Grist. With Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources both having recently filed for bankruptcy, that era is clearly behind us. “The only solution at this point is to recognize that self-bonding has completely failed, and that the only way forward is to completely change the rules.”

State mining authorities could change those rules and instead require companies to post surety bonds or set aside cleanup cash in an escrow account. Or they could continue to allow self-bonding, but not through 100-percent-owned subsidiaries. Some states already don’t allow self-bonding at all, like Kentucky, Maryland, and Montana, according to a survey conducted by the Interstate Mining Compact Commission.

The federal government could help too by updating its rules. Right now it allows self-bonding if a coal company is “financially healthy,” but that definition is riddled with loopholes.

Credit ratings firm Fitch argues that Peabody’s recently announced risk of defaulting on its debts could prompt regulators to change their rules. “Citizen complaints, scrutiny from the attorney general of Illinois and congressional calls for investigation follow a record number of financial defaults in the U.S. coal sector foreshadowing even tighter self-bonding rules,” wrote the firm in a press release. With many coal companies on their last legs and taxpayers ultimately on the line, here’s hoping Fitch is right.

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: 

How to make coal companies pay to clean up their messes

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How to make coal companies pay to clean up their messes

John Kasich is no better than Donald Trump on climate change

John Kasich is no better than Donald Trump on climate change

By on 15 Mar 2016commentsShare

Ohio Gov. John Kasich won his home state in the GOP presidential primary on Tuesday night, and as Ohio is a winner-take-all state, that means he’s put enough delegates out of Donald Trump’s reach to stall the frontrunner’s march to the nomination, for now. The Kasich campaign hopes this momentum will be enough to help him win a few more states and then force a contested convention, with the full backing of the establishment behind him.

Kasich, then, is the GOP establishment’s last and only choice, now that Marco Rubio has bowed out. He isn’t just a favorite among top party officials. In recent weeks, he’s earned a slew of endorsements from newspapers around the country. A few of these papers have pointed to Kasich as the only moderate Republican, mentioning his views on climate change as one of the things that makes him more mainstream than his opponents.

The Detroit Free Press, for instance, wrote: “Kasich accepts the reality of climate change […] Yet climate change denial is de rigeur among most Republican politicians, a shameful dodge that will pile suffering on our children and grandchildren. Although Kasich favors robust state regulation to control climate change over U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards, this is a more significant step than his GOP cohorts are willing to take.” The South Florida Sun Sentinel, meanwhile, said, “On the subject of climate change, to which Florida is especially vulnerable, only Kasich called for policies to reduce carbon emissions.” The Illinois Journal Star noted that by choosing Kasich, Republicans would get an intelligent man who doesn’t deny the science behind climate change, though he’d prefer private-sector solutions to government ones.”

Advertisement – Article continues below

Yet the governor is no climate ally; he’s just a bit better than Trump at hiding his brand of denialism. He falls under the “do-nothing” category of politicians who will accept at least some of the science but want to, well, do nothing about it.

Take what Kasich said in the last debate as an example: After Marco Rubio fumbled through an answer on sea-level rise, Kasich’s speech was almost a relief. “I do believe we contribute to climate change,” he began. I say almost a relief, because Kasich in the same answer also spoke in the familiar climate-denier code: “Now, it doesn’t mean because you pursue a policy of being sensitive to the environment, because we don’t know how much humans actually contribute.”

Kasich has repeated that line in campaign stops, including saying at a Vermont event last month that he didn’t know “how much individuals affect the climate.”

His acknowledgement that the climate might be changing does make him seem reasonable compared to the likes of Trump or Ted Cruz. But what matters more are his views on climate policy, and here the governor has shown no more interest in taking action than his competitors. Kasich says he supports renewables but equally alongside coal, natural gas, and oil. He opposes most policies that curb carbon pollution and that encourage wind and solar over dirtier sources. He’s promised to “freeze all federal regulations for one year except for health and safety” — and considers the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate and health regulations as the first that need to go. And he’s criticized the international climate deal the world reached last December, insisting the thousands of climate policy experts that were in Paris for a climate conference should have been there for ISIS: “I think when [Secretary of State John Kerry] went to Paris, he should have gone there to get our allies together to fight ISIS instead.”

In the end, it doesn’t matter much if Kasich manages a “yes” to a question on the science. He is still dangerous. The New York Times, which also endorsed Kasich in January, put it best: “Kasich is no moderate.” They weren’t talking about climate change, but they might as well have been.

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

Visit source: 

John Kasich is no better than Donald Trump on climate change

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, Free Press, GE, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Kasich is no better than Donald Trump on climate change

Barack Obama Talked About Donald Trump in a Speech in 2005

Mother Jones

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

In 2005, Barack Obama had only been in the Senate for a few months, but he was already a rising star in the Democratic Party. Four years later, he would be in the White House, and seven years after that Donald Trump would be the Republican front-runner to replace him as president. He couldn’t have known that then, of course, when he mentioned The Apprentice star in a commencement address at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois.

(Hat tip Michael Sherer)

Here’s the relevant bit:

In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it – Social Darwinism, every man and woman for him or herself. It’s a tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford – tough luck. It allows us to say to the Maytag workers who have lost their job – life isn’t fair. It let’s us say to the child born into poverty – pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And it is especially tempting because each of us believes that we will always be the winner in life’s lottery, that we will be Donald Trump, or at least that we won’t be the chump that he tells: “Your fired!”
But there a problem. It won’t work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it has been government research and investment that made the railways and the internet possible. It has been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools – that has allowed all of us to prosper. Our economic dominance has depended on individual initiative and belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity – that has produced our unrivaled political stability.

Originally posted here – 

Barack Obama Talked About Donald Trump in a Speech in 2005

Posted in Anchor, Bragg, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Barack Obama Talked About Donald Trump in a Speech in 2005

A Shady Conservative Group Is Fundraising Off the Death of a Ben Carson Volunteer

Mother Jones

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

A political action committee with a track record of questionable tactics is attempting to use the recent death of a Ben Carson campaign volunteer to raise money. The group has no connection to Carson’s presidential effort, and a spokesman for the retired neurosurgeon who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination tells Mother Jones that the Carson team was “disgusted and appalled” by the ploy.

On Sunday, the Sacramento-based Defenders of Freedom and Security PAC sent out an email blast urging recipients to donate whatever they could and to join its email list to “help Ben Carson carry the baton of freedom to the next generation!” The message, which includes language suggesting that donations will be used to directly support Carson’s presidential bid, begins with a not-very-subtle attempt to grab potential donors by their heartstrings: “The Carson campaign dealt with a tragedy this week when a student campaign worker died tragically in a car accident in Iowa.” This was a reference to 25-year-old Braden Joplin, who died when a van carrying Carson campaign volunteers was involved in a crash on icy roads in western Iowa on Tuesday.

Far from using the volunteer’s death as a fundraising gambit, Carson suspended campaigning for two days, and the campaign sent a private jet to fly Joplin’s family to Iowa. When Carson resumed campaigning, he dedicated his stops to the young volunteer. When told of Defenders of Freedom’s fundraising email, the Carson campaign criticized the move.

Continue Reading »

This article is from: 

A Shady Conservative Group Is Fundraising Off the Death of a Ben Carson Volunteer

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Shady Conservative Group Is Fundraising Off the Death of a Ben Carson Volunteer

Get Solar Energy Without Putting It On Your Own Roof

As appealing as clean energy is, you might be among the millions of people who can’t put solar panels on their own roof or pop a windmill up in their backyard.

Worry not. Here are two ways you can still get access to power that is not generated by coal, oil or other fossil fuels whose emissions pollute the air and cause climate change.

1) Stick with your utility, but switch to a clean energy provider. Solar and wind companies are setting up arrays of photovoltaic cells or fields of windmills, generating power and then shipping the electricity they generateto utility companies via power lines. The utility companies then distribute that power to customers who opt for clean energy through their existing grid. You get billed by your utility, receive uninterrupted service and if there’s a power outage, you contact your utility company, not the wind or solar provider.

It will cost you a little bit more money but it’s a pretty easy way tosupport a greater level of utility company investment in renewable energy technologies. The smallpremium on your electric bill helps cover the incremental cost of the additional renewable energy. As of the end of 2014, nearly 850 utilities across the nation, including investor-owned, municipal utilities and cooperatives, offered a green pricing option, says the U.S. Department of Energy.

You can switch back to primarily fossil fuels at any time without penalty. Usually you can sign up easily online, but as it happens, I signed up with someone who knocked on my door and had all the paperwork ready to go.

To find a clean energy provider in your area, contact your local utility company and find out who they do business with. You can get their number from your monthly bill or simply by searching for your utility by name on the internet.

Several companies compare all of the providers in your area to show the varying rates per kilowatt hour the companies charge. For example, ChooseEnergy.com provides rate comparisons for the following states: California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C.

You can also check this map developed by the U.S. Department of Energy. Click on your state to find out where green power is offered nearby. You’ll find utility green pricing programs (how much utilities charge to deliver non-fossil fuel power to your home) and a variety of other options for avoiding coal, gas and oil.

2) Join a solar coop or network. The Community Power Network is a great resource for consumers who want to support solar but don’t have the ability to install it on their own homes. You’ll find a variety of models to choose from.

For example, the Farmers Electric Cooperative’s Solar Garden Program in Iowa invites customers to buy part of a “solar garden” located at its main office building in exchange for a reduction in their monthly bill.

In the “Special Purpose Entity Model,” individuals join in a business enterprise to develop a solar project the community shares. In my own state of Maryland, the University Park Community Solar LLC and Greenbelt Community Solar set up limited liability companies that enables Maryland residents to develop solar power generation on buildings in the community.

In nearby Washington, D.C., the Sidwell Friends School (attended by Pres. Obama’s daughters) invited members of the community to purchase “solar bonds” so a solar system could be installed on the school.

There’s even an option for people who live in apartment buildings. Grid Alternatives is a nonprofit that helps people install solar on multi-family buildings by working together to get financing and figure out what photovoltaic system works best for the structure at hand.

Want to get started in your own community? Check out this Guide to Community Shared Solar put together by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Related
11 Solar Energy Myth Busters
6 Reasons to Get Excited About Obama’s New Solar Energy Plan

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Follow this link: 

Get Solar Energy Without Putting It On Your Own Roof

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Get Solar Energy Without Putting It On Your Own Roof

6 Signs the NRA Is Losing Its Stranglehold on Gun Policy

Mother Jones

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

For gun control advocates, this year’s doom has been compounded by an ample dose of gloom. Even after a series of high-profile mass shootings and a reported death toll from gun violence topping 12,000 last year, Congress remains deadlocked and unlikely to pass any laws aimed at reducing gun deaths.

But beneath the morass of bad news are glimpses of progress. In schools, communities, states, and even in the federal government, people are taking action to curb the gun violence epidemic. Here are six areas in which gun control is actually advancing in America.

1. The Supreme Court opted not to expand Second Amendment protections.

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case that could have cemented an even wider interpretation of the Second Amendment into national law. The decision came less than a week after shooters in San Bernardino, California, used semi-automatic weapons to slaughter 14 people at an office party in what the FBI is now investigating as an act of terrorism.

In the case, the Illinois branch of the National Rifle Association argued that a Chicago suburb’s ban on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines violated the Second Amendment. Although there was no official ruling, the court’s decision to turn down the case effectively affirmed the lower court’s decision not to expand Second Amendment protections—thereby opening the door to further local regulation.

In its last two gun cases, in 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court had significantly expanded the reach of the Second Amendment. In 2008, the court overturned a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia; in 2010, it did the same for a handgun ban in Chicago.

Now, by contrast, the court may be indicating that the much-contested right to bear arms should have its limitations.

2. States are taking action.

The court’s decision looks even more significant in light of the fact that state governments are already taking many of the steps that Congress won’t.

In the year following the tragic 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, eight states passed major gun reform laws. The momentum has continued into 2015: Voters in Washington state last month resoundingly approved universal background checks for gun purchases, and several states have moved to restrict domestic abusers’ access to firearms.

Next November, Nevada residents will also vote on a background-check initiative, which made it onto the state ballot with the support of Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety. In California, which already has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country, a gubernatorial candidate is working to put even tighter legislation on the ballot.

Want to see how your own state ranks on gun control? The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has created this handy scorecard.

3. Most Americans, including gun owners, support some degree of gun control.

Congress may not be able to come to a productive compromise, but Americans do agree on some key gun control policies. A survey last month found that a striking 83 percent of gun owners, including many NRA members, support requiring all prospective gun buyers to undergo a background check. A Gallup poll released in October—after the shootings at Umpqua Community College in Oregon but before last week’s attack in Sen Bernardino—found that 55 percent of Americans favored stricter control of gun sales.

Support for gun control has traditionally peaked following mass shootings, only to subside later. Recent polls suggest that fear of terrorism has edged out fear of guns in the popular psyche—despite the fact that jihadist terrorists have killed just 45 people in the United States since September 11, 2001, compared with the more than 12,000 people killed last year alone by gun violence.

4. More and more people say gun violence should be researched as a public health issue.

Last Wednesday, mere hours before the attack in San Bernardino, 2,000 doctors publicly urged Congress to repeal an amendment that has blocked government research on gun violence for nearly two decades.

The so-called Dickey Amendment was propelled through Congress by Republican legislators in 1996 under pressure from the NRA. Due to the provision, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health have been unable to put any federal funds toward gun violence research, leaving attempts to curb gun violence hogtied by a lack of information.

But opposition to the amendment is growing. Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have appealed for a return to federal gun violence research in recent months. Even the amendment’s author, former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), has publicly called for it to be overturned.

5. Schools across the country are talking to their students about guns.

Tens of thousands of students across the country have signed their names to an anti-gun-violence pledge this year, promising not to bear arms at school and to resolve conflicts by nonviolent means.

The pledge was born in the mid-1990s, when creator Mary Lewis Grow realized that the conversation about gun violence rarely reached the nation’s youth. Determined to change that, she founded the Student Pledge Against Gun Violence in 1996. It enjoyed a decade of popularity before fading from public view.

Widespread dismay at the lack of government action following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary rekindled interest in the pledge, Grow told gun news website The Trace. “I think people started looking for other ways to address gun violence,” she said. Students in at least five states have taken the pledge this year, including 59,000 in Georgia and 21,000 in Louisiana.

The pledge goes as follows: “I will never bring a gun to school. I will never use a gun to settle a personal problem or dispute. I will use my influence with friends to keep them from using guns to settle disputes. My individual choices and actions, when multiplied by those of young people throughout the country, will make a difference. Together, by honoring this pledge, we can reverse the violence and grow up in safety.”

6. Gun control is now firmly part of our national debate.

President Barack Obama now calls for gun control legislation after every major shooting. The New York Times last week published a pro-gun-control editorial on its front page—its first page-one editorial since 1920. And while she shied away from the issue eight years ago, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has made curbing gun violence a central plank in her 2016 platform.

America’s gun violence crisis has clearly made its way into the highest levels of our national debate. What comes of that debate remains to be seen, but a whopping $229 billion a year—and, more important, thousands of lives—depend on it.

This article is from: 

6 Signs the NRA Is Losing Its Stranglehold on Gun Policy

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 6 Signs the NRA Is Losing Its Stranglehold on Gun Policy

Four Years Ago Scott Walker Promised This Woman He’d Bust Wisconsin’s Unions

Mother Jones

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

The super-PAC backing Scott Walker has many wealthy backers, but its single biggest contributor is Diane Hendricks, who ponied up $5 million. A billionaire through the roofing supply business she and her late husband founded, Hendricks has been one of Walker’s top benefactors since he first ran for governor. In 2012, Hendricks was the biggest donor to Walker’s campaign to stave off a union-led recall effort, and now she’s stepped up for him again. Out of the $20 million raised by the pro-Walker group Unintimidated PAC, 25 percent came from Hendricks.

If there was any question that Walker and Hendricks are on the same page, here’s a video of the two chatting in 2011 shortly after he took office.

“Good to see you!” Walker says, dashing through the door and hugging Hendricks and kissing her on the cheek.

Hendricks asks Walker about the possibility of turning Wisconsin into a “completely red state.”

“Oh, yeah,” Walker responds, going on to lay out his “divide and conquer” strategy for attacking public sector unions.

Despite her massive contribution, Hendricks still has some close competition as the group’s biggest funder. Marlene Ricketts, the wife of TD Ameritrade founder and Chicago Cubs owner Joe Ricketts, gave $4.9 million. And Joe Ricketts himself tossed in another $100,000.

Richard Uihlein and his wife Elizabeth, the founder and president of Illinois box company Uline, respectively, gave $2.5 million to the super-PAC as well.

Rounding out the list of seven-figure donors was Access Industries, a New York City holding company run by Len Blavatnik. Blavatnik is a Ukranian-born businessman who in April was named the “richest man in Britain” with an estimated net worth of $20.1 billion. Blavatnik, who is a US citizen, is also known for his lavish donations to universities including Oxford and Tel Aviv University. On Thursday, the super-PAC supporting Lindsey Graham reported receiving $500,000 from Blavatnik’s company.

Read the article:

Four Years Ago Scott Walker Promised This Woman He’d Bust Wisconsin’s Unions

Posted in Anchor, Brita, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Four Years Ago Scott Walker Promised This Woman He’d Bust Wisconsin’s Unions

4 Years Ago Scott Walker Promised This Woman He’d Bust Wisconsin’s Unions

Mother Jones

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

The super-PAC backing Scott Walker has many wealthy backers, but its single biggest contributor is Diane Hendricks, who ponied up $5 million. A billionaire through the roofing supply business she and her late husband founded, Hendricks has been one of Walker’s top benefactors since he first ran for governor. In 2012, Hendricks was the biggest donor to Walker’s campaign to stave off a union-led recall effort, and now she’s stepped up for him again. Out of the $20 million raised by the pro-Walker group Unintimidated PAC, 25 percent came from Hendricks.

If there was any question that Walker and Hendricks are on the same page, here’s a video of the two chatting in 2011 shortly after he took office.

“Good to see you!” Walker says, dashing through the door and hugging Hendricks and kissing her on the cheek.

Hendricks asks Walker about the possibility of turning Wisconsin into a “completely red state”.

“Oh, yeah,” Walker responds, going on to lay out his “divide and conquer” strategy for attacking public sector unions.

Despite her massive contribution, Hendricks still has some close competition as the group’s biggest funder. Marlene Ricketts, the wife of TD Ameritrade founder and Chicago Cubs owner Joe Ricketts, gave $4.9 million. And Joe Ricketts himself tossed in another $100,000.

Richard Uihlein and his wife Elizabeth, the founder and president of Illinois box company Uline, respectively, gave $2.5 million to the super-PAC as well.

Rounding out the list of seven-figure donors was Access Industries, a New York City holding company run by Len Blavatnik. Blavatnik is a Ukranian-born businessman who in April was named the “richest man in Britain” with an estimated net worth of $20.1 billion. Blavatnik, who is a US citizen, is also known for his lavish donations to universities including Oxford and Tel Aviv University. On Thursday, the super-PAC supporting Lindsey Graham reported receiving $500,000 from Blavatnik’s company.

Originally posted here:

4 Years Ago Scott Walker Promised This Woman He’d Bust Wisconsin’s Unions

Posted in Anchor, Brita, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 4 Years Ago Scott Walker Promised This Woman He’d Bust Wisconsin’s Unions

Rand Paul’s Super PAC is Powered By Whole Foods and Pot

Mother Jones

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

Rand Paul’s fundraising has been surprisingly anemic over the past few months as the GOP presidential candidate has found his message failing to resonate with some of the traditional sources of GOP campaign money, such as Wall Street. But a recent filing by a super PAC that supports him, and which is staffed by former aides and relatives of the Senator, shows that Paul is getting some traction with libertarian-leaning donors. The bad news for Paul is that the oufit backing his candidacy still raised $100 million less than the one backing Jeb Bush.

The super PAC, America’s Liberty PAC, reported raising $3.1 million in the first half of 2015, with two wealthy businessmen chipping in $1 million or more each. George Macricostas, the CEO of data storage company RagingWire, donated $1.1 million to the super PAC. Jeff Yass, the CEO of Philadelphia private investment firm Susquehenna International donated $1 million. Both represent relatively untapped sources of money for a conservative candidate. Yass has previously written large checks, but none larger than the $50,000 donation he made in 2004 to Club for Growth, while Macricostas appears to have donated a total of just over $12,000 prior to his $1.1 million donation to America’s Liberty.

The super PAC roped in other big donations, including $50,000 from John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, and $50,000 from Patrick Byrne, the CEO of Overstock.com. The group also also received $15,000 from ICC Holdings, an Illinois company hoping to be one of the first companies to legally operate a commercial cannabis farm.

America’s Liberty PAC is one of two pro-Paul super PACs. To date, the group has spent about $412,000, and produced an anti-Jeb Bush online ad, mocking him as “Bailout Bush.” On the group’s payroll is the consulting firm of Jesse Benton, who is married to Rand Paul’s niece and who was previously a top aide to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. Benton resigned from his position as campaign manager for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last August over his involvement with an ongoing scandal stemming from the 2012 Iowa caucuses. (A former Iowa state senator has admitted to taking money from the Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign in exchange for his endorsement and is awaiting sentencing.) Since the beginning of the year, the super PAC has paid Benton’s company $63,000 for consulting work.

America’s Liberty PAC also reported paying John F. Tate, who was Ron Paul’s campaign manager in 2012 and now runs Campaign For Liberty, a grassroots libertarian group founded by Ron Paul.

View original post here: 

Rand Paul’s Super PAC is Powered By Whole Foods and Pot

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rand Paul’s Super PAC is Powered By Whole Foods and Pot

These biodegradable computer chips are made from wood

These biodegradable computer chips are made from wood

By on 14 Jul 2015commentsShare

What if I told you that we could make computer chips out of biodegradable wood, instead of the semiconducting materials like silicon that we currently use and then promptly dump in landfills? Would you call me a dirty hippie and tell me to get real? How about if Zhenqiang (Jack) Ma, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Wisconsin, told you?

According to MIT Technology Review, Ma and his colleagues have indeed made such a chip:

The inventors argue that the new chips could help address the global problem of rapidly accumulating electronic waste, some of which contains potentially toxic materials. The results also show that a transparent, wood-derived material called nanocellulose paper is an attractive alternative to plastic as a surface for flexible electronics. …

In two recent demonstrations, Ma and his colleagues showed they can use nanocellulose as the support layer for radio frequency circuits that perform comparably to those commonly used in smartphones and tablets. They also showed that these chips can be broken down by a common fungus.

It’s worth noting that the nanocellulose doesn’t replace the actual electronic components on these chips, just the base on which those components lie. That’s still a big deal, though, because the electronic components on a chip are tiny compared to the base.

Ma told Technology Review that the chips are even ready for commercialization — but that the market might not be ready for them:

… He thinks it’s likely to take heightened environmental pressure, or a spike in the price of rare semiconductor materials like gallium, for the mainstream electronics industry to change its current practices and consider making chips from wood.

I’d say the environmental pressure is already there, but then again, who are we to make decisions based on what’s good for the environment?

Fortunately, there’s another reason to push for biodegradable computer chips. John Rogers, a materials scientists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told Technology Review that the military might be interested in using this technology for “transient electronics” that could conveniently disappear before they fall into the wrong hands. And if the military wants it, that means we’ll probably do it.

Source:
A Biodegradable Computer Chip That Performs Surprisingly Well

, MIT Technology Review.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work. A Grist Special Series

Meat: What’s smart, what’s right, what’s next

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue at source:  

These biodegradable computer chips are made from wood

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, eco-friendly, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These biodegradable computer chips are made from wood