Tag Archives: institute

Here’s a Cure for America’s Latest Zika Panic

Mother Jones

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

Health officials have reported that four cases of Zika in Florida were likely spread from person to person by domestic mosquitoes. This is the moment Democratic politicians—and a few southern Republicans—have been warning about. The finding is bound to create a lot more scary rhetoric and dire headlines.

But here’s the thing: There’s no need to freak out—not yet, at least.

We knew this was going to happen. Back in May, I spoke with Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who is leading US efforts to create a Zika vaccine. Here’s what he said:

It is likely that we will have restricted local transmission—small local outbreaks? My call would be that we will. Because we’ve had dengue and chikungunya, which are in the same regions of South and Central America and the Caribbean, and are transmitted by exactly the same mosquito. Historically we’ve had small local outbreaks of dengue in Florida and Texas, and a small local outbreak of chikungunya in Florida, which makes me conclude that sooner or later, we have going to have small local outbreaks of Zika—whether that’s five cases or 30—likely along the Gulf Coast.

This is exactly what we’re seeing. And why is this not a huge problem? Because we’re almost certainly not going to let it become one. Just as Fauci predicted, this likely outbreak—scientists haven’t actually found any infected mosquitoes yet—is highly isolated. According to the New York Times, the suspected “area of active transmission is limited to a one-square-mile area” near downtown Miami.

Aedes aegypti, the most likely culprit, is what University of California-Davis geneticist Greg Lanzaro calls a “lazy mosquito.” It doesn’t fly far. In its entire lifespan of two to three weeks, it might travel a few hundred meters, another expert told me. So it’s not coming for you. The mosquitoes that picked up the virus may be limited in to one small neighborhood.

Here’s what happens when we have such an outbreak: Mosquito-control workers and public health officials swarm all over it. Aegypti is an elusive little bugger, but you can bet that within that one square mile, eradication specialists and epidemiologists will be going house to house until they get to the bottom of this, figure out where the aegypti are breeding, and wipe them out.

Compared with, say, Puerto Ricans, Americans are also protected by our lifestyle. People in the Deep South tend to have air conditioning and screens on their windows. We also don’t usually store drinking water in open containers, as families often do in the tropics. We spend more time indoors, out of the heat. And all of this helps minimize contact with the mosquitoes. Consider that before Zika became a problem, as Fauci mentioned, we also had periodic outbreaks of dengue and Chikungunya, spread by the same mosquito. As I pointed out previously:

When was the last time you worried about Chikungunya or dengue—or malaria, for that matter? Those diseases are far scarier than Zika. WHO estimates (conservatively) that malaria infected at least 214 million people last year and killed 438,000, mostly children under five. Then there’s dengue, named from the Swahili phrase ki denga pepo (“a sudden overtaking by a spirit”)—which tells you something about how painful it is. Each year, dengue, also called “breakbone fever,” infects 50-100 million people, sickens about 70 percent of them—half a million very severely—and kills tens of thousands. Brazil, in addition to its Zika problem, is experiencing a record dengue epidemic. Health authorities there tallied 1.6 million cases and 863 deaths last year—and the 2016 toll is on track to be worse. Zika is seldom fatal.

This doesn’t mean we should ignore the latest news, of course. If you’re pregnant, especially in southern Florida, you’re probably already taking precautions to avoid mosquito bites, like using repellents and eliminating any standing water on your property. FDA officials are asking people in Miami-Dade and Broward counties to refrain from giving blood until we know what’s going on. But most Americans, even most southerners, have little reason to freak out.

Only one of the six scientists I interviewed was concerned that Zika might take off in the continental United States. “You would never see Zika virus, Chikungunya virus, or dengue virus sweep across the country the way West Nile did, even in the regions where these mosquitoes are,” UC-Davis epidemiologist Chris Barker told me. “Because that’s just not how it works in our country.”

Original source: 

Here’s a Cure for America’s Latest Zika Panic

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s a Cure for America’s Latest Zika Panic

4 things Trump got very wrong in his convention speech

Tall tales

4 things Trump got very wrong in his convention speech

By on Jul 22, 2016Share

Donald Trump’s big speech at the Republican convention on Thursday didn’t contain a single reference to the environment or climate change. It was vague on policy overall, focusing heavily on the primary themes of this year’s Republican National Convention: bashing Hillary Clinton’s character and fear-mongering over crime and national security, with a heavy dose of Islamophobia and xenophobia.

There was, however, one section that dealt hazily with energy policy. Unfortunately, it was filled with falsehoods. Let’s go through the four key assertions one at a time:

“Excessive regulation is costing our country as much as $2 trillion a year, and we will end it.”

The apparent source for this figure is the National Association of Manufacturers, a conservative business lobbying organization that is fiercely opposed to regulations. The group’s $2 trillion estimate calculates only the cost of regulatory compliance and not the cost savings that result from government rules. So the fact that environmental and workplace safety regulations prevent health-care expenses and missed work days, for example, is simply ignored in this calculation. When you do account for the benefits of regulations, they often end up saving far more money than they cost. Experts debunked NAM’s report; the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service cited the Office of Management and Budget in calling the kind of methodology used “inherently flawed.” No unbiased, empirical cost-benefit analysis would come up with anything close to the number Trump cites.

“We are going to lift the restrictions on the production of American energy. This will produce more than $20 trillion in job-creating economic activity over the next four decades.”

The source for this $20 trillion figure is the Institute for Energy Research, an organization funded by the Koch brothers. As The New York Times has previously noted, “economic reality” contradicts this projection. Additional fossil fuel production has diminishing returns because increased supply means lower prices. So, according to experts the Times interviewed, the number is wildly exaggerated.

“My opponent, on the other hand, wants to put the great miners and steelworkers of our country out of work — that will never happen when I am president.”

Hillary Clinton’s admission that coal workers will be put out of work in the years ahead was not a statement of what she wants; it was a statement of reality. The coal industry is shedding jobs because of mechanization, tapped-out mountains, and increasing competition from natural gas and renewables. President Obama’s Clean Power Plan would prevent backsliding toward more coal use but not seriously worsen the industry’s already grim prospects. So Trump can’t actually reverse coal’s decline just by rolling back regulations. In any case, Clinton, unlike Trump, has a plan to put laid-off workers from this dying industry back to work in growing sectors — including, but not limited to, wind and solar energy production.

“With these new economic policies, trillions of dollars will start flowing into our country. This new wealth will improve the quality of life for all Americans — We will build the roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, and the railways of tomorrow. This, in turn, will create millions more jobs.”

Trump is right that infrastructure investment would be good for the economy. Too bad his party’s own platform explicitly rejects spending on railways and many other kinds of infrastructure. And, in reality, Trump’s insane budget plan would leave no money for such projects.

ShareElection Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

More here:  

4 things Trump got very wrong in his convention speech

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, Mop, ONA, Safer, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 4 things Trump got very wrong in his convention speech

12 Things to Know About the Other Thin-Skinned Billionaire Speaking at Tonight’s RNC

Mother Jones

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

At least one person speaking at the Republican convention tonight might actually be a match for Donald Trump when it comes to taking things (ahem) over the top. Tech investor Peter Thiel used to be best known for his early bet on Facebook—”the most lucrative angel investment in history”—although recently he’s garnered more attention for his controversial positions and personal vendettas. Here are the 12 things you should know about Silicon Valley’s most eccentric, (now) openly gay, Trump-loving libertarian billionaire.

Thiel was accused of “demagoguery”—by Condi Rice: As a student at Stanford University, Thiel founded the Stanford Review, a highbrow version of the notoriously conservative Dartmouth Review. A few years later, he and another former Stanford Review editor wrote a book titled The Diversity Myth: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Intolerance at Stanford, which criticized political correctness in higher education. Then-Stanford provost Condoleezza Rice (later George W. Bush’s national security adviser) accused the pair of concocting “a cartoon, not a description of our freshman curriculum,” and added that the book was “demagoguery, pure and simple.”

Thiel is known around the Valley as “Don of the PayPal Mafia”: In 1998, Thiel co-founded the online payments company that would later become PayPal. He hired many Stanford Review alums, who, in the company’s early days, were known to keep Bibles in their cubes and hold workplace prayer sessions. Former PayPal counsel Rod Martin later tried to start a conservative version of MoveOn.org, and former VP Eric Jackson founded the book-publishing arm of the conservative WorldNetDaily, which famously released the children’s tale Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed. (Two other members of the PayPal Mafia, Elon Musk and Keith Rabois, also went on to become billionaires.) Thiel later wrote that he’d wanted to create “a new world currency, free from all government control and dilution—the end of monetary sovereignty, as it were.”

Thiel is a self-described “conservative libertarian.” He supported the presidential bids of Ron Paul, donating more than $2.6 million to a Paul super-PAC in 2012. “I think we are just trying to build a libertarian base for the next cycle,” Thiel said at the time. But that was before Trump arrived on the scene in a substantial way.

Thiel launched one company that is extremely non-libertarian. In 2004, he co-founded Palantir Technologies with a $30 million investment. The company’s other major investor is In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA. The FBI and the NSA employ Palantir’s data-mining and surveillance technology to monitor domestic and foreign terrorism suspects. Thiel has said civil liberties advocates should welcome Palantir. “We cannot afford to have another 9/11 event in the US or anything bigger than that,” he told Bloomberg. “That day opened the doors to all sorts of crazy abuses and draconian policies.”

Thiel blames women and welfare for destroying democracy. “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,” Thiel wrote in 2009 on the blog of the libertarian Cato Institute. “The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women—two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians—have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.”

Thiel was the inspiration for Peter Gregory, the Aspergers-y billionaire venture capitalist on HBO’s Silicon Valley. In the following clip, Mike Judge’s arch comedy lampoons the Thiel Fellowship, which each year offers 20 “uniquely talented” teenagers $100,000 scholarships to forego college and pursue “radical innovation that will benefit society.”

Back in the real world, if you want a job at Thiel Capital, he will expect you to have a “high GPA from a top-tier university.”

Thiel is a climate skeptic. The idea that human activity alters the climate is “more pseudoscience” than science, he told Glenn Beck in 2014. Thiel is also somewhat uncertain about the veracity of Darwinian evolution.

Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker. He spent $10 million on the Hogan lawsuit to get back at Gawker for outing him as gay (an open secret at the time) in 2007, and for writing negative articles about his friends. “It’s less about revenge and more about specific deterrence,” he told the New York Times.

Thiel recently invested in a marijuana company. His Founders Fund last year sank an undisclosed sum into Privateer Holdings, a Seattle-based company that, among other things, grows pot in Canada and owns “the official Bob Marley cannabis brand.”

Thiel wants to create sovereign micronations on the high seas. He is a major funder of the Seasteading Institute, a think tank that envisions floating city-states as incubators for alternative models of governance. (On Silicon Valley, the Peter Gregory character has an offshore haven populated by autonomous machines.)

Thiel wants to cheat death. He has signed up with a cryogenics company to be deep-frozen upon his death in the hope that he will later be revived by future medical advances. And his foundation has supported anti-aging research.

Thiel’s support for Trump is an oddity in Silicon Valley. Trump’s stance on everything from immigration to mass surveillance is anathema to Valley techies. “In the Obama years, much of Silicon Valley has become very close to Democrats,” notes the New York Times‘ Farhad Manjoo. “This year there was an opportunity for a Republican to make overtures to tech—but with Mr. Trump, that chance seems to have passed.”

Originally posted here:

12 Things to Know About the Other Thin-Skinned Billionaire Speaking at Tonight’s RNC

Posted in cannabis, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 12 Things to Know About the Other Thin-Skinned Billionaire Speaking at Tonight’s RNC

There Are Likely Twice as Many Transgender Americans as We Thought

Mother Jones

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

The number of transgender Americans may be twice as big as we thought. According to a new analysis of state and federal data, an estimated 1.4 million adults in the United States, or 0.6 percent of the total population, do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth.

The analysis by the Williams Institute at UCLA comes as policymakers increasingly consider questions of transgender rights in schools, workplaces, and the military.

Previously, the most widely accepted estimate suggested 0.3 percent of American adults were transgender. That figure came from a smaller analysis by the Williams Institute in 2011, based on a health survey in Massachusetts and a survey about tobacco use among LGBT people in California. The new analysis draws on a much bigger set of data from 19 states that have since started asking about gender identity in questionnaires about health risk behaviors run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers also used Census Bureau data to estimate the transgender populations in the 31 other states.

Williams Institute

The study’s authors say their analysis is the first in the United States to estimate the transgender population in each state. Hawaii, California, Georgia, and New Mexico had the biggest percentages of adults who identified as transgender, at 0.8 percent each. North Dakota, Iowa, Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota had the smallest percentages, at about 0.3 percent each. Young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 were most likely to identify as transgender (0.7 percent), compared with 0.6 percent of those between the ages of 25 and 64 and 0.6 percent of adults older than 64.

The District of Columbia had a far higher rate of transgender identity than any state in the study, at an estimated 2.8 percent of adults.

The Census Bureau does not ask about gender identity in its population count, so we still don’t know exactly how many Americans identify as transgender. In May, Rep. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona introduced a bill that would require federal agencies to include questions about gender identity in national demographic surveys.

“The findings from this study are critical to current policy discussions that impact transgender people,” says Jody Herman, one of the study’s authors. “Policy debates on access to bathrooms, discrimination, and a host of other issues should rely on the best data available to assess potential impacts, including how many people may be affected.”

Read the article – 

There Are Likely Twice as Many Transgender Americans as We Thought

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on There Are Likely Twice as Many Transgender Americans as We Thought

Before Trump University, There Was the Trump Institute. Here’s How Donald Trump Learned the Hustle.

Mother Jones

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

A couple of months ago Ars Technica ran a story about one of Donald Trump’s penny-ante moneymakers from the aughts: the Trump Institute. It all started when a pair of journalism grad students, Joe Mullin and Jonathan Kaminsky, became fixated on a late-night infomercial for the National Grant Conferences:

Why did the NGC infomercial captivate us?…It wasn’t the enthusiastic couple who founded NGC, Mike and Irene Milin, proclaiming that numerous government grants were there for the taking. No, we couldn’t stop watching because NGC just felt so sleazy.

….Intrigued, we spent the better part of a year researching NGC, its claims, and its founders’ pasts. We ultimately found that NGC—with several seminar teams circling the country and clearing tens of millions of dollars each year in sales—and its memberships produced no money for any of the customers we interviewed.

….Trump wanted a piece of the action, so he struck a licensing deal with the Milins in 2006. The couple created the “Trump Institute,” using much of the same pitch material and some of the same pitchmen.

Today the New York Times picks up on the story:

As with Trump University, the Trump Institute promised falsely that its teachers would be handpicked by Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump did little, interviews show, besides appear in an infomercial — one that promised customers access to his vast accumulated knowledge. “I put all of my concepts that have worked so well for me, new and old, into our seminar,” he said in the 2005 video, adding, “I’m teaching what I’ve learned.”

Reality fell far short. In fact…extensive portions of the materials that students received after forking over their seminar fees, supposedly containing Mr. Trump’s special wisdom, had been plagiarized from an obscure real estate manual published a decade earlier.

Together, the exaggerated claims about his own role, the checkered pasts of the people with whom he went into business and the theft of intellectual property at the venture’s heart all illustrate the fiction underpinning so many of Mr. Trump’s licensing businesses: Putting his name on products and services — and collecting fees — was often where his actual involvement began and ended.

….Asked about the plagiarism, which was discovered by the Democratic “super PAC” American Bridge, the editor of the Trump Institute publication, Susan G. Parker, denied responsibility….Ms. Parker, a lawyer and legal writer in Briarcliff Manor, N.Y., said that far from being handpicked by Mr. Trump, she had been hired to write the book after responding to a Craigslist ad. She said she never spoke to Mr. Trump, let alone received guidance from him on what to write. She said she drew on her own knowledge of real estate and a speed-reading of Mr. Trump’s books.

In a nutshell, Trump sought out a couple of late-night hustlers who had already been in trouble with the law, taped an infomercial for them, and then pocketed the licensing fee. (They were the “best in the business,” said the Trump executive who brokered the deal.) Later, having learned the hustle, Trump ended his contract with the Milins and opened up Trump University. He had learned all he needed and was ready to start pushing the hard-sell conference business on his own. Seven years later, he’s perfected the hustle even further, so now he’s running for president. You’re welcome.

Read this article – 

Before Trump University, There Was the Trump Institute. Here’s How Donald Trump Learned the Hustle.

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Before Trump University, There Was the Trump Institute. Here’s How Donald Trump Learned the Hustle.

Today Brings Yet More Obamacare Non-Failure

Mother Jones

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

I’ve written frequently about the fact that the rapid growth in US health care costs has slowed down in recent years. Here’s the latest version of the slowdown, courtesy of the Urban Institute:

The raw data for this chart comes the national health expenditures forecast issued annually by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. As you can see, their latest forecast for the year 2019 is about $500 billion less than it was in 2010. The cumulative forecast for 2014-19 is now $2.6 trillion less than it was in 2010.

It’s hard to say how much, if any, of this decrease is due to Obamacare. My own guess is that the cost-saving parts of Obamacare haven’t had time to really kick in yet, which means the recent slowdown in health care costs is most likely just an extension of the slowdown that’s been percolating behind our backs for more than three decades.

But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to say about Obamacare here. CMS did forecasts both before and after Obamacare passed, and they predicted that Obamacare would increase spending. Lots of conservatives predicted the same thing. But it didn’t happen. Here’s the chart for private health care spending:

The figures are even more dramatic for Medicare and Medicaid spending. The jury may still be out on Obamacare’s long-term effect on controlling health care costs, but one thing is sure: all the hysteria about Obamacare causing costs to skyrocket was entirely unfounded.

Continue reading:

Today Brings Yet More Obamacare Non-Failure

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Today Brings Yet More Obamacare Non-Failure

U.S. Chamber of Commerce joins anti-solar crusade

Throwing shade

U.S. Chamber of Commerce joins anti-solar crusade

By on Jun 15, 2016Share

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the latest conservative group to start spreading anti-solar messages. In an email sent to supporters on Wednesday, the chamber attacks net metering, a policy in place in many states that pays people with solar panels on their roofs for the electricity they feed into the grid. The group also posted a video on YouTube last week making its anti-net metering case. This is fairly new territory for the chamber, according to energy regulation experts.

In its email, the group warns: “While your neighbor is receiving a credit (in the form of a reduced electricity bill) for putting excess energy back on the electricity grid, these outdated net metering policies overlook the costs to use, maintain, and update the grid. So, who is actually paying those costs? You — and everyone else!”

There is actually some truth to this. But the problem with the chamber’s analysis is that it ignores the positive effects of rooftop solar — most importantly, that it reduces the need for dirty, fossil fuel-based energy that causes air pollution and worsens climate change.

Here’s a more fair way to paint the situation: Electric utilities are using outdated technologies that poison our air and destabilize our climate. Who is actually paying for those costs? You — and everyone else!

We reported on Tuesday about the utilities’ trade association, the Edison Electric Institute, feigning concern for consumers who could be ripped off by unscrupulous solar companies. The Chamber of Commerce’s new campaign takes a different approach by heaping blame on solar consumers. But it’s all part of the same big effort by conservative groups and dirty energy companies to kneecap the solar industry, any way they can.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

See original article: 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce joins anti-solar crusade

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on U.S. Chamber of Commerce joins anti-solar crusade

New York City tries to end scourge of plastic bags. New York state says, “Nope.”

New York City tries to end scourge of plastic bags. New York state says, “Nope.”

By on Jun 8, 2016Share

In May, New York City became the largest American city to tackle the plastic bag problem by narrowly passing legislation adding a 5 cent fee to each bag, both paper and plastic.

But, the New York Post reports, that law is hardly a done deal: The Republican-led New York Senate blocked the measure this week by passing legislation that prevents municipalities from imposing their own bag fees.

City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito quickly responded that she would work around the bill by changing the language for the bag fee and amending it to start next year.

But even city-wide support for the fee is mixed. Some, including Democrats in the state Senate, say it will disproportionately effect low-income and minority shoppers, although those buying groceries with government benefits would be exempt.

Others object to where the money is going — namely, the retailers themselves. “I was in Washington, D.C., when the bag fee happened, and you know what? It was to clean up the river,” Bertha Lewis, a social justice activist who opposes the measure told the New York Times. “These funds are being dedicated to the pockets of the retailers.” Lewis’ group, the Black Institute, collected signatures against the bill, and they were backed by plastic bag lobbying group the American Progressive Bag Alliance.

Plastic bags have long been a source of ire for environmentalists and litter-haters, and it’s easy to see why: As my colleague Ben Adler wrote, “When they’re not piling up in landfills, they’re blocking storm drains, littering streets, getting stuck in trees, and contaminating oceans, where fish, seabirds, and other marine animals eat them or get tangled up in them.”

There’s still the question of whether paper or reusable bags are really that much better for the environment. Plastic is undeniably bad, but the paper isn’t great either: A 2007 study found that the carbon footprint of paper is actually higher than that of plastic, mostly due to manufacturing and transportation. The same study noted that reusable cotton has problems of its own: A pound of cotton takes over 5,000 gallons of water to produce on average, and cotton isn’t recyclable in most places.

Clearly, the bag debate is far from over in New York and elsewhere. But we can be sure about one thing: While the environmental cost of any bag is high, it’s nothing compared to what you put in it.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Original post – 

New York City tries to end scourge of plastic bags. New York state says, “Nope.”

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New York City tries to end scourge of plastic bags. New York state says, “Nope.”

You’ve geeked out over “An Inconvenient Truth.” Watch these next.

You’ve geeked out over “An Inconvenient Truth.” Watch these next.

By on May 24, 2016Share

Along with a good chunk of the environmental space, Grist is celebrating the 10-year anniversary of the release of An Inconvenient Truth, the Oscar-winning documentary that dragged climate change in front of the eyeballs of millions. (Check out our complete oral history of the film and interviews with the activists, politicians, and artists it influenced.)

Perhaps you’re in celebration mode, too, and have re-watched the documentary in all its early-2000s Keynote glory. (If not, you can for free today!) Perhaps you’re feeling inspired. Stand tall! Sub out that incandescent sack of filaments for a lovely compact fluorescent lamp! You’re an environmentalist!

Now wipe your brow with a recyclable, grab an armload of in-season fruit, and binge watch these classic environmental docs next.


Food, Inc.

From Participant Media (the same folks that produced An Inconvenient Truth), Food, Inc. tells the story of our utterly zany industrial food system. After watching, this author stopped eating fast food for good (though, to be honest, not for lack of desire). Watch: Netflix.

Gasland

Josh Fox’s documentary on hydraulic fracturing helped launch the anti-fracking movement. A true conversation about climate change isn’t “possible without the awareness An Inconvenient Truth brought,” he told Grist, but here’s a conversation-starter, by way of the energy system. Watch: Netflix.

Chasing Ice

Photographer James Balog traveled to the Arctic to capture photos of dramatically receding — and in some cases, disappearing — ice. If you weren’t already convinced climate change is serious, these glaciers beg to differ. Watch: Netflix.

This Changes Everything

When Naomi Klein published This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate in 2014, she pointed to climate change as an opportunity to rework our entire economic system. But what about the people in that system? The film project of the same name is, according to director Avi Lewis, “a portrait of community struggle around the world on the front lines of fossil fuel extraction and the climate crisis.”

For the optimal dose of anger and action, don’t sub the book out for the movie: Soak ’em both in back-to-back. Watch: iTunes, Amazon.

Under the Dome

China has an air pollution problem. In Under the Dome, that problem is laid out with pressing slideshow wizardry. Remind you of another environmental movie? Deborah Seligsohn, former principal adviser to the World Resources Institute’s China energy and climate program, points to the documentary as An Inconvenient Truth’s most immediate descendent. “In four days, it had 250 million views on the web. That’s the influence,” she told Grist. Watch: YouTube (below!).

Catching the Sun

Catching the Sun confronts the big questions imposed by a burgeoning global solar industry. Is a 100-percent solar-powered world achievable? And if so, who stands to benefit? Director Shalini Kantayya has called mainstream environmentalism “a thing for the privileged.” As she told Grist, “If you have extra money, you can put solar panels on your home or pay for organic food.”

The documentary is Kantayya’s take on where environmentalism should be heading. Spoiler alert: It’s a story of hope, not doom. Watch: Netflix.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Continued: 

You’ve geeked out over “An Inconvenient Truth.” Watch these next.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Keurig, LAI, ONA, organic, solar, solar panels, solar power, Sprout, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on You’ve geeked out over “An Inconvenient Truth.” Watch these next.

There’s a 99% chance this will be the hottest year on record

There’s a 99% chance this will be the hottest year on record

By on May 18, 2016

Cross-posted from

Climate CentralShare

Odds are increasing that 2016 will be the hottest year on the books, as April continued a remarkable streak of record-warm months.

Last month was rated as the warmest April on record by both NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which released their data this week. In the temperature annals kept by NOAA, it marked the 12th record warmest month in a row.

How global temperatures have differed from average so far this year.NOAA

Global temperatures have been hovering around 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) above preindustrial averages — a threshold that’s being considered by international negotiators as a new goal for limiting warming.

While an exceptionally strong El Niño has provided a boost to temperatures in recent months, the primary driver has been the heat that has built up from decades of unabated greenhouse gas emissions.

Nearing 1.5 degrees C

NOAA announced its temperature data for April on Wednesday, with the month measuring 1.98 degrees F (1.1 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 56.7 degrees F (13.7 degrees C). It was warmer than the previous record-hot April of 2010 by 0.5 degrees F (0.3 degrees C).

NASA’s data showed the month was about the same amount above the average from 1951-1980. The two agencies use different baselines and process the global temperature data slightly differently, leading to potential differences in the exact temperatures anomalies for each month and year.

Both agencies’ records show that global temperatures have come down slightly from the peaks they hit in February and March, which ranked as the most anomalously warm months by NASA and NOAA, respectively.

Climate Central has reanalyzed the temperature data from recent months, averaging the NASA and NOAA numbers and comparing it to the average from 1881-1910 to show how much temperatures have risen from a period closer to preindustrial times.

The analysis shows that the year-to-date temperature through April is 1.45 degrees C above the average from that period. Governments have agreed to limit warming this century to less than 2 degrees C from preindustrial times and are exploring setting an even more ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees C, which temperatures are currently close to.

“The fact that we are beginning to cross key thresholds at the monthly timescale is indeed an indication of how close we are getting to permanently exceeding those thresholds,” Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State, said in an email.

A year-to-date look at 2016 global temperatures compared to recent years.Climate Central

It will take a significant effort to further limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases to realize those goals, experts say. Carbon dioxide levels at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii are already poised to stay above 400 parts per million year-round. They have risen from a preindustrial level of 280 ppm and from 315 ppm just since the mid-20th century.

Hottest year?

As El Niño continues to rapidly decay, monthly temperature anomalies are slowly declining. They are still considerably higher than they were just last year, the current title-holder for the hottest year on record.

Given the head start this year has over last, there is a more than 99 percent chance that 2016 will best 2015 as the hottest year on the books, according to Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which keeps the agency’s temperature data.

If 2016 does set the mark, it will be the third record-setting year in a row.

It is likely, though, that the streak would end with this year, as a La Niña event is looking increasingly likely to follow El Niño, and it tends to have a cooling effect on global temperatures.

But even La Niña years today are warmer than El Niño years of previous decades — a clear sign of how much human caused-warming has increased global temperatures. In fact, the planet hasn’t seen a record cold year since 1911.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read More: 

There’s a 99% chance this will be the hottest year on record

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on There’s a 99% chance this will be the hottest year on record