Tag Archives: international

President Obama Just Made a Passionate Appeal to the Cuban People to Embrace Democracy

Mother Jones

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

Just hours after terrorist attacks in Brussels left dozens dead or wounded, President Barak Obama spoke directly to the Cuban people Tuesday morning. He condemned the violence saying, “We must unite, we must be together regardless of race, nationality, or faith,” and then shifted his focus to US Cuban relations.

In the televised broadcast from the Gran Teatro in Havana, he urged the citizens of Cuba to embrace American democracy, outlining the steps he believes they should take in order to ease the path to normalization of relations between the two neighboring countries.

“I have come here to bury the last remnants of the Cold War in the Americas,” Obama said.

Since Obama announced the historic move to restore relations in December of 2014, questions have repeatedly arisen concerning the timing of this reconciliation after more than five decades of hostilities. On Tuesday, Obama said that the approach employed by the United States since the Cold War was no longer working and that “we have to have the courage to acknowledge that truth.”

He also called on Congress to lift the embargo to help expedite the normalization process.

Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, took no time to respond to Obama’s speech, slamming the president for being in Havana at all.

See the original article here:  

President Obama Just Made a Passionate Appeal to the Cuban People to Embrace Democracy

Posted in alo, alternative energy, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on President Obama Just Made a Passionate Appeal to the Cuban People to Embrace Democracy

Oh Wait—Donald Trump Decides He Has a Foreign Policy Team After All

Mother Jones

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

After finally telling us that he didn’t need a foreign policy team because he was his own team, Donald Trump made yet another U-turn today and announced his foreign policy team. It’s enough to make you dizzy. I’ll let Robert Costa introduce them:

Keith Kellogg…executive vice president at CACI International, a Virginia-based intelligence and information technology consulting firm…. Joseph Schmitz….Blackwater Worldwide…. George Papadopoulos…international energy center at the London Center of International Law Practice…. Walid Phares…National Defense University and Daniel Morgan Academy in Washington…. Carter Page…managing partner of Global Energy Capital and longtime energy industry executive.

This is quite a team. Kellogg was COO of the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003-04 under Paul Bremer, and we all know how that turned out. Schmitz is the son of noted Southern California crackpot John Schmitz—which I suppose I can’t hold against him—and served as inspector general of the Defense Department under George Bush. He resigned in 2005 following charges that he “slowed or blocked investigations of senior Bush administration officials, spent taxpayer money on pet projects and accepted gifts that may have violated ethics guidelines.”

Papadopoulos is on his second presidential campaign this year, having previously found a home with Ben Carson. Phares is well known to all Fox News viewers for his regular appearances there—and for his background during the 80s as a “high ranking political official in a sectarian religious militia responsible for massacres during Lebanon’s brutal, 15-year civil war.”

Page I don’t know much about. Apparently he’s the head of an investment fund “focused on energy investments worldwide,” and that’s good enough for Trump.

So….this is a helluva C-list crew Trump has assembled. A guy who worked for Paul Bremer; the son of John Schmitz; a former Ben Carson advisor; a Fox News talking head; and a guy who specializes in torts.

As for Trump’s actual foreign policy, apparently it’s the same as always: he’s super militaristic, but he doesn’t want to actually use the American military for much of anything. He’d like other countries to start taking care of Ukraine and NATO and the South China Sea—or, if they insist on America doing it, he’d like them to pay us for it. Apparently Trump’s ambition is to sit at the head of a vast American tribute empire.

View original post here – 

Oh Wait—Donald Trump Decides He Has a Foreign Policy Team After All

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Oh Wait—Donald Trump Decides He Has a Foreign Policy Team After All

China’s new 5-year plan is out, and it doesn’t sacrifice the environment for the economy

Harvest in Yili, Xinjiang Autonomous Region. REUTERS/China Daily

China’s new 5-year plan is out, and it doesn’t sacrifice the environment for the economy

By on 18 Mar 2016commentsShare

On Wednesday, Chinese lawmakers approved the country’s 13th Five-Year Plan, the high-level document that will guide policymaking through 2020, including the country’s approach to climate and energy policy. As the world’s second-largest economy and the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China necessarily plays a role in shaping global climate policy — and if it can deliver on the goals outlined in the plan, that role will undoubtedly expand.

The plan is the first to set a national cap on energy consumption — 5 billion tons of standard coal equivalent for 2020 — as well as offering new visions for energy efficiency and air pollution. A World Resources Institute analysis concluded that this FYP sets China on a path to a 48 percent reduction in carbon intensity levels by 2020, compared to 2005 levels. (Carbon intensity refers to the ratio of CO2 emissions to GDP.) For reference, China’s pledge to the Paris Agreement has the country slashing carbon intensity by 60-65 percent of 2005 levels by 2030.

All told, it’s the “greenest Five-Year Plan that China has ever produced,” said Barbara Finamore, director of NRDC’s Asia program, on a press call.

Click to embiggen.World Resources Institute

There’s a lot more to the FYP than energy policy, but many of the other pieces are complementary when it comes to the climate. New standards on air quality indicators like PM 2.5, for example, will no doubt rein in the country’s rampant coal burning.

But it’s not all about coal, either. While China saw a cut in coal use of around 3 percent in 2015, it increased its oil consumption by 5.6 percent in the same year. “If China is going to peak its CO2 emissions, it cannot just rely on [cutting] coal,” said Finamore. “Transportation emissions and oil consumption are going to be exceedingly important.” And they are: The FYP addresses vehicle emissions and public transportation in cities, in addition to allocating new money to high-speed rail initiatives.

Advertisement – Article continues below

It’s easy to raise questions about China’s ability to follow through on these kinds of ambitious plans in the face of slowing economic growth. The FYP outlines a target GDP growth rate of 6.5 percent through 2020 — speedy by global standards, but a far cry from the 10 percent growth rate of yesteryear.

But that’s not the right way to think about it, said Paul Joffe, senior foreign policy counsel at WRI. “China envisions a ‘new normal’ level of growth,” explained Joffe to press. “At that level, they view the economic and environmental targets as entirely compatible.” In other words, anyone wildly gesticulating at China’s flagging growth rate needs to take a chill pill. Ten percent is simply not sustainable.

Joffe’s description of coinciding economic and environmental goals bucks the conventional economic logic that says “you need to consume more to grow more,” said Kate Gordon, a vice chair at the Paulson Institute. That logic is faltering. Earlier this week, the International Energy Agency released data suggesting energy-related emissions and global GDP growth are decoupling. Indeed, Gordon argues that China’s energy-efficiency savings have in part allowed for that kind of decoupling. As the economy transitions to a larger focus on services — which the FYP has growing from 50.5 to 56 percent of the Chinese economy by 2020 — and a lesser emphasis on industry, the split between GDP growth and emission trends becomes even more apparent.

A reasonably glaring omission in China’s FYP is the lack of an explicit goal for new renewable energy installed, though it’s conceivable that new goals for solar and wind capacity could find their way into the sub-plans that will be released over the coming months. Existing targets include 150GW of new solar capacity and 250GW of wind by 2020. Of course, it’s also not just about capacity, said Gordon. You’ve also got to get that electricity on the grid. In its Paris Agreement pledge, China committed to raising its share of renewables to 20 percent of its energy mix by 2030.

The plan’s ambition gives post-Paris climate-action further momentum, and can only serve to strengthen the recent U.S.-China climate pact. As with all ambitious plans, though, implementation will be key — and the country is outlining some stark transitions. Upwards of 1.8 million workers in the coal and steel industries are expected to lose their jobs due to changes outlined in the FYP, and those workers will need to be retrained and reemployed. Truly delivering on those goals will require an unprecedented degree of foresight and coordination.

Or to put it in Finamore’s own words: “It’s going to be tough.”

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

More: 

China’s new 5-year plan is out, and it doesn’t sacrifice the environment for the economy

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on China’s new 5-year plan is out, and it doesn’t sacrifice the environment for the economy

Huzzah! The economy keeps growing while energy emissions stay flat

Huzzah! The economy keeps growing while energy emissions stay flat

By on 16 Mar 2016commentsShare

Uncork the champagne: We solved that whole carbon emissions thing. The International Energy Agency (IEA) announced Wednesday that 2015 saw global energy-related emissions stall for the second year in a row, despite continued 3 percent growth of global GDP. Zooming the lens in, the same was true of energy powerhouses like the U.S. and China, which both reported a drop in energy-related carbon emissions over the same time period.

International Energy Agency

The flattening of energy sector emissions can largely be attributed to an expansion in global renewable capacity, suggests the IEA. Renewables accounted for about 90 percent of all new electricity generation last year, and wind energy alone accounted for more than 50 percent of this figure. With global GDP growth continuing to hover around 3 percent, the numbers appear to confirm what coalitions like New Climate Economy have long argued: There’s no such thing as a tradeoff between the environment and the economy.

Energy-sector emissions have only declined three other times in the past 40 years — see the highlighted time-points in the chart above — and each of those were during an economic slowdown. Two years of flat emissions means we’re getting somewhere.

Advertisement – Article continues below

Of course, this is the real world, and nothing’s quite so black and white. You’ll notice some intentional phrasing here: “energy-related CO2 emissions.” The energy sector will always be a big slice of the carbon-pollution pie — the biggest! — but it’s not the only slice. What about all the other emissions; say, from the agricultural sector? From land-use changes? From landfills?

While we won’t have up-to-date information on a lot of these other indicators for another few months, we do know that deforestation, El Niño, and rampant wildfires have already lent themselves to spikes in atmospheric CO2 levels. In Indonesia, for example, emissions due to October wildfires often eclipsed the average daily emissions from the entire U.S. economy. Land use in Indonesia accounts for more than 60 percent of the country’s annual greenhouse gas emissions.

And while energy-related emissions may have fallen in China, they have increased in the Middle East and Europe.

So yes, the IEA figures are reason to celebrate (go ahead, take a sip of that champagne), but they’re also a reason to double down on renewables.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Original post: 

Huzzah! The economy keeps growing while energy emissions stay flat

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, hydroponics, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Huzzah! The economy keeps growing while energy emissions stay flat

Republicans Are Pushing Obama to Fill This Court…To Try Syrian War Crimes

Mother Jones

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

Yesterday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution accusing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and his allies of committing war crimes. The resolution comes amid concerns from Republicans and some Democrats that the Obama administration—under pressure from Moscow—has all but abandoned its goal of regime change in Syria. It calls on the White House to use its influence at the United Nations to establish a Syrian war crimes tribunal.

“The government of Syria has engaged in widespread torture and rape, employed starvation as a weapon of war, and massacred civilians, including through the use of chemical weapons, cluster munitions, and barrel bombs,” the resolution asserts. It adds that “the vast majority of the civilians who have died in the Syrian conflict have been killed by the government of Syria and its allies,” including Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. As many as 470,000 Syrians have died so far in the conflict, and millions have been made homeless.

The resolution’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), who first introduced this bill in 2013, says that establishing a war crimes tribunal for Syria would force a stronger stance from Washington, make it more difficult for other countries to cooperate with the Syrian government, and could potentially lead to Assad’s ouster. “I have continued to ask Secretary Kerry and others in the Administration—they have never said no, but they haven’t said yes—about this idea of establishing a Syrian war crimes tribunal,” a frustrated Smith said at the resolution markup on Wednesday. The resolution passed through the committee on a voice vote.

The only dissenting voice at the hearing was that of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who claimed that Assad is helping fight ISIS, America’s real enemy. He was quickly shut down.

Republicans have generally been skeptical of international prosecutions of accused war criminals. In 2002, George W. Bush signed the the American Servicemembers Protection Act, which shields American personnel and allies from prosecution in the International Criminal Court. Yet this position has softened. In 2013, President Obama signed a bill that would make it easier for the United States to go after war criminals like warlord Joseph Kony; the measure was spearheaded by Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and former chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.).

Smith’s approach would circumvent the ICC, which he chastised for only achieving two convictions in 14 years. His resolution would seek the creation of an ad hoc or regional tribunal. He pointed to similar tribunals in the former Yugoslavia (which convicted 67 people), Rwanda (26), and Sierra Leone (16). “Can a UN Security Council resolution establishing a Syrian war crimes tribunal prevail?” he asked. “I would respectfully submit yes.”

View original article:

Republicans Are Pushing Obama to Fill This Court…To Try Syrian War Crimes

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Smith's, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Are Pushing Obama to Fill This Court…To Try Syrian War Crimes

Low-Wage Workers Are Protesting Outside Tonight’s GOP Debate

Mother Jones

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

Texas isn’t known as labor-friendly territory—but that isn’t putting off Fight for $15 organizers. Building on a series of rallies across the country, a group of fast-food, home care, and other low-wage workers affiliated with the movement plan to protest outside the Republican presidential debate in Houston tonight. They are calling for $15 per hour in pay and the right to unionize.

In a race that has been inflamed by Donald Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric, some of the workers—many of them immigrants—will also call for immigration reform, the group said in a press release. The Fight for $15 has organized a string of protests around this year’s election events, including demonstrations outside debates in South Carolina and Wisconsin earlier this month. The group, which is backed by the Service Employees International Union, has gradually gained a national profile since staging its first strikes on New York fast-food chains in November 2012.

None of the Republican presidential candidates support raising the federal minimum wage. Both Democratic candidates do, though to varying degrees: Bernie Sanders has pushed for a $15 federal minimum wage, while Hillary Clinton has backed a more modest hike from the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 to $12 per hour.

Regardless of who makes it to the Oval Office, the Fight for $15 movement has helped to propel wage hikes across the country on the state and local level. Cities such as New York and San Francisco have pledged to phase in $15 minimum wages over the next few years, and states are also beginning to take action. The Oregon House just last week passed a bill to raise its minimum wage, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is traveling his state in an effort to build support for a statewide $15 minimum.

“Forty-eight percent of workers in Texas, or some 5.4 million, are paid less than $15/hour—the second highest number in the nation—making the need to raise pay a major issue in the run-up to the primary,” Fight for $15 organizers said in their press release.

Excerpt from – 

Low-Wage Workers Are Protesting Outside Tonight’s GOP Debate

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Low-Wage Workers Are Protesting Outside Tonight’s GOP Debate

Donald Trump’s Employees Are Picketing His Nevada Hotel

Mother Jones

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

When Donald Trump emerged from his Las Vegas hotel Tuesday evening to visit caucus sites, an unfriendly sight greeted him: hundreds of his employees picketing to form a union.

“No contract, no peace,” hotel employees wearing red Culinary Union T-shirts chanted on the sidewalk outside Trump’s property.

A video posted by Mother Jones Magazine (@motherjonesmag) on Feb 23, 2016 at 6:53pm PST

Trump is, of course, staying just off the Vegas Strip at the Trump International Hotel, which he co-owns with Treasure Island owner Phil Ruffin. Trump’s property, open since 2008, is an outlier among the heavily unionized hotels and casinos in Vegas. Workers there have spent the past two years attempting to form a bargaining unit under the local Culinary Union, holding a vote in December during which a majority of employees said they wanted union representation. Management at the hotel objected, claiming it hadn’t been a fair election, but a local National Labor Relations Board official recently declared that Trump’s “objections be overruled in their entirety.”

Still, Trump’s management refuses to sit down and negotiate with the new bargaining unit.

Carmen Llarull, a 62-year-old housekeeper, was in the initial band of five workers who organized at the hotel. Early on, the five showed up at work wearing union badges. At the end of the day, Llarull said, management demanded they remove their badges. “We said no, this is my right to organize my co-workers,” she says. So management fired them—but just for one day, since the Culinary Union filed charges. “The next day, they call us to come back to work, telling us it was a mistake.”

“Now we want to sit with Mr. Trump,” she said. Trump threw a thumbs up to the crowd of protestoes as he drove by in his SUV, Llarull said, but no sign that he’s ready to strike a deal anytime soon.

Union protesters outside Trump’s Vegas hotel Patrick Caldwell/Mother Jones

Visit site – 

Donald Trump’s Employees Are Picketing His Nevada Hotel

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Employees Are Picketing His Nevada Hotel

There’s Finally an Agreement to Stop the Fighting in Syria—and It’s Probably Doomed

Mother Jones

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

Less than two weeks after peace talks over the Syrian civil war abruptly ended, the International Syria Support Group—a body of about 20 countries and international organizations involved in the war, including the European Union and the United Nations—announced on Thursday that they had finally brokered the terms of a halt to the brutal war that has killed nearly half a million people. The “cessation of hostilities” between regime forces and rebel groups, if successful, would be the first general stop to the fighting in almost four years. It seemed to meet some of the Syrian opposition’s demands for humanitarian relief and a halt to Russian airstrikes against civilians and rebels. But none of this means the agreement is likely to succeed.

The International Syria Support Group group pledged its members would push “all parties to allow immediate and sustained humanitarian access to reach all people in need” and “take immediate steps to secure the full support of all parties to the conflict for a cessation of hostilities.” Those parties, however—the Syrian government and mainstream rebel groups—weren’t actually part of the negotiations. Thursday’s agreement merely sets the terms for how a cessation of hostilities would look, leaving the United States, Russia, Iran, and others to convince their allies on the ground to abide by the pact.

How exactly they’ll convince the regime and the opposition to play along hasn’t yet been decided; the declaration gives the ISSG a week to figure out the details of the agreement and implement them. “We will only be able to see whether this was a breakthrough in a few days,” admitted German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier during the announcement, which took place at a security conference in Munich. Secretary of State John Kerry also tempered expectations for the cessation agreement. “The real test is clearly whether or not all the parties honor those commitments and implement them in reality,” he said. “What I’ve said again and again is we cannot guarantee success in the outcome.”

The fact that the opposition’s High Negotiations Council, a body made up of dissident Syrian politicians and rebel leaders, is not taking part in the discussions in Munich means the agreement may not get crucial buy-in from armed groups on the battlefield. Such support is critical for political negotiations or agreements to hold.

The Washington Post reported that while rebels may accept the “ceasefire”—the United States and Russia are divided on whether to use the term—out of exhaustion and lack of options, they are still highly skeptical. “We no longer trust words. There have been too many recently, matched with opposite action on the ground from the Russians,” Issam Rayess, a spokesman for the rebels’ Southern Front coalition that fights near Damascus, told the Post‘s Liz Sly. “Within a week everything will have been destroyed,” one civilian told her. And no matter what the rebels decide, the agreement will also have no effect on jihadi groups like ISIS or Jabhat al-Nusra, Syria’s homegrown affiliate of Al Qaeda.

The High Negotiations Council has adopted a wait-and-see approach. When the Geneva talks stopped earlier this month, the HNC said it would not return to the table until Russian airstrikes ended and humanitarian aid began flowing to starving and decimated areas of Syria. The United Nation’s Syria envoy hopes to restart the talks by February 25, and HNC spokesman Salim al-Muslat says the cessation of hostilities must actually take effect before the opposition returns to talks. “If we see action and implementation, we will see you very soon in Geneva,” he told reporters on Thursday.

But even if the fighting does stop for any significant length of time, the two sides are still no closer to agreeing on the most basic issue of the war: what to do with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The opposition and its backers will not accept any political solution that allows Assad to stay in office. But on the same day the cessation was announced, Assad told the French wire service AFP that he has no plans to give up any territory or power, instead reconfirming his intent to regain control of the entire country. “This is a goal we are seeking to achieve without any hesitation,” he said in an interview on Thursday. “It makes no sense for us to say that we will give up any part of Syria.” As Middle East analyst Brooklyn Middleton noted on Twitter, Assad’s statement means the cessation of hostilities will mostly be an illusion of progress rather than an actual achievement.

From – 

There’s Finally an Agreement to Stop the Fighting in Syria—and It’s Probably Doomed

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on There’s Finally an Agreement to Stop the Fighting in Syria—and It’s Probably Doomed

The Supreme Court Just Did Serious Damage to the Fight Against Climate Change

Mother Jones

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

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to President Barack Obama’s climate agenda Tuesday evening by putting his flagship greenhouse gas emissions rules on hold. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices granted the stay in response to a lawsuits by coal companies and two dozen coal-reliant states. The plaintiffs have argued that by setting new limits on carbon pollution from power plants, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is overstepping its authority to control the electricity sector.

The ruling is far from a death knell for the Clean Power Plan, as the policy is known. Rather, it allows power companies and state official to hold off on preparing for the new regulations until the courts decide whether the administration went too far. The cases will most likely end up in front of the Supreme Court sometime next year, so there’s still plenty of time before the plan’s fate is sealed.

According to Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center, the Court’s track record on EPA regulations is pretty favorable for environmentalists.

“Every regulation from EPA is attacked legally,” she said. “There might be delays, but there is almost always a rule that come out the other end.”

But in the meantime, the ruling could throw a wrench in the delicate diplomacy surrounding the global climate agreement reached in Paris in December. One defining feature of the Paris summit that made it the most successful round of climate talks in two decades was the leadership of Secretary of State John Kerry and other US officials. It was the Clean Power Plan that gave other countries confidence that the US was finally willing to do something about its own massive carbon footprint. In other words, the plan was supposed to be Obama’s proof that the US would follow through on its Paris promises. Now, the trust of other big polluters—China, India, the European Union—could be shaken. That could have a chilling effect on climate action around the globe.

“I think the stay raises doubts in other countries’ minds,” said Jake Schmidt, international program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “I’m already getting a lot of questions and confusion from policy analysts abroad. There will be a lot of outreach to explain what this really means.”

Their concerns may well be justified—even if the Supreme Court ultimately does rule in favor of the administration. That’s because, regardless of the case’s final outcome, yesterday’s stay will make the Clean Power Plan more vulnerable if a Republican wins the presidential election in November. All of the leading GOP candidates have vowed to roll back Obama’s climate agenda. (Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have both promised to carry it forward.)

The problem is the timeline, explained Robert Stavins, director of Harvard’s Environmental Economics program. Until yesterday, state regulators and power companies were in the early stages of putting together their plans to comply with the regulation. But with the stay in place, power companies can push off the investments and upgrades required by the plan—switching coal-fired power plants to natural gas, improving efficiency on the electric grid, building more wind and solar energy, etc. That means that by the time the next president takes office, the power companies will have sunk less capital into implementing the plan, and will have less incentive to see it survive than if they had already made those investments, Stavins said. With that potential roadblock out of the way, a Republican president would have an easier time killing the plan.

“That’s a subtle chain of causality, but it’s the one that—if understood—may reasonably cause concern to other countries regarding the ability of the USA to live up to its Paris promises,” Stavins said.

Still, at least in the short term, the US doesn’t need the Clean Power Plan to follow through on its initial Paris commitments, Schmidt said. The US will be required to submit its first progress report under the agreement in 2020, a couple years before the Clean Power Plan was originally scheduled to take effect. Moreover, he said, even if countries such as China and India are spooked by the Supreme Court’s new ruling, they’re unlikely to jump ship on their own climate plans.

“When you look at what’s happened over the past couple years, it’s really hopeful that the US is moving forward,” Schmidt said. “But most countries aren’t moving forward solely on the basis of what the US is doing.”

Source article – 

The Supreme Court Just Did Serious Damage to the Fight Against Climate Change

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court Just Did Serious Damage to the Fight Against Climate Change

Is "Fragrance" Making Us Sick?

Mother Jones

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

For Joyce Miller, a 57-year-old professor of library science in upstate New York, one sniff of scented laundry detergent can trigger an asthma attack. “I feel like someone is standing on my chest,” she says. “It’s almost like a choking feeling—pressure and choking. And then the coughing starts.”

Miller is just one of countless Americans who are sensitive to “fragrance,” a cryptic category of ingredients manufacturers add to products from cleaning supplies to toiletries. This generic term encompasses thousands of combinations of chemicals that give consumer goods their odors, but the identity of those chemicals is rarely disclosed.

For decades, fragrance makers have insisted on treating their recipes as trade secrets, even as complaints about negative health effects have proliferated. A 2009 study, for example, concluded that nearly one-third of Americans were irritated by the smell of scented products on others, and 19 percent experienced headaches or breathing difficulties when exposed to air fresheners or deodorizers.

Continue Reading »

Continue reading: 

Is "Fragrance" Making Us Sick?

Posted in Anchor, Aroma, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is "Fragrance" Making Us Sick?