Tag Archives: land

Protests over Texas high-speed rail take a turn for the ridiculous

by JanessaWilloughb Posted on August 12, 2016

Derailed

Protests over Texas high-speed rail take a turn for the ridiculous

By on Aug 12, 2016 5:49 pmShare

A Texas company plans to build a high-speed rail between Dallas and Houston, turning a four-hour drive between two of the nation’s fastest growing cities into a 90-minute train ride. “Not so fast,” say the rural residents who live between Dallas and Houston.

City officials favor the Japanese-backed, $10-billion project, but those living between Dallas and Houston are opposed — and rural counties are moving fast to block it. Landowners generally dislike when infrastructure slices their land in half, especially when they aren’t likely to benefit from it.

Opposition to the railroad comes down to a question of eminent domain, the government’s right to take private property for public use. Critics argue that because Texas Central Partners isn’t technically an operating railroad, it can’t seize land.

Compared to other industrialized countries, the U.S. is plain pathetic on high-speed rail, and the Texas “bullet train” is currently one of America’s most promising prospects for starting to change that.

Other anti-train arguments aren’t as sane. This protestor told the Japanese government to “peddle your obsolete technology elsewhere,” to which someone in the crowd replied: “Remember Pearl Harbor!”

Always a valid argument.

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

Originally posted here: 

Protests over Texas high-speed rail take a turn for the ridiculous

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Protests over Texas high-speed rail take a turn for the ridiculous

Clinton’s VP pick gets decent reviews from both enviros and fossil fuel industry

by QuentinZtf Posted on July 23, 2016

citizen kaine

Clinton’s VP pick gets decent reviews from both enviros and fossil fuel industry

By on Jul 23, 2016Share

Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s brand-new running mate, appears to have an uncanny ability to appeal to people across the spectrum.

Kaine is no Elizabeth Warren, but he’s no Jim Webb either, getting good reviews from surprising quarters. As Politico reported earlier this month, he opposed the Keystone XL pipeline, protected 400,000 acres of land from development as governor of Virginia, supports the Clean Power Plan, and has worked to prepare coastal communities for climate change and sea-level rise. The League of Conservation Voters has given him a lifetime voting score of 91 percent.

Kaine, however, has also supported offshore drilling in the Atlantic — contradicting Clinton’s position — and supported a bill to fast-track the construction of natural gas terminals. Even fossil fuel interests have taken a liking to him. “We’re encouraged by the reasonable approach he’s taken on oil and natural gas, that he hasn’t been swayed by politics and ideology,” Miles Morin, executive director of the Virginia Petroleum Council, told Politico.

Of course, being on good terms with the fossil fuel industry is a cause for concern among some greens. “If Kaine is the pick, Hillary will need to stake out much clearer positions on drilling, fracking, and new fossil fuel infrastructure,” said 350.org’s Jason Kowalski before Clinton’s choice was made. R.L. Miller, Climate Hawks Vote cofounder and a chair of California Democrats’ environmental caucus, responded to Kaine with a resounding “meh,” citing his mixed record on fossil fuels as something that won’t lure progressive Democrats to the polls.

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

View post:  

Clinton’s VP pick gets decent reviews from both enviros and fossil fuel industry

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, Jason, ONA, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clinton’s VP pick gets decent reviews from both enviros and fossil fuel industry

Are Conservatives Serious About ISIS?

by DKBNereida Posted on July 15, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Over at The Corner, conservatives are using the opportunity of dozens dead in France to—what else? Blame it all on President Obama. Here’s a small sampling:

Mario Loyola: I don’t want my incandescent anger at Obama’s ISIS policy to get in the way of a simple observation: Obama thinks that more people die in bathtubs than in terrorist attacks, and accordingly, it would be disproportionate to make more than a minimal effort to eliminate the ISIS safe havens in Syria, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere. He thinks today’s elevated risk of mass-casualty terrorist attacks in Europe and the U.S. is more acceptable than the risks of really going to war against ISIS, and he thinks that going to war against ISIS won’t stop the terrorist attacks anyway.

Jeremy Carl: One sees how deeply unserious a country America has become. And this is true not just among politicians, but in our entire public culture, which has ultimately permitted as dangerous, divisive, and shallow a man as President Obama to occupy the highest office in the land….We’ve fallen so far that a French socialist dandy is teaching us about resolve in the face of terror, just as previously a bunch of French leftist cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo taught the simpering cowards in our mainstream media a lesson about the true purpose of and, sadly, the ultimate price that must sometimes be paid for, defending free speech and expression.

Jay Nordlinger: What I have to say is not very sophisticated. It would not pass muster at the Council on Foreign Relations. But I think you have to kill these jihadists, and kill them, and kill them, until they simply tire of being killed and leave civilization alone.

A final thought, for now: Al Haig used to say, “Go to the source. You gotta go to the source.”…Iraq, Syria, and Iran are home bases for terrorists worldwide. (And I have confined myself to three.) I know that, for more than ten years, we’ve been tired of the phrase “Either confront them over there or confront them here.” Yeah, yeah, yawn, yawn, warmongering neocons. But some clichés are true, whether we want them to be or not.

Peter Kirsanow: The JV team is whipping the Super Bowl champs because the latter’s coaches are weak, stupid, and deluded….At the same time the president wrings his hands about possible radicalization of American youth he moves heaven and earth to release the most dangerous of radicals from Guantanamo. The commander-in-chief can set red lines toward no purpose and apologize to enablers of terror but he can’t summon the interest or ability to secure a status of forces agreement. No place on the planet is more secure and peaceful than when the president took office.

All of these folks are fundamentally pissed off about our “seriousness” in going after ISIS—although I don’t think ISIS has yet been connected to the Nice attack. But put that aside. Whenever I read stuff like this, I have one question: What do you think we should do?

If you really want to destroy ISIS, and do it quickly, there’s only one alternative: ground troops, and plenty of them. This would be a massive counterinsurgency operation, something we’ve proven to be bad at, and at a guess would require at least 100,000 troops. Maybe more. And they’d have to be staged in unfriendly territory: Syria, which obviously doesn’t want us there, and Iraq, which also doesn’t want us there in substantial numbers.

Is that what these folks want? Anything less is, to use their words, unserious. But if they do want a massive ground operation, and simply aren’t willing to say so because they’re afraid the public would rebel, then they’re just as cowardly as the people they’re attacking.

This is the choice. Don’t bamboozle me with no-fly zones and tougher rules of engagement and better border security. That’s small beer. You either support Obama’s current operation, more or less, or else you want a huge and costly ground operation. There’s really no middle ground. So which is it?

View original article:

Are Conservatives Serious About ISIS?

Posted in alo, bamboo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are Conservatives Serious About ISIS?

The Republican vision for the environment is not a pretty sight

by Peter02Jgulyfk Posted on July 15, 2016

Dirty dealing

The Republican vision for the environment is not a pretty sight

By on Jul 15, 2016 5:16 amShare

With their party’s national convention just days away, Republicans in the House of Representatives have given us a detailed vision of their environmental agenda. You may be shocked to hear that it would further pollute our air and water and worsen climate change. On Thursday, the House passed its budget bill for the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Interior on a mostly party-line vote.

The bill would spend $1 billion less on the agencies next year than President Obama requested. That comes on top of severe cuts over the last six years, since Republicans gained control of Congress. “EPA’s budget, not including inflation, is already 20 percent below what it was in 2010,” says Scott Slesinger, legislative director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “When the budget agreement was done last year for 2016 and they found more money for domestic [programs and defense], the only agency that did not get an increase was EPA.”

Environmentalists are even more upset, though, about the “policy riders” — that’s D.C.-ese for unrelated amendments attached to a spending bill. The most extreme ones would:

Block implementation of the Clean Power Plan, the EPA’s program for cutting carbon emissions from power plants.
Stop Interior from completing rules to crack down on mountaintop-removal coal mining.
Halt Bureau of Land Management rules governing fracking on public land.
Prevent EPA from implementing its new rule to limit exposure to lead paint.
Kill the Obama administration’s new rules intended to avert disastrous offshore oil spills.
Axe the just-released Arctic-specific drilling regulations, meant to address the unusual risks of offshore oil and gas drilling there.

On the bright side, Republicans actually dropped some of the most absurd amendments — such as one that would have prevented EPA employees from flying for work.

Obama threatened to veto this bill before it even passed the full House, so there’s no risk of it actually becoming law. But it’s a handy guide to what Republicans want to do, even if they avoid saying so in prime time this coming week.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Visit link:  

The Republican vision for the environment is not a pretty sight

Posted in alo, Anchor, Brita, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Republican vision for the environment is not a pretty sight

Is this giant chasm in Siberia a portal to the underworld? You decide!

by KayParis74 Posted on June 18, 2016

shock & thaw

Is this giant chasm in Siberia a portal to the underworld? You decide!

By on Jun 18, 2016 7:05 amShare

Ever wondered what the underworld looks like? Well get yourself to Siberia, and quick.

According to The Siberian Times, a sinkhole known as the Batagaika crater (or “megaslump”) formed in the Verkhoyansk region of Siberian in the 1960s, after the land was cleared by logging. Without vegetation, the permafrost started to collapse — and it has continued to, for the last 40 years. Locals now refer to the site — which is nearly a mile long and over 300 feet deep — as the “gateway to the underworld.”

While we are unable to confirm that the massive pit is indeed the gateway to the underworld, it’s not hard to see why locals might think so. The pit isn’t just huge — it’s also loud, with large clods of soil constantly crumbling from the edges and falling into the pit.

The crater is growing about 50 feet a year as the permafrost around it continues to thaw. And as the melting continues, it releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere there were previously trapped underground. It’s a vicious cycle: Greenhouse gases contribute to climate change, climate change melts permafrost, melting permafrost releases more greenhouse gases, and so on.

While giant pits in the ground aren’t wholly uncommon in Siberia, they are troubling. According to geologic records, Siberia hasn’t seen craters of this magnitude since the planet moved out of the last ice age, roughly 10,000 years ago.

But as Batagaika researcher Julian Murton told Motherboard, there may be more slumps in store for Siberia’s permafrost. “I expect that the Batagaika megaslump will continue to grow until it runs out of ice or becomes buried by slumped sediment,” Murtan said, adding that, “It’s quite likely that other megaslumps will develop in Siberia if the climate continues to warm or get wetter.”

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Originally posted here:

Is this giant chasm in Siberia a portal to the underworld? You decide!

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is this giant chasm in Siberia a portal to the underworld? You decide!

Marijuana is legal in Colorado, but rain barrels still are not

by JosetteSeely Posted on March 26, 2016

Marijuana is legal in Colorado, but rain barrels still are not

By on 25 Mar 2016commentsShare

While it’s perfectly legal for Colorado residents to sit around in their soft pants with one hand wrapped around a bong and the other in a Cheetos bag, there’s one surprising thing that could get them in trouble with the law: rain barrels.

Colorado is the only state in the nation that bans the use of rain barrels. According to the state constitution, all moisture that falls from the sky and into Colorado’s borders is owned by the “people” — which really means it’s owned by the state. Water is allocated according to a complicated web of water rights. All of the rain and snow that fall into residents’ yards must be allowed to flow unimpeded into waterways, for instance, where it then becomes the property of whoever owns the rights — generally ranchers, farmers, drinking water providers, and developers. This system goes back more than a century, and rights are granted based on claim date: The longer you’ve had a claim, the higher priority it gets.

As you may imagine, the rain barrel ban is unpopular among those without water rights — namely, people who would like to store snowmelt or rainwater and use it to water their gardens or even flush their toilets. And the issue has become increasingly contentious as drought in Western states has made water an even more precious — and limited — resource.

There have been many attempts to reform Colorado’s water laws in the statehouse, but none have passed. The latest attempt is proposed by Democratic state Rep. Jessie Danielson, who is sponsoring a bill that would permit Colorado residents to collect up to 110 gallons at a time, or two barrels’ worth. “If I can shovel snow off from my sidewalk and put it on my lawn, why can’t I use a rain barrel to take it from my sidewalk to put on my tomato plants?” Danielson asked during an interview with CBS Denver.

It’s a good question, but one that may not be resolved anytime soon. Although the bill passed in the state House by 61 to 3, it has stalled in the GOP-controlled Senate. One of the strongest opponents of the bill, as ThinkProgress reports, is Republican Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg, whose district is home to farmers and ranchers concerned that rain barrels would reduce their own share of water. “It’s like growing flowers,” Sonnenberg said last year about rain barrels. “You can’t go over and pick your neighbors’ flowers just because you’re only picking a few. They’re not your flowers.”

The irony here is that research shows that rain barrels actually don’t affect the amount of water that will reach streams and rivers by any detectable level. Most rain is absorbed into the land before it reaches waterways anyway. Time to flush away some out-of-date thinking.

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: 

Marijuana is legal in Colorado, but rain barrels still are not

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, oven, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Marijuana is legal in Colorado, but rain barrels still are not

E.U. biodiesels could be dirtier than fossil fuels, according to new report

by Hyatt Monien Posted on March 15, 2016

E.U. biodiesels could be dirtier than fossil fuels, according to new report

By on 15 Mar 2016commentsShare

Switching to renewable energy is meant to decrease the level of greenhouse gas emissions — a message that someone should really pass on to the European Union.

A new analysis conducted by the Ecofys Consultancy for the European Commission shows that biodiesel from palm oil can produce three times the emissions of conventional diesel oil and biofuel from soybeans can produce twice as many emissions as diesel. It’s an important finding for the E.U., where countries are pushing for 10 percent of transport fuel to come from renewable sources by 2020.

The land-use impacts of palm oil and soybeans biofuels had a major effect on their calculated footprints. The issue is twofold: Large tracts of carbon sinks, mainly forests and peatland, are clear-cut or drained to make way for giant palm or soy plantations; and new land must also be cleared to grow food that could have been planted on plots now being used for biofuels.

The report was taken down shortly after publication and a source told the Guardian that its original release was delayed due to biofuel-friendly pressure. The industry has publicly pushed back against the study’s findings, with the European Biodiesel Board telling Biofuels News that the research is based on “a model which has still not been disclosed nor validated by peers.” The board called into question the academic validity of the report, arguing that other research conducted in California showed lower values for emissions from indirect land-use changes.

If the findings of the report are accurate, the E.U.’s transport directive could have a big impact on carbon emissions. The inclusion of palm and soybean biodiesel in the E.U.’s transportation goals would add two gigatons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, according to green think tank Transport and Environment — annually accounting for 2-3 percent of the Europe’s total carbon output. Transport and Environment director Jos Dings told the Guardian that biodiesel is “a big elephant in the room.”

Though soybean and palm oil are considered, even encouraged, as renewable energy sources by the E.U., they are, according to the research, changing the emissions of an entire continent. With that in mind, a different, stricter, version of the word “renewable” might be necessary.

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

Continue reading:  

E.U. biodiesels could be dirtier than fossil fuels, according to new report

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on E.U. biodiesels could be dirtier than fossil fuels, according to new report

Yes! I Will Be Liveblogging Tonight’s Republican Debate

by AidaClunie Posted on February 25, 2016

Mother Jones

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

I have run out of excuses. I don’t have any house guests. I’m not going out to dinner tonight. Nobody is celebrating a birthday. My computer and I are fully available to liveblog tonight’s Republican debate.

So I shall. It “starts” at 8:30 pm Eastern on CNN, but it really starts at 9 pm. See you then.

View the original here:

Yes! I Will Be Liveblogging Tonight’s Republican Debate

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Yes! I Will Be Liveblogging Tonight’s Republican Debate

Trump and Cruz Show All Politics Is No Longer Local

by FloydHibbs Posted on February 24, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Ted Cruz spent the few days between the South Carolina and Nevada nominating contests pandering to the Cliven Bundy crowd in the Silver State, promising to give all lands owned by the federal government over to the state. When he stopped on Sunday in Henderson, a town nestled among the mountains outside Las Vegas, he spoke before a backdrop proclaiming “Return Our Land.” He ran negative ads against Donald Trump on the subject.

“Donald Trump has explicitly come out against transferring the land from the federal government back to the state of Nevada or the people of Nevada,” Cruz said in northern Nevada on Tuesday, the day of the caucuses.

Meanwhile, Trump mostly dismissed the issue. At a rally at a Last Vegas casino on Monday night, Trump called it a silly concern that Cruz was making too much hay out of. “He’s got an ad,” Trump said of Cruz, “something to do with, I want to take away your land, and I want to keep it with the federal government. I don’t even know what the hell they’re talking about. It’s a Cruz ad. It’s a Cruz scam.”

What did Cruz get for his appeal to local concerns? A third-place finish here in Nevada, 24 percentage points behind the victor, Trump.

That dynamic was flipped during the first contest of the election. While campaigning in Iowa, Cruz regularly faced questions about his opposition to the renewable fuel standards that drive the state’s ethanol industry. Iowa’s Republican governor, Terry Branstad, made it a mission to tear down Cruz for daring to question the state’s best crop. “I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him,” Branstad said in January, adding that he’d like to see the Texas senator defeated to send a message to all future presidential candidates that they can’t waver from supporting the state’s economic priorities. “He’s heavily financed by Big Oil,” Branstad said. “So we think once Iowans realize that fact, they might find other things attractive, but he could be very damaging to our state.”

Trump quickly latched onto Branstad’s statements, regularly criticizing Cruz over ethanol on Iowa campaign stops and embracing Branstad’s views as though the governor had endorsed him.

Yet when the Iowa caucus results came in on February 1, Cruz outperformed the polls and sailed to a win.

Continue Reading »

Taken from: 

Trump and Cruz Show All Politics Is No Longer Local

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, Casio, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump and Cruz Show All Politics Is No Longer Local

Facebook Is Still Intolerant Toward the Emotionally Stunted

by RudolfMkdxa Posted on February 24, 2016

Mother Jones

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

When I took German in high school, our go-to reaction for anything our teacher asked us was “Sehr interessant”—mainly because none of us knew enough German to say much of anything else. In this, we were much like Facebook, which allows you to respond to posts only by liking them. Today, though, Facebook’s command of emotional language got a big upgrade. Check out all the new responses:

That’s all fine, but what happened to “interesting”? Shouldn’t there be at least one icon that acts as a recommendation for a post without requiring you to commit to it one way or the other? Some of us are uncomfortable wearing our hearts on our sleeves, after all. I demand equal time for the emotionally stunted.

View original article: 

Facebook Is Still Intolerant Toward the Emotionally Stunted

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Facebook Is Still Intolerant Toward the Emotionally Stunted