Tag Archives: news

GOP debate near Flint barely mentions Flint

GOP debate near Flint barely mentions Flint

By on 4 Mar 2016commentsShare

Thursday evening’s GOP debate had plenty of head-scratching moments — Donald Trump talking about the size of his “hands” comes to mind, as does John Kasich pleading for tolerance while defending homophobic wedding planners. But perhaps the strangest aspect of the debate is that while the debate was in Detroit, only 70 miles from Flint, there was barely a mention of the lead-in-water crisis. It didn’t come up until nearly 90 minutes in, and when it did, it was with a single question posed to Marco Rubio.

“Senator Rubio,” said Fox News moderator Bret Baier, “Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have both been to Flint. … Without getting into the political blame game here, where are the national Republicans’ plans on infrastructure and solving problems like this? If you talk to people in this state, they are really concerned about Flint on both sides of the aisle. So why haven’t GOP candidates done more or talked more about this?”

Rubio, who, until six weeks ago seemed to think the Flint Water Crisis was the name of a metal band, had no good answer.

Advertisement

“What happened in Flint was a terrible thing,” Rubio said. “It was a systemic failure at every level of government.” He then praised Michigan Governor Rick Snyder’s handling of the water crisis — which is odd because, while Snyder probably didn’t leach lead into the city water supply himself, he did appoint the emergency city manager who made the call to change Flint’s water source, which kickstarted the disaster. Snyder and Michigan officials then ignored complaints from Flint residents about the quality of their water for over a year while children were poisoned by their own drinking water. Rubio, however, had high praise for the governor, who, he said, was taking “responsibility” for what happened.

The Florida senator then pivoted, blaming Democrats for “politicizing” the issue. “But here’s the point,” Rubio said, “this should not be a partisan issue. The way the Democrats have tried to turn this into a partisan issue, that somehow Republicans woke up in the morning and decided, ‘Oh, it’s a good idea to poison some kids with lead.’ It’s absurd. It’s outrageous. It isn’t true.”

So he says.

At that, the party moved on. There were more important things to discuss at the 11th GOP debate that our nation’s crumbling infrastructure: The size of Donald Trump’s penis, the value of his fake university, and wether or not the losing candidates will support Trump if he wins. They all said they would.

As for Flint, they said not a word.

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

See the original post: 

GOP debate near Flint barely mentions Flint

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on GOP debate near Flint barely mentions Flint

“Global warming is now in overdrive”: We just hit a terrible climate milestone

“Global warming is now in overdrive”: We just hit a terrible climate milestone

By on 4 Mar 2016 9:25 amcommentsShare

We’ve just surpassed a historic climate threshold — and the world is still heating up.

As of Thursday morning, for the first time in recorded history, average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere briefly crossed the threshold of 2 degrees Celsius above “normal.” Eric Holthaus picked up on the momentous occasion over at Slate, adding that global warming is now “going into overdrive.”

A few degrees warmer since preindustrial averages may not seem like much, but in the grand scheme of things, it matters. Countries around the world formally agreed years ago to hold warming under the 2-degree mark, and the respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned of the dangerous impacts of 2 degrees of  global warming.

The news comes in the wake of a parade of record-shattering temperatures. Last year was the hottest on record for the globe, and last month is looking pretty warm, too:

Despite the enormity of the moment, not everyone is paying attention, as Holthaus pointed out. Maybe people will pay attention at 3 degrees, or 4 degrees … or … 5 … ?

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:

“Global warming is now in overdrive”: We just hit a terrible climate milestone

Posted in Anchor, Casio, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on “Global warming is now in overdrive”: We just hit a terrible climate milestone

Berta Cáceres is the most recent environmental activist to be killed trying to protect her home

Activists draw a flower on the floor with chalk as part of a makeshift altar for slain environmental rights activist Berta Caceres during a protest outside the morgue in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, March 3, 2016. REUTERS/Jorge Cabrera

Berta Cáceres is the most recent environmental activist to be killed trying to protect her home

By on 3 Mar 2016commentsShare

In the middle of last night, Berta Cáceres, leader of the indigenous environmental activist group National Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH) and winner of the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize, was assassinated in her home.

Perhaps that sentence does not mean much to you on its own — after all it’s just a sentence, about a woman you’ve never met, in a country you’ve likely never been to, fighting for something you understand in theory but do not relate to. Berta Cáceres — like many, many other indigenous women — was an environmental activist because if she were not, her community would be utterly destroyed. Cáceres led grassroots campaigns against hydroelectric dams on lands belonging to her people, the Lenca; most prominently the proposed Agua Zarca project in Río Blanco. Her work pushed the largest dam builder in the world, Chinese company SINOHYDRO, to withdraw from the project.

Perhaps that, too, does not carry much weight. Let me reword: This dam threatens to force people off of lands that they have called home for millennia. And, in fighting against it, they are subject to very real danger.

Advertisement

According to Global Witness, 101 environmental activists were murdered between 2010 and 2014 in Honduras alone, and 40 percent of those were indigenous. (For perspective: Approximately 16 percent of the Honduran population is indigenous and Afro-descendant.)

From an Ensia report on violence against environmental activists worldwide:

“Many of those murdered were ‘accidental’ human rights defenders,” says John Knox, a professor of international law at Wake Forest University and independent expert on human rights and the environment of the United Nations Human Rights Council. “They got involved because it was their own land, their own forests, their own water they were defending.”

As a result, Cáceres has been subject to death threats from those with interests in the hydroelectric project, including agents of DESA, the Honduran energy company — to the extent that she was granted a degree of protection by the InterAmerican Commission for Human Rights — and last night, tragically, her enemies made good on those threats.

When we talk about how indigenous women are on the front lines of climate change, this is a striking example: A woman murdered in the so-called safety of her home for fighting for her people’s right to their land, at a time when communities all over the world are losing their grip on their land, thanks to rising tides and more unpredictable disasters.

Berta Cáceres at the Global Greengrants’ Summit on Climate Justice and Women’s Rights in August 2014.Eve Andrews / Grist

In 2014, I had the honor of interviewing Cáceres about the unique challenges that indigenous women face in battling climate change, and she said something that has stuck with me since (translated from Spanish):

“I am absolutely convinced that if I were a man, this level of aggression wouldn’t be so violent. There are always campaigns against leaders. [But] as women we’re not only leading campaigns like the fight against this hydroelectric project, but also against … the whole militarization culture that’s involved in our defense of the public good of nature. We are women who are reclaiming our right to the sovereignty of our bodies and thoughts and political beliefs, to our cultural and spiritual rights — of course the aggression is much greater.”

In speaking with Cáceres, I almost couldn’t believe that she was receiving such threats — who would want to kill a woman so kind, so strong, so obviously good? Well, she triumphantly stood in the way of a corporation that sought to profit off her land, and that was enough.

Cáceres’ death is an incredible tragedy, because the world is minus one person who brought tangible light into it. It also calls attention to the fact that those who fall under the impossibly vague, much-maligned umbrella of “environmental activists” face danger that most of us cannot fathom.

So, at the very least, remember this next time you hear about land rights, or climate change, or violence against women: It is a much darker and more dangerous fight than we can often imagine — to the direct detriment of those fighting it.

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

This article:

Berta Cáceres is the most recent environmental activist to be killed trying to protect her home

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Berta Cáceres is the most recent environmental activist to be killed trying to protect her home

Why is Donald Trump like climate change? Watch Trevor Noah explain

Why is Donald Trump like climate change? Watch Trevor Noah explain

By on 3 Mar 2016commentsShare

There’s a new inconvenient truth at hand for the Republican Party, and it goes by the name Donald Trump.

On Wednesday, The Daily Show host Trevor Noah compared Trump’s Super Tuesday success to something else that GOP candidates love to deny — climate change. It’s a connection that William Saletan made on Slate a week ago, and a delightful one at that.

Marco Rubio, Noah explains, “would rather question the numbers” than admit Trump is crushing him. Then there’s Ted Cruz, who “willfully misinterprets” the Super Tuesday results to mean something a little rosier.

The analogy doesn’t stop there. Noah continues:

Whether you believe in it or not, political climate change is happening, just like it is in nature. And we know this because we see it. You know, in nature, you see birds migrating earlier. Insects showing up in areas they’ve never been. Rats forced to hunt pizza in the wild. And it’s not different in the Republican Party, where we’re seeing political animals adapting to survive.

This is followed by a video of Chris Christie (once a “lone wolf,” now Trump’s “trained lapdog”) endorsing America’s favorite churlish chump with a combover.

Remember the days when the Donald’s bid to ascend to the presidency seemed like far-fetched tomfoolery? Well, we finally have something in common with you, Rubio and Cruz: We’re in denial, too. Because with Trump at the presidential bully pulpit, the future would look very scary, indeed.

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

Link:  

Why is Donald Trump like climate change? Watch Trevor Noah explain

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why is Donald Trump like climate change? Watch Trevor Noah explain

Is Europe totally unfrackable?

Is Europe totally unfrackable?

By on 2 Mar 2016commentsShare

The European Union is desperate for a good fracking. It’s had to watch the U.S. drill its way to a natural gas boom in recent years and is now looking itself in the mirror and asking: “What does old Crazypants McFatty have that I don’t?”

Well, E.U. — we hate to brag (no we don’t), but it looks like we’re simply better endowed. According to Nature, after playing — or rather, testing — the field for several years now, Europe has yet to nail down a commercial shale-gas well. The International Energy Agency, BP, and ExxonMobil have all expressed doubt about the region’s shale prospects, and at the World Gas Conference in Paris last year, one manager from the French oil and gas company Total conceded: “we are very, very far in Europe from profitability.”

Unfortunately for our friends overseas, Europe might need natural gas in order to meet energy demands while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The United Kingdom, for example, plans to eliminate all coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and storage systems by 2025, and politicians are wary that solar, wind, and nuclear power alone will be able to compensate for the loss. Which means that, while the nation already relies on foreign imports for about half of its current gas needs, it might rely on imports for as much as 75 percent of those needs by 2030, according to U.K. energy secretary Amber Rudd.

Advertisement

But as much as Europe would like to reduce its reliance on foreign gas (which mostly comes from Russia), it can only do so much when the problem is one of logistics.

In order for a country to have a successful fracking industry, it has to a) have lots of gas, b) know that it has lots of gas, and c) be able to extract said gas — safely. And according to Nature, scientists simply don’t know as much about Europe’s shale deposits as the U.S.’s, because Europe has done less onshore drilling. And even the deposits that they do know about seem to pose challenges:

The United States has large deposits of shale that are not too thick and have been folded little over time. The shale in the United Kingdom is more complicated, says petroleum geoscientist Andrew Aplin of the University of Durham, UK. “It’s been screwed around with more”, creating more folds and faults.

That greater complexity could pose challenges. One risk is that pumping fluid into rock can trigger earthquakes if the wells are near faults or large natural fractures. “It’s better to stay away from them, especially when they’re located near densely populated areas,” says natural-gas expert Rene Peters of the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) in the Hague. But there has been relatively little high-resolution seismic imaging in Europe, he says, so “not all these fractures are known.”

About a decade ago, Nature reports, Poland was looking to take the lead in Europe’s shale boom, handing out exploration licenses to ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Total. And in 2011, the D.C.-based consultancy Advanced Resources International (ARI) set the country’s hopes even higher by estimating that it had about 5,295 billion cubic meters of recoverable gas — enough to meet 325 years’ worth of Poland’s gas consumption.

But the following year, the Polish Geological Institute (PGI) estimated that the actual amount of gas available was just one-tenth of what ARI had estimated. And by the end of last year, only 25 of the 72 wells drilled in Poland were fracked, and overall they yielded only between one-tenth and one-third of the rate necessary to be profitable, according to Nature.

Some of Poland’s problems were purely geological: The deposits were deeper than those in the U.S.; greater concentrations of clay made the rocks difficult to drill through; a “geological barrier” prevented full access to one of the largest deposits near the Baltic Sea. As one PGI spokesperson told Nature, the prospects for Poland’s shale industry were “enthusiastic, but geologically unrealistic.”

Still, not all are deterred:

England is home to some of the few remaining attempts to tap shale gas in Europe. A handful of companies have applied for permission to drill, which could finally reveal whether the United Kingdom’s shale deposits will be a jackpot or a dud. But environmentalists have put up a strong fight, and permissions have been slow to emerge.

Just remember, England — if you do score big, use protection. As we’ve learned the hard way here in the States, fracking can come with some nasty side effects, including leakage and a bad case of the shakes. But as long as you’re careful, then drill, baby, drill!

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

Jump to original: 

Is Europe totally unfrackable?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Europe totally unfrackable?

Coal might be on the way out, but toxic coal ash isn’t going away

Coal might be on the way out, but toxic coal ash isn’t going away

By on 2 Mar 2016 5:05 pmcommentsShare

This story was originally published by Mother Jones and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Earlier this month, Esther Calhoun stood before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in Washington, D.C., describing some of the unlikely ailments that have been plaguing her and her neighbors these past few years. “I am only 51 years old and I have neuropathy,” she said. “The neurologist said that it may be caused by lead, and it is not going to get better.”

This is not a story about contaminated water in Flint, Mich. Calhoun, who lives in Uniontown, Ala., was talking about coal ash — a toxic byproduct of burning coal that has quietly become one of America’s worst environmental justice problems. The ashes are typically laden with arsenic, lead, mercury, and other toxins, and multiple studies have found that the waste tends to be stored in low-income, minority communities. In Uniontown, where 90 percent of residents are black and about half live below the poverty line, an uncovered coal ash landfill sits “directly across the street from peoples’ homes, and from yards in which their kids play,” says Marianne Engelman-Lado, an attorney with the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice.

Coal is slowly on the way out in the United States, but our existing coal-fired power plants still generate roughly 130 million tons of coal ash each year. That’s more than 800 pounds for every man, woman, and child in America. The regulations on disposal of coal ash are weak, to say the least, making the experiences of Calhoun and her neighbors far from unique. Here’s a quick primer to get you up to date on an environmental nightmare that shows no signs of going away.

Wait, wasn’t there some big coal ash disaster fairly recently?

Yep. Coal ash made national headlines in December 2008, when a dam at the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee ruptured, releasing more than 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash slurry onto the surrounding 300 acres. A wave of sludge destroyed homes, inundated ponds and streams, and formed “ash bergs” — heaps that floated down the nearby Emory River. Tests of local waterways after the breach turned up arsenic, a human carcinogen, at 149 times the level deemed safe for drinking water. Four million tons of ash were recovered and carted to an uncovered landfill in Uniontown, where Calhoun and others continue to feel its effects. There have been other recent spills, too, including a 2011 breach that contaminated Lake Michigan and a 2013 spill into North Carolina’s Dan River.

What is coal ash like?

It includes “fly ash” — powdery particles that easily become airborne — along with coarser, sludgy material that sinks to the bottom of coal furnaces. The ash is sometimes dumped in uncovered landfills, which allows the lighter particles to blow over residential areas in the vicinity. Sometimes it’s used for “beneficiary” purposes: mixed into topsoil or employed as a structural fill during construction projects. In other cases, it’s mixed with water and stored in unlined pits, or “ponds,” from which toxins can get into the groundwater. “Due to the mobility of these metals and the large size of a typical disposal unit, metals, especially arsenic, may leach at levels of potential concern,” Barry Breen, a representative from the Environmental Protection Agency, told members of Congress in 2009. According to the agency’s data, residents living near a disposal site have as much as a 1 in 50 chance of developing cancer from drinking arsenic-contaminated water.

Dot Griffith/Appalachian Voices

What has the EPA done about all of this?

Not a whole lot. In fact, coal ash was used in the construction of the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., which houses the EPA. Six years after the massive Tennessee spill, the agency adopted rules stipulating how the waste should be handled. But states aren’t required to adopt those rules. According to a 2014 joint report by Earthjustice and Physicians for Social Responsibility, “some states allow coal ash to be used as structural fill, agricultural soil additive, top layer on unpaved roads, fill for abandoned mines, spread on snowy roads, and even as cinders on school running tracks.”

Is my neighborhood contaminated?

There are more than 1,000 active ash landfills and ponds around the country, not to mention hundreds of “retired” sites and about 200 locations where spills are known to have contaminated the surrounding water and air. The EPA has found that low-income, minority communities are disproportionately affected — 1.5 million people of color live within the catchment zone of a coal ash storage facility. Earthjustice created the map of contamination sites below, with the caveat that the sites it depicts are “likely to be only a small percentage of the nation’s coal-ash-contaminated sites in the United States. Most coal ash landfills and ponds do not conduct monitoring, so the majority of water contamination goes undetected.” (This map is best viewed on a computer, not a mobile device.)

Is there a solution?

“This is a relatively easy problem to solve,” notes Lisa Evans, a senior lawyer for Earthjustice. “We’ve always known how to dispose of coal ash.” The tried-and-true EPA method consists of placing the dry ash into an enclosed, secure (lined) landfill so that it can’t leach into the soil or escape into the air. Of course, this costs more than simply dumping the stuff into open ponds or landfills next to the power plant, particularly since it sometimes involves moving the coal ash to hazardous waste facilities off-site. But the human cost of improper disposal is far greater. As Evans puts it, “You have a lot of people hurt, and a lot of environmental damage for pennies on the dollar.”

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

Original article: 

Coal might be on the way out, but toxic coal ash isn’t going away

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Coal might be on the way out, but toxic coal ash isn’t going away

Bernie Sanders’ secret weapon on Super Tuesday

Bernie Sanders’ secret weapon on Super Tuesday

By on 2 Mar 2016 12:44 pmcommentsShare

Bernie Sanders won four out of 13 Super Tuesday contests last night — his home state of Vermont, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Colorado. Sanders knew the last three states, as well as Massachusetts (which he lost narrowly) were critical to remaining competitive with Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. He had a natural advantage in these states, given that he polls better among white and blue-collar voters. But he had another secret weapon that gave him an additional edge: In battleground primaries, Sanders emphasized his firm position against hydraulic fracturing to drive a wedge between Clinton and Democratic voters.

Sanders staked out an early position against fracking, a controversial drilling process that extracts oil or natural gas from deep underground. Yet he didn’t do much to highlight this position before last month, in an effort to distinguish himself from Clinton’s environmental platform.  “I do not support fracking,” Sanders said in a statement a week ago. “I don’t need money from hedge fund managers and I don’t want money from those who profit off of the destruction of our planet.” Days before Super Tuesday, Bernie Sanders launched an ad campaign in Minnesota and Colorado highlighting his opposition to fracking. If elected, Sanders would be limited in how much he could do to ban fracking outright, but my colleague Ben Adler outlined some of what he could do to reform it.

It’s no coincidence that fracking and its associated operations is controversial in three of the four states he won in. Oil production has doubled and tripled in Oklahoma and Colorado, respectively, since 2009. Besides local concerns over its impact on water quality, there’s also been a corresponding boom in minor earthquakes near fracking sites. Scientists are growing more and more certain the quakes are linked to the wastewater injected in the ground after drilling:

USGS

Minnesota, meanwhile, is a popular source for silica sand, or “frac sand,” a sediment needed to drill in nearby fracking hotbeds. Industry groups say these operations in Wisconsin and Minnesota have more than doubled over the past decade to 75 million metric tons, primarily driven by the oil and gas industry’s demand for frac sand. Silica dust is a carcinogen that causes lung problems.

Sanders emphasized more than just fracking in Minnesota. He drew attention to his opposition to two pipelines that would ship Canada tar sand crude oil across the border. Sanders emphasized his opposition to these pipelines, Enbridge’s Sandpiper and Alberta Clipper, which would ship 1.4 million barrels of oil a day, in a stump speech on Monday. He’d follow the same precedent set by the Keystone XL pipeline rejection, saying those “are exactly the same standards that we need to apply to the Alberta Clipper and the Sandpiper, and that is what I would do as president of the United States of America.”

Advertisement

Now, Sanders didn’t win big in all major fracking territories. Texas, after all, went to Clinton, by 65 percent.

Tuesday night, Clinton might have unintentionally helped reinforce the contrast Sanders hopes to draw in her victory speech from a city that’s drowning from sea level rise — Miami, Fla. As Clinton now turns her attention to the general election, her Miami speech was light on climate change and environmental issues. Though there was one exception. Clinton adopted Flint’s lead-poisoned water crisis in her stump speech weeks ago, and took time at the end of her remarks to discuss it again. Flint is “a story of a community that’s been knocked down but refused to be knocked out. It is hundreds of union plumbers coming from across the country to help install new water fixtures. It is students raising funds for hundreds of deliveries of bottled water,” ” Clinton closed her speech with. “They’re not about to quit now.”

So, Clinton is championing clean water and Flint, while Sanders’ focus is on clean water and fracking. Expect both to hit on these issues again as we head into primaries in Michigan, North Carolina, and Louisiana, and western states.

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 here – 

Bernie Sanders’ secret weapon on Super Tuesday

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Sanders’ secret weapon on Super Tuesday

Our election process is dead. Only the internet can revive it

Our election process is dead. Only the internet can revive it

By on 1 Mar 2016 5:02 pmcommentsShare

Happy National Pig Day! Coincidentally, it’s also Super Tuesday, the day when citizens of 13 states will cast their ballots for the candidate they want to represent their party in the general election — who, in one case, may be an actual pig. And how many people will take part in the glorious democratic process today? Hardly any! Voter turnout in 2008, the last time both parties were in hotly contested races, was a historically high 27 percent. That’s right: 27 percent was actually record-breaking turnout. And this year, it’s predicted to be even lower, at least among Democrats, who aren’t being forced to choose between four climate change deniers and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Why is it that so few of us turn out to vote in the primaries, even in races as dramatic and consequential as this year’s? Well, voting is surprisingly difficult, and the process varies widely depending on where you live.

Take Colorado, where tonight’s primary is actually a caucus, one of the more confusing aspects of American democracy. Caucus states require registered voters to go to a precinct meeting run by their local parties, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, listen to the rules, stand around for a while, and then cast their ballots for their preferred presidential nominee. After that, each precinct will elect a designated number of delegates based on the votes for presidential candidates. It’s confusing, and the process — which can take several hours — begins right around the time you would normally be making dinner. They don’t make it easy, especially if you have to work, have to travel, have children, are registered as an independent in the state, or don’t have access to transportation and many free hours to commit to the onerous process.

And even in places without the oh-so-confusing caucus, voting in primaries is actually getting harder as some states (looking at you, North Carolina) have shortened the early voting period, curtailed same-day registration, and now require government-issued IDs in an effort to prevent non-existent voter fraud.

Whew! It’s almost enough to make you want to skip it all together — which, incidentally, is what the vast majority of eligible voters do. But would we skip voting if it were easier? According to a new survey of 1,000 registered voters by Smartmatic, a corporation specializing in voting technology, the majority of respondents view our current voting system as “inefficient” and say that it discourages people from voting. While all demographics held this view, it was especially true of minority populations. As Brentin Mock at CityLab points out, Smartmatic found that 83 percent of African-Americans and 76 percent of Hispanic/Latino voters agreed that modernizing the voting system would increase voter turnout and strengthen our democracy.

While Smartmatic, a company that deals in voting technology, obviously has a horse in this race, it does seem crazy that in an era where you can apply for a credit card, buy a car, bid on a home, and find a mate from the comfort from your smartphone, voting is so old school. Why haven’t we invested in technology that would make it easier to vote? Clearly, if we can make driverless cars and send probes to Mars and create holograms of Tupac Shakur, we can figure out how to hold elections online. We landed a man on the moon nearly 50 years ago, for Christ’s sake! You’d think we can get a website up and running. And, if not that, the least we could do is make Election Day a holiday in all 50 states. Collectively, we could walk to our precincts, wave to our neighbors, cast our ballots, and think, just for a moment, how nice it is to be an American.

But, no. This Super Tuesday, the process will continue as it has in the past: A cumbersome and ill-devised system that keeps you from being heard. And until this system is fixed, until you can cast your ballot from your phone or you laptop or your local public library, the only way to take part is to force yourself, despite all the barriers, to show up — because someone wins when voter turnout is low, but it’s certainly not the voter.

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

Credit: 

Our election process is dead. Only the internet can revive it

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Our election process is dead. Only the internet can revive it

Meet Grist’s new executive editor — and awesome senior editors

Scott Dodd, Rebecca Leber, and Matt Craft.

Meet Grist’s new executive editor — and awesome senior editors

By on 1 Mar 2016 4:41 pmcommentsShare

We’re thrilled to announce that, upholding a long tradition of convincing people to leave perfectly respectable jobs and cast their lot with our scrappy enterprise instead, we’ve added three top-notch editors to the Grist ranks this spring. We expect climate change to shut up and go away now — or at least to behave itself a little better.

Here comes the general: First and foremost, Scott Dodd is taking the helm as Grist’s executive editor. The award-winning journalist brings decades of experience as a reporter and editor, a strong leadership background, and a keen sense of humor to the role. And doughnuts. He brings doughnuts.

Among Dodd’s extraordinarily impressive accomplishments (it’s never too soon to kiss up to the new boss, right?), he landed a scoop about messy tar sands financial holdings that gained international attention and helped change the course of U.S. politics; he reported on everything from bioweapons to NASCAR in eight years at the Charlotte Observer; and he was part of a team that produced Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of Hurricane Katrina for the Biloxi, Miss., Sun Herald. In addition to his work on the front lines of journalism and as editorial director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Dodd has spent years dispensing wisdom at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.

Advertisement

Dodd, who will oversee Grist’s 18-member editorial department and play an active role in shaping the organization’s future, did some kissing up of his own: “It’s a really exciting challenge,” he said. “Grist has been home to smart environmental writers and thinkers for over a decade, so that’s a tremendous legacy to build on. My job is to make it even more ambitious and essential. I want us to have greater impact and a sharper focus on what matters, while still keeping the edge and irreverence that makes everyone love reading it.”

Sounds good to us! “Scott’s energy and ideas will be a powerful addition to Grist,” Grist President Lori Schmall said. “Everyone who spoke with him during the interview process — from younger writers to seasoned editors — was very excited at the prospect of working with him. He has the leadership background and journalism chops to lead us into a new era as a media organization.”

Their skill with a quill is undeniable: In conjunction with Dodd’s arrival, Grist is pleased to announce the addition of News Editor Rebecca Leber and Senior Editor Matt Craft.

Leber, a former New Republic staff writer and ThinkProgress reporter who has won admiration from across the internet for her climate and politics reporting, will lead Grist’s daily news team. “Rebecca Leber has been making a name for herself with smart, detailed climate coverage for years now,” said Vox writer and former Grist columnist David Roberts. “It’s great to see her in a position to lead a team to the same level of excellence.”

Craft, who will guide the work of our feature writers and columnists, arrives at Grist from the Associated Press. He has deep experience finding ways to make opaque issues more palpable, and has covered the seeds of the Arab Spring in Egypt, oil spills in Louisiana, and everything in between. He also wrangled columnists for Forbes Magazine. While he loved editing billionaires, he says the thousandaires at Grist are more his speed.

With Dodd, Leber, and Craft on board, the Grist team is looking forward to finding even more ways to inform and inspire our monthly audience of 2 million and growing. We’ll experiment with new forms of storytelling and introduce new perspectives as we tackle issues ranging from oil spills to the oily presidential campaign in the year ahead.

“Don’t worry, Grist fans,” Dodd says. “I know how special this place is and what a wonderful opportunity I’ve been given. I won’t cock it up.” Dirty words disguised as British humor? Now we know we’ve found our guy.

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 here:

Meet Grist’s new executive editor — and awesome senior editors

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meet Grist’s new executive editor — and awesome senior editors

California Democrats are raising the bar on climate action

California Democrats are raising the bar on climate action

By on 29 Feb 2016commentsShare

In a presidential election season that has already managed to run the gamut from mildly infuriating to unequivocally bonkers, it’s easy to forget that run-of-the-mill state politics both a) exists and b) matters. California Democrats proved both of those points on Sunday with the adoption of a reinvigorated platform, bundled into which is an aggressive energy and environment plan. It’s a case study in an aggressive environmental agenda filing its already sharp teeth.

While a previous energy and environment plank called for “reduced reliance on dirty forms of energy such as coal,” the new platform calls for its total end. Language in the new plan opposes all investment in “new fossil fuel infrastructure projects” — the blanket nature of which covers everything from coal export terminals to natural gas plants. It also calls for the expansion of decentralized energy generation (think plenty of rooftop solar panels), especially in disadvantaged communities.

“Our platform is very forward-thinking,” said Eric C. Bauman, vice chair of the California Democratic Party. “It reflects the best values of Democrats and progressives, and it sets a standard against which candidates, elected officials, and activists all across the country look to measure themselves.”

Advertisement

California’s government is blue across the board. With a Democratic governor, Democrats in control of both state houses, and no real prospect of electoral upsets, the state party’s platform promises to appeal to voters who are ready to usher in real action to fight climate change.

Last September, the California state legislature’s passage of Senate Bill 350 offered a mixed bag for environmentalists. While the law requires utilities to generate 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030, it fails to rein in the state’s heavy gasoline consumption, thanks to pressure from the oil lobby. The new energy and environment platform revives the goal of cutting fuel use in half by 2030 and pushes the state to generate a whopping 100 percent of its electricity from “renewable and sustainable energy sources” by the same year. This is a platform that “gives hope to people that their political party and its elected officials, candidates, activists, and leaders will actually consider what makes life better for everybody,” said Bauman.

California often shines as a beacon of climate action in the United States, and the release of the Democrats’ environmental plan just turned up the wattage. As the state faces the 2018 election of a new governor to replace climate champion Jerry Brown, it will be enshrined values like these that will ensure the expansion of his already substantial environmental legacy.

In the wake of a Supreme Court stay on the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, local initiatives like these take on even greater importance. The Paris Agreement — discussions around which were broadly led by the United States — requires buy-in from all its signatories if it’s to succeed. In other encouraging news, Maryland’s state Senate passed a bill last week on a 38-to-8 vote to cut greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030, compared to 2006 levels. That, too, is the kind of state effort that lends itself to the kind of international credibility the United States needs to maintain as the U.N. agreement enters its implementation phase.

Raising the bar at the state level is always good news on the climate front, especially when federal action gets stuck in gridlock. Bauman argues that California Democrats can do so because they don’t have to use “the same kind of coded language” that he suggests crops up in national platforms. “We don’t have to do that. We get to give voice to the issues we believe in and we get to do it in an authentic way.” Here’s to hoping, as usual, that other states can follow California’s lead.

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

View article – 

California Democrats are raising the bar on climate action

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, sustainable energy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California Democrats are raising the bar on climate action