Tag Archives: news

How caucuses disenfranchise voters

by mariawilkerson67 Posted on March 25, 2016

How caucuses disenfranchise voters

By on 25 Mar 2016commentsShare

If you live in a caucus state, like I do, you’ve heard party officials talk about how the caucus system is more democratic, more small-government, more conducive to building party unity than holding a big primary. Here’s Washington Democratic Party spokesman Jamal Raad, touting the system to me over the phone: “We’re not trying to be representative of the Washington State electorate. We’re trying to be representative of Washington State Democrats. And we actually make it very easy. You just have to show up and affirm that you’re a Democrat to participate. … It’s like a block party.”

But it’s a block party that not everyone can attend. And that’s a problem, especially for the environment, because the people left out tend to be those who care more about it.

The caucus system was once more common in our national elections, but Washington, where Democrats vote on Saturday, is one of only 12 states and a handful of territories that hold onto it. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have both appeared here in recent weeks, seeking votes. But many potential Democratic voters will find it tough to cast ballots for either candidate. Instead of simply walking to your local polling place and then going on with your day, caucusing is an event. And if you don’t have the time or ability to participate, you’re just plain out of luck.

Advertisement – Article continues below

Scholars like the Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s Thomas Patterson suggest that the caucus system  disproportionately disenfranchises minorities, low-income earners, and young people, who are much less likely to show up than older, whiter, wealthier voters. And those who don’t show up — young voters, voters of color — tend to be more progressive on issues like climate change, the environment, and infrastructure spending. For example, voters under 30 tend to be slightly more concerned about climate change, at 54 percent vs. 51 percent for all age groups per a 2015 New York Times/CBS poll. And both black and Latino voters are more likely than white ones to say climate change is manmade, according to Pew.

Here’s how the caucus works in Washington: It starts at 10 a.m. on Saturday, generally taking place at community centers, libraries, town halls, school gyms, or — in my precinct — a dance studio. Once all the participants are gathered together, precinct captains will be selected, votes will be cast, tallied, and the results announced. Like the Iowa Democratic caucus, caucus-goers can attempt to sway undecided voters if there is no clear majority, and then a second tally is taken. The second tally is what determines how many delegates each candidate receives at the national convention in July.

This is not a quick process. It’s projected to take two hours, minimum. So to have your say, you must make time for at least two hours on a Saturday, right around the time you’d normally be taking the kids to soccer, setting out for brunch with your gals, or sleeping through your hangover. And we wonder why voter participation is low. Even people who want to take part in the caucus often can’t — me, for instance. I’ll be 3,000 miles away, stepping off a plane right around the time the first tally is taken.

Clinton herself called this a problem when she was running against Barack Obama in 2008: “You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard. That is troubling to me. You know in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time — they’re disenfranchised. People who can’t be in the state or who are in the military, like the son of the woman who was here who is serving in the Air Force, they cannot be present.”

In Washington, you can participate if you’re in the Air Force, or any other branch of the military. The party provides exceptions for people who are unable to attend due to military service, work, religious obligation, disability, or illness. Those who qualify can submit a surrogate affidavit form to the state party rather than attend the caucus on Saturday — although they’ve got to do it a week in advance.

Theoretically, this should take care of some concerns about disenfranchisement. But of course, that presumes that you’ve actually heard of the surrogate affidavit form, which most people haven’t. And regardless, this workaround doesn’t cover voters who don’t have the excuse of military, work, religion, disability, or illness. It leaves out caretakers, for instance, who may be unable to bring along the elderly person or young children in their care. And it leaves out people like me, who don’t have a valid excuse at all. Simply not going to be in town this Saturday? Sorry, no voting for you.

When I asked Raad, the Democratic spokesman, about these concerns, he said the party is aware of them. That’s  why party officials added “work” to the list of acceptable reasons to use a surrogate affidavit form for the first time this year. He also said they are reaching out to Asian-American and Spanish-language newspapers to spread the word about the caucus, although he wasn’t aware of any efforts being made to specifically reach other communities.

In 2008, according to Harvard’s Patterson, the national average voter turnout in caucus states was just 6.8 percent, four times less than participation in primary states. In Washington state, it was even lower: Only 0.9 percent of eligible voters actually caucused. And the tiny percentage that shows up tends to have different views than the general public. “Even after accounting for many other factors, caucus attenders were more ideologically extreme than primary voters,” wrote Brigham Young University political scientists Christopher Karpowitz and Jeremy C. Pope in a 2014 Washington Post editorial. “In terms of their willingness to take consistently conservative or liberal positions on the issues, caucus attendees look a lot more like members of Congress than they do average Republicans or Democrats.” The Washington Democratic Party is hopeful that with a heavily contested race, this year’s caucus turnout will be record-setting. But that will still mean just a tiny percentage of the state’s voters helped choose the nominee for president.

This “block party,” it seems, isn’t about the people: It’s about the Party.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

View post:  

How caucuses disenfranchise voters

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, oven, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How caucuses disenfranchise voters

How much energy could the U.S. get from solar?

by EugeneWaltman Posted on March 24, 2016

How much energy could the U.S. get from solar?

By on 24 Mar 2016commentsShare

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

It seems like every few weeks there’s some new measurement of how successful solar power is in the United States. In early March, industry analysts found that solar is poised for its biggest year ever, with total installations growing 119 percent by the end of 2016. This week, federal government analysts reported that in 2015, solar ranked No. 3 (behind wind and natural gas) in megawatts of new electricity-producing capacity brought online. That rank is even more impressive when you consider that each individual solar installation is fewer megawatts than a wind turbine, and far fewer than a natural gas plant; that means solar panels are popping up like crazy across the country.

Which makes you wonder: Is there a limit to that growth? According to a new report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a federal research outfit, there’s good news and bad news. The bad news: Yes, there is a ceiling for solar power in the U.S. The good news: We’re not even remotely close to reaching it. In other words, solar’s potential has barely been tapped.

Advertisement – Article continues below

The report is the deepest dive on solar’s potential since NREL conducted a similar analysis in 2008. The new report’s estimate is much larger than the older report’s, mostly because of vast new troves of satellite imagery data of the country’s rooftops and computer models that are better able to calculate how much power each panel can produce. The analysis leaves behind policy and cost considerations. Instead, the only question is: How much power could we really get if we slathered every roof in America with solar panels? The answer: About 39 percent of the country’s electricity consumption, at current levels.

It’s important to note that the report looks only at rooftop panels, as opposed to utility-scale solar farms. Utility-scale solar provides about twice as much power as rooftop panels, so the full potential of solar is likely even higher than what NREL describes in this report. Even 39 percent, though, would be a revolutionary change from where we are now; despite solar’s rapid growth in the last several years, it still accounts for less than 1 percent of electricity consumption. Coal, which is still the nation’s No. 1 energy source, commands about 32 percent of the market. So the future that NREL is envisioning here would basically flip our energy makeup on its head.

The most potential exists in sunny states, obviously, but also in states that have relatively low electricity needs. The map below shows what percentage of each state’s power could be derived from rooftop panels if they were fully utilized:

NREL

Again, NREL stresses that the estimates here “provide an upper bound on potential deployment rather than a prediction of actual deployment.” It’s very unlikely that this exact scenario will come to pass. The most recent study by Stanford energy economist Mark Jacobson, who researches ways the U.S. could get 100 percent of its power from renewable sources, sees rooftop solar contributing about 7 percent of total electricity by 2050. And that’s with, as Vox’s David Roberts put it, “enormous, heroic assumptions about social and political change.”

But hey … we’re dreamers of the golden dream, right?

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

This article is from – 

How much energy could the U.S. get from solar?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How much energy could the U.S. get from solar?

In the future, you may never have to do laundry again

by PaulineLoughman Posted on March 24, 2016

take a load off

In the future, you may never have to do laundry again

By on 24 Mar 2016commentsShare

Get a load of this: Coming soon to a closet near you, clothes that clean themselves.

That reality is inching closer with new research from Australia’s RMIT University, where scientists have been testing nanotechnology that eats away at grime on fabric.

The secret behind this technology: silver and copper-based nanostructures. When these itty-bitty structures are exposed to light, they create “hot electrons” — a tiny burst of energy that can break down organic matter. The researchers found they could durably attach these nanostructures to material by immersing the fabric in certain solutions. Later, when this nano-enhanced, crud-covered textile is exposed to light from the sun or a lightbulb, poof! Within six to 10 minutes, the fabric starts to clean itself.

This is all exciting because way we wash our clothes now isn’t perfect. Washing machines use up precious H2O, dryers are huge energy wasters, and detergents can leach a troubling concoction of chemicals into the water supply. If nanostructures can be cheaply produced, using less energy and water than all those endless spin cycles, they might spare us a whole load of dirty fossil fuel emissions.

But don’t toss out your vintage washtub and antique clothespin collection — I mean, “washer and dryer” — just yet. While these results could be the first inklings of the self-cleaning textile revolution, the technology isn’t ready to roll out on an industrial scale.

Meanwhile, the Australian team is looking into other super-fabrics. Next up, according to ABC: Seeing if similar nanotechnology could be used to create antibacterial materials (or should we say, “anti-bactematerials”? No? OK, we won’t) to fight superbugs.

Source:

Nanotechnology self-cleaning clothes are on the way, RMIT University researchers say

, ABC.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

See the original post:

In the future, you may never have to do laundry again

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, organic, OXO, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Vintage, Wiley | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In the future, you may never have to do laundry again

What the NFL’s concussion scandal has in common with tobacco and ExxonMobil

by Octavia1778 Posted on March 24, 2016

What the NFL’s concussion scandal has in common with tobacco and ExxonMobil

By on 24 Mar 2016commentsShare

A New York Times investigation published Thursday confirms that the National Football League’s research on player concussions was seriously flawed, undercounting diagnoses by more than 10 percent in a series of studies from 1996 to 2001. At the same time, the league appeared to engage in a systematic campaign of obfuscation and denial. Even now that the the NFL’s top health official has admitted that football and degenerative brain disorders are “certainly” linked, some NFL fans and stakeholders remain unconvinced — publicly, at least. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, for instance, said this week that “there’s no data that in any way creates a knowledge” — in other words, the jury’s still out.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because the NFL’s techniques are like those employed for decades by Big Tobacco to confuse consumers over the scientific research on smoking. In fact, the Times reports, the NFL hired tobacco lawyers, advisors, and lobbyists to help them do exactly that. In the 1990s, for instance, the league employed Dorothy Mitchell, an attorney who had also represented the Tobacco Institute in lawsuits over the health effects of cigarettes and secondhand smoke.

All this sounds remarkably like another industry that we now know borrowed tactics from Big Tobacco: oil and gas. In 1996, as the world considered acting to curtail fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, then-Exxon CEO Lee Raymond said, “Scientific evidence remains inconclusive as to whether human activities affect the global climate,” adding that “scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand climate systems and consider policy options, so there’s simply no reason to take drastic action now.”

The idea that “evolving science” means there’s no need to act is still prevalent among polluters and their political allies. “It is not unanimous among scientists that [climate change] is disproportionately manmade,” one-time presidential candidate Jeb Bush said last year. Last year, investigations by InsideClimate News, the Los Angeles Times, and Columbia University uncovered how Exxon-Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute were at the cutting edge of climate change research in the 1970s, until they reversed course to create a culture of denial we know too well today.

Big Oil, like the tobacco industry in the 1950s and perhaps now the NFL since the 1990s, knew of a major problem long before it admitted to it publicly. And like the health of smokers and football players, our health and the planet’s has suffered for it.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

More here: 

What the NFL’s concussion scandal has in common with tobacco and ExxonMobil

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, InsideClimate News, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What the NFL’s concussion scandal has in common with tobacco and ExxonMobil

What would actually happen if we stopped eating so much meat?

by JarrodBevan29 Posted on March 23, 2016

What would actually happen if we stopped eating so much meat?

By on 23 Mar 2016commentsShare

If you follow the news about food, you’re no doubt aware that there’s a lot of concern over the impact of eating and raising meat, on both human health and the planet. A new study provides more to chew on: It suggests that if we halved our meat consumption by 2050, we could make huge emissions cuts and save millions of lives.

The Oxford University researchers who published their results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences don’t expect the whole world to suddenly switch to vegenaise. But they wanted to explore possible environmental and human health outcomes from different diets. So they started by assuming that more people in developing countries would be eating like meat-loving Americans — a logical assumption, since that’s the way the world is headed — then looked at what would happen if we somehow cut that projected meat consumption by half by the middle of this century.

Their conclusion: The world could cut greenhouse gas emissions from food (which currently make up a quarter of the total) by 29 percent, and save 5.1 million lives per year through reduced heart disease, cancer, stroke, and other illnesses associated with meat consumption.

Of course, this isn’t a one-size-fits-all kind of diet advice: There are places where livestock form an important part of the ecosystem, and where people are making real efforts to raise more sustainable meat. But for those of us with abundant food choices, this study provides more evidence that less meat makes more sense.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read article here:  

What would actually happen if we stopped eating so much meat?

Posted in alo, Anchor, eco-friendly, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What would actually happen if we stopped eating so much meat?

Protestors turn a federal offshore oil auction into a circus

by Rosemary60V Posted on March 23, 2016

Protestors turn a federal offshore oil auction into a circus

By on 23 Mar 2016 1:38 pmcommentsShare

About 150 activists disrupted a federal auction for offshore oil and gas leases on Wednesday at the New Orleans’ Superdome, taking over what’s normally a sedate meeting to make a statement against fossil fuels.

The anti-drilling protest included members of national environmental groups, community advocates and indigenous rights groups who want the Obama administration to close off the Gulf of Mexico to more offshore development.

“There was singing and chanting, and the industry guys actually managed to hold the lease sale over all the yelling,”  Marissa Knodel, a climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth who marched with the group on Wednesday told Grist, adding that the protestors stayed in the room for about an hour as the auction continued. “We definitely made a strong stand.”

Advertisement – Article continues below

Check out the chaos for yourself:

This protest countered a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management auction for two planned sales off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico on tracts located anywhere from approximately three to 230 miles off the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. The area, said to contain the say the eighth-largest carbon reserve on Earth, stretches across about 45 million acres. According to Politico, BOEM took bids on one of the two sales on Wednesday.

The Obama administration this month reversed an earlier plan that would allow drilling off the Atlantic coast, but he hasn’t spared the Gulf of Mexico from future drilling. The Gulf could be up for 10 new leases from 2017-2022, and activists haven’t lost hope that the Gulf of Mexico will be taken off the table, as well.

“Here in Gulf, this is the first time people from all over the coast and the country have converged to demand no new leases on oil and gas.” Knodel added the protesters will be back the next time there’s an auction in August.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

More here:  

Protestors turn a federal offshore oil auction into a circus

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, solar, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Protestors turn a federal offshore oil auction into a circus

Oil companies want to get in on the action in Cuba

by Rufus08541345975 Posted on March 21, 2016

Oil companies want to get in on the action in Cuba

By on 21 Mar 2016 4:56 pmcommentsShare

It’s a new day for Cuba and the U.S.

A little more than a year after relations between the two nations officially started to thaw, President Obama on Sunday became the first U.S. president to visit the island nation since Calvin Coolidge. During a two-and-a-half-day visit, Obama is meeting with Cuban President Raúl Castro to discuss lifting the 1962 embargo as well as economic opportunities and human rights abuses, according to the White House. He’ll also attend a baseball game.

Obama isn’t the only one interested in Cuba. Big Business, including the oil industry, is eyeing the island nation as well. One hundred and twenty business leaders converged upon the country to discuss offshore oil development last October. While American companies are still barred from owning oil assets in Cuba, U.S. firms can be involved in drilling and safety operations. Cuba might welcome that, as Bloomberg Government reports:

Cheap oil has forced Venezuela to scale back its support for Cuba, and that’s prodding the officially Communist nation to open up to foreign investment and build on its rapprochement with the U.S., according to a Moody’s report in December. And opening up may mean boosting the 50,000 barrels a day of oil now produced there. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that 4.6 billion barrels of crude oil are lurking in the North Cuba Basin, with most of it within 50 miles of Cuba’s coast; that’s one-fifth of what USGS estimated to exist in the Arctic seas off Alaska. But this oil — if it’s really there — wouldn’t need to be produced in some of the world’s harshest conditions, and would be just a short barge voyage away from U.S. Gulf-area refineries.

Of course, the prospect of more offshore development in Cuban waters isn’t exactly comforting to environmentalists. Drilling could happen as close as 50 miles off the coast of Florida, so a big oil spill there could certainly reach American shores. Plus there’s the whole climate change thing to worry about. Cuba, a low-lying island, is especially vulnerable to sea-level rise.

An official White House fact sheet about Obama’s trip to Cuba mentions climate change and the two countries’ intentions to work together on fighting and adapting to it — and makes no mention of oil or gas. “The United States and Cuba recognize the threats posed by climate change to both our countries,” it reads, “including worsening impacts such as continued sea-level rise, the alarming acidification of our oceans, and the striking incidence of extreme weather events. Cooperative action to address this challenge is more critical than ever.”

Addressing this challenge may be critical, as both Washington and Havana are aware, but as oil companies show an increased interest in Cuba’s oil reserves, we may, once again, see the triumph of profit over progress. It’s happened everywhere else. Why not Cuba as well?

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

See the original article here:

Oil companies want to get in on the action in Cuba

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Oil companies want to get in on the action in Cuba

Leonardo DiCaprio gives $1 million to help island nation protect its oceans

by ArnetteSoderste Posted on March 19, 2016

Leonardo DiCaprio gives $1 million to help island nation protect its oceans

By on 19 Mar 2016commentsShare

From Shutter Island to Manatee Island, Leonardo DiCaprio keeps winning our hearts — and our climate-inclined minds.

The Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation recently granted $1 million to help the Seychelles islands protect their ocean territory — which makes up 99 percent of the country.

It’s part of a huge, unprecedented swap between the Pacific Island nation and foreign investor groups. The gist of the deal: The country of 115 tiny islands commits to protecting 154,000 square miles of its surrounding seas, and in return, its lenders agree to restructure $21.4 million of its debt. From Mashable:

In this case, instead of repaying debt at relatively high interest rates, the Seychelles government will redirect payments to a new, locally-run organization known as the Seychelles Conservation and Climate Adaptation Trust.

DiCaprio’s (ahem) titanic donation will go toward financing this swap, which was brokered by The Nature Conservancy and will result in the second-largest swath of protected waters in the West Indian Ocean. By protecting coral reefs and limiting damaging fishing practices, Seychelles is hoping it will encourage more resilient ecosystems — and in turn, a more robust economy for the ocean-dependent nation.

“We champion projects like this one across the globe that use cutting edge methods in conservation and environmental protection,” said DiCaprio in a press release. “This deal will enhance food security for the local people of Seychelles, help mitigate the effects of climate change on their low-lying island home, and protect the surrounding rich ocean ecosystems for future generations.”

All the more reason to lobby for a new holiday: Leonardo DiCapprecation Day!

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading – 

Leonardo DiCaprio gives $1 million to help island nation protect its oceans

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Leonardo DiCaprio gives $1 million to help island nation protect its oceans

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

by EthelPamphlett Posted on March 18, 2016

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

After Keystone failure, TransCanada comes up with another pipeline scheme in the U.S.

by ElisabettaBerger56 Posted on March 18, 2016

After Keystone failure, TransCanada comes up with another pipeline scheme in the U.S.

By on 18 Mar 2016commentsShare

After its hopes of cutting an enormous tar-sands oil pipeline across North America were dashed by anti-Keystone activists, TransCanada has moved on to something new: buying the Houston-based Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. (CPG), a large natural gas pipeline company. The move will not improve TransCanada’s poor environmental reputation, as CPG has a troubled environmental history of its own.

On Thursday, The New York Times reported that TransCanada, Canada’s second-largest pipeline operator, said it would buy CPG for $10.2 billion. CPG owns about 15,000 miles of natural gas pipeline, mainly in the heavily fracked Marcellus and Utica shale regions. After the deal is made, TransCanada will own about 57,000 miles of gas pipelines in all. TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said during a conference call that the deal was “a rare, attractive opportunity that will create one of North America’s largest natural gas businesses,” according to the Times.

CPG and its subsidiaries have a record of pollution and of safety and environmental violations. Last year, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection cited Columbia Gas Transmission, a unit of CPG, for 125 violations in 2011 and 2012 at a site where it was constructing a pipeline. Those included multiple violations of the Clean Streams Law, including potentially polluting nearby waterways that were considered “High Quality” or “Exceptional Value Waters.” CPG was fined $150,000 for the violations, and was ordered to cover an additional $21,500 for the cost of inspections.

In 2014, the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration fined Columbia Gas Transmission $28,800 for failing to provide proper fire protection at a liquefied natural gas plant in Chesapeake, Va., in 2012.

Last July, a diesel spill was discovered along the right-of-way of a buried natural gas pipeline owned by Columbia Gas of Virginia. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality concluded that the spill contaminated the main drinking water source for a community in Monroe County, W.Va. Columbia Gas of Virginia was a subsidiary of CPG when that pipeline went online in 2014, though last year it was separated off to become a unit of NiSource Inc.

It’s not clear yet when the acquisition will be completed. TransCanada did say last November that it was looking to acquire a company that could help it expand its pipeline network into the Marcellus shale region. With the wounds from its Keystone battle still raw, TransCanada is now shifting some of its attention from Canadian tar sands oil to U.S. natural gas. Climate activists and environmentalists will want to keep a close eye on this soon-to-be-even-larger pipeline giant.

CPG and TransCanada did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read this article:

After Keystone failure, TransCanada comes up with another pipeline scheme in the U.S.

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on After Keystone failure, TransCanada comes up with another pipeline scheme in the U.S.