Tag Archives: people

The Renewable Fuel Choice

The Renewable Fuel Choice

Posted 7 February 2013 in

National

Do you want to have a choice when it comes to fueling up your car? To have the option of using fuel that is cleaner, renewable and often, cheaper? If you are like the majority of Americans in this new poll, you do – 64% of people said they supported the RFS requirement that renewable fuel be incorporated into our nation’s fuel supply.

It’s too bad that some on Capitol Hill don’t agree with these Americans, and are, in fact, working counter to our best interests by trying to change the RFS. Attacks against the RFS ignore the reality that Americans want choice and they want alternatives to oil.

The companies of Fuels America are meanwhile working to create those alternatives; Congress must protect the RFS to ensure that Americans can have access to the clean fuels being developed.

To see the cellulosic industry at work you need merely look at the raft of companies that completed building facilities or started production in recent months. These include Abengoa, KiOR and INEOS Bio, to name a few. Meanwhile, DuPont, POET and others are preparing for new cellulosic ethanol projects in the months and years to come.

Those are just a handful of the projects planned or underway. Check out our infographic for an overview of more cellulosic innovation cropping up around the country and visit E2’s new website, Fueling Growth, for a map of more than 80 advanced renewable fuel projects.

Back to Blog Home
Share:

Join the Fight

Renewable fuel is more important than ever – driving economic growth in communities that need it, improving our nation’s energy security and attracting millions in new technology dollars to invest in America’s future.

Pledge to Support Renewable Fuel

Fuels
Continue reading:

The Renewable Fuel Choice

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Renewable Fuel Choice

Republicans are very satisfied with the quality of the environment

Republicans are very satisfied with the quality of the environment

Stock image for “polling.” This is not how Gallup does it, I don’t think.

The Gallup Organization — purveyors of fine polling products such as its Nov. 5 prediction that Romney would win; employers of possible future Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (join the club); defendants in a lawsuit filed by the federal government alleging that the company inflated its prices — released a poll yesterday. Let’s look at it!

The top headline was that Republicans and Democrats differ more in their opinions on gun laws than on any other topic: 28 percent of Democrats are satisfied to some extent with existing laws on guns, compared with 59 percent of Republicans. Fine. Not surprising.

Here’s what’s interesting: The numbers related to “quality of the environment” — a poor replacement for environmental laws, mind you — broke down as 51 percent satisfaction among Democrats and 61 percent among Republicans. On “energy policies,” 44 percent of Democrats are satisfied compared to 31 percent of Republicans.

Gallup

Click to embiggen.

Before we get into analysis, an additional note. Not only are Republicans significantly more satisfied with “quality of the environment” than Democrats — it is the issue area in which they feel the second-most satisfaction. The only thing Republicans are happier with than the current state of our environment is how strong and big and tough our military is. Sixty-eight percent of Republicans are satisfied with the military … compared to 81 percent of Democrats.

Which offers some insight into what’s happening here. People interpret the question being posed not as “do you like the environment” but rather as “do you think the government should spend more time and money on the environment.” A higher “satisfaction” is really a higher level of “do not touch.” Democrats are more satisfied with the military because they don’t feel that the military needs more time and attention and investment. Republicans are more satisfied with the environment because they don’t think it needs more time and attention and investment. And, on the flip side, Republicans are less satisfied with energy policies — the issue on which they show the fifth-least satisfaction — because they favor opening up more land to drilling.

Gallup notes:

Democrats are evidently more inclined to see things positively, given that the nation is being governed by a Democratic president. In 2005, at the beginning of Republican George W. Bush’s second term in office, Republicans were generally more satisfied with the state of the nation in most areas than Democrats were. Back then, the only issue on which Democrats were more satisfied than Republicans was immigration levels.

The poll is a reflection of political attitudes more than a barometer of voter opinion on how the government addresses issues. Which means that it’s less informative than it might appear at first glance.

And we’ll have to see how it evolves as President Romney’s term continues. He won, right?

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Source:

Republicans are very satisfied with the quality of the environment

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans are very satisfied with the quality of the environment

Beijing’s recurring air pollution grounds flights, puts kids in the hospital

Beijing’s recurring air pollution grounds flights, puts kids in the hospital

Imagine you’re an airline pilot. Which of the cities below looks like the more appealing one for landing a large jet?

To the left, an image of Beijing’s air taken last week when the pollution monitor on top of the U.S. Embassy measured a fairly low level of particulate pollution (29 parts per million per volume). To the right? The air yesterday, at a level of 462. If you chose the image at left, congratulations. Airlines in Beijing agree with your assessment.

From Huffington Post:

Thick, off-the-scale smog shrouded eastern China for the second time in about two weeks Tuesday, forcing airlines to cancel flights because of poor visibility and prompting Beijing to temporarily shut factories and curtail fleets of government cars. …

The U.S. Embassy reported an hourly peak level of PM2.5 — tiny particulate matter that can penetrate deep into the lungs — at 526 micrograms per cubic meter, or “beyond index,” and more than 20 times higher than World Health Organization safety levels over a 24-hour period. …

Visibility was less than 100 meters (100 yards) in some areas of eastern China, the official Xinhua News Agency reported. More than 100 flights were canceled in the eastern city of Zhengzhou, 33 in Beijing, 20 in Qingdao and 13 in Jinan.

The severe pollution has been a problem on and off for weeks. We first wrote about it two weeks ago yesterday, noting that the city was enacting restrictions on factory emissions and driving in an effort to curb the problem. But we also noted that the problem isn’t Beijing’s alone; much of the soot and haze is created in nearby cities and the countryside, drifting into the capital and settling over the city. It’s a regional problem.

With acute repercussions. Again from the Associated Press:

Patients seeking treatment for respiratory ailments rose by about 30 percent over the past month at the Jiangong Hospital in downtown Beijing, Emergency Department chief Cui Qifeng said.

“People tend to catch colds or suffer from lung infections during the days with heavily polluted air,” he said.

CNN notes that 9,000 children visited a Beijing pediatric hospital with respiratory problems this month. These effects are immediately demonstrable. More insidious? A recent study suggested that soot pollution results in more than 3.2 million deaths a year globally.

In a few days, the problem will recede. (It hasn’t yet; as I write this levels are still listed as “hazardous.”) The question then becomes how urgent the problem remains for Chinese leaders — and for how long Beijing residents will feel the health effects.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Cities

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Jump to original:

Beijing’s recurring air pollution grounds flights, puts kids in the hospital

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Beijing’s recurring air pollution grounds flights, puts kids in the hospital

Beijing’s air is dirty for the same reason yours might be: polluting neighbors

Beijing’s air is dirty for the same reason yours might be: polluting neighbors

Yesterday, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., issued a major blow to efforts to curb air pollution. A lower court last year struck down the EPA’s cross-state air pollution rule, and the appeals court declined to reconsider the case. The rule aimed to reduce air pollution that travels from one state to another, a situation that limits the ability of the polluted state to take action against polluters.

The problem is perhaps best illustrated by what’s now happening in China. Today in Beijing, the air quality is “unhealthy,” according to the automatic sensor atop the U.S. embassy. Two weeks ago, it was five times worse, drawing the world’s attention to a problem that had become literally visible in the Chinese capital. This is what the air looked like two days ago, on Wednesday, as the country’s legislature held its annual meeting.

The mayor of Beijing attempted to explain that his city has made progress. From Xinhua:

At the first session of the 14th Beijing Municipal People’s Congress on Tuesday, acting mayor Wang Anshun said in a work report that the density of major pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, has dropped by an average of 29 percent over the past five years.

The high percentage stirred debate among deputies on Wednesday, as the current smog could make residents suspicious over the truthfulness of the figure. Some deputies even advised deleting the reference from the report to avoid disputes from the public.

Wang’s data on pollution levels may be questionable, but there is an argument that he could make effectively: It’s not all Beijing’s fault.

Why is the air in Beijing so bad? The video below, shared by The Atlantic‘s James Fallows, outlines the broad problems. Fallows sets the stage:

This broadcast is part of a weekly series on events in China, run by Fons Tuinstra, whom I knew in Beijing. The main guest is Richard Brubaker, who lives in Shanghai and teaches at a well known business school there. The topic is the recent spate of historically bad air-pollution readings in many Chinese cities, especially Beijing. …

Very matter-of-factly Brubaker lays out the basic realities of China’s environmental/economic/social/political conundrum:

that its pollution and other environmental strains are the direct result of rapidly bringing hundreds of millions of peasants into urban, electrified, motorized life;
that China’s economic and political stability depends on continuing to bring hundreds of millions more people off the farm and into the cities;
that China’s practices and standards in city planning, transport, architecture, etc are still so inefficient enough that, even with its all-out clean-up efforts, its growth is disproportionately polluting. In Europe, North America, Japan, etc each 1% increase in GDP means an increase of less than 1% in energy and resource use, emissions, etc. For China, each 1% increment means an increase of more than 1% in environmental burden.

The Atlantic Cities blog notes that short-term actions taken by the city of Beijing — reducing the number of older vehicles that contribute to ozone and soot pollution, limiting manufacturing — may not be as important in addressing the problem as its push to improve fuel efficiency. From its post:

Beijing’s adoption of a higher fuel standard will reduce emissions immediately by effectively banning heavy-polluting vehicles from the road. But even more critically, it marks the first in a series of incremental reforms that would dramatically improve air quality in the long term as Beijing’s scrappage policy forces people to replace their cars over time.

“You’d see maybe a 15 percent emissions reduction from simply getting those trucks off the road. And then the more stringent [tailpipe] standards that reduce particulates by 80 percent,” says David Vance Wagner, senior researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation.

But, to the point of the video, the problem lies mostly outside of Beijing. As Atlantic Cities notes, “the city is sandwiched between smog-spewing neighboring provinces.” The urbanization elsewhere in the country is contributing heavily to Beijing’s air problems. And to other cities. Here was Shanghai yesterday:

What China’s national leaders should have worked on this week was a system for containing pollution across the country, perhaps the only way to reduce the problem in large cities. Local leaders are reluctant to implement controls on pollution that might affect production and urbanization, effects of the economic boom that the nation has enjoyed at varying levels for years.

Pollution in American cities pales in comparison to what Beijing is experiencing, in part because of our environmental protections. But our political problem is largely the same: One region of the U.S. breathes pollution created somewhere else. Our attempt to fix the problem stepped outside of politics and into the courts. It failed.

And here’s the kicker. Chinese pollution doesn’t only affect China. A study released in 2008 suggested that high levels of the air pollution in California originated in — you guessed it — China. Solving that issue, pollution between entirely different political systems, is a whole other problem altogether.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Cities

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Originally posted here:

Beijing’s air is dirty for the same reason yours might be: polluting neighbors

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Beijing’s air is dirty for the same reason yours might be: polluting neighbors

Shell wins prestigious award for ineptitude

Shell wins prestigious award for ineptitude

Quick word of congratulations to our friends at Shell. Yesterday, the company was awarded the Public Eye People’s Award for 2013 — making it (as far as I can tell) the first two-time winner of this estimable honor, having also won in 2005.

What’s the Public Eye Award? From the website for this esteemed prize:

The Public Eye Awards mark a critical counterpoint to the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. Organized since 2000 by Berne Declaration and Friends of the Earth (in 2009 replaced by Greenpeace), Public Eye reminds the corporate world that social and environmental misdeeds have consequences – for the affected people and territory, but also for the reputation of the offender.

Emphasis added.

infomatique

Guilty … of winning awards!

And why did Shell earn top honors? (Well, alongside Goldman Sachs.) (I accidentally typed “Goldamn Sachs” and thought briefly about keeping that.)

Shell is always involved in particularly controversial, risky and dirty oil production projects. Thus, this Dutch-British corporation, chosen by online users for the public naming and shaming award, is also out in front in the highly risky search for fossil fuels in the fragile Arctic. This has been made possible by climate change and the disappearance of the Arctic ice cap, to which Shell has contributed. Every Arctic offshore oil project means new CO2 emissions. The Arctic’s oil reserves are enough for just three years. For this, Shell is jeopardising one of the Earth’s last natural paradises and endangering the living space of four million people, as well as unique fauna.

The celebratory announcement then walks through the company’s litany of 2012 screw-ups, with which you may already be familiar.

It’s not only Greenpeace that’s celebrating the company. Shell is also a finalist for a very, very, very prestigious (and presumably non-ironic) “Oil and Gas Award” from the oil and gas industry — one of only 130 oil and gas companies to be so named. So that’s pretty impressive, too.

While we don’t sit on the jury for either award, we think Shell deserves both. We are often hard on Shell, sometimes letting our dislike of rampant fossil-fuel extraction, our frustration with runaway oil consumption, our skepticism of rapacious profit-seeking while accepting federal subsidization color our perspective. But no company more deserves accolades from the industry that celebrates those traits and mockery from those who oppose them.

Here’s hoping they don’t repeat in 2014.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Read this article:  

Shell wins prestigious award for ineptitude

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Shell wins prestigious award for ineptitude

Obama: ‘We will respond to the threat of climate change’

Obama: ‘We will respond to the threat of climate change’

majunznk

Just before noon Eastern time, President Barack Obama was (ceremonially) sworn in to his second term of office.

His second inaugural address was strong in its embrace of progressive values — gay rights, addressing poverty, opposing gun violence, stopping voting restrictions. You can read the whole thing here.

Obama’s message, at its broadest, was that America is built and progresses through united action. That our government must actually be “of the people.” In that vein, the president devoted a paragraph to climate change.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries — we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure — our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

It is fair to find this heartening. It is the strongest, broadest argument for responsible stewardship of the planet: that we have an obligation to the future.

It also contrasts strongly with Obama’s words during a less public event shortly after his reelection. From his November 14 press conference:

There’s no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices and understandably, you know, I think right now the American people have been so focused and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth that if the message somehow is that we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anyone’s going to go for that. I won’t go for that.

That’s a different theme. That theme suggests that we shouldn’t make a sacrifice in the moment to preserve the future. That we have primacy over our children.

What Obama said in November suggests a series of small adjustments and minor political fights. What he said today, with the whole world listening, was that those fights must be big, and that we as Americans must fight them.

Lines from his address to that effect will almost certainly be featured in appeals from his reconstituted campaign structure, Organizing for America. His argument today — while a reflection of the president’s long-standing philosophy — was a tacit “ask what you can do for your country” call that OFA will undoubtedly repeat over the coming months. Considering that call in light of a recent assessments of why key climate legislation failed during Obama’s first term is revealing.

Two different messages at two not-very-different moments. Which fight we see, only time will tell — and could hinge on who shows up for the fight.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continued here – 

Obama: ‘We will respond to the threat of climate change’

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama: ‘We will respond to the threat of climate change’

Boeing’s efficient Dreamliner planes are especially efficient at battery fires

Boeing’s efficient Dreamliner planes are especially efficient at battery fires

kentaroiemoto

Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner™©® was meant to be the company’s cap-featherer, a “super-efficient airplane” that hauls hundreds of people for thousands of miles using 20 percent less fuel than older planes of the same size. The company touted its solar-powered factory that produced zero waste, promising to recycle planes once they’d been retired. The plane’s fuselage even eliminates the use of over 40,000 rivets, reducing waste and resource use.

Sometimes, Dreamliners©™ don’t come true. After five incidents in the past two weeks, Europe, Japan, and the United States have grounded all fifty 787s currently in use. While one flight reported problems with its brakes and another had a leaky fuel valve, the problems have centered around the planes’ lithium-ion batteries. Wired explains the importance of those batteries — including how they make the planes less fuel-intensive:

The 787 was first announced ten years ago this month, and has cost Boeing more than $30 billion to develop according to the Seattle Times. Much of that cost lies in the many innovative new technologies the company used to create the most fuel efficient airliner flying today.

Hailed as the airliner of the future, the 787 is mostly built from composite materials and uses an unprecedented amount of electricity to power many of the systems on board the airplane. The Dreamliner is often referred to as the first composite airliner, but it could just as easily called the most electric airliner ever. …
Most of the electricity on the Dreamliner is created by six generators, two on each engine and two on the auxiliary power unit in the tail of the airplane. Traditionally, Boeing airliners used only three. These generators provide electricity for the airplane in a similar way that an alternator provides electricity for your car. Though on the 787, a lot more electricity is generated than in the family truckster.

The Dreamliner’s electrical system generates nearly 1.5 megawatts, enough to power several hundred homes. With such high electric power demands, the 787 needs high power-dense batteries as an emergency backup source. …

Boeing estimates using electrical systems instead of [pneumatic systems] decreases the fuel burn about three percent. Overall, the 787 reduces the fuel burn about 20 percent compared to a similar size aircraft.

In theory, this makes sense. The problem arises when, in practice, the batteries end up looking like this.

NTSB

That’s from the National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating a battery fire that grounded a 787 Dreamliner™™™™ in Boston. Earlier today, Businessweek looked at some of the reasons the batteries might be catching fire; an investigator in Japan suggested that voltage levels were set improperly.

It will likely be weeks before the cause of the fires is determined — meaning it will be months before 787s start flying again if there’s something that needs to be fixed. Not the rollout that Boeing anticipated, but one that provides an important lesson: If you want to introduce an electricity-dependent, fuel-sipping plane, make sure that the electrical components don’t catch fire and the fuel system doesn’t spring any leaks.

You will note that we at no point made a nightmare joke; you are welcome.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View article: 

Boeing’s efficient Dreamliner planes are especially efficient at battery fires

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Boeing’s efficient Dreamliner planes are especially efficient at battery fires

Silicon Valley’s ‘unbuilt Manhattan’ is best left unbuilt

Silicon Valley’s ‘unbuilt Manhattan’ is best left unbuilt

Over the past two decades, an influx of tech money has sent rents in San Francisco skyward. It’s the fastest growing rental market in the country, with the East Bay’s Oakland coming in second. Last year, landlords in San Francisco used the “Ellis Act” to evict three times as many tenants as they had in 2011, in order to circumvent rent control.

Ken Layne at The Awl harkens back to a simpler time when you could rent a studio in SF for less than $2,400, and compares that to now:

In 2013, the bigger tech companies are still in Silicon Valley, but the people working there—from Mark Zuckerberg to the newest $100K hires straight out of college—want to be in San Francisco. Zuckerberg is a part-timer, with a fancy apartment in the Mission. The rest are part-timers in Silicon Valley, commuting to and from work on immense luxury buses run by Google, Apple, EA, Yahoo and the rest. This has caused problems, notably for San Francisco residents unlucky enough to survive on less than a hundred-grand starting salary. Talk of raising the city’s skyline is met with anger. People argue endlessly over the appropriate comparisons to New York. Is Oakland the Brooklyn to SF? What about Berkeley, or Marin, or the Outer Sunset? And what does that make Bayview or Burlingame?

All of this assumes that urban San Francisco equals Manhattan. It does not. San Francisco, with its leafy parks and charming row houses and distinct villages and locavore restaurants and commuters fleeing every morning to work, is the Brooklyn to an as-yet-unbuilt Manhattan.

To some extent, this is true. Many parts of San Francisco have become bedroom communities for tech workers who take company-sponsored shuttles or hellish Caltrain routes to work many miles south, to a place where rents are cheaper, but the living is decidedly suburban. The youngs making six figures at start-ups seem to prefer the hell of Caltrain to the hell of Silicon Valley suburbia.

Nobody wants to move to the Bay Area for work and then discover they actually have to live in a completely different climate an hour’s drive (without traffic) from the actual bay. The magical part of the Bay Area is really confined to the Bay Area, with its relatively green hills and foggy mornings and cool ocean air.

So Layne proposes building dense, walkable, appealing neighborhoods in the bleak, sprawling stretch between San Francisco and Silicon Valley some 40 miles to the south. “[I]n the post-automobile era, where else would you look to expand your metropolitan area other than the underused sections in the middle of your metropolitan area?”

[T]he areas around and in between the tech giants of Silicon Valley are mostly ready to be razed and rebuilt. There are miles and miles of half-empty retail space, hideous 1970s’ two-story apartment complexes, most of it lacking the basic human infrastructure of public transportation, playgrounds, bicycle and running and walking paths, outdoor cafes and blocks loaded with bars and late-night restaurants. This is where the new metropolis must be built, in this unloved but sunny valley…

With local light rail at street level and express trains overhead or underground, the whole route could be lined with native-landscaped sidewalks dotted with pocket parks and filled on both sides with ground-floor retail, farmers markets and nightlife districts around every station. Caltrain already runs just east of Route 82, and BART already reaches south to Millbrae now.

Alexis Madrigal at The Atlantic calls this “a wisp of a suggestion, an opening statement, perhaps,” but a “fascinating” one.

But as Layne himself notes, people don’t move to the Bay Area because they want to live an hour’s drive south of San Francisco. Even if we brought a Robert Moses-style urban reckoning upon Silicon Valley (an idea that does have its appeal!), why assume the techies would move there?

This is an aggressively naive idea for a region with a dire housing shortage and a serious cultural bias against density. Instead of a Silicon Valley raze-and-rebuild, how about infilling in San Francisco and East Bay cities where young tech workers already want to be anyway? How about rezoning and remaking Oakland and Berkeley’s desolate, unused industrial brownfields along the waterfront? If it can’t be done in the bigger cities, how likely is it to get done in the many suburbs of Silicon Valley? Not likely at all. Much of the Bay Area doesn’t even want more public transportation, let alone more housing density.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of taking a wrecking ball to empty strip malls. But as a Bay Area resident wishing on a star for the region to grow smarter and denser, I see many more worthy routes to take besides bulldozing the ‘burbs, however delicious the thought.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Cities

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Taken from: 

Silicon Valley’s ‘unbuilt Manhattan’ is best left unbuilt

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Silicon Valley’s ‘unbuilt Manhattan’ is best left unbuilt

Green and lefty groups band together, pledge millions to fight right-wing evildoing

Green and lefty groups band together, pledge millions to fight right-wing evildoing

Andy Kroll at Mother Jones writes about “the massive new liberal plan to remake American politics”:

A month after President Barack Obama won reelection, top brass from three dozen of the most powerful groups in liberal politics met at the headquarters of the National Education Association (NEA), a few blocks north of the White House. Brought together by the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Communication Workers of America (CWA), and the NAACP, the meeting was invite-only and off-the-record. Despite all the Democratic wins in November, a sense of outrage filled the room as labor officials, environmentalists, civil rights activists, immigration reformers, and a panoply of other progressive leaders discussed the challenges facing the left and what to do to beat back the deep-pocketed conservative movement.

At the end of the day, many of the attendees closed with a pledge of money and staff resources to build a national, coordinated campaign around three goals: getting big money out of politics, expanding the voting rolls while fighting voter ID laws, and rewriting Senate rules to curb the use of the filibuster to block legislation. The groups in attendance pledged a total of millions of dollars and dozens of organizers to form a united front on these issues—potentially, a coalition of a kind rarely seen in liberal politics, where squabbling is common and a stay-in-your-lane attitude often prevails. …

The liberal activists have dubbed this effort the Democracy Initiative. The campaign, Brune says, has since been attracting other members—and also interest from foundations looking to give money—because many groups on the left believe they can’t accomplish their own goals without winning reforms on the Initiative’s three issues.

As Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune puts it, “We’re not going to have a clean-energy economy if the same companies that are polluting our rivers and oceans are also polluting our elections.”

Shutterstock

Somebody’s gotta fight the bad guys.

The Democracy Initiative, which first started meeting last June, now includes 30 to 35 groups, and Brune expects that to soon swell to 50. “[A]ttendees at the December meeting included top officials from the League of Conservation Voters, Friends of the Earth, Public Campaign, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, Common Cause, Voto Latino, the Demos think tank, Piper Fund, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, People for the American Way, National People’s Action, National Wildlife Federation, the Center for American Progress, the United Auto Workers, and Color of Change.”

[Brune and other instigators] say the Democracy Initiative is no flash in the pan; they’re in it for the long haul, for more than just this election cycle and the one after it. It took four decades, these leaders say, for conservatives to shape state and federal legislatures to the degree that they have, and it will take a long stretch to roll back those changes. “The game is rigged against us; the corporate right has done such a good job taking over the Congress and the courts,” [says Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford]. “We’re saying we need to step back and change the whole game.”

The first order of business is pushing to change the Senate’s operating rules and curb use of the filibuster, which probably has to happen by Jan. 22 in order to take hold in this new Congress. Wondering why filibuster reform is so important? Grist’s David Roberts explains.

Source

Revealed: The Massive New Liberal Plan to Remake American Politics, Mother Jones

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on

Twitter

and

Google+

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

From:  

Green and lefty groups band together, pledge millions to fight right-wing evildoing

Posted in Citizen, GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Green and lefty groups band together, pledge millions to fight right-wing evildoing

Sea-level rise could be way, way worse than we already thought

Sea-level rise could be way, way worse than we already thought

Petrov Stanislav

Could your city look like this in 2100 (assuming it hasn’t

looked like this already

)?

It might be time to buy that dry suit you’ve had your eye on — or start saving up for a submersible.

“Glaciologists fear they may have seriously underestimated the potential for melting ice sheets to contribute to catastrophic sea-level rises in coming decades,” reports The Independent. Here’s more from NBC News:

Melting glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland may push up global sea levels more than 3 feet by the end of this century, according to a scientific poll of experts that brings a degree of clarity to a murky and controversial slice of climate science.

Such a rise in the seas would displace millions of people from low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, swamp atolls in the Pacific Ocean, cause dikes in Holland to fail, and cost coastal mega-cities from New York to Tokyo billions of dollars for construction of sea walls and other infrastructure to combat the tides.

“The consequences are horrible,” Jonathan Bamber, a glaciologist at the University of Bristol and a co-author of the study published Jan. 6 in the journal Nature Climate Change, told NBC News. …

The estimates are higher than the controversial figures in the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of up to 23 inches (59 centimeters) and higher than the unpublished estimates being prepared for the next IPCC report, said Bamber, who is a review editor for that document and has seen the estimates.

Add this to the growing pile of sobering sea-level studies, along with recent ones about how western Antarctica is warming three times faster than the rest of the world and polar ice sheets are melting three times faster than during the ’90s.

Oh, and that one about how historic sea-level rises have been linked to volcanic eruptions.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on

Twitter

and

Google+

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continued here:  

Sea-level rise could be way, way worse than we already thought

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sea-level rise could be way, way worse than we already thought