Tag Archives: political

Why Is BP Funding America’s Most Notorious Climate Change Denier?

Mother Jones

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

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

One of America’s most powerful and outspoken opponents of climate change regulation received election campaign contributions that can be traced back to senior BP staff, including chief executive Bob Dudley.

Jim Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma who has tirelessly campaigned against calls for a carbon tax and challenges the overwhelming consensus on climate change, received $10,000 from BP’s Political Action Committee.

Following his re-election, Inhofe became chair of the Senate’s environment and public works committee in January, and then a month later was featured in news bulletins throwing a snowball across the Senate floor.

Before tossing it, the senator said: “In case we have forgotten—because we keep hearing that 2014 is the warmest year on record—it is very, very cold outside. Very unseasonal.”

The BP PAC is funded by contributions from senior US executives and company staffers who sent in contributions to the PAC totaling more than $1 million between 2010 and 2014. Over the same period the committee paid out $655,000 to candidates, with more than 40 incumbent senators benefiting.

Yet, BP and Dudley have long called for world leaders to intervene and impose tough regulatory measures on the fossil fuel industry. Publishing its 98-page research paper, Energy Outlook 2035, last month, BP warned: “To abate carbon emissions further will require additional significant steps by policymakers beyond the steps already assumed.”

Dudley has personally given $19,000 since June 2011 to the BP PAC—very close to the $5,000-a-year maximum allowable by law. Although Dudley is a resident of Britain, he is eligible to give via the BP PAC because he is a US national.

While the sums channeled to Inhofe’s campaign represent only a small proportion of the BP PAC’s election spending and the senator’s own campaign funds, they show how unafraid the committee has been to spread its donations to the most controversial candidates. According to the BP PAC website, it financially supports election candidates “whose views and/or voting records reflect the interests of BP employees.”

Records suggest Inhofe’s 2014 campaign was a funding priority for the BP PAC, ranking as one of the top recipients of committee funds when compared with disbursements to other serving senators.

This was despite Inhofe’s senate battle not being a close one. His opponent, Matt Silverstein, who Inhofe beat comfortably in last November’s midterms, had a tiny campaign war chest by comparison.

BP was asked whether it was appropriate for the PAC to make campaign contributions to such a vocal opponent of action on climate change, or for Dudley to be contributing towards such payments.

In a statement BP replied: “Voluntary donations by staff to the BP employees’ political action committee in the US are used to support a variety of candidates across the political spectrum and in many US geographies where we operate.”

“These candidates have one thing in common: They are important advocates for the energy industry in the broadest sense.”

It added: “BP’s position on climate change is well known and is long-established. We believe that climate change is an important long-term issue that justifies global action.”

The company declined to comment on Dudley’s own donations.

PACs exist in the US where companies and trade unions cannot give directly to the campaigns of those running for office. Instead funds are pooled from staff—often senior executives—into a PAC, and disbursed by a committee board, often in a manner sympathetic to the company’s lobby and other interests.

Other US oil industry leaders, including Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, make contributions to their own corporate PACs—money which in many cases can then be traced to Inhofe and other climate-skeptic politicians.

But Tillerson and other peers have not been as outspoken as BP and Dudley in calling for state intervention to tackle climate change, making the BP boss’s links to Inhofe campaign finance more controversial.

Continue Reading »

Link: 

Why Is BP Funding America’s Most Notorious Climate Change Denier?

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, Brita, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, Stout, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Is BP Funding America’s Most Notorious Climate Change Denier?

Who Will Win the Duggar Primary?

Mother Jones

It may be that the fastest-growing demographic in the Republican Party is pro-life, telegenic, homeschooled, and mostly under the age of 27—you know, the Duggars. As in the stars of the TLC reality show 19 Kids and Counting.

In the past couple election cycles, this birth-control-shunning family has emerged as a political player on the right. And now it looks likely that they will face a tough decision when it comes to which social conservative GOPer to back in the 2016 presidential race. The Arkansas clan helped propel Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to victory in the Iowa caucuses in 2008. And they did it with Rick Santorum in 2012. Now, with both Huckabee and Santorum considering presidential campaigns this year, the Duggars may have to choose between them. Or might they dump both for a new favorite?

Continue Reading »

Continue at source:  

Who Will Win the Duggar Primary?

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Who Will Win the Duggar Primary?

Watch John Oliver Turn America’s Doomed Infrastructure Into a Summer Blockbuster

Mother Jones

America’s infrastructure system—from its dams, bridges, roads, airports, etc.—is deteriorating and in need of a serious renovation. It’s an issue most people agree on, and as John Oliver noted last night, even has the attention of a “total idiot” like Donald Trump. Despite all this, the country remains pretty uninterested in doing anything about it.

“The lack of political urgency in tackling this problem is insane,” Oliver explained. “And you cannot tell me that you are not interested in this, because every summer, people flock to see our infrastructure threatened by terrorists and aliens.”

In hopes to cure America’s blissful apathy to our crumbling infrastructure, Last Week Tonight took a cue from our movie-going habits by producing a gripping, Armageddon-like summer blockbuster to get people freaked out enough and finally start working on this major problem. Watch below:

Read More – 

Watch John Oliver Turn America’s Doomed Infrastructure Into a Summer Blockbuster

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch John Oliver Turn America’s Doomed Infrastructure Into a Summer Blockbuster

“It’s Easier to Get Laid at CPAC Than on Spring Break”

Mother Jones

While the annual Conservative Political Action Conference attracts right-wingers all stripes, there was one thing virtually all attendees could agree on: this year’s conference was young. Especially young. College and high school-aged conservatives packed the halls of CPAC, decked out in all manner of paraphernalia: retro Reagan-Bush ’84 campaign shirts, American flag shorts, buttons that declared “I Love Capitalism” and “Kill the Death Tax.” I spotted at least one “Barry Goldwater for President” button on a millennial’s lapel.

What were these fired-up young conservatives—many of whom traveled long distances to attend—here to see? Which would-be GOP candidate did they intend to support? Their responses were diverse, but if the Millennial Primary were held today, it would be a dead heat between Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wisc.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), with Ben Carson running close behind.

Continue Reading »

Original link – 

“It’s Easier to Get Laid at CPAC Than on Spring Break”

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on “It’s Easier to Get Laid at CPAC Than on Spring Break”

Republicans Need to Speak Up About Alabama Gay Marriage Ruling

Mother Jones

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

Steve Benen has a question for Republican presidential candidates:

Last week, after Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made controversial comments about vaccines, almost immediately political leaders in both parties were asked to explain their own position on vaccinations. Within a day or two, every likely presidential candidate was on record, endorsing an anti-disease position.

It’d be nice if we saw similar scrutiny today about developments in Alabama. There are all kinds of political figures poised to launch presidential campaigns, and last week they told us what they think about vaccines. Maybe this week they can tell us whether they’re comfortable with Alabama counties ignoring the federal courts?

In case you missed it—not likely, but I guess you never know—earlier this week a federal judge struck down Alabama’s law banning same-sex marriage. Alabama’s chief justice then ordered local judges to ignore the federal ruling and refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. A hearing to resolve the issue in federal court is scheduled for Thursday.

But tomorrow’s hearing isn’t really at issue. A federal court has made a ruling, and the Supreme Court has already declined to issue a stay. The court’s decision is now good law. So the question is: should local judges follow the law, or should they continue to oppose same-sex marriage and refuse to issue licenses?

Like Benen, I’d sure like to hear what everyone has to say about this. The tap dancing would be entertaining. Chris Christie would probably pull his usual cowardly schtick and simply refuse to take a position. Jeb Bush might insist that it’s strictly a matter for Alabama and it would be improper for him to take a position. Mike Huckabee would probably counsel civil disobedience. And Scott Walker? Good question. I don’t know what he’d say. But I’d like to find out.

More:

Republicans Need to Speak Up About Alabama Gay Marriage Ruling

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Need to Speak Up About Alabama Gay Marriage Ruling

Greek Charm Offensive Is Charming No One So Far

Mother Jones

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

Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis is apparently on a “charm offensive” to persuade his European counterparts—i.e., the Germans—to allow Greece to end its brutal austerity program and spend more money. The Germans, so far, are not charmed:

After a meeting in Berlin on Thursday with his German counterpart, Wolfgang Schaeuble, the two sides could not even agree on whether they had “agreed to disagree.” Schaeuble said they did. Varoufakis said they didn’t get that far. “We did not reach an agreement; it was never on the cards,” he said. “We didn’t even agree to disagree from where I’m standing.”

That’s not very promising, is it? Overall, though, my takeaway from this story is that the new Greek government, after winning office based on a very hardnosed platform of vilifying its European creditors, has decided in practice to adopt a fairly conciliatory negotiating strategy. The Times says that Varoufakis has “backed away from the party’s pledges to negotiate a debt write-down” and is instead merely seeking “a compromise that would benefit Greece and its creditors.”

So it’s sort of a good-cop-bad-cop routine: prime minister Alexis Tsipras stays in Athens and continues to insist that Greece won’t buckle under to European threats, while Varoufakis makes the rounds of finance ministries and tries to make nice.

Still, keep in mind something I mentioned a few days ago: “backing down” from demands to reduce Greece’s enormous debt doesn’t mean much, because the issue of the debt write-down has always been a bit of a charade. It’s an easy thing to demagogue, but everyone understands privately that Greece will never pay it all back. At this point, then, Greek debt is less a measure of what Greece actually owes other people than it is a crude means of political control: whenever Greece needs to roll over its debt, it’s an opportunity for Germany to hold out until they approve of Greece’s spending plans. This effectively gives them control of Greece’s budget, and they’ve insisted on huge spending cuts and a future path toward big budget surpluses.

And that’s what Varoufakis really cares about. Not the debt, which is basically just a symbol at this point, but control over Greece’s budget. He wants to reverse the austerity and increase spending, which he thinks will boost Greece’s economy and allow it to get back into growth mode. What’s more, he’s arguing—none too subtly, as it happens—that this is something important to all of Europe, not just Greece. After all, Greek unemployment is currently at 26 percent, and youth unemployment is nearly 50 percent. This is dangerous territory for any country. Here’s Varoufakis:

“Germany must and can be proud that Nazism has been eradicated here, but it’s one of history’s most cruel ironies that Nazism is rearing its ugly head in Greece, a country which put up such a fine struggle against it,” Varoufakis said. He was referring to Greece’s far-right Golden Dawn party, which came third in January’s elections and has 17 seats in the Parliament sworn in Thursday.

Translation: the Greek public won’t put up with this stuff forever. You may think Syriza is a radical far-left party, but there are worse things than far left parties. If we don’t get relief soon, the far right will be up to bat next. And that’s something nobody wants to risk.

Read this article:

Greek Charm Offensive Is Charming No One So Far

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Greek Charm Offensive Is Charming No One So Far

Blogging Isn’t Dead. But Old-School Blogging Is Definitely Dying.

Mother Jones

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

With Andrew Sullivan giving up his blog, there are fewer and fewer of us old-school bloggers left. In this case, “old school” pretty much means a daily blog with frequent updates written by one person (or possibly two, but not much more). Ezra Klein thinks this is because conventional blogging doesn’t scale well:

At this moment in the media, scale means social traffic. Links from other bloggers — the original currency of the blogosphere, and the one that drove its collaborative, conversational nature — just don’t deliver the numbers that Facebook does. But blogging is a conversation, and conversations don’t go viral. People share things their friends will understand, not things that you need to have read six other posts to understand.

Blogging encourages interjections into conversations, and it thrives off of familiarity. Social media encourages content that can travel all on its own. Alyssa Rosenberg put it well at the Washington Post. “I no longer write with the expectation that you all are going to read every post and pick up on every twist and turn in my thinking. Instead, each piece feels like it has to stand alone, with a thesis, supporting paragraphs and a clear conclusion.”

I’d add a couple of comments to this. First, Ezra is right about the conversational nature of blogging. There was lots of that in the early days, and very little now. Partly this is for the reason he identified: traffic is now driven far more by Facebook links than by links from fellow bloggers. Partly it’s also because multi-person blogs, which began taking over the blogosphere in the mid-aughts, make conversation harder. Most people simply don’t follow all the content in multi-person blogs, and don’t always pay attention to who wrote which post, so conversation becomes choppier and harder to follow. And partly it’s because conversation has moved on: first to comment sections, then to Twitter and other social media.

Second, speaking personally, I long ago decided that blog posts needed to be standalone pieces, so I’m not sure we can really blame that on new forms of social media. It was probably as early as 2005 or 2006 that I concluded two things. Not only do blog posts need to be standalone, but they can’t even ramble very much. You need to make one clear point and avoid lots of distractions and “on the other hands.” This is because blog readers are casual readers, and if you start making lots of little side points, that’s what they’re going to respond to. Your main point often simply falls by the wayside. So keep it short and focused. If you have a second point to make, just wait a bit and write it up separately not as a quick aside open to lots of interpretation, but with the attention it deserves.

And there’s a third reason Klein doesn’t mention: professionalism. I was one of the first amateur bloggers to turn pro, and in my case it was mostly an accident. But within a few years, old-school media outlets had started co-opting nearly all of the high-traffic bloggers. (I won’t say they co-opted the “best” bloggers, because who knows? In any case, what they wanted was high traffic, so that’s what they went for.) Matt Yglesias worked for a series of outlets, Steve Benen took over the Washington Monthly when I moved to MoJo, Ezra Klein went to the Washington Post and then started up Vox, etc. Ditto for Andrew Sullivan, who worked for Time, the Atlantic, and eventually began his own subscription-based site. It was very successful, but Sullivan turned out to be the only blogger who could pull that off. You need huge traffic to be self-sustaining in a really serious way, and he was just about the only one who had an audience that was both large and very loyal. Plus there’s another side to professionalism: the rise of the expert blogger. There’s not much question in my mind that this permanently changed the tone of the political blogosphere, especially on the liberal side. There’s just less scope for layman-style noodling when you know that a whole bunch of experts will quickly weigh in with far more sophisticated responses. Add to that the rise of professional journalists taking up their own blogs, and true amateurs became even more marginalized.

All of this led to blogs—Sullivan excepted—becoming less conversational in tone and sparking less conversation. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but partly I think it’s because professional blogs prefer to link to their own content, rather than other people’s. Josh Marshall’s TPM, for example, links almost exclusively to its own content, because that’s the best way to promote their own stuff. There’s nothing wrong with that. It makes perfect sense. But it’s definitely a conversation killer.

In any case, most conversation now seems to have moved to Twitter. There are advantages to this: it’s faster and it’s open to more people. Blogs were democratizing, and Twitter is even more democratizing. You don’t have to start up your own blog and build up a readership to be heard. All you have to do is have a few followers and get rewteeted a bit. Needless to say, however, there are disadvantages too. Twitter is often too fast, and when you combine that with its 140-character limit, you end up with a lot of shrill and indignant replies. Sometimes this is deliberate: it’s what the tweeter really wants to say. But often it’s not. There’s a premium on responding quickly, since Twitter conversations usually last only hours if not minutes, and this means you’re often responding to a blog post in the heat of your very first reaction to something it says—often without even reading the full blog post first. In addition, it’s simply very difficult to convey nuance and tone in 140 characters. Even if you don’t mean to sound shrill and outraged, you often do. Now multiply that by the sheer size of Twitter, where a few initial irate comments can feed hundreds of others within minutes, and you have less a conversation than you do a mindless pile-on.

I’m not really making any judgments about all this. Personally, I miss old-school blogging and the conversations it started. But I also recognize that what I’m saying about Twitter is very much what traditional print journalists said about blogging back in the day. You have to respond within a day! You have to make your point in 500 words or less! Whatever happened to deeply considered long-form pieces that took weeks to compose and ran several thousand words? Sure, those conversations took months to unfold, but what’s the rush?

Well, they were right to an extent. And now conversations have become even more compressed. Some people think that’s great, others (like me) are more conflicted about it. When I respond to something, I usually want to make a serious point, and Twitter makes that awfully hard. Writing a coherent multi-part tweet is just way harder than simply writing a 500-word blog post. On the other hand, the tweet will get seen by far more people than the post and be far more timely.

As with everything, it’s a tradeoff. I miss old-school blogging. A lot of people say good riddance to it. And the world moves on.

Originally posted here – 

Blogging Isn’t Dead. But Old-School Blogging Is Definitely Dying.

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Blogging Isn’t Dead. But Old-School Blogging Is Definitely Dying.

Check Out the Adorable Creatures and Gorgeous Vistas Obama Wants to Protect in Alaska

Mother Jones

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

On Sunday, President Obama announced that he will call on Congress to increase the protection of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by adding more than 12 million acres of it to the National Wilderness Preservation System—the highest level of conservation protection. If Congress signs on, which is pretty unlikely, it would be the largest wilderness designation since the Wilderness Act, signed in 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

The refuge covers nearly 20 million acres and contains five distinct ecological regions. It is home to at least 200 species of birds, 37 land mammal species, eight marine mammal species, and 42 species of fish. There are plenty of political reasons why Obama wants to protect it, but here are a few of the ecological ones:

The coastal plain provides spring grazing for caribou and other mammals. Associated Press

Conservationists argue that oil and gas drilling in the coastal plain would threaten the millions of birds that nest there. USFWS

The furry musk ox—the Inupiat’s call it “omingmak” (“the bearded one”)—lives on the coastal plain year round. USFWS

There is a unique ecosystem of animals—that includes the arctic fox—that have adapted to survive in ANWR. USFWS

Tundra swans rely on the remote and undeveloped refuge to nest. USFWS

Caribou migrate through the coastal plain. David Gustine/USGS

According to the US Department of the Interior, oil and gas development could pollute water resources in ANWR. USFWS

ANWR is an important denning area for polar bears. Alan D. Wilson

The Alaska marmot, considered highly vulnerable to changes in habitat, calls ANWR home. USFWS

To hear Obama talk about the importance of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, watch this video:

This article:  

Check Out the Adorable Creatures and Gorgeous Vistas Obama Wants to Protect in Alaska

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Check Out the Adorable Creatures and Gorgeous Vistas Obama Wants to Protect in Alaska

We only got 3 minutes to save the world

Climate apocalypse or nuclear holocaust?

We only got 3 minutes to save the world

By on 22 Jan 2015commentsShare

Since 1947, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a magazine started by the creators of the first atom bomb to inform humanity about threats to its survival, has kept time on its Doomsday Clock — how much time we have left, that is. Here’s how it works: Midnight is the end of homo sapiens sapiens, and the minute hand of the clock is adjusted every few years to reflect the direness of the day’s biggest existential crises and human extinction hazards.

Here in 2015, the Bulletin reckons, it’s three minutes to midnight — a mere 90 ticks and 90 tocks away from doomsday, thanks to carbon emissions, advanced weaponry, and poor governance in both of those arenas:

Unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth.

But relax! This isn’t even the closest we’ve come to self-extermination, by the Doomsday Clock’s measure. From 1953 to 1959, the hand sat two minutes from 12 o’clock, waiting for nuclear holocaust as the U.S. and Soviet Union developed hydrogen bombs and Cold War tensions simmered.

An in-depth Quartz article on the past and present of the clock charts the historical movement of the Bulletin’s infamous indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe:

Quartz

See? We’ve made it out of tight spots before — we can be confident there’s nothing to fear here at 11:57 p.m. on doomsday. Right? It’s not like scientists are telling us that we’ve undermined key life support systems on the planet; military experts are worried that accelerating climate change will escalate violence around the globe; astrophysicists are speculating that we haven’t seen any E.T.s because all intelligent life gets stopped cold by unsustainability; or anything like that.

Gulp.

Well I, for one, can’t wait to see how it all plays out; heroic comeback or blaze-of-glory demise — either way it will be quite a show. Until then, I’ll just be chilling with my guitar singing some nice holiday tunes about the (possibly) impending ruination.

Source:
Climate change inaction pushes ‘doomsday clock’ closest to midnight since 1984

, The Guardian.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

View original article: 

We only got 3 minutes to save the world

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We only got 3 minutes to save the world

California Gov. Jerry Brown gets more ambitious about tackling climate change

California Gov. Jerry Brown gets more ambitious about tackling climate change

By on 6 Jan 2015commentsShare

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) wants to make his state even more of a climate leader during his fourth and final term. In a wide-ranging inaugural speech yesterday, he laid out plans to go out with a bang.

He quoted E.O. Wilson — “Surely one moral precept we can agree on is to stop destroying our birthplace, the only home humanity will ever have” — and then called for California to pursue ambitious climate goals for 2030 that build on those the state has already laid out for 2020. Brown said that California’s “impressive” 2020 goals, which the state is “on track to meet,” still “are not enough” for California to lead the world on the path to containing climate change to 2 degrees Celsius of warming, a target that the U.N. hopes will keep the worst effects in check.

From The New York Times, an overview of Brown’s new plans:

Gov. Jerry Brown began his fourth and final term on Monday proposing a broad reduction in California’s energy consumption over the next 15 years — including a call to slash gas consumption by cars and trucks by as much as 50 percent — as part of what he said would be a sweeping campaign to heighten the state’s role in the fight against global warming.

Mr. Brown, a longtime champion of electric cars and limiting greenhouse gas emissions, called in his inauguration speech for 50 percent of California’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources by 2030, up from the current goal of one-third by 2020, and doubling the energy efficiency of existing buildings.

Mr. Brown was in effect proposing that California, which is already viewed as at the forefront in the battle to curb emissions, greatly expand cutbacks put in place in the state’s landmark 2006 greenhouse gas emission bills. And he made clear that he would use his final years in office to try to make this happen.

Brown’s time in office has seen tremendous pushback from the fossil-fuel industry, which has opposed implementation of the state’s cap-and-trade program, put in place by that landmark 2006 climate bill, and other measures. The political money battle will likely only intensify now that Brown’s environmental initiatives are more ambitious, with Brown’s own well-heeled allies — notably environmentalist-billionaire Tom Steyer, who was present at the state Capitol for Brown’s speech — pushing back.

The Western States Petroleum Association, one of the primary industry lobbying groups active in California, told the Associated Press that it was reviewing Brown’s proposals.

Environmental groups, on the other hand, told the AP that Brown should have gone still further — they want the governor to ban fracking in the state during his final term.

Source:
Gov. Jerry Brown Begins Last Term With a Bold Energy Plan

, The New York Times.

Jerry Brown seeks new green regulations in historic fourth term

, Los Angeles Times.

California governor toughens climate-change goals

, Associated Press.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Excerpt from – 

California Gov. Jerry Brown gets more ambitious about tackling climate change

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California Gov. Jerry Brown gets more ambitious about tackling climate change