Tag Archives: power

We Fact-Checked What the Republicans Said About Climate Change During the Debate

by TwilaMayon Posted on September 17, 2015

Mother Jones

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

Climate change made a last-minute appearance in Wednesday night’s GOP debate on CNN. Nearly 150 minutes into the show, and only for about four minutes, a few candidates weighed in on President Barack Obama’s plan to tackle global warming.

What made the short exchange most notable was the fact that none of the candidates on stage spent time refuting the fundamental science behind climate change: that the world is warming, and that humans are responsible. This alone was a sign of a recent shift in conservative politics that some pollsters have identified: More than 70 percent of Republicans believe humans are contributing to global warming, according to one recent study. Many conservatives no longer reject climate science itself. Rather, they reject the solutions, which they view as economically onerous. So, predictably, the GOP candidates largely portrayed Obama’s landmark Clean Power Plan as job-killing overregulation.

“We’re not going to destroy our economy the way the left-wing government we’re under wants to do,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said. “Every proposal they put forward are proposals that will make it harder to do business in America, that will make it harder to create jobs in America.”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie agreed. “We shouldn’t be destroying our economy in order to chase some wild, left-wing idea that somehow, us, by ourselves, are going to fix the climate,” he said, while touting his state’s solar investments.

Let’s fact-check a few of the statements from the debate.

Marco Rubio: “America is not a planet. And we are not even the largest carbon producer anymore: China is. And they’re drilling a hole and digging anywhere in the world that they can get a hold of.”

It’s true that America is not a planet. So we’re off to a good start. There is a sprawling (round) and diverse world beyond America’s shores that features other countries and other leaders and other cultures. These 197 countries include, but are not limited to, Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria…Anyway, the list goes on. The point Rubio is making, though, is that America can’t act alone to solve climate change.

That’s true. That’s why the UN climate process exists—to try to get countries to make a deal to reduce carbon pollution around the world. Rubio is right: China is the largest carbon producer in the world, by far, and is therefore crucial to how the world deals with runaway global warming. China’s reluctance at the Copenhagen negotiations in 2009 to forge a deal was reportedly central to the summit failing. China, as we’ve reported before, is voraciously consuming energy, and Rubio is correct that the country is “drilling a hole and digging anywhere.”

But that doesn’t mean China isn’t moving hard and fast on climate action. Indeed, China is acting, for the first time, in concert with the United States. Last November, China set a year at which it expects its emissions to “peak,” or finally begin to taper downward: around 2030. Credible analysts say that could happen sooner, holding out a tantalizing possibility: The world could stay within the internationally agreed-upon limit of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming above pre-industrial levels. China is also pouring money into renewable energy, especially solar. And in September 2014, China announced it was moving forward with plans for a massive, nationwide cap-and-trade program intended to help combat climate change. The program will launch in 2016, but there are already a series of pilot carbon markets across the country.

So, Sen. Rubio: China is acting, and the United States is helping it act. Just this week, a delegation of Chinese climate negotiators met their American counterparts in Los Angeles to announce a widespread crackdown on carbon emissions in Chinese cities—matched by commitments from US cities.

Rubio: “The decisions that the left want us to make…will make America a more expensive place to create jobs.”

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: “This is an issue where, we’re talking about my state, it’s thousands of manufacturing jobs.”

Christie: “We shouldn’t be destroying our economy in order to chase some wild, left-wing idea that somehow, us, by ourselves, are going to fix the climate.”

Rubio, Walker, and Christie are referring to a classic argument here, that increased regulation will make electricity bills more expensive, depress the economy, and kill jobs. The truth is a little more complicated—and this is where it gets a little wonky. The entire electricity industry is changing, with or without Obama’s new climate rules. As my colleague Tim McDonnell reported in February, inefficient coal plants that could face closure under Obama’s EPA-led Clean Power Plan “are already being threatened by competition from cheap natural gas and existing EPA rules targeting mercury pollution”:

A recent survey of the nation’s electric utility companies found that 77 percent already plan to reduce their dependence on coal in the coming years, while a similar proportion plan to increase their dependence on natural gas and renewables. In other words, the new EPA rules don’t signal an about-face from existing trends.

The point is that making lots of energy from coal plants just isn’t as economically feasible as it once was—so it’s hard to blame any one lost coal industry job on the EPA’s plan alone. And about electricity bills themselves, McDonnell writes about one case study suggesting electric bills could actually go down:

Meanwhile, back in Virginia, an analysis by the Southern Environmental Law Center found that although electricity rates are projected to rise 2 percent by 2030, improvements in energy efficiency thanks to the new EPA rules would actually lead to an 8 percent drop in consumers’ electric bills.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, savings like that could add up to $37.4 billion for all US homes and businesses by 2020.

But it’s probably taken you longer to read this than the exchange took to play out on stage at the Reagan Library in California. And once they were done misinforming viewers about the climate, they moved on to vaccines.

View original article:

We Fact-Checked What the Republicans Said About Climate Change During the Debate

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, Hagen, Landmark, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Fact-Checked What the Republicans Said About Climate Change During the Debate

Use behavioral science to help fight climate change, says Obama executive order

by EmmaY68hrsarhc Posted on September 16, 2015

Use behavioral science to help fight climate change, says Obama executive order

By on 16 Sep 2015commentsShare

When you hear “climate policy,” you probably think of things like carbon markets, the Clean Power Plan, and, if you got a lot of extra credit in high school, forestry and land use changes. You probably don’t think of things like computer pop-ups and government mailings — unless, of course, you’re part of the Obama administration’s Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST). Which is kind of the point. The SBST, which is a little over a year old and released its first annual report yesterday, is all about making the kinds of policy tweaks you and I don’t notice: the minor, stealthy, behaviorally targeted tweaks with big payoffs.

And while many of these policy “nudges” often focus on areas like government efficiency, nutrition, and program uptake, a new executive order cites the behavioral sciences as holding great potential for complementing the administration’s efforts at meaningful climate action, too. “By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government,” states the executive order, “behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including … accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy.”

Can we actually nudge our way to a better climate? While not the primary solution, it’s perhaps useful to conceptualize these kinds of policy changes as rounding out the often “all-of-the-above” American approach to climate and energy policy. Here’s more, from ClimateWire:

The administration suggests that behavioral cues, like comparing your energy use with a neighbor, can be used to increase participation in energy efficiency and other federal goals. …

[Other methods include] a pop-up computer window that urges people to save paper by printing on both sides. The experiment resulted in a 5.8 percent increase in double-sided printing, a potentially significant reduction in the 18 billion pages printed annually by federal workers.

Let’s just pause for a moment and consider those 18 billion printed pages. How is that even physically possible? How many printers are in the Eisenhower Building? Do people have printers instead of desks? Has the White House somehow misunderstood the concept of a 3D printer? Is the White House made of paper?

If most of that printing is single-sided, a 5.8 percent increase in double-sided printing represents over A BILLION saved pages. JUST CHANGE THE DEFAULT SETTINGS, SHEEPLE.

Anyway. ClimateWire continues:

The administration also says climate-related programs could benefit. Behavioral changes being pursued by the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team could result in more people buying federal flood insurance, which suffers from low take-up rates. Public materials will be “redesigned to present information more clearly,” the White House said.

The team is also working on ways to increase energy efficiency in government buildings, in part by providing more access to daylight. And efforts are being designed to increase the use of renewable fuels in the federal fleet of vehicles, as well as encourage greater use of efficient appliances by communicating the benefits with homeowners.

The team’s annual report also announces the results of pilot projects related to college attendance and Affordable Care Act sign-ups. While many of the SBST’s policies target internal government operations, it’s not unreasonable to imagine uptake in broader public or private settings. Indeed, one year in, the SBST seems poised for success — if only at the margin. And with respect to climate change, we need all the help we can get closing the gap between current national commitments and the emission reductions necessary for keeping warming below 2 degrees C.

But seriously, 18 billion pages. Is there some obscure regulation that mandates printing in 72-point font?

Source:

Obama Seeks Psychological Help with Climate Change

, Scientific American / ClimateWire.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

See original article here: 

Use behavioral science to help fight climate change, says Obama executive order

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Oster, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Use behavioral science to help fight climate change, says Obama executive order

The Future of Renewable Fuel

by Posted on September 16, 2015

back

The Future of Renewable Fuel

Posted 16 September 2015 in

National

Biofuels industry leaders wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to support a strong Renewable Fuels Standard.

Dear Mr. President,

As leaders in the advanced and cellulosic biofuels industry, producers of the lowest carbon fuel in the world, we are writing to express our serious concerns about modifications your Administration is proposing to make to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).

As a general matter, we commend your commitment to addressing climate change, and look forward to continuing to work with you to create innovative solutions to reduce GHG emissions. We stand behind your recent declaration that Americans are innovators by nature, and your statement that “there should be no question that the United States of America is stepping up to the plate,” as we head into pivotal climate talks in Paris later this year.

However, our industry is also dealing with the reality that on May 29th your Administration re- proposed to insert a loophole into the RFS – a Clean Air Act (CAA) program that is the most aggressive U.S. climate policy enforced today – that would allow oil companies to avoid their obligations under the law.

As you know, the point of the RFS was to require oil companies to buy and sell an increasing amount of renewable fuel to address the fact that the oil industry would otherwise use its market position to cut off market access for competitors and thereby smother investment in cellulosic ethanol and advanced biofuels that have the lowest carbon footprint in the world. And yet, for the first time in RFS history, EPA is proposing to change the rules in the middle of the game to allow challenges related to the “distribution” of renewable fuel by oil companies – i.e. the oil industry’s refusal to buy and distribute low carbon, renewable fuel and its willingness to block brand-licensed gasoline retailers from selling higher renewable content blends under their branded canopy – to be cause for waiving the RFS on a year-to-year basis. Such a provision would gut the core concept behind the law.

From an investment perspective, billions of dollars of private capital flowed into U.S. biofuel projects – in the face of an historic global recession – largely because the RFS was seen as breaking the chokehold the oil industry has on fuel distribution and market access. RFS implementation was predicated on a market-based system of credits, much like the cap-and-trade plan you supported, and the most likely compliance mechanism for your Clean Power Plan. If portions of the oil industry choose not to purchase and use renewable fuel, they are required to purchase “Renewable Identification Numbers” (RINs) from market participants that did purchase and use renewable fuel in order to encourage good behavior and ensure fairness. As such, as RIN prices increase, so too does the economic incentive to blend more biofuels into the system. In essence, the policy rewards actors who do their part to meet the policy’s objective, and ensures that no one gets a free pass. This is how so many oil companies reported profits from selling RINs in recent years.

As acknowledged by EPA and former economic advisors to your Administration, this regulatory dynamic drives consumer choice at the pump with more American-made, renewable fuel without increasing average fuel prices. But EPA’s decision to change its waiver methodology, under pressure from the oil industry, upends the system and sends the market signal that the RFS volumes can be lowered if the oil industry simply drags its heels. The point of the RFS was to reward those who made the investments necessary to use more renewable fuel. Parts of the oil industry refused to do so starting in 2013, and now they’re being rewarded. No market-based system can survive if regulators are willing to overhaul the system to reward intransigence among obligated parties.

It is important to note that our industry has fought and won this battle once before. In 2005, Senator Inhofe and other oil industry champions tried to get “distribution waivers” included in the RFS from inception. Congress considered this path, but the language was struck from the bill in conference because Congressional champions for our industry knew that providing such waivers would result in the oil companies continuing to use their market position to stop the growth of biofuels.

Mr. President, the ramifications of your decision on this issue are substantial for America’s largest renewable energy sector. If the final rule includes distribution waivers, the global market signal will be that your Administration is backing away from its support of the most transformative U.S. energy and climate policy on the books today; and one that is widely regarded to be the best cellulosic and advanced biofuels policy in the world. While our companies will not fail to deploy advanced biofuels, we will continue to be forced to look overseas where renewable fuel policies are more stable.

The good news is, and notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the inclusion of distribution waivers is not necessary to put the RFS on a reasonable and stable path going forward. We would like to work with your Administration to forge a better path forward that is reasonable from an RFS implementation and motor fuel market perspective, protects U.S. investment in low carbon fuels, and ensures that the United States is true to its word going forward in Paris and beyond.

We hope to have your support on this important matter, and firmly believe that with your leadership we can get this critical innovation/climate program back on track.

View the signatures of all the leaders here.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
Visit source:  

The Future of Renewable Fuel

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Future of Renewable Fuel

Stop trashing the climate! EPA’s new plan would crack down on landfills

by Daniella76U Posted on August 17, 2015

Stop trashing the climate! EPA’s new plan would crack down on landfills

By on 17 Aug 2015commentsShare

Municipal solid waste — commonly known as trash, garbage, or Ke$ha — is under fire. (Not literally, of course, unless you live in Sacramento.) On Friday, the EPA released two proposals for curbing greenhouse gas emissions from landfills, with the goal of reducing methane emissions from garbage by one third.

The proposals, one for existing municipal solid waste landfills and the other for new ones, call for the installation or expansion of gas collection and control systems. Beginning in 2025, the rules could reduce methane emissions by 487,000 tons a year. Since methane is upwards of 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of its greenhouse gas potential, that’s equivalent to roughly 12.2 million metric tons of CO2, or the amount produced by 1.1 million homes, the EPA said in a statement.

Aside from serving as a stain on the environment, an efficient destroyer of ecosystems, and, you know, a literally fetid monument to the unholiest facets of consumerism, trash isn’t terribly offensive in its own right; at least not in terms of methane emissions. It’s when, in the name of efficiency, you bundle so much of it together and pack it tightly enough into the earth — so as to actually squeeze out the oxygen — that you have a problem. A lack of oxygen means that anaerobic bacteria enter the picture and start to decompose the subterranean waste mountains. The filth decays and the bacteria produce methane. A lot of it.

Methane emissions account for about 10 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, with landfill methane emissions composing (decomposing?) about 18 percent of that figure. Aside from methane, landfills also emit air toxics like benzene and toluene. The EPA’s proposed regulations would also tackle these pollutants.

The regulations represent the newest chunk of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. Earlier this month, the EPA revealed the final version of the Clean Power Plan, its rules for carbon emission cuts from power plants. The EPA is currently seeking public comment on the new methane rules, so if you think the landfill regulations are rubbish, now’s the time to let them know.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

A Grist Special Series

Oceans 15


How much plastic is in our oceans? Ask the woman trying to clean it upCarolynn Box, environmental program director of 5 Gyres, talks about what it’s like to sail across the ocean, pulling up plastic in the middle of nowhere.


How catching big waves helped turn this pro surfer into a conservationistRamon Navarro first came to the sea with his fisherman rather, found his own place on it as a surfer, and now fights to protect the coastline he loves.


What seafood is OK to eat, anyway? Ask an expertWhen it comes to sustainable seafood, you could say director of Seafood Watch Jennifer Dianto Kemmerly is the ultimate arbiter of taste.

Get Grist in your inbox

Advertisement

Link:

Stop trashing the climate! EPA’s new plan would crack down on landfills

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Stop trashing the climate! EPA’s new plan would crack down on landfills

Scott Walker Thinks Obama’s Climate Plan Will Jack Up Your Electric Bill. He’s Wrong.

by JanaShumway Posted on August 3, 2015

Mother Jones

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

Today President Barack Obama released the final version of his signature climate plan, which sets new limits on carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector. Each state has a unique target, custom-built for its particular mix of energy sources. Each state also has total freedom to determine how exactly to reach the target. But the rules are clearly designed to expedite the closure of coal-fired power plants, the nation’s number-one source of CO2 emissions.

It took less than a day for the first legal challenges to the plan to emerge from coal interests. The news rules also attracted some pointed criticism from leading Republican presidential contenders, including Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. Here’s what Walker had to say on Twitter:

Neither of those predictions is likely to come true. Cries about job loss and high costs always accompany new environmental regulation. In the case of the Clean Power Plan, as the rules announced today are known, the fear revolves around the image of coal plants around the country going dark. Folks get laid off from the plant, there’s less electricity on the grid, so the price of electricity goes up, so factories can’t afford to pay their workers, so they lay them off…you get the idea.

But as I’ve reported in the past, that view of the plan is misguided for two reasons. The first is that Obama’s new rules, while an important and historic milestone in the annals of climate action, really aren’t much of a departure from the direction that the energy market is already going. As our friend Eric Holthaus at Slate points out, many states are already well on their way to achieving the new carbon targets simply because, for lots of reasons, making tons of inefficient energy from dirty old coal plants just isn’t economically feasible anymore. So you’d be hard-pressed to pin any particular lost job in the coal industry on Obama alone.

The second reason Walker and his ilk are off-base is that they focus too heavily on the coal-killing aspect of the plan, without also considering two equally vital aspects: (a) The building of tons of new energy supplies from renewables, and (b) big improvements in energy efficiency, which will allow us to use less power overall.

It’s true that by the time the plan takes effect, electricity prices will have risen steadily, as they always have for as long as we’ve had electricity. Because electric utilities typically have monopolies over their service area and prize reliability over affordability, power costs don’t naturally fall over time in the way that the costs of other technologies do. But even though electric rates will probably go up, monthly electric bills are likely to go down, thanks to efficiency improvements. The exact calculus will be different in every state, but to take one example, the Southern Environmental Law Center projected that in Virginia, the Clean Power Plan will lead to an 8 percent reduction in electric bills. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, savings like that add up to $37.4 billion for all US homes and businesses by 2020. The NRDC also projects that the plan will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the energy efficiency sector, as homeowners, businesses, factories, etc. invest in upgrades that enable them use less power.

In any case, the solar industry alone already employs more than twice the number of people who work in coal mining. Making the energy system more climate-friendly is as much about juicing the clean energy industry as it is dismantling the coal industry.

Link:

Scott Walker Thinks Obama’s Climate Plan Will Jack Up Your Electric Bill. He’s Wrong.

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scott Walker Thinks Obama’s Climate Plan Will Jack Up Your Electric Bill. He’s Wrong.

Obama’s power plant rules could cut your electricity bill

by FeliciaStill Posted on July 24, 2015

Obama’s power plant rules could cut your electricity bill

By on 24 Jul 2015commentsShare

What will happen to your electric bill after the Obama administration starts limiting CO2 emissions from power plants? It could come down quite a bit, a new report finds — if your state leaders are smart.

Republican lawmakers have claimed that residential electricity bills will rise by up to $200 annually under Obama’s Clean Power Plan, based on a study put out in May 2014 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. While the study has been widely discredited, opponents of Obama’s plan continue to cite it.

Now, a report by consulting firm Synapse Energy Economics suggests that state compliance with the plan — paired with investment in renewables and energy efficiency initiatives — could actually lead to big reductions in what Americans pay for power. The key? Early action.

Two of the report’s authors lay out the logic in EcoWatch:

By investing in high levels of clean energy and energy efficiency, every state can see significant savings with a total of $40 billion saved nationwide in 2030 … However, consumers will typically see the largest savings in states that build renewable resources early. Under the Clean Power Plan, these first movers will profit by becoming net exporters of electricity to states that are slower to respond. States that keep operating coal plants well into the future will tend to become importers after those plants retire, and energy consumers in those states will miss out on substantial benefits of clean energy and energy efficiency.

According to the report, if two-thirds of consumers participate in energy efficiency programs, electricity bills could be $35 cheaper per month than a “business-as-usual” scenario would predict for 2030. In fact, bills would be cheaper than they were in 2012, write the authors. The firm projects that the $35 savings would leave household electric bills at an average of $91 per month in 2030. (The EPA also expects household electric bills to drop under the plan, but the agency estimates they would be $8 lower per month.)

Keep in mind, though, that Synapse’s $35 figure is averaged across the U.S. as a whole. Since electricity prices already vary widely around the country, and the Clean Power Plan will be implemented differently by different states, the projected savings are subject to some massive variance. North Dakota residents, for example, could save $94 per month if their leaders are aggressive with renewable energy and efficiency.

But so far six governors have said they won’t draw up strategies for implementing the Clean Power Plan — so don’t expect early action from their states. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wrote an op-ed in March calling for states to defy the Obama administration over the power plant rules.

While the Synapse report wasn’t funded by a group with an obvious financial interest in the outcome (like, say, the corporate-backed Chamber of Commerce), it was supported by a group with a viewpoint: the Energy Foundation, “a partnership of major foundations with a mission to promote the transition to a sustainable energy future.” Which is something we can get behind.

Source:
A Clean Energy Future: Why It Pays to Get There First

, EcoWatch.

Climate rule to bring lower energy bills, report says

, The Hill.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work. A Grist Special Series

Meat: What’s smart, what’s right, what’s next

Get Grist in your inbox

View original:  

Obama’s power plant rules could cut your electricity bill

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, sustainable energy, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama’s power plant rules could cut your electricity bill

States are polluting less and their economies are doing just fine

by DarellUXTK Posted on July 15, 2015

States are polluting less and their economies are doing just fine

By on 15 Jul 2015 12:03 pmcommentsShare

Even as America’s economy started to rebound from the recession between 2008 and 2013, climate change–causing power plant emissions in the majority of American states did not, according to a new study.

Earlier this year, environmentalists celebrated the news that, while the world’s economy continued to grow, CO2 emissions remained flat. This new report is the most thorough examination so far of how that trend is playing out in the U.S. The study, conducted by a team made up of sustainability groups, Bank of America, and four of America’s largest power plant operators, looked at carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and mercury emissions from the nation’s 100 largest electric power producers.

The drop in CO2 emissions (and in local pollutants as well) happened for a number of reasons, the report said, including better pollution controls at coal power plants, less demand for energy, and the growing availability of cheap alternatives to coal.

The findings present further evidence that emissions are not necessarily linked to economic growth: Over the five-year period the report looked at, 42 out of 50 states decreased their CO2 emissions from power plants, making for a nationwide decrease of 12 percent. This, sustainability advocates behind the report say, debunks arguments advanced by the fossil fuel industry and its allies in Congress that regulating climate change-causing pollutants will kill jobs. The report also found that a small number of energy companies are responsible for a disproportionate share of emissions.

“Most parts of the country are firmly on the path toward a clean energy future, but some states and utilities have a longer way to go and overall the carbon emissions curve is still not bending fast enough,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, one of the sustainability groups behind the report, in a statement. “To level the playing field for all utilities, and achieve the broader CO2 emissions cuts needed to combat climate change, we need final adoption of the Clean Power Plan.”

Ceres

This study follows on another one, out yesterday, showing that the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade scheme, cut emissions from the region’s power plants by about a third since it started up in 2009, and pumped nearly $3 billion into the regional economy over that same time period.

Obama’s critics are claiming that his Clean Power Plan, which the EPA will finalize this summer, would devastate the economy, but the evidence just keeps mounting that power plants can cut their CO2 emissions without killing jobs or slowing economic growth at all.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work. A Grist Special Series

Meat: What’s smart, what’s right, what’s next

Get Grist in your inbox

View this article: 

States are polluting less and their economies are doing just fine

Posted in Anchor, eco-friendly, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on States are polluting less and their economies are doing just fine

John Roberts Now Officially the Fourth Conservative Sellout on the Supreme Court

by LorrieThomson Posted on June 25, 2015

Mother Jones

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

From Quin Hillyer at National Review:

With today’s Obamacare decision, John Roberts confirms that he has completely jettisoned all pretense of textualism. He is a results-oriented judge, period, ruling on big cases based on what he thinks the policy result should be or what the political stakes are for the court itself. He is a disgrace. That is all.

So there you have it. Roberts has now joined a long line of conservative sellouts, from Harry Blackmun to John Paul Stevens to David Souter. After Souter, Republicans swore this would never happen again and insisted on nominating only hardline conservatives with a long paper trail: Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Sam Alito. But now Roberts has let them down. It turns out that the ability to hold onto conservative principles while serving under Ronald Reagan is insignificant next to the power of the Washington DC cocktail party circuit.

Still, at least Republicans can now end their embarrassing charade of pretending to have a plan to fix things up if the court had ended Obamacare subsidies in states without their own exchanges. I think it’s pretty safe to say that even the pretense of “working on” a plan to replace Obamacare will now be dumped quietly on the ash heap of history—until Republicans have a presidential nominee in hand, at which point the charade will have to start all over. But I think we already know what their bold new plan it will contain. There are few surprises in the land of conservative ideas.

Original article:  

John Roberts Now Officially the Fourth Conservative Sellout on the Supreme Court

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Roberts Now Officially the Fourth Conservative Sellout on the Supreme Court

Rand Paul Super-PAC Slams “Bailout Bu$h” in Bizarre Web Ad

by ShellyMarion Posted on June 23, 2015

Mother Jones

Here come the crazed attack ads. More than seven months out from the first votes in the 2016 presidential primaries, America’s Liberty, a super-PAC backing Sen. Rand Paul’s bid for the Republican nomination, has put out an online ad attacking Jeb “Bailout” Bush. It is…strange.

The video, which had more than 10,000 views as of Tuesday afternoon, is framed as an infomercial, with an exuberant, wild-bearded speaker named Max Power (perhaps borrowed from Homer Simpson, who took the same name from a hair dryer) serving as the pitchman. The ad offers a Bailout Bu$h action figure—which sadly does not actually seem to be for sale, probably because it appears to be a different action figure with an image of Bush’s face pasted on—as Power shouts about how Jeb worked for Lehman Brothers right before the crash and supported the Troubled Asset Relief Program. “This offer guarantees a presidential candidate cannot win a single primary state, let alone the general election,” a voice-over says at the end of the ad as Power bathes in a tub of money.

Per the Washington Times, America’s Liberty is spending in the five figures to run the ad online in early primary states, though it is also clearly running in DC, since I encountered it when it popped up before a music video on YouTube.

America’s Liberty has close connections to the Paul camp. The super-PAC’s founder and president is John Tate, who worked as Ron Paul’s presidential campaign manager in 2012 and currently also serves as president of Campaign for Liberty, a longtime Ron Paul organization.

Watch the ad:

Original post – 

Rand Paul Super-PAC Slams “Bailout Bu$h” in Bizarre Web Ad

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rand Paul Super-PAC Slams “Bailout Bu$h” in Bizarre Web Ad

Super Body, Super Brain – Michael Gonzalez-wallace

by Myrna Posted on June 13, 2015

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Super Body, Super Brain

The Workout That Does It All

Michael Gonzalez-wallace

Genre: Health & Fitness

Price: $1.99

Publish Date: December 28, 2010

Publisher: HarperCollins e-books

Seller: HarperCollins


Make the Most of Every Moment Not every movement is created equal. Super Body, Super Brain’s targeted exercise circuits make every second of your workout count, harnessing the power of multitasking to sharpen your mind and tone your body in just minutes a day. Crossword puzzles, Sodoku, computer games, and DVDs—there&apos;s no end to the products touting their brain-boosting benefits. But in this multimillion-dollar business, one crucial tool has been overlooked: the enormous power of physical movement. Until now. As one of New York City&apos;s most popular trainers, Michael Gonzalez-Wallace needed to keep his busy clients happy with engaging, efficient workouts. He quickly noticed that when exercises used several muscles at once, combining coordination and precision with aerobic and strength-training actions, clients were significantly more focused—and achieved better, faster results. Many hours of research and consultations with neuroscientists later, Gonzalez-Wallace had confirmed his instincts: exercises that demand balance and concentration not only tone the body, but actually increase brain activity. In fact, contrary to commonly held beliefs, the brain is constantly rewiring itself and capable of change at any age. This targeted program—the first of its kind—uses a series of carefully designed exercises to do just that. As you move through Super Body, Super Brain&apos;s innovative circuits—for little as 10 minutes a day—you will being to: Improve your alertness and lessen fatigueBecome more mentally sharp with improved memory capabilityImprove your moodLose weight and reduce your body fatStrengthen your core muscles and tone your upper and lower bodyStrengthen your heart and lungs and improve your enduranceImprove your balance and coordinationTransform your posture and become more flexible As a powerful complement to these circuits, Gonzalez-Wallace has teamed up with a top nutritionist to create brain-boosting recipes that help maximize his program&apos;s powerful results. If you have a few minutes to spare, you have the power to look better, feel better, and tackle every day with more energy and efficiency than ever before!

Visit site:  

Super Body, Super Brain – Michael Gonzalez-wallace

Posted in FF, GE, HarperCollins e-books, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Super Body, Super Brain – Michael Gonzalez-wallace