Tag Archives: standard

China’s Surprise Viral Hit: An Environmental Documentary

A film criticizing Beijing’s pollution record has logged millions of views, and the government now appears to be acknowledging its failures to implement reforms. Screenshot: Under the Dome/YouTube On Saturday, Chai Jing, a former television journalist from China, released a feature-length documentary film that, unusually for China, took the government to task. Titled Under the Dome, the video featured Chai giving a presentation on stage, using both photographs and slides to examine how China’s notorious air pollution got so extreme—and why the Communist Party has failed to fix it. Jing’s interest was personal: Her daughter underwent surgery soon after her birth to remove a tumor that, Chai claims, was caused by pollution. Under ordinary circumstances, the Chinese government might have swiftly removed the video from Youku, China’s YouTube, before it could gain much traction. But the film has been left untouched, amassing tens of millions of views and touching off a spirited discussion online. Under the Dome, which is embedded below, has even received praise from senior government officials. Read the rest at The Atlantic. This article is from: China’s Surprise Viral Hit: An Environmental Documentary

Read this article:  

China’s Surprise Viral Hit: An Environmental Documentary

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on China’s Surprise Viral Hit: An Environmental Documentary

Big Oil Anniversary: 102 Years of Oil Spills and Pollution

back

Big Oil Anniversary: 102 Years of Oil Spills and Pollution

Posted 2 March 2015 in

National

This article is the first in a series highlighting the success and promise of renewable fuel in the United States: clean, secure, American energy. Since the passage of the Renewable Fuel Standard in 2005, the renewable fuel sector has grown dramatically, supporting more than 852,000 jobs today.

This week, America celebrates 102 years of oil spills, pollution, and environmental havoc — all a result of tax breaks and subsidies for Big Oil that have persisted for over a century.

While oil continues to be a bad investment for our economy, our environment, and our wallets, there is a better, cleaner choice: homegrown American ethanol.

Where it all began…

Starting in 1913, oil companies were allowed to treat the oil in the ground as capital equipment, a type of deduction that allows them to write off a percentage of each barrel extracted from the Earth. That subsidy, included in the Revenue Act of 1913, was the first time that a tax break for Big Oil had been written into the tax code. It still stands today.

Keeping up with the times.

While that first tax break allowed oil companies to write off 5 percent of the costs from oil and gas wells, oil companies can now deduct three times that amount — 15 percent.

Higher gas prices for you? Bigger tax breaks for Big Oil.

This percentage depletion subsidy increases when oil prices increase. So when your gas prices go up, Big Oil enjoys bigger profits… and gets even larger tax breaks from the federal government.

What does it cost?

A report by the Center for American Progress estimates that eliminating this subsidy would save $11.2 billion over ten years. And this isn’t the only tax break that Big Oil receives. All told, tax breaks for Big Oil cost American taxpayers more than $75 billion each decade.

Tell Congress: It’s time to end Big Oil subsidies.

While Congress might be oil rigged, it’s time for them to end the wasteful subsidies that Big Oil has received for more than a century. With climate change as a growing threat, we need our leaders to invest in clean, secure sources of American energy — including renewable fuel.

Source: ThinkProgress

Remember to Share

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
Link to article:

Big Oil Anniversary: 102 Years of Oil Spills and Pollution

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Big Oil Anniversary: 102 Years of Oil Spills and Pollution

Renewable Fuel Pays Off

back

Renewable Fuel Pays Off

Posted 25 February 2015 in

National

As Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis notes in The Hill, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) has been an important driver of economic growth in the United States since its passage in 2005.

“With the RFS opening up the fuel market to new fuel sources, the renewable fuels industry has been able to deliver economic, national security and environmental benefits. We need the Renewable Fuel Standard to break the monopolistic stranglehold of Big Oil and give American consumers the choices they deserve.”

With the Obama administration finalizing the volume of renewable fuel that must be blended into our nation’s fuel supply for 2014, efforts to repeal or “reform” the RFS will only serve to harm our economy, threaten our energy security, and cost consumers at the pump.

Read the full column in The Hill.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
Excerpt from: 

Renewable Fuel Pays Off

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Renewable Fuel Pays Off

Growing Income Inequality Was What Made the Great Recession so Great

Mother Jones

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

A couple of years ago a new narrative emerged about the role that income inequality may have played in the boom/bust cycle that ended in the Great Recession. In a nutshell, it goes like this:

Middle class incomes stagnated during the aughts.
Income gains went mostly to the rich, who got ever richer.
To sustain its accustomed lifestyle, the middle class began borrowing more. The rich eagerly provided them with loans, since there were limited opportunities to invest the huge pool of money flowing their way.
This worked fine, until it didn’t. Eventually the middle class couldn’t borrow any more, and the music stopped. The result was an epic crash driven by high household debt levels.

This view is strongly associated with Raghuram Rajan (in his book Fault Lines) and others. But a few days ago Bas Bakker and Joshua Felman wrote a piece suggesting that there’s more to the story. The rich, they say, did more than just provide money that fueled a middle-class consumption boom and bust. The rich participated actively themselves. That is, the rise and fall of the consumption of the rich had as big an effect as that of the middle class—maybe even bigger.

The chart on the right shows the authors’ estimate of consumption patterns by income class. As you can see, from around 2003 to the present, it was fairly flat for the bottom 90 percent. But for the well off, consumption rose substantially from 2003-06, dropped conspicuously between 2006-09 and then began increasing again at a quick pace:

The model suggests something truly striking. The top decile explains the bulk of overall consumption growth. Between 2003 and 2013, about 71% of the increase in consumption came from the rich. Much of the slowdown in consumption between 2006 and 2009 was the result of a drop in consumption of the rich. The rich also played a key role in the subsequent recovery.

Their conclusion:

Our results suggest that the standard narrative of the Great Recession may need to be adjusted. Housing played a role, but so did financial assets, which actually accounted for the bulk of the loss in wealth. The middle class played a role, but so did the rich. In fact, the rich now account for such a large share of the economy, and their wealth has become so large and volatile, that wealth effects on their consumption have started to have a significant impact on the macroeconomy. Indeed, the rich may have accounted for the bulk of the swings in aggregate consumption during the boom-bust.

In some ways, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. If the bulk of income gains are going to the rich, it stands to reason that their consumption will vary substantially as those incomes go up and down. Middle-class consumption still plays a big role here, and the loss of housing wealth after 2006 still explains a great deal of why the Great Recession was so deep and so long.

But if Bakker and Felman are right, it’s far from the whole story. Consumption patterns of the rich are even more volatile than those of the middle class, and when they’re getting most of the income gains, then overall consumption patterns become more volatile too. If more income had been flowing to the middle class during the aughts, there would have been less borrowing and a more even pattern of consumption. The boom would have been more moderate and the bust would have been less catastrophic. Growing income inequality made the economy ever more fragile and ever more unstable, and we all suffered as a result.

Read article here – 

Growing Income Inequality Was What Made the Great Recession so Great

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Growing Income Inequality Was What Made the Great Recession so Great

China’s Toxic Air Could Kill a Population the Size of Orlando

The country’s pollution could contribute to 257,000 deaths over the next decade. If nothing is done to slash the levels of toxic smog in China’s air, some 257,000 Chinese people could die over the next decade from pollution-related diseases, according to a new study released this week by Peking University and Greenpeace. That really is a lot of people; it’s roughly equal to the population of Orlando, Fla., or Buffalo, N.Y. The researchers analyzed the 2013 levels of what’s known as PM2.5 pollutants—tiny airborne particles billowing from China’s coal production and industry. They projected the number of “premature deaths”—from diseases like heart disease and lung cancer—that could occur over the next 10 years if 2013′s level of pollution persists over the long term. At the top of the list of China’s most polluted cities, toxic air in the industrial hub of Shijiazhuang could be responsible for as many as 137 premature deaths per 100,000 people. The team found the average across the country’s 31 populous provincial capitals was staggering: The report comes amid renewed attention on China’s smog crisis. Another Greenpeace study released earlier this month revealed that 90 percent of Chinese cities that report their air pollution levels are failing to meet China’s own national standards, despite the government’s self-declared “war on pollution,” which includes measures to curtail coal use in big cities like Beijing, and to limit heavy industries. If China met those standards, says Greenpeace in this latest report, nearly half of the premature deaths could be avoided. The research is also notable because it was conducted jointly by China’s best known and most prestigious university, Peking University (known locally as Beida), and Greenpeace, the international environmental advocacy group that has had a long and complicated relationship with China’s authoritarian officials. The study was widely reported by state-run media, in another sign China’s censors are loosening some restrictions around environmental reporting in the country in the face of intense public pressure for transparency. The report adds to the growing amount of literature about the deadly impacts of the country’s smog. An article that appeared in the The Lancet last year said that air pollution caused 350,000 to 500,000 premature deaths a year. An earlier Lancet study reported that air pollution caused 1.2 million premature deaths in 2010 alone. More:  China’s Toxic Air Could Kill a Population the Size of Orlando ; ; ;

Credit: 

China’s Toxic Air Could Kill a Population the Size of Orlando

Posted in alo, ALPHA, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, Oster, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on China’s Toxic Air Could Kill a Population the Size of Orlando

2014: A Banner Year for Renewable Fuel

back

2014: A Banner Year for Renewable Fuel

Posted 19 January 2015 in

National

With record ethanol production and the lowest gas prices in years, 2014 was a banner year for the renewable fuel industry. This is good news for the farmers, small business owners, and workers who rely upon this growing sector for their livelihoods. As the new Congress gets to work, it’s important for them to know that:

In 2014, biofuels production reached 14.4 billion gallons — a record — in the United States. As biofuels production soared, U.S. gas prices fell to their lowest levels since 2008 and 2009.
The renewable fuel industry now supports more than 852,000 jobs and $184.5 billion in economic output across the country. This means that more jobs than ever are supported by renewable fuels — especially in America’s rural economies. These are homegrown American jobs that can’t be outsourced.
In 2014, three new commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol facilities came online in America’s Heartland. They will produce the world’s cleanest motor fuel from agricultural waste like corncobs.

All of this progress has been made possible by the Renewable Fuel Standard. At a time of crisis and instability around the globe, we have achieved unprecedented levels of energy independence.

With so much on the line, the United States can’t afford to turn its back on renewable fuels. Congress, the President, and the EPA should keep the progress going and support a strong Renewable Fuel Standard.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
See original:

2014: A Banner Year for Renewable Fuel

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 2014: A Banner Year for Renewable Fuel

Let Us Now Praise Obama’s Economic Policies

Mother Jones

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

Steve Benen evaluates recent economic news by the standards of Republican promises from two years ago:

The Romney Standard: Mitt Romney said during the 2012 campaign that if Americans elect him, he’d get the unemployment rate down to 6% by 2016. Obama won anyway and the unemployment rate dropped below 6% two years faster.
The Gingrich Standard: Newt Gingrich said during the 2012 campaign that if Americans re-elected the president, gas prices would reach $10 per gallon, while Gingrich would push gas down to $2.50 a gallon. As of this morning, the national average at the pump is a little under $2.38.
The Pawlenty Standard: Tim Pawlenty said trillions of dollars in tax breaks would boost economic growth to 5% GDP. Obama actually raised taxes on the wealthy and GDP growth reached 5% anyway.

Is this fair? Meh. Maybe, maybe not. But there’s not likely to be a whole lot of news to blog about today, so why not poke holes in some Republican balloons instead? As Benen says, “By the party’s own standards, Obama is succeeding beautifully. They established the GOP benchmarks and now the Democratic president is the one meeting, and in some cases exceeding, the Republicans’ goals.”

The downside of all this is that in the past Democrats haven’t promoted their own economic policies plainly enough to get credit now that the economy has finally turned around. Republicans, by contrast, simply cut taxes and then loudly and relentlessly repeat their promise that the economy will improve. Eventually it does, of course. Maybe not a lot, and maybe not for long, but economies always improve eventually. If Kansas ever manages a quarter or two of decent growth, for example, you can be sure that Gov. Sam Brownback will be crowing about it for the rest of his political career.

To some extent, of course, Democrats were stymied in their economic policy, which gave them less to brag about back in 2009. And five years is a long time to wait for a recovery. Still, Dems did pass a stimulus; enact a payroll tax holiday; extend unemployment benefits; pass Obamacare; reform Wall Street; raise taxes on the rich; and pass several jobs bills. It’s true that this laundry list doesn’t quite have the simple oomph of “Tax cuts will bring the economy roaring back to life!” But it is an economic program, and eventually it got us to where we are today: a pretty good recovery, and one that looks like it might be sustainable since it’s not built on the sandy foundations of tax cuts and deficits. Democrats should be louder about demanding more credit for all of this.

More here: 

Let Us Now Praise Obama’s Economic Policies

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Let Us Now Praise Obama’s Economic Policies

India may be the next big polluter to announce a climate plan

India may be the next big polluter to announce a climate plan

By on 2 Dec 2014commentsShare

India is poised to unveil a new climate plan as soon as January, an Indian business publication is reporting. That’s yet another bit of good news that makes a 2015 global climate agreement look just a little more likely.

Up until now, India, the third-largest annual emitter of greenhouse gases, has been resistant to calls for limiting emissions. But when the U.S. and China, the two largest climate polluters, announced an agreement to curb their emissions last month, the world’s eyes turned toward the third country in line.

India’s announcement could come this January, when President Obama visits the country at the invitation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The plan “is likely to include an ‘aspirational’ peaking year for India’s greenhouse gas emissions,” writes the Indian Business Standard, which attributes the scoop to three anonymous sources in Modi’s government. The report continues:

The process to make fresh and enhanced commitments to the international community was in the works for the past few months, with the government commissioning studies to assess and project India’s greenhouse gas emissions. The results of these studies are due in December. A joint US-China announcement has incentivised India to make an early announcement in this regard.

Though the announcements by the US and China weren’t seen as ambitious by the Indian government, these were appreciated for their political significance. …

A source in the government said, “The consultations have begun for it. We should be able to narrow down on the nature of targets we should aspire to. It is likely to include an indicative year by which India’s emissions could peak, as well as a fresh target for lowering the economy’s carbon intensity.”

India’s timeline (that is, its timeline for announcing its pollution-cutting timeline) fits with what U.N. climate negotiators are hoping for. Countries are supposed to announce their emission-reduction goals — their “intended nationally determined contributions,” referred to as INDCs or NDCs — by March 2015. Then, if all goes according to plan, in December of next year world leaders will commit, at a big U.N. climate summit in Paris, to hold one another to their INDCs. The criteria that negotiators will use to evaluate whether each country’s INDC is appropriate — i.e., whether each country is actually pulling its weight — is one of many items on the agenda at this week’s climate conference in Lima, Peru.

Of course, this initial Business Standard report won’t quite have climate hawks doing gleeful backflips. There are still big questions, like, when will this “‘aspirational’ peaking year” be? How high will emissions be allowed to rise before they peak? And how probable is it that India will even achieve its aspirations? Many are worried that the countries that have yet to make commitments will allow their emissions to peak too late or too high. Greenpeace noted in a recent working paper on its hopes for Lima that “Countries should neither be allowed to come up with too many different timelines for their commitments, nor should the targets be locked in for 2030, as there is a real risk of the targets being too low, in which case low ambition would be locked in for 15 crucial years.” But there’s a possibility that India will do both.

Still, India has historically been granted more leeway than other countries because of its deep poverty and its comparatively low per-capita emissions. Around 300 million of its more than 1.2 billion people don’t have electricity, and giving them access to it could lead India’s emissions to balloon for decades to come. Recognizing this possibility, the U.N. came up with an unrealistic but not impossible model for how the world could avoid catastrophic climate change while India’s emissions continue to grow substantially as it hooks its poor up to power.

But it’s not a foregone conclusion that India’s development has to come hand-in-hand with greater emissions, nor is it a given that the Indian people will want it to. The country is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and its major cities already deal on a regular basis with air pollution levels that put Beijing to shame; the capital is considering a plan to close schools on days when pollution poses a high risk to human health. (Indians checking the day’s Google Weather forecast for New Delhi will often find that it’s “Smoke.”) India’s plans to double coal production in the next five years won’t help. But its plans to rapidly expand solar energy, which Modi’s delegation intends to tout in Lima, will.

So even though a lot is still up in the air (ahem) with regard to India’s future, the Business Standard report is another positive development in what’s starting to resemble a trend: The biggest greenhouse gas emitters are stepping up and demonstrating that they’re doing something to tackle this looming threat, even if not yet enough. This year has seen China, the U.S., and the European Union (the latter of which, if taken as a single entity, pollutes more than India) announce new goals and timelines. Now India may follow suit. Who’s next?

Source:
India may set bigger climate change targets before Obama’s R-Day visit

, Business Standard.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

×

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Continue reading – 

India may be the next big polluter to announce a climate plan

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Safer, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on India may be the next big polluter to announce a climate plan

4 Stupid Conservative Arguments Against Net Neutrality, Debunked

Mother Jones

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

Last week, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas set off a firestorm of ridicule when he took to Twitter in an attempt to mock the concept of net neutrality:

The comparison, so stupid on so many levels that it isn’t worth debunking, is not just an isolated example of partisan idiocy. In recent weeks, Republican operatives have trotted out a steaming heap of similar malarkey in an effort to ward off a popular revolt against the cable industry, which wants to charge big companies such as Google or Netflix for faster internet service while slowing it down for the rest of us. Here are four other ludicrous conservative arguments for why the Federal Communications Commission shouldn’t prevent this from happening:

1. You’ll pay more taxes!

The reality: To prevent broadband companies from discriminating against certain types of internet traffic, President Obama’s wants the FCC to regulate them as a public utilities. This is something it already does with telecommunications providers. While it’s true that the Communications Act subjects telecoms to a 16 percent service fee—which helps provide phone service to rural communities—this doesn’t mean broadband providers would automatically have to pay a similar tax.

2) Regulating the internet will stifle innovation and job creation.

(function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)0; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); (document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
Post by Speaker John Boehner.

The reality: The internet we know and love is already built on the concept of net neutrality. Obama’s proposed “regulation” would simply maintain the status quo by preventing monopolistic broadband providers from charging content providers tiered rates for different speeds of internet service. Far from stifling innovation, net neutrality encourages it by allowing startups to compete on the same footing as giants like Google and Facebook. That’s why it has overwhelming support among Silicon Valley’s “job creators.”

3) Letting big companies hog bandwidth will encourage cable companies to create more bandwidth

The reality: America ranks 31st in the world (behind Estonia) in its average download speeds. But that’s not because we’re preventing Comcast from cutting deals. Quite the opposite: Deregulation of the telecommunications industry has allowed Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, and AT&T to divide up markets and put themselves in positions where they face no competition.

4) It’s all a secret plot to hype the risks of global warming

This claim made by Andy Kessler in a 2006 Weekly Standard story has been making the rounds recently on conservative blogs:

The answer is not regulations promoting net neutrality. You can already smell the mandates and the loopholes once Congress gets involved. Think special, high-speed priority for campaign commercials or educational videos about global warming. Or roadblocks—like requiring emergency 911 service—to try to kill off free Internet telephone service such as Skype.

The reality: Regulating broadband providers as utilities does not give the FCC more authority to tell them how to treat specific types of content. In fact, preventing discrimination against certain types of content by ISPs is the whole point. That’s why net neutrality is popular with everyone from John Oliver to porn stars.

Jump to original: 

4 Stupid Conservative Arguments Against Net Neutrality, Debunked

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 4 Stupid Conservative Arguments Against Net Neutrality, Debunked

Here’s why narrower streets are safer

follow the narrow brick road

Here’s why narrower streets are safer

8 Oct 2014 2:39 PM

Share

Share

Here’s why narrower streets are safer

×

If you could change one thing about your city, to make it a safer and more pleasant place, what would you pick?

My first answer was solar-powered hover-buses, but it turns out that the real deal is much simpler than that. The one single thing we could actually do to limit traffic fatalities and make cities more bike- and pedestrian-friendly is *drumroll* …. restrict the lanes on our busiest streets to 10 feet wide.

I know, it’s way less cool than a diesel-free levitating commute, but on the other hand, it would actually work.

City planner Jeff Speck, also known (by me, as of this moment) as the wizard of walkability, summed it up quite pithily for CityLab:

When lanes are built too wide, many bad things happen. In a sentence: pedestrians are forced to walk further across streets on which cars are moving too fast and bikes don’t fit.

Right now, the busiest roads in cities feature lanes between 10 and 12 feet wide. But 12 feet is just absurdly wide, Speck points out. The standard in cities used to be 10 feet; it’s only recently they’ve been expanded, under an assumption that wider lanes will put cars farther away from the things and people they might hit.

But that premise ignores the fact that drivers will change their behavior in different environments. Think about it: When you’re driving down a wide, straight road with a generous buffer on all sides, you are more likely to nudge past the speed limit. Whereas a narrow road, hemmed with trees, separated bike lanes, and other traffic-calming features, might be more likely to make you slow down and keep a sharper lookout for fellow bipeds.

So far, so logical. And there are reams of studies to back up this assumption, including one authored by Rutgers professor Robert Noland, who determined that wider lanes were responsible for approximately 900 extra traffic fatalities each year.

And not only do narrower lanes lead to fewer accidents — they also mean the accidents that do occur are much less likely to be fatal. Speck again:

According to a broad collection of studies, a pedestrian hit by a car traveling 30 m.p.h. at the time of impact is between seven and nine times as likely to be killed as one hit by a car traveling 20 m.p.h. This tremendously sharp upward fatality curve means that, at urban motoring speeds, every single mile per hour counts.

Meanwhile, a multi-lane street with lanes cut down from 12 feet to 10 feet leaves plenty left over for protected bike lanes. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Source:
Why 12-Foot Traffic Lanes Are Disastrous for Safety and Must Be Replaced Now

, CityLab.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

See the original article here: 

Here’s why narrower streets are safer

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Safer, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s why narrower streets are safer