Tag Archives: steyer

At the 7th Democratic debate, candidates took every opportunity to talk climate

Six candidates for president took the stage in Iowa on Tuesday night for the seventh Democratic national debate, hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register. Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, and Tom Steyer, the smallest and whitest group of Democratic contenders to take the debate stage yet, talked war with Iran, health care, and, yes, impending climate chaos.

The past six debates have been a mixed bag when it comes to rising temperatures — some were surprisingly heavy on climate talk, others impossibly light. The last debate hosted by CNN, back in October, contained exactly zero questions about climate. But this time around, CNN got its act together, with a solid chunk of climate discussion in the final half hour of the debate.

Debate moderators may take ages to get around to climate change in these debates, but the candidates have gotten increasingly adept at weaving the issue into their answers to other questions. This time around, Wolf Blitzer, Abby Phillip, and the Register’s Brianne Pfannenstiel could barely keep a lid on the climate action in the first half of the debate. At one point, Pfannenstiel tried to get Sanders to stay on topic. “We’re gonna get to climate change but I want to stay on trade,” she said. “They are the same issue,” Sanders shot back.

Right off the bat, Buttigieg and Warren touched on the importance of accounting for the impacts of climate change on national security in response to the moderators’ first round of questions, which were about the candidates’ fitness as commander-in-chief. But things really started heating up when Steyer, the billionaire climate activist, fielded a question about Iran by pivoting to the mega-fires still burning in Australia right now. “There is a gigantic climate issue in Australia which also requires the same kind of value-driven coalition-building that we actually should be using in the Middle East,” he said.

Bernie Sanders, in response to a question about Trump’s new trade deal with Mexico and Canada, blasted the agreement for not being climate-friendly. “Every major environmental organization has said no to this new trade agreement, because it does not even have the phrase ‘climate change’ in it,” he said. “I will not vote for a trade agreement that does not incorporate very strong principles to significantly lower fossil fuel emissions in the world.”

A couple of minutes later, during the same section on trade, Buttigieg — the only candidate who will likely still be alive when the worst effects of warming kick in — jumped into the climate fray. “What I’ve noticed is pretty much all of us propose we move on from fossil fuels by the middle of the century,” he said. “The question is, how are we gonna make sure any of this actually gets done?” The former South Bend mayor (his term ended on New Year’s Day), recently came out with a green infrastructure plan that aims to invest in the nation’s roads, bridges, and tunnels while simultaneously making them more climate-resilient.

When the moderators did finally get around to asking some questions about climate change during the last quarter of the debate, the candidates were ready. But not all of them were successful in relaying their environmental expertise.

The moderators started by asking Buttigieg how he would protect farmers and factories in Iowa during natural disasters. His answer was light on specifics. Displacement “disproportionately happens to black and brown Americans, which is why equity and environmental justice have to be at the core of our climate plan,” he said. Asked why she doesn’t support a ban on fracking, Klobuchar pointed out that methane emissions from natural gas pose a growing threat to the planet but, in the same breath, said natural gas is an important “transition fuel” for achieving a renewable economy. That didn’t go over well with climate activists.

Steyer showed off his climate vocabulary, correctly noting that the question about protecting farmers was really about managed retreat. He added, “I’m still shocked that I’m the only candidate who will say this: I would declare a climate emergency on day one.” But his moment in the sun was cut short when Pfannenstiel asked him to defend his past investments in oil, gas, and coal. Steyer responded that he opted to divest from fossil fuels more than a decade ago after grasping the severity of the crisis.

Warren, who is nothing if not consistent, said tackling corruption is the first step in addressing rising temperatures. “Climate change threatens every living thing on this planet, and the urgency of this moment cannot be overstated,” she said. Biden, who spoke next, tried to establish himself as the O.G. climate advocate. “Back in 1996 I introduced the first climate change bill and — check Politifact: They said it was a game changer,” he said. But then another O.G. climate advocate got his moment.

“We have got to take on the fossil fuel industry and all of their lies and tell them their short-term profits are not more important than the future of this planet. That’s what the Green New Deal does,” Sanders said, making a plug for his $16 trillion climate proposal. The Vermont Senator recently nabbed an endorsement from the Sunrise Movement, a climate activist group that has been successful in pushing high-profile Democrats to embrace progressive climate policies.

In all, the portion of the debate devoted to climate change spanned about 10 minutes. But that total rises when you take into account all the moments that candidates brought up climate during the rest of the debate. If Tuesday night was any indication, the next 73 debates will be chock full of climate nuance.

Visit site:

At the 7th Democratic debate, candidates took every opportunity to talk climate

Posted in Accent, alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, OXO, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on At the 7th Democratic debate, candidates took every opportunity to talk climate

Uber’s CEO would like you to re-download the company’s app, please.

On Sunday, Steyer joined protesters at the San Francisco airport. Now, he’s saying Trump’s election has convinced him to broaden his focus from the environment to other issues.

Trump threatens “everything we care about: our climate, our economy, our fundamental rights and freedoms, and our republic itself,” Steyer said in a statement. “Trump’s racism, his crass attempts to personally profit from the presidency, and his unquenchable thirst for power have sparked a vital American resistance movement.”

In a video posted Tuesday, Steyer said, “I promise to do everything in my power to stand up to Trump.” When you’ve got a billion dollars to play with, that kind of promise means something.

Making good on the commitment might include a run for office — rumor has it that Steyer may try for the governor’s seat when California’s Jerry Brown steps down in two years.

Excerpt from:  

Uber’s CEO would like you to re-download the company’s app, please.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Safer, solar, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Uber’s CEO would like you to re-download the company’s app, please.

Conservative group is trying to take down top environmentalists

Conservative group is trying to take down top environmentalists

By on Apr 29, 2016Share

In the midst of a contentious election season, the conservative opposition research group America Rising has adopted an aggressive tactic to win the race.

Politico’s Gabriel Debenedetti reports that America Rising Squared, an arm of the super PAC, launched Core News on Friday, a website devoted to targeting environmentalists. Core News appears to have a special place in its heart for anti-Keystone activist, 350.org cofounder, and Grist board member Bill McKibben. He’s the focus of several of its stories, including “Leading Environmentalist Called for a New Gas Tax After 9/11” and “Vermont Divestment Bill Dies Despite Enviromentalist (sic) Support.” The leading post on its site is currently:

McKibben isn’t the only green thinker targeted by Core News. They’ve also begun following around Tom Steyer with a video camera. They are scrutinizing the billionaire investor and climate advocate for his fossil fuel holdings (In 2014, Steyer pledged to divest from coal and oil sands). Steyer has pledged to spend $25 million through his super PAC, NextGen Climate Action, to mobilize college voters ahead of the general election, making him a prime mark for conservative groups. Leonardo DiCaprio is fair game, too.

“America Rising Squared will hold Steyer and the Environmentalist Left accountable for their epic hypocrisy and extreme positions which threaten America’s future prosperity,” America Rising Squared Executive Director Brian Rogers said in a statement.

You can watch their first video here. And while America Rising means it as an insult, our readers might find it pretty inspiring.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

View post:  

Conservative group is trying to take down top environmentalists

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Conservative group is trying to take down top environmentalists

Washington governor proposes big, bold climate plan

Washington governor proposes big, bold climate plan

By on 18 Dec 2014commentsShare

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) really wants his state to do something about climate change, but his legislature hasn’t been cooperative. So now he’s got an ambitious new climate proposal, and he hopes lawmakers on both sides of the aisle will give it a chance.

On Wednesday, Inslee proposed the Carbon Pollution Accountability Act, a cap-and-trade program for the state’s biggest polluters, which he estimates would raise about $1 billion a year. The proceeds would go into the state budget, helping to fund a major transportation initiative and education programs. “We can clean our air and our water at the same time we’re fixing our roads and bridges,” Inslee said at a press conference. “It’s a charge on pollution rather than people.” The governor’s proposal would also help the state meet the requirements of a 2008 law that mandates a 25 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, and further cuts after that.

A policy brief from the governor’s office explains the bill’s basics:

Through this act, Washington will set an annual limit on the total amount of carbon pollution that emitters may release into the air. Major polluters will need to purchase “allowances” for the pollution they emit. Each year, the number of available allowances will decline to ensure emissions are gradually reduced. This provides emitters the time to adjust and make a choice about how to manage their business. They can either invest in cleaner technology and improve their operation efficiency or simply pay for allowances whose cost will grow over time.

The act, according to the governor’s plan, would go into effect in 2016 and would only cover “sources that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases per year” — of which there are about 130 in Washington state, including a coal-fired power plant, oil refineries, pulp and paper plants, and fuel distributors. Together they account for about 85 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

And where would all that money from allowances go? The governor already has suggestions: $400 million would pay for repairing and greening transportation infrastructure. $380 million would go to public schools. And about $163.5 million would go to help poor families and energy-intensive industries adapt to cost increases that would come with the new program. $3.5 million would help administer the program.

There are other elements to the governor’s new climate plan too. From the Associated Press:

Inslee said he asked state regulators to draft a low-carbon fuel standard similar to California’s first-in-the-nation mandate. Inslee said he wants to hear from lawmakers and others before beginning a formal process on a rule that would require cleaner fuels over time.

Inslee also proposed extending a break on sales tax for the first $60,000 on the cost of an electric vehicle, creating a $60 million fund to support clean-energy research and improving state incentives for solar energy.

Inslee has a long history as an environmentalist and climate hawk. He campaigned for governor in 2012 promising to boost clean energy in Washington. However, after winning the governorship, his green ambitions have been repeatedly foiled by the Republican majority (created by two Democrats who caucus with Republicans) in his state’s Senate. Now, after the 2014 elections, Inslee’s climate battle will be even more uphill: The Republican Senate majority only increased in November, while the Democratic majority in the state’s House of Representatives decreased, despite big money spent in the state by Tom Steyer and other green donors to try to turn the legislature Democratic.

Inslee hopes his new cap-and-trade proposal will draw bipartisan support because of the revenue it will bring in for good causes during a time when the state is facing a budget gap of about $2 billion. And Inslee’s allies in the environmental community (like Steyer, for better or worse) are already on board. Alan Durning, executive director of the Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based sustainability think tank, told The Seattle Times that Inslee’s plan would be “the most comprehensive and probably the most progressive carbon-pollution regulation system anywhere in the world.”

Becky Kelley of the Washington Environmental Council noted that the plan would also be a positive step forward for the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy, a.k.a. the Pacific Coast Collaborative. California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia all signed a pact to work together on climate issues in October 2013. Among other economy-greening items, the pact called for the states and province to set a consistent price on carbon; California and British Columbia already have carbon pricing in place, and Inslee has been struggling to catch his state up. The act would be a big step in the right direction.

But many of Inslee’s statehouse adversaries aren’t enthusiastic. “An energy tax is really a tax on mobility and a tax on freedom,” declared Sen. Doug Ericksen (R), who chairs the Senate’s energy committee. Industry groups and conservative think tanks echoed that sentiment. “There’s lots of things we can do going forward. But the big rub going forward is if the governor insists on a big energy tax. That’s going to be a hard one.” Ericksen said he intends to hold hearings on the bill and consider counter-proposals. There will be a fight, and it’s optimistic to hope that the governor’s plan will make it through intact.

But Inslee has that optimism. “Unfortunately, from years past, people have looked at [climate] through ideological lenses,” he said. “Fortunately, that day is past.”

We’ll see.

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

Original article: 

Washington governor proposes big, bold climate plan

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Washington governor proposes big, bold climate plan

2014: The Year of Koch

Mother Jones

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

The 2014 election season acquired its fair share of nicknames: the Nothing Election, the Seinfeld Election, and the Meh Midterms. Here’s another: The Year of Koch.

Big money from outside spenders like the Koch brothers’ political network and the pro-Democratic Senate Majority PAC dominated this year’s elections. In the battleground states, a voter couldn’t watch five minutes of television, listen to the radio, or cue up a YouTube clip without being bombarded by political ads, most of them of the minor-chord, attack-ad variety. Broadcasters in Alaska, North Carolina, Colorado, and other critical states collected money by the fistful. Major candidates galore had a deep-pocketed super-PAC or a political nonprofit in his or her corner.

Here are seven big-money takeaways from the second election since the Supreme Court’s landscape-changing Citizens United decision.

The price tag for 2014 will probably be the highest in American history.
Candidates, parties, PACs, super-PACs, and political nonprofits—those anonymously funded outfits including the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity and the pro-Democratic Patriot Majority—were on pace to spend $3.67 billion on the 2014 races, according to projections by the Center for Responsive Politics. That would be a new record, surpassing the $3.63 billion spent in 2010.

When all the numbers are tallied, Republicans will likely outspend the Democrats—but not by much. CRP predicts that Republican candidates and their allies will unload $1.75 billion this election, while Democrats and their supporters will spend $1.64 billion. (The remaining dollars, according to CRP, went toward nonpartisan and third-party spending as well as overhead costs.)

Super-PACs and dark money are a bigger deal than ever.
All those attack ads clogging up the commercial breaks during your favorite show? Chances are they were funded not by a candidate but an outside group—a super-PAC, a labor union, or a political nonprofit.

The 2014 elections will be remembered as the cycle when outside groups handled much of the mudslinging, which traditionally was the responsibility of candidates and their campaigns. In Kentucky, for instance, a secretly funded group called Kentucky Opportunity Coalition ran 12,000 TV ads—many of which attacked Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes, depicting her as an Obama clone. The group’s commercials accounted for one out of every seven ads run during that race, according to the Center for Public Integrity. On paper, Kentucky Opportunity Coalition was independent of the candidate it supported, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. But the group was run by a former McConnell aide and functioned effectively as an offshoot of McConnell’s campaign.

This pattern unfolded across the country, as outside spending ramped up. In all, outside groups pumped $554 million—$301 million from Republican-aligned shops, $225 million from Democratic allies—into 2014 races. And you guessed it: That, too, is a new record for a midterm election.

Koch and Rove: From zeroes to heroes.
Two years ago, the biggest donors and operatives in the Republican money universe—Karl Rove, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, and the Koch brothers and their donor network—spent hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat President Obama and retake the Senate. They got nothing; it was an embarrassment.

This year, they won big.

Rove’s groups—American Crossroads, a super-PAC; and Crossroads GPS, its dark-money-funded sibling—spent heavily in 10 Senate races. The Republican won in at least six of those elections. If Republican Dan Sullivan defeats Sen. Mark Begich in Alaska (Sullivan was leading the vote count the day after the election) and GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy ousts Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana’s run-off next month, Rove will end up eight for 10. The Sunlight Foundation calculates Crossroads GPS’ return on investment—that is, the success rate of GPS’ spending to elect or defeat candidates—at an impressive 96 percent.

The Koch brothers’ flagship organization, Americans for Prosperity, had an equally stellar Election Day. At least five of the nine AFP-backed Senate candidates won. The Kochs’ Freedom Partners Action Fund recorded an 85 percent ROI, according to the Sunlight Foundation.

By contrast, Senate Majority PAC, the super-PAC aligned with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that funded more ads than any other outside group, took a beating. It spent $47 million—the most of any super-PAC—but saw only two of the nine Republican candidates it targeted go down to defeat. Senate Majority PAC’s ROI: 9 percent.

The Democrats’ new George Soros had a bad night.
Tom Steyer, the billionaire investor turned environmental activist, put nearly $73 million of his money into electing candidates who believe in human-caused global warming and who want to do something about it. No single person gave more in 2014 than Steyer, according to CRP. He has become the big-money bogeyman of the right, but he fell short in multiple key races.

The bulk of Steyer’s money funded NextGen Climate, the organization he started to elect more climate-savvy politicians. NextGen’s super-PAC spent at least $20 million and defeated two of the four Republicans running for Senate it targeted. NextGen fared worse in governor’s races: Of the three GOP governors it sought to defeat—Florida’s Rick Scott, Maine’s Paul LePage, and Pennsylvania’s Tom Corbett—only Corbett went down to defeat. And he might have well done so without Steyer’s money in the race.

North Carolina: Our Senate race cost more than yours (and yours, and yours).
The campaign pitting incumbent Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) against Republican Thom Tillis officially cost more than $100 million. It was the most expensive Senate race in American history.

To better understand that figure, consider this statistic: In the final stretch of the race, the Center for Public Integrity reports, a Senate-themed ad ran on TV somewhere in North Carolina every 50 seconds.

Larry Lessig’s spend-big-money-to-fight-big-money plan flopped.
Larry Lessig, the Harvard law professor revered by the Reddit crowd, launched MayDay PAC to great fanfare in May with a plan to raise and spend millions of dollars to elect candidates who would, once in office, fight to get big money out of politics. “Embrace the irony,” Lessig likes to say.

But in the end, MayDay was more hype than action. It spent $7.5 million and of the eight “anti-corruption candidates” listed on its website, only two MayDay-backed candidates won. There’s little evidence to suggest that either of those candidates—Arizona Democrat Ruben Gallegos and North Carolina Republican Walter Jones—won due to MayDay’s intervention on their behalf.

Every Voice, another anti-super-PAC super-PAC, didn’t fare much better. Only four candidates supported by Every Voice won in the dozen races the group tried to influence.

Judicial elections keep attracting big bucks.
Nearly $14 million was spent on advertising in judicial races this year, an increase from 2010’s $12.2 million, according to Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice. But the money flowing into those races from business interests and anonymous outside groups seeking to toss out incumbent justices largely failed in Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas.

The Republican State Leadership Committee, through its new Judicial Fairness Initiative, spent $3.4 million on TV advertising in judicial races in five states. The RSLC has sought to elect more pro-business judges across the country. This year, though, it failed to defeat seven judges it had targeted. Its only success was the reelection of Justice Lloyd Karmeier, who sits on the Illinois supreme court.

Read this article: 

2014: The Year of Koch

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 2014: The Year of Koch

The Tom Steyer campaigns you haven’t heard about yet

The Tom Steyer campaigns you haven’t heard about yet

4 Nov 2014 6:29 AM

Share

Share

The Tom Steyer campaigns you haven’t heard about yet

×

You already know about the huge amount of money being spent to get voters to care a bit more about climate change, and to prod those who already care into polling places today. Leading the charge, of course, has been Tom Steyer, the hedge-fund billionaire turned political moneyman who is forcing candidates for Senate and governor to address an issue they really, really don’t want to talk about.

But even though those congressional and gubernatorial races get the bulk of the attention, Steyer and like-minded donors have been active at the state level too. The New York Times’ Kirk Johnson reported recently on Steyer’s spending in Washington state:

The effort by a California billionaire named Thomas F. Steyer to bolster global climate change measures in Washington has turned the battle over the State Senate into one of the most expensive legislative elections in state history.

Money has poured into the handful of legislative races that Mr. Steyer’s political action committee identified as central to shifting the Senate’s leadership from a Republican-led coalition to a Democratic majority that would support the ambitious climate goals set by Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat.

… The Democrats need a net gain of two seats to achieve a Senate majority, and Mr. Steyer’s political action committee, Nextgen Climate Action, has contributed $1.25 million to that goal.

“We want to make climate change a local issue,” a spokesperson for Nextgen Climate told the Times. The PAC is also spending on state legislature races in Oregon, California, and Iowa, though the biggest money is going to Washington state.

At the moment, Gov. Inslee is waiting on his legislature’s approval to launch a greenhouse gas reduction plan — including a cap-and-trade program — that will help the state meet future targets that the legislature itself set in 2008.

There’s also a bigger picture: In 2013, governors of Washington, Oregon, and California, and a proxy for the premier of British Columbia, signed the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy. Steyer is a big supporter of the plan — he even helped broker it — but for it to be realized, he told the conservative Washington Examiner, governors will “need stronger majorities in Oregon and Washington.” Cue the dump trucks full of cash.

Other groups are fighting it out at the state level as well. The League of Conservation Voters has a network of state-level affiliates, which are active in this year’s election cycle (though, as is often the case with electoral money trails, we won’t know quite how active until long after the results of the elections are in). LCV’s Colorado affiliate is behind a big push to elect two state-level democrats in Colorado, one to the state Senate and one to the House. The Environmental Defense Action Fund, earlier this year, backed four candidates in the Kansas GOP primary who had supported the state’s mandate requiring utilities to use more renewables. And state-level political action committees like California’s Leadership for a Clean Economy have sprung up to help direct money to worthy politicians.

It’s a smart strategy. Conservative groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council and the State Policy Network have long recognized that while Congress moves slowly — and, in recent years, has not really moved much at all — it’s very often at the state level that the policies that affect day-to-day life are debated and implemented. So fighting battles for the statehouse and city hall makes sense — and it’s much cheaper. Climate hawks appear to now have that page in their playbook too.

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

Visit site – 

The Tom Steyer campaigns you haven’t heard about yet

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Tom Steyer campaigns you haven’t heard about yet

Can these three billionaire superfriends save the climate?

Can these three billionaire superfriends save the climate?

Jim Gillooly/PEI

Helloaloe

, &

Fortune Live Media

Bloomberg, Steyer, and Paulson are teaming up for the climate.

A trio of powerful billionaires is preparing to launch a big bipartisan climate initiative next month, Ryan Lizza reports in The New Yorker. The players: Michael Bloomberg, outgoing mayor of New York City; Tom Steyer, a former hedge-fund manager who’s now devoting himself fulltime to the climate cause; and Hank Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs and former treasury secretary under George W. Bush.

Not enough influential rich guys for you? OK, here are two more: Robert Rubin, another former treasury secretary and Goldman Sachs alum, will serve as an adviser to the new initiative, as will George Shultz, former secretary of state under Ronald Reagan.

No details yet on what the presumably well-funded climate initiative will aim to achieve.

Steyer is also moving forward with climate projects of his own, including a new anti-Keystone ad campaign that launched on Sunday. The first ad features Steyer standing on a ship along the Gulf Coast, emphasizing the fact that much of the oil piped through Keystone XL will be exported. “Here’s the truth: Keystone oil will travel through America, not to America,” he says. Watch the ad:

Steyer hired Obama campaign veteran Jim Margolis to make the ads, Lizza reports:

Margolis came up with a million-dollar campaign consisting of four ninety-second commercials that will appear sequentially over four weeks, starting on September 8th, during the Sunday-morning political chat shows. He and Steyer call it the Keystone Chronicles. Each week, Steyer will appear in a new location. After the Gulf, he’ll go to Arkansas, near the site of a recent spill of Canadian crude. Then he’ll appear at a clean-energy manufacturing plant to discuss jobs. The series will end with Steyer in New York, on the Brooklyn Heights Promenade, with the Manhattan skyline behind him, speaking about Hurricane Sandy and the impact of climate change. “It gives it a more documentary feel, in the sense that each one is different and you have to watch each week to see what he’s doing next,” Margolis said.

Climate activist (and Grist board member) Bill McKibben doesn’t mind having prosperous allies. Said McKibben of Steyer, “After years of watching rich people manipulate and wreck our political system for selfish personal interests, it’s great to watch a rich person use his money and his talents in the public interest.”

Can these rich guys change the game? We’ll be watching closely to find out.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on Twitter and Google+.Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

View original: 

Can these three billionaire superfriends save the climate?

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Can these three billionaire superfriends save the climate?