Nearly 100 percent of Trump funds designed to help farmers went to white farmers
Continue at source –
Nearly 100 percent of Trump funds designed to help farmers went to white farmers
Tag Archives: trade
New NAFTA deal omits climate change, and hands oil and gas yet another win
This story was originally published by HuffPost and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
President Donald Trump’s deal to tweak the trade agreement among the United States, Mexico, and Canada won early praise for changes meant to raise wages and improve safety regulations on cross-border trucking.
But on Monday, environmental groups panned the accord to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement, arguing it includes “corporate giveaways” for fossil fuel giants, excludes binding agreements on lead pollution, and contains no mention of human-caused global warming.
Neither “climate” nor “warming” are among the words in the 31 pages of the new deal’s environment chapter.
NAFTA was long criticized for encouraging companies to shift polluting operations to Mexico, the poorest country with the laxest environmental rules in the trilateral trade agreement. Particular complaints focused on the investor-state dispute settlement process, a system in which companies have been historically afforded broad corporate rights that override local environmental regulations.
The new deal limits those rights, with one major exception: U.S. oil and gas companies. Under the rules, firms that have, or may at some point obtain, government contracts to drill or build infrastructure like pipelines and refineries in Mexico ― such as ExxonMobil Corp. ― can challenge new environmental safeguards Mexican President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador has vowed to erect.
“It’s like saying, ‘From here on, we’re going to protect the henhouse by keeping all animals away, except for foxes, they’re cool,’” Ben Beachy, director of the Sierra Club’s living economy program, said in a phone interview.
That’s not the only giveaway for the oil and gas industry. The updated deal, which requires congressional approval, preserves a provision that requires the U.S. government to automatically approve all gas exports to Mexico, despite another rule mandating regulators consider the public interest.
“We urge Congress to approve” the revised deal, said Mike Sommers, chief of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry’s biggest lobby. “Retaining a trade agreement for North America will help ensure the U.S. energy revolution continues into the future.”
The deal, rebranded the United States Mexico Canada Agreement, tosses aside a standard set of seven multilateral environmental agreements that undergirded the last four U.S. trade deals. USCMA includes enforcement language taken from just one of the environmental accords, weakens the language from another two, and makes zero mention of the other four.
“Trump’s trade agreement with Mexico and Canada is a corporate giveaway intended to sharply limit the powers of government to protect people and the planet,” said Doug Norlen, director of economic policy at the nonpartisan Friends of the Earth. “This agreement is an attack on our ability to hold Big Oil and Gas accountable for the damage they cause to our communities.”
USCMA also includes a section on good regulatory practices that Beachy said “would be better named deregulation.”
The rules essentially give corporations an extra opportunity to challenge proposed regulations before they’re finalized, and ask for existing regulations to be repealed.
“We expect that, after Trump is out of office, we’re going to have to work hard to re-regulate,” he said. “Even after Trump leaves office, Trump’s NAFTA (revision) could extend his polluting legacy for years.”
See the original post:
New NAFTA deal omits climate change, and hands oil and gas yet another win
Nonzero – Robert Wright
READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS
Nonzero
The Logic of Human Destiny
Robert Wright
Genre: Life Sciences
Price: $2.99
Publish Date: January 4, 2000
Publisher: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group
Seller: Penguin Random House LLC
In his bestselling The Moral Animal , Robert Wright applied the principles of evolutionary biology to the study of the human mind. Now Wright attempts something even more ambitious: explaining the direction of evolution and human history–and discerning where history will lead us next. In Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny , Wright asserts that, ever since the primordial ooze, life has followed a basic pattern. Organisms and human societies alike have grown more complex by mastering the challenges of internal cooperation. Wright’s narrative ranges from fossilized bacteria to vampire bats, from stone-age villages to the World Trade Organization, uncovering such surprises as the benefits of barbarian hordes and the useful stability of feudalism. Here is history endowed with moral significance–a way of looking at our biological and cultural evolution that suggests, refreshingly, that human morality has improved over time, and that our instinct to discover meaning may itself serve a higher purpose. Insightful, witty, profound, Nonzero offers breathtaking implications for what we believe and how we adapt to technology’s ongoing transformation of the world. From the Trade Paperback edition.
Link –
Are Fuel Additives Really Green?
Shares
As gas prices trend upward, you may be wondering about ways to maximize the fuel economy in your car. One commonly assumed option is adding a gasoline additive when you fill the tank, and there are plenty on the market.
In fact, it’s estimated the fuel additive market will reach over $11 billion by 2024, with environmental concerns one of the top reasons. This leads to the question: Are fuel additives actually eco-friendly?
What Is a Fuel Additive?
Simply put, fuel additives are products that will increase gasoline’s octane rating (so you can buy 87 octane and get the benefits of 89 or 91 octane) or help prevent engine corrosion. They have been around since 1970, when Chevron gas featured a new additive called polybutene amine, marketed as F-310.
F-310 was promoted as reducing emissions by up to 50 percent and increasing fuel economy by up to 7.7 percent. This product has eventually been modified into Techron, arguably the most recognizable fuel additive today.
For F-310, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigated claims of deceptive advertising, and Chevron ended up pulling the campaign. Ever since, the FTC has kept tabs on how fuel additives promote their benefits to consumers.
This hasn’t stopped the market from developing. Because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires gasoline additive companies to register their products, we know that there are more than 10,000 fuel additives on sale today. Not surprisingly, over 100 have the word “green” in the company or product name.
How Are Additives Regulated?
The additive registration process does not include testing for fuel economy increases or emissions reductions, although manufacturers must include the chemical composition of additives. The EPA makes a point to say that even though a product is registered, that doesn’t imply an EPA endorsement of its benefits.
However, the EPA does have a voluntary testing program called the Evaluation Program for Aftermarket Retrofit Devices, where manufacturers allow their additives to be tested to verify marketing claims. So far, 92 fuel additives have been tested, most recently in 2005, and most have had either “a neutral or negative effect on fuel economy and/or exhaust emissions.”
For some companies, the FTC may step in and challenge claims. This was the case in 2013, when the manufacturer of EnviroTabs was fined $800,000 for stating its product increases fuel efficiency and reduces emissions.
When to Use Fuel Additives
While the jury is still out on improved fuel economy, there are a few areas where fuel additives have been shown to help your car:
- Fuel stabilizers can be used in seasonal vehicles (boats, RVs) or classic cars to preserve the gasoline over time.
- Fuel injection cleaners are helpful if most of a commute is via short trips where the engine doesn’t heat enough to burn off the carbon that accumulates over time.
Fuel additives have their place if your goal is to beat Vin Diesel in a drag race, but there isn’t much evidence that they will save you at the gas pump or produce fewer emissions. If that’s your goal, here are 11 free steps you can take while driving.
You Might Also Like…
What Fuels You?: Choosing an Alternative Car Fuel
Eco-friendly cars are gaining in popularity, but not all efficient …Anna JohanssonMarch 5, 2018
3 Myths About Curbside Recycling
Much has changed in the world of recycling in the …Sarah LozanovaFebruary 5, 2018
7 Fuel-Efficient Car Options That Aren’t Hybrids
I’ve learned from renting cars and going on road trips …Sarah LozanovaOctober 3, 2016
Is Your Sunscreen Killing the Coral?
Getting outside comes with a host of health benefits, but …Haley ShapleyMarch 30, 2018
Does Recycling Plastic Do More Harm Than Good?
Plastic is everywhere. Unless you’re a hermit living in the …Jenna CyprusMarch 29, 2018
11 Steps to Encourage Water Conservation in Your Community
In 2009, the Cherry Creek 3 townhome community in Colorado used …Brian BrassawMarch 28, 2018
earth911
Read more:
Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, solar, Uncategorized
Tagged additives, environmental, fuel, g & f, lozanova, manufacturer, program, trade, water
Comments Off on Are Fuel Additives Really Green?
The United States will start taxing solar panel imports.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted the PennEast Pipeline its certificate of public convenience and necessity on Friday, which also allows the company to acquire land through eminent domain.
The proposed $1 billion pipeline would run nearly 120 miles from Pennsylvania to New Jersey and transport up to 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day. Its opponents say it would threaten the health and safety of nearby communities and endanger natural and historic resources. Proponents maintain that the pipeline is an economic boon that will lower energy costs for residents.
After getting the OK from FERC, the company moved up its estimated in-service date to 2019, with construction to begin this year. But it won’t necessarily be an easy road ahead. The pipeline still needs permits from the State of New Jersey, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Delaware River Basin Commission. And while Chris Christie was a big fan of the pipeline, newly elected Governor Phil Murphy ran a campaign promising a green agenda and has already voiced opposition.
Pipeline opponents are demonstrating this afternoon and taking the developers to court. “It’s just the beginning. New Jersey doesn’t need or want this damaging pipeline, and has the power to stop it when it faces a more stringent state review,” Tom Gilbert, campaign director of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, said in a statement.
Excerpt from:
Posted in alo, Anchor, Cascade, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, organic, PUR, solar, solar panels, solar power, Sterling, Uncategorized, wind power
Tagged conservation, corps, free trade, health, king, politics, pur, solar tariffs, solyndra, trade, trump nation, wind power
Comments Off on The United States will start taxing solar panel imports.
The Demon-Haunted World – Carl Sagan
READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS
Science as a Candle In the Dark
Genre: Science & Nature
Price: $4.99
Publish Date: February 25, 1997
Publisher: Random House Publishing Group
Seller: Penguin Random House LLC
"A glorious book . . . A spirited defense of science . . . From the first page to the last, this book is a manifesto for clear thought." *Los Angeles Times "POWERFUL . . . A stirring defense of informed rationality. . . Rich in surprising information and beautiful writing." *The Washington Post Book World How can we make intelligent decisions about our increasingly technology-driven lives if we don't understand the difference between the myths of pseudoscience and the testable hypotheses of science? Pulitzer Prize-winning author and distinguished astronomer Carl Sagan argues that scientific thinking is critical not only to the pursuit of truth but to the very well-being of our democratic institutions. Casting a wide net through history and culture, Sagan examines and authoritatively debunks such celebrated fallacies of the past as witchcraft, faith healing, demons, and UFOs. And yet, disturbingly, in today's so-called information age, pseudoscience is burgeoning with stories of alien abduction, channeling past lives, and communal hallucinations commanding growing attention and respect. As Sagan demonstrates with lucid eloquence, the siren song of unreason is not just a cultural wrong turn but a dangerous plunge into darkness that threatens our most basic freedoms. "COMPELLING." *USA Today "A clear vision of what good science means and why it makes a difference. . . . A testimonial to the power of science and a warning of the dangers of unrestrained credulity." *The Sciences "PASSIONATE." *San Francisco Examiner-Chronicle From the Trade Paperback edition.
View this article –
Under Trump, Trade Deficits Are Up, Interest Rates Have Doubled, and Car Sales are Plummeting
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
One of the remarkable things about Donald Trump’s presidency is that every time he does something, you can find a tweet from a few years ago saying how terrible that thing is. Not just for a few things, either. It happens over and over and over. Aaron Blake finally brings this observation to the mainstream press:
Over the last two weeks, President Trump has attacked Syria without congressional approval, ratcheted up the use of force in Afghanistan with a huge bomb, and moved to reverse the Obama administration’s policy of releasing White House visitor logs.
Each of these actions runs completely counter to the views and values once espoused by Trump on Twitter. And they join an amazingly long — and growing — list of old Trump tweets that have become eerily applicable to Trump’s own presidency in ways that scream “hypocrisy.”
Blake follows this with a list of Trump’s tweets, which reads like a time travel story about a younger version of Trump sending desperate tweets to his older self to try to warn him away from acts of folly. Sort of like that Sandra Bullock movie except with Twitter.
If anyone ever gets the chance to ask our suddenly press-shy president about this, I don’t know what he’ll say. What he believes, I suspect, is that we’re all losers and morons. He said all that old stuff because he was attacking Obama. Duh. It’s ridiculous to think it represents what Trump actually believes. When you’re in a fight, you say what it takes to win. Truth is irrelevant. It’s all performance art.
This is sort of like uber-conspiracy theorist lunatic Alex Jones, who is currently fighting a child custody battle by claiming that his radio show is just performance art, and no one could possibly take it seriously. This probably explains why Trump is such a big fan.
As for the rest of us, I guess we’d better get on the bandwagon. We need to start saying stuff about Trump without bothering to check if it’s remotely true. Here are a few ideas to get you started:
American war casualties have gone up 100 percent under Trump. (This is actually true if you pick the right dates. Not that it matters.)
The February trade deficit with Mexico under Trump doubled compared to Obama’s first February. The trade deficit with China was two-thirds higher. (True!)
Automobile sales have plummeted at an annual rate of 40 percent under Trump. (Also true!)
Interest rates have more than doubled since Trump was elected. (This is true too!)
Trump has the lowest recorded IQ of any American president ever. (That’s what people have told me, anyway.)
You get the idea. Stop worrying about whether stuff is fair or accurate or any of that stuff. It’s all performance art!
View original post here –
Under Trump, Trade Deficits Are Up, Interest Rates Have Doubled, and Car Sales are Plummeting
In Private, It Turns Out That Trump Is Pretty Much the Same
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Roger Cohen writes about the Trump-Merkel meeting a couple of weeks ago:
When Donald Trump met Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany earlier this month, he put on one of his most truculent and ignorant performances. He wanted money—piles of it—for Germany’s defense, raged about the financial killing China was making from last year’s Paris climate accord and kept “frequently and brutally changing the subject when not interested, which was the case with the European Union.”
…Trump’s preparedness was roughly that of a fourth grader…Trump knew nothing of the proposed European-American deal known as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, little about Russian aggression in Ukraine or the Minsk agreements, and was so scatterbrained that German officials concluded that the president’s daughter Ivanka, who had no formal reason to be there, was the more prepared and helpful.
Merkel is not one to fuss. But Trump’s behavior appalled her entourage and reinforced a conclusion already reached about this presidency in several European capitals: It is possible to do business with Trump’s national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, with Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, and with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, but these officials are flying blind because above them at the White House rages a whirlwind of incompetence and ignorance.
I’m sure glad that Republicans are restoring the respect for America that we lost after eight years of that empty suit Barack Obama.
Credit:
One Thing Environmentalists and Trump Actually Agree On
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Environmental groups cheered when President Donald Trump pounded the last nail into the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s coffin, finalizing the United States’ anticipated withdrawal from the controversial trade deal. But the global trade and environment debate isn’t over by a long shot. Since the TPP’s demise, environmental groups like the Sierra Club have quickly refocused their efforts around NAFTA—the 1994 trade deal brokered by the Bush and Clinton administrations between the United States, Canada, and Mexico—which Trump repeatedly criticized during his campaign and has indicated he wants to renegotiate quickly.
The original trade deal that set a precedent for many of the TPP’s provisions, NAFTA has never scored well with environmentalists, despite being lauded by supporters (PDF) as the first international trade deal ever to incorporate environmental and labor side agreements. Though its renegotiations could theoretically provide an opportunity to address the deal’s criticisms, some groups fear that Trump will use the opportunity to further expand corporate interests and intensify environmental risks.
Here’s a pocket guide for understanding the implications.
What’s up with environmentalists hating NAFTA so much?
They don’t hate everything about it—at least not in theory. Environmental groups have argued in the past that effective trade deals can be used as a positive reinforcement mechanism for advancing international climate and human rights goals. NAFTA, however, “included unenforceable labor and environmental commitments and side agreements that were not part of the core text and that had no teeth to them,” says Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Program.
But environmentalists’ main objection to NAFTA has to do with a section called Chapter 11, which outlines a mechanism called the investor-state dispute settlement system (ISDS).
The ISDS process states that whenever a federal government introduces a new regulation that negatively affects the value of a foreign investment, the investor has the right to sue the government in private trade tribunals. If the investor wins, the settlement amount, undisclosed to the public, is footed by taxpayer money. In other words, the ISDS process “essentially gives private corporations the status of nations under international law and the incredibly powerful and very secretive tribunal,” says Martin Wagner, the managing attorney of Earthjustice’s International Program.
Though this may not seem like it’s directly related to the environment, the majority of investor-state cases brought up under NAFTA have had nothing to do with traditional trade issues. Instead, they have attacked environmental, energy, public health, and land use policies, to name a few. Some of the most controversial cases have included a challenge to Quebec’s temporary fracking ban (still pending), a challenge to California’s phase-out of toxic chemical fuel additives (dismissed after six years), and most recently, a challenge to Barack Obama’s decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline, in which TransCanada sued the US government for $15 billion. (The case is still pending.)
As of October 2016, pending NAFTA claims totaled over $50 billion, according to an analysis performed by Public Citizen.
Then why don’t we just get rid of the investments part?
Good question. Supporters argue that it’s an important tool for foreign investors to protect their rights against governments and thereby encourages more foreign direct investment. But environmentalists aren’t the only ones who find fault with Chapter 11.
Simon Lester, a trade policy analyst at the libertarian CATO Institute, says he believes the proponents’ arguments are outdated. “I just don’t see any evidence that Chapter 11 does anything for trade liberalization or investment liberalization or the economy,” he says, or that “domestic courts couldn’t do a good job” in the international tribunals’ place. “So I say delete it and be done with it. But there’s a lot of pushback” from business groups, like the US Chamber of Commerce, and the State Department. “The people who wanted it in there want to keep it in there,” he says.
“Really what proponents are left with…is that corporations want it,” echoes Matt Porterfield, a Georgetown Law adjunct professor who studies the interplay between international trade, investment rules, and environmental policy. Precedent for the elimination and restriction of ISDS also already exists. India recently came out with a new investment treaty model that imposes limits on the investor-state model, for example. During negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) between the United States and the European Union, widespread opposition to investor-state also prompted the European Union to propose a replacement system.
How likely is Trump to ditch Chapter 11?
It’s difficult to predict what will happen during renegotiations, given that Trump has made little indication of what he’s looking for.
But Earthjustice’s Wagner doesn’t have high hopes. “We see that the administration is full of corporate representatives who absolutely show no interest in promoting the public good—real interests of human beings and the environment—in any way, much less in the place where the corporate interest has the opposite desire.”
There is a small possibility that the administration will update NAFTA’s Chapter 11 to the most recent investment treaty model, says Porterfield; the United States put together this model in 2012 with the intention to “clarify the government’s ability to defend itself,” says Porterfield’s colleague Robert Stumberg, director of the Harrison Institute for Public Law. He adds that there really is “no assurance” that Trump will keep the pro-government edits, given his pro-investor record.
Can Trump screw over the environment even more during the renegotiation process?
Aside from expanding existing investors’ rights, a renegotiated NAFTA could also dramatically increase the number of investors who are granted those rights.
Currently, Mexico’s energy industry is excluded from NAFTA’s ISDS provisions because the industry was controlled by Pemex, a state-owned enterprise, when the deal was first negotiated. But in the last few years, Mexico has reprivatized its oil and gas under President Enrique Peña Nieto to stimulate foreign direct investment.
“It’s very easy to see how the US oil and gas industry, how the Mexican oil and gas industry, how the Canadian industry could easily pressure the Mexican government into coming in line with the other NAFTA parties and allowing those suits,” says Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law. He fears that such a move—which has been recommended by the Heritage Foundation, a far-right policy think tank—will leave very few legal protections left for halting damaging fossil fuel infrastructure projects.
What are environmentalists planning to do next?
Unless Trump only renegotiates NAFTA’s tariffs, any newly drafted trade deal will need to get Congress’ approval. Solomon says the Sierra Club plans to mobilize an opposition campaign to stop the deal in Congress, and she encourages people to take advantage of their representatives’ town halls.
NAFTA’s provisions, once settled, can’t be challenged in court like most other policies, says Wagner, emphasizing the consequences of waiting until after the renegotiations to speak out. “That’s one of the things about these trade agreements that is really nefarious—they establish law that applies domestically that doesn’t go through the democratic lawmaking process.” On top of that, he points out, “it’s really hard to reopen a trade agreement.”
Taken from:
Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta
Tagged climate-change, corporations, environment, lai, president, radius, sierra, trade
Comments Off on One Thing Environmentalists and Trump Actually Agree On
There’s an environmental argument against Trump’s border wall, too.
On Thursday, TransCanada, the corporation behind the infamous project, resubmitted an application to the State Department for permission to build the pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border.
Just two days earlier, President Donald Trump had signed a presidential memorandum formally inviting the company to give the pipeline another go. Apparently, TransCanada got right down to work.
“This privately funded infrastructure project will help meet America’s growing energy needs,” said TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, “as well as create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs.” A 2013 State Department report found the pipeline would create 28,000 jobs, but just 35 would be permanent.
Barack Obama rejected the pipeline plan in 2015, after indigenous groups and environmentalists fought it for nearly a decade. Now that a new application has been submitted, the project needs to be OK’d by both the State Department and Trump to proceed. Nebraska also needs to review and approve the project, which it’s expected to do.
Last June, TransCanada took advantage of the North American Free Trade Agreement — a deal Trump disdains — to file a $15 billion claim against the U.S. government for rejecting its Keystone proposal. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.
More –
There’s an environmental argument against Trump’s border wall, too.
Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Ringer, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized, Wiley, wind power
Tagged agreement, america, border wall, department, g & f, lai, Ringer, trade, trade-agreement, trump
Comments Off on There’s an environmental argument against Trump’s border wall, too.
