Tag Archives: union

Taiwan’s most-wanted gang leader ‘White Wolf’ captured at airport after 17 years

hh

<!– google_ad_section_start –> A Taiwanese gang leader who has been on the island’s most wanted list since he fled to the mainland 17 years ago was arrested on arrival at a Taipei airport on Saturday, police said. Chang An-lo, better known by his nickname “White Wolf”, is a key member of the Bamboo Union – one of Taiwan’s biggest gangs accused of organised crimes including blackmail, extortion, smuggling and money laundering. <!– google_ad_section_end –>

Read more here:
Taiwan’s most-wanted gang leader ‘White Wolf’ captured at airport after 17 years

The post Taiwan’s most-wanted gang leader ‘White Wolf’ captured at airport after 17 years appeared first on heave-ho.org | all the news that's fit to click™.

Read the article: 

Taiwan’s most-wanted gang leader ‘White Wolf’ captured at airport after 17 years

Posted in bamboo, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Taiwan’s most-wanted gang leader ‘White Wolf’ captured at airport after 17 years

Airlines propose weak, vague climate plan

Airlines propose weak, vague climate plan

Shutterstock /

Maxene Huiyu

Powerful, but not climate friendly.

Major airlines have come up with yet another way of imposing delays upon the world.

Under international pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most members of the International Air Transport Association have agreed on a proposal for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions — but the plan lacks details, aims low, and would sit on the tarmac until 2020 or later.

Aviation is an awfully energy-intensive way of getting around; the industry accounts for an estimated 2 percent of global carbon emissions.

The European Union has wanted to require airlines that operate in its territory to join the E.U. emissions-trading system, but after the U.S. and other countries threw a tantrum, the E.U. agreed in December to hold off for one year. So airlines and other opponents of the E.U.’s plan are rushing to put together an alternative.

On Monday, most members of the airline association agreed on a system. From The Guardian:

[The airlines] said there should be a single global “market-based mechanism” — such as emissions trading — that would enable airlines to account for and offset their emissions.

But they did not agree to a global limit on greenhouse gas emissions from air travel, or set out in detail how governments should implement a market-based mechanism to cover all airlines. …

[G]reen campaigners pointed out that Monday’s IATA resolution could allow airlines simply to buy cheap carbon credits to offset their emissions, rather than make real reductions.

Carbon credits are currently at rock bottom prices because of a glut on the market, and because companies covered by the EU’s emissions trading system were awarded far more free permits than they needed.

Bill Hemmings, aviation manager at the green campaigning organisation Transport & Environment, said: “The IATA resolution represents a welcome departure from their historical position that better air traffic control, better planes and biofuels alone can solve the problem.

“However, it kicks the ball in the long grass, until after 2020, and sets out a string of unworkable conditions. It rules out the EU emissions trading scheme as a stepping stone, [and rules out] the raising of revenues and impacts on traffic volume, which are inherent to any market-based measure.”

Airlines hope their proposal will lay the groundwork for an international agreement on aviation emissions. From Reuters:

The decision is designed to offer governments a basis for negotiation after United Nations talks failed to resolve a stand-off between the European Union and a broad flank of other countries over an issue with cross-border implications.

Airlines have been racing to avert a trade war after the European Union suspended an emissions trading scheme for a year to give opponents time to agree on a global system.

So far, little progress has been made in the UN effort to craft an agreement to lower emissions from international air travel, raising doubts that a September target date can be met.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Original article:  

Airlines propose weak, vague climate plan

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Safer, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Airlines propose weak, vague climate plan

Vermont House approves GMO-labeling law

Vermont House approves GMO-labeling law

Shutterstock

/ Jonathan FeinsteinMembers of the Vermont House think shoppers should be told which of these products contain GMOs.

A historic but cautious attempt to force food manufacturers to label products containing genetically modified ingredients passed the Vermont House by an overwhelming 107-37 vote last week.

If approved by the state Senate and signed by the governor, the bill, H. 112,  would make Vermont the first state in the nation to require labeling of genetically modified foods.

But the measure likely wouldn’t go into effect for two years, and it would not apply to meat or dairy. That means it would not mandate the labeling of AquaBounty fish, a transgenic Atlantic salmon that could receive U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval this year. And it would not affect Vermont’s celebrated dairy industry.

From Vermont Public Radio:

No representatives on Thursday argued against the concept of more transparent food labeling. The most frequent point of opposition voiced on the floor concerned a likely lawsuit from the biotech or food industries that the Attorney General’s Office estimates could cost the state more than $5 million.

Rep. Tom Koch, R-Barre, reasserted that he thinks the state would lose a lawsuit on constitutional grounds. He said the law runs afoul of the First Amendment by compelling speech, and it could pre-empt federal authority under the constitution’s supremacy clause by enacting a law that the Federal Drug Administration has not.

“Nobody else has passed a similar bill. They all seem to be waiting for Vermont to go first and lead the nation,” he said. “What they mean is they don’t want to risk their taxpayers’ money; they want us to risk Vermonters’ money. That is a $5 million to $10 million risk, and one I am not willing to take.”

A ballot initiative that would have required GMO labels in California was defeated last year after Monsanto and other corporations spent nearly $50 million on ads opposing it. A national GMO-labeling bill was introduced recently in Congress, but it has little to no chance of becoming law.

Most of the corn, soy, and sugar beets grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, and they’re widely used in processed foods. But shoppers who want to avoid them have no good way of doing so. Requiring food manufacturers to label genetically modified foods would allow people to say “no” to such products.

Big Ag and its supporters resist labeling, likening informational labels to warning stickers on cigarettes and liquor, saying such labels could “alarm” shoppers. Because activists fighting for mandatory labeling often oppose genetic engineering altogether, GMO supporters dismiss their arguments. Take a recent post on the Discover magazine website as an example (the contributor has previously ridiculed GMO-labeling campaigns, but in this post describes himself as ambivalent on the issue):

The “Right to Know” people … say they just want to know what’s in their food. This is a specious argument. The truth is they think there is something harmful about GMOs. Why else would they feel so strongly about labeling genetically modified foods? Yes, the Just Label it Campaign is couched as a consumer rights issue, but really it’s based on fear. Everybody knows this, so pretending otherwise is silly.

That would mean there are a lot of silly people in the world. As the Center for Food Safety points out64 countries including China, Russia, and all European Union nations currently have GMO-labeling laws in place. Vermonters could be the first Americans to join the trend.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Food

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View article: 

Vermont House approves GMO-labeling law

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Vermont House approves GMO-labeling law

New Mexico county is first in the nation to ban all drilling and fracking

New Mexico county is first in the nation to ban all drilling and fracking

jimmywayne

The ruins of Fort Union in Mora County, N.M.

Mora County, N.M., has a message for the oil and gas industry: “You’re not welcome here.”

County commissioners voted 2-1 on Monday to ban all oil and gas extraction in their drought-ravaged county near Santa Fe, home to fewer than 5,000 people. A temporary drilling moratorium is already in place in neighboring San Miguel County, but it is believed that Mora County is the first in the nation to impose an outright ban on all oil and gas drilling.

From E&E Newsvia NRDC:

Commissioner Alfonso Griego said “he supported the measure because he feels that federal and state laws fail to adequately protect communities from the impacts of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.” He also stated: “They just come in and do whatever is necessary for them to make profits. There is technology for them to do it right, but it’s going to cost them more money. They’re not willing to do that yet. So we don’t want any oil and gas extraction in the county of Mora. It’s beautiful here.”

Any detractors? Oh, yeah, here’s an industry guy saying things to the AP:

Wally Drangmeister, a spokesman for the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, said the potential of the natural gas deposits in the area may never be known if exploration isn’t allowed and that could result in lost revenues for the county, as well as the rest of New Mexico.

The county commissioners also adopted a bill of rights that asserts Mora County’s right to block drilling, even if the state or federal governments try to allow it. Again from the AP:

In addition to putting the county off limits to oil and gas development, the ordinance establishes a bill of rights aimed at affirming the county’s right to local autonomy and self-governance.

The ordinance states that any permits or licenses issued by either the federal or state government that would allow activities that would compromise the county’s rights would be considered invalid.

“This is the fight that people have been too chicken to pick over the last 10 years, which is essentially deciding who makes decisions about the future of the places where we live,” said Thomas Linzey, executive director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. “Either it’s the people who live there or it’s the corporations that have an interest in exploiting them. It’s very basic.”

Congratulations, Mora County. May you continue to conserve and enjoy your precious groundwater supplies and clean environment.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

More:

New Mexico county is first in the nation to ban all drilling and fracking

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Mexico county is first in the nation to ban all drilling and fracking

This bipartisan energy-efficiency bill might actually be able to pass Congress

This bipartisan energy-efficiency bill might actually be able to pass Congress

U.S. Senate

A Democrat and a Republican, working together. Weird.

Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) have come up with an energy-efficiency bill that they think has a real chance of passing the U.S. Senate. And then the U.S. House. In this Congress. Really!

From Politico:

The legislation, known as the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, focuses on improving energy efficiency in commercial buildings, the manufacturing sector and the federal government.

Among other things, the bill strengthens building codes to make new homes and buildings more efficient, creates a new Energy Department program called SupplySTAR to improve the efficiency of companies’ supply chains and requires the federal government — the country’s largest energy user — to adopt strategies to conserve the electricity used for computers.

It’s a scaled-back version of a bill they introduced last year. To preempt conservative objections, it drops a provision that would have expanded a Department of Energy loan program. After Solyndra, “Department of Energy loan program” is not a phrase Republicans are warm to.

A bipartisan duo — Reps. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) — will be pushing a similar bill in the House.

More from Politico:

“As we see a divided Congress, it’s nice to see something that we can agree on. I think this bill is one of them,” Portman told POLITICO in a joint interview with Shaheen ahead of the bill’s official release. “We’re optimistic that we can make progress in the Senate in the short run and get it through the House in the next year and then get it signed into law.”

The bill’s success is far from certain, but the senators say they’ve taken every precaution to prevent the measure from going down in flames.

Over the course of months-long negotiations, the senators have won the buy-in of more than 200 organizations, from the Union of Concerned Scientists to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce … [to] the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Alliance to Save Energy and the National Association of Manufacturers.

According to a press release from Shaheen and Portman, “A study [PDF] by experts at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy found that last year’s version would have saved consumers $4 billion [a year] by 2020 and helped businesses add 80,000 jobs to the economy.”

It’s not a price on carbon, but hey, it’s a start.

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

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Excerpt from:  

This bipartisan energy-efficiency bill might actually be able to pass Congress

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This bipartisan energy-efficiency bill might actually be able to pass Congress

Peabody Energy screwing former coal workers out of health care

Peabody Energy screwing former coal workers out of health care

Shutterstock

A coal worker holding the actual heart of Peabody Energy CEO Gregory H. Boyce. 

If there’s anything darker than coal, it’s the hearts of coal company executives. They ask workers to risk their lives to extract the filthiest of all fossil fuels — and then they screw over those workers.

On Thursday, police arrested 14 people in St. Louis, Mo., during the latest in a series of large union-organized protests against such dark-heartedness by Peabody Energy. Workers say the company robbed them of desperately needed retirement health benefits through a cynical corporate maneuver.

The coal giant spun off a subsidiary in 2007 called Patriot Coal, which then bought up some business assets from Arch Coal. Patriot assumed many of Peabody’s and Arch Coal’s worker liabilities — it’s legally on the hook to pay for the health care and other retirement benefits of former workers and their families.

But oh, guess what, Patriot declared bankruptcy. Now it’s asking a bankruptcy court to allow it to weasel out of more than $1 billion worth of health and other benefits owed to retired miners, many whom never worked for Patriot and many of whom were left ill by their former jobs.

From an interview with an affected miner by NPR reporter Maria Altman:

CHARLES WHITLOW: I think there’s 12 pills there every morning, and there’s six pills here for supper.

ALTMAN: He takes more than two dozen pills daily, some of them for coal-related health problems, including CWP, known as black lung. Last year, he says the cost of all those pills topped $13,000.

WHITLOW: I lost my trust I had in Peabody. I used to be proud to say that I did work for Peabody Coal Company, but I’m a long ways from telling anybody that now.

ALTMAN: Whitlow and his wife, Brenda, are among hundreds who’ve written letters to the bankruptcy court asking that Peabody be held accountable.

University of Illinois law Professor Robert Lawless says the judge’s options are limited, though, because it’s perfectly legal for corporations to spin off both assets and liabilities.

As for Patriot Coal, Lawless says a bankruptcy law does make it harder to drop retirees’ health benefits, but he says it still happens, most recently with Hostess Brands Incorporated.

The United Mine Workers of America claims in court that Peabody set up Patriot to fail. The union alleges that the spinoff company was created as a way of wiping Peabody’s hands clean of obligations to care for the health of its retired workers.

From the St. Louis Business Journal‘s coverage of Wednesday’s protest:

An estimated 2,000 attended the protest, the fifth such protest in St. Louis, according to Phil Smith, director of communications for UMWA.

Union members planted 1,000 white crosses at Kiener Plaza. According to union officials, the crosses were “in memory of the 666 fatalities that have occurred at mines operated by Peabody Energy, Arch Coal and Patriot Coal or their subsidiaries since 1903 and symbolize the more than 22,000 active and retired miners, dependents and surviving spouses who will be at risk if Patriot Coal, Peabody Energy and Arch Coal succeed in their efforts to effectively eliminate contractually-guaranteed health care benefits.”

Protesters traveled from Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virgina to attend the protest.

Peabody’s response to the rally? From St. Louis Public Radio:

Peabody officials have said that the miners should bring their concerns to the bankruptcy court.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Original article: 

Peabody Energy screwing former coal workers out of health care

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Peabody Energy screwing former coal workers out of health care

European leaders let cap-and-trade flounder

European leaders let cap-and-trade flounder

Shutterstock

Europe: Not so into that carbon-trading thing anymore.

The world’s foremost carbon cap-and-trade system is floundering, and members of the European Parliament on Tuesday voted to keep it that way.

About 12,000 power plants and factories operating across the 27 countries that make up the European Union must purchase allowances to release greenhouse gases. The eight-year-old cap-and-trade program, designed to rein in carbon emissions and slow down climate change, is the world’s biggest and oldest international carbon-trading scheme.

But there’s a problem. Greenhouse gas–producing industrial activity has been slowed down by sour economies across Europe, which has left the market awash with a glut of carbon allowances. The price to buy the right to release a tonne of carbon on the E.U. Emissions Trading Scheme has dropped below $6.50 — well down from highs of more than $39 in 2006.

That means the system has stopped working. At least, it’s not working as planned: The price of carbon is now so low that it provides very little disincentive to release greenhouse gases, which means that it’s doing very little to combat climate change. Naturally, some of the businesses that must buy the allowances disagree with that logic, saying the price reflects the true price of carbon emissions in a stagnant European economy.

In a bid to revive the system and reduce Europe’s carbon emissions to lower levels than previously planned, the European Commission proposed cutting back on the number of allowances sold into the open market during the next couple of years. If the supply of allowances is pushed down, the commission reckons that economic forces would push prices up.

The European Commission is the executive body of the European Union. It’s a bureaucracy that represents the region as a whole — it’s not meant to be distracted by any parochial concerns of the 27 nations that are members of the E.U. It produces recommendations that are voted on by politicians in the European Parliament.

The European Parliament is made up of hundreds of elected officials from the E.U.’s member states. Europe’s parliament doesn’t always agree with the commission: National interests and domestic election campaigns can color the outcomes of its votes. And so it was this week when the parliament voted down the commission’s proposal to withhold around 900 million allowances over two years. From the BBC:

Despite political backing from the UK, France and Italy, [members of the European Parliament] voted against the proposal by 334 votes to 315 with more than 60 abstentions. It will now go back to the Parliament’s environment committee for further consideration.

Poland’s minster for the environment, Marcin Korolec, welcomed the move in a tweet.

“The vote of reason,” he wrote.

From Reuters:

Traders took the lack of political support as a signal to sell, driving the market down to its lowest yet. Immediately after the vote, carbon prices dropped by around 40 percent to [$3.43] a tonne. They were trading at [$4.10], down 34 percent, by [3:41 p.m.] GMT.

“The carbon market is now in a coma, until a clear intervention takes place,” an emissions trader said.

Bummer. And the bummer moments kept coming Tuesday for those who want to force polluting industries to rein in their carbon emissions through trading schemes.

The European Parliament voted Tuesday to continue to exempt international flights from the carbon-trading scheme for a year. That was a victory for political leaders and airlines from the U.S. and other non-European countries, which argued that subjecting businesses outside the E.U. to the carbon-trading scheme would violate international law.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View original: 

European leaders let cap-and-trade flounder

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, PUR, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on European leaders let cap-and-trade flounder

Obama: Let’s fund clean car technology with oil and gas royalties

Obama: Let’s fund clean car technology with oil and gas royalties

White House

What does Obama want? $2 billion for research into technologies that would power Americans’ cars without oil.

When does he want it? Gradually — $200 million a year over a decade.

In a speech on Friday and in his weekly video address on Saturday, the president talked up a proposal for an Energy Security Trust, an idea he first introduced in his State of the Union last month. It would be funded by royalties from offshore oil and gas leases, which oil companies already pay; with offshore drilling on the rise, the White House says there will be more royalty money to tap.

From The New York Times:

The money will support research on a range of cleaner means of powering vehicles, the White House said, including electricity, biofuels, fuel cells and [domestically] produced natural gas.

The president’s proposal to add $200 million a year to the research budget of the Energy Department’s office of renewable energy would represent about a 10 percent increase in the office’s overall spending, or 25 percent of its spending on transportation research, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Yes, you read right. Some of the money would go toward the development of vehicles that run on natural gas, which is a fossil fuel. And some would go to biofuels, even though there’s been a lot of controversy over whether many biofuels are a net benefit for the climate.

And how did those ever-rational congressional Republicans respond?

From The Washington Post:

After details of Obama’s plan emerged Friday morning, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) voiced skepticism about it and suggested that the administration ought to do more to grow domestic oil and gas production.

“For this proposal to even be plausible, oil and gas leasing on federal land would need to increase dramatically,” said the spokesman, Brendan Buck.

Obama framed his proposal as a way to help insulate Americans from erratic gas prices.

“Over the past few weeks, we’ve got a reminder that we have more work to do,” Obama said during his video address. “We went through another spike in gas prices, just like last year, and the year before that. It happens every year. It’s a serious blow to your budget — like getting hit by a new tax right out of your pocket.”

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See the article here:

Obama: Let’s fund clean car technology with oil and gas royalties

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama: Let’s fund clean car technology with oil and gas royalties

Oil industry ad campaign: ‘Give us tax breaks or everybody gets hurt’

Oil industry ad campaign: ‘Give us tax breaks or everybody gets hurt’

YoutubeA message from your friendly neighborhood petro-giant.

“I think taxing the oil and gas industry does nothing but harm the country.”

And with that doublespeak, doublespoken by some actor, the American Petroleum Institute opens one of two new television ads it is about to begin screening around Washington, D.C. The advertisements are shot to make it look like ordinary folk are worried that higher taxes on the country’s energy giants would hurt their ordinary families.

The planned advertising blitz is part of a desperate and dishonest bid by the energy sector to cling to its billions in annual tax breaks. President Barack Obama and other Democrats want to strip some of those tax breaks away from oil and gas companies, which are among the most profitable, price-gouging, Earth-destroying, and environmentally irresponsible companies operating today.

The way the institute’s actors read their lines while staring into the camera, you’d be forgiven for mistaking these thieving energy companies for married suburban couples sitting around their fireplaces with their 2.3 kids playing Monopoly and saying prayers.

“It is not a tax on the energy industry,” some other actor says. “It’s a tax on families.”

From The Hill:

With the proposed Senate and House budgets released this week and President Obama’s coming next month, API Executive Vice President Marty Durbin said the industry must remind policymakers that “punitive tax schemes kill jobs and decrease revenues to the federal government over the long term.” …

Durbin reiterated API’s willingness to discuss the tax breaks in the context of broad tax reform. He didn’t elaborate on any concessions the industry might make.

Durbin said he felt Capitol Hill sentiment was swinging in the oil-and-gas industry’s favor, noting fewer legislative proposals to nix the tax provisions were making the rounds.

Lies about how terrible it would be for energy companies to pay higher taxes will soon be coming from more directions. From Fuel Fix:

API isn’t the only group joining the fray. The National Taxpayers Union on Wednesday launched a separate radio and print advertising campaign that also argues against raising taxes on the oil and gas industry.

One NTU print ad warns that “singling out America’s energy industry (won’t) solve the budget crisis” and highlights the section 199 domestic manufacturing deduction, which applies broadly to American businesses, even though recent proposals aim to repeal it just for oil companies.

National Taxpayers Union Executive Vice President Pete Sepp criticized “punitive tax increases on politically convenient targets like the energy industry.”

“Pursuing stale old plans for discriminatory tax hikes on oil and gas would be a big step backward for many kinds of fiscal reforms, which is why NTU is speaking out so early and emphatically,” Sepp said.

Watch the Orwellian grotesqueness for yourself. Then rinse out your brain with bleach:

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Source:

Oil industry ad campaign: ‘Give us tax breaks or everybody gets hurt’

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Oil industry ad campaign: ‘Give us tax breaks or everybody gets hurt’

N.Y. Times and Thomas Friedman call for killing Keystone

N.Y. Times and Thomas Friedman call for killing Keystone

digiart2001

The New York Times editorial board and Times columnist Thomas Friedman have both come out swinging against the Keystone XL pipeline.

A strong editorial today calls on Obama to kill the project. The headline: “When to Say No.”

[Obama] should say no, and for one overriding reason: A president who has repeatedly identified climate change as one of humanity’s most pressing dangers cannot in good conscience approve a project that — even by the State Department’s most cautious calculations — can only add to the problem. …

Supporters of the pipeline have argued that this is oil from a friendly country and that Canada will sell it anyway. We hope Mr. Obama will see the flaw in this argument. Saying no to the pipeline will not stop Canada from developing the tar sands, but it will force the construction of new pipelines through Canada itself. And that will require Canadians to play a larger role in deciding whether a massive expansion of tar sands development is prudent. At the very least, saying no to the Keystone XL will slow down plans to triple tar sands production from just under two million barrels a day now to six million barrels a day by 2030. …

In itself, the Keystone pipeline will not push the world into a climate apocalypse. But it will continue to fuel our appetite for oil and add to the carbon load in the atmosphere. There is no need to accept it.

In an op-ed published on Sunday, Friedman also calls for rejecting Keystone, but with a different spin. He thinks Obama will end up approving the pipeline, so he wants activists to make such a stink about it that Obama feels compelled to take other big steps to forestall climate change in exchange.

I hope the president turns down the Keystone XL oil pipeline. (Who wants the U.S. to facilitate the dirtiest extraction of the dirtiest crude from tar sands in Canada’s far north?) But I don’t think he will. So I hope that Bill McKibben and his 350.org coalition go crazy. I’m talking chain-themselves-to-the-White-House-fence-stop-traffic-at-the-Capitol kind of crazy, because I think if we all make enough noise about this, we might be able to trade a lousy Keystone pipeline for some really good systemic responses to climate change. … So cue up the protests, and pay no attention to people counseling rational and mature behavior. We need the president to be able to say to the G.O.P. oil lobby, “I’m going to approve this, but it will kill me with my base. Sasha and Malia won’t even be talking to me, so I’ve got to get something really big in return.” …

If Keystone gets approved, environmentalists should have a long shopping list ready, starting with a price signal that discourages the use of carbon-intensive fuels in favor of low-carbon energy. Nothing would do more to clean our air, drive clean-tech innovation, weaken petro-dictators and reduce the deficit than a carbon tax. One prays this will become part of the budget debate. Also, the president can use his authority under the Clean Air Act to order reductions in CO2 emissions from existing coal power plants and refiners by, say, 25 percent. He could then do with the power companies what he did with autos: negotiate with them over the fairest way to achieve that reduction in different parts of the country. We also need to keep the president’s feet to the fire on the vow in his State of the Union address to foster policies that could “cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 years.” About 30 percent of energy in buildings is wasted.

Friedman’s support is nice, but this is, in the grand tradition of D.C. pundits, too clever by half. If the green movement were strong enough to make the president nervous, why wouldn’t he just reject the pipeline? And if it isn’t, why would he bother with a symbolic “trade”?

Obama can’t “trade” for a price on carbon. A carbon tax just isn’t going to happen under the current Congress, which won’t even work with Obama to keep the country financially solvent — so the president would be left trading with … himself?

Friedman is right that the president can take significant steps without the approval of Congress, including the big one of cracking down on dirty old coal plants. Obama should take those steps because they are the right thing to do. But does anyone really think they’d make the green movement any less angry about Keystone approval?

Obama should do the right thing. Period. This talk of “trades” is little more than Beltway navel gazing.

Anyhoo, these two Times pieces come just a week after The Washington Post irked climate activists with an editorial accusing them of “fighting the wrong battles” by protesting Keystone instead of pushing for a carbon tax. Grist’s David Roberts sums up the Post’s logic:

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on

Twitter

and

Google+

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Taken from: 

N.Y. Times and Thomas Friedman call for killing Keystone

Posted in ALPHA, Amana, G & F, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on N.Y. Times and Thomas Friedman call for killing Keystone