Tag Archives: union

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: 

In Private, It Turns Out That Trump Is Pretty Much the Same

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In Private, It Turns Out That Trump Is Pretty Much the Same

EPA’s justice work helps many groups, says ex-official. Trump’s cuts will scrap that.

When reports detailed the Trump administration’s planned budget cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency leaked earlier this month, it seemed like Mustafa Ali was a marked man.

Ali, an agency vet who helped lead the EPA’s environmental justice efforts for 24 years, oversaw an office that was going to lose close to 80 percent of its funding under Trump’s plan. That proposal sent a clear signal that the Trump White House wasn’t all that interested in helping vulnerable communities living amid environmental contamination.

Within a week of the budget leak, new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had a three-page resignation letter from Ali on his desk. It was gracious in tone, encouraging Pruitt to seize his “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring people together,” and beseeched him to protect initiatives like the Collaborative Problem-Solving Model and Environmental Justice Small Grants Program that had helped more than 1,400 communities, according to Ali.

Neither Pruitt nor anyone else in the Trump administration has acknowledged his letter, says Ali. Since then, he’s taken a new role at the non-profit Hip Hop Caucus, where he’ll continue to work on environmental and economic justice, as well as voting rights, aiming to “move vulnerable communities from surviving to thriving.”

Ali spoke to Grist about the struggle for environmental justice and the effect that the Trump administration’s proposed cuts would have on veterans and young people. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Q. The EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice was created during President George H.W. Bush’s administration, and you worked at the agency through three other administrations after that. During that time, did you feel like there was always progress?

A. Yes, I did. Of course some administrations are a bit more wedded to the issue, but there was always at least incremental progress, moving toward improving the public health and the environment for communities of color, low-income communities, and indigenous populations.

Q. But your assessment is that environmental justice wasn’t going to be a priority any longer?

A. I was worried about being able to continue this very critical work that many leaders and lots of community folks have invested in for decades. I didn’t want to take steps backward by rolling back regulations that are necessary to protect the health, the environment, the lives of our most vulnerable communities. And that was it for me. I tried to be as patient as I could to see if we were going to prioritize the lives of these communities. And I just didn’t see it.

Q. Is the environmental justice movement only focused on communities of color?

A. There is a false narrative out there. Yes, these issues are definitely about disproportionate impacts that are happening in communities of color, but we also have strong relationships with brothers and sisters who are in Appalachia, who are in the Rust Belt, and many other places. And many low-income white communities are facing very, very similar challenges. This is a movement about people and about health. The environmental justice movement is inclusive, and it touches lots of different people.

Q. What will happen without a fully-staffed Office of Environmental Justice?

A. It means less information. Communities for years have been struggling to capture the information needed to verify and support what they’re seeing on the ground — health impacts, those types of things. Information is critical. The geographic information systems (like the EJSCREEN mapping tool) allow people to plug in their address and get a much better understanding of what contaminants are in the air or water near their community and what are some of the possible health impacts. Not having information means you’re weakening those systems and you’re weakening the ability for people to be able to protect themselves. So that’s a challenge.

Q. Who can fill that information gap going forward?

A. There are some really great organizations that have already been helping out. You have the Union of Concerned Scientists who have been doing work with some of vulnerable communities. Thriving Earth Exchange is another one. And then there are a number of colleges and universities.

Q. Are there other unforeseen consequences to the sharp budget cut the Trump administration is proposing for the EPA?

A. The EPA has been hiring a lot of veterans over recent years, because veterans get a preference for federal government jobs. So when you’re talking about cutting 3,000 jobs, or maybe 5,000 jobs, a big part of that is going to be veterans. And then some of the newer hires are young people who have done everything right. They went to school, did well, got a job. And now you’re going to cut those positions.

I always think about that quote from Dr. King, “We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.” Sometimes we don’t realize that we’re all connected. The communities I focus on, the most vulnerable communities, a number of veterans live in those communities after they come back home. And young people live in those communities. So the question to be answered is: Do you really care about these folks’ lives?

Read this article:

EPA’s justice work helps many groups, says ex-official. Trump’s cuts will scrap that.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on EPA’s justice work helps many groups, says ex-official. Trump’s cuts will scrap that.

A Federal Appeals Court Just Ruled Against Trump’s “Muslim Ban”

Mother Jones

A panel of three federal appeals court judges on Thursday dealt another blow to President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily banning people from seven predominantly Muslim countries and all refugees from entering the United States. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled against the Trump administration and upheld a Seattle court ruling that blocked implementation of the ban. That means that travelers from the seven countries, as well as refugees, can continue to enter the United States as the case proceeds through court.

In a unanimous decision, the judges rejected the Trump administration’s argument that courts could not challenge the president’s executive order: “The Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections.” The judges argued there was no precedent to support this argument, saying that it “runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.” It also noted “the serious nature of the allegations the States have raised with respect to their religious discrimination claims.”

President Trump immediately responded to the decision, tweeting:

Last Friday, a federal judge in Seattle temporarily blocked the ban in response to lawsuits by the state governments of Washington and Minnesota alleging the ban was discriminatory and harmful to its residents. The Trump administration filed an emergency motion opposing the decision, and judges heard oral arguments on Tuesday over whether to uphold the judge’s ruling. During the hearing, judges expressed skepticism of the Justice Department’s claim the executive order was justified and that courts should not be challenging the president’s assessment of national security risks.

Noah Purcell, the solicitor general for Washington state, argued the order caused chaos, urging the court to serve as a check on executive power. “It has always been the judicial branch’s role to say what the law is and to serve as a check on abuses by the executive branch,” said Purcell. “That judicial rule has never been more important in recent memory than it is today.”

Yet judges also grilled the solicitor general, pressing him to identify precisely how the travel ban discriminated against Muslims if the order didn’t affect the majority of the Muslim population, as well as to specify the number of people harmed. Purcell argued the state did not need to prove the ban harmed every Muslim, but that there was a clear intention to do so, citing Trump’s campaign promise to ban Muslim visitors. He also alluded to Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani’s comments about how Trump had asked for advice on how to legally implement a Muslim ban.

Trump lashed out against the courts on Wednesday, calling the hearing “disgraceful.” “I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased,” Trump told a gathering of law enforcement officials in Washington, DC. “But courts seem to be so political, and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right.”

He added, “I think it’s sad. I think it’s a sad day. I think our security is at risk today.”

The executive order, signed on January 27, led to widespread protests throughout the country and confusion among Customs and Border Protection officers over how to implement the directive. Hundreds of people were detained at airports or barred from entering the United States, and at least tens of thousands of visas were revoked. At least four states have sued the Trump administration over the order, in addition to dozens of lawsuits brought by civil rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Council for American-Islamic Relations.

The decision will likely be appealed and head to the Supreme Court.

See the original article here:

A Federal Appeals Court Just Ruled Against Trump’s “Muslim Ban”

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Federal Appeals Court Just Ruled Against Trump’s “Muslim Ban”

Diet and Climate Change: Cooking Up a Storm

One of the most prestigious medical journals in the world editorialized that climate change represents the biggest global health threat of the 21st century. Currently, chronic diseases are by far the leading cause of death. Might there be a way to combat both at the same time? For example, riding our bikes instead of driving is a win-win-win for the people, planet, and pocketbook. Are there similar win-win situations when it comes to diet?

As I discuss in my video below, the foods that create the most greenhouse gases appear to be the same foods that are contributing to many of our chronic diseases. Researchers found that meat (including fish), eggs, and dairy had the greatest negative environmental impact, whereas grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables had the least impact. And not only did the foods with the heaviest environmental impact tend to have lower nutritional quality, but they also had a higher price per pound. So, avoiding them gives us that triple win scenario.

The European Commission, the governing body of the European Union, commissioned a study on what individuals can do to help the climate. For example, if Europeans started driving electric cars, it could prevent as much as 174 million tons of carbon from getting released. We could also turn down the thermostat a bit and put on a sweater. But the most powerful action people could take is shift to a meat-free diet.

What we eat may have more of an impact on global warming than what we drive.

Just cutting out animal protein intake one day of the week could have a powerful effect. Meatless Mondays alone could beat out a whole week of working from home and not commuting.

A strictly plant-based diet may be better still: Its responsible for only about half the greenhouse gas emissions. Studies have suggested that moderate diet changes are not enough to reduce impacts from food consumption drastically. Without significant reduction in meat and dairy, changes to healthier diets may only result in rather minor reductions of environmental impacts. This is because studies have shown that the average fossil energy input for animal protein production systems is 25 calories of fossil energy input for every 1 calorie producedmore than 11 times greater than that for grain protein production, for example, which is around 2 to 1.

Researchers in Italy compared seven different diets to see which one was environmentally friendliest. They compared a conventional omnivorous diet adhering to dietary guidelines; an organic omnivorous diet; a conventional vegetarian diet; an organic vegetarian diet; a conventional vegan diet; an organic vegan diet; and a diet the average person actually eats. For each dietary pattern, the researchers looked at carcinogens, air pollution, climate change, effects on the ozone layer, the ecosystem, acid rain, and land, mineral, and fossil fuel use. You can see in the video how many resources it took to feed people on their current diets, all the negative effects the diet is having on the ecosystem, and the adverse effects on human health.

If people were eating a healthier diet by conforming to the dietary recommendations, the environmental impact would be significantly less. An organic omnivorous diet would be better still, similar to a vegetarian diet of conventional foods. Those are topped by an organic vegetarian diet, followed by a conventional vegan diet. The best, however, was an organic vegan diet.

The Commission report described that the barriers to animal product reduction are largely lack of knowledge, ingrained habits, and culinary cultures. Proposed policy measures include meat or animal protein taxes, educational campaigns, and putting the greenhouse gas emissions information right on food labels.

Climate change mitigation is expensive. A global transition to even just a low-meat diet, as recommended for health reasons, could reduce these mitigation costs. A study determined that a healthier, low-meat diet would cut the cost of mitigating climate change from about 1% of GDP by more than half, a no-meat diet could cut two-thirds of the cost, and a diet free of animal products could cut 80% of the cost.

Many people arent aware of the cow in the room. It seems that very few people are aware that the livestock sector is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. But thats changing.

The UKs National Health Service is taking a leading role in reducing carbon emissions. Patients, visitors, and staff can look forward to healthy, low-carbon menus with much less meat, dairy, and eggs. Evidence shows that as far as the climate is concerned, meat is heat.

The Swedish government recently amended their dietary recommendations to encourage citizens to eat less meat. If we seek only to achieve the conservative objective of avoiding further long-term increases in [greenhouse gas] emissions from livestock, we are still led to rather radical recommendations such as cutting current consumption levels in half in affluent countriesan unlikely outcome if there were no direct rewards to citizens for doing so. Fortunately, there are such rewards: important health benefits… By helping the planet, we can help ourselves.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you havent yet, you can subscribe to my free videoshereand watch my live, year-in-review presentations2015:Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet, and my latest, 2016:How Not to Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers.

Related
Never Too Late to Start Eating Healthier
Combating Common Diseases With Plants
One in a Thousand: Ending the Heart Disease Epidemic

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

See original article here – 

Diet and Climate Change: Cooking Up a Storm

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Thermos, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Diet and Climate Change: Cooking Up a Storm

Darrell Issa is Suing His Defeated Opponent for Libel

Mother Jones

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

Days after narrowly winning reelection to his House seat, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is celebrating his victory—by suing his opponent for libel and defamation. The unusual move follows the first time the Southern California Republican faced a serious campaign challenge: He beat Democrat Doug Applegate by just 1,982 votes. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported today that on the day before the election, Issa, known for his role in the Benghazi hearings and for being the richest member of Congress, filed a libel lawsuit against Applegate and his campaign, alleging that two campaign ads damaged his reputation. He is seeking $10 million in damages.

The specter of a wealthy politician pursuing his defeated rival in court recalls Donald Trump’s campaign promise to prosecute and imprison Hillary Clinton if he was elected. But Issa, a Trump supporter, may have a hard time prevailing. First of all, he is the very definition of a public figure, which means he faces a higher burden of proof in a libel case than a private citizen. And, as Peter Scheer, the executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, observes, the Supreme Court has recognized many times that “First Amendment protections for speech are at their very, very, very highest during a political campaign.” Scheer doubts Issa can clear this bar. “This lawsuit doesn’t stand a chance. It’s a waste of the court’s time and it’s certainly a waste of his opponent’s time and money.”

So why bother? Issa may be seeking to set the record straight after an uncomfortably close race. Or, Scheer says, he may be seeking to punish Applegate “by causing him to have to retain counsel, and to spend a lot of money unnecessarily defending a frivolous lawsuit.”

The Union-Tribune noted that Issa’s lawsuit does not detail how exactly he may have suffered $10 million worth of damages as a result of Applegate’s ads. Issa says he’ll donate any damages he wins to charity.

One of the Applegate ads that Issa is suing over cited a 2011 New York Times article titled “A Businessman in Congress Helps His District and Himself.” But the ad also includes what Issa’s lawsuit calls a “fake, doctored headline” that said he had “gamed the system to line his own pockets.” That language wasn’t in the Times article. The article did report that Issa had “secured millions of dollars in Congressional earmarks for road work and public works projects that promise improved traffic and other benefits to the many commercial properties he owns.” (Issa later sold one of those properties at a loss, and the earmarked funds never made it to the road project.)

The second ad that Issa is suing over allegedly misrepresented his stance on funding 9/11 emergency workers. The ad stated that “tea party Republicans voted to deny healthcare to 9/11 first responders.” Issa did in fact vote against the legislation referenced in the ad, but, the lawsuit claims, it was not just tea partiers who voted it down.

Applegate hasn’t yet responded publicly to the lawsuit. On Tuesday, Applegate announced his intention to run again for Congress in 2018.

While Issa’s motivations for filing the suit remain unclear, perhaps he is upset that his own campaign ads didn’t pack the same punch as his opponent’s. As one Republican political operative who asked to remain anonymous told me during the campaign, “I don’t know if you’ve looked at Darrell Issa’s TV ads, but they are the worst fucking TV ads I’ve ever seen in my life.”

More here:  

Darrell Issa is Suing His Defeated Opponent for Libel

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Darrell Issa is Suing His Defeated Opponent for Libel

The Apotheosis of Donald Trump Is Proceeding Apace

Mother Jones

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

Corey Lewandowski was once Donald Trump’s campaign manager, then went to work for CNN as a Trump booster, and is now back in the Trump camp. So how did Trump make his big comeback?

With eleven days to go, something amazing happened,” Mr Lewandowski said in a speech at the Oxford Union debating society on Wednesday evening. “The FBI’s director James Comey came out on a Friday and he said they may be reopening the investigation into Crooked Hillary’s emails.”

Yep, that was pretty amazing. I’m glad we all agree that this was a pivotal moment. So what happened next?

“In those last last eleven days Mr Trump was exceptionally disciplined. He used a teleprompter, and he did less media. The team used social media like no campaign in history….And then, Donald Trump won the election campaign by the largest majority since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Huh. The largest majority since 1984? Really? Let’s take a look:

There have been eight presidential elections since 1984. In popular vote margin, Trump is 8th out of 8. In the Electoral College vote, he’s 6th out of 8. This obviously wasn’t just a careless mistake on Lewandowski’s part.

The Trump team seems to be hellbent on propagating the myth that Trump won a world historical victory last week. Is this just to soothe Trump’s bottomless ego? Or is this part of a deliberate campaign to get his followers amped up into believing that Trump is a world historical figure? Is “Trump won big” the new “Iraq was behind 9/11”? You might recall that that one didn’t turn out so well.

Read article here: 

The Apotheosis of Donald Trump Is Proceeding Apace

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Apotheosis of Donald Trump Is Proceeding Apace

The World Reacts to America’s Climate Denier-in-Chief

Mother Jones

This story was originally published by the Huffington Post and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

MARRAKECH, Moroccoâ&#128;&#149;Attendees at the climate conference here are grappling with a reality few expected: America’s next president will almost certainly be openly hostile to efforts to address the biggest environmental threat of our day.

Representatives of more than 200 countries are currently gathered in Morocco for the 22nd Conference of the Parties, where they are hashing out the details of the landmark Paris Agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the worst effects linked to global warming.

Officials from environmental and scientific groups gathered at the United Nations climate change conference tried not to dwell on the prospect of a doomsday scenario, but were clear that a climate change-denying Donald Trump would not be in the best interest of America, or the world. But they tried to remain positive.

“It’s clear that Donald Trump is about to be one of the most powerful people in the world, but even he does not have the power to amend and change the laws of physics, to stop the impacts of climate change,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union for Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy group based in the US, at a press conference held shortly after the election was called early Wednesday. “He has to acknowledge the reality of climate change, he has a responsibility as president-elect now.”

The US presidential election results came as a surprise to many who on Tuesday thought Hillary Clinton would be elected and plans to continue the Obama administration’s work on climate change would make press conferences a relative non-event. But Trump’s name is on everyone’s lips as many wonder where America will stand in future negotiations.

Some groups have not been as diplomatic.

“The election of Trump is a disaster for our continent,” Geoffrey Kamese, a senior program officer for the group Friends of the Earth Africa, said in a statement. “The United States, if it follows through on its new president’s rash words about withdrawing from the international climate regime, will become a pariah state in global efforts for climate action.”

The US delegation had previously planned to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the amount released in 2005, by between 26 and 28 percent by 2025. The prospect of a presidency helmed by Trump, who has said that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, throws that into question. He has threatened to ignore those pledges and leave the Paris deal, end all funding on the issue, appoint climate deniers to lead major government agencies and roll back President Barack Obama’s sweeping environmental legacy. His election won’t help the fight against climate change.

The previous climate pact, the Kyoto Protocol, failed to meaningfully address climate change because the United States backed out, a move that set back climate change progress two decades.

But climate advocates tried to spin the fallout from Trump’s election positively, arguing that other nations aren’t likely to wait for the USâ&#128;&#149;the world’s second largest polluterâ&#128;&#149;to take action.

“Other major countries in this process will continue to go ahead with the climate commitments that they have made under Paris, not because they’re trying to please the United States, but because it’s in their own self interest to protect their people from the impacts of climate change,” Meyer said. However, he continued to note inaction on behalf of America could certainly impact other international negotiations.

Katherine Egland, chairman of environmental and climate justice for the NAACP, stressed that for the Paris Agreement to succeed, “no one country can be perceived as not doing its fair share.”

“We remain a nation of honorâ&#128;&#149;our word is our bond,” she said. “We have signed a binding agreement along with scores of other countries and we will demand that agreement be honored.”

Mariana Panuncio-Feldman, senior director of international climate cooperation for the World Wildlife Fund, said despite the outcome, “the momentum for climate action has never been greater.”

“At this point, given the progress that we have seen, we are confident that the nations of the world will keep focusing on the work that needs to go ahead,” she said at a press conference. “With the momentum that we have behind us we need to remain confident that the arc of climate justice will bend towards solutions.”

From:  

The World Reacts to America’s Climate Denier-in-Chief

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, Radius, Ringer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The World Reacts to America’s Climate Denier-in-Chief

This Election Could Add More to Your Paycheck—If You Live in These States

Mother Jones

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

On Election Day, voters in four states will consider increasing the minimum wage in their states via ballot measures.

Arizona, Colorado, and Maine propose moving toward a $12 minimum wage by 2020, while the state of Washington would raise its minimum wage to $13.50 an hour, also by 2020. Arizona and Washington’s measures would also create mandatory paid sick leave for workers. If these initiatives pass, as many as 2.1 million people could soon earn higher hourly wages.

These ballot measures mark a critical point in the fight for better wages that has gained steam in recent years. In the 2013 State of the Union address, Obama urged Congress to raise the federal minimum to $9 an hour. Later that year, he called for yet another increase, this time to $10.10 an hour. In 2015, the president backed a $12 minimum wage by 2020—echoing the proposals on several ballots this election.

Grassroots support ramped up in 2012 with the Fight for 15 movement in which striking fast-food workers in New York City pushed for a $15 minimum wage—a standard that has since passed in Washington, DC, California, New York, and more than a dozen cities. Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose calls for a $15 minimum wage in the presidential primary rallied huge crowds, arguably influenced Hillary Clinton’s position on the issue, as she originally supported a $12 minimum wage but now is urging a boost to $15.

“We were talking about a $9 wage five years ago and now we’re talking about $15,” says David Cooper, a senior economic analyst at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). “That’s a pretty dramatic change.”

The wage fight has created rifts in the Republican Party. In 2014, voters in four traditionally red states—Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota—passed ballot measures implementing a higher minimum wage. According to The Fairness Project, which helps minimum wage campaigns across the country, this year’s four measures are all also likely to pass—even in solidly purple Arizona.

“That a ballot measure is moving there and seems to have a lot of support speaks to the fact that the public is overwhelmingly supportive of raising the minimum wage, among both parties,” says the EPI’s Cooper. “It’s really just Republican members of Congress that are preventing it from happening at the federal level.”

Republican politicians have long obstructed minimum-wage increases: Many have voted against raising the federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 an hour), and some have even said they oppose the existence of any minimum wage. The presidential race is no exception—Donald Trump has been a foe of minimum-wage increases, though his position has softened throughout the campaign. Early on, Trump responded to a question about minimum-wage hikes with “our wages are too high.” Since then, he’s said he’s open to raising the federal minimum wage, though he believes the decision should be up to states.

In Arizona, where minimum wage is currently $8.05 per hour, the proposal on the ballot has been a main wedge between Sen. John McCain and his Democratic challenger Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick. McCain told the Tucson Weekly that the increase would be bad for families, citing his conversations with local franchisees of fast-food chains such as Taco Bell and McDonald’s who told him they would have to let workers go to support the wage hike. “Somebody is going to have to convince me that it’s good for employment in America, and I don’t think it is,” McCain said. Rep. Kirkpatrick has said she supports the minimum-wage ballot proposal.

In Maine, the current hourly minimum wage is $7.50, and Republican Gov. Paul LePage expressed strong opposition to the ballot’s minimum-wage proposal. He said last month that two main proponents of the ballot measure should be jailed because the wage increase would drive up the cost of goods so drastically as to constitute “attempted murder” of senior citizens on fixed incomes. “To me, when you go out and kill somebody, you go to jail. Well, this is attempted murder in my mind because it is pushing people to the brink of survival,” LePage said on Portland’s WGAN radio.

Colorado’s ballot proposal is the result of obstruction by Republican politicians in the state. In 2015, Democrats in Colorado tried twice to pass minimum-wage bills in the state Legislature, but after Republican members derailed both bills, a grassroots group began making moves to implement the proposal via ballot instead.

“The way to really confront income inequality when things aren’t happening at the top is through ballot initiative,” says Jonathan Schleifer, executive director of The Fairness Project. He notes that minimum-wage increases see broad support across members of all parties, and Tuesday’s ballot initiatives will give voters an opportunity to show politicians, particularly Republican ones, what they really need.

“Political leaders at the state level are deeply out of touch with what their constituents want,” he says “One of the reasons we have to go to the ballot is they allow voters to circumvent politicians who are out of touch with their priorities.”

View post:

This Election Could Add More to Your Paycheck—If You Live in These States

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Election Could Add More to Your Paycheck—If You Live in These States

The Paris climate accord is a big fucking deal, now more than ever

On Friday, the landmark Paris climate agreement officially goes into force. The news will surely be buried under a mudslide of U.S. election coverage, but it shouldn’t be. Paris was and still is a BFD.

Last December, world leaders reached what’s been called the first truly universal agreement on climate change, because the signers account for virtually all of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions. More importantly, it marked the first time top polluters like China, India, and the U.S. found a way past old divides and down a shared path toward a low-carbon future.

Now that agreement is taking effect much earlier than expected. Often countries take not just months but years to ratify major international deals. It took eight years to activate the Kyoto Protocol. But the Paris Agreement was ratified by enough countries for it to become binding in less than 11 months.

China, India, the European Union, and dozens of other nations got the job done fast in part because they wanted Paris on the books before the U.S. presidential election — not because it will change Donald Trump’s mind about opposing the deal, but because it sends a clear message: The world is behind climate action. You better be, too.

The Chinese government has even taken the unusual step of saying that the next U.S. president needs to take Paris and climate policy seriously. “I believe a wise political leader should take policy stances that conform with global trends,” said China’s climate chief Xie Zhenhua. “If they resist this trend, I don’t think they’ll win the support of their people, and their country’s economic and social progress will also be affected.”

We’ll always ignore Paris.

Although the rest of the signatories to the Paris deal have been paying close attention to the United States, our politicians and media outlets have not been paying attention to Paris in return.

Just three days after the Paris Agreement was signed last December, CNN hosted a primary debate between Republican presidential contenders in which Wolf Blitzer neglected to ask anything about the climate deal (though Trump and John Kasich disparaged it without prodding).

That was just a taste of what would follow. In the three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate this fall, not a single question about climate change was asked (though Ken Bone did ask about energy and the environment).

Throughout both the primary campaigns and the general election, climate change has gotten little attention, and the Paris Agreement almost none. Did it matter whether candidates would work with our allies to make the 187-country deal a success or pull the legs from under it? Apparently, it didn’t.

But Americans need to know: Paris is huge.

It is a BFD that world leaders have agreed on ambitious goals: holding global warming to below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, and ideally 1.5 C, which scientists say is needed to ward off the harshest impacts; peaking emissions as soon as possible and reaching carbon neutrality by 2050; spending hundreds of millions to help poor nations adapt and transition to climate change.

It is a BFD that countries once lukewarm on climate action have rallied around this agreement. Even a developing nation like India, which still needs to bring electricity to millions of citizens and help them out of poverty, is committing to a cleaner energy future.

It is a BFD that the U.S. and China found common ground in the lead-up to Paris and made the deal possible, forming a new bond around their shared efforts to fight the biggest threat facing humanity.

It is a BFD that the world’s nations have committed to remaking the entire global energy system. Rich nations are basically asking (and helping) developing countries to do something no developed country managed: Leapfrog coal, oil, and gas in favor of renewable energy. It’s no coincidence the oil industry is suddenly mindful of renewables again.

Yes, Paris is imperfect.

Of course, Paris has a lot of flaws and shortcomings, and as the world works to implement it, many what-ifs and hazards lie ahead. The most important components — emissions cuts and finance — aren’t legally binding, so the carefully negotiated deal could be eroded by political shifts. Brexit could make it more difficult for the E.U. to meet its promises. The Philippines is waffling on whether it will formally join the agreement, even though it signed on last December. And, yes, the U.S. election could send the whole process reeling.

Since the agreement is largely non-binding, it’s critical that the review process be as transparent as possible, because international peer pressure is essential to ensuring countries don’t miss the mark. For exactly that reason, countries don’t have a particular incentive to be transparent — which is one of Paris’ main challenges going forward.

Even if everything goes as planned and nations follow through on their first-round commitments, that alone won’t be enough to fend off the worst impacts of climate change. Countries will need to keep setting and meeting tougher goals, which will get increasingly difficult and expensive.

Nevertheless, the Paris Agreement is an essential, powerful start to what will be a long, fraught process.

The endless drama of climate change (not to mention international negotiations) is, let’s be honest, less sensational than the drama of the election. Slow, incremental change is a tough thing to fathom, much less to get excited about. The latest poll, the latest insult, and the latest email leak are easier to grasp and more fun to follow.

Even if it’s not as entertaining as a political campaign, what really counts is moving the clean-energy transition along as fast and seamlessly as possible. The Paris deal that comes into force today is helping the world do exactly that. That’s big, and that matters.

Follow this link: 

The Paris climate accord is a big fucking deal, now more than ever

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, eco-friendly, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LeapFrog, LG, ONA, Pines, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Paris climate accord is a big fucking deal, now more than ever

Miami’s sea-level troubles aren’t just hitting the rich.

Miami Beach gets all the attention for its increased chronic flooding due to rising sea levels. But Miami’s poorer, inland neighborhoods on the other side of Biscayne Bay are also experiencing flooding from high tides.

CityLab reports on Shorecrest, an economically diverse neighborhood in northeast Miami that flooded during last week’s King Tide.

That’s just a sign of more frequent things to come. The Union of Concerned Scientists projects that by 2045, these sunny-day flooding events will increase from six to 380 times per year.

Miami has many neighborhoods across the bay from Miami Beach that are just as flood-prone but, being less wealthy, have fewer resources to deal with the impacts. Since all of Miami-Dade County lies barely above sea level, and sits atop porous limestone, even poorer neighborhoods farther inland are vulnerable.

Shorecrest residents complained to CityLab that they get less adaptation help from local government than richer neighborhoods. (Miami Beach is a separate, richer city from the city of Miami.) On Miami’s west side, predominantly low-income, Latino neighborhoods face flooding that could pollute their freshwater supply.

Florida and Miami need to get serious not just about climate adaptation, but climate justice.

More here:

Miami’s sea-level troubles aren’t just hitting the rich.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Ringer, Springer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Miami’s sea-level troubles aren’t just hitting the rich.