Tag Archives: union

Things Just Got Even Worse For Coal

by DeonTerryoldqqa Posted on January 15, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Just a few days after President Barack Obama promised new actions on climate change during his final State of the Union address, his administration has unveiled a sweeping overhaul of how coal can be extracted from federal land.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced on Friday that she was placing a moratorium on new coal-mining leases on public land and that her department would begin a multiyear review of how those lease contracts are awarded. The policy change is likely to make the leases more expensive for mining companies, to generate increased royalties for the government, and to offset the damage coal production and consumption do to the environment.

“We haven’t done a top-to-bottom review of the coal program in 30 years,” Jewell told reporters. She added that her department will search for ways “to manage coal in a way that is consistent with the climate change agenda.”

This is a big win for environmental groups. But don’t expect it to result in an overnight decline in coal use, the nation’s No. 1 source of greenhouse gas emissions. Jewell said the lease moratorium will not “have any impact at all on coal production” and that the review will largely be carried out by the next presidential administration. All of the Republican presidential contenders have vowed to scale back Obama’s climate legacy; the Democratic candidates have vowed to push it forward.

About 40 percent of all US coal extraction takes place on federal land, much of that in Wyoming, the nation’s top coal producer. For years, environmentalists have complained that the coal industry enjoys royalty rates much lower than offshore oil or other publicly owned fossil fuels. Those low rates make it cheaper for coal companies to operate and may also be a raw deal for the public that has to deal with the impacts, from local environmental degradation to global climate change. While offshore oil companies typically pay a royalty rate of about 18 percent, Jewell said, the rate for coal is only 8-10 percent. A Government Accountability Office report in 2014 found that undervalued coal leases cost the US Treasury nearly $1 billion per year in lost revenue.

When the leasing policy was originally created decades ago, Jewell said, “our practice was really about getting as much coal as possible” to feed the nation’s power plants. Now, many scientists agree that the exact opposite approach is needed to have any chance of limiting global warming. A 2015 study found that 92 percent of US coal reserves need to stay buried to have any hope of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the cap enshrined in the international climate agreement brokered in Paris last month.

Jewell said there are about 50 pending coal leases that could be halted by the moratorium; leases that have already been approved will be allowed to go forward, and there will be no change to any current mining operation. There’s enough coal in reserve under existing leases to continue production at its current rate for another 20 years, she said. Many of the leases that could be put on ice were unlikely to have gone into production anyway, said Matt Lee-Ashley, director of the public lands program at the Center for American Progress. That’s because, with prices so low, big coal companies in the West routinely snatch up leases just to keep in their back pocket without necessarily developing them.

In effect, Lee-Ashley said, “it’s a pause on adding additional stockpiles on coal.”

The coal companies, he added, “are well resourced to continue mining for the foreseeable future.”

Still, the announcement is yet another headache for an industry that has already had a very bad start to 2016. Coal has been battered over the last few years by competition from cheap natural gas and by new climate regulations from the Obama administration. US coal production is at a 30-year low, one of the country’s biggest companies recently declared bankruptcy, and once-promising export markets in China now seem to be drying up.

The leasing reform quickly faced a backlash from Republican lawmakers who represent coal states.

“Once again the administration is circumventing Congress, the voice of the American people, to launch another unilateral attack on coal,” Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky said in a statement. “We will continue to fight to ensure our policies promote access to affordable, reliable energy.”

Kentucky is among the two dozen coal-reliant states that are suing the Obama administration over its plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

Lee-Ashley countered that the reforms are “a giant step forward” on Obama’s climate agenda. “This is the first time any administration has taken such a serious look at the management problems, and also the environmental costs, of fossil fuel production on public lands,” he said. He cautioned that if a Republican follows Obama in the White House, he or she could impede the climate-oriented aspects of the reform. But he said the financial overhaul should enjoy bipartisan support, since it boils down to giving the American people a fair price for their natural resources.

“When you look at the money being lost to taxpayers through these loopholes, anybody who believes in good business should be able to carry it forward,” he said.

Link to article: 

Things Just Got Even Worse For Coal

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, global climate change, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Things Just Got Even Worse For Coal

Obama’s Final State of the Union: A Return to Hope and Change

by Glenn10Daxplpsh Posted on January 13, 2016

Mother Jones

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

For his seven years as president, Barack Obama has mounted an ideological war against the Republicans. He hasn’t cast it as such, and, most times, he has not matched his rhetoric with the fury of the fight. Still, this battle has raged on, as Obama has contended that communal action spearheaded by government activism is critical for repairing the economy ruined by the Bush-Cheney crash and rejiggering it so middle-class and low-income Americans can survive, and perhaps even thrive, when confronted by the mighty challenges of the 21st century. Obstructionist Republicans, naturally, have argued that government is the problem and that the old Reaganish medley of tax cuts, social welfare program shrinkage, government downsizing, union-bashing, and regulation rollbacks is the path to prosperity. (At the same time, Obama has waged a parallel fight on national security, contending that multilateral action coupled with patient and aggressive diplomacy is a better bet than neocon hawkishness dependent on bellicose threats and the go-it-alone use of force.) In presidential speeches—State of the Union addresses, budget speeches, or on-the-road appearances—and during the 2012 campaign, Obama has repeatedly made his case: progressive-minded government is needed and delivers in this era of change and economic insecurity. And in his final State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, Obama did extend this crusade, though, for good or bad, it was not his central theme.

Instead, an upbeat Obama offered a sweeping vision of the nation’s future—and tried to present a picture of an American society tapping its dynamic, can-do spirit to accomplish great things in the years ahead, if it can get its political act together.

Obama did recognize the deep divide in the political universe. Noting that it’s been difficult to find bipartisan agreement in many areas these past seven years, he cited the issue of “what role the government should play in making sure the system’s not rigged in favor of the wealthiest and biggest corporations.” And he continued: “here, the American people have a choice to make.” He explained why the GOP way is bunk:

After years of record corporate profits, working families won’t get more opportunity or bigger paychecks by letting big banks or big oil or hedge funds make their own rules at the expense of everyone else; or by allowing attacks on collective bargaining to go unanswered. Food Stamp recipients didn’t cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did. Immigrants aren’t the reason wages haven’t gone up enough; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns. It’s sure not the average family watching tonight that avoids paying taxes through offshore accounts. In this new economy, workers and start-ups and small businesses need more of a voice, not less. The rules should work for them.

On paper, Obama certainly has a strong argument. The economy has created more jobs in the past two years than at any time since the late 1990s. The post-bail-out auto industry is booming. Following the implementation of Obamacare, the number of uninsured Americans has dropped greatly. (Premiums and health care costs are still rising, but at lower rates than before.) Americans with money to invest or speculate have seen an overall rise in the stock market. The number of people working part-time who desire longer hours has dropped. There’s even been a slight tick-up in wages—which for decades had flat-lined, a development that led to increased income inequality. Obama pointed all this out, and slammed “anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline” for “peddling fiction,” while acknowledging that several long-term trends have “squeezed workers.”

Still, economic insecurity bedevils the country, as a whopping majority of Americans tell pollsters the nation is on the wrong track. After all, the financial implosion of eight years ago demonstrated how precarious the United States’ economic foundation can be, especially when much of the economy is held hostage by the wheeler-dealers of Wall Street. (The Dodd-Frank financial reforms Obama signed into law, despite their merits, hardly insure there will be no repeat.) And all the churn of the globalized economy—and the bouts of chaos overseas—worry Americans, who rightfully wonder whether they should ever feel at ease about their jobs (let alone jobs for their kids) and their retirement. Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again schtick exploits the new normal of uncertainty that many Americans, even those gainfully employed, must acclimate themselves to.

Obama cannot deliver the security Americans desire (and the same is true regarding the ISIS-fueled disorder in the Middle East). So he is open to a convenient line of attack from the GOPers: Americans remain at risk from economic dislocation at home (and depressed wages) and from foreign threats abroad. The world is an iffy place. Beheadings overseas, shootings at home, factory shut-downs—none of this is going to end soon. And the federal government’s ability to eradicate these threats is limited. (How do you stop a lone wolf—or a lone couple—from going to a gun store and then launching an attack in a pubic place to advance jihadist extremism?) For Obama’s political foes at home, it is easy to assert that any particular event—an ISIS gain of territory in Iraq, a terrorist attack in the United States, a glitch with Obamacare—discredits Obama’s policies and his overall approach. So Obama has the heavy burden, especially as he tries to pass the White House to a Democratic successor, of defending progressive government at a moment when quick and permanent solutions to vexing problems here and abroad are hard to come by.

But rather than devote much of the speech to defending the past—that is, the Obama years—he declared, “I want to focus on our future.”

In a buoyant speech, Obama observed the obvious: this is a “time of extraordinary change,” and he counseled Americans not to wig out over the changes they encounter. He hailed American “optimism and work ethic, our spirit of discovery and innovation, our diversity and commitment to the rule of law.” He didn’t unveil a grocery list of new policies. He did reiterate those proposals he has already called for: a minimum wage hike, immigration reform, college affordability programs, gun safety measures, criminal justice reform, equal pay, and paid family leave. But he outlined four big questions the nation has to answer: how to give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and economic security, how to use technology to solve pressing problems (such as climate change), how to make the world safer (without the United States becoming the global policeman), and how to make the US political system more responsive to the public interest. He did not provide specifics across these fronts, though he did announce a moon-shot project for cancer research (to be helmed by Vice President Joe Biden).

This was a speech about American confidence—a confidence that Obama said should be predicated on the progress of recent years. It was a direct retort to Trump talk. Don’t fall for fear, he said: “Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny Sputnik was up there. We didn’t argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space program almost overnight, and twelve years later, we were walking on the moon.” But how can our political system deliver on this? “Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise,” Obama said, “or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us.” Yet he once again declined to call out GOP obstructionism, observing, “It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency—that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. There’s no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.”

Obama also counseled Americans not to freak out about the troubling developments overseas, including terrorism and the spread of extremism. He noted, “As we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands. Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks and twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages pose an enormous danger to civilians and must be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence.” He dared Congress to vote on authorizing US military action against ISIS.

In one of the most passionate moments of the speech, Obama criticized the anti-Muslim attacks of Trump and others:

That’s why we need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion. This isn’t a matter of political correctness. It’s a matter of understanding what makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith. His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot I stand tonight that “to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.” When politicians insult Muslims, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid bullied, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. It makes it harder to achieve our goals. And it betrays who we are as a country.

And the president maintained that the United States is not as weak or at risk as GOP presidential fearmongers claim:

I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined. Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin. Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead—they call us.

The message: buck up, America. We’re doing better than many other nations, and we have the opportunity to make great strides.

This was, in a way, a return to hope and change. Perhaps a more realistic (or world-weary) version of his 2008 pitch. He was aiming to spark the US spirit, not to draw clear lines. But at this stage in the game, it’s unclear what a good speech—and this was a good speech—can or will accomplish.

In 2008, Obama’s election seemed a turning point. The Republicans were routed. A new progressive era was at hand. But conservatives struck back. Hatred of Obama fueled the tea party revival and reshaped the GOP. And as Obama failed to keep the millions who voted for his brand of hope and change fully engaged in the political process, Republicans realized that were leading an army of resentment comprised of foot soldiers who demanded Obama’s head on the pike. (For most of them, this was a metaphorical urge.) The president underestimated the opposition at first, but he combated Republican revanchism by trying to set up a political narrative focused on choice: the nation’s voters had to choose between his vision of government and that of the ever more conservative Republican party. Obama succeeded with this strategy in 2012. Yet the Obama years have not settled this fundamental clash for good.

With his final State of the Union, Obama, full of zeal and spirit, skillfully emphasized grand non-political themes: optimism, unity, progress, and innovation. But whoever the Democratic nominee will be in 2016, he or she will have to continue the ideological ground war. In the past eight years, Obama won many battles, and the United States is in a better spot now than the day he moved into the White House. But this war of ideas is not done. It may never be. And if Obama wants to preserve his accomplishments and cement his legacy, he will have to stay engaged in that fight

Jump to original:

Obama’s Final State of the Union: A Return to Hope and Change

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama’s Final State of the Union: A Return to Hope and Change

Fuels America in 2015

by Posted on December 18, 2015

back

Fuels America in 2015

Posted 18 December 2015 in

National

It’s been a busy year for Fuels America. We worked tirelessly to advocate for America’s most successful carbon reduction program: the Renewable Fuel Standard. Here’s a look at some of our highlights from 2015.

The Rally for Rural America

More than 450 farmers, green energy innovators, students, and workers gathered in Kansas to tell the EPA that the Renewable Fuel Standard is working for rural America. The rally occurred across from the EPA’s hearing to get support on a proposed change to the RFS. Iowa Governor Terry Branstad and Missouri Governor Jay Nixon delivered passionate messages about the importance of ethanol to their state economies.

More Than 200,000 Signatures

More than 200,000 people from all 50 states signed the Fuels America petition, asking President Obama and the EPA to stand up to the oil industry and support renewable fuel. When leaders from the National Farmers Union and I Am Biotech hand-delivered the comments to the EPA, the boxes of printed signatures stood over 5 feet high.

In the video below, farmers and renewable fuel supporters also spoke to the importance of the RFS in their everyday lives and communities.

A Decade of Progress

In August, Fuels America celebrated the tenth anniversary of the RFS. In the decade since its passage, oil imports are at the lowest level in 20 years and consumers have gained another choice at the pump. The RFS benefits the economy, the environment, and national security.

EPA Head Supports the RFS

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack spoke at the Growth Energy conference in Washington, DC and expressed support for the Renewable Fuel Standard. McCarthy told attendees that “The biofuel industry is the great American success story,” and that “the EPA is working hard to make sure we are moving towards the [RFS] levels intended by Congress.” Secretary Vilsack also offered praise for the RFS and encouraged the industry to promote more positive news about ethanol.

Farm Income Report

The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) and the National Farmers Union (NFU) released a white paper that details a decrease in farm income as well as uncertainty resulting from the EPA’s delayed rule. Corn farmers have led the way to major growth in the ethanol industry, increasing production through investments in technology, improved yields, and sustainable practices. The renewable fuel industry is responsible for creating more than 852,000 jobs nationwide, particularly in rural communities, as well as higher farm incomes across the country.

The President’s Choice

Fuels America launched an ad campaign about President Obama’s choice of who to listen to on the RFS: his own experts showing that renewable fuel significantly reduces carbon emissions, or the oil industry, which has spent decades covering up the facts on renewable fuel and climate science.
 

The RFS and Rural Voters

The National Farmers Union (NFU) announced a poll which found major support for the Renewable Fuel Standard from rural voters in both parties. Third Way provided an analysis of the poll, noting that moderate voters in rural areas are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports the RFS.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
Read the article: 

Fuels America in 2015

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, green energy, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fuels America in 2015

Will the Planet Survive the Next 24 Hours?

by DenaeTina858 Posted on December 11, 2015

Mother Jones

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

The next 24 hours could make or break humanity’s chances of staving off the worst impacts of climate change.

Negotiations in Paris for an international agreement to limit and adapt to global warming are in their final moments, after diplomats pulled their second consecutive all-nighter to crash through a few critical remaining questions in the 28-page document. The most recent draft, released Thursday evening, resolved one of the most important questions on the table: an agreement to at least attempt to limit long-term global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, a crucial half degree less warming than had been on the table before. For climate activists and diplomats from the world’s most vulnerable countries, that was a huge win.

Now, the question is whether the agreement will actually have the necessary tools to achieve that target. Many of the critical pieces needed to make the deal as strong as possible—most importantly, increased funding for climate adaptation in developing countries and a plan to ramp up greenhouse gas reductions over time—are still on the table. That’s a good thing. But there’s no way to know how many of them will survive the night.

“We’re in a good position. The sunlight is really in front of us,” said Li Shuo, a campaigner with Greenpeace in China. Still, he added, “we have tremendous risk that this very could be watered down tomorrow.”

The most important issue under debate right now is the “ratchet mechanism,” which would require countries to boost their climate ambitions incrementally over time. It’s an essential component for actually meeting the 1.5 degrees C target (or even the less ambitious 2 degrees C target), because the promises countries have made so far add up to about 2.7 degrees C—a level of warming that could ultimately prove catastrophic around the world. At the moment, the text requires countries to report their greenhouse gas emissions every five years. But it is still vague about how countries that lag behind could be penalized, how countries could be required to increase their efforts over time, and how exactly their reporting could be internationally fact-checked. Secretary of State John Kerry has been ambiguous on this point; he said on Wednesday that in the agreement, “there’s no punishment, no penalty, but there has to be oversight.”

Crucially, negotiators have also not agreed on when those reviews need to start happening. The view of most experts here is that in order to stay within the 1.5 degrees C target, the reviews should start as soon as possible—certainly before 2020. That way, there’s time to correct course before it’s too late. But the Chinese delegation has resisted that timeline. Last night President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke on the phone, according to Chinese state television; what exactly they discussed was unclear, but the call raised some eyebrows here about a possible wedge emerging between the two countries.

Some tension at this stage is to be expected, said David Waskow, director of the international climate initiative at the World Resources Institute.

“What’s happening here is the world is trying to craft a new way of collaborating,” he said. “We’re seeing the growing pains of that process.”

China and the United States were among the first countries to take a strong bilateral stand in advance of the Paris talks, when they released a joint plan to fight climate change last November. Many people I’ve spoken to here have said that this early partnership was one of the biggest reasons to be optimistic about these talks, since disagreements between the two countries has been a key reason that past climate summits have collapsed. So if that mood is changing, it could really improve the final deal in Paris.

China has yet to sign onto the “High Ambition Coalition,” a negotiating bloc that includes the United States, European Union, and dozens of developing countries. That coalition has emerged in the past few days to fight for what it portrays as the strongest possible agreement. I’ve heard concern from many activists here that the coalition is really just a way for the United States to seem like it’s on the right side of history, without actually taking very ambitious steps, while simultaneously painting China and India as the villains. (Eric Holthaus at Climate Desk partner Slate did a good job breaking down that dynamic.)

“Everyone is trying to hide behind the political smog,” Shuo said.

Meanwhile, the United States seems to be obstinately resisting language in the agreement that would make more money available for developing countries to expand their clean energy sectors, and for a compensation fund for the most climate-impacted countries. And negotiators are still squabbling over how exactly to determine which countries should be obliged to do what.

So now, it’s a waiting game. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my days at this summit, it’s to not even bother looking at the official procedural schedule. Anything can happen anytime because most of the action is taking place behind closed doors. That will continue through Friday night; the next draft of the agreement is due Saturday at 9 a.m. Paris time. At that point, it’s more or less up to the French officials leading the summit to decide whether to force an up-or-down vote or to let diplomats pull their red pens out again.

At the very least, it’s pretty safe to say that the chances of the talks totally collapsing are slim to none. Instead, it’s a question of whether the deal will actually be as ambitious as leaders such as Kerry have repeatedly said they want it to be, or whether it will be something more milquetoast. Either way, no one expects this agreement to actually solve climate change. But this is the most optimistic activists and diplomats have been in the 20-year history of these talks.

As Tine Sundtoft, the Norwegian environment minister, told reporters this afternoon, “There’s no real danger that we will lock in low ambition for decades to come.”

Master image: Triff/Shutterstock

Source:  

Will the Planet Survive the Next 24 Hours?

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will the Planet Survive the Next 24 Hours?

The Latest on Paris Attacks and the Campaign Against ISIS

by FAKBrentlzll Posted on November 17, 2015

Mother Jones

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

On Tuesday, Russian officials confirmed for the first time that a homemade explosive was found on the downed Metrojet airliner that crashed in Egypt last month, killing all 224 people on board.

Shortly after the confirmation, Russia announced the country was stepping up air strikes in Syria, hoping to work directly with France in the fight against ISIS.

“We will find them anywhere on the planet and punish them,” President Vladimir Putin said in a meeting with Russian security authorities.

Russia’s FSB security service also announced a $50 million reward for anyone who could provide intelligence leading to the arrests of the terrorists responsible for the attack.

The announcement comes amid the ongoing international manhunt for suspects connected to the coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday. Authorities are said to be specifically targeting Belgian-born, 26-year-old Salah Abdeslam, the suspected eighth terrorist behind Friday’s siege.

On Monday, authorities conducted 128 overnight raids throughout France, searching for people involved with the attacks. Several arrests in Germany have already been made, but officials say they were not “closely”connected” to Friday’s attacks.

On Tuesday, French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian made an official request to the European Union for assistance in the fight against ISIS. The Associated Press reports French President Francois Hollande will meet with President Obama in Washington and President Putin in Moscow next week to discuss the international effort.

View article:

The Latest on Paris Attacks and the Campaign Against ISIS

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Latest on Paris Attacks and the Campaign Against ISIS

SeaWorld Is Ending Its Killer Whale Show

by Lawrenc8856 Posted on November 9, 2015

Mother Jones

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

SeaWorld will shut down the killer whale exhibition at its flagship San Diego location by next year, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune:

In its place would be a new orca experience debuting in 2017, described as “informative” and designed to take place in a more natural setting that would carry a “conservation message inspiring people to act.”…The plan to gradually phase out the Shamu show comes amid efforts at both the state and federal level to clamp down on SeaWorld by ending the captive breeding of orcas, which would effectively bring to an end the parks’ theatrical shows.

It’s unclear whether the new “experience” will feature live orcas, and whether the decision will apply to any of the company’s other locations in San Antonio and Orlando. A SeaWorld spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

SeaWorld has faced broad public criticism—and a tanking share price—since the 2013 documentary Blackfish accused the company of keeping killer whales in inhumane conditions. The company has maintained that the whales serve a valuable scientific purpose, although many scientists disagree. The announcement also comes just days after a Congressional representative from California introduced legislation to ban the breeding of captive orcas and their capture from the wild.

See original article: 

SeaWorld Is Ending Its Killer Whale Show

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on SeaWorld Is Ending Its Killer Whale Show

The World’s Plan to Save Itself, in 6 Charts

by DewittRhein Posted on October 30, 2015

Mother Jones

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

World leaders have a pretty comprehensive plan to fight climate change, according to a United Nations report released Friday—even if it doesn’t go as far as many of them had hoped.

In just over a month, representatives from most of the countries on Earth will gather in Paris in an attempt to finalize an international agreement to limit global warming and adapt to its impacts. The video above is a snappy explainer of what’s at stake at this meeting, but suffice it to say the proposed deal is split into two keys parts. First is the core agreement, parts of which may be legally binding, that comprises broad, non-specific guidelines for all countries. It calls on countries to take steps such as transparently reporting greenhouse gas emissions and committing to ramp up climate action over the next few decades.

But the real meat-and-potatoes is in the second part, the “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs). The INDCs are what sets the Paris talks apart from past attempts at a global climate agreement in Kyoto in 1997 and Copenhagen in 2009. Those summits either left out major polluters (the US dropped out of the Kyoto Protocol; China and India were exempted) or fell apart completely (Copenhagen), in large part because they were built around universal greenhouse gas reduction targets that not everyone could agree to.

This time around, the UN process is more like a potluck, where each country brings its own unique contribution based on its needs and abilities; those are the INDCs. The US, for example, has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, mostly by going after carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. So far, according to the World Resources Institute, 126 plans have been submitted, covering about 86 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. (The European Union submitted one joint plan for all its members.) Those contributions are likely to limit global warming to around 2.7 degrees Celsius (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels by 2100. That’s above the 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) limit scientists say is necessary to avert the worst impacts—but it’s also about 1 degree C less warming than would would happen if the world continued on its present course.

Now, we have a bit more insight into how countries are planning to make this happen. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the group that is overseeing the Paris talks, combed through all the INDCs to look for trends. Its report is a bit convoluted and repetitive; I don’t recommend it to any but the nerdiest climate nerds. But I pulled out a few of the charts as an overview of what global action on climate change really looks like.

Types of targets: Most of the INDCs contain specific emission reduction targets. (Not all do; some countries, such as the small island nations, have such small or nonexistent emissions that it wouldn’t make sense to promise to reduce them.) The most common way to state these targets is to promise that emissions at X future date will be lower than they would be with no action. Indonesia, for example, has pledged to increase its emissions over the next 25 years by 29 percent less than it would have under a “business as usual” scenario. The US commitment fits in the second category, an “absolute” target where emissions actually begin to go down. Others specify a date at which emissions will “peak,” or set a goal for emissions per unit of GDP or energy production (“intensity”).

UNFCCC

Greenhouse gases: The commitments cover a broad range of greenhouse gases (most cover more than one), but carbon dioxide is the most common enemy. That’s no surprise, as it’s by far the most common.

UNFCCC

Economic sectors: In different countries, different economic sectors are more or less responsible for climate pollution. In the US, the number-one source of emissions is coal-fired power plants; thus, President Barack Obama’s plans focus on the power sector. In Indonesia, by contrast, deforestation is the biggest problem. Most plans cover more than one sector, but the most common is energy.

UNFCCC

How to fix it: This section finds that implementing renewable energy is the most common way countries are planning to meet their targets. More interesting is the tiny role played by carbon capture, use, and storage, down at the bottom of the chart. This refers to technology that “captures” greenhouse gas emissions on their way out of power plants, or directly from the atmosphere, and buries or re-purposes them. Support for carbon capture—also known as “clean coal”—is popular with policymakers who don’t want to curb coal use (including GOP presidential contender John Kasich), even though it remains costly and unproven at scale.

UNFCCC

How to adapt: Many countries’ INDCs also contain information about how they plan to adapt to climate change. Water use, agriculture, and public health appear to be the biggest areas of focus.

UNFCCC

A terrible, no-good, very bad summary: The most important question is clearly how all this adds up to reducing the world’s greenhouse gas footprint and averting the worst threats posed by climate change. But the chart that addresses this question (below) is…not great. I’m including it so you have some sense of one big drawback of the Paris approach—without universal emissions targets, it’s a lot harder to specify what the cumulative effect of these plans will really be. In short, here’s what this chart shows: The gray line is global greenhouse gas emissions up to today. The orange line is how emissions will grow over the next couple decades if we do nothing. The three blue lines show how quickly we would need to reduce emissions to keep global warming to 2 degrees C; the longer we wait to take action, the steeper the cuts have to be. The yellow rectangles show a snapshot of where the INDCs leave us.

UNFCCC

So, we’re better off than before, but we’re not out of danger. That’s why it’s essential for the core agreement to include requirements that countries adopt even more aggressive goals in the future; that’s one of the key things that will be debated in Paris. In other words, the Paris meeting is just one key battle in a war that’s far from over, Jennifer Morgan, director of the WRI’s global climate program, said in a statement.

“Despite the unprecedented level of effort, this report finds that current commitments are not yet sufficient to meet what the world needs. Countries must accelerate their efforts after the Paris summit in order to stave off climate change. The global climate agreement should include a clear mandate for countries to ramp up their commitments and set a long-term signal to phase out emissions as soon as possible.”

Link to original:

The World’s Plan to Save Itself, in 6 Charts

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The World’s Plan to Save Itself, in 6 Charts

Ben Carson Is Taking a Break From Talking About Hitler to Sell His Book

by NoelZtvpprmvv Posted on October 15, 2015

Mother Jones

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

Ben Carson, currently trailing only Donald Trump in the Republican presidential polls with just three months to go until the first votes are cast, is taking some time off. To sell his new book.

Per ABC News:

Republican presidential contender Dr. Ben Carson has put his public campaign events on hold for two more weeks to go on book tour for his new tome “A More Perfect Union” and catch up on fundraising events.

The campaign has been careful to separate campaign events and the book tour, and doesn’t want to classify the tour as related to the campaign in any way.

This week he is catching up on fundraising events and will be back on his book tour next week making stops in Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa. So for the next two weeks, Carson won’t be appearing at any public “campaign events.”

Put another way: he hasn’t held a campaign event since October 2, and won’t hold another until October 28.

National Review‘s Jim Geraghty asks the obvious question—”Why on Earth would any serious candidate for president decide to stop campaigning at a moment like this for some book-signings and readings?” A better question might be, why start running a real campaign now? Carson has more or less been on a book tour for the last three years, releasing a handful of books in quick succession that have built up his name recognition among conservative voters and given him ample free media at places like Fox News. He’s even continued to deliver paid speeches during the campaign.

It’s unconventional, sure, but it’s made him a lot of money and propelled him to near the top of the GOP field. You can’t argue with the results.

Read article here:

Ben Carson Is Taking a Break From Talking About Hitler to Sell His Book

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ben Carson Is Taking a Break From Talking About Hitler to Sell His Book

Here’s What Bernie Sanders Is Like as a Debater

by DebbraOXFM Posted on October 12, 2015

Mother Jones

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

Forty-three years ago, moments before the final debate of his first ever political campaign, Bernie Sanders turned to one of his rivals for Vermont’s governorship, Fred Hackett, and made an unusual proposal: What if they switched outfits? The Republican could take off his tie, don Sanders’ ratty blazer, and mess up his hair. Bernie could borrow Hackett’s suit. “I tried to convince Fred that a great historical moment was at hand—that tens of thousands of people would turn on their TV sets and there, right before their uncomprehending eyes, would be a new Fred Hackett,” he recalled in an essay a few months later. “Fred didn’t take my advice—which is probably why he lost the election.” (Sanders, who was running on the third-party Liberty Union ticket, also lost the election.)

That scenario is unlikely to repeat itself on Tuesday, when Sanders faces off against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democratic presidential field at the Wynn hotel and casino in Las Vegas. After four decades in politics, Sanders is as veteran a debater as they come—but is he any good at it?

Continue Reading »

View article: 

Here’s What Bernie Sanders Is Like as a Debater

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, ProPublica, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s What Bernie Sanders Is Like as a Debater

The "Gig Economy" Is Mostly Just Silicon Valley Hype

by KrystalBertles Posted on October 9, 2015

Mother Jones

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

How big is the “gig economy”? An Uber driver is the archetypal gig worker, but more generally it refers to anyone who works independently on a contingent basis. This means, for example, that an old school freelance writer qualifies.

Still, it’s tech that’s driving the gig hype, and if the hype is true then the number of gig workers should be going up. Lydia DePillis takes a look at this today and recommends two sources:

The Freelancers Union, which advocates for self-employed people of all kinds, recently came up with the 53 million number Warner mentioned. MBO Partners, which provides tools for businesses that use contractors, put it at 30.2 million. But for lawmaking purposes, it’s probably a good idea to get your information from a source that doesn’t have a commercial interest in the numbers it’s putting out.

True enough, but let’s start with these folks. The Freelancers Union reports that in 2015 the gig economy “held steady” at 34 percent of the workforce. MBO Partners reports that it “held firm” at 30 million. They additionally report that it’s increased 12 percent in the past five years, which is not especially impressive considering that total employment has increased 9 percent over the same period.

The government does not track this directly, and I assume that these two sources are generally motivated to be cheerleaders for the gig economy, which means their numbers are about as optimistic as possible. If that’s true, it looks as though the gig economy is almost entirely smoke and mirrors. After all, if it were a big phenomenon it would be getting bigger every year as technology became an ever more important part of our lives. And yet, both sources agree that 2015, when the economy was doing fairly well, showed no growth at all in the gig economy. What’s more, as Jordan Weissmann and others have pointed out, what little government data we have isn’t really consistent with the idea that the gig economy is growing.

So be wary of the hype. Maybe the gig economy will be a big thing in the future. Maybe the tech portion is growing, but the growth is hidden by a decline in traditional freelancing. Maybe. For now, though, it appears to be mostly just another example of the reality distortion hype that Silicon Valley is so good at.

Original source:  

The "Gig Economy" Is Mostly Just Silicon Valley Hype

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The "Gig Economy" Is Mostly Just Silicon Valley Hype