Tag Archives: united

Cuba’s Organic Revolution: Coming to Your Fridge?

Mother Jones

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

When President Barack Obama earlier this week became the first sitting US president to visit Cuba since the revolution, he brought along a veritable army of representatives of US business interests—including agribusiness lobbyists. Among the most prominent was Devry Boughner Vorwerk, a former Cargill executive who now chairs the US Agriculture Coalition for Cuba.

The Coalition launched early last year, soon after Obama announced he would ease trade and travel restrictions imposed by the long-standing US embargo against Cuba, and that he would prod Congress to revoke the trade ban altogether. It’s a conglomeration of grain-trading giants like Cargill (the globe’s largest grain trader and the biggest privately owned US company), Archer Daniels Midland, and Bunge, as well as industry groups including the North American Meat Institute and the American Soybean Association. The group represents what might just be the wedge that will ultimately convince the GOP-led Congress to put aside its staunch anti-communism and agree to lift the embargo: As much as heartland Republican politicians despise the Castro family and all it represents, they love the agribusiness interests that dominate their states.

It’s easy to see why US agribusiness has set its sights on the island nation just 90 miles southeast of Florida and quite close to the Gulf of Mexico ports through which most American grain and meat exports flow. Before the revolution, the United States and Cuba maintained a robust trade in foodstuffs. At inflation-adjusted prices, pre-1959 Cuba imported about $600 million worth of US food—mostly meat and rice—according to a 2015 US Department of Agriculture report. Cuba, in turn, sent about $2.2 billion (current dollars) worth of sugar, tobacco, and pineapples our way. But then the revolution launched an era marked by a thwarted CIA-led coup and attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, culminating in an embargo banning US trade with Cuba.

In 2000, Congress eased the embargo on food exports to Cuba, but in the 15 years since, they’ve rarely reached pre-revolutionary levels. Cuba is reluctant to trade with its old enemy, and lingering restrictions from the embargo make it difficult to do so. While US companies like Cargill are allowed to sell their goods to Cuba, they’re still prohibited from financing the sales with credit—they are required under the embargo’s terms to demand cash up front. That leaves them at a big disadvantage compared with companies from other exporting nations that don’t restrict Cuban trade.

While Obama would like to end the credit restrictions, he can’t do so by executive order. That’s why the US Agriculture Coalition for Cuba is pushing Congress to repeal the embargo altogether. To get an idea of what kind business opportunity post-embargo Cuba might offer US agribusiness, the 2015 USDA report points to another Caribbean island nation with a similar population size and per-capita income: the Dominican Republic. US agribusiness firms export about $1.1 billion worth of goods to the DR annually, representing more than 40 percent of its food imports. In 2014, the USDA reports, US companies exported $286 million worth of food to Cuba, accounting for just 15 percent of its food imports, and less than competitors based in Brazil and the European Union.

So, there’s a lot of money on the table, which might explain why US agribusiness firms are licking their chops at the prospect of open trade with Cuba. But what do the thawing of US-Cuba relations and the potential end of the embargo mean for Cuba’s domestic farms and urban gardens growing vegetable and fruits for local consumption?

As readers might remember, necessity forced Cuba to embark on a remarkable experiment in essentially organic, local food production in the mid-1990s—a story explored in-depth by the climate writer Bill McKibben in this 2005 Harper’s piece and by scholar-activist Peter Rosset here. The short version: Until the 1990s, the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc nations propped up Cuba’s food supply by sending over boat loads of wheat and rice, as well farm machinery and petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides, which the communist nation put to use on large, state-run farms. In exchange, Cuba exported its old colonial-era crop, sugar, at a wildly inflated price. When the Soviet Union collapsed, those perks dried up, and Cuba’s sugar exports didn’t earn nearly enough on the open market to maintain the same level of food and farm-supply imports.

The result was what became known in Cuba as “the Special Period.” According to McKibben, citing the Food and Agriculture Organization, per-capita food intake on the island plunged from 3,000 calories in 1989 to 1,900 four years later, the equivalent of removing one meal per person a day. What happened next has been described as an “agro-ecological revolution.” Here’s McKibben:

Cuba had learned to stop exporting sugar and instead started growing its own food again, growing it on small private farms and thousands of pocket-sized urban market gardens—and, lacking chemicals and fertilizers, much of that food became de facto organic. Somehow, the combination worked. Cubans have as much food as they did before the Soviet Union collapsed. They’re still short of meat, and the milk supply remains a real problem, but their caloric intake has returned to normal—they’ve gotten that meal back.

Jullia Wright, a senior research fellow at the United Kingdom’s Coventry University who studies Cuba’s post-Soviet food system, told me that the nation’s urban-farming networks remain highly productive today. The government doesn’t keep precise data on how heavily Cuba’s urban dwellers rely on these operations for food, but they supply a “high percentage” of the leafy greens, fruits, herbs, fresh corn (for human consumption), beans, and small livestock consumed in cities, she says.

Of course, most of what Cargill and its US peers want to export into Cuba doesn’t compete directly with these products—they’re more interested in exporting things like corn and soybeans. At least initially, they’ll be be trying to displace commodity-crop producers in Brazil, Canada, and the European Union, not market gardeners in Havana.

For that reason, the eventual end of the embargo don’t present an immediate threat to Cuba’s small producers, said Miguel Altieri, a professor in the department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management at the University of California–Berkeley who visits Cuba regularly. “The basic situation hasn’t changed for the peasant movement,” he said. Even if US firms eventually buy land in Cuba to grow export crops—say, pineapples or mangoes—it wouldn’t necessarily affect the smallholder movement, he said, because only about 70 percent of Cuba’s arable rural land is currently in production. So there’s room for both the kind of industrial production that might interest US agribusiness firms and the small operations currently supplying Cubans with fresh food.

The problem, Altieri said, is that unlike those agribusiness lobbyists now on the ground in Havana, the main smallholder groups are “not actively involved in the conversations about the transitions in Cuba.” The first generation of small-scale ag leaders were close to Cuban President Raul Castro—”they could go to Raul and say, ‘Hey, man, don’t forget about us—we’re important,'” he said. But that generation has passed away or retired, and the new leaders don’t have nearly the same access to decision-makers, Atieri said.

With the right policies in place, Cuba’s highly productive small farms could both feed Cuba and earn foreign exchange by exporting, Altieri said. The worst-case scenario is that the small farmers now feeding Cubans will start exporting their crops to the United States en masse to take advantage of higher prices, removing a reliable source of affordable food from the island, he added. He said that such a situation could be avoided if Cuban policymakers put incentives into place to ensure that about a third of farmland remains devoted to providing food to Cubans, but it remains to be seen whether the government views Cuba’s robust domestic food system as an “achievement of the revolution” that’s as much worth preserving and expanding as gains in health care and literacy.

Meanwhile, US Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who accompanied Obama on his Cuba foray, has articulated a post-embargo vision of Cuba as a major supplier of organic vegetables to the US market. In an interview with Modern Farmer after he led a trade delegation on a trip to the island in November, Vilsack marveled at the productivity of Cuba’s farms, noting the “impressive array of root vegetables,” the “fairly significant garlic production,” and the bounty of citrus and avocados. “I think they just have an unlimited opportunity” for exporting organic produce to the United States, he said.

More: 

Cuba’s Organic Revolution: Coming to Your Fridge?

Posted in alo, alternative energy, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, oven, Radius, solar, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Cuba’s Organic Revolution: Coming to Your Fridge?

Apple says you can “feel really good” about buying its products. Don’t believe them.

Apple says you can “feel really good” about buying its products. Don’t believe them.

By on 22 Mar 2016 3:24 pmcommentsShare

Lisa Jackson, Apple’s VP of environment, policy, and social initiatives, took to the stage at a press event Monday to discuss the company’s new environmental commitments. And from what Jackson, an ex-Environmental Protection Agency administrator, said, Apple’s doing pretty damn well. The details:

93 percent of Apple operations worldwide are powered by renewable energy
In 23 countries, including the United States and China, operations run on 100 percent renewables
99 percent of Apple packaging is recycled or sourced from sustainably managed forests
Apple is funding the preservation of a million acres of forest in China and 35,000 acres in the eastern U.S.

According to Jackson, this means that “every time you send an iMessage or make a FaceTime video call or ask Siri a question, you can feel really good about reducing your impact on the environment.” You can almost hear Steve Jobs patting himself on the back from the great Apple Store in the sky on the brand going green. But how much good is Apple really doing? Sure, 93 percent renewables is about 93 percent better than most giant corporations, but Apple puts a whole lot of crap into the world that we don’t really need. It’s called planned obsolescence, and it means that the constant release of new products makes your iPhone seem as unwieldy and slow-moving as a landline after a couple of years.

That’s the real problem here: It doesn’t matter how much Apple recycles or how many acres they save if they keep dumping new products into the market, as Andrew Freedman wrote for Mashable, “By constantly rolling out new products and encouraging consumers to trade in their not-so-old phones for new, upgraded ones, Apple is contributing to a consumerism that may be difficult to ever neutralize from a carbon standpoint.” Apple may construct their products in factories powered by the sun, as Freedman points out, what happens from there is hardly green: They ship these products from factories in China on planes and charged in places where coal powers the grid.

And the customer may use the phone for a shorter period of time than they might have used it otherwise. The company is promoting Apple Renew, a recycling program that lets you exchange your old device for an Apple gift card, but 70 percent of e-waste is likely to end up in landfills, anyway.

Apple events like the one on Monday convince many people that they have to be early adopters and get the latest and greatest gadget on the market. Clearly, the problem isn’t just Apple: It’s also us. We want the iPhone 10, we want the sharpest cameras and the newest apps and the phone that pets your head and holds your hand in the night. But we do need it? Hardly. In fact, research shows that consumerism actually makes us less happy, not more.

What you can feel good about is deciding to not upgrade your phone.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read article here: 

Apple says you can “feel really good” about buying its products. Don’t believe them.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Apple says you can “feel really good” about buying its products. Don’t believe them.

Ted Cruz Calls for Security Patrols in America’s "Muslim Neighborhoods"

Mother Jones

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

In the wake of the Brussels terror attacks Tuesday morning, GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz suggested that the United States “empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.”

Here is the full statement from the Cruz campaign:

Cruz: We Can No Longer Surrender to the Enemy Through Political Correctness
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, presidential candidate Ted Cruz responded to the horrific terrorist attacks in Brussels:

“Today radical Islamic terrorists targeted the men and women of Brussels as they went to work on a spring morning. In a series of coordinated attacks they murdered and maimed dozens of innocent commuters at subway stations and travelers at the airport. For the terrorists, the identities of the victims were irrelevant. They –we—are all part of an intolerable culture that they have vowed to destroy.

“For years, the west has tried to deny this enemy exists out of a combination of political correctness and fear. We can no longer afford either. Our European allies are now seeing what comes of a toxic mix of migrants who have been infiltrated by terrorists and isolated, radical Muslim neighborhoods.

“We will do what we can to help them fight this scourge, and redouble our efforts to make sure it does not happen here. We need to immediately halt the flow of refugees from countries with a significant al Qaida or ISIS presence. We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.

“We need to secure the southern border to prevent terrorist infiltration. And we need to execute a coherent campaign to utterly destroy ISIS. The days of the United States voluntarily surrendering to the enemy to show how progressive and enlightened we are are at an end. Our country is at stake.”

See the article here:

Ted Cruz Calls for Security Patrols in America’s "Muslim Neighborhoods"

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted Cruz Calls for Security Patrols in America’s "Muslim Neighborhoods"

The U.N.’s new climate mascot is … an Angry Bird?

The U.N.’s new climate mascot is … an Angry Bird?

By on 21 Mar 2016commentsShare

What comes to mind when you think of mascots? A football game, complete with a sweaty teen in a horse costume, perhaps, or a certain doughboy of Pillsbury fame?

Whatever you thought of, it probably wasn’t climate change — or Angry Birds. But United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently named Red (a notable character from the Angry Birds game and upcoming movie) the mascot for climate change action.

We’ve been waiting to see how the Angry Birds’ climate mission, announced last year, would shake out. The campaign began on March 20, the International Day of Happiness, and aims to “make the Angry Birds happy” by encouraging young people to recycle, conserve water, and use public transit for a cleaner planet.

The celebrity voice actors behind the Angry Birds Movie — Maya Rudolph, Jason Sudeikis, and Josh Gad — also lent their support to Red’s campaign.

The Angry Bird remained silent as he was appointed the Honorary Ambassador of Green, but his downturned, mustachioed eyebrows sent the message loud and clear: He’s definitely not happy about something — and we’re guessing it’s climate change. (Word’s still out on whether or not Red enjoys being virtually catapulted toward poorly built enemy fortresses.)

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link:

The U.N.’s new climate mascot is … an Angry Bird?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, Jason, LAI, ONA, Pines, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The U.N.’s new climate mascot is … an Angry Bird?

The world’s energy supply relies on water. Guess what we’re running low on?

The world’s energy supply relies on water. Guess what we’re running low on?

By on 18 Mar 2016commentsShare

Not to make you do math on a Friday or anything, but here’s a simple word problem: If 98 percent of global power generation requires water, the U.N. predicts a 40 percent shortfall in global water supply by 2030, and the world’s population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, then approximately how screwed are we? Please present your answer in units of Stacey Dash accidentally driving on the freeway:

Now, before you grab a pencil and paper, some context: A new report from the World Energy Council says that we’re heading for a global water crisis, and we need to improve the resiliency of our energy infrastructure by, among other things: better understanding the water footprints of coal, gas, nuclear, hydropower, and other renewable energy sources and thus better understanding the risks of investing in certain types of future energy infrastructure.

Advertisement – Article continues below

The report points to a recent warning from the U.N. that dwindling water reserves might only be able to meet 60 percent of global water demand by 2030 — meaning that by the time today’s infants grow into pimply bags of hormones, the world could be a serious water crisis. And since power generation is second only to agriculture in global water consumption, that could translate into a serious energy crisis.

Just how serious became clear when researchers reported in a recent study published in Nature Climate Change that hydropower and thermoelectric power provide about 98 percent of the world’s electricity, and both rely heavily on water. That means, the researchers report, that more than 60 percent of the 24,515 hydropower plants they studied and more than 80 percent of the 1,427 thermoelectric power plants they studied could show reduced capacity between 2040 and 2069.

Still, some experts say that couching this as a global issue might not make sense. Kate Brauman, lead scientist for the Global Water Initiative at the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment, for example, told Scientific American that she didn’t think we were facing a worldwide crisis:

“There are places where we’re using all or nearly all of our available water, but those are localized places on the globe,” she said. “So by the end of the day, to say something like, on a global scale, we’re using more water than we have or we’re running out of water” doesn’t paint the situation correctly.

Indeed, plenty of people are already mired in pretty serious water crises. Venezuela, for example, is about to enter a mandatory one-week vacation because a water shortage is making it hard for the country to meet energy demands. So for them and others around the world, this dire warning from the World Energy Council might elicit nothing more than a “So what else is new?”

And besides, Brauman pointed out, as cities grow and “densify” — which they are — they tend to improve their water efficiency by updating leaky infrastructure and lowering overall per capita water use.

What’s more, Scientific American reports, we don’t actually have a firm grasp on how much water we’re consuming, because a lot of what we think we’re consuming actually just goes right back into the water cycle:

For example, a power plant that uses water to cool its condensers might pull water from a river, run it through the plant and release that same water back into the river. The water leaving the plant is warmer, but it still re-enters the river.

Power plants account for almost 80 percent of withdrawals in the United States, but in terms of consumption, their impact is much smaller, said Jerad Bales, the chief scientist for water at the U.S. Geological Survey. Currently, we don’t have good information on consumptive use, said Bales.

“That’s a hard number to get,” he said.

So the World Energy Council is probably right — we should get a firmer grasp on the water footprints of our energy sources and plan accordingly. But as for how screwed we are? Maybe not even one Stacey Dash — at least not as a globe.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Visit site – 

The world’s energy supply relies on water. Guess what we’re running low on?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The world’s energy supply relies on water. Guess what we’re running low on?

Obama Says He Would Have Bombed Iran

Mother Jones

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

Here’s another excerpt from Jeffrey Goldberg’s essay on President Obama’s foreign policy:

One afternoon in late January, as I was leaving the Oval Office, I mentioned to Obama a moment from an interview in 2012 when he told me that he would not allow Iran to gain possession of a nuclear weapon. “You said, ‘I’m the president of the United States, I don’t bluff.’ ”

He said, “I don’t.”

Shortly after that interview four years ago, Ehud Barak, who was then the defense minister of Israel, asked me whether I thought Obama’s no-bluff promise was itself a bluff. I answered that I found it difficult to imagine that the leader of the United States would bluff about something so consequential. But Barak’s question had stayed with me. So as I stood in the doorway with the president, I asked: “Was it a bluff?” I told him that few people now believe he actually would have attacked Iran to keep it from getting a nuclear weapon.

“That’s interesting,” he said, noncommittally.

I started to talk: “Do you—”

He interrupted. “I actually would have,” he said, meaning that he would have struck Iran’s nuclear facilities. “If I saw them break out.”

He added, “Now, the argument that can’t be resolved, because it’s entirely situational, was what constitutes them getting” the bomb. “This was the argument I was having with Bibi Netanyahu.” Netanyahu wanted Obama to prevent Iran from being capable of building a bomb, not merely from possessing a bomb.

“You were right to believe it,” the president said. And then he made his key point. “This was in the category of an American interest.”

But is he bluffing even now? We’ll probably never know.

More: 

Obama Says He Would Have Bombed Iran

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Says He Would Have Bombed Iran

Obama and Trudeau promise to lead the transition to a low-carbon global economy

Obama and Trudeau promise to lead the transition to a low-carbon global economy

By on 10 Mar 2016commentsShare

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

The U.S. and Canada declared they would help lead the transition to a low-carbon global economy on Thursday, in a dramatic role reversal for two countries once derided as climate change villains.

The shared vision unveiled by Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau ahead of a meeting at the White House commits the two countries to a range of actions to shore up the historic climate agreement reached in Paris last December.

Advertisement – Article continues below

The two leaders committed to rally G20 countries behind the accord, promote North American carbon markets, cap emissions from hundreds of thousands of existing oil and gas wells, and protect indigenous communities in a region which is warming beyond the point of no return, according to a statement from the White House.

The initiative announced on Thursday brings the U.S. a big step closer to meeting its own Paris target by committing for the first time to cut emissions of methane — a powerful greenhouse gas responsible for about a quarter of warming — from existing oil and gas wells.

The biggest news however might be the final break with the policies of their predecessors who obstructed global efforts to fight climate change. In his seven years in the White House, Barack Obama has steadily transformed the U.S. into a climate leader on the international level.

“The two leaders regard the Paris agreement as a turning point in global efforts to combat climate change and anchor economic growth in clean development,” the White House said in a statement. “They resolve that the United States and Canada must and will play a leadership role internationally in the low-carbon global economy over the coming decades, including through science-based steps to protect the Arctic and its peoples.”

With Thursday’s announcement, Obama appeared to be passing the baton of climate leadership to Trudeau. Trudeau, just months into his prime ministership, has made clear he wants Canada to play a similar leadership role at home and on the global stage, White House officials told a conference call with reporters on Thursday.

“President Obama sees Prime Minister Trudeau as a really strong partner on these issues,” the officials said. “This is a very important moment along the way and we expect that cooperation to continue in the future.”

Under the initiative, the U.S. and Canada will work to ratify the Paris agreement as soon as possible, lending an important symbolic boost to prospects for bringing the Paris agreement into force as soon as possible after the April 22 signing ceremony. The agreement must be ratified by at least 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions.

Obama and Trudeau also said the leaders would move quickly to finalize their long-term emissions reductions strategies discussed at Paris, unveiling a plan by the end of 2016, and that they would lobby other major G20 industrialized countries to do the same.

An early opportunity for such lobbying comes later this year when Canada and the U.S. will bring in Mexico to the new North American partnership on climate.

The White House statement also suggested the two leaders would try to consolidate existing regional carbon markets, in line with other provisions in the Paris agreement for encouraging the transition to a clean energy economy.

Turning closer to home, the initiative also takes a big step to curbing a powerful climate pollutant in methane, whose emissions rose rapidly with the boom in oil and gas production across much of the U.S. and Canada.

The two countries committed to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by up to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025 — in line with previous proposed rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and Canada’s major energy-producing province of Alberta.

On Thursday, the EPA raised the bar even further, pledging to draft rules to cut methane from existing oil and gas wells — which had been a key demand for campaign groups.

“We are going to have to tackle emissions from existing sources,” Gina McCarthy, the EPA administrator, told a conference call with reporters. “It has become clear that it is time for the EPA to regulate existing sources from the oil and gas sector.”

The commitment won widespread praise from environmental campaign groups who noted that tackling methane was one of the most effective ways of reducing U.S. and Canadian emissions overall.

The U.S. and Canada are both among the top five global emitters of methane.

“Acting fast to cut methane pollution from oil and gas operations is one of the single most important steps we can take to slow temperature rise and protect the climate,” Abigail Dillen, EarthJustice climate campaigner, said in a statement. “We applaud the president for redoubling his commitment to U.S. climate action.”

On the Arctic, the two countries said they would convene a high-level summit next August to try and keep pace with the record temperatures, sea-ice loss, permafrost thaws, and wildfires that are creating dangerous and irreversible impacts in the polar region — but also contributing to changing weather patterns and sea-level rise globally.

“There is a real need just to do more science about the speed with which the melting is occurring and what the modelling of the implications are for that,” said Angela Anderson, who directs the climate and energy program for the Union of Concerned Scientists. “There is a lot of science to be done to really understand how what is happening in the Arctic is going to affect all of us.”

Environmentalists immediately demanded an end to Arctic drilling, and pressed Trudeau to declare a halt to pipeline projects from Alberta tar sands.

The U.S.-Canada partnership came as data from the U.S. science agency, NOAA, showed that atmospheric CO2 levels had jumped by the highest amount on record last year.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Originally posted here: 

Obama and Trudeau promise to lead the transition to a low-carbon global economy

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama and Trudeau promise to lead the transition to a low-carbon global economy

Instead of comparing hand size, Clinton and Sanders debate climate plans

Instead of comparing hand size, Clinton and Sanders debate climate plans

By on 10 Mar 2016commentsShare

At the Univision-Washington Post Democratic debate in Miami, there was a contentious moment when Hillary Clinton — hilariously — accused rival Bernie Sanders of being a tool for the Koch brothers. “I just think it’s worth pointing out that the leaders of the fossil fuel industry, the Koch brothers, have just paid to put up an ad praising Sen. Sanders,” Clinton said Wednesday night. Sanders was, to put it mildly, incredulous.

And yet, no one discussed the size of their “hands” or threatened to ban Muslims from the country. It was almost civilized — at least until Univision’s debate moderator Jorge Ramos asked Clinton about her emails. And Benghazi.

Climate change even was a topic of discussion throughout the evening. It was a relief after a string of Democratic debates where climate received little more than a shout-out and, of course, every Republican debate, where fantasy football has been a more pressing issue than global warming. Not only did Sanders refer to climate change in his opening remarks, lumping it in with a whole lot of other things plans to fix (health care, education, money in politics, Citizens United, etc.), the issue received its own question later in the night. Where are we? Sweden?

Advertisement – Article continues below

“Sen. Sanders, is it possible to move forward on this issue if you do not get a bipartisan consensus,” said The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty, “and what would you do?

Sanders called out climate change deniers in Congress, saying that the Donald Trump and the GOP don’t have the guts to stand up to the fossil fuel industry. (He’s right.) “I don’t take money from the fossil fuel industry because they are destroying the planet,” Sanders continued, adding that “We need a political revolution in this country, when millions of people stand up and say their profits are less important than the long term health of this country.” Sanders also called for a carbon tax and invited Clinton to join him in ending fracking. The crowd roared.

Clinton’s turn was next. “No state has more at stake than Florida,” she said, in a city that knows this too well. She said that as president, she would support the Clean Power Plan and enforce Obama’s executive orders, as well as invest in renewable energy (she even accused Sanders of delaying implementation of the Clean Power Plan — an odd attack). “That is the way we will keep the lights on while we are transitioning to a clean energy future,” she said. “And when I talk about resilience, I think that is an area we can get Republican support on.” The applause was more muted.

The candidates’ answers were typical of the two: Clinton emphasized the importance of consensus building, of working within the system that you have. Sanders called for burning it down — or, at least, starting a new kind of American revolution.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Originally posted here – 

Instead of comparing hand size, Clinton and Sanders debate climate plans

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Instead of comparing hand size, Clinton and Sanders debate climate plans

After Michigan Loss, Clinton Campaign Holds On to…Math

Mother Jones

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

After a surprising loss in the Michigan primary on Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton’s campaign contends it is still on track to win the nomination, thanks to the delegate math. And her campaign strategists are not second-guessing the decisions that likely hurt her in Michigan—and could haunt her next week in three more significant Midwestern contests.

“From the beginning, we have approached this nomination as a battle for delegates,” campaign manager Robby Mook said Wednesday on a conference call with reporters. “Last night really showed why that approach made sense.”

Continue Reading »

Credit:  

After Michigan Loss, Clinton Campaign Holds On to…Math

Posted in alo, Anchor, Bragg, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on After Michigan Loss, Clinton Campaign Holds On to…Math

Clinton and Sanders Want to Restrict Fracking. Will That Make Global Warming Worse?

Mother Jones

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

Could promises by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to dramatically restrict fracking actually make climate change worse?

In Sunday night’s presidential debate, both Democratic candidates came out swinging against the controversial technique for extracting oil and natural gas. Sanders was blunt. “No, I do not support fracking,” he said. Clinton was a bit less direct. She said that she would hold fracking operations to such high standards that “by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.” (You can watch their responses above.)

How the 2016 contenders will deal with climate change


The Ultimate Presidential Climate Matrix


Donald Trump Thinks Climate Change Is a Hoax


Marco Rubio Used to Believe in Climate Science


John Kasich Actually Believes in Climate Change. But He Doesn’t Want to Fix It.


Scientists: Ted Cruz’s Climate Theories Are a “Load of Claptrap”


How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World


Sanders and Clinton Disagree on Climate. Let’s Debate That.


Here’s One Climate Issue Cruz Actually Gets Right

While Sanders’ statement basically matched what he has said before, Clinton’s appeared to be something of a shift from her earlier positions. As secretary of state, she backed a push to get fracking operations up and running in foreign countries and called natural gas “the cleanest fossil fuel available for power generation today.”

Now, it appears that either Democrat could try to curtail fracking substantially.

Many environmentalists would celebrate that, but some experts are warning that when it comes to climate change, limiting fracking could backfire. To understand why, you need to know a bit of background about the complex scientific debate surrounding the issue.

Environmental activists have criticized fracking for possibly contaminating subterranean water supplies, polluting air in communities near drilling sites, and contributing to climate change. They point out that methane, the main component of natural gas, is a greenhouse gas that is up to 90 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in the short term if it leaks into the air without being burned (though it lingers in the atmosphere for much less time than CO2).

When natural gas is burned in power plants, it produces far less CO2 than coal does. But methane leaks occur at nearly every step of the natural gas production process—from well to pipeline to storage. Right now, there’s a raging debate among scientists over whether the methane leaks from the natural gas system or the huge carbon dioxide emissions from coal are ultimately worse for global warming.

In Sunday’s debate, Clinton said that fixing the methane leaks would be a precondition for her to support fracking. Clinton and Sanders have both proposed new regulations on methane leaks that build on rules currently being formulated by the Obama administration. But both candidates say they want to go beyond simply fixing methane leaks and are actually promising to eliminate most fracking.

Here’s the problem: There’s a good chance that efforts to restrict fracking could lead to the burning of more coal. About 90 percent of the natural gas used in the United States is produced domestically, according to federal statistics; more than half of that is produced by fracking. The fracking boom has resulted in cheap gas replacing coal as the chief power source in many parts of the country. Gas now accounts for about one-third of US electricity production, up from around 23 percent when Obama took office. That growth has been matched by a decline in coal consumption.

At the same time, the country has seen a steady reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP, an indication that the economy is becoming cleaner. The rapid growth of solar, wind, and other renewables is one important factor behind that trend, as are widespread improvements to energy efficiency. But the swapping of natural gas for coal has been arguably the most vital—note how the falling blue line (coal) mirrors the rising green line (gas):

Energy Information Administration

Less fracking would mean less gas production, which would mean higher gas prices, which would likely mean that gas’ share of America’s electricity supply would fall.

“Without natural gas, it would have been very difficult to achieve the emissions reductions from retiring coal plants that occurred over the last decade,” said Rob Barnett, a senior energy analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. “Few politicians would want to turn the dial back on natural gas, if it meant we started burning more coal in exchange.”

In other words, some analysts said, if Clinton and Sanders are committed to confronting climate change, choking off the country’s supply of natural gas could be a big step in the wrong direction. That’s especially true if the drawdown of fracking isn’t paired with new policies aimed specifically at preventing a reversion to coal. Sanders has called for a national carbon tax, and both candidates have supported various incentives for renewables. But a carbon tax is unlikely to pas Congress, renewables are under siege in many states, and Obama’s plan to reduce coal consumption was recently put on hold by the Supreme Court.

“In the present legislative and regulatory environment, any severe curtailing of natural gas fracking would just lead to a bounce back of coal, not an expansion of renewables,” said Ray Pierrehumbert, a geophysicist at the University of Chicago. “A strong carbon tax or strong support for renewables and efficiency could possibly allow fracking to be phased out without causing a bounce back in coal, but that’s not the situation we are facing in the US.”

Not everyone agrees with that assessment. Coal is ultimately in a death spiral regardless of what happens with fracking, says Mark Brownstein, vice president of climate programs at the Environmental Defense Fund, a group that generally supports replacing coal with gas.

“Any way you slice it, you have old, inefficient, highly polluting coal-fired power plants in the US, and there are all sorts of economic and political and environmental factors that bear down on them irrespective of the price of natural gas,” he said. “The simple possibility of gas prices rising doesn’t change the fundamental pressure on coal.”

Fracking faces economic pressures of its own, unrelated to regulation of methane leaks or water contamination. The boom in oil and gas production is starting to come full circle, as the saturated market drives down prices, which in turn drives down production. In 2015, gas production dipped for the first time in years; the same crash happened in oil production in response to record-low global oil prices. In other words, the fracking industry is already contracting without any help from Sanders or Clinton.

And for what it’s worth, the candidates’ threats could be kind of toothless anyway, Barnett said.

“It’s unlikely the president has the authority to impose a national ban on fracking without new legislation from Congress,” he said. “And Congress simply isn’t likely to play along.”

Source article: 

Clinton and Sanders Want to Restrict Fracking. Will That Make Global Warming Worse?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Bragg, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, solar, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clinton and Sanders Want to Restrict Fracking. Will That Make Global Warming Worse?