Daily Kos

Reposted from Michele Swenson by Regina in a Sears Kit House Editor's Note: Colorado mining: toxic remains. -- Regina in a Sears Kit House

A century and a half of hard-rock mining with no accountability, without consideration for environmental consequences or downstream neighbors has taken a heavy toll in the West. Metallic, acidic wastewater from mines have a long-term effect on agriculture, ranching, aquatic life, human and wild life, and aquifers.

A 3 million gallon dump of mustard-colored toxic waste from Gold King Mine into the Animas River on August 5 raised the most recent alarm, even as the EPA estimates that the overall discharges from local abandoned mines amount to one Gold King mine disaster every two days. Colorado officials estimate that drainage from 230 abandoned mines in the state result in the failure of 1,645 miles of 105,000 miles (1.6%) of rivers and streams to meet Clean Water Act standards.

Cited as the worst environmental disaster in Colorado history, the Summitville open-pit cyanide heap-leach gold mine sits at an altitude of 11,500 feet in the San Juan Mountains, southeast of the Gold King Mine and 40 miles west of the city of Alamosa, just east of the continental divide. The devastating fallout of this form of mining led one resident to lament that the San Juan Valley had become "the poster child for how not to do mining."

Because underground gold mines were depleted, the U.S Bureau of Mines by 1969 proposed open-pit cyanide heap-leach gold mining, with the promise of extracting small quantities of gold from large quantities of low-grade ore, ostensibly to make gold mining profitable once more, to boost the economy and create jobs. The anticipated "profitability" of open-pit cyanide heap-leach gold mining failed to factor in the profound consequences of this technique of mining to all life forms and the environment.

Unanticipated were the huge quantities of waste, and the almost immediate release of potentially dangerous toxins into the environment, with profound effects on human and animal life. A teaspoon of 2% cyanide can kill a person, and high cyanide concentrations are toxic to soil microorganisms.

Reposted from The Progressive Atheist by rebel ga

In a much-needed victory for the environment, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revoked federal approval of sulfoxaflor, a widely-used insecticide that has been linked to declining bee populations. The court's ruling went against both the company that manufactures the insecticide, as well as the EPA itself, which the court said violated its own rules and regulations.

The court said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave unconditional approval of the insecticide sulfoxaflor in 2013, even though it was clearly toxic to honeybees, and the manufacturer failed to conduct required tests of its impact on not just adult bees, but also brood and colony strength.

The EPA violated its own rules and procedures, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision said. And in an unusual move, it took the added step of overturning the EPA’s approval because “given the precariousness of the bee populations,” leaving the insecticide on the market would create greater environmental risks than pulling it.

In other words, by ruling against the EPA, the Court is doing the EPA's job for it.

Initially, the EPA gave conditional approval to the chemical, meaning that Dow would need to provide more research on its effect on bees. But within months, the EPA gave sulfoxaflor final approval even without the required studies.

“Without sufficient data, the EPA has no real idea whether sulfoxaflor will cause unreasonable adverse effects on bees,” the judges said.

The article also mentions neonicotinoids, which are being increasingly linked to the declining bee population. Not only is the evidence showing that such chemicals have negative effects on the bees, but compounding the problem, another study shows that bees may actually prefer eating the chemically-laced food, targeting "the same mechanisms in the bee brain that are affected by nicotine in the human brain."

The implications of these insecticides also appear to go far beyond just the decline of honeybees.

And just weeks ago, the influential group of scientists of the European Acadamies Science Advisory Council issued a statement which concludes ecological damage from the neonicotinoids are greater than previously understood, impacting not just honeybees but reducing populations of other pollinating insects like bumblebees, wild bees, and predatory insects which help to control pests, and they state that limiting the focus to honeybees "distorts the debate", since other negative impacts tend to be ignored. The report said widespread pesticide use “has severe effects on a range of organisms that provide ecosystem services like pollination and natural pest control, as well as on biodiversity," and that, "[i]n some cases, neonicotinoid use has even made pest problems worse by eliminating insects which provided natural pest control."

The article on Thursday's ruling also suggests that the EPA, in studying the effects of such chemicals, must consider the full, long-term and colony-wide effects, rather than just immediate lethality.

The decline of honeybees and other insects has been a devastating blow for our economy, but let us not forget also our environment as a whole. While this has driven much research in the area to learn what factors are impacting this pressing issue, it should not be a surprise that such toxic chemicals are becoming so strongly linked to this trend. Because of this, the EPA's lack of action and, at best, questionable judgment in dealing with these chemicals, and the companies lobbying for their continued usage, only further highlights the need to hold the government accountable for ensuring the safety of our people, and our environment. While the scientists conducting the research and uncovering these links should be commended for the great amount of work they have done in furthering these efforts, it will really come down to the citizen activists like ZhenRen and many other kossacks here to get the word out, and continue to put pressure on politicians and government officials to act.

(h/t Greg Laden's Facebook)

Reposted from Assaf by Assaf

Electric vehicles (EVs) suffer from extremely hostile media. When they get mainstream headlines, it's because a random bit of data has suddenly "proven" some preconceived anti-EV canard. Either that, or something about Tesla. Tesla's media prominence in itself reinforces one of those canards, of course.

Meanwhile, away from the headlines, a simple and growing reality has taken root:

Recently, in some 150,000+ American households, the main or only car has been a battery-electric (BEV) Nissan Leaf or an electric-with-gas-backup (EREV/PHEV) Chevy Volt, and on the whole these households are super happy about their choice.

Unlike Tesla's offerings (to be clear: I admire what that company has done), the Leaf and Volt have targeted the midrange market from the start. They are now cheaper than they originally were, and rather affordable.

How do I know about those 150,000 households? First, according to the meticulous bookkeeping by insideevs.com, some 87k Leafs and 81k Volts have been sold in the US to date. Accounting for some attrition (e.g., our first Leaf lease, a 2012, was apparently exported to Norway after we returned it) and some multi-EV households, one could safely assume about 150,000 households. And typically, when an EV enters a household it starts hauling the bulk of daily mileage.

[ There are tens of thousands of additional households with EVs other than the Leaf, the Volt or a Tesla. Just look up the insideevs.com link above, there are about a dozen other plug-in vehicles available nationwide, and a dozen more in limited distribution. ]

What about the happiness? According to Consumer Reports, both the Leaf and the Volt score well above average in consumer satisfaction - Volt at 85 and Leaf at 77, while 65-70 is considered an average score.  It's not a perfect record, but for the speculative first-generation specimens of an alternative technology this is darn good.

[ btw, Leaf matches or beats Volt on every sub-score item, but gets hammered on "Style". And Tesla Model S consumer satisfaction, just like its new-car ratings, is through the roof ]

Ok.... drumroll to the latest news.

On Thursday, Nissan announced the specs on its 2016 Leaf, to be available at dealerships in a few weeks. For 2 of 3 Leaf trims, EPA-rated average range has increased to 107 miles - up from 84 miles in 2013-2015, and 73 miles in 2011-2012. It is still Generation 1 of the Leaf, the same look (love it or hate it...). They just increased battery-pack capacity by 25% without changing its form. And the price remained essentially the same, with quick-charging (a must-have if you want to take your Leaf on a road trip) offered as standard on both trims.

It should be noted that the EPA test cycle is the most rigorous around, and its estimate does reflect a reliable year-round average range for the average driver. There's great news on the thorny issue of battery depletion too: the 2016 Leaf comes with guaranteed >70% capacity retention through 8 years or 100k miles (for 2011-2015 it was 5 years or 60k miles).

GM already announced the specs on its 2016, Generation 2 Volt a few months ago, with the first cars to be delivered this month in California. EPA-rated electric range jumped to 53 miles, from 38 miles in 2013-2015 and 35 miles in 2011-2012. 53 miles is more than double the average round-trip commute in most US metro areas (pdf).

Of course, unlike the Leaf, the Volt also sports a fully functional gas engine, whose energy efficiency has also improved from 37 MPG in Gen 1 to 42 MPG in Gen 2. They also added a 5th seat (which to be honest, is more suited for a child carseat than a grown person). And the Volt's price has actually come down.

This is huge. Leaving the customer-angle aside for a moment, it is huge news in the battle for EV viability between major EV makers and their adversaries, namely the fossil-fuel industry (and its useful idiots among rival automakers and the media). EV makers have been trying to use the first generation of this commercially risky technology, to 1. Grow an enthusiastic customer core, 2. Learn enough from this core's experience to reduce costs and rapidly improve the technology, in order to offer a solid mainstream-attractive product as soon as possible. All that, without bleeding too much money.

[ Another Tesla aside. Their strategy is different: start from top-notch tech at premium prices, and gradually pave the way to still-great tech at affordable prices. This path has proven harder for the enemy to break, but it is also slower. As far as I'm concerned, it's a win-win. We're fortunate to have makers work the EV route from different angles, not least of which is China's BYD churning out EV buses and taxis by the thousand. ]

The fossils and their allies, of course, have tried to stop EV makers at every step, by throwing wedges between EV makers, drivers, governments and the public, so that the EV makers give up and write off the whole adventure as a loss, just like GM did with E.V. 1 at the turn of the century.

Now this game is largely over. The 107-mile Leaf is close enough to the Holy Grail of EV technology: a BEV with a proven track record, from a leading automaker, whose range and quick-charge combination meet most people's needs at least 99 days out of 100. The increased battery warranty seals the deal.

We'd driven the 73-mile Leaf for 2 years, and now the 84-mile Leaf for 1+ years (both with quick-charge). First, on a day-to-day basis the 73 miles were plenty enough. Second, when going on day trips and road trips, the difference between 73 and 84 is substantial, especially in winter (the 84-mile version has better range stability thanks to more efficient AC/heating). Give us another 23 miles range, reportedly even better range stability, and still the same price point... wow.  

What about the Volt? In what is the most infuriatingly kept secret, the amazing engineering quality of Gen 1 Volt has been left unsung. Have you heard that J.D. Power found the Volt to be #1 in the entire compact class for 3-year dependability? While Chevrolet in general sucks on this front? I wouldn't have heard about it too, if I wasn't regularly reading insideevs.com.

From what I can tell, the Volt is simply the best car called "Chevrolet" you can get right now. Unfortunately, prior to Mary Barra's arrival, GM top brass, marketing and dealers have failed the Volt. Now with even more irresistible specs on the Gen 2, and with top management fully pushing the Volt, we should see some major mainstream penetration.

By the way, if you can't or won't buy a new car, 2011-2013 Leafs now go for $9-13k, sometimes even less (the search in the link is limited to Leafs with <30k miles on them). If you currently use a gas/diesel car to commute, replacing it with a used Leaf - assuming it can handle your commute distance - quickly pays for itself in fuel and maintenance savings. I bumped into several recent buyers of such used Leafs, both in person and online; usually they are EV newbies, and they all seem ecstatic at the deal they've made. (used Volts seems to start at ~$13k)

And we ain't seen nothing yet. By mid-2017 at latest, both GM and Nissan will offer affordable BEVs with 150-200 miles range (the Gen 2 Leaf and the Chevy Bolt). 2-3 years later, Tesla will finally begin selling an affordable version of its 200+ mile BEV supercars to the masses. At that point, internal-combustion technology should become about as attractive and relevant as typewriters.

All this means that we now have another way to kick the oil economy when it's down. And if it tries to raise its head and jack gas prices up again, it will just send auto buyers running even faster to get into an EV.

I had ideas about putting details below the fold. But instead, let's open it up for Q&A with my 3 readers.

Happy Saturday!

-------------- Sat Noon PDT UPDATE: -------------------

[ mandatory "Wow the Wreck List"" blurb]  Thanks! Next time you need to shop for a car, please do consider wrecking the ICE (internal-combustion-engine) and picking up something with a plug - new, used, whatever fits your needs and budget.

A couple of clarifications to confusion in some of the comments:

Quick Charge (QC) - this is not the 240v AC charger. The 240v AC is known as "standard" or "Level 2" charger.

Rather, QC or "Level 3" is DC at a higher voltage (typically 480v). Don't ask me how it works. But it's the EV analogue to a gas station (the other option is swapping the battery out... thus far, proven to be not very economical).

Filling up a Leaf from near-empty to ~90%, takes half an hour give or take a few minutes. On the road, it's great if you can combine that with a stop you need to make anyway. For example, driving to the Washington coast last month (140 miles), we used the Olympia Nissan QC in both directions. Going there we had lunch; going back we had coffee. In both cases charging ended before we finished our food/coffee business.

QC is also a viable workaround for people who want an EV but don't have access to an overnight outlet. If they have enough conveniently located Quick-Chargers around, they can weave a half-hour coffee and charging stop every few days into their routine, in lieu of overnight charging. The price of a QC session can be anywhere from free, to an outrageous ~$10. Some charging companies offer a monthly subscription.

If you want to snoop ahead, what type of QC infrastructure exists in your region (it varies greatly), look up plugshare.com (they also have an app, of course). QCs are shown in orange as "High Powered Stations"; uncheck all other chargers to make them more visible. Be sure to go into 'More Options', and uncheck all the Tesla QCs, because unless you can afford a Tesla they are irrelevant for you.

The Volt does not have a QC option; having a gas engine, it doesn't need one. Tesla Model S has its own (needless to say, superior) QC system called "Superchargers", open only to Tesla Model S (and future models). To add insult to injury, Tesla drivers can now buy an adapter they can use on Nissan-compatible QC stations :)

240v Level 2 chargers are the more common public chargers you see popping up. Many EV drivers install one in their home. The cost is a few hundred for the charger itself, plus a few hundred for the circuit (possibly more if you have a complicated set-up). Or you can parasite on an existing 240v circuit - your dryer, range, a kiln, etc. Just make sure you know what you're doing. There's going to be a lot of electricity flowing through there, it better be a solid circuit and outlet.

If you are not a heavy commuter doing >50 miles every single day, you don't have to install a Level 2. All EVs come with a free, 110v "Level 1" or "trickle" charger, that can juice you back at least 40-50 miles every night (depending also on how long your "night" is).

Capisci?

Gen 2 Volt's gas MPG - lots of angst over this. First, note this is only the MPG when running on gas. When running electric, the Gen 2 Volt's efficiency is rated by EPA at 106 MPGe, not too shabby.

Second, the whole point of the Volt, especially the Gen 2, is to do most of your driving, hopefully all of your day-to-day driving, electric. So whether the residual gas MPG is 40 or 50 or even the previous 37, is not a big deal IMHO.

That said, the comparison with the 2015 Prius' 50 MPG is unfair. In order to be electric, the Volt has to haul ~200kg of battery. So it's heavier. The correct analogy is to the Camry hybrid, or to the larger PriusV, whose 2015 efficiency is.... 42 MPG, just like the Gen 2 Volt :)

Happy Saturday afternoon!

Reposted from Community Quilt Project by JekyllnHyde

Common Sense Mainer's quilt in the hoop for quilting by hand

JoanMar is in grief for the sudden loss of her daughter.  We wish to get her community quilt to her as speedily as possible.  We are short 2 messages and $61 for this quilt.  I will keep these numbers updated.

From the first quilt diary for JoanMar:

JoanMar, the founder and moving force behind DK's Support the Dream Defenders and longtime, community member, activist and friend, suffered a sudden and unthinkable loss recently.  JoanMar's daughter was in the hospital for what seemed to be a bleeding ulcer. She was due to come home when she suddenly died.  It is said that one of the worst pains a human heart can ever bear is the loss of a child.  It is a pain that JoanMar will carry as long as she lives.  She will need her friends, not just now but for the future, because this is not a wound that will ever go away completely.  Loving friendship is what will help her recover and carry on.

The Daily Kos community has lovingly given JoanMar financial support, to help defray the costs of the funeral and any incidental costs -- to relieve any immediate worry about money while she grieves.  Now we will continue to give emotional support as well, with something tangible in which she can wrap herself -- a community quilt bearing your words of love and comfort.  She will be able to cry into it, rest under it, read it over and over...believe me when I say that loving words, once uttered, continue to work healing magic.  They are incredibly powerful -- and the best medicine we can give our friend.

Reposted from Daily Kos by rebel ga Osprey Orielle Lake at Common Dreams writes Women On The Frontlines, An Untold Climate Story:

Twenty million of the twenty-six million people estimated to have been displaced by climate change as of 2010 are women. The bottom line is that the poor are most heavily impacted by climate change, and the vast majority of people living on less than a dollar a day are women.

Studies show that women are more susceptible then men to the harmful effects of toxic pollution from fossil fuels and industrial processes. As mothers and life-givers, climate change effects women in deeply personal ways, such as the dangerous health effects of carbon emissions on pregnant women and developing babies.

"We know, and must push governments to see, that the window of opportunity for acting on climate change is not going to be open for much longer. Our children are watching. The lives of current and future generations are at stake."

The stresses that many Indigenous women and women in developing countries experience as a result of environmental degradation and climate change are even more severe due to their direct reliance on nature and primary resources for their survival. Drought, flooding, and unpredictable temperatures increase burdens on millions of women worldwide who, due to gender roles and norms, hold primary responsibility for providing food, water and firewood for their families.

Looking at a deeper analysis, it is clear that that women face these disproportionately severe climate harms because at a global scale, their economic, political, and social rights continue to be denied. Women, for example, are much more likely to die in extreme weather events for reasons ranging from a lack of financial independence from male family members, to things as simple as never being permitted to learn how to swim.

Thus, when we reflect on the dire climate impacts felt by women, it is essential that we reflect on roots causes - namely the culture of patriarchy based on domination over nature and women that has been institutionalized worldwide to varying degrees. It is essential that we embrace this systemic perspective so that we can take bold steps to shift our cultural narratives and challenge the worldviews that produce and enforce the twin problems of environmental destruction and gender inequality.

However, I highlight women’s stories as the most vital untold climate story not only because of their increased vulnerability, but because of their profound power and agency. Women hold the keys to just, holistic solutions for a livable planet. [...]

---

Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2003—Rumsfeld spins; Lehrer not sucked in:

Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld appeared on PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer tonight (2003-09-10), discussing "coalition" "progress" in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Transcript, RealAudio, streaming video -- thx, DavidNYC. Correction: that's David in NYC, my apologies to both Davids.)

Rumsfeld was cast as the arm-waving, tap-dancing used car salesman. The transcript text is perhaps too kind to Rumsfeld, who makes his trademark appeals to credulity in a borderline pathetic tone:

"Jim, JIM! You know what a set of wheels like this means, don't ya? It means FREEDOM, that's what it means. Sure, she runs a little rough, but look -- yeah, I know about that oil leak, we'll tighten that up, don't you worry -- look, Jim, this baby comes loaded ... WMDs, democracy, the works! What? Where are the WMDs? Just a sec, I know the hood release is under here somewhere. Aw, Jim, gimme a break willya? It's been a lousy month, old Don really needs this sale."

Jim was the prospective buyer. The audio does not do the encounter justice, as Lehrer's incredulous facial expression virtually screams ...

"You know it's a lemon. I know it's a lemon. You already know I'm not buying it. I can't believe you have the gall to make me sit through this whole song and dance. Why not spare us both a little time and a little dignity? Just bring out something worth looking at, and we can talk."

Possibly a collectors item.

---

Tweet of the Day

---

On today's Kagro in the Morning show: David Waldman, ready to talk sports! How about that football in Qaqortoq? Serena Williams may make a great James Bond, is an excellent tennis player. TV journo called out for tripping. Longtime listener Greg Dworkin calls in to talk winners, losers: Obama wins! Cotton & Cheney lose. Christie’s toast is toastier as United CEO steps down. Cruz not prepared for elbows at the Kim Davis event. Yet another band hates having their music used at a conservative event. Joan McCarter tells us what Congress will do with the 10 legislative days they have left: Republicans still have no plan to avoid a shutdown, but have a few plans on their War on Women. Find us on iTunes | Find us on Stitcher | RSS | Donate to support the show!

---

High Impact Posts • Top Comments

Reposted from Lefty Coaster by Ojibwa

The scientific evidence of the urgency of taking substantial action to reduce GHG emissions keeps mounting. Among the changes in our oceans driven by Climate Change is the possibility we are damaging our system of ocean currents.

Global warming could shut down major ocean currents, say researchers

Two papers examine how rapidly melting Arctic ice could slow or even halt normal ocean circulation, with northern latitudes getting frigid and Southeast Asia hit by super-droughts.

By: Joby Warrick

WASHINGTON—Two new studies are adding to concerns about one of the most troubling scenarios for future climate change: the possibility that global warming could slow or shut down the Atlantic’s great ocean circulation systems, with dramatic implications for North America and Europe.

The research, by separate teams of scientists, bolsters predictions of disruptions to global ocean currents — such as the Gulf Stream — that transfer tropical warmth from the equator to northern latitudes, as well as a larger conveyor system that cycles colder water into the ocean’s depths.

Both systems help ensure relatively mild conditions in parts of Northern Europe that would otherwise be much colder.

The papers offer insight into how rapidly melting Arctic ice could slow or even temporarily halt the ocean’s normal circulation, with possible effects ranging from plunging temperatures in northern latitudes to centuries-long droughts in Southeast Asia.

Their report, in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, says previous research may have underestimated changes to the ocean from the huge influx of fresh, cold water from melting ice sheets.

Reposted from Shockwave by JekyllnHyde

The term "global warming" is more descriptive but I accept "climate change".  Here is a good discussion.

I started educating myself about the threat when "global warming" was what I stumbled on.

Recently I stumbled upon an interesting map of a survey taken in 2008 by Gallup

First the easy stuff.  Europe, Latin America (all the way to Mexico), Australia, some parts of Africa and to a degree Canada have majorities of people that are aware of global warming and of those who are aware, a majority agree that it is a serious threat.  And there are indications that they are making an effort to do something about it

Interestingly Germany and Brazil seem to be leading these regions;

Germany and Brazil join forces on climate change action

Brazil Has Done More To Stop Climate Change Than Any Other Country, Study Finds

Germany Just Got 78 Percent Of Its Electricity From Renewable Sources

If you look at other BRIC countries, India, things are more complicated.

Let's start with this graphic representation of how many planets would be needed to achieve sustainability if all the people in the world consumed the same as the selected countries.

India is rather efficient in it's use of resources given it's half-planet needs.  But a majority of its people are unaware of the issue.  The Indian government is making an effort but they should and, perhaps they are starting to, educate the masses.  Thankfully, a majority of those Indians who are aware also understand its seriousness.  

China is another story; Here's Why China Cares More About Climate Change Than Congress Does.  Although a majority are aware of global warming, most of them are not aware of the seriousness of the problem. Why? They have more serious problems like pollution?  The Communist Party still doesn't get it? China is the #1 emitter of CO2.  China is almost as efficient as India in its use of resources. Many in China are still as poor as in India but China's energy sector seems to be much worse.  Interestingly, there is a rapprochement between China and India that Russia approves of.  The Communist Party in China has absolute power and a long term vision of Chinese supremacy.  Capitalism is their economic engine but they have some authority (however increasingly weaker) to change things.  They are investing in renewables. And IMO, they must be looking at Russian Siberia as the place to exploit was Earth heats up.  

Speaking of Russia, the unsustainable power.  They are almost as bad as America in their use of resources.  And their plutocracy is where we may end up unless Citizens United is not overturned or Trump is elected.  They know about global warming but they don't think it is a problem.  Maybe they have bigger problems maybe...  Hopefully the new regional triunvirate of India, Russia and China will get their act together.

And then there is the Leader of the Free World who at least is #2 in CO2 emmissions and who is not really leading since the non-approval of the Kyoto prtocol because of the massive influence of the fossil fuel industry in American politics.  They have managed to nullify any possible leadership role.

This graphic is a starting point;

I've written before about how serious I think global warming is;

Global warming, nuclear war, artificial intelligence and the end of the world

And now I campaign for the one candidate who I think gets it and will do something about it because he considers it one of the serious and existential problems we face.

Reposted from rebel ga by rebel ga

The National Writers Union
NWU AFL-CIO

The Facts On Immigration Today
The Center For American Progresss
1333 H St. NW, 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005

♥Our Lady of Guadalupe♥
It's said; "If you have a question, ask Our Lady Of Guadalupe and she will tell you the answer." So I asked her; how I could help, the poor, starving, Mexican People  (and everyone, Immigrants, from everywhere).

Totally Free-US Gov't Immigration Info DACA/DAPA And Cesar Chavez

Immigration Explorer  Select a foreign-born group to see how they settled across the United States.

Teen Immigrants Five American Stories

Immigration Stories of Yesterday and Today Ellis Island

They're Coming to America: Immigrants Past and Present In this lesson from Faces of America, students will explore the history of America - a nation of immigrants. Grades 5-7

♥We Are All The Children Of Immigrants♥

Reposted from Baja Arizona Kossacks by rebel ga

According to Arizona's electric utilities, these are good:

And these are bad - and so unfair: Arizona electric utilities are at war with solar - more specifically, they're at war with privately generated solar - rooftop PV (Photovoltaic) solar panels. You see, Arizona electric utilities are a collection of co-ops. The larger ones - Arizona Public Service and Salt River Project - own most of the power generating plants, and sell some their power directly to residential and business customers, as well as selling their power to other cooperatives in Arizona and utilities in other states. Whether you're a cooperative that generates electricity or one that just buys it from them and sells it at a markup to residential and business customer, they've all had a pretty cozy monopoly for over 100 years, and they don't like the idea of anyone cutting into part of their take. That would be companies like Solar City that make rooftop solar affordable with no upfront costs, but a 20 year lease on the equipment. So, Arizona electricity utilities are fighting back. They claim that folks who like the idea of generating their carbon free electricity from the sun aren't bearing their "fair share" of the costs of maintaining the grid transmission lines. Most rooftop solar is designed to be as "net zero" as possible - generate enough surplus electricity in the daytime that is sold to the utility that it evens out the electricity bought back at night or cloudy days. The logic is that those folks' small electric bill shifts the cost of maintaining their grid to customers who don't have solar. And that's just not "fair" the electric utilities claim. Well, it's also complete bullshit. Solar's peak energy generation for the grid is during the peak demand hours - afternoon and early evening, when usage and rates are highest, reducing strain on utilities and conventional power sources like coal, gas, and nuclear. And solar is distributed generation (DG), meaning it is fed into the grid and used by the nearest connection to the grid that needs electricity. Instead of having to transmit the electricity you need to run your AC or fridge from a power plant hundreds of miles away, they can send it to you from your next door neighbor with rooftop solar. And utilities love to whine & moan about the costs imposed on them by the EPA and other federal and state regulations on how much crap they can spew out into our air. Well guys, here's a source of clean energy with almost no EPA regulation that has almost no cost to you in infrastructure investment, especially compared to the cost of building a new power plant to meet rising demand from a growing population. But no, Arizona electric utilities are acting like 21st century Buggy Whip Makers - they don't want to change, and they don't want anyone else to get any of their cut of the economy.

 Follow me over the hump and see what crap they're pulling.

Reposted from Climate Change SOS by Dont Just Sit There DO SOMETHING

~~reposted from HuffPo, where this article appears as "Climate Truth, Justice, and the American Way," by Communitopia president Joylette Portlock, Ph.D.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that humans are warming our planet by burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees. 97% of climate scientists agree about this. But the agreement doesn't stop there; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also went to a lot of effort to create equally strong reports about who will be hurt worst, and it turns out, climate impacts are not distributed equally across all of humanity. Climate change is being caused by the richest humans and the impacts will be borne largely by the poorest. This, of course, is not news to anyone thinking about it for a minute, especially those of us who recently marked the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's landfall with grim remembrance of some of the disparities in who is most vulnerable during and after disasters.

Unlike Pope Francis, who eloquently casts climate change as a moral battle, a matter of justice for the poor, in his recent encyclical, Laudato Si, the scientific community never actually comes right out and says this is a matter of right and wrong. Instead, the IPCC says things like:

"People who are socially, economically, culturally, politically, institutionally, or otherwise marginalized are especially vulnerable to climate change and also to some adaptation and mitigation responses."

--- which is, arguably, scientist-speak for "this is totally just not fair at all, you guys."

So what are we to do? And must we remain solemnly grim and horrified while doing it?

It's possible I may be biased, because my personal fight for climate justice has led to lots of silliness, laughs, and even wearing a cape from time to time. This is not typical. But our latest video in the Don't Just Sit There - Do Something! series points out that when it comes to climate change, while there really is a right and a wrong course of action, heroes and villians -- we can choose inspiration over despair. It's up to us to become the heroes that we're looking for.

I know that, especially as a U.S. resident who is thankfully not hurting for basic necessities, some climate-friendly changes are easier and faster to make than others. Recently, my family took a big step that was a long time coming, buying a used Chevy Volt. For years, we've known our next car would be electric, and the day finally came. Unsolicited, unsponsored review? It's GREAT, and honestly, the personal benefits far outweigh the peace of mind that I get from knowing my carbon footprint is that much lower. I mean, it's no invisible jet, but driving the Volt is smooth and quiet and really, genuinely fun. Even the 2012 model makes you feel like you live in the future. Or at least, like you live in a future you'd approve of. One that protects not only the weakest among us, but also all future generations.

Personal changes and policy changes (like the recently finalized, historic Clean Power Plan to reduce climate pollution from the U.S. power sector) are what will get us to that better future, for everyone. So let's keep fighting for truth, justice, and a new, clean-energy-based American way.

~~~
If you enjoy our videos, please feel free to share widely. You can follow the show on YouTube, Facebook, Google+, iTunes, at djst.tv, or on Twitter:@dsa_climate to be assured of timely updates!

Thank you, as always, for your comments, recs, tips, and reshares.

--
Communitopia's mission? Through use of new media and project-based campaigns, to slow climate change and create healthier communities by identifying, researching, and advocating for individual, community, and federal solutions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and improve community resilience. Our three-word mission is "Making Green Mainstream."

Reposted from S Kitchen by S Kitchen

This post has been cross posted from the Raging Chicken Press

Penn State University is once again attracting the ire of the environmental community.  This time, the university if forcing incoming freshman to read “The Boom: How Fracking Ignited the American Energy Revolution & Changed the World” by Russell Gold.

According to a video posted on the Penn State Reads website, the program will be a student’s “first sanctioned experience with the university.”  The video is narrated by Terry Engelder, who is no stranger to fracking activists.  In 2012, I reported on a slideshow authored by Engelder that compared toxic chemicals found in a polluted aquifer to what you would find in a bowl of Wheaties.  Yes, Wheaties.

Students who read the book, will then have the opportunity to write an essay on the book and then the top two go-getters will win a $100 Amazon gift card and meet the book’s author.

The website reads:

Penn State Reads invites first-year students to participate in an essay contest in order to further engage with the themes of the 2015 Penn State Reads selection, The Boom by Russell Gold. Responses to one of the prompts will be judged based on connection to the Penn State Values, a demonstrated ability to think critically about the prompt, responsiveness to prompt, literary style and grammar. The top two submissions will be displayed on the Penn State Reads website. Winners will receive a prize of a $100 Amazon gift card as well as the opportunity to meet Gold when he is on campus October 12-14, 2015. Responses should be no longer than 1,000 words and can be submitted as an attachment to pennstatereads@psu.edu by the deadline of September 11. First year-world campus students are also invited to submit an essay to the contest.

An online petition is calling out the university for this stunt, stating:

Penn State University freshmen this year will be required to read Russell Gold’s pro-fracking book, “The Boom: How Fracking Ignited the American Energy Revolution and Changed the World”, as part of the school’s Penn State Reads program. They’ll even be able to win cash prizes for the essays they write on what they’ve learned! Then, in mid-October, Mr. Gold will spend a few days on campus to speak with students and lecture.

Penn State University is nothing if not loyal to the fracking industry!

Please sign and share our petition calling on Penn State to do a whole lot better by their students by scrapping “The Boom” from its reading program and breaking ties with the fossil fuels industry for good!

UPDATE: I am getting some questions from people on the fact that this book was to create a dialogue.  It should, and it should be balanced.  Here are some concerns with this though.  Terry Engelder has a financial stake in the industry as a private consultant.  He has compared himself and the work that he has done to the likes of Jonas Salk, who cured polio, and Louis Pasteur.  The University was also caught failing to disclose natural gas funders for a report on natural gas drilling.

Reposted from Dan Bacher by Dan Bacher

Senator Mike McGuire vowed that he will try again next year to pass a bill to forever protect California’s coast from new offshore oil development in state waters – the California Coastal Protection Act (SB 788) – after the legislation failed twice because of intense opposition by Big Oil.

The bill was unexpectedly held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 27 after the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and oil companies lobbied legislators to oppose the legislation.

“How many more oil spills do we have to see off the California coast before we stand up to the Big Oil lobby and take action?” McGuire asked, referring to the Santa Barbara Oil Spill of 1969 and the Refugio Oil Spill that devastated the Santa Barbara Coast again this year. “Today’s vote is incredibly disappointing, but it’s a hurdle we will overcome in this fight to protect our coast.”

“Big oil may have the money, but the people of California will win the fight to protect our environment and California’s $40 billion coastal economy,” he vowed.

The bill would close a loophole in California law that would allow drilling in and near a "marine protected area."

In 1994, the California Legislature banned any new offshore oil and gas leases when it passed the California Coastal Sanctuary Act. However, a loophole in state law left Tranquillon Ridge, which extends into state and federal waters, with reserves that are currently being tapped in federal waters from Platform Irene, uniquely vulnerable to offshore drilling.  

SB 788, the Coastal Protection Act, closes the loophole by repealing Public Resources Code 6244, effectively banning any new drilling in these state waters.  

Bill would protect Vandenberg State Marine Reserve

In 2007, Tranquillon Ridge was designated as a "marine protected area" under the controversial Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative. Yet in violation of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Act of 1999, the “marine protected areas” created under the process, privately funded by the Resources Legacy Foundation, failed to protect the ocean from offshore oil drilling, fracking, pollution, corporate aquaculture and all human impacts other than sustainable fishing and gathering.

SB 788 would finally protect the Vandenberg State Marine Reserve, created under the MLPA Initiative, from offshore oil drilling.  

Over the years, oil companies have made numerous attempts to tap into Tranquillon Ridge’s offshore reserves from state waters, according to Senator Beth Hannah Jackson, who jointly authored the bill with Senator McGuire. Since 2003, Sunset and Exxon have pursed an oil development proposal to drill into Tranquillon Ridge reserves from an onshore location at Vandenberg Air Force Base.

According to a Legislative Analysis, business and taxpayer organizations and oil companies and associations who oppose the bill argue that if state resources are being drained by federally approved leases, the state should be compensated.

Besides WSPA, the California Chamber of Commerce, California Independent Petroleum Association, California Manufacturers & Technology Association and Sunset Exploration oppose the bill.

“SB 788 would not impact the ongoing drainage of state resources from oil and gas operations in federal land,” argued WSPA in a letter. “Instead SB 788 would only prohibit the state from  capturing oil and gas resources that otherwise will continue to be drained by adjacent wells outside of the state’s purview.”

Sunset Explorer further argues that a state lease allowing land-based infrastructure provides the state with an opportunity to limit resource opportunities available to federal marine platforms, such as platform Irene.  

Former "marine protected area" chair opposes bill

In a bizarre scenario that could only take place in California, the same President of the Western Petroleum Association, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, who led the opposition to Senate Bill 788 also served as the Chair of the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create “marine protected areas” in Southern California – including four MPAs that were fouled by the Refugio Oil Spill this year.  

She also sat on the task forces to create “marine protected areas” on the Central Coast, North Central Coast and North Coast from 2004 through 2012.

So we have same oil industry lobbyist who oversaw the creation of the marine protected areas along the California coast lobbying, yes, to block protection of a marine protected areas from an oil drilling proposal!

Big Oil, the largest and most powerful corporate lobby in Sacramento, wields its influence by spending its money on lobbying and election campaigns, creating Astroturf groups and getting its officials and friends on state regulatory panels.

Big Oil spent a total of $266 million influencing California politics from 2005 to 2014, according to an analysis of California Secretary of State data by StopFoolingCA.org, an online and social media public education and awareness campaign that highlights oil companies’ efforts to “mislead and confuse Californians.” The industry spent $112 million of this money on lobbying and the other $154 million on political campaigns. (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/...)

Last year the Western States Petroleum Association spent a record $8.9 million on lobbying, double what it spent in the previous year. In the first six months of 2015, the oil industry spent $6.2 million to lobby state officials, including $2,529,240 spent by the Western States Petroleum Association alone. (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/...)  

SB 788 has broad support among environmentalists, Tribes and fishermen

While Big Oil may have millions and millions of dollars spend, public support for new offshore drilling in California has fallen to a new low of 38%, according to a recent PPIC (Public Policy Institute of California) report. (http://www.ppic.org/...)

Senator McGuire noted that Senate Bill 788 would have forever banned any new oil drilling in state waters off of the California Coast, and would not only have protected our environment, it would have “helped California’s coastal economy thrive.” Coastal communities contribute $40 billion annually to the state’s economy along with 500,000 jobs working families depend on.

“The bill was a part of a historic package of legislative proposals that would strengthen California’s global leadership in tackling climate change,” McGuire said.  

More than 15,000 individuals had signed petitions endorsing SB 788. A broad coalition of environmental organizations and businesses, including the Sierra Club, REI, Patagonia, and Audubon of California, California League of Conservation Voters, California Coastkeeper Alliance, Ocean Outfall Group and California Environmental Justice Alliance, back the bill.

Fishing groups supporting the bill include the California Sport Fishing League, California Trout, California Sea Urchin Commission, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), Golden Gate Salmon Association and Southern California Trawlers Association. Tribes in support include the Habematelel Pomo of Upper Lake, Karuk Tribe, Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians and Smith River Rancheria  

In a SB 788 support letter, the PCFFA said it “stands vigorously opposed to any infrastructure projects that could literally suck the ocean’s wealth into a few corporate coffers at the expense of marine life,  productive fisheries, and our cultural heritage.”

Senator Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) represents 40 percent of California’s coastline from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Oregon border - and vows to keep fighting to protect the California coast from new offshore drilling and fracking.

“We know Californians are smarter than Big Oil gives them credit for,” concluded McGuire. “And we will keep fighting every day to honor their wishes and protect our valuable coast.”

The bill was jointly authored by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson and co-authored by Senators Mark Leno, Ben Allen, Loni Hancock, Bill Monning, Lois Wolk and Assemblymembers Bill Dodd, Marc Levine, Mark Stone, Jim Wood and Das Williams.