Politics of Global Warming

[Tyger]

Climate change: UN backs fossil fuel divestment campaign
Framework convention on climate change says it shares aim for strong deal on fighting global warming at Paris summit
LINK: Climate change: UN backs fossil fuel divestment campaign | Environment | The Guardian

TEXT: "The UN organization in charge of global climate change negotiations is backing the fast-growing campaign persuading investors to sell off their fossil fuel assets. It said it was lending its “moral authority” to the divestment campaign because it shared the ambition to get a strong deal to tackle global warming at a crunch UN summit in Paris in December. “We support divestment as it sends a signal to companies, especially coal companies, that the age of ‘burn what you like, when you like’ cannot continue,” said Nick Nuttall, the spokesman for the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC).

"The move is likely to be controversial as the economies of many nations at the negotiating table heavily rely on coal, oil and gas. In 2013, coal-reliant Poland hosted the UNFCCC summit and was castigated for arranging a global coal industry summit alongside. Now, the World Coal Association has criticised the UNFCCC’s decision to back divestment, saying it threatened investment in cleaner coal technologies.

"Several analyses have shown that there are more fossil fuelsin proven reserves than can be burned if catastrophic global warming is to be avoided, as world leaders have pledged. Divestment campaigners argue that the trillions of dollars companies continue to spend on exploration for even more fossil fuels is a danger to both the climate and investors’ capital. “Everything we do is based on science and the science is pretty clear that we need a world with a lot less fossil fuels,” Nuttall told the Guardian. “We have lent our own moral authority as the UN to those groups or organizations who are divesting. We are saying ‘we support your aims and ambitions because they are fairly and squarely our ambition’, which is to get a good deal in Paris.”

"The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, sent a related message to investors in November, saying: “Please reduce your investments in the coal- and fossil-fuel-based economy and [move] to renewable energy.” But he stopped short of backing the divestment campaign itself. Many religious groups are among the 180 organisations that have already divested their funds from fossil fuels, as well as city authorities and universities. “We see the divestment of churches very much as a moral imperative for them,” Nuttall said. “If their goal is relieving the suffering of millions of people, then divestment is in line with how they want the world to be.”

"A recent tweet from the UNFCCC said: “Divestment worked to free [South Africa] of apartheid. Now it can help free us of fossil fuels.” The tweet carried a quote and image of thearchbishop Desmond Tutu, who in 2014 told the Guardian: “People of conscience need to break their ties with corporations financing the injustice of climate change.” Divestment campaigners say their aim is to bankrupt fossil fuel companies morally, not financially. “No one is saying divestment by churches and universities will shift the market in a one-to-one way,” said Nuttall. “The message now is that you can get off fossil fuels without undermining your investments. It’s a different world now. You can save the world and get a good return on your investment.”

"Many senior figures and institutions in the financial world, including theWorld Bank, Bank of England, HSBC, Goldman Sachs and Standard and Poor’s, have warned that only a fraction of known fossil fuel reserves can be safely burned and that the remainder could plummet in value posing huge risks to investors. Benjamin Sporton, acting chief executive of the World Coal Association, rejected the linking of divestment from fossil fuels with divestment from tobacco and apartheid South Africa. “The coal divestment campaign is not comparable to any other divestment campaign,” he said. “Active and responsible investors play a vital role in encouraging investment in cleaner coal technologies. Demand for coal is not going away.”

"Sporton said the divestment campaign was a concern: “There are economic and social dimensions that mean divesting from fossil fuels – and in particular coal – comes with significant risks, not least when 1.3 billion people are still without access to electricity.” The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in November that global warming is set to inflict severe and irreversible impacts on people and that “limiting its effects is necessary to achieve sustainable development and equity, including poverty eradication”. “Meeting the demand projected by the International Energy Agency will call for $18.5tn (£12.6bn) of cumulative investment between 2014 and 2035,” said a spokesman for the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. “This doesn’t support an argument for divestment.” Replacing coal-fired power stations with gas can halve carbon emissions, he added.

"IPIECA, the global oil and gas industry association for environmental issues and “the industry’s principal channel of communication with the UN”, declined to comment."​

 

[Tyger]

Climate Change Advocate Bill Gates’ Foundation has Over $1 Billion Invested in Fossil Fuel Industry
— March 20, 2015
LINK: Climate Change Advocate Bill Gates' Foundation has Over $1 Billion Invested in Fossil Fuel Industry

TEXT: "Bill and Melinda Gates are some of the most vocal advocates for reversing the effects of climate change, but The Guardian revealed yesterday that their foundation held at least $1.4 billion worth of investments in fossil fuel companies, according to the charity’s 2013 tax filings.

"The Guardian’s examination found that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Asset Trust, the world’s largest charitable foundation, had investments with:

“BP, responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Anadarko Petroleum, which was recently forced to pay a $5bn environmental clean-up charge, and Brazilian mining company Vale, voted the corporation withmost ‘contempt for the environment and human rights’ in the world clocking over 25,000 votes in the Public
Eye annual awards.”
​

"A campaign launched by The Guardian on Monday is calling for the Gates to divest from the fossil fuel industry.

“Your organisation has made a huge contribution to human progress … yet your investments in fossil fuels are putting this progress at great risk. It is morally and financially misguided to invest in companies dedicated to finding and burning more oil, gas and coal.”
​

"The Gates have been very vocal about how damaging the effects of climate change are and how important it is that alternative energy sources are developed.

"In January, the couple’s annual letter said,

“The long-term threat [of climate change] is so serious that the world needs to move more aggressively – right now – to develop energy sources that are cheaper, can deliver on demand, and emit zero carbon dioxide.”
​

"Their stance on climate change makes the truth about their investments incredibly surprising. The Gates Foundation currently has an endowment of more than $43 billion. Divesting from fossil fuels and using those billions to actually try and find those clean energy sources would prove that they really believe climate change is a serious problem. As it stands, they just look like hypocrites."​

 

[Tyger]

A repeat of a previous post -

Sorry for the language in the headline, but Senator Ted Cruz does embarrass himself. Big time.

Idiot Ted Cruz Shut Down by NASA Director on Climate Change Research - March 13, 2015
LINK: Idiot Ted Cruz Shut Down by NASA Director on Climate Change Research

TEXT: "Senator Ted Cruz tried to catch NASA administrator Charles Bolden in a chart trap and it blew up in Cruz’s face. When Cruz tried to corner Bolden into saying that either NASA was appropriately funded or Earth science studies, which for Cruz was code for climate change/global warming research, Bolden shut that line of thinking down.

"Administrator Bolden said to Cruz: 'We can’t go anywhere if the Kennedy Space Center goes underwater and we don’t know it – and that’s understanding our environment. As Senator Nelson said, it is absolutely critical that we understand Earth’s environment because this is the only place that we have to live.' "

Sen. Ted Cruz First Q&A at NASA Budget Hearing

TEXT: "Published on Mar 12, 2015: March 12, 2015"

 

[Tyger]

"This is what happens when a republican governor demands that state employees deny reality."

Evidence of Gov. Rick Scott's ban on "climate change"

TEXT: "Published on Mar 19, 2015"

 

[Tyger]

An important article imo. Very incisive analysis of the situation.

Too Much Oil: Taking on climate change will require massive state investment and the destruction of the fossil fuel industry. by Matt Huber
LINK: Too Much Oil | Jacobin

TEXT: "We tend to associate oil and crisis with high prices and scarcity. Yet when prices plummet — as they have over the last few months — it creates a different kind of problem for oil producers. As this shock reverberates through the state coffers of Russia and Venezuela, and the oil fields of Texas and North Dakota, how might the Left respond?"

[...]

"As Naomi Klein and Christian Parenti (among others) have persuasively argued, climate crisis is so dire that it will take nothing less than a “war-like” mobilization of the public sector (state planning, punitive taxes, and massive subsidies for clean energy) to shift our economy away from fossil fuels."

[...]

"Coal’s share has also seen a simultaneous decrease, declining from 49% in 2007 to 39% in 2013. This change — the kind of massive and rapid one we need toward renewables — has little to do with the cleaner burning qualities of natural gas, or the national security concerns supposedly assuaged by domestically-produced energy. It is simply a product of utilities seeking cheaper fuel."

[...]

"There are also deeper concerns about the substantial methane emissions leaking from fracking infrastructure (e.g., pipelines and compressor stations) that call into question the purported climate benefits of the shale gas boom. And the market-driven shift to gas has essentially locked in decades of fossil fuel infrastructure: more pipelines, more chemical and fertilizer plants, and more centralized fossil-fuel-powered electricity. This despite the devastating ecological costs of fracking: flaming faucets, water contamination, earthquakes, etc.

"The volatility of the oil market over the last twenty years has also been astonishing. In 1999, the Economist ran a cover story about the world market “drowning in oil” as oil prices collapsed to $10/barrel. In 2008, we reached an oil price apex at $147/barrel only to see those prices sink to around $30/barrel in the wake of the financial crisis. After several years of relative price stability around $90–100, prices in 2014 collapsed again to under $50.

"Yet at least this acute turbulence made it clear our energy system was in need of major restructuring. The danger now is low, stable prices for a long period of time. The return to cheap energy can create a kind of “sedative” for political forces aiming to transform our energy policy away from carbon-intensive energy."

[...]

"Yet the planet cannot withstand another decades-long cycle of cheap fossil fuel — low prices will only forestall the transition to renewables energy. And while the Economist recently suggested that the return of cheap energy is a “historic” opportunity to levy massive taxes on fossil fuel as a means to a clean energy transition, it seems more likely that the cheap oil-fueled processes of social reproduction will be reasserted, so that SUVs, long-distance commutes, and sprawl once more will stand in for freedom and the “American way of life.” "

[...]

"The United States did not become the largest oil consumer in the world simply because it was the largest supplier of oil commodities. It took massive public investments — using state power to direct funds toward long-term goals not realizable in the short-term world of markets — to financing suburban housing and develop the road and highway networks that ironically ended up becoming the public basis for suburban, oil-powered privatism."

"This move toward public control of energy infrastructure is already happening. In This Changes Everything, Naomi Klein recounts several movements to take public ownership of electric power systems, from Hamburg to Boulder. But the kind of large-scale changes needed to solve the global crisis of climate change must go beyond the local municipal level."

"Climate change is the epitome of a market failure. It is the breakdown of a system we treat as an atmospheric commons — a public and shared system the market does not see or value. Many of course criticize the market for not accounting for the cost of dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (despite the corrupt efforts to establish markets for carbon). Yet we haven’t thought enough about how markets also tend to produce booms and busts that create long periods of low energy prices and lessened political will to change our energy system."​

 

[Tyger]

Struggling for the “Safe Zone”: Bill McKibben on capitalism and the state of the climate justice movement.
by Trish Kahle & Bill McKibben
LINK: Struggling for the “Safe Zone” | Jacobin

TEXT: "Bill McKibben has been a force in environmental politics for more than thirty years and authoredfifteen books. In 2008, he helped found 350.org, an international organization dedicated to building a movement “that reflects the scale of the climate crisis.” In the years since, the scale of that crisis has only become more apparent — the rate of climate change is accelerating at a pace not seen for at least a millennium, and the inequalities of its impact, from the scramble for water in Brazil to the oil refinery strike over safety in the United States, are constantly display.

"In reaction, larger sections of the movement have explicitly adopted the climate justice framework — a framework that recognizes the different ways in which people experience climate are organized along lines of social, structural oppression: racism, sexism, transphobia, colonialism, and class exploitation. Examining these intersections, as well as living through the worst economic crisis in living memory, has forced the movement to again confront the role of capitalism and state power in driving social oppression, economic injustice, and ecological devastation.

"While the debate over analysis and strategy is far from settled, the climate justice movement has won concrete victories, and its ranks have swelled. President Obama recently vetoed a bill greenlighting the Keystone XL pipeline (though it may re-emerge after State Department review). Hundreds of thousands marched for climate justice in New York City this past fall. And fossil fuel divestment campaigns are growing on college campuses around the world.

"Yet with the window to bring the earth into a “safe zone” shrinking by the day, these discussions are only becoming more pressing. McKibben’s has long been one of the most visible contributors to that debate. In his 2010 book Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, McKibben asks what it will take to adapt, politically and socially, to a world drastically altered by climate change. His proposals are people-centered and focus on breaking the power of the fossil fuel companies.

"But he’s also partial to decentralization, which should raise red flags: we can’t hope to subdue the most centralized, highly organized institutions of capital with diffused power. Additionally, McKibben doesn’t advance a critique of capitalism, whose very logic has demanded exponential increases in the use of fossil fuels. It’s true that the fossil fuel industry has an unsurpassed capacity to destroy the planet. But it’s also true that fossil fuels are a social force, a class project: “no piece of coal or drop of oil has yet turned itself into fuel,” Andreas Malm notes. That is, the large-scale consumption of fossil fuels, and in turn, the power of the fossil fuel industry, is a product of capitalist production — not the other way around.

Despite the criticisms ecosocialists might have of McKibben, his work has been crucial in the struggle to halt capitalism’s assault on the planet. I spoke to McKibben on the state of the climate justice movement, the intersections between climate justice and other movements, and why he recently supported the first nationwide strike of oil refinery workers since 1980. The interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

What do you see as the primary obstacle to action on climate change?
The financial might — and consequent political power — of the fossil fuel industry.

What, in your experience, has been the driving force behind new activists becoming involved with the climate justice movement?
I think all kinds of people want to be engaged in the climate fight, but the biggest deterrent is the sense that we’re too small to actually do anything about such a large crisis. And that’s true — each one of us is too small. So that’s why many of us have built a movement to let people feel, in their solidarity, powerful enough to matter. And not just to feel that way — to really matter.

Can you speak about the role of disasters — like the recent refinery explosion, train derailments, etc. — and the role they play in driving people toward activism, or at least help change people’s ideas about what needs to be done?
I think above all the steady pull of “natural” disasters — floods, droughts, and so on — has woken people to the peril of our present course. And yes, we have constant reminders of the other ways in which fossil fuels are unsafe.

Why did you think it was important to stand with workers in an industry that is actively seeking to expand onshore oil production in the United States at a moment of climate crisis?
Because they’re also making people work in unsafe conditions. They’re treating their employees with almost the same cavalier highhandedness they treat the planet.

I think all of us have a responsibility to try and make our workplaces help the planet, not hurt it. And it’s incredibly exciting to be working with lots of labor groups doing just that. The various transit unions, for instance, whose drivers and mechanics are among the greenest workers out there; the nurses who end their shifts and then step forward to fight fracking because they know what pollution does to lungs.

Moving from workers to students, we’ve seen in the first six weeks of 2015 some important steps forward on the fossil fuel divestment campaigns on college campuses, particularly the success of the divestment campaign at the New School. Can you speak a bit about why the divestment campaigns are important? What’s the next step for student organizers once they’ve won divestment from university administration, or to put it another way, what’s the next target after divestment?
Divestment campaigns are one front of many in this fight, but they help a lot because they begin the process of politically bankrupting the fossil fuel industry. They’ve been the key vehicle to spread the understanding that these are rogue companies, with far more carbon in their reserves than scientists think we can burn. It’s already spread far beyond colleges — churches, towns, states, pension funds are all caught up in this struggle now.

What steps do you think climate justice activists should take to ensure that the legacies and ongoing realities of colonization and marginalization are not only addressed in terms of climate justice, but also in terms of political sovereignty and economic rights?
I think we should work with great leaders like Idle No More on all kinds of fights. I think that the emergence of indigenous leadership on environmental questions has been the most important advance in recent years in our fight, and I imagine they have a good deal to say on a number of other important issues as well.

Continuing on that theme, what connections do you see for activists to link the climate justice movement to the struggles against social oppression, in particular the Black Lives Matter movement?
I was really glad to see climate activists go down to Ferguson to help; I think one of my greatest partners in the last few years has been theRev. Lennox Yearwood of the Hip Hop Caucus, and I’m convinced he’s right when he says these issues are linked as being about, above all, power.

What kind of obstacles prevent public engagement with scientific research? What obligations do scientists have, if any, to engage in climate politics beyond their own research?
In a rational world, Jim Hansen would not have to regularly end up in handcuffs. We would long since have heeded the scientific alarm and gotten to work. But in the real world, I fear scientists have the same civic duty as the rest of us: after hours and on weekends it’s time to join together in real protest.

Can we really use blockades and divestment as a mechanism to buy time while the price of renewables comes down in the market? Can that approach work quickly enough given the extreme limits of our time frame? What about the people before profit/ecology before economy models of climate activism?
I think we can freeze the growth of the fossil fuel industry long enough for renewables to take the lead in this race — the price of solar panels has fallen enormously in the last few years, and it will continue to plummet. Whether it happens fast enough to outpace the warming of the planet is an open question, but in any event putting people (and every other living thing) before the profit of the fossil fuel industry is key.

What is your opinion of “degrowth” as outlined in Naomi Klein’s new book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism Versus the Climate? Can it account for the socioeconomic and international disparities in development which have left some areas hyper-industrialized and others completely neglected?
Some places are clearly underdeveloped, and others are probably overdeveloped. In a just world we would concentrate our efforts at most things, including the spread of renewable energy, in the poorest places (which have, of course, done the least to cause climate change).

As exciting as the pipeline blockades, Idle No More movement, and growing demonstrations against inaction on climate change have been, they are clearly inadequate to the scale of the task at hand. We have only a short window in which to avert the most disastrous effects of climate change. What do you think it’s going to take to, at the very least, put us in a “safe zone”?
I think it’s going to take a bigger movement. And I would not downplay Idle No More and pipeline blockades as merely “exciting.” They’re beginning to put the fossil fuel industry on the defensive. Every month we slow down their expansion is another month for renewable energy to get cheaper and more ubiquitous. Time is not on their side. It’s not clear it’s on our side either, though, since the momentum of physics is large. Hence the need to make change quickly!

Although he vetoed the KXL pipeline for now, Obama has announced plans to expand offshore oil drilling, even as the ongoing damage from the 2011 BP Deepwater Horizon spill has come back into public focus, with a report that more than 5 million gallons of oil remain in the Gulf. After more than six years of what can be — at best — called equivocating, can climate justice activists still rely on pressuring the Democrats? Is it time for environmental activists to throw their weight behind a third party?
I think offshore drilling is a bad idea. And someone wiser than me is going to have to figure out about electoral politics. We build movements to try and change the zeitgeist; from that will flow, one way or another, political change. Or so I hope, but I’ve been disappointed before.

If we succeed in blocking the KXL pipeline, where should environmental activists turn their focus next?
We’ve long since turned from KXL to focus as well on a hundred other fights: coal ports in the Northwest, fracking in California and Europe, huge coal mines in Australia paid for by Indian billionaires, endless divestment fights, big pushes to support renewables. We’re active in every country but North Korea; the press has a relentless focus on KXL for reasons I don’t fully understand, but for us this is a fight with many, many fronts.

Finally, let’s return to Klein’s book. What do you make of her central contention: that capitalism is on a collision course with the climate? How central do you think the debate around capitalism should be to the future of the environmental movement?
The fossil fuel industry is the richest industry on earth. It’s the most centralized too, producing vast amounts of wealth and political power. If we can replace it with renewable energy, we’ll not only cut the carbon in the atmosphere, we’ll do our share to rebalancing the insanely lopsided social structure of our planet. Or so I hope.​

 

[Tyger]

Rob Portman and global warming: Is he right or wrong? (poll)
LINK:Rob Portman and global warming: Is he right or wrong? (poll) | cleveland.com

TEXT: "WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Sen. Rob Portman stirred things up in environmental circles Tuesday with his proposal to let states opt out of President Barack Obama's greenhouse gas-reduction rules. The Ohio Republican submitted an amendment to a pending congressional budget that would give governors and state legislatures the right to say "no" to Obama if cutting carbon emissions pushed up their residents' electricity costs. States such as Ohio have a number of power plants that use coal and release carbon into the atmosphere, which scientists link to global warming.

"The Obama rules, expected to be finalized this summer, would require carbon emissions nationwide to drop by 30 percent by 2030. That sounds daunting, but the reductions are based on 2005 levels, and greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide, had already dropped by 10 percent nationally from that level as of last year, the EPA says.In Ohio, where utilities have been dialing back on their use of older coal burning plants -- partly because of age and inefficiency, partly in response to other environmental rules -- carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power went from 139.8 million tons in 2005 to 96.1 million tons in 2012, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

"Still, the electric utility industry, manufacturers and coal mining companies say further reductions could be difficult. They point to an analysis they underwrote that said electricity costs could rise by double digits in some states. The Union of Concerned Scientists disputes the assumptions in the analysis, saying too little credit was given to emerging efficiencies. The EPA says that the efficiencies and new sources should lead to an 8 percent reduction in electricity prices. Obama's pending regulations would give states flexibility in how they achieved the reductions -- whether through energy efficiency, alternative energy sources, trades and credits with neighboring states or a mix of these and more. But industry is balking.

"Lawsuits over the EPA's right to issue the regulations are already pending, with plaintiffs including Ohio-based Murray Energy, a major privately owned coal mining company, and states including Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a different, though similar, case involving the EPA's right to restrict mercury emissions into the atmosphere. The issue there: Should the EPA be required to consider all the costs against the benefits when it regulates? Portman's amendment appears to answer that uncertainty with a controversial alternative: If electricity costs wind up higher, states could opt out. His amendment to the pending congressional budget would not be binding. But it sets a tone, especially since a similar draft bill in the House of Representatives by Rep. Ed Whitfield, Republican of Kentucky, seeks to eventually impose such a binding law.

"Portman has pushed for several years for more federal incentives to help make electricity more efficient. He has been thwarted, however, by members of his own party who opposed federal involvement in the marketplace or who blocked passage for unrelated political reasons. A serious kayaker and bicyclist, Portman has the lean appearance of a sportsman. But he has only a 22 percent lifetime approval score, and a score of 0 for 2014, from the League of Conservation Voters, which says he votes in the interest of the utility and oil industries..

"The Natural Resources Defense Council and Public Citizen slammed Portman on Tuesday for his latest proposal. A division of the Cuyahoga County government added its criticism today. "Given the seriousness of health issues associated with air pollution, from increased incidence of heart disease to asthma and other serious pulmonary conditions, the importance of clean energy has never been more urgent," said a statement from Mike Foley, director of the county's Department of Sustainability.

"Foley cited the "documented impact of climate change," including severe storms, droughts in the West and changes to the ecosystem, and said that allowing state opt-outs "only makes the problem worse." "Coal fired power plants - which could be beneficiaries of this opt-out provision - are a recognized factor in harming human health and contributing to carbon emissions," Foley said. "A better course of action is to let the administrative rule-making play itself out and let rational rules be developed per the course that has been set upon."

Public Citizen noted a bit of cleverness in the Portman approach. That is, it's possible that electricity rates could rise under Obama's regulations, called the Clean Power Plan, while overall consumer costs could go down because of improvements in energy efficiency. "The Clean Power Plan should lower consumer costs, not raise them, because it will spur improvements in energy efficiency," writes David Arkush of Public Citizen, who reiterated that in a telephone interview with the Northeast Ohio Media Group. "Although electricity prices may rise modestly under the plan, consumers will use less electricity, resulting in lower bills overall."

"The Portman opt-out plan, however, would be based on a governor's or state legislature's assessment of retail electricity costs, not total energy costs. A rise in the former could trigger the opt-out, even if household costs actually dropped. Portman has characterized his approach to environmental issues as balancing out competing interests with practical solutions. He was one of 15 Republicans who voted for a symbolic amendment this year stating that the climate is changing and that "human activity contributes to climate change." The amendment failed but nevertheless put Portman on record as recognizing a human contribution to climate change. "But the amendment didn't go as far as a Democratic amendment that Portman voted against -- one saying that man-made pollution "significantly" contributes to climate change. The difference was the statement of degree. "Sen. Portman is focused on solutions, and will continue to lead the Senate effort on energy efficiency legislation that's good for the economy and good for the environment," his office said in a statement. He recently introduced a bill in the Senate, as he did when he was in the House, to address deforestation, "one of the leading causes of greenhouse gas emissions, and this is a commonsense and bipartisan approach that has protected over 67 million acres of tropical forest. According to the EPA, 1.22 metric tons of CO2 are sequestered annually per square acre of forest protected." "​

 

[Tyger]

This Red State Broke Up Utility Monopolies in Favor of a Publicly-Owned Power Company. Now, Its Residents Pay Some of the Lowest Rates in the Country: The citizens of Nebraska used their democratic process to create a socialized, public-owned, citizen-governed utility company. If Nebraska did it, then the rest of America should too and end the concentration of private power companies. Published: March 24, 2015
LINK: This Red State Broke Up Utility Monopolies in Favor of a Publicly-Owned Power Company. Now, Its Residents Pay Some of the Lowest Rates in the Country - NationofChange

TEXT: "Out of all 50 states, Nebraska is the only one that supplies cheap electricity to its residents through a completely socialized, public-owned, citizen-governed utility company. According to Truthout, all of Nebraska’s businesses, as well as each of the state’s 1.8 million citizens depend not on a private, for-profit utility corporation for its power, but 167 publicly-owned utilities. After reading the Nebraska Power Association’s website, the description of their business model sounds like something Karl Marx would’ve been proud of: “Publicly owned utilities exist to serve customers. Period. There are no stockholders, and thus no profit motive. Our electric prices do not include a profit. That means Nebraska’s utilities can focus exclusively on keeping electric rates low and customer service high. Our customers, not big investors in New York and Chicago, own Nebraska’s utilities.”

"Nebraska went to a complete publicly-owned model after the greed of Wall Street-backed private utility companies left a bad taste in the mouths of Nebraska’s residents. In the gilded age of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, these private utilities used their deep pockets and clout with local politicians to buy out their competition and stop new power cooperatives from forming. By 1930, the people of Nebraska got fed up with paying higher rates for poorer service and took their rage to the ballot box, voting in favor of a revenue bond finance proposal for a publicly-owned power system.

"Senator George Norris of Nebraska, a champion of FDR’s New Deal and proponent of the Tennessee Valley Authority, was also a prominent cheerleader for local and national reforms that strengthened the position of public utilities in the electricity market. Nebraska passed the Enabling Act in 1933, which allowed voters to petition for a public utility through the democratic process. In 1935, Congress passed the Public Utility Holding Company (Wheeler-Rayburn) Act, breaking up the highly-concentrated, Wall Street-financed firms like the ones that had bought up one-third of Nebraska’s municipal utilities. The following year, Congress passed the Rural Electrification Act, which provided funding for publicly-owned power companies. Nebraska’s power companies were 100 percent public-owned by 1949.

"Sounds great, right? It didn’t take long for the power companies to revolt and solidify their grip on Congress. Once Ronald Reagan was elected president,deregulation fever had swept the country. Reagan and his Congress, determined to enforce the narrative that government was the problem, uprooted government controls on price manipulation, believing that the market should be solely responsible for setting prices on everything from electricity, transportation, natural gas, and telecommunications. Jimmy Carter’s Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), meant to allow equal competition between Qualifying Facilities (companies providing electricity from one source) and Independent Power Producers (companies providing electricity from multiple, renewable sources like wind and solar) was used as justification that the non-utility generators –QFs– were just as efficient at providing electricity as the regulated IPPs.

"In October of 1992, Reagan’s former CIA director-turned-president signed theEnergy Policy Act into law, which gutted the Wheeler-Rayburn act by allowing the non-regulated QFs access to the transmissions market. It also created an entirely new category of energy companies separate from QFs and IPPs, called Exempt Wholesale Generators (EWGs). These new EWGs were exempt from the rules governing QFs and IPPs, paving the way for higher concentration of the electric power market. According to PBS Frontline, the top 10 investor-owned utility companies controlled 40 percent of the entire electric power generation market by 1998. This essentially means more people across America who aren’t served by a publicly-owned utility company have ever-decreasing options when it comes to power companies.

"Fast-forward to a recent horror story: for 2 to 3 days on Thanksgiving week of 2014, a snowstorm knocked out power for roughly 200,000 residents in over a dozen towns in central New Hampshire – the area’s fourth-biggest power outage in history. According to a friend who braved the storm (and wishes to remain anonymous for this story), untold amounts of staple Thanksgiving perishables like turkey, sweet potatoes, salad, and desserts that his family members had spent days and dollars preparing and perfecting were all ruined. The electric-powered heating system for his home was non-operational, requiring him find a ride to a hardware store to buy a propane heater, then finding a balance between having a room warm enough to sleep in and cracking the window just enough so the propane fumes wouldn’t kill him in his sleep.

"Privately-owned Unitil, the only power company in the town my friend lives in, never gave an estimated time of restoration, and barely even managed to update their phone messages every 12 hours. In return for all of the lost food, lost money, and cold nights huddled under blankets, all my friend got in return from Unitil that month was an electric bill that was slightly higher than the previous month’s bill. My friend described sheer bewilderment and rage at the bill – bewilderment at the bill’s charges since he didn’t use electricity for 3 days, and rage at being offered no credit for the outage. Since there’s no publicly-owned utility company serving central New Hampshire, my friend remains entirely at the mercy of Unitil, with no recourse.

"The concentration of private power companies will only continue as long as it goes unchallenged by local residents and customers. If the citizens of Nebraska were able to take to the polls and use their democratic process to gain a public utility option a century ago, then the rest of America should too."
​

 

[Tyger]

The accusations of "market manipulation" hurled at many of today's power companies echo the criticisms made in the 1920s by FDR, who made reining in the power monopolies an integral part of his New Deal. Here's an overview tracing the rise and fall of state and federal intervention in the U.S. electricity industry.
LINK: Regulation - Public Vs. Private Power | Blackout | FRONTLINE | PBS

The early electric power industry was developed using direct current transmission, a system in which a relatively low voltage of electricity could travel only over short distances. Typically, numerous power plants were built within a small densely populated area, usually a city, and consumers were able to choose their service provider. This structure created much competition within a local marketplace.

This paradigm began to change as technology rapidly transformed the industry. Newer machines, such as steam turbines, were smaller and less complex, and could create a greater amount of power with a much smaller capital investment. The discovery of alternating current transformers allowed companies to transport power over longer distances at a higher voltage. Savvy entrepreneurs, such as Samuel Insull of Chicago Edison, realized that they could exploit the greater economies of scale afforded by these new technologies, and maximize profits by consolidating the smaller utility companies. Fueled by the rapid growth of electricity consumption, the utilities boomed during the early 20th century.

By 1907, Insull had acquired 20 other utility companies and renamed his firm Commonwealth Edison.[1] He and others argued that electric utilities were a "natural monopoly" because it would be inefficient to build multiple transmission and distribution systems due to the great expense of capital investment. Therefore it was inherent that only one company would dominate the market. The emerging utility monopolies were vertically integrated, meaning they controlled the generation of electric power, its transmission in real time across high-voltage wires, and its low-voltage distribution to homes and businesses. Reformers of the Progressive Era tried to govern these emerging utility monopolies through state regulation. By 1914, 43 states had established regulatory polices governing electric utilities.[2]

As their businesses grew, the new electric power barons such as Insull began to restructure their companies, largely through the use of holding companies. A holding company is a company that controls a partial or complete interest in another company, and it can be a useful tool in consolidating the operations of several smaller companies. However, the electric utilities of the 1920s began to exploit the use of holding companies to buy up smaller utilities in an effort designed not to improve the company's operating efficiency, but as a speculative attempt to maximize profits. The growing utility monopolies then exploited this structure, pyramiding holding company on top of holding company, sometimes such that a holding company was as many as ten times removed from the operating company. Each new holding company would buy a controlling interest in the holding company below it and the additional costs and fees for the operating companies were passed along in a higher rate base for the consumer. While the operating companies were subject to state regulation, the holding companies were not; therefore each holding company could issue fresh stocks and bonds without state oversight. The abuse of holding companies allowed for the consolidation of utilities such that by the end of the 1920s, ten utility systems controlled three-fourths of the United States' electric power business.[3]

The size and complexities of the holding companies were proving state regulation of utilities ineffective and soon caught the attention of the federal government. In 1928, the Federal Trade Commission began a six-year investigation into the market manipulations of the holding companies. The booming utilities of the 1920s traditionally had been seen as relatively secure investments, and utility stocks were held by millions of investors. The pyramidal holding company structure allowed the holding companies to inflate the value of utility securities, which eventually were decimated by the 1929 stock market crash.

Elected to the presidency in 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt fought vehemently against the holding companies, calling them "evil" in his 1935 State-of-the-Union address. After a hard-fought campaign by the president and his allies, and in the face of bitter opposition from the utilities, Congress passed the Public Utility Holding Company Act(PUHCA) in 1935. PUHCA outlawed the pyramidal structure of interstate utility holding companies, determining that they could be no more than twice removed from their operating subsidiaries. It required holding companies which owned 10 percent or more of a public utility to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and provide detailed accounts of their financial transactions and holdings. Holding companies that operated within a single state were exempt from PUHCA. The legislation had a dramatic effect on the operations of holding companies: Between 1938 and 1958 the number of holding companies declined from 216 to 18.[4] This forced divestiture led to a new paradigm for the electricity marketplace which lasted until the deregulation of the 1980s and 1990s: a single vertically-integrated system which served a circumscribed geographic area regulated by either the state or federal government.

Federal Power Act of 1935, which gave the Federal Power Commission (FPC) regulatory power over interstate and wholesale transactions and transmission of electric power. The FPC had been established under the Federal Water Power Act of 1920 to encourage the development of hydroelectric power plants. The Commission originally consisted of the secretaries of war, interior and agriculture. The Federal Power Act changed the structure of the FPC so that it consisted of five commissioners nominated by the president, with the stipulation that no more than three commissioners could come from the same political party. The Federal Power Act gave the FPC a mandate to ensure electricity rates that are "reasonable, nondiscriminatory and just to the consumer."

Another component of FDR's fight for public power was the creation of federal agencies to distribute power to those who were neglected by the traditional utilities, particularly farmers and other customers in rural areas. His administration created the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in 1933 and the Rural Electrification Association (REA) in 1935 to create and finance rural utility companies. The end result of the New Deal era regulatory intervention into the electric industry led to four primary types of service providers: private investor-owned utilities (IOUs) with stock freely traded in the marketplace by shareholders; publicly owned utilities, such as those owned by municipalities; cooperative utilities which were usually found in rural communities; and federal electric utilities, such as the TVA and REA.

After the tumult of the Roosevelt years and the end of World War II, the electric power industry enjoyed a period of steady growth, driven by both technological and efficiency advances that were reflected in lower prices. Between the years of 1947 to 1973, the growth rate for the industry held steady at about 8% per year[5] and there was little change in the industry structure. The industry began to promote increased electricity usage through advertising campaigns with slogans such as GE's "Live Better Electrically" campaign begun in 1956. As the industry grew and prices continued to decline, there was little need for state and federal regulatory intervention. IOUs were the primary service providers for most Americans and their continued growth and low rates satisfied both consumers and investors.

The energy crisis of the 1970s is often symbolized by images of long lines at gas pumps all over the United States resulting from the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. Oil, coal and natural gas shortages, as well as declining public confidence in the nuclear power industry, contributed to rate increases for consumers throughout all the energy industries, including electricity. Elected in 1976, President Jimmy Carter made energy concerns one of his top priorities. In attacking the demand side of the problem, he waged a public campaign focused on conservation to reduce the American public's high rates of energy consumption. To combat the supply side, he sought to cultivate the growth of new sources of energy, including nuclear power and renewable resources such as solar and wind power. These two approaches were crystallized in the five-part National Energy Act, which Carter signed into law in 1978.

The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), was the piece of Carter's National Energy Act that affected the electric power industry. It was designed to encourage efficient use of fossil fuels by allowing non-utility generators (known as Qualifying Facilities or QFs) to enter the wholesale power market. PURPA designated two main categories of QFs: cogenerators, which used a single fuel source to either sequentially or simultaneously produce electric energy as well as another form of energy, such as heat or steam; and independent power producers (IPPs), which use renewable resources including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and hydroelectric power as their primary energy source. Although intended to be an environmental statute, a primary effect of PURPA was to introduce competition into the generation sector of the electricity marketplace, thus challenging the utilities' claim that the electricity market encouraged a "natural monopoly."

One year prior to the National Energy Act, President Carter signed the Department of Energy Organization Act. The act created the Department of Energy by consolidating organizational entities from a dozen department and agencies. Under this legislation, the Federal Power Commission (FPC) was replaced by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the federal agency that establishes and enforces wholesale electricity rates.

The free-market mania of the 1980s and 1990s further challenged the notion of the electric power industry as a "natural monopoly." Many politicians and economists argued that regulation had outlived its value, and that the market should determine prices. The telecommunications and transportation industries were deregulated, and the natural gas industry followed suit. Advocates for deregulating the electricity industry argued that the implementation of PURPA had proved that non-utility generators could produce power as inexpensively and effectively as the regulated utilities. Large industrial consumers searching for lower prices also chimed in and urged federal regulators to pursue deregulation.

Energy Policy Act (EPACT), which opened access to transmission networks to non-utility generators. EPACT further facilitated the development of a competitive market by creating another category of qualifying facilities known as exempt wholesale generators (EWGs), which were exempted from regulations faced by the traditional utilities. Order No. 888 and Order No. 889 in April 1996. The two orders provided guidelines on how to open electricity transmission networks on a nondiscriminatory basis in interstate commerce.

The passage of EPACT led states which had historically high electricity prices, such as California, to investigate whether competitive deregulated markets would benefit their consumers. In 1996, both California and Rhode Island passed deregulation legislation, giving the consumer the right to choose his electricity supplier. As of May 2001, 24 states and the District of Columbia either have passed legislation or issued a comprehensive order to restructure their electric power industry. Eighteen states currently are investigating deregulation. View the Department of Energy map depicting the status of state electricity industry restructuring activity.

As a result of the deregulation movement of the 1990s, the electric power industry is changing from a structure of regulated, local, vertically-integrated monopolies, to one in which competitive companies generate electricity, while the utilities maintain transmission and distribution networks. In the face of increased competition, investor-owned utilities (IOUs) have sought to make themselves more competitive through mergers, acquisitions and asset divestitures, leading to the industry becoming much more concentrated. By 1998, the ten largest IOUs owned almost 40% of IOU-held electricity generation-capacity.[6] Increased competition has also led to the rise of two new participants in the electric power marketplace, who buy and sell electricity without owning or operating transmission or distribution operations: power marketers, which are considered to be utilities and therefore regulated by FERC, and power brokers, which are unregulated.​

 

[Tyger]

Scientists Tell Smithsonian to Cut all Ties with Koch Brothers, Fossil Fuel Industry - March 25, 2015
LINK: Scientists Tell Smithsonian to Cut all Ties with Koch Brothers, Fossil Fuel Industry

TEXT: "Nearly forty scientists sent an open letter to natural history museums, including the Smithsonian, urging them to cut ties with the fossil fuel industry and specifically the Koch Brothers. The letter, which was signed by Nobel Prize winners, former museum presidents, and dozens of college professors, said, in part, “As members of the scientific community we devote our lives to understanding the world, and sharing this understanding with the public. We are deeply concerned by the links between museums of science and natural history with those who profit from fossil fuels or fund lobby groups that misrepresent climate science.”

"The signees said they were also worried that the ties to the fossil fuel industry, because of its efforts to “obfuscate climate science, fight environmental regulation, oppose clean energy legislation, and [efforts] to ease limits on industrial pollution,” will compromise the integrity of the museums. “David Koch is a major donor, exhibit sponsor and trustee, and on the Board of Directors at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, and the American Museum of Natural History,” the letter continued. “David Koch’s oil and manufacturing conglomerate Koch Industries is one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Mr. Koch also funds a large network of climate-change-denying organizations, spending over $67 million since 1997 to fund groups denying climate change science.”

"Allowing Koch and other anti-climate-change donors to sponsor exhibitions in these museums “undermine public confidence in the validity of the institutions responsible for transmitting scientific knowledge.” The scientists also posted a petition asking for signatures in support of kicking Koch off the museums’ boards. “Energy companies and the Koch brothers gain social license from their association with these scientific institutions,” reads the petition. “It gives them cultural capital and credibility as supporters of science, yet they fund scientists and lobby groups that spread climate science misinformation and block action on climate change.” “These museums are centers of learning and homes for science. There’s no place for David Koch, or anyone behind funding the denial of man-made climate change, on the board of these trusted institutions.”

"The petition will be delivered to the American Museum of Natural History before its annual board meeting the first week in April and the Smithsonian before its board meeting in June."​

An Open Letter to Museums from Members of the Scientific Community - March 24, 2015
LINK: An Open Letter to Museums from Members of the Scientific Community | The Natural History Museum

TEXT: "To Museums of Science and Natural History:

As members of the scientific community we devote our lives to understanding the world, and sharing this understanding with the public. We are deeply concerned by the links between museums of science and natural history with those who profit from fossil fuels or fund lobby groups that misrepresent climate science.

Museums are trusted sources of scientific information, some of our most important resources for educating children and shaping public understanding.

The Code of Ethics for Museums, adopted in 1991 by the Board of Directors of the American Alliance of Museums, states:

“It is incumbent on museums to be resources for humankind and in all their activities to foster an informed appreciation of the rich and diverse world we have inherited. It is also incumbent upon them to preserve that inheritance for posterity.”

“Museums are grounded in the tradition of public service. They are organized as public trusts, holding their collections and information as a benefit for those they were established to serve…Museums and those responsible for them must do more than avoid legal liability, they must take affirmative steps to maintain their integrity so as to warrant public confidence. They must act not only legally but also ethically.”

We are concerned that the integrity of these institutions is compromised by association with special interests who obfuscate climate science, fight environmental regulation, oppose clean energy legislation, and seek to ease limits on industrial pollution.

For example, David Koch is a major donor, exhibit sponsor and trustee on the Board of Directors at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, and the American Museum of Natural History. David Koch’s oil and manufacturing conglomerate Koch Industries is one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Mr. Koch also funds a large network of climate-change-denying organizations, spending over $67 million since 1997 to fund groups denying climate change science.

When some of the biggest contributors to climate change and funders of misinformation on climate science sponsor exhibitions in museums of science and natural history, they undermine public confidence in the validity of the institutions responsible for transmitting scientific knowledge. This corporate philanthropy comes at too high a cost.

Drawing on both our scientific expertise and personal care for our planet and people, we believe that the only ethical way forward for our museums is to cut all ties with the fossil fuel industry and funders of climate science obfuscation.

With concern,
[see LINK for list of scientist signatories]​

 

[Tyger]

What Would Happen If Wind Power Got The Same Tax Breaks As The Fossil Fuel Industry
BY EMILY ATKIN POSTED ON MARCH 13, 2015
LINK: What Would Happen If Wind Power Got The Same Tax Breaks As The Fossil Fuel Industry | ThinkProgress

TEXT: "After two years of research, the Department of Energy released a report on Thursday estimating how much energy the U.S. could get from wind in the next 35 years. The results were extremely optimistic: under an “ambitious but credible” scenario, America could get 10 percent of its power from wind by 2020; 20 percent by 2030; and 35 percent by 2050, the report said.

In order for this to happen, though, the report acknowledged that “new tools, priorities, and emphases” need to be set in place beyond the wind industry’s own efforts. Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), told ThinkProgress that one of the most important priorities is giving tax benefits to the wind industry. “A key determinant is having a stable federal tax policy, which as you may know, every form of other energy source has — at least every other fossil fuel-based source of electric generation,” he said. “They have tax benefits, tax support, that are permanent in the tax code. For wind, major tax support is not permanent.”

Kiernan isn’t wrong. Oil and gas companies receive a number of permanent tax incentives, totaling $18.5 billion in 2013, according to a report from the environmental group Oil Change International. Taxpayers also permanently subsidize some costs of the coal industry. The historical reasoning for these tax breaks, according to the Houston Chronicle, has been “to attract investment into an industry deemed high risk, and to promote employment.”

The wind industry, by contrast, has had a rough go of getting permanent tax incentives. Even before Republicans were in control of both chambers, Congress has repeatedly refused to revive the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC), a $13 billion yearly tax break to the wind industry that has historically helped it compete with fossil fuels. The wind PTC is a subsidy that’s been built into the tax code since 1992 to encourage growth in the industry.

At one point, the PTC had a pretty good run. After it was reinvigorated by the 2009 stimulus, wind energy started booming. According to the AWEA, U.S. wind energy capacity saw a 140 percent growth rate from 25,000 megawatts (MW) to more than 61,000 MW since 2009. And that’s just capacity — the actual electricity generated from those turbines grew at a rate of 200 percent. In 2013, wind power accounted for 4 percent of all electricity generated in the U.S. But that tax credit was set to expire in 2012, and since then, Congress has been caught in gridlock over whether to renew it. It eventually expired at the end of 2013, and — coincidentally or not — wind has not been growing as fast.

As it looks now, it’s unlikely that a Republican-controlled Congress will renew the PTC. Generally, Republicans oppose giving tax breaks to the wind industry on the grounds that they amount to a form a “welfare” that unfairly props up an industry present in some states but not others. What’s more, the PTC has already been rejected by the current Senate. While debating a bill to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline last month, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D–ND) attached an amendment for a five-year renewal of the PTC. The amendment, which needed 60 votes to pass, failed 51-47.

Fortunately for the wind industry, the PTC is not the ultimate deciding factor on whether growth succeeds or fails. As Kiernan noted, wind production can be helped by building more infrastructure — roughly 900 miles of transmission lines each year from now until 2050 to meet the goals in the Department of Energy’s report. Projects to achieve this are underway. In Oklahoma, a proposal for a $2 billion transmission line “would transform the state into a national wind energy hub,” according to NPR. But that proposal faces obstacles, too — particularly from landowners who don’t want to see transmission lines on their properties.

Still, Kiernan is optimistic. Just a few days ago, he noted, a company called Deepwater Wind received formal notice to proceed on what could be the country’s first offshore wind farm. And wind is growing a lot faster than fossil fuels — as noted by Chris Mooney in the Washington Post, wind increased net generation by 13,951 megawatt hours from 2013 to 2014. That’s a bigger increase than for any other electricity source, Mooney noted. “The fact that industry is still growing and is still driving costs out of the system shows, in my mind, what the potential is for the industry,” Kiernan said. “But we could do a whole lot more.”​

 

[Tyger]

This Fracking Company is Suing an Ohio Town for Its Water — March 25, 2015
LINK: This Fracking Company is Suing an Ohio Town for Its Water

TEXT: "Fracking company Gulfport Energy is suing the town of Barnesville, Ohio in order to use water from the town’s reservoir, Shale Play. Gulfport Energy, a company already worth $600 million, filed the lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The company says it should be allowed to use water from the town’s Slope Creek Reservoir during drilling operations. The Slope Creek Reservoirprovides water to all 5,000 of Barnesville’s residents, as well as thousands of people in nearby towns.

According to Gulfport Energy, the town of Barnesville violated a contract it held with the company. “Barnesville has frustrated Gulfport’s right to develop minerals under the mineral rights agreement by refusing to provide Gulfport with water in violation of Gulfport’s water rights,” company attorney O. Judson Scheaf stated.

Despite this claim made by Gulfport Energy, Barnesville officials said they cut off the company’s water usage because fracking nearly depleted the town’s water level. “It’s been a tremendous source of concern for the community,” said Concerned Barnesville Area Residents spokesman David Castle. “We sent a petition signed by 2,500 people to Gulfport asking them to move their drilling pads farther away from the reservoir.”

Gulfport refused to move their operations, filing the lawsuit instead. In 2012, Barnesville officials signed an agreement with Gulfport stating that the company can use the town’s reservoir, charging one cent per gallon of water. One provision of the deal stated that the town could cut off Gulfport’s water usage if officials felt it endangered public health.

Officials believed that Gulfport’s water usage was dangerous, they cut off the water, and now Gulfport wants to sue. That’s how energy companies work: profits over people.​

 

[pixelsmith]

House Dem: Global Warming Could Force Women to Trade Sex for Food
LINK: House Dem: Global Warming Could Force Women to Trade Sex for Food | TheBlaze.com

TEXT:
A senior House Democrat has once again issued an apocalyptic warning that climate change will hit women harder than men, and that it could drive millions of poor women to engage in “transactional sex” in order to provide food and water for their families.​

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) proposed a resolution on Wednesday that said as the climate changes, it will cause food and water scarcity around the world. That will create pressures on poor women in particular, since they are often charged with growing food and collecting water for their families.

“[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health,” it read.

The resolution concluded by saying Congress must recognize the “disparate impacts of climate change on women,” and must encourage the use of “gender-sensitive frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.”

Lee introduced a similar resolution in the last Congress, but it didn’t go anywhere. Lee said in 2013 that her resolution is meant to remind policymakers that more women need to be included in discussions about how to respond to the changing climate.

As resources dwindle, it could force many women to barter sexual favors for food and water, the resolution stated.

 

[DaveM]

The big problem is that we have dopes like Cruz and Nye chiming in on the Climate subject. We are doomed unless some voices of reason get involved.

 

[pixelsmith]

The big problem is that we have dopes like Cruz and Nye chiming in on the Climate subject. We are doomed unless some voices of reason get involved.

Doomed in what way?

 

[pixelsmith]

The BIGGEST problem is the corrupt IPCC which was until recently managed by a retired railroad engineer/soft porn writer/perverted boss who has now violated laws regarding tampering with witnesses and also bogus climate sites like Skeptical Science run by a washed up cartoonist who also has had his share of trouble in manipulating comments and other undesirable activities.

 

[manxman]

The big problem is that we have dopes like Cruz and Nye chiming in on the Climate subject. We are doomed unless some voices of reason get involved.

I've realised 2 important things Dave for my future big picture over-view of climate change via co2.

I dont understand Americans, and pretending that i do 'sorta' hasnt worked for me, im a small island guy, America is vast, with all extremes of weather, i havent lived under any kind of co2 climate change in my 56yrs, i realise alot of Americans do live in places of extremes, i just dont believe any of it is caused by co2, its always been the scam thats attracted to the debate, the sophistry of the whole circus.

Te science falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny, because despite all the sophistical nonsense to the contrary, 80%+ of climate science are new branches, and have less than 25yrs data, and for the last 18 of them there has been a temperature hiatus.

I realised Dave that i can picture snap shots of people and places, but i cannot experience their lives, and although America is big, the world is huge, and even tho i can picture a globe, i know little of actual experiences in a vast world, the news that i am going to be a grand-dad for the first time, has really given me a pause to ponder, and a cause to ponder.

 

[DaveM]

Doomed in what way?

Unless there are some reasoned, knowledgeable voices that speak up on the subject of climate change, we will be left with politicians and talking heads deciding policy and yes, we will be doomed.

 

[pixelsmith01]

Again, doomed in what way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DaveM]

Again, doomed in what way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think my past reply explained things. Kindly read it.