data_id
int64 1
1.12M
| id
stringlengths 32
138
| date
timestamp[s] | source
stringlengths 2
24
| title
stringlengths 12
203
| content
stringlengths 32
65.4k
⌀ | author
stringlengths 2
242
⌀ | url
stringlengths 27
244
| published
stringlengths 14
32
| published_utc
int64 1.55B
1.58B
| collection_utc
int64 1.57B
1.58B
| category_level_1
stringclasses 17
values | category_level_2
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,086,636 |
vdare--2019-11-13--2020 Democrats Push Open Borders Despite Environmental Damage They Claim From Climate Change
| 2019-11-13T00:00:00 |
vdare
|
2020 Democrats Push Open Borders Despite Environmental Damage They Claim From Climate Change
|
Democrats are so desperate to import future liberal voters from abroad that the D-candidates will violate any alleged principles to import as many newbies as possible. The 2020 Democrats have gone off a cliff to be “pro-immigration” by extending the idea of immigrant to include anyone of the world’s nearly 8 billion inhabitants who might decide to move here. Add to that the Democrat promise of free healthcare for all, including illegal aliens, means there is a huge incentive to reach stupid-generous America. The latest immigration pitch comes from Bernie Sanders who wants to welcome thousands of “climate refugees” to the US which assumes major suffering somewhere on the planet because of extended bad weather, drought or some other regional hiccup. I remain convinced that climate change is often trotted out as a cause of problems that can more properly be attributed to world population growth. Plus, climate change is a flexible enough problem to allow many government-imposed solutions, definitely a plus for Democrats. Tucker Carlson examined the ramifications of Bernie’s plan for “climate migrants” on his Monday show. We humans now number more than 7.7 billion persons, more than double the world’s population on the first Earth Day in 1970 when the number was 3.7 billion — that’s quite an uptick in just under 50 years. Top Democrats claim to believe in climate change as a big problem that is worsened by the United States, yet they want to increase America’s population substantially by immigration. Go figure. TUCKER CARLSON: Well a couple years ago, Bernie Sanders described open borders as a Koch brothers proposal because it is literally a Koch brothers proposal — it’s a libertarian idea — he was right. Mass migration reduces wages for low-skilled workers but now Sanders has changed his mind. His campaign has released an immigration proposal that reads like something the Koch brothers would write: it would halt deportation or abolish enforcement of our borders, abolish ICE and create a new category for something called “climate migrants.” Justin Haskins is a research fellow at the Heartland Institute. He joins us tonight to explain what a climate migrant might be, and more pressingly, Justin, why would a climate migrant have a right to come to my country? JUSTIN HASKINS: Well apparently climate migrants, which I don’t even think are a real thing, are essentially a category of people from third world countries, from developing nations, who are so supposedly suffering as a result of climate change, man-caused climate change. Now, I don’t believe that anybody is actually suffering from man-caused climate change, but Bernie Sanders’ proposal would have 50,000 people, 50,000 at minimum, come to the United States from around the world, who are suffering from climate change, supposedly, in just the first year — and over the course of his presidency, hundreds of thousands of people, because supposedly this is good for climate justice or something along those lines. But the most bizarre part of all of this is that I thought, according to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and everybody else in the socialist left, that human beings are causing climate change, that humans’ CO2 emissions, that that’s what’s causing climate change, and it’s going to be catastrophic. Well, if that’s true, then why are we bringing people from all over the world where they produce CO2 emissions less per person, in places like Mexico and Guatemala and places like that, why are we bringing them to the United States where we produce CO2 emissions per person at a much higher rate? It doesn’t make any sense. CARLSON: And also, if you cared about the environment, which I personally do emphatically care, and actually go outside once in a while, unlike most people on the left — why would you want a crowded country? Isn’t crowding your country the fastest way to despoil it, to pollute it, to make it a place you wouldn’t want to live? HASKINS: Yeah absolutely. Look, the left is schizophrenic on a lot of issues, and this is one of those issues. It doesn’t make any sense at all to have an open door, open border policy where you’re bringing people into the United States when people are supposedly destroying the planet, destroying the environment, where we’re we’re talking about population control in some parts of the left right now. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez says that she stays up at night, and she doesn’t think she can have children because she’s worried about the effect it’s having on climate change, but Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wants to bring in hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people from around the world into the United States. How does this make any sense? CARLSON: And actually, I mean this with sincerity, I feel sorry for her because I think she means it. I think that the movement that was started to clean up the environment which most people, again very much including me, totally for that has morphed into this weird cluster of neuroses where people actually think they can’t have children because of climate, and it’s sad. I mean it really is — paging Dr. Freud — I mean these people need help. Well I guess we all need help our society’s going crazy. Justin, thank you for your part in making it a little bit less crazy
|
[email protected] (Brenda Walker)
|
https://vdare.com/posts/2020-democrats-push-open-borders-despite-environmental-damage-they-claim-from-climate-change
|
Wed, 13 Nov 2019 11:51:25 -0500
| 1,573,663,885 | 1,573,689,673 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
1,084,670 |
usnews--2019-12-24--Environmentalists Request More Time on Idaho Forest Plan
| 2019-12-24T00:00:00 |
usnews
|
Environmentalists Request More Time on Idaho Forest Plan
|
LEWISTON, Idaho (AP) — Environmental groups have written a letter to the U.S. Forest Service requesting more time for public comment on plans for Idaho's Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. The coalition of a dozen environmental advocacy organizations sent a letter to the agency Monday asking for a 90-day extension due to interruptions caused by the holiday season, The Lewiston Tribune reports. The letter to Nez Perce-Clearwater Supervisor Cheryl Probert said the Dec. 20 release of the draft forest plan revision and environmental impact statement effectively removes about two weeks from the 90-day comment period. Even those with time to examine the document are not likely to be able to reach forest service employees during holiday break periods, the groups said. The Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest did not immediately return a call from The Associated Press Tuesday. The two draft documents released by the forest service broadly describe management of Nez Perce-Clearwater for the next 15 to 20 years. The documents are revisions of the individual Nez Perce and Clearwater forest plans that were last updated in 1987. Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|
Associated Press
|
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/idaho/articles/2019-12-24/environmentalists-request-more-time-on-idaho-forest-plan
|
Tue, 24 Dec 2019 20:32:54 GMT
| 1,577,237,574 | 1,577,235,013 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
1,083,675 |
usnews--2019-12-18--EU Claims Better Fishing Rules; Environmentalists Disagree
| 2019-12-18T00:00:00 |
usnews
|
EU Claims Better Fishing Rules; Environmentalists Disagree
|
BRUSSELS (AP) — European Union nations say the fish catch quotas they agreed upon for next year means they have made more headway in securing sustainable fishing in their waters — but environmentalists are strongly disputing that claim. EU fisheries Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius said Wednesday after two days of negotiations that almost 100% of EU fish landings from the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea will come from sustainable sources. After having overfished both regions for years, the EU claims that 2020 will bring in a new era for fisheries. “Next year, the EU member states fleet will fish at the level that will not hinder the regeneration of the stocks," Sinkevicius said. Environmental groups strongly disagree with that claim. They say EU nations have again put the interests of their fishing industry ahead of the health of their waters. Some cod quotas for next year were cut but fishing for several other species can increase. “The limits agreed by ministers suggest that progress to end overfishing has stalled or even reversed, a disappointing outcome for the year. Overfishing was supposed to become a thing of the past," said Andrew Clayton of The Pew Charitable Trusts. Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|
Associated Press
|
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2019-12-18/eu-claims-better-fish-quotas-environmentalists-disagree
|
Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:24:49 GMT
| 1,576,689,889 | 1,576,672,997 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
1,082,760 |
usnews--2019-12-13--Documents: Mining Company Writing Own Environmental Report
| 2019-12-13T00:00:00 |
usnews
|
Documents: Mining Company Writing Own Environmental Report
|
The report, called a biological assessment, would typically be written by the Forest Service or an independent contractor. Its purpose is to examine the potential effect the open-pit mines would have on salmon, steelhead and bull trout protected under the Endangered Species Act. An internal Forest Service document in February 2018 shows the agency deciding to deny Midas Gold's request to participate as a non-federal representative in writing the assessment because the massive project would likely harm protected fish. But by October 2018, Midas Gold was not only a participant, it had taken over leading the process and writing the document. “We will prepare the draft assessment from that collaborative process," Lyon said. “We are really looking at this to make the process more inclusive and transparent in getting all the voices and input at the table." Documents show ongoing lobbying efforts with federal agencies and then a meeting in May 2018 between Midas Gold and Dan Jiron, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's acting deputy under secretary for natural resources and environment. In November, Midas Gold met with Jim Hubbard, the Agriculture Department's under secretary for natural resources and environment. John Freemuth, an expert on U.S. land policies at Boise State University, said it's not unusual for companies to lobby whatever administration is in power. But he said having a company get the OK to write its own biological assessment is something he's never heard of before. Midas Gold says the Stibnite Mining District contains more than 4 million ounces (113 million grams) of gold and more than 100 million pounds of antimony. Antimony is used in lead for storage batteries as well as a flame retardant. The U.S. lists antimony as one of 35 mineral commodities critical to the economic and national security of the country. Midas Gold says the mines will directly create an average of 500 jobs for up to 25 years. Mining in the area about 40 miles (65 kilometers) east of McCall dates back more than a century and has resulted in two open pits, including one that has been blocking a salmon spawning stream since the 1930s. The site also has extensive tailings left from mining operations that are the source of elevated levels of arsenic. The Nez Perce Tribe has treaty rights to the area and has come out against new mining amid concerns for fish habitat. Below the mining area is about 80 river miles of habitat for spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout in the South Fork of the Salmon River and its tributary, the East Fork of the South Fork. The Salmon River itself is home to additional federally protected salmon, including endangered sockeye salmon. The biological assessment will be used to create a draft environmental impact statement expected to be released in early 2020, with a final decision possible later in the year. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Forest Service will have to sign off on the plan. "At the end of the day, people are going to sue if they think that the document is insufficient," he said. “This will be heavily scrutinized.”
|
Associated Press
|
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/idaho/articles/2019-12-13/documents-mining-company-writing-own-environmental-report
|
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 23:39:26 GMT
| 1,576,298,366 | 1,576,285,079 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
1,082,559 |
usnews--2019-12-12--Environmental Groups Sue Steel Mill Over Lake Chemical Spill
| 2019-12-12T00:00:00 |
usnews
|
Environmental Groups Sue Steel Mill Over Lake Chemical Spill
|
PORTAGE, Ind. (AP) — Two environmental groups are suing a steelmaker for allegedly violating the Clean Water Act at its northwestern Indiana facility more than 100 times in the past five years, including an August spill that killed more than 3,000 fish. The Environmental Law and Policy Center and Hoosier Environmental Council filed the lawsuit Wednesday in federal court after previously alerting ArcelorMittal of their plans to sue, The (Northwest Indiana) Times reported. ArcelorMittal's facility in Burns Harbor discharges pollution into the East Arm of the Little Calumet River, which flows directly into Lake Michigan. The groups allege that the company breached its Clean Water Act permit after releasing impermissible levels of cyanide and ammonia in August. The chemical spill killed fish, forced nearby beaches to shutter and kept visitors away from the newly designated Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. ArcelorMittal's toxic spill and permit infractions harm the environment, kill fish and endanger safe drinking water, said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy center. The suit "calls for fines and penalties sufficiently large to change ArcelorMittal's environmental practices and modernize the company's equipment and operations to better reduce pollution damages going forward," Lerner said. "ArcelorMittal should be held fully accountable for its pollution that harms local communities, the Lake Michigan shoreline and nearby waters, and the aquatic life and ecosystem of Northwest Indiana," he said. A spokesman for ArcelorMittal said the company had not yet been served with the lawsuit. Indra Frank, environmental health and water policy director for the Hoosier Environmental Council, said the community cannot continue waiting for the state and federal governments to act in the face of "repeated, illegal damage to Lake Michigan." "The damage has to stop for the sake of everyone who gets their drinking water from the lake; everyone who swims, fishes, or boats in the Lake; and the wildlife that make their home in the Lake," Frank said. The groups said ArcelorMittal did not disclose the spill until after the public began discovering thousands of dead fish. ArcelorMittal, one of Porter County's largest employers, has nearly 3,400 workers on a nearly 2,000-acre (809-hectare) swath along Lake Michigan, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) southeast of Chicago. Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|
Associated Press
|
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/indiana/articles/2019-12-12/environmental-groups-sue-steel-mill-over-lake-chemical-spill
|
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 21:48:34 GMT
| 1,576,205,314 | 1,576,198,604 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
1,081,359 |
usnews--2019-12-06--Another Cut in Cod Fishing Not Enough for Environmentalists
| 2019-12-06T00:00:00 |
usnews
|
Another Cut in Cod Fishing Not Enough for Environmentalists
|
Fishing regulators are proposing another cutback to the catch limits for Atlantic cod, but some environmentalists say the move isn't significant enough to slow the loss of the species. Atlantic cod fishing was once one of the biggest marine industries in New England, but the fishery has deteriorated after years of overfishing and environmental changes. Fishermen caught less than 2 million pounds of the fish in 2017, decades after routinely catching more than 100 million pounds annually in the early 1980s. It was the worst year for the fishery in its history. The cod fishing industry is now subject to strict quotas. The New England Fishery Management Council, a regulatory panel, proposed on Wednesday to cut the allowable commercial catch limit for cod on two key fishing areas off New England from more than 4 million pounds to less than 3 million pounds per year. “The current stock status is overfished, and overfishing is occurring," said Jamie Cournane, groundfish plan coordinator with the management council. “Over the years, people have discussed the role of the environment and other factors on these stocks." But Conservation Law Foundation, a Boston-based environmental group, said nothing short of an end to directed fishing of cod will be enough to rebuild the stock. “It should be an incidental catch fishery. It's abundantly clear that decades of risky decisions have failed this fishery and generations of fishermen," said Erica Fuller, an attorney for the group, at Wednesday's meeting. “Put these stocks on a track to rebuild." Atlantic cod were once the preferred fish for fish and chips, but other species have filled that void in the years since the species' population dropped and the fishing industry for it fell into decline. The New England Fishery Management Council's recommendation must be approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce to go into effect. Fishermen in the Northeast have long avoided cod because of the low quotas. The fish is a “choke species,” meaning fishermen must stop fishing altogether once they reach their quota for it. Most instead target more plentiful species, such as haddock and pollock. The new catch limits would apply through 2022, though they could be updated in 2021 and 2022, because the U.S. shares some of the catch quota with Canada. Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|
Associated Press
|
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maine/articles/2019-12-06/another-cut-in-cod-fishing-not-enough-for-environmentalists
|
Fri, 06 Dec 2019 10:52:37 GMT
| 1,575,647,557 | 1,575,636,760 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
1,081,319 |
usnews--2019-12-05--Transmission Line Foes Press for Full Environmental Review
| 2019-12-05T00:00:00 |
usnews
|
Transmission Line Foes Press for Full Environmental Review
|
LEWISTON, Maine (AP) — Opponents of Central Maine Power's proposed $1 billion transmission project that would bring Canadian hydropower to the New England power grid urged the Army Corps of Engineers on Thursday to perform a full environmental impact statement, one that CMP says would delay a final decision by a year. Critics packed a public hearing on the 145-mile (230-kilometer) power transmission project, which would serve as a conduit for 1,200 megawatts of electricity from Hydro Quebec. They questioned the environmental benefits, decried the cutting of trees and argued that the project would hurt homegrown renewable projects. “It's bad for Maine's North Woods. It's bad for Maine's renewable energy. And it's not going to help us at all with our climate crisis,” said Sue Ely, attorney for The Natural Resources Council of Maine, which is opposed to the project. The environmental organization contends CMP's New England Clean Energy Connect deserves the same level of scrutiny that similar projects received in New Hampshire and Vermont, where the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers conducted full environmental impact statements. “There is no reason that Maine shouldn't get the full look that New Hampshire's and Vermont's projects did,” she said. Democratic U.S. Rep. Jared Golden called on the Army Corps to hold a hearing on the project, which has met with stubborn resistance in many communities along the proposed path. Golden encouraged CMP to ensure that Mainers are hired for the project, if it's approved. “In order to maximize the benefit to Maine communities, CMP should guarantee that these jobs go to Mainers," he wrote in a letter. Most of the transmission line would follow established utility corridors, but a new swath would be cut through 53 miles (85 kilometers) of wilderness on land that CMP owns in western Maine. Supporters say there will be benefits for all of New England by suppressing electricity rates and reducing carbon emissions by the equivalent of more than 700,000 vehicles. “This is a decision that's extremely important in the context of the climate urgency that we face. We don't have decades to get this right. If you look at the projects that are available in the Northeast, this is the most significant one in terms of impact,” she said before the meeting. The Maine Public Utilities Commission has given its green light to the project. But the Department of Environmental Protection and Land Use Planning Commission won't rule until the new year. The Army Corps of Engineers must also sign off on the project. Col. William Conde, commander and district engineer for the Army Corps of Engineers, said the agency already has a good understanding of the environmental impact. He said he'll decide in a few months whether a full environmental impact statement is needed. “We have a process. We've been doing it a long time. We issue about 2,500 permits in New England every year. We follow that process and that process will lead us to a decision,” he said.
|
Associated Press
|
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maine/articles/2019-12-05/army-corps-to-hold-hearing-on-hydropower-transmission-line
|
Thu, 05 Dec 2019 23:17:37 GMT
| 1,575,605,857 | 1,575,594,722 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
1,079,201 |
usnews--2019-11-20--Lawmakers Request Environmental Review of Factory Closure
| 2019-11-20T00:00:00 |
usnews
|
Lawmakers Request Environmental Review of Factory Closure
|
BENNINGTON, Vt. (AP) — Vermont lawmakers have asked environmental officials to monitor the pending closure of the Energizer factory for any pollution. The Bennington Banner reports Democratic Sen. Brian Campion wants to avoid the toxic chemical contamination that was found when two former factories in Bennington closed in 2002. Campion and Sen. Dick Sears say in an email that the battery factory is working with the state’s Agency of Natural Resources on its closure plan and keeping the process “public and transparent.” The state’s Department of Environmental Conservation's Waste Management and Prevention Division says the notice of the facility’s closure is the first step in a comprehensive closure process. The next step will be the development of closure plan to be reviewed by environmental officials and carried out 90 days prior to the plant shutdown. Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|
Associated Press
|
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/vermont/articles/2019-11-20/lawmakers-request-environmental-review-of-factory-closure
|
Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:27:53 GMT
| 1,574,310,473 | 1,574,297,552 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
1,078,493 |
usnews--2019-11-15--Final Environmental Analysis of Jordan Cove Project Issued
| 2019-11-15T00:00:00 |
usnews
|
Final Environmental Analysis of Jordan Cove Project Issued
|
COOS BAY, Ore. (AP) — The proposed Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas terminal and its 230-mile (370-kilometer) feeder pipeline in southern Oregon would have some adverse and significant impacts, according to staff at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The agency’s staff issued their final environmental analysis of the contentious natural gas export project Friday, concluding it would result in “temporary, long-term and permanent impacts on the environment,” The Oregonian/OregonLive reported. The report says many of those impacts would not be significant or could be reduced to less than significant levels with avoidance and mitigation measures, the analysis said, but some would be adverse and significant, staff concluded. The staff analysis is neither an approval nor denial of the project; that’s up to a vote of the agency’s presidentially appointed commissioners after the analysis goes through a public comment period and incorporates any subsequent revisions. A final order is expected from commissioners on Feb. 13. Even if it wins regulatory commission approval, construction of the project would be contingent on the project obtaining a host of other state, federal and local approvals. Specifically, the regulatory staff concluded that the project would permanently and significantly impact the visual character of Coos Bay; generate significant but temporary noise and housing problems; significantly impact operations of the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport operations, and adversely affect 18 federally-listed or proposed threatened and endangered species. Jordan Cove spokesman Paul Vogel pointed to the jobs and tax benefits the project would deliver and said backers had committed to undertake extensive mitigation to preserve old growth forests, wetlands and riparian habitat. Opponents of the project emphasized in a news release that the project was earlier rejected by the regulatory commission in 2016 because backers couldn’t demonstrate a public need for the project that outweighed its impacts on landowners impacted by the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline, which would stretch across much of Southern Oregon. Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|
Associated Press
|
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/oregon/articles/2019-11-15/final-environmental-analysis-of-jordan-cove-project-issued
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 22:59:23 GMT
| 1,573,876,763 | 1,573,866,117 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
1,077,798 |
usnews--2019-11-11--Texas Petrochemical Plant Fire Environmental Impact Unclear
| 2019-11-11T00:00:00 |
usnews
|
Texas Petrochemical Plant Fire Environmental Impact Unclear
|
HOUSTON (AP) — Researchers are uncertain about the environmental impact of toxic chemicals used to extinguish a three-day blaze at a Houston-area petrochemical storage facility after some leaked into a busy commercial waterway. The fire at the Intercontinental Terminals Company facility in Deer Park began in a naphtha tank March 17, igniting other tanks at the plant and sending plumes of thick, black smoke over the area. The fire and resulting air pollution forced the closure of roads, schools and the Houston Shipping Channel. It triggered air quality warnings but caused no injuries. Foam used to control the spread of the fire was inadvertently released into the channel when a containment wall failed. Researchers with the Galveston Bay Foundation and Texas A&M Superfund Research Center spent months collecting and analyzing water samples from the channel and uncovered traces of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAs, the Houston Chronicle reported. PFAs have been in use since the 1940s and can be found in products including food wrappers, fabrics and firefighting foam. Some PFA compounds have been linked to illnesses including cancer. "The area where the fire was tidal, so the tides flow upstream and downstream a couple of times a day. So basically this stuff just sloshed around for a while before it could flush into the system into Galveston Bay proper and ultimately . be flushed down into the Gulf of Mexico as well," Bob Stokes, director of the foundation, said while presenting the researchers' findings in Seabrook last week. Stokes said people aren't drinking water from the channel, and it's unlikely anyone is swimming in it. But he expressed concern that that the chemicals don't break down, and that researchers don't know how they could harm fish and the people who fish in the area. "For the vast majority of these compounds, there aren't any regulatory limits at all and very little data on toxicity to use as a benchmark to compare whether or not levels we found are or are not of concern," said Weihsueh Chiu, professor at Texas A&M. Stokes said the testing of samples from the channel is only a first step. "What it doesn't do, and what we think there needs to be more research on, is what it really means, what health impacts might be caused because of this," Stokes said. Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|
Associated Press
|
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2019-11-11/texas-petrochemical-plant-fire-environmental-impact-unclear
|
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:59:26 GMT
| 1,573,491,566 | 1,573,476,890 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
1,077,305 |
usnews--2019-11-09--Dow Agrees to $77M Environmental Settlement in Michigan
| 2019-11-09T00:00:00 |
usnews
|
Dow Agrees to $77M Environmental Settlement in Michigan
|
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — Dow Chemical Co. has agreed to fund environmental restoration projects worth an estimated $77 million to compensate for decades of pollution by its plant in Midland, Michigan, officials said Friday. A deal between the company and government agencies calls for improvements to fish and wildlife habitats tainted by dioxins and other hazardous substances from Dow's manufacturing complex in its headquarters city of Midland. "This settlement has been more than a decade in the making by a combined team of state, federal and tribal partners working together for the benefit of Michigan's environment and precious natural resources," state Attorney General Dana Nessel said. The agreement would be legally binding and needs a federal judge's approval to take effect. It would resolve a complaint filed by government agencies that alleges the company's pollution harmed birds, fish, invertebrates and mammals in the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers and their watersheds. Dow's facility began operating in 1897. For generations it dumped or incinerated wastes that contaminated the 50-mile-long (80-kilometer-long) river valley, which extends into Lake Huron's Saginaw Bay, with dioxins and related compounds linked to cancer and other illnesses. Cleanup of the Tittabawassee River began in 2007 and is expected to be finished in 2021. No completion date has been set for the other waterways. The pollution has prompted warnings to limit consumption of some fish and wild game, and to avoid touching the soil in certain areas, including parks. Construction of a fish passage ramp at a Tittabawassee River dam will provide hundreds of miles of new habitat for migratory species, while the state Department of Natural Resources will get funding to build spawning reefs in Saginaw Bay. About 2,000 acres (800 hectares) of private land will be shielded from development through conservation easements. An expansion of the Shiawassee National Wildlife Reserve will provide more room for hunting. As part of the settlement, Dow will pay $15 million to a team of trustees including officials with state and federal agencies and the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan. Some of the money will be used to maintain and monitor the effectiveness of the 13 projects, while at least $5 million will fund additional natural resource initiatives selected by the trustees with advice from the public. In a statement, the company said it was "committed to working cooperatively with the ... trustees to move forward with implementation of the proposed restoration plan over the next five years" and had set aside money to pay for the settlement. The trustees will host a public meeting Nov. 21 in Saginaw to provide more details about the plan, said Matthew Schneider, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. "We are thankful to Dow and the trustees for their work in reaching this excellent result, which will benefit the residents of the Saginaw Bay area and the wildlife and waterfowl that inhabit it," Schneider said.
|
Associated Press
|
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/michigan/articles/2019-11-08/dow-agrees-to-77m-environmental-restoration-settlement
|
Sat, 09 Nov 2019 00:13:56 GMT
| 1,573,276,436 | 1,573,261,181 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
1,075,586 |
usnews--2019-10-12--2 Indiana Environmental Groups Merge, Plan Kids' Health Push
| 2019-10-12T00:00:00 |
usnews
|
2 Indiana Environmental Groups Merge, Plan Kids' Health Push
|
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Two longtime Indiana environmental groups have merged and drafted plans for a refocused mission on children's environmental and health initiatives. The Hoosier Environmental Council and Improving Kids' Environment announced their merger Thursday. Both Indianapolis-based nonprofits will come under the banner of the Hoosier Environmental Council, which has been Indiana's leading environmental health advocate for more than 36 years. Improving Kids' Environment worked for two decades to reduce toxic risks to Indiana children from lead, pesticides and other sources. Jesse Kharbanda is the council's executive director. He says the merger "enables our combined organization to better tackle remaining challenges." He says their focus will now be on three children's health initiatives, including reducing childhood lead poisoning and decreasing bacterial pollution so kids have clean drinking water and streams to play in. Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|
Associated Press
|
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/indiana/articles/2019-10-12/2-indiana-environmental-groups-merge-plan-kids-health-push
|
Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:51:01 GMT
| 1,570,902,661 | 1,570,889,282 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
791,091 |
theirishtimes--2019-12-13--Grassland Farmer of the Year says sector is tackling environmental issues
| 2019-12-13T00:00:00 |
theirishtimes
|
Grassland Farmer of the Year says sector is tackling environmental issues
|
A young farmer who has been named as the Grassland Farmer of the Year says the much-maligned sector is actively tackling environmental problems and seeking solutions. Bryan Daniels from Co Kilkenny says many farmers are working towards creating sustainability within their farm gate. He says that he is always striving to improve every aspect of his farm at Raheenarran in Kilmoganny and that there are many positives to share with the wider community. “We are not the problem that some people perceive we are. We carry so many of the solutions coming with us in terms of the low carbon footprint on our milk and beef we produce but also what we can do in terms of rebuilding the environment’s biodiversity, and improving water quality,” he says. “Most of the [criticism] of farmers is unwarranted. It comes from a context taken out of hand. It is case of correcting the mistruths and showing the good that we are doing.” Mr Daniels, who attended the awards ceremony at Teagasc in Fermoy, Co Cork with his wife, Gail, and their son, Eli, said he was surprised to win. “I didn’t expect it but am pleased. The work on the farm has been ongoing for generations. I am lucky in that my father gave me control of the farm 19 years ago when I was in night college. We have worked on trying to improve the farm, to bring on the sustainability of it.” The father of three is a former Teagasc young farmer of the year winner and is considered one of the bright lights of his generation. After one year at Kildalton Agricultural College, Mr Daniels came back to the farm at Kilmoganny in 2001. He believes that grassland is Ireland’s natural advantage and advocates the optimisation of grass production and utilisation. The Grassland Farmer of the Year awards have an overall prize fund of €30,000 funded by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Now in its third year, it rewards farmers who are achieving high levels of grass utilisation on their farms. All three winners to date have also previously won the young farmer of the year award. Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Michael Creed said the judges had visited all 13 of the nominated farms “seeing the best in action”. He said he wanted the overall winner to use the award as an opportunity to show other farmers what can be done. “We are at a time in agriculture where we need champions, we need ambassadors. We need people to go as leaders in their own community,” he said. “Don’t go home and bask in the glory in your front room. Take it to your farming neighbours and friends. Take it to the broader agricultural sector. “Agriculture needs people who will stand up and say ‘We are not the problem. We are a big part of the solution’.” Mr Creed said the “world has to be fed” and sustainability was vital to the future. “Grassland management is a critical ingredient in profitable farming. The challenge for all of us is to maximise the efficiencies and to do it in a more sustainable way.”
| null |
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/grassland-farmer-of-the-year-says-sector-is-tackling-environmental-issues-1.4114879
|
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 20:01:43 +0000
| 1,576,285,303 | 1,576,283,319 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
790,975 |
theirishtimes--2019-12-10--Call for funds for environmentally-friendly farmers to protect rivers and lakes
| 2019-12-10T00:00:00 |
theirishtimes
|
Call for funds for environmentally-friendly farmers to protect rivers and lakes
|
Farmers and environmental campaigners have separately called on the Government to increase funding available for environmentally-friendly farming to protect rivers and lakes. The Irish Farmers Association said more than 40 per cent of all farmers in Ireland took part in the Department of Agriculture’s Green Low Carbon Agri-Environment Scheme (GLAS). However, the programmed was “over-subscribed and closed to new entrants”, said IFA president Joe Healy, who called for a series of extra State supports for farmers. He said ineffective waste-water treatment plants run by Irish Water around the country were causing more damage to rivers and lakes than farmers. Farmers take part in the Agricultural Sustainability Support and Advisory Programme, operated by Teagasc and dairy co-ops, which offers advice on how to protect water courses. Calling for the reopening of GLAS to new farmers and an increase in the €10,000 grant to those qualifying, Mr Healy said efforts were also needed to improve the quality of Irish soil by a national lime-spreading programme. Saying that action was urgently needed to tackle farming pollution, Karin Dubsky of environmental group Coastwatch said the State’s agriculture policies must change to reward good behaviour. She said grants for better septic tanks must be made easier to get. People who knew their tanks were not adequate were “crying out” for inspections, but these could take years to happen. The Department of Agriculture has a number of rules governing the use of fertilisers and the spreading of slurry: * Not to spread slurry or use fertiliser when rain is due to prevent run-off; * Not to spread both near ditches, streams and lake shores; * Farmers should check their lands beforehand to discover how much phosphorus is needed, and not spread more than is needed;. * Take extra care when spreading on heavy or wet soils, where fertiliser and slurry run-off is most dangerous; Regarding nitrogen-based fertilisers, farmers are told not to spread too much since three-quarters of what is used is wasted. * Make sure the soil fertility and soil pH is correct to get the best of the nutrients that are used. Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government Eoghan Murphy, who is responsible for water quality, said it was “now more important than ever” that everyone assisted the Government’s plans to protect rivers, lakes and streams.
| null |
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/call-for-funds-for-environmentally-friendly-farmers-to-protect-rivers-and-lakes-1.4111396
|
Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:41:47 +0000
| 1,576,028,507 | 1,576,023,968 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
790,804 |
theirishtimes--2019-12-04--Europe is at an environmental tipping point, says report
| 2019-12-04T00:00:00 |
theirishtimes
|
Europe is at an environmental tipping point, says report
|
Europe is at an environmental tipping point which threatens its prosperity and the risks go beyond the consequences of human-induced global warming, according to a European Environment Agency (EEA) report. An alarming rate of biodiversity loss, increasing impacts of climate disruption and over-consumption of natural resources means “Europe faces environmental challenges of unprecedented scale and urgency”, it warns. Its State of the Environment Report (SOER), published on Wednesday – which will be outlined at COP25 climate talks in Madrid – predicts Europe will not achieve its 2030 environmental goals and so risks undermining its ability to decarbonise in coming decades. It indicates, however, there is reason for hope, due to increased public awareness of the need to shift to a sustainable future; the pace of technological innovations, and stepped-up EU action, notably the imminent European new green deal. Most solutions are already identified but they risk failure if they are not implemented with the required urgency, concludes the report which evaluates data from 39 countries, and is used to frame EU climate and environmental policy. While European policies have improved the environment, there is not enough progress and the outlook for the coming decade is not positive, the report found. “A business as usual approach will not cut it,” warned EEA executive director Hans Bruyninckx. “We have a narrow window of opportunity in the next decade to scale up measures to protect nature, lessen the impacts of climate change and radically reduce our consumption of natural resources,” he added that incremental changes have made some progress but not nearly enough to meet long-term goals. “We already have knowledge, technologies and tools needed to make key production and consumption systems such as food, mobility [transport] and energy sustainable. Future wellbeing and prosperity depend on this and our ability to harness society-wide action to bring about change,” Mr Bruyninckx added. He said Ireland’s biggest task was to improve its carbon emissions curtailment; most notably in transport and agriculture. SOER 2020 is the most comprehensive environmental assessment ever undertaken on Europe. It provides a snapshot of where Europe stands in meeting 2020 and 2030 policy targets as well as 2050 goals in shifting to a sustainable, low carbon future. It acknowledges progress over the past two decades in cutting emissions. Signs of progress are also evident in tackling air and water pollution, addressing plastic waste, “and bolstering climate change adaptation [to address physical impacts of global heating] and the circular and bio-economy”. The EU’s sustainable finance initiative means the bloc’s financial sector is driving the necessary shift to a sustainable future – a world first. But based on current delivery rates, Europe will not achieve its sustainability vision of “living well within the limits of the planet by continuing to promote economic growth and seeking to manage the environmental and social impacts”. The report calls on Europe’s leaders and policymakers to use the next decade to radically scale up – and speed up – actions to put Europe on track “to avoid irreversible change and damage”. Investing in sustainability while stopping subsidies for environmentally damaging activities, especially fossil fuels, are needed. “At the same time, it will be crucial to listen to public concerns and ensure widespread support for such a shift – a socially-fair transition.” The report “is perfectly timed to give us the added impetus we need as we start a new five-year cycle in the European Commission and as we prepare to present the European green deal”, said commission vice president Frans Timmermans. “If we get this right, and our economy and our planet will be winners too.”
| null |
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/europe-is-at-an-environmental-tipping-point-says-report-1.4103673
|
Wed, 4 Dec 2019 00:28:11 +0000
| 1,575,437,291 | 1,575,462,417 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
790,289 |
theirishtimes--2019-11-13--Environmentalists say proposed Bill makes it harder to object to planning decisions
| 2019-11-13T00:00:00 |
theirishtimes
|
Environmentalists say proposed Bill makes it harder to object to planning decisions
|
A move by Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy to tighten up planning regulations and restrict the ability to legally challenge proposed developments has caused outrage among environmental organisations. Details of proposed measures were revealed in an email to members of the Oireachtas Committee for Housing, Planning and Local Government in recent days. The proposed Bill adds many requirements and restrictions that will make it much harder for citizens and environmental NGOs to achieve the necessary “standing” to take cases. The Environmental Pillar (EP), a coalition of leading environmental organisations, said it was “shocked” at the Minister’s attempt to press for new planning legislation “that would make it near impossible to challenge planning decisions in the courts and hold public authorities and the government to account”. The proposals are outlined in the Housing and Planning and Development Bill 2019. The EP said the changes would “add to the complexity of the court process and increases the risks of exposure to significant costs to those seeking to challenge bad planning decisions”. The Heads of the Bill appear “to favour developer’s interests at the cost of environmental rights”, the EP added. Attracta Uí Bhroin, environmental law officer with the Irish Environmental Network, said: “The Government is proposing a Frankenstein-like monster approach to killing off access to justice in Ireland, drawing from the worst practices elsewhere, and putting them all together in a bid to obstruct the rights of citizens and concerned NGOs to challenge bad and unlawful planning decisions.” “This legislation would row back on major changes introduced just a few years ago to enable ordinary people and small but committed environmental NGOs to legally challenge bad environmental decisions, without fear of incurring eye-watering costs and extensive obstacles to accessing justice.” The Department has argued challenges cause delays. The Minister defended the changes in the email. “In light of the level of proposed investment under the National Development Plan, it is considered that there is a need to safeguard the timely delivery of projects and value for public money while simultaneously maintaining the rights of citizens to challenge decisions that do not comply with EU environmental law…” The current system allows for each side to bear their own costs, and it is feasible for successful litigants to be awarded a certain amount of their costs if successful. This enables lawyers to be employed on a “no foal no fee basis”. The new rules would impose a cap of €5,000 for individuals and €10,000 for groups. A limit on awards of €40,000 in successful challenges would make it unsustainable for the small cohort of lawyers prepared to act for citizens and environmental NGOs, the EP said.
| null |
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/environmentalists-say-proposed-bill-makes-it-harder-to-object-to-planning-decisions-1.4080944
|
Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:03:46 +0000
| 1,573,621,426 | 1,573,604,819 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
789,676 |
theirishtimes--2019-10-10--Leading environmentalist and former minister weigh in on Co Kerry greenway plan
| 2019-10-10T00:00:00 |
theirishtimes
|
Leading environmentalist and former minister weigh in on Co Kerry greenway plan
|
The barrister representing 25 landowners opposed to the compulsory purchase of their lands for a greenway cycleway in south Kerry has told the An Bord Pleanála hearing the board would be acting contrary to a 2014 European directive and to Irish law if it does not grant an adjournment because of the volume of errors and changes to public documents by applicants, Kerry County Council. The dramatic application was strongly supported by leading environmentalist Peter Sweetman, whose interventions on the necessity for complete habitat studies in the case of the Galway bypass in 2012 partly led to the 2014 EU directive on environmental impact assessments.
| null |
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/leading-environmentalist-and-former-minister-weigh-in-on-co-kerry-greenway-plan-1.4046775
|
Thu, 10 Oct 2019 17:18:33 +0000
| 1,570,742,313 | 1,570,750,555 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
789,547 |
theirishtimes--2019-10-06--Environmental activists to hold protests in Dublin on Monday
| 2019-10-06T00:00:00 |
theirishtimes
|
Environmental activists to hold protests in Dublin on Monday
|
Environmental activists will stage multiple demonstrations in Dublin on Monday as part of a week-long campaign of civil disobedience in the capital aimed at pressurising the Government to do more to tackle the climate emergency. The disruption seeks to shine a light on climate breakdown and the biodiversity crisis and will see Extinction Rebellion Ireland (XRI) members join like-minded groups in other cities to stage an international “Rebellion Week”.
| null |
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/environmental-activists-to-hold-protests-in-dublin-on-monday-1.4041890
|
Sun, 6 Oct 2019 16:07:29 +0000
| 1,570,392,449 | 1,570,399,269 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
788,161 |
theirishtimes--2019-07-20--Environmental activists block traffic in Dublin city centre
| 2019-07-20T00:00:00 |
theirishtimes
|
Environmental activists block traffic in Dublin city centre
|
A group of environmental and transport activists have blocked traffic in Dublin’s South William Street to highlight the “urgent” need for action to address the city’s air pollution. Demonstrators erected temporary traffic measures that included tables and chairs to create a car-free zone between Chatham Street and Wicklow Street for a number of hours on Saturday. The “clean air action” was organised by members of Dublin Commuter Coalition, Dublin Cycling Campaign, the Irish Pedestrian Network and Extinction Rebellion Ireland who are calling on the Government to take immediate action to reduce motor traffic and create clean air zones throughout the city. Neasa Hourigan, Green Party councillor and co-founder of the Irish Pedestrian Network, said the capital’s poor air quality was “costing lives”. “It is beyond time that the Government starts listening to groups like ourselves because the inertia we’ve seen from Government and local authorities on introducing low emission zones, clean air zones and pedestrian areas has resulted in the report from last week where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cited dangerous levels of pollution in our city,” she said. “We do a huge amount of work on road deaths in terms of traffic, we don’t anything in terms of air pollution and that is costing people their lives . . . We need to do more work on it. We need to take it more seriously and that can’t come fast enough.” The EPA report found that the levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air in Dublin represents a possible public health risk and may be exceeding the annual limits deemed safe by the European Union. Ms Hourigan said the group will continue to hold protests until measures to combat air pollution are introduced. “When we’ve reached a point where we’re chocking on the air that we breathe, where children are developing increased cases of asthma, where people are struggling to breathe in the city, it is time to revisit this,” she added. “We are choking.” She added that other European countries were taking action but said Ireland was lagging behind, making changes “at a snail’s pace”. Janet Horner from the Dublin Cycling Campaign said: “We’re facing a climate emergency and we’re facing a public health emergency in terms of air pollution. “Urgent action is required . . . Reducing traffic in the city works for everybody and it’s important on so many different grounds.” Ms Horner said about 1,500 deaths a year are caused by air pollution in Ireland and that figure does not include all those impacted by respiratory illnesses. “We know that the nitrogen dioxide in the air in the city is dangerously high,” she said. “We need to reduce the traffic in our city centre, we need to do that for climate reasons, we need to do that for public health reasons and we need to do that for safety reasons. Out streets aren’t safe so we want to change that.” She said it had been “obvious” for more than a decade now that South William Street should be pedestrianised to make it safe for people to walk and cycle along. “It makes sense for businesses, it makes sense for pedestrians, it makes sense for shoppers,” Ms Horner said. “The only party it doesn’t make sense for is the people who are making a lot of money out of a car park . . . There are simple obvious things we can do. And this is one of them. Pedestrianise this street, give it back to people of the city and allow us to enjoy it and stop holding us to ransom by polluting vehicles.” – PA
| null |
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/environmental-activists-block-traffic-in-dublin-city-centre-1.3962881
|
2019-07-20 15:21:00+00:00
| 1,563,650,460 | 1,567,536,324 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
787,384 |
theirishtimes--2019-06-03--Irish traffic volume and polluted air creating major environmental health issue
| 2019-06-03T00:00:00 |
theirishtimes
|
Irish traffic volume and polluted air creating ‘major environmental health issue’
|
The high volume of traffic on Irish roads combined with the spread of polluted European air masses is creating a “major environmental health issue” in Ireland with air contamination rapidly on the increase, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has warned. Speaking on Monday following the release of data which shows pollution safety levels across Ireland have been breached numerous times so far this year, EPA air quality manager Patrick Kenny warned of the increased presence of fine dust particles in Irish air. These particles, he said, are so tiny that people can breathe them deeply into their lungs which in turn can lead to pulmonary and respiratory issues. This PM10 particulate matter (dust) comes from many different places including exhaust emissions, soil and road surfaces, construction works and industrial emission, according to the EPA. The Pm10 daily limit of 50ug/m3 is considered breached if there are more than 35 breaches at one location in a calendar year. Data released by the authority under FOI to the Times Ireland edition shows 12 out of 19 stations recorded more air quality breaches in the first five months of the year than in the whole of 2018. Most of these breaches were recorded in Dublin with 14 between January and May 2019 at the Davitt Road air quality station in Dublin 12 compared with only one in 2018. There were 12 breaches in Ringsend compared to three last year and eight breaches at Ballyfermot which recorded none last year. The rise in air pollution breaches can, in part, be explained by the recent increase in monitoring stations across the State, according to Mr Kenny. There are currently 42 air monitoring stations across Ireland, up from 19 in 2017. However, the rising level of PM10 has become a “major environmental health issue” along with air pollution through “transboundary” gas emissions which travel from central and western Europe across Ireland. This polluted air mass was particularly notable over April’s Easter weekend, added Mr Kenny. “We’ve had weather conditions which have led to higher levels of pollutants in our air,” he told RTÉ’S News at One programme. “We’ve had more still air and we’ve had dryer weather conditions which is good for other reasons but can have a negative impact on air quality. Equally, traffic volumes in Dublin do clearly contribute to the pollutants.” A total of 1,500 premature deaths in Ireland are directly attributable each year to poor air quality caused by solid fuel burning, the EPA warned late last year. It also underlined the level of dust in Irish air as a “growing concern”. These levels are particularly high during the winter months when people’s use of solid fuels such as coal, peat and wood impacts on air quality and on health, especially in small towns and villages. The burning of solid fuel - including ‘back yard burning’ and emissions from transport remain the main threats to good air quality in Ireland, according to the EPA’s 2017 air quality report released last November. The Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment is currently developing the State’s first National Clean Air Strategy which is to provide a framework on how to reduce harmful emissions and improve air quality and public health. A spokeswoman for the EPA said the EU must urgently adopt “stricter guidelines, especially for particulates” so that legal and enforceable standards can help improve air quality. “The choices that each of us makes about how we heat our homes and travel to work and school can directly impact on our local air quality, the public need to be supported in making clean heating and transport choices,” she said.
| null |
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/irish-traffic-volume-and-polluted-air-creating-major-environmental-health-issue-1.3913763
|
2019-06-03 19:49:04+00:00
| 1,559,605,744 | 1,567,539,257 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
786,581 |
theirishtimes--2019-04-29--Environmental group challenges peat bog extraction regulations
| 2019-04-29T00:00:00 |
theirishtimes
|
Environmental group challenges peat bog extraction regulations
|
An environmental group has brought a High Court challenge against the State over new regulations that allow for industrial extraction of peat from bogs. Friends of the Irish Environment claims the new regulations mean that large-scale peat extraction does not require planning permission, and instead must be licensed by the Environmental Protection Agency. It claims the effect of the new regulations will create a retention mechanism for the unauthorised industrial extraction of peat, and allow this activity to continue for many years in an unassessed and unregulated fashion. The group claims the regulations fail to comply with several European Union directives on the protection of the environment. The action is against the Minister for Communication, Climate Action and Environment, the Minister for Housing, Planning, and Local Government, and the State. The group seeks orders including one quashing the making of the 2019 European Union Environmental Impact Assessment (Peat Extraction) Regulations, and the Planning and Development Act 2000 (Exempted Development) regulations 2019. It claims the statutory instruments are contrary to various EU Directives on Special Environmental Assessments, Habitats and Environmental Impact Assessments. The group, represented in the High Court on Monday by James Devlin SC and Oisin Collins BL instructed by solicitor Aoife O’Connell, claims the majority of Irish industrial peatlands are operated by Bord Na Mona, which has been licensed by the EPA since 1999. It claims the remainder of the industrial peat operations, which supplies approximately 500,000 m³ of horticultural peat into the UK market, have been operating without planning permission or licences from the EPA. The group says none of the large-scale industrial activity on Irish bogs has undergone proper environmental assessments. The unregulated industrial extraction can affect climate change, wild species, archaeology and human health, it also submits. The group said that it has received a letter from the European Commission stating it shared the concerns held by the Friends of the Irish Environment about a lack of applications of the law to peat extraction activities. The Commission welcomed the creation of a new regime which it hopes will bring Ireland’s peat extraction activities into line with EU law. The Commission added it will be raising its issues of concerns about peat extraction with the Irish authorities. Permission to bring the action was granted, on an ex parte basis, by Mr Justice Seamus Noonan who returned the matter to next month.
| null |
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/environmental-group-challenges-peat-bog-extraction-regulations-1.3875535
|
2019-04-29 20:16:04+00:00
| 1,556,583,364 | 1,567,541,759 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
786,261 |
theirishtimes--2019-04-16--No-deal Brexit threatens innumerable problems for environmental projects
| 2019-04-16T00:00:00 |
theirishtimes
|
No-deal Brexit threatens ‘innumerable problems’ for environmental projects
|
A no-deal Brexit and the potential for a border with Northern Ireland threatens “innumerable problems” for future environmental projects and standards, a new report has warned. Its authors also say there is the potential for a loss of joint-action on environmental crime in the region once Britain leaves the EU. While some of the regulatory questions surrounding environmental issues could be solved through future policy alignment, the report outlines concerns this may be undermined by the “taking back control” narrative that has accompanied the protracted Brexit process. Brexit, The Good Friday/Belfast Agreement and the Environment: Issues Arising and Possible Solutions was launched in Leinster House on Tuesday. The report looks at how environmental issues and projects have enjoyed a shared approach since 1998 and how this could be undone depending on the circumstances under which Britain leaves Europe. It was commissioned by the Environmental Pillar and Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL), and written by barrister Alison Hough. A disorderly exit could “cause a major environmental headache on the island of Ireland” in the absence of a clear common rulebook regarding species, emissions, water quality and hazardous waste. “It is likely that Brexit (in any form) will interfere with Good Friday/Belfast Agreement cross-border co-operation and place obstacles in its way in general, but in particular in the area of environmental co-operation,” it says. “A hard border or a customs border would represent a potential physical obstacle to cross-border environmental projects, potentially causing innumerable problems from movement of staff on projects and goods necessary for the carrying out of projects, to the more abstract problems cause by regulatory divergence and governance changes as a result of Brexit.” Concern points north in particular – the report notes the Belfast Agreement emphasis on environmental issues was partially a reflection of “a long history of failure” by Northern Ireland authorities to maintain standards. This track record, coupled with the potential to neglect existing environmental standards established over the last two decades in the event of post-Brexit regulatory divergence, could mean “the actual gap in environmental protection will be much greater on the ground than the gap on paper”. The specific threat posed by Brexit is the loss of a shared or harmonised regulatory approach that comes with common EU membership. With a potential for divergence at Westminster in the aftermath of the UK’s departure, and of questions over who will oversee environment policy in the North, the report’s authors believe market pressures could lead to deregulation pressure. The existing oversight provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will also disappear. While future regulatory alignment is both unpredictable and problematic, the report does suggest that common environment protections north and south of the border could be protected as an issue of human rights. “This could provide a potential avenue for enforcement of some of the commitments in the GF/BA, where they impact on an individual’s right to a clean and healthy environment, by asserting environmental rights,” it said.
| null |
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/no-deal-brexit-threatens-innumerable-problems-for-environmental-projects-1.3862862
|
2019-04-16 21:25:40+00:00
| 1,555,464,340 | 1,567,542,844 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
782,421 |
theintercept--2019-09-20--The Environmental Left Is Softening on Carbon-Capture Technology Maybe Thats OK
| 2019-09-20T00:00:00 |
theintercept
|
The Environmental Left Is Softening on Carbon-Capture Technology. Maybe That’s OK.
|
of this year, more than 600 environmental groups — including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Sunrise Movement — sent a letter to Congress saying they will “vigorously oppose” federal climate legislation that promotes “corporate schemes” like carbon-capture and storage. Congress was not chastened. This past July, tucked in the Senate’s $287 billion highway reauthorization bill, was a bipartisan measure to support carbon-capture research and development. The measure — the Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies, or USE IT, Act — was also included in the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act, an omnibus package passed a month earlier. It has not yet passed the House, but last year, Congress passed a separate measure to expand a tax credit — known as 45Q — projected to generate $1 billion in investment in carbon-capture projects by 2024. Neither have been the most outspoken advocates of a Green New Deal. Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, unveiled the landmark resolution with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., in February, and has been one of its leading advocates since. He has drawn a centrist primary challenge from Rep. Joe Kennedy, and has been backed by the Sunrise Movement and Ocasio-Cortez. He’s comfortable with carbon-capture, and supported it in his 2009 climate bill, Waxman-Markey, the last time Congress made a serious effort to tackle the crisis. “I have personally spoken to Senator Markey after the Green New Deal was introduced, and he said carbon capture is in,” said Brad Crabtree, co-director of the Carbon Capture Coalition, a group of roughly 60 companies, unions, research institutes, and energy groups that support carbon-capture technology. “I asked him directly, and he was pretty categorical, and immediately then talked about what he tried to do for carbon capture in Waxman-Markey.” A Markey spokesperson said the senator “has not advocated for specific energy approaches, nor advocated against any” and believes all proposals “should be on the table.” The spokesperson also noted that the Green New Deal resolution — while “policy agnostic”— calls for reductions in emissions as much as is “technologically feasible.” Rachel Ventura is running a Democratic primary challenge against incumbent Bill Foster, a business-friendly congressman in Illinois, a decision she told The Intercept she made after he announced that he would not support a Green New Deal. A progressive member of a county board, one of Ventura’s highest-profile efforts is a massive carbon-capture project to stem emissions and produce energy from a local landfill — a project she describes as putting the Green New Deal in action at the local level. In April, the left-wing People’s Policy Project released a report on the Green New Deal that included support for new federal investments in direct-air capture. “I support all the carbon-capture technologies in the abstract, but when it comes to the question of what the federal government should be investing in, it seems like the carbon-negative CCS is the one where it is uniquely needed,” said Matt Bruenig, founder of the think tank, using an acronym for carbon-capture storage. “Industry can figure out its own point-source stuff.” And there is even evidence that some groups on the left are willing to moderate their maximalist opposition to carbon-capture, having recently signaled more willingness to compromise than they expressed in their letter sent to Congress earlier this year. “Sunrise Movement does not support carbon capture for fossil fuel plants,” said Evan Weber, the group’s political director. “There’s no good justification for doing carbon capture for oil, gas, and coal power other than to keep an industry alive that has not been good for the planet. That doesn’t mean there aren’t valid uses for it, and there are some — like in the industrial sector, heavy industry, where we don’t have a clear path forward yet. There I do think we should continue to do more research and development because ultimately we do need to decarbonize every sector of our economy.” John Noël, a senior climate campaigner with Greenpeace, echoed Weber. “We don’t have a lot of issues with capturing emissions from industrial sources,” he said. Quietly, but unmistakably, carbon capture, long loathed by the left, is moving back into the conversation. effort by fossil companies to sow doubt about the science of climate change has shaped the way activists and policymakers talk about it. One unintended consequence of the rejection of the scientific consensus has been the advent of the mantra “believe the science.” That puts the IPCC, or the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in a powerful position when it comes to setting the terms of the debate. To disagree with the IPCC is to disagree with the science. That dynamic, however, can leave the environmental left boxed in when it disagrees with the IPCC. That’s the case with carbon capture, which the IPCC says is necessary to hit carbon-concentration targets absent rapid reforestation and major changes to global diets and energy consumption. “Those changes would be positive, but I’d rather not rely on them manifesting at global scale to stabilize the climate,” said James Mulligan, a senior associate at the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank. A number of factors have driven renewed attention to carbon-capture technology, most notably the growing agreement among scientists that keeping average global temperatures from rising beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius will require not only reducing future emissions, but also removing some of the carbon dioxide that’s already been released. Modeling by the International Energy Agency suggests that nearly 15 percent of all emissions reduction must come from carbon capture by midcentury. There’s also greater recognition among climate experts that emissions from the industrial sector — like those associated with aviation fuel, cement, and steel — can’t be easily reduced with renewable sources. Nearly 30 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from industry. The opposition to carbon-capture is rooted largely in politics, as opponents argue that it is merely being put forward cynically by a fossil fuel industry intent on its own survival at the expense of the planet’s. Sen. Bernie Sanders, in his recently released climate change plan, came out against carbon-capture technology, calling it a “false solution.” Noël, of Greenpeace, who stipulated support for carbon-capture in an industrial scenario, drew the line at power plants. “If you’re building new power plants with the intent to put carbon capture, we don’t think that’s a good use of money, especially federal subsidies, and we think it further entrenches the extractive mindset and the fossil fuel’s political grip which thwarts meaningful action,” he said. Activists on the environmental left view financial support for carbon-capture as yet another misguided subsidy for polluters and a barrier to transitioning away from fossil fuels once and for all. But if political concerns are driving opposition to carbon capture, there are important political reasons to support it, too. Opponents currently lack a political strategy to deal with the fact that nearly all of organized labor (and not just the building trades) is committed to advancing the technology. Unions will be a key constituency to organize in the fight to pass any sort of Green New Deal. “I don’t see labor supporting any climate policy that doesn’t include support for carbon capture and storage,” said Brad Markell, executive director for the Industrial Union Council at the AFL-CIO. “You can very safely say that.” Some Democratic legislators who support a Green New Deal, like Sens. Chris Van Hollen and Brian Schatz, have backed recent carbon-capture bills. investments in carbon-capture technology because, they say, it will help preserve the high-paying, unionized jobs in the fossil fuel industry, while also taking steps to tackle a warming planet that scientists say is necessary. Unions argue that the most important priority is to reduce emissions and decarbonize the economy, not necessarily to move off fossil fuels as fast as possible. “Some groups have a strain of thought to leave everything in the ground, and that’s a difficult discussion for labor,” Markell of the AFL-CIO said. Earlier this summer, the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of eight large labor unions and six national environmental groups released a plan for tackling inequality and climate change that included support for carbon-capture tech. Environmental groups in the BlueGreen Alliance include the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Environmental Defense Action Fund, and the League of Conservation Voters, collectively known in environmental circles as “big green.” These groups declined to sign the letter outlining opposition to carbon capture sent by other green groups to Congress earlier this year. The BlueGreen Alliance includes a number of building trade unions, as well as unions that represent industries that won’t necessarily be directly impacted by investments in carbon capture, like the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and the Communications Workers of America. SEIU was also the first international union to back the federal Green New Deal resolution. “I think about carbon capture every day. It’s more than just useful — it’s indispensable for addressing climate change,” said Lee Anderson, director of governmental affairs for the Utility Workers Union of America. “Even if we close every coal fire plant in America — which I don’t think we’re going to do for a while — but even if we did that, it doesn’t change the basic fact that if you believe and follow the science, carbon capture is a thing we must do globally at scale or we won’t make it.” Anderson thinks there’s a fundamental misconception about labor’s motives. “There’s this idea that we want to save coal and natural gas and petroleum for its own sake because we love those things,” he said. “What we love is the things associated with them, which is cheap and abundant energy and really good jobs that support the economy. It’s about combatting emissions, saving jobs and the communities around those places that rely on those jobs. It’s about not driving people out of middle-class jobs that are almost impossible to replace. Why would we not support it?” “It’s about economic stability, not just job preservation,” emphasized Cecile Conroy, director of government affairs for the International Brotherhood of Boilmakers. “We’re not just being selfish here. The Boilmakers, the IBEW, the Utility Workers — you unload our jobs, what’s going to happen to our multimillion-dollar health care and pension plans on Wall Street? Surely people don’t want to see those things collapse. There’s a whole thread of this that’s for economic and social stability and the tax base and making sure communities have jobs to go to.” significant barrier for carbon-capture technology — but supporters say if the government backed it like it did for wind and solar, we’d see similarly steep drops in price. One study published in 2018 suggested that direct-air capture — a carbon-capture method that sucks CO2 from the atmosphere — could cost between $94 and $232 per metric ton, a significant reduction from a 2011 study that estimated the price at more than $600 per metric ton. The most economical form of carbon-capture technology right now is through enhanced oil recovery, in which companies capture carbon dioxide, store it geologically, and then use that CO2 injection for producing additional oil. According to the International Energy Agency, using carbon capture yields a 37 percent reduction in emissions per barrel of oil compared to conventional oil production. There’s certainly growing scientific momentum behind investing in the technology, and a study published in Nature Communications this past summer used computer modeling to show that a “massive” rollout of direct-air capture technology could help bring down climate mitigation costs. Though opponents of carbon capture usually argue in the political arena that we can’t afford not to invest in fighting climate change, when it comes to carbon capture, critics generally emphasize that the technology is too costly, too underdeveloped, and will detract from more important steps society needs to take. Other critics see the fossil fuel industry’s interest in carbon capture as glaring proof that this is not really about environmental protection at all, but a way to boost the bottom line of oil and gas companies. After years of denying and obfuscating climate science, why should the government help out these companies and effectively give them more political power to fight climate regulation?
|
Rachel M. Cohen
|
https://theintercept.com/2019/09/20/carbon-capture-technology-unions-labor/
|
2019-09-20 11:53:01+00:00
| 1,568,994,781 | 1,569,590,613 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
737,989 |
thehuffingtonpostuk--2019-12-23--Donald Trump Says He 'Never Understood Wind' In Bizarre Environmental Rant
| 2019-12-23T00:00:00 |
thehuffingtonpostuk
|
Donald Trump Says He 'Never Understood Wind' In Bizarre Environmental Rant
|
How Verizon Media and our partners bring you better ad experiences To give you a better overall experience, we want to provide relevant ads that are more useful to you. For example, when you search for a film, we use your search information and location to show the most relevant cinemas near you. We also use this information to show you ads for similar films you may like in the future. Like Verizon Media, our partners may also show you ads that they think match your interests. Learn more about how Verizon Media collects and uses data and how our partners collect and use data. HuffPost is part of Verizon Media. Verizon Media and our partners need your consent to access your device and use your data (including location) to understand your interests, and provide and measure personalised ads. Verizon Media will also provide you with personalised ads on partner products. Learn more. Select 'OK' to continue and allow Verizon Media and our partners to use your data, or select 'Manage options' to view your choices.
|
Sarah Turnnidge
|
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-windmills-wind-turbines_uk_5e00b3a1e4b0b2520d0ddcc9
|
Mon, 23 Dec 2019 13:56:02 +0000
| 1,577,127,362 | 1,577,147,202 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
728,565 |
thehuffingtonpost--2019-08-29--Trump Administration To Undo Limits On Methane Ignoring Environmental Concerns
| 2019-08-29T00:00:00 |
thehuffingtonpost
|
Trump Administration To Undo Limits On Methane, Ignoring Environmental Concerns
|
President Donald Trump’s administration on Thursday reportedly plans to roll back regulation of methane emissions by the oil and gas industry ― a major contributor to climate change. The proposed rule change reflects the Trump administration view that the government overstepped its authority with mandates during the Obama administration that oil and gas companies take steps to repair methane leaks, according to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the rollback. “The purpose of this rule is to get to the fundamental basis of whether [methane] should have been regulated in the first place,” Anne Idsal, the acting assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air and Radiation, told the Journal. “It’s not about whether we’re doing the maximum we can or should do to deal with” climate change. Idsal added that she doesn’t believe “that there’s going to be some big climate concern here.” “This is extraordinarily harmful,” Rachel Kyte, the United Nations special representative on sustainable energy, told The New York Times. “Just at a time when the federal government’s job should be to help localities and states move faster toward cleaner energy and a cleaner economy, just at that moment when speed and scale is what’s at stake, the government is walking off the field.” The primary component of natural gas is methane, which is odorless when it comes directly out of the gas well. Oil companies, including Shell, Exxon and BP America, have urged Trump’s administration to maintain or tighten methane regulations ― not loosen them, according to the Times. Other industrial companies have opposed other Trump rollbacks of environmental regulations, including those aimed at curbing pollutants like mercury and auto emissions. By easing regulations, the Trump administration hopes to boost crude oil and natural gas production, according to the Journal. Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, slammed the methane rollback as “reckless” and evidence of “complete contempt for our climate” by Trump and his administration. “The EPA is now so determined to actually increase greenhouse pollution that it’s even shrugging off concerns from oil and gas companies about gutting these protections,” Siegel told The Washington Post. “Fracked gas is a climate killer, and Trump’s rash embrace of this dirty stuff showcases the need for the next president to commit to a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels.”
| null |
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-methane-epa-rule_n_5d67bd65e4b063c341fbba0e
|
2019-08-29 13:29:14+00:00
| 1,567,099,754 | 1,567,543,585 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
728,379 |
thehuffingtonpost--2019-08-20--Top Environmental Group Faces Upheaval Over Boards Ties To Jeffrey Epstein Trump
| 2019-08-20T00:00:00 |
thehuffingtonpost
|
Top Environmental Group Faces Upheaval Over Board’s Ties To Jeffrey Epstein, Trump
|
World Resources Institute World Resources Institute CEO Andrew Steer responded: “Every healthy organization faces challenges from time to time. The key is to use such events as an opportunity to improve the way we operate.” The World Resources Institute quietly cut ties with former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson after a young woman named the Democrat as one of the powerful men with whom Epstein, the accused pedophile who died Aug. 10 in an apparent suicide in jail, ordered her to have sex. After HuffPost sent questions to a spokesman, WRI emailed its staff late Monday announcing Richardson’s resignation from the board. The twin scandals highlight the growing tension between the work of big environmental groups and the donors whose celebrity or fortunes help fund it. At a moment when the climate crisis is rapidly worsening, the strife at WRI raises questions about what compromises are worth making in pursuit of new resources and expanded reach. The problems started last month, when FBI agents arrested Epstein for allegedly sex trafficking dozens of minors in the early 2000s. The accusations put new scrutiny on the moguls and powerbrokers ― including Trump and his predecessor Bill Clinton ― previously accused of raping underage girls provided by the multimillionaire. In court documents unsealed earlier this month, Virginia Giuffre, who accused Epstein of keeping her as a teenage sex slave, said she was directed to have sex with Richardson. “Governor Bill Richardson felt it was time to resign from the board of the World Resources Institute after serving for more than eight years, a tenure that is longer than most board members’ terms,” the statement read. Richardson’s name no longer appears on the WRI’s board. His profile on the WRI website now redirects to an error page. WRI declined to comment on the record about Richardson, but confirmed his departure from the 32-member board. The WRI staff remains in upheaval over the political hobnobbing of Ross, who’s donated about $37 million to WRI, after he hosted a fundraiser earlier this month for Trump. Reelecting a president who’s crippling the U.S. effort to cut climate-changing emissions directly undermines the work WRI is doing, employees said. “Mr. Ross’s actions pose a serious reputational risk to WRI and materially disadvantages our mission,” the petition reads. “How can we lead on ambitious climate action and work with the most climate-vulnerable communities if our Directors, and by extension our Institute, negate our efforts?” The petition came after management held a meeting last Thursday with staffers to hear out concerns over Ross’s seat on the board. Employees sent the petition to their bosses on Friday and emailed the document to an all-staff listserv on Monday. Besides calling for a town-hall-style meeting with Ross, the petition calls for the creation of a “Staff Association” to press for changes to the board, including more diversity and strict rules against acting “publicly in any way that is counter to” WRI’s core mission. The demands also include ending the practice of naming programs, prizes or rooms after benefactors and donors. Each year, WRI grants a Ross Prize for Cities to a business, nonprofit or local government that brought “transformative change” to a “city’s economic vitality, resilience, environmental sustainability or quality of life.” The award includes a $250,000 prize ― the same amount Ross charged for a VIP ticket to his fundraiser for Trump in the Hamptons earlier this month. Juggling the interests of donors with the mission of the organization is a high-wire act for environmental groups. In 2012, the Sierra Club took heat for accepting nearly $26 million from the natural gas industry while advocating for the demise of coal, its biggest power sector rival. A year later, the Environmental Defense Fund started facing criticism for its close ties to the billionaire Walmart heirs. Since then, the climate crisis has grown more urgent. Wildfires scorched the Arctic this summer, emitting more carbon dioxide in June alone than Sweden produces in a full year. An Indian metropolis of roughly 10 million is on the verge of running out of water. July was the hottest month ever recorded. “We need to put additional scrutiny on these board members to see if they are legitimately representing the public interest or if they’re on there to represent their own particular vested interests,” Brulle said by phone. “That’s the real question for these people.”
| null |
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/world-resources-institute-board-trump-epstein_n_5d5b52cae4b05f62fbd42050
|
2019-08-20 03:01:06+00:00
| 1,566,284,466 | 1,567,533,961 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
727,928 |
thehuffingtonpost--2019-07-29--Jay Inslee Calls For Banning Forever Chemicals In New Environmental Justice Plan
| 2019-07-29T00:00:00 |
thehuffingtonpost
|
Jay Inslee Calls For Banning 'Forever Chemicals' In New Environmental Justice Plan
|
The Washington state governor vowed to enact regulations prohibiting the use of cancer-causing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, common ingredients in nonstick fabrics, food packaging and firefighting foam that now pollute the drinking water of an estimated 19 million Americans. The 36-page memo, released Monday ahead of the next set of Democratic primary debates in Detroit, provides a detailed look at how an Inslee administration would implement his grand vision of pulling ecological systems back from the brink of collapse while restoring health in poor, predominantly minority communities that bear the brunt of the last century’s pollution. The governor has already sketched out how he’d eliminate planet-heating emissions across major sectors over the next decade and challenged his competitors to oppose the Enbridge Line 5 proposal to build a new oil and gas pipeline under Michigan’s Straits of Mackinac. The plan calls for reconstituting the Council on Environmental Quality, a sleepy White House department tasked with coordinating public health policy across federal agencies, as the Council on Environmental Justice. The new entity would ensure that people on the front lines have a role in informing federal policy and put justice and equity at the center of a national climate mobilization. It reiterates the Inslee campaign’s earlier proposals to direct the Department of Justice to aggressively investigate and prosecute corporate polluters. Income and race are strong indicators of how much pollution exposure an average American can expect to face. Air in Black communities is, on average, 48% more polluted than in wealthier, white neighborhoods, an NAACP report found last year, and they are 75% more likely to live in neighborhoods abutting industrial sites. Black, Hispanic and poor students face the highest risk of inhaling toxic pollutants in crumbling schools across the country, a study published last year in the journal Environmental Research. “I look at these two concepts as linked both in cause and solution,” Inslee told HuffPost by phone Sunday. “Its cause is pollution. Its solution is ending the dominance of fossil fuels.” Inslee also proposes a new federal “Equity Impact Mapping” program to “track pollution hotspots, economic inequality and climate change impacts” and suggests implementing an “equity screen” to analyze how federal climate, energy and environmental funding is spent in marginalized communities. Recalling to the climate equity law New York passed earlier this summer, Inslee’s plan pledges to spend $1.2 trillion ― a guaranteed 40% of the $3 trillion in federal spending the candidate outlined in his inaugural economic proposal ― to poor, pollution-ravaged communities. The proposal includes a provision to create a Universal Clean Energy Services Fund to offset working-class families’ monthly energy bills, which could increase in a rapid transition from fossil fuels. “Anytime you can solve two problems instead of one, you’ve got to do it,” Inslee said. “It doesn’t mean this is going to solve racial disparity and income inequality, but we think these are good steps.” Inslee remains at roughly 1% in aggregated polling of a crowded field of candidates. His bid to be the lone champion of addressing climate change, always a long-shot, now faces competition from billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer, who reportedly entered the race this month partly out of frustration that Inslee had yet to achieve a breakout moment. At last month’s first round of televised primary debates, Inslee took heat for failing to seize the stage and to channel the sort of righteousness on the fast-worsening climate crisis that Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) did on racism. Last week alone, Steyer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) released their own climate proposals that, while far behind what Inslee put forward, earned praise from groups like 350.org, which said the plans respond “to our calls for climate leadership.” But the Inslee campaign has nevertheless produced ann unrivaled inventory of detailed environmental proposals, setting what Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) dubbed the “gold standard” for what a Green New Deal could ultimately look like.
| null |
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jay-inslee-environmental-justice-plan_n_5d2fde99e4b020cd993e7e62
|
2019-07-29 13:57:27+00:00
| 1,564,423,047 | 1,567,535,469 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
726,839 |
thehuffingtonpost--2019-05-06--Environmentalists Fight Mining Plan By Ivanka Trumps Billionaire Landlord
| 2019-05-06T00:00:00 |
thehuffingtonpost
|
Environmentalists Fight Mining Plan By Ivanka Trump's Billionaire Landlord
|
The Washington Post via Getty Images A U.S. Secret Service agent guards Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner's rented home in Washington's Kalorama neighborhood on March 24, 2017. Minnesota activists have gone to court challenging the Trump administration’s approval of a wilderness area ore mine to be operated by a billionaire Chilean who owns the mansion that Ivanka Trump rents in Washington. A coalition of Minnesota businesses, environmental advocates and outdoor recreation groups asked for a summary judgment last month in their lawsuit against the Interior Department and Chilean copper conglomerate Antofagasta’s local subsidiary. The company plans an extensive sulfide-ore mine to extract copper and nickel in Minnesota’s Rainy River watershed, which drains into the protected 1.1 million-acre Boundary Waters wilderness area. The lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s reversal of an Obama-era decision blocking the mine and requiring an environmental impact study. Some of the mine would be on U.S. Forest Service land, and the lawsuit asks a federal judge to rule that the Trump administration wrongly reinstated mineral leases for the Antofagasta subsidiary, called Twin Metals Minnesota, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. The nonprofit Save the Boundary Waters called the Trump decision a “big fat Christmas gift for a giant foreign mining corporation willing to do anything to exploit the watershed of Minnesota’s crown jewel wilderness.” The mining operation threatens to contaminate a key water source and destroy the area’s ecosystem, the environmental groups say. Antofagasta is a family-owned company headed by Chilean businessman Andrónico Luksic, who bought a $5.5 million mansion in Washington shortly after Donald Trump won the presidency. Luksic now rents the mansion to the first daughter and husband Jared Kushner for $15,000 a month, The Wall Street Journal has reported. Richard Painter, who was President George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer and is now a law professor at the University of Minnesota, accused the Trump administration of allowing Luksic to use the Boundary Waters area “as his toilet.” Jared and Ivanka’s landlord — a billionaire from Chile who rents them their mansion in D.C. — will use the Boundary Waters as his toilet. Pro-sulfide mining politicians in Minnesota and Washington are handing him the washroom key.https://t.co/5LPmD1xage — Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) May 4, 2019 Painter told Newsweek that the landlord-tenant relationship between Luksic and Ivanka Trump “looks bad.” Trump and Kushner “have enough money [that] they could have bought a house or rented something from somebody who wasn’t trying to get things from the U.S. government,” he said. Trump and Kushner “were not aware” of the link between the mining operation and their landlord, a White House official told The Wall Street Journal in 2017. A spokesman for Luksic said he purchased the mansion as an investment and renting it to the president’s family was coincidental, according to the Journal. The mining planned by Antofgasta has serious environmental risks because copper is extracted from sulfur-bearing ore. When exposed to oxygen or water, the ore generates toxic sulfuric acid that can pollute nearby waters, the Star Tribune noted. In 2017, the president blasted Hillary Clinton for a uranium mining operation in the U.S. that he falsely claimed she had approved selling to a Russian company.
| null |
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ivanka-trump-andronico-luksic-ore-mine-minnesota_n_5ccfa079e4b0548b735c1ad2
|
2019-05-06 12:23:07+00:00
| 1,557,159,787 | 1,567,541,050 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
722,879 |
thehill--2019-08-26--Trump says hes an environmentalist after skipping G-7 climate meeting
| 2019-08-26T00:00:00 |
thehill
|
Trump says he's 'an environmentalist' after skipping G-7 climate meeting
|
President Trump Donald John TrumpJoe Kennedy says he's considering Senate run Biden tells supporters after flub: 'I'm not going nuts' Seoul's relations with Pyongyang and Tokyo need a jolt of reality MORE on Monday touted his environmentalist credentials hours after skipping a Group of Seven (G-7) summit meeting focused on climate, oceans and biodiversity. At a closing press conference before departing the summit, Trump was asked whether he still harbors skepticism about climate change. He did not directly answer, saying he is an "environmentalist" but that he is unwilling to sacrifice the country's economic success to protect the environment. "I’m an environmentalist. A lot of people don’t understand that," Trump said, citing his experience filing environmental impact statements for real estate developments. "I think I know more about the environment than most people," he added. "I want clean air. I want clean water. I want a wealthy country. I want a spectacular country with jobs, with pensions, with so many things. And that’s what we’re getting." "At the same time, it’s very important to me ... we have to maintain this incredible place that we’ve all built," Trump continued. The U.S. has "become a much richer country. And that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. Because that wealth allows us to take care of people." Earlier Monday, the president skipped a G-7 session focused on climate and sent another administration official in his place. The heads of government of the other six nations that comprise the G-7 were there. During the climate meeting, leaders approved a $20 million aid package to help Brazil and other South American countries address fires engulfing the Amazon rainforest, French President Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Jean-Michel MacronTrump says he's 'an environmentalist' after skipping G-7 climate meeting Trump says he'd meet with Iranians under 'right' circumstances Macron: US, France reached 'very good agreement' on digital tax MORE said. Trump has in the past characterized climate change as a hoax, mocked the idea of global warming by citing winter storms and cast doubt on government reports warning about how the changing environment might adversely affect the economy. His administration has rolled back a number of environmental protections enacted by the Obama administration, and Trump announced shortly after taking office that he would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement that seeks to combat global emissions. The president on Monday cited the expansion of energy exports under his administration and the opening of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as ways he has made the country more prosperous. "I’m not going to lose that wealth," he said. "I'm not going to lose that on dreams. On windmills."
|
Brett Samuels
|
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458836-trump-says-hes-an-environmentalist-after-skipping-g-7-climate-meeting
|
2019-08-26 16:06:33+00:00
| 1,566,849,993 | 1,567,533,404 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
711,743 |
theguardianuk--2019-10-09--Warren debuts ambitious policy plan that addresses environmental racism
| 2019-10-09T00:00:00 |
theguardianuk
|
Warren debuts ambitious policy plan that addresses environmental racism
|
Democratic presidential frontrunner Elizabeth Warren has unveiled an ambitious climate and environmental justice plan that places poor communities of color at the centre of a sweeping reform package aimed at bolstering environmental protection, curbing pollution and preserving clean water and air. The plan, shared with the Guardian ahead of launch, references a number of predominantly minority communities suffering from severe pollution, including those in Flint and southern Detroit in Michigan, the Navajo nation and Reserve, Louisiana. Reserve is the focus of a year-long Guardian series, Cancer Town, focused on air pollution linked to cancer in the town. The detailed policy proposal draws on the seminal 17 principles of environmental justice formulated by the National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit in 1991- widely lauded but mostly ignored by consecutive federal governments. Warren’s plan states: “We didn’t get here by accident. Our crisis of environmental injustice is the result of decades of discrimination and environmental racism compounding in communities that have been overlooked for too long. It is the result of multiple choices that put corporate profits before people, while our government looked the other way. It is unacceptable, and it must change.” The policy package builds on Warren’s previously announced platform to combat the climate crisis by investing $3tn over the next decade to combat global heating. The plan’s acknowledgement of environmental racism – the disproportionate impact of the environmental crisis on people of colour – comes after US senator Kamala Harris pushed the issue at the first Democratic debate in July. It has since been acknowledged by most of the high profile Democratic candidates, 13 of whom have endorsed a Green New Deal resolution. But Warren’s newly released platform stands out as one of the most detailed plans among the candidates. The US senator for Massachusetts argues that the climate crisis represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to tackle decades of environmental discrimination and injustice fueled by the fossil fuel economy by creating millions of decent stable American jobs in clean and renewable energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing, which would unleash the best of American innovation and creativity. “We also cannot fight climate change with a low-wage economy. Workers should not be forced to make an impossible choice between fossil fuel industry jobs with superior wages and benefits and green economy jobs that pay far less,” the plan states. To address this, Warren pledges to make her proposed $1.5tn Green Manufacturing procurement plan contingent on companies providing fair wages, paid family and medical leave, and collective bargaining rights. In a nod to Trump’s blue collar base, she promises investment in training for fossil fuel workers – coal miners, oil rig workers, and pipeline builders – to ensure they are not left behind by the Green Deal transition. In addition, Warren proposes new legislation – the Climate Risk Disclosure Act – which would require banks and other companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and price their exposure to climate risk into their valuations. Improving transparency about corporate fossil fuel dependence, would accelerate the transition to clean energy, claims Warren. Warren pledges to elevate environmental justice at the executive and federal level, in stark contrast to the rollback of environmental protections and systematic sacking of pollution and climate scientists under Trump. The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council would report directly to the White House, and include leaders of frontline community leaders at the highest levels. Trump has threatened to slash the EPA budget by almost a third, including its civil rights office, and to dismantle its Office of Environmental Justice entirely. Warren promises to expand both programmes, and instruct the civil rights office to more aggressively pursue cases of environmental discrimination: nine out of 10 complaints between 1997 and 2013 were rejected. The plan also promises more proactive and co-ordinated data assessments by federal government agencies to identify communities at risk due to pollution and contamination, which the senator says will affect the way in which corporations are granted permits under clean air and water laws. Water is another focus area. The policy proposal highlights widespread challenges faced by rural and urban communities across the country in accessing clean water, as a result of inadequate investment in public water systems and poor enforcement of water quality standards which led to major health scandals in Flint and Newark, New Jersey. In rural areas, Warren wants to boost the Conservation Stewardship Program to $15bn annually to help limit agricultural runoff that harms local wells and water systems. In cities, decaying water infrastructure would be refurbished by fully funding the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. In 2018, the three costliest environmental catastrophes globally took place in the US, and low-income communities, people with disabilities, and people of color were worst affected. Warren pledges to quintuple funding for FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, which the Trump administration has threatened to slash, and prioritize disaster and climate mitigation in communities at high risk of extreme, increasingly common, weather events including floods, storms and wildfires. The final point in her five-point plan builds on earlier commitments to aggressively prosecute corporate polluters especially those contributing to the climate crisis and environmental discrimination. This includes her proposed Corporate Executive Accountability Act which could signal hefty fines and jail time for company executives found guilty of criminal negligence which resulted in environmental damage.
|
Oliver Laughland and Nina Lakhani
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/09/warren-debuts-ambitious-policy-plan-that-addresses-environmental-racism
|
Wed, 09 Oct 2019 12:00:10 GMT
| 1,570,636,810 | 1,570,625,231 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
30,077 |
bbc--2019-08-24--Amazon fires Fines for environmental crimes drop under Bolsonaro
| 2019-08-24T00:00:00 |
bbc
|
Amazon fires: Fines for environmental crimes drop under Bolsonaro
|
The record number of fires in Brazil's Amazon rainforest has coincided with a sharp drop in fines for environmental violations, BBC analysis has found. Official data from Brazil's environment agency shows fines from January to 23 August dropped almost a third compared with the same period last year. At the same time, the number of fires burning in Brazil has increased by 84%. It is not known how many of these fires have been set deliberately, but critics have accused President Jair Bolsonaro's administration of "green lighting" the destruction of the rainforest through a culture of impunity. Mr Bolsonaro has sent in the military to help put out the fires after coming under pressure from the international community, saying he wanted to "help protect" the Amazon. The largest rainforest in the world, the Amazon is a vital carbon store that slows down the pace of global warming. It is known as the "lungs of the world" and is home to about three million species of plants and animals, and one million indigenous people. Analysis by BBC Brasil shows the number of fines handed out by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama) for environmental violations has dropped significantly since Mr Bolsonaro took office on 1 January. Neither Ibama nor the ministry of the environment answered the BBC's queries about the figures. Mariangélica de Almeida, a professor of environmental law who has defended clients over unfair fines, suggested to BBC Brasil that the figures for previous years could have reflected a culture of over-fining, in order to meet goals. However, others have pointed the finger directly at Mr Bolsonaro, who has scorned environmental activists and declared his support for clearing areas of the Amazon for agriculture and mining. Elisabeth Uema, who retired from Ibama last year, said it was clear even before Mr Bolsonaro was elected that he did not like Ibama. During his campaign, he pledged to limit fines for damaging the rainforest and to weaken the influence of the environmental agency. The message was further underlined in April when Mr Bolsonaro ordered an investigation into officials who burned tractors and trucks belonging to loggers who were allegedly involved in illegal activities in the Jamari National Forest. This was a long-held policy seen as a deterrent against illegal loggers. The agency's work, she said, had also been hampered by the fact that just eight of its 27 offices across the country now had a permanent head. "The usual inspections, which had been planned since 2018, are happening. But little beyond that," Ms Uema, now the executive secretary of Ascema Nacional, the body representing Ibama employees, told BBC Brasil. Critics of the Bolsonaro administration insist the drop in fines does not mean fewer crimes against the environment are being committed. The decline in the number of environmental fines at a time when Brazil has seen a spike in deforestation does not seem a coincidence to many. During last year's presidential race, Mr Bolsonaro vowed to open up the Amazon for commercial activity. When he was sworn in, he stayed true to his word. Many of his critics say that Mr Bolsonaro operates a double standard when it comes to addressing environmental crimes, most of which remain unpunished. After all, the president promised a tough stance on criminal activity. Now, in face of national and international pressure, Mr Bolsonaro appears to have changed his tone and finally adopted measures to battle the fires. But he still hasn't acknowledged the link between the fires and the increase in deforestation in Brazil this year. And in a televised address on Friday he reinforced his plans to bring "economic dynamism" to the Amazon. The question now is whether Mr Bolsonaro's recent moves in fighting the fires will be accompanied by a consistent change in his environmental policies. Environmental activists have drawn links between Mr Bolsonaro's attitudes towards the environment and the recent surge in the number of fires in the Amazon rainforest. Satellite data published by the National Institute for Space Research (Inpe) has shown an increase of 85% this year in fires across Brazil, most of them in the Amazon region. Mr Bolsonaro initially brushed it off, arguing that it was the season of the "queimada", when farmers burn land to clear it before planting. The president has also previously questioned data from Brazil's National Space Research Institute which showed an 88% increase in deforestation in June compared with the same month a year ago. But Inpe has noted that the number of fires is not in line with those normally reported during the dry season. Wildfires often occur in the dry season in Brazil but they are also deliberately started in efforts to illegally deforest land for cattle ranching. Whether there will now be a spike in fines remains to be seen. On Friday, Mr Bolsonaro confirmed that he had authorised the armed forces to help fight the fires. "I've learned as a military man to love the Amazon forest and I want to help protect it," he said. The decree itself was fairly vague in its wording, but specified that the military would be deployed to nature reserves, indigenous lands and border areas in the region. Brazil's defence minister said a helicopter and two airplanes had already been deployed to the Amazon to help identify fire outbreaks and to carry equipment and military personnel. The announcement came after the international community began to exert pressure on Mr Bolsonaro. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson have called the fires an international crisis. France and Ireland have also said they will not ratify a large trade deal with South American nations and Finland's finance minister has called on the EU to consider banning Brazilian beef imports. Both Ms Merkel and Mr Macron said the issue must be discussed at this weekend's G7 summit in Biarritz, France.
| null |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-49460022
|
2019-08-24 17:21:40+00:00
| 1,566,681,700 | 1,567,533,501 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
72,611 |
breitbart--2019-09-03--Environmental Justice Fund Cory Booker Unveils 3 Trillion Climate Plan
| 2019-09-03T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
'Environmental Justice Fund': Cory Booker Unveils $3 Trillion Climate Plan
|
“To end the real and growing threat of climate change and to create a more just country for everyone, we must heal these past mistakes and act boldly to create a green and equitable future. That’s exactly what I’ll do as president,” Booker said in a statement on Tuesday. Booker’s plan also calls to “accelerate the end” of fossil fuels and aims to achieve “100% carbon-free electricity” by the year 2030. Booker also aims to achieve “a carbon neutral economy by 2045.” The plan includes multiple executive actions, such as imposing greater EPA enforcement on those that pollute, requiring all new passenger vehicles to have zero emisions by the year 2030, and placing a ban on new fossil fuel leases. Booker also stated he intends to reenter the Paris Climate Agreement and remove orders from President Donald Trump to approve Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines. In order to “advance environmental justice and invest in communities long left behind,” Booker’s plan calls for the creation of a United States Environmental Justice Fund, which would commit $50 billion a year to those communities. According to Booker’s announcement, a few of the ideas behind the Environmental Justice Plan include: Replace all residential, school, and daycare lead drinking water service lines and remediate all housing units and schools that contain peeling or chipping lead-based paint and high levels of lead-contaminated dust. Ensure that every household in the U.S. has adequate plumbing, including a functional wastewater disposal system. Initiate the cleanup of every “orphaned” shovel-ready Superfund site. Clean up every abandoned coal, uranium, and hard rock mine in the country. Plant 100 million trees in urban areas by 2030 to reduce air pollution causing disproportionate harm in low-income and Black and Brown communities. “We’re facing a dual crisis of climate change and economic inequality—and without immediate action, the toll is unimaginable,” Booker said in a social media post Tuesday. “But this is a fight I know we can win.”
|
Kyle Morris
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/-lL8N6Qpysg/
|
2019-09-03 15:43:25+00:00
| 1,567,539,805 | 1,569,331,544 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
72,778 |
breitbart--2019-09-05--Environmental Group Urges Joe Biden to Cancel Fundraiser with Oil Executive
| 2019-09-05T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Environmental Group Urges Joe Biden to Cancel Fundraiser with Oil Executive
|
The Sunrise Movement, one of the premier climate change groups advocating liberal policies like the Green New Deal, issued a statement calling on Biden to cancel a $2,800-a-head fundraiser scheduled for Thursday to be hosted by Andrew Goldman, the founder of a natural gas production company. “If Biden is serious about taking on the power of the fossil fuel lobby, why is he going to a fundraiser hosted by the co-founder of a natural gas company?” Varshini Prakash, the group’s president executive director, asked. “We know how this works: Fossil fuel millionaires drive us towards an uninhabitable future, then host fundraisers and expect the next president to take their advice on policy.” Prakash added such tactics in the past had contributed to the status quo. “That corruption got us into the crisis our world faces today,” she said. “And that corruption needs to end if we’re going to have chance at securing a livable future.” As CNBC reported, Biden is scheduled to appear at two New York City fundraisers hosted by top Wall Street executives with ties to oil and gas interests on Thursday. One of the fundraisers will be hosted by Jack Rosen, the CEO of Rosen Partners LLC and well known Democrat mega donor. Rosen also has business ties to Mikhail Fridman, a Russian oligarch who controls one of his country’s largest privately-owned financial consortiums. Fridman is known for making his multibillion dollar fortune from telecommunications as well as oil and gas interests. The second fundraiser will be hosted by Goldman and David F. Solomon, an investment banker who runs the private equity giant Hildred Capital Partners. As the Intercept noted, Goldman, a one-time aide to Biden, is the co-founder of a Texas-based natural gas production company called Western LNG. “Western’s major project is a floating production facility off the northern coast of British Columbia designed to provide Canadian gas to markets in northeast Asia,” the outlet reported. According to the Sunrise Movement, the fundraiser organized by Goldman “clearly violates the spirit of the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge” Biden signed in June. The pledge, a byproduct of the liberal group Oil Change USA, has become an environmental litmus test for Democrat presidential candidates and other elected officials. By signing, Biden promised to refuse campaign donations totaling more than $200 from executives, PACs, and lobbyists representing companies “whose primary business is the extraction, processing, distribution, or sale of oil, gas, or coal.” Biden defended both his decision to attend the fundraisers and his relationship with Goldman when pushed on the topic at CNN’s climate change town hall on Wednesday. The former vice president claimed it wasn’t fair to characterize Goldman as a “fossil fuel executive,” saying he no longer had anything to do with Western LNG. “He’s not a fossil fuel executive, I’m told,” Biden said, arguing no one could question his commitment to fighting climate change. “The fact of the matter is…I’ve argued and pushed for us suing those executives, who are engaged in pollution, those companies that are engaged in pollution.” When pushed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the extent of Goldman’s ties to Western LNG as well as the oil and gas industry, Biden said he would reconsider the fundraiser if the record was “accurate.” For some environmental activists, like Prakash and the Sunrise Movement, however, that was not good enough. “If Biden wants to be taken seriously on climate change, he needs to cancel this fundraiser,” Prakash said on Wednesday.
|
Haris Alic
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/BUoQYPPWqgg/
|
2019-09-05 17:00:15+00:00
| 1,567,717,215 | 1,569,331,181 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
72,793 |
breitbart--2019-09-05--Julian Castro Climate Plan Addresses Environmental Injustice and Racism
| 2019-09-05T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Julian Castro Climate Plan Addresses 'Environmental Injustice and Racism'
|
“You all know that oftentimes the first folks that get flooded out are the poorest communities. They’re often communities of color. They’re the ones who can least afford to deal with the climate crisis,” he said during the CNN town hall. “We know that this climate crisis is going to affect all Americans and all folks around the world, [but] we also know that it’s going to hit some people particularly hard — people that are the first people to get affected,” he said. Castro said that after he announced his campaign, he first went to San Juan, Puerto Rico, to make sure that they could recover from Hurricane Maria. “I think about poor communities along the east coast,” he said. “Frankly, I connect the dot to places like Flint, Michigan, and I know that too oftentimes, it’s people who are poor, communities of color, who take the brunt of storms that are getting more frequent and powerful.” He said his climate plan calls for “new civil rights legislation” to address “environmental injustice,” including making sure people could file lawsuits against polluters. “We need to invest in these communities and their ability to withstand storms and other natural disasters and their ability to have something as simple as clean water or breathe clean air,” he said. He said as former Housing and Urban Development secretary in the Obama administration, he found out that 70 percent of HUD-funded public or subsidized housing was within a mile of a superfund site. “That’s the environmental injustice and racism that we’re dealing with, and my plan would equip Americans with the tools to fight back and also make investments so that we can bring justice to what is right now a tremendous injustice,” he said. He said to pay for his plan, he would create a “carbon pollution fee” on corporations who are “industrial-scale polluters.”
|
Kristina Wong
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/DB30ea2toUI/
|
2019-09-05 03:11:42+00:00
| 1,567,667,502 | 1,569,331,178 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
75,598 |
breitbart--2019-11-12--Environmentalists in California Take Aim at Kitchens to Save the Planet
| 2019-11-12T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Environmentalists in California Take Aim at Kitchens to Save the Planet
|
Environmentalists in California are willing to let the state dictate how they cook in their own kitchens in an attempt to save the planet. Thirteen cities and one county in California have put in place zoning codes encouraging or requiring all-electric new construction, virtually banning builders from running natural gas lines into homes and apartments to fuel appliances, including stoves and ovens. USA Today reported that people believe the move is necessary to fight climate change “with an eye toward creating fewer legacy gas hookups as the nation shifts to carbon-neutral energy sources.” For natural gas companies, it’s a threat to their existence. And for some cooks who love to prepare food with flame, it’s an unthinkable loss. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, mostly methane, and produces 33% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas causing climate change. “There’s no pathway to stabilizing the climate without phasing gas out of our homes and buildings,” Rachel Golden of the Sierra Club’s building electrification campaign, said. “This is a must-do for the climate and a livable planet.” But the page linked to on the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) website is referring, ironically, to CO2 emissions from the U.S. electric power sector by source for 2018. The new codes call for replacing gas with electricity. The federal website reports on the benefits of using natural gas as an energy source: Burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2) than burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy. About 117 pounds of carbon dioxide are produced per million British thermal units (MMBtu) equivalent of natural gas compared with more than 200 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu of coal and more than 160 pounds per MMBtu of distillate fuel oil. The clean burning properties of natural gas have contributed to increased natural gas use for electricity generation and as a transportation fuel for fleet vehicles in the United States. “Probably the biggest stumbling block for most pondering an all-electric home is the prospect of not having a gas stove,” USA Today reported. “It’s the only thing that people ever ask about,” Bruce Nilles, who directs the building electrification program of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a Colorado-based think tank that focuses on energy and resource efficiency, said in the USA Today report. According to a 2017 kitchen study by the NPD Group, 35 percent of U.S. households have a gas stove, while 55 percent have electric. “But the number of natural gas customers is also rising,” USA Today reported. “The American Gas Association, which represents more than 200 local energy companies, says an average of one new customer is added every minute.” “That’s exactly the wrong direction,” Nilles said. “The idea that denying access to natural gas in new homes is necessary to meet emissions reduction goals is false,” American Gas Association President and CEO Karen Harbert. “In fact, denying access to natural gas could make meeting emissions goals harder and more expensive.” “They also say it’s more expensive to run an all-electric home,” USA Today reported. “A study by AGA released last year suggested that all-electric homes would pay $750 to $910 a year more for energy-related costs, as well as amortized appliance and upgrade costs.” USA Today also pointed out that California is not the only place where people want more government regulation. New York, Hawaii, Colorado, and Maine have carbon-neutrality goals, and as many as 140 U.S. cities have similar plans.
|
Penny Starr
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/eU6tW5FTmEA/
|
Tue, 12 Nov 2019 01:54:17 +0000
| 1,573,541,657 | 1,573,560,509 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
83,965 |
cbsnews--2019-05-30--Greenpeace gives Biden a low grade on environmental issues
| 2019-05-30T00:00:00 |
cbsnews
|
Greenpeace gives Biden a low grade on environmental issues
|
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden ranks near bottom of the field of 2020 hopefuls on environmental issues, according to the left-leaning environmental group Greenpeace USA. In a newly released climate scorecard, Greenpeace USA gave Biden a "D-", the second-worst among Democrats. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee received the highest score, an "A-", followed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who both were awarded "B+". "Even though Biden introduced the first-ever climate bill in Congress back in 1987, he has yet to release a plan that tackles the climate crisis if elected in 2020," Greenpeace said. "Biden has not endorsed the Green New Deal, nor committed to phase out fossil fuels. He has also not taken the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge. All candidates must pledge to make bold climate action a Day One priority in office." The group scored the field of candidates based on based on their commitment to ending the use of fossil fuels, as well as their voting records, proposals and public statements on climate issues. Some candidates also answered the organization's 29-question survey, which factored into their scores. "If he wants to translate his frontrunner status in the polls to actual leadership on climate, we need him to come out with a bold, concrete plan in line with the scale of the crisis we're facing," Greenpeace USA Climate Campaign Director Janet Redman said in a statement. In his stump speech, Biden often refers to climate change as an "existential threat." But earlier this month the former vice president came under fire from environmental groups after Reuters reported he would propose a "middle ground" approach that would include continued use of fossil fuels like natural gas. The Biden campaign refuted that report, but the article caught the attention of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who appeared to take a shot at Biden during a rally supporting the Green New Deal. "I will be damned if the same politicians who refused to act then are going to try to come back today and say we need a middle-of-the-road approach to save our lives," she said. Biden rejected Ocasio-Cortez's criticisms, telling reporters, "I've never been middle of the road on climate. And tell her to look at the statements I made and look at my record. She'll find that nobody has been more consistent about our environment and the green revolution than I have."
| null |
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/greenpeace-gives-joe-biden-an-almost-failing-grade-on-environmental-issues/
|
2019-05-30 22:56:13+00:00
| 1,559,271,373 | 1,567,539,693 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
89,588 |
channel4uk--2019-10-05--Green Party to campaign for ecocide ban on environmentally damaging human activity
| 2019-10-05T00:00:00 |
channel4uk
|
Green Party to campaign for ‘ecocide’ ban on environmentally damaging human activity
|
With climate change soaring up the political agenda, thanks to the campaigns of Greta Thunberg and others, there’s been plenty to discuss at the Green Party’s annual conference this weekend. Among its policies: scrapping HS2 and spending the money on local transport instead – and a pledge to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2030. But the party’s also been grappling with what a No Deal Brexit might mean for the environment.
|
Andy Davies
|
https://www.channel4.com/news/green-party-to-campaign-for-ecocide-ban-on-environmentally-damaging-human-activity
|
2019-10-05 18:00:28+00:00
| 1,570,312,828 | 1,570,632,975 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
92,745 |
chicagosuntimes--2019-02-18--Enyia vows to establish Department of Environmental Justice
| 2019-02-18T00:00:00 |
chicagosuntimes
|
Enyia vows to establish Department of Environmental Justice
|
Mayoral candidate Amara Enyia vowed Monday to establish a Department of Environmental Justice to reverse “weak and negligent” city policies that “amount to systemic racism” because they have allowed businesses to pollute black and brown neighborhoods. Shortly after taking office, Mayor Rahm Emanuel abolished the city’s Department of Environment. At the time, the mayor argued it wasn’t so much as a cost-saving measure as it was an attempt to ensure environmental policy was embedded in every city department. She accused City Hall of prioritizing business interests over public health, leaving residents of the city’s Far Southeast Side, for example, to fight a lonely and never-ending battle against the dangers of petcoke and release of potentially harmful manganese dust. “It harkens back to what happened in Flint, Michigan where it affected largely low-income communities of color and nothing was done until it became a severe crisis,” Enyia told the Sun-Times. “Many of these communities — like Englewood, like in Austin, like in Pill Hill and Hegewisch — are experiencing pretty significant environmental hazards and the city has not really done anything to address them head on. It perpetuates systemic racism, which is not just the word racism. It’s how it plays out in our policies as a city and how that negatively impacts communities.” If elected mayor, Enyia vowed to establish a Department of Environmental Justice with a far broader mandate than its predecessor ever had. The new department would be charged with establishing “special environmental zoning districts” to enforce what she called “equitable and restorative zoning parameters.” “If a company is deciding to locate, for example, on the Far Southeast Side, there should be a protective measure the city can enact that will prevent that company from locating in that area,” Enyia said. “People are living in areas that were primarily industrial before. We have to update our zoning laws. And until we update our zoning laws, we should have these special, designated areas that protect residents from additional environmental hazards. That’s something the city needs to lead on.” By pooling the resources of the city and county Departments of Public Health, Enyia promised to hire “environmental medical personnel” to work with heavily impacted communities to “mitigate long-term health risks” tied to lead, manganese, pet coke and other toxic materials. “That’s something that the city has really been slow in moving on,” she said. Besides spearheading a local version of the “Green New Deal,” Enyia talked about a “Blue New Deal.” That is, removing lead from Chicago’s water system. As for the cost of replacing lead service lines carrying water from the mains to an estimated 360,000 Chicago homes, Enyia proposed the city share the $2 billion cost with individual homeowners. Kind of like the 50-50 sidewalk program. But Enyia offered no specifics when asked where the money would come from at a time when the city is also facing a $1 billion spike in pension payments. “We have to create a program where we can subsidize homeowners if they take on the cost of updating their lead lines. We could do that through a reallocation of TIF dollars. We could create a rebate program similar to what we did when the city raised property taxes,” she said. “Those are some shorter-term revenue strategies. But in the long-term, we’ve got to shift to having our own bank where we can actually finance our own infrastructure projects.” Last year, the Emanuel administration came under fire for failing to notify owners of all 165,000 homes with water meters last summer that a “small subset” of metered homes had tested positive for elevated lead levels. In June, the city found out that 15 metered homes or homes or 11 percent of those tested had elevated lead levels that exceeded the EPA standard of 15 parts-per-billion. Only those homeowners were notified. In late October, City Hall found out the figure was 17.2 percent of 51 homeowners. Then and only then was the decision made to notify the owners of all 165,000 metered homes and offer those homeowners homeowners $60 filtration systems free of charge, while continuing to install meters. Last year, the City Council prohibited new facilities from storing or handling materials containing more than trace amounts of manganese. It did not apply to facilities where manganese has been stored for at least a year. But it did prohibit those companies from expanding operations that involve the heavy metal. Last month, monitoring requirements were strengthened for all bulk solid material facilities and strict new rules were put in place for facilities handling “unpackaged manganese bearing materials.”
|
Fran Spielman
|
https://chicago.suntimes.com/business/enyia-department-environmental-justice-petcoke-lead-pipes-water-chicago-election-mayor-2019/
|
2019-02-18 22:04:26+00:00
| 1,550,545,466 | 1,567,548,101 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
92,829 |
chicagosuntimes--2019-02-22--Under Mayor Rahm Emanuel city has sharply scaled back environmental enforcement
| 2019-02-22T00:00:00 |
chicagosuntimes
|
Under Mayor Rahm Emanuel, city has sharply scaled back environmental enforcement
|
Even as Mayor Rahm Emanuel has criticized state and federal officials for rolling back environmental protections and played up his own green credentials, City Hall has cut back sharply on environmental oversight. That’s according to an analysis of city data by the Better Government Association and Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism that found: After years of environmental staff cuts, Emanuel reversed course in his 2018 budget. Not mentioning the city’s own cuts while he was mayor, his office boasted: “Mayor Emanuel’s expansion of environmental protection staff comes at the same time state and federal officials have rolled back efforts to protect residents from pollution.” City officials say enforcement is just part of Emanuel’s environmental agenda and that he deserves credit for other efforts to prevent pollution, for instance, by promoting clean energy and greater use of monitors to detect air pollution. “It would be unfair to look at these numbers as our only commitment to the environment,” says Dr. Julie Morita, Emanuel’s public health commissioner. To cut costs, Emanuel’s first city budget, for 2012, did away with the Department of Environment, which Daley created. The mayor gave its responsibilities for environmental permitting and enforcement primarily to the Department of Public Health, saying the previous setup detracted from a green focus throughout city government. • Judge OKs CPS paying $4M to family of autistic teen who, unwatched, drowned • Chicago cop’s pension sweetened while under investigation for molesting teenager • Rahm’s agency heads could outlast him thanks to golden parachute contracts • City official testified Ald. Harry Osterman was part of Daley’s hiring scandal Cheryl Johnson, a South Side environmental activist, is critical of Emanuel’s environmental efforts, saying, “I would give him a D-minus for enforcement.” On the Far South Side, around the Altgeld Gardens public housing complex, where Johnson lives and works, there are “No dumping” signs all over, and the air is thick with the smells of chemicals, garbage and sewage. The once-flat landscape is dotted with hills that were once active landfills. The area, now a magnet for illegal dumping, is one of the most environmentally burdened neighborhoods in the city. Johnson, executive director of People for Community Recovery, says shutting down the environment department sent a message that people are on their own to fight pollution. To address foul smells from a nearby sewage-treatment plant, residents have bypassed the city in recent years, instead complaining to the operator, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. “You get tired of beating on a dead horse,” says Johnson, who says the strategy has gotten better results. In Pilsen, people have complained for years about dust from a car-shredding operation run by Sims Metal Management. In 2012, Emanuel’s inspectors cited the business for two air-quality violations but didn’t assess any fines. This past December, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded a two-year investigation of the Sims facility with a fine of $225,000 for air-quality violations. While the EPA was looking at Sims, records show that city inspectors visited the site more than a dozen times, including at least five visits that followed complaints. But city inspectors didn’t find any violations, records show, concluding on one occasion that any smells “were not excessive or pungent.” Sims says the odor complaints from last year were “unsubstantiated” and separate from the EPA case and that “we diligently work with regulators to ensure that we are fully current with federal, state and local regulations.” According to Morita, the recent additions to the inspection staff came because “we identified that need.” She also points to the department’s work in recent years to strengthen city rules on handling harmful materials such as manganese and petroleum coke that posed a health threat on the Southeast Side. The BGA-Medill analysis was based on the health department’s environmental violations database which includes enforcement actions by the old Department of Environment. In 2010, the old environment department was budgeted for an 18-member staff to handle permits and inspections and carried out 11,571 inspections that year. By 2014, the budgeted headcount of the permit and inspections team, by this time part of the health department, had been cut to just nine. That shrunken squad did 5,907 environmental inspections. The budget for the inspections staff grew to 23 by 2018 after the additions. Still, the number of inspections last year was 5,469 — fewer than there’d been in 2014, when the staff was nearly one-third the size. One cut that’s gotten a particularly bad reception has been the elimination of the environmental hotline. “It’s hard to explain to a 311 operator who is dealing with a situation they are totally unfamiliar with,” says Peggy Salazar, director of a group called the Southeast Environmental Task Force. Records show 311 operators sometimes rout pollution complaints to city departments that don’t handle them. For instance, there have been air-pollution complaints about the Three Brothers industrial laundry, in the 2600 block of West 19th Street in Pilsen, that got routed to the buildings department. But the buildings department doesn’t enforce outdoor air-quality issues. City records show there were more than 600 complaints to 311 about Three Brothers Laundry in 2017, many about chemical smells and other foul odors. Marguerita and Mark Breihan live across an alley from Three Brothers. Marguerita Breihan says the smells sometimes are so bad they’ve made her vomit. A neighbor, Bonfilio Reyes, says that when it’s bad, his face swells, he gets headaches and he has to leave his house. Records show city inspectors have visited the laundry at least 30 times since 2016 as a result of hundreds of complaints but reported not smelling anything unusual and found no air-quality violations. Mark Breihan says one city official asked whether he’d considered moving. In December, U.S. EPA officials inspected Three Brothers following air-quality complaints. That review continues. “It’s just basic soap,” Nayan Patel, Three Brothers’ general manager, says of the odor. But the EPA inspection found that Three Brothers began a dry-cleaning operation last summer that used the chemical perchloroethylene. Exposure to the chemical, known as PCE, can cause headaches, nausea and irritation and in extreme cases can pose a cancer risk, according to U.S. health officials. Nearly all of the big field of candidates running to succeed Emanuel as mayor have said they want to toughen environmental oversight. Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, former Chicago Police Board President Lori Lightfoot and community activist Amara Enyia have called for restoring an environment department. Brett Chase, Madison Hopkins, Ashley Hackett and AnnMarie Hilton report for the Better Government Association. Mary Hall is a Medill student. Click to hear Kimberly Wasserman, a Little Village community activist, on the Emanuel administration’s doing away with the city’s environmental complaints hotline.
|
Brett Chase, Madison Hopkins, Ashley Hackett and AnnMarie Hilton | BGA
|
https://chicago.suntimes.com/business/rahm-emanuel-environment-environmental-enforcement-cuts-pollution-complaints/
|
2019-02-22 11:00:08+00:00
| 1,550,851,208 | 1,567,547,625 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
97,680 |
clashdaily--2019-11-18--Pope Francis May Codify A New Kind Of ‘Environmental Sin’
| 2019-11-18T00:00:00 |
clashdaily
|
Pope Francis May Codify A New Kind Of ‘Environmental Sin’
|
While we still wait for him to sort out the various scandals that have shaken the public trust even in the highest ranks of the clergy, he’s considering the recognition of a new class of environmental sins. It seems like a bad idea to us, but maybe our Catholic readers will see it differently. This came up in the same speech that raised eyebrows for what the Pope said about politicians denouncing homosexuality being like Hitler. Pope Francis, who has made the environment a signature cause of his pontificate, said he was strongly considering adding the category of “ecological sin” to the Catholic Church’s official compendium of teachings. Trending: Hilarious: Anderson Cooper Gets Blasted By Seb Gorka … On His Own Show! (Video) “We must introduce—we are thinking—into the Catechism of the Catholic Church the sin against ecology, the ecological sin against the common home, because it’s a duty,” the pope said at the Vatican Friday. He noted that ecological sin would be defined as an “action or omission against God, against others, the community and the environment. It is a sin against future generations and is manifested in the acts and habits of pollution and destruction of the harmony of the environment.” In the same speech he said that developments in politics and business remind him of dark episodes from humanity’s past, including Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. “It is not coincidental that at times there is a resurgence of symbols typical of Nazism,” Francis said as he decried the “culture of waste and hate” represented by contemporary politicians who spew derogatory and racists attacks against homosexuals, gypsies, Jewish people, and others. “I must confess to you,” he continued, “that when I hear a speech (by) someone responsible for order or for a government, I think of speeches by Hitler in 1934, 1936.” Francis also blamed global capitalism for ‘plundering the earth’ at the expense of the poor and future generations. “Global financial capital is at the origin of serious crimes not only against property but also against people and the environment,” Francis said, comparing capitalism to “organized crime” committing “ecocide.” Francis added that such crimes committed by corporations should be punished. Source: SummitNews He’s downplaying, for example, the sexual morality explicitly laid out in scripture, while elevating a new basis of morality that ‘just happens’ to express the very moral values currently on the ascendant in the irreligious left. Watch: Literal Pagan Idols Were Removed From Catholic Church And Chucked Into The Tiber Say WHAT? Pope Opens Amazon Synod With A REALLY Weird Ritual Pope Francis To Gay Man, ‘God Made You Like That’ – The Apostle Paul Disagrees Pope Francis Gives A Friendly Welcome To Bono AFTER His Campaign For Abortion In Ireland
|
Wes Walker
|
https://clashdaily.com/2019/11/pope-francis-may-codify-a-new-kind-of-environmental-sin/
|
Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:35:53 +0000
| 1,574,123,753 | 1,574,121,640 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
103,315 |
cnn--2019-03-20--EPA head says clean-water access is biggest environmental threat
| 2019-03-20T00:00:00 |
cnn
|
EPA head says clean-water access is 'biggest environmental threat' -- despite regulation rollbacks
|
(CNN) EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said access to clean drinking water worldwide is "the biggest environmental threat," while climate change threats are "50 to 75 years out" in an interview with CBS on Wednesday. While speaking at the Wilson Center later that day, Wheeler said he has become frustrated with the "current dialogue around environmental issues" because water issues often "take a back seat." "Up to 2.5 billion people around the world lack access to safe drinking water and, as a result, proper sanitation. This fact leads to anywhere from 1 to 3 million deaths every year," he said in his remarks at the Wilson Center. Wheeler pledged to "do more to address these issues" and said he believes the administration can focus on the clean water crisis "while still addressing other challenges that loom on the horizon." While Wheeler's speech focused on American interventions in countries around the world to improve water conditions, the Trump administration over the past two years has rolled back EPA regulations that environmental advocates say protected US access to clean and safe drinking water. "Administrator Wheeler is not even getting his own house in order to protect people in the US," the Sierra Club's deputy legislative director, Dalal Aboulhosn, told CNN. "We are elevating this work to address global water security to a new level under President Trump," he said. In the past few months, the EPA announced two significant policy changes that weaken regulatory protections for water in the US, according to Aboulhosn. In December, Wheeler changed the definition of waters that are protected under the Clean Water Act, ultimately putting fewer waterways under federal protection. This reversed a definition established during the Obama administration. Environmental groups said the new definition protects fewer small waterways and that could result in more pollution and put people at risk. The policy change was favored by manufacturers and farmers. Critics of then-President Barack Obama's 2015 rule complained that his policy restricted how they could use their land and hurt their business. In February, Wheeler announced a new plan for regulating nonstick PFAS chemicals in water, saying the agency would develop and set a limit for two of the chemicals. During the announcement, he said he believes the agency's 70 part per trillion health advisory level for the chemicals is "a safe level for drinking water." The 70 part per trillion level is seven to 10 times higher than is considered safe by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an arm of the Department of Health and Human Services. Several states have set lower levels or are considering lower levels. The water supplies for nearly 110 million Americans may be contaminated with PFAS chemicals, according to the Environmental Working Group. "There are all these threads that they are just pulling that will make our waters less safe and less reliable," Aboulhosn said. "It's sad and ironic that he goes on this interview to talk about the world crisis that he's not addressing for safe and reliable drinking water." The EPA declined to comment on the record for this story.
|
Ellie Kaufman
|
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/3wNUHevr968/index.html
|
2019-03-20 22:13:12+00:00
| 1,553,134,392 | 1,567,545,545 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
106,826 |
cnn--2019-10-09--Elizabeth Warren unveils environmental justice plan
| 2019-10-09T00:00:00 |
cnn
|
Elizabeth Warren unveils environmental justice plan
|
"Our crisis of environmental injustice is the result of decades of discrimination and environmental racism compounding in communities that have been overlooked for too long," Warren writes in a Medium post. Warren's Wednesday release offers new insight into how she would use presidential powers to orchestrate what climate activists often call a "just transition" toward a green energy economy. While covering a broad range of policy issues, the post is primarily focused on what her administration would do to prioritize neighborhoods, cities and entire regions with heavy minority populations -- many of them still suffering from the effects of racist policies like redlining, which often placed families of color in harm's way. Throughout her campaign, Warren has frequently sought to weave in detailed proposals directed specifically at communities of color. Here, she warns that "'one-size-fits-all' solutions," though often well-intentioned, open up space for the exploitation of those minorities and the poor. Because of that, Warren argues, more narrowly "targeted" policies are required. "The same communities that have borne the brunt of industrial pollution are now on the front lines of climate change, often getting hit first and worst," writes Warren, an early supporter of the sweeping Green New Deal proposal . Warren on Tuesday tweeted a video filmed during a recent visit to Detroit, where she and Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib walk around a zip code that Tlaib refers to as the "most polluted" in the state. If elected president, Warren writes she would mandate all federal agencies to consider climate impacts in their permitting and rulemaking processes. When tribal nations are involved, Warren writes, projects would not proceed unless "developers have obtained the free, prior and informed consent of the tribal governments concerned." Warren also would prioritize environmental justice at the presidential level, and transform the Council on Environmental Quality into a Council on Climate Action, which would have a more broad mandate. She writes that a Warren administration would aggressively pursue cases of environmental discrimination, and would fully fund the Centers for Disease Control's environmental health programs. Warren last month embraced former 2020 opponent Washington Gov. Jay Inslee's 10-year climate plan , while also expanding on his blueprint with a series of additional investments to offer additional protections to workers and help fund a radical transition of American infrastructure and industry away from fossil fuels. In the plan, the senator commits to providing job training and guaranteed wage and benefit parity for workers transitioning into new industries. "Coal miners, oil rig workers, pipeline builders and millions of other workers have given their life's blood to build the infrastructure that powered the American economy throughout the 20th century. In return, they deserve more than platitudes," Warren writes. Warren writes she would defend worker pensions, benefits, and a secure retirement. She would reinstate the work safety rules and regulations that President Donald Trump's administration eliminated. Additionally, her plan would fund access to clean water, increase and enforce water quality standards, and invest in the US's public water systems. "Our clean drinking water challenge goes beyond lead, and beyond Flint and Newark," Warren writes. The senator says she would refurbish old water infrastructure, support ongoing water treatment operations and prioritize communities most heavily impacted by inadequate water infrastructure. Further, Warren's plan would make it easier for residents to move out of flood-prone properties, and reform post-disaster housing assistance to better protect renters. She pledges to put strong protections in place to ensure federal tax dollars go toward community recovery, "not to line the pockets of contractors." Warren says in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, "disaster scammers and profiteers swarmed," trying to make money off of the disaster. Warren would reinstitute the Superfund Waste Tax. "Polluters must pay for the consequences of their actions -- not leave them for the communities to clean up," she writes. Her plan also would hold the financial industry accountable for its role in the climate crisis. Her Climate Risk Disclosure Act would, according to the plan, "require banks and other companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and price their exposure to climate risk into their valuations, raising public awareness of just how dependent our economy is on fossil fuels."
| null |
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/tfkIHzAh0WY/index.html
|
Wed, 09 Oct 2019 12:06:53 GMT
| 1,570,637,213 | 1,570,660,009 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
108,765 |
cnn--2019-12-30--The Trump administration's environmental stocking stuffers
| 2019-12-30T00:00:00 |
cnn
|
The Trump administration's environmental stocking stuffers
|
Washington (CNN) While Americans were buying and opening their Christmas presents, the Trump administration's environmental regulators were wrapping up their work on some controversial issues, including some proposed rollbacks of Bush and Obama-era regulations. Their gifts -- which you might have missed amidst the holidays -- include policies on energy efficient lightbulbs, water contamination and pesticides. Here are the details: The Energy Department blocked stricter efficiency requirements for many common types of lightbulbs that would have taken effect in the new year. The government, consumer groups and environmentalists have disputed how much the standards, developed under the Obama administration and based on a Bush-era law, would cost or save The Trump administration said the cost of more efficient incandescent bulbs "could cost consumers more than 300 percent" more, and therefore "the benefits of more stringent standards do not outweigh the cost to the American people." But outside groups said the cost of switching to alternatives like LEDs is reasonable and that the reduced energy consumption means financial savings, as well as the environmental benefits. The program will, for 12 months, allow oil and natural gas explorers and producers to report and fix Clean Air Act violations and waive fines, which can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. EPA already allows new owners of such facilities to voluntarily report and address deficiencies. The temporary program will grant a reprieve to current owners. The agency's Assistant Administrator Susan Bodine said the program "will provide additional public health and environmental protection in the surrounding communities." EPA proposed granting Georgia the authority to regulate in its state the handling of coal ash, a toxic byproduct of coal-burning power plants. Coal ash , containing dangerous metals including arsenic and mercury, has typically been mixed with water to form a sludge and stored in unlined pits, which environmentalists say in many cases are leaking into groundwater. In November , EPA proposed easing an Obama-era rule regulating coal ash because of the discovery that "more surface impoundments regardless of liner type are leaking," making compliance with the regulations for utility companies more expensive. EPA proposed increasing the allowable levels of the herbicide Atrazine, which is used by professionals to kill weeds on crops and lawns. It said the proposal is one of several that would "ensure a strong and vibrant agricultural market." The Centers for Disease Control says the chemical does not break down if it is washed into into groundwater or nearby streams, and that it has been linked to reproductive abnormalities including premature birth. The Center for Biological Diversity , an environmental group, says 35 countries have banned or are phasing out their use of Atrazine and called EPA's proposal a "disgusting backward step." The Justice Department sided with Monsanto in a lawsuit over Roundup claiming the company did not warn consumers of the product's cancer risks. The government wrote in an appeals court brief that a cancer warning on the product under California law would have been illegal under federal law, because "EPA has for decades concluded science does not support" cancer risks. (The company has also argued its product does not cause cancer.) Several juries, however, have awarded plaintiffs large sums in damages -- including a $2 billion award in May.
| null |
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/a0TQa2aKcYM/index.html
|
Mon, 30 Dec 2019 22:06:40 GMT
| 1,577,761,600 | 1,577,751,011 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
110,109 |
cnsnews--2019-02-11--Green New Deal Is Little More Than Socialism Masked as Environmental Policy
| 2019-02-11T00:00:00 |
cnsnews
|
Green New Deal Is Little More Than Socialism Masked as Environmental Policy
|
Democrats unveiled their latest version of the Green New Deal last Thursday, but despite some concessions to reality, this version is still little more than socialism masked as environmental policy. It’s a modern rehash of the original New Deal of the 1930s, which, despite its success in increasing the size of government and distending the Constitution, had its excesses contained by the Supreme Court. President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal also failed to turn the economy around. The Green New Deal, introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., is a little less aggressive in its calls to abolish the carbon economy than previous proposals. However, their nonbinding resolution still demands “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions” by 2030, among many other measures that ultimately would lead to a complete government takeover of the energy sector. According to the climate activist website Generation Yes, net-zero emissions means “reducing the volume of greenhouse gas emissions that human activity releases into the atmosphere until our total output is no greater than the emissions we remove, through activities like planting carbon forests, reducing deforestation and using technologies like carbon capture and storage. So no more goes out than goes in = net zero.” But how, exactly, we are to get to a net-zero emission economy when that goal is so far beyond the limits of current technology remains unexplained. In the FAQ section of the resolution, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey address this problem with an, um, bizarre line: “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” Despite some trepidations about feasibility, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey will still try to abolish greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, by making air travel obsolete. Are we really to believe that high-speed rail is going to grow to “a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary” within 10 years as the plan suggests? Given the incredible cost and total failure of California’s “bullet train to nowhere,” a project that even the far-left website Mother Jones called “officially insane,” does it really seem likely that this idea will lead to a national panacea? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., even threw shade at the vague and dreamy nature of the proposal, which seems in some way more like a far-left piety test than serious policy. At this time, the Green New Deal polls pretty well, even among Republicans, as Ocasio-Cortez is fond of pointing out. Yet, as with so many other issues, Americans tend to change their minds quickly when they learn how much a government program will cost them. It’s important to note that, according to a report by NBC, polls show that Americans say they want to combat climate change, but aren’t willing to pay even $10 a month to do so. The truth is, the Green New Deal is still quite radical, and despite growing support within the ranks of the Democrat Party, it likely would be unpalatable to the American people once they figure out exactly what it is. And it would be costly. The Green New Deal’s aggressive agenda to “green” every building in America, provide health care for all, and guarantee a job for every American will cost taxpayers tens of trillions of dollars and require an exponential enlargement of the federal budget, which already relies heavily on borrowing and piling up debt. In just the past decade alone, the national debt has more than doubled—from $10 trillion to just under $22 trillion today. This adds up to about $70,000 per person, according to USA Today. The median household income in 2018 was just over $60,000, to put that in perspective. This is clearly not just a proposal to reduce carbon emissions. If it were, it wouldn’t include the proposal to completely “transition off of nuclear” energy. If the world is going to end because of climate change, one would think nuclear energy would be one of the solutions to that problem. On top of that, the Green New Deal aims at bludgeoning the fossil fuel industry, which, despite pie-in-the-sky promises that wind and solar energy will fix everything, still provides for the vast majority of our energy needs. Of course, the Green New Dealers are completely unconcerned with these little details. Mere trivialities when utopia is around the corner. The proposal actually contains this howler when addressing the costs: “At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity.” So the message is: Don’t worry your little heads, embrace the Green New Deal and all of your dreams will come true. Though Ocasio-Cortez and other far-left proponents of the plan love to talk a good game about how the rich are going to pay for everything, the Green New Deal would fall disproportionately on poor, working-class, and middle-class Americans. Philip Rossetti, director of energy at the American Action Forum, writes: A 100 percent renewable electricity grid would require Americans to pay between 43 and 286 percent more on their electric bills. In 2017, the average monthly electric bill was $111, so a 43-286 percent increase would translate to an average of between $576 and $3,882 more spent on electricity per year per residence. Needless to say, these are costs that many Americans can’t afford. Craig Richardson, president of the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute, writes in the Washington Examiner that the “ugly truth” is that these policies “would serve as a regressive tax on the poor.” Richardson continues: Ironically, it would be minorities and the poorest of the poor who would be disproportionately harmed. Low-income households already pay 7.2 percent of household income on home energy costs, more than three times the proportion paid by higher-income households on average, according to an American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy report. Not only are there not enough billionaires to soak to pay for the awesomely expensive plan, but the economic harm ultimately would fall most heavily on average Americans who would see their energy costs skyrocket and their jobs eliminated. Oh, but don’t worry, if you lose your job, you will be put on welfare. That’s the American dream right there! One provision in the Green New Deal stipulates that you will get economic security even if you are “unable or unwilling” to work. Out with the self-made man, in with the unrepentant mooch, I guess. The Green New Deal is just the latest and most aggressive attempt by the left to move the American economy toward top-down government control. It preys on the wild claims of the environmentalist movement—such as telling us that the world will end in 12 years—to foist socialist ideas on a country that has consistently rejected them. Almost as bad is the fact that after immense cost and curtailment of liberty there would be little positive impact in changing the trajectory of climate change, even if the doomsday predictions are true. According to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s own numbers, if the United States cut carbon dioxide emissions by 100 percent, that would decrease temperatures by less than 0.2 degrees by the year 2100. In the end, the Green New Deal is likely to be little more than a rehash of the corrupt, crony capitalist, green energy schemes of the past few decades, producing scores of new Solyndras and other boondoggles that enrich backers and impoverish everyone else. Solyndra, a taxpayer-subsidized manufacturer of solar panels, was only the tip of the iceberg under President Barack Obama’s aggressive climate initiatives. According to a study by Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank associated with George Mason University, “federal subsidies for solar energy alone increased by about 500 percent, from $1.1 billion to $5.3 billion,” between 2010 and 2013. But even with this surge in money, it didn’t mean those green energy companies succeeded in any way. “[Subsidies] didn’t stop the largest U.S. solar panel manufacturer, SolarWorld, from filing for bankruptcy earlier this year despite $115 million in federal and state grants and tax subsidies since 2012, along with $91 million in federal loan guarantees,” Mercatus noted. Ocasio-Cortez once attacked Amazon for cronyism and targeted subsidies, so why not the green industry? In addition to the wasteful and obnoxious corporate cronyism, there is a greater threat at stake here. As I wrote in January: “It’s no exaggeration to say that if implemented, the Green New Deal would upend our way of life and destroy the liberty and prosperity that Americans, of all backgrounds, currently enjoy.” President Donald Trump said in his State of the Union address that “America will never be a socialist country.” If we embrace the ideas of the Green New Deal, though, we will be. Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of "The Right Side of History" podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. : This piece was originally published by The Daily Signal.
|
Jarrett Stepman
|
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/jarrett-stepman/green-new-deal-little-more-socialism-masked-environmental-policy
|
2019-02-11 17:26:38+00:00
| 1,549,923,998 | 1,567,548,885 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
113,476 |
cnsnews--2019-07-01--Alaska Senator We Cant Build a Simple Road Without Radical Extreme Environmental Groups Suing
| 2019-07-01T00:00:00 |
cnsnews
|
Alaska Senator: We Can’t Build ‘a Simple Road’ Without ‘Radical Extreme Environmental Groups’ Suing Us
|
Members of Congress who claim that building “a simple road” in his state will harm wildlife, like the porcupine caribou, “don’t know what they’re talking about,” Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan (R) told CNSNews.com in an exclusive interview last Wednesday. “No offense to my colleagues here, but they don’t know what they’re talking about,” Sen. Sullivan said. “There was this notion that the porcupine caribou herd was going to be hurt by a road - that’s literally absurd. That was the big thing that everyone was saying when we built the trans-Atlantic pipeline system and the caribou herd increased four-fold.” “So, a lot of this, unfortunately, I think is driven by their desire to fundraise and environmental groups’ desire to fundraise off this kind of stuff, so it’s a never-ending battle,” Sullivan said. “These issues pop up on a regular basis, where you have, you know, my colleagues, but to be honest, most of my Democratic colleagues who take a lot of interest in what I think is shutting down building infrastructure, resource development in my state,” Sullivan told CNSNews.com. “It frustrates me and it’s kind of across-the-board in a number of issues.” “The irony, of course, is that Alaska has the highest environmental standards of literally, probably anyplace in the world - for resource development, for oil and gas development, for mining, for building roads. And yet, as I like to say, we’re a resource-rich, but infrastructure-poor state,” Sullivan said. “Whenever you try to just build a simple road in Alaska - most Americans just take that for granted - but we’ll have, several what I would consider radical extreme environmental groups sue to stop it. Happens all the time.” In June, Sen. Sullivan shared a Twitter video from a meeting of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee highlighting his frustration with how environmental activists and some of his colleagues’ attempt to obstruct construction of infrastructure in his state. During the hearing, Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass.) claimed that a proposed plan to build a road in Alaska would have “a huge impact” on the migration of the western Arctic caribou and told Sullivan he expected him to “work with us to make sure that damage does not occur.” Committee member Sullivan responded by saying he was astounded that the Massachusetts senator singled out Alaska when Markey’s home state is much smaller, but still has three times as many roads. “Unfortunately, radical environmental groups always do this ‘Oh, my God, everything’s going to die,’ when you build a road, a damn road,” Sullivan said, “In most states, you can build a road anywhere you want. You don’t have 80 environmental groups suing to stop it, but in my state, you try to build one damn road, and you’ll have so many outside groups that don’t care about my constituents suing to stop the road.” The state of Alaska has some unique infrastructure challenges. It is the largest state in the nation, two and a half times the size of the second-largest state (Texas), and almost 500 times the size of Rhode Island, the smallest state. Most of the state is wilderness, and its major cities tend to be far apart. Its largest city, Anchorage, is almost 600 miles away from its capital of Juneau and over 350 miles from Fairbank. In spite of this distance, or perhaps, because of it, there are very few roads connecting the major population centers.
|
Mark Jennings
|
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mark-jennings/alaska-senator-we-cant-build-simple-road-without-radical-extreme
|
2019-07-01 13:59:43+00:00
| 1,562,003,983 | 1,567,537,324 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
114,312 |
cnsnews--2019-08-08--Tony Perkins Environmental Hypocrites Jet Set to Google Camp in Sicily for Climate Meeting
| 2019-08-08T00:00:00 |
cnsnews
|
Tony Perkins: Environmental Hypocrites Jet Set to Google Camp in Sicily for Climate Meeting
|
They may be driving hybrid cars and outlawing straws – but for all the anti-pollution celebrities, there seem to be even more environmental hypocrites. At this week's “Google Camp,” a who's who guest list is all converging on Sicily to talk about fighting climate change – completely ignoring the damage they did to the environment just to get there! When Barack Obama, Prince Harry, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Katy Perry hopped on a plane, you can bet it wasn't commercial. According to the Post, the celebrities “were expected to show up in 114 private jets,” spewing, one estimate said, 784,000 kilograms of CO2 in the air. Those who didn't fly, the reports announced, sailed – on their gigantic personal yachts. “Haven't these people heard of tele-conferencing?” PJ Media's Jim Treacher jabbed. “How much carbon do they need to spew into the atmosphere, just to lecture the rest of us peons about leaving the phone charger plugged in?” And of course, this was just hours after the Democratic candidates ate up minute after minute on the debate stage insisting that in 12 years the earth will be toast. But if liberals actually believed that, do you think any of them would be living the kind of double-standard existence they are? Of course not. Here they are, asking to be put in power so they can pass laws that take away your pick-up truck, raise your utility rates, and ship off our cows, and all the while, they're continuing their jet-setting ways. If what they're proposing was actually good for America and supportive of true freedom, why haven't they already adopted what they want to impose on everyone else? Because climate change – like a lot of the liberal agenda – is about power. The left can make all kinds of claims about America saving the planet and changing the weather patterns. But do you really think any government is capable of that? Sure, we can have either a positive or negative impact on the environment, air quality, or water quality – and we should keep moving toward those positive environmental advancements. But when it comes to climate change, you could give liberals all the power they are asking for – and maybe more – and we'll still never be able to measure the effects of their policies. And they want it that way! It means they make all of these promises, and no one will be able to verify if their actions ever actually led to any positive outcome. And if they're challenged, they'll just say they need more authority to restrict the freedoms of others. If climate change were the existential threat the left scares people into thinking that it is, then the tech gurus of Google could've easily saved the planet lots of carbon by doing their confab online. Be leery of those who want to adopt policies that they themselves are not currently willing to live by. If something is good for America, then the people who are advocating should be practicing it now. Tony Perkins' Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers. : This piece was originally published by the Family Research Council.
|
Tony Perkins
|
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/tony-perkins/tony-perkins-environmental-hypocrites-jet-set-google-camp-sicily-climate
|
2019-08-08 16:23:35+00:00
| 1,565,295,815 | 1,567,534,571 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
117,155 |
conservativehome--2019-01-21--Kevin Hollinrake High environmental standards boost economic growth
| 2019-01-21T00:00:00 |
conservativehome
|
Kevin Hollinrake: High environmental standards boost economic growth
|
Kevin Hollinrake is MP for Thirsk and Malton, and is co-Chair of the APPG for Fair Business Banking. British voters overwhelming support high environmental standards – 80 per cent, for example, want the UK to maintain after we leave the European Union. This is unsurprising – high environmental standards in agriculture keep our livestock healthy and our food safe to eat, and in product design they cut our energy bills by improving the efficiency of our ovens and toasters. A sensible, long term framework of environmental rules spurs investment and innovation from business. Many businesses of course face examples of vexatious red tape – and Brexit does provide us with the opportunity to cut some of the bureaucracy that has impeded business and made our lives more difficult. From the baffling small print on radio adverts, to compelling pharmacists to scan every medicine in front of their customers, there are plenty of nonsensical EU regulations that add unnecessary costs to businesses and should be scrapped. Yet the desire to trim unnecessary red tape can sit comfortably alongside support for a long term, sensible framework of high environmental standards that, if properly enforced by an independent watchdog, will restore our countryside, clean up our air, and boost British business. BuroHappold Engineering between environmental regulations and competitiveness in particular the impact of the implementation of the London Plan in the construction sector, the Landfill Tax in the waste sector, and the passenger car emission regulations in the car industry. In all three cases their analysis found that the upfront costs of complying with regulations were outweighed by the economic benefits they triggered through increased business investment in innovation and skills, better-quality products and infrastructure, greater business competitiveness, and job creation. For example, there was an overwhelming consensus that despite flaws in the testing methodology, passenger car CO2 emission regulations have been a success story for the UK and EU car industry. The regulations have provided certainty, scale, and a clear framework to meet targets, without any negative impacts on competitiveness. The relatively stable and consistent regulatory framework has allowed for a long-term and broader view of managing the costs of compliance. This commitment to a stable and consistent framework underpins the UK’s Climate Change Act – which, through its long-term approach to tackling global warming, has delivered certainty to businesses and deep reductions in CO2 emissions. Since 1990, we have cut emissions by 42 per cent , while our economy has grown by two-thirds. This means that we have reduced emissions faster than any other G7 nation, while leading the G7 in growth in national income over this period. The same principle – that businesses benefit from a clear and consistent regulatory framework – underpins the Government’s Environment Bill. The Bill will set out clear goals and targets to reverse the damage done to the British countryside over previous decades and clean up our toxic air. Businesses welcome the clarity provided by these targets. Anglian Water, for example, “when targets are too vague, it’s almost impossible to assess whether government is on track to hit them. In order for real progress to be made on the environment, goals within the Environment Bill must be carefully established with robust timetables.” Businesses will then only invest if they have the confidence that these targets will be properly enforced: hence why the independence of the statutory body – the “watchdog” – is so crucial. Firms need to know that whoever is in government, their investments in things such as new technology to improve air quality will pay off. The UK is a world leader in clean growth, with over 400,000 jobs in the low carbon economy: one in five electric vehicles sold in Europe in are made in Britain; our offshore wind sector is second to none; and the City of London is the home of green finance. This is in large part down to investment decisions that have been driven by our Climate Change Act – and the certainly provided to business by the existence of an independent Committee on Climate Change that will make sure standards are upheld. We now have the opportunity to set the gold standard with a world-leading Environment Bill, and achieve similar results for British nature, while providing the certainty British businesses need about the direction of travel to a cleaner, more prosperous future.
|
Kevin Hollinrake
|
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/01/kevin-hollinrake-high-environmental-standards-boost-economic-growth.html
|
2019-01-21 11:30:05+00:00
| 1,548,088,205 | 1,567,551,503 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
119,005 |
conservativehome--2019-08-27--Johnsons very active environmentalist administration wont please some green campaigners
| 2019-08-27T00:00:00 |
conservativehome
|
Johnson’s “very active environmentalist administration” won’t please some green campaigners
|
In a press conference in Biarritz yesterday, the Prime Minister said something which piqued my interest. Challenged on his green credentials, he replied by pledging: It’s not a surprise to hear him speak of biodiversity – on the very same day, he raised concerns with Shinzo Abe about Japan’s resumption of whaling, for example. And the protection of habitats is a good example of the type of green message which Eric Kaufman wrote about in his recent Sunday Times appeal for environmentalism to address the interests and concerns of small-c conservatives in order to build a broader coalition. Johnson’s comment about “reducing CO2 and climate change emissions through technological progress” is likely to set a cat among the pigeons, though – in a good way. It wasn’t adorned with any policy announcements, and it was swiftly supplanted by his quote from Audi’s famous slogan, but it could be quite significant. The left’s green politics – the dominant form of the genre, thus far – tends to frame reducing emissions in direct conflict with growth and economic activity. Vast restrictions and reductions of all sorts of production, consumption, and transportation are supposed to be required for an essential and swift crash reduction in emissions. (A cynic might think that for some campaigners this is a set of answers which were in search of a question, but that’s by the by.) Alongside economic activity and emissions, however, the largely undiscussed third movable part in the equation is technological innovation. As Johnson once told this site: “I believe in the Promethean power of the human race to solve its problems – and Britain can be in the lead in coming up with the answers. When I was mayor of London we saw huge growth in population and GDP, and yet cut CO2 by 14 per cent.” If the Prime Minister intends to make that his focus, not the previously dominant command-and-control, sin taxing greenery, expect a big row in short order.
|
Mark Wallace
|
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/08/johnsons-very-active-environmentalist-administration-wont-please-some-green-campaigners.html
|
2019-08-27 06:30:24+00:00
| 1,566,901,824 | 1,567,543,658 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
121,007 |
crikey--2019-02-14--Against hope the global environmental catastrophe has already occurred
| 2019-02-14T00:00:00 |
crikey
|
Against hope: the global environmental catastrophe has already occurred
|
We have already reached catastrophic system collapse. Recognising that is the first step to fighting it. Well I was wrong. Two days ago, there was a news story suggesting that the world’s system of insect populations was heading for collapse. I thought that it would disappear by next week. It has disappeared already. To a degree, that’s understandable. C Northcote Parkinson, inventor of Parkinson’s Law,* noted a corollary: an issue will be discussed in inverse proportion to its importance. Approving a new nuclear reactor will be waved through, Parkinson noted, because it is simply too big for anyone to venture an opinion on. Managing the tea and coffee money will then attract endless discussion, because everyone has views. Parkinson, writing in the 1950s, had the luxury of being flippant. Now we’re talking about the systems that underlie the capacity of human life on the planet.
|
Guy Rundle
|
https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/02/14/environmental-catastrophe/
|
2019-02-14 01:51:01+00:00
| 1,550,127,061 | 1,567,548,488 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
121,429 |
crikey--2019-08-27--How bad reporting on environmental crises is setting us up for bad politics
| 2019-08-27T00:00:00 |
crikey
|
How bad reporting on environmental crises is setting us up for bad politics
|
The 'incorrect apocalypticism' of reporting on environmental crises — such as that seen in the Amazon — is a mirror of denialism. It's designed to get clicks and feeds anti-democratic politics. First by ice, then by fire. The Amazon forest fires -- spread across three countries, but largely in Brazil -- have inspired the same sort of "wrong apocalypticism" as Greenland’s early high ice melt did two months ago. Greenland will melt in 150 years. Alarming enough, but not tomorrow, as was portrayed. The Amazon is burning, but not all of it. This year it’s happening faster, earlier, but -- as this NASA graph shows -- not vastly out of line with the shape of earlier burns.
|
Guy Rundle
|
https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/08/27/amazon-brazil-fires-reporting/
|
2019-08-27 01:06:41+00:00
| 1,566,882,401 | 1,567,543,648 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
131,769 |
dailykos--2019-11-26--Environmental Disasters Loom Large but Remain Unnoticed
| 2019-11-26T00:00:00 |
dailykos
|
Environmental Disasters Loom Large but Remain Unnoticed
|
These are hard and exhausting times. Impeachment issues and the president’s continual bombardment of lies and insults that call for correction are wearing us out, remaining front and center both in the media and our minds. As a result of our fatigue and alarm, and because media is abrogating its duty to report essential news outside of Trump’s tantrums, it’s not surprising that disastrous decisions by the president, and their consequences, have gone unnoticed. None of the actions and policy changes of the current administration is more urgently in need of increased awareness, and resistance, than those that relate to environmental degradation and destruction posing serious threats to our health and safety. Among the most egregious decisions of the Trump administration is the recent “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” proposal promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This terribly dangerous idea would require scientists to disclose all their raw data, including confidential medical records, before the EPA would consider academic studies as valid. Scientific and medical research would be severely limited leading to Draconian public health regulations as well as environmental crises. EPA officials call the plan a step toward transparency, but it is clearly designed to limit important scientific information that should drive policy related to clean air and water, among other health-related environmental impacts. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump pledged to roll back government regulations as part of his pro-business “America First Energy Plan.” Once in the White House he immediately signed executive orders approving two controversial oil pipelines and a federal review of the Clean Water Rule and Clean Power Plan. Shortly thereafter, the Clean Water Rule was repealed. The administration is allowing drilling in national parks and other treasured venues and opening up more federal land for energy development while the Department of the Interior plans to allow drilling in nearly all U.S. waters, opening up the largest expansion of offshore oil and gas leasing ever proposed. This year the administration completed plans for allowing the entire coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be made available for oil and gas drilling as well. You have only to look at who Mr. Trump turned to or appointed to head key agencies that deal with energy and environmental policy. For example, three of four members of a transition team mandated to come up with proposals guiding Native American policies had links to the oil industry and his first head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, challenged EPA regulations in court more than a dozen times. Pruitt also hired a disgraced banker with no experience with environmental issues to head the Superfund program, responsible for cleaning up the nation’s most contaminated land. Other departmental gems include Andrew Wheeler, who replaced Pruitt. He was a coal industry lobbyist and a critic of limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Then there’s Rick Perry who was tasked with developing more efficient energy sources and improving energy education. At Interior, Ryan Zinke who didn’t last long. He was followed by an attorney and oil industry lobbyist who put his personal energy into deregulation and increased fossil fuel sales on public lands. At the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a scientific agency that warns of dangerous weather, monitors atmospheric changes, oceans, and more, Trump’s guy was a lawyer and businessman who had advocated against NOAA. In August, Mr. Trump instructed Sonny Perdue, Agricultural Secretary, to exempt Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the world’s largest intact temperate rain forest, from logging restrictions and mining projects. The president had already told the Department of the Interior to review more than two dozen monuments with a view to reducing the size of Bears Ears National Monument and other sacred land. National Geographic has been tracking how the administration’s decisions influence air, water, and wildlife. Here are just some of the ways environmental policies have changed since Trump became president. The U.S. has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, loosened regulations on toxic air pollution, rolled back the Clean Power Act, revoked flood standards accounting for sea-level rise, green-lighted seismic air guns for oil and gas drilling that disorient marine mammals and kill plankton, and altered the Endangered Species Act. A recent New York Times analysis counts more than 80 environmental rules and regulations “on the way out under Mr. Trump.” So far 53 rollbacks have been completed and 32 are in progress. The Trump strategy, the Times points out, relies on a “one-two punch” in which rules are first delayed, then overridden by final substantive rules. It packs a big punch any way you look at it. Not long ago I visited Walden Pond in Concord, Massachusetts where the philosopher, writer and transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau lived for two years in a solitary cabin in the mid-19th century. Often credited with starting the environmental movement, he articulated a philosophy based on environmental and social responsibility, resource efficiency, and living simply. He believed fervently that we must keep the wild intact. “What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?” he asked. It’s a question we should all contemplate in the runup to November 2020. Elayne Clift writes about women, health, politics and social issues from Saxtons River, Vt. www.elayne-clift.com
|
[email protected] (eclift)
|
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2019/11/26/1902122/-Environmental-Disasters-Loom-Large-but-Remain-Unnoticed
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2019 22:26:29 +0000
| 1,574,825,189 | 1,574,813,367 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
139,812 |
democracynow--2019-11-08--"We Can't Afford to Wait for the DNC": Why Black Lawmakers Organized an Environmental Justice Forum
| 2019-11-08T00:00:00 |
democracynow
|
"We Can't Afford to Wait for the DNC": Why Black Lawmakers Organized an Environmental Justice Forum
|
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. We’re broadcasting from South Carolina State University, here in Orangeburg, where tonight, on this very stage, the first-ever Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice will be held. Democracy Now! will be broadcasting and live-streaming beginning at 6 p.m. Eastern. I’ll be co-moderating with former EPA official Mustafa Ali, who is still with us, a former EPA official, formerly with the Hip Hop Caucus, now vice president of the National Wildlife Fund. And we’re joined by South Carolina state Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter, who represents the city of Orangeburg in South Carolina. She’s also the president of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators. And Melanie Campbell joins us, president of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation and the convener of the Black Women’s Roundtable. We welcome you all to Democracy Now! AMY GOODMAN: So, Representative Cobb-Hunter, you are a first. You’re the first woman to represent Orangeburg in the South Carolina state Legislature, and you are representing black state legislators around the country. Talk about why environmental justice is important to you, and why you are hosting tonight’s event, tonight’s first-ever forum. REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: Well, thanks, Amy, for having us. And we really appreciate the support of Democracy Now! It’s important to NBCSL for a variety of reasons. We have total dysfunction, in the opinion of state legislators, at the federal level. And so, when we talk about the issue of environmental justice, climate change, all politics is local. And when we can’t get action on the federal level, that leaves us as state legislators to make sure that whatever remedies, whatever mitigation is there, that we are in a position to try to get that done. NBCSL, along with the Hispanic Caucus — and we will be joined tonight by the president of the National Hispanic Caucus — what we recognize is that the issue of environmental justice impacts black and brown communities. And so we represent these communities. We think it’s important for us not to wait on Congress, not to wait on a president, but for us to use the power we have as state legislators and take action. And I would just echo Mustafa’s point. We are very pleased that six of these candidates who want to be president thought this issue was important enough to not just talk the talk, but to walk the walk. And we welcome them to South Carolina’s only state-supported historic black college and university at South Carolina State. Welcome to Bulldog Country. AMY GOODMAN: And, Gilda Cobb-Hunter, how does it work in a state legislature around issues of environmental justice? I mean, we know about ALEC, the right-wing organization, that writes legislation, particularly in state legislatures — AMY GOODMAN: — for state legislatures, and one by one, following a trend in the country to cut back on regulations. How do you deal, as the head of the NBCSL, the national caucus of black legislators, in responding? REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: Well, a part of it is what we’ll do here tonight. My role as president, in my view, is increasing members’ awareness of issues that impact our constituents. We all know the routine issues that all of us care about and all of us are working on. But when it comes to an issue like environmental justice, the awareness of black legislators, in our view, is not what it should be. And so, a part of our goal and a part of what we think is important is increasing our awareness. ALEC has a very strong footprint here in the South Carolina Legislature. They spend money. We have members who are in the national leadership of that organization. AMY GOODMAN: This is the American Legislative Exchange Council — REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: Present — and in some cases, in some states in our group, we’ve had people who didn’t even remove the name ALEC, just kind of came in, dropped it. And so, we’ve got to be vigilant. And we’ve got to stay focused on this issue. And so, a part of what I see us needing to do — and that’s why this forum is so important, because I’m told from the frontline communities that there has never been this kind of event, which makes it even more appropriate that it’s here at South Carolina State. We’ve got to just — the way you deal with ALEC, I believe, the best way to eat an elephant — pun intended — is one small bite at a time. AMY GOODMAN: And, Mustafa Ali, how do you see ALEC playing out in legislatures around the country? MUSTAFA ALI: Well, they have a particular view that they’re trying to push. And that’s why it’s so important for us to really educate folks and engage them in the civic process and in the legislative process, so that they understand that they have power and that they can help to frame out. So, environmental justice organizations, public health organizations, civil rights organizations, all coming together to deal with these impacts that are happening inside of our communities, can balance out those who might not necessarily have the best intention for our communities. AMY GOODMAN: Melanie Campbell, you represent the largest voting bloc within the black community, and that’s African-American women. Talk about your organization, both the roundtable as well as the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, and what you’re trying to accomplish. MELANIE CAMPBELL: Well, first of all, thank you, Amy, and thank you to my colleagues here. And it’s good to be back on this campus. I was on this campus in 2008 on a rainy day in February working on getting out the vote with our Black Youth Vote! program. And so, it’s always good to be back here in Orangeburg; in South Carolina, but haven’t been in Orangeburg in a little while. But so, thank you all for the invitation to work with you all on this project. Well, the national coalition has been around for almost 44 years. It’s a coalition of national organizations, not just African-American, but labor and other kinds of civil rights and social justice organizations. Black Women’s Roundtable is our women and girls power-building arm, and it’s really like the glue for the organization. And I say that because when you talk about the black vote, black women, we’re the secret sauce to move the black vote. And that’s because of our voting strength and the fact that we influence our families and all of our significant others. So, when you say there’s a big surge in the black vote, that’s because black women didn’t just show up, because we’re going to show up, but we’re going to also encourage our families and our communities to do that. We also are, many times, leading a lot of the work and becoming more unapologetic about demanding respect for that, whether it’s the Democratic Party or progressive community, to understand that we’re not just a voting bloc, we are also leaders in this space. This issue around — and so I appreciate Mustafa and — I was going to say “Congresswoman.” I’m channeling that. REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: No, please, don’t start that. MELANIE CAMPBELL: My sister friend Gilda, for what they’re doing here. This issue, we see, when it comes to environmental justice, is critical when you talk about issues impacting health and issues impacting economic justice, because of the impact it has on our communities. And so, our young people — who are just a little bit younger than us, right? — who demand that this be a critical issue in this election. AMY GOODMAN: Why is environmental justice so critical, especially for people in the — MELANIE CAMPBELL: I grew up in Florida. I grew up along the coast of the Atlantic, big, big city called Mims, Florida. And so, growing up around — we knew we had hurricanes, growing up. You know, you didn’t have to leave home. My mother passed away three years ago. And we would always have to worry. Now they have to — most of the time, they have to leave. I have a brother that’s still there, who, most of the time, he has to get on a plane and fly up there in Virginia and get away. You can’t stay anymore, because it’s so much — it’s very different from what had happened 30 years ago or 40 years ago. What’s happening now is real impact in our communities. I can remember growing up where orange groves were beautiful. Everybody had orange groves. It was a part of the economy. If you couldn’t — if you didn’t have a job, you can go pick oranges and make a living. Right? You can’t do that. Those things have been destroyed by the climate change and other kinds of things. Damu Smith — I’m going to channel — MELANIE CAMPBELL: — was one of my best buddies — right? — who really educated me down in Cancer Alley, Louisiana. AMY GOODMAN: Damu Smith was an early — it’s, in fact, where I met him — MELANIE CAMPBELL: Right. OK, yes, yeah. AMY GOODMAN: — at one of the first conferences. MELANIE CAMPBELL: He took us on the bus. MELANIE CAMPBELL: And back in the day, so I’ve been around this for a while. Connie Tucker, who’s another sister. I lived in Atlanta for 20 years. My current sister who keeps me on this is Felicia Davis with HBCU Green Fund, understanding that this issue is not a side issue. It’s very much intricately a part of what’s dealing with even issues around wealth building and how that impacts our communities. AMY GOODMAN: And do you feel like the candidates are addressing these issues? How do you get them to focus? MELANIE CAMPBELL: I will say that we are — our Black Youth Vote! young people are having these debate watch parties, and they’ve been doing these polls. And they look for who they want — who won, which I won’t get into that, but they also say what are they not hearing. And environmental justice and climate change are key. They’re not the number one, but they’re high, like number three or something like that. Consistently, every month, they host these things. And that’s what they’re telling us. And so, young people are saying — demanding that. And so, the candidates that don’t get that are going to miss getting that Generation Z vote and that millennial vote this year. AMY GOODMAN: Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter, Regenesis, explain what that project is, because South Carolina is not only ground zero for the problems but also for solutions. REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: Right. And before I talk about Regenesis, if I could, Amy, just pick up on the point that Melanie made about the young people and what candidates — which candidates are speaking to the vote, to this issue. That’s a part of why NBCSL is here sponsoring this event, because we can’t afford to wait for the DNC or the RNC to bless this and say, “OK, we’re going have a debate.” This issue impacts our communities. We thought it important to step up and say, “You know what? DNC, RNC, y’all don’t want to talk about climate change? Guess what. We don’t need your permission to talk about climate change. We’ve got a vehicle that we can use to talk about this issue.” And it is important that these Democratic candidates understand how this issue resonates with young voters, with progressive voters, with seasoned voters. This is an issue whose time has come, and it’s not going away. The one candidate that consistently spoke to the issue is no longer in the race, and that’s Governor Jay Inslee. All of them do the photo ops. All of them talk the talk. They all have the talking points. But whether or not there’s specificity in how they can get it done, which is what Regenesis is doing here in South Carolina, has done — we’ve got a lot of people who are academic who talk about environmental justice. But we have in Spartanburg, South Carolina, under the leadership of my former colleague Harold Mitchell, a project called Regenesis, that has reclaimed and revitalized that entire community. And he’s done that in spite of, I would add — AMY GOODMAN: So, he got $20,000, EPA environmental justice grant — REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: And leveraged it, yes. Yes. AMY GOODMAN: —to help clean up these contaminated sites. REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: Yes. Leveraged $20,000 into several million, has a community that has now — that once was a wasteland, that once was the home of a fertilizer plant. He is working — AMY GOODMAN: This was called Devil’s Triangle because it was so polluted. REP. GILDA COBB-HUNTER: Exactly, exactly. And again, what is important to understand is, what we need to be lifting up are people who are on the ground working, not people theorizing about it, not people who are just — well, I’ll just say Regenesis is a project that is the role model. And to pass on just a tidbit I don’t think a lot of people know, because heroes are very rarely recognized in their own hometown, Regenesis and its founder — Harold Mitchell has gone to Taiwan. He is known internationally as, again, somebody who doesn’t just talk about it, but who actually does something. And that’s the point of the platform that will be the point of your questions and Mustafa’s questions tonight to these candidates who are showing up: What are you going to do specifically? AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Mustafa Ali, I mean, you have South Carolina. It’s the — you’ve got the primaries and caucuses first in New Hampshire and in Iowa. These are two of the whitest states. AMY GOODMAN: And then you have a large African-American community in South Carolina, why this is so significant. I mean, so much attention is paid to the whitest states in this country simply because they’re first in the primary system. It means all the candidates are gearing their plans to those states. MUSTAFA ALI: Well, you can’t take our vote for granted. MUSTAFA ALI: If you want our vote, you better show up. So, it sends a signal to folks. People want to see you and touch you and hear firsthand what you have to share. So, if you are willing to spend time in New Hampshire and in Iowa sitting down with folks, I appreciate that. You need to be in the South. You know that there are folks who are going to vote, and you need to actually solidify that vote by sharing with them the realness of what your vision is. What is your policies? Talk to them about their kitchen table issues and how it’s going to be addressed. So, if you are not sitting down with Mrs. Ramirez in her kitchen or Mr. Johnson on his back porch having some conversations, as well, then people may not think that you’re as serious as you say you are. AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you all for being with us. This is only the beginning, as we, tonight, hold this forum. Mustafa Ali, former head of the environmental justice program at the Environmental Protection Agency, former leader of the Hip Hop Caucus, now vice president of the National Wildlife Federation; Gilda Cobb-Hunter, president of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators; and Melanie Campbell, president of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, also convener of the Black Women’s Roundtable. Mustafa Ali and I will be co-moderating the first-ever Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice here at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg tonight. If you have questions for the candidates, please write to us at Democracy Now!'s Twitter, Instagram, Facebook. We'd love to hear from you. Again, we’ll be live-streaming and broadcasting on stations around the country starting at 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Our website is democracynow.org. When we come back, the Orangeburg massacre. It was February 8, 1968, that South Carolina Highway Patrol officers opened fire on black students here at South Carolina State University who were protesting a segregated bowling alley. The patrolmen killed three and wounded 28. We’ll hear more. Stay with us.
|
[email protected] (Democracy Now!)
|
http://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/8/south_carolina_leaders_environmental_justice_2020
|
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:24:12 -0500
| 1,573,219,452 | 1,573,261,042 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
139,815 |
democracynow--2019-11-08--Warren, Booker & Steyer to Take Part in First-Ever Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice
| 2019-11-08T00:00:00 |
democracynow
|
Warren, Booker & Steyer to Take Part in First-Ever Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice
|
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. AMY GOODMAN: We’re broadcasting from South Carolina State University here in Orangeburg, where tonight, on this very stage, the first-ever Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice will be held. I’ll be co-moderating with former EPA official Mustafa Ali. All Democratic and Republican candidates were invited. Those that accepted and are coming to this forum are Senators Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, Tom Steyer, Marianne Williamson, John Delaney and Joe Sestak. The forum will be hosted by the National Black Caucus of State Legislators and leaders from frontline communities. South Carolina is a crucial state for the 2020 presidential race and one of the first that will have a Democratic primary following the New Hampshire primary and the caucuses in Iowa and Nevada. It will be the first measure of Democratic candidates’ strengths with black voters. In 2007, a Democratic presidential primary debate also took place right here on this stage. South Carolina is a state where African-American communities and people of color are on the frontlines of fighting for justice in the face of extreme environmental racism for years. South Carolina has repeatedly been pummeled by climate-fueled hurricanes, including Florence, which swept through the South in 2018, causing epic floods. Its black residents have faced disproportionate air and water pollution, exposure to environmental hazards. But South Carolina is also home to some of the most successful responses to environmental racism. The town of Spartanburg was once known as the Devil’s Triangle for its two abandoned industrial sites and a 30-acre dump. But it’s now being hailed as a model for environmental justice, after the community worked with the Environmental Protection Agency to invest in health centers and revitalize formerly devastated neighborhoods. Well, we’re joined right here in Orangeburg, South Carolina, by Mustafa Ali, who I’ll be moderating the forum with tonight. He’s the former head of the environmental justice program at the Environmental Protection Agency. He’s a former leader in the Hip Hop Caucus and is now the vice president of the National Wildlife Federation. Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to be with you here in Orangeburg. MUSTAFA ALI: Thank you, Amy, for having me. AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about why you’ve chosen this site. Later in the broadcast, we’re going to talk about this moment in history 51 years ago when state troopers opened fire on students, before Kent State, before Jackson State. But right now we’re talking about this moment in history, in 2020, when there are a record number of candidates running for president. Why have you chosen this forum in South Carolina? And why the first Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice? What does that mean, environmental justice? MUSTAFA ALI: Yeah. Well, it was important, one, to have it at a HBCU or a minority-serving institution, to make sure that folks understood that the students who go to school here care about what’s happening. They are voters, along with all of the community residents. Also here in South Carolina, it’s ground zero. It’s ground zero for the pollution that folks are dealing with, with housing issues, transportation issues, and also the impacts from climate change. The floods that have happened, you know, have played a devastating role in people’s lives, in farmers’ lives. All these different folks are coming together. But also, as you sort of shared with folks, there are also these incredible leaders who are also helping to make real change happen. So we have the environmental injustices that are happening that folks are focusing on, but we also have the change that’s happening, how people are revitalizing communities — Reverend Leo Woodberry, Harold Mitchell, Omar Muhammad — so many incredible leaders who are here, right now, making change happen. AMY GOODMAN: So, this issue of environmental justice — I mean, CNN held a public town hall with the candidates on climate change. What is the difference? MUSTAFA ALI: Well, environmental justice is dealing with these disproportionate impacts that are happening inside of communities. So, it’s important that we have these conversations about climate change, but those are the symptoms of a disease. And the disease has been the racism, the structural inequality that continues to happen inside of communities of color. So, disproportionately, those fossil fuel facilities are located in communities of color, lower-income communities and on indigenous lands. And people have, for decades, been dealing with the public health impacts, but also now those emissions are also a driver in warming up our oceans and warming up the planet. We also know that the transportation routes that have been used to extract wealth from certain communities and bring wealth into other communities and also drop pollution off plays a big role also in what’s going on with climate change. And then, the last thing is, we’ve got 2.2 million miles of pipeline. Most of that pipeline runs through indigenous land, low-income white land, runs through farmers’ land and ends up on the Gulf Coast in communities of color. All of these play a role in what’s going on with climate change. But there’s so much more in the environmental justice paradigm. AMY GOODMAN: So, Mustafa, talk about the connection between environmental justice and health, the health impacts. MUSTAFA ALI: Well, we have 100,000 people in our country who are dying prematurely from air pollution. That’s more than is dying from gun violence. Gun violence is extremely important for us to focus on, but when we’ve got this many people who are dying, then we need to be paying attention to the decisions that folks in Washington and and in statehouses are making. We’ve got 1.1 million kids in our country who have been lead poisoned. And primarily those are African-American and Latinx communities and lower-income white communities who are the ones who are being impacted. We’ve got 25 million people who have asthma. We’ve got 7 million kids, and disproportionately it’s African-American and Latino children who are the ones who are going to the emergency rooms and the ones who are losing their lives. So, these health impacts that are going on actually extract wealth from communities who can least afford to have that wealth extracted, because in many times they are underinsured or uninsured and folks who have to carry that cost. AMY GOODMAN: And what is your assessment of the presidential candidates addressing this issue with their plans? MUSTAFA ALI: Well, it’s great to see that folks have finally, after 40 years, have begun to actually have environmental justice platforms, climate justice platforms. And it’s great to see that some of the candidates are actually visiting these communities, frontline communities, sitting down with leaders. But there’s so much more that needs to happen, because a part of this forum is about accountability. Folks want to hear: What’s your vision? What are the actions you’re going to do? How are you going to build an administration that has expertise from frontline communities, indigenous leaders also in that? So, it’s great to see people saying the words; we need action behind the words. AMY GOODMAN: And, I mean, we’re talking about both the Democrats and the Republicans. What’s happened under the Trump administration? MUSTAFA ALI: Well, under the Trump administration, it has been deadly for many of our communities, because they have rolled back over 85 regulations, that, in many instances, just had the bare minimum of protections inside of our most vulnerable communities, everything from pulling out of the Clean Power Plan and replacing it with the ACE rule; the car rule, the clean car rule, which we know, again, those transportation routes having so much more pollution go off in those communities. You know, removing yourself from the Paris climate accord makes no sense, and it’s going to have huge impacts in our most vulnerable communities and communities across our country, in general. So, you know, we need to have leadership who is actually focused on helping to protect people’s lives and living up to when you take that oath. AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to go to break and come back, and we’ll be joined by several of the people who are participating in tonight’s forum. Again, we’re here at South Carolina State University. It’s a historically black college, one of the HBCUs, college and universities. It is the site of the Orangeburg massacre 51 years ago. And it is going to be the site tonight, on this very stage, of a Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice, the very first. We are joined by Mustafa Ali, who is formerly with Hip Hop Caucus, before that, for years with the Environmental Protection Agency. Now he’s vice president of the National Wildlife Federation. And he will be co-moderating the forum tonight with me. Yes, Democracy Now! is here, and we’ll be live-streaming this forum tonight at 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time around the world. Many stations, radio and television stations, will also be broadcasting this forum. So we hope you do tune in at democracynow.org or on your local station. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.
|
[email protected] (Democracy Now!)
|
http://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/8/mustafa_ali_environmental_justice_presidential_forum
|
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:13:21 -0500
| 1,573,218,801 | 1,573,261,046 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
151,628 |
drudgereport--2019-09-25--How Greta rise could backfire on environmentalists
| 2019-09-25T00:00:00 |
drudgereport
|
How Greta rise could backfire on environmentalists...
|
Youth activist Greta Thunberg speaks at the Climate Action Summit at the United Nations on September 23, 2019 in New York City. While the United States will not be participating, China and about 70 other countries are expected to make announcements concerning climate change. Just how inspiring or even persuasive you find Greta's speeches and overall activism likely depends on where you stand on the political spectrum. There are plenty of politicians and regular voters claiming to be inspired by her words and passion. There are also lots of observers expressing general alarm at what they see as an indoctrinated child being coerced by adults to make their political arguments with her youth as a shield from any criticism. But while personalizing a movement, especially with the innocent face of a child, is usually PR gold, Greta's ascendancy to the forefront of environmental activism could end up being a major negative to the movement – and the environment. Sixteen-year-old Greta Thunberg from Sweden is the new face of the environmentalist movement, thanks to a pair of impassioned speeches to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations . Her story signals a clear change in environmental movement tactics, and just how much more divisive and ineffective that change is likely to be. Greta, and the adults guiding her, are seeking to shift almost all the focus from personal responsibility to governments and big corporations to enact environmental reform. Their argument is that individual people can't do much to save the world from climate change disaster when energy companies and governments focused mostly on economic growth don't care enough to make the big changes. The adult version of that argument emerged earlier this month when Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren basically mocked personal conservation efforts. Warren told a climate town hall audience and later tweeted that the fossil fuel industry wants the public to discuss issues like plastic straws, lightbulbs, and cheeseburgers so they can continue to get away with producing most of the emissions blamed for climate change. The funny thing about all of this is the free market is already doing these things based on the same capitalist incentives Greta and so many other activists are blaming for environmental disaster. Natural gas is cheaper and produces 50% fewer emissions than coal, nuclear power has been modernized and made much safer in recent decades while producing no emissions. For-profit entities like a company called Carbon Engineering are working on machines that literally suck carbon emissions out of the atmosphere. Each of these innovations has enjoyed some level of government support here and there, but raw capitalistic profit motives are the primary driver. Warren and those like her are failing to see that millions more Americans who use their consumer spending powers to reduce their carbon footprint will send corporate America chasing after those dollars in a much faster and more effective way than government fiat. It's not just die-hard capitalists or environmental skeptics who are pushing back on this focus away from personal responsibility. In a remarkable interview on PBS last week, author Jonathan Safran Foer spoke out against Warren's comments and pointed out that those who say they believe in the dire effects of climate change would do more than protest if they really believed it. That point is the premise of Foer's new book, "We Are the Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast." Based on all the politically partisan slogans and signs we saw at the climate protests over the past few days, are we sure the top motivation is the environment and not politics? If the activists protesting right now could get the most serious climate change threats eliminated, but without politically defeating President Trump and Republicans and/or putting the big oil companies out of business in the process, would they still be interested in the cause? The shift from the "Think Globally, Act Locally," environmental philosophy of the 1980s and 1990s makes that question fair game. When we move from encouraging people to change their personal practices to something like Warren's mocking of that very idea, it guts the very soul of any movement for effective change. Previous generations of environmental activists knew this. By focusing on what people could do in their own personal lives to cut down on pollution, they presided over an environmental movement that used to be much more bipartisan in America. This new focus on making environmentalism an angrier protest movement threatens to make the effort to protect the planet just another wedge issue that politicians often use to motivate their base of voters. Similar wedge issues like abortion and gun control have long shifted become tribal controversies with little chance of progress and compromise. Greta Thunberg is angry. Lots of people are angry. But anger without doing something other than protesting and making speeches won't protect the environment or do much else other than produce more anger. Jake Novak is a political and economic analyst at Jake Novak News and former CNBC TV producer. You can follow him on Twitter @jakejakeny.
| null |
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DrudgeReportFeed/~3/3BoUfTQM21I/how-greta-thunbergs-rise-could-backfire-on-environmentalists.html
|
2019-09-25 07:43:37+00:00
| 1,569,411,817 | 1,570,222,283 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
158,137 |
eveningstandard--2019-01-07--Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders warns of tough environmental targets as EV sales soar
| 2019-01-07T00:00:00 |
eveningstandard
|
Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders warns of tough environmental targets as EV sales soar
|
Sales of electric cars have soared to record levels as motor vehicles struggle in a “turbulent” market, figures show. Statistics from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) show a rise of almost 14 per cent in the sale of electric cars. While cleaner cars are soaring in popularity, diesel car sales have plummeted by almost 30 per cent. The figures suggest December 2018 was the 21st consecutive month in which diesel sales declined. The sharp fall in popularity of diesel was largely blamed on “anti-diesel rhetoric and negative fiscal measures.” Petrol/electric hybrid sales grew by more than 20 per cent throughout the year, while plug-in hybrid sales also rose by almost 30 per cent in the first 10 months of the year. However, this increase fell in the last two months of 2018. Although SMMT statistics suggest a change is on the horizon in how we choose to power our vehicles, it notes electric cars still only make up a tiny proportion of the market. Just 15,474 pure electric cars are registered in the UK, which constitutes just 0.7 per cent of all vehicles in the UK. The SMMT also reported that the UK is trailing behind the EU in demand for electric cars, with data from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) showing an average 40 per cent rise across the EU in the first three quarters of 2018 - double the demand shown in the UK. Mike Hawes, chief executive of SMMT, said the industry was facing “ever-tougher environmental challenges.” He added: “Supportive, not punitive measures are needed to grow sales, because replacing older cars with new technologies, whether diesel, petrol, hybrid or plug-in, is good for the environment, the consumer, the industry and the exchequer.”
|
Jessica Taylor
|
https://www.standard.co.uk/futurelondon/cleanair/electric-car-sales-soar-in-uk-as-popularity-of-diesel-plummets-a4032026.html
|
2019-01-07 10:54:21+00:00
| 1,546,876,461 | 1,567,553,575 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
195,846 |
foreignpolicy--2019-02-20--Lebanon Is Facing an Economic and Environmental Disaster
| 2019-02-20T00:00:00 |
foreignpolicy
|
Lebanon Is Facing an Economic and Environmental Disaster
|
Lebanon Is Facing an Economic and Environmental Disaster Lebanon’s fragile communitarian democracy is hobbling on. After more than 250 days of political deadlock that threatened to bring down the economy, Prime Minister Saad Hariri now presides over another unity government, Lebanon’s sixth since the devastating 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. When analysts and policymakers assess Lebanon’s long list of problems, political sectarianism and the general split between pro- and anti-Syrian factions in the country usually come first. The idea that sectarian tensions and proxy conflicts between regional hegemons Iran and Saudi Arabia are keeping Lebanon trapped is the general, tired storyline about the country. The Syrian war, so the logic goes, has ostensibly made good governance in Lebanon nearly impossible. The new 30-member unity government will probably not change that picture. It includes all the major political parties in Lebanon. President Michel Aoun and his Free Patriotic Movement have the biggest share with 10 seats, while the Shiite duo Hezbollah and the Amal Movement holds six seats combined. Hariri has six seats, and his allies—the Christian Lebanese Forces—have four, the rest going to smaller groups. It is a divided cabinet with often opposing views on foreign policy; therefore, policymaking is likely to be lethargic and reactive, as has been the case for the past decade. The U.S. response has been to beef up the Lebanese Armed Forces, while European aid has focused on mitigating the Syrian refugee crisis in the country. No one can doubt the serious implications of regional competition and sectarian tensions in Lebanon. In the past, they have threatened to bring the country back to the brink of war. Seen in this light, it is necessary to address both the security sector and refugee aid. But, as the refugee crisis has only made clearer, the primary structural challenges to stability and security in Lebanon are now economic and ecological. Stopgap measures will not suffice much longer. Pollution is rampant; burned and dumped trash is spoiling the natural environment and contaminating water. Lebanon’s economy is faltering under the weight of mismanagement, debt, and Syrian refugees. Western policymakers have to consider these factors if they care about protecting civil peace in the country. The previous government did very little to prevent Lebanon’s infrastructure from crumbling. Mainly due to corruption, Interior Minister Nohad Machnouk failed to find a permanent solution for trash collection. As a result, people continue to burn toxic trash near urban developments and dump rubbish into coastal landfills as well as the Mediterranean Sea with disastrous effects for the environment and public health. Contamination and depletion of the ground water have reached catastrophic levels. At the same time, electricity cuts are frequent, leaving the poorest parts of the country without power in the hot summer months and with no heating in the winter. For the one-third of the country living below the $1.90 per day international poverty line, Lebanon feels more like a failed state than a middle-income democracy. The environment has deteriorated apace with public trust in the government and hope for the future. Elites have put their faith in Lebanon’s famed flexible economy, which relies on remittances from abroad and people’s general ability to innovate and ride out hard times. But in recent years, even for the middle class, the country’s economic future has begun to look very uncertain. Growth rates have sunk from 8 to 1 percent since the years before the Syrian war, and the budget deficit has skyrocketed as the country’s soaring debt passed $80 billion last year. Nothing suggests that this government will be less dysfunctional than previous ones, even if some of the appointed ministers may be able to devise new policies to address the country’s serious economic and ecological challenges. Raya al-Hassan, the first female interior minister in any Arab country, could push for sorely needed anti-corruption measures and an overhaul of Lebanon’s endemic trash removal problems. The urgency of the situation was highlighted recently when, on Jan. 21, Moody’s Investors Service downgraded the country’s credit rating amid concerns over its ability to service its debts. Bond prices rallied on the news of the new government’s formation, but this could be a temporary reaction unless it produces results quickly. Lebanon is in real danger of defaulting in the coming years. The outside world needs to see results now, and Hariri knows it. After announcing the new government on Jan. 31, he immediately emphasized the need to stabilize the economy by passing reform bills that would trigger more than $11 billion in aid and loans for infrastructure investment pledged at the April 2018 CEDRE donor conference. Here, Western governments, Saudi Arabia, and international monetary institutions pegged aid to structural reforms that would bring in foreign investments, improve infrastructure, and reduce corruption. To meet the demands, Lebanon has to reduce the budget deficit by 5 percent of GDP within five years. It is a tall order, with almost 50 percent of government revenues currently going toward servicing the country’s already substantial debts of around 150 percent of GDP. Without drastic reforms, there is little chance of hitting the 5 percent target. The loans were locked due to political infighting last year. Initially, Christian and Druze leaders disagreed over their representation. When parties reached a breakthrough, Hezbollah added a new demand, pushing for control of a ministry to be handed to the Consultative Gathering, a grouping of six pro-Syria Sunni members of parliament opposed to Hariri, whose Future Movement is the largest Sunni faction. Hariri rejected Hezbollah’s demands, fearing they would allow the Shiite party to increase its dominance. As international pressure mounted, however, he eventually accepted a compromise candidate, Hassan Mrad, to become the new state minister for foreign trade. Mrad formally belongs to Aoun’s share of cabinet seats but also represents the Consultative Gathering. Under the agreement, Mrad will not vote against Aoun, the veteran Christian leader who struck a deal with Hezbollah in 2006 that eventually landed him the presidency in 2016. Mrad will not make a big difference to the general picture. Hezbollah’s “Loyalty to the Resistance” bloc formally controls just three ministries—the Ministry for Youth and Sports, the Ministry of Public Health, and the State Ministry for Parliamentary Affairs—but it can effectively lead from behind as it holds a parliamentary majority together with the Shiite party Amal, Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement, and other allies. They will use it to block legislation that contradicts their foreign policy, not least support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Hezbollah’s control of the Ministry of Public Health is significant. It has the fourth-largest budget, and this is the first time that the party has taken charge of a major portfolio. It will allow Hezbollah to deliver on promises to its Shiite constituents by improving health services for low-income groups, pushing for free health care for its soldiers returning from Syria, and embedding itself further in state institutions. These new powers are a double-edged sword because they will leave Hezbollah exposed to criticism if it fails to deliver. At the same time, by increasing its influence within the state, Hezbollah becomes a larger and more difficult target for the United States. Last year, Washington imposed new sanctions on Hezbollah and threated to target Lebanon itself should Hezbollah take charge of a major ministry. The new minister, Jamil Jabak, is not formally a Hezbollah member but is extremely close to the movement and has served as a personal physician to its leader, Hassan Nasrallah. The United States will see the appointment as an affront and may consider free health care to Hezbollah members, if the ministry were to provide it, as an example of “significant financial support”—a red line that could be used to justify a reduction in U.S. funding to the health ministry while pressuring other international donors to do the same. (The European Union and the World Bank are currently major donors to the Lebanese health sector.) Washington could also impose sanctions on hospitals, preventing the export of U.S. medications to the country, or cut off military aid. Both would primarily harm civilians and risk undermining a country that the United States, along with the EU, wants to protect from collapse. Washington is therefore likely to give Hariri a chance to show his ability to rein in Hezbollah’s power. Jostling to punish Hezbollah is a dangerous distraction from the key challenge. Lebanese policymakers should keep their eyes on reforms which would help stabilize the economy in the short term. They must also introduce new and immediate assistance to the Ministry of Environment and other public bodies to help stop environmental disaster. There is an immediate need to strengthen the state’s ability to address the crisis, but donors should also aid existing but underfunded civil society groups that promote conservation, environmental protection, and recycling. These are the urgent challenges that ordinary Lebanese citizens face. They are also the ones that will, depending on how they are addressed, determine whether state failure spreads from the margins of the state to its core.
|
Sune Haugbolle
|
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/20/lebanon-is-facing-an-environmental-and-economic-disaster-hezbollah-hariri-aoun/
|
2019-02-20 19:19:41+00:00
| 1,550,708,381 | 1,567,547,936 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
205,953 |
fortune--2019-09-06--Why Two Environmentally-Minded Designers Are Optimistic About the Future
| 2019-09-06T00:00:00 |
fortune
|
Why Two Environmentally-Minded Designers Are Optimistic About the Future
|
The challenge of creating a greener more sustainable world isn’t being hindered by a lack of wealth or technology. What we lack is imagination. That's the view of cutting-edge Dutch artist and designer Daan Roosegaarde. “If we can’t imagine it, we can’t get there,’’ he says. Roosegaarde presented several of his groundbreaking solutions to environmental problems at the Fortune Global Sustainability Forum in Yunnan, China on Friday. They include kites that generate electricity and the world’s largest air purifiers, just one of which is capable of cleaning the air in a small town. And he hasn’t just imagined them. He has designed and built them in China and other places. Roosegaarde believe the solutions to climate change start with intelligent design. His conviction that designers can play an important role in creating change gives him a sense of optimism. “We live in a world where we are more defined by our future than our history,’’ Roosegaarde said. Considering rising global temperatures, plastics in the oceans, and fires in the Amazon, the future can be a source of fear and anger among many, including Roosegaarde’s students at Tongji University in Shanghai. Filled with despair, he said they want to know what they should do. “Don’t be afraid, be curious,’’ is his advice. “I don’t believe in utopia, I believe in protopia: designing prototypes for solutions that create a better world and that can be realized. As humans, we learn, we fail, and we evolve. Stop whining and worrying. We need to fix it.” If they say it can’t be done, Roosegaarde says he's determined to do it. Architect and designer Bill McDonough, who pioneered the concept of the Circular Economy, shares that attitude, and has hope for the future. “We don’t want to be depressed, because there is a lot of work to do,’’ he told the Fortune forum. Among McDonough's prolific works are buildings that generate more electricity than they consume and clothing that is completely biodegradable. In dealing with government and industry leaders in China and other places, Roosegaarde said he can feel their sense of urgency about the looming threats and the need to take action. “In China, they are searching for a new harmony between nature and economic progress. We can create a new harmony in society where clean water, clean air, and clean energy are valued. I want to be part of that transition,’’ Roosegaarde said. McDonough feels that others are also searching for the path to a better world. At the Fortune forum, he said he was moved by the goodwill and willingness to engage he experienced from people across various disciplines and from many corners of the world. “It was magical and beautiful,’’ he said. “And that’s why this will be possible.” —Watch here: Fortune Global Sustainability Forum 2019 livestream —Impossible Foods wants China to make its own meat —Dow CEO Jim Fitterling has a counter-argument to the plastic backlash —Former Sinopec chairman says Chinese executives think climate change can wait —China’s Yangtze river basin—the world’s third-largest economy—is at great risk Get Fortune’s The Loop newsletter on the revolutions in energy, technology, and sustainability.
|
roberthornbkk
|
https://fortune.com/2019/09/06/bill-mcdonough-daan-roosegaarde-climate-change-design/
|
2019-09-06 08:46:07+00:00
| 1,567,773,967 | 1,569,331,054 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
206,195 |
fortune--2019-09-19--Trump Threatens San Francisco With Environmental Violations Over Homeless Population
| 2019-09-19T00:00:00 |
fortune
|
Trump Threatens San Francisco With Environmental Violations Over Homeless Population
|
President Donald Trump is threatening to hit San Francisco with possible federal environmental violations because of the city's homeless population. As he was returning to the White House from a rare trip to the West Coast, Trump told reporters on Air Force One late Wednesday that there's a tremendous amount of raw sewage and used needles from San Francisco's homeless going into storm drains and then into the Pacific Ocean. The president accuses the city of being in "total violation," as he planned to ask the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to serve them with a notice soon. "We have tremendous things that we don’t have to discuss pouring into the ocean. You know there are needles, there are other things," Trump said, without getting specific on what environmental laws San Francisco might have violated. "They have to clean it up. We can’t have our cities going to hell. These are great cities. And we can’t lose our great cities like this." Trump's comments came after he spent two days meeting supporters and fundraising in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, and San Diego. The president also toured a barrier under construction near the U.S.-Mexico border. Before heading west, Trump said that homelessness in San Francisco and L.A. was ruining "the prestige" of two of California's largest cities. But San Francisco city leaders struck back at Trump. Mayor London Breed responded to the president on Twitter late Wednesday by saying her city is responding to all issues. "The President is cutting clean air and clean water standards, restricting our ability to regulate car emissions, and denying climate change even exists. He’s cut funding for homelessness and affordable housing. In SF, we’re meeting the challenges on our streets," Breed said in a series of tweets. "If the President wants to talk about homelessness, we are committed to working on actual solutions, like adding 1,000 new shelter beds by next year and working to pass a $600 million affordable housing bond to create more badly needed housing. "We’re dedicating services and treatment for our most vulnerable suffering from mental illness and addiction. We will continue to do this work, and we wish the federal government would offer support on solutions that help people exit homelessness," Breed continued. California State Senator Scott Weiner, a frequent Trump critic whose district includes San Francisco, also chimed in Wednesday by tweeting, "More Trump slander against cities, this time San Francisco. Trump is making homelessness & addiction worse by cutting healthcare & affordable housing. I wish Trump would have his EPA enforce against actual environmental problems, but I guess that would be too much to ask." Nearly 10,000 people are reported to be homeless in San Francisco, according to the city's official count released in July. Among the homeless people polled, when asked what prevents them from escaping homelessness, 63% said that they couldn’t afford to pay rent in the city, one of the largest in the country. That figure is up from 54% in 2017, and 48% in 2015. The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco is more than $3,700— and climbing, according to rentcafe.com. When polled about what contributed to being homeless, 26% of respondents blamed job loss, 18% cited alcohol or drug problems, and 13% said eviction. Another 12% of those polled also cited conflicts with family or friends who had previously provided shelter. Trump's warning of taking action against San Francisco also came on the same day that he revoked California's waiver for auto emissions, likely setting up a potential legal battle between the Trump administration and the state, which has repeatedly sued over Trump’s previous policies. —145 CEOs call on Senate to support ‘common-sense gun laws’ —These are the 2020 senate races to watch —Black women voters are key to the 2020 presidential race. Here’s who they support —The U.K. government’s worst case Brexit scenario looks a lot like ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ —Can Andrew Yang win in 2020? Inside his unorthodox campaign Get up to speed on your morning commute with Fortune’s CEO Daily newsletter.
|
terryscollins
|
https://fortune.com/2019/09/19/donald-trump-homeless-california/
|
2019-09-19 14:22:39+00:00
| 1,568,917,359 | 1,569,329,845 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
210,765 |
foxnews--2019-04-29--California Gov Newsom facing new pressure from environmental groups to block drilling fracking
| 2019-04-29T00:00:00 |
foxnews
|
California Gov. Newsom facing new pressure from environmental groups to block drilling, fracking
|
In the next few weeks, California Gov. Gavin Newsom is slated to announce his administration’s energy policy strategy – and many environmental groups there are hoping it will include plans to end oil and gas drilling in the nation’s most populous state and phase out all fossil fuel extraction. At the very least, green groups are hoping that Newsom – who campaigned last year on a promise to end controversial extraction methods like fracking and who has been a key figure in the fight to curtail climate change – will create buffer zones for any new oil and gas wells near schools, hospitals and residential neighborhoods and also monitor for dangerous emissions from plugged or abandoned wells. “I consider to remain optimistic given how he expressed interest in issues that [former California Gov. Jerry] Brown did not address,” Kathryn Phillips, the director of the Sierra Club California, told Fox News. “The governor needs to make a plan to transition the state away from oil and gas toward renewables, but also transition workers into jobs in that sector.” But as Newsom’s term in Sacramento approaches its fifth month, many of these groups are losing patience as the governor tries to balance a clean energy agenda with the demands of an industry that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in a state with around 26 million vehicles on the road. “I’m taking a very pragmatic look at it, in scoping this,” Newsom told The Los Angeles Times recently. “It’s also an inclusive scoping because it includes people in the industry, that have jobs; communities that are impacted from an environmental justice prism but also from an economic justice prism. It’s a challenging issue.” Newsom must now weigh the support he received from environmental groups while on the campaign trail – and his own assurances that he wants California to be powered 100 percent by renewable energy in the near future – with any moves that could negatively affect a billion-dollar industry in a state that has the world’s fifth largest economy. Even with California’s oil production being in decline for years, the state was the nation’s fifth-largest domestic crude oil producer in 2017, according to figures compiled by the federal government. “His intentions are very pragmatic,” Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, told Fox News. “Newsom understands the importance of an industry to the 40 million people who will be driving 26 million combustible engines tomorrow.” One practice that environmental groups are hoping Newsom will clamp down on more than his predecessor is hydraulic fracturing. Known more popularly as fracking, it is a method of oil and gas extraction in which large volumes of high-pressure water are shot into the ground. Fracking has come under intense scrutiny in recent years amid widespread concerns over both the public health and environmental risks it poses. While Brown approved restrictions on the practice back in 2013, he was lambasted by green groups for not banning fracking outright amid his argument that it could provide economic opportunities to some Californians. On the campaign trail last year Newsom was adamantly opposed to fracking, but has so far remained quiet about the practice – along with the possibility of banning offshore drilling in the state - when discussing his energy agenda. Newsom, however, told the "Los Angeles Times" that despite his commitment to renewable energies, it would be impossible to completely stop California’s reliance on fossil fuels at the moment. “One cannot just turn off the switch. One cannot just immediately abut against a century of practice and policy,” Newsom said. Still California is one of the nation’s leaders in pushing forth a green energy agenda. Despite the criticism leveled against him for waffling on clamping down on the fossil fuel industry, Brown last year signed two pieces of legislation that effectively banned the construction of any new offshore oil and gas pipelines in the state’s waters and thwarted a Trump administration plan to open nearly 1.7 billion acres of coastal waters to drilling. While California cannot directly block oil and gas drilling off its coast, the legislation that Brown signed aims to drive up the operating costs of these operations enough to make the effort unprofitable. The law does this by blocking state land managers from permitting the construction of new pipelines, piers, wharves or other infrastructure projects necessary to bring oil and gas from offshore drilling sites to land. “California has positioned itself as the center of the Trump resistance,” Jessica Levinson, a clinical law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, told Fox News. “It’s bloody combat.” California banned offshore drilling in state waters out to three miles back in 1994 and there haven’t been any new platforms built in the last 30 years. But California is the nation’s third-largest oil-producing state, behind Texas and North Dakota, and there are still 32 offshore oil platforms and artificial islands in federal and state waters off the coasts of Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles and Orange Counties. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP California may be leading the nation in curbing its reliance on fossil fuels and many environmental activists believe Newsom will take even bolder steps than his predecessor, energy industry insiders like Reheis-Boyd question what the point is when other states – and nations – are not doing their part as well. “I get the idea of taking a lead on this issue and I think many companies agree with this,” she said. “But at what cost is this being done, especially when nobody else is doing anything.”
|
Andrew O'Reilly
|
http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/MkEPSHJYd9o/california-gov-newsom-facing-new-pressure-from-environmental-groups-to-block-drilling-fracking
|
2019-04-29 19:56:21+00:00
| 1,556,582,181 | 1,567,541,775 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
274,384 |
ipolitics--2019-01-30--Lobby Wrap Keurig lobbying Ottawa on companys environmental policies
| 2019-01-30T00:00:00 |
ipolitics
|
Lobby Wrap: Keurig lobbying Ottawa on company’s environmental policies
|
The makers of a popular homemade coffee brewer that uses single-serve plastic pods wants to meet with decision-makers on the Hill to discuss environmental and sustainability policies. Jean Michel Laurin of National Public Relations registered with the federal Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying last week on behalf of Keurig Canada, manufacturers of the namesake brewing system that allow users to make individual cups of coffee, tea and other beverages. The company has faced criticism from environmentalists for the waste produced by the discarded plastic pods used to make beverages. They are made of plastic and are not wholly recyclable, though the company has a reusable and refillable alternative. Keurig has pledged to make all of its namesake K-cup pods 100 per cent recyclable by 2020. In the registration, Laurin writes that he intends to co-ordinate meetings on behalf of Keurig with government officials to “educate them on the company’s sustainability, recyclability and environmental policies.” The listed targets of these lobbying efforts are MPs and senators, Finance Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development and the Prime Minister’s Office. Keurig Canada is owned by U.S. beverage conglomerate Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc. There were just 31 new registrations with the commissioner’s office from Jan. 20 to Jan. 26. The St. Michael’s Foundation, a charity that supports the namesake hospital in Toronto, was named in three registrations (all filed by consultants from Ensight) last week, the most of any organization over that span. The Canadian Wildlife Federation was the only other organization named in more than one filing, with the conservation body named in two registrations by Flagship Solutions consultants. For consultant lobbyists, Tara Mazurk of Global Public Affairs led the way with three registrations, followed by Evan Wiseman of Counsel Public Affairs, who scored two new registrations. No other lobbyist had more than one new client. By company, Global Public Affairs won the week with four registrations, followed by Ensight with three. Bluesky Strategy Group, Counsel Public Affairs, Temple Scott and Summa Strategies all had two each. Here are the highlights Phil Von Finckenstein of Maple Leaf Strategies has registered to lobby for Cleanfarms/AgriRÉCUP on a national agricultural plastics recycling strategy. Last year, the organization, which provides recycling solutions for agricultural communities, received $1,176 in federal funding and $90,000 from Manitoba. L’Équipe Spectra, an umbrella organization representing several large Montreal festivals, registered in-house staff Jacques-André Dupont and Véronique Landry to get grant money from Canadian Heritage. Tara Mazurk of Global Public Affairs registered for the National Ballet School, National Circus School and National Theatre School. These organizations have been registered by several lobbyists from Global in the past few weeks. Mazurk is looking to help them secure funding from the Canadian Arts Training Fund. Global ticket retailing giant Tickemaster has a new lobbyist registered on its behalf. Kate Mosely-Williams of Crestview has registered to lobby for the company on issues around ticket reselling and consumer protection. The federal Competition Bureau is currently investigatingTicketmaster’s reselling practices after a CBC News/Toronto Star investigation discovered that the ticket seller is working with large scalpers to resell millions of dollars in tickets. Kristin Baldwin and Serge Alexandre Buy of Flagship Solutions have registered to lobby for the aforementioned Canadian Wildlife Federation. The consultants registered to lobby parliamentarians and Fisheries and Oceans Canada on including provisions for habitat banking in Bill C-68, which amends the Fisheries Act. A habitat bank is privately or publicly owned land managed for its natural resource value. A broker or group sells credits for the land to developers who need to meet “requirements for mitigating and compensating for the environmental impacts of development projects,” according to a summary from the Environment Bank Ltd. Nauticol Energy Ltd. wants to build a $2-billion methane facility in Grande Prairie, Alta., and Erik Koskela of Global Public Affairs has registered to lobby for the company to discuss the project with federal bureaucrats. Andrew Balfour, Kait LaForce and Matthew Triemstra of Ensight Canada have all registered to lobby for the St. Michael’s Foundation to find funding sources for population health research into marginalized populations. Jeremy Bruce of Summa Strategies is registered to lobby for Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights on sexual health rights as part of foreign aid and access to abortion, reproductive rights and midwifery in Canada. Juliana Martine of FleishmanHillard High Road has registered to lobby for the British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd. on the pilotage review recommendations and environmental issues related to pilotage. John Moonen of John Moonen & Associates has registered to lobby for Stewart World Port Services to find grant money to expand its port in northern British Columbia and build a rail line to move goods to and from the port. Don Moors of Temple Scott Associates is now lobbying for the McConnell Foundation. Moors is appealing to various federal departments to create a Social Innovation and Social Finance Strategy, which was recommended by a similarly named steering group last summer. In 2018, the McConnell Foundation, one of the oldest family-based foundations in Canada, received $1.1 million from Employment and Social Development Canada. It was a quiet week for communications reports, with only 119 filed. Most lobbied subjects, based on the first two subjects listed on each filing:
|
Marco Vigliotti
|
https://ipolitics.ca/2019/01/30/lobby-wrap-keurig-lobbying-ottawa-on-companys-environmental-policies/
|
2019-01-30 16:28:03+00:00
| 1,548,883,683 | 1,567,550,212 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
274,722 |
ipolitics--2019-02-28--Premiers push Ottawa for changes to environmental assessment bill
| 2019-02-28T00:00:00 |
ipolitics
|
Premiers push Ottawa for changes to environmental assessment bill
|
That’s not to say the Environmental Assessment Act introduced by the previous Conservative government was any better. She said it was “broken, misguided and damaging to our economy,” and agreed the process for approving infrastructure projects needs to change. “The old way of doing things is not an option. Senators, we have to get this right. We can’t just swap one broken system for another broken system. We can’t build trust with more investor uncertainty,” she said. “We can’t replace a “no pipeline” process under the former Conservative government with a “no pipeline” process under a Liberal one. But either by design, by willful ignorance, or maybe just by accident, that’s just what Bill C-69 does.” Notley said there isn’t a school, hospital, road or bike lane in Canada that doesn’t owe something to a strong energy industry, but stressed Alberta can’t keep contributing what it does to the Canadian economy, build new renewable energy or lead on climate change if Ottawa makes it virtually impossible to build the energy infrastructure the province needs. Last fall’s economic crisis was because the province ran out of pipeline capacity, she noted, which saw the value of its oil drop by about 20 per cent of what it could have fetched on the world market. In response, her government curtailed production by 10 per cent. “In the Maritimes they were importing Saudi oil. Here in Ontario you were importing American oil. And in the West, we were curtailing production. This, my friends, does not a country make,” the premier said. Notley came with a list of amendments she asked senators to consider as a package. Among them are harder limits on the time it can take to do a review, and ensuring assessments consider the socio-economic benefits of a project. She also wants to see Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan formally recognized so that projects approved under it would meet federal standards and be exempt from further assessment, unless there were significant impacts in other areas of federal jurisdiction. Notley also requested that the act be amended to exclude downstream greenhouse gas emissions. Bringing a perspective from the other end of the country, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Dwight Ball said while his government is concerned the proposed legislation will increase regulatory burden, costs and timelines, without enhancing environmental outcomes, the status quo doesn’t sit well with them either. “Improvements to Bill C-69 must create a responsible but also internationally competitive regulatory environment that can support our Government’s efforts to meet ambitious targets for economic growth in our resource sector.” He noted that sector contributed 25 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador’s GDP in 2016 and the equivalent of nearly 18,000 person years of employment last year, and said given the economic and demographic challenges the province is facing, the need to be able to sustainably develop its natural resources “is perhaps greater now than ever before.” His Liberal government has announced plans to double offshore oil production by 2030, which set a target of 100 new exploration wells. The province is “on the verge of a new era in frontier oil exploration and development,” and key to unlocking that potential offshore rests with exploration wells. Ball said exploration shouldn’t be subject to impact assessment, as the process of going before a review panel could take 870 days — while the work itself might only last a couple of months. Under the current Environmental Assessment Act, the process averages 2.5 years. The proposed Impact Assessment Act (IAA) creates a process that is three years, or longer, for every project, said Siobhan Coady, the province’s minister of natural resources. While Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore has caught the eye of the global industry, investors are concerned about putting money on the table because Canada’s environmental regulatory system already lags far behind countries like the UK and Norway, Ball said, noting both move exploratory well drilling through assessment in a matter of months. “We keep saying investment is slowing down and it’s slowing down simply because of the uncertainty that’s created around the discussions we’re having around this new legislation,” he told iPolitics. “It’s not about moving away from environmental concerns. We believe we have to do that responsibly. But we also know this creates jobs for people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it contributes quite heavily to all of Canada.” Balancing environmental protection with resource development is an “indispensable economic imperative,” and should be the focus of amendments to Bill C-69, he told senators. As written, the bill would allow the federal environment minister to veto a proposed project. That’s concerning, Coady said, as it doesn’t respect the principles of joint management and shared jurisdiction for the offshore that are entrenched in the Atlantic Accord. “We believe the federal minister should be required to consult the provincial minister on matters that have potentially significant impacts on our offshore.” Like Alberta, he called for regional environmental assessments to be recognized to avoid delays and duplication. Further to that, the province wants the role of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) — the regulator created as part of the Accord — clarified and enshrined in the bill. Before the Conservatives introduced their assessment legislation in 2012, the board was responsible for performing all environmental assessments for the offshore. “They have expertise in all areas of offshore oil and gas operations and are responsible for all other operational approvals in the offshore area. To not fully use their expertise would undermine the purpose of the IAA, which is to perform more effective and efficient impact assessments,” Coady said. Later, Ball told iPolitics: “In our province we’ve been doing this for nearly 30 years now. We’ve been doing it successfully. When it comes down to answering the question of who the responsible authority would be, it’s very clear to us that within our legislation it should be the C-NLOPB, so we want that stated right in the act itself.” However, there are plenty of people in the province who have long felt the board already has too much power and needs better oversight itself. A spill off Newfoundland’s coast in the fall — the largest spill ever off Canada’s East Coast — renewed those calls for change to what’s seen as self-regulation by industry. Critics say there is a built-in conflict of interest in the C-NLOPB’s mandate, given its responsibility for development, as well as safety and environment. Senators also heard from Saskatchewan Minister of Energy and Resources Bronwyn Eyre, who told the committee this bill would be “economically devastating,” and only lead to “non-streamlining and non-efficiency.” “If ever ‘sober second thought’ were necessary, it is with this bill,” she said.
|
Holly Lake
|
https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/28/premiers-push-ottawa-for-changes-to-environmental-assessment-bill/
|
2019-02-28 22:43:07+00:00
| 1,551,411,787 | 1,567,546,972 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
275,068 |
ipolitics--2019-04-09--Will Senate go green and support stronger environmental laws
| 2019-04-09T00:00:00 |
ipolitics
|
Will Senate ‘go green’ and support stronger environmental laws?
|
"The Senate has a constitutional duty to study legislation and refer any proposed amendments to the House of Commons for reconsideration. But the Senate has no right to block environmental legislation duly passed by the democratically elected House of Commons, especially given that the Liberal Party’s electoral mandate in October 2015 made enactment of these stronger environmental laws a priority commitment." In 2018, the House of Commons passed four environmental protection bills that would be the most in a generation. If also passed by the Senate, these new laws would: The question is: Will the Senate also go green and vote for stronger environmental laws before Parliament prorogues at the end of June? Conservative senators are using a variety of procedural tactics (such as the circus of extraordinary cross-country hearings in western Canada this week and eastern Canada later in the month) to kill Bill C-69. Bill C-48 is also at risk of death by delay. Senators are actively considering amendments that remove important new protections for fish and fish habitat from Bill C-68, and create obstacles to more marine protection in Bill C-55. The Senate has a constitutional duty to study legislation and refer any proposed amendments to the House of Commons for reconsideration. But the Senate has no right to block environmental legislation duly passed by the democratically elected House of Commons, especially given that the Liberal Party’s electoral mandate in October 2015 made enactment of these stronger environmental laws a priority commitment. Conservative and several independent senators have aligned themselves with the oil and gas industry in seeking to ensure that federal assessments of development projects do not consider greenhouse gas emissions and restrict public participation in hearings. Bill C-69 is broadly supported by most environmental groups, including Nature Canada, the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Mining Association of Canada. The Senate is skating on thin ice with Bill C-69 and these other bills; its very credibility as an institution with an ongoing role in our democracy depends on how it handles them. Why? A recent AbacusData survey found that almost eight million Canadians are “extremely” worried about climate change, and that nine million say it will be the top issue, or one of the top two issues, that they vote on. On March 15, children in 100 countries (tens of thousands in Montreal alone) went on strike from school because their politicians are doing so little to address climate change. Meanwhile, WWF reports that global wildlife populations have declined by 60 per cent in 40 years. Yet the Senate may well vote to weaken — or kill by delay — bills passed by the elected House of Commons that would help reduce GHG emissions and reverse the loss of wildlife in Canada. In my view, this would be a major political blunder, but even worse, a moral failure that Canadians will remember. If these bills are killed or weakened, I predict that Canadian children and adult Canadians who care about children will know exactly where to go to protest. The former train station across from the Chateau Laurier is conveniently located. Canada’s children and Canada’s nature need the Senate to go green this spring. Stephen Hazell is director of conservation and general counsel with Nature Canada, the country’s oldest national nature conservation charity. The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.
|
Stephen Hazell
|
https://ipolitics.ca/2019/04/09/will-senate-go-green-and-support-stronger-environmental-laws/
|
2019-04-09 19:51:48+00:00
| 1,554,853,908 | 1,567,543,422 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
275,257 |
ipolitics--2019-05-01--Proposed impact assessment regulations draw ire of environmental groups
| 2019-05-01T00:00:00 |
ipolitics
|
Proposed impact assessment regulations draw ire of environmental groups
|
Base Mine Lake with Syncrude's Mildred Lake mine in the background north of Fort McMurray, Alta., on Thursday, September 13, 2018. (Codie McLachlan/Star Metro Edmonton) Environmental groups say prospective regulations for federal impact assessments unwisely exempt certain high-carbon resource projects, harming Canada’s ability to meet its international climate commitments. “Impact assessment is meant to ensure we look before we leap, and that we take off any blinders that might result in a poor decision,” Andrew Gage, a staff lawyer at the West Coast Environmental Law Association (WCEL), said in a statement. “Instead, the government is running full tilt towards the cliff, blindfolded.” On Wednesday, the federal government released draft regulations for the new federal impact assessment regime to be established by Bill C-69, which remains before the Senate. As part of this submission, it released proposed rules on the sets of projects that may be subject to a federal impact assessment, known alternatively as a project list. The sorts of developments that would fall on the project list under the draft guidelines include oilsands mines and major nuclear and hydro projects. The government also submitted proposed rules on information requirements for the project planning phase and on the criteria for which legislated timelines could be suspended. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is seeking public comment on the draft rules and guidelines until the end of May. The WCEL, though, warns the prospective regulations do not contain a “trigger” that would mandate assessments based on a project’s greenhouse gas emissions and exempt in-situ oil projects — which use steam to extract oil from below — in provinces like Alberta that have emissions caps in place. Julia Levin, climate and energy campaigner Environmental Defence Canada, said in a statement that the proposed rules were the equivalent of promising to study the environmental impact of roadway vehicles but excluding SUVs and large transport trucks. “Exempting high-carbon projects from federal assessment is ludicrous,” she said. The environment minister, however, still has the right under the draft rules to place projects on the list should they believe it requires federal oversight. Oil and gas projects are still subject to provincial environmental assessments. Overall, the proposed regulations restrict the project list to developments that have the greatest potential for negative effects in areas that fall under federal environment jurisdiction, which include fish and fish habitat; aquatic species at risk; migratory birds; environmental changes on federal lands and First Nation reserves; environmental impacts that cross provincial borders or that affect federally regulated “project types such as nuclear, rail, ports, airports, interprovincial pipelines and offshore energy activities.”
|
Marco Vigliotti
|
https://ipolitics.ca/2019/05/01/proposed-impact-assessment-regulations-draw-ire-of-environment-groups/
|
2019-05-01 19:53:45+00:00
| 1,556,754,825 | 1,567,541,479 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
307,831 |
mediamattersforamerica--2019-02-26--A fossil fuel-tied consultant has frequently used his CNN job to attack environmental protections
| 2019-02-26T00:00:00 |
mediamattersforamerica
|
A fossil fuel-tied consultant has frequently used his CNN job to attack environmental protections
|
CNN political commentator Scott Jennings has defended the fossil fuel industry in at least nine instances without the network disclosing his numerous financial connections to that industry, including his firm’s work for power companies, fossil fuel associations, and a Republican super PAC that’s funded with fossil fuel money. Jennings has used his CNN employment to criticize the Green New Deal as something that would “fundamentally alter the U.S. economy and would put a lot of people out of work”; attack Democrats for trying “to rid our country of coal and other fossil fuels”; and praise former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt for “dismantling Obama's anti-business regulatory regime” and “taming one of the most out-of-control, anti-growth bureaucracies in Washington.” Jennings is a co-founder and partner of RunSwitch, a public relations firm that states that it has “local, national, and international clients,” including “Fortune 500 companies and national trade associations.” RunSwitch is reportedly the largest PR firm in Kentucky. Jennings is also a longtime adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who is a prominent ally of the fossil fuel industry. (Kentucky “is the fifth-largest coal producer among the states, and is ranked fifth in the nation in estimated recoverable coal reserves,” according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.) RunSwitch has had numerous clients over the years that have been involved in the fossil fuel industry. They include: Over the years, RunSwitch and Jennings have also been involved with the pro-McConnell group Kentuckians for Strong Leadership (KSL). According to Federal Election Commission records, the super PAC has paid RunSwitch over $140,000 since 2013 (see: data in 2013-2014, 2015-2016, 2017-2018). During that same period, major donors to KSL have included fossil fuel-linked entities such as American Electric Power, Murray Energy Corporation, and a revocable trust belonging to Joseph W. Craft III, who is the president and CEO of coal company Alliance Resources Partners. In 2014, Jennings and KSL ran a campaign defending the coal industry from political attacks. The CNN commentator also worked for the pro-McConnell 501(c)(4) group Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, which was active during the 2014 election and McConnell’s successful reelection campaign. The Intercept’s Lee Fang reported in 2015 that, according to its bankruptcy filings, now-defunct coal company Alpha Natural Resources helped fund the group. Jennings could have even more conflicts of interest than those reported here since, as the Center for Public Integrity wrote in a 2015 report, public relations firms are “not subject to federal disclosure rules.” Those many conflicts of interest should have prevented Jennings from commenting on issues related to the fossil fuel industry (or at a very minimum required CNN to offer a disclosure about his firm’s clients). Instead, CNN has repeatedly allowed Jennings to defend the interests of fossil fuel companies. Here are nine examples: During a September 2, 2017, appearance on CNN Newsroom, CNN political commentator Symone Sanders criticized Trump for reversing an Obama-era EPA regulation and correctly tied Hurricane Harvey to climate change. Jennings responded by attacking Sanders, stating: “I think that only a liberal Democrat could come in and tell us that EPA and government regulations could prevent an epic hurricane like what we just saw come ashore. I mean, that's sort of a nonsense talk.” During a December 30, 2017, appearance on CNN Newsroom, Jennings praised President Donald Trump for a tweet making fun of climate change, saying: “I do think that here in Kentucky, we know something about when it is cold, what heats our homes and that’s good old Kentucky coal. I think 90 percent of the electricity in Kentucky is generated by coal. And I think what the president is doing in his tweets is poking a little fun at some of the liberal Democrats who tried to rid our country of coal and other fossil fuels. And so, I think the president was just trying to get a rise out of the left wing. This was a big issue in the campaign. And frankly, I think it hurt.” He later claimed that environmental protections "destroyed Kentucky coal." In a January 31, 2018, CNN.com op-ed, Jennings praised Trump’s State of the Union speech, stating that it “offered some good old-fashioned Trump-style populism,” including when the president “said he ended the ‘war on coal.’” Jennings added that the populism continues “to play well in Flyover Country, even as they cause Washington Democrats to roll their eyes. Trump has never lost his touch when it comes to putting Democrats on the wrong side of issues that play 80-20 in middle America.” During an April 4 appearance on CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, Jennings praised then-EPA head Scott Pruitt as “one of the most effective cabinet officers at rolling back the Obama regulatory regime.” (While discussing Pruitt on CNN, Jennings was also sometimes critical of Pruitt’s judgement related to ethics but still heavily praised him for trying to reduce environmental protections.) Jennings wrote an April 5 CNN.com op-ed defending Pruitt, writing that he "might be the most successful Trump cabinet member, delivering win after win to President Trump" and liberals are “hopping mad that he's dismantling Obama's anti-business regulatory regime.” He concluded by praising Pruitt for “taming one of the most out-of-control, anti-growth bureaucracies in Washington.” During an April 5 appearance on CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, Jennings said, “Pruitt took the mandate seriously and he has systematically dismantled the Obama regulatory regime. That's why I think he is under attack right now.” During a May 5 appearance on CNN Newsroom, Jennings praised Pruitt for “effectively deconstructing the Obama-era rules at the EPA that were anti-growth, anti-business.” During a November 24 appearance on CNN Newsroom, Jennings said he didn’t believe climate change is a hoax but said that policy makers have to “figure out what actions can we take that would help counteract it but at the same time not immediately devastate people in economic regions that are more sensitive to it than others, say in Appalachia where the coal industry is still important.” He also suggested that the “free market” could “innovate” in response to environmental concerns. During the February 13 edition of Cuomo Prime Time, Jennings attacked the Green New Deal, saying, “To call this policy half-baked would be in, you know, I'm not even sure the Democrats turned the oven on yet.” He continued by discussing the proposal’s “policy implications for the energy sector, for the manufacturing sector, for the agriculture sector,” claiming that “thousands of jobs ... would be impacted in the Midwest, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, North Dakota, where Joe Manchin is in West Virginia, in my home state of Kentucky. This would dramatically fundamentally alter the U.S. economy and would put a lot of people out of work.” In those nine examples, Media Matters did not find any disclosure noting that Jennings has financial ties to the fossil fuel industry. (Both the January and April 2018 op-eds mentioned that Jennings works for RunSwitch but didn’t reference his fossil fuel ties.) CNN has not responded to Media Matters’ requests for comment about Jennings’ conflicts of interest.
|
Media Matters for America
|
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/02/26/fossil-fuel-tied-consultant-has-frequently-used-his-cnn-job-attack-environmental-protections/222974
|
2019-02-26 19:08:52+00:00
| 1,551,226,132 | 1,567,547,304 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
311,090 |
mercurynews--2019-02-26--California considers environmental laws on single-use plastics green jobs paper receipts and more
| 2019-02-26T00:00:00 |
mercurynews
|
California considers environmental laws on single-use plastics, green jobs, paper receipts and more
|
With statewide restrictions on single-use plastic bags and plastic straws in place, state lawmakers this year will consider a sweeping measure that would force a major reduction of all other single-use plastics. Meanwhile, a comprehensive bill addressing ocean concerns — with language still being developed — will call for improving the quality of ocean water and wetlands, better salmon habitats, and rules that would protect whales from being hit by ships. “Those will be the major bills for the environmentalists,” said Dan Jacobson, Sacramento lobbyist of Environment California. But those proposals are hardly the only environmental issues on lawmakers’ minds. Other potential legislation ranges from a move to end the practice of pumping treated sewage into the ocean to a law that would eliminate most paper shopping receipts to a smoking ban on all California state beaches. While Friday, Feb. 22, was the last day to submit bills for the current session, legislators still can rewrite the proposals’ language or even gut existing bills and substitute different measures in their place. But most major legislation is now on the table in some form. Here are eight environmental bills to watch: SB 1: Environmental protections. Sponsored by Sen. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego. Intended to address concerns that the federal government is rolling back or weakening key federal provisions, this bill calls on the state to memorialize federal environmental and worker safety standards in place on Jan. 1, 2017, and enforce them under state law. SB 8, AB 1718: Ban smoking on state beaches. Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, and Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-Marin County. Jerry Brown vetoed this proposal the past two years but now there’s a new governor. SB 54, AB 1080: Single-use plastic reduction. Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, and Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego. While other legislation has focused on specific plastics, including grocery bags and straws, these companion bills would establish a comprehensive plan to “reduce and recycle” 75 percent of single-use plastics by 2030, and ensure that all single-use packaging and products are either reusable, recyclable or compostable. Right now, less than 15 percent of single-use plastic in the state is recycled, according to Allen. SB 33: Solid waste reduction. Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley. Current language says this would “address the collapse of foreign recycling markets by reducing solid waste generation, encourage the transition to compostable or recyclable materials, and fostering domestic recycling markets.” Specific requirements and incentives are not yet detailed. Antarctica set to lose ice chunk twice as big as NYC Sinkholes are popping up all over California, thanks to the rain. Here’s what to know See all that water flowing into the ocean? California bill aims to save it SB 69: Climate change and ocean resiliency. Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco. This bill has not yet had its core language finalized. However, Coastkeeper Executive Director Sean Bothwell, who is collaborating on the measure, said the wide-ranging proposal would aim to improve water quality to prevent local ocean acidification, improve coastal habitats (particularly wetlands, kelp and eel grass), sequester carbon, identify marine areas that are particularly vulnerable to climate change, improve salmon habitats and prevent whales from being struck by ships. SB 332: Wastewater recycling. Sen. Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys. To promote reuse of wastewater, this bill calls for treatment plants to reduce their ocean discharge by 50 percent by 2030 and by 95 percent by 2040. AB 161: Paper shopping receipts. Assemblyman Philip Ting, D-San Francisco. Beginning in 2022, this would require stores to give shoppers only email or text receipts unless a paper receipt was specifically requested. AB 176: Green jobs. Assemblywoman Sabrina Cervantes, D-Riverside. This would extend tax breaks for green businesses – from 2021 to 2031.
|
Martin Wisckol
|
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/26/state-lawmakers-weigh-sweeping-environmental-laws-hitting-plastics-climate-change-wastewater-reuse-and-more/
|
2019-02-26 13:51:05+00:00
| 1,551,207,065 | 1,567,547,257 |
environment
|
environmental politics
|
793,128 |
themanchestereveningnews--2019-01-16--You can now go to a gym class which rewards you with a free takeaway
| 2019-01-16T00:00:00 |
themanchestereveningnews
|
You can now go to a gym class which rewards you with a free takeaway
|
Who said January had to be all about hitting the gym and refusing a takeaway? We're only a few weeks into the New Year and a lot of those good intended resolutions may be starting to slip. Including going to the gym regularly and eating healthily. We won't mention the dreaded 'd' word. But Deliveroo and YMCA have launched a gym class we definitely wont mind being a part of. A first in the UK, the two companies have joined together to launch nationwide gym classes that comes with a hidden incentive. If you complete a 40 minute session, which is made up of a mixture of bike riding, stair climbing, balance and weight lifting, you will be rewarded with a free takeaway. Sounds a bit contradictory but they do stress that Deliveroo offer healthy options too. The completely free ROO-T CAMP classes are available in Manchester as well as London, Newcastle and Swansea from Monday January 21. All you need to do is book into a class at your local YMCA. The classes have been developed as new analysis reveals a food delivery rider tops the list of best calorie-burning jobs. Fitness expert Jane Wake reviewed average daily activity of a Deliveroo rider and found that they burn approximately 1,000 calories per hour. Wake said: "The right motivation is a wonderful thing when it comes to fitness and we now know that activity that’s built into your lifestyle can be far more effective for long term fitness, health and weight loss." Joe Groves at Deliveroo said: "A large number of our riders tell us they took up the role partly due to the health benefits associated with it. "Through our partnership with the YMCA we hope to help more people on their own personal journey to achieve their fitness goals for 2019. "With such a vast range of restaurants on the platform it’s easy to find the perfect post work-out meal on Deliveroo." Denise Hatton, chief executive, YMCA England & Wales added: "YMCA encourage and support people to lead active lives from an early age, through to adulthood. "The Roo-t Camp is a great way to open up our fitness centres to more people in the community so they can stay fit and healthy." So who's going to spend the whole gym class thinking about what takeaway they're going to have?
|
Jessica Sansome
|
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/you-can-now-go-gym-15688550
|
2019-01-16 17:38:46+00:00
| 1,547,678,326 | 1,567,552,235 |
sport
|
bodybuilding
|
1,909 |
abcnews--2019-11-04--US growth of Islam creates need for religious scholars
| 2019-11-04T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
US growth of Islam creates need for religious scholars
|
"Brothers and sisters," the seminary instructor tells his class, don't believe in God because of your parents' beliefs but because "you know why God exists." The challenge spurs a discussion about beliefs. But more than Imam Mohammad Qazwini's interesting delivery, deep understanding of Islam and his formal training at a seminary in the holy city of Qom, Iran, have drawn them to this suburban Detroit classroom just off the large prayer room of a mosque. An increasing number of U.S. Muslims want guidance from religious instructors who they can understand linguistically and culturally. The Quran, Islam's holy book, is written in classical Arabic, but many of the students aren't well-versed in the language. Qazwini navigates the intricacies of Arabic effortlessly — in the everyday English they use, opening a door for many of the students and meeting an increasing need. Traditional imams and scholars who once came from the Middle East or were educated in schools there are having more difficulty entering the United States. The Trump administration imposed a travel ban in January 2017 on people from several Muslim majority countries, and the government has made it harder to enter the U.S. entirely, with more rigorous interviews and background checks. "In many other states there are mosques with no ... functional imam, who can assume the responsibilities of the religious leader or even speak," said Islamic Institute of America leader Imam Hassan Qazwini, who started the seminary with his son. "I thought maybe a long-term solution for facing this shortage is to have our own Shiite Islamic seminary in the U.S., instead of waiting for imams to come." Al-Hujjah is the newest of several seminaries focused on the Shiite branch of Islam in the United States and Canada working to address a shortage of leaders. The seminary started in fall 2017 with about 35 registered students. Now it has nearly 400, with some attending in-person, others watching live and still more watching recorded videos online. In addition to the Qazwinis, there are four other instructors. Although there are students in 25 countries the emphasis is on North America because of the desire to deepen the bench of U.S.-trained imams, scholars and speakers, according to the elder Qazwini, a native of Iraq. In a class on a recent evening, the younger Qazwini led an intense session on faith, proposing case studies, playing devil's advocate and prompting a philosophical back-and-forth with his students. His execution is informal but authoritative. The students understand him. "I need to make sure he speaks the language, he's knowledgeable, he's respectful, he's truly caring and he's trying to adapt to the country we live in," said Alia Bazzi, 32, a graphic designer and seminary student. "Why would my imam speak Arabic if we live in America and the main language we speak is English? ... I want to know he's up to date, he knows what's going on." About an hour's drive south, in Toledo, Ohio, the Ahlul Bayt Center mosque has been running for about four years without a full-time imam. Imam Mohammad Qazwini and other clerics travel there for services and special events. Dr. Ali Nawras, a board member of the Toledo mosque, said the arrangement works for day-to-day needs because of its proximity to the Detroit area — a longtime hub for Islam in America. But the center seeks a permanent imam to meet its broader, long-term objectives: Having a strong understanding of challenges within their own community, particularly among youth, and forging stronger bonds between the Muslim and non-Muslim populations. "On one hand, you can find an imam who is very knowledgeable, very strong background in theology, but that person might not speak English or might have lived most of his life outside the country," Nawras said. "On the other hand, you might find someone who is born here and educated here, but they don't have a good or strong theology background." "To have a combination of both, that is where the challenge comes," he added. Qazwini wants to expand the curriculum, faculty and enrollment at Al-Hujjah but another important step for the seminary is pursuing accreditation so it can award official degrees rather than completion certificates. In the meantime, he has spoken with other established schools offering Islamic studies about collaborating on accreditation. The Ahl al-Bayt Islamic Seminary, located near Chicago, is another U.S.-based seminary focused on the Shiite tradition. Shaykh Amir Mukhtar Faezi founded it in 2014, offering a five-year graduate program. Ten students graduated earlier this year. Faezi, a Pakistan native who also studied in Iran, said the program is on hold while they seek more resources, but it plans to accept students in 2020. Traditionally as a minority, Shiite communities are more dependent on having trained and accredited scholars leading their mosques, but as the community has grown in the United States, so too has the need for these trained scholars. Faezi said in the 1980s, Shiite communities began inviting scholars and imams from places like India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran or Lebanon to fulfill the need. But many scholars were unable to get visas, especially as relations between the United States and some of the countries soured. "Those who were able to get the visa and they came here, they were also not very effective, because their mindset was very different than the people who had migrated here... not to mention the communication barrier," Faezi said. Jawad Bayat, 31, comes from a Shiite background and is part of the changing face of faith here. While in college, he began to explore his spiritual journey and considered going abroad to attend a seminary. Instead he enrolled at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, a non-denominational graduate school for religious and theological studies. Bayat graduated in 2015 and now serves as an imam and Muslim chaplain at an academic medical center in Cleveland, Ohio. "There is a shortage of Muslim leaders as a whole in the U.S., whether it's in Sunni or Shiite communities," Bayat said, adding the focus on applied spirituality that allows him to connect with the Cleveland Muslims he serves now may not have been covered in a more traditional seminary overseas. Zaytuna College in Berkeley, California, was founded in 2009 and is the first accredited U.S.-based Muslim college, but it focuses on the Sunni branch of Islam. Overall, Sunni is the largest sect of Islam and Shiite the second-largest. The schism between them stems from the early days of Islam and arguments over the Prophet Muhammad's successors as the spiritual and temporal leader. There are nearly two dozen other institutions across the United States offering varying levels of post-secondary degrees in Islamic scholarship. Most are also Sunni-based and are in the process of seeking accreditation. For Ali Ghazala, 22, the purpose of attending the Michigan seminary is to gain a greater understanding of his faith so he can better represent it around those who don't practice or understand it. "It is vital that if you are a Muslim growing up in the West interacting with non-Muslims that you present to them the correct religion," he said. "I have to be the one who is certain before I can go to other people and explain to them why I am the way I am or why we are the way we are."
| null |
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-growth-islam-creates-religious-scholars-66747955
|
Mon, 04 Nov 2019 17:30:15 -0500
| 1,572,906,615 | 1,572,908,793 |
religion and belief
|
religious institutions and state relations
|
1,123 |
abcnews--2019-01-16--White House now expects greater impact on economy during shutdown
| 2019-01-16T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
White House now expects greater impact on economy during shutdown
|
The broader impact of the shutdown on the U.S. economy may be double what was expected, White House economists confirmed on Wednesday, Day 26 of the political standoff. Meanwhile, thousands of employees have been called back to work without pay because of the risks posed for their agencies if, for example, airports continue to run with fewer aviation safety inspectors or the IRS heads into tax season down almost 60 percent of its workforce. On the political front, no high-level talks are scheduled in the stalemate over the president's demand for billions in funding for the wall that Democrats refuse to agree to. Here's a look at the effects. White House economists have doubled projections of lost growth due to the shutdown A White House spokesperson confirmed early Wednesday that the administration has updated its projection of how much the ongoing partial government shutdown is impacting economic growth -- doubling the projected negative impact. The increase was first reported by the New York Times. The estimated impact is that the ongoing shutdown is shaving 0.13 percentage points off quarterly economic growth each week it continues, according to the White House official, and the updated model changed to include the estimated impact from contractors that are not working because of the shutdown – a number they said is harder to estimate -- in addition to furloughed federal workers. During the chaos of government shutdown, Trump's nominee to replace Pruitt at EPA faces Senate questioning As much of the energy in Washington is focused on the fight over the president's border wall and impact of the partial government shutdown, President Donald Trump's nominee to take over the federal agency charged with protecting human health and the environment is scheduled for a crucial hearing. Andrew Wheeler took over the helm of Environmental Protection Agency in July after Scott Pruitt, the previous administrator, resigned amid increasing ethical questions and controversy. Wheeler has been working as acting administrator for several months. Democrats on the committee, led by Ranking Member Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, have raised concerns that EPA employees are struggling without pay during the shutdown and that important environmental enforcement is on hold while they're not at work. Carper has also raised concerns that Republicans are trying to rush the nomination by having the hearing during the shutdown. IRS declares half of its workers are needed to process 2019 tax returns and refunds; warns of long wait times and limited assistance The IRS will require some 46,000 employees to work without pay throughout the upcoming tax season to ensure returns are processed and refunds are mailed, the agency announced Tuesday in an updated plan for the government shutdown. That represents almost 60 percent of its 80,000-person workforce. And while the IRS will be adding staff to answer some questions via telephone "in the coming days," the agency said, it's warning Americans to expect "heavier call volume" and "longer wait times." Walk-in assistance centers also will remain closed, including those offices intended to help people who are victims of identity theft and are required to visit an IRS office to establish their identity. What will remain in effect is the requirement that people pay their taxes on time, although the agency said it won't conduct any audits during the spending lapse. Unpaid federal workers and contractors have started selling personal property, creating small businesses and spending more time with old friends. Working for the Coast Guard was always Albert Waterford Jr.'s dream job. The disabled veteran enlisted for two decades and, after his retirement, went back to work for the service as a civilian. His wife, Kate Wells Waterford, is a small business owner who trains horses. For those in the Coast Guard, the furlough has affected them differently because service members in other branches of the U.S. military fall under the Defense Department, for which funding has been approved. The Waterfords hoped to receive their normal three paychecks this week: one for Albert's retirement from the Coast Guard, one for his job as a civilian and an additional check for his disability from the Veterans Affairs. But because of the shutdown, the couple has started a "furlough sale" to supplement lost income -- selling saddles, halters, bridles and items on social media. "I called it a furlough [sale] because it is more of an urgency now," Kate Waterford said. "It's really made us re-evaluate our whole lives." Read more from ABC News' Beatrice Peterson and Tessa Weinberg. Judge denies 'essential' federal workers' request to be paid during the shutdown A federal judge on Tuesday denied requests from unions representing air traffic controllers and other employees required to work through the government shutdown that they either be paid or have the option to skip work while missing paychecks. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled to keep the status quo, saying that an order allowing employees considered essential to skip work would be "chaotic" in a best-case scenario and "catastrophic" at worst. Lawyers representing the National Air Traffic Controllers Association had sued the Trump administration to get their controllers, thousands of whom continue to work and just missed a paycheck, be paid while working during the shutdown in order for them to remain "laser-focused" on their job guiding more than 40,000 flights through the nation's airspace every day.
|
Cheyenne Haslett
|
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damage-inflicted-shutdown-shaves-off-projected-us-economic/story?id=60404103
|
2019-01-16 15:12:07+00:00
| 1,547,669,527 | 1,567,552,192 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
1,350 |
abcnews--2019-01-28--Shutdown cost economy 11 billion report estimates
| 2019-01-28T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
Shutdown cost economy $11 billion, report estimates
|
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the longest-running government shutdown in U.S. history came at a price: costing the economy $11 billion with $3 billion that will never be recovered, according to a report released Monday. For the fourth quarter of 2018, CBO estimates real gross domestic product was reduced by $3 billion compared to what it would have been. The level of real GDP for the first quarter of 2019 is estimated to be $8 billion lower, due to a combination of the partial government shutdown delaying approximately $18 billion in federal spending, suspending services for federal workers and a reduction in demand lowering output in the private sector. "Risks to the economy were becoming increasingly significant as the shutdown continued," the report read. "Although their precise effects on economic output are uncertain, the negative effects of such factors would have become increasingly important if the partial shutdown had extended beyond five weeks." While CBO anticipates a majority of the lost real GDP will be recovered, about $3 billion will not be. That's about 0.02 percent of the projected annual GDP in 2019, according to the report. "Among those who experienced the largest and most direct negative effects are federal workers who faced delayed compensation and private-sector entities that lost business," the report said. "Some of those private-sector entities will never recoup that lost income." In the wake of the report's release, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for an end to President Donald Trump's shutdowns. "As the dust settles from the Trump Shutdown, it is clear as day that the president's temper tantrum caused serious and lasting damage to our nation's economy," Schumer said in a statement. "If President Trump didn't appreciate the error of his ways after seeing the human suffering his needless shutdown caused, maybe the extensive economic damage he inflicted will set the president straight: No more Trump Shutdowns." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Trump should "swiftly sign" legislation to prevent another shutdown. "The President's shutdown inflicted needless pain and chaos in the lives of millions of Americans and stole billions of dollars from the economy. Workers' financial security, families' well-being and America's economic strength all were senselessly sacrificed because of President Trump's callousness," Pelosi said in a statement. "Families across the nation are still trying to recover from a month of missing paychecks and overdue bills, but the President is already threatening a second shutdown if he doesn't get his way." CBO's report analyzing the shutdown's effects came just days after the financial rating agency Standard & Poor's analyzed the cost of the partial government shutdown on the economy and found it added up to at least $6 billion — more expensive than the $5.7 billion Trump wanted for the border wall. About 800,000 federal workers were furloughed or required to work without pay during the historic shutdown. On Friday, Trump signed legislation to reopen the government for three weeks, until Feb. 15. "The weekly compensation costs for workers at agencies that were without an appropriation totaled roughly $1.8 billion, or about 40 percent of total compensation for federal workers," the report said. Trump said federal employees, who were on track to miss their second paycheck Friday, would receive back pay "very quickly, or as soon as possible. It'll happen fast." Not only will compensation be affected, but so will tax revenues, CBO predicts. "...As a result of some reduced activities by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that are meant to ensure taxpayers' compliance with tax law, CBO estimates that tax revenues will be roughly $2 billion lower in fiscal year 2019 because of the shutdown," the report said. CBO said uncertainty surrounded its report, particularly regarding the shutdown’s effects on federal compensation, due, in part, to the fact that the number of furloughed federal workers fluctuated over the course of the shutdown. If the shutdown had stretched longer than five weeks, it may have further diminished consumer spending because of interruptions to federal assistance programs, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, the report said. Food stamp recipients received full benefits for February amid the shutdown. "Although CBO did not observe a significant drop-off in grants, subsidies, or other payments made to individuals during the five-week shutdown, a longer shutdown would probably have disrupted those payments," the report said.
|
Tessa Weinberg
|
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/report-estimates-shutdown-cost-economy-11-billion-billion/story?id=60677289
|
2019-01-28 19:03:06+00:00
| 1,548,720,186 | 1,567,550,523 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
1,850 |
abcnews--2019-11-01--US economy defies threats with a solid job gain for October
| 2019-11-01T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
US economy defies threats with a solid job gain for October
|
A solid October jobs report on Friday spotlighted the surprising durability of the U.S. economy in the face of persistent trade conflicts and a global slowdown. The economy managed to add 128,000 jobs last month even though tens of thousands of workers were temporarily counted as unemployed because of the now-settled strike against General Motors. What's more, the government revised up its combined estimate of job growth for August and September by a robust 95,000. Though the unemployment rate ticked up from 3.5% to 3.6% in October, it's still near a five-decade low. And for a second straight month, average hourly wages rose a decent, if less than spectacular, 3% from a year ago. The report from the Labor Department suggested that the economy has enough strength to keep expanding despite the threats from overseas, political tensions at home, a downturn in manufacturing and a chronic gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else. The healthy level of hiring also makes it less likely that the Federal Reserve, which cut short-term interest rates this week for a third time this year, will do so again anytime soon. "This was an unambiguously strong report," said Kathy Bostjancic, chief U.S. financial economist at Oxford Economics. The jobs data put stock investors in a buying mood. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 301 points for the day, or 1.1%. Friday's jobs report also raised the prospect of further job growth to come. The settlement of the GM strike, which contributed to the temporary loss of 41,600 auto factory and likely other related jobs last month, seems sure to lead to a return of those jobs in coming months. In addition, the labor force participation rate, a gauge of how many adults either have a job or looking for one, reached 63.3%, the best since 2013. That suggests that a rising number of people continue to think it's a good time to find a job. Besides GM, a temporary drag on hiring last month was the U.S. Census. The government let go of 20,000 short-term workers who had been helping prepare for the 2020 survey. The economy has been expanding for more than a decade, the longest period of growth on record. But the bump from the 2018 tax cuts is fading, and an aging population and other demographic forces are slowing potential growth. That slowdown could be worrisome for President Donald Trump, who is seeking re-election next year amid an impeachment inquiry. The economy appears unable to achieve the lasting growth of more than 3% annually that Trump had promised. Within 30 minutes of the jobs report's release, though, the president celebrated the figures on Twitter as a "blowout," adding that "USA ROCKS." Job growth so far this year has averaged 167,000 a month, down from an average of 223,000 in 2018, according to Labor Department figures. Even so, hiring remains high enough to keep the unemployment rate from rising even as overall growth has become more tepid. On Wednesday, the government estimated that the economy grew in the July-October quarter at a modest 1.9% annual rate. The hot job market is spurring many employers to raise wages to attract and retain workers. Yet those gains may not always leave workers feeling better off as they grapple with high housing, transportation, health and education expenses. One employer, Nona Lim, the founder and CEO of a company that supplies rice noodles and broths to grocery stores across the country, says she's had to raise wages 20-25% above the minimum wage of $13.80 in Oakland, California, to attract workers. "There is a lot of money in the Bay Area in tech but not necessarily in non-tech," said Lim, 45. "It gets kind of challenging working in the Bay Area as a manufacturer. The cost of living is high. The minimum wage is high." Much of the fuel for overall U.S. growth has come from consumers, who drive about 70% of economic activity. Pay raises are helping some of them. In September, consumers modestly stepped up their spending, and their incomes grew fast enough to let them save more, too. In a sign that consumer spending is helping to lead to more hiring, restaurants added 47,500 jobs last month. But even as consumers help drive growth, business investment has become a drag on the economy. Collectively, businesses have slashed their spending on industrial machinery and other equipment, mostly because the U.S.-China trade war has made them reluctant to commit to big purchases. The tariffs between the U.S. and China, the world's two largest economies, have also reduced U.S. exports. Friday's jobs report hinted at a mixed picture for the start of the holiday shopping season. Retailers added 6,100 jobs last month. But the rise of e-commerce and an increasing concentration of wealth in large U.S. metros have corresponded with the loss of more than 20,000 jobs at retailers over the past 12 months. A slowdown in pay growth is another source of concern. Hourly average earnings had been rising at a 3.4% annual rate back in February, significantly above the 3% pace in October. But reduced wage growth might be somewhat misleading. Employers are giving more opportunities to workers who usually start at lower wage levels, and that might have cut into the overall pay gains, said Julia Pollak, a labor economist at ZipRecuriter, an online job marketplace. "Given the number of women, the number of Hispanics, the number of blacks, the number of young people entering the workforce," Pollak said, "it's quite possible that the influx of all these workers is dragging that average down."
| null |
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-jobs-data-show-hiring-fueling-growth-66679745
|
Fri, 01 Nov 2019 16:21:12 -0400
| 1,572,639,672 | 1,572,646,032 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
3,709 |
activistpost--2019-01-09--Sanctions Lose Power Russias Economy Continues To Expand Sanctions Irrelevant
| 2019-01-09T00:00:00 |
activistpost
|
Sanctions Lose Power: Russia’s Economy Continues To Expand, Sanctions Irrelevant
|
The United States is experiencing the problem of their sanctions no longer working as nations increasingly disobey what is declared by those in government. Despite sanctions, the Russian economy continues to grow at a steady pace and expand. Inflation in Russia remained low while the expansion of the economy occurred last year according to a World Bank report. “Although economic sanctions tightened, Russia experienced relatively low and stable inflation and increased oil production. As a result of robust domestic activity, the Russian economy expanded at a 1.6 percent pace in the year just ended,” said the report. The U.S. has long used sanctions to harm the economies of other countries for a variety of reasons; however, those sanctions seem to be failing. According to a report by RT, The World Bank pointed out that Russia and other oil exporters “maintained steady growth in 2018, supported by a rise in oil prices.” In Russia, “growth has been resilient, supported by private consumption and exports,” the bank said, projecting a short-term slowdown this year to 1.5 percent. In 2020 and 2021, the bank expects an increase in the growth rate of Russia’s GDP to 1.8 percent. In May of last year, Bloomberg reported that the U.S.’s “sanction power” was reaching its limits. It appears that countries susceptible to U.S. sanctions are dropping the dollar like hotcakes and working around them making the issuing of sanctions powerless. Six years ago, in the course of investigating London-based bank Standard Chartered Plc over suspicions it had flouted U.S. sanctions against Iran, the New York State Department of Financial Services published an email from a senior executive to one of his counterparts in New York. “You f***ing Americans,” the message read. “Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we’re not going to deal with Iranians?” –Bloomberg Russia isn’t the only nation to make sanctions obsolete. China has set up its own lending institutions parallel to the Washington-based World Bank and International Monetary Fund and pushed the yuan as an international currency. The country is likely to strengthen its presence in Iran no matter what Trump does. The key decisions, to comply or defy, will be made by the only actors on the same economic scale as the U.S.: China and Europe. “For absolutely core national security reasons, China will find ways around the hold of the U.S. banking sector,” says Jeffrey Sachs, an economics professor at Columbia University.
|
Activist Post
|
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/01/sanctions-lose-power-russias-economy-continues-to-expand-sanctions-irrelevant.html
|
2019-01-09 16:12:42+00:00
| 1,547,068,362 | 1,567,553,196 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
4,335 |
activistpost--2019-03-28--The Federal Reserves Controlled Demolition Of The Economy Is Almost Complete
| 2019-03-28T00:00:00 |
activistpost
|
The Federal Reserve’s Controlled Demolition Of The Economy Is Almost Complete
|
The Federal Reserve is an often misunderstood entity, not only in the mainstream, but also in alternative economic circles. There is this ever pervasive fantasy on both sides of the divide that the central bank actually “cares” about forever protecting the US economy, or at least propping up the US economy in an endless game of “kick the can”. While this might be true at times, it is not true ALL the time. Things change, agendas change, and sometimes the Fed’s goal is not to maintain the economy, but to destroy it. The delusion that the Fed is seeking to kick the can is highly present today after the latest Fed meeting in which the central bank indicated there would be a pause in interest rate hikes in 2019. As I have noted in numerous articles over the past year, the mainstream media and the Fed have made interest rates the focus of every economic discussion, and I believe this was quite deliberate. In the meantime, the Fed balance sheet and its strange relationship to the stock market bubble is mostly ignored. The word “capitulation” is getting thrown around quite haphazardly in reference to the Fed’s tightening policy. And yet, even now after all the pundits have declared the Fed “in retreat” or “trapped in a Catch-22”, the Fed continues to tighten, and is set to cut balance sheet assets straight through until the end of September. Perhaps my definition of capitulation is different from some people’s. One would think that if the Fed was in retreat in terms of tightening, that they would actually STOP tightening. This has not happened. Also, one might also expect that if the Fed is going full “dovish” that they would have cut interest rates in March instead of holding them steady at their neutral rate of inflation. This has not happened either. In fact, I’m not exactly sure how anyone can claim with a straight face that the Fed has given up on Quantitative Tightening (QT). Despite the many assumptions out there that the Fed is going to reverse on interest rates, I believe this is wishful thinking and that the Fed will not reverse rates in 2019. What I do see is the Fed using rhetoric and head fakes to give the impression that they plan to go dovish in the future. And, this is being wrongly interpreted as the Fed being dovish now. But why is the Fed doing this while also continuing to dump its balance sheet? In my view, it is because they are almost finished with the task they set out to accomplish with QT in the first place, and they now have to make it appear as though they want to accommodate as the system breaks down. In my article ‘Party While You Can – Central Bank Ready To Pop The Everything Bubble’, I outlined a process or tactic which the Fed has used on many occasions in the past: The creation of economic bubbles through inflation and artificially low interest rates, followed by abrupt tightening and higher interest rates into economic weakness. This tactic is highly effective in accomplishing ONE GOAL – financial collapse. It is the same strategy the Fed used at the beginning of the Great Depression. It is also what the Fed used to trigger the crash of 2008. And, in 2018-2019, the Fed is doing it again. For over two years now the Fed has been instituting tightening measures after inflating perhaps the largest economic bubble in modern history, also known as “the everything bubble”. The Fed did this despite extreme weakness in economic fundamentals, and is continuing forward until the fourth quarter of this year despite nearly every sector of the economy showing steep declines or a greatly reduced pace of growth. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the Fed announced it would be cutting assets until September just as the Treasury Yield curve inverted for the first time since 2007. The same thing happened just before the crash and recession that started in 2008. An inverted yield curve is generally a sure sign of a decelerating economy or recession/depression. What bewilders me are the numerous claims in the mainstream and alternative media that the Fed is somehow oblivious to what it is doing. This is simply not true. Jerome Powell in his statements in the Fed Minutes of October 2012 explains plainly exactly what would happen if and when the Fed tightened policy into weakness. He essentially admits that a crash will occur. Four years later in the wake of the Trump presidency, Powell somehow conveniently finds himself the Chairman of the Fed, and what does he do? He tightens policy into economic weakness fully aware of what would happen next. I’ll repeat this point again because I don’t think some analysts out there get it: The central bankers KNOW that they are causing a crash. They are doing it deliberately. The question we need to ask is, why? Over the past ten years the Fed may have acted as a crutch for markets, but this was not their true goal. Rather, the 2008 credit bubble collapse was used by the bankers as a rationale to create an even bigger bubble; a bubble that now encompasses every aspect of our financial structure. QT was needed to pop this bubble, and so the Fed tightened. For many months now the Fed has stated that the US economy is “strong” and “in recovery” despite the evidence at hand. In March, they did not reverse tightening; they only admitted in an indirect way that the economy is not in recovery. They have until September to finish using QT for a controlled demolition of the Everything Bubble. This is more than enough time. As noted in recent articles, US housing, autos, credit, retail, and even employment are faltering, while prices in most necessities remain high or are climbing. All that is left is for stock markets to follow the fundamental indicators down (as they usually do). This trend started at the same time as the Fed’s tightening began. All that was needed to set the avalanche in motion were moderate rate hikes and asset cuts. The timing of the current crash is perfect for the banking elites for a number of reasons. Most importantly, they now have a scapegoat to pin the crash on in the form of “populist movements”. I warned about this ploy way back in early 2016 before the Brexit vote and the presidential elections. It is the reason why I predicted the Brexit vote would succeed and that Donald Trump would be president. The elites needed someone to blame for the collapse of the everything bubble they have been planning for the past 10 years. The Brexit has turned into a three ring circus, a major distraction from the ultimate intended end game which I have long believed will be a “no deal” scenario. A no deal event is being painted in the mainstream media as a kind of economic doomsday for Europe, and I believe it will be, but not for the reasons they describe. Europe has been set up for a fall, just like the US, for many years now. Government and corporate debt levels are at extreme highs and major banks in Germany and Italy are on the verge of implosion. A hard Brexit is useful to the elites as a scapegoat for a crash that was going to happen anyway. The bankers don’t plan on facing the music, they want “populist” groups to get the blame. Trump has been a very effective ally to the banking class. After loading his cabinet with these “swamp creatures”, he then went on to take full credit for the very stock market rally he originally criticized during his campaign as a fraudulent bubble created by central bank stimulus. Then, he started a trade war which has dragged on for many months. It has shown no signs of slowing, and, is providing excellent cover for the Fed as it pulls the plug on life support for the economy. Trump’s exoneration in terms of the Mueller probe and the Russiagate farce was easy to see coming. I have been saying for the past two years that Trump will never be impeached (or never impeached successfully) exactly because the banking elites WANT him right where he is. Russiagate was meant to drive leftists even further into extremism, it was NOT meant to unseat Trump. If the markets were to tank this year (in January I predicted they would retest December lows starting at the end of March through April), then Trump would get total credit in the mainstream for the crisis and the Fed would avoid the majority of the blame. Once again, lets consider the timing of current events – The Fed is tightening until September but pretending as if it is backing off. The yield curve has inverted. Major fundamentals are dropping exponentially. At the same time, we have Europe on the verge of a fabricated crisis in the form of a potential no deal Brexit, and we have US trade negotiations which have been delayed once again, perhaps until June, maybe longer. I don’t believe in the “perfect storm” as a matter of coincidence, but I do believe according to the evidence that perfect storms can be deliberately engineered. Bottom line, no matter what the mainstream says in the coming months, the Fed knew what it was doing. There are many advantages to an engineered crash. As noted, it was going to happen eventually anyway. It is simply delusion to think that the central bank can prop up the system forever. We sometimes hear the claim that this was done in Japan, but the Fed increased its balance sheet to $4.5 Trillion dollars in the span of two years – it took the Bank of Japan decades to get to the same level. There comes a point in which stimulus and increased debt provides diminishing returns when trying to hide economic weakness, and the Fed has already hit that point. The Fed is crashing the system now because they have sovereignty activists and nationalists to point the finger at. They are also crashing the system now because the everything bubble is at its peak. Corporate and consumer debt are at historic highs, and the bankers are looking to cause maximum damage. Finally, the banking establishment has loyalties to certain agendas which are far outside national interests, including the often mentioned Agenda 2030 and the “global economic reset”. These agendas call for greatly increased global centralization of economic power as well as geopolitical power; in other words, global governance. With chaos comes opportunity for those in power. They don’t let a good crisis go to waste, especially when they created the crisis. I have written extensively about this issue in past articles such as ‘The Economic End Game Explained’ and ‘IMF Reveals Cryptocurrency Is The New World Order End Game’. No matter what the mainstream media says over the course of this year, I want readers to remember that this was a disaster at least ten years in the making. It is not something that suddenly fell out of the sky. It was not something that was unexpected or unpredictable. It was highly predictable to those with the eyes to see. It was NOT a mistake. If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE. You can contact Brandon Smith at: [email protected] With global tensions spiking, thousands of Americans are moving their IRA or 401(k) into an IRA backed by physical gold. Now, thanks to a little-known IRS Tax Law, you can too. Learn how with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals how physical precious metals can protect your savings, and how to open a Gold IRA. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.
|
Activist Post
|
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/03/the-federal-reserves-controlled-demolition-of-the-economy-is-almost-complete.html
|
2019-03-28 15:22:37+00:00
| 1,553,800,957 | 1,567,544,836 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
19,163 |
americablognews--2019-08-28--New poll is just AWFUL for Trump Voter concern about the economy grows
| 2019-08-28T00:00:00 |
americablognews
|
New poll is just AWFUL for Trump; Voter concern about the economy grows
|
After 2016, it’s understandable that Democrats are wary of polls predicting victory against Trump next year. Also, we’ve got another 15 months to election day, and anything can happen between now and then. Having said all of that, the new Quinnipiac poll is just God-awful news for Trump, and it’s not the kind of thing a sitting president wants to see heading into a re-election. (And I’d rather see a bad poll for Trump 15 months out, than a good one.) “For the first time since President Trump was elected, more voters say that the national economy is getting worse than getting better, with 37 percent saying it is getting worse, 31 percent saying it is getting better, and 30 percent saying it is staying the same. This compares to a June 11, 2019 poll in which 23 percent of voters said that the national economy is getting worse, 39 percent said it is getting better, and 37 percent said it is staying the same.” And while those polled said they still think the economy is in excellent or good shape (61%), those are the lowest numbers in over a year, meaning, people are getting worried. Also problematic, people are increasingly blaming Trump for their concerns over the worsening economy: The economy is the only thing Trump really had going for his re-election. Regardless of the fact that unemployment fell 5 points under Barack Obama, and only 1 point under Trump, sitting presidents tend to get the credit or blame for the economy under their watch, and up until now Trump was sitting on a pretty good economy. Not any more — or at least, that’s what’s the public thinks. Regarding Trump’s approval rating on various issues, he’s 3 points underwater on the economy (46% approve, 49% disapprove), and it’s even worse on other key issues: Also, per 538, Trump’s overall approval is slowing moving down, now nearing 41%. And finally, also from Quinnipiac, Trump loses, by wide margins, to pretty much every top Democratic candidate: Note that Trump never even breaks 40% against any of the top Dems. That’s a horrible showing for a sitting president, especially one sitting atop a successful (until now) economy. So, sure, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. It’s a long way till November 2020, and polls aren’t always right. But. These numbers are just awful for Trump, and they’re consistent with other polls showing Trump losing by a wide margin to every top Democratic candidate. None of that is good news for an incumbent president hoping to be re-elected in the coming year.
|
John Aravosis
|
http://elections.americablog.com/2019/08/new-poll-is-just-awful-for-trump.html
|
2019-08-28 16:15:30+00:00
| 1,567,023,330 | 1,567,543,620 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
20,974 |
bbc--2019-01-14--Trump threatens to devastate Turkish economy over Syrian Kurds
| 2019-01-14T00:00:00 |
bbc
|
Trump threatens to 'devastate' Turkish economy over Syrian Kurds
|
US President Donald Trump has threatened to "devastate Turkey economically" if it attacks Kurdish forces in Syria following a planned pullout of US troops. In two tweets on Sunday, Mr Trump said that he didn't want the Kurds to provoke Turkey either. US forces have fought alongside a Kurdish militia in northern Syria against the Islamic State (IS) group. Turkey, however, regards the People's Protection Units (YPG) as terrorists. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has spoken angrily about American support for the group and vowed to crush it. Mr Trump's comments on Sunday followed further criticism of his abrupt decision to withdraw US forces from Syria. A senior figure in Saudi Arabia's royal family, Prince Turki al-Faisal, told the BBC it would have a "negative impact" that would benefit Iran, Russia and Syria's President Bashar al-Assad. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is currently in the Saudi capital Riyadh as he tours the Middle East to reassure US allies in the region. The president defended his decision to withdraw troops, saying any remaining IS fighters could be attacked from the air. He did not say how Turkey's economy would suffer if it attacked the YPG. The US imposed sanctions and trade tariffs on Turkey in August, amid a row over a detained US pastor - contributing to a sharp drop in the value of the Turkish lira. Pastor Andrew Brunson was released in October. Mr Trump also mentioned the creation of a "20-mile safe zone", which the BBC's Barbara Plett Usher says hints at the kind of solution Mr Pompeo is trying to negotiate. The president also said that Russia, Iran and Syria had been the biggest beneficiaries of US action in Syria and it was time to bring American soldiers home. President Erdogan's spokesman Ibrahim Kalin responded in a tweet, saying Turkey expected the US to "honour our strategic partnership". "Terrorists can't be your partners and allies," he said. President Trump shocked allies and faced strong criticism at home last month when he ordered US forces to immediately begin withdrawing from the approximately 30% of Syria controlled by the YPG-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) alliance. The US military began its pullout last week by withdrawing some military equipment from Syria, although its troops remained in the country. Over the weekend, Mr Pompeo said he had spoken to Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu by phone and was "optimistic" that an agreement could be reached with Turkey to protect Kurdish fighters. He did not give details. Speaking in Abu Dhabi, Mr Pompeo said the US recognised "the Turkish people's right and Mr Erdogan's right to defend their country from terrorists". "We also know that those fighting alongside us for all this time deserve to be protected as well," he added. In Riyadh, the secretary of state is expected to discuss Iran and the conflicts in Yemen and Syria, US media report, as well as seeking an update on the investigation into the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Mr Khashoggi, a critic of Saudi Arabia's rulers, was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul three months ago. About 2,000 US military personnel are reported to be deployed in northern Syria. Ground troops first arrived in autumn 2015 when then-President Barack Obama sent in a small number of special forces to train and advise YPG fighters. The US did this after several attempts at training and arming Syrian Arab rebel groups to battle IS militants descended into chaos. Over the intervening years the number of US troops in Syria has increased, and a network of bases and airfields has been established in an arc across the north-eastern part of the country.
| null |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46859164
|
2019-01-14 07:05:06+00:00
| 1,547,467,506 | 1,567,552,542 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
22,169 |
bbc--2019-02-01--US economy adds 304000 jobs in January
| 2019-02-01T00:00:00 |
bbc
|
US economy adds 304,000 jobs in January
|
The US economy added a stronger-than-expected 304,000 jobs in January, official figures have shown. The figure was far in excess of economists' forecasts of 165,000. However, December's jobs growth figure was revised to 222,000, down from an initial estimate of 312,000. Last month saw jobs being added in leisure and hospitality, construction, health care, transportation and warehousing, according to the US Department of Labor. The widespread gains marked the 100th month in a row of hiring. They were a reminder of the economy's continued strength, despite rising concerns about factors such as slowing global growth, trade tensions, and recent dips in consumer confidence. "This is a solid report, particularly given how worried people were," said Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC Bank. The unemployment rate in January ticked up from 3.9% to 4% - a gain the Labor Department said was due to the partial shutdown of the federal government. The shutdown was also likely to have contributed to a surge in part-time workers last month, the Labor Department said. Overall, however, job creation in the US remains healthy - and well above the roughly 100,000 additions per month need to keep pace with growth in the working-age population. US employers added an average of 223,000 jobs per month in 2018. Separate surveys have also found more job openings than unemployed. "A lot of businesses feel like they do need to find workers and they have felt that way for months," Mr Faucher said. "We have consumers spending, we have businesses investing, so the demand is there." The Federal Reserve this week pledged to be "patient" about further rate rises, noting that inflation pressures remain muted. But the tight labour market has started to translate into higher wages. The average hourly pay for private sector workers was $27.56 last month, up 3.2% year-on-year. That was slightly slower than December's 3.3% rise. But it still marked one of the strongest year-on-year increases for any month since the financial crisis. Analysts said January's gains do not put immediate pressure on the bank to raise rates. But several economists said the bank is likely to increase rates later in 2019, if trends continue. "This is a strong report, showing that labour demand continues to rise rapidly, and that wage gains continue to grind higher," said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist of Pantheon Macroeconomics. "If wage gains rise over the next year as much they have over the past year ... the idea that the Fed won't hike further will turn to dust."
| null |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47092341
|
2019-02-01 15:24:27+00:00
| 1,549,052,667 | 1,567,549,963 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
22,884 |
bbc--2019-02-14--German economy narrowly avoids recession
| 2019-02-14T00:00:00 |
bbc
|
German economy narrowly avoids recession
|
Germany's economy just about avoided falling into recession during the final three months of last year. Europe's largest economy registered zero growth during the fourth quarter of 2018, the country's Federal Statistics Office said. That means it avoided two consecutive quarters of contraction, which is the usual definition of a recession. A weak trade performance dragged on the economy, and consumer spending remained subdued. The zero growth recorded in the October-to-December period followed a 0.2% contraction in the previous quarter. Reasons for slower growth last year include a slowdown in the global economy and a weaker car sector, with German consumers less willing to buy new cars amid confusion over new emission standards. In addition, low water levels, particularly in the Rhine, affected growth by holding back movement of some goods. Jack Allen, senior Europe economist at Capital Economics, told the BBC: "If you look at Germany across 2018 we've seen a pretty broad-based slowdown in growth. We've seen household consumption slow, we've seen business investment slow and we've seen export growth slow. He added: "What's particularly worrying is that the early signs for 2019 suggest that a strong rebound is unlikely." US tariffs on EU car exports, which US President Donald Trump has threatened, could have a major impact on Germany, Mr Allen said, but even if these are avoided the slowdown in the global economy means Germany is still only expected to grow by about 1% this year, compared with about 1.5% in 2018. However, Claus Vistesen, chief eurozone economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said he was "optimistic" that the first quarter of this year would be better. "The January [economic] surveys were poor... but net exports won't be in free fall forever, and consumers' spending also ought to pick up." It couldn't have been much closer. And it is certainly possible that subsequent revisions to these figures will take the fourth quarter figure below zero and Germany into recession as the term is often defined. For now though it looks like a very soft patch that has affected much of Europe. Italy had a recession at the end of last year. The eurozone as whole has managed to continue to grow in spite of the weakening performance of two its largest economies. But it has been markedly slower. That said, the jobs situation specifically in Germany is pretty good. Unemployment is among the lowest in the world at just above 3%.
| null |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47236841
|
2019-02-14 10:40:32+00:00
| 1,550,158,832 | 1,567,548,537 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
27,318 |
bbc--2019-05-30--Brazil economy contracts for the first time since 2016
| 2019-05-30T00:00:00 |
bbc
|
Brazil economy contracts for the first time since 2016
|
Brazil's economy shrank in the first three months of the year for the first time since 2016, when the country was in recession. It contracted by 0.2% compared with the last three months of 2018. Compared with a year ago, it grew by 0.5%. The fall comes at time when Brazil's president Jair Bolsonaro is facing scrutiny of his efforts to revive the economy after a two-year recession. Economists said there was a risk of another recession. If the economy shrinks again the second quarter, the country, once regarded as having huge growth potential, will be in recession again. That would come barely three years after the two-year recession in 2015 and 2016, when the economy shrank by almost 7%. William Jackson, chief emerging markets economist at Capital Economics, said that while the contraction in the economy was, in part, the result of temporary factors, there were early signs that growth in the second quarter had also been weak. "There is now a real risk that the economy will slip into a technical recession," Mr Jackson said. The county was once designated as one of the Brics - which along with Russia, India, China and South Africa could outpace developed economies by 2050. While the contraction was in line with expectations it is an early indication of economic performance since Mr Bolsonaro took power in January and appointed businessman Paulo Guedes as "super-minister" of the economy. When Jair Bolsonaro was elected, Brazil's stock market and currency both bounced up - showing just how confident markets were in the new government. Mr Bolsonaro had given carte blanche to his economy minister, businessman Paulo Guedes, to act on reforms. Almost five months later there is much disappointment with the government and with the economy. Mr Guedes has been the target of friendly fire: attacks from other ministers, resistance in Congress from Mr Bolsonaro's own party and even calls for state intervention coming from the president himself. He has also repeatedly threatened to leave the government if he doesn't get his way with Congress. Markets now believe Brazil will only start to show any significant growth next year. In the first three months of the year there was a drop investment and a decline industrial and agricultural output. There was also a 1.9% slump in exports which was, Mr Jackson said, in part, related to lower metals exports. "This appears to be due to cuts in iron ore output following the Brumadinho dam tragedy," he said. Brazil's worst mining disaster was caused when the embankment tailings dam in Brumadinho broke, leaving hundreds dead. It is owned by Vale, the world's biggest producer of iron ore. Mr Jackson expects the cut in iron ore production to only have a one-off impact on Brazil's economy and expects growth in the second quarter. Even so, he said there was "growing risk" of another contraction because of weakening sentiment in April and May. Isabela Guarino, chief economist at XP Asset Management in Sao Paulo, also expects growth in the second quarter but said: "There is a very real risk of contraction, which would take the country into a technical recession. "It's not our base case, but it's a rising risk".
| null |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48457389
|
2019-05-30 13:39:08+00:00
| 1,559,237,948 | 1,567,539,703 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
27,903 |
bbc--2019-06-20--US economy under Trump Is it the greatest in history
| 2019-06-20T00:00:00 |
bbc
|
US economy under Trump: Is it the greatest in history?
|
Claim: President Trump says the US economy is perhaps the greatest it's ever been. He launched his 2020 re-election campaign at a rally in Florida with the familiar claim about the success of the economy under his administration. According to the Washington Post last year, the president has made the claim - or a variant of it - dozens of times. Reality Check verdict: Yes, the economy has been doing well - but there have been periods when it was even stronger. There are some indicators that are less good - and fears over the consequences of a trade war with China have unsettled financial markets. The growth in GDP - the value of goods and services in the economy - has generally been strong. The most recent data shows a 3.1% growth for the first quarter of 2019. This is lower than the 2018 peak of 4.2% (second quarter), which has been the highest level achieved during President Trump's administration. This is, however, less than the 5.1% achieved in the second quarter of 2014, during the Obama presidency. And there were times in the 1950s and 1960s when GDP growth was even higher. "If you choose to look at the health of the economy based on GDP, Mr Trump's claims are suspect when compared to the national economic boom of the post-War years," says Megan Black, assistant professor of history at the London School of Economics. "The post-War era saw tremendous economic growth, most notably in manufacturing, but also in agriculture, transportation, trade, finance, real estate and mining." So, the growth indicators currently are good - but not the best ever. President Trump has highlighted the rising value of US financial markets - in particular the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which follows the shares of 30 major US companies. It's true the Dow reached record highs under his administration. Mr Trump's supporters argue that his corporation tax cuts along with his US-focused policies, his clampdown on bureaucracy and his promises of infrastructure investment have all helped. However, in recent months, the index has been highly volatile. In December 2018, it recorded its biggest weekly drop in percentage terms since 2008. The sharp fall was attributed to trade tensions with China, interest rate increases and a looming government shutdown that worried the markets. So, what's happening in the broader economy with employment and wages? The unemployment rate in May stood at 3.6% - the lowest since 1969. It's been falling for some years - a downward trend that began during president Barack Obama's time in office. Ryan Sweet of Moody's Analytics points to the changing profile of the US working population as a key factor here. There is now a greater proportion of older workers and better educated workers, both of which tend to have lower unemployment rates. Mr Trump has also highlighted record low levels of African-American unemployment in particular. He's right in that in May 2018, unemployment for black Americans fell to 5.9%, the lowest figure since the 1970s. But it increased to 7% in February this year and is currently 6.2%. Some US media reporting at the time highlighted some important caveats: And the president's daughter, Ivanka, has tweeted that the unemployment rate for women was at a 65-year low. Again, that had begun to fall prior to Mr Trump taking office. As for wages, average hourly earnings growth throughout 2017 was between 2.5% and 2.9% - continuing a generally upward trend which began during President Obama's administration. This year, wages continued to rise and reached 3.4% in February before slowing slightly. They are currently rising faster than the rate of inflation, which was 1.8% in May 2019, which means real incomes are rising. A final measure worth looking at is household income. Real median household income has been growing for the past three years - but the rate of growth has slowed, according to official figures. And in September 2018, the US Census Bureau questioned whether its own figure for 2017 - a record high of $61,372 per annum- was that high due to differences in the way surveys had been conducted in previous years. It's true that the fiscal stimulus, tax cuts and federal government spending rises under President Trump have helped to provide an impetus to growth - even if by some indicators, not everyone may be feeling the benefits.
| null |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-45827430
|
2019-06-20 14:59:51+00:00
| 1,561,057,191 | 1,567,538,564 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
28,931 |
bbc--2019-07-21--Is Zimbabwes economy on track
| 2019-07-21T00:00:00 |
bbc
|
Is Zimbabwe's economy on track?
|
Zimbabwe has not had its own independent currency since hyperinflation wiped it out a decade ago. Instead it has relied on the US dollar along with a local money system pegged to the dollar. The economy is no longer in its extreme inflationary spiral, but the country has continued to suffer from severe shortages of food, medicine and fuel. Last month, the Zimbabwean authorities reintroduced the Zimbabwean dollar as the country's sole legal tender. Foreign Minister Sibusiso Moyo says this move has stabilised the economy. But is he right? Reality Check looks at the country's key economic indicators before and after the currency was reintroduced. There has been understandable concern that the return of the Zimbabwe dollar would lead to a return to the chaotic hyperinflation which destroyed savings and made wages worthless. The most recent figures suggest inflation has risen sharply over the last year. In May it was 98% and by June, annual inflation stood at 176%. This is nowhere near the spiralling inflation levels of a decade ago, but the trend has not been encouraging. So the introduction of the new currency comes at a sensitive time. There's also debate about whether the official number accurately captures the increase in goods on shop floors and at petrol stations, for instance. Leading economists say it's likely the cost of living is higher than official figures indicate. Since the introduction of the new currency on 24 June, it has fallen against the US dollar. This benefits Zimbabwe's agricultural exports, mainly its tobacco sector. But any positive effects are likely to be outweighed by more expensive imports, leading to further inflationary pressures on the economy. The weaker currency is likely to have an impact across the economy, as importers struggle to get access to foreign exchange such as the US dollar in order to buy goods from abroad. Taking a longer term view, the government has reduced spending since October last year and is now running a budget surplus, which it says is an indication of an improving economy. Independent economists are sceptical about these numbers. Public sector workers in Zimbabwe are paid in local currency and there are fears that because of its decline against the US dollar, and because of inflation, they are now, in effect, earning less. Zimbabwe's main public sector workers' union, Apex Council, said in a petition that the value of earnings has fallen "from at least $475 to a mere $47 currently for the lowest paid civil servant" since October last year. Last week Cecilia Alexander, Apex Council chairwoman, said the government's austerity plans had left workers mired in poverty. Unions have, however, agreed a one-off payment of 400 Zimbabwean dollars ($45) to every worker in July, while talks on pay continue.
| null |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-48993701
|
2019-07-21 23:25:16+00:00
| 1,563,765,916 | 1,567,536,233 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
29,353 |
bbc--2019-07-31--Does the US economy need a boost
| 2019-07-31T00:00:00 |
bbc
|
Does the US economy need a boost?
|
The US central bank, the Federal Reserve, is expected on Wednesday to cut rates for the first time since 2008. Supporters say it will spur a US economy showing signs of needing help. Critics argue that a rate cut will not help and that the Fed will be pandering to President Donald Trump, who is demanding a big cut. Inflation is lower than policymakers would like in the US, languishing at about 1.6% in June. The Fed targets 2%. Concerns about the US and global economy will also weigh on rate-setters' minds. Last week, the IMF cut its growth forecasts for the global economy for this year and next. US growth registered at an anaemic annual rate of 2.1% between April and June. US manufacturing, about a tenth of the economy, is the main sector under pressure. It slowed to a low of almost three years last month. Unemployment hit a 49-year low in May and was at 3.7% last month. But many of those jobs are in the service sector and are low-paying with low hours, says Megan Greene, an economist and senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School. Often, low unemployment pushes wages up, and with more wages chasing the same products comes the inflation the Fed is looking for. But because the wages of the people being hired are low, that isn't happening. There is also the matter of the trade war with China, which threatens the world's economy. "None of this will be fixed" by a small rate cut, Megan Greene says. "I think they will cut rates," said former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve, Donald Kohn, "and I think there are good reasons for doing that." While the economy "looks pretty good" and unemployment is low, "I think there are some downside risks to growth, and inflation is running low so it's a good time to take out some insurance," he told the BBC's Today programme. Cutting rates makes borrowing cheaper for businesses and consumers, and can lead to asset price inflation, or bubbles as that's known. Mr Kohn says the banking system is much stronger since the last crisis in 2007-9, which should lessen the risk of a similar crash. One area to watch is corporate debt, which has been growing, he says. US corporate debt, excluding lenders', stands at about $10tn (£8.23tn), up about a half from the crisis. However, when rates were at close to zero for the seven years after the crisis, it didn't spur much growth, said Ms Greene, leaving one to wonder what a 0.25 percentage point dent will do this time. Finally, what if it doesn't work? When another true crisis arrives, the central bank will want to cut rates again to stimulate growth and bolster business confidence. "If it doesn't do much - and I don't think it will - there's a risk of people not thinking it will work again." No. On Tuesday President Trump called on the Federal Reserve to make a large interest rate cut, interpreted as larger than the expected 0.25. "I'm very disappointed in the Fed. I think they acted too quickly by far, and I think I've been proven right," Mr Trump said. "The Fed is often wrong,"
| null |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49170386
|
2019-07-31 06:58:22+00:00
| 1,564,570,702 | 1,567,535,233 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
37,630 |
bbcuk--2019-03-12--UK economy stalls despite strong January
| 2019-03-12T00:00:00 |
bbcuk
|
UK economy stalls despite strong January
|
The UK economy grew by 0.2% in the three months to January, matching the growth of the previous three months. The report from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed a pick-up in activity in January when the economy expanded by 0.5%. The ONS said strength in IT, health services and wholesale trading offset falls in the manufacturing of metals and cars, and construction repair work. The increase in wholesale could indicate stockpiling ahead of Brexit. However, the ONS was unable to comment on whether the rise was linked to UK manufacturers stockpiling. The services sector, which accounts for about 80% of the private sector economy, grew by 0.3% in January after a 0.2% fall in December. The rolling three-month growth in the services sector was 0.5%, mainly driven by wholesale and retail trade. Construction, which accounts for about 6% of the economy, reversed its fall in December to grow by 2.8% in January. The uncomfortable truth is that the economy has lost speed. Growth of 0.2% across three months is a fraction of what the UK typically achieves. Brexit uncertainty appears to have hammered business investment, while growth in the Eurozone has fallen way short of expectations. Although the economy expanded by 0.5% in January alone, even the number crunchers who calculate these monthly estimates admit that they're volatile and need cautious treatment. And January's rebound was driven by manufacturing and construction. But surveys suggest recent industrial activity has been driven by speeding up production of finished goods ahead of Brexit rather than new orders; though the ONS numbers don't distinguish between these. And the rebound follows very weak months for manufacturing and construction - output across the last three months in both was flat. Total growth across the last three months was driven by services - in particular the wholesale retailing, again hinting at stockbuilding. The "fog of Brexit" may have actually inflated activity of late. Beyond that, growth is at best sluggish. Yael Selfin, chief economist at KPMG said the figures confirmed growth momentum in the UK economy had "stalled". "The first glimpse of GDP data for this year points to a UK economy hovering well below its growth potential, as we wait for the Brexit fog to dissipate. Ms Selfin said she expected growth to "remain subdued in the short-term". However, Andrew Wishart, UK economist with Capital Economics, said the numbers provided some reassurance that the UK economy is weathering a political crisis at home and a slowdown overseas "pretty well". He said there was "little evidence" of stockbuilding, with output in the transport and storage sector falling in January and the three-month growth in imports easing off. "Of course, the data may deteriorate in February and March if Brexit has caused consumers and firms to reach for the handbrake," he added.
| null |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47535182
|
2019-03-12 11:00:24+00:00
| 1,552,402,824 | 1,567,546,630 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
41,848 |
bbcuk--2019-07-21--Stormonts Department for the Economy needs extra 236m
| 2019-07-21T00:00:00 |
bbcuk
|
Stormont's Department for the Economy 'needs extra £23.6m'
|
Stormont's Department for the Economy has said it is facing a challenging financial position and needs an extra £23.6m. The details are contained in the department's draft business plan for 2019/20. Stormont departments bid for extra funds in reallocation exercises known as monitoring rounds. The department said if does not get the extra money it will "result in further financial pressures." The Northern Ireland budget, announced in February, saw an overall real increase of 2% for day-to-day departmental spending. However, that increase is not evenly spread across departments. Health, the largest department, got a 3.8% uplift compared to the position at the end of 2018-19, while other departments saw their budget flat or falling in real terms. The Department for the Economy said its £776.6m allocation is effectively the same as last year. The department is responsible for economic development, third-level education and skills. In a foreword to the business plan the department's senior civil servant, Noel Lavery, said the lack of a devolved government was "uniquely challenging." "We know there are things which we want to do but which will properly require ministerial agreement. "However, that will not stop us from undertaking necessary preparatory work." That work will include drawing up a draft energy strategy and a draft tourism strategy. An existing industrial strategy that has not been implemented will also be reviewed. The business plan also said that the department will continue to prioritise resources towards preparations for Brexit.
| null |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49056864
|
2019-07-21 05:19:44+00:00
| 1,563,700,784 | 1,567,536,254 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
2,942 |
abcnews--2019-12-06--US jobs data to give clues to economy amid trade uncertainty
| 2019-12-06T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
US jobs data to give clues to economy amid trade uncertainty
|
Friday’s November jobs report will provide insight into whether steady hiring remains a source of strength for the U.S. economy even as the Trump administration’s trade conflicts have heightened uncertainties for employers. Economists have forecast that the government will report that employers remained confident enough to add a solid 187,000 jobs, according to data provider FactSet. The unemployment rate is expected to remain 3.6%, near a half-century low. Steady job growth tends to reassure consumers that the economy is expanding and that their jobs and incomes remain secure, which, in turn, typically helps fuel spending. Consumer spending has become an even more important driver of growth because the Trump trade conflicts have reduced exports and led many businesses to cut spending. Renewed concerns that trade will continue to hamper the U.S. economy drove stock prices lower earlier this week, after President Donald Trump said he was willing to wait until after the 2020 elections to strike a preliminary trade agreement with China. With the two sides still haggling, the administration is set to impose 15% tariffs on an additional $160 billion of Chinese imports beginning Dec. 15. Both sides have since suggested that the negotiations are making progress, but there is still no sign of a resolution. Hiring in the United States has remained mostly healthy this year despite the trade war. Even so, Trump’s combative use of import taxes, combined with retaliatory tariffs by China and Europe, has stalled job growth in manufacturing. Employers have added 176,000 jobs, on average, in the past three months. That’s enough to absorb new job seekers as a result of population growth and to potentially lower the unemployment rate. Still, the monthly average job growth is down from an average of 223,000 last year. Some temporary factors could distort November’s jobs data. An autoworkers’ strike at General Motors that ended in October artificially lowered that month’s job gain by about 41,000 to 128,000. Likewise, the return of those employees to work should increase November’s job gain by roughly the same amount. Many economists also expect that unseasonably cold weather in November might have slowed hiring in weather-sensitive industries, principally construction and restaurants and hotels. And the holiday shopping season has begun later this year compared with previous years, a fact that some economists think might have delayed hiring by retailers and shipping firms last month. With tariffs hobbling manufacturing, the jobs report will also likely underscore a bifurcation of the job market: Service industries — finance, engineering, health care and the like — are hiring at a solid pace, while manufacturers, miners and builders are posting weak numbers. Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, a tax advisory and consulting firm, notes that services companies have added 1.4 million jobs this year, compared with just 2,000 for manufacturing. Despite the raging trade tensions, most analysts say they remain hopeful about the economy and the job market. The economy grew at a 2.1% annual rate in the July-September quarter, and the annual pace is thought to be slowing to roughly 1.5% to 2% in the final three months of the year — sluggish but far from recessionary. Consumer confidence has slipped in recent months but remains at a decent level, helping boost sales of expensive purchases, such as autos and appliances. With inflation surprisingly low, the Federal Reserve has cut its benchmark short-term interest rate three times this year. Those rate cuts have helped support the housing market. Sales of existing homes have risen nearly 5% in the past year. Sales of new homes have soared by one-third.
| null |
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-jobs-data-give-clues-economy-amid-trade-67537179
|
Fri, 06 Dec 2019 06:30:48 -0500
| 1,575,631,848 | 1,575,633,959 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
78,556 |
businessinsider--2019-06-18--Trumps trade wars are putting the US economy at risk But the Federal Reserve doesnt appear ready
| 2019-06-18T00:00:00 |
businessinsider
|
Trump's trade wars are putting the US economy at risk. But the Federal Reserve doesn't appear ready to step in just yet.
|
The Federal Reserve is expected to leave borrowing costs unchanged Wednesday at the end of a two-day policy meeting, even as President Donald Trump continues to call on officials to lower them. The president has renewed pressure on the Fed in recent months as his trade disputes threaten to hurt the economy ahead of the 2020 elections. Trump increased tariff rates on Chinese imports last month and began preparing to target a broader range of products. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell signaled last month that officials were ready to act on escalating trade tensions, but most economists and investors see the benchmark interest rate remaining at a target range of between 2.25% and 2.5% this month. "It remains to be seen whether US growth will fall below potential in the back half of the year because of the trade war and related uncertainty," economists at Goldman Sachs wrote in a research note. "In our view, not enough has changed to warrant a clear signal of an upcoming cut." Economists and industry groups have warned that tariffs act as a tax on American businesses and consumers and delay investment. Against a backdrop of a slowdown in hiring in May and stubbornly low inflation readings, expectations for the Fed to cut rates by the end of the year have increased dramatically. But economists say other growth data remains solid, particularly with significant upward revisions to the April retail sales report. Powell has separately stressed that he expects price changes to pick up in the future. SEE ALSO: The White House is said to be vetting Judy Shelton for a seat on the Fed board. She told us what she would bring to a central bank whose policies she has long criticized. "While recent economic readings are not on the surface dire enough by themselves to justify a rate cut, the Fed may consider implementing a rate cut as 'insurance' against slower growth, particularly in light of ongoing trade policy uncertainty," said Jason Pride, the chief investment officer of private wealth for Glenmede. The Fed operates independent of political interests, but that hasn't kept Trump from pushing policies that would be expected to boost growth. The president has repeatedly called on the central bank to slash interest rates and attempted to fill its policymaking board with political allies. The Federal Open Market Committee last increased the benchmark interest rate by a quarter percentage point in December. A bonus just for you: Click here to claim 30 days of access to Business Insider PRIME
|
Gina Heeb
|
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/fed-meeting-june-what-to-expect-interest-rate-cut-odds-2019-6-1028286727
|
2019-06-18 09:59:00+00:00
| 1,560,866,340 | 1,567,538,959 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
79,059 |
businessinsider--2019-12-19--Even after Trump's trade deal, China tariffs will cost the American economy $316 billion by the end
| 2019-12-19T00:00:00 |
businessinsider
|
Even after Trump's trade deal, China tariffs will cost the American economy $316 billion by the end of 2020
|
• With the vast majority of punitive tariffs still in place and uncertainty about what might happen next, the dispute is likely to continue to take a toll on the largest economies. • An analysis by Bloomberg Economics found that in 2019 dollar terms, losses translate to $134 billion in lost GDP. • By the end of next year, those costs are expected to jump to $316 billion. Businesses and investors have welcomed the interim trade agreement President Donald Trump announced with China after more than a year of turbulent attempts to defuse tensions between the two sides. But with the vast majority of punitive tariffs still in place and uncertainty about what might happen next, the dispute is likely to continue to take a toll on the largest economies. In this year alone, economists estimate those costs could chip away at 0.3% to 0.7% of gross domestic product. An analysis by Bloomberg Economics found that in 2019 dollar terms, losses translate to $134 billion in lost GDP. By the end of next year, those costs are expected to jump to $316 billion. That would more than offset any potential gains the Trump administration said would come from the agreement. It included unconfirmed purchases of American goods, stricter rules around trade secrets and unspecified pledges on technology transfers. The so-called phase one deal lowered the tariff rate to 7.5% from 15% on Chinese products that were hit in September, which were valued at about $120 billion in 2017, and stalled the threat of further escalation. Yet a much steeper 25% tariff remains on roughly $250 billion worth of imports, including machinery and electronics. "The 'phase one' trade deal leaves most of the tariffs in place," said Ian Shepherdson, the chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. "These are welcome developments for retailers, wholesalers and importers of consumer goods, but they offer no relief for manufacturers, so we expect only a very modest bounce in the business surveys as a result of the deal." According to the anti-tariff advocacy group Americans for Free Trade, about 83% of the costs from the US-China trade dispute are still in effect. Independent researchers from the New York Federal Reserve, Princeton and Columbia estimated those tariffs would continue to cost roughly $831 per household this year. In addition to higher costs, businesses could also struggle to make plans as a result of the protracted trade dispute. Signs of stalled investment have become increasingly evident in sectors highly dependent on international businesses.Â
|
Gina Heeb
|
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/china-tariffs-wipe-out-316-billion-us-gdp-2020-estimate-2019-12-1028777065
|
Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:34:22 -0500
| 1,576,784,062 | 1,576,814,810 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
85,241 |
cbsnews--2019-08-21--The Fed says trade is main reason US economy is slowing
| 2019-08-21T00:00:00 |
cbsnews
|
The Fed says trade is main reason U.S. economy is slowing
|
As President Donald Trump doubles down on his theory that the Federal Reserve is the main reason the U.S. economy is slowing, Fed policymakers are starting to push back. In a series of tweets, Mr. Trump again attacked the U.S. central bank and its chairman, Jerome Powell, for not cutting interest rates enough, which the president maintains is stifling economic growth. But in notes from their July meeting, which were released on Wednesday, Fed policy makers repeatedly cited the Trump administration's growing trade war with China and other countries as the primary reason the U.S. economy is at risk. Fed officials also said trade uncertainties were an important factor in the recent drop in fixed business investment in the U.S., a key factor that Mr. Trump and his economic advisers have pointed to as evidence that the economy is stronger now than under President Obama. The Fed's account doesn't mention Mr. Trump directly. But the word trade shows up 32 times in the minutes, though not all of it is negative. A number of times the Fed notes that an easing of tensions between the U.S. and China in July had helped the economy. In early August, Mr. Trump signaled that he would levy new tariffs on China, though the president has since delayed when those tariffs would go into affect. Business investment has been a key measure for Mr. Trump and his advisers in arguing that the economy has sharply accelerated under his watch and that the massive tax cut he enacted in late 2017 were a success. Last summer, the president noted that business investment was rising at an annual rate of 9%, which he described as a "tremendous increase" that hadn't been seen in "many, many years--decades." Business investment can be important for future economic growth, but its impact is less clear when it comes to forecasting a recession. Consumer spending makes up 70% of economic activity. And in an asset-light, high-tech, information-driven economy, traditional business capital spending perhaps matters less than it used to. But business investment can be useful as an indicator of corporate America's economic mood. Either way, last year's business investment increase has been less sustainable than Mr. Trump predicted—hurt, at least in the Fed's view, by U.S. and global trade tensions. The annual rate of growth of business investment has shrunk to 1.4%, from the 9% Trump cited a year ago. On top of that, the New York Times noted on Wednesday that business fixed investment is now running below what the CBO forecast in April 2018, and has been since last fall.
| null |
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-fed-points-to-trade-as-the-main-reason-the-economy-is-losing-speed/
|
2019-08-21 23:30:19+00:00
| 1,566,444,619 | 1,567,533,837 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
104,610 |
cnn--2019-05-05--Trump steps on his economy wins with renewed China trade threat
| 2019-05-05T00:00:00 |
cnn
|
Trump steps on his economy wins with renewed China trade threat
|
Trump warned Sunday that he would lift tariffs Friday on a bundle of Chinese goods to 25% from the current 10% threshold, reactivating a threat he removed months ago just as it appears the two economic superpowers are on their way to a deal. He also warned he would tax nearly all of Chinese exports to the United States. Trump appeared to be reviving an old playbook by threatening to ratchet up tariffs on Beijing in the hopes of applying additional pressure on China to force negotiators to strike a deal as early as this week. Earlier this year, Trump said he was prepared to enact new sanctions, and increase existing ones, if a deal wasn't struck by a hard deadline of March 1, but indefinitely shelved those plans. The President's renewed tariff threat alarmed investors Sunday, sending stock futures down. The Dow was down more than 400 points Sunday evening, while the Nasdaq was down more than 100 points. Chinese negotiators led by Vice Premier Liu He are scheduled to arrive in Washington on Wednesday with a very large delegation, the latest signal that two sides may be nearing the end stage of a comprehensive trade deal that will end a trade impasse that has rattled Wall Street. The fresh comments by the President on Twitter came just days after he expressed cautious optimism over the possibility of brokering a possible trade deal with China soon. The White House has set its sights on wrapping up trade talks by the end of the month. "The deal itself is going along pretty well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday. "I would even say very well, we'll see what happens over the next couple of weeks. We're getting close to a very historic, monumental deal and if it doesn't happen, we'll be fine too, maybe even better." Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin last week said the two countries had "productive meetings" in Beijing with his negotiating counterpart Robert Lighthizer, the US Trade Representative, and that those conversations with continue this week. Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Kevin Hassett also boasted in an interview with CNN's Poppy Harlow on Friday, "The proof will be in the pudding if the China deal is closed soon. What I'm seeing is it's going to be a big positive for the economy." But Trump said in a tweet Sunday that talks between Washington and Beijing were moving "too slowly" and blamed the Chinese for attempting to renegotiate the deal. "For 10 months, China has been paying Tariffs to the USA of 25% on 50 Billion Dollars of High Tech, and 10% on 200 Billion Dollars of other goods," Trump said. "These payments are partially responsible for our great economic results. The 10% will go up to 25% on Friday. 325 Billion Dollars of additional goods sent to us by China remain untaxed, but will be shortly, at a rate of 25%." It remains unclear how the Chinese will respond to the new threat and Beijing has tried to bypass additional penalties given the harm its brought to its economy. Such pressure by the Trump administration on trade talks, however, has often sparked tumult on Wall Street with major selloffs over jitters the trade war would be long lasting. But investors more recently have been cautiously optimistic the two sides can strike a deal. The economy is booming, but Donald Trump can't stop talking about Russia Trump's comments could rattle markets on Monday after the stock market has been in full swing following surprising first quarter GDP growth and a strong April jobs report. China has already become an issue in the 2020 campaign, with former Vice President Joe Biden sparking controversy last week when he suggested that China is not a threat to the US. On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted : "Hang tough on China, President @realDonaldTrump. Don't back down. Strength is the only way to win with China." Coming into talks this week, business leaders appeared to be mostly optimistic that talks were near completion with a number of critical issues left to be ironed out, including whether the two countries would agree to remove billions of dollars of tariffs that have been imposed over the past year. "These negotiations have been picking up steam in the last few weeks," said Myron Brilliant, executive vice president and head of international affairs for the US Chamber of Commerce, to reporters Thursday on a call. "We are certainly in the end game of these negotiations. We have a critical window before us." Both sides have put forth creative solutions to remove tariffs as part of a final deal, but ultimately, that call will need to be made between the two presidents, he said. The Trump administration has been reluctant both privately and publicly to remove tariffs on China as a way to provide leverage that Beijing will keep its promises as part of any negotiation.
|
Donna Borak
|
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/UpcYyKj_1TI/index.html
|
2019-05-05 23:43:04+00:00
| 1,557,114,184 | 1,567,541,133 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
134,422 |
dailymail--2019-09-14--US-China trade deal would pull economy back from the tipping point say Deutsche Bank analysts
| 2019-09-14T00:00:00 |
dailymail
|
US-China trade deal would pull economy back from the tipping point say Deutsche Bank analysts
|
A thawing in the trade war with China could pull the U.S. economy back from the 'tipping point' of possible recession, according to analysts with Deutsche Bank. Earlier this week, both sides took conciliatory measures, with President Donald Trump delaying a tariff increase on certain Chinese goods out of respect for the 70th anniversary of the Chinese government's founding. Beijing reciprocated on Friday by exempting some U.S. agricultural products from retaliatory tariffs, including soybeans and pork. Lower-level U.S. and Chinese officials are expected to meet next week in Washington before talks between senior trade negotiators in early October. Trump said on Thursday he preferred a comprehensive trade deal with China but did not rule out the possibility of an interim pact. 'With these steps engendering reduced uncertainty, the economy should be able to regain its footing,' wrote Deutsche Bank economists in the research note, according to Fox Business. The economists said that recent softening in key U.S. economic indicators would likely prompt Trump to be more amenable to a deal with China. 'The economy is showing greater sensitivity to this turmoil, with leading indicators for manufacturing sentiment and capex sending dire signals and accumulating evidence of spillovers to the broader labor market and services sector,' the economists said. The jobs report for August missed expectations, with 130,000 new non-farm payroll jobs. As well, the U.S. manufacturing sector contracted in August for the first time in three years, according to the Institute for Supply Management. However, consumer spending remains strong, with reports this week showing solid U.S. retail sales and a measure of U.S. consumer sentiment above expectations. The Federal Reserve was still widely expected to cut rates at its policy meeting on Wednesday. All three major stock indices ended the week up on Friday, with investors taking heart at easing trade tensions. 'We've had these small concessions back and forth, which at minimum gives investors some confidence that things are moving in the right direction,' said Joseph Sroka, chief investment officer at NovaPoint in Atlanta. 'I don't think the Chinese are going to roll over on trade but they recognize there is a mutual benefit to keep the U.S. from escalating the trade war.' Avoiding a recession is key to Trump's reelection strategy in 2020. Since World War I, the sitting president has always been reelected if the economy avoided recession for the two years prior to to the election, according to Ryan Detrick of LPL. Sitting presidents who presided over recession ahead of the election lost five out of seven times, he said.
| null |
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7463707/US-China-trade-deal-pull-economy-tipping-point-say-Deutsche-Bank-analysts.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490
|
2019-09-14 14:10:08+00:00
| 1,568,484,608 | 1,569,330,301 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
199,485 |
fortruss--2019-08-29--Putins Take on the US-China Trade War and Prospects of Russias Economy VIDEO
| 2019-08-29T00:00:00 |
fortruss
|
Putin’s Take on the US-China Trade War and Prospects of Russia’s Economy (VIDEO)
|
MOSCOW – Will the American-Chinese fight hit Russia and is Russia ready to repel this blow? As Russian President Vladimir Putin put it, Russia, although a military superpower, isn’t quite yet ready to get into the big fight with such economic giants like China and the United States. He explained this by quoting an ancient Chinese proverb: Putin, known for his humorous stunts, caused widespread laughter among the audience, but at the same time, he honestly outlined what would be Russia’s stance when it comes to picking sides in this fight, thus confirming that, despite the West trying to portray it as Beijing’s junior partner, Russia has its own way and that the country’s interests come first. Of course, as stated many times before, Russia will continue close cooperation with anyone willing to do so, as the example of Turkey has shown recently.
|
Drago Bosnic
|
https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/08/putins-take-on-the-us-china-trade-war-and-prospects-of-russias-economy-video/
|
2019-08-29 16:05:02+00:00
| 1,567,109,102 | 1,567,543,594 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
233,006 |
hitandrun--2019-01-04--Trumps Trade War Is Harming the Craft Booze Businessand Dragging Down the Rest of the Economy in t
| 2019-01-04T00:00:00 |
hitandrun
|
Trump's Trade War Is Harming the Craft Booze Business—and Dragging Down the Rest of the Economy in the Process
|
For most Americans, trade policy has a tendency to seem abstract, even invisible. Price tags on store shelves don't break out the cost of tariffs. When a company affected by tariffs sheds staff or fails to expand, there are often additional factors at play. Trade agreements themselves tend to be mind-numbing in their complexity, the sort of legalistic documents that only experts ever really read, and arguments about free trade are often heavy on theory or built around dull statistics. Economic policy counterfactuals are inherently speculative; with different trade policies in place, who's to say what would have happened? And yet it's clear that the trade war Trump started with Europe is having a measurable impact—on, among other things, domestic craft liquor. After the Trump administration erected tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, the European Union responded by creating new tariffs on goods produced in America, such as bourbon and rye whiskey. As a result, some domestic liquor producers have largely been cut off from the European market. Among those affected is Catoctin Creek, a small Virginia distiller that makes rye, gin, and high-quality fruit brandy. As The Washington Post reports, Catoctin Creek was set to expand in Europe, where the market for American whiskey has grown considerably over the last 15 years. Instead, the tariffs have killed off nearly all of the company's European sales opportunities. The company has instituted a hiring freeze, delayed plans to buy new distilling equipment, and slowed orders from the farmers who supply the grains required for making whiskey. "It's essentially decimated our European business, and it's put our expansion on hold," Scott Harris, one of Catoctin Creek's co-founders, tells the Post. Catoctin Creek's story shows how the trade war harms everyone involved in the process. It's the entire trouble with the trade war in miniature. It's bad for the owners, who have lost access to a market with a lot of potential for growth. It's bad for consumers in Europe, who lose access to the product. It's bad for for consumers in the U.S., who are likely to face higher prices—on top of already high prices caused by recent increases in demand for whiskey—as Catoctin looks up to make for the loss of expected revenue from European sales. It's bad for people who drink and design cocktails, because it makes interesting ingredients more difficult to obtain. It's bad for the manufacturer that makes the stills Catoctin Creek might have purchased to help increase production for the global market. It's bad for the farmers who grow the rye and other grains the company uses to make its product. And just as the people and companies who do business with Catoctin Creek were affected, so will the people and companies who do business with those companies, and so on and so forth, in an ever-expanding spiral of economic decline. A trade war drags down everything it touches. It produces no winners. On a day-to-day basis, these effects are hard for most people to see: Even if you're a regular consumer of Catoctin Creek liquor,* you probably won't notice a huge price difference unless you buy in bulk. If you live in Europe, it's likely you never had regular access to their product in the first place. And the company doesn't appear to be laying anyone off, so it's hard to count the jobs that simply were never created. On the surface, the trade war may not look like it's doing much damage. But it is, and even if its effects are hard to see, we shouldn't forget what it's costing us. *If you like good booze, you should be. I especially recommend their line of fruit brandies, which are produced the old-fashioned way, using fresh fruit that is juiced, fermented into a wine, and then distilled into an unsweet spirit, somewhat like Cognac. Try their peach brandy in a classic Philadelphia Fish House Punch. I promise your life will be better for it.
|
Peter Suderman
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/C8CVy9MuMsI/trump-trade-war-price-booze-catoctin
|
2019-01-04 19:18:00+00:00
| 1,546,647,480 | 1,567,553,935 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
379,974 |
newyorkpost--2019-09-09--Steven Mnuchin says economy is solid despite China trade war
| 2019-09-09T00:00:00 |
newyorkpost
|
Steven Mnuchin says economy is solid despite China trade war
|
China and the United States agreed on Thursday to begin...
|
Bob Fredericks
|
https://nypost.com/2019/09/09/steven-mnuchin-says-economy-is-solid-despite-china-trade-war/
|
2019-09-09 20:56:29+00:00
| 1,568,076,989 | 1,569,330,705 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
386,310 |
npr--2019-07-26--The US Economy Is Slowing As Trade War Takes A Toll
| 2019-07-26T00:00:00 |
npr
|
The U.S. Economy Is Slowing As Trade War Takes A Toll
|
The U.S. Economy Is Slowing As Trade War Takes A Toll The broadest measure of U.S. economic growth fell to a 2.1% annual rate in the second quarter — down from a 3.1% pace in the first three months of 2019, the Commerce Department said. A drop in exports, amid the trade war with China and other countries, contributed to the slowdown. Friday's gross domestic product report is a key indicator ahead of the Federal Reserve's expected interest rate cut next week. The Commerce Department cited a number of other factors for the slowdown, including drops in business investment and investments in commercial and residential real estate. Consumer and government spending remained strong. Don't see the graphic above? Click here.
|
Avie Schneider
|
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/26/745547982/the-u-s-economy-is-slowing-as-trade-war-takes-a-toll?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news
|
2019-07-26 13:02:55+00:00
| 1,564,160,575 | 1,567,535,748 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
386,683 |
npr--2019-08-23--More Rate Cuts Powell Says Fed Is Ready To Help Economy Grow Amid Trade Tensions
| 2019-08-23T00:00:00 |
npr
|
More Rate Cuts? Powell Says Fed Is Ready To Help Economy Grow Amid Trade Tensions
|
More Rate Cuts? Powell Says Fed Is Ready To Help Economy Grow Amid Trade Tensions Updated at 11:35 a.m. ET Signalling the possibility of more interest-rate cuts, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said the central bank will "act as appropriate" to sustain the economic expansion as the trade war with China takes a toll on global growth and the U.S. economy. In prepared remarks Friday to a Kansas City Fed gathering in Jackson Hole, Wyo., Powell said the economy faces "significant risks" and cited several developments that have roiled financial markets in recent weeks. Those developments include new U.S. tariffs on imports from China; signs of a global slowdown, namely in the economic powerhouses Germany and China; and the growing possibility that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union without a deal. "Trade policy uncertainty seems to be playing a role in the global slowdown and in weak manufacturing and capital spending in the United States," Powell said. He said the U.S. economy has continued to perform well, driven by consumer spending, but job creation has slowed. "Based on our assessment of the implications of these developments, we will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion," Powell said. Last month, the Fed cut interest rates for the first time in over a decade, lowering the cost of borrowing for credit cards, auto loans and mortgages. President Trump has repeatedly pressured the Fed to lower interest rates further to boost the economy, and this week he called for a dramatic 1-percentage-point cut. On Friday, Trump again tweeted his criticism of the central bank. "We have a very strong dollar and a very weak Fed. ... My only question is, who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powell or Chairman Xi?" Trump's tweets came shortly after China announced retaliatory tariffs against $75 billion in U.S. goods. In his remarks, Powell said that "while monetary policy is a powerful tool that works to support consumer spending, business investment, and public confidence, it cannot provide a settled rulebook for international trade." He also addressed another issue on the mind of market watchers: whether the long U.S. expansion is leading banks and other financial firms to take more risks. "We have not seen unsustainable borrowing, financial booms, or other excesses of the sort that occurred at times [before the Great Recession], and I continue to judge overall financial stability risks to be moderate," he said. "But we remain vigilant."
|
Avie Schneider
|
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/753696341/more-rate-cuts-powell-says-fed-is-ready-to-help-economy-grow-amid-trade-tensions?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news
|
2019-08-23 15:01:34+00:00
| 1,566,586,894 | 1,567,533,626 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
422,034 |
politicususa--2019-05-31--Trump Just Started A New Trade War With Mexico That Could Send The Economy Reeling
| 2019-05-31T00:00:00 |
politicususa
|
Trump Just Started A New Trade War With Mexico That Could Send The Economy Reeling
|
Because one disastrous trade war with China isn’t enough for this out-of-control president, Donald Trump is planning to wage another one against Mexico – and it could send the economy reeling. Trump announced a short time ago that he will “impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico.” Earlier on Thursday, Trump – still thinking he’s hosting a game show on NBC – teased his upcoming announcement like he was promoting a season finale, saying, “It will be a statement having to do with the border and having to do with people illegally coming over the border and it will be my biggest statement so far on the border.” Though Trump seems eager to start a new trade war with America’s southern neighbor even as the U.S. and Mexico are in the middle of trade deal negotiations, his own staff seem to recognize that it’s probably a terrible idea. According to The Washington Post, “[S]ome White House aides are trying to talk him out of it, arguing that such a threat would rattle financial markets and potentially imperil passage of the USMCA trade agreement.” Not only will the stock market likely take a hit because of Trump’s decision, but it could sink the pending trade deal with Mexico and – like his trade war with China has done – hurt American consumers. As Ted Genoways, a contributing writer for Mother Jones and The New Republic, said on Thursday, “If [Trump] attempts a simultaneous trade war with China and Mexico, the farm economy—and the U.S. economy—will plummet.” After Robert Mueller made his first public remarks this week in which he all but admitted he would have indicted Trump if he wasn’t the president, Trump is clearly trying to change the subject. In order to do so, he is desperately reaching back to the issue that riles up his base more than any other: immigration. While this might animate and distract the 35 to 40 percent of the country that still supports him, it won’t fool anybody else. And it almost certainly won’t slow the growing support among lawmakers in both parties that believe Congress should launch a formal impeachment inquiry.
|
Sean Colarossi
|
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/30/trump-just-started-a-new-trade-war-with-mexico-that-could-send-the-economy-reeling.html
|
2019-05-31 00:00:02+00:00
| 1,559,275,202 | 1,567,539,642 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
432,744 |
prisonplanet--2019-09-16--European Central Bank sparks President Trumps anger as it cuts rates and restarts QE to stimulate w
| 2019-09-16T00:00:00 |
prisonplanet
|
European Central Bank sparks President Trump’s anger as it cuts rates and restarts QE to stimulate weak economy amid trade war jitters and Brexit fears
|
The European Central Bank (ECB) has launched a new round of monetary stimulus to give the economy a boost in the face of global uncertainties like the US-China trade conflict and Brexit. The central bank, which acts for the 19 countries that use the euro, sparked the anger of US President Donald Trump when it revealed plans to cut the rate on deposits it takes from banks to minus 0.5 per cent from minus 0.4 per cent. That is a penalty rate that pushes banks to lend excess cash, but was a smaller cut than the market was hoping for. Trump took the move as a cue to lash out at the US Federal Reserve on Twitter. ‘European Central Bank, acting quickly, Cuts Rates 10 Basis Points. They are trying, and succeeding, in depreciating the Euro against the Very strong Dollar, hurting U.S. exports…. And the Fed sits, and sits, and sits. They get paid to borrow money, while we are paying interest!’ he said. It marks the second time this year that the US president has accused the ECB of unfairly driving down the euro. Trump has long been urging the Fed to slash rates, but the US organisation has for the most part resisted. This article was posted: Monday, September 16, 2019 at 4:23 am
|
admin
|
https://www.prisonplanet.com/european-central-bank-sparks-president-trumps-anger-as-it-cuts-rates-and-restarts-qe-to-stimulate-weak-economy-amid-trade-war-jitters-and-brexit-fears.html
|
2019-09-16 09:23:21+00:00
| 1,568,640,201 | 1,569,330,268 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
437,828 |
rawstory--2019-04-02--Trump willing to tank economy to get his wall built Security is more important than trade
| 2019-04-02T00:00:00 |
rawstory
|
Trump willing to tank economy to get his wall built: ‘Security is more important than trade’
|
President Donald Trump in a Tuesday conference made clear that he was completely willing to let the American economy tank on his watch by completely closing the U.S.-Mexico border, saying that security was more important than trade with our third largest trading partner and largest supplier of imported produce. “Sure, it’s going to have a negative impact on the economy,” the president jovially admitted of his proposed shutdown. “It is one of the biggest trade deals in the world that we’ve just done with the USMCA. It is a very big trading partner.” “Trading is very important, the borders are very important, but security is what most important. I have to have security,” said Trump. “And we’re going to have security in this country. That is more important than trade.” “Let me just give you a little secret, security is more important to me than trade, so we’re going to have a strong border, or we’re going to have a closed border,” the president repeated for a third time. “I’m totally prepared to do it.”
|
Brendan Skwire
|
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/trump-willing-to-tank-economy-to-get-his-wall-built-security-is-more-important-than-trade/
|
2019-04-02 19:14:04+00:00
| 1,554,246,844 | 1,567,544,390 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
498,698 |
sottnet--2019-03-17--Trumps trade war cost US economy 78B in 2018
| 2019-03-17T00:00:00 |
sottnet
|
Trump's trade war cost US economy $7.8B in 2018
|
'Republican counties bore the largest cost of the full war' America's trade war resulted ineconomists at leading US universities found.Imports from targeted countries declined 31.5 percent, while targeted US exports fell by 11 percent, the evaluation of the short-term impact of trade conflicts with partners across the globe has shown.The findings were presented in a study titled 'The Return to Protectionism', written by researchers from Yale, Columbia, UCLA, and the University of California, Berkeley. The paper was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research earlier in March.While $7.8 billion is a relatively small figure for the country's whole economy, amounting to 0.04 percent of GDP, the authors note that American "consumers bear the incidence of the tariff." Annual consumer and producer losses from the higher costs of imports totaled $68.8 billion, or 0.37 percent of GDP.While "all but 30 counties experience a reduction in tradeable real income," Trump's actions surprisingly brought the largest losses to GOP counties, according to the research.The authors saidThe losses in those areas arethan in heavily Democratic counties."We find that tradeable-sector workers in heavily Republican counties were the most negatively affected by the trade war," the economists concluded.Last year, the Trump administration imposed unilateral tariff increases to combat what the US leader calls unfair trade practices by China, the European Union, and other trade partners. The move was met with tit-for-tat measures, including from Beijing, with which the US has been trying to ink a trade deal during lengthy talks. The standoff with China has already resulted in duties on $250 billion in Chinese imports, while China retaliated with levies on $110 billion in US goods.Washington also applied levies of 25 percent on imports of steel and 10 percent on aluminum from the EU, Canada, and Mexico. Brussels responded with duties of 25 percent, including on Harley-Davidson motorcycles, bourbon, peanuts, blue jeans, steel, and aluminum.
| null |
https://www.sott.net/article/409309-Trumps-trade-war-cost-US-economy-7-8B-in-2018
|
2019-03-17 19:39:13+00:00
| 1,552,865,953 | 1,567,545,961 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
510,407 |
sottnet--2019-12-27--The global economy is sick and it has nothing to do with the trade war
| 2019-12-27T00:00:00 |
sottnet
|
The global economy is sick and it has nothing to do with the trade war
|
When the dollar goes up, trade first and then the whole global economy goes down. Including the US economy. The World Trade Organization (WTO) reported that for the first time since 2009 global trade volumes have declined. During the third quarter of this year, the gross number of goods sent abroad from one country to another were fewer than the amount of those traded during the third quarter of last year. Though the negative was small, they always are to start with, it's never a good thing when fewer goods are moved around.Despite worldwide population expansion and the presumed gain of wealthier economies due to a boom everyone had been talking about, the WTO says that trade volumes peaked during that last third quarter. According to the same data, total trade values, that is, the monetary value of goods being traded factoring prices and currency translation, peaked the quarter before.You may remember the second quarter of 2018. Central bankers remained in their full glory talking about the resurrected global recovery which they would use to return their policies to or near normal. It was a good time to be one for the first time in a long time. They made full use of the trend - as a means to dismiss the more and more frequent warning signs.The dollar suddenly and sharply rose. Mere weeks later, May 29, a worldwide burst of what the FOMC would later downplay into some mysterious "strong worldwide demand for safe assets."Just a few weeks after that the eurodollar futures curve inverted and became what the WTO now shows isTrade wars, right?It was around the same time that US President Donald Trump began to seriously threaten to put right what he saw as a Chinese wrong. During the past few decades, China had used unfair practices, it is claimed, including its currency to strip the US economy of its manufacturing pre-eminence. Offshored production had to come home, therefore tariffs on goods made in China.The legitimacy of that argument aside, the dispute has happened and it did escalate into a real thing. The fears of a trade war and the trend toward protectionism eventually became actual tariffs and levies. But how does one connect them to the WTO's data?For one thing, as my colleague Joe Calhoun likes to (correctly and repeatedly) point out,. The US demands from world markets what the US demands.We would expect, as Joe says, a global redistribution of trade. For every good China doesn't produce because it has become relatively more costly for Americans to consumer it there is a good someone else will at the right price. If not the Chinese, then the Germans or maybe Indians. Trade wars produce winners as well as losers.Except, in this one we can't find any winners. None.Even Canada and Mexico, the latter perfectly positioned to take advantage of trade redistribution, instead downturn and now negatives specifically in recent months.As if to further confound the textbook analysis that passes in the mainstream,. So, in addition to President Trump making Chinese goods more expensive, China's competitor's goods have become that much cheaper for US businesses to import and consumers to buy - total demand which, we are told, has remained relatively steady with the unemployment rate as low as it is.The primary reason Mexico's exports are now contracting is that the US imports from Mexico were first.The domestic trade data does confirm the negative effects of the trade war on China, as anyone would expect. The total value of goods inbound from that one country has collapsed, down by more than 23% year-over-year in October 2019 (the latest data) following hefty double-digit declines since earlier in the year.A lot less lately. As the export decline picks up across the world in the Autumn of 2019,In other words, while trade wars are indeed reallocating global value chains, creating relative winners and losers, there still must be something else overriding this reorganization which leaves everyone depressed and worn.That can only be the work of the dollar.Time and again, we see this asGiven that, you would think there would be an extra-special initiative to figure out what exactly makes the dollar move as it does. Nope. Instead, it's the same story time and again: central bankers and Economists who say it either reflects the strength of the US economy versus overseas (decoupling that pretty quickly resynchronized on the downside), interest rate differentials in our favor (the dollar first started to rise while interest rates did, and then it rose some more while they fell), or, for the more adventurous if not quite fully open-minded official, some version of flight to safety (which would benefit the US and would've at the very least increased inflation and demand).The textbook explanation for the dollar's behavior consistently falls short from each and every angle.The key reason why is that there is no appreciation for how the world is short the dollar. I don't mean short as in financial firms all over the world betting against it, hoping to profit by its falling value in the same way they would shorting a stock.Hardly anyone takes them into account. A reserve currency isn't just the privilege of pricing primary commodities in your own denomination. It sure isn't the petrodollar.A reserve currency means that there has to be enough of it in all corners of the world such that vastly different systems can talk to each other, trade with each other, and connect with each other in vital ways (such as "capital flows"). They do so by virtue of the dollar being made available to everyone everywhere.You can easily, fluidly translate local currency, finance, and trade by first turning them into dollars. And then whomever is on the other end, they do the same thing. The dollar sits in the middle of everything because it is universal.This doesn't just happen, though, it requires enormous financial resources to make it happen. The reason is as simple as the methods complex:(which doesn't necessarily mean contraction or declines; this is an important if tangential point to the discussion here; rate of change is what matters, which means that if the world demands, hypothetically, 10% more "dollars" this year than last year and banks are only willing to supply 5% more, that's a big problem which still leads to all the negative results associated with textbook tight money conditions).If the world requires so many of these offshore intermediating "dollars" and then traders from all over it can no longer easily get their hands on them, it's really easy to work out what might happen to the price therefore exchange value of the dollar in that situation.From the perspective of a global reserve currency, since global trade is its first function and use you can then appreciate why global trade is just where "dollar" woes show up first in the economy.And it is only confirmed by all the price and market signals, as well as a large volume of data, that tell us about what those banks are doing as far as their intentions for the offshore dollar reserve.as coming from that very sector, those very banks we would hope would be supplying reserve currency rather than hoarding the safest, most liquid instruments instead.According to the Federal Reserve's Z1 data, the Financial Accounts of the United States, starting in that pivotal second quarter of 2018 (the one with May 29)And it is on top of $248 billion of safe, liquid agency debt that depositories have also piled into their holdings. There are. It is the most surefire way to turn globally synchronized growth into globally synchronized downturn exports first.The change in UST holdings is something that others have noticed, as well. The BIS, for example, in its last Quarterly Review published earlier this month spends a few determined pages on September's "shocking" repo disruption. The data they provide is quite similar to the Z1 figures, though shaped in its interpretation quite differently. This is what the BIS authors said about it:"As repo rates started to increase above the IOER from mid-2018 owing to the large issuance of Treasuries, a remarkable shift took place: the US banking system as a whole, hitherto a net provider of collateral, became a net provider of funds to repo markets."They then connect the big, unsubstantiated assumption in the first sentence to focus in on the implications of the last sentence's final clause - net provider of funds to the repo market - while completely glossing over the far more important, and corroborated, middle.What was that thing about US banks hitherto something?The BIS begins where everyone else had, under this suspicion that the federal budget was the reason for repo rates rising ("too many Treasuries" that have to be funded in repo). And it is looney, because even its data showsthe point they focus on.Several weeks ago I pointed that out in response:"The BIS has interpreted its data to mean the biggest US banks had become important sources of funds in repo. One can also interpret the same data to mean something else; a different take which is actually consistent with the facts. Market prices. Dollars and Treasuries (bunds, inflation expectations, interest rate swaps, eurodollar futures, etc.)than a dismissible non-factor that only showed up in September 2019 by technical accident."And my point is further aided by both the BIS data as well as the Z1 figures - and not just those taken from US Depositories.One other massive player in the domestic credit market system is ROW, or rest of world. This is foreign financial bank and non-bank agents which supply credit to the US, in dollars, as well as take in funding for that supply of credit as well as other supplies of credit in other places. Also in dollars.What the Z1 data for ROW tells us is not what the BIS interprets. Beginning in the third quarter of 2018, ROW's repo liabilities began to rise before exploding in Q2 and Q3 2019. The total increase is $359 billion, or 40%.It tells us that, year and a half or so. But why?Z1 also shows that- during Q4 2018's landmine, for example, total non-repo ROW US$ liabilities crashed by more than 9% year-over-year, a disappearance of about $1.2 trillion (with a "T") going back to Q4 2017. These are everything from deposit liabilities to foreign direct investment, along with a healthy dose of bonds and, as usual, a big chunk of "other."Those dollar routes started (Q1 2018) downhill at the same time the BIS repo data says US banks "hitherto a net provider of collateral" increasingly were not. What followed was: surprising global market liquidations in January 2018, the dollar rising by April, then that global collateral call on May 29, curve inversions over the next few weeks, and the ROW sector more and more depending upon repo as its funding of last resort.All before the end of 2018.And while all that was taking place, Jay Powell was smiling widely for the cameras about his US inflationary breakout even though global trade and the global economy had already begun their descent. The strong worldwide demand for safe assets directly tied to the increasingly "strong" dollar he couldn't and wouldn't explain.To clarify all the intricacies of all these various moving parts would require even more space than I've already consumed (and I've done so, in pieces, over the past few months and years). Suffice it to say,Shorts and shortages, still souring rather than soaring. Who can win at that?
| null |
https://www.sott.net/article/426415-The-global-economy-is-sick-and-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-trade-war
|
Fri, 27 Dec 2019 21:08:30 +0000
| 1,577,498,910 | 1,577,494,864 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
523,290 |
sputnik--2019-01-29--Less Appetite for No-Deal Brexit in EU With German Economy Weakening - Trade Sec
| 2019-01-29T00:00:00 |
sputnik
|
Less Appetite for No-Deal Brexit in EU With German Economy Weakening - Trade Sec
|
UK Trade Secretary Liam Fox has stated that there is much less appetite for a no-deal Brexit in the EU with the German economy weakening, the BBC reported. "We've seen, for example, the German economy weakening, we've seen the French economy weakening, and I think this (EU)view that 'we can simply weather out any disturbance that would occur from a no deal', I think there's much less appetite for that", he stated. There will be another opportunity for lawmakers to vote against the no-deal Brexit, Fox stated as quoted by the BBC. The statements come after UK Prime Minister Theresa May reported on her government's plans for Brexit last week, following a defeat of the withdrawal bill in the House of Commons. Lawmakers from different parties have submitted amendments that could be put to the vote on Tuesday and, if passed, would influence how the government proceeds with its Brexit plans.
| null |
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201901291071914801-eu-brexit-german-economy/
|
2019-01-29 08:23:00+00:00
| 1,548,768,180 | 1,567,550,437 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
543,211 |
sputnik--2019-09-05--Seoul Wants to Work With Moscow to Stabilise Economy Amid Trade Row With Japan Official
| 2019-09-05T00:00:00 |
sputnik
|
Seoul Wants to Work With Moscow to Stabilise Economy Amid Trade Row With Japan – Official
|
"There is great potential for cooperation between the two countries. First, Russia has hydrogen fluoride; therefore, to stabilize the supply of such resources to Korea, we can cooperate with Russia. Secondly, in order to develop the country‘s field of components, equipment and materials, we can also cooperate with Russia, which has first-class source technologies", Hong, who also serves as Minister of Economy and Finance and is leading his country's delegation at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, said on the sidelines of the event. The minister said that Japan’s current export restrictions were "trade revenge for a Korean court ruling on compensation for forced labour". "These measures were carried out without justification, and these measures are unilateral and discriminatory and clearly violate the provisions of international trade, including the WTO treaty", Hong said. He added that the South Korean government was in the process of developing multilateral plans to ensure the stabilisation of imports of certain affected industries, in particular materials, equipment and components. On 1 July, Japan announced it would be imposing restrictions on exports of certain chemical materials to South Korea that are vital to manufacturers of semiconductors and displays. It also removed Seoul from its white list of preferred trading partners. These decisions are widely seen as a tit-for-tat response to a 2018 decision of the Supreme Court of South Korea that ordered Japanese companies to pay reparations to former Korean workers who were forced into labour during World War II by Japan, a colonial power at the time.
| null |
https://sputniknews.com/asia/201909051076731034-seoul-wants-to-work-with-moscow-to-stabilise-economy-amid-trade-row-with-japan/
|
2019-09-05 17:10:00+00:00
| 1,567,717,800 | 1,569,331,310 |
economy, business and finance
|
economy
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.