How Can We Make Chicago More Bike Friendly?
Experts and activists from the city and from the rest of the country met to share ideas on how to make Chicago a more bike-friendly city. Check out this great video of the event!
Experts and activists from the city and from the rest of the country met to share ideas on how to make Chicago a more bike-friendly city. Check out this great video of the event!
SuitSak Is A Garment Bag For Your Back
Last week I showed a new British design for a cycling backpack for suits; turns out that there is already one on the market, made in Vancouver.
Marriage Referenda Stress LGBT People, Divide Families, Damage Communities, And Waste Money
As marriage equality legislation advances in New Jersey, Washington, and Maryland, many conservative groups, such as the National Organization for Marriage and Family Policy Institute of Washington, are discussing the possibility of taking the issue to the ballot. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) even called a referendum “the bargain of your life,” suggesting there are no consequences to such an approach.
But Glenda Russell, a psychologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has published significant research on the negative impacts of LGBT-related ballot initiatives through the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (which merged to become part of the Williams Institute). In an unpublished letter to the editor obtained by ThinkProgress, she highlights how problematic Christie’s “bargain” is:
New Jersey’s Governor Christie offers a referendum on same-sex marriage as a way to simultaneously appear reasonable and avoid alienating conservative voters in a possible future national election. “Reasonable,” perhaps—until one considers the impact of such referenda. Decades of research have shown that these elections take a significant psychological toll on people whose lives and loves are objectified, dissected, and subjected to all manner of myths and lies. They divide families and communities and introduce vitriol into conversations among neighbors. Further, Christie is horribly wrong in his assertion that African-Americans “would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights …” Research demonstrates that when any group’s rights have been submitted to popular vote, they have usually lost those rights. Such outcomes have served as tragic reminders of de Tocqueville’s warning to beware the tyranny of the majority.
Here are some of the severe psychological consequences Russell and other researches have identified:
- LGBT people are stressed by being the focus and target of a “culture war,” having the way they their lives analyzed and debated, enduring the reinforcement of homophobic and heterosexist ideas and stereotypes, and resisting anti-gay rhetoric and pseudo-research.
- The children of same-sex couples also experiences these stresses, which can be compounded by stigma and bullying they may face in school.
- LGBT people face extra psychological risk if they actively engage in the hostile political campaign.
- Communities are divided as individuals “take sides” in the debate.
- Family members can become estranged if they intend to vote differently on these issues.
- The measures also increase stress for the family members of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who might be impacted by them.
In addition, ballot initiatives are huge financial drains for the community. For example, Minnesota’s marriage fight has already led to over $2 million in fundraising between both proponents and opponents of the discriminatory amendment and the vote is not for another nine months. This is money that could be spent supporting the social welfare rather than fueling a divisive and harmful debate.
To treat ballot initiatives like they have no consequences is foolish. They drain time, money, and morale from the LGBT community, using a plea for “democracy” as an excuse to delay the advance of civil rights.
Marriage Referenda Stress LGBT People, Divide Families, Damage Communities, And Waste Money
As marriage equality legislation advances in New Jersey, Washington, and Maryland, many conservative groups, such as the National Organization for Marriage and Family Policy Institute of Washington, are discussing the possibility of taking the issue to the ballot. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) even called a referendum “the bargain of your life,” suggesting there are no consequences to such an approach.
But Glenda Russell, a psychologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has published significant research on the negative impacts of LGBT-related ballot initiatives through the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (which merged to become part of the Williams Institute). In an unpublished letter to the editor obtained by ThinkProgress, she highlights how problematic Christie’s “bargain” is:
New Jersey’s Governor Christie offers a referendum on same-sex marriage as a way to simultaneously appear reasonable and avoid alienating conservative voters in a possible future national election. “Reasonable,” perhaps—until one considers the impact of such referenda. Decades of research have shown that these elections take a significant psychological toll on people whose lives and loves are objectified, dissected, and subjected to all manner of myths and lies. They divide families and communities and introduce vitriol into conversations among neighbors. Further, Christie is horribly wrong in his assertion that African-Americans “would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights …” Research demonstrates that when any group’s rights have been submitted to popular vote, they have usually lost those rights. Such outcomes have served as tragic reminders of de Tocqueville’s warning to beware the tyranny of the majority.
Here are some of the severe psychological consequences Russell and other researches have identified:
- LGBT people are stressed by being the focus and target of a “culture war,” having the way they their lives analyzed and debated, enduring the reinforcement of homophobic and heterosexist ideas and stereotypes, and resisting anti-gay rhetoric and pseudo-research.
- The children of same-sex couples also experiences these stresses, which can be compounded by stigma and bullying they may face in school.
- LGBT people face extra psychological risk if they actively engage in the hostile political campaign.
- Communities are divided as individuals “take sides” in the debate.
- Family members can become estranged if they intend to vote differently on these issues.
- The measures also increase stress for the family members of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who might be impacted by them.
In addition, ballot initiatives are huge financial drains for the community. For example, Minnesota’s marriage fight has already led to over $2 million in fundraising between both proponents and opponents of the discriminatory amendment and the vote is not for another nine months. This is money that could be spent supporting the social welfare rather than fueling a divisive and harmful debate.
To treat ballot initiatives like they have no consequences is foolish. They drain time, money, and morale from the LGBT community, using a plea for “democracy” as an excuse to delay the advance of civil rights.
Germany Invests in Hydrogen Technology for Renewable Storage, Vehicles
The tanks look like they could hold propane, gasoline or any other form of conventional energy.
Big Oil Pumps More Than $1.2 Million Into Romney Super PAC
Coal, oil, and gas companies have contributed at least $1.2 million to Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a ThinkProgress Green analysis reveals.
The super PAC Restore Our Future has fundraised $30 million to Romney to the White House. The super PAC spent $800,000 on pro-Romney ads, but it has flooded his Republican opponents with attack ads totaling 17 million. Restore Our Future’s war chest comes from under 200 donors, 85 percent of whom had already donated the maximum amount to the Romney campaign.
Romney’s campaign has raised at least $500,000 from the oil and gas industry, according to Open Secrets. But his super PAC allows special interests another chance to exert their influence. While many of the super PAC’s donors come from the financial sector, coal, oil, and gas have also flocked to Restore Our Future:
Coal mining:
– Oxbow Carbon:$750,000– Oxbow President Bill Koch: $250,000
– Consol Energy: $150,000
Oil and Gas:
– Ballard Exploration: $25,000– Bassoe Offshore President Jonathan Fairbanks: $25,000
– Murphy Wade of Murphy Oil Corporation: $15,000
– Joseph Grigg of American Energy Operations: $5,000
– Total for oil, gas, and coal: $1,220,000
In total, coal, oil, and gas companies contributed at least $1.2 million to Restore Our Future’s $18 million haul in the last half of 2011. The coal company Oxbow Carbon, alone, contributed $1 million, including a $250,000 donation from billionaire Oxbow CEO Bill Koch — the brother of oil billionaires Charles and David of Koch Industries.
With Perry out of the race, Romney has received more money from mining and oil than any other presidential candidate. The pro-Perry super PAC “Make Us Great Again” took in an outstanding $1.3 million from oil companies and executives during the last six months of his run.
Although Restore Our Future has no “formal” ties to the candidate, the donations reflect Romney’s right pivot on energy and climate concerns. The Massachusetts governor that once supported regulations on coal pollution, has since questioned whether carbon is even dangerous. In addition to becoming a climate denier, he now blasts government support for cleaner energy — despite creating a state green fund as governor.
You can expect Romney to sound suspiciously like his rich polluting backers, as dirty money continues to flood Restore Our Future and Romney’s campaign stash.
Big Oil Pumps More Than $1.2 Million Into Romney Super PAC
Coal, oil, and gas companies have contributed at least $1.2 million to Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a ThinkProgress Green analysis reveals.
The super PAC Restore Our Future has fundraised $30 million to Romney to the White House. The super PAC spent $800,000 on pro-Romney ads, but it has flooded his Republican opponents with attack ads totaling 17 million. Restore Our Future’s war chest comes from under 200 donors, 85 percent of whom had already donated the maximum amount to the Romney campaign.
Romney’s campaign has raised at least $500,000 from the oil and gas industry, according to Open Secrets. But his super PAC allows special interests another chance to exert their influence. While many of the super PAC’s donors come from the financial sector, coal, oil, and gas have also flocked to Restore Our Future:
Coal mining:
– Oxbow Carbon:$750,000– Oxbow President Bill Koch: $250,000
– Consol Energy: $150,000
Oil and Gas:
– Ballard Exploration: $25,000– Bassoe Offshore President Jonathan Fairbanks: $25,000
– Murphy Wade of Murphy Oil Corporation: $15,000
– Joseph Grigg of American Energy Operations: $5,000
– Total for oil, gas, and coal: $1,220,000
In total, coal, oil, and gas companies contributed at least $1.2 million to Restore Our Future’s $18 million haul in the last half of 2011. The coal company Oxbow Carbon, alone, contributed $1 million, including a $250,000 donation from billionaire Oxbow CEO Bill Koch — the brother of oil billionaires Charles and David of Koch Industries.
With Perry out of the race, Romney has received more money from mining and oil than any other presidential candidate. The pro-Perry super PAC “Make Us Great Again” took in an outstanding $1.3 million from oil companies and executives during the last six months of his run.
Although Restore Our Future has no “formal” ties to the candidate, the donations reflect Romney’s right pivot on energy and climate concerns. The Massachusetts governor that once supported regulations on coal pollution, has since questioned whether carbon is even dangerous. In addition to becoming a climate denier, he now blasts government support for cleaner energy — despite creating a state green fund as governor.
You can expect Romney to sound suspiciously like his rich polluting backers, as dirty money continues to flood Restore Our Future and Romney’s campaign stash.
OMB Misses Greenhouse Pollution Rule Deadline
The White House Office of Management and Budget has missed its Friday deadline to review the EPA’s proposed rule for greenhouse gas pollution from new and modified power plants, sent to OMB on November 7. The 90-day deadline for such reviews under a Clinton-era executive order is not binding. The EPA is yet to introduce and implement carbon rules for existing power plants and for petroleum refineries; Congress has banned regulation of industrial agriculture greenhouse pollution.
Toyota Predicts Plug-in Prius Will Get 95 MPGe
This is up from the previous estimate, which was 87 MPGe. But this being a plug-in, that number can be misleading, and there are a few things you need to know about it...
Majority Of New Jersey Voters Support Marriage Referendum
A new Kean University/NJ Speaks poll found that a majority of New Jersey’s likely voters (57 percent) supports a public referendum on allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 32 percent oppose such a measure. Still, a plurality of those voters do back marriage equality, with 48 percent in favor and 37 percent opposed. Though the legislature is advancing a same-sex marriage bill, Gov. Chris Christie (R) stands by his promise to veto and is urging legislators to put the question to a referendum.
Energy News Recap: Dems Want Keystone XL Oil Export Ban; How Are Fossil Fuels Like Slavery?
Plus, the natural gas glut means many new wells will be uneconomical; over 4 gigawatts of US coal power plants are set to close or are being hung-up in court; and, nations should all pledge to double renewable energy at the Rio+20 conference in June.
Ten Clean Energy Stocks for 2012: 10 Percent More than Other Top-10 lists
Maybe it was because Seeking Alpha did not carry my annual list of 10 Clean Energy Stocks for 2012 this year, but no one seems to have noticed that there were actually 11 stocks in the list. Call it the Spinal Tap of top-ten lists.
States Sue to Block Smog-Pollution Rules to Help Polluters Avoid Cleanup Costs
EPA clean air rules will, each year, save up to $280 billion by preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths and avoiding countless health problems
by Daniel J. Weiss, Jackie Weidman, Rebecca Leber in a CAP repost
Today 16 states and numerous power companies that oppose new pollution-reduction rules must file their petitions with the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. In response to their initial suit, the court granted a motion to temporarily “stay,” or halt, the implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, or smog pollution rule, which the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, promulgated last summer. These “good neighbor” pollution-reduction standards will require power plants to slash their sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution. These substances are the key ingredients in acid rain and smog, and they can travel hundreds of miles and contaminate other states.
Once implemented the rule will annually save thousands of lives and prevent thousands of illnesses. Not surprisingly, the 16 states that sued EPA to block these rules include 7 of the 10 highest-polluting states in the country. And their governors and attorneys general, who decide whether to file a lawsuit to stop these safeguards, received a combined $5 million in campaign contributions from big utilities and coal companies that benefit from higher-pollution levels.
This column reviews the rule and its benefits as well as the efforts of utilities and coal companies to block it so they can avoid or postpone investments in cleanup technology. EPA analysis demonstrates that the law’s benefits to public health and the environment are much greater than its costs. These governors and attorneys general should support EPA’s efforts to protect the residents of their states and people downwind from premature death, asthma attacks, and other respiratory ailments instead of bending to the will of dirty-money donors.
These safeguards protect neighboring states
The EPA’s new rules will address a major public-health threat, annually curbing millions of pounds of air pollution from power plants that travel downwind and across the country. An interactive EPA map shows that pollution doesn’t stop at state borders, which is why the agency is acting to reduce air pollution that drifts across state lines.
EPA’s map helps viewers connect the dots. When the cursor is placed over Michigan, for example, one can see that emissions from six different states travel into the state, causing air-pollution readings above the national threshold level for public-health standards. The map also shows that pollution from Michigan travels all the way to Virginia, diminishing the latter’s air quality.
The EPA estimates these rules with produce significant air-quality benefits. By 2014 the rules will reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent from 2005 levels. Nitrogen oxide emissions will drop by 54 percent.
This improvement in air quality will result in $120 billion to $280 billion in annual benefits, including preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths and avoiding 858,000 other health problems annually that are linked to this pollution, as outlined in the table above.
When final safeguards were first announced in July 2011, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson commented on how the law helps Americans:
No community should have to bear the burden of another community’s polluters, or be powerless to prevent air pollution that leads to asthma, heart attacks and other harmful illnesses. These Clean Air Act safeguards will help protect the health of millions of Americans and save lives by preventing smog and soot pollution from traveling hundreds of miles and contaminating the air they breathe.
Many utilities have already begun to invest in pollution-control technologies, such as scrubbers, to comply with the Clean Air Interstate Rules, or CAIR, from 2005. It was struck down by federal court in 2008, so EPA revamped the measures that became the cross-state rules. These CAIR investments were an estimated $1.6 billion per year.
Compliance with the cross-state rules will cost $800 million annually beginning in 2014. Meanwhile, they will generate $120 billion to $280 billion in annual health benefits. According to EPA data the benefits from the improved rule are estimated to outweigh the costs by a ratio of at least 50-to-1, and as much as 115-to-1.
The aforementioned economic benefits are also a very conservative estimate because they do not include qualified estimates of other benefits from pollution reductions. For instance, lower pollution levels will increase agriculture crop and commercial forest yields, improve visibility in state and national parks, and increase protection from acid rain for sensitive ecosystems including Adirondack lakes, Appalachian streams, and coastal waters.
Stay means delay of health protection
The stay of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will last until at least April 13 when the states’ cases against the rule will be heard, but it could continue much longer. This setback unfortunately hinders vital reductions in air pollution from power plants, prolonging poor air quality for 240 million Americans in 27 eastern states.
A long list of plaintiffs sought this timeout on health protection, including 16 states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Another 12 states affected by the rule are not trying to stop it. It’s no coincidence that the suing states are responsible for over 90 percent of the nation’s total sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide air pollution from power plants, which the law aims to reduce.
Big-polluting states are harping on costs associated with pollution-control technology rather than acknowledging the much greater economic benefits from public health that their own residents will enjoy as a result of the EPA rule. Smog and ozone pollution in the suing states—and the 12 other states that will be regulated by the EPA rule—are polluting communities hundreds of miles away as well as directly fouling their own backyards.
Not all 28 affected states oppose this rule, however. Three of the polluting states—Illinois, New York, and North Carolina—joined EPA in support of these safeguards. These three states emit over a billion pounds of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere each year, compared to the 8 billion pounds shot into the skies by the recalcitrant states.
These three states, along with the additional nine states uninvolved in the litigation, are not undermining these new health safeguards. Instead, they plan to take responsibility for the pollution imposed on their residents and neighboring states.
Roughly half of the people in the United States live in counties that have unhealthful levels of ozone-smog pollution. Based on American Lung Association rankings, 11 of the metropolitan areas with the highest particle pollution, and 12 of the metropolitan areas with the highest ozone-pollution levels reside in suing states.
Texas—the number one state for ozone pollution—had one of the worst air-quality years in its history for 2011, as high levels of pollution combined with record summer heat. Many of the state’s major metropolitan areas—including Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin, and even the small city of Waco—exceeded federal limits on ozone pollution last year, inflicting hazards to respiratory health on those who live there.
The Washington-Baltimore metropolitan area is ranked 14th for high levels of ozone pollution and the area houses 7.5 million people. These people, along with 50 percent of the country, live in areas where the air can be dirty enough to send people to the emergency room, and even to kill.
Dirty-money donors demand delays
Many of the utilities and coal companies responsible for this deadly air pollution oppose the cross-state rules because they make more money with uncontrolled pollution than by investing funds in cleanup equipment and practices.
These companies therefore donate campaign contributions to the governors and attorneys general in these states who can decide whether to file a lawsuit to stop these safeguards. A review of donations records by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that the governors and attorneys general in these 16 plaintiff states received almost $5 million in campaign contributions from these companies during campaigns for their current office. (see table) See attached spreadsheet for CAPAF analysis of state breakdown by government officials.
As the chart shows, high campaign contributions occur in litigating states with high pollution. The top three ozone-polluting states—Indiana, Ohio, and Texas—also had governors and attorneys general with three of the four highest campaign contributions from utilities and coal companies, racking up a little over $3 million. There’s little doubt that the leaders in these states support dismantling EPA regulations as money pours in from polluters each election season.
But instead of echoing their dirty donors in opposition to these vital health safeguards, these governors and attorneys general should support EPA’s efforts to protect the residents of their states and others from premature death, asthma attacks, and other respiratory ailments.
Pollution safeguards enjoy wide support
Voters from both political parties and in all regions of the country are singing a different tune than these states. They support the EPA’s regulatory authority to determine air-pollution standards, a poll from October 2011 reveals.
Ceres and the University of Massachusetts conducted a bipartisan poll to gauge voters’ feelings nationwide about EPA’s cross-state air-pollution and mercury-toxics rules. Two-thirds of the respondents (67 percent) oppose delayed implementation of the air-pollution rules and trust EPA, not politicians, to get the job done. This includes support from 62 percent of Republicans and 79 percent of independents surveyed.
States need to stand up to dirty utilities and protect public health
Every month of delay in the implementation of the cross-state good neighbor air-pollution rules will allow 2,000 more unnecessary deaths. The judicial stay and lawsuit also prolongs uncertainty about the final rules (login required), which makes it harder and more expensive for power plants to comply with them. The sooner states’ legal challenges to these rules are settled, the sooner power plants can invest in pollution control and clean up the air.
States should emerge as leaders in this fight, choosing public health through improved air quality instead of succumbing to the influence from big utility and coal campaign cash. Americans certainly agree.
Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy, Jackie Weidman is Special Assistant for Energy Policy, and Rebecca Leber is a Research Assistant for Think Progress at the Center for American Progress.
Asia Report: India Sees 52 Percent Rise in Investments
The year 2011 may be remembered in clean energy circles as the moment when India became a major player across several industries.
