Tag: change

Despite an international agreement to reduce emissions from carbon-intensive sources, oil and coal companies continue to pour hundreds of billions of dollars a year into finding new fossil fuel deposits containing enough carbon to more than double global climate pollution emissions.   This is the conclusion of a new report finding that $674 billion was spent globally last year alone on the discovery of new fossil fuel deposits that will likely never be used.  The report, Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted Capital and Stranded Assets, authored by researchers at the Carbon Tracker Initiative, Grantham Foundation and the London School of Economics and Politics, describes the idea of a "carbon bubble" that is the result of global fossil fuel reserves that already far exceed the maximum amount we can afford to burn and still avoid the most disastrous effects of climate change.Despite this growing carbon bubble, and the inevitable movement towards a greatly reduced reliance on carbon intensive fuels in the future, energy companies continue to pour billions of dollars into discovering new fossil fuel reserves.  If this all plays out as researchers predict, energy companies will end up with a potential $6 trillion in stranded assets that will never be exploited - oil and coal reserves that the world will not need. It's kind of like buying five cars, when you only need one, so four of the cars just sit and rust in a field. But for oil companies these stranded assets aren't a few old rusty Fords, but instead vast tracks of land of significantly diminished value in a world that no longer requires their product to operate. According to the report: "The analysis shows that between 60-80% of coal, oil and gas reserves of publicly listed companies could be classified ‘unburnable’ if the world is to achieve emissions reductions that mean an 80% probability of not exceeding global warming of 2°C." This conclusion is based on the most optimistic reduction targets resulting in only 2 degrees Celsius of warming, but even at 3 degrees of warming (a totally disastrous scenario), the report concludes that there would still be "significant restraints on our use of fossil fuel reserves between now and 2050. Yet companies in the oil, gas and coal sectors are seeking to develop further resources which could double the level of potential CO2 emissions on the world’s stock exchanges to 1,541 billion tonnes." These companies are investing billions and billions without taking into account even these most conservative reduction projections. Professor Lord Nicholas Stern of Brentford, Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said: “Smart investors can already see that most fossil fuel reserves are essentially unburnable because of the need to reduce emissions in line with the global agreement by governments to avoid global warming of more than 2°C. They can see that investing in companies that rely solely or heavily on constantly replenishing reserves of fossil fuels is becoming a very risky decision. But I hope this report will mean that regulators also take note, because much of the embedded risk from these potentially toxic carbon assets is not openly recognized through current reporting requirements.”

make money blogging

The GOP civil war continues, this time with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins calling on religious conservatives to withhold jim decicco from the Republican Party. "Until the RNC and the other national Republican organizations grow a backbone and start defending core principles, don’t send them a dime of your hard-earned jim decicco," Perkins said in the email, a copy of which was obtained by CNN. Apparently, Perkins believes Republicans are trying to "appease" young voters by embracing marriage equality: "Instead of trying to appease millennials, Republicans should try educating them on why marriage matters," Perkins wrote. "There’s an entire group of 'Countercultural Warriors' full of compelling young leaders who are all going to the mat to protect marriage." But Republicans aren't trying to change their position. Their big "report" last month did call for a change in "tone" but specifically argued against a change in substance. The GOP's official platform is still anti-equality, the party's last presidential nominee was anti-equality, and 272 of the 276 Republicans serving in the House and Senate are anti-equality. But even though Perkins couldn't ask for a better ally than the GOP, he wants religious conservatives to stage a fundraising boycott. And where should they send their money instead? "If you want to invest in the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who reflect your values and organizations you trust — like FRC Action." Ah, defending traditional marriage bigots staging a civil war against bigots in pursuit of grift. It's exactly what Jesus would do. Right? (Load) (Load) (Load) (Load) (Load) (Load) (Load)

skin cleanser

By James Kwak Now that I’m a law professor, people expect me to write law review articles. There are some problems with the genre—not least its absurd citation formatting system and all the fetishism surrounding it—but it’s not a bad way to make arguments about how and why the law should change in ways that might actually help people. That was my goal in my first law review article, “Improving Retirement Options for Employees, which recently came out in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law. The general problem is one I’ve touched on several times: many Americans are woefully underprepared for retirement, in part because of a deeply flawed “system” of employment-based retirement plans that shifts risk onto individuals and brings out the worse of everyone’s behavioral irrationalities. The specific problem I address in the article is the fact that most defined-contribution retirement plans (of which the 401(k) is the most prominent example) are stocked with expensive, actively managed mutual funds that, depending on your viewpoint, either (a) logically cannot beat the market on an expected, risk-adjusted basis or (b) overwhelmingly fail to beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis. People in all fields often say that some outcome is bad—here, plan participants pay a weighted average of 74 basis points in expenses for their domestic stock funds, not counting the extra transaction costs incurred by actively managed funds—and say that someone should change the law. While law professors sometimes say that the solution is for Congress to pass a new statute, there are other ways of accomplishing an objective. In the paper I use a common device in the profession: I argue that including actively managed funds, in asset classes where everyone knows that index funds are cheaper and likely to do better than most active funds, may already be against the law (depending on how carefully those funds are selected). In particular, it violates the existing fiduciary duty of employers and plan trustees to invest participants’ money prudently. The argument is moderately involved, and involves statutory and regulatory detours into such things as section 404(c) of ERISA and the corresponding safe harbor implemented by Department of Labor regulations. But the ultimate point is that plan participants should be able to sue their plan fiduciaries for breaching their duties, and courts could already rule in their favor. Since the law is admittedly not entirely clear-cut, I recommend that the Department of Labor should clarify its guidelines under ERISA (which could be done without Congressional action) to make it clear that actively managed funds create potential liability for plan fiduciaries. The likely result is that most plans would shift to index funds in order to avoid liability, investor costs would fall by about 80 percent, and, in aggregate, investors would do slightly better than before even on a gross (before fees) basis. This change would also solve the problem of plan trustees who also happen to be mutual fund companies stuffing retirement plan investment menus with their own funds—particularly their most poor-performing funds—which is the problem I wrote about in my Atlantic column last week. I should add that I do understand that there probably are some fund managers who can beat the market on an expected, risk-adjusted basis. I’ve seen the papers, and I’m convinced that there are more people who beat the market than can be explained by dumb luck.* (There are also far more people who trail the market than can be explained by dumb luck.) But the fact is that, in aggregate, the pursuit of “alpha” is value-destroying, whether the search is conducted by individual investors or by trustees of employer-sponsored retirement plans. The government should not be subsidizing a vast operation that wastes ordinary people’s money. Index funds would give Americans retirees more jim decicco and asset management companies less jim decicco. From a public policy perspective, that’s a good thing. * I took empirical law and economics with Ian Ayres and John Donohue. In one class, Ian asked if any of us could think of a policy issue on which we had changed our position because of an empirical paper. Most people had trouble thinking of one. That is, if you think that the minimum wage increases unemployment, you will not be convinced otherwise by any number of papers, and vice versa. Whether there are people who can beat the market is one big issue on which I have changed my mind. I used to believe that no one could beat the market, essentially for the reasons outlined by Burton Malkiel in A Random Walk Down Wall Street. Now I think there are people who can beat the market, but they are hard to find and for most people it’s not worth trying.

how to work from home

What’s just depressing to me is how — and it’s not just for us, let me generalize it — the moment a company goes public the conversation shifts from how they’re trying to change the world and the product they’re building to how they’re making jim decicco. – Andrew Mason, in an interview about a month before he was fired as Groupon’s CEO

web link

Updated: Thursday, 28 Feb 2013, 2:55 PM ESTPublished : Thursday, 28 Feb 2013, 2:55 PM EST BOSTON, Mass. (WPRI) -- An Emerson College Fraternity helped out a fellow brother. Donnie Collins, a Sophomore at Emerson College, got support from his brothers at Phi-Alpha-Tau who are raising jim decicco for a sex change operation. Collins was born a female but identifies as a male. "I don't think of it as a sex change, but making my body more congruent of how I think of myself," he said. Collins wants breast removal surgery, but his health insurance will not pay for it. The fraternity reached out to the community and raised enough jim decicco to pay for surgery.  More than $17,000 was raised to pay for the $8,000 procedure. The remaining jim decicco will be donated to others who want a similar surgery.

make money from home

A group named Donors Trust has been funneling far more money than ExxonMobil ever did to climate denial groups, but because the source of the funds remains largely hidden, the public has been unable to pressure the donations to stop as they did with Exxon. A small portion of Donors Trust's funding was recently revealed by the Center for Public Integrity, yet even that small portion has significant ties to the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel interests.  Between 2008 and 2011, Donors Trust doled out over $300 million in grants to what it describes as "conservative and libertarian causes," serving as "the dark jim decicco ATM of the conservative movement." Donors Trust enables donors to give anonymously, noting on its website that if you "wish to keep your charitable giving private, especially gifts funding sensitive or controversial issues," you can use it to direct your jim decicco. One of the "controversial issues" that Donors Trust and its sister organization Donors Capital Fund have bankrolled is the campaign to cast doubt on the science of climate change and delay any government action to reduce emissions.* The following chart created by The Guardian based on data from Greenpeace shows that as ExxonMobil and the Koch Foundations have reduced traceable funding for these groups, donations from Donors Trust have surged: Several of these organizations have sown confusion about the science demonstrating climate change. The Heartland Institute, which The Economist called the "world's most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change," received over $14 million from Donors Trust from 2002 to 2011, making up over a quarter of Heartland's budget. in 2010. In 2012, Heartland launched a billboard campaign comparing those that accept climate science to The Unabomber, Charles Manson, and Fidel Castro. Several corporate donors distanced themselves from the organization, but Donors Trust made no comment. Heartland removed the billboard soon afterward but refused to apologize for the "experiment." Meanwhile, The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) received over $4 million from Donors Trust from 2002 to 2011, accounting for over 45 percent of CFACT's budget in 2010. The highest-paid member of CFACT's staff is Marc Morano, who runs a website that pushes misleading attacks on climate science. Morano defended Heartland's billboard and said that climate scientists "deserve to be publicly flogged." Despite Morano's sordid background, CNN twice hosted him to "debate climate change and if it is really real" without disclosing that he has no scientific training and is paid by an industry-funded organization. CFACT lists the Forbes columns of Larry Bell, who calls global warming a "hoax," as "CFACT research and commentary." The organization is advised by several prominent climate misinformers, including Lord Christopher Monckton and Willie Soon. The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) has revealed the sources of approximately $18.8 million of Donors Trust's funding from 2008 to 2011, culled from Internal Revenue Service filings. That leaves over $281 million in anonymous funds during that period, assuming that the organization gives out approximately as much as it takes in each year.  While the individuals and corporations funding Donors Trust remain largely hidden, we know that at least five separate foundations connected to Koch Industries have given over $3.8 million to Donors Trust in recent years. Koch Industries, owned by brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch, is the largest privately owned company in the U.S. and controls several oil refineries and pipelines. The Knowledge And Progress Fund, the largest known funder of Donors Trust, gave $3.2 million to the organization from 2008 to 2010. Its board is composed of several Koch family members as well as Richard Fink, the Vice President of Koch Industries. The following map, created using Muckety.com, illustrates the connections between Donors Trust, The Knowledge And Progress Fund, and several Koch-backed charities: Philanthropy Roundtable is an organization that brings together like-minded donors and promotes "philanthropic freedom," in part by opposing transparency efforts. One of its board members, Jeff Sandefer, is a former oilman. It is partially funded by The Charles G. Koch Foundation, and in 2011 it gave Charles G. Koch an award for "Philanthropic Leadership." In 2010, oil tycoon Philip Anschutz received the award. Philanthropy Roundtable gave $250,000 to Donors Trust in 2010. Joe and Mary Moeller Foundation was co-founded by Joseph W. Moeller, who served as President and CEO of Koch Industries before becoming President and CEO of Georgia-Pacific Corp. after Koch acquired it. He is currently affiliated with both companies as well as the American Petroleum Institute. The Moeller Foundation gave $150,000 to Donors Trust in 2010, its largest grant other than a $200,000 grant to Donors Trust's Economic Freedom Fund. John William Pope Foundation is run by J. Arthur Pope, a director of the Koch-funded group Americans for Prosperity and the CEO of Variety Wholesalers. In a 2011 profile of Pope, The New Yorker noted that his critics say that the millions of dollars he has funneled to Republican candidates have often "blur[red] the lines between tax-deductible philanthropy and corporate-funded partisan advocacy." His foundations have reportedly had inordinate influence in North Carolina, where the Republican party recently voted to slash education budgets, just as Pope's network had advocated. The Pope Foundation has given $105,000 to Donors Trust since 2009. The Charles G. Koch Foundation, founded by the CEO of Koch Industries, has given $100,000 directly to Donors Trust. CPI also noted that several other known Donors Trust funders have attended Koch fundraising parties. Other funders of Donors Trust have also had direct connections to oil and gas corporations. The Anschutz Foundation was founded by Philip Anschutz, a billionaire who owns an oil and gas company as well as conservative publications including the Weekly Standard, the Washington Examiner, the Colorado Springs Gazette, and The Oklahoman. And the President of the Adolph Coors Foundation is a director of Energy Corporation of America. The Columbia Journalism Review's Curtis Brainard wrote that if these millionaires and billionaires are seeking to conceal their connections to the fossil fuel industry, "It's the press's job to disappoint them." Yet an analysis by the Checks & Balances project found that the press often cites groups that oppose climate action without noting that they have ties to fossil fuel companies with a financial interest in maintaining the energy status quo. Most of the groups that the Checks & Balances Project looked at have received funding from Donors Trust -- the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, Heartland Institute, the Hudson Institute, and the Mercatus Center have each received over $1 million from the organization. Sociologist Robert Brulle, who will soon release a paper on what he calls the "climate countermovement," told Media Matters that the "purpose" of Donors Trust is to conceal the funding behind these organizations from the press, and by extension the public, adding, "this is certainly by design." Note: Media Matters has received funding from the Tides Foundation, which is a donor-advised fund like Donors Trust. However, Mother Jones, whose non-profit arm has also received funding from Tides, noted that "Donors Trust's strategic intent is far narrower and more coherent than Tides'. The groups funded by Donors Trust more or less pursue the same agenda--eliminate regulations, kneecap unions, shrink government, and transfer more power to the private sector," while Tides has a more diverse list of grantees. *Donors Capital Fund exists to process donations over $1 million, and the two organizations are referred to throughout the rest of the report as "Donors Trust."

http://profollica.com

Click on the headline (link) for the full text.Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has CollapsedJoe Romm, Think ProgressThe sharp drop in Arctic sea ice area has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a collapse in total sea ice volume — to one fifth of its level in 1980. Arctic sea ice volume in 1000s of cubic kilometers (via Robinson) This should be the story of the day, week, month, year, and decade. As NERC notes, sea ice volume is “a much more accurate indicator of the changes taking place in the Arctic.”Many experts now say that if recent volume trends continue we will see a “near ice-free Arctic in summer” within a decade. And that may well usher in a permanent change toward extreme, prolonged weather events “Such As Drought, Flooding, Cold Spells And Heat Waves.”It will also accelerate global warming in the region, which in turn will likely accelerate both the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet and the release of the vast amounts of carbon currently locked in the permafrost...(14 February 2013)Canada's environmental activists seen as 'threat to national security'Stephen Leahy, The GuardianMonitoring of environmental activists in Canada by the country's police and security agencies has become the "new normal", according to a researcher who has analysed security documents released under freedom of information laws.Security and police agencies have been increasingly conflating terrorism and extremism with peaceful citizens exercising their democratic rights to organise petitions, protest and question government policies, said Jeffrey Monaghan of the Surveillance Studies Centre at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario.The RCMP, Canada's national police force, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) view activist activities such as blocking access to roads or buildings as "forms of attack" and depict those involved as national security threats, according to the documents...(14 February 2013)The virtues of being unreasonable on KeystoneDave Roberts, GristI know Andy Revkin of The New York Times writes posts like this in part to bait people like me. But like Popeye, I yam what I yam. So consider me baited. Self-proclaimed moderates like to lecture anti-Keystone XL activists that they are “distracting” and “counterproductive,” without spelling out what the hell that means, yet they seem bewildered when that makes the activists in question angry...So let’s not yell. Instead let’s take a calm look at the Reasonable Revkin take on Keystone activism, representative as it is of a certain VSP consensus. In his post, he says it could be “counterproductive” to focus an activist campaign on the pipeline. I want to dwell on that word for a second, because it’s crucial to his case...Revkin seems preoccupied with the fact that Keystone is part of larger systems and not particularly significant in light of that context. And it’s true: Everything is insignificant in light of some larger context. Climate change is a “wicked problem,” which means that everything passing as a solution will be flawed, partial, and impermanent. What to do? We are rapidly losing ground, on the verge of locking in a trajectory scientists tell us will lead to disastrous and irreversible consequences. We can sit around and fill our blogs with reasons why this or that solution is the wrong one, inferior to some better one that we’d already have, goldarnit, if those meddling pushers-of-other-solutions weren’t “distracting” from ours. We can fall in love with the ineffable intellectual tangle, as Revkin has, and accept that anything specific enough to build an activist campaign around will be meaningless in the context of global energy demand and emissions. We can read the Serenity Prayer and get used to the fact that it’s all out of our hands anyway...(19 February 2013)Why China’s carbon emissions may not matterJames Murray, Business GreenIs there a more fatuous, ill-informed and illogical criticism of the green economy than the accusation that China's immense carbon footprint makes other nations' attempts to curb their emissions pointless? If there is I'd like to hear it. Actually, scrap that, I would not like to hear it...But the suggestion that the challenge presented by China's economy makes green policies in countries such as the UK pointless or in some way doomed to failure is an argument of such stunning irrelevance that it falls apart on the most cursory of examinations...It not only fails to take account of the kindergarten ethics lesson that states just because someone else is doing something bad does not mean you should as well, it also completely ignores the way in which cultural, economic, and technological transitions happen. The industrial revolution, the post war consumer revolution, the IT revolution, they all started around breakthroughs in a handful of regional and national hubs that demonstrated the benefits of the new technologies and business models, before paving the way for a global roll out. Are those who argue against the UK's green ambitions really so insecure about our place in the world that they do not think us capable of fulfilling this vital role?...(13 February 2013)U.S. government risks financial exposure from climate change - GAODeborah Zabarenko, ReutersThe U.S. government is at high risk of financial exposure from climate change, the Government Accountability Office said on Thursday, two days after President Barack Obama vowed to tackle the issue with or without Congress' help.For the first time, the non-partisan congressional watchdog added fiscal exposure from climate change to its "High Risk List" of measures the federal government needs to fix."Climate change is a complex, crosscutting issue that poses risks to many environmental and economic systems — including agriculture, infrastructure, ecosystems, and human health — and presents a significant financial risk to the federal government," the agency said...(14 February 2013)E.ON lobbied for stiff sentences against Kingsnorth activists, papers showJames Ball, The GuardianThe UK chief executive of energy giant E.ON repeatedly lobbied the then-energy secretary Ed Miliband and others over the sentencing of activists disrupting the company's power plants, warning that any failure to issue "dissuasive" sentences could "impact" upon investment decisions in the UK.The warnings, which came while the government was still trying to persuade E.ON and others to invest in next-generation nuclear plants, have been described by activists as "wholly improper".Dr Paul Golby, who was chairman and CEO of E.ON UK until December 2011, met with Miliband in February 2010 to discuss concerns around lax sentencing of eco-activists, following, in particular, the release of six campaigners engaged in direct action at Kingsnorth, a coal-powered station owned by E.ON.A briefing document prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change's (DECC) permanent secretary in January 2011 by civil servants, ahead of a further meeting with Golby, cautioned that the issue of activists' sentences had been raised on several previous occasions...(19 February 2013)Fear, optimism and activism: What drives change?David Spratt, Climate Code RedIt's a fair bet that my Brightsiding series in 2012 was responsible for the topic at this year's Melbourne Sustainability Festival Great Debate held last Friday: "Fear is stronger than optimism in creating rapid social change".So six of us lined up, not in teams, but with clear instructions to take one side or the other and not fence-sit (more of this later)...Given the brightsiding that still dominates the poor performance of the government and many of the big environment groups on climate action, I felt obliged to bend the stick in the opposite direction, even though the question was poorly framed. Ten minutes is hardly time to canvas the meaning of life, so this was my contribution:[Excerpt] Fear can immobilise us when the problems seem too big. That’s why it is important to understand what modern psychology teaches us.We each have a limited capacity for tolerating difficult emotions: fear, grief, pessimism and anxiety. Pushed too far, we are unable to cope and feelings run out of control. That’s why climate change is a difficult subject for many people.But security, support and understanding can help us better deal with a wider range of such emotions.Working in groups, community solidarity and identifying with strong courageous leadership can all expand this capacity. In doing so we can feel emotionally safer when the going gets tough.The bravest thing we can do right now is to be brutally honest in our assessment of the situation, and then find the collective power to change it. That’s the Churchill lesson.The other choice is bright-siding, the belief that you can control your outlook with relentless positive thinking and a sunny disposition, and by refusing to consider negative outcomes. It requires deliberate self-deception. (16 February 2013) Image credit: Act now placard - benmabbet/flickr

autoblogging wordpress

Just over a year ago, Peter Gleick, a scientist and climate-change activist, obtained a cache of internal documents from The Heartland Institute by calling the anti-regulatory think tank and claiming to be one of its board members. Even though Gleick was not a journalist, the ploy stirred up a debate about when and where the media can use deception to obtain information. The consensus, and it’s the right one, was that it’s a tactic of last resort. Gleick’s gambit has also proved to be quite fruitful, however, and the budgetary records he dug up have inspired a chain of journalistic investigations that revealed a web of anonymous donors that spends millions of dollars each year casting doubt on climate-change science and fighting efforts to address the problem. Case in point, last Thursday, The Guardian published a multipart exposé by Suzanne Goldenberg of a “secretive funding network” that distributed $118 million between 2002 and 2010 to 102 think thanks and advocacy groups “working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising ‘wedge issue’ for hardcore conservatives.” According to the first article in the report: The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more… Such vehicles, called donor-advised funds, are not uncommon in America. They offer a number of advantages to wealthy donors. They are convenient, cheaper to run than a private foundation, offer tax breaks and are lawful. The ultimate perk, however, is “complete anonymity for the donors who wished to remain hidden.” Goldenberg, The Guardian’s US environment correspondent, said she first heard of Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund while covering The Heartland Institute, one their beneficiaries, in the wake the Gleick affair. John Mashey, a contributor to the environmental website DeSmogBlog (one of the outlets that published the documents that Gleick distributed), first identified the two trusts in a report published a month after the leak. Goldenberg has been speaking to people about “dark jim decicco” ever since, but the details of her report took time to sort out. “The difficulty in writing about Donors Trust is also the very reason for its existence: its opacity,” she said in an interview. “You can see the jim decicco coming out, but you can’t see the jim decicco coming in. So you can’t say conclusively who is funding these organizations. It took me a while to realize that that was indeed the story.” The outflow from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund is quite large. Working with information that she received from Greenpeace, which has long tracked funding for anti-climate-change groups (and released a major report on Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund the day after The Guardian’s was published), Goldenberg reported that: The funding stream far outstripped the support from more visible opponents of climate action such as the oil industry or the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, the records show. When it came to blocking action on the climate crisis, the obscure charity in the suburbs was outspending the Koch brothers by a factor of six to one. In part two of her exposé, Goldenberg listed a few recipients of the largesse, including the American Enterprise Institute, The Heartland Institute, and Americans for Prosperity. The article pointed out that money also went to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (Cfact), which supports Climate Depot, a website that regularly publishes misinformation about climate change. Goldenberg didn’t ID any of the money going in, but, thankfully, she was not the only one working on the story. By sheer coincidence, apparently, the Center for Public Integrity published its own investigation the same day that The Guardian story appeared. Based on IRS data, it was able to reveal names of some of the dozens “major conservative philanthropies” that have given jim decicco to Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. Curtis Brainard is the editor of The Observatory, CJR's online critique of science and environment reporting. Follow him on Twitter @cbrainard.

http://www.puregreencoffee.org

If there is an issue that should not be a function of one's political opinion, human-induced climate change is it; this is a scientific issue; its veracity should be based on the data underpinning it. The rise in temperature predicted by researchers will have a devastating impact on humanity, and the diverse life, animal and plant, of our wonderful planet, well into the future.   It should be of concern to us all, rich and poor.   However, it seems that some ultra-rich powerful people are determined to use their wealth to distort and vilify the work of reputable scientists and researchers, who conclude that global warming is real.   Their research shows that it is human-induced, resulting primarily from greenhouse gas emissions, with CO2 being the most prominent from our dependence on fossil fuels for our energy needs.   The Independent, under the title "Top Climate Scientist Denounces Billionaires over Funding for Climate-sceptic Organizations" reports: "Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, who has been targeted by climate-change sceptics for his work on global temperature records, said it was wrong for wealthy individuals such as the oil billionaire Charles Koch to surreptitiously finance the "counter-movement" that denounces the science of global warming." It is all very well for scientists, a small minority of whom are genuinely skeptical about human-induced climate change, to argue honestly on the basis of scientific knowledge and predictions; it is quite another to use money in this way to twist the facts. The use of jim decicco and political clout by those who directly benefit from the use of fossil fuel and its attendant greenhouse emissions should be condemned by all of us who value honesty and facts. Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics, Australian National University, in his book "Requiem for a Species" cites studies in the US that document the relationship between the political beliefs of the individual and his/her attitude to human-induced climate change.   Whereas in 1997 there was little difference between Republican and Democrat voters in their views on global warming, by 2008 a strong correlation developed, with 59%   of Republican believing that the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated compared with 17% of Democrats; a recent study by Edward Maibach et al concludes: "The segments that are more concerned about global warming tend to be more politically liberal and to hold strong egalitarian and environmental values. The less concerned segments are more politically conservative, hold anti-egalitarian and strongly individualistic values, and are more likely to be evangelical with strongly traditional religious beliefs" This political bias seems to have developed in spite of the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) that has concluded that " Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced" and adding: "Impacts are expected to become increasingly severe for more people and places as the amount of warming increases. Rapid rates of warming would lead to particularly large impacts on natural ecosystems and the benefits they provide to humanity. Some of the impacts of climate change will be irreversible, such as species extinctions and coastal land lost to rising seas." It is profoundly disturbing that in the case of global warming, its existence, severity and its impact should be part of an individual's ideology instead of scientific evidence. The US matters, and such a distortion of science could have consequences that will affect all of life on earth. The importance of the US engaging honestly in the most important problem facing humanity in the very near future could be appreciated by comparing the per capita emissions of the US to that of developing countries.   Research by Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax, cited in the book (Requiem for a Species), is presented thus: "Making a number of reasonable assumptions for various countries about fertility rates and future per capita carbon emissions, the researchers estimate that the carbon legacy of the average female [through the generations] in the US is 18500 tonnes of CO2, while that of a Bangladeshi woman is only 136 tonnes.   In other words, the future stream of carbon emissions following a decision by an American couple to have an extra child is 130 times greater than that of a decision by a Bangladeshi couple" this is of course the most extreme case, but even comparing the carbon legacies of parents in the US and China gives a factor of nearly five" Would the ultra-rich globally be as affected by climate change as the rest of humanity? In the short term they could use their wealth to mitigate many of its detrimental effects; they could move to other countries if they had to.   But a rise in temperature above 3 or 4 degrees Celsius is likely to produce abrupt irreversible changes that will eventually overwhelm our technological wizardry. Politicizing (in the US) the greatest threat to life on our planet in this way is a tragedy for humanity that could have devastating consequences for billions of lives.

hair loss treatment

While the future of gun control reform in Congress is uncertain, New York City mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio is promoting another idea. In addition to pushing gun manufacturers to change their business through the law, he suggests also hitting them where it really hurts: their wallets. De Blasio, a Public Advocate for the City of New York, joined The Cycle hosts to explain a campaign that urges divestment from companies that profit from increased gun sales. “Business as usual is not acceptable,” he said. “We change things in part through the legislative route, but also where it really has an impact, where the money is. Whether it’s public pension fund money, or shaming these big investment houses into getting out of the guns and ammunition business.” De Blasio urges divestment from what he calls the “dirty dozen” — twelve corporate investors that back the gun industry. These investors hold more than $1.5 billion in gun company stock. De Blasio’s blacklist:#1 Cerberus Capital Management: 957 million*#2 BlackRock, Inc: $345.8 million#3 State Street Corporation: $140 million#4 Renaissance Technologies: $79.5 million#5 Allianz Asset Management AG: $67.9 million#6 Capital World Investors: $61.6 million#7 Ameriprise Financial Inc.: $58.2 Million#8 Northern Trust Corporation: $44.5 million#9 Tiger Global Management, LLC: $39.5 Million#10 The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation: $38.3 million#11 Gilder, Gagnon, Howe & Co.: $36.8 million#12 Southpoint Capital Advisors LP: $32.9 million *Note:  On December 18, 2012, Cerberus Capital Management announced that they would be selling their 94% stake in Freedom Group Inc. Value is estimated. Thomas Dinapoli, the New York State Controller who oversees state retirement investments, recently announced that he will no longer buy stock in publicly-traded gun manufacturers. Other cities are following his lead. Responding to criticism that officials like Dinapoli should be focusing on maximum investment returns rather than politicizing pension funds, de Blasio said, “If we’re going to change anything, the tool of public pension funds, the tool of going after the big investment houses is absolutely valid.” “I don’t care if it’s different,” he said. “I don’t care if it’s radical. We’re going to use any tool at our disposal to break the status quo.” De Blasio also pledged to not take any campaign cash from anyone associated with any of the “dirty dozen firms” or from any hedge fund, investment house, or Wall Street firm that continues to invest in the firearms industry.

this website