Mayor’s Epiphany at the Vatican: Climate Debate Is Over for the Rest of the World

Peter Rugh | July 23, 2015 1:32 pm |

It is often said that travel broadens horizons. Such was the case when Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges left the City of Lakes for Rome this week. About half-way through her second day at the Vatican, attending an international conference of mayors organized by Pope Francis that began Tuesday, Hodges had an epiphany: climate change isn’t up for debate in the rest of the world.

“[I] just realized that climate change deniers cast a pall on the conversation in the United States,” Hodges, a Democrat, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune Wednesday. “And that as far as I can tell, it does not extend to anywhere else in the world.”

Actually, maybe it does. According to a study published in the journal Global Environmental Change recently, Australia has the largest flock of climate deniers. Seventeen percent of Aussies are doubtful global warming exists while Norway and New Zealand follow—15 percent and 13 percent of their populations respectively are climate skeptics. In the U.S., 12 percent of us don’t believe climate change is taking place, according to the study.

Yet figures vary when researchers have focused on likely voters, rather than the population at large. A survey conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication last year found just 66 percent of U.S. voters thought that climate change was happening.

Doubters in the U.S. are most highly concentrated in the Republican party and their beliefs are reflected in the crowded field of Republican candidates currently running for president, only two of whom—former New York Gov. George Pataki and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who entered the race Tuesday—acknowledge climate change is real.

…(read more).

Global Climate Change
Environment Ethics
Environment Justice

Get Ready for Ugly as Markets Begin to Deal With Climate Crisis

Two powerful forces are currently driving energy markets and climate outcomes.

Carl Pope | July 28, 2015 9:31 am | Comments
Advocates of “market-based” climate solutions paint pastel pictures reflecting smoothly adjusting macro-economic models. Competitive markets gradually nudged by carbon pricing glide into a low carbon future in a modestly disruptive fashion, much as sulfur pollution from power plants was scaled back in the 1990’s.

But commodity markets for oil and gas don’t work that way. These real markets are poised to savagely strand assets, upset expectations, overturn long established livelihoods and leave a trail of wreckage behind them—unless climate advocates start owning the fruits of their own success and preparing for the transition. Schumpeter’s destructive engine of capitalism is about to show its ugly side.

Fossil fuel prices are indeed opening the door to climate solutions, but not through the gradual carbon pricing mechanisms so favored by economists (and recently, reluctantly beginning to be explored by conservative thinkers). Instead, the divergence between clean energy price curves, which fall rapidly with market share and fossil fuel prices, which rise with consumption, are about to collide explosively.

Second, Investors are indeed, moving away from fossil fuel stocks and bonds, but not out of ethical concern over climate risk, or even an expectation of global regulation of carbon combustion. They are racing to the exit as bloated coal and oil stock values collapse on the other side of the “Commodity Super-Cycle” which until early 2014 was the dominant paradigm.

Two weeks ago I wrote two pieces in Bloomberg Views suggesting that the fossil divestment movement was arguably behind market trends in arguing that coal and oil were bad investments. The following week witnessed a cascade of commentary making my pieces look milquetoast and timid. Markets are abandoning carbon companies—even if society continues to burn far too much of it.

Look at the numbers:

U.S. coal consumption has fallen, in the face of competition from performance (efficiency), alternatives (natural gas) and disrupters (solar and wind.) Five years ago we burned a billion tons of coal; now we burn 850 million tons. Solid progress. But still 850 million tons.

What happened to coal company share values? In the last five years, a coal company has gone bankrupt on the average every month. The second largest U.S. coal company, Alpha, after one bankruptcy and reorganization, was just dumped from the NY Stock Exchange because its price fell below $1.00. Even a coal producer (Walter)

whose output, metallurgical coal, still enjoys a strong market had to file for bankruptcy. The biggest U.S. coal company, Peabody, which traded in 2011 at $73, is now selling at $1.29. The bond markets have abandoned coal. All coal company debt is now graded “junk.” In the last quarter the three worst performing major U.S. bonds were all coal:

Alpha Natural Resources: -70 percent
Peabody: -40 percent
Arch: -30 percent

Coal, as an investment class, is effectively finished—coal companies will go through a series of reorganizations. After each one only those with the best balance sheets and cheapest mines will remain. The reclamation bonds which the U.S. government and the State of Wyoming allowed these companies to self-insure against their balance sheets are about to go south, creating sequential calls on capital that will push even more companies first into Chapter 11 and then into Chapter 7. Outside the U.S., 1/6th of Australia’s coal mines now operate at a loss. Companies in the sector are in liquidation, even though the world will use a lot of coal for quite a while to come. Eventually slumping demand will be overtaken by declining production and more mines will become cash flow positive, but existing stakeholders will be liquidated first. That’s the dynamic of shrinking commodity markets—investors, communities and workers lose fast even as markets shrink slowly.

…(read more).

Global Climate Change
Environment Ethics
Environment Justice

Monsanto Fires Back at Neil Young Over New Documentary

wochit Business

Published on Jul 24, 2015

Monsanto, a company that manufactures genetically engineered seeds for agriculture that has sparked the ire of Neil Young, has issued a statement to Rolling Stone responding to the singer-songwriter’s mini-documentary Seeding Fear. Young co-executive-produced the film, which examines the repercussions of a lawsuit between the corporation and farmer Michael White, whom it sued for patent infringement. “Protecting patents and copyrights can be difficult in any business including the entertainment industry,” the rep continues. Young wrote in an introductory statement, “The film I would like you to see tells the story of a farming family in America, but the same thing is happening around the world.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/new…
http://www.wochit.com

Food-Matters
Global Climate Change
Environment Ethics
Environment Justice

Neil Young and Monsanto Reignite War Over GMOs Since Release of ‘Seeding Fear’

http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/25/neil-young-seeding-fear/

Lyrics from Neil Young’s song, “The Monsanto Years”: “The farmer knows he’s got to grow what he can sell, Monsanto, Monsanto / So he signs a deal for GMOs that makes life hell with Monsanto, Monsanto / Every year he buys the patented seeds / Poison-ready they’re what the corporation needs, Monsanto.” Photo credit: Flickr

Lorraine Chow | July 25, 2015 9:57 am | Comments

Neil Young and Monsanto are once again trading barbs over genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This time, it’s over Young’s new documentary, “Seeding Fear,” the story of Alabama farmers Michael White and his father who were sued by the agrochemical giant in 2003 for patent infringement of its GM soybeans.Lyrics from Neil Young’s song, “The Monsanto Years”: “The farmer knows he’s got to grow what he can sell, Monsanto, Monsanto / So he signs a deal for GMOs that makes life hell with Monsanto, Monsanto / Every year he buys the patented seeds / Poison-ready they’re what the corporation needs, Monsanto.” Photo credit: Flickr

The lawsuit between the Whites and Monsanto was settled in 2006 out of court.

“Even after the lawsuit was over, I couldn’t make him believe it was over. He would cry and keep saying, ‘Oh, they’re going to come back and sue me again,’” Michael says in the documentary. “It destroyed him. It destroyed his life. He went to his grave—this grave—still afraid of [Monsanto].”

Young, a co-executive producer of the film, wrote on Facebook, which has more than 3 million likes, “Monsanto is a corporation with great wealth, now controlling over 90 percent of soybean and corn growth in America. Family farms have been replaced by giant agri corp farms across this great vast country we call home. Farm aid and other organizations have been fighting the losing battle against this for 30 years now.”

“The film I would like you to see tells the story of a farming family in America, but the same thing is happening around the world,” Young added. “It is a story that takes 10 minutes of your time to see. It is a simple human one, telling the heartbreaking story of one man who fought the corporate behemoth Monsanto, and it illustrates why I was moved to write ‘The Monsanto Years,’” referring to the “Rockin’ in the Free World” singer’s latest album that attacks the corporation.

…(READ MORE)

KINGS POINT PRODUCTIONS

Published on Jul 23, 2015

The story of a 4th generation farmer and seed cleaner who went toe to toe with Monsanto.

A Kings Point Production
Presented by Shakey Pictures
Directed/Produced by : Craig Jackson
Edited by : Justin Weinstein and Craig Jackson
Executive Produced by : Neil Young and Elliot Rabinowitz

Food-Matters
Global Climate Change
Environment Ethics
Environment Justice

Managing The Artificial Intelligence Risk | On Point

July 16, 2015 at 11:00 AM

Making artificial intelligence work for, not against, humanity. We’ll look at a big new push to get it right.

In this March 18, 2009 photo, Massachusetts Institute of Technology student Huan Liu of Shanghai, China, positions a robot gardener near a tomato plant while demonstrating its capabilities in the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory on the schools campus in Cambridge, Mass. (AP)

Artificial intelligence has always struck humans as exciting and scary. We can’t resist it. And we don’t know where it will take us. Now that we’re talking to Siri and going where Google Maps point us and contemplating self-driving cars, it’s getting more present, more palpable. And still come the warnings. Elon Musk calls AI our biggest existential threat. Stephen Hawking asks if it can ever be controlled at all. Musk and others are funding an effort to design safe AI. That will not take over the world. Can that be done? This hour On Point: controlling artificial intelligence.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Max Tegmark, co-founder of the Future of Life Institute, a research organization focused on addressing the risks of artificial intelligence. Professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Author of “Our Mathematical Universe.” (@tegmark)

Manuela Veloso, professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University. Her research focuses on ways to help robots explain their behavior to humans.

Thomas Dietterich, professor of computer science at Oregon State University, where he is also the director of intelligent systems research the school of electrical engineering and computer science.

Global Climate Change
Environment Ethics
Environment Justice

Chris Hedges interview with Derrick Jensen June 21, 2015

VulgarTrader

Published on Jun 22, 2015

Global Climate Change
Environment Ethics
Environment Justice

Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. — the first sixteen years

Environmental Sciences Europe 2012, 24:24

doi:10.1186/2190-4715-24-24

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24

Abstract

Background

Genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant and insect-resistant crops have been remarkable commercial successes in the United States. Few independent studies have calculated their impacts on pesticide use per hectare or overall pesticide use, or taken into account the impact of rapidly spreading glyphosate-resistant weeds. A model was developed to quantify by crop and year the impacts of six major transgenic pest-management traits on pesticide use in the U.S. over the 16-year period, 1996–2011: herbicide-resistant corn, soybeans, and cotton; Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn targeting the European corn borer; Bt corn for corn rootworms; and Bt cotton for Lepidopteron insects.

Results

Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.

Conclusions

Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

…(read more).  http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24

…read full report:

• Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. — the first sixteen years, Charles M Benbrook

see also:

• Mexico’s GMO Corn Ban and Glyphosate Cancer Findings August 2, 2015

Food-Matters
Global Climate Change
Environment Ethics
Environment Justice

Mexico’s GMO Corn Ban and Glyphosate Cancer Findings

By Alfredo Acedo | 20 / July / 2015

The CIP Americas Program has been accompanying the grassroots movement of campesinos, indigenous communities, consumers and scientists to maintain the ban on genetically modified corn for over a decade. The pushback from Monsanto and other biotech companies has been constant, but cross-sector organization has succeeded in protecting Mexico’s native corn and campesino livelihoods from the threat. This report describes the latest developments.

Twenty-two months ago, Mexico became a GM maize-free territory, when a Federal Judge issued the precautionary measure that suspended authorizations to plant any genetically modified seeds of this grain, a staple food in the country, essential to its culture.

The temporary suspension reinstated in fact the moratorium on GM maize that had been breached by the federal government in 2009, when it started approving the growth of GM crops in experimental and pilot stages, continuing to do so until 2013. In September that year, just as Monsanto and other multinational corporations turned commercial planting up a notch, the precautionary measure was issued in response to the collective lawsuit filed by a group of organizations and citizens advocating for the human right to biodiversity and a healthy environment.

On July 5 last, the collective lawsuit that stopped GM maize from being planted in the center of corn origin and diversity entered its second year after a number of outstanding victories: the collective presenting the legal actions was granted favorable ruling in all 22 appeals and other contestations, which amount to nearly a hundred of legal remedies used by the government and multinational corporations.

The evil duo is not happy. Unspeakable excesses have been undertaken by the federal government: the legal system (financed with tax money) was put to the service of corporations to argue in favor of GM maize, against the national interest. It went as far as hiding information affecting the interests of multinational corporations in the trial.

Monsanto’s deceit

has reached the courts of the judiciary, claiming that its transgenic technology reduces the use of pesticides and increases the productivity of crops for the benefit of farmers. Several studies reviewed during trial show just the opposite. The defendants are compelled to show that not planting GM maize is more harmful than planting it. Failure to do so means the precautionary measure will remain in force.

…(read more).

Food-Matters
Global Climate Change
Environment Ethics
Environment Justice

Evidence Released at TransCanada’s Keystone XL Permit Renewal Hearing Sheds Light On Serious Pipeline Risks | DeSmogBlog

By Julie Dermansky • Tuesday, July 28, 2015 – 10:45

Just because TransCanada continually states that the Keystone XL pipeline will be the safest pipeline ever built, doesn’t mean it is true.

The company’s pipeline construction record is facing intense scrutiny in America’s heartland, where many see no justifiable rationale to risk their water and agricultural lands for a tar sands export pipeline.

New documents submitted as evidence in the Keystone XL permitting process in South Dakota — including one published here on DeSmog for the first time publicly — paint a troubling picture of the company’s shoddy construction mishaps. This document, produced by TransCanada and signed by two company executives, details the results of its investigation into the “root cause” of the corrosion problems discovered on the Keystone pipeline.

TransCanada Corporation is continuing its push to build the northern route of the Keystone XL pipeline. On July 27, the company appeared at a hearing in Pierre, South Dakota, to seek recertification of the Keystone XL construction permit that expired last year.

The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission must decide if TransCanada can guarantee it can build the pipeline under the conditions set in 2010, which it must do in order to have the permit reapproved.

High-profile spills and other incidents already tar TransCanada’s safety record. The company faces at least two known ongoing investigations by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The incident records of the southern route of the Keystone XL (renamed the Gulf Coast Pipeline) and the Keystone 1 Pipeline call into question TransCanada’s claim that its pipelines are among the safest ever built.

…(read more).

Global Climate Change
Environment Ethics
Environment Justice

The US Should Eliminate Its Nuclear Arsenal – Not “Modernize” It

Saturday, 01 August 2015 00:00

By David Krieger, Truthout | Op-Ed

There are still approximately 16,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine countries today, with more than 90 percent of these in the possession of the United States and Russia. Some 1,800 nuclear weapons remain on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired within moments of an order to do so. Most of these weapons are many times more powerful than those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.

On the 70th anniversary of the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is past time for the United States to change course. Rather than pursue current plans to spend $1 trillion on modernizing its nuclear arsenal, the United States should lead the world in negotiations to achieve the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. This would make the world safer.

A History We Must Not Forget

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, killing some 90,000 people immediately and another 55,000 by the end of 1945. Three days later, the United States dropped another atomic bomb on Nagasaki, killing some 40,000 people immediately and another 35,000 by the end of 1945.

In between these two bombings, on August 8, 1945, the United States signed the charter creating the Nuremberg tribunal to hold Axis leaders to account for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Under well-established international humanitarian law – the law of warfare – war crimes include using weapons that do not distinguish between civilians and combatants or that cause unnecessary suffering. Because nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately and cause unnecessary suffering by radiation poisoning (among other grotesque consequences), the United States was itself in the act of committing war crimes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki while agreeing to hold its defeated opponents in World War II to account for their war crimes.

…(read more).

Global Climate Change
Environment Ethics
Environment Justice
Nuclear