News

Wed, 2013-01-09 16:00Farron Cousins
Farron Cousins's picture

RFK, Jr. & Bill McKibben: Time To Act On Climate Change

Originally published on Ring of Fire

New reports have come out this week showing us that 2012 was officially the hottest year on record.  North America alone was plagued with hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, blizzards, and numerous other forms of weather that have almost all been linked back to anthropogenic climate change. 

Earlier this week, Ring of Fire Radio’s Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. spoke with 350.org founder Bill McKibben about the threat of climate change and what President Obama needs to do during his second term to address the problem.  The transcript of that conversation follows, and the interview will run this weekend on the Ring of Fire radio program:

Tue, 2012-11-13 13:10Farron Cousins
Farron Cousins's picture

Media Matters Explains Media's Climate Silence In Election Coverage

Polls over the last year tell us that the vast majority of Americans (70%) understand that climate change is taking place, with 54% saying that they believe human activities are to blame.  72% of Americans believe that the government should make dealing with climate change a priority. 

Why then did the mainstream media devote more time to Vice President Joe Biden’s smile than to climate change in their coverage of this year’s elections?  That is a difficult question to answer.

In the months and weeks before the election, independent media outlets were begging both candidates and the traditional media to “end the climate silence,” and finally bring up the issue of global climate change.  Instead, we were treated to stories about Joe Biden’s smile and Paul Ryan’s workout routines.

Media Matters has released a new report, detailing the issues that the mainstream press covered, instead of devoting time to covering an issue that, as the polls tell us, is of utmost importance to American citizens.

From the new report:

Mon, 2012-10-22 10:55Farron Cousins
Farron Cousins's picture

What To Expect When You're Electing - The Candidates' Energy Plans

With only a few weeks left for American voters to decide between President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney, more and more attention is being paid to the candidates’ respective energy policies.

We’ve reported in recent months that Mitt Romney has stacked his energy team of advisors with dirty energy industry insiders and lobbyists, which gives us an idea of how he would run the country.  With Obama, we have the benefit of using the past as an example of what to expect in the future. 

But both candidates are now in a position where their current proposals and policy ideas are being shown to the public, so let’s break down what each presidential candidate says they will do with regards to energy and the environment, if elected.

Think Progress has put together a great side-by-side comparison of the two candidates, which gives us a very clear picture of where each candidate would take the country:

Fri, 2012-10-05 06:00Farron Cousins
Farron Cousins's picture

BP Settlement Deal Could Put Taxpayers On The Hook For Spill Costs

A proposed settlement deal between the federal government and BP over their involvement in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and subsequent oil leak could shift the burden of cleanup costs away from the oil giant and onto U.S. taxpayers.

The current settlement option is just one of several being negotiated between the federal government and BP.  But this settlement option would route fine and settlement money through the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA), rather than fining the company directly via the Clean Water Act.

Not only could this reduce the total amount of money that the company pays in fines, but it would shift the burden of cost onto U.S. taxpayers.  While the company would still be paying out of pocket, the NRDA allows the company to write off their fines and deduct that from their yearly taxes.  Paying through the Clean Water Act would not allow the costs to be tax deductible. 

But the cost shift is just one of the problems with the proposed deal.  The provision that has residents of the Gulf Coast up in arms is the fact that the NRDA would route the money through the U.S. Treasury, instead of directly sending it to local and state governments.  This means that the Treasury, not the affected areas, would be in charge of determining how the money is spent.

Subscribe to News