Kate Sheppard

Kate Sheppard

Reporter

Kate Sheppard is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She was previously the political reporter for Grist and a writing fellow at The American Prospect. She can be reached by email at ksheppard (at) motherjones (dot) com.

Full Bio | Get my RSS |

Her work has also been featured in the New York Times' Room for Debate blog, the Guardian's Comment Is Free, Foreign Policy, High Country News, The Center for Public Integrity, the Washington Independent, Washington Spectator, Who Runs Gov, In These Times, and Bitch. She was raised on a vegetable farm in southern New Jersey (yes, they do exist), but has adapted well to life in the nation's capital. She misses trees and having a congressional representative with voting power, but thinks DC is pretty great anyway.

Underweight Babies Linked to Air Pollution

| Fri Feb. 8, 2013 7:52 AM PST

Women who are exposed to air pollution generated by cars, power plants, and heating and cooling systems are more likely to have a baby that is born underweight, according to new research published this week in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

Low birth weight—defined as anything below 5.5 pounds—is linked to negative outcomes for babies, including increased mortality, chronic health problems, and stunted mental and physical development. The study, which is billed as the largest survey to date, looked at birth weight data on 3 million births recorded at 14 sites in nine different countries (across North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia). Researchers analyzed ambient air quality data for the area during the woman's pregnancy. They found that in the places places they studied, "the higher the pollution rate, the greater the rate of low birth weight."

And, as one of the lead researchers noted in a statement, they saw effects even if there weren't crazy high levels of air pollution. "What's significant is that these are air pollution levels to which practically everyone in the world is commonly exposed," said Tracey Woodruff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California in San Francisco. "These microscopic particles, which are smaller than the width of a human hair, are in the air that we all breathe." 

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Gore Backs Harvard Divestment Campaign

| Thu Feb. 7, 2013 11:27 AM PST

In December, we reported on students on campuses across the country who have been working to get their universities to drop their investments in fossil fuels. Harvard's divestment campaign got a big boost on Wednesday as Al Gore—the former vice-president, climate crusader, and Harvard alum—backed their efforts.

"Students here at Harvard have raised the question of divestment," Gore said in a speech on campus. "I cannot fail to address the issue, even at the risk of sounding impolite and undiplomatic. First of all, if I were a student, I would support what you’re doing. But if I were a board member I would do what I did when we took up the apartheid issue. This is an opportunity for learning and the raising of awareness, for the discussion of sustainable capitalism."

"The students here at Harvard who are seized by the moral imperative to grab hold of this climate crisis and find ways to raise awareness inspire me," Gore said.

A Harvard spokesman previously told Mother Jones that the university "has a strong presumption against divestment" in fossil fuels. But Gore's remarks offered 350.org and the students behind Divest Harvard some high-profile encouragement.

"It was incredible to hear someone like Gore applaud the work that young people like us across the country are doing to solve our generation's most pressing problem," said Hannah Borowsky, a member of Divest Harvard. "Five months ago, no one knew what divestment was. Now students are organizing for it on over 250 campuses, and we've gained the nation's attention. It's really starting to feel like this movement is going to change the world."

Saving Helium: Something Lawmakers Actually Agree On

| Wed Feb. 6, 2013 3:07 PM PST
Hello Kitty balloonCongress: Keeping balloon Hello Kitty alive since 2013.

The world is facing a helium crisis. Helium is a finite and rapidly diminishing resource, one we could run out of in the next 25 years. And here we've been blowing up giant Snoopy balloons and making ourselves sound like pre-pubescent boys for all these years.

The shortage is causing helium prices to, well, balloon. And apparently it's all Congress' fault:

Scientists have warned that the world's most commonly used inert gas is being depleted at an astonishing rate because of a law passed in the United States in 1996 which has effectively made helium too cheap to recycle.
The law stipulates that the US National Helium Reserve, which is kept in a disused underground gas field near Amarillo, Texas – by far the biggest store of helium in the world – must all be sold off by 2015, irrespective of the market price.

But now the House of Representatives—in a rare bipartisan effort—is trying to change that. On Wednesday, Democratic Reps. Ed Markey (Mass.) and Rush Holt (N.J.) and Republican Reps. Doc Hastings (Wash.) and Bill Flores (Texas) announced that they are working together on the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act. The bill would change how the Helium Reserve, which provides half of all helium used in the United States and a third of the helium used all over the world, works and extend its life beyond 2015. It would auction off most of the helium in the reserve at market value (which will be determined by the Secretary of Interior), instead of selling it at cut rates. It will also require that we keep the last 3 billion cubic feet of helium in the reserve for use for research purposes.

Helium isn't just necessary for the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, as the lawmakers point out. It's also used in computer chips, MRI scans, fiberoptic cables, and NASA's rockets.

Obama to Nominate REI CEO as Secretary of Interior

| Wed Feb. 6, 2013 12:00 PM PST

According to numerous reports, President Obama will announce on Wednesday that he is nominating Recreational Equipment Incorporated CEO Sally Jewell to serve as the next Secretary of Interior. Jewell, as Washington State native, is certainly a nontraditional pick for a job typically given to Western politicos, and the selection is drawing interesting responses.

(Full disclosure—I'm an REI junkie. The flagship store in Seattle is basically my happy place. You can get many products that are made with recycled materials or made in the US, and you can return anything. OK, end of disclosure.)

Environmental groups issued excited press releases about the selection, noting that Jewell and REI have partnered with both Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation on programs to promote the outdoors. "Whether it's been through her work to get more kids outside or her accomplishments in building a business that recognizes the passion Americans have to explore the outdoors, Sally Jewell has demonstrated that she knows just how important our wild places are to our national legacy and our economy," Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said in a press release.

But members of Congress from states heavily involved in energy development were much more cautious. "The livelihoods of Americans living and working in the West rely on maintaining a real balance between conservation and economic opportunity," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). "I look forward to hearing about the qualifications Ms. Jewell has that make her a suitable candidate to run such an important agency, and how she plans to restore balance to the Interior Department."

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the Public Lands and Environmental Regulation subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee, said he has "reservations" about the Jewell appointment, including concerns that REI has "intimately supported several special interest groups and subsequently helped to advance their radical political agendas" (i.e., Sierra Club and NWF).

Before coming to REI, Jewell worked as an engineer for Mobil Oil and a banker. See Sarah van Schagen's Grist profile of Jewell from 2007 for more.

Work Less, Save the Planet

| Tue Feb. 5, 2013 3:12 PM PST

Here's a way to cut carbon emissions that is so easy, it actually makes you do less work: cutting back on your work hours. A new study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research concludes that if we all worked fewer hours, we could cut future global warming by as much as 22 percent by 2100.

"The calculation is simple: fewer work hours means less carbon emissions, which means less global warming," says economist and paper author David Rosnick. His research found that dialing back the amount of time the average person works by 0.5 percent per year would mean a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. If you work 40 hours a week, that would mean shaving about 12 minutes off the average work week per year. Working one minute less per month seems pretty doable. Basically, we're using a whole lot more of everything when we're working–electricity, gasoline, heating, air conditioning, etc. Leisure is requires less greenhouse-gas-producing activity.

Rosnick notes that much of the anticipated future global warming is locked in by the amount of greenhouse gas emissions we've already put in the atmosphere. But cutting back on work time could eliminate a quarter to a half of the global warming anticipated from future emissions, he argues. But he acknowledges that this is a more difficult proposition in an economy like the United States that has major inequality between high- and low-income earners. He explains:

In the United States, for example, just under two-thirds of all income gains from 1973–2007 went to the top 1 percent of households. In this type of economy, the majority of workers would have to take an absolute reduction in their living standards in order to work less.

Europeans have already gone this route, expanding the amount of time workers get for vacation and holidays. The US, instead, has plugged forward with ever-longer work days. But as Rosnick argues, cutting back on the number of hours we work may increase our productivity in the time we are working. 

"Increased productivity need not fuel carbon emissions and climate change," said CEPR co-director Mark Weisbrot in a statement accompanying the paper. "Increased productivity should allow workers to have more time off to spend with their families, friends, and communities. This is positive for society, and is quantifiably better for the planet as well."

Mon Sep. 26, 2011 11:32 AM PDT
Fri Sep. 23, 2011 1:21 PM PDT
Fri Sep. 23, 2011 7:37 AM PDT
Thu Sep. 22, 2011 7:07 PM PDT
Thu Sep. 22, 2011 2:15 PM PDT
Thu Sep. 22, 2011 12:25 PM PDT
Thu Sep. 22, 2011 9:45 AM PDT
Wed Sep. 21, 2011 9:37 AM PDT
Wed Sep. 21, 2011 8:57 AM PDT
Mon Sep. 19, 2011 3:12 PM PDT
Thu Sep. 15, 2011 2:16 PM PDT
Mon Sep. 12, 2011 12:36 PM PDT
Mon Sep. 12, 2011 3:00 AM PDT
Fri Sep. 9, 2011 12:21 PM PDT
Thu Sep. 8, 2011 12:40 PM PDT
Wed Sep. 7, 2011 8:31 AM PDT
Wed Sep. 7, 2011 3:00 AM PDT
Fri Sep. 2, 2011 10:00 AM PDT
Tue Aug. 30, 2011 3:00 AM PDT
Mon Aug. 29, 2011 9:36 AM PDT
Fri Aug. 26, 2011 2:00 PM PDT
Fri Aug. 26, 2011 12:38 PM PDT
Thu Aug. 25, 2011 2:20 PM PDT
Thu Aug. 25, 2011 12:30 PM PDT
Thu Aug. 25, 2011 3:00 AM PDT
Tue Aug. 23, 2011 9:01 AM PDT
Mon Aug. 22, 2011 9:53 AM PDT
Fri Aug. 19, 2011 2:11 PM PDT
Fri Aug. 19, 2011 11:29 AM PDT
Fri Aug. 19, 2011 3:00 AM PDT
Thu Aug. 18, 2011 2:17 PM PDT
Thu Aug. 18, 2011 11:52 AM PDT
Thu Aug. 18, 2011 11:15 AM PDT
Mon Aug. 15, 2011 12:47 PM PDT
Fri Aug. 5, 2011 7:00 AM PDT