Blue Marble Feed | Mother Jones Mother Jones logo en Purina Pet Food Is So Much More Disgusting Than We Even Knew <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>If you've ever purchased seafood or pet food from Nestl&eacute;, you may have unwittingly contributed to the abuse of migrant workers in Southeast Asia.</p> <p>On Monday, Nestl&eacute; <a href="" target="_blank">admitted</a> that it had found indications of forced labor, human trafficking, and child labor in its supply chain in Thailand, where the Switzerland-based company sources some of the seafood that it sells in supermarkets around the world, including in the United States. The findings came after an internal investigation that was launched by Nestl&eacute; in December last year, following <a href="" target="_blank">reports</a> by media and NGOs that linked the company's shrimp, prawns, and Purina brand pet foods with abusive working conditions.</p> <p>Many of the workers in question are migrants from Thailand's less developed neighbors, Burma and Cambodia, who are tricked into laboring on fishing boats after fleeing persecution and poverty at home, according to the Massachusetts-based nonprofit Verit&eacute;, which at Nestl&eacute;'s request interviewed workers at six of the company's production sites in Thailand. Workers "had been subjected to deceptive recruitment practices that started in their home countries, transported to Thailand under inhumane conditions, charged with excessive fees leading to debt bondage in some cases, exposed to exploitative and hazardous working conditions, and, at the time of assessment, were living under sub-par to degrading conditions," Verit&eacute; wrote in <a href="" target="_blank">its report</a>.</p> <p>But Nestl&eacute; isn't the only one with a tainted supply chain: The mistreatment of migrants is systematic in Thailand's fishing sector, Verit&eacute; found, meaning that other American and European companies that buy seafood from the country are likely complicit in similar labor abuses. These abuses have been highlighted by the US State Department, which last year downgraded Thailand to the lowest level in its <a href="" target="_blank">annual report</a> on human trafficking, and they underpin <a href="" target="_blank">several lawsuits</a> that have been filed recently against retailers including Nestl&eacute; and Costco Wholesale Corp. Steve Berman, managing partner of the law firm Hagens Berman, which in August filed a class-action lawsuit against Nestl&eacute;, <a href="" target="_blank">told the <em>New York Times</em></a> that the company's report on Monday was "a step in the right direction," but added that "our litigation will go forward because Nestl&eacute; Purina still fails to disclose on its products, as is required by law, that slave labor was used in its making."</p> <p>For its part, Nestl&eacute; has vowed to publish a strategy to protect workers in Thailand, including by bringing in outside auditors and training boat owners about human rights. "This will be neither a quick nor an easy endeavour, but we look forward to making significant progress in the months ahead," Magdi Batato, Nestl&eacute;&rsquo;s executive vice president in charge of operations, said in a <a href="" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p></body></html> Blue Marble Food and Ag Human Rights International Wed, 25 Nov 2015 01:16:53 +0000 Samantha Michaels 290616 at China Is Absolutely Destroying the US on Clean Energy <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>When world leaders convene on Monday in Paris for two weeks of high-stakes climate negotiations, one of the top items on the agenda will be how developing nations should prepare for and help to slow global warming. Opponents to President Barack Obama's climate agenda, such as<strong> </strong>GOP presidential contender Marco Rubio, <a href="" target="_blank">like to argue</a> that anything the United States does to curb greenhouse gas emissions will be pointless because countries like India and China aren't doing the same.</p> <p>But <a href="" target="_blank">new data</a> from Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that this argument is just hot air: For the first time ever, over the last year the majority of global investment in clean energy projects was spent in developing countries. In fact, clean energy investment in China alone outpaced that in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France <em>combined</em>, BNEF found. Across <a href="" target="_blank">55 major</a> non-<a href="" target="_blank">OECD</a> countries, including India, Brazil, China, and Kenya, clean energy investment reached $126 billion in 2014, a record high and 39 percent higher than 2013 levels.&nbsp;</p> <p>The chart below shows how that level of investment is opening up a market for wind, solar, and other clean energy projects in non-OECD countries that is now larger than the market in the traditional strongholds of the United States and Europe. In other words, the very countries Rubio likes to malign as laggards are actually leading the charge.</p> <div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="" class="image" src="/files/total.jpg"><div class="caption">BNEF</div> </div> <p>That trend is likely to continue for decades to come, BNEF found. Check out their projection for growth through 2040:</p> <div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="" class="image" src="/files/power-shift.jpg"><div class="caption">BNEF</div> </div> <p>These numbers add up to a big deal for the climate, because they show that countries in Africa and Southeast Asia that still lack reliable electricity for millions of people are solving that problem, and growing their economies, without relying on dirty fossil fuels. China, to be clear, is still the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and it doesn't plan to <a href="" target="_blank">peak its emissions until 2030</a>. But its early commitment to clean energy means it can continue its rapid rate of growth with far less pollution than it would produce otherwise.</p> <p>The BNEF report is just the<strong> </strong>most recent good sign for the clean energy business. Big corporations in the United States <a href="" target="_blank">are signing contracts for a record amount</a> of clean energy for their data centers, warehouses, and other facilities. And the Paris talks are likely to send a jolt through the industry, as countries around the world redouble their commitments to get more of their power from renewable sources.</p> <p>Stay tuned for more news on this front as the talks unfold over the coming weeks.</p></body></html> Blue Marble Charts Climate Change Climate Desk Energy International Tue, 24 Nov 2015 21:13:29 +0000 Tim McDonnell 290591 at This Jeff Goldblum Video Isn't Really That Funny, But I Give Him Credit for Trying <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="354" src="" width="630"></iframe></p> <p>It's pretty hard to be funny about climate change. Not just because the subject tends to be grim, but also because the solutions tend to be technical, wonky, and interesting mostly just to nerds.</p> <p>The video above, released today by Funny or Die in affiliation with the League of Conservation Voters, makes a valiant effort. It features Jeff Goldblum explaining the Obama administration's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a boardroom full of cartoonishly evil fossil fuel executives. I won't spoil what he says, since it's the punchline (such as it is). Suffice to say the execs don't like it&hellip;and something about <em>Miami Vice </em>star <a href="" target="_blank">Don Johnson</a>.</p> <p>I also won't go on record vouching for the jokes in this. I chuckled a few times. I will say that Goldblum&mdash;or rather his character, the mysterious "Fixer"&mdash;nails his description of the <a href="" target="_blank">Clean Power Plan</a>, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide pollution from the power sector by about a third by 2030, and which will form the backbone of Obama's contribution to the <a href="" target="_blank">upcoming global climate talks in Paris</a>. The framing of the video is also spot-on: The plan is indeed <a href="" target="_blank">facing stiff opposition</a> from coal companies and the industry's allies in statehouses <a href="" target="_blank">and in Congress</a>.&nbsp;</p> <p>The Clean Power Plan is admittedly kind of boring to most people, despite being a groundbreaking policy achievement and an important step toward saving the planet from global warming. So if it takes Jeff Goldblum to get people interested, I've got no problem with that. Enjoy!</p></body></html> Blue Marble Video Climate Change Climate Desk Energy Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:41:30 +0000 Tim McDonnell 290066 at France Scrambles to Secure Upcoming Climate Talks After Deadly Attacks <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>On Saturday, just a day after terrorist attacks in Paris left at least <a href="" target="_blank">129 people dead and hundreds more injured</a>, the French government vowed to forge ahead with a long-scheduled international summit on climate change.</p> <p>The summit, which is scheduled to start in just two weeks, will take place at an airport in the northern suburbs of Paris, not far from the stadium that was the site of multiple bombings on Friday. There, world leaders <a href="" target="_blank">plan to hash out final details</a> of the most wide-reaching international agreement ever to combat climate change. White House officials <a href="" target="_blank">confirmed</a> to <em>Politico </em> that President Barack Obama still intends to attend the talks, as scheduled prior to the attacks. Dozens of other heads of state are expected to be there as well.</p> <p>"[The summit] will go ahead with reinforced security measures," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius <a href="" target="_blank">said</a>. "This is an absolutely necessary step in the battle against climate change and of course it will take place."</p> <p>Christiana Figueres, who chairs the UN agency overseeing the talks, released a similar statement on Twitter:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Of course <a href="">#COP21</a> proceeds as planned. Even more so now. <a href="">#COP21</a> = respecting our differences &amp; same time acting together collaboratively.</p> &mdash; Christiana Figueres (@CFigueres) <a href="">November 15, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>Even prior to the attacks, 30,000 French police officers were scheduled to secure the event, <a href="" target="_blank">according to Radio France International</a>. More than 10,000 diplomats, non-governmental organization employees, and journalists <a href="" target="_blank">are expected</a> to attend the summit. Specific new security measures have not yet been made public, but <a href="" target="_blank"><em>Politico </em>quoted</a> an unnamed French official who said participants should expect "extremely tightened security" following the attacks.</p> <p>Paul Bledsoe, a former climate advisor to President Bill Clinton, also <a href="" target="_blank">told <em>Politico </em></a>that the attacks could actually improve the odds that the talks reach a successful outcome.</p> <p>"The resolve of world leaders is going to be redoubled to gain an agreement and show that they can deliver for populations around the world. The likelihood for a successful agreement has only increased because of these attacks," Bledsoe said.</p> <p>On Thursday, just a day before the attacks, Secretary of State John Kerry <a href="" target="_blank">appeared to butt heads</a> with his French counterpart over what the exact legal status of the agreement will be. Other questions remain as well, such as how wealthy, heavily polluting countries such as the United States will help developing nations pay for climate change adaptation. But overall, the Paris talks are expected to <a href="" target="_blank">yield a better outcome</a> than the last major climate summit, in Copenhagen in 2009, which failed to produce any meaningful action to curb greenhouse gas emissions or prepare for the impacts of global warming.</p> <p>Meanwhile, on Monday French officials <a href="" target="_blank">said they would block</a> a series of rallies and side events that were scheduled to take place outside the main negotiations. Environmental groups are scrambling to work out how to change their plans following the attack. Several groups involved in organizing protests and rallies that were intended to coicide with the Paris talks confirmed to <em>Mother Jones</em> that a hastily arranged meeting to hash out a plan will take place on Monday evening, Paris time. Will Davies, a spokesman for Avaaz, one of the main advocacy groups involved, said that despite the flurry of activity, plans for global marches in cities other than Paris were still going ahead as scheduled.</p> <p>Stay tuned for more updates on this story.</p></body></html> Blue Marble Climate Change Climate Desk International Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:32:56 +0000 Tim McDonnell 289586 at This Chart Shows Which Countries Are the Most Screwed by Climate Change <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="" class="image" src="/files/Verisk_Maplecroft_Climate_Change_Vulnerability_Index_2016_Infographic.jpg"><div class="caption">Verisk Maplecroft</div> </div> <p>One of the cruel ironies of climate change is that its impacts tend to fall hardest on the countries least equipped to manage them.</p> <p>When drought or sea level rise strike the United States, communities at least have access to federal aid, top scientific expertise, public investment in expensive climate-ready infrastructure, and the like. But some of the most extreme effects of global warming are headed for developing countries&mdash;drought wiping out crops in East Africa, or catastrophic hurricanes pounding Southeast Asia&mdash;that don't have access to those resources.</p> <p>New research from Maplecroft, a UK-based risk consultancy, paints a pictures of where vulnerability to climate change is most pressing. Their analysis drew on three criteria: exposure to extreme events, based on the latest meteorological science; sensitivity to impacts (i.e., does a country have other sources of income and food supply if agriculture takes a hit?); and adaptive capacity&mdash;are the country's government and social institutions prepared to work under adverse climate conditions and help citizens adapt to them?</p> <p>Unsurprisingly, Africa and Southeast Asia ranked the lowest, while Scandinavian countries ranked the highest. (While definitely at risk from sea level rise, countries such as Norway and Sweden have rich, highly functional governments to manage adaptation.) The <a href="" target="_blank">major global climate talks in Paris</a> are coming up in just a couple weeks; the chart above makes it clear why it's so important for big players like the US and China to work closely with delegations from developing countries on solutions that will provide immediate support and relief.</p></body></html> Blue Marble Charts Climate Change Climate Desk International Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:33:20 +0000 Tim McDonnell 289411 at This Is How Much Sugar You Should Eat, According to the FDA's New Guidelines <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>The Food and&nbsp;Drug Administration is releasing new guidelines&nbsp;regarding how much sugar Americans should consume, reports&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank"><em>NYT</em></a>:</p> <blockquote>The goal is for Americans to limit added sugar to no more than 10 percent of daily calories, according to the proposed guidelines. For someone older than 3, that means eating no more than 12.5 teaspoons, or 50 grams, of it a day.</blockquote> <p>Big Sugar and a bunch of food-makers are going to freak out about this, but the truth is the new FDA recommendation&nbsp;is actually only half as&nbsp;severe as the World Health Organization's <a href="" target="_blank">guideline</a>, which calls for people to limit themselves to 25 grams&mdash;or six teaspoons&mdash;of sugar a day.&nbsp;</p> <p>By some <a href="" target="_blank">estimates</a>, Americans right now eat as much as 30 teaspoons of sugar a day. That is bonkers. <a href="" target="_blank">Sugar is bad</a>. <a href="" target="_blank">Big Sugar spent decades&mdash;and millions of dollars&mdash;trying to conceal that fact</a>. Added sugar has been linked to a whole slew of health issues from <a href="" target="_blank">diabetes&nbsp;to cardiovascular disease</a>. Sugar consumption is a health crisis in America and while today's&nbsp;move is the most severe step the FDA has taken to curtail it, it is not the first. Earlier this year the agency moved to require manufacturers to <a href="" target="_blank">require betters sugar information on food labels</a>.&nbsp;</p> <p>These <a href="" target="_blank">charts show what 25 grams of sugar</a>&mdash;which, again, is the WHO suggested maximum daily dose&mdash;really looks like:</p> <div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="" class="image" src="/files/Sugar_630_2_0.jpg"></div></body></html> Blue Marble Food and Ag Health Sugar Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:36:39 +0000 Ben Dreyfuss 289056 at 2 GOP Candidates Have Reasonable Positions on Climate Change. They Won’t Be in Tonight’s Debate. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>If you were hoping for a reasonable discussion about science during Tuesday night's Republican presidential debates, you're probably going to be sorely disappointed. That's because the only two candidates with serious positions climate change have been excluded from the event.</p> <p>Last month, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former New York Gov. George Pataki made news when <a href="" target="_blank">they called out their own party</a> for rejecting the science behind climate change. "I've talked to the climatologists of the world, and 90 percent of them are telling me the greenhouse gas effect is real, that we're heating up the planet," said Graham during CNBC's Republican "undercard" debate&mdash;the early-evening consolation prize for candidates who aren't polling high enough to land a spot in prime time. "It's&hellip;not appropriate to think that human activity, putting CO2 into the atmosphere, doesn't make the Earth warmer," added Pataki. "It does. It's uncontroverted."</p> <div class="inline inline-right" style="display: table; width: 1%"><a href="" target="_blank"><img alt="Climate matrix gif" class="image" src="/files/climate-matrix-master-GIF.gif" style="height: 126px; width: 225px;"></a> <div class="caption"><a href="" target="_blank"><strong>Check out Climate Desk's ultimate guide to the presidential candidates' positions on climate change </strong></a></div> </div> <p>Out of all the candidates in the crowded GOP field, Graham and Pataki also have the strongest track records when it comes to actually fighting climate change. In the Senate, Graham <a href="" target="_blank">once sponsored a cap-and-trade bill</a> intended to reign-in greenhouse gas emissions. As governor, Pataki <a href="" target="_blank">helped create</a> a regional cap-and-trade program in the Northeast. So I was excited to hear what they would have say on the issue during the debates that will air Tuesday on the Fox Business Network. Like its sister network Fox News, Fox Business is a major epicenter of <a href="" target="_blank">climate science denial</a>.</p> <p>Unfortunately for science, Graham and Pataki<a href="" target="_blank"> won't be on stage Tuesday</a>. Neither of them are <a href="" target="_blank">averaging</a> anywhere close to 2.5 percent in the polls&mdash;the threshold Fox established for the main debate. They aren't even managing the 1 percent required to participate in the undercard debate.</p> <p>Instead, viewers will hear from <a href="" target="_blank">an array of global warming deniers</a>. Ted Cruz believes that climate change is a "pseudoscientific theory"; Donald Trump calls it a "hoax"; and Ben Carson insists there's "no overwhelming science" that it's caused by humans. Viewers will also hear from candidates like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (who was recently demoted to the undercard stage). Christie acknowledges that climate change is real <a href="" target="_blank">but seems to oppose</a> any realistic plan to deal with it.</p> <p>Then there are the folks who will be asking the questions. Last year, Fox Business managing editor Neil Cavuto&mdash;one of the moderators for Tuesday's main debate&mdash;<a href="" target="_blank">explained</a> how he first became a climate change "doubter":</p> <script type="text/javascript" src=";w=630&amp;h=354"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href=""></a></noscript> <p>Here's what Trish Regan, one of the moderators for Tuesday's undercard matchup, had to say when Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) called climate change the country's top national security threat during a Democratic debate earlier this year:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="">#Bernie</a> says <a href="">#climatechange</a> is our biggest #1 threat. Maybe he should run for office in <a href="">#Denmark</a>? <a href="">#DemDebate</a></p> &mdash; Trish Regan (@trish_regan) <a href="">October 14, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>So since you're not likely to hear this tonight, here's Pataki explaining why you really should believe what climate scientists are saying&mdash;and why you should vaccinate your kids, too:</p> <p><iframe allowfullscreen="true" frameborder="0" height="354" mozallowfullscreen="true" scrolling="no" src="" webkitallowfullscreen="true" width="630"></iframe></p></body></html> Blue Marble 2016 Elections Climate Change Climate Desk Top Stories Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:54:28 +0000 Jeremy Schulman 288966 at I Can’t Stop Smiling Because of This Adorable Baby Goat Video <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>So your morning train was packed with halitosis-breathing psychos. You stepped over (human?) poo on the way to work. The weather is bad: Winter Is Coming. Your boss&mdash;a prick at the best of times&mdash;is breathing down your neck about this or that and just won't shut up, even though you've already done the task and it's been sitting in his inbox for a week. That Tinder date you worked yourself up about last weekend won't text back. (He said he got a new phone?<em> </em>But it's been days!) And now you're refusing to "take a hint." But what if you run into him at that gig next week? Listen to me. Whatever's going on right now, screw it, because the video that just came up in my Facebook feed will make you laugh and forget all the jerks:</p> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); = id; js.src = "//"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script><div class="fb-video" data-allowfullscreen="1" data-href="/JEREMYDEKOSTEMUSIC/videos/vb.81941899283/10152986449689284/?type=3"> <div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"> <blockquote cite=""> <p>Can't stop watching this video looool</p> Posted by <a href="">Jeremy de Koste</a> on Wednesday, January 21, 2015</blockquote> </div> </div> <p><em>h/t "<a href=";utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=pubexchange" target="_blank">Little Things</a>"/<a href=";ir=Green&amp;section=green" target="_blank">Huffington Post</a></em></p></body></html> Blue Marble Video Animals Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:31:01 +0000 James West 289001 at SeaWorld Is Ending Its Killer Whale Show <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>SeaWorld will shut down the killer whale exhibition at its flagship San Diego location by next year, <a href="" target="_blank">according to the San Diego <em>Union-Tribune</em></a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>In its place would be a new orca experience debuting in 2017, described as "informative" and designed to take place in a more natural setting that would carry a "conservation message inspiring people to act."...The plan to gradually phase out the Shamu show comes amid efforts at both the state and federal level to clamp down on SeaWorld by ending the captive breeding of orcas, which would effectively bring to an end the parks' theatrical shows.</p> </blockquote> <p>It's unclear whether the new "experience" will feature live orcas, and whether the decision will apply to any of the company's other locations in San Antonio and Orlando. A SeaWorld spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.</p> <p>SeaWorld has faced broad public criticism&mdash;and a <a href="" target="_blank">tanking share price</a>&mdash;since the 2013 documentary <em>Blackfish</em> accused the company of keeping killer whales in inhumane conditions. The company has maintained that the whales <a href="" target="_blank">serve a valuable scientific purpose</a>, although many scientists disagree. The announcement also comes just days after a Congressional representative from California <a href="" target="_blank">introduced legislation</a> to ban the breeding of captive orcas and their capture from the wild.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></body></html> Blue Marble Animals Mon, 09 Nov 2015 19:39:54 +0000 Tim McDonnell 288936 at Everyone In California Is Freaking the Hell Out About a UFO <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><iframe width="630" height="354" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <p>The government says it was a missile <a href=";" target="_blank">launch</a>. That hasn't stopped people from<a href=";" target="_blank"> freaking out.</a></p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">My photo of a bright fireball seen from Pasadena tonight. Note the blue tail. <a href="">@myfoxla</a> <a href="">@plutokiller</a> <a href="">@BadAstronomer</a> <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Ron Baalke (@RonBaalke) <a href="">November 8, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script></body></html> Blue Marble Sun, 08 Nov 2015 04:11:06 +0000 Ben Dreyfuss 288856 at Republicans Are Very Mad About Obama's Keystone XL Decision <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Friday morning, after years of heated battles between environmentalists and Republicans, President Barack Obama announced that <a href="" target="_blank">he is rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline</a>.</p> <p>In a speech, the president criticized both supporters and detractors of the pipeline from placing too much emphasis on a project that, according to the State Department's analysis, would neither create many jobs nor ruin the climate if approved. Still, reactions to his decision from Republicans in Congress and the 2016 presidential primary were swift and terrible.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">My statement following President Obama&rsquo;s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline: <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) <a href="">November 6, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">When I'm president, Keystone will be approved, and President Obama's backwards energy policies will come to an end.</p> &mdash; Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) <a href="">November 6, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Keystone XL pipeline should be approved! <a href="">@POTUS</a> is once again stopping progress and blocking job creation.</p> &mdash; Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) <a href="">November 6, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">The Obama Admin's politically motivated rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline is a self-inflicted attack on the U.S. economy and jobs.</p> &mdash; Jeb Bush (@JebBush) <a href="">November 6, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">As President I&rsquo;d authorize <a href="">#KeystoneXL</a>, and we'd get Americans to work!</p> &mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="">November 6, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">.<a href="">@BarackObama</a> has abandoned American workers to appease the environmental fringe. <a href="">#KeystoneXL</a> <a href="">#sad</a></p> &mdash; Rick Santorum (@RickSantorum) <a href="">November 6, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Obama&rsquo;s rejection of <a href="">#KeystoneXL</a> will flush American jobs down the drain... all to appease the agenda of science denying radicals.</p> &mdash; Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) <a href="">November 6, 2015</a></blockquote> <p><script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script>On the other side of the aisle, Democratic candidates were quick to praise the decision:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">As a leader in the opposition to Keystone XL from Day 1, I strongly applaud the president&rsquo;s decision to kill this project once and for all.</p> &mdash; Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) <a href="">November 6, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Thanks to <a href="">@POTUS</a> for getting these done. Read the rest of my plan to find out what's next: <a href=""></a> <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Martin O'Malley (@MartinOMalley) <a href="">November 6, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>Notably absent, so far, is a reaction from Hillary Clinton. She only recently took a <a href="" target="_blank">public position against the pipeline</a>, after years of dodging the question.</p> <p><strong>UPDATE 3:30pm ET: </strong>A couple latecomers:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The right call. Now it's time to make America a clean energy superpower. -H <a href=""></a></p>&mdash; Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) <a href="">November 6, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">So sad that Obama rejected Keystone Pipeline. Thousands of jobs, good for the environment, no downside!</p>&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="">November 6, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script></body></html> Blue Marble Climate Change Climate Desk Obama Fri, 06 Nov 2015 19:12:27 +0000 Tim McDonnell 288801 at Obama Announces Historic Decision to Reject Keystone XL Pipeline <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="354" src="" width="630"></iframe></p> <p>On Friday, President Obama announced his administration's decision to reject the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, after seven years of intense deliberation over the pipeline's potential environmental risks. The <a href="" target="_blank">announcement</a> is widely viewed as a major victory for environmentalists and is sure to further burnish the president's legacy in combating climate change.</p> <p>Proponents of the controversial project, which would have carried more than <a href="" target="_blank">800,000 barrels</a>&nbsp;of crude oil from Canada daily, say the pipeline's construction would be an essential jobs creator and boost the economy. Obama's remarks in full below, courtesy of the <a href="" target="_blank"><em>Washington Post:</em></a></p> <blockquote> <p>OBAMA: Good morning, everybody.</p> <p>Several years ago, the State Department began a review process for the proposed pipeline that would carry Canadian crude oil through our heartland to ports in the Gulf of Mexico and out into the world market.</p> <p>This morning, Senator Kerry informed me that after extensive public outreach and consultation with other cabinet agencies, the State Department has decided that a Keystone XL Pipeline would not serve the national interest of the United States. I agree with that decision.</p> <p>This morning, I also had the opportunity to speak with Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada. And while he expressed his disappointment, given Canada's position on this issue, we both agreed that are close friendship on a whole range of issues, including energy and climate change, should provide the basis for even closer coordination between our countries going forward.</p> <p>And in the coming weeks, senior members of my team will be engaging with theirs in order to help deepen that cooperation.</p> <p>Now for years, the Keystone Pipeline has occupied what I, frankly, consider and overinflated role in our political discourse. It became a symbol too often used as a campaign cudgel by both parties rather than a serious policy matter.</p> <p>And all of this obscured the fact that this pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others.</p> <p>To illustrate this, let me briefly comment on some of the reasons why the State Department rejected this pipeline.</p> <p>First, the pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy. So if Congress is serious about wanting to create jobs, this was not the way to do it. If they want to do it, what we should be doing is passed bipartisan infrastructure plan that in the short term to create more than 30 times jobs per you than the pipeline would and in the long run, would benefit our economy and our workers for decades to come.</p> <p>Our business has created 262,000 new jobs last month. They created 13.5 million new jobs over the past 68 straight months, the longest streak on record. The unemployment rate fell to 5 percent. This Congress should pass a serious infrastructure plan and keep those jobs coming. That would make a difference. The pipeline would not have made a serious impact on those numbers and on the American people's prospects for the future.</p> <p>Second, the pipeline would not lower gas prices for American consumers. In fact, gas prices have already been falling steadily. The national average gas price is down to about $0.77 over a year ago. It is down a dollar over two years ago. It is down $1.27 over three years ago.</p> <p>Today in 41 states, drivers can find at least one gas station selling gas for less than two dollars a gallon. So while our politics have been consumed by debate over whether or not this pipeline would create jobs and lower gas prices, we have gone ahead and created jobs and lowered gas prices.</p> <p>Third, shipping dirtier crude oil into our country would not increase America's energy security. What has increased America's energy security is our strategy over the past several years to reduce our reliance on dirty fossil fuels from unstable parts of the world. Three years ago, I set a goal to cut our oil imports in half by 2020. Between producing more oil here and home and using less oil throughout our economy, we met that goal last year. Five years early. In fact, for the first time in two decades, the United States of America now produces more oil than we buy from other countries.</p> <p>Now the truth is the United States will continue to rely on oil and gas as we transition, as we must transition, to a clean energy economy. That transition will take some time. But it is also going more quickly than many anticipated. Think about it. Since I took office, we have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas by 2025. Tripled the power we generate from the wind, multiplied the power we generate from the sun 20 times over. Our biggest and most successful businesses are going all in on clean energy. And thanks in part to the investments we have made, there are already parts of America were clean power from the wind or the sun is finally cheaper than dirtier conventional power. The point is, the old rule said we couldn't promote economic growth and protect our environment at the same time. The old rule said we couldn't transition to clean energy without squeezing businesses and consumers.</p> <p>But this is America and we have come up with new ways and new technologies to break down the old rules so today, homegrown energy is booming and energy prices are falling. And over the past decade, even as our economy has continued to grow, America has cut our total carbon pollution more than any other country on earth. Today, the United States of America is leading on climate change with our investments in clean energy and energy efficiency.</p> <p>America is leading on climate change with new rules on power plants that will protect our air so that our kids can breathe. America is leading on climate change by working with other big emitters like China to encourage and announce new commitments to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. In part, because of that American leadership, more than 150 nations representing nearly 90 percent of global emissions, have put forward plans to cut global pollution.</p> <p>OBAMA: America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change. Frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership and that is the biggest risk that we face. Not acting.</p> <p>Today, we're continuing to lead by example, because ultimately, if we're gonna prevent large parts of this Earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we're gonna have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.</p> <p>As long as I'm president of the United States, America's gonna hold ourselves to the same high standards to which we hold the rest of the world.</p> <p>And three weeks from now, I look forward to joining my fellow world leaders in Paris, where we've got to come together around an ambitious framework to protect the one planet that we've got while we still can.</p> <p>If we want to prevent the worst effects of climate change before it's too late, the time to act is -- is now. Not later, not someday. Right here, right now.</p> <p>And I'm optimistic about what we can accomplish together. I'm optimistic because our own country proves every day, one step at a time, that not only do we have the power to combat this threat, we can do it while creating new jobs, while growing our economy, while saving money, while helping consumers, and most of all, leaving our kids a cleaner, safer planet at the same time.</p> <p>That's what our own ingenuity and actions can do. That's what we can accomplish. And America's prepared to show the rest of the world the way forward.</p> <p>Thank you very much.</p> </blockquote> <p>What does this decision mean in the long run? <em>Climate&nbsp;Desk</em>'s Tim McDonnell explains:</p> <p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="354" src="" width="630"></iframe></p></body></html> Blue Marble Climate Change Climate Desk International Obama Fri, 06 Nov 2015 17:19:39 +0000 Inae Oh 288746 at Here's What You Need to Know About President Obama's Decision to Reject the Keystone XL Pipeline <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="354" src="" width="630"></iframe></p> <p>In the year&rsquo;s biggest victory for environmentalists, President Barack Obama announced Friday that he will reject an application from Canadian company TransCanada to construct the Keystone XL pipeline.</p> <p>The pipeline, which would allow crude oil from Canada&rsquo;s oil sands to reach ports and refineries in the US, has been a major controversy for Obama ever since he took office. The White House spent years deliberating on the issue. During that time, environmental groups accused Obama of not backing up his rhetoric on climate change with real action, and Republicans in Congress accused him of blocking a job-creating infrastructure project.</p> <p>In his announcement today, the president said the State Department&rsquo;s analysis had shown the pipeline would not significantly benefit the US economy.</p> <p>"The State Department has decided that the Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the national interests of the United States. I agree with that decision," Obama said.</p> <p>The timing of the announcement is significant, as it comes just weeks before the beginning of major international climate negotiations in Paris. Obama&rsquo;s decision will "reverberate" with other countries and sends a strong message that the United States is serious about taking action to stop climate change, said Jennifer Morgan, director of the global climate program at the World Resources Institute.</p> <p>Obama said that pipeline had been given an "overinflated role in the political discourse" by both its supporters and detractors. Still, he framed his decision as a key element of his climate legacy.</p> <p>"America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change," he said. "Today we continue to lead by example."</p> <p>Watch the full speech below:</p> <p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="354" src="" width="630"></iframe></p> <p><em>This post has been updated.</em></p></body></html> Blue Marble Climate Change Climate Desk Energy Obama Top Stories Infrastructure Fri, 06 Nov 2015 16:06:16 +0000 Tim McDonnell 288741 at New York Launches Probe Into Allegations Exxon Covered Up Climate Dangers <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>On Thursday, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced the state has officially opened an investigation looking into whether ExxonMobil deliberately covered up research into the dangers of climate change.</p> <center> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">OK. <a href="">#ExxonKnew</a> just got really grownup really fast. New York AG has issued subpoenas. <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) <a href="">November 5, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script></center> <p>From the <a href=";_r=0" target="_blank"><em>New York Times</em></a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>The focus includes the company's activities dating to the late 1970s, including a period of at least a decade when Exxon Mobil funded groups that sought to undermine climate science. A major focus of the investigation is whether the company adequately warned investors about potential financial risks stemming from society's need to limit fossil-fuel use&hellip;"We unequivocally reject the allegations that Exxon Mobil has suppressed climate-change research," [Exxon vice president Kenneth P.] Cohen said, adding that the company had funded mainstream climate science since the 1970s, had published dozens of scientific papers on the topic, and had disclosed climate risks to investors.</p> </blockquote> <p>The announcement comes on the heels of calls from Democratic presidential candidates, including <a href="" target="_blank">Bernie Sanders</a> and Hillary Clinton, for the US Justice Department to open a similar investigation.</p> <p><em>This is a breaking news post.</em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p></body></html> Blue Marble Climate Change Climate Desk Corporations Thu, 05 Nov 2015 20:43:07 +0000 Inae Oh 288701 at Republicans Are Going To Hate This Chart <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="" class="image" src="/files/cpp-poll.jpg"><div class="caption">Yale Project on Climate Change Communication</div> </div> <p>Two weeks ago, President Barack Obama's <a href="" target="_blank">signature climate action plan</a> was formally published. The new regulations will require many states to reduce their use of coal, the dirtiest form of energy, in an effort to slash greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by about a third by 2030. Almost immediately, the plan came under a <a href="" target="_blank">barrage of legal attacks</a> from two dozen coal-dependent states, almost all led by Republican governors and attorneys general. Meanwhile, Republican members of Congress introduced legislation to overturn the plan.</p> <p>On Tuesday, after the House of Representatives resolution was <a href="" target="_blank">approved in committee</a>, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) claimed a victory for all Americans. The vote, he said, shows that "the American people are not happy with President Obama's climate change policy."</p> <p>Except that, they kind of <em>are</em> happy about it. That's according to <a href="" target="_blank">new polling</a> by Yale University's Project on Climate Change Communication, which found that 61 percent of residents in the states suing the Obama administration support tight limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants. Individual state results are listed in the table above. Even in Kentucky, home to the plan's biggest opponent, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), most residents support the plan.</p> <p>Makes you wonder whose interests all these governors, attorneys general, and legislators are really representing.</p></body></html> Blue Marble Charts Climate Change Climate Desk Wed, 04 Nov 2015 16:38:30 +0000 Tim McDonnell 288511 at TransCanada Just Asked the United States to Suspend the Keystone XL Pipeline <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>In an unexpected turn of events,&nbsp;the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline proposal requested to temporarily suspend its US permit application on Monday.</p> <p>In a letter to Secretary of State&nbsp;John Kerry, the Calgary-based&nbsp;TransCanada Corporation asked that State Department, which reviews cross-border pipelines, delay its decision while the company goes through a state review process in Nebraska. Earlier in the week, the White House indicated its intention to rule on the <a href="" target="_blank">controversy-ridden</a>&nbsp;pipeline by the end of Obama's term; some were expecting the State Department decision&nbsp;to&nbsp;reject the pipeline as soon as the end of the week.&nbsp;</p> <p>"We are asking State (Department) to pause its review of Keystone XL based on the fact that we have applied to the Nebraska Public Service Commission for approval of its preferred route in the state," TransCanada Chief Executive Russ Girling said in a statement.</p> <p>But some are speculating that the request is a political play:&nbsp;A delay in the permit could mean pushing the issue beyond the 2016 election&mdash;and into the hands of a new administration.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">They think Obama is about to reject it so they want to see if GOP wins WH. Then they can reinstate application. <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) <a href="">November 3, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Is this the real reason TransCanada wants to suspend its application for Keystone Pipeline? <a href=""></a> <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) <a href="">November 3, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>TransCanada&nbsp;has vowed over the years that it would not back down on the proposed pipeline from Alberta to Texas in the face of economic or political challenges, and until recently, it had been pushing&nbsp;for a speedy border permit approval.</p> <p><em>&acirc;&#128;&#139;This post has been updated.</em></p></body></html> Blue Marble Climate Change Climate Desk Corporations Energy Foreign Policy Tue, 03 Nov 2015 01:26:36 +0000 Julia Lurie 288371 at Volkswagen's Pollution Scheme Could Be Even Worse Than We Thought <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Things just keep getting worse for Volkswagen. In mid-September, the German automaker was suddenly faced with the possibility of billions of dollars in fines after federal regulators <a href="" target="_blank">accused it of selling half a million diesel-powered cars</a> in the United States that were equipped with software that intentionally falsified emissions performance.</p> <p>The citation, which named half a dozen models sold since 2009, drove the company's share price off a cliff and forced the ouster of CEO Martin Winterkorn. In <a href="" target="_blank">testimony last month</a> in Congress, VW's chief of US operations apologized for the deception but maintained that responsibility lay with a handful of German engineers and not with the company's top management. That same day, the company's offices in Germany were raided by police.</p> <p>The story took another turn on Monday, when the Environmental Protection Agency <a href="" target="_blank">announced</a> it is expanding its investigation to include several previously unmentioned VW models, covering an additional 10,000 cars sold in the US. Those models are the diesel versions of:</p> <ul><li>2014 VW Touareg</li> <li>2015 Porsche Cayenne</li> <li>2016 Audi A6 Quattro, A7 Quattro, A8, A8L, and Q5</li> </ul><p>The inclusion of a Porsche on the list is especially interesting, as Winterkorn was <a href="" target="_blank">replaced in VW's driver's seat</a> by Matthias M&uuml;ller, who had previously run the Porsche division. Volkswagen did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the new allegations.</p> <p>By some estimates, the excess emissions caused by VW's cars could <a href="" target="_blank">contribute to thousands of deaths</a>. In addition to continuing its investigation into VW, the EPA has also promised to implement more stringent emissions testing procedures designed to counteract such software.</p></body></html> Blue Marble Climate Change Climate Desk Tech Mon, 02 Nov 2015 20:22:04 +0000 Tim McDonnell 288316 at Bill Gates Thinks It’s Time to Fix Capitalism <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="360" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="640"></iframe></p> <p>On Friday, the United Nations released <a href="" target="_blank">a survey</a> of the plans laid out by more than 100 countries to fight climate change. Its report uncovered some interesting trends, including that most countries are planning to invest in renewable energy and that global adaptation efforts focus first and foremost on protecting the food and water supply.&nbsp;</p> <p>But the survey also affirmed that all this collective global action doesn't add up to keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the internationally agreed-upon goal. That brought to mind the <a href="" target="_blank">great interview</a> with Bill Gates that <em>The Atlantic</em>, one of our Climate Desk partners, recently released. In the above video, Gates points out another key flaw in the international negotiating process: Most countries' goals focus on the progress to be made by 2030&mdash;phase one of the global push to slash greenhouse gas emissions. The United States' goal, for example, calls for cutting emissions by about a third by that time.&nbsp;</p> <p>If we're really serious about keeping global warming in check, Gates argues, we need to start thinking more concretely about what comes after 2030. The Obama administration has <a href="" target="_blank">promised</a> that the short-term goal will get us on track to cut emissions 80 percent by 2050. But Gates cautions that that second phase will much more difficult to achieve than the first.</p> <p>"Let's be realistic about how we're going to get to the 2050 goal," Gates says. "There are things that have such long lead times&mdash;including innovation itself&mdash;that if they're a part of your 2050 solution, you need to get started now. The rate of innovation should be doubled."</p> <p>To that end, Gates has pledged $2 billion out of his own pocket to invest in sustainable-energy projects. He thinks research and development funding by the United States and China needs to grow massively, since "the climate problem has to be solved in the rich countries." In the <a href="" target="_blank">extended interview</a> between Gates and <em>Atlantic</em> editor James Bennet, he also makes a case for a "significant" global tax on carbon emissions. That's the only way to fix the market failure that lets companies <a href="" target="_blank">get away with the pollution</a> caused by fossil fuels&mdash;and, he says, the only way to encourage the private sector to switch to clean energy.</p> <p>"Yes, the government will be somewhat inept," he said. "But the private sector is in general inept."</p></body></html> Blue Marble Video Climate Change Climate Desk Energy International Infrastructure Mon, 02 Nov 2015 20:11:59 +0000 Tim McDonnell 288301 at The World's Plan to Save Itself, in 6 Charts <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="354" src="" width="630"></iframe></p> <p>World leaders have a pretty comprehensive plan to fight climate change, according to a United Nations report released Friday&mdash;even if it doesn't go as far as many of them had hoped.</p> <p>In just over a month, representatives from most of the countries on Earth will gather in Paris in an attempt to finalize an international agreement to limit global warming and adapt to its impacts. The video above is a snappy explainer of what's at stake at this meeting, but suffice it to say the proposed deal is split into two keys parts. First is the core agreement, parts of which may be legally binding, that comprises broad, non-specific guidelines for all countries. It calls on countries to take steps such as transparently reporting greenhouse gas emissions and committing to ramp up climate action over the next few decades.</p> <p>But the real meat-and-potatoes is in the second part, the "intended nationally determined contributions" (INDCs). The INDCs are what sets the Paris talks apart from past attempts at a global climate agreement in Kyoto in 1997 and Copenhagen in 2009. Those summits either left out major polluters (the US dropped out of the Kyoto Protocol; China and India were exempted) or fell apart completely (Copenhagen), in large part because they were built around universal greenhouse gas reduction targets that not everyone could agree to.</p> <p>This time around, the UN process is more like a potluck, where each country brings its own unique contribution based on its needs and abilities; those are the INDCs. The US, for example, has <a href="" target="_blank">committed to reduce</a> its greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, mostly by going after carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. So far, <a href="" target="_blank">according to the World Resources Institute</a>, 126 plans have been submitted, covering about 86 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. (The European Union submitted one joint plan for all its members.) Those contributions are likely to limit global warming to <a href="" target="_blank">around 2.7 degrees Celsius</a> (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels by 2100. That's above the 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) limit <a href="" target="_blank">scientists say</a> is necessary to avert the worst impacts&mdash;but it's also about 1 degree C less warming than would happen if the world continued on its present course.</p> <p>Now, we have a bit more insight into how countries are planning to make this happen. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the group that is overseeing the Paris talks, combed through all the INDCs to look for trends. Its report is a bit convoluted and repetitive; I don't recommend it to any but the nerdiest climate nerds. But I pulled out a few of the charts as an overview of what global action on climate change really looks like.</p> <p><strong>Types of targets: </strong>Most of the INDCs contain specific emission reduction targets. (Not all do; some countries, such as the small island nations, have such small or nonexistent emissions that it wouldn't make sense to promise to reduce them.) The most common way to state these targets is to promise that emissions at X future date will be lower than they would be with no action. Indonesia, for example, <a href="" target="_blank">has pledged</a> to increase its emissions over the next 25 years by 29 percent less than it would have under a "business as usual" scenario. The US commitment fits in the second category, an "absolute" target where emissions actually begin to go down. Others specify a date at which emissions will "peak," or set a goal for emissions per unit of GDP or energy production ("intensity").</p> <div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="targets" class="image" src="/files/target-types.jpg"><div class="caption">UNFCCC</div> </div> <p><br><strong>Greenhouse gases: </strong>The commitments cover a broad range of greenhouse gases (most cover more than one), but carbon dioxide is the most common enemy. That's no surprise, as it's <a href="" target="_blank">by far the most common</a>.</p> <div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="gases" class="image" src="/files/gases.jpg"><div class="caption">UNFCCC</div> </div> <p><br><strong>Economic sectors: </strong>In different countries, different economic sectors are more or less responsible for climate pollution. In the US, the number-one source of emissions is coal-fired power plants; thus, President Barack Obama's plans focus on the power sector. In Indonesia, by contrast, <a href="" target="_blank">deforestation is the biggest problem</a>. Most plans cover more than one sector, but the most common is energy.</p> <div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="sectors" class="image" src="/files/sectors.jpg"><div class="caption">UNFCCC</div> </div> <p><br><strong>How to fix it: </strong>This section finds that implementing renewable energy is the most common way countries are planning to meet their targets. More interesting is the tiny role played by carbon capture, use, and storage, down at the bottom of the chart. This refers to technology that "captures" greenhouse gas emissions on their way out of power plants, or directly from the atmosphere, and buries or re-purposes them. Support for carbon capture&mdash;also known as "clean coal"&mdash;is popular with policymakers who don't want to curb coal use (<a href="" target="_blank">including GOP presidential contender John Kasich</a>), even though it remains <a href="" target="_blank">costly and unproven at scale</a>.&nbsp;</p> <div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="areas" class="image" src="/files/implementing-areas.jpg"><div class="caption">UNFCCC</div> </div> <p><br><strong>How to adapt: </strong>Many countries' INDCs also contain information about how they plan to adapt to climate change. Water use, agriculture, and public health appear to be the biggest areas of focus.</p> <div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="adaptation" class="image" src="/files/adaptation.jpg"><div class="caption">UNFCCC</div> </div> <p><br><strong>A terrible, no-good, very bad summary: </strong>The most important question is clearly how all this adds up to reducing the world's greenhouse gas footprint and averting the worst threats posed by climate change. But the chart that addresses this question (below) is&hellip;not great. I'm including it so you have some sense of one big drawback of the Paris approach&mdash;without universal emissions targets, it's a lot harder to specify what the cumulative effect of these plans will really be. In short, here's what this chart shows: The gray line is global greenhouse gas emissions up to today. The orange line is how emissions will grow over the next couple decades if we do nothing. The three blue lines show how quickly we would need to reduce emissions to keep global warming to 2 degrees C; the longer we wait to take action, the steeper the cuts have to be. The yellow rectangles show a snapshot of where the INDCs leave us.</p> <div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="crappy chart" class="image" src="/files/shit-chart.jpg"><div class="caption">UNFCCC</div> </div> <p>So, we're better off than before, but we're not out of danger. That's why it's essential for the core agreement to include requirements that countries adopt even more aggressive goals in the future; that's one of the key things that will be debated in Paris. In other words, the Paris meeting is just one key battle in a war that's far from over, Jennifer Morgan, director of the WRI's global climate program, said in a statement.</p> <p>"Despite the unprecedented level of effort, this report finds that current commitments are not yet sufficient to meet what the world needs. Countries must accelerate their efforts after the Paris summit in order to stave off climate change. The global climate agreement should include a clear mandate for countries to ramp up their commitments and set a long-term signal to phase out emissions as soon as possible."</p></body></html> Blue Marble Charts Climate Change Climate Desk Science Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:18:25 +0000 Tim McDonnell 288171 at This Commercial Might Be One of the Only Factual Things to Air During Tonight's GOP Debate <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="354" src="" width="630"></iframe></p> <p>If you watch tonight's Republican primary debate on CBNC, you can expect to hear opinions on the economy and <a href="" target="_blank">pot</a>, <a href="" target="_blank">attacks on newly annointed front-runner Ben Carson, and more</a>. You can also expect to see the ad above, which lays out the economic case for action on climate change.</p> <p>The 30-second spot is part of a six-figure TV and digital ad buy from NextGen Climate, the advocacy group run by billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer. At the beginning of the primary season, <a href="" target="_blank">Steyer promised to focus his group's energy</a> on holding Republican presidential candidates accountable for their lack of climate action, and to pursue a campaign to "disqualify" any candidate who doesn't accept mainstream climate science.</p> <p>"America has never been a country of quitters," the ad states, over bucolic b-roll of farmers, veterans, and small town Main Streets. "We don't ignore threats like climate change."</p> <p>Then the scene changes to wind farms and solar panels, as the narrator promises that American-made clean energy will produce jobs, innovation, and energy independence. At the end, it advocates a specific goal of getting half the country's power from renewable sources by 2030. (We're at about <a href="" target="_blank">7 percent</a> now.)</p> <p>Steyer is clearly right that clean energy is a major 21st-century growth industry. Solar is the <a href="" target="_blank">fastest-growing energy source</a> in the country, and employment in that sector already outnumbers coal miners two-to-one. Nearly <a href="" target="_blank">$40 billion</a> was invested in clean energy in the United States in 2014, 7 percent higher than the previous year. Earlier this month, California <a href="" target="_blank">adopted the same ambitious target</a> that Steyer is calling for: The state's power companies will be required to get 50 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2030.</p> <p>But the message hasn't yet gotten through to most of the Republican presidential candidates. Marco Rubio's energy plan is basically the <a href="" target="_blank">exact opposite</a> of what Steyer wants. Jeb Bush wants to <a href="" target="_blank">eliminate all energy subsidies</a>, including those for renewables. Other <a href="" target="_blank">candidates have variously</a> denied the existence of climate change, championed fossil fuels, and taken pot shots at President Barack Obama's climate agenda.</p> <p>The one exception, believe it or not, is Ben Carson, who&mdash;despite engaging in <a href="" target="_blank">climate change skepticism</a>&mdash;recently said he wants <a href="" target="_blank">"more than 50 percent"</a> clean energy. Maybe tonight we'll learn more about how exactly he plans to get us there.</p></body></html> Blue Marble Video 2016 Elections Climate Change Climate Desk Economy Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:59:45 +0000 Tim McDonnell 287956 at 4,400 Dead Cows Are Decomposing in a Sunken Ship in a Brazilian River <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Earlier this month, a ship heading to Venezuela sank at the river port of Vila do Conde in the Amazon region of northern Brazil.</p> <p>Shipwrecks are always tragic, but what made this one unique was the ship's cargo: 4,900 live cows. The animals, which belonged to the Brazilian beef company <a href=";conta=44&amp;tipo=41107" target="_blank">Minerva Foods</a>, were headed to Venezuela. (This isn't Minerva Foods' first ship accident involving cows&mdash;<a href="" target="_blank">another one</a> happened in 2012.) The vast majority&mdash;around 4,400 animals&mdash;drowned inside the ship. Of the approximately 500 animals that managed to leave the vessel, only 100 survived. Hundreds of carcasses were carried by the current to local beaches. Local families loaded some onto trucks to take home and use for meat, but the remainder rotted in endless rows of bodies on the sand.</p> <div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="" class="image" src="/files/cows1_0.jpg"><div class="caption"><strong>A few animals that managed to escape at the time of the sinking huddle on a part of the ship. </strong>Diario do Par&aacute;</div> </div> <p>Shipping live cattle is a relatively common practice in Brazil&mdash;last year, according to the country's <a href="" target="_blank">Ministry of Agriculture</a>, it exported 646,700 live cattle with a total value of $675 million. Some countries, such as Jordan and Lebanon, prefer buying cattle rather than meat so that customers can slaughter them in accordance with Muslim halal rules; other countries buy with the intention of fattening the animals before the slaughter.</p> <div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="" class="image" src="/files/haidar630.gif"><div class="caption">Paulo Santos/<a href="" target="_blank">Acervo H</a></div> </div> <p>Despite the unexpected access to meat, the lives of thousands of fishermen's families&mdash;most of whom are very poor&mdash;have become a living hell due to the smell of the decomposing carcasses and the fear that their drinking water and fishing grounds will be polluted. Local authorities have already removed the carcasses from the beaches but do not seem to know how to remove more than 4,000 bodies rotting below the river's surface.</p> <p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="" width="560"></iframe></p> <p>To make matters worse, the ship was also carrying nearly 2 million gallons of fuel, which must be removed before the animals. Some have estimated the cost of the environmental disaster at upwards of $30 million. <a href="#correction">*</a> The real scale of the environmental impact, however, is still being assessed.</p> <p id="correction"><em>Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the estimated cost of the disaster. The sentence has since been fixed. </em></p></body></html> Blue Marble Top Stories Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:00:17 +0000 Thiago Medaglia 287826 at Women Can Boost Their Testosterone Just by Acting Like a Boss <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>We often point to testosterone to explain the traits that make men "manly": competitiveness, horniness, impulsiveness. People have even <a href="" target="_blank">blamed</a> the testosterone levels of the architects of the Great Recession for the devastatingly awful decisions that led to the financial crash.</p> <p>But new research shows that the reason men have more testosterone than women may have as much to do with gender socialization as inherent biology. Scientists from the University of Michigan <a href="" target="_blank">published a study</a> today that found that the act of wielding power increases testosterone levels regardless of gender. The study's authors went on to hypothesize that the reason women generally have less of the hormone than men may be, at least in part, because of gender norms that prevent women from accessing positions of power and discourage them from being competitive.</p> <p>To come to this conclusion, researchers hired more than 100 actors to perform an activity during which they held power over someone else: firing a subordinate employee. The actors performed the firing both acting with stereotypically "masculine" traits (using dominant poses, taking up space, not smiling), and with stereotypically "feminine" traits (lifting their voice at the end of sentences, being hesitant, not making eye contact). Researchers also measured the levels of a control group watching a travel documentary.&nbsp;</p> <p>What they found was fascinating.</p> <p>Not only did the female subjects acting in a stereotypically masculine way see an increase in testosterone (compared with the control), but those performing in a "feminine" way saw a significant boost, as well. In other words, just the act of wielding power, regardless of whether the wielder is performing maleness, increases testosterone levels. The study found that men did not have much of a testosterone boost during the activity, which, the study's authors guessed, could be because men's more frequent engagement in competitions and power-wielding activities "might paradoxically lead to dampened testosterone responses."</p> <p>"Our results would support a pathway from gender to testosterone that is mediated by men engaging more frequently than women in behaviors such as wielding power that increase testosterone," the study says.</p> <p>What's that in layman's terms? Gender inequality, at least in part, may be part of what's making men manly.</p></body></html> Blue Marble Health Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:00:14 +0000 Luke Whelan 287721 at Bacon, Hot Dogs, and Processed Meats Cause Cancer, WHO Says <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>A new <a href="" target="_blank">report</a> released by the World Health Organization on Monday reveals that processed meats such as bacon, hot dogs, and sausage cause cancer. Red meat, while carrying a slightly lower risk than processed meats, likely does as well.</p> <p>According to the organization, daily consumption of 50 grams of processed meats&mdash;defined as meats that have been transformed by salting, curing, or other taste-enhancing methods&mdash;increased the likelihood of cancer by 18 percent. Processed meats, which are linked to an increased likelihood of bowel cancer, were found to be as carcinogenic as cigarettes, arsenic, and alcohol.</p> <p>Red meat, such as lamb, pork, and beef, was classified as "probably carcinogenic" to humans.</p> <p>"For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed," Dr. Kurt Straif, head of the WHO's cancer research agency, said in a <a href="" target="_blank">press release</a>. "In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance."</p> <p>Monday's report, unambiguous in pointing out the clear link between processed meats and cancer, is sure to revive debate over the comparison between meat and cigarettes as carcinogenic substances. While previous studies have suggested associations between meat and cancer, none has gone as far as the WHO's latest findings to establish a direct causality.</p> <p>The meat industry was quick to respond.</p> <p>"We simply don't think the evidence support any casual link between any red meat and any type of cancer," Shalene McNeil, executive director of human nutrition at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, told the <a href="" target="_blank"><em>Washington Post</em></a>.</p> <p>The WHO's report is the result of a study conducted by 22 scientists from 10 countries who examined more than 800 previous studies from around the world.</p> <p><em>This headline has been updated to more accurately reflect the research.</em></p></body></html> Blue Marble Food and Ag Health Health Care Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:32:11 +0000 Inae Oh 287756 at Coal-Loving Republicans Are Suing Obama Again <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>President Barack Obama's signature plan to fight climate change was <a href="" target="_blank">formally published</a> this morning, thus opening the season for a fresh round of legal challenges from two dozen states, most of which are major coal consumers.</p> <p>The Clean Power Plan, as it's known, <a href="" target="_blank">aims to reduce the nation's</a> power-sector carbon footprint to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. To reach that goal, each state has a unique target that it can achieve by cleaning or shuttering coal-fired power plants, building renewable energy systems, and investing in energy efficiency. Ever since it was first proposed a couple years ago, it's been a <a href="" target="_blank">punching bag</a> for <a href="" target="_blank">Republicans in Congress</a>, in state capitals, and in the 2016 presidential race. Marco Rubio <a href="" target="_blank">recently promised</a> to "immediately stop" the plan if elected.</p> <div class="inline inline-right" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="" class="image" src="/files/blankenship-inline_0.jpg"><div class="caption"><a href="" target="_blank"><strong>The dangerous, cutthroat world of America's most notorious coal baron </strong></a></div> </div> <p>The plan has also already spent a lot of time in court, so far surviving a series of attempts by states and coal companies to block it from being implemented. The last such case <a href="" target="_blank">ended in September</a>, when a federal court ruled that legal challenges couldn't be brought until the final version of the new rules was officially published.</p> <p>Now that threshold has been crossed, and the lawsuits are flooding in. <a href="" target="_blank">According to the<em> Hill</em></a>, 24 states and Murray Energy, a coal company, filed suits Friday morning:</p> <blockquote> <p>West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), who is leading the legal fight against the plan, called it "the single most onerous and illegal regulations that we've seen coming out of D.C. in a long time."</p> <p>The West Virginia and Murray lawsuits came the day the rule was published in the Federal Register, the first day court challenges can legally be filed. The states joining West Virginia are Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arizona and North Carolina.</p> </blockquote> <p>It shouldn't come as a surprise that most of these states are major consumers of coal, the most carbon-polluting form of energy, and are thus the most likely to take a beating from the regulations. (Of course, coal has been struggling since <a href="" target="_blank">before Obama even took office</a>). Here's a look at how much the suing states depend on coal; I've ranked them by the share of their total electricity mix that comes from coal, rather than by their total consumption volume:</p> <div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="" class="image" src="/files/cpp-suits.jpg"><div class="caption">Tim McDonnell</div> </div> <p>It's worth noting as well that all but three of those states (Kentucky, Missouri, and North Carolina) have Republican attorneys general. Now that the dust has basically settled on battles over gay marriage and Obamacare, the Clean Power Plan is the next logical thing for GOP-led states to fight with the Obama administration about.&nbsp;</p> <p>But the plan really isn't as crazy as Morrisey, et al., would have you believe. In fact, it has taken <a href="" target="_blank">some heat</a> from environmentalists for not going far enough, and for doing little more than locking in the incremental greenhouse gas reductions that were already happening. Still, there's a lot riding on these legal challenges, because the Clean Power Plan is the administration's main bargaining chip for the global climate negotiations coming up in a month in Paris. The <a href="" target="_blank">promises that Obama has made</a> to the rest of the world as to how the United States will help slow climate change basically ride on this plan. So if the plan were to be killed in court, the whole international agreement could collapse.</p> <p>Fortunately, it seems very unlikely that the court will throw the rule out, said Tom&aacute;s Carbonell, a senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund.</p> <p>Carbonell added that if history is a guide, the litigation is likely to come to a conclusion before Obama leaves office, which would preclude the possibility that a President Donald Trump or another climate change denier could let the plan wither on the vine by refusing to defend it in court.</p> <p>The Natural Resources Defense Council has a <a href="" target="_blank">good explainer</a> on the plan's strengths, not least of which is that most states are already well on their way to coming up with a plan for compliance. So far, it doesn't seem like anyone is following Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) advice to <a href="" target="_blank">just ignore the plan altogether</a>.</p></body></html> Blue Marble Charts Climate Change Climate Desk Energy Top Stories Infrastructure Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:46:38 +0000 Tim McDonnell 287626 at "Back to the Future" Never Predicted This Kickass Solar House <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="354" src="" width="630"></iframe></p> <p>Three years ago next week, when Superstorm Sandy swept through the New York City area, the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J., was right in the line of fire. The experience gave the school's engineers and architects plenty of food for thought on how to design a storm-proof coastal building. So when the Obama administration launched the 14th annual Solar Decathlon&mdash;a contest to build the most badass,&nbsp;cutting-edge, solar-powered home&mdash;they put pen to paper and hammer to nail.&nbsp;</p> <p>The result is the <a href="" target="_blank">Sure House</a> (a take on "shore house"), which was <a href="" target="_blank">awarded first place</a> in the competition this weekend. The house, shown off in the video above, is custom-built for the Jersey Shore, hardened against hurricanes, and uses a fraction of the energy of a normal house. It has tons of cool features: It's sealed water-tight against up to six feet of flooding; gets 100 percent of its power from solar panels that are designed to stay operational even when the electric grid goes down; and regulates its temperature without using any power for air conditioning or a heater, by using custom-built insulation and ventilation. (David Roberts at <em>Vox </em>has <a href="" target="_blank">more details</a>.)</p> <p>Oh, and it's also really attractive and cozy:</p> <div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="" class="image" src="/files/16242161150_a46280a52b.jpg"><div class="caption">DOE</div> </div> <blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-version="5" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:658px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"> <div style="padding:8px;"> <div style=" background:#F8F8F8; line-height:0; margin-top:40px; padding:50.0% 0; text-align:center; width:100%;"> <div style=" background:url(); display:block; height:44px; margin:0 auto -44px; position:relative; top:-22px; width:44px;">&nbsp;</div> </div> <p style=" margin:8px 0 0 0; padding:0 4px;"><a href="" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none; word-wrap:break-word;" target="_blank">Reach for the stars, because sometimes reality can far exceed your expectations. Just wanted to welcome everyone who has recently joined our social media! The next couple months are going to be super exciting, so we hope you all stay tuned. Happy Friday everyone! #SUREHOUSE #stevenstech #beforeandafter #expectationsvsreality #render #sd2015 #solardecathlon #tgif</a></p> <p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;">A photo posted by SURE HOUSE (@surehouse) on <time datetime="2015-08-14T23:15:57+00:00" style=" font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px;">Aug 14, 2015 at 4:15pm PDT</time></p> </div> </blockquote> <script async defer src="//"></script><blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-version="5" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:658px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"> <div style="padding:8px;"> <div style=" background:#F8F8F8; line-height:0; margin-top:40px; padding:50.0% 0; text-align:center; width:100%;"> <div style=" background:url(); display:block; height:44px; margin:0 auto -44px; position:relative; top:-22px; width:44px;">&nbsp;</div> </div> <p style=" margin:8px 0 0 0; padding:0 4px;"><a href="" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none; word-wrap:break-word;" target="_blank">In just a few short days it'll finally be time to start taking this beauty apart in order to ship it to Irvine, California for the competition. If you'd like to get one last glimpse of the house in one piece before it leaves, make sure to stop by the site this Friday at 5 pm! #openhouse #lastchance #SUREHOUSE #stevenstech #solardecathlon #SD2015</a></p> <p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;">A photo posted by SURE HOUSE (@surehouse) on <time datetime="2015-08-26T23:53:07+00:00" style=" font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px;">Aug 26, 2015 at 4:53pm PDT</time></p> </div> </blockquote> <script async defer src="//"></script><p><br> Maybe there's hope that we'll survive climate change, after all.</p></body></html> Blue Marble Video Climate Change Climate Desk Energy Tech Infrastructure Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:48:49 +0000 Tim McDonnell 287471 at