From 2000 to 2014 the share of adults living in middle-income households fell in 203 of the 229 U.S. metropolitan areas. The decrease in the middle-class share was often substantial, measuring 6 percentage points or more in 53 metropolitan areas, compared with a 4-point drop nationally.
The biggest factors threatening plant species with extinction are the destruction of habitats for farming (31%) - such as palm oil production and cattle ranching, deforestation for timber (21%) and construction of buildings and infrastructure (13%). Climate change is currently a smaller factor - 4% - but is likely to grow.
[W]e need to increase the installation rate [by] about a factor of 8 in energy terms. Assuming that the cost of renewable energy won't radically change in the future, we need to increase monetary investments of about the same factor. It means that we need to go from the present value of about 280 billion dollars per year to some 2 trillion dollars per year. This is a lot of money, but not an unthinkable investment rate. If we sum up what we are investing for fossils (about $1 trillion/year), for renewables ($300 billion/year) and nuclear (perhaps around $200 billion/year) we see that we are not far from there.
Judge Hollis Hill ordered Ecology to promulgate an emissions reduction rule by the end of 2016 and make recommendations to the state legislature on science-based greenhouse gas reductions in the 2017 legislative session. Judge Hill also ordered Ecology to consult with the youth petitioners in advance of that recommendation.
In granting the youth a remedy, Judge Hill noted the extraordinary circumstances of the climate crisis, saying, “this is an urgent situation…these kids can’t wait.”Update (May 20): Another win for young activists, this time at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
The Court found that the [Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection] was not complying with its legal obligation to reduce the State’s GHG emissions and ordered the agency to “promulgate regulations that address multiple sources or categories of sources of greenhouse gas emissions, impose a limit on emissions that may be released . . . and set limits that decline on an annual basis.”
"The global climate change crisis is a threat to the well being of humanity, and to my generation, that has been ignored for too long,” said Youth Plaintiff Shamus Miller, age 17.Update (June 25): While finding an appropriate timeline is given as the reason for appealing Judge Hill's order, blogger Pacificshift expresses disappointment in Washington State's governor.
[I]ronically, the administration of Gov. Jay Inslee, who came into office as the “greenest governor” with stellar credentials as a Congressional climate leader, is trying to overturn the most recent victory through an appeal to a higher court.Update (September 13): A group of 21 young plaintiffs had a hearing in U.S. District Court in Oregon. They argue "that by failing to act on climate change, the U.S. government has violated the youngest generation's constitutional rights."
The Justice Department argued that the federal judge in Eugene, Oregon, who refused to dismiss the case in 2016 had overstepped her authority. Federal attorneys claimed that the issues are not the business of the courts, but the sole purview of Congress and the president. The appeals court unanimously concluded that those arguments are “better addressed through the ordinary course of litigation.”Update (April 13, 2018): The Oregon case is set to go to trial on October 29.
In its 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco acknowledged the gravity of the climate crisis but ruled the case lacks legal standing to proceed to trial.
Isn’t it interesting how reliably social division works as a distraction from things that ought to matter more?This is why I hate what the Republican party has become. They want smaller government; government off our backs; government is the problem and then this happens in Mississippi (and elsewhere):
Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law a bill legalizing discrimination against LGBT people. It is dubbed the “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act,” which is a cynical lie. The only thing it protects is those doing the discriminating.
You want to refuse to rent to a lesbian couple? You’re covered.
You want to refuse to hire a transgendered woman? Go for it.
You want to force your gay adopted son to undergo so-called conversion therapy? No problem.
You want to kick an adulterous heterosexual out of your hardware store? Yep, the law says you can even do that.
Indeed, it says that any gay, transgendered or adulterous individual whose behavior offends the “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions” of a person, for-profit business, government employee or religious organization can be refused service.
As if your sexual orientation or marital status were the business of the cashier ringing up your groceries or the barber trimming your hair.In North Carolina, the distraction over transgender people using public restrooms covers up a threat to all workers.
Tucked inside [the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act] is language that strips North Carolina workers of the ability to sue under a state anti-discrimination law, a right that has been upheld in court since 1985.Pitts points out that Mississippi has enough problems to get labeled "the worst state to live in". But Republicans need some distraction (and hate) to help turn out voters without letting on that government could work.
You’d think ... Mississippi ... has more pressing concerns than salving the hurt feelings of some putative Christian who doesn’t want to bake a cake for Lester and Steve.
But addressing those concerns would require serious thought, sustained effort, foresight, creativity and courage. It is easier just to scapegoat the gays.Update (April 12): And now Tennessee wants to get in on the hate.
None other than the late Antonin Scalia put his finger on the problem. To make an individual’s obedience to the law “contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs” amounts to “permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself,’” he said. It “contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.”
