A strategy to unleash the green energy potential of vacant space in towns and cities should begin—and not end—with car parks.
November 19, 2022
France has approved legislation that will require all car parks with more than 80 spaces to be covered over by solar panels. This is part of a wider program that will see solar panels occupy derelict lots, vacant land alongside roads and railways, as well as some farmland.
Do the numbers add up? And should other countries do the same?
Several countries, most notably Germany, have already mandated developers of new buildings to incorporate renewables into their designs, like roof-mounted solar panels, biomass boilers, heat pumps, and wind turbines. The French policy would apply to new and existing car parks.
Several countries, most notably Germany, have already mandated developers of new buildings to incorporate renewables into their designs, like roof-mounted solar panels, biomass boilers, heat pumps, and wind turbines.
The average car parking space is about 4.8m by 2.4m, or 11.52m². Assuming an output of 120 watts per m² that works out at roughly 1.4 kilowatts of power per bay. There would be further space over walkways and traffic lanes within the car park, but the solar panels would need to be kept far enough apart to stop them shading each other.
For an output of 11 gigawatts, you’d need to cover about 7.7 million car parking spaces. Are there that many in France that would qualify? The UK has between 3 and 4 millionspaces and 40 million vehicles. France has a similar sized fleet of 38 million. So, 7.7 million spaces seems unlikely.
But the legislation covers a lot of urban land, not just car parks. In theory, 92km² of French urban land (defined as any built-up area with more then 5,000 people) could provide 11 gigawatts of solar power.
That might sound like a lot, but it’s only 0.106% of France’s total urban land area of 86,500 km². Accounting for the difference in capacity factors (how much energy each source generates a year compared with its maximum theoretical output) between French nuclear (70%) and French solar (15%), 430 km² of solar would supply the same amount of power each year in gigawatt-hours as those ten nuclear plants.
These panels need only cover 0.5% of French urban land, or about 0.07% of France’s total area. So it’s possible, though car parks will make up a tiny portion of the overall program.
Coming to a car park near you
The UK and countries further north receive less sunlight per m² and the sun sits lower on their horizon, which makes the issue of shading on panels bigger, although the longer days in summer do compensate for this to some extent.
Also, while a lot of car parks in southern Europe already have sun shades over them (which allow solar panels to be mounted onto existing structures), this is rare in cooler countries. As a result, it would probably be a lot easier to mount panels on the roofs of buildings than over the surrounding car park in some countries. Where solar panels aren’t practical, other options, like wind turbines, might well be viable alternatives.
Likewise, some car parks, especially those in city centers, are shaded for most of the day by tall buildings nearby. But there is no reason not to put panels on top of them instead.
France is likely to be pursuing this policy to ease its dependence on nuclear power, which supplies 70% of the country’s electricity. This arrangement works when demand is stable. It becomes a problem when, for example, a drought forces multiple plants to reduce their power output or shut down. France is also adding several million electric cars and heat pumps to its grid, which will need to draw from a variety of energy sources and storage options.
The U.K. is similarly dependent on gas for both electricity and heating. Creating a more diverse energy supply, much of which is directly connected to the very cars or homes consuming that power, makes a lot of sense. But a strategy to unleash the green energy potential of vacant space in towns and cities should begin—and not end—with car parks.
Originally published November 19, 2022 by The Conversation and also published on Common Dreams and republished under Creative Commons license.
According to her LinkedIn page Kyrstin Munson worked at Tesla for over 10 years. In her twitter feed she lays out her (obviously unauthorized) idea of the “real” reason Elon Musk bought Twitter.
With all the political and random madness surrounding the short time since Musk took over the bird, this explanation, is in a strange way perhaps the least crazy of all.
Perhaps (probably?) she is projecting the Tesla philosophy, one that has been extremely successful, onto this new seemingly spontaneous endeavor, but as odd as it sounds, it could very well be the thinking behind it all.
Buying Twitter to try to improve communication, and in particular, communication around climate change and how we can overcome its massive challenges, but couched in a format that is “disguised … as something awesome and way more fun”, does seem like something a guy hoping to “die on mars” might do.
Crazy like a Shiba Inu
This bizarre take on his motives is perhaps just crazy enough to make some kind of sense. Only thing is with polls measuring how many bots want Trump’s account re-instated and various other insane actions and ultimatums, it’s harder than ever to picture any kind of real communication going on, “awesome and way more fun” or not!
The full extremely long series of tweets (twenty tweets and self-replies) can be seen at her account @ThisisKyrstin and, it does ramble on with little to offer other than a sort of pro Elon take on the whole debacle. Accordingly, the replies to her tweet barrage were mostly mildly negative, if not out and out slams. Some, very positive, and all in all another oddball ride into the current chaos on the platform.
Blink 2 times if Musk is holding you hostage and made you type this.
While you all are crying over Twitter’s death, maybe I can help reframe for you all whats happening and why. I worked with Elon for 10+ years at Tesla & here’s my take. 1/20 #RIPTwitter
Donald Trump has been colonising the world’s attention for years, via television, on social media and in books. Ironically, given Trump likes books about as much as he does germs, more than 100 books about him are listed on Wikipedia, ranging from biographies and exposés to paeans of praise (think his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski) and scathing analyses of his presidency.
One work, Plaintiff in Chief, concerns the gob-smacking number of lawsuits Trump and his businesses have engaged in – 3500 – and is already well out of date, having been published in 2019. There is even a book about all the Trump books. Its nicely punning title, What were we thinking?, might also be said to apply to the publishers of Carlos Lozada’s book although that would undervalue his insights, and those of the authors whose work he examines.
With the application of all this intellectual muscle, though, what do we still need – or want – to know about Donald Trump? All of us probably do need to know the likelihood Trump will run again for president and, worse, win. On that hinges the future of democracy in a global superpower along with prospects for real action combating the effects of climate change.
The answer to this need-to-know question is undeniably important, but I still want to know whether Trump actually believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Is there some psychological wound from his childhood that renders him unable to bear loss? Or is his unblinking refusal to accept the election result yet another example of his lifelong habit of lying and grifting to get his own way?
If the answer is the former, I care less about what might have happened to Donald as a toddler than that he has managed to persuade about two thirds of Republican voters to his view, according to polls analysed by Politifact.
If the answer is the latter, which bespeaks a truly chilling level of cynical disregard for the consequences of his actions, it immediately raises another question. Exactly how has Trump been able to persuade so many Republicans to believe his lies, despite all evidence to the contrary, including Trump’s legal team losing 64 out of 65 cases brought contesting the result?
I ask these questions following publication of Maggie Haberman’s Confidence Man: the making of Donald Trump and the breaking of America. Since the mid-1990s, Haberman has reported on Trump, first for the Murdoch-owned tabloid, The New York Post, then for its rival, The New York Daily News, and, since 2015, for The New York Times.
The driving argument of her book is that to understand Trump you need to understand the New York real-estate and property development world in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. What he learnt there, she argues, about business, politics and people, was the template of behavior he took into the White House.
‘False’, ‘Totally false’, ‘Fake News’
During two campaigns and four years in office, writes Haberman, Trump treated the country like a version of New York City’s five boroughs. His aides soon realised he had imagined a presidency that functioned like one of the once-powerful Democratic Party machines in those boroughs. A single boss controlled everything in this kingdom and knew his support alone could ensure electoral success for others. This was an “us” versus “them” realm where racial dynamics changed from one block to the next.
The argument has explanatory power. But so too, to take one example, does James Poniewozik’s view, in his 2019 book, Audience of One, that the key to Trump’s worldview is his symbiotic relationship with television. Trump did seem to govern in much the same way as he behaved in The Apprentice, the reality TV program he starred in – making contestants beholden to his every whim and impulse.
As Poniewozik puts it, the Trump administration soon became a “dogpile of competitors, cronies and relatives throttling one another daily for survival”.
Haberman tells readers that on top of her daily reporting, she conducted 250 interviews for the book, including three with Trump, either in person or in writing. For the latter, Trump annotated her list of questions in his customary black “Sharpie” pen with comments like “False”, “Totally false” and “Fake News”.
Because Haberman has known Trump for so long she has been derided as a schill. Because she enjoyed good access to him on the campaign trail and during his presidency she has been called a “Trump whisperer”. She may at times have been both, but like almost any journalist who has reported on Trump her work has been labelled “fake news”.
She has borne, too, Trump’s seemingly casual but calibrated barbs: “Did you ever notice that her glasses are always smudged?” he said to his aides.
More precisely, she reports him saying this to aides, but there is no source for the comment in the book’s end-notes. Does that mean he didn’t say it? Does Haberman take the same insouciant approach here to sourcing as the authors of Plagued, political journalists Simon Benson and Geoff Chambers, did in their recent book about the Morrison government’s response to the pandemic?
Like the authors of Plagued too, Haberman has fielded criticism for withholding information from her newspaper readers and saving it for her book. (Benson and Chambers knew about Morrison’s multiple ministerial portfolios but held onto that information for up to two years before it became public.)
In Confidence Man Haberman recounts Trump telling one aide days after the 2020 presidential election, “I’m just not going to leave”, and another, “We’re never leaving. How can you leave when you won an election?” (She also reports him in other conversations seeming to accept he had lost but does not probe the contradiction further.) Should she have reported those comments at the time rather than saving them for her book?
The information gathered by Haberman was clearly important and could, perhaps should, have been published in The New York Times contemporaneously but we don’t know the circumstances in which it was obtained. Perhaps the information was only revealed on condition it would not be published immediately. There is little doubt that people being interviewed for a book published well after the news cycle has pedalled on are willing to speak more candidly. If the aim of a book is to provide context and nuance about contested current events, then the trade-off between news now and understanding later may be worth it.
Maggie Haberman took leave from The Times to write her book. In the course of reporting the book, she shared considerable newsworthy information with The Times. Editors decided what news was best suited for our news report.
Devastating observations
Returning to the “smudged glasses” barb, we know Trump has publicly insulted women and journalists countless times. The comment has the ring of truth, so it is probably not as important that this quote was unattributed. The end-notes of Confidence Man do run to 63 pages (providing a good deal more information than the sparse end-notes in Plagued.)
At several points Haberman also tells us about news stories she has written, how they were received, those whose accuracy was later vindicated and, occasionally, those that contained errors of fact or context. In other words, she is reflective and concerned to be as fair as possible in her reporting and judgements.
When Haberman’s book was released in early October, New York magazine listed 22 revelations from it while acknowledging they “feel less like bombshells and more like laundry lists of erratic presidential behaviour”.
For many readers the coverage of New York City’s property world will be unfamiliar, but the bulk of the book covers Trump’s political career and is very familiar: the 2016 campaign, the presidency, the unceasing stream of controversies – large, small or confected – the impeachment trials, the pandemic response, the 2020 campaign and the January 6 riots at the Capitol.
Familiar though these events are, their sheer volume means they are not discussed in any great depth and what discussion there is does not venture beyond the political journalist’s inside-the-Beltway frame of reference. This can be frustrating but the value of reading Confidence Man, in my view, is not in the explosive revelations or the private, never-seen-before details. It is how Haberman uses anecdotes to build up a devastating picture of character.
It is true there is some extraordinary material in the book but Haberman does not badge it up Bob Woodward-style. Instead, she quietly but frequently enough for it to look like a deliberate strategy, drops in eye-popping anecdotes and devastating observations about Trump’s behaviour.
You have to be on the lookout for them because they are nestled within 597 pages of detailed coverage of his life and career. Some come from her own reporting while others are drawn from earlier journalists’ and authors’ work.
Haberman spends little space on Trump’s childhood but enough to show his bullying began early: a neighbour in Queens, New York, was horrified when her baby sitting in a playpen in the backyard was pelted with rocks over the fence from a five-year-old Trump. Later, Trump proudly recalled gluing together his brother Robert’s blocks to build his own tower.
That Trump is profligate with others’ money but tight with his own is well known but Haberman reminds us that one of his early antagonists, the satirical magazine, Spy, used to mail cheques to his office for steadily diminishing amounts to see whether he would keep cashing them; he did, down to one for 13 cents.
When the Trumps moved into the White House in 2017, Donald loved being able to press a button on his desk to order a valet to bring him a Diet Coke. He remade the White House to suit his tastes, installing plenty of television sets, even in the bathroom, and telling guests he had renovated the entire area, including the toilet.
“You understand what I mean,” he said to one visitor, who interpreted it to mean he did not want to use the same bathroom as his African-American predecessor. Apart from the apparent racism, Trump’s statement was also untrue as officials told Haberman it was customary for toilet seats in the White House to be replaced between one administration and the next.
Trump may not be a book reader but, Haberman reports, he has near perfect recall of anything written about him in the media. He knew little and cared less about policies or how government actually operated but staff noticed he absorbed policies far better from television coverage than from their briefings.
They noticed his “singular interest” in whether those representing him on television appeared persuasive, and on their appearance full stop. He would comment on the lighting, the make-up, the women’s dresses, their hair. Trump had always been preternaturally aware of the appearance of things. Sleeping over at a friend’s house during primary school, he earnestly commented on the “wonderful” quality of the bed-sheets.
Extra ice cream and special glassware
Trump himself noticed how he could say almost anything and supporters at his MAGA rallies would forgive him. Haberman compares this revelation – and two others – to the scene in Jurassic Park when the velociraptors learn how to open doors.
Similar penny-dropping moments happened when Trump learned how to communicate by Twitter unburdened of staff controls and when he discovered presidential pardons. “For Trump, who never really accepted the fact that Congress was a separate and equal branch of government, the ability to deliver ‘justice’ on a case-by-case basis hit like a revelation,” writes Haberman.
The Faustian pact Trump appeared to strike with his MAGA base, though, was that just as they would forgive him if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, as he infamously remarked, so he would shape his administration to suit their every demand, no matter how misconceived, extreme or counter-productive they might be.
Trump’s callousness and cruelty is well documented. (Haberman reports that one of the very few times Trump has cried was in private after his father, Fred, died.) When he began building the notorious wall on the southern border of the US to keep out Latino immigrants and asylum seekers, he urged officials to put spikes on top and to paint it black so as to burn the skin of those trying to climb the wall.
John Kelly, one of the revolving door of chiefs of staff who tried and failed to bring order to the Trump administration, had a son in the military who died while on duty in Afghanistan, and Kelly had been a general himself. Once, when he and Trump were standing together at the Arlington National Cemetery grave site where Kelly’s son was buried, Trump wondered aloud why anyone would want to join the military.
Trump’s petty, venal behaviour has also been well documented, but the details Haberman has marshalled can still surprise. After winning the 2016 election, he invited a group of moderate Democrats to join him for dinner to discuss various pieces of legislation, but he couldn’t help needling them throughout. For dessert, he made sure he received one more scoop of ice cream than any of his guests.
More importantly, as early as 23 February 2020 Trump was not only aware of the dangers of COVID-19 but was taking precautions against it. On a trip to India Trump was reluctant to eat, pushing food around his plate and drinking only from “special glassware that he said Melania [Trump] had the White House staff pack for the trip, primarily for fear of contracting the coronavirus”.
During the pandemic he sometimes acknowledged the seriousness of COVID but mostly he downplayed or denied its impact on public health, with catastrophic results.
A deeper malaise?
Carlos Lozada, in his survey of all those Trump books, identifies many that seek to explain the Trump phenomenon through a single overriding cause, and he finds that limiting. Haberman tacitly acknowledges this when she quotes Trump saying he always aimed to “put some show business into the real estate business”. When he did, she writes, Trump learnt that “he could win as much press for projects he never completed as those he did”.
Poniewozik, from his vantage point as a television critic, makes the same observation: namely, that Trump enjoyed more success playing the role of a business titan on television than actually being one, before citing Fran Leibowitz’s acid line that Trump is “a poor person’s idea of a rich person”.
Closing Haberman’s book, I do think Trump knew he had lost the election quite soon after the results came in. Just how much his years in New York’s property development world shaped that decision is hard to say. It seems part of the explanation but only part.
In my mind her book jostles alongside Poniewozik’s work and for that matter, James Zirin’s Plaintiff in Chief, which underscores how Trump sees the law not as a “system of rules to be obeyed” but “as a potent weapon to be used against his adversaries”. We’re still seeing this play out in Trump’s unremitting efforts to stave off multiple investigations of his business and his behaviour.
Lozada prefers explanations of Trump as a symptom of longer term problems in American politics and society, an approach exemplified in BBC correspondent and historian Nick Bryant’s excellent book, When America Stopped Being Great. Surely both explanatory approaches need to be deployed.
Trump may be a symptom of a deeper malaise afflicting American democracy but has there ever been a symptom quite like him? In 2020 the majority of voters opted to be cured of their Trump symptoms, but the treatment failed and the bacillus rages on.
The federal judge lambasted Florida officials’ argument that “professors enjoy ‘academic freedom’ so long as they express only those viewpoints of which the state approves.”
November 17, 2022
In an order that begins by quoting the famous opening line of George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, a federal judge on Thursday blocked key provisions of a Florida censorship law that aimed to restrict how state university professors teach race, gender, and U.S. history.
“‘It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen,’ and the powers in charge of Florida’s public university system have declared the state has unfettered authority to muzzle its professors in the name of ‘freedom,'” Judge Mark Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, an Obama appointee, wrote in his scathing decision, which temporarily halts enforcement of parts of the law championed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis—a possible 2024 presidential candidate.
“To confront certain viewpoints that offend the powers that be, the state of Florida passed the so-called ‘Stop WOKE Act in 2022—redubbed (in line with the state’s doublespeak) the ‘Individual Freedom Act,'” Walker continued. “The law officially bans professors from expressing disfavored viewpoints in university classrooms while permitting unfettered expression of the opposite viewpoints. Defendants argue that, under this act, professors enjoy ‘academic freedom’ so long as they express only those viewpoints of which the State approves. This is positively dystopian.”
The Thursday decision, which concludes that the GOP law violates the First Amendment rights of public university faculty and students, marks the second time Walker has ruled against the “Stop WOKE Act” in recent months. In August, the judge blockedthe part of the law pertaining to private businesses.
Adriana Novoa, a University of South Florida history professor and a plaintiff in the case, said in a statement that Walker’s Thursday ruling is a win “for the institutions of this country.”
“I hope that the courts will defend the existence of a public education that cannot be manipulated by politicians to push any ideology, now and in the future,” Novoa added.
Part of a recent wave of censorship laws advanced by Republicans in Florida and across the U.S., the “Stop WOKE Act” was billed as an attempt to “give businesses, employees, children, and families tools to fight back against woke indoctrination.”
But civil liberties groups and other critics of the law have argued it is both unjustifiable and exceedingly vague in its mandates, creating a chilling effecton educators as they attempt to teach their classes under the threat of state retaliation.
Emily Anderson, an assistant professor of International Relations and Intercultural Education at Florida International University, told the Miami Herald in August that “these policies have really led to increased efforts to silence and surveil academic speech.”
“Academic speech matters, because it’s a fundamental freedom that is really how our university system is grounded,” said Anderson. “When we have policies that threaten speech, in my view, it shadows threats to all other protected rights.”
In his ruling, Walker points to the eight specific concepts outlawed that are under the measure, including the notion that “such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex to oppress members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.”
“Despite [Florida officials’] insistence that the professor plaintiffs’ proposed viewpoints must serve as a mirror image for each prohibited viewpoint, the proposed speech needs only to arguably run afoul of the prohibition,” Walker wrote.
Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)—which sued Florida officials over the censorship law—said that “faculty members are hired to offer opinions from their academic expertise—not toe the party line.”
“Florida’s argument that faculty members have no First Amendment rights would have imperiled faculty members across the political spectrum,” said Steinbaugh.
Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a statement that Walker’s ruling “is a huge victory for everyone who values academic freedom and recognizes the value of inclusive education.”
“The First Amendment broadly protects our right to share information and ideas, and this includes educators’ and students’ right to learn, discuss, and debate systemic racism and sexism,” Sykes added.
Originally published on Common Dreams and republished under Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
In a sudden shift into coherence the likely plot emerged
Buried near the end of a meandering, laundry list of a speech, Trump appeared to give a hint as to his messaging strategy going forward.
After hitting on the usual, and sometimes bizarre (ok not for him) claims and untruths, such as when he blurted out in what appeared to be riffing “the ocean will rise 2/10ths of an inch in 200-300 years they say”. (Of course absolutely nobody says this or ever has).
He gradually veered into seemingly more coherent territory… pointing a finger at corruption, and calling for a “members of Congress getting rich by trading stocks with insider information.” He added that he wanted a constitutional amendment to impose term limits, and to permanently get rid of taxpayers footing the bill for political campaigns. Huh? Almost spuds reasonable- but wait…
The familiar refrain resumes
Once again we are back to the faux-Joseph Goebbels “accuse others of the thing you are most guilty of” Trumpian projection.
What’s the the number one most obvious crime or category of crime associated with Trump? Corruption, yes. Drain the swamp, indeed.
Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page
After decades as the top Democrat leader in the House Nancy Pelosi announced today that she will not return as Speaker. This news comes one day after it was clear that the Republicans will be in control of the chamber going forward.
The Democrat who is currently second in line, Rep. Steny Hoyer, will also not return. From all appearances a new trio will look to wield influence in the body going forward. Representitives Kathrine Clark of Massachusetts, Hakeem Jeffries of New York, and Pete Aguilar of California are likely to seek the top three positions among Democrats in the House.
The whole text of her speech:
NANCY PELOSI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, as we gather here, we stand on sacred ground: the chamber of the United States House of Representatives, the heart of American democracy. I will never forget the first time I saw the Capitol. It was on a cold January day when I was 6 years old. My father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., was about to be sworn in for his fifth term in Congress representing our beloved hometown of Baltimore.
I was riding in the car with my brothers, and they were thrilled and jumping up and down and saying to me, “Nancy, look, there’s the Capitol.” And I keep — every time I’d say: “I don’t see any capital. Is it a capital A, a capital B or a capital C?”
And finally, I saw it. A stunning white building with a magnificent dome.
I believed then, as I believe today, this is the most beautiful building in the world because of what it represents. The Capitol is a temple of our democracy, of our Constitution, of our highest ideals.
On that day — on that day, I stood with my father on this floor as he took the sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. All of us who have served in this House have taken the hallowed oath of office. And it is the oath that stitches us together in a long and storied heritage. Colleagues who served before us are all our colleagues. Colleagues like Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Webster, Shirley Chisholm, Patsy Mink and our beloved John Lewis.
Personally, it binds me as a colleague to my father, a proud New Deal congressman and one of the earliest Italian Americans to serve in the Congress. And this is an oath we are duty bound to keep, and it links us with the highest aspirations of the ages.
In this room, our colleagues across history have abolished slavery; granted women the right to vote; established Social Security and Medicare; offered a hand to the weak, care to the sick, education to the young and hope to the many.
Indeed, it is here, under the gaze of our patriarch, George Washington, in the people’s House, that we have done the people’s work.
My colleagues, I stand before you as speaker of the House, as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a devout Catholic, a proud Democrat and a patriotic American, a citizen of the greatest republic in the history of the world — which President Lincoln called the last best hope on Earth. Indeed, in the words attributed to another of our colleagues, the legendary Daniel Webster, he said: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution of your country and the government established under it. Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in 6,000 years cannot be expected to happen often.”
Indeed, American democracy is majestic. But it is fragile. Many of us here have witnessed its fragility firsthand, tragically in this chamber. And so democracy must be forever defended from forces that wish it harm.
Last week, the American people spoke, and their voices were raised in defense of liberty, of the rule of law and of democracy itself.
With these elections, the people stood in the breach and repelled the assault on democracy. They resoundingly rejected violence and insurrection, and in doing so gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
And now we owe to the American people our very best, to deliver on their faith. To forever reach for the more perfect union — the glorious horizon that our founders promised.
The questions before this Congress and at this moment are urgent. Questions about the ideals that this House is charged by the Constitution to preserve and protect. Establish justice. Ensure domestic tranquillity. Provide for the common defense. Promote the general welfare. And secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Our posterity. Our children. Babies born today will live into the next century. And our decisions will determine their future for generations to come.
While we will have our disagreements on policy, we must remain fully committed to our shared fundamental mission, to hold strong to our most treasured democratic ideals, to cherish the spark of divinity in each and every one of us, and to always put our country first.
In their infinite wisdom, our founders gave us their guidance. E pluribus unum. From the many, one. They could not have imagined how large our country would become or how different we would be from one other. But they knew we had to be united as one. We the people. One country. One destiny.
It’s been with great pride in my 35 years in the House I have seen this body grow more reflective of our great nation, our beautiful nation.
When I came to the Congress in 1987, there were 12 Democratic women. Now there are over 90. And we want more.
The new members of our Democratic caucus will be about 75 percent women, people of color and L.G.B.T.Q. And we have brought more voices to the decision-making table. When I entered leadership in 2002, there were eight of us. Today, there are 17 members of the leadership. When I first came to the floor at 6 years old, never would I have thought that someday I would go from homemaker to House speaker.
In fact, I never — in fact, I never intended to run for public office. Mommy and Daddy taught us through their example that public service is a noble calling and that we all have a responsibility to help others. In our family, my brother Tommy then became mayor of Baltimore also. But it’s been my privilege to play a part in forging extraordinary progress for the American people.
I have enjoyed working with three presidents, achieving historic investments in clean energy with President George Bush; transformative health care reform with President Barack Obama; and forging — and forging the future from infrastructure to health care to climate action with President Joe Biden.
Now we must move boldly into the future, grounded by the principles that have propelled us this far and open to fresh possibilities for the future.
Scripture teaches us that for everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven. My friends, no matter what title you all, my colleagues, have bestowed upon me — speaker, leader, whip — there is no greater official honor for me than to stand on this floor and to speak for the people of San Francisco. This I will continue to do as a member of the House, speaking for the people of San Francisco, serving the great state of California and defending our Constitution.
And with great confidence in our caucus, I will not seek re-election to Democratic leadership in the next Congress. For me, the hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic caucus that I so deeply respect. And I am grateful that so many are ready and willing to shoulder this awesome responsibility.
Madam Speaker, standing here today, I’m endlessly grateful for all of life’s blessings, for my Democratic colleagues, whose courage and commitment, with the support of your families, have made many of these accomplishments possible. In fact, could not have been done without you.
For my dear husband, Paul, who has been my beloved partner in life and my pillar of support, thank you. We’re all grateful for all the prayers and well wishes as he continues his recovery. Thank you so much.
For our darling children, Nancy Corinne, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul and Alexandra, and our grandchildren, Alexander and Madeleine; Liam, Sean and Ryan; Paul and Thomas; Bella and Octavio. They are the joys of our lives for whom we — and we are so very, very proud of them and a comfort to us at this time.
And for my brilliant, dedicated and patriotic staff, under the leadership of Terri McCullough, together, working together, the finest group of public servants the House has ever known. Thank you all so much.
And again, for those who sent me here, for the people of San Francisco, for entrusting me with the high honor of being their voice in Congress. In this continued work, I will strive to honor the call of the patron saint of our city, St. Francis. Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.
In this House, we begin each day with a prayer and a pledge to the flag. And every day I am in awe of the majestic miracle that is American democracy. As we participate in a hallmark of our republic, the peaceful orderly transition from one Congress to the next, let us consider the words of, again, President Lincoln, spoken during one of America’s darkest hours. He called upon us to come together, to swell the chorus of the union, when once again touched as surely they will be by the better angels of our nature. That again is the task at hand.
A new day is dawning on the horizon, and I look forward, always forward, to the unfolding story of our nation, a story of light and love, of patriotism and progress, of many becoming one. And always an unfinished mission to make the dreams of today the reality of tomorrow.
Thank you all. May God bless you and your families. And may God bless — continue to bless our veterans and the United States of America. Thank you all so much.
Transportation has been the focus, due to Tesla’s rise, but houses and commercial buildings are next
When Tesla was still just an oddball upstart, there was plenty of skepticism that they would survive, let alone change the industry and define sustainable transportation and the future of EVs. This was before Tesla’s stock price soared, even as the climate crisis has become more serious.
Although the stock market is as irrational as ever, on another level the massive rise in market cap for the once underdog sustainable energy focused company can also be seen as a vote from the general public – a vote for the transition away from fossil fuels and toward a sustainable energy future..
Fast forward to 2022 and there is an entirely different situation in the automotive and transportation industries. The entire industry is shifting, rapidly, to 100% electric vehicle production and competing for the climate conscious upwardly mobile customer base that was first identified by Tesla’s “S3XY” marketing methods and designs.
Another underdog – Passive House is ready for the next wave of climate conscious changes
Although sustainable transportation infrastructure still has a long way to go and many issues to overcome, the speed of the transition over the last decade is, nevertheless, impressive.
The next phase of the transition toward sustainable energy infrastructure as a whole, however, is clearly going to be energy generation, solar, wind, geothermal and beyond. This will include design and construction of dwellings and commercial real estate with an eye toward efficient ways to decrease the carbon footprint and create structures that have a low carbon cost (embodied carbon and green cement, use of natural materials, etc.).
Passive house, a concept first pioneered in Germany, is at the center of the coming design revolution in architecture and sustainable construction. Andreas Benzing, of A.M.Benzing Architects PLLC has been at the forefront of the New York, NY movement (as executive director of NY Passive House) as it has grown for nearly two decades and is now ready to break out.
Emphasizing the active role that passive house can play in reaching ‘peak performance’ for dwellings and commercial structures, Benzing elucidates his credo and underscores the similarities to Tesla’s higher-end approach to EV’s, now poised to spearhead a similar revolution in architecture; “We strive to better user experience and comfort, engineer to easily achieve peak performance, and maximize the durability of quality materials.”
The books below are a few that show the history and concepts behind passive house from various perspectives. Houses and buildings that have a reduced carbon footprint, while at the same time generate energy from sustainable sources are becoming feasible and all have as a foundation the passive house standard for highly efficient design.
The new threshold for green building is not just low energy, it’s net-zero energy. In The New Net Zero, sustainable architect Bill Maclay charts the path for designers and builders interested in exploring green design’s new frontier net-zero-energy structures that produce as much energy as they consume and are carbon neutral.
In a nation where traditional buildings use roughly 40 percent of the total fossil energy, the interest in net-zero building is growing enormously-among both designers interested in addressing climate change and consumers interested in energy efficiency and long-term savings. Maclay, an award-winning net-zero designer whose buildings have achieved high-performance goals at affordable costs, makes the case for a net-zero future; explains net-zero building metrics, integrated design practices, and renewable energy options; and shares his lessons learned on net-zero teambuilding.
Designers and builders will find a wealth of state-of-the-art information on such considerations as air, water, and vapor barriers; embodied energy; residential and commercial net-zero standards; monitoring and commissioning; insulation options; costs; and more.
The comprehensive overview is accompanied by several case studies, which include institutional buildings, commercial projects, and residences. Both new-building and renovation projects are covered in detail.
The New Net Zero is geared toward professionals exploring net-zero design, but also suitable for nonprofessionals seeking ideas and strategies on net-zero options that are beautiful and renewably powered.
Passive House Details introduces the concepts, principles, and design processes of building ultralow-energy buildings. The objective of this book is to provide design goals, research, analysis, systems, details, and inspiring images of some of the most energy-efficient, carbon-neutral, healthy, and satisfying buildings currently built in the region. Other topics included: heat transfer, moisture management, performance targets, and climatic zones. Illustrated with more than 375 color images, the book is a visual catalog of construction details, materials, and systems drawn from projects contributed from forty firms. Fourteen in-depth case studies demonstrate the most energy-efficient systems for foundations, walls, floors, roofs, windows, doors, and more.
Passive is the new green. Passive Houses–well insulated, virtually airtight buildings–can decrease home heating consumption by an astounding 90 percent, making them not only an attractive choice for prospective homeowners, but also the right choice for a sustainable future. The Greenest Home showcases eighteen of the world’s most attractive Passive Houses by forward-thinking architects such as Bernheimer Architecture, Olson Kundig Architects, and Onion Flats, among many others. Each case study consists of a detailed project description, plans, and photographs. An appendix lists helpful technical information. Including a mix of new construction and retrofit projects built in a variety of site conditions, The Greenest Home is an inspiring sourcebook for architects and prospective homeowners, as well as a useful tool for students, and builders alike.
Passive solar heating and passive cooling–approaches known as natural conditioning–provide comfort throughout the year by reducing, or eliminating, the need for fossil fuel. Yet while heat from sunlight and ventilation from breezes is free for the taking, few modern architects or builders really understand the principles involved.
Now Dan Chiras, author of the popular book The Natural House, brings those principles up to date for a new generation of solar enthusiasts.
The techniques required to heat and cool a building passively have been used for thousands of years. Early societies such as the Native American Anasazis and the ancient Greeks perfected designs that effectively exploited these natural processes. The Greeks considered anyone who didn’t use passive solar to heat a home to be a barbarian
In the United States, passive solar architecture experienced a major resurgence of interest in the 1970s in response to crippling oil embargoes. With grand enthusiasm but with scant knowledge (and sometimes little common sense), architects and builders created a wide variety of solar homes. Some worked pretty well, but looked more like laboratories than houses. Others performed poorly, overheating in the summer because of excessive or misplaced windows and skylights, and growing chilly in the colder months because of insufficient thermal mass and insulation and poor siting.
In The Solar House, Dan Chiras sets the record straight on the vast potential for passive heating and cooling. Acknowledging the good intentions of misguided solar designers in the past, he highlights certain egregious–and entirely avoidable–errors. More importantly, Chiras explains in methodical detail how today’s home builders can succeed with solar designs.
Now that energy efficiency measures including higher levels of insulation and multi-layered glazing have become standard, it is easier than ever before to create a comfortable and affordable passive solar house that will provide year-round comfort in any climate.
Moreover, since modern building materials and airtight construction methods sometimes result in air-quality and even toxicity problems, Chiras explains state-of-the-art ventilation and filtering techniques that complement the ancient solar strategies of thermal mass and daylighting. Chiras also explains the new diagnostic aids available in printed worksheet or software formats, allowing readers to generate their own design schemes.
Passivhaus is the fastest growing energy performance standard in the world, with almost 50,000 buildings realised to date. Applicable to both domestic and non-domestic building types, the strength of Passivhaus lies in the simplicity of the concept. As European and global energy directives move ever closer towards Zero (fossil) Energy standards, Passivhaus provides a robust ‘fabric first’ approach from which to make the next step.
The Passivhaus Designers Manual is the most comprehensive technical guide available to those wishing to design and build Passivhaus and Zero Energy Buildings. As a technical reference for architects, engineers and construction professionals The Passivhaus Designers Manual provides:
State of the art guidance for anyone designing or working on a Passivhaus project;
In depth information on building services, including high performance ventilation systems and ultra-low energy heating and cooling systems;
Holistic design guidance encompassing: daylight design, ecological materials, thermal comfort, indoor air quality and economics;
Practical advice on procurement methods, project management and quality assurance;
Renewable energy systems suitable for Passivhaus and Zero Energy Buildings;
Practical case studies from the UK, USA, and Germany amongst others;
Detailed worked examples to show you how it’s done and what to look out for;
Expert advice from 20 world renowned Passivhaus designers, architects, building physicists and engineers.
Lavishly illustrated with nearly 200 full colour illustrations, and presented by two highly experienced specialists, this is your one-stop shop for comprehensive practical information on Passivhaus and Zero Energy buildings.
“If we are finally going to start taking the IPCC’s findings seriously, it follows that we must begin advancing far more aggressive climate stabilization solutions than anything that has been undertaken thus far,” writes Robert Pollin.
In the wake of a United Nations report that activists said showed the “bleak and brutal truth” about the climate emergency, a leading economist on Friday highlighted a step that supporters argue could be incredibly effective at combating the global crisis: nationalizing the U.S. fossil fuel industry.
“With at least ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips under public control, the necessary phaseout of fossil fuels as an energy source could advance in an orderly fashion.”
Writing for The American Prospect, Robert Pollin, an economics professor and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, noted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and high gas prices exacerbated by Russia’s war on Ukraine.
“If we are finally going to start taking the IPCC’s findings seriously,” Pollin wrote, “it follows that we must begin advancing far more aggressive climate stabilization solutions than anything that has been undertaken thus far, both within the U.S. and globally. Within the U.S., such measures should include at least putting on the table the idea of nationalizing the U.S. fossil fuel industry.”
“With at least ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips under public control, the necessary phaseout of fossil fuels as an energy source could advance in an orderly fashion”
Asserting that “at least in the U.S., the private oil companies stand as the single greatest obstacle to successfully implementing” a viable climate stabilization program, Pollin made the case that fossil fuel giants should not make any more money from wrecking the planet, nationalization would not be an unprecedented move in the United States, and doing so could help build clean energy infrastructure at the pace that scientists warn is necessary.
The expert proposed starting with “the federal government purchasing controlling ownership of at least the three dominant U.S. oil and gas corporations: ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips.”
“They are far larger and more powerful than all the U.S. coal companies combined, as well as all of the smaller U.S. oil and gas companies,” he wrote. “The cost to the government to purchase majority ownership of these three oil giants would be about $420 billion at current stock market prices.
Today at @TheProspect, Robert Pollin takes a big swing and explains how and why to nationalize the nation's fossil fuel companies, protecting consumer wallets while transitioning to renewables:https://t.co/h4nfEiwz0A
Emphasizing that the aim of private firms “is precisely to make profits from selling oil, coal, and natural gas, no matter the consequences for the planet and regardless of how the companies may present themselves in various high-gloss, soft-focus PR campaigns,” Pollin posited that “with at least ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips under public control, the necessary phaseout of fossil fuels as an energy source could advance in an orderly fashion.”
“The government could determine fossil fuel energy production levels and prices to reflect both the needs of consumers and the requirements of the clean-energy transition,” he explained. “This transition could also be structured to provide maximum support for the workers and communities that are presently dependent on fossil fuel companies for their well-being.”
Pollin pointed out that some members of Congress are pushing for a windfall profits tax on Big Oil companies using various global crises—from Russia’s war to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic—to price gouge working people at the gas pump. The proposal, he wrote, “raises a more basic question: Should the fossil fuel companies be permitted to profit at all through selling products that we know are destroying the planet? The logical answer has to be no. That is exactly why nationalizing at least the largest U.S. oil companies is the most appropriate action we can take now, in light of the climate emergency.”
The economist highlighted the long history of nationalizing in the United States, pointing out that “it was only 13 years ago, in the depths of the 2007–09 financial crisis and Great Recession, that the Obama administration nationalized two of the three U.S. auto companies.”
In addition to enabling the government to put the nationalized firms’ profits toward a just transition to renewables, Pollin wrote, “with nationalization, the political obstacles that fossil fuel companies now throw up against public financing for clean energy investments would be eliminated.”
Nationalization “is not a panacea,” Pollin acknowledged. Noting that “publicly owned companies already control approximately 90% of the world’s fossil fuel reserves,” he cautioned against assuming such a move in the U.S. “will provide favorable conditions for fighting climate change, any more than public ownership has done so already in Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, or Iran,” without an administration dedicated to tackling the global crisis.
Pollin is far from alone in proposing nationalization. Writing for Jacobin last month, People’s Policy Project founder Matt Bruenig argued that “an industry that is absolutely essential to maintain in the short term and absolutely essential to eliminate in the long term is an industry that really should be managed publicly.”
“Private owners and investors are not in the business of temporarily propping up dying industries, which means that they will either work to keep the industry from dying, which is bad for the climate, or that they will refuse to temporarily prop it up, which will cause economic chaos,” he wrote. “A public owner is best positioned to pursue managed decline in a responsible way.”
In a piece for The New Republic published in the early stage of the pandemic a few years ago, climate journalist Kate Aronoff—like Pollin on Friday—pointed out that nationalization “has a long and proud tradition of navigating America through times of crisis, from World War II to 9/11.”
As Aronoff—who interviewed New College of Florida economist Mark Paul—reported in March 2020:
In a way, nationalization would merely involve the government correcting for nearly a century of its own market intervention. All manner of government hands on the scales have kept money flowing into fossil fuels, including the roughly $26 billion worth of state and federal subsidies handed out to them each year. A holistic transition toward a low-carbon economy would reorient that array of market signals away from failing sectors and toward growing ones that can put millions to work right away retrofitting existing buildings to be energy efficient and building out a fleet of electric vehicles, for instance, including in the places that might otherwise be worst impacted by a fossil fuel bust and recession. Renewables have taken a serious hit amid the Covid-19 slowdown, too, as factories shut down in China. So besides direct government investments in green technology, additional policy directives from the federal level, Paul added, would be key to providing certainty for investors that renewables are worth their while: for example, low-hanging fruit like the extension of the renewable tax credits, now on track to be phased out by 2022.
While Pollin, Bruenig, and Aronoff’s writing focused on the United States, campaigners are also making similar cases around the world.
In a June 2021 opinion piece for The Guardian, Johanna Bozuwa, co-manager of the Climate & Energy Program at the Democracy Collaborative, and Georgetown University philosophy professor Olúfẹ́mi O Táíwò took aim at Royal Dutch Shell on the heels of a historic court ruling, declaring that “like all private oil companies, Shell should not exist.”
“Governments like the Netherlands could better follow through on mandates to reduce emissions if they held control over oil companies themselves,” the pair added. “It is time to nationalize Big Oil.”
net-zero by 2050 was a joke, but nobody’s laughing
Attitude matters. Imagine that in the run-up to the 20xx Olympics your country declared: we will strive to not-lose and achieve net-zero gold medals!
OK maybe not the best metaphor but still – why aim to not trigger armageddon by… 2050?
It is international scientific consensus that, in order to prevent the worst climate damages, global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050. –
Once that lofty non-goal was agreed upon by governments across the globe, it quickly became apparent that virtually none of them were doing anywhere near what it would take to get to said uninspired non-goal.
The idea was (and still is) to drag and under-achieve as long as politically possible and then suddenly, in the final stretch, accelerate efforts (with resources controlled by future politicians) and reach net-zero. And then declare victory.
People want more than net-zero. People need more than net-zero. At the very least there has to be a better name, and a serious plan to make it actually happen.
You are going to hear a lot about minus-zero carbon soon. The reason is a good one. When the stakes are as high as the extinction of all life on earth, just getting to a tie score is not a good plan. So those who are in the trenches, working on solutions for global warming and reducing the carbon footprint, are search also for better ways to communicate what the goal is and what it means.
This, hopefully, can lead to a focus on a goal, or at least the articulation of a desire, that can inspire people to become highly active, even agitated, perhaps even alarmed, and begin the hard work and striving that it will take to get to a net-positive outcome for all of us.
And, who exactly decided that it would be a good idea to prolong the carbon carnival as long as possible in the first place? Carbon emitters and oil profiteers perhaps?
60 years of feet dragging, obfuscation and deliberate blocking of any solutions threatening the status quo have already come and gone.
Also, if energy is clean and abundant, why not use more? Energy is good, more energy use, if clean and sustainable, could be better. It can give us amazing things. Efficient use is good too, of course, but this is a mind-set issue. This is thought error or a thought liberation.
Minus-zero carbon x 100% (with 200% energy availability) is a much better goal and represents a thought liberating idea.
Perfection can’t be the enemy of good in the energy arena
Do we need architects and inventors, innovators and scientists, and massive amount of ammunition in the form of trillions of dollars in funding, from both public and private sources? Hell yes.
And must these magicians and Mavericks do amazing things that were believed impossible just a short while ago? Absolutely. Is this a ‘moon-shot’ to, not just save, but catapult humanity into a better future? You bet-ur-a%$ it is.
That means that the challenges of finding better tech, examples such as for soil regeneration, or more efficient battery storage, or for alternatives to rare earth metals, if they are too, um, rare need to be figured out and set into motion, fast. It means inventing and discovering tech that does not exist, that has not been tried or even sought after, why never sought? Because oil was cheap and available, so don’t stress it, Bub.
And, there are those out there, already today, that are thinking beyond net-zero in 2050. There are those that want more, that know that we need more. Those that understand that political inertia and corrupt vested interests are not the excuses we want written on our tombstones.
And why not look for half-full glasses or beliefs manifested into action? Why not aim for something that makes us want to get up, stand up, and make something possible that looks like hope and feels like success and winning?
Decentralized solutions are coming, in every part of life
The reality is that it is not only the world’s energy infrastructure that needs a total makeover. Financial inequality, political and economic systems are fragile and failing, regardless where.
There is a whiff of collapse that could turn into a whirlwind and then could derail any progress made, as we plunge into dark ages, even before factoring in the catastrophic climate challenges.
We need new, innovative ways to learn, to communicate, interact and collaborate. And these are emerging – if you don’t believe in crypto, web3 or any other new directions that many are seeing as alternatives to broken systems of the past, you at least have to acknowledge that actively looking for a better way, one that does represent a solution, is what is needed even as the current systems are failing us.
So if you don’t agree with the ideas for change and proposed ways to improve methods for human interaction and coexistence, come up with new ideas and put them forth, ok?, maybe we have to try and strive and stumble until a truly better way presents itself.
Give yourself and all you have into actions that will finally change the direction from one that spells doom, in this case continuing to burn carbon in insanely massive amounts while we fight, disagree and kill one another (war, etc.), to something new, something that at least could have a chance to win the peace.
Losing is unacceptable for-real this time. Winning isn’t everything, no sir, it’s the only thing. And starting on 04-22-2022 this net-zero BS needs to be sent to Mars, or perhaps Uranus.
Meanwhile here on earth we gotta get busy building the only thing that will prevent oblivion: a tiny taste of utopia that will grow from a seed into a raging forest of real, not fossilized, success.
“What is happening in this country in terms of banning books in schools is unparalleled in its frequency, intensity, and success,” said the director of PEN America’s Free Expression and Education program.
A report published Thursday by the free expression group PEN America details an “alarming” and unprecedented surge in book banning across the United States, with 86 school districts in 26 states prohibiting more than 1,100 titles in classrooms and libraries over just the past eight months.
“Book challenges in American schools are nothing new, but this type of data has never been tallied and quite frankly the results are shocking.”
Titled Banned in the USA, the report finds that districts representing 2,899 schools with a combined enrollment of more than 2 million students banned 1,145 unique book titles by 874 different authors, 198 illustrators, and nine translators between July 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022.
In total, the new report documents 1,586 instances of individual books being banned as a right-wing censorship campaign and broader war on public education sweeps the country, prompting pushback from libraries, students, and local residents. Some book bans have been reversed in recent months thanks to student resistance.
The top three banned titles, according to PEN America’s analysis, are “centered on LGBTQ+ individuals or touch on the topic of same-sex relationships: Gender Queer: A Memoirby Maia Kobabe banned in 30 districts, All Boys Aren’t Blueby George M. Johnson, banned in 21 districts, and Lawn Boyby Jonathan Evison, banned in 16 districts.”
“Out of Darkness by Ashley Hope Pérez, a love story between a Black teenage boy and a Mexican-American girl set in 1930s Texas, was also banned in 16 districts,” the report notes. “The Bluest Eye by the late Nobel Prize laureate Toni Morrison is the fifth most banned book, in 12 districts.”
PEN compiled a list of the books subject to bans here.
Jonathan Friedman, director of PEN America’s Free Expression and Education program and lead author of the report, said in a statement Thursday that “book challenges in American schools are nothing new, but this type of data has never been tallied and quite frankly the results are shocking.”
“Challenges to books, specifically books by non-white male authors, are happening at the highest rates we’ve ever seen,” said Friedman. “What is happening in this country in terms of banning books in schools is unparalleled in its frequency, intensity, and success.”
“Because of the tactics of censors and the politicization of books we are seeing the same books removed across state lines: books about race, gender, LGBTQ+ identities, and sex most often,” Friedman continued. “This is an orchestrated attack on books whose subjects only recently gained a foothold on school library shelves and in classrooms. We are witnessing the erasure of topics that only recently represented progress toward inclusion.”
According to PEN America, Texas—where the state legislature is dominated by Republicans—leads the country with the most documented book bans at 713. Pennsylvania ranks second with 456 bans, followed by Florida with 204.
“A probing look at the surge in book bans across the country exposes an alarming pattern of mounting restrictions targeting specific stories and ideas and the widespread abandonment of established procedures aimed to safeguard the First Amendment in public education,” said Suzanne Nossel, PEN America’s CEO.
“By short-circuiting rights-protective review processes,” Nossel added, “these bans raise serious concerns in terms of constitutionality, and represent an affront to the role of our public schools as vital training grounds for democratic citizenship that instill a commitment to freedom of speech and thought.”
PEN’s report also raises concern over state legislators’ increasing introduction and approval of “educational gag orders to censor teachers, proposals to track and monitor teachers, and mechanisms to facilitate book banning in school districts.”
The group notes that 175 educational gag order bills have been introduced in 40 U.S. states and 15 such measures have become law in 13 states.
“Parents and community members deserve a voice in shaping what is taught in our schools,” Nossel said Thursday. “But the embrace of book bans as a weapon to ward off narratives that are seen as threatening represents a troubling retreat from America’s historic commitment to the First Amendment rights of students.”
Originally published on Common Dreams by JAKE JOHNSON and republished under Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
Apple is now in the business of giving it’s customers what they actually want, as has often been pointed out by my colleagues since the Apple March event earlier this week. The show, unveiled under the moniker “peek performance”, was highlighted by the unveiling of the new Apple Studio Display along with the Mac Studio (Desktop), in both M1 Max and M1 Ultra configurations.
Other new products announced were the new iPhone SE 3, iPad Air 5. The demise of the iMac 27” (2020) was also quietly acknowledged.
The very big news was the apple silicon powered desktop duo. Most remarkable is the pattern that seems to be emerging at Apple. Instead of forging ahead with features and formats that are either out of reach of the masses, or just not what we have most devoutly wished for, they appear to be in full-on genie-mode and are granting wishes at an industrial clip.
Suddenly, the much maligned slogan for the iPhone 13 Pro, Oh So Pro, does not seem ludicrous anymore. Armed with an Iphone 13 Pro Max, a MacBook Pro 16 and the new Mac Studio ensemble, anyone would identify with that somewhat haughty designation; your motto could truthfully be Oh. So. Pro.
The Mac Studio Desktop M1 Max and Studio Desktop M1 Ultra versions are a case in point.
The biggest wish fulfillment dream come true is that this machine can be configured at the low end as an amazingly affordable stand-alone workstation, which with the addition of a non-apple monitor (that you may already have, for example) puts you into a pro-performance class at under $2000.
This is nothing less than the holy grail of what many pro and semi-pro mac aficionados have been pining for for nearly decades. The entry level Mac Studio vs Mac Mini (with any monitor if on a budget), The Mac Studio vs iMac 27” (now discontinued as per above), Hell, even the The Mac Studio vs the MacBook Pro 16” with M1Max, these are all a huge win for the Studio Desktop if you factor in price and performance.
At the other end of the spectrum, if you have the cash, the full Mac Studio, including the Apple Studio Display is a Mac Pro killer in price and performance. Naturally there have already been rumors that the Mac Pro update is near at hand and even that a new monitor with similar features to the 32-inch Retina 6K Pro Display XDR ($6k) but at a price point well below that lofty sum.
By making the monitor optional this blows apart the tacit strategy that has been followed for decades – want the newest top performing machine ? Then you either buy an iMac Pro, the top of the line MacBook Pro (with integral screen costs) or win the lottery first to attain the cash for the Mac Pro / Pro Display XDR combo.
No more. At under Two Thousand smackers you can improvise a display which you compute your way to the cash needed to purchase the Apple Studio Display. Once you get there you will be able to luxuriate in the unbelievable sound system built in, featuring a three-microphone array as well as a six-speaker sound system with Spatial Audio support. You’ll also get your screen debut using the 12mp integrated “web-cam” with Center Stage enhancement, all provided courtesy of the built-in A13 Bionic chip.
This not-so-subtle shift is also made evident by the plethora of ports and configuration options that make the system, how ever you choose to build it, very user friendly in terms of matching the budget to the tasks you plan to undertake with your prize.
The even bigger picture is the way that the entire product line from Apple is benefitting from the unique “whole-widget-strategy” first laid out by Steve Jobs. Since the introduction of Apple Silicon, first in iOS devices and now across the entire Apple ecosystem, there has been a massive acceleration of improved performance (peek performance indeed). Expect this trend to intensify as the migration continues alongside the eventual total integration of iOS and MacOS software.
Are Hardware Subscriptions a Bad idea? Perhaps, but it might be perfect for power users
There has been, over the last few years, a gradual push within Apple (and, god knows the world at large) for more subscriptions and more bundling of products across the entire ecosystem.
This is also, in my view, part of a larger planned convergence of all products and services into a giant Apple universe of products that ‘just work. The rumors are based on the new report by Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman where he claims to have knowledge of the matter and says he expects this concept to launch in late 2022 or early 2023.
There is already an iPhone upgrade program which allows you to pay as you go and get a new iPhone yearly, however this is no a true subscription model. A closer analog would be the Apple One bundle, an all-in-one subscription program for up to six apple services.
They include Apple Music, Apple TV +, Apple Arcade, iCloud+, Apple News +and Apple Fitness +. The monthly charge for Apple One ‘Premier’ which as it sound is the full package is only a little more than half of what the cost would be for the individual items.
And since an iCloud storage upgrade to 2 TB is included, the actual cost benefit is even higher for users that wold be upgrading to that level of iCloud storage anyway.
The fact is that many so called ‘power users’ upgrade often at full price and get a new Apple device yearly, or even buy multiple new devices at least every other year.
Good for Apple, of course, how about the rest of us?
While many industries and companies are working hard to make a transition to monthly subscription services that include hardware, for everything from web sites trying to re-imagine the auto-leasing program parameters in a way that is permanent with the ability to upgrade periodically, to a hardware subscription service like the software plus hardware bundle from Peloton Interactive inc.
Although this relentless drive to create a new subscription service for hardware products in addition to the already nearly ubiquitous presence of subscriptions in digital services, which is, generally, a set fee per month is standard for a plethora of software and web based products.
With Apple products becoming more integrated into the ecosystem of software, hardware and services that interact and even synergistically support each other, it only makes sense that this has the potential, again, to make the most sense for the most avid users of Apple hardware.
From the perspective of tech giants like Apple Inc., having a large percentage of recurring sales guaranteed through monthly payments, would enable the financing of the inevitable new yearly iterations of new versions of its major devices, and could be seen as a new way, perhaps a better way, to capitalize for the research and development those many new hardware deices require.
Having long since committed to a schedule that guarantees new models for nearly all it’s hardware every year, which often include a reduction in the price of the device, free upgrades (mostly for software), a hardware subscription program such as the one we could imagine (based on the Apple One example above but for hardware) would be a hot topic, if not Apple’s biggest push internally.
A hardware subscription bundle, by any other name…
Naturally there are many ways this could play out. How the cost of an iPhone (based on a one to two year upgrade cycle) would jive with the cost of the phone divided by twelve or even twenty four is one possible configuration.
There’s also the question of current installment plans and how they would be handled for presumed upgraders, if various perks such as fresh hardware, free Apple Care, the freedom to move to the iPhone of their choice, all, however, with lack of true device ownership. Or perhaps even the merger of Apple One services such as the Apple Music Subscription into a huge ‘bundle of bundles’.
Bottom line? Make it juicy and they will come…
Of course, those like myself (and maybe you?) who might be potential users of the program are waiting to hear… drumroll please…. a specific price, a date, either this year or next year, and the hardware lineup included.
Would this be just iPhone or also iPad or Apple Watch, even Mac? Or a truly massive new program that would be the biggest of all monthly installment programs in the world today, and would include everything from fitness content, to a menu of hardware and software, to a magical calculation of your Apple Worth Rank that would allow you to get more devices, software and services the higher that the cost of devices would be.
And all of the above, or whatever actually comes to pass, divided by a second magic number between 12-18 and then calculated to be a little more than half (oh Apple is so clever at this) of the full original prices and then charged to Apple Card users at a slight discount and the rest of us on a normal monthly basis.
If your head is spinning but you are still reading this, you might actually be one of the few that would embrace the upcoming service and would be happier with a determined monthly fee for the plethora of Apple products that you know you will consume anyway for the rest of your life.
By the same token, if you are insanely upset at even the notion, let us know in comments below.
Bitcoin’s history and origination is an important factor for more than just true believers and maximalists. Created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, and with evidence that it was intended, by its founder, known only as Satoshi Nakamoto, as remedy for the failed system that had nearly collapsed the world economic system at that time.
In a recent CoinDesk post, Nathan Thompson wrote: Bitcoin’s genesis block is historic, not just because it contained the first 50 bitcoins, but because it had a message coded in the hash code: “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.”
The bank bailouts and various financial system failures were integral, then, in the creation and purpose of bitcoin, and one could even say, coins and systems that followed, starting with Ethereum in 2015.
After a few weeks of tweets revolving around the Twitter buyout brouhaha, Elon Musk, in a reply, added, in a more introspective tone than has been seen of late, some of his thoughts on the subject;
The axiomatic error was that housing prices only go up. I don’t support predatory lending, but many of those lenders were severely wounded or didn’t survive.
They dug their own graves – a lesson we should all take to heart, including me.
Interesting timing and a nice shift from the obsession with prices
The recent “crash” and panicked voices over the drop of the bitcoin price below $30k is the unspoken background addressed in this exchange, it appears.
Decrying the erroneous belief that “prices only go up” held by the public at large during the doomed run up to the 2008-2009 crisis could be seen as a hint that, perhaps, prices of assets like Bitcoin, and Tesla shares, for that matter, can not “only go up” and anyone who seeks such a preposterous nirvana is digging their own graves, having failed to learn from all the times in history that fools took the path of peak greed and self-delusion.
Worse, and worth being singled out specifically, are those that profited from the delusion of others in “predatory lending” practices, which Elon Musk “doesn’t support”.
Ultimately for this tweet thread, it was Elon Musk’s Twitter buddy @BillyM2k that nailed it with a series of tweets explicitly spelling out the divergence between the founders and believers in the original, positive, intent of bitcoin and the massive bubble of speculators and scammers that has, in his view unfortunately, grown up around it.
Pointing out that DogeCoin, as an example, was created to highlight the stupidity of speculation and excess greed that came with the avalanche of meme-coins and “shitcoins” etc, that flooded the market and, to a great degree, obscured the original, positive force that bitcoin and decentralized finance was invented to be.
Maybe, some of the various challenges and stumbles that Elon Musk is experiencing lately, seemingly for the first time, after a string of incredible triumphs, culminating with the Person of the Year designation and the buyout launch that is now in limbo, will inspire him to be more reflective and use his powerful position as a “Twitter-sage” to draw more attention to the need for a voice of “reason”, rather than as a cheerleader for the bonfires of vanity and speculation.
The recent announcement of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement has ignited widespread speculation about the future of Roe v. Wade. Some analysts believe that a new appointment to the Supreme Court would mean a conservative justice, particularly one who is against abortion rights, will threaten the status of the law.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted women an essential degree of reproductive freedom on on Jan. 22, 1973, by supporting the right to terminate a pregnancy under specific conditions.
Childbearing was still closely tied to marriage. Those who conceived before marriage were likely to marry before the birth occurred. It wasn’t yet common for married women with young children under age 6 to be employed; about 37 percent were in the labor force. Then, as now, finding satisfactory child care was a challenge for employed mothers.
By 1980, the average age at marriage had increased to 22. Thirty percent of American women aged 18 to 24 who had graduated from high school were enrolled in college, and 13.6 percent had completed a four-year college degree. Forty-five percent of married mothers with young children were in the labor force.
While these changes may not be directly attributable to Roe v. Wade, they occurred shortly after its passage – and they’ve continued unabated since then.
Today, roughly two generations after Roe v. Wade, women are postponing marriage, marrying for the first time at about age 27 on average. Seventeen percent over age 25 have never been married. Some estimates suggest that 25 percent of today’s young adults may never marry.
Moreover, the majority of college students are now women, and participation in the paid labor force has become an expected part of many women’s lives.
Control over choices
If the Roe v. Wade decision were overturned – reducing or completely eradicating women’s control over their reproductive lives – would the average age at marriage, the educational attainment level and the labor force participation of women decrease again?
These questions are also difficult to answer. But we can see the effect that teen pregnancy, for example, has on a woman’s education. Thirty percent of all teenage girls who drop out of school cite pregnancy and parenthood as key reasons. Only 40 percent of teen mothers finish high school. Fewer than 2 percent finish college by age 30.
Educational achievement, in turn, affects the lifetime income of teen mothers. Two-thirds of families started by teens are poor, and nearly 1 in 4 will depend on welfare within three years of a child’s birth. Many children will not escape this cycle of poverty. Only about two-thirds of children born to teen mothers earn a high school diploma, compared to 81 percent of their peers with older parents.
The future depends in large part on efforts at the state and federal level to protect or restrict access to contraception and abortion. Ongoing opposition to the legalization of abortion has succeeded in incrementally restricting women’s access to it. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that studies reproductive policies, between 2011 and mid-2016, state legislatures enacted 334 restrictions on abortion rights, roughly 30 percent of all abortion restrictions enacted since Roe v. Wade.
In 2017, Kentucky enacted a new law banning abortion at or after 20 weeks post-fertilization. Arkansas banned the use of a safe method of abortion, referred to as dilation and evacuation, which is often used in second-trimester procedures.
New battles
Of course, medical abortion isn’t the only way in which women can exert control over reproduction.
Even before 1973, American women had access to a wide range of contraceptives, including the birth control pill, which came on the market in 1960. Five years later, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that married couples could not be denied access to contraceptives. In 1972, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, the court extended this right to unmarried persons.
In 2017, a record number of states acted to advance reproductive health rights in response to actions by the federal government. In 2017, 645 proactive bills were introduced in 49 states and the District of Columbia. Eighty-six of those were enacted and an additional 121 passed at least one committee in a state legislature.
How would the lives of American women in the last decades of the 20th century and early 21st century have unfolded if the court had made a different decision in Roe v. Wade? Would women be forced into compulsory pregnancies and denied the opportunity to make life plans that prioritized educational and employment pursuits? Would motherhood and marriage be the primary or exclusive roles of women in typical childbearing ages?
With the availability of a greater range of contraception and abortion drugs other than medical procedures available today, along with a strong demand for women’s labor in the U.S. economy, it seems unlikely that women’s status will ever go back to where it was before 1973. But Americans shouldn’t forget the role that Roe v. Wade played in advancing the lives of women.
This story has been updated to correct the proportion of women enrolled in college in 1970 and 1980.
Six months ago, negotiators at the United Nations’ Glasgow climate summit celebrated a series of new commitments to lower global greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience to the impacts of climate change. Analysts concluded that the new promises, including phasing out coal, would bend the global warming trajectory, though still fall short of the Paris climate agreement.
In the U.S., the Biden administration has struggled to get its promised actions through Congress. Last-ditch efforts have been underway to salvage some kind of climate and energy bill from the abandoned Build Back Better plan. Without it, U.S. commitments to reduce emissions by over 50% by 2030 look fanciful, and the rest of the world knows it – adding another blow to U.S. credibility overseas.
As a former senior U.N. official, I’ve been involved in international climate negotiations for several years. At the halfway point of this year’s climate negotiations, with the next U.N. climate conference in November 2022, here are three areas to watch for progress and cooperation in a world full of danger and division.
In the short term, Europe’s pivot means much more energy efficiency – the International Energy Agency estimates that the European Union can save 15%-20% of energy demand with efficiency measures. It also means importing oil and gas from elsewhere.
There are issues to solve. As Europe buys up gas from other places, it risks reducing gas supplies relied on by other countries, and forcing some of those countries to return to coal, a more carbon-intense fuel that destroys air quality. Some countries will need help expanding renewable energy and stabilizing energy prices to avoid a backlash to pro-climate policies.
Their promises faced cries of “greenwash” from many climate advocacy groups. Some efforts are now underway to hold companies, as well as countries, to their commitments.
A U.N. group chaired by former Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is now working on a framework to hold companies, cities, states and banks to account when they claim to have “net-zero” emissions. This is designed to ensure that companies that pledged last year to meet net-zero now say how, and on what scientific basis.
For many companies, especially those with large emissions footprints, part of their commitment to get to net-zero includes buying carbon offsets – often investments in nature – to balance the ledger. This summer, two efforts to put guardrails around voluntary carbon markets are expected to issue their first sets of guidance for issuers of carbon credits and for firms that want to use voluntary carbon markets to fulfill their net-zero claims. The goal is to ensure carbon markets reduce emissions and provide a steady stream of revenue for parts of the world that need finance for their green growth.
Climate change influencing elections
Climate change is now an increasingly important factor in elections.
French President Emmanuel Macron, trying to woo supporters of a candidate to his left and energize young voters, made more dramatic climate pledges, vowing to be “the first major nation to abandon gas, oil and coal.”
With Chile’s swing to the left, the country’s redrafted constitution will incorporate climate stewardship.
In Australia, Scott Morrison’s government – which supported opening one of the world’s largest coal mines at the same time the Australian private sector is focusing on renewable energy – faces an election on May 21, 2022, with heatwaves and extreme flooding fresh in voters’ minds. Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro faces opponents in October who are talking about protecting the climate.
Elections are fought and won on pocketbook issues, and energy prices are high and inflation is taking hold. But voters around the world are also experiencing the effects of climate change firsthand and are increasingly concerned.
The next climate conference
Countries will be facing a different set of economic and security challenges when the next round of U.N. talks begins in November in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, compared to the challenges they faced in Glasgow. They will be expected to show progress on their commitments while struggling for bandwidth, dealing with the climate emergency as an integral part of security, economic recovery and global health.
There is no time to push climate action out into the future. Every decimal point of warming avoided is an opportunity for better health, more prosperity and better security.
What does a sustainable civilisation look like and how do we get there? A burgeoning movement of artists and activists is seeking answers.
“It is 2050. In most places in the world, the air is moist and fresh, even in cities. It feels a lot like walking through a forest, and very likely this is exactly what you are doing. The air is cleaner than it has been since before the Industrial Revolution. We have trees to thank for that. They are everywhere.”
In the current moment, these words from Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac’s 2020 book The Future We Choose might seem like pure fantasy. The world they describe seems so far from the present, where over 90% of the Earth’s population breathes air deemed unsafe by the World Health Organization, scientists warn that humans are causing “irreversible” changes to the climate and nature is declining globally at an unprecedented rate.
But a burgeoning artistic and political movement known as “solarpunk” is trying to bring this lush, verdant world closer to reality.
Solarpunk imagines an optimistic future where humans have overcome the major environmental and social crises of our time and in the process created a safe, just world powered by clean energy and organised around collaborative social ideals.
It rejects the pessimism of cyberpunk, which paints the future as a corporate-controlled and environmentally degraded dystopia. As stated in a manifesto written collectively by the online solarpunk community, “as our world roils with calamity, we need solutions, not only warnings”.
The concept of solarpunk originally emerged in the late 2000s, when a handful of artists on the social media platform Tumblr began sharing drawings of futuristic green cities. Over time, the aesthetic and ethos evolved into a more robust vision for the world, and in the process has been embraced by other art forms. There are now published collections of solarpunk literature, subgenres of music, movements within architecture and even tabletop role-playing games.
At the core of this vision is the idea that humans can coexist in harmony with the rest of nature. A solarpunk world is one where vast swathes of land have been returned to wilderness, rooftop gardens dot the skylines of high-tech cities and vertical farms provide food to their residents.
Responsible use of technology is also a prominent theme. Solar, wind and wave power have entirely replaced fossil fuels as sources of energy, while widespread 3D printing has made it much easier to produce things locally, creating resilient, self-sufficient communities.
Increasingly, artists and writers in the solarpunk movement also describe a world that is just and safe for marginalised groups – especially those facing the brunt of the climate and ecological crisis today. “BIPOC [black, indigenous and people of colour] and queer people are safe in solarpunk futures,” says Brianna Castagnozzi, co-editor-in-chief of Solarpunk Magazine.
Although it may seem utopian and idealistic, solarpunk attempts to answer real questions being asked more and more often in light of the unfolding climate and ecological crisis. What can be saved? What does a truly sustainable civilisation look like? How do we get there?
It may be a big ask, but it’s increasingly clear that the scale of the environmental crises facing humanity demands transformational changes to the way we live, as well as the way we think. Art has the power to shape our attitudes, so perhaps it’s time – as Nigerian poet Ben Okri said recently – for artists of all kinds to “dedicate our lives to nothing short of re-dreaming society”.
Former Defense Secretary, Mark Esper has a new memoir that is available, “A Sacred Oath”, in which he reveals his time spent during the Trump administration. And like many that have served under Donald Trump, Esper fell from his grace, getting fired several days after the 2020 election.
The book is a whopping 752 pages, where he holds nothing back, capturing Trump as the ill-tempered, ill-informed President who was overly concerned with power and self-image.
Below are just some of the headlines and quotes from his book released and available for purchase starting May 10.
‘Esper says Trump wanted to reactivate McChrystal, McRaven to court-martial them over criticism’ (The Hill)
“Worse yet, people were removed from positions simply because the White House wanted to replace them with more hard-core Trump loyalists, regardless of qualifications,” Esper wrote of Trump’s motive towards those that did not fall in line with his political agenda.
“We reached that point in the conversation where he looked frankly at [Joint Chiefs of Staff] Gen. [Mark] Milley and said, ‘Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?’ … It was a suggestion and a formal question. And we were just all taken aback at that moment as this issue just hung very heavily in the air.”
‘Mark Esper says Trump’s refusal to attend Biden’s presidential inauguration was ‘a final act of petulance’: book’ (Business Insider)
“Donald Trump did not even bother to attend the Inauguration — the first sitting and able president to skip his successor’s inauguration since 1869,” Esper wrote in his book, “It was a final act of petulance that defied tradition, tarnished our democracy, and further damaged Biden’s legitimacy with millions of Americans.”
‘Trump was the ‘biggest leaker of all’ in his administration and it was ‘generally bad’ for the country, his former Pentagon chief says’ (Business Insider)
“The individual motivations for the leaks ranged from advancing a preferred policy outcome to enhancing the leaker’s own role or credentials to currying favor with the president. It was a noxious behavior learned from the top. The president was the biggest leaker of all. It turned colleague against colleague, department against department, and it was generally bad for the administration and the country,” Esper writes in memoir.
As one would easily predict, Trump attempted to censor the release of the book. In response to a 60 Minutes interview with Esper promoting his book, the former President provided a statement on the interview, calling Esper a “Yesper”, “Weak and Totally Ineffective”.
LaQuedra Edwards entered a Tarzana Vons supermarket and put $40 into a Scratchers vending machine back in November 2021 as reported by the Sacramento Bee. However when she was about to choose her scratcher selection (several less expensive tickets) she inadvertently hit the selection for a $30 scratcher as a result of being “pushed” by a fellow market go-er.
That wrong or accidental button pushed resulted in Edwards winning $10 million as reported by the California Lotto press release on April 6. Oy, in a good way.
They’re also chipping away at the most fundamental freedom of all: the right to vote – restricting everything from mail-in voting to ballot dropboxes.
But their chipping away at freedom is even bigger than all this.
Can you really be free if you’re saddled with medical debt and have to routinely pay outrageous health care costs?
Can you really be free if you have no voice in your workplace and your employer refuses to let you organize with your coworkers for the right to collectively bargain?
Can you really be free if you’re not paid a living wage and have to choose between feeding your family or keeping your lights on?
A living wage, the right to join a union, guaranteed healthcare, the right to vote – these are the foundations of real freedom.
Yet Republicans oppose all of these.
There’s a reason the historic 1963 rally was called The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Because freedom also means the ability to work in a job that pays enough to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.
What Republicans want to preserve isn’t freedom, it’s power. The power to impose their narrow ideology on everyone else, no matter who suffers. Don’t let their propaganda convince you otherwise.
“The 1.5°C figure is not some random statistic,” said the head of the World Meteorological Organization. “It is rather an indicator of the point at which climate impacts will become increasingly harmful for people and indeed the entire planet.”
The World Meteorological Organization warned Monday that the planet now faces a 50% chance of temporarily hitting 1.5°C of warming above pre-industrial levels over the next five years, another signal that political leaders—particularly those of the rich nations most responsible for carbon emissions—are failing to rein in fossil fuel use.
“For as long as we continue to emit greenhouse gases, temperatures will continue to rise.”
In 2015, by comparison, the likelihood of briefly reaching or exceeding 1.5°C of global warming over the ensuing five-year period was estimated to be “close to zero,” the WMO noted in a new climate update. The report was published amid a deadly heatwave on the Indian subcontinent that scientists say is a glimpse of what’s to come if runaway carbon emissions aren’t halted. Thus far, the heatwave has killed dozens in India and Pakistan.
Signatories to the Paris climate accord have agreed to act to limit the global average temperature increase to well below 2°C—preferably to 1.5°C—by the end of the century. Climate advocates have deemed the 1.5°C target “on life support” following world leaders’ refusal to commit to more ambitious action at the COP26 summit in Glasgow late last year.
“We are getting measurably closer to temporarily reaching the lower target of the Paris Agreement,” Petteri Taalas, the secretary-general of the WMO, said in a statement Monday. “The 1.5°C figure is not some random statistic. It is rather an indicator of the point at which climate impacts will become increasingly harmful for people and indeed the entire planet.”
“For as long as we continue to emit greenhouse gases, temperatures will continue to rise,” Taalas added. “And alongside that, our oceans will continue to become warmer and more acidic, sea ice and glaciers will continue to melt, sea level will continue to rise and, our weather will become more extreme. Arctic warming is disproportionately high and what happens in the Arctic affects all of us.”
BREAKING from the World Meteorological Organization @WMO: There is now a 50% probability that at least one of the next 5 years will temporarily reach the Paris Agreement threshold of 1.5°C. In 2015 this chance was estimated to be zero.Our house is truly on fire. #ClimateEmergencyhttps://t.co/u5sTx63weR
— Scientist Rebellion (@ScientistRebel1) May 10, 2022
Dr. Leon Hermanson, a climate expert at the U.K. Met Office who led the WMO report, stressed that a short-lived breach of the 1.5°C threshold would not mean that the world is guaranteed to fall short of the Paris accord’s most ambitious warming target, which climate experts and campaigners have long decried as inadequate.
Such a breach, however, would “reveal that we are edging ever closer to a situation where 1.5°C could be exceeded for an extended period,” said Hermanson.
The WMO’s latest research also estimates that there is a 93% chance that at least one year between 2022 and 2026 will be the warmest on record. Currently, 2016 and 2020 are tied for the top spot.
Even if global warming is limited to 1.5°C by 2100, countless people across the globe will still face devastating heatwaves, droughts, and other extreme weather, with the poor facing the worst consequences.
Meanwhile, key ecosystems could be damaged beyond repair in a 1.5°C hotter world. One recent study found that 99% of the world’s coral reefs would experience heatwaves that are “too frequent for them to recover” if the planet gets 1.5°C warmer compared to pre-industrial levels.
Scientists behind the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report cautioned last month that if there’s to be any hope of keeping warming to 1.5°C or below by 2100, “it’s now or never.”
“Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible,” said Jim Skea, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III.
Originally published on Common Dreams by JAKE JOHNSON and republished under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
A leaked draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito suggests the Supreme Court is on the brink of overturning two rulings, including Roe v. Wade, that guarantee the right to abortion in the U.S.
The Supreme Court confirmed that the document, obtained and first reported on by Politico, is real, but said “Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”
The opinion is due to be issued later in the year. The leaked document indicates that a conservative majority in the court is on track to end a woman’s constitutional right to abortion, opening the door for states to enact bans.
Although a seismic development in the long-running legal battle and social debate over abortion rights, the development is not entirely unexpected. In recent years, pro-abortion rights advocates have been ringing alarm bells over threats to Roe. Legal scholars, health experts and sociologists have helped explain in The Conversation U.S. what is at stake and what it would mean for American women should the historic ruling be overturned.
1. How Roe changed women’s lives
A lot has changed in the nearly 50 years that separate the constitutional enshrining of the right to abortion in the U.S. to the brink of ending that right.
Constance Shehan, a sociologist at the University of Florida, provides a snapshot of life for women prior to the landmark case. In 1970, the “average age at first marriage for women in the U.S. was just under 21. Twenty-five percent of women high school graduates aged 18 to 24 were enrolled in college and about 8 percent of adult women had completed four years of college,” she notes. But today, she says, “roughly two generations after Roe v. Wade, women are postponing marriage, marrying for the first time at about age 27 on average. Seventeen percent over age 25 have never been married. Some estimates suggest that 25 percent of today’s young adults may never marry.”
How much of this change in the experiences of American women is due to Roe? And if it is overturned, will the trends be reversed? Such questions are difficult answer. But there is evidence that carrying through with an unwanted pregnancy may have a detrimental effect on a woman’s education – and that, in turn, has an impact on career opportunities and income, writes Shehan. “Two-thirds of families started by teens are poor, and nearly 1 in 4 will depend on welfare within three years of a child’s birth. Many children will not escape this cycle of poverty. Only about two-thirds of children born to teen mothers earn a high school diploma, compared to 81 percent of their peers with older parents.”
Medical abortion isn’t the only option for young women seeking abortion. As Shehan notes: “With the availability of a greater range of contraception and abortion drugs other than medical procedures available today, along with a strong demand for women’s labor in the U.S. economy, it seems unlikely that women’s status will ever go back to where it was before 1973. But Americans shouldn’t forget the role that Roe v. Wade played in advancing the lives of women.”
2. Who might be affected?
“One important group’s voice is often absent in this heated debate: the women who choose abortion,” writes Luu D. Ireland at UMass Chan Medical School. She notes that 1 in 4 American women have the procedure at some point in their life, yet because of the perceived stigma involved, their perspective is largely missing. As an obstetrician/gynecologist, Ireland does, however, hear on a daily basis stories from women who opt for an abortion.
She notes that while abortion is a routine part of reproductive health care for many, and women of all backgrounds choose to end their pregnancies, unintended pregnancies are more common in certain groups: poorer women, women of color and those with lower levels of formal education.
“Women living in poverty have a rate of unintended pregnancy five times higher than those with middle or high incomes. Black women are twice as likely to have an unintended pregnancy as white women,” she writes.
The reason women opt to terminate a pregnancy varies. The most common reason is that the timing is wrong – it would interfere with education, careers or caring for family members. The second most cited reason is financial – the women seeking an abortion just can’t afford the associated costs of raising a child at that time. One impact of abortion restrictions, research has shown, is that women unable to get one “are more likely live in poverty or depend on cash assistance, and less likely to work full-time,” Ireland writes.
To be clear, this is not what would happen should the Supreme Court overturn Roe – rather, it would allow states to implement bans based on the ending of a constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion. Nonetheless, Stevenson’s research gives context as to risks involved for women who may find themselves in states that do not allow abortion, and who lack the means to get to a state that does.
She notes that staying pregnant actually carries a greater risk of death than having an abortion.
“Abortion is incredibly safe for pregnant people in the U.S., with 0.44 deaths per 100,000 procedures from 2013 to 2017. In contrast, 20.1 deaths per 100,000 live births occurred in 2019,” she writes. Stevenson estimates that “the annual number of pregnancy-related deaths would increase by 21% overall, or 140 additional deaths, by the second year after a ban.” The jump in deaths would be even higher among non-Hispanic Black women.
Other progressive lawmakers echoed that message, with Rep. Cori Bush declaring: “Abolish the filibuster. Codify Roe. Expand the Supreme Court. Protect abortion rights by any means necessary.”
After a leaked draft ruling provided the most concrete evidence yet that the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority is set to end the constitutional right to abortion, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez late Monday said Democrats in Congress must pull out all the stops to enshrine Roe v. Wade into federal law as “people’s futures and equality are on the line.”
“We need all of the above. This is an emergency.”
“People elected Democrats precisely so we could lead in perilous moments like these—to codify Roe, hold corruption accountable, and have a president who uses his legal authority to break through congressional gridlock on items from student debt to climate,” Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wrote in a pair of tweets. “It’s high time we do it.”
“If we don’t, what message does that send? We can’t sit around, finger point, and hand-wring,” the New York Democrat added. “It’s time to be decisive, lead with confidence, fight for a prosperous future for all, and protect the vulnerable.”
If we don’t, what message does that send? We can’t sit around, finger point, & hand wring as people’s futures + equality are on the line.
It’s time to be decisive, lead with confidence, fight for a prosperous future for all and protect the vulnerable.
In September 2021—weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court let Texas’ draconian abortion ban take effect—the House of Representatives passed the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), legislation that would enshrine into federal law the right to abortion care free from medically unnecessary restrictions such as mandatory waiting periods, which are commonplace in states across the U.S.
“Removing medically unjustified restrictions on abortion services would constitute one important step on the path toward realizing reproductive justice,” the legislation states. “This Act is intended to protect all people with the capacity for pregnancy—cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others—who are unjustly harmed by restrictions on abortion services.”
“If there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.”
But the bill has stalled in the U.S. Senate thanks to opposition from the entire Republican caucus and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), an opponent of abortion who has previously voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Earlier this year, Manchin joined Senate Republicans in filibustering the WHPA.
Other progressive lawmakers joined Ocasio-Cortez in calling on Democratic leaders to do everything in their power—including launching another push to abolish the 60-vote legislative filibuster—to defend abortion rights from the Supreme Court and Republicans, who are reportedly scheming to pursue a nationwide abortion ban if they take control of Congress in November and the high court overturns Roe.
“This will endanger the very people who need access to legal abortion,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said of the leaked draft ruling authored by right-wing Justice Samuel Alito.
The draft opinion states that Roe, a 1973 decision, was “egregiously wrong from the start” and should be overturned along with Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 ruling that largely reaffirmed Roe.
“The Senate must pass the House legislation to codify Roe, abolish the filibuster, and expand SCOTUS,” Tlaib added late Monday.
Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) tanked their party’s attempt to temporarily weaken the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation earlier this year and—to the dismay of progressives—Democrats have done nothing since to diminish the 60-vote rule’s power.
“Abolish the filibuster. Codify Roe. Expand the Supreme Court. Protect abortion rights by any means necessary,” Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) tweeted Tuesday. “We need all of the above. This is an emergency.”
In a joint statement after Politico published Alito’s draft opinion, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) condemned the document as an “abomination,” arguing it would mark “one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.”
But the Democratic leaders didn’t provide any indication that they intend to target the filibuster as part of a renewed effort to pass the WHPA.
Speaking to CBS News Monday night, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)—the lead sponsor of the WHPA in the Senate—said congressional Democrats are “going to support states that resist” the Supreme Court but lamented that options at the federal level are “limited” due to the party’s narrow majority in the upper chamber.
Such an excuse for inaction is unlikely to satisfy progressive members of Congress or advocates who are planning to take to the streets in the nation’s capital and across the country Tuesday.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, urged his colleagues to “pass legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country NOW.”
“And if there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not,” Sanders added, “we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.”
Originally published on Common Dreams and republished under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
