Investors Want Green Solutions Even if Trump Doesn’t

Bloomberg

Investors Want Green Solutions Even if Trump Doesn’t

Mathew Carr        May 8, 2018 

Ulsan, South Korea – March 16: The power plant of SK Corporation oil refiner on March 16, 2006 in Ulsan, South Korea. The SK Corporation is Asia’s leading energy and petrochemical company and South Korea’s leading refiner, the fourth largest refiner in Asia and is also the World’s second largest single complex oil refinery. Founded in 1962 as South Korea’s first oil refiner. (Photo by Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images) Photographer: Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images AsiaPac

Donald Trump may think climate change is a hoax, but investors managing some $30 trillion of assets are increasingly prodding the world’s biggest polluters to come up with stronger green strategies.

HSBC Global Asset Management and Legal & General Group Plc are among the 250 wealth managers in a group known as the Climate Action 100+ that are asking the companies they own to bring their investment programs in step with the Paris Agreement on limiting global warming.

“Companies with business models that are robust within the Paris framework are going to find it easier to access capital than those who aren’t,” said Stephanie Maier, a director of responsible investment at HSBC Global Asset Management, which helped develop Climate Action 100+.

Action by investors contrasts with Trump’s vow to remove the U.S. from the Paris deal, which was agreed with more than 190 nations in the French capital in 2015. Envoys from those nations including the U.S. are in Bonn, Germany, this week to discuss ways to take the deal forward, with the fund managers playing a supporting role.

Watch a video about how the world will fight climate change without the U.S. by clicking here.

Investors will favor companies that recognize the world needs to shift toward cleaner forms of energy, according to Nick Stansbury, a fund manager and energy specialist at Legal & General investment unit, which manages about 983 billion pounds ($1.3 trillion).

The fossil-fuel industry could “completely screw itself up” by fighting for market share with each other once oil demand starts to fall, said Stansbury. Investors may favor fossil fuel companies prepared to buy back shares instead of competing fiercely against renewables, he said. He expects oil demand to peak within two decades, “upending oil markets in a dramatic way.”

The Climate Action 100+ group formed in September is asking companies to outline in greater detail how they will cope with tightening environmental rules suggested by the Paris deal. It’s using a range of tools to apply pressure, including:

Meetings with directors and management to prod companies to align their business plan with the emission-reduction targets

Resolutions at annual shareholder meetings to encourage cleaner business

Votes against directors unwilling to embrace the energy transition, cleaner operation

Some of the investors are divesting from fossil-fuel related stocks and voting against directors who resist change.

Read: HSBC Pledges to Stop Financing New Coal and Dirtiest Oil and Gas

Read: More Shell shareholders sign on to support climate resolution

The talks in Bonn may set out additional signals that governments are making an effort to clean up the environment.

Stansbury said he’d like to see wider adoption of carbon markets and a price of about $60 a ton by 2030 — four times the current cost of emissions certificates in Europe. Higher carbon prices would help renewables at the expense of coal, oil and natural gas.

The envoys in Bonn will work on specific rules to apply the Paris deal, which would help give investors certainty which industries will prosper as governments tighten environmental protections.

Here’s how Paris will help investors make choices:

It requires nations to set emissions targets and gradually tighten them

It asks countries to justify why their targets are adequate

It makes countries measure their emissions

It’s seeking to install rigorous standards to prove compliance with targets, including rules for countries wanting to collaborate or trade emission credits

Maier said the priority for companies and governments is to back the UN’s overreaching goal of limiting temperature increases “to ensure that we stay within the 2 degrees, because that’s what ultimately what we want to see,” Maier said.

4 inventions that give us hope for the planet this year.

EcoWatch shared We Need This‘s episode.
May 7, 2018

We Need This posted a new episode.

4 inventions that give us hope for the planet this year.

Inventions for the Planet

4 inventions that give us hope for the planet this year.

Posted by We Need This on Monday, April 30, 2018

A View From the Air: Carbon Sequestration, Midwestern Farms and Biodiversity.

Resilience

A View From the Air: Carbon Sequestration, Midwestern Farms and Biodiversity.

Adrian Ayres Fisher, orig. pub by Ecological Gardening   May 2, 2018

One afternoon in early March I flew from Boston to Chicago, returning home from an Ecological Landscape Alliance conference. Cloud cover, white and lumpy as a rumpled hotel duvet, obscured the view, until over western Pennsylvania the plane crossed the edge of the weather system. Our country’s heartland unfurled below. The gently rolling terrain flattened as the plane headed west, divided by roads delineating a grid, with fields, towns, and even woodlots squared into the design.

This tidy, Grant Woods-esque arrangement is the relic of late 18th century surveying expeditions sent out to divide the Northwest Territory into 6-mile square townships, the better to sell off, settle and tame the nearly, at the time, unfathomable expanse. As they worked, the surveyors made detailed maps, including of vegetation; they used boulders, piles of rock or even notable trees as corner markers and confirmed corner placement with nearby “witness trees.” Today, restorationists use these maps to help figure out what kinds of ecosystems they should be restoring to, when embarking on conservation or rewilding projects.

We flew on. Farm building roofs shone in the sun among the fields; only the occasional meandering river gave a hint of how the land had looked in the early 19th century. Though there’d been snow out east, here everything was shades of brown: leafless woodlot trees and tens of millions of acres of empty fields, a mid to dark brown sea of bare earth.

Bare fields full of potential 
For me that landscape was a palimpsest of loss, prosperity and the potential to help mitigate climate change. The ghosts of past cultures—the Adena, the Hopewell, more recently displaced nations such as the Potawatomi and Miami, and a later thriving network of small American family farms—lay below. These successive groups inhabited a now phantom post-glacial landscape comprised of Eastern deciduous forest punctuated by areas of savanna, prairie and wetland that, as a traveler journeyed west, expanded until the prairie dominated.

Today this landscape, tended by a very few farmers utilizing all that technology has on offer, signify an evanescent prosperity precariously balanced on an extremely limited number of commodity crops. This flourishing economy could be upended tomorrow not only by ill-conceived trade wars, or weather catastrophes such as drought, but also by the mounting environmental problems, including but not exclusive to climate change, that are nearly all of our culture’s own devising.

Years ago I might have seen those fields as completely normal, even desirable. But no longer. Because I’m a regenerative gardener and natural landscape manager, when I see a piece of land, no matter the size, I see an opportunity to nurture what biodiversity is there. To me, improving a parcel of land means working with it in such a way as to increase its ecosystem functionality. I highly respect the work conventional farmers do to wrest a living from the soil; I believe that industrial farming methods are not only outmoded, but also actively dangerous.

Those Midwestern fields are losing their fertility along with their world-class topsoil; many now lack the organic matter and important microbial life that not only maintain good soil structure and health but also allow water to percolate properly. Conventional farming practices, such as leaving the earth bare from harvest until planting season, can actively harm the living soil. Fertilizer run-off pollutes waterways and overuse of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides inflict far-reaching collateral damage on living organisms from bumblebees and monarch butterflies to birds to humans, while habitat destruction imperils them further.

But what could that landscape teach about climate change mitigation and environmental renewal? It’s become evident that to hold average planetary temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), global emissions should peak by 2020, and then decline by 10% or greater each year in order to reach zero emissions by 2050. Thereafter, the downward trend then must continue into negative emissions territory. Clearly, technology-based solutions such as ramping up renewable energy while leaving fossil fuels in the ground are fundamental to mitigation. Emissions reductions and increased energy efficiency are essential in every arena, from the global to the personal. For example, if the global top 10% of individual carbon emitters reduced their carbon footprints to that of the average European, greenhouse gas emissions would decline 30%. (This, of course, includes nearly all US residents.)

However, going further means figuring out how to actively remove carbon from the air. Most schemes are in the research stage; existing mechanical carbon capture and sequestration (CSS) is expensive and difficult and only halts emissions at industrial sites. So far, only seventeen facilities, including an ethanol plant in Decatur, Illinois, use the technology to achieve neutral production emissions. Proposed biomass-based CSS systems such as BECCS (Bio-mass carbon capture and storage), with their emphasis on monocultures, have the potential to further damage ecosystems.

Solving global warming requires increasing biodiversity 
Global warming, with its effects of climate weirding, is just one element—a deadly symptom, if you will—of the ongoing, global crisis of ecological destruction that also includes extinction, water scarcity, pollution and desertification. Averting this human-inflicted catastrophe will require multiple, diverse strategies and it has become increasingly clear we cannot accomplish anything without the aid of our planet’s complex natural systems. Solving the greenhouse gas puzzle requires working to help biodiversity increase worldwide and helping the currently disrupted biogeochemical cycles stabilize and recover so that all life might thrive on our beautiful blue and green planet.

This is where large-scale regenerative land management comes into play: it is the most effective tool for carbon sequestration that presently exists. Carbon sequestration through natural means includes not only vitally important conservation and restoration, but necessitates incorporation into all landscape management, from regenerative organic farming and intensively managed holistic grazing to, on the one hand, backyard landscaping with native plants and on the other, toxic chemical cleanup. Managing land along principles that foster soil health and biodiversity not only can sequester carbon on a potentially massive scale (4-12 GtCO2e or even more), but can also help regulate local water cycles, thereby helping avoid both desertification and excessive flooding. It also reduces toxic chemical use and nutrient run-off, all the while promoting biodiversity in plant and animal life, from the microbes in the soil, to pollinators, birds and other animals, to charismatic megafauna and apex predators such as ourselves.

Agriculturalists and other land managers throughout the world are already changing their practices, though it’s been slow to take hold in the Midwest. Regenerative agriculture networks such as ReGenerate IL have sprung up; farmers and scientists have formed partnerships to explore and measure the soil health and carbon sequestration potential of agricultural practices both ancient and cutting edge; farmers are beginning to try methods such as cover crops and waterway buffer zones planted with native plants. In all this, the most innovative practices combine agriculture with landscape management for biodiversity. There’s even an economic case to be made. In this era of falling commodity prices, rising costs of materials and supplies, and potential economic woes, many conventional farmers are already struggling to make ends meet. Farmers are discovering that, while it requires more, different kinds of knowledge and work, regenerative farming can actually be more profitable owing to reduced production costs and higher selling prices. More might go the way of the Nebraska farmer I heard interviewed on the radio recently, who said he is considering moving at least part of his farm out of soy, corn and hogs, and into diversified organics.

A possible future landscape 
What might air travelers traversing the Midwest see ten years in the future? Farms, of course. We can’t return the Midwest to the matrix of woods, prairie and savanna it was 150 years ago. But what if all that land was managed not only for food production but also for soil health, water management, biodiversity and carbon sequestration? There’d be very little bare soil. Instead, there’d be extensive cover crops blanketing fields whose crop production included diverse, multi-year rotations; wide bands of prairie and woods featuring native grasses, flowers, shrubs and trees bordering fields, waterways and roads; areas of intensively managed grazing; alley cropping, silvopasturing and other forms of agroecology; and even expanded natural areas: in short, carbon sequestering, diversified, fertile farmland that would be healthier for farmers as well as the planet.

On the western edge of Indiana, the land changed again. As we descended towards Midway airport, subdivisions, logistics terminals, golf courses and parks replaced fields. Remarkably, amidst the development reposed large, wild areas featuring irregular woods along creeks and streams and the shaggy tan carpet of dormant prairie grasses. We’d entered Cook County: home to the 5.25 million people of the Chicago metro area and the most biodiverse county in Illinois, thanks in part to the nearly seventy thousand acres of carbon-sequestering forest preserve land managed through a unique partnership of professionals and volunteers.

I fastened my seatbelt. I thought about Aldo Leopold, the Midwesterner who both worked with farmers to save and restore their land during the Great Depression and helped invent the art and science of ecological restoration. Leopold might not have known about global warming—very few at the time did—but he had a thorough understanding of the harm unthinking human activities can wreak. He wrote that most modern technologies and practices, “do not suffice for the oldest task in human history: to live on a piece of land without spoiling it.” That has become our greatest, most significant challenge in the Midwest and worldwide. Are we up for it? Can we solve the puzzle?

References:

Ecological Landscape Alliance: https://www.ecolandscaping.org/

(4-12 GtCO2e or even more):  “There’s a huge gap between the Paris climate change goals and reality Current pledges are about a third of what’s needed.”
By David Roberts@drvoxdavid@vox.com Updated Nov 6, 2017, 10:56am EST https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/31/16579844/climate-gap-unep-2017

“Decatur plant at forefront of push to pipe carbon emissions underground, but costs raise questions.”
By Tony Briscoe/ Chicago Tribune /November 23,

Oklahoma ranchers learn to address wild hog overpopulation

Miami Herald – Business

Oklahoma ranchers learn to address wild hog overpopulation

The Lawton Constitution, The Associated Press   May 7, 2018

Meers, Okla. John Zelbst has been at war at his ranch near Meers.

Wild hogs — vicious animals with an appetite for corn and a penchant for destruction — have made their way into the Oklahoma wilderness and have run amok unchecked by any natural predator. The invasive species tears up the ground, destroys fences and other structures, kills livestock and has driven many farmers, like Zelbst, to their wits end.

“We were having ranch employees work on the problem to trap and kill them as much as we could,” he said. “It’s so bad, they wore us out. It took so much manpower to trap them that they beat us. They won.”

Zelbst isn’t alone. The wild hog is a scourge upon the land that has left many farmers, ranchers and landowners throwing up their arms in complete defeat. In an effort to help alleviate the situation, the Great Plains Technology Center, with coordination by Agri-Business Management Coordinator Clint Janda, recently hosted an outreach meeting organized by the Comanche County, Cotton County, South Caddo County and Tillman County Conservation Districts. Josh Gaskamp, a researcher at the Noble Research Center and the main speaker of the meeting, talked to the packed crowd about how there’s a good chance everything they know about addressing the wild hog problem could be wrong, the Lawton Constitution reported.

“If you’re going to catch more pigs, you have to use multiple techniques,” he said. “But many of these techniques that are being implemented may be doing more harm than good.”

Gaskamp detailed the epidemic that the men and women in the room were facing. To help make the pork market more efficient, the pork industry genetically targeted the largest breeds of pigs that reproduced quickly and grew rapidly. Dubbed the “super hog,” Gaskamp said humans created their own worst nightmare by trying to ensure everyone has a ham on the table for Christmas and Easter and bacon on the plate in the morning alongside their eggs. These pigs have no natural predators aside from humans and can adapt to survive in just about any situation.

“There’s not a habitat that you can put in a pig in where it won’t survive,” he said.

So how did this plague begin? Zelbst said hogs were introduced into this part of the state by individuals who raised them as pets or for food and simply let them go. Others, as Gaskamp said, escaped from farms. Genetically chosen to breed quickly, the populations exploded and one or two pigs turned into dozens, if not hundreds, within a short amount of time. They have an “opportunistic diet,” which means they’re willing to eat just about anything and can survive in the harshest of conditions, such as Oklahoma summers. And they leave a path of destruction in their wake.

“They’ve torn up our fences,” Zelbst said. “They’ve torn up our yards and homes. They show up where you feed cattle and tear things up everywhere.”

The simplest and easiest solution is to shoot the hogs either by hunting or as they’re spotted. That doesn’t work, Zelbst said not really.

“You can’t shoot your way out of this problem,” he said. “There’s just too many. They breed faster than you can kill them. That’s why I’m here, to hopefully find out about new research into methods to stop them.”

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s New Transparency Rule Is Not What It Seems

Forbes

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s New Transparency Rule Is Not What It Seems

Steven Salzberg, Contributor. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Smog surrounds Bangkok, Thailand. Photographer: Brent Lewin/Bloomberg

You would think that the editors of the top science journals in the world would know how to write clearly. But if you read their joint statement in the journal Science last week, you might be forgiven for wondering what the heck they are talking about. It’s not that complicated, really. Let me explain.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, when he’s not busy taking expensive trips, renting rooms at a deep discount from coal lobbyists, or building $48,000 soundproof booths for his office, is doing his best to make the U.S. a friendly place for fossil fuel industries. As part of his pollution-friendly mission, Pruitt denies the scientific consensus that climate change is real and is caused in part by human activities, especially by carbon dioxide emissions.

Pruitt has devised a clever new strategy to make science denialism part of official EPA policy, while pretending otherwise: he’s issued a new proposed rule that requires the EPA to use only “transparent” science. (The official Federal Register entry is here.) In his press release, Pruitt stated

“The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end. The ability to test, authenticate, and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of rulemaking process.”

The press release, which is titled “EPA Administrator Pruitt Proposes Rule To Strengthen Science Used In EPA Regulations”, seems to be all about science and openness. One thing I’ve got to give them credit for: the PR people at the EPA know how to obfuscate.

It turns out this is just a ruse. As Pruitt certainly knows, many of the EPA’s rules are based on studies of human subjects, which are governed by strict privacy rules–which are necessary not only to get people to participate in the studies, but also because violating people’s privacy can be highly unethical. This means that many studies showing the harms of pollution–for example, this massive study, which found that fine-scale particulate matter from coal plants increases the risk of lung and heart disease–are not “transparent” enough for the EPA, because the identities of the participants as well as all their health records are confidential.

In other words, the new EPA policy isn’t about scientific transparency. It’s a transparent (!) attempt to ignore the negative health effects of pollution, so that Pruitt can put in place new rules allowing polluters to dump more pollutants into our air and water. See how that works?

In response, the Editors-in-Chief of Science, Nature, the Public Library of Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences issued a joint statement. Alas, their statement is anything but clear. They spend about three-fourths of it explaining about how they support data sharing, and finally, in their last sentence, they write this:

“Excluding relevant studies simply because they do not meet rigid transparency standards will adversely affect decision-making processes.”

That’s it. Even the most sophisticated reader could be forgiven for not understanding what the issue is, not from this statement alone.

Here’s what they should have said: the EPA wants to ignore the health consequences of pollution when creating policy. The EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, has announced a new policy that pretends to be about scientific transparency, but is nothing of the sort. Instead, this policy is designed to undermine the EPA’s mission, which is (and you can read this right on the EPA’s website “to protect human health and the environment.”

Since the EPA’s creation in 1970, the U.S. has made tremendous strides in cleaning up our air and water. Let’s not start backsliding just to enhance the profits of a few polluters.

[Note: I have written the EPA and asked for comment. I will update this article if they respond.]

Steven Salzberg is the Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Computer Science, and Biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University.

No, White Friend — You Weren’t “Embarrassed” by Barack Obama

PopSugar

No, White Friend — You Weren’t “Embarrassed” by Barack Obama

John Pavlovitz          May 7, 2018, First published June 19, 2018

The following story, “No, White Friend — You Weren’t ‘Embarrassed’ by Barack Obama,” was originally published on JohnPavlovitz.com

Image Source: Getty/Alex Wong

I remember the day after the Election, a friend of mine who happens to be white, remarked on social media that he “finally wasn’t embarrassed of America and our President.”

I sprained my eyes rolling them and they have never fully recovered.

Since then I’ve heard this sentiment echoed by more white folks than I can count, especially in recent months; supposed relief at once again having a leader who instills pride.

Since I don’t have the time to ask each of the individually, I’ll ask here:

So, you were embarrassed for the past 8 years, huh?

Really?

What exactly were you embarrassed by?

Were you embarrassed by his lone and enduring twenty-five year marriage to a strong woman he’s never ceased to publicly praise, respect, or cherish?

Were you embarrassed by the way he lovingly and sweetly parented and protected his daughters?

Were you embarrassed by his Columbia University degree in Political Science or his graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School?

Maybe you were embarrassed by his white American and Black Kenyan parents, or the diversity he was raised in as normal?

Were you embarrassed by his eloquence, his quick wit, his easy humor, his seeming comfort meeting with both world leaders and street cleaners; by his bright smile or his sense of empathy or his steadiness — perhaps by his lack of personal scandals or verbal gaffes or impulsive tirades?

No. Of course you weren’t.

Honestly, I don’t believe you were ever embarrassed. That word implies an association that brings ridicule, one that makes you ashamed by association, and if that’s something you claim to have experienced over the past eight years by having Barack Obama representing you in the world — I’m going to suggest you rethink your word choice.

You weren’t “embarrassed” by Barack Obama.

You were threatened by him.
You were offended by him.
You were challenged by him.
You were enraged by him.

But I don’t believe it had anything to do with his resume or his experience or his character or his conduct in office — because you seem fully proud right now to be associated with a three-time married, serial adulterer and confessed predator; a man whose election and business dealings and relationships are riddled with controversy and malfeasance. You’re perfectly fine being represented by a bullying, obnoxious, genitalia-grabbing, Tweet-ranting, Prime Minister-shoving charlatan who’s managed to offend all our allies in a few short months. And you’re okay with him putting on religious faith like a rented, dusty, ill-fitting tuxedo and immediately tossing it in the garbage when he’s finished with it.

None of that you’re embarrassed of? I wonder how that works.

Actually, I’m afraid I have an idea. I hope I’m wrong.

Listen, you’re perfectly within your rights to have disagreed with Barack Obama’s policies or to have taken issue with his tactics. No one’s claiming he was a flawless politician or a perfect human being. But somehow I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here. I think the thing President Obama did that really upset you, white friend — was having a complexion that was far darker than you were ever comfortable with. I think the President we have now feels much better.

Because objectively speaking, if what’s happening in our country right now doesn’t cause you great shame and doesn’t induce the continual meeting of your palm to your face — I don’t believe embarrassment is ever something you struggle with.

No, if you claimed to be “embarrassed” by Barack Obama but you’re not embarrassed by Donald Trump — I’m going to strongly suggest it was largely a pigmentation issue.

And as an American and a Christian committed to diversity and equality and to the liberty at the heart of this nation — that, embarrasses me.

The most surprising places melanoma can hide

Yahoo – Lifestyle

The most surprising places melanoma can hide

Korin Miller, Yahoo Lifestyle    May 7, 2018

Melanoma can show up in some hard-to-find places. (Photo: Getty Images)

When you check your skin for suspicious moles, you probably look at your arms, chest, stomach, back, and legs. But melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer, can show up anywhere you have skin — even in places that the sun doesn’t reach.

Melanomas are most commonly found on the chest and back in men and on the legs in women, according to the American Cancer Society, but they’re also likely to show up on the neck and face in both sexes. However, melanoma isn’t limited to those places.

“We see melanoma everywhere,” New York City dermatologist Doris Day, MD, author of Beyond Beautiful, tells Yahoo Lifestyle. She’s seen it show up in a person’s belly button, in between the butt cheeks, between the toes, under the nails, on the scalp, and behind the ears. In rare cases, you can even develop melanoma inside your eyes and mouth and on your genitals, according to the American Cancer Society.

That’s why it’s so important to have every inch of your skin checked by a dermatologistGary Goldenberg, MD, assistant clinical professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, tells Yahoo Lifestyle. The American Cancer Society recommends checking your own skin once a month and having a doctor do it “regularly,” which Day says is usually once a year.

Here’s the thing, though: You have to know what you’re looking for. “Many times people are concerned about a raised spot that’s fine, but there’s another concerning one near it that they think is nothing,” Day says. “A lot of times, people don’t recognize what’s normal and what’s not.”

When you inspect your body, you want to be thorough. You can rope in a partner to help with your back and hard-to-see places, or you can use a hand-held mirror to get a good look, suggests the American Cancer Society.

In general, you’re looking for new or changing moles, and you want to follow the ABCDE rules for skin cancer detection, Day says. A stands for asymmetry (i.e. if you cut the mole in half, one side of the mole looks different from the other side), B stands for border (concerning spots may have a jagged edge), stands for color (harmful spots can be black, gray, blue, or white), stands for diameter (any spot larger than the size of a pencil tip eraser is concerning), and E stands for evolution (whether a spot changes in size, shape, or color over time). If you come across a spot that meets any of these criteria, you need to see a dermatologist to have it evaluated, says Goldenberg.

Melanoma is serious, and it’s not something that you want to put off or ignore. About 91,270 new melanomas will be diagnosed in 2018, according to estimates from the American Cancer Society, and more than 9,000 people will die of the disease.

If you happen to spot a mole that looks unusual on your body, it’s always best to just get it checked out to be safe, Day notes. It’s also a good idea to take a picture of it and keep taking photos during your monthly skin checks to see if it’s changing, and to have a record to show your doctor during follow-up visits.

Read more from Yahoo Lifestyle:

This is why redheads are more at risk for melanoma

The doctor’s appointment you can’t afford to miss this summer

Meet the powerful women who flaunt, not hide, their scars

A New Model for Progressive Politics in the Heart of Deindustrialization

In These Times

A New Model for Progressive Politics in the Heart of Deindustrialization

By Bruce Vail         May 4, 2018

Aerial view of wheat fields and farm near Peoria, Illinois. (Photo by DeAgostini/Getty Images)  

It’s startling when your hometown is labeled the worst city in the United States for African Americans.

That’s what happened in Peoria in late 2016 when a survey by the online publication 24/7 Wall St. rated the central Illinois city at the top of its list of the “Worst Cities for Black Americans.”

The slap at Peoria wasn’t even the worst indignity suffered by the people of the city at that time. Shortly afterward, world-famous machinery maker Caterpillar Inc. said it would close the company’s Peoria world headquarters and move to Chicago. The decision was announced after years of discussion about the future of the company’s headquarters, during which the locals were consistently misled to believe that Caterpillar was committed to remaining in the city. The move reflects the deindustrialization and associated ills that are afflicting Peoria and scores of other small cities across the Midwest.

The two events were recently cited by labor activists as the sparks that generated the Peoria Peoples Project, a new initiative to unite labor unions and the city’s progressive elements. The goal is to improve the lives of working people across the city through political action, particularly action at the state-wide policy level, the labor activists say.

Spearheaded by local units of the American Federation of Teachers and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Project got started last year with the help of the Chicago-based Grassroots Collaborative, says Jeff Adkins-Dutro, president of the Peoria Federation of Teachers. The Collaborative is dedicated to building labor-community alliances in Chicago, Adkins-Dutro says, but is also keen to see similar alliances established in the smaller Illinois cities. Collective action from multiple city-based alliances of this sort are needed to reverse some of the statewide trends that are undermining the interests of working families in Peoria and elsewhere around the state, he says.

Right now, Illinois trends in voting are very much on the minds of the leaders of the leading health care workers union, adds Beth Menz of SEIU Healthcare Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and Kansas, a regional grouping of SEIU locals for hospital, nursing home and home care workers. Unions of all kinds are mobilizing for the November election, she says, and are determined to defeat the re-election bid of anti-union incumbent Gov. Bruce Rauner.

“There are multiple goals,” of the Peoria Peoples Project, Menz says, and increased progressive voting is just one of them. “We are more issue-based,” than concerned with the results of particular elections like Rauner’s, she tells In These Times. Quality healthcare and adequate funding for public schools are obvious priorities for the two unions involved. Most of the tens of thousands of members of the SEIU group are low-income or middle-income African-American women, so bread-and-butter economic issues are foremost, Menz says.

“Progressive organizations have been springing up in Peoria,” as a response to the right-wing agenda of Gov. Rauner and President Donald Trump, adds Chama St. Louis, an organizer for both the Peoria Peoples Project and the Grassroots Collaborative. It’s a fertile field for new organizing, she says, as the increasing power of conservative forces is inspiring pushback in many circles. Rauner’s attacks on public employee unions, for example, are being reinforced by the pending Janus U.S. Supreme Court decision, which is expected to further weaken unions. Adkins-Dutro agrees, telling In These Times that the teachers’ union is now aiming to strengthen its internal cohesiveness in the face of the Janus threat.

A year after 24/7 Wall St. insulted the city, an updated survey replaced Peoria with Erie, Penn., as the country’s worst for African. That reduces the sting a little bit, but the city still has a long way to go, St. Louis says. The Peoria Peoples Project is seen by labor unions as a step in that direction.

One initiative on the agenda for this year is to build support for an Illinois constitutional amendment on taxes. The Illinois Federation of Teachers, SEIU Healthcare and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) are all supporting an amendment that would raise taxes on high-income individuals, according to St. Louis. This kind of tax restructuring is needed to secure adequate funding for public schools and universal health care, St. Louis emphasizes.

The Project is still very much an early stage. SEIU’s Menz says, for example, that initial efforts have been focused on drawing union members and progressives together to form the solidarity needed for any effective political action down the road. The Peoria community has been badly battered by outside forces and turning things around will take time.

Bruce Vail is a Baltimore-based freelance writer with decades of experience covering labor and business stories for newspapers, magazines and new media. He was a reporter for Bloomberg BNA’s Daily Labor Report, covering collective bargaining issues in a wide range of industries, and a maritime industry reporter and editor for the Journal of Commerce, serving both in the newspaper’s New York City headquarters and in the Washington, D.C. bureau.

More by Bruce Vail

A New Model for Progressive Politics in the Heart of Deindustrialization

Bernie’s Platform Could Win in Maryland’s Gov. Race, With Support From Clinton Voters

Inside the Trump Administration’s Plan to Shrink the NLRB

Trump NLRB Appointee Behind Major Anti-Union Ruling Accused of Corruption

Here’s Why These 3 Rank-And-File Union Members Are Running for Maryland Public Office

Trump voters hurt most by Trump policies, new study finds

ThinkProgress

Trump voters hurt most by Trump policies, new study finds

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond warns southern states face greatest impact from rising temperatures.

Joe Romm           May 4, 2018

During major heat wave, a construction worker dumps water from his hard hat over his head in Washington, D.C., July 2007. Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Failure to stop business-as-usual global warming will deliver a severe economic blow to Southern states, a recent paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond finds.

Remarkably, this ground-breaking study, “Temperature and Growth” concludes that “under the business-as-usual scenario, the projected trends in rising temperatures could depress U.S. economic growth by up to a third.”

As the Wall Street Journal summed up the findings: “Climate Change May Deeply Wound Long-Term U.S. Growth.”

The study focused on the impact of high temperatures in productivity and found that rising temperatures have their biggest negative economic impact in the summer — but that it’s not just outdoor work like farming and construction that suffers. Using historical data, the authors showed that the finance, retail, and real estate sectors also get hit hard during the hottest summers.

The authors note that a scenario of low CO2 emissions would sharply reduce the economic harm. But such a scenario requires far more aggressive action than the world embraced in the Paris Climate Accord.

This is what America will look like if we follow Trump’s climate policies

In reality, the Trump administration’s policies — to abandon the Paris climate deal while working to gut both domestic climate action and coastal adaptation programs — make the worst business-as-usual scenarios for climate change more likely while undermining any efforts to prepare for what’s coming.

Significantly, the researchers from the University of North Carolina, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank found that “the temperature effects are particularly strong in states with relatively higher summer temperatures, most of which are located in the South.”

The estimated summer impact “for the ten warmest states is about three times as large as their whole-country counterpart.” This means those ten states would be economically devastated in the coming decades.

NASA’s Hansen: “If We Stay on With Business as Usual, the Southern U.S. Will Become Almost Uninhabitable.”

The study ranks the states by average summer temperature. The top ten, in order, are: Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Arizona. Besides all being in the south, they all also voted for Trump.

We’ve long known the southern U.S. would be hit the hardest by climate change. Back in 2011, the nation’s top climate scientist, James Hansen (then at NASA), warned “If we stay on with business as usual, the southern U.S. will become almost uninhabitable.”

And earlier studies have found that rising temperatures would hit worker productivity hard in peak summer months globally. For instance, a study done in 2013 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that “heat-stress related labor capacity losses will double globally by 2050 with a warming climate.”

NOAA found that business-as-usual policies cut labor capacity in half during peak months by century’s end.

Individual labor capacity (%) during annual minimum (upper lines) and maximum (lower lines) heat stress months. RCP8.5 (red lines) is our current emissions path. Credit: NOAA

But the Richmond Fed study is the first to focus specifically on this country: It’s “the first in the literature to systematically document the pervasive effect of summer temperatures on the cross-section of industries in the U.S.”

So it’s the first study to document that Trump’s climate policies will hit the states that voted for him the hardest.

This week in Trumponomics 

Yahoo Finance

This week in Trumponomics

Rick Newman          May 4, 2018   

President Trump is proud of the 3.9% unemployment rate, the lowest since 2000. But it’s not as great as it sounds.

Employers added 164,000 jobs in April, which was lower than forecasts but still okay. Employers have created an average of 200,000 new jobs each month so far in 2018, which is a strong pace of job growth. But the unemployment rate, which fell from 4.1% to 3.9%, is a puzzlement. There were fewer people looking for jobs in April, which means fewer people counted as unemployed. When unemployment falls because people get jobs, that’s good. But when unemployment falls because people give up looking for jobs, it’s not so good.

For that reason, our weekly Trumpometer says: MEDIOCRE.

Source: Yahoo Finance

Economists struggle to explain two oddities in the current labor market. The first is the relatively low portion of working-age Americans who have a job or are looking for one. The so-called labor-force participation rate is 62.8%, a level it has generally been stuck at since 2014. The peak was 67.3% in 2000. So while the unemployment rate is back to the low levels of 2000, the portion of Americans working or looking for work is considerably lower.

An aging labor force might explain part of the problem, since workers aged 55 to 64 — a bracket that is swelling, as the baby boomers age — are less likely to work than younger folks. The opioid epidemic might keep some people who would otherwise have a job from working. Recent research from the Conference Board suggests more people consider themselves disabled these days, a third possible explanation for the low participation rate.

The other oddity is weak wage growth, with wages rising just 2.6% during the last 12 months. Ordinarily, employers hike pay as unemployment drops and workers become scarce. There are 6.5 million unfilled jobs in America, and there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that a lot of employers can’t find workers. But if they’re paying more to get the people they need, it’s not showing up in the data.

These two factors—weak wage growth and low worker participation—are a drag on economic growth, and they seem out of sync with an unemployment rate that’s historically low. Trump’s main economic policy is tax cuts, which are supposed to leave workers and businesses with more after-tax income to spend and invest. But it’s not clear tax cuts will do anything to pull more workers into the labor force, or boost basic pay.

The other important Trumponomics news this week was no news on a trade breakthrough with China. Trump, of course, has demanded that China open its market to more American-made products, and he’s in the process of enacting tariffs on Chinese imports as a punitive measure if Chinese doesn’t give. Trump sent top aides, including his Commerce and Treasury secretaries, to China this week to negotiate, and they wrapped up two days of talks with no news at all.

Trade fears are suppressing stock prices and casting clouds on an economic outlook that’s otherwise bright. China has stopped buying American soybeans, a clear indication of how China can retaliate against U.S. tariffs. Farmers are squawking, as they should be, while Trump’s Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, explains that Americans need to “absorb a little pain” in order to get a better trade arrangement with China. Pain, however, was not a Trump campaign promise.

Read more:

If Scott Pruitt were a CEO, he’d be long gone

3 economic ideas Democrats can run on

What the Trump tax cuts got wrong

Why the Trump tax cuts are flopping

Trump’s big mistake on trade

Trump is becoming the backfire president

Rick Newman is the author of four books, including Rebounders: How Winners Pivot from Setback to Success