Interactive Map Shows Every Wind Farm in America

EcoWatch

Interactive Map Shows Every Wind Farm in America

By American Wind Energy Association      August 10, 2017

https://resize.rbl.ms/simage/https%3A%2F%2Fassets.rbl.ms%2F10214991%2Forigin.jpg/1200%2C630/yDIRqrez8Wb%2BD8KA/img.jpg

Using a new map tool released Thursday, anyone can now easily view the location of every utility-scale wind project and wind-related manufacturing facility in the U.S. With the very first American Wind Week in full swing, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) released the map to help people visualize the growth of America’s largest source of renewable energy capacity.

“Wind Power has become a vital part of the U.S. economy, drawing billions of dollars in capital investment to rural communities each year and supporting over 100,000 U.S. jobs across all 50 states,” said John Hensley, deputy director of industry data and analysis for AWEA. “I’m pleased this new map tool helps Americans visualize how world-class U.S. wind resources are being put to work in all parts of the county.”

A time-lapse feature built into the map shows the progress of wind power development across the country. Starting from 1981 in the passes of California where the first modern wind energy projects were completed, users can see the story of American wind power unfold across heartland states like Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma and Kansas, and eventually to the first U.S. offshore wind project completed off Rhode Island in 2016.

The map also features markers for the more than 500 wind-related manufacturing facilities in the U.S. today. These factories support 25,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs across 41 states.

AWEA’s new map utilizes only a small percentage of the full wind project and manufacturing data available to AWEA members through Market Database Pro, a comprehensive, interactive database of all online, under construction and advanced development wind projects, and all active wind-related manufacturing facilities. More than 50 data points are provided at both the project and turbine level, with advanced interactive mapping services including filtered search capabilities, summary maps and political boundaries.

This week is the inaugural #AmericanWindWeek, dedicated to U.S. leadership in wind power. Wind is the largest source of American renewable energy capacity, supporting more than 100,000 U.S. jobs across all 50 states, with nearly 85,000 MW of installed capacity at the end of the second quarter of 2017.

Polluter fines drop 60 percent under Trump

Washington Post, Energy and Environment

Polluter fines drop 60 percent under Trump

By Steven Mufson        August 10, 2017

The Trump administration has so far collected $12 million in environmental-related penalties from businesses, according to a nonprofit.  Above, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt speaks during an interview for Reuters at his office in July. (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)

The Trump administration has collected 60 percent less from civil penalties for environmental wrongdoing than the administrations of presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did on average in their first six months in office.

That’s according to an analysis by the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit group founded 15 years ago by former enforcement attorneys at the Environmental Protection Agency.

The administration has lodged 26 cases for violations of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental laws (not including Superfund sites) and it collected $12 million in penalties from companies, the group said.  Clinton, Bush and Obama respectively lodged 45, 31, and 34 cases and collected $25 million, $30 million and $36 million in penalties.

Related: White House reviewing new report that finds strong link between climate change and human activity

The Environmental Integrity Project said that the figures showed that the Trump administration is “off to a very slow start” when it comes to enforcing environmental law. It said that the cases this year “are smaller, requiring much less spending on cleanup, and resulting in fewer measurable reductions in pollutants that end up in our air or water.”

The Trump administration also lags behind the three previous presidential administrations in the amount of injunctive relief and the amount of air pollution reductions.

At the same time, the group warned that a six-month period does not provide enough data for definitive conclusions, and cases and settlements are often the result of years of efforts. For example, the largest civil penalty imposed by the Obama administration in its first six months was a $12 million fine imposed on BP, whose large Texas City refinery suffered fires and explosions that killed 15 people and injured more than 170 others in 2005.

The largest civil penalty imposed so far by the Trump administration came on May 17, when the EPA and the state of Texas imposed a $2.5 million penalty on the owner of Vopak Terminals North America Inc. for air pollution violations at its terminal along the Houston Ship Channel, the EIP said. The Dutch company’s terminal stores biofuels, chemicals, petroleum products, base oils and lubricants, consisting of 243 tanks with a collective capacity of over 7 million barrels, the EPA said on its website.

It added that Vopak’s violations were detected in 2012, 2014 and 2015 involving open tanks, leaking tanks and inefficient flares that contributed to releases of volatile organic compounds.

Related: At EPA museum, history might be in for a change

“The company’s Deer Park facility failed to comply with Clean Air Act requirements to properly manage equipment, which resulted in excess emissions of benzene (a carcinogen) and volatile organic compounds,” the EIP said. “These compounds contribute to smog and causes asthma attacks and eye, nose and throat irritation, as well as headaches, nausea and damage to liver, kidney and the central nervous system.”

The biggest penalty imposed during the first six months of George W. Bush’s administration was a $9.5 million fine on oil refiners Motiva, Equilon and Shell.  The Clinton administration imposed a $11.1 million fine on Louisiana Pacific and Kirby Forest Industries for air pollution violations at wood product plants.

The EIP relied on consent decrees, news releases by the Justice Department and the Federal Register to compile its figures.

Read more:

Will proposed cuts undermine Trump’s vision of ‘energy dominance?’

Is the most powerful lobbyist in Washington losing its grip?

Steven Mufson covers energy and other financial matters. Since joining The Post, he has covered the White House, China, economic policy and diplomacy.

Electric vehicles to eat into global oil demand by 6 million barrels

UPI     Home-Energy News

Electric vehicles to eat into global oil demand by 6 million barrels

A report from Wood Mackenzie finds the purchase price for electric vehicles is on course to reach parity with their internal-combustion counterparts.

By Daniel J. Graeber     August 10, 2017 

The pace at which electric vehicles are gaining market share is eating into the expected long-term demand for oil, a new report finds. Photo by Stephen Shaver/UP   | License Photo

Aug. 10 (UPI) — An increased consumer use of electric vehicles means global oil demand could shrink by at least 6 million barrels, a report from Wood Mackenzie found.

In what was described as a carbon-constrained scenario, the new report, prepared in coordination with GTM Research, which covers the global electricity sector, said electric vehicles could make up about 20 percent of all of the cars on the road in less than 20 years.

“The falling cost of EVs and their batteries will put EV purchase prices on par with internal combustion engine cars, boosting consumer demand,” Paul McConnell, research director of global trends for Wood Mackenzie, said in an emailed statement.

Swedish automaker Volvo said this year it was marking an end to a vehicle line powered solely by the internal combustion engine. Tesla said in its second quarter release that orders for two of its electric vehicle lines were up 15 percent in July when compared with the quarterly average.

Two million electric vehicles were on the road globally last year, with most of those in the U.S., European and Chinese markets. For Europe, the British and French governments set long-term goals to phase out new gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. Germany, meanwhile, has worked quickly to expand its network of charging stations across its national roadway system.

Wood Mackenzie described the maturation of the electric vehicle market as “rapid,” adding it expected momentum to start eating away at the global demand for oil.

“We foresee EVs potentially displacing about 6.5 million barrels of oil demand, offsetting growth from other sectors such as petrochemicals,” McConnell said.

Economists at the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries revised their forecast for global oil demand for 2018 higher by 1.28 million barrels per day to 97.7 million barrels per day. Total oil demand for 2017 is expected to be 96.49 million barrels per day. Most of the demand growth next year comes from developing countries.

Using the pace of transition from horse-drawn carriages to fuel-powered vehicles in the 20th century as a benchmark to measure growth, the International Monetary Fund said motor vehicles could vanish from markets in advanced economies within the next 20 years. For the shift in vehicles themselves, the IMF said retooling may be necessary for the industry.

“The falling cost of EVs and their batteries will put EV purchase prices on par with internal combustion engine cars, boosting consumer demand,” McConnell said. “This is going to force automakers to develop even better EVs or far more efficient internal combustion engines, as per-mile running costs become a key differentiator between the new technology and legacy engine types.”

Related UPI Stories

Britain to start taking gas, diesel vehicles off roads in 2040

In a new poll, half of Republicans say they would support postponing the 2020 election if Trump proposed it

Washington Post Analysis Monkey Cage

In a new poll, half of Republicans say they would support postponing the 2020 election if Trump proposed it

By Ariel Malka and Yphtach Lelkes         August 10, 2017

Critics of President Trump have repeatedly warned of his potential to undermine American democracy. Among the concerns are his repeated assertions that he would have won the popular vote had 3 to 5 million “illegals” not voted in the 2016 election, a claim echoed by the head of a White House advisory committee on voter fraud.

Claims of large-scale voter fraud are not true, but that has not stopped a substantial number of Republicans from believing them. But how far would Republicans be willing to follow the president to stop what they perceive as rampant fraud? Our recent survey suggests that the answer is quite far: About half of Republicans say they would support postponing the 2020 presidential election until the country can fix this problem.

[Here’s a voter fraud myth: Richard Daley ‘stole’ Illinois for John F. Kennedy in the 1960 election]

Here’s how we did our research:

The survey interviewed a sample of 1,325 Americans from June 5 through 20. Respondents were recruited from the Qualtrics online panel who had previously reported identifying with or leaning toward one of the two major parties. We focus on the 650 respondents who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. The sample has been weighted to match the population in terms of sex, age, race and education.

After a series of initial questions, respondents were asked whether Trump won the popular vote, whether millions of illegal immigrants voted, and how often voter fraud occurs. These questions evoke arguments frequently made by Trump and others about the integrity of the 2016 election.

Then the survey asked two questions about postponing the 2020 election.

  • If Donald Trump were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote, would you support or oppose postponing the election?
  • What if both Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote? Would you support or oppose postponing the election?


An American flag is refracted in raindrops on a window on July 4, in Merriam, Kan. (Charlie Riedel/AP)

Roughly half of Republicans believe Trump won the popular vote — and would support postponing the 2020 election.

Nearly half of Republicans (47 percent) believe that Trump won the popular vote, which is similar to this finding. Larger fractions believe that millions of illegal immigrants voted (68 percent) and that voter fraud happens somewhat or very often (73 percent). Again, this is similar to previous polls.

Moreover, 52 percent said that they would support postponing the 2020 election, and 56 percent said they would do so if both Trump and Republicans in Congress were behind this.

[What if Pence’s voter fraud commission ‘finds’ thousands of duplicate registrations? They will. Here’s why.]

Not surprisingly, beliefs about the 2016 election and voter fraud were correlated with support for postponement. People who believed that Trump won the popular vote, that there were millions of illegal votes in 2016, or that voter fraud is not rare were more likely to support postponing the election. This support was also more prevalent among Republicans who were younger, were less educated, had less factual knowledge of politics and strongly identified with the party.

Of course this is still hypothetical.

Of course, our survey is only measuring reactions to a hypothetical situation. Were Trump to seriously propose postponing the election, there would be a torrent of opposition, which would most likely include prominent Republicans. Financial markets would presumably react negatively to the potential for political instability. And this is to say nothing of the various legal and constitutional complications that would immediately become clear. Citizens would almost certainly form their opinions amid such tumult, which does not at all resemble the context in which our survey was conducted.

Nevertheless, we do not believe that these findings can be dismissed out of hand. At a minimum, they show that a substantial number of Republicans are amenable to violations of democratic norms that are more flagrant than what is typically proposed (or studied). And although the ensuing chaos could turn more Republicans against this kind of proposal, it is also conceivable that a high-stakes and polarized debate would do the exact opposite.

Postponing the 2020 presidential election is not something that Trump or anyone in his administration has even hinted at, but for many in his constituency floating such an idea may not be a step too far.

Ariel Malka is an associate professor of psychology at Yeshiva University.

Yphtach Lelkes is an assistant professor in the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

Study: Trump actions trigger health premium hikes for 2018

Associated Press

Study: Trump actions trigger health premium hikes for 2018

Ricardo Alonso Zaldivar, Associated Press        August 10, 2017

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration’s own actions are triggering double-digit premium increases on individual health insurance policies purchased by many consumers, a nonpartisan study has found.

The analysis released Thursday by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that mixed signals from President Donald Trump have created uncertainty “far outside the norm,” leading insurers to seek higher premium increases for 2018 than would otherwise have been the case.

The report comes with Republicans in Congress unable to deliver on their promise to repeal and replace the Obama-era Affordable Care Act. Trump, meanwhile, insists lawmakers try again. The president says “Obamacare” is collapsing, but he’s also threatened to give it a shove by stopping billions of dollars in payments to insurers. Some leading Republicans are considering fallback measures to stabilize markets.

Researchers from the Kaiser foundation looked at proposed premiums for a benchmark silver plan across major metropolitan areas in 20 states and Washington, D.C. Overall, they found that 15 of those cities will see increases of 10 percent or more next year.

The highest: a 49 percent jump in Wilmington, Delaware. The only decline: a 5 percent reduction in Providence, Rhode Island.

About 10 million people who buy policies through HealthCare.gov and state-run markets are potentially affected, as well as another 5 million to 7 million who purchase individual policies on their own.

Consumers in the government-sponsored markets can dodge the hit with the help of tax credits that most of them qualify for to help pay premiums. But off-marketplace customers pay full freight, and they face a second consecutive year of steep increases. Many are self-employed business owners.

The report also found that insurer participation in the ACA markets will be lower than at any time since “Obamacare” opened for business in 2014. The average: 4.6 insurers in the states studied, down from 5.7 insurers this year. In many cases insurers do not sell plans in every community in a state.

The researchers analyzed publicly available filings through which insurers justify their proposed premiums to state regulators. To be sure, insurers continue to struggle with sicker-than-expected customers and disappointing enrollment. And an ACA tax on the industry is expected to add 2 to 3 percentage points to premiums next year.

But on top of that, the researchers found the mixed signals from the administration account for some of the higher charges. Those could increase before enrollment starts Nov. 1.

“The vast majority of companies in states with detailed rate filings have included some language around the uncertainty, so it is likely that more companies will revise their premiums to reflect uncertainty in the absence of clear answers from Congress or the administration,” the report said. Once premiums are set, they’re generally in place for a whole year.

Insurers who assumed that Trump will make good on his threat to stop billions in payments to subsidize co-pays and deductibles requested additional premium increases ranging from 2 percent to 23 percent, the report found.

Insurers who assumed the IRS under Trump will not enforce unpopular fines on people who remain uninsured requested additional premium increases ranging from 1.2 percent to 20 percent.

“In many cases that means insurers are adding double-digit premium increases on top of what they otherwise would have requested,” said Cynthia Cox, a co-author of the Kaiser report. “In many cases, what we are seeing is an additional increase due to the political uncertainty.”

That doesn’t sound like what Trump promised when he assumed the presidency.

In a Washington Post interview ahead of his inauguration, Trump said, “We’re going to have insurance for everybody.”

“There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it,” he added. “That’s not going to happen with us.”

People covered under Obama’s law “can expect to have great health care,” Trump said at the time. “It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.”

But the White House never produced the health care proposal Trump promised. And the GOP bills in Congress would have left millions more uninsured, a sobering side-effect that contributed to their political undoing.

The Trump administration sidestepped questions about its own role raised by the Kaiser study.

Spokeswoman Alleigh Marre said rising premiums and dwindling choices predate Trump.

“The Trump administration is committed to repealing and replacing Obamacare and will always be focused on putting patients, families, and doctors, not Washington, in charge of health care,” Marre said in a statement.

The ongoing political turmoil for people who buy individual health insurance stands in sharp contrast to relative calm and stability for the majority of Americans insured through workplace plans. The cost of employer-sponsored coverage is expected to rise around 5 or 6 percent next year, benefits consultants say.

Associated Press Health Writer Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this report.

Kaiser report – https://tinyurl.com/ya2yneqj

Farmers in Wisconsin and Minnesota are now recycling millions of pounds of plastic

Chicago Tribune

Farmers in Wisconsin and Minnesota are now recycling millions of pounds of plastic

Recyling plasticWrapping hay and silage in plastic is generating millions of pounds of waste per year. (Dreamstime / TNS)

Tom Meersman, Minneapolis Star-Tribune     August 9, 2017

Minnesota and Wisconsin farms generate 60 million to 80 million pounds of plastic each year but until now had no real options to recycle it. They had to make a choice of paying for it to go to a landfill, burying it on their own land or illegally burning it — none of them, they knew, good for the environment.

An Arkansas company has come up with a solution: In the past two years, it has given more than 4,400 dumpsters to farmers in the two states and then picked up the waste to turn into trash bags that are being used in parks locally.

“Recycling Ag plastics is a problem that’s bedeviled me for 20 years,” said Anne Morse, recycling and sustainability coordinator for Winona County in southeastern Minnesota. “There wasn’t a system that I could set up that made sense and wasn’t extremely costly.”

That ended last December, when Winona became the first county in the state to welcome Revolution Plastics, the Arkansas-based company that has been in the plastics recycling business in Southern states since 1996.

Revolution, wanting to expand its reach, set up pilot programs in the Midwest in 2014 and 2015 and initiated a full launch in Minnesota and Wisconsin last year, said Price Murphy, the company’s director of operations.

Farmers who use at least 2,000 pounds of plastic a year can sign up for the program, Murphy said. More than 100 dumpsters will be distributed in Fergus Falls, Minn., and Buffalo, Minn.

Once farmers drive the dumpsters home, Revolution picks up the plastic from them on a regular schedule, determined by the size of the farms, mostly dairies, and the amount of plastic used.

“I have some farms where I collect as much as every other week, and I have some farms where it’s maybe two or three times per year,” Murphy said. “We try to help as many farmers as possible, large and small farms alike, and we just put them on different route schedules.”

Jeff Beckman, owner of Golden Meadows Dairy, about 35 miles south of Minneapolis, was one of 110 farmers to pick up a dumpster in late May in Goodhue County.

“As I’m feeding the cows each day, I cut off the plastic that I’m feeding off and I put it in the dumpster,” he said. “It’s as simple as five minutes and we’re done.”

With 100 cows, Beckman said he was spending $1,700 a year to have 3,000 to 4,000 pounds of plastic trucked to a landfill, and he now gets it picked up once every eight weeks for free.

“In farming today you have to be very cautious about what you spend, so any time you can recycle or reuse something, it’s just to our advantage,” he said. “It’s also a gain for the environment, so it’s fun when things are a double win.”

Brita Sailer, executive director of the nonprofit Recycling Association of Minnesota, said many farmers in the past 20 years have increasingly turned to plastic covers or bags to store hay and silage — chopped up cornstalks — that are fed to cows. The bags are safer and less expensive than the traditional method of storing the fodder in silos, she said, and they also keep the silage fresher and help it retain more nutrients.

But Sailer said the bags, which can range from 100 to 300 feet long and 6 to 12 feet tall, created a waste problem that the state didn’t have before and there was no way of coping with it other than landfills. For farmers who use the bags or covers, she said, the amount of plastic used per cow amounts to 15 to 20 pounds per year.

Revolution Plastics is not the first business to be interested in the waste plastic, Sailer said, but it’s the first to offer free pickup and have its own processing plants. Other firms also are working on projects to recycle plastic waste from the marina industry, she said, which uses massive amounts of blue plastic to cover boats and protect them during winter.

Charles Krause, a dairy farmer near Buffalo, west of Minneapolis, said that he uses plastic mainly to cover bunkers of silage for his 200-cow operation. Krause said he tried to obtain a dumpster twice earlier this year but was unsuccessful because they were all spoken for. Late last month he was finally able to pick up a dumpster and said it’s “awesome” that he won’t need to pay for the plastic to be picked up.

“The nice thing about Revolution is they’re not funded by a grant, because a lot of programs get started and then they’re done when the grant runs out,” Krause said. “Hopefully this will be a long-term solution.”

Achieving success in recycling programs depends both on the markets and being able to connect the dots, said Wayne Gjerde, recycling market development specialist at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

“It still gets back to the basics of where’s the material, do you have enough of it, are there things that you can make it into and who’s going to do that,” he said.

After on-farm pickups, Revolution bales the plastic and ships it by truck or rail to its processing plant in Arkansas. There the plastic is washed, shredded, heated and extruded into plastic resin pellets, which can be used to make other products such as bags or construction films.

The company accepts agricultural plastic bags and wraps but not other plastics or nylon such as netting used to secure bales. Its collection system does not cover the entire state but uses hubs near concentrations of dairies that are economical to service.

“We understand what we’re getting into,” said Murphy. “It’s not a huge moneymaker as much as it’s a product we can use that not only keeps it out of the landfill but uses less energy than virgin resin to produce other products.”

Morse said that 146 of the 172 dairy farms in Winona County with more than 100 cows are now participating in the program. Murphy said that 1,132 dumpsters have been distributed in Minnesota and about 3,300 in Wisconsin, with 3,000 more farmers in the two states signed up and waiting for future deliveries.

Morse said the best part of the program is that Revolution’s sister company in Arkansas uses the recycled plastic to produce plastic trash liners and other products.

Winona County spent two months testing the liners for garbage cans in its parks and public buildings, she said, and has now decided to buy them after finding that the recycled bags were just as strong and less expensive than liners the county was using previously. Three Rivers Park District is also buying the recycled bag liners, and its suburban system uses about 33,000 of them annually.

“We’ve literally closed the loop — buying back a product that was made from materials we recycled — which is pretty much the holy grail for recycling,” Morse said. “That’s a big achievement for us.”

Switching from coal to natural gas will not save our planet

The Seattle Times Opinion

Switching from coal to natural gas will not save our planet

Workers move a well casing at a Chesapeake Energy natural gas well site near Burlington, Pa.  (Ralph Wilson / The Associated Press)Workers move a well casing at a Chesapeake Energy natural gas well site near Burlington, Pa. (Ralph Wilson / The Associated Press)

Bill McKibben, Special to The Times          August 8, 2017

If as little as 3 percent of natural gas leaks in the course of fracking and delivering it to the power plant through a pipe, then it’s worse than coal.

MOST magic tricks and confidence games mostly work the same way — a little bit of misdirection to get the audience looking in the wrong direction. And some of the finest magicians at large in America today are its natural-gas salesmen, who have worked hard to reassure us that they’re part of the solution to the global warming crisis. To understand why that’s a ploy — to understand why they’re in fact helping drive the heating of the planet — you have to pay close attention.

The basic move is to insist that natural gas helps cut carbon emissions. Indeed, as Dan Kirschner, the head of the Northwest Gas Association, put it in his recent Op-Ed [“The power of natural gas in the war on carbon emissions,” Aug. 3, Opinion], “the U.S. leads the world in absolute reductions in carbon emissions, due in large part to the increased availability and affordability of natural gas.”

This is true on the surface. As America’s power plants have replaced coal with fracked gas, carbon emissions have fallen because natural gas produces half as much CO2 as coal when you burn it. The problem is, carbon emissions are not the only thing that drive global warming. There’s another gas that does the job even more powerfully: CH4, or methane, which is the scientific name for natural gas. If it leaks unburned into the atmosphere, then methane traps heat about 80 times more effectively, molecule for molecule, than CO2. The point of this chemistry lesson is: If as little as 3 percent of natural gas leaks in the course of fracking and delivering it to the power plant through a pipe, then it’s worse than coal.

And, sadly, it’s now clear that leakage rates are higher than that. In January 2013, aerial surveys of a Utah fracking basin, for instance, found leak rates as high as 9 percent. Data from a Harvard satellite survey showed that between 2002 and 2014, U.S. methane emissions increased more than 30 percent.

In fact, some experts who have reviewed the data say that because of the boom in fracking and the conversion to gas, America’s total greenhouse-gas emissions may actually have gone up during the Obama years. And at least the Obama administration required drillers to keep track of how much methane they were leaking — one of the first acts of the Trump EPA was to scrap that requirement, apparently on the grounds that what you don’t know can’t hurt you.

So, to summarize, because this is a subtle point that citizens, politicians and editors need to understand, given the importance of the debate: Natural gas is not reducing the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions. It is doing nothing to slow climate change.

And worse, it’s making it much harder to take the steps that really would matter. As we get off coal because of the way it drives climate change, what we should be doing is moving to renewable energy. Solar power emits no carbon at all, which makes it the natural choice. But as long as we have cheap natural gas flooding the market, we’ll move more slowly in the direction of real renewables. Cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by burning natural gas is like dieting by eating reduced-fat cookies, explained the principal investigator of a Stanford forum that studied the explosive growth in natural gas: “If you really want to lose weight, you probably need to avoid cookies altogether.”

Which is truly sad, because the solar panel is the great have-your-cake-and-eat-it technology of all time — the real deal. It takes the power the sun sends us every day and turns it into electricity. There’s no catch, no con. It’s our Houdini escape route from climate change — but only if we catch on in time to the tawdry little three-card-monte game the fossil-fuel industry is running.

Bill McKibben is the Schumann distinguished scholar in Environmental Studies at Middlebury College and founder of the global climate campaign 350.org.

The simple secret to why Californians are paying less for Obamacare plans

ThinkProgress

The simple secret to why Californians are paying less for Obamacare plans

Hint: look at California.

Amanda Michelle Gomez        August 8, 2017

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, the state's health insurance exchange, talks at a news conference in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, the state’s health insurance exchange, talks at a news conference in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)

“Rising premiums” has been the rallying cry for Republicans looking to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Lawmakers pointed to 2018 premium hikes as a big reason to repeal and replace current health law. Some insurance companies are requesting especially high rates for 2018 ACA plans, as high as 30 percent more in some states.

In California, statewide premiums will rise 12.5 percent, and some northern counties will see a 33 percent increase. But most California residents could avoid the soaring premiums rates, as they’ve done in the past, by shopping smart. That’s easier to do than in a lot of other states, because California is helping make their health care shopping simple.

“Consumers are price-sensitive,” senior fellow with NORC at the University of Chicago Jon Gabel told ThinkProgress. “Consumers search for lower-cost plans, and tend to move from high-cost to low-cost plans.”

Gabel is the author of a recent study by The Commonwealth Fund that found California residents on average pay less for insurance than advertised rates suggest. He and other researchers tracked premiums for ACA plans offered versus plans purchased. Using enrollment data between 2014-2016, the study found customers respond to price increases by switching to cheaper plans.

“For example, just like ordinary grocery shopping, customers will likely purchase green apples when the price for red apples goes up,” Gabel said. It’s economics 101, he inferred.

In 2014, Californians paid 11.6 percent less than the advertised premiums and by 2016, they paid 15.2 percent less. Consumers were able to mitigate the full impact of reported premium hikes, and it’s likely they’ll do this again in 2018, Gabel said. The state’s ACA exchange, dubbed Covered California, cited the study when it announced preliminary rates last week, signalling to consumers that they could purchase cheaper plans if they choose wisely.

“It’s never great when rates increase,” Anthony Wright, executive director of the California health consumer advocacy group Health Access, told ThinkProgress. “But the ACA provides a framework to deal with those rate increases.”

The ACA subsidizes premiums and out-of-pocket costs so costumers don’t feel the brunt of rising insurance costs. Eighty-six percent of Cover California enrollees receive tax credits to help pay for premiums. In other words, the federal government picks up the bulk of the tab when insurers raise prices.

“For those who do not qualify for subsidies, they have the ability to shop and switch for a better deal,” said Wright. The California exchange echoed this point, citing that almost 55 percent of consumers will either be able to pay less or see a rate go up by no more than 5 percent if consumers switch plans.

Covered California does a better job at simplifying the shopping experience than most states. California is among three states that helps customers shop smart by only offering standardized options for plans offered in each metal tier. Standardization plans have fixed out-of-pocket limits and benefits. This allows costumers to make apples-to-apples comparisons when they are shopping around for a plan in each metal tier. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) advises insurers to create standardized options for sale but does not require them.

Gabel attributes Covered California’s easy-to-understand exchange as a driving force behind consumers purchasing lower-premium plans. Given the study limitations, it’s difficult to determine if Californians shops more than other states because of how its exchange is set up. An Avalere study suggests that only about one third of enrollees who purchased health care on the federal marketplace in 2016 kept their same plan from 2015. (Twenty-eight states use the federally-facilitated marketplace.)

Wright did acknowledge that changing plans could mean changing a provider. “This might not be an option for someone committed to provider or network,” he said, “specifically someone undergoing specific treatment.”

Additionally while consumers look to sidestep high premium costs, they passed on other subsidies. Another recent study led by Harvard Medical School showed that nearly one-third of California enrollees signed up for bronze plans, which have cheaper premiums, instead of silver plans, which is the only metal plan that offers cost-sharing subsidies. Wright said when Covered California became privy to this, Health Access went out of their way to inform consumers of their eligibility.

With the onus on the consumers, there are bound to be missteps along the way despite best efforts to streamline the process — but for now California could offer a lesson to other states.

The U.S. economy is “broken” — here’s the proof

Money Watch

The U.S. economy is “broken” — here’s the proof

By Alain Sherter, MoneyWatch        August 8, 2017

Many Americans correctly perceive the U.S. as a land of “haves” and “have-nots,” reflecting the erosion of the middle class and a growing public awareness of economic inequality. Less widely understood is where the “have-just-about-everythings” fit into the mix.

As a chart making the rounds starkly shows, it is only those at the apex of the income ladder – the 0.1 percent atop the 99.9 percent – that have seen a significant gain in their income over the last three decades. The numbers speak for themselves.

Between 1980 and 2014, income for the middle 40 percent of U.S. households – meaning those with average pre-tax earnings of $65,300 – rose a total of 42 percent. That’s about 1.2 percentage points per year.

By comparison, income for the top 1 percent during that period – people with average income of $1.3 million – rose 204 percent, or 6 percent a year. But the really big gains accrue still higher up the ladder.

Income for the top 0.1 percent ($6 million in average income) jumped 320 percent between 1980 and 2014. And it positively exploded for the richest Americans: Income for the .001 percent (average income of $121.9 million) shot up 636 percent, or nearly 19 percent per year.

income-growth-ed.jpg  Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, Gabriel Zucman

What do such figures say about the American economy?

“The most important takeaway is that the U.S. economy is broken,” said Gabriel Zucman, co-author of the study that produced the chart and one of the country’s leading experts on inequality, by email. “Since 1980, there has been no growth for half of the population (the bottom 50 percent of income earners) and only very limited growth for the bottom 90 percent, while a tiny minority (the top 1 percent) has seen its income skyrocket.”

Here’s what the chart means in dollars and cents: Since 1980, average pre-tax income for people in the the top 1 percent has tripled, to about $1.3 million a year (as of 2014). For those in the bottom 50 percent, income has idled at around $16,000.

In other words, it’s back to the future, with the income gap in the U.S. roughly at the same level as in the late 1920s. Just before the Great Depression, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans collected nearly a quarter of the nation’s income, while the bottom 90 percent got just over two-thirds. Today, the 1 percent have roughly 20 percent of national income.

Sure, skeptics might ask, wasn’t America always somewhat lopsided in its distribution of wealth, rightfully rewarding those individualists bumptious enough to build empires while leaving comparatively less for average folks?

Not really. Between 1946 and 1980, income for the bottom 10 percent rose faster than that of the top 10 percent. Poorer Americans saw the biggest gains – a 179 percent growth in income during those years. The bottom half of income-earners saw their income grow more than 100 percent, compared with 57 percent for the .001 percent.

“From 1946 to 1980 incomes were growing at roughly the same pace for everybody, and macroeconomic growth was strong,” said Zucman, an economist at the University of California-Berkeley (whose co-authors for the study included two other leading inequality scholars — Thomas Piketty of the University of Paris and Emmanuel Saez, also of UC Berkeley). “This shows that it is possible to have an economy that is both dynamic and equitable.”

lifechart.gif Health Inequality Project

Not surprisingly, the tidal shift in who earns what in the U.S. is expressing itself in other ways — like who lives longer. Over the last 30 years, the life expectancy of low-income workers has stagnated, and even declined in some parts of the country. (Life expectancy is an estimate of how many more years a person has to live at a given age, while the mortality rate refers to the number of deaths over a given period of time.)

As a result, a 40-year-old man in the top 1 percent of U.S. income earners can expect to live to 87, economic research shows. Among the bottom 1 percent, a man of the same age can expect to make it to 72. The main reason for that divergence, as economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton showed last year: a surge in deaths among people in this group from drug and alcohol abuse and from suicide.

That’s not merely a sign of a troubled economy — it’s broken.

Trump plans to roll back environmental rule everyone agrees on

The Hill

Trump plans to roll back environmental rule everyone agrees on

Gina McCarthy and Ken Kopocis, opinion contributors August 8, 2017

Trump plans to roll back environmental rule everyone agrees on

© Getty Images

Whether illustrated by the recent drought in California or the lead contamination in Flint, Michigan, we are reminded daily that clean water for all is essential to our existence.

Rivers, lakes, ponds and wetlands supply and cleanse our drinking water, ameliorate storm surges, provide invaluable storage capacity for flood waters, and enhance our quality of life by providing essential habitat, recreational opportunities and important power generation.

Yet President Trump’s EPA is continuing its assault on our nation’s health, as well as states’ rights, through its latest effort to roll back the protections of the 1972 Clean Water Act.

Under the guise of providing “certainty for regulated entities, the States, agency staff and the public,” Trump’s EPA has proposed to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule, which designates federal authority over bodies of water that feed into larger waterways in instances where jurisdiction was unclear under the 1972 law.

Rolling back this rule reinstates confusion and uncertainty on how to protect water quality — which harms the joint efforts at the state and federal level that have existed for nearly 45 years. This proposal to dismantle this rule would undermine the courts in an effort to avoid implementing clear, needed protections based on solid science. Scrapping the rule would also undercut the law it is meant to improve, and input gathered through a lengthy and transparent public process.

Even more egregious, EPA has not cited any specific deficiency in the Clean Water Rule it proposes to rescind and that will take away needed protections for thousands of streams and wetlands nationwide that provide drinking water to one in three Americans. Nor is it clear that this administration will ever finalize a replacement rule. But one thing is clear. Should the Trump EPA rescind the Clean Water Rule and propose a replacement rule, the agency will pursue a strategy that runs contrary to prior court decisions.

For years, stakeholders and elected officials on both sides of the aisle have requested clarity on the Clean Water Act. The agriculture, construction and energy industries along with conservation, hunting and fishing communities have demanded more transparency from the EPA on which waters would be protected by the act and — equally important — which would not.

EPA and its partner, the Army Corps of Engineers, published the Clean Water Rule in 2015 to address these demands and reduce the costly and time-consuming case-specific analysis that resulted from a confusing Supreme Court decision in 2006.

The rule followed the best available peer-reviewed science on the impacts of upstream water quality on downstream and adjacent waters. It incorporated over 1 million comments and feedback from over 400 public meetings — but the Trump EPA ignores all of that science and public input in its proposal to withdraw the Clean Water Rule.

No one asked EPA to leave the old, confusing rules in place. Yet, that is precisely what Trump’s EPA now proposes. They ignore the extensive public process used to develop the rule, they ignore the direction of the Supreme Court, (including Chief Justice John Roberts’, calling for a new rule) they ignore transparency by limiting public input to only 30 days compared to the over 200 days for the Clean Water Rule, and they offer no science or policy justification for returning to the confusing, one-off decision making that previously existed and no one supported. If there is better science that supports repeal of the Clean Water Rule, the Trump EPA has not revealed it.

The Trump EPA has put forward a false choice that providing protection against polluting and destroying bodies of water somehow is adverse to states’ interests. States decide how clean their waters will be, and 46 of the 50 States already implement many day-to-day aspects of the Clean Water Act. Plus, a significant number of states have not challenged the Clean Water Rule and their interests are undercut by the proposed rollback.

The Clean Water Act has been a hallmark of success since it was established in 1972 by a bipartisan Congress to provide protections against polluting and destroying bodies of water. But the act’s work is far from finished. State assessments show there are thousands of impaired waters in need of reduced pollution and increased protection to ensure they can provide their essential benefits.

No one ever complains that the water in our rivers, lakes, streams and ponds is too clean, that there are too many healthy fish to catch and eat. There is no outcry that our drinking water is too clean or abundant. Trump’s EPA is turning its back on protecting our nation’s waters and public health.

Gina McCarthy was the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 2013 to 2017.  She served as an environmental advisor to five Massachusetts Democratic and Republican administrations and was commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

Ken Kopocis served as the Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Previously, he held several senior positions on the staffs of the House of Representative’s Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.