Author: admin

  • What Are Your Experiences With Severe Weather?

    What Are Your Experiences With Severe Weather?
    New York Times (blog)
    How do you feel now? Regardless of where you live, have you experienced similar storms or other kinds of severe weather events in the past? When? What are your personal stories about experiencing and recovering from a significant weather event like a
    See all stories on this topic »

    New York Times (blog)
    Due to Severe Weather on the East Coast of the United States, Danaher
    Reuters
    Washington, D.C., October 29, 2012 – Danaher Corporation (NYSE: DHR) (“Danaher”) announced today that, due to severe weather on the East Coast of the United States, it has extended the tender offer, through its wholly owned subsidiary Daphne
    See all stories on this topic »
  • Landholders told no insurance for gradual sea level rises

    Landholders told no insurance for gradual sea level rises
    ABC Local
    A committee of coastal property owners dropped by the South Gippsland Shire Council will be unable to insure their homes against sea level rises caused by climate change. The South Gippsland Shire Council plans to cut its ties with the committee it set
    See all stories on this topic »
    Sandy has lessons for Australia, BoM says
    Sydney Morning Herald
    Sea-surface temperatures in the Atlantic region when Hurricane Sandy – since downgraded – formed were between 3 to 5 degrees Celsius higher than average levels, helping to increase the storm’s ferocity as it joined other storm systems to batter the
    See all stories on this topic »
    Hybrid Hell
    Slate Magazine
    Sealevel rise can amplify the damage from catastrophic storms. Lisa Palmer: Most scientists seem to be reluctant to tie a single storm to climate change, but sea level rise is much more clearly climate-related and disastrous. It doesn’t take much for
    See all stories on this topic »

    Slate Magazine
    New York’s Indian Point nuclear power plant partly shut down as superstorm
    CBS News
    A rising tide, the direction of the wind and the storm’s surge combined to raise water levels in Oyster Creek’s intake structure, the NRC said. The agency said that water levels are expected to recede within hours and that the plant, which went online
    See all stories on this topic »
  • T4 campaign update – October 2012

    T4 campaign update – October 2012

    Inbox
    x

    Coal Terminal Action Group via email.nationbuilder.com
    7:46 PM (1 hour ago)

    to me
    Images are not displayed. Display images below – Always display images from hcec@hcec.org.au

    Dear Nevile,

    A few weeks ago scientists announced that Arctic sea ice was at its lowest level since records began. At the rate the planet is warming (due to greenhouse pollution from fossil fuels like coal) the Arctic may be completely free of summer sea ice as early as 2015. That’s the same year that mining companies were planning to start shipping coal from T4 – their proposed massive new coal terminal in Newcastle. But they didn’t count on the strong community campaign against it. We’ve already delayed T4 by two years!

    But we don’t want T4 delayed. We want it stopped. For the health of people living with the Hunter coal industry, already breathing unsafe levels of particle pollution, T4 needs to be stopped. For the vast areas of land and water in the Hunter and Gunnedah regions threatened by coal mining; for the globally significant wetlands of the Hunter Estuary, and the wildlife that depend on them; and for the millions of people around the world whose lives are threatened by climate change, T4 needs to be stopped.

    Together, we can stop T4. Take action now: http://www.stopT4.org.au

    Here’s how the campaign is going:

    • On Monday, University of Sydney researchers released a report on ‘Health and Social Harms of Mining in Local Communities: Spotlight on the Hunter’. The report documents the risk of cancer, heart, lung and cancer disease and birth defects.
    • There have been 36 air quality alerts for the Hunter Valley in the last month – an average of one a day. A recently installed air quality monitor in Stockton has revealed particle pollution exceeding the national standard. And this is now. What will the air in the Hunter Valley be like if coal companies get their wish, and the industry triples in size?
    • We’ve just launched a new online action page. With a couple of clicks you can send a message direct to Premier Barry O’Farrell and Planning Minister Tim Owen, asking them to take a stand against T4. Please take action, then spread the word throughout your networks. Let’s swamp their in-boxes.
    • We’ve also been working on a new T4 ad, targeting Barry O’Farrell and Tim Owen. If we can raise enough money, we’re going to put it in the Newcastle Herald. We’re also about to embark on a letterbox leafleting drive with the ad. Do you have some time to letterbox your area? Drop us a line if you do. To see the ad or donate money to get it in the paper, please click here.
    • Planning Minister, Brad Hazzard, has sent the T4 Proposal to the NSW Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) for review. The Terms of Reference for the PAC can be downloaded here. The PAC will be holding public hearings in Newcastle in early 2013 (probably February), to assess the merits or otherwise of the T4 Proposal. They will be calling for both written and oral submissions. Now, we are not naive here at CTAG. We have seen how corrupt the NSW planning process is when coal companies are involved. So we’re fairly certain that the PAC will recommend approval of T4. Nonetheless it’s an important process to engage with, to further delay the T4 approval process, and to give the PAC all the ammunition they need to make the right call. We will be calling on you to make your voice heard to the PAC over the next couple of months, so keep an eye out.
    • We fundraised $5000 for our air monitoring program! Thanks for your generous donation! We will be hiring equipment soon, to begin making independent measurements of the air quality along the coal rail line. Industry recently did their own air quality monitoring. You might have seen our criticism of that study in local media.

    That’s all for now. We’ll be in touch soon. Don’t forget to do the online action and tell your friends about it.

    Thanks again for your support!

    Annika (Hunter Community Environment Centre)

    On behalf of theCoal Terminal Action Group
    http://coalterminalactiongroup.nationbuilder.com/

    -=-=-
    coalterminalactiongroup · Australia
    This email was sent to nevilleg729@gmail.com. To stop receiving emails, click here.
    -=-=-

    Created with NationBuilder, the essential toolkit for leaders.

  • Money Spinners MONBIOT

    Monbiot.com


    Money Spinners

    Posted: 29 Oct 2012 01:29 PM PDT

    Here’s how we can defeat political corruption of the kind that’s destroying US democracy.

     

    By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 30th October 2012.

    It’s a revolting spectacle: the two presidential candidates engaged in a frantic and demeaning scramble for money. By November 6th, Obama and Romney will each have raised over $1bn(1). Other groups have already spent a further billion(2). Every election costs more than the one before; every election, as a result, drags the US deeper into cronyism and corruption. Whichever candidate takes the most votes, it’s the money that wins.

    Is it conceivable, for example, that Mitt Romney, whose top five donors are all Wall Street banks(3), would put the financial sector back in its cage? Or that Barack Obama, who has received over $700,000 from both Microsoft and Google(4), would challenge their monopolistic powers? Or, in the Senate, that the leading climate change denier James Inhofe, whose biggest donors are fossil fuel companies, could change his views, even when confronted by an overwhelming weight of evidence?(5) The US feeding frenzy shows how the safeguards and structures of a nominal democracy can remain in place while the system they define mutates into plutocracy.

    Despite perpetual attempts to reform it, US campaign finance is now more corrupt and corrupting than it has been for decades. It is hard to see how it can be redeemed. If the corporate cronies and billionaires’ bootlickers who currently hold office were to vote to change the system, they’d commit political suicide. What else, apart from the money they spend, would recommend them to the American people?

    But we should see this system as a ghastly warning of what happens if a nation fails to purge the big money from politics. Ours, by comparison to the US system, looks almost cute. Total campaign spending in the last general election – by the parties, the candidates and independent groups – was £58m(6): about one sixtieth of the cost of the current presidential race. There’s a cap on overall spending and tough restrictions on political advertising.

    But it’s still rotten. There is no limit on individual donations. In a system with low total budgets, this grants tremendous leverage to the richest donors. The political parties know that if they do anything which offends the interests of corporate power they jeopardise their prospects.

    The solutions proposed by parliament would make our system a little less rotten. At the end of last year, the Committee on Standards in Public Life proposed that donations should be capped at an annual £10,000, the limits on campaign spending should be reduced, and public funding for political parties should be raised(7). Parties, it says, should receive a state subsidy based on the size of their vote at the last election.

    The political process would still be dominated by people with plenty of disposable income. In the course of a five-year election cycle, a husband and wife would be allowed to donate, from the same bank account, £100,000(8). State funding pegged to votes at the last election favours the incumbent parties. It means that even when public support for a party has collapsed (think of the LibDems), it still receives a popularity bonus.

    Even so, and despite their manifesto pledges(9), the three major parties have refused to accept the committee’s findings. The excuse all of them use is that the state cannot afford more funding for political parties(10). This is a ridiculous objection. The money required is scarcely a rounding error in national accounts. It probably represents less than we pay every day for the crony capitalism the current system encourages: the unnecessary spending on the private finance initiative, on roads to nowhere(11), on the Trident programme(12) and all the rest, whose primary purpose is to keep the one per cent sweet. The overall cost of our suborned political process is incalculable: a corrupt and inefficient economy and a political system engineered to meet not the needs of the electorate, but the demands of big business and billionaires.

    I would go much further than the parliamentary committee. This, I think, is what a democratic funding system would look like. Each party would be able to charge the same, modest fee for membership (perhaps £50). It would then receive matching funding from the state, as a multiple of its membership receipts. There would be no other sources of income. (Membership-based funding would make brokerage by trade unions redundant).

    This system, I believe, would not only clean up politics, it would also force parties to re-engage with the public. It would oblige them to be more entrepreneurial in raising their membership, and therefore their democratic legitimacy. It creates an incentive for voters to join a party and to begin, once more, to participate in politics(13).

    The cost to the public would be perhaps £50m a year(14), or a little over £1 per elector: three times the price of a telephone vote on the X-Factor(15). This, on the scale of state expenditure, is microscopic.

    Both politicians and the tabloid press would complain bitterly about this system, claiming, as they already do, that taxpayers cannot afford to fund politics. But when you look at how the appeasement of the banking sector has ruined the economy, at how corporate muscle prevents action from being taken on climate change, at the economic and political distortions caused by the system of crony capitalism, and at the hideous example on the other side of the Atlantic, you discover that we can’t afford not to.

    References:

    1. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

    2. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/capital-eye-opener-oct-26.html

    3. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

    4. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

    5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/aug/02/climate-change-political-funding-us

    6. See Figure 19, Committee on Standards in Public Life, November 2011. Political party finance: ending the big donor culture. http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/Library/13th_Report___Political_party_finance_FINAL_PDF_VERSION_18_11_11.pdf

    7. Committee on Standards in Public Life, November 2011. Political party finance: ending the big donor culture. http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/Library/13th_Report___Political_party_finance_FINAL_PDF_VERSION_18_11_11.pdf

    8. The Committee says “it would be reasonable to allow spouses or partners each to donate up to £10,000 [per annum], even if the money comes from the same bank account.”

    9. Figure 4 of the committee’s report quotes the commitments in the manifestos of the three main parties.

    10. “The Conservative party co-chairman Baroness Warsi said: “the public will simply not accept a plan to hand over almost £100m of taxpayers’ money to politicians”(‘Reform party funding or politics will sink in sleaze, says watchdog’, The Independent, 23 November 2011); the Liberal Democrat president, Tim Farron MP, said: “While it is clear now is not the time for more public money to be spent on politicians, that shouldn’t stop us taking immediate action to reform political funding”(‘Political parties ‘should get more taxpayer funding”, BBC News online, 22 November 2011); and Michael Dugher MP, Labour’s Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, said: “In the current economic environment, we recognise that a significant increase in state funding for political parties is not a priority and any such measure would need to command broad public support” (‘Labour: Tories wouldn’t accept party funding cap’, Politics.co.uk, 22 November 2011).” http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpolcon/1763/176304.htm

    11. http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/roads-to-nowhere

    12. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/29/tories-lib-dems-trident

    13. Membership of political parties has declined, in total, to 420,000, about one seventh of what it was in 1965. Committee on Standards in Public Life, November 2011, as above.

    14. The committee reports that “Over the last decade the spending of the three main parties in total averaged £68 million a year. The smaller parties spent a fraction of that.”

    15. http://xfactor.itv.com/2012/vote/

    You are subscribed to email updates from George Monbiot
    To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
    Email delivery powered by Google
    Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610
  • RE: Severe Weather US East Coastline‏

    • RE: Severe Weather US East Coastline‏

    To see messages related to this one, group messages by conversation.
    To ‘NEVILLE GILLMORE’
    From: Andrew Glikson (Geospec@iinet.net.au)
    Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2012 4:07:54 PM
    To: ‘NEVILLE GILLMORE’ (arthursleang@hotmail.com)
    .ExternalClass .ecxshape {;} .ExternalClass p.ecxMsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoNormal, .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoNormal {margin-bott

    I don’t believe in any single “tipping point” but rather a series of intensifying extreme weather events around the globe, not least the Gulf of Mexico and the North Atlantic Thermohaline Current.

    The present storm is a part of this. As you will see below it may have an effect on the political climate …

    —————————————————————————————————————————————–

    Rundle: Sandy’s winds of change bring hope for Obama

    http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sp.gif

    http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sp.gif

    GUY RUNDLE
    Crikey writer-at-large on the campaign trail

    | EMAIL | COMMENT

    2012 US ELECTION, BARACK OBAMA, GUY RUNDLE, HURRICANE SANDY, MITT ROMNEY

    So the storm’s coming in. Hurricane Sandy, that angry eye, winking out from the mid-Atlantic on every newscast, moving in slowly, making landfall in Jersey, where it threatens to do billions of dollars worth of improvement boomboom. Cue endless standup jokes about Hurricane Sandy (it’s really a storm but whatever) coming ashore at Atlantic City, and leaving six hours later with all its money gone, and its empty wallet stolen by a hooker. Boomboom.

    Sandy, promising epic devastation, but, because it’s only a storm, people are responding more sluggishly than the authorities would prefer. Coney Island has been evacuated, the southern tip of Manhattan is a no-go zone, out here in Columbus, Ohio, rains are lashing us, the outer edge of a storm that now has a thousand-mile diameter. President Obama curtailed his campaign stops yesterday; Mitt Romney did the same today, facing the difficult choice — get the advantage while Obama does Presidenty stuff, or look like a tool for stumping in Dittoville, Iowa, while your opponent deals with life and death matters.

    Sandy, an event that may or may not disrupt the whole electoral process, but which news-starved commentators are already dubbing 2012’s “October Surprise”, the traditional-as-Halloween last minute reversal in an election, now so awaited that it has become its opposite. No surprise is a surprise. Sandy, the storm, kids are already dressing as it for trick-or-treating, parents swirling paper around them. Sandy, the storm which may make Obama look presidential, or may interfere with the early voting he needs, or may stop white seniors from early voting in Virginia and thus stymie Romney’s victory in that state, or … well take any scenario you want.

    Sandy, name of a woman I persuaded to leave her husband in the late ’90s. He was a recovering junkie, she was a rising novelist. They lived in Oval, a sinkhole of south London. God I was in love with her. How much? Her husband, who had struggled with incredible courage out of junkdom to sobriety, used to come out drinking with us. He stuck to orange juice. He was so determined to go straight — and so decent, at the eye of his own storm, that he told Sandy that if he ever lapsed, she should leave him immediately. Having heard that from her, it occurred to me at one point that if I slipped crushed codeine tablets into his OJ, he’d be back on the junk before you can say evilevilevil. In the midst of trying to prise her away from him, I had to tell the other woman I was encouraging to cheat her on her partner, that there was someone else. Boy, that’s a hard conversation. Thank god for voicemail.

    It didnt work out with Sandy, but the intent is the thing. I thought I would burn in hell. Hell came early, like this year. Eh bien. The storm sends us all to the edges of our own lives. Sandy’s in Brooklyn now. She published two very good novels, a terrible memoir, and an overrated but very successful anti-novel-writing guide, written with the man she threw me over for again, when she became available, a decade later. Actually, that was soon after Obama was elected in ’08, in the bar of the Waldorf-Astoria. I left for Mexico later that day, paying airport price for a ticket. Arrived in Tijuana, took a bus down the coast to Mazatlan, where Kerouac and Ginsberg used to hang out. The Sinaloa cartel run the joint now, and the place was in lockdown. The military patrolled the streets in APCs, wearing balaclavas so the cartel wouldn’t identify them and kill their families. But that’s another story. The big story at the time was how the cartels were fixing local beauty pageants. Miss Sinaloa was arrested while driving with her boyfriend, who had four rocket-launchers in the boot of his car. She said they were travelling to Bolivia and Columbia to “go shopping”.

    Yes, I digress, but let’s face it, you’re more intrigued than you would be by anything I or anyone could say about this election at this point, aren’t ye? Until Storm Sandy Converging Now*, this election had come to a final week of grinding it out, the thankless task of endless repetitive appearances at ever-smaller burgs of Ohio and Virginia, with a few detours elsewhere. For all the earnest science applied to the effect of advertising, ground-game, sign-up etc, no-one really knows what the effect of a presidential visit is on a campaign. So they keep checking in on places where it might make a difference, just in case. Obama was going to go up to Green Bay in north Wisconsin, until Sandy queered his plans. The event is keeping Mitt out of Virginia, a state he was hoping to consolidate over the final week.

    The polls — well, the polls are all over the shop. Whatever happens out of this election, some polls will lose all credibility. Most polls put the national race at a tie, or give a one point lead to Obama, but there are two outliers. Rasmussen gives a two point lead to Romney, but since Rasmussen is always three points shifted to the Right, that accords with the general run of polls. The outlier is Gallup, which has consistently given Romney a five to seven point lead in the last month. Critics say that Gallup undercounts black and especially Hispanic voters. Gallup stands by its methods. But it was off the mark in 2008, and if it is wrong again, its credibility will be utterly shot.

    Needless to say, the Right — which is now wary of Rasmussen’s consistent bias — has been running exclusively on Gallup’s serial releases. The degree to which partisan groups spruik favourable polls in the US is often mystifying to people from Westminster-style systems — where everyone tries to be the underdog — but the reason is obvious. You have to convince people in swing states that their candidate is in with a chance overall — at which point, getting out to vote state-by-state becomes a matter of life and death. It’s one reason why Rasmussen is so happy for its polls to run consistently above temperature (and for a rival but more explicitly partisan Democratic outfit PPP to run the other way), as cheerleader.

    For Barack Obama, the storm presents one great advantage — by its very nature, it foregrounds the notion of collective endeavour, rather than individual activity. Furthermore, and even more dangerously for Romney, it emphasises the necessary role of the state, and especially the federal state, in doing something that is beyond the scope of the market or the local. That would be common sense, right? Well, uh, not so much for the Republicans. Here’s Romney from a CNN debate in June 2011, when asked if FEMA should be stripped of most of its funding and powers:

    “Absolutely … Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question, what should we keep? … We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardising the future for our kids … It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts …”

    This if course was “severely conservative” Mitt Romney, pandering to the Tea Party and the Ayn Randies upon whom he depended for the Republican nomination. The quote is now playing across the mediasphere, and may have come off the leash as fast as the storm itself. How will the Democrats handle it? There is no chance that Obama himself will speak to it, but will surrogates — Biden, et al — hammer it home? It’s a dicey situation, but it’s arguable that it is worth the risk, to really push the message — and to add, as a bonus, that VP candidate Paul Ryan’s budget included a defunding of FEMA, before its more extreme provisions were knocked on the head by party elders.

    Sandy converging now may be a piece of very bad news for the Republicans indeed. Though they have good reason to be chipper, with some worrying state polling for the Obama campaign — when Minnesota has come into a mere 4% Democratic lead, Pennsylvania 4% and Wisconsin 2.5%, well, all those are still clear enough margins, but mighty closer than they have been in the past — their strategy suggests that they too believe that the advantage still lies with the Democrats.

    The latest ad in Ohio has been one accusing Obama of being responsible for Chrysler outsourcing Jeep production to China — except Chrysler didn’t, it established a factory in China to produce for the Chinese market. The lie was so blatant that even Chrysler put out a statement disputing it. The conventional wisdom of such ads, which would never survive in places with greater supervision of election claims, is that the advantage gained is greater than the eventual hit to credibility. It’s not the sort of thing a more confident campaign would do.

    On the other hand, the Romney campaign is also running a series of softer ads, trying to appeal to disillusioned ’08 Obama voters, assuaging their guilt for switching: “You believed. He tried. He failed.” It directly contradicts other ads, many of them from SuperPACs etc, suggesting that Obama was all but intent on wrecking the economy, but the theory is that different ads appeal to different groups, and don’t necessarily cancel each other out. And if you can find a thousand voters with each ad, you’re doing well.

    Well, 9pm on the eastern seaboard, and Atlantic City is underwater now, as, usually, are most of its visitors. The waves are lapping at Battery Park, at the edge of Manhattan. But in precincts across the country, the campaign goes on. It’s an ill wind that scatters us all, the wind of history, my friends, of history, do you hear me, above the raging torrents? It will blow someone good, who, we will know next Tuesday. Maybe …

    *oh come on, high five, high five…

    From: NEVILLE GILLMORE [mailto:arthursleang@hotmail.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:51 PM
    To: Andrew Glikson
    Cc: John James
    Subject: Severe Weather US East Coastline

     

    Hi Andrew.

    The very severe freak weather lashing the East Coast of the US, appears
    to emanate from several fronts, merging into a 1000 mile destructive front
    along the US East Coast. This cannot be explained as normal or natural cycles
    by Climate Change Deniers.

    What is your professional opinion on this please. Is it a Tipping Point from the
    Arctic and cound we see a similar destructive front on our coastlines?
    1000 miles would cover the entire NSW Coastline.

    Regards
    Neville Gillmore.

  • Sustainability Council to be sustained

    Sustainability Council to be sustained
    PS News
    Announcing the initiative, the Minister for the Environment, Tony Burke said it was clear from the Sustainable Population Strategy that better information about how Australia’s economy, environment and society interacted to inform better planning and
    See all stories on this topic »