Mar 23, 2023

This Is The GOP


It's old and crusty, and it's started to sound very stale, but:
ladies and gentlemen, this is the GOP -
the party of law-n-order



Ex-Florida lawmaker behind the 'Don't Say Gay' law pleads guilty to COVID relief fraud

Former Florida lawmaker Joseph Harding has pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges related to COVID-19 relief funds. The 35-year-old is scheduled for sentencing in July.

A former Florida lawmaker who sponsored a bill dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" law by critics has pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining COVID-19 relief funds.

Joseph Harding entered a guilty plea on Tuesday in federal court in the Northern District of Florida to one count of wire fraud, one count of money laundering and one count of making false statements, according to court records.

Harding faces up to 35 years in prison, including a maximum of 20 years on the wire fraud charge. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for July 25 at the federal courthouse in Gainesville.

The former Republican lawmaker shot to notoriety last year as one of the sponsors of a controversial Florida law that outlawed the discussion of sexuality and gender in public school classrooms from kindergarten through grade 3.

The legislation became a blueprint for similar laws in more than a dozen other conservative states.

"This bill is about protecting our kids, empowering parents and ensuring they have the information they need to do their God-given job of raising their child," Harding said when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the bill into law last March.

Critics from Democrats to LGBTQ groups took to calling it the "Don't Say Gay" law and condemned Republicans for chilling speech in schools.

In December, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Harding, 35, who was accused of lying on his applications to the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, which gave out loans to businesses impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. He resigned from Florida's House of Representatives one day later.

Harding fraudulently obtained more than $150,000 from the Small Business Administration, portions of which he transferred to a bank and used to make a credit card payment, prosecutors said.

In his bio on the Florida House Republicans website, Harding is described as a "serial entrepreneur" who started several businesses related to "boarding and training horses, real estate development, home construction, and landscaping."

He was first elected to public office when he won the state House seat in November 2020.

Mar 22, 2023

This Time For Sure



... maybe



Donald Trump Indictment Odds: Trump Given 92% Chance to be Indicted in Manhattan

Late last week, former United States President Donald Trump announced that he believes he will be arrested on Tuesday, March 21. According to his post on the social media platform Truth Social, Trump expects to be charged in relation to hush-money payments made to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

But, will Donald Trump actually be indicted? According to the latest odds it appears as though he will be. The question now is just...when?

With the popularity of betting on politics skyrocketing across the globe, there is no shortage of odds on different political outcomes. Unfortunately, you can't bet on politics in the United States, but that hasn't prevented UK sportsbooks from pricing up odds.

And, with everyone waiting to see if Donald Trump will indeed be indicted, some sportsbooks have begun to provide us with Donald Trump indictment odds. According to the sportsbooks, it's not looking good for the former President of the United States.

Taking a look at the latest Donald Trump indictment odds, the sportsbooks have basically said it's a foregone conclusion he will be indicted in Manhattan at some point as his present odds give him an implied probability closer to 100% than 50%.



Trump campaign prepares for ‘new normal’: Running under indictment

The former president’s team is pressuring other Republicans to show support, basking in favorable coverage from right-wing media and collecting checks. But advisers privately acknowledge many potential risks.

The escalating criminal jeopardy confronting Donald Trump has restored him to his political comfort zone, according to advisers and allies: counterattacking, with prominent Republicans largely behind him.

The former president’s campaign isn’t waiting for an official indictment or arrest to deploy an aggressive political response — already criticizing New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg and key witness Michael Cohen, as Trump aides plot further attacks. Advisers are moving to capitalize on coverage in conservative media outlets, raising over $1.5 million since Saturday, a person familiar with the matter said.

And the campaign is working to turn the case into pressure on Trump’s primary rivals, forcing them to take questions about Trump and risk the blowback of offering anything less than full-throated support. In particular, the campaign has ramped up attacks on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), Trump’s top competitor in early 2024 primary polls. He took his biggest swipe at Trump so far on Monday by distancing himself from the New York case’s lewd circumstances, even as he attacked it as politically motivated.

As the investigation into Trump’s role in hush-money payments made to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels nears an apparent conclusion, Trump campaign advisers and others familiar with the effort, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss internal strategy, are relishing expressions of support from Republicans all across the party. The overall result is a familiar and, in his advisers’ assessment, favorable terrain for Trump: the center of attention, the dominant figure in his party and on offense.

But advisers privately acknowledged many potential pitfalls. The campaign has not worked out the logistics of simultaneously mounting a presidential run and facing a criminal trial — possibly more than one, with ongoing probes in Fulton County in Georgia and under Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith. It has never been attempted by a candidate from a major party.

Whatever plans the campaign does make could be swiftly upended by the candidate himself, as on Saturday when he surprised his own groggy advisers by announcing on social media that he could be arrested as soon as Tuesday. The campaign is separate from Trump’s legal team, and the two are not always acting in concert, advisers said. And the candidate is not always taking advice from either team.

The Trump campaign is aiming to position the potential prosecution as the latest politicized “witch hunt” targeting the former president. This will amount to an attack on all Republicans that forces everyone to pick a side, unifying them around him as the leader before they have the chance to review the allegations in the prosecutors’ case.

“This is the new normal. The president has been battle-tested,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said. “This operation has been fine-tuned since 2016. Dealing with these types of news cycles, you learn to get good at it. We have a full-spectrum response operation on the campaign that can deal with anything that comes our way.”

While Trump’s team expects a continued boost in fundraising, polling and conservative media coverage surrounding a potential indictment — similar to the reaction to the FBI’s search of the former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., last August in the classified documents case now under Smith’s purview — Trump’s unprecedented legal turmoil could be a drag on him and other Republicans in the general election.

One person familiar with the matter said there have been many discussions in Trump’s orbit on whether the indictment from Bragg makes it more likely that others follow. Several advisers see some of the other cases as more legally perilous for Trump.

In the face of attacks from Republicans, Bragg’s office has defended its work. “We will not be intimidated by attempts to undermine the justice process,” a spokesperson for Bragg said Monday.

Criminal charges could add to concerns about Trump’s electability that have developed even among his loyal fans, and they could hinder his efforts to secure major donors and endorsements. And as much as Trump likes playing the victim and has privately vowed to look tough and fight the charges, some advisers said he does not actually want to be seen in handcuffs or in a mug shot.

“Being indicted I don’t think ever helps anybody,” former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, an ex-Trump adviser turned potential 2024 rival, said on ABC’s “This Week.” “You can look at Alvin Bragg as the Manhattan D.A., see that he’s a partisan … but you can also think that Donald Trump is not someone who could be a winning general election candidate for the Republican Party because of all these things.”

It didn’t take much prodding from the campaign to trigger many Republicans’ reflex to line up in support of Trump under siege. The response wasn’t confined to the friendliest voices and outlets, such as the podcast hosted by the former White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon; the Wall Street Journal editorial board, former National Review writer Jonah Goldberg and Fox News anchor Dana Perino have also criticized Bragg’s case.


“It does make the conversation of the primary all about Trump, which is a good dynamic he had going for him in 2016, everyone being asked to react to Trump,” a Republican operative familiar with Trump’s campaign effort said. “We’re right now fighting a primary so all that matters is the party, and we can deal with the general after.”

The notable exception has been DeSantis, who took the opportunity at a Monday news conference to brush back at Trump: “Look, I don’t know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair,” he said. “I can’t speak to that.” The former president has denied having an affair with Daniels.

The dig irked Trump and his advisers, with one calling it “trying to be too cute by half.” The former president drafted a social media post that made baseless insinuations about DeSantis, and he circulated it for approval, people briefed on what happened said.

DeSantis allies argued that Trump was the one damaging himself with brazen attacks on the governor he once endorsed.

“The Trump people expect [DeSantis] to throw himself into the service of Donald Trump at all times, because guess what? That’s what Republicans have done since 2016,” said David Reaboi, a media consultant and former Trump supporter who now prefers DeSantis as a presidential candidate. “If somebody was going to challenge Donald Trump, they have to put an end to that.”

A representative for DeSantis declined to comment on the criticisms of the governor’s reaction to the indictment.

After months of brushing off Trump’s barbs, DeSantis further sharpened a more combative posture toward him in an interview with conservative commentator Piers Morgan, excerpts of which were published Tuesday by the New York Post. Asked about leaders’ personal conduct, DeSantis contrasted Trump with others, according to the article, and said, “You really want to look to people like our Founding Fathers, like what type of character — it’s not saying that you don’t ever make a mistake in your personal life, but I think what type of character are you bringing?”

Trump allies immediately responded. “While the entire conservative movement is united against the unjust indictment of President Donald Trump, Governor DeSantis is choosing to go off half-cocked and take shots on some low-rent vlog,” said Taylor Budowich, who runs Trump’s main super PAC, MAGA Inc.

The Trump campaign also has been relentlessly attacking Bragg. On Monday, it blasted out a long list of critical articles about Bragg, styling him a “woke tyrant,” “rogue prosecutor” and “progressive activist.” Trump has gone after Bragg for investigating him instead of prioritizing street crime in New York, often by exaggerating statistics.

Without explanation, Trump also has painted Bragg as racist, using the same term to describe New York attorney general Letitia James, who is suing his company for allegedly fraudulent business practices, and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who is considering charges related to Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. Bragg, James and Willis are all Black.

The campaign also plans to relentlessly attack Cohen, the former attorney for Trump who pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations in the hush money payments and has been cooperating with Bragg’s investigation. Cohen also pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about Trump’s pursuit of a real estate project in Moscow during the 2016 campaign. The campaign has compiled a list of Cohen’s record of lying, advisers said. En route to a stop in Iowa last week, Trump called Cohen a “sick person.”

Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, has said, “The facts and documents speak for themselves.”

The campaign also has been peppering supporters with fundraising appeals. Some are purporting to be collecting signatures for a “NO ARREST” petition or a “1,500 percent” match for contributions, common and often misleading tactics aimed at encouraging people to give immediately.

Trump’s Saturday morning post to his Truth Social website predicting that he would be arrested Tuesday and calling for supporters to protest, woke up many of his advisers, who were staying around Palm Beach and were suddenly flooded with calls from reporters and others. But it accomplished one thing Trump cared about: pushing Republicans to defend him. Trump had complained in recent days that no one was going on TV to defend him.

“It will backfire spectacularly,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said to reporters on Tuesday of a potential indictment.

At least one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), predicted a similar political outcome, suggesting that the case could have a “reverse effect.”

Other Democrats have largely avoided discussing Trump’s legal situation, and the White House is not expected to weigh in, even though the Bragg investigation is not a federal case. But Democrats have seized on the response of House Republicans as further evidence that the congressional investigations of the Biden administration and his family are largely political exercises.

“The hypocrisy of House Republicans rushing to Trump’s defense for possible crimes his own former attorney went to jail for while they investigate every QAnon conspiracy theory about Joe Biden is gobsmacking. These folks have no credibility and apparently no shame,” said Brad Woodhouse, a Democratic strategist and senior adviser to the Congressional Integrity Project. “But the reality is that the indictment of a former president is a story that will tell itself.”

Today's Tweet


Operative Phrase: "Janky and doomed to fail"

Mar 21, 2023

Today's Wingnut


They have to install a few basic fantasies in their firmware:
  1. They're the "real America"
  2. They deserve to be obeyed
  3. The "enemy" is whoever argues against their righteous vision of absolute power
And, of course, they have to keep insisting on the pretense that "the others" - those other people, the other side, the other whatever - are trying to do what these Daddy State assholes are actually doing.

Once they've decided they're in the right, no manner of shittiness is beyond the pale.

Being shitty in service to a cause is one thing, but every time out, when being shitty is rewarded, then eventually, the shittiness will become the point. Shittiness for the sake of being shitty.


Xi's Bitch


I'll start with this: There's no such thing as a Left-Wing Dictatorship, so in spite of Xi Jinping's congratulating himself on "being elected" to what can only be termed Forever Chairman Of The CCP, he is not - and has never been - a communist. He's an authoritarian dictator - a Commie In Name Only - Joe Stalin's favorite long-lost nephew. He's a fucking autocrat. 

And Vladimir Putin is now his bitch, in much the same way Trump was made Putin's bitch.

Watch the body language. They both look pretty awkward - rarely looking each other in the eye - probably because these jagoffs hate having to do anything out in the open, so this is strictly political theater, but Putin looks like he loaded up on prunes and vodka for breakfast and is in need of an emergency bathroom break.



Xi meets Putin in show of anti-West unity, but there’s unease, too

It’s the most significant arrival in Moscow since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine last year. After weeks of diplomatic noise about a planned meeting, Chinese President Xi Jinping landed in the Russian capital for a three-day state visit. He’ll be feted Tuesday at state dinner hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin’s 15th century Faceted Chamber, the famed banquet hall of the czars where Ivan the Terrible celebrated his conquest of lands in Central Asia and Peter the Great hailed his 1709 victory over the Swedes at Poltava, in what’s now Ukraine.

It’s also the same room where former U.S. president Ronald Reagan softened his “evil empire,” anti-Communist bravura in 1988, toasting instead to “the art of friendly persuasion, the hope of peace with freedom, the hope of holding out for a better way of settling things” at a dinner with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The bonhomie between those two leaders prefigured the eventual end of the Cold War and the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union, an event that remains a source of grievance and regret for Putin.

While highlighting their own friendship, Xi and Putin are, to varying degrees, offering a joint front against a perceived shared adversary. The script surrounding the two autocrats’ confab is one of unity and umbrage with the West. Writing in China’s state-run People’s Daily ahead of Xi’s visit, Putin decried “the U.S.’s policy of simultaneously deterring Russia and China, as well as all those who do not bend to American dictation, is getting ever more fierce and aggressive.”

In Kremlin-run RIA Novosti, Xi took a subtler approach, elliptically pushing back against the democracy versus autocracy rhetoric touted by President Biden and his Western allies. “There is no universal model of government and there is no world order where the decisive word belongs to a single country,” Xi wrote. “Solidarity and peace on the planet without splits and upheavals meet the common interests of all mankind.”

Chinese leader Xi Jinping met Russia's Vladimir Putin in Moscow on March 20 to promote Beijing's role as a potential peacemaker in Ukraine. (Video: Reuters)
On one level, the meeting of the world’s two most prominent autocrats represents the hardening of an ideological axis. Both leaders see themselves hemmed in by a confrontational, meddling United States; both resent Washington’s grandstanding over the international order and rule of law, while their state mouthpieces routinely call out perceived American hypocrisy and double standards; and both have their own visions of a world order where supposed American hegemony is unraveled.

“The pictures of Xi and Putin together in Moscow will send a clear message. Russia and China remain close partners — linked by their joint hostility to America and its allies,” observed Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman.

High on the agenda is talk of peace. Beijing, which is nominally neutral on Russia’s war with Ukraine, recently issued its position paper on the conflict, itemizing a 12-point peace plan that could settle matters. While analysts largely dismissed it at as a sop to the Kremlin, China is nevertheless positioning itself as a potential broker for a future cease-fire. Xi comes to Moscow in the wake of China successfully ushering in a thaw in relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a diplomatic feat the United States had little ability of its own to accomplish.

For now, most outside observers are skeptical. On Monday, U.S. officials warned against any Sino-Russian calls for a cease-fire in Ukraine, arguing that would only make concrete Russia’s illegal invasion. “All that’s going to do … is ratify Russia’s conquest to date,” White House national security spokesman John Kirby said. “All that’s going to do is give Putin more time to refit, retrain, reman and try to plan for renewed offenses at a time of his choosing.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Xi’s visit, which came days after the International Criminal Court put out a warrant for Putin’s arrest on war crimes charges, suggested that “China feels no responsibility to hold the Kremlin accountable for the atrocities committed to Ukraine,” and would “rather provide diplomatic cover for Russia to continue to commit those very crimes.”

There’s no doubt China has sensed opportunity in the crisis. “Beijing refuses to condemn the invasion, has blamed the United States for the war and criticizes Western sanctions designed to starve Putin’s war machine of funds,” my colleagues noted. “With Russia’s economy under intense pressure, China last year kept it afloat, boosting trade with Russia — including a sharp increase in Chinese exports of electronic chips that Moscow needs for weapons production — and a steep rise in purchases of Russian oil.”

As the West seeks to isolate Russia, China’s leverage over Moscow has only grown. That’s a position of influence that Russian policy elites would have warned against before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, but are in no position to thwart now. Some Chinese commentators reject the invocation of an ironclad “alliance” between the two countries, pointing to a deeper of history of friction, as well as current differences both in terms of strategic interests and political styles.

China and Russia may both believe “that the current international order is unfair, unreasonable, and imperfect,” said Zhao Long, a senior fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, in a recent interview with a Chinese outlet, but they approach this status quo in markedly different ways.

“China’s emphasis is on reform and improvement, not starting all over again,” Zhao added, gesturing to Putin’s border-smashing revanchism. “But it is obvious that Russia has already had an impulse before the war, hoping to carry out a ‘subversive’ reconstruction of the entire international system and international order. In the aftermath of this conflict, I am afraid, Russia’s desire to dismantle the current international order will grow even stronger.”

While Chinese officials and analysts may quietly disapprove of Russia’s conduct, they have found accommodation with Putin, who by necessity is consolidating Russia’s role as a junior partner to China on the world stage. Among other developments, because of sanctions, Russia is now trading its dependence on the dollar to reliance on the Chinese yuan.


“Russian leaders like to emphasize the unprecedented strategic cooperation between the two countries,” wrote Alexandra Prokopenko for Carnegie Politika, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s blog on Russia and Eurasia. “Yet in reality, this cooperation makes Moscow increasingly dependent on Beijing.”

Alexander Gabuev, the director of the Berlin-based Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and an authority on Sino-Russian relations, argued that the time may come when China will use its clout with the Kremlin to extract further political concession, especially as the West cuts its own economic ties to Russia. Beijing may expect Russia in the future to allow it access to Arctic naval bases or alter its own dealings with China’s regional rivals, like India.

“China is content simply to monetize its growing geoeconomic leverage over Russia by securing discounts on its hydrocarbon exports and conquering its consumer market,” Gabuev wrote in the Economist. “But it is probably only a matter of time before China demands more political loyalty for its help in keeping Putin’s regime afloat.”

Green-ish

Even Cynical Mike hates thinking there may be a push on the part of the Dirty Fuels Cartel to dabble a little in "greener technology in the interest of the greater good" so they can then sit back and point at its shortcomings (or outright failure), and claim, "Well, gosh, we tried to do it your way, but you end up bitchin' about that too - I guess we'll have to go back to the old way..."

Just remember - nature bats last



Huge Phillips 66 biofuels project will test the industry’s green promises

RODEO, California, March 21 (Reuters) - In the oldest refining town in the American West, Phillips 66 (PSX.N) is promising a greener future as it moves to halt crude-oil processing and build a massive renewable diesel plant, leading a global trend.

That plan, announced in 2020, was initially welcomed by residents weary from a history of pollution and toxic leaks. But some have grown skeptical as the project’s details cast doubt on the environmental benefits of revamping the 127-year-old complex on 1,100 acres in Rodeo, California.

The company’s initial claim that it would slash greenhouse gasses by half doesn’t match the project’s environmental impact report, published by county regulators, which shows a 1% reduction, according to a Reuters calculation of emissions data in the report. What’s more, refining of petroleum byproducts may continue as a side project.

And renewable-diesel production will require a surge in marine and train traffic, increasing emissions and spill risk. The conversion also requires boosting natural-gas usage to produce hydrogen required to make the biofuel.

These dynamics and other variables raise questions about Phillips 66’s marketing of renewable diesel as a green fuel and make it impossible to tell whether and how much the refinery overhaul will reduce community pollution, three independent environmental experts told Reuters.

The project’s environmental impact will be a test case for similar facilities worldwide. Several dozen new U.S. renewable diesel plants are planned, according to energy consultancy Stratas Advisors. Most will be conversions of oil refineries. Production capacity could triple, to 6 billion gallons, by 2026, Stratas says. Europe and Asia are seeing similar trends.

Phillips 66 representatives say the project, dubbed Rodeo Renewed, will significantly cut certain regulated pollutants and will lead to large cuts in greenhouse gasses when the biofuel is burned in vehicles. The refinery’s general manager, Jolie Rhinehart, said renewable diesel is the cleanest-burning option for use in transporting goods by truck.

“Heavy-haul trucking is a vital aspect to our way of life in this country and in this world,” she said. “And renewable diesel is the lowest-emission way to fuel that energy that we need to keep our trucks moving.”

Rhinehart added that emissions directly from the plant, affecting local residents, would be “significantly reduced” by the project.

Some Rodeo residents worry the overhaul could become another chapter in a long story of local pollution. Sitting across the bay from San Francisco’s glittering cityscape, Rodeo is a poster child for post-industrial problems. In addition to the Phillips 66 plant, the area has hosted a second oil refinery, a lead smelter and a dynamite factory. Vacant storefronts and rusted-out cars blight the boulevard leading to a beach too toxic for swimming. The community, in unincorporated Contra Costa County, has much higher concentrations of illness, poverty and brownfield cleanup sites than most others in California.

“It could have been the jewel of the county,” resident Janet Callaghan said of Rodeo. But over the years, industrial pollution has “turned Rodeo into the armpit of Contra Costa.”

Maureen Brennan, a member of Rodeo’s air-monitoring committee, called the biofuels project an experiment with uncertain environmental benefits. After initially cheering the plan, she said: “I started to realize that we’re actually the global guinea pigs here.”

CONFLICTING POLLUTION ESTIMATES

Renewable diesel is made from feedstocks such as soybean oil, beef tallow or used cooking oil. It can be used in heavy-duty trucks with no engine modifications. The Phillips 66 plant may also produce other biofuels.

The county board of supervisors in May approved the project, which is expected to start operations in early 2024.

Phillips 66 spokesperson Bernardo Fallas said the difference in the company and county greenhouse-gas estimates stems mostly from the fact that county regulators included pollution projections for five fossil-fuel refinery processing units for which the company intends to keep operating permits. The company excluded those units, which Fallas said would not be operating when the biofuels project starts. Phillips 66, he said, has not yet decided whether and how the fossil-fuels units would operate in the future.

Fallas confirmed, however, that Phillip 66 is considering a plan to process slurry oil, a heavy residual crude oil byproduct, using the refinery’s coker. Fallas said the slurry-oil processing would produce materials needed for electric-vehicle batteries.

The county said in a statement that slurry-oil processing “would not be consistent” with the refinery revamp it approved in May, and would require additional regulatory review.

The county’s environmental impact report estimated greenhouse gasses by assuming emissions from the coker and the four other units would remain unchanged, an approach the study called conservative. It also included emissions from the expected increase in natural-gas use and from projected increases in transportation to the plant.

The claim has also made its way into filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including an annual proxy statement and a handful of 8-K disclosures.

The company’s disclosures to the SEC, however, dropped the 50% claim after the draft environmental impact report was published in October 2021. The company said it updated its messaging to “ensure consistency” with the report.

While Phillips 66 and the county made strikingly different projections of the biofuels plant’s greenhouse-gas pollution, they agreed that the project would have a climate benefit extending beyond the facility’s local emissions. They said biofuels produce less greenhouse gasses than traditional gasoline or diesel when burned in vehicles. That reduces emissions over the total “lifecycle” of the fuel, which includes all aspects of exploration, production and consumption. Considering only local pollution from the plant, the county said, underestimates the potential greenhouse-gas emissions reductions by “orders of magnitude.”

Some researchers, however, contest that claim. They argue that carbon emissions from clearing and tilling land to farm biofuels feedstocks, such as corn or soybeans, offset any reductions in tailpipe emissions.

TRUCKS, TRAINS REPLACE A PIPELINE

Phillips 66 projects the conversion will reduce emissions of certain federally regulated air pollutants, such as benzene, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. Sulfur oxide emissions are expected to drop 80% from 2019 levels and larger particulate matter pollution by 20%, Fallas said, citing the environmental impact report.

Three independent environmental experts said it’s likely some of those emissions - along with those of greenhouse gasses - will fall simply because of a reduction in overall capacity after the transformation. As an oil refinery, the plant processed nearly 120,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude – far more than the projected capacity of 80,000 bpd of biofuels feedstocks.

The plant’s emissions after conversion are difficult to predict, the environmental experts said, because of the lack of research on pollution from large-scale renewable-diesel processing and because the company has not publicly outlined what feedstocks it will use. The Phillips 66 operation could result in reductions of some pollutants, when compared to oil refining, but increases in others, said Mark Jacobson, a civil and environmental engineering professor at Stanford University and director of the school's Atmosphere/Energy Program.

“I expect to see no improvement whatsoever,” Jacobson said.

“You'll just get a different set of chemicals coming out of the (biofuels) refineries compared with the traditional refineries of diesel and gasoline.”

In addition, the surge in transportation related to biofuels processing could worsen local pollution, said Ron Sahu, an independent air emissions consultant.

Phillips 66 plans to shut a 200-mile oil pipeline to the plant, leading to a doubling of tanker vessels and a tripling of rail-car arrivals, according to the environmental impact report. Truck traffic will fall overall but sharply rise to part of the refining complex closest to the most densely populated part of Rodeo, bringing residents there in contact with more particulate-matter and other transportation pollution.

The project will also cause a projected 29% increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the plant that will be using more natural gas to produce hydrogen for biofuel processing, according to the report.

Janet Pygeorge, 87, lives in view of the refinery’s smokestacks. She remembers a 1994 chemical leak at the refinery, then under different ownership, that sickened tens of thousands of people. A Phillips 66 predecessor company bought the refinery in 2001. Since then, the plant has had seven “major accidents,” including fires and toxic releases, through 2018, according to the latest available county data.

That history makes the prospect of continuing fossil-fuel operations unsettling to residents who lived through it, Pygeorge said. "It just doesn't sound safe to me.”

Another Shoe

It's raining shoes. Again. Or Still. Or something.

It's going to take years to sort thru all of the shit that we haven't dealt with over the last several decades. Some of which we've just kinda needed to ignore because it made us feel a little paranoid. Some of which we've been manipulated into feeling weird about. Some of which just seemed too "political thriller" -ish - and dammit, maybe I've been watching too many old movies about intrigue at the palace.

We get lulled into a belief that democracy is something we get to have, instead of something we have to do. And suddenly, our little experiment in self-government is looking pretty shaky.

ie: "Suddenly" over the last 40 years or so

If we learn nothing else, let's hope we're learning how toxic fake news is - how toxic the politics of faking news can be - and which outfits are putting out all that fake news, and which politicians are lying to us about which news is the fake news.

It makes my head hurt, and I've been into the politics thing for a good long time - so I have some sympathy for people who just wanna live their lives without having to worry a whole lot about it. I don't have a lot of patience with them, but I do understand the desire to go about your business and trust that things will work out.

Anyway, the worse it gets on one side, the better it can be on the other - if we can figure out which side it's best to be on.



Fox News producer alleges sexism, coached testimony, in new lawsuit

Abby Grossberg, who alleges discrimination and a hostile workplace, says she was ‘coerced, intimidated, and misinformed’ while preparing for her deposition in the $1.6 billion Dominion defamation case.


On the eve of a key hearing in a defamation lawsuit against Fox News, an employee who was deposed in the case sued the company, alleging that its lawyers coached her to shift blame for decisions to air Trump allies’ false claims of election fraud.

The lawsuit from producer Abby Grossberg came late Monday, hours after Fox sought a restraining order to keep her from disclosing in-house legal discussions.

Grossberg’s suit could create an opening for Dominion Voting Systems — which is also suing Fox, for airing unfounded claims that it rigged the 2020 election — to question the credibility of her testimony and that of other Fox employees deposed in the matter.

In a federal civil suit, filed in the Southern District of New York, Grossberg alleges that she was “isolated, overworked, undervalued, denied opportunities for promotion, and generally treated significantly worse than her male counterparts, even when those men were less qualified than her,” and that she was retaliated against after she complained.

Her suit also details claims that she was subjected to “vile sexist stereotypes.” It describes a male senior producer scolding her for sharing too much information with Maria Bartiromo, the popular opinion host for whom they both worked at the time. The senior producer and another male executive described the host in terms such as “menopausal,” “hysterical” and “a diva,” Grossberg alleged.

A spokesperson for Fox called Grossberg’s suit “baseless,” saying, “We will vigorously defend these claims.”

Grossberg’s account of a sexist environment at Fox News echoes stories shared by several female employees in 2016 and 2017, when powerful network co-founder Roger Ailes and prime-time star Bill O’Reilly were forced out by allegations of sexual harassment.

But it is the producer’s allegations that Fox lawyers “coerced, intimidated, and misinformed” her as they prepped her to testify in Dominion’s $1.6 billion defamation suit that are poised to further complicate that roiling legal battle.

A little-known staffer at Fox News for the past four years, Grossberg this month emerged as a key behind-the-scenes player at the center of the blockbuster case. Dominion argues Fox knowingly aired spurious claims that it rigged its voting machines in favor of Joe Biden; Fox argues that it was simply reporting on newsworthy claims made by a sitting president.

Both sides are appearing in Delaware Superior Court on Tuesday to argue for the judge to rule in their favor — probably the last major hearing before the case is expected to go to trial next month.

Grossberg was subpoenaed by Dominion last year to discuss her work on televised segments in which Bartiromo and guests discussed far-fetched and unproven claims of election fraud. But in her deposition prep sessions, the producer claims, Fox lawyers “were displeased with her being too candid” and took extra time “to make sure she got her story straight and in line with [Fox’s] position.”

She said she was urged to give generic answers such as “I do not recall” and discouraged from offering explanations of how Bartiromo’s understaffed team was unable to keep up with warnings from Dominion about false statements they had aired.

By giving what she calls “false/misleading and evasive answers” that she said were encouraged by Fox’s legal team, Grossberg says she put herself at risk of committing perjury, while “subtly shifting all responsibility for the alleged defamation against Dominion onto her shoulders, and by implication, those of her trusted female colleague, Ms. Bartiromo, rather than the mostly male higher ups at Fox News.”

Fox lawyers, in their request for a restraining order, said Grossberg’s plan to share details from her conversations with lawyers was “a transparent attempt to gain leverage over Fox News.” They also wrote that Grossberg “proved unable to perform adequately” after a recent promotion and that she had been issued a written warning.

Late Monday, a company spokesperson said that Fox “engaged an independent outside counsel to immediately investigate the concerns raised by Ms. Grossberg, which were made following a critical performance review.”


In an interview with The Washington Post late Monday, Grossberg’s attorney, Parisis G. Filippatos, called Fox’s restraining order an “attempt to chill her,” adding that “her suit will reveal the truth, not the selected version of sanitized events that Fox is famous for.”

Fox placed her on leave Monday from her current job as a booker for Tucker Carlson’s prime-time show, he said.

Grossberg also filed a defamation suit against Fox in Delaware Superior Court that claims the company induced her to make statements in her deposition that made her look “inept” and harmed her reputation.

Details of Grossberg’s suits were first reported late Monday by the New York Times.

In Grossberg’s September deposition, Dominion lawyers asked her about the circumstances surrounding a Nov. 8, 2020, appearance by Trump-affiliated attorney Sidney Powell, who told Bartiromo on air that there had been “computer glitches” during the election and “fraud … where they were flipping votes in the computer system or adding votes that did not exist.”

Grossberg defended the decision to air claims like those that Powell was promoting, according to segments of her deposition made public this month. “We bring on people and they give their opinions,” she said. “Maria asked questions. The guests responded and gave their points of view, and it was up to the audience to decide.”

She told Dominion’s lawyers that the fraud claims were aired because her production team “thought the public deserved to hear what the current administration was saying.”

Grossberg first gained public notice in February, when Dominion filed a widely publicized brief that described one of its lawyers asking Grossberg if it’s important to correct falsehoods uttered on the show — and Grossberg replying, simply, “No.”

This, Dominion argued, was more evidence that Fox staff knew Trump election-fraud claims were false but did not convey that to viewers.

In fact, Grossberg said in her suit, she did not want to give that answer, but “she had been conditioned and felt coerced to give this response that simultaneously painted her in a negative light as a professional.”

After “writers at prominent media outlets called Ms. Grossberg’s ethics as a journalist and her professional judgment into question,” she alleges, she suffered anxiety and stress.

While Grossberg’s testimony and internal emails were cited prominently in briefs that Dominion has filed in its defamation suit, Fox’s lawyers made only a single, fleeting reference to her in their own defense filings, in which they cited an email of Grossberg’s to demonstrate that Bartiromo “reached out to sources and conducted research into the President’s claims.”

But Fox representatives have cited Grossberg’s testimony in communications with journalists to dispute some of Dominion’s legal claims.

Earlier this month, exhibits were unsealed showing that Powell had forwarded Bartiromo an email from a Minnesota artist that spun theories about an elaborate vote-flipping scheme and supposed connections between Dominion and top Democrats, as well as bizarre claims about murder and time-travel. Dominion lawyers have sought to draw a connection between this email — which its own author deemed “wackadoodle” — and the election-fraud claims that Bartiromo and Powell discussed on the air.

Fox spokespeople, though, countered this argument in an email to reporters by pointing to Grossberg’s explanation, drawn from her testimony: “We never used [the email.] So this is just all hypothetical really. … This isn’t something that I would use right now as reportable for air.”

According to Fox’s complaint, first reported by the Daily Beast, the network’s lawyers advised Grossberg in meetings before her deposition that “they represented Fox News and not her in her individual capacity” and that their discussions with her “were subject to the attorney-client privilege” and must be kept confidential.

The complaint stated that Fox first realized Grossberg intended to share details of those conversations when the company received a draft of Grossberg’s potential legal filing against the company last month.

Grossberg, the complaint stated, told the network that she was not subject to the company’s attorney-client privilege.

Mar 20, 2023

Today I Learned

Seems there is some contradictory info on whether or not US sports books are prohibited from accepting political bets.

Some say they can't, but they still do by wriggling into SmarmSpace™ to find a way to lay odds without actually laying odds (?)

The world is a pretty weird place.

But anyway, the guys in both US and UK are making book that Trump will be arrested, setting the odds at about -500, which puts the probability that Trump will be indicted at about 83%.


The question is now more "When" than "If", but there's always room for doubt.


Donald Trump could be charged any day - what happens next?

NEW YORK, March 19 (Reuters) - Donald Trump could be charged in New York as soon as this week for allegedly covering up hush money payments to a porn star during his 2016 presidential campaign, nearly seven years after the money changed hands.

But any trial of the former U.S. president would still be more than a year away, legal experts said, and could coincide with the final months of the 2024 presidential campaign as Trump seeks a return to the White House.

In a social media post on Saturday, Trump said he expected to be arrested on Tuesday and called on his followers to protest, though a spokesperson later said Trump has not been notified of any pending arrest.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has presented evidence to a New York grand jury about a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels in the waning days of the 2016 presidential campaign in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair, according to sources. Trump has denied the affair, and his lawyer has accused Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, of extortion.

Were he charged, Trump would become the first former U.S. president to face criminal prosecution. Polls show him leading other potential rivals for the Republican nomination, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is widely expected to mount a White House bid.

The average criminal case in New York takes more than a year to move from indictment to trial, said Karen Friedman Agnifilo, former Manhattan chief assistant district attorney, and Trump's case is far from typical.

That raises the possibility of Trump having to stand trial in the middle of the 2024 presidential campaign, or even after Election Day, though putting a president-elect or president on trial for state charges would enter uncharted legal waters. If elected, he would not hold the power to pardon himself of state charges.

"This is so unprecedented that it's hard for me to say," Agnifilo said when asked whether a judge would put Trump on trial close to the election. "I think it's tricky."

The New York case is one of several focused on Trump, including a Georgia election interference probe and a pair of federal investigations into his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters trying to overturn his defeat and into his retention of classified documents after leaving the White House.

CHALLENGING THE CASE

In his early career in real estate, as a television celebrity and then in politics, the famously litigious Trump has employed aggressive counter-attacks and delay tactics when confronted with legal challenges.

Trump has accused Bragg, an elected Democrat, of targeting him for political gain and could try to seek dismissal of the charges on those grounds.

Trump would likely pursue other avenues as well, some of which could present thorny legal issues that take time to resolve.

While serving as president, Trump reimbursed Cohen for the Daniels payments, and federal prosecutors who charged Cohen said in court papers that the payments were falsely recorded as for legal services. The New York Times, citing sources, has reported the most likely charges against Trump would be for falsifying business records, typically a misdemeanor.

To elevate that charge to a felony, prosecutors must prove that Trump falsified records to cover up a second crime. One possibility, according to the Times, is that prosecutors could assert the payment itself violated state campaign finance law, since it was effectively an illegal secret donation to boost his campaign.

Using state election law to elevate a false business record charge is an untested legal theory, experts said, and Trump's lawyers would be sure to challenge it.

Trump could also challenge whether the statute of limitations - five years in this instance - should have run out. Under New York law, the statute of limitations can be extended if the defendant has been out of state, but Trump may argue that serving as U.S. president should not apply.

"There's a whole host of possibilities," said David Shapiro, a former FBI agent and prosecutor and a lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "This is a dream case for defense attorneys."

FINGERPRINTS AND MUGSHOT


In the near term, any indictment would require Trump to travel to the district attorney's office in downtown New York to surrender. In white-collar cases, the defendant's lawyers and prosecutors typically agree on a date and time, rather than arresting the person at home.

Trump would have his fingerprints and mugshot taken and would appear for arraignment in court. He would likely be released on his own recognizance and allowed to head home, experts said.


Trump's lawyer, Joe Tacopina, told CNBC on Friday that Trump would surrender if charged. If Trump refused to come in voluntarily, prosecutors could seek to have him extradited from Florida, where he currently resides.

In an ironic twist, DeSantis would typically have to give formal approval for an extradition demand in his capacity as governor, though Florida legal experts said his role would be strictly administrative.


Trump announced himself that he's expecting to be "arrested" - which makes me think he's not expecting it, which makes me think it's part of his usual attempt to hijack the narrative.

If he's not indicted according to his "prediction", it gives him some room to expand the standard bullshit Daddy State newspeak;
  • "I'm being persecuted"
  • "They can't touch me - I'm too powerful"
  • "The fact they haven't come for me is proof that I've been completely exonerated once again"
[insert your own bullshit here]

Are We Fucked?

The nerds keep telling us we can prevent the worst of the Climate Change effects if we can get our shit together and really dig into the problems now so we can hit some of our carbon reduction goals by 2030.

They also keep telling us we're not dealing with it very well, and that we prob'ly won't be able to do enough, and so we're headed for a period of time during which we're going to see some of our worst apocalyptic nightmares blossom into a dystopian reality that makes the cynical expectations of HL Mencken and Ambrose Bierce look like a Brady Bunch Christmas episode.



World is on brink of catastrophic warming, UN climate change report says

A dangerous climate threshold is near, but ‘it does not mean we are doomed’ if swift action is taken, scientists say


Human activities have transformed the planet at a pace and scale unmatched in recorded history, causing irreversible damage to communities and ecosystems, according to one of the most definitive reports ever published about climate change. Leading scientists warned that the world’s plans to combat these changes are inadequate and that more aggressive actions must be taken to avert catastrophic warming.

Want to know how your actions can help make a difference for our planet? Sign up for the Climate Coach newsletter, in your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday.


At our current global pace of carbon emissions, the world will burn through its remaining “carbon budget” by 2030. Doing so would put the long-term goal of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius irrevocably out of reach.

Why the goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius?
Keeping warming below this threshold would help save the world’s coral reefs and preserve the Arctic’s protective sea ice layer. It could also stave off dramatic sea level rise by avoiding further destabilization in Antarctica and Greenland.
So where do we stand now?
The world has already warmed more than 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures. We charted over 1,200 different scenarios for climate change over the coming century; of those, 230 pathways achieve the warming goal — although only 112 may be realistic.
What can be done?
Not all hope is lost. Tackling global warming is an enormous feat, but there are many people, organizations and activists making bold strides. We’re tracking their stories in our Climate Solutions section.

The report released Monday from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found the world is likely to miss its most ambitious climate target — limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures — within a decade. Beyond that threshold, scientists have found, climate disasters will become so extreme people cannot adapt. Heat waves, famines and infectious diseases will claim millions of additional lives. Basic components of the Earth system will be fundamentally, irrevocably altered.

Monday’s assessment synthesizes years of studies on the causes and consequences of rising temperatures, leading U.N. Secretary General António Guterres to demand that developed countries like the United States eliminate carbon emissions by 2040 — a decade earlier than the rest of the world.

With few nations on track to fulfill their climate commitments and with the developing world already suffering disproportionately from climate disasters, he said, rich countries have a responsibility to act faster than their low-income counterparts.


The world already has all the knowledge, tools and financial resources needed to achieve its climate goals, according to the IPCC. But after decades of disregarding scientific warnings and delaying climate efforts, it adds, humanity’s window for action is rapidly closing.

“Climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and planetary health,” the report says. “The choices and actions implemented in this decade will have impacts now and for thousands of years.”

Calling the report a “how-to guide to defuse the climate time-bomb,” Guterres announced on Monday an “acceleration agenda” that would speed up global actions on climate.

Emerging economies including China and India — which plan to reach net zero in 2060 and 2070, respectively — must hasten their emissions-cutting efforts alongside developed nations, Guterres said.

Both the U.N. chief and the IPCC also called for the world to phase out coal, oil and gas, which are responsible for more than three quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions.

“Every country must be part of the solution,” Guterres said. “Demanding others move first only ensures humanity comes last.”

A stark scientific outlook

Already, the IPCC’s synthesis report shows, humanity has fundamentally and irreversibly transformed the Earth system. Emissions from burning fossil fuels and other planet-warming activities have increased global average temperatures by at least 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the start of the industrial era. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere hasn’t been this high since archaic humans carved the first stone tools.

These changes have caused irrevocable damage to communities and ecosystems, evidence shows: Fish populations are dwindling, farms are less productive, infectious diseases have multiplied, and weather disasters are escalating to unheard of extremes. The risks from this relatively low level of warming are turning out to be greater than scientists anticipated — not because of any flaw in their research, but because human-built infrastructure, social networks and economic systems have proved exceptionally vulnerable to even small amounts of climate change, the report said.

The suffering is worst in the world’s poorest countries and low-lying island nations, which are home to roughly 1 billion people yet account for less than 1 percent of humanity’s total planet-warming pollution, the report says. But as climate disruption increases with rising temperatures, not even the wealthiest and most well-protected places will be immune.

The researchers say it’s all but inevitable that the world will surpass 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming by the early 2030s — pushing the planet past a threshold at which scientists say climate change will become increasingly unmanageable.

In 2018, the IPCC found that a 1.5C world is overwhelmingly safer than one that is 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the pre-industrial era. At the time, scientists said humanity would have to zero out carbon emissions by 2050 to meet the 1.5-degree target and by 2070 to avoid warming beyond 2 degrees.

Five years later, humanity isn’t anywhere close to reaching either goal. Unless nations adopt new environmental policies and rapidly shift their economies away from fossil fuels, the synthesis report says, global average temperatures could warm by 3.2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. In that scenario, a child born today will live to see several feet of sea level rise, the extinction of hundreds of species and the migration of millions of people from places where they can no longer survive.

“We are not doing enough, and the poor and vulnerable are bearing the brunt of our collective failure to act,” said Madeleine Diouf Sarr, Senegal’s top climate official and the chair for a group of least developed countries that negotiate together at the U.N.

She pointed to the damage wrought by Cyclone Freddy, the longest-lasting and most energetic tropical storm on record, which has killed hundreds of people and displaced thousands more after bombarding southern Africa and Madagascar for more than a month. The report shows that higher temperatures make storms more powerful and sea level rise makes flooding from these storms more intense. Meanwhile, the death toll from these kinds disasters is 15 times higher in vulnerable nations than in wealthier parts of the world.

If the world stays on its current warming track, the IPCC says, global flood damages will be as much as four times higher than if people limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

“The world cannot ignore the human cost of inaction,” Sarr said.


The price of delay

Though much of the synthesis report echoes warnings scientists have issued for decades, the assessment is notable for the blunt certainty of its rhetoric. The phrase “high confidence” appears 118 times in the 26-page summary chapter. Humanity’s responsibility for all the warming of the global climate system is described as an unassailable “fact.”


Yet the report also details how public officials, private investors and other powerful groups have repeatedly failed to heed those warnings. More than 40 percent of cumulative carbon emissions have occurred since 1990 — when the IPCC published its first report on the dangerous consequences of unchecked warming. The consumption habits of the wealthiest 10 percent of people generate three times as much pollution as those of the poorest 50 percent, the report said.

Decades of delay have denied the world any hope of an easy and gradual transition to a more sustainable economy, the panel says. Now, only “deep, rapid and … immediate” efforts across all aspects of society will be able to stave off catastrophe.

“It’s not just the way we produce and use energy,” said Christopher Trisos, director of the Climate Risk Lab in the African Climate and Development Initiative at the University of Cape Town and a member of the core writing team for the synthesis report. “It’s the way we consume food, the way we protect nature. It’s kind of like everything, everywhere, all at once.”

But few institutions are acting fast enough, the report said. November’s U.N. climate conference in Egypt ended without a resolution to phase down oil, gas and coal — a baseline requirement for curbing climate change. Last year, China approved its largest expansion of coal-fired power plants since 2015. Amid soaring profits, major oil companies are dialing back their clean-energy initiatives and deepening investments in fossil fuels.


Humanity is rapidly burning through the amount of pollution the world can afford to emit and still meet its warming targets, the IPCC said, and projected emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure will make it impossible to avoid the 1.5-degree threshold.

World leaders at November's COP27 summit in Egypt. (Mohammed Salem/Reuters)
Yet even as environmental ministers met in Switzerland last week to finalize the text of the IPCC report, the U.S. government approved a new Arctic drilling project that is expected produce oil for the next 30 years, noted Hans-Otto Pörtner, a climatologist at Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute and a co-author of a dozen IPCC reports, including the latest one.

“These decisions don’t match reality,” he said. “There is no more room for compromises.”

Failure to act now won’t only condemn humanity to a hotter planet, the IPCC says. It will also make it impossible for future generations to cope with their changed environment.

There are thresholds to how much warming people and ecosystems can adapt to. Some are “soft” limits — determined by shortcomings in political and social systems. For example, a low-income community that can’t afford to build flood controls faces soft limits to dealing with sea level rise.

But beyond 1.5 degrees of warming, the report says, humanity will run up against “hard limits” to adaptation. Temperatures will get too high to grow many staple crops. Droughts will become so severe that even the strongest water conservation measures can’t compensate. In a world that has warmed roughly 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) — where humanity is currently headed — the harsh physical realities of climate change will be deadly for countless plants, animals and people.

‘It does not mean we are doomed’
Despite its stark language and dire warnings, the IPCC report sends a message of possibility, said Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London and a member of the core writing team for the report.

“It’s not that we are depending on something that still needs to be invented,” she said. “We actually have all the knowledge we need. All the tools we need. We just need to implement it.”

In many regions, the report says, electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind is now cheaper than power from fossil fuels. Several countries have significantly reduced their emissions in the past decade, even as their economies grew. New analyses show how efforts to fight climate change can benefit society in countless other ways, from improving air quality to enhancing ecosystems to boosting public health. These “co-benefits” well outweigh the costs of near-term emissions reductions, even without accounting for the long-term advantages of avoiding dangerous warming.

Report authors say the IPCC’s assessment comes at a moment of truth for climate action. Starting this year, nations are required to start updating the emissions-cutting pledges they made in Paris in 2015.

The pledges are far from sufficient to fulfill the goals of the Paris agreement, the IPCC says, and most nations are not on track even to meet even those targets. Countries must cut their greenhouse gas emissions by almost half before 2030 for the world to have a 50-50 chance of limiting warming t0 1.5 degrees, the report said.

Unless the world commits to much deeper and faster emissions this decade, it will probably be impossible to limit warming to 1.5 or even 2 degrees Celsius, the IPCC said. People will live with consequences of that failure for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

“This is a truly a unique moment to be alive," said Kaisa Kosonen, a climate expert for Greenpeace International who represented the nonprofit at the synthesis report approval meeting last week. “The threats are bigger than ever before, but so are our opportunities for change.”

The need to consider climate change’s unequal impacts is a through line in this latest IPCC report. costs of climate change. At last year’s U.N. climate conference, nations agreed to establish a fund that would help pay vulnerable communities for irreversible harms. By the time diplomats meet again in Dubai in December, they are expected to hash out the details of that fund, determining who deserves compensation and who should be on the hook for the bill.

The need to consider climate change’s unequal impacts is a through line in the latest IPCC report. Stronger social safety nets and “redistributive policies that shield the poor and vulnerable” can help build support for the kind of disruptive changes needed to curb carbon emissions, it says. Sharing resources with low-income countries and marginalized communities is necessary to enable them to invest in renewable energy and other forms of sustainability.

“It gives a goal to work towards, to a world that looks different,” Otto said of the report. “It does not mean we are doomed."

Today's Tweet


This might be a good time to hear from them Satanic Temple fellers.