Global emissions may be increasing, but last year the United States’ CO2 levels fell to a 20-year low due to the rise of cheap and abundant natural gas, which has led many power plants to turn away from coal. Much of this progress also can be attributed to President Obama’s sustainability policies, which include reducing pollution from cars and light trucks, curbing harmful emissions from power plants, adopting a broad strategy for managing the nation’s ocean waters and supporting renewable energy development, among others.

So, why does the planet’s temperature gauge continue to spike?

This is due to the fact that global warming is indeed global. While the U.S. is at least heading in the general direction of a more sustainable future, the economies of developing nations like China and India are growing exponentially – and with little concern for the environment. China alone is responsible for some 25 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions.

Granted, India and China are only following in the West’s industrial footsteps. From the end of the 19^th century through most of the 20^th, the U.S. and Europe blazed a wide trail from agrarian to industrial and eventually to post-industrial economies – leaving environmental devastation in their wake. It would be a little hypocritical for the West to now start pointing fingers.

But the consequences of climate change are too severe for us to remain deadlocked in a blame game – the world must come together to solve this challenge. Until further notice, the U.S., China, India and everyone else on this rock will thrive or fall based on our actions or inactions.

To achieve this, the world’s two largest CO2 culprits – the U.S. and China – must step up as global leaders to address the global warming threat. While many in the media continue to paint a picture of climate change being a stiff political issue, a recent study by Yale and George Mason University found that nearly 80 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents support increasing renewable energy use and more than 60 percent believe the United States should take action to address climate change.

In a fortunate turn of events for the planet, China recently proposed for the first time to set a 2016 ceiling on its CO2 emissions.

“This is a big shift in China’s position and should unblock the standoff between the US and China in the global climate change negotiations,” said Doug Parr, Greenpeace’s chief scientist. “Without an agreement between these two major players it is hard to see how an agreement can be reached in 2015.”

While several countries have adopted an official goal to limit climate change damage, the U.S. and China have resisted taking on binding national targets, claiming they would harm economic growth. At the same time, scientists warn that if widespread collective and committed action is not taken soon, countering global warming will become near impossible without serious economic disruption.

What the U.S. and China (and the rest of the world) must realize is that taking steps to a more sustainable future does not have to come at the economy’s expense. A recent study by investor advocacy group Ceres found energy efficiency could be a multi-hundred-billion dollar investment opportunity in the United States alone. Electric car company Tesla recently posted its first quarterly profit in its 10-year history. Several other technological breakthroughs are making dirty fuels and planet-killing materials obsolete.

Climate change could well be the greatest threat humans have ever faced – it is time we started treating it as such.

Related articles

• How to Bridge the Generation Gap in Sustainability and Sprawl(article-3.com)

  ---

• Red Line Gone – What Obama Can Do To Save Syria(article-3.com)

  ---

How does Aereo work?

Aereo transforms the laptop, tablet or phone into a transportable television by providing consumers with a small antenna, no bigger than a dime. These antennae “grab” broadcast transmissions in real-time allowing consumers to watch live broadcasts as well as record broadcasts for later viewing. For only $8, Aereo provides unlimited live broadcasts and up to 20 recordable DVR hours. For an additional $4, the user is provided 60 hours of DVR and the ability to record two shows simultaneously. Aereo currently offers 28 different channels and is only available in New York and Boston, but this will soon change – the company announced it plans to expand to 22 more cities with plans to come to Atlanta this June.

Aereo represents one of many challenges broadcast companies face in the near future. The rise in alternative television services, like Netflix, Apple TV, Roku, and Hulu is slowly eroding cable subscriptions. Nielsen Reports revealed that in 2011 the number of cable subscribers fell by 2.9 million. This trend away from subscription packages through major cable and satellite providers has been dubbed “cord cutting.” With its innovative miniature antennae granting it the ability to play and record live television events, Aereo stands at the forefront of this movement.

The Broadcaster Pushback

Major broadcasters argue that Aereo threatens their business by illicitly re-transmitting television content. Cable and satellite companies pay fees to broadcasters to transmit content to cable audiences. These fees can constitute 10% of major broadcaster’s profits. The broadcasters want to ensure that companies like Aereo pay for the same licenses cable and satellite companies pay. These concerns led to copyright infringement lawsuits in March of 2012.

Some broadcasters have evoked “doomsday” scenarios should the 2^nd District Court’s decision stand. News Corp’s COO Chase Carey recently stated that Fox and its affiliates would stop broadcasting entirely in regions where Aereo operates and become a subscription channel only, à la HBO.

“We need to be able to be fairly compensated for our content,” Carey said. “This is not an ideal path we look to pursue, but we can’t sit idly by and let an entity steal our signal. We will move to a subscription model if that’s our only recourse.”

If taken seriously, Carey’s remarks represent a dramatic departure from traditional television programming. ABC, NBC and CBS could replicate News Corp.’s actions thus ending the television market as we know it.

There is also the possibility that if the major broadcasters cannot find a legal solution preventing Aereo from offering its services, they will start their own. Time Warner Chief Executive Glenn Britt has admitted his company is closely watching how Aereo fares in the courtroom. Success may trigger a Time Warner investment into an Aereo-like business model.

The Outlook

Before cancelling your cable or satellite package, it is important to note that Aereo’s recent court victory may not be emblematic of events to come. The 2^nd district’s decision is territorially confined to its jurisdiction. It does not represent a national legal consensus. The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals recently granted injunctive relief to major broadcasters against an Aereo-like competitor – aptly named AereoKiller. The ruling prevents Aereo from expanding to the West Coast. None of the 22 cities Aereo plans to be in are in the western United States.

This decision could reflect the legal norm for Aereo leaving their victory in the 2^nd District as nothing more than an aberration. However, it is possible a split between circuit courts could lead to a Supreme Court showdown down the road. It also is worth mentioning that federal legislative efforts, like the Television Consumer Freedom Act – championed by Senator John McCain – could override circuit court confusion and provide statutory guidance.

In the meantime, it is almost guaranteed Aereo will face legal challenges in every jurisdiction it attempts to operate. For a small start-up, these costs cannot be easy to incur. But Aereo the company and Aereo the idea are two different things, and while one’s future remains uncertain, the other may already be indelible.

Related articles

• Flashback: 5 Epic Patent Battles that Would Make Headlines Today(rocketlawyer.com)

  ---

• Should I Tweet That?(rocketlawyer.com)

  ---

The nation watched Ohio, as per usual, to gauge just how much trouble the Obama administration was in with the American public. We now know what happened. Tea Party candidates won big in a Republican Revolution akin to Newt Gingrich’s in 1994. Leading the way in gubernatorial elections were Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio.

Fast-forward to 2013 and Ohio, not to mention the nation’s interest in Ohio, is in stark contrast to the 2010 cycle.

Simply put – nobody cares. And both parties are to blame.

Tea Who?

First we look to the Tea Partiers, loathed by Democrats for their policies, but loved for their newfound ability to lose elections.

The initial media frenzy that a Tea Party Revolution was afoot now amounts to a mere radar blip. They are the political equivalent of a one hit wonder boy band whose 15 minutes have long since passed. The electorate has given them the proverbial “Bye, Bye, Bye.”

Problem is, nobody has bothered to tell the Tea Partier politicians who continue to rail against moderate Republicans with reactionary platforms. Sure they will win a primary every now and again, but Democrats have largely been able to handle Republican challengers who fall in the “Rape Immune Vaginas” section of the political spectrum.

With Tea Party support falling faster than one of Wile E. Coyote’s Acme anvils, one would think Governor John Kasich would have an uphill battle to save his seat in Columbus. Au contraire, mon logical thinker. Here’s where typical Democratic ineptitude comes to play.

Democratus Incompetus

If the Democratic donkey were in a Road Runner cartoon, it would come with the scientific classification of Democratus Incompetus.

Considering Kasich’s history of pissing just about everyone off over the past three years, one would deduce that Ohio Democrats have been busy readying a strong candidate to regain the Governor’s Mansion. Not so, evidently.

After a months of speculation that several prominent Democrats would drop out were realized, the party was left with Ed FitzGerald, County Executive in Cuyahoga County – a politician and office many outside of the county are unfamiliar with. It is safe to say more know of Joe “That’s Not His Real Name” the Plumber (who coincidentally ran an embarrassing Congressional campaign last Fall) than the man state Democrats have put their full support behind.

To be fair, FitzGerald’s resume is actually quite impressive. After serving as a Special Agent in the FBI, FitzGerald returned to Cleveland to work in Cuyahoga County’s Prosecutor’s office. Just a year later, he was elected to Lakewood City Council – an inner-ring suburb of Cleveland. Nine years later in 2007, he was elected Mayor of Lakewood.

Now here is where FitzGerald began exemplifying symptoms related to Mandelitis – a political ailment named after opportunistic Josh Mandel, who has displayed a unique unwillingness to finish elected terms before jumping to the next opportunity.

Following a county corruption scandal involving, as always, embezzlement and prostitutes, the voters of Cuyahoga County instilled a new system of government. Despite his opposition to the new system, FitzGerald left his post as Mayor of Lakewood within his first term to run for the newly created County Executive position in 2010. Running on an anti-corruption platform backed by a non-threatening, J.C. Penny catalogue smile, FitzGerald defeated a field of 10 candidates to become the county’s first Executive.

Most would agree that FitzGerald has done a tremendous job in cleaning up the county. But some supporters began to turn when rumors began to abound that he was eyeing Kasich’s gig just two years into his Executive term. Surely an ailing county, fresh off a scandal that left voters with little faith in government, warrants at the very least one full term, right?

Hah!

The ambitious Executive started making appearances in Cincinnati and Toledo – cities who hadn’t the faintest idea as to his existence prior to his showing up. FitzGerald then launched an exploratory committee to explore the possibility of exploring a run for governor – or something. Before long, and without any other serious Democratic contenders, FitzGerald announced his intention to win the state back for Democrats.

Someone Worth Voting For

There you have it, politicos. John Kasich’s Tea Party has gone cold in a state that voted twice for President Obama, and the best Ohio Democrats could muster is a candidate with the name recognition of a professional bowler. That’s not to say name recognition is everything. After all, Kasich came was unknown by three-quarters of Ohioans in 2008.

Point is, if Ohio wants to remain a powerful political force outside of its obligatory swinging spotlight once every four years, then Democrats need to rethink their strategy in politician selection. The national party itself is only able to churn out an inspiring candidate once every eight years (Obama 2004, Castro 2012), so Buckeyes can’t simply hope for one to be born and working within state borders.

Meanwhile, Republicans, need to reward the moderates such as former Congressmen LaTourette and Voinovich, though the latter did fall into the trite “Obama is a socialist” meme. The Tea Party is dead. Caput. No more. Now give Ohioans someone worth voting for. That goes for both parties.

Meantime, Ohioans and political nerds should hope for a thoughtful, serious debate on important issues of the day between FitzGerald and Kasich. Like if FitzGerald refused to sign important state and federal documents that did not properly spell his name with a capital G.

See you in 2016, America.

Related articles

• The Only Thing Worse Than Listening to the Tea Party When They Are WRONG…(article-3.com)

  ---

• The Road Lobby You Never Knew Existed(article-3.com)

  ---

The most secure tax cheater in America right now is a Tea Party member who works as a reporter for the Associated Press and is investigating the tale of the conflicting Obama administration emails regarding the Benghazi story. No WAY is this person getting audited! After these past few days, this person could scribble across his 1040 form in big block letters “Nyah nyah! I’m not paying you a dime!” and the IRS would be too cowed to look into it for fear of being accused of targeting conservative groups.

Sheesh. What a disaster. If I were to give the IRS the benefit of the doubt, I’d venture that they didn’t target right-wing groups because of their politics per se, but because these supposedly “social welfare” organizations applying for tax-exempt status are suspect to begin with – it stands to reason that the conservative groups, who tend to hate the very idea of taxes in the first place and are always looking for ways to pay less of them, are even more likely to be guilty. Especially when there’s a “liberal” Democratic president in office that wants to piss tax money away on frivolous stuff like the nation’s infrastructure, health care, shoring up the safety net and other worthless endeavors.

Then there is the little history of supposedly “grass roots” groups like the Tea Party actually being funded by the billionaire Koch Brothers (without many of their adherents seemingly aware of this). So while the IRS targeting right-wing groups is wrong and is not something a democratic society can engage in, the impetus for it is not devoid of logic.

That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot of similar bogus activity from the “left” side of the equation. But in general, liberals may surely complain about How their tax money is being spent, especially when it goes to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (Oops. I forgot. Bush somehow “funded” those two wars without paying for them), they’re not against the very IDEA of taxes.

The most unfortunate part of this is that there probably WERE a fair number of bogus “social welfare” groups among those being targeted, but now they’ll get a free pass. And more will surely open up. If I were a right-wing mastermind (spoiler alert: I’m not) right now I’d be thinking “Boy, THIS is the time to set up a bogus tax-exempt organization because if the IRS looks into it, I’ll just shout ‘Political bias!’ and they’ll go a-runnin’ as fast as they can.”

The other “most unfortunate part” is that if there’s anything worse than listening to Tea Party members rant, it’s listening to them rant when they’rein the right. (I’m conjecturing here, since this is the first time I can recall this happening). Still, we are surely in for weeks of pious insufferableness from the likes of Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter. Yes, the IRS was wrong to target groups based on political ideology, but boy, I’m not looking forward to hearing about it.

Related articles

• Back to Benghazi – Why Republicans Are Wrong to Call it Watergate(article-3.com)

  ---

• Red Line Gone – What Obama Can Do To Save Syria(article-3.com)

  ---

As expected, many conservatives have weighed in on the new information. In recent days, we have heard former Vice President Dick Cheney compare Benghazi to 9/11, U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann tell us it is part of God’s wrath and several Republican Congressmen liken it to Watergate.

Leaving God and Cheney out of it for the moment, let’s focus on that third point –Watergate. Watergate is the example of government corruption and paranoia, when the executive branch experienced its darkest hour; it is the catchphrase for governmental deceit wrapped inside a modern-day Shakespearean tragedy. But Benghazi does not even come close to being the next Watergate.

As an event, Watergate was a conscious decision by the Nixon Administration to commit a series of illegal acts.

First, there was an actual act of breaking and entering – in this case into Democratic headquarters in the Watergate complex.

Second, there was an attempt to criminally acquire information to use for advantageous purposes in a federal election for the highest office in the land.

Third, there was a determined effort to conceal illicit acts from the public.

Altogether, these were premeditated, deliberate decisions and not a matter of life and death (besides the intended political death of Democratic Presidential nominee George McGovern), but of politics. This was an egregious act of deception and a violation of the people’s trust that Nixon and his cohorts knowingly undertook.

Benghazi was an act of foreign terrorism that resulted in the tragic deaths of four people including U.S. Ambassador J Christopher Stevens. The U.S. government and its leaders did not make the conscious decision to kill anyone in Benghazi. Yes, some of our diplomatic compounds around the world may have fallen below desired security standards, which makes our diplomats more susceptible to danger. But that is just a vulnerability, not a drawn-out plan with a desired result.

What about Watergate the metaphor? Those crying Watergate today want to use the term as a generalization for cover-up, a politically-motivated rallying cry to stir up the masses. Even so, these events share little other than one-word geographic locales. Nixon’s administration tried to cover up its crimes, as if they never happened. Conversely, the Obama Administration, more specifically the State Department, changed the wording of talking points as part of a pissing contest with the CIA to have final say in descriptions of events that occurred within the compound.

In the CIA’s initial draft of events in Libya, the State Department spokeswoman requested changes out of fear of having the information abused by members of Congress, no surprise there, and suspicions that the CIA was trying to absolve itself from guilt. This is more indicative of the internal goings-on in our government, where party politics and departmental rivalries encourage finger pointing and protecting one’s backside. Was Benghazi poorly handled? Yes. Was it a federal crime? No.

So why will we continue to hear Watergate in this debate? Because Watergate led to the resignation of President Nixon in the face of his impending impeachment. Many current Republican lawmakers would love to see the same with President Obama, along with the toppling of Hilary Clinton’s presidential aspirations. So what is the greater tragedy here? Is it the four deaths in Benghazi or the politicization of their deaths that does not mourn their loss as much as use it as a means of attempting to control a political landscape?

Related articles

• Red Line Gone – What Obama Can Do To Save Syria(article-3.com)

  ---

• Our “China Syndrome” isn’t What It Seems(article-3.com)

  ---