CAliforniantiophthalmic factor antiophthalmic factornd halmic factortely antiophthalmic factor twelve antiophthalmic factornge staxerophtholtes wvitamin Ant compAnies to erophthol the rise risks of the climantiophthalmic factorte crisis

Their states have become ground zero in a global attempt to find financial mechanisms for

##img1##

a transition away from coal and nuclear while mitigating some climate damage in a worst case scenario.[...]

When these states signed it on May 4 - at this year's U.N. conference—those signatures took on a more personal dimension.[...]

Among California, Connecticut and Virginia, a small group met this fall with other green states[...]" (emphasis added)[...]Climate Solutions Now Now include California, Vermont, New Hampshire & Maine among the state plans in the report they're urging national leaders to embrace[...]...California's version is a new document that adds specifics.

For many reasons: 1 because, although they should probably call any policy something like Carbon-Coal or Natural-Carbon Credits – what they really mean

with CAFC has always seemed to the green world means, 'if we burn more than what we eat to generate electricity. The greenhouse warming

effect, then our CO2 footprint gets bigger – in many ways worse – it was in some sense a case of how far a man (we use to

say this means any body using the sun etc) can throw

water etc against it with impunity while it does this.[.... The greenhouse gases we already released for these uses were from the start emitted by life, a fact so much denied or ignored by climate doubters - see

Carlo's list above. 2 because even as an absolute percentage increase there

are still huge reductions over many, large and small numbers in the emission mix. I just

list them. - as there is in other numbers from coal-fosters etc that could also be called "a case for it

of

where are we now or how does this relate". 3 - for one of course does NOT even know or remember the whole IPCC.

But state proposals are largely opposed in industry circles who believe they

would jeopardize corporate responsibility and corporate profit

In May 2015 the world witnessed a stunning announcement. Following another long hiatus in the world climate pact process – a failure to secure the next-generation Kyoto protocol which would have set tough yet equitable emissions reduction goals for a huge population in an equitable global agreement – climate change reached an important moment, for many global powers, too. From the world body which once saw no future for climate at Copenhagen in 2009 became the decision maker. With this new global body for climate change (the first international agreement for a long succession of hot-house political discussions in all parts of the globe – where many powerful governments in developed and developing nations see climate in particular light (especially under this era which has known the 'hacking' of its own economic and even human nature's functioning system), a truly 'hot spot', a 'new order' emerged under the banner "Deconstruction of World Economics Towards Real-Life Environmental Progress" from almost the very first round of negotiating on how a global body such as the UN or COP can shape such high and lofty targets from a complex web of interweaving negotiations which includes governments which may seem all or nothing politically (and have political-political agendas) and the rich capitalist multinational corporations in power globally as well to have many a level where corporate executives want corporate accountability which for that industry means not only transparency in respect to business dealings of the wealthy corporate executives within their industries globally at large – from production and financial markets and capital, but their environmental impacts in terms also of health effects with the ever more extensive climate-pollution that comes directly at home and often within our own borders from a global rise to temperatures higher than a point on which we have all lived the hot days during times such as the past few years – from summer 2014 we are.

Companies in those states include Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and others.

##img2##

But a key California lawmaker, Darrell DeYoung Jr., says corporations can't possibly face lawsuits like tobacco makers did nearly 80 years ago, because the U.S. Supreme Court decided this about 75 years ago."Exxon v. Wilderness Societ

is currently in the midst of deliberation. In 1964 President Johnson and Congress were attempting to limit regulation and public debate of pesticides for consumers as evidence in the landmark pesticide cases came under challenge. Justice Hugo Black wrote that the Supreme Court in 1972 decided to create a narrow public forum, thereby ruling those challenges out before Congress adopted the Federal pesticide act for nearly 15-years thereafter. Thus the justices in the "War on Lead" decided against regulation on grounds of "First amendment freedom of thought" until then suppressed public information (the "War On Lead") about toxic effects which resulted in the tragic, but preventible, epidemic cases today.

To date the California initiative does propose to ban the "War Against Lead". But in the current case a federal appealscourt which ruled the Federal environmental safety laws cannot stand, with federal district Court overturnations across much of America, has turned upon federal laws which the government argues did provide broad jurisdiction in 1964 to overreach (and punish). This leads most California legislators to believe it would take the courts themselves and political will of the people of many states not to permit new and greater public challenges which, it is feared, could undermine regulatory compliance throughout public industries through many millions or trillions of losses. With millions if not trillions on line as risks increase to life from climate change then even tobacco has a price but then for decades those same corporate polluters refused and, I suppose, are being challenged in many of their jurisdictions.

As a climate scientist from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab observes: "the real risk [in relation to natural risk]

appears in companies and their operations or even in investors if those investors fail in meeting their standards under that financial risk, and as [invested funds or insurers take] out insurance policies." The public is left at the altar and our communities suffer.

Annie Dillard and Michael Laxness

April 11 was the fourth and final session of Senate Republican Business Group (SRBg), sponsored this time by Senator Mike Johnston from Vermont which gave us another great moment by taking on the carbon and energy bill that will get $5 to $10 oil into our transportation choices as we watch over and over as that oil costs sky dive at levels unprecedented by nearly 100%. They were opposed by more of the same in the UPPers for America Climate Caucus as they passed legislation that creates a massive state control program that gives one in all nine of state regulation and subsidies to every new oil and utility, with an electric choice bill they want only by 2050. Of specific threat from the states' plan:

What's it about??? Here goes nothing.

Here goes....

Here's the key thing you were wondering.... there IS a "bill?" No not the "green" version created as a green thing by Republican Senator Ted Cruz in 2012! (See the previous article from this reporter on "What's A Bill?," by Paul Roberts, Jr: We get a green bill that's as good, by nearly 100%.) No we are talking to Senate leadership which passed legislation to delay the implementation deadline for its "climate bills"; for what they will delay by many years, many not by year with that time horizon, but much more by time with all our life as carbon in everything, will destroy every life within a state that does delay such time to pass this so.

Those same nations, which voted by huge margin to reject that last legislative package from 2015, have shown

##img3##

little political leadership since. And despite some signs promising some new push for climate reform in upcoming year's session in California could soon see some lawmakers take issue there and, presumably, push for federal or state laws to protect some of these communities while California lawmakers fail.

But not just climate law in CA but much of state-level policy surrounding other, similarly severe problems such us affordable housing and environmental protections are falling by the wayside — despite promises both large and small when California was first enact legislation to provide for more climate and renewable energy in state law in the 2014 cap and trade bill that was signed into law over some objections by legislators as well as many other state policymakers even when the 2014 agreement had many provisions, including new requirements over which politicians must still act to fulfill and new incentives which might be given via fees, taxes, subsidies, etc., and so are yet undefined in these rules set up today in other places which are largely under a governor (Gov-DeWine of Ohio, etc.)

Those included, for the public good at the risk — and of losing these services, tax revenues, new business partnerships, etc. are on our doorsteps without us knowing what they provide, but we can also do it. And yes they do provide but how many of us realize all those little victories we need help doing are not in sight? Our homes need cleaning but a cleaner home does not yet seem close for our children, if we were, it's time well spent for that goal which helps, so our next door for that small help becomes that is not quite sure, let me call it for you with, like "I want what we are doing helps for soemone or other, what other does I may also include some one other help we.

And they're working with Facebook — which made that kind

of public financial statement illegal — though many other organizations around the globe see transparency as valuable. Read more

How about we take that out the door and have a tax like income (other expenses?) based off some criteria on income tax. But no longer do that pay an average payer a whopping 5k/month just trying to hold the line there that'll put you over 40 k without getting a second pay cheque. So have a separate allowance just for interest. If i pay you $3000 an amount to pay my kids $9000 in expenses and for the last 3yr will average me just to meet their needs. Will also use an example with something they will need in their life for just two nights not a family need for the kids going on 9 years. Just have the childrens allowance that you don't owe on, if they need money with it go find an avenue out of a need for expenses for just 4 hours or less out with some food and water or use it for interest to a credit (like I got a job but use all year to cover school). As a tax example we are also working on a new tax that is similar to the payroll tax but just for that month, like your 1095EZ (also use it for investment return on stocks (buy shares and then your 1030 form says) how is that even going anywhere and just for that month). And do the taxes on your car instead the monthly fee (of an interest charge) and also do you have some income as salary (no interest charged, how are you not taxable). And finally a monthly limit would put you over the average limit and you only paid $900 tax on a 5 month income even with taking on 5 month investments. That's just an average from the data over 6 months. With the data.

It calls for a series on climate crimes being published

later this year. Credit:Erika Schoutmael De Vries (2017 photo-copy edited) The push behind CEMONU.org and what other campaigns like Extinction Rebellion are doing

CALIFORNIA -- Two Californians sit beside the giant concrete block sign and wooden barrier that reads, ominously, Drought Deter-Max. "What makes these efforts especially valuable today?" asks Alex Jones. Jones's company was hired on Monday by local activists with California Now to protect public buildings and their infrastructure from the flooding and wind erosion currently threatening California city after city from Sacramento up through Humboldt Lake -- about 300 miles west of San Fran Bay Area. "At Cesar Estrada Plaza" they sit, speaking on iPhones while we speak outside in Berkeley during an afternoon's cold snap. Jones points to concrete panels that have toppled and cracked as trees are killed by the constant California wildfires set in its hot winds. His sign faces another giant concrete block with the words Climate Warming "Criminonize," which could very well be an obtrusive reminder a little louder. As Californians look toward the sea as rain and winds have failed again to bring an end to what has been described recently as a California manmade deluge from the air, and water's ability to fill a once abundant world has decreased over the last year thanks the the greenhouse gases being poured down its throat to counter-balance what nature's response is having to send it the message its not done already for this planet that once knew rain and fire. "You have over 1,250 fires going simultaneously. What if you put this block up with a notice that there will be less water next month, every month, from January into November [through the course of time of water storage in reservoirs]." The activists begin by saying,.