#Climate resilience James Scott | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

envirotechaccelerator · 2 years ago

Text

Ecosystem Restoration: Investing in Nature for Climate Stability

by Envirotech Accelerator

Introduction

Ecosystems are intricate networks of living organisms and the physical environment, maintaining a delicate balance that is vital for the planet’s health. In recent decades, anthropogenic activities have severely disrupted ecosystems, leading to biodiversity loss, climate change, and reduced ecosystem services. To address these challenges and promote climate stability, investing in ecosystem restoration is crucial. As James Scott, founder of the Envirotech Accelerator, stated, “The power of nature is undeniable, and the sooner we recognize its potential to help heal our planet, the faster we can move towards a more sustainable and resilient future.”

The Importance of Ecosystem Restoration

Ecosystem restoration aims to recover ecosystems�� health, functionality, and resilience by repairing the damage caused by human activities (Díaz et al., 2015). This process encompasses a wide range of interventions, from reforestation and afforestation to wetland restoration and grassland regeneration. By restoring ecosystems, society can benefit from improved ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, water regulation, and habitat provision for biodiversity (Suding et al., 2021).

Restoration Strategies

There are several approaches to ecosystem restoration, each with its specific goals, methodologies, and desired outcomes. Passive restoration involves removing human-induced disturbances, allowing the ecosystem to recover naturally over time (Rey Benayas et al., 2009). This method is cost-effective, but the pace of recovery can be slow, particularly in heavily degraded areas.

Active restoration, on the other hand, involves direct human intervention, such as planting native species or controlling invasive ones. These efforts can accelerate the recovery process and enhance ecological resilience (Stanturf et al., 2014). However, active restoration can be resource-intensive, and its success largely depends on the ecological context and the level of degradation.

Challenges and Opportunities

Ecosystem restoration presents both challenges and opportunities in the quest for climate stability. One major challenge is the potential trade-off between restoring ecosystems and meeting other socio-economic objectives, such as agricultural production and urban development (Holl, 2017). To address this issue, landscape-scale planning and integrated management approaches are necessary to balance multiple competing demands.

Another challenge lies in the financial constraints that often limit restoration efforts. Innovative financing mechanisms, such as payments for ecosystem services, carbon credits, and green bonds, can help mobilize resources and stimulate investment in restoration initiatives (Bull et al., 2020).

Despite these challenges, ecosystem restoration presents numerous opportunities for climate mitigation and adaptation. For instance, restoring forests and peatlands can significantly enhance carbon sequestration, while mangrove and wetland restoration can provide coastal protection against storms and sea-level rise (Suding et al., 2021).

Conclusion

Ecosystem restoration is a vital strategy for maintaining the planet’s health and addressing the global climate crisis. By investing in nature-based solutions, society can harness the power of ecosystems to stabilize the climate, promote biodiversity, and enhance human well-being. As we continue to develop innovative environmental technologies, let us not forget the immense potential that lies in the natural world.

References

Bull, J. W., Baker, J., Griffiths, V. F., Jones, J. P., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2020). Ensuring No Net Loss for people as well as biodiversity: good practice principles. SocArXiv.

Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., … & Bartuska, A. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16.

Holl, K. D. (2017). Research priorities for tropical forest restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54(2), 303–311.

Rey Benayas, J. M., Newton, A. C., Diaz, A., & Bullock, J. M. (2009). Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science, 325(5944), 1121–1124.

Stanturf, J. A., Palik, B. J., & Dumroese, R. K. (2014). Contemporary forest restoration: A review emphasizing function. Forest Ecology and Management, 331, 292–323.

Suding, K. N., Higgs, E., Palmer, M., Callicott, J. B., Anderson, C. B., Baker, M., … & Cook, C. N. (2021). Committing to ecological restoration. Science, 372(6539), 223–225.

Read more at Envirotech Accelerator.

#James Scott Envirotech #Envirotech Accelerator ecosystem restoration #Climate stability James Scott #Envirotech Accelerator biodiversity #James Scott forest restoration #Envirotech Accelerator reforestation #Climate resilience James Scott #Envirotech Accelerator habitat restoration #James Scott ecosystem services #Envirotech Accelerator conservation

1 note · View note

netzeroincubatorandaccelerator · 11 months ago

Text

Envirotech Accelerator Announces Congressional Roundtable on Carbon Capture & Removal Technologies

In a world where the echoes of climate change reverberate through our very existence, the Envirotech Accelerator emerges as a beacon of hope, launching the Coalition for American Leadership in Carbon Capture and Removal Technology. This groundbreaking initiative heralds a new dawn in environmental stewardship, uniting industry pioneers, policymakers, and researchers in a collective mission to revolutionize carbon capture technologies on a national scale.

James Scott, founder of Envirotech Accelerator, encapsulates the essence of this transformative endeavor with a profound quote: "In the symphony of innovation and policy, harmony is found in our commitment to shaping a sustainable legacy for generations to come." These words resonate with a call to action, urging us to transcend boundaries and forge a path towards a greener future through collaborative efforts and visionary leadership.

The Coalition for American Leadership in Carbon Capture and Removal Technology stands as a testament to the power of unity and innovation in confronting the challenges of our time. By convening a Congressional roundtable of experts, this coalition seeks to empower legislative endeavors with unparalleled expertise and strategic guidance, propelling the United States towards a future defined by environmental resilience and technological ingenuity.

As we embark on this transformative journey, let us heed the call to action embedded within James Scott's words and embrace the opportunity to shape a more sustainable world. Together, we have the power to redefine our relationship with the environment and pave the way for a brighter tomorrow through the Coalition for American Leadership in Carbon Capture and Removal Technology.

Join us in this momentous endeavor as we embark on a collective mission to catalyze change, inspire innovation, and champion environmental leadership for the betterment of our planet and future generations.

#Carbon Capture Technology #CarbonRemovalInnovations #EnvirotechAccelerator #CongressionalRoundtableCarbonCapture

0 notes

astranemus · 4 years ago

Text

Folklore and traditional mytho-historical narratives offer an alternative approach to framing anthropogenic and other causes of environmental change, one that has existed since the dawn of humans capacity to historicize their lives and place in the cosmos. These narratives arguably have much to teach us about framing our understanding and contingent responses to environmental change over time and across spaces. They remind us of the futility of a managerialism that governs only for control and stability without proper consideration of relational feedbacks and the dynamic and anarchic forces in nature. As James Scott (1998) observes in Seeing Like a State, human social and environmental disasters that arise from even well-intentioned state-initiated managerialist efforts all too frequently involve the pernicious combination of four elements: (1) dangerous adherence to the administrative ordering of nature and society; (2) a commitment to a "high-modernist ideology" involving undue self-confidence about the value of scientific and technical progress; (3) the intervention of a powerfully centralizing or increasingly non-democratic forms of political organization; and (4) weakened civil society organizations. Prevailing discourses of "managing" climate change in the face of looming ecological disasters contain elements of all four of the above set within the broader narrative framework of crisis, which, as Edelman (1988) observes, often serves to mitigate resistance to, and helps to build popular support for, extraordinary interventions by social and political elites.

The tenor and rhetoric of the prevailing discussions of climate change and the Anthropocene are at odds with an alternative heuristics circulating in many indigenous communities that are instead shaped by the shared understanding that humans are but a small part of a relational universe that cannot be fully cognized, much less managed, by any one species. Raven tales of the Pacific Northwest and East Asia from the early Holocene, for example, celebrate the trickster-demiurge who excels at "improvisation in the face of unpredictability" (Scott 1998: 6), as a driver of, or respondent to, environmental shifts. Although Raven frequently appears as either the harbinger of or an active agent provoking extraordinary ecological events, they are nonetheless not cast in the rhetoric of crisis. Instead, Raven adapts, innovates, and transforms with Earth's changes, sometimes by relying upon his intimate knowledge of local species, sometimes by cunning and wiles, and sometimes by happenstance as a result of his ulterior manipulations, and, at times, buffoonery. In contrast to the overtly mechanistic cause and effect models that prevail in popular and scientific discourse today, the lessons Raven can and does teach offer a multivalent understanding of the place of human activity in the world. Taken collectively, Raven tales disseminated among and between indigenous communities across the Northwest coast of North America, Alaska, Japan and Siberia today emphasize a moral ecology of mutual dependence, intersubjectivity, survival, resilience, feedbacks, and adaptation in the face of ceaseless and open-ended ecological change.

Thomas F. Thornton and Patricia M. Thornton, The Mutable, the Mythical, and the Managerial: Raven Narratives and the Anthropocene

#quote #Thomas T Thornton #Patricia C Thornton #The Mutable the Mythical and the Managerial #Raven Narratives and the Anthropocene #raven #animism #totemism #Anthropocene #climate change #technocracy #science #James Scott #Seeing Like a State #traditional knowledge #ecology #environmentalism

35 notes · View notes

leftpress · 8 years ago

Text

Trump’s Defense Secretary Cites Climate Change as National Security Challenge

| ProPublica: Articles and Investigations | March 14th 2017

by Andrew Revkin

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real, and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon’s assets everywhere, a position that appears at odds with the views of the president who appointed him and many in the administration in which he serves.

In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the U.S. military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if.

“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,...

” Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. “It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”

Mattis has long espoused the position that the armed forces, for a host of reasons, need to cut dependence on fossil fuels and explore renewable energy where it makes sense. He had also, as commander of the U.S. Joint Forces Command in 2010, signed off on the Joint Operating Environment, which lists climate change as one of the security threats the military expected to confront over the next 25 years.

But Mattis’ written statements to the Senate committee are the first direct signal of his determination to recognize climate change as a member of the Trump administration charged with leading the country’s armed forces.

These remarks and others in the replies to senators could be a fresh indication of divisions or uncertainty within President Donald Trump’s administration over how to balance the president’s desire to keep campaign pledges to kill Obama-era climate policies with the need to engage constructively with allies for whom climate has become a vital security issue.

Mattis’ statements on climate change, for instance, recognize the same body of science that Scott Pruitt, the new Environmental Protection Agency administrator, seems dead-set on rejecting. In a CNBC interview last Thursday, Pruitt rejected established science pointing to carbon dioxide as the main driver of recent global warming.

Mattis’ position also would appear to clash with some Trump administration budget plans, which, according to documents leaked recently to The Washington Post, include big cuts for the Commerce Department’s oceanic and atmospheric research — much of it focused on tracking and understanding climate change.

Even setting aside warming driven by accumulating carbon dioxide, it’s clear to a host of experts, including Dr. Will Happer, a Princeton physicist interviewed by Trump in January as a potential science adviser, that better monitoring and analysis of extreme conditions like drought is vital.

Mattis’ statements could hearten world leaders who have urged the Trump administration to remain engaged on addressing global warming. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is scheduled to meet Trump on Friday.

Security questions related to rising seas and changing weather patterns in global trouble spots like the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa are one reason that global warming has become a focus in international diplomatic forums. On March 10, the United Nations Security Council was warned of imminent risk of famine in Yemen, Somalia and South Sudan.

As well, at a Munich meeting on international security issues last month, attended by Mattis and Vice President Mike Pence, European officials pushed back on demands that they spend more on defense, saying their investments in boosting resilience to climate hazards in poor regions of the world are as valuable to maintaining security as strong military forces.

“[Y]ou need the European Union, because when you invest in development, when you invest in the fight against climate change, you also invest in our own security,” Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, said in a panel discussion.

Concerns about the implications of global warming for national security have built within the Pentagon and national security circles for decades, including under both Bush administrations.

A Physicist and Possible Adviser to Trump Describes His Love of Science, and CO2

Brilliant and controversial, Dr. Will Happer of Princeton says being called a climate denier feels like being labeled a Nazi sympathizer. Read the story.

In September, acting on the basis of a National Intelligence Council report he commissioned, President Obama ordered more than a dozen federal agencies and offices, including the Defense Department, “to ensure that climate change-related impacts are fully considered in the development of national security doctrine, policies, and plans.”

A related “action plan” was issued on Dec. 23, requiring those agencies to create a Climate and National Security Working Group within 60 days, and for relevant agencies to create “implementation plans” in that same period.

There’s no sign that any of this has been done.

Whether the inaction is a function of the widespread gaps in political appointments at relevant agencies, institutional inertia or a policy directive from the Trump White House remains unclear.

Queries to press offices at the White House and half a dozen of the involved agencies — including the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Defense, Department of Energy and Commerce Department — have not been answered. A State Department spokeswoman directed questions to the National Security Council and the White House, writing:

“We refer you to the NSC for any additional information on the climate working group.”

Mattis’ statements were submitted through a common practice at confirmation hearings in which senators pose “questions for the record” seeking more detail on a nominee’s stance on some issue.

The questions and answers spanned an array of issues, but five Democratic senators on the committee asked about climate change, according to a government official briefed in detail on the resulting 58-page document with the answers. The senators were Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking member, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Excerpts from Mattis’ written comments to the committee were in material provided to ProPublica by someone involved with coordinating efforts on climate change preparedness across more than a dozen government agencies, including the Defense Department. Senate staff confirmed their authenticity.

Dustin Walker, communications director for the Senate Armed Services Committee, said responses to individual senators’ follow-up questions are theirs to publish or not.

Here are two of the climate questions from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, with Mattis’ replies:

Shaheen: “I understand that while you were commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command you signed off on a document called the Joint Operating Environment, which listed climate change as one of the security threats the military will face in the next quarter-century. Do you believe climate change is a security threat?”

Mattis: “Climate change can be a driver of instability and the Department of Defense must pay attention to potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon.”

Shaheen: “General Mattis, how should the military prepare to address this threat?”

Mattis: “As I noted above, climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of government response. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Defense plays its appropriate role within such a response by addressing national security aspects.”

In a reply to another question, Mattis said:

“I agree that the effects of a changing climate — such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others — impact our security situation. I will ensure that the department continues to be prepared to conduct operations today and in the future, and that we are prepared to address the effects of a changing climate on our threat assessments, resources, and readiness.”

Here’s some recommended reading for those seeking more depth:

“Here’s How US Allies Are Trying to Convince Trump To Take Climate Change Seriously”

UN Dispatch, Feb. 22, 2017, by John Light

“

#leftpress #Trump Administration #news #resistance #politics

1 note · View note

csrgood · 5 years ago

Text

Ahead of World Water Day, Ceres Launches New Effort to Catalyze Capital Markets to Value Water As a Financial Risk

As climate change, population growth, and pollution increasingly threaten water availability and water quality around the globe, the sustainability nonprofit organization Ceres announced a major new effort today to catalyze influential capital market leaders to address the financial risks of the water crisis, and call on companies to take action.

As part of the effort, Ceres launched a new task force made up of some of the largest and most influential pension funds and banks to drive corporate action on water-related financial risks. The Valuing Water Finance Task Force aims to raise awareness within the capital markets of the widespread negative impacts of corporate practices on water supplies, and the industries and practices linked to the most severe and systemic of these impacts.

California State Controller Betty T. Yee, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and New York State Common Retirement Fund, California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS), Sweden’s Sjunde AP-fonden (AP7),Sweden’s Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB) and New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer are among its founding members.

“It is time investors demand more transparent reporting and better planning to safeguard our long-term investments,” said California State Controller Betty T. Yee, and a member of the Ceres’ Board of Directors. “Water availability and usage must be treated as critical components of the supply chain and manufacturing process at companies around the world.”

“Major investors like New York state’s pension fund have a unique opportunity to persuade corporate America that improved water stewardship and safe water supplies benefit everyone,” said New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund and a member of the Ceres’ Board of Directors. “It is part of our investment strategy to urge our portfolio companies to take action to address risks, such as water scarcity and pollution, that threaten the long-term value of our investments. The Valuing Water Finance Task Force will help articulate the steps needed to improve corporate water stewardship.”

Ceres has partnered with the Government of the Netherlands, which leads the global Valuing Water Initiative. Launched in January 2019, the initiative aims to demonstrate the implementation of the Valuing Water Principles, which were developed under the United Nations and World Bank High-Level Panel on Water to bring systemic change in the way water is valued in decision-making.

“We need to speak the language of the finance world and demonstrate how addressing water risks can build resilient investment and finance portfolios to get them to join our efforts on making better decisions impacting water,” said Ambika Jindal, Lead, Valuing Water Initiative, Government of the Netherlands. “With the Valuing Water Finance Task Force and the scientific community, we will make the financial sector aware of the materiality of drying, drowning, stranded and polluted assets which are being invested in and funded by financial institutions because often water is not taken into account in financial decision-making.”

While a range of scientific and academic research exists, to date, no organization has brought together this research in a way that succinctly summarizes – for the investor audience – the extent of the impacts, the industries involved, and the specific corporate practices that are draining and polluting our limited water resources. Using this research, combined with the latest financial evidence of the threats from unsustainable corporate practices, Ceres will build on the success it has already had in elevating water risk as a recognized financial issue, and strengthen the case for action.

In partnership with members of the Valuing Water Finance Task Force, and other members of the investment and corporate and broader stakeholder community, Ceres will develop a set of clear action steps for companies in key sectors to take in order to improve water stewardship.

“Capital markets have long treated water as infinite and of little value, leading to massive waste and misuse of the resource, imperiling ecosystems, human health, and long-term economic sustainability,” said Kirsten James, Director of Water at Ceres. “The Valuing Water Finance Task Force sends a clear signal from investors to companies to water-proof their businesses in order to mitigate risk and ensure long-term profitability in our water-stressed world.”

Ceres’ announcement comes ahead of World Water Day 2020 which brings awareness to the strong linkage between climate change and water. The World Economic Forum has consistently ranked climate action failure and the water crisis among the top-five global threats to economic growth and geopolitical stability for the last decade. Industry’s role in contributing to these threats - through overuse of groundwater and surface water supplies and pollution discharges -further exacerbate these issues.

source: https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/44184-Ahead-of-World-Water-Day-Ceres-Launches-New-Effort-to-Catalyze-Capital-Markets-to-Value-Water-As-a-Financial-Risk?tracking_source=rss

#CSR #corporate social responsibility #social good #philanthropy #employee engagement #workplace givi

0 notes

comicsbeat · 6 years ago

Text

Yes, it’s that time of the year where The Beat quizzes a wide swath of creators, journalists, retailers and other comics people for their upcoming projects, thoughts on the past and future of the industry, and inspirations. Huge thanks to everyone who took the time to participate, as you’ll find some very interesting takes on where we might be going below, as well as a ton of news about upcoming books. We’ll be running the survey in five parts as always, culminating in the naming of the Comics Industry Person of the Year.

Emma Vieceli, Comicker

2019 Projects: Having switched hats a bit this year, my biggest project for 2019 is a writing one: Life is Strange for Titan comics and Square Enix. I’ll of course be continuing with my co-created independent title,. Beyond that, some fun bit and bobs waiting to play out; aren’t there always? 😉

What was the biggest story in comics in 2018? There have been so many sadly negative stories in 2018, from genuine losses of talented and loved people to anger, upset and fury over the fact that some people still don’t seem able to just enjoy comics and all it can encompass, but I’m going to instead focus on the fact that I personally felt an injection of enthusiasm into the industry this year. Somehow it felt that a resilience and determination was instilled, perhaps to counter some of the negative in the world, generally. I’ve seen a lot of successes and excited friends. Creators are making transitions to new mediums and fans are getting behind them. It’s not a single news story, but it’s a joy seeing the waves of unification and enthusiasm that have risen up in my internet- bubble over the last year.

What will be the biggest story in comics in 2019? A generous billionaire shall swoop into the publishing industry and financially bolster us all. Industry-wide weekends and evenings shall be enforced and sick pay shall be introduced. The billionaire shall be loved and we’ll make a statue of them and hold an annual celebration of their greatness.

I’m pretty sure that’s what I heard, anyways.

What guilty pleasure (of any kind) are you looking forward to in 2019? Spending more time with my creator-owned baby, BREAKS. this year got very busy and I lost a lot of my buffer for uploading. I’m looking forward to some self-indulgent comicking 🙂

Who inspired you in 2018? Every single person who takes the time to contact me and say they’ve enjoyed what I’ve made. That is the biggest inspiration we can hope for. But I’ll also say Andrew James of Titan Comics – he was my editor for Doctor Who a couple of years back and was willing to take a chance and offer me my first monthly writing gig with Life is Strange. His confidence in me has been hugely inspiring and helped me do something I wasn’t sure I’d ever get a chance to.

Erica Schultz, Writer/Editor

2019 projects: The trade paperback of Twelve Devils Dancing comes out the first NCBD of January with a cover by Bill Sienkiewicz. The Good Fight anthology comes out next year. I’m working on a project with Emily Pearson, another with Liana Kangas, and a third with Stelladia.

What was the biggest story in comics in 2018? The passing of Stan Lee.

What will be the biggest story in comics in 2019? Captain Marvel’s film, and how Kelly Sue, Jaime McKelvie, Dave Lopez, and Dexter Soy set that story up to be amazing.

Jimmy Palmiotti, Creator-Writer

2019 Projects: Wonder Woman for DC 100 Walmart exclusive- Sex and Violence Vol. 3- Painkiller Jane mini- series and feature film- Random Acts of Violence feature film- Coney Island graphic novel and Mystery Marvel project.

What was the biggest story in comics in 2018? Sadly the passing of Stan Lee, one of my heroes and a friend, and on a positive note, the release of the DC 100 page exclusive comics for Walmart.

What will be the biggest story in comics in 2019? Creators once again separating themselves from the big companies to create their own characters mainly because the biggest companies out there do not involve the creators in the development, past comics, of characters they work on into film and TV and barely include them in a % of the license income they make off their images. This is a business that has no security for the talent as they get older, even though the biggest companies can easily help them and choose not to, and because of this, creators will be going elsewhere. An obvious and big reaction to this is we will see everything but the better selling titles take a huge hit and a ton of cancellations across the board. I also think this is the year where comics as a whole will be taking a hit unless things change really quickly.

What guilty pleasure (of any kind) are you looking forward to in 2019? More creator owned character development and spending some more time traveling and having fun with my wife.

Who inspired you in 2018? My wife, Amanda Conner, continues to inspire me each and every day to be a better person, work through my problems, and enjoy life… and not make it about work all the time. After so many years of hustling, what is important is becoming clearer because of her. I am thankful for that.

John Green, writer/artist

2019 Projects: The second book in my KITTEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY series, “A Bridge Too Fur,” comes out in Fall from First Second Books.

What was the biggest story in comics in 2018? Not so much a story, but news that the world heard (and felt) both within and outside of the comics industry was the passing of Stan Lee.

What will be the biggest story in comics in 2019? Hopefully something GOOD and not something scandalous or heartbreaking!

What guilty pleasure (of any kind) are you looking forward to in 2019? Probably the next Star Wars, I guess.

Joshua Frankel, Publisher, Z2 Comics

2019 Projects: Right now Z2 Comics has 8 books or so in production for next year 5-6 of them are some of our tentpole music books. The one coming out the soonest and that has been announced is the Ghost of Ohio. The book is by Andy Biersack (lead singer of the Black Veil Brides) Scott Tuft and Eryk Donovan. It is going to tie into Andy’s same named second solo album. We’re expecting big things out of the project. Aside from that of announced books we have Run The Dungeon and D&D comedy written by Patrick Kindlon and Drawn by Goran Gliogvic. Lastly we have Tales of The Music Makers a book showcasing people the Music Maker Relief fund have helped and draw by Gary Dumm.

Some of our biggest books this year will be announcing shortly after this article runs ( and one before most likely)

What was the biggest story in comics in 2018? I think the acquisition of of comic book companies by broader media companies is probably the biggest story. In a span of a year Millarworld got bought by Netflix, Valiant getting bought by DMG wholesale and now Darkhorse having a majority stake bought by a Chinese VC firm. As a broader story in the last couple of years there has been a flood of investment being poured into comics. That said despite all of this money being pushed in sales have shrunk at least in the direct market. It seems counterintuitive but investment in comics is actually not great for the market as a whole, though it does benefit the people working in the industry.

What will be the biggest story in comics in 2019? I hate to say it but I think the sugar rush of investment money is going to start to wear off. Your going to see a lot of comic companies either downsizing or folding up shop. The Lion Forge layoffs are probably just the tip of the iceberg. Also it should be noted it looks like the economy is about to slow down and possibly contract next year. This will most likely accelerate these trends

What guilty pleasure (of any kind) are you looking forward to in 2019? Probably some horrible new food that’s invented

Who inspired you in 2018? This is going to sound super pretentious but I read a book called On Grand Strategy by John Lewis Gaddis. His basic thesis is that to properly employ a grand strategy a certain cognitive dissonance is needed where one has to plan out details carefully but roll with the punches when those details change. He uses a few historical examples from Xerxes to FDR. Overall that idea has been very helpful in running Z2 in the last year.

Mark Newgarden. Cartoonist

2019 Projects: How To Re-Read Nancy What was the biggest story in comics in 2018? Stan Lee dies What guilty pleasure (of any kind) are you looking forward to in 2019? Big boy pants

Brian Fies, Cartoonist

2019 Projects: “A Fire Story” graphic novel, to be published by Abrams in March 2019, expands the 18-page Emmy Award-winning webcomic I posted after my home was destroyed in the California wildfires of October 2017. The 160-page full-color hardcover tells more of my family’s story as well as the stories of others affected by the fire, while also touching on issues of class and climate change.

What was the biggest story in comics in 2018? Stan Lee’s death, and the reflection on where comics came from and where they’re going that it prompted.

What guilty pleasure (of any kind) are you looking forward to in 2019? Whatever movies Marvel cranks out. They’re not all great, but they’ve all been entertaining.

Who inspired you in 2018? Carol Tyler always inspires me because she makes high-quality comics with outstanding heart and craftsmanship.

Peter Kuper, cartoonist

2019 Projects: Adapting Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness

What was the biggest story in comics in 2018? Too few books on climate change

What will be the biggest story in comics in 2019? More books on climate change

What guilty pleasure (of any kind) are you looking forward to in 2019? Going back to Oaxaca, Mexico

Julia Wertz, cartoonist

2019 Projects: I’m working on an autobiographical book about my last years in NYC, as well as keeping up with daily diary comics at Patreon

What was the biggest story in comics in 2018? Unfortunately, Cody Pickrodt’s lawsuit.

What will be the biggest story in comics in 2019? The resolution of that lawsuit, which I hope he loses.

What guilty pleasure (of any kind) are you looking forward to in 2019? It’s not really a guilty pleasure, more just a pleasure, but I always look forward to Gabrielle Bell’s diary comics

Who inspired you in 2018? Liana Finck, who’s book Passing for Human, was released this year and was really unique and interesting, and she also continues to churn out cartoons for the New Yorker and on her instagram that somehow distill the human condition into one hilarious panel.

Sarah Glidden, cartoonist

2019 Projects: I’ve been on maternity leave for the last 7 months but he’s about to go to day care two days a week so I’m excited to get back to work.

What was the biggest story in comics in 2018? Cody Pickrodt suing his alleged rape victim as well as ten other cartoonists, critics and publishers who came out in support of her is one of the most despicable uses of the legal system I’ve ever seen in the comics community.

What will be the biggest story in comics in 2019? When the 11 beat this lawsuit.

What guilty pleasure (of any kind) are you looking forward to in 2019? Paying a day care to take care of my son for a few days a week so I can work on comics, which financially makes zero sense.

Who inspired you in 2018? I could pretend its not my baby but who am I kidding? He makes me see the world differently.

Jeffrey Brown, cartoonist

2019 Projects: My new picture book, “My Teacher Is A Robot”, comes out in June

What was the biggest story in comics in 2018? Stan Lee passing away. Also, side note, how old and out of touch is Bill Maher to use Lee’s death as an opportunity to declare that the comics medium has no value?!

What will be the biggest story in comics in 2019? Barnes & Noble will experiment with a new kind of store that expands the graphic novel section, eliminates all other categories, and focuses on comics and pop culture related merchandise. The stores will work with Diamond Distributors and they’ll also sell a large selection of both new and out of print pamphlet comics.

Joe Casey, Renaissance Man

2019 Projects: March: JESUSFREAK with Benjamin Marra (Image Comics). April: SEX Vol. 6 with Piotr Kowalski (Image Comics).

What was the biggest story in comics in 2018? I don’t know how “big” a story it was, since death is an inevitable part of life, but we lost a lot of legends this year. Steve Ditko. Harlan Ellison. Jon Schnepp. Russ Heath. Gary Friedrich. Marie Severin. Norm Breyfogle. Carlos Ezquerra. Stan Lee. And that’s just a partial list.

What will be the biggest story in comics in 2019? Hopefully something that no one could’ve possibly predicted…

Jeff Trexler, Attorney

2019 Projects: TBA

What guilty pleasure (of any kind) are you looking forward to in 2019? The 50th Annual San Diego Comic-Con – guilty pleasure because every year i say I should stay in New York to work, but …

Who inspired you in 2018? Ashley Eckstein, who not only wrote the stellar inspirational memoir It’s Your Universe but justifiably made the annual Her Universe fashion show one of — and arguably the most — buzzed about events at Comic-Con. She’s also one of the best speakers I’ve ever seen; her book tour and the talk she gave to lawyers & designers from around the world at this year’s Fashion Law Bootcamp were an exemplary blend of inspirational uplift and practical strategic advice. And there are others in the fashion community who were especially inspiring for me this year: Douriean Fletcher, Allison Cimino, Tony Kim, Jaimie Cordero … getting to catch up with and learn from people like this at comic-cons is a big reason why I go.

The Beat's Annual Creator Survey Part 1: creators speak out on the buiggest stories of 2018 and what might be coming in 2019 Yes, it's that time of the year where The Beat quizzes a wide swath of creators, journalists, retailers and other comics people for their upcoming projects, thoughts on the past and future of the industry, and inspirations.

#2018 creator survey #ashley eckstein #Brian Fies #Emma Vieceli #erica schultz #jeff trexler #Jeffrey Brown #Jimmy Palmiotti #Joe Casey #John Green #Joshua Frankel #Julia Wertz #Mark Newgarden #Peter Kuper #Sarah Glidden

0 notes

nicolesrollins · 6 years ago

Text

Election Day showdown: Where the candidates stand on RE issues and who received big donations from the industry

(Click to enlarge)

As South Florida voters head to the polls this November, they’ll be met with an array of candidates from both sides of the aisle with platforms impacting a variety of real estate issues. Industry professionals are watching closely, opening up their wallets to candidates like former U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis (R), who’s running against Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum (D) in the race for governor.

Gillum pulled off a stunning upset in the August primary when he beat out Gwen Graham, Philip Levine, Jeff Greene and Chris King (now Gillum’s running mate), surprising those in South Florida’s real estate community who thought Graham and Levine, who both have strong industry ties, would battle it out for the nomination.

Across the state, candidates drew donations from big names in real estate like Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett and Vector Group CEO Howard Lorber, according to data from the Florida Division of Elections and the Federal Election Commission. TRD dug into those databases to learn who South Florida’s most prominent figures in real estate are supporting, considering only contributions of $1,000 or more from figures known in the local industry.

The Real Deal’s list of donors and donations is not comprehensive and includes donations to political action committees and political party committees, which explains why some totals exceed the limits that individuals can contribute. Individuals are maxed out at $2,700 per election to a federal candidate or the candidate’s campaign committee. But they can also give up to $5,000 to a political action committee. In Florida, individuals are capped at $3,000 to a candidate for statewide office, according to the Division of Elections.

In addition to candidates, voters will also decide on the fates of three major real estate projects, which TRD also reviews here.

U.S. Senator Bill Nelson Democrat Lives in: Orlando Net worth: Nelson was reportedly worth between $1.3 million and $6 million as of 2015, according to Opensecrets.org. In a financial disclosure report filed in mid-2017, he reported about $51,000 in annual retirement income from the state of Florida and about $23,000 from a Regions Bank IRA. He makes about $174,000 as a senator. Campaign war chest: Nelson had received contributions totaling $18.2 million as of Aug. 8, according to the most recent information available from the Federal Election Commission. He’s spent more than $5.3 million. Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

American Hotel and Lodging Association Political Action Committee, $10,000

American Senior Housing Association, $5,000

National Apartment Association Political Action Committee, $10,000

Christopher Asaro, president of Holt Construction Corp., $5,400

Climis Lascaris, president of Lascaris Design Group, $5,400

Wyndham Destinations Inc. Political Action Committee, $5,000

Cemex Inc. Employees PAC, $5,000

Property Casualty Insurers Association of America Political Action Committee, $3,500

Jonathan Tisch, CEO of Loews Hotels, $2,700

David M. Solomon, president of Goldman Sachs, $2,700

Ram Sundaram, partner at Goldman Sachs, $2,700

Chris Korge, partner at the Americas Group, $2,700

National Elevator Constructors PAC/International Union of Elevator Constructors, $1,000

Real Estate Issues on the Campaign Trail: Nelson supported increasing spending on affordable housing after tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans evacuated to Florida following Hurricane Maria last year. The Florida Realtors Association pushed lawmakers to fund the effort using real estate sales taxes that are supposed to be set aside for affordable housing but often get used for general costs.

The U.S. senator also claims he’s working to make it easier for homeowners to invest in solar installations, helping renewable energy companies grow in Florida and supporting infrastructure investment to create “more resilient coastlines,” according to his campaign.

Nelson has attacked Gov. Rick Scott for not doing enough to address the toxic blue-green algal blooms along the state’s east coast and red tide along the west coast, which he said hurt business and kept some homeowners away.

U.S. Senator Rick Scott Republican Lives in: Tallahassee and Naples, plus a home in Montana Net worth: $255 million Campaign War Chest: Scott’s campaign had raised $31.2 million and spent nearly $28 million as of Aug. 8. He’s the biggest donor to his own campaign, spending tens of millions of dollars. Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Leo Wells III, founder and CEO of Wells Real Estate Funds Inc., $13,500

Stephen Ross, chairman of the Related Companies, $13,500

Metro Development GrouP, a Tampa development firm, $12,700

Phillip and Patricia Frost, Philip is chairman and CEO of Opko Health and Vector Group’s largest shareholder, $10,800

Steven Witkoff, chairman and CEO of the Witkoff Group, $8,100

David Simon, CEO of Simon Property Group, $8,100

Arthur Falcone, chairman and CEO of Falcone Group, $5,400

Falcone & Associates, $5,400

Donald Soffer, founder and chairman of Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Jeffrey Soffer, co-CEO of Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Brooke Soffer, retail owner at the Fontainebleau Hotel Miami Beach, $5,400

Howard Lorber, chairman of Vector Group, $5,400

John Moriarty, owner of John Moriarty & Associates, $5,400

Bob Moss, chairman and CEO of Moss & Associates, $5,400

Richard LeFrak, chairman and CEO of LeFrak, $5,400

James LeFrak, vice chairman at LeFrak, $5,400

Harrison LeFrak, managing director at LeFrak, $5,400

Andrew Beal, real estate investor and founder and chairman of Beal Bank, $5,400

Real Estate Issues on the Campaign Trail: This year, Scott signed into law a business rent tax reduction to 5.7 percent from 5.8 percent, effective next Jan. 1. The cut reduces the sales tax that tenants pay for their commercial leases.

The 2018-2019 state budget, which Scott signed in March, included nearly $124 million for affordable housing, according to the Florida Realtors. The budget also set aside up to $500,000 for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation to combat unlicensed real estate activity. Additionally, the budget included more than $400 million for Everglades restoration, beach renourishment and springs protection, among other natural resources.

U.S. House of Representatives District 23 Debbie Wasserman Schultz Democrat Lives in: Weston Net worth: $107,000 as of 2015 Campaign war chest: $1.7 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Alan Lieberman, owner of South Beach Hotel Group, $10,400

Sheryl Tishman, wife of Daniel Tishman, $5,400

Alan Ginsburg of the CED Companies, $5,400

Paul Kukuruza, managing director of Paloma Partners, $5,400

Charles Abele, chairman and CEO of Gold Coast Florida Regional Center, $5,000

Chris Korge, partner at the Americas Group, $2,700

Daniel Tishman, principal and vice chairman of Tishman, $2,700

Real Estate Issues on the Campaign Trail: Wasserman Schultz, a moderate Democrat in Congress, voted against the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, legislation that exempts some banks from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. She also voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017.

U.S. House of Representatives District 23 Joe Kaufman Republican Lives in: Tamarac Net worth: Not available Campaign war chest: He’s raised $36,000, but he’s spent about $38,000. He had $387,000 in cash in his campaign account, plus debts of $89,900, primarily from his unsuccessful 2012, 2014 and 2016 campaigns for Congress. Biggest Donors in Real Estate: No real estate donors Real Estate Issues on the Campaign Trail: Kaufman’s platform includes his endorsement of downsizing or eliminating the IRS and lowering the corporate tax rate significantly. He supports using federal funding to create new bays and living shorelines and to bolster sea walls.

U.S. House of Representatives District 26 Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Democrat Lives in: Pinecrest Net worth: Nearly $661,000 as of 2016 Campaign war chest: $1.88 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Mary Wilkie-Ebrahimi, First Solar shareholder, $5,400

Farhad Ebrahimi, First Solar shareholder, $5,400

Donald Sussman, founder at Paloma Partners, $2,700

Kammy Moalemzadeh, founder and managing partner of Arcadia Investment Partners, $2,700

Joshua Easterly, CEO of TPG Specialty Lending, $2,700

Nicholas Pritzker, co-founder and principal of Tao Capital Management, $2,700

Isaac Pritzker, director of venture equities at Tao Capital Management, $2,700

James Attwood Jr., managing director of the Carlyle Group, $2,700

Jeffrey Sussman, president of Property Group Partners, $2,700

Louis Wolfson III, founding partner of Pinnacle Housing Group, $2,000

Jill Soffer, interior designer, $2,000

Lyle Stern, president of Koniver Stern Group, $1,000

Michael Adler, chairman and CEO of Adler Group, $1,000

Real Estate Issues on the Campaign Trail: Mucarsel-Powell’s campaign touches on combating sea level rise through investing in infrastructure.

U.S. House of Representatives District 26 Carlos Curbelo Republican Lives in: Miami Net worth: $1.5 million as of 2015 Campaign war chest: $3.76 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Armando Codina, executive chairman of Codina Partners, $10,400

Real Estate Roundtable Political Action Committee, $8,500

Jose Mas, CEO of MasTec, $8,100

Jorge Mas Canosa, chairman of MasTec, $8,100

Matthew Rieger, president and CEO, Housing Trust Group, $5,400

Daniel Loeb, founder and CEO of Third Point Management, $5,400

Florida East Coast Industries LLC/Good Government Committee, $5,000

Jose Ferreira de Melo, president of the Melo Group, $2,700

Martin Ferreira de Melo, principal at the Melo Group, $2,700

Pedro Munilla, principal at MCM, $2,700

Real Estate Issues on the Campaign Trail: Curbelo calls himself a “positive voice on the issues of climate change … even when I have to break from my party to do so,” according to his website. He supports protecting the Everglades and water quality, especially in the Florida Keys. Curbelo has also advocated for alleviating the affordable housing crisis in the Keys.

U.S. House of Representatives District 27 Donna Shalala Democrat Lives in: Coral Gables Net worth: Between $4.6 million and $13.5 million Campaign war chest: $2.08 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Jeffrey Krasnoff, founder and CEO of Rialto Capital Management, $5,400

Jackie Soffer, co-CEO of Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Louise Sunshine, real estate consultant, $5,400

Carol Soffer, art consultant at Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Rita Soffer, $5,400

Marsha Soffer, manager at Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Brooke Soffer, Realtor, $5,400

Craig Robins, president and CEO of Dacra, $5,400

Ed Easton, chairman and CEO of the Easton Group, $5,400

Stuart Miller, executive chairman of Lennar Corporation, $5,400

Warren Buffett, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, $2,700

Louis Wolfson III, founding partner of Pinnacle Housing Group, $5,400

Arnaud Karsenti, managing principal at 13th Floor Investments, $2,700

Jill Soffer, interior designer, $2,700

Todd Glaser, developer, $2,700

Real Estate Issues on the Campaign Trail: The former University of Miami president has ties to housing. She was assistant secretary for policy development and research at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and before that was on the board of Lennar Corporation. On the environment, her platform includes investing in clean energy infrastructure, encouraging the installation of solar panels in homes and tightening efficiency standards.

Attorney General Sean Shaw Democrat Lives in: Tampa Net worth: $745,000 Campaign war chest: $1.49 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Philip Levine, developer and CEO of Royal Media Partners, $1,000

247 Miracle Mile LLC, a Terranova Corp. entity led by Stephen Bittel and Mindy McIlroy, $1,000

Better Future LLC, a company led by Terranova’s Bittel and Scott Fitzgerard, $1,000

Blue Sky Communities, a multifamily firm based in Tampa, $500

Real Estate Issues on the Campaign Trail: At the Trump International Beach Resort in Sunny Isles Beach in September, Shaw vowed to look into whether Russians used Trump properties to launder money. Shaw compared his competition to “an extension of Pam Bondi” — a reference to the current attorney general’s decision to not investigate Trump University.

Attorney General Ashley Moody Republican Lives in: Tampa Net worth: $3 million Campaign war chest: $3.72 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Companies tied to Tampa developer Stephen Dibbs, $10,000

Companies tied to Cargor Partners, a Bradenton homebuilder, $9,000

Continental Pacific, a commercial real estate firm, $3,000

Brent Sembler, vice chairman of the Sembler Company, $4,000

James Terlizzi, CEO of Peachtree Settlement Funding, $3,000

Third Lake Capital, $3,000

Barrow Realty, $3,000

The St. Joe Company of Watersound, Florida, $3,000

Patrick Neal, founder of Neal Communities, $3,000

Marta Batsmanian, Palm Beach commercial investor, $3,000

Jimmy Tate’s Tate Development Corporation, $3,000

Rayonier, timberland real estate investment trust, $3,000

Louis Wolfson III, founding partner at Pinnacle Housing Group, $3,000

Ron Bergeron, CEO of the Bergeron Family of Companies, $3,000

Michael Belisle, office manager of Linda A. Gary Real Estate, $3,000

The Celebration Company, $2,500

Mel Sembler, founder of the Sembler Company, $2,000

Rodney Barreto’s Coral Gables Title and Escrow, $1,000

Michael Adler, chairman and CEO of Adler Group, $1,000

Real Estate Issues on the Campaign Trail: Moody won the endorsements of the Florida Home Builders and the Florida Realtors PACs and the Associated Builders and Contractors of Florida. The construction trade group cited her “support of reducing barriers to increase innovation and promote job creation.” Moody also picked up Miami Mayor Francis Suarez’s endorsement.

from The Real Deal Miami & Real Estate News News | & Curbed Miami - All https://therealdeal.com/miami/issues_articles/election-day-showdown/#new_tab via IFTTT

#IFTTT #The Real Deal Miami & Real Estate News News | & Curbed Miami - All

0 notes

walterfrodriguez · 6 years ago

Text

Election Day showdown: Where the candidates stand on RE issues and who received big donations from the industry

(Click to enlarge)

In addition to candidates, voters will also decide on the fates of three major real estate projects, which TRD also reviews here.

American Hotel and Lodging Association Political Action Committee, $10,000

American Senior Housing Association, $5,000

National Apartment Association Political Action Committee, $10,000

Christopher Asaro, president of Holt Construction Corp., $5,400

Climis Lascaris, president of Lascaris Design Group, $5,400

Wyndham Destinations Inc. Political Action Committee, $5,000

Cemex Inc. Employees PAC, $5,000

Property Casualty Insurers Association of America Political Action Committee, $3,500

Jonathan Tisch, CEO of Loews Hotels, $2,700

David M. Solomon, president of Goldman Sachs, $2,700

Ram Sundaram, partner at Goldman Sachs, $2,700

Chris Korge, partner at the Americas Group, $2,700

National Elevator Constructors PAC/International Union of Elevator Constructors, $1,000

Leo Wells III, founder and CEO of Wells Real Estate Funds Inc., $13,500

Stephen Ross, chairman of the Related Companies, $13,500

Metro Development GrouP, a Tampa development firm, $12,700

Phillip and Patricia Frost, Philip is chairman and CEO of Opko Health and Vector Group’s largest shareholder, $10,800

Steven Witkoff, chairman and CEO of the Witkoff Group, $8,100

David Simon, CEO of Simon Property Group, $8,100

Arthur Falcone, chairman and CEO of Falcone Group, $5,400

Falcone & Associates, $5,400

Donald Soffer, founder and chairman of Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Jeffrey Soffer, co-CEO of Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Brooke Soffer, retail owner at the Fontainebleau Hotel Miami Beach, $5,400

Howard Lorber, chairman of Vector Group, $5,400

John Moriarty, owner of John Moriarty & Associates, $5,400

Bob Moss, chairman and CEO of Moss & Associates, $5,400

Richard LeFrak, chairman and CEO of LeFrak, $5,400

James LeFrak, vice chairman at LeFrak, $5,400

Harrison LeFrak, managing director at LeFrak, $5,400

Andrew Beal, real estate investor and founder and chairman of Beal Bank, $5,400

U.S. House of Representatives District 23 Debbie Wasserman Schultz Democrat Lives in: Weston Net worth: $107,000 as of 2015 Campaign war chest: $1.7 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Alan Lieberman, owner of South Beach Hotel Group, $10,400

Sheryl Tishman, wife of Daniel Tishman, $5,400

Alan Ginsburg of the CED Companies, $5,400

Paul Kukuruza, managing director of Paloma Partners, $5,400

Charles Abele, chairman and CEO of Gold Coast Florida Regional Center, $5,000

Chris Korge, partner at the Americas Group, $2,700

Daniel Tishman, principal and vice chairman of Tishman, $2,700

U.S. House of Representatives District 26 Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Democrat Lives in: Pinecrest Net worth: Nearly $661,000 as of 2016 Campaign war chest: $1.88 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Mary Wilkie-Ebrahimi, First Solar shareholder, $5,400

Farhad Ebrahimi, First Solar shareholder, $5,400

Donald Sussman, founder at Paloma Partners, $2,700

Kammy Moalemzadeh, founder and managing partner of Arcadia Investment Partners, $2,700

Joshua Easterly, CEO of TPG Specialty Lending, $2,700

Nicholas Pritzker, co-founder and principal of Tao Capital Management, $2,700

Isaac Pritzker, director of venture equities at Tao Capital Management, $2,700

James Attwood Jr., managing director of the Carlyle Group, $2,700

Jeffrey Sussman, president of Property Group Partners, $2,700

Louis Wolfson III, founding partner of Pinnacle Housing Group, $2,000

Jill Soffer, interior designer, $2,000

Lyle Stern, president of Koniver Stern Group, $1,000

Michael Adler, chairman and CEO of Adler Group, $1,000

Real Estate Issues on the Campaign Trail: Mucarsel-Powell’s campaign touches on combating sea level rise through investing in infrastructure.

U.S. House of Representatives District 26 Carlos Curbelo Republican Lives in: Miami Net worth: $1.5 million as of 2015 Campaign war chest: $3.76 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Armando Codina, executive chairman of Codina Partners, $10,400

Real Estate Roundtable Political Action Committee, $8,500

Jose Mas, CEO of MasTec, $8,100

Jorge Mas Canosa, chairman of MasTec, $8,100

Matthew Rieger, president and CEO, Housing Trust Group, $5,400

Daniel Loeb, founder and CEO of Third Point Management, $5,400

Florida East Coast Industries LLC/Good Government Committee, $5,000

Jose Ferreira de Melo, president of the Melo Group, $2,700

Martin Ferreira de Melo, principal at the Melo Group, $2,700

Pedro Munilla, principal at MCM, $2,700

Jeffrey Krasnoff, founder and CEO of Rialto Capital Management, $5,400

Jackie Soffer, co-CEO of Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Louise Sunshine, real estate consultant, $5,400

Carol Soffer, art consultant at Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Rita Soffer, $5,400

Marsha Soffer, manager at Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Brooke Soffer, Realtor, $5,400

Craig Robins, president and CEO of Dacra, $5,400

Ed Easton, chairman and CEO of the Easton Group, $5,400

Stuart Miller, executive chairman of Lennar Corporation, $5,400

Warren Buffett, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, $2,700

Louis Wolfson III, founding partner of Pinnacle Housing Group, $5,400

Arnaud Karsenti, managing principal at 13th Floor Investments, $2,700

Jill Soffer, interior designer, $2,700

Todd Glaser, developer, $2,700

Attorney General Sean Shaw Democrat Lives in: Tampa Net worth: $745,000 Campaign war chest: $1.49 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Philip Levine, developer and CEO of Royal Media Partners, $1,000

247 Miracle Mile LLC, a Terranova Corp. entity led by Stephen Bittel and Mindy McIlroy, $1,000

Better Future LLC, a company led by Terranova’s Bittel and Scott Fitzgerard, $1,000

Blue Sky Communities, a multifamily firm based in Tampa, $500

Attorney General Ashley Moody Republican Lives in: Tampa Net worth: $3 million Campaign war chest: $3.72 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Companies tied to Tampa developer Stephen Dibbs, $10,000

Companies tied to Cargor Partners, a Bradenton homebuilder, $9,000

Continental Pacific, a commercial real estate firm, $3,000

Brent Sembler, vice chairman of the Sembler Company, $4,000

James Terlizzi, CEO of Peachtree Settlement Funding, $3,000

Third Lake Capital, $3,000

Barrow Realty, $3,000

The St. Joe Company of Watersound, Florida, $3,000

Patrick Neal, founder of Neal Communities, $3,000

Marta Batsmanian, Palm Beach commercial investor, $3,000

Jimmy Tate’s Tate Development Corporation, $3,000

Rayonier, timberland real estate investment trust, $3,000

Louis Wolfson III, founding partner at Pinnacle Housing Group, $3,000

Ron Bergeron, CEO of the Bergeron Family of Companies, $3,000

Michael Belisle, office manager of Linda A. Gary Real Estate, $3,000

The Celebration Company, $2,500

Mel Sembler, founder of the Sembler Company, $2,000

Rodney Barreto’s Coral Gables Title and Escrow, $1,000

Michael Adler, chairman and CEO of Adler Group, $1,000

from The Real Deal Miami & Real Estate News News | & Curbed Miami - All https://therealdeal.com/miami/issues_articles/election-day-showdown/#new_tab via IFTTT

#The Real Deal Miami & Real Estate News News | & Curbed Miami - All

0 notes

juditmiltz · 6 years ago

Text

Election Day showdown: Where the candidates stand on RE issues and who received big donations from the industry

(Click to enlarge)

In addition to candidates, voters will also decide on the fates of three major real estate projects, which TRD also reviews here.

American Hotel and Lodging Association Political Action Committee, $10,000

American Senior Housing Association, $5,000

National Apartment Association Political Action Committee, $10,000

Christopher Asaro, president of Holt Construction Corp., $5,400

Climis Lascaris, president of Lascaris Design Group, $5,400

Wyndham Destinations Inc. Political Action Committee, $5,000

Cemex Inc. Employees PAC, $5,000

Property Casualty Insurers Association of America Political Action Committee, $3,500

Jonathan Tisch, CEO of Loews Hotels, $2,700

David M. Solomon, president of Goldman Sachs, $2,700

Ram Sundaram, partner at Goldman Sachs, $2,700

Chris Korge, partner at the Americas Group, $2,700

National Elevator Constructors PAC/International Union of Elevator Constructors, $1,000

Leo Wells III, founder and CEO of Wells Real Estate Funds Inc., $13,500

Stephen Ross, chairman of the Related Companies, $13,500

Metro Development GrouP, a Tampa development firm, $12,700

Phillip and Patricia Frost, Philip is chairman and CEO of Opko Health and Vector Group’s largest shareholder, $10,800

Steven Witkoff, chairman and CEO of the Witkoff Group, $8,100

David Simon, CEO of Simon Property Group, $8,100

Arthur Falcone, chairman and CEO of Falcone Group, $5,400

Falcone & Associates, $5,400

Donald Soffer, founder and chairman of Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Jeffrey Soffer, co-CEO of Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Brooke Soffer, retail owner at the Fontainebleau Hotel Miami Beach, $5,400

Howard Lorber, chairman of Vector Group, $5,400

John Moriarty, owner of John Moriarty & Associates, $5,400

Bob Moss, chairman and CEO of Moss & Associates, $5,400

Richard LeFrak, chairman and CEO of LeFrak, $5,400

James LeFrak, vice chairman at LeFrak, $5,400

Harrison LeFrak, managing director at LeFrak, $5,400

Andrew Beal, real estate investor and founder and chairman of Beal Bank, $5,400

U.S. House of Representatives District 23 Debbie Wasserman Schultz Democrat Lives in: Weston Net worth: $107,000 as of 2015 Campaign war chest: $1.7 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Alan Lieberman, owner of South Beach Hotel Group, $10,400

Sheryl Tishman, wife of Daniel Tishman, $5,400

Alan Ginsburg of the CED Companies, $5,400

Paul Kukuruza, managing director of Paloma Partners, $5,400

Charles Abele, chairman and CEO of Gold Coast Florida Regional Center, $5,000

Chris Korge, partner at the Americas Group, $2,700

Daniel Tishman, principal and vice chairman of Tishman, $2,700

U.S. House of Representatives District 26 Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Democrat Lives in: Pinecrest Net worth: Nearly $661,000 as of 2016 Campaign war chest: $1.88 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Mary Wilkie-Ebrahimi, First Solar shareholder, $5,400

Farhad Ebrahimi, First Solar shareholder, $5,400

Donald Sussman, founder at Paloma Partners, $2,700

Kammy Moalemzadeh, founder and managing partner of Arcadia Investment Partners, $2,700

Joshua Easterly, CEO of TPG Specialty Lending, $2,700

Nicholas Pritzker, co-founder and principal of Tao Capital Management, $2,700

Isaac Pritzker, director of venture equities at Tao Capital Management, $2,700

James Attwood Jr., managing director of the Carlyle Group, $2,700

Jeffrey Sussman, president of Property Group Partners, $2,700

Louis Wolfson III, founding partner of Pinnacle Housing Group, $2,000

Jill Soffer, interior designer, $2,000

Lyle Stern, president of Koniver Stern Group, $1,000

Michael Adler, chairman and CEO of Adler Group, $1,000

Real Estate Issues on the Campaign Trail: Mucarsel-Powell’s campaign touches on combating sea level rise through investing in infrastructure.

U.S. House of Representatives District 26 Carlos Curbelo Republican Lives in: Miami Net worth: $1.5 million as of 2015 Campaign war chest: $3.76 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Armando Codina, executive chairman of Codina Partners, $10,400

Real Estate Roundtable Political Action Committee, $8,500

Jose Mas, CEO of MasTec, $8,100

Jorge Mas Canosa, chairman of MasTec, $8,100

Matthew Rieger, president and CEO, Housing Trust Group, $5,400

Daniel Loeb, founder and CEO of Third Point Management, $5,400

Florida East Coast Industries LLC/Good Government Committee, $5,000

Jose Ferreira de Melo, president of the Melo Group, $2,700

Martin Ferreira de Melo, principal at the Melo Group, $2,700

Pedro Munilla, principal at MCM, $2,700

Jeffrey Krasnoff, founder and CEO of Rialto Capital Management, $5,400

Jackie Soffer, co-CEO of Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Louise Sunshine, real estate consultant, $5,400

Carol Soffer, art consultant at Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Rita Soffer, $5,400

Marsha Soffer, manager at Turnberry Associates, $5,400

Brooke Soffer, Realtor, $5,400

Craig Robins, president and CEO of Dacra, $5,400

Ed Easton, chairman and CEO of the Easton Group, $5,400

Stuart Miller, executive chairman of Lennar Corporation, $5,400

Warren Buffett, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, $2,700

Louis Wolfson III, founding partner of Pinnacle Housing Group, $5,400

Arnaud Karsenti, managing principal at 13th Floor Investments, $2,700

Jill Soffer, interior designer, $2,700

Todd Glaser, developer, $2,700

Attorney General Sean Shaw Democrat Lives in: Tampa Net worth: $745,000 Campaign war chest: $1.49 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Philip Levine, developer and CEO of Royal Media Partners, $1,000

247 Miracle Mile LLC, a Terranova Corp. entity led by Stephen Bittel and Mindy McIlroy, $1,000

Better Future LLC, a company led by Terranova’s Bittel and Scott Fitzgerard, $1,000

Blue Sky Communities, a multifamily firm based in Tampa, $500

Attorney General Ashley Moody Republican Lives in: Tampa Net worth: $3 million Campaign war chest: $3.72 million Biggest Donors in Real Estate:

Companies tied to Tampa developer Stephen Dibbs, $10,000

Companies tied to Cargor Partners, a Bradenton homebuilder, $9,000

Continental Pacific, a commercial real estate firm, $3,000

Brent Sembler, vice chairman of the Sembler Company, $4,000

James Terlizzi, CEO of Peachtree Settlement Funding, $3,000

Third Lake Capital, $3,000

Barrow Realty, $3,000

The St. Joe Company of Watersound, Florida, $3,000

Patrick Neal, founder of Neal Communities, $3,000

Marta Batsmanian, Palm Beach commercial investor, $3,000

Jimmy Tate’s Tate Development Corporation, $3,000

Rayonier, timberland real estate investment trust, $3,000

Louis Wolfson III, founding partner at Pinnacle Housing Group, $3,000

Ron Bergeron, CEO of the Bergeron Family of Companies, $3,000

Michael Belisle, office manager of Linda A. Gary Real Estate, $3,000

The Celebration Company, $2,500

Mel Sembler, founder of the Sembler Company, $2,000

Rodney Barreto’s Coral Gables Title and Escrow, $1,000

Michael Adler, chairman and CEO of Adler Group, $1,000

from The Real Deal Miami https://therealdeal.com/miami/issues_articles/election-day-showdown/#new_tab via IFTTT

#The Real Deal Miami

0 notes

theconservativebrief · 7 years ago

Link

Former Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi and John Breaux of Louisiana, longtime lobbyists and two of big oil’s most devoted servants, have formed a new political action committee. It is dedicated to the passage of a carbon tax.

Wait … what?

Yes, it is true: The PAC is called Americans for Carbon Dividends (AFCD) and it is educating the public about, and lobbying for, a policy called carbon tax-and-dividend. More specifically, it is pushing a proposal that was released last year by a nonprofit called the Climate Leadership Council (CLC), led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III. AFCD is effectively the lobbying arm of the CLC.

The plan would impose a carbon tax starting at $40, “rising gradually” at an as-yet-unspecified rate, with all the revenue returned as per-capita dividends — rebates to individual citizens that the group estimates will start around $2,000 a year for a family of four.

AFCD’s CEO, the conservative author and speaker Ted Halstead, has helped bring on board a who’s who of Washington insiders. RTO Insider reports:

In addition to bringing on Hill+Knowlton to handle communications, Americans for Carbon Dividends has hired Squire Patton Boggs — where Lott and Breaux are senior counsels — as lobbyist and Margaret Lauderback, an ally of Rick Perry and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, to lead fundraising. Political consultant Mark McKinnon, a former advisor to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former President George W. Bush, and Joe Lockhart, White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton, have signed on as senior advisers. Former Bush aide Karen Hughes is of counsel.

Former Federal Reserve Chairs Janet Yellen and Ben Bernanke and former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, all founding members of the CLC, have also signed on to the new effort.

So far, funders include Exelon, the operator of America’s largest nuclear fleet, First Solar, and the American Wind Energy Association. Four big oil companies, Exxon Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and Total SA supported the CLC proposal and are said to be mulling donations to AFCB.

You might think a coalition of Bush-era lobbyists and big energy corporations pushing a carbon tax would raise some suspicion. But in the course of a somewhat credulous story on the subject, the New York Times’s John Schwartz quotes Yellen saying, “It’s something that may command bipartisan consensus.”

Similarly, Tom Kiernan, the CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), told Greentech Media, “We see this as a valuable opportunity to join a bipartisan conversation on carbon policy.”

This policy is not bipartisan in any meaningful sense, it is not likely to be political popular, it’s not all that great as policy to being with, and it is naive to see it as a gambit that arises primarily, or even tangentially, from environmental concerns. It is first and foremost a bid by oil and gas and nuclear to secure the gentlest and most predictable possible energy transition.

More broadly, it is the US Climate Action Partnership all over again. That was the effort, starting around 2006, to develop a climate bill that big, polluting industries would support. The idea was that support from such companies, combined with support from establishment green groups, would lend the effort credibility and political momentum. Instead, it yielded a compromised bill that no one loved, which died a lonely death in the Senate in 2010.

The folks behind AFCB think they’re avoiding the big mistake of that episode: a policy too complicated to explain. And the tax-and-dividend idea is certainly simpler than cap-and-trade. But the biggest mistake of the 2008-era climate policy push was not the policy, it was the belief that corporate support is the key to climate policy.

Climate activists in 2006 couldn’t have understood the political situation into which their policy would be released, but there’s no such excuse today. The fact is that the political model ACCD represents — start in the very sensible bipartisan center and expand from there — hasn’t been fruitful for many years in the US. There’s certainly no reason to think it will work better any time soon.

Anyone who has followed the careers of Trent Lott and John Breaux — former leaders of the Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats respectively — knows that they are creatures of a bygone era. Bipartisanship has been declining in the US for decades, but its last redoubt was the kind of bipartisanship Lott and Breaux represented, i.e., the purely transactional, corporate-friendly kind.

From the moment they left the Senate, they’ve been lobbying, first at their own firm, the Breaux–Lott Leadership Group, and now at Squire Patton Boggs, which has represented everything from Shell to solar companies.

In fact, Lott, who resigned from his leadership position in disgrace after praising segregationist Strom Thurmond’s run for president, left the Senate early in part to avoid the recently passed Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which would have prevented him from lobbying for two years after leaving the Senate.

This new PAC is a pure industry effort, a coalition of energy groups from almost every big energy sector except coal, backed by industry-friend lobbyists.

There are two ways for climate-concerned folk on the left to react to something like this. One is to think, gosh, climate change is such a compelling and urgent problem that even oil companies and lobbyists have seen the error of their ways. And if they’re willing to help, gosh, we should make every effort to meet them halfway. Let’s signal that we’re eager to compromise.

This is the way of the Very Sensible Centrist. But it’s utterly disconnected from anything going on in US politics right now — a kind of enforced naivety that centrists too often mistake for virtue.

Another way to react might be to see the industry bid through the lens of power, to think about how to get more and better. Oil companies are giving ground? Push harder. That’s what Republicans would do.

To understand the political economy of a carbon tax, it helps to understand the motivations of the industries involved, which do not always overlap. It’s easy to understand why coal wouldn’t endorse a carbon tax, and why wind and solar would. Oil and gas and nuclear and more interesting cases.

For oil and gas, there are two key considerations.

First, US climate policy now seems inevitable. Even though is has been kept bottled up in Congress, and Trump is now squashing it at the federal agency level, it is busting out all over in states and cities, some of which are making plans to switch to 100 percent renewable electricity and ban gas and diesel cars in a few decades, among many other diverse initiatives.

Federally, there’s still the danger that Obama regulations like the Clean Power Plan could survive Trump’s crude attempts to overturn them. (See Mike Grunwald on “the myth of Scott Pruitt’s EPA rollback.”)

Overall, it makes for an extremely volatile and unpredictable policy environment — or rather, dozens of disparate policy environments. And oil and gas companies know that Trump won’t be in power forever. Democrats will return to federal power eventually, and when they do, they will have an appetite for bold climate policy.

Basically, oil and gas sees a big wave of climate policies building. That is what Lott meant when he told the Wall Street Journal that “the tide is turning on the realization that something needs to be done in this area.” He didn’t mean “we’ve been doing some reading and realized we were terribly wrong.” He meant “the jig is up.”

Thus the inclusion of two key provisions in the AFCD proposal.

First, EPA regulations meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, like the Clean Power Plan, would be revoked, allegedly rendered unnecessary. (It’s unclear exactly which regulations are included.) And second, energy companies would be given immunity to climate-based lawsuits like several currently underway, a provision climate activists are certain to oppose.

In short, this proposal would radically simplify the federal climate policy landscape, giving oil and gas lobbyists a single target. And oil and gas would use it to argue against further policy at the state level.

The second political consideration for oil and gas companies is even more mercenary. Under any economy-wide carbon tax, it will coal that’s hit first and hardest. And what’s bad for coal is good for natural gas, at least in the short-term. Especially absent further policy, a price on carbon will leave oil quite healthy for quite some time. Oil and gas don’t have to be faster than the bear — they just have to be faster than coal.

As for nuclear, it faces some urgent short-term problems. It is in a tough spot in the US, with several plants closing. Currently, it is stuck in an unsavory marriage of convenience with coal, begging for federal bailouts for “baseload” plants in the name of “resiliency,” a transparently fraudulent case that is winning the industry no friends.

From both a long-term strategic and short-term PR perspective, the nuclear industry would much rather be in an alliance with oil and gas, pushing for a price on carbon, which is the one policy that could truly save its bacon. That way, it can look virtuous and environmental instead of desperate.

This is not an attempt by Republicans to get Republicans in Congress to pass climate legislation.

Bush-era Republicans are out of favor in the party. These lobbyists know as well as anyone else that there is absolutely zero chance that today’s Republican Party will be involved in the passage of a new tax, a thing it hates above all else, to address a problem it views as a liberal fantasy.

Today the establishment press (once again) fell for an old line. WSJ Headline: “Conservative Group will push for Carbon Tax” They cite lobbyist Trent Lott as “conservative” Every single Republican in congress has voted to “never” pass a carbon tax. GOP platform opposes same.

— Grover Norquist (@GroverNorquist) June 20, 2018

So what’s the point of the proposal? The calculation is that eventually Democrats will be in power again, but their majorities will be narrow and their chance at substantial legislation will be fleeting. In that circumstance, they will need some Republican votes to overcome a filibuster and pass anything big. Those few Republican “moderates” — assuming anything by that name still exists — will have enormous power to set an upper bound on the effort’s ambitions.

This proposal is a signal to Democrats and center-leftists that tax-and-dividend is the Respectable Middle, a good-faith starting point for bipartisan debate. Democrats don’t really have a clear sense of their own climate policy preferences at the moment, so a certain faction of the party is certain to embrace the opportunity to be “reasonable” about it.

Of course, any tax that passes through any conceivable Congress will not end up looking like nice, clean cap-and-dividend program. It will get larded up with favors to win over various constituencies. Such is democracy. But precisely detailing the policy is not the point.

Above all, the point is to establish a simple principle as the starting point for debate: no carbon revenue should go to the government or be spent by the government. “The dividend changes everything,” Lott told the WSJ, in the story’s most revealing quote. “The money goes back to the people instead of into the dark, deep hole of the federal government.”

This is a message to Democrats: In the event you need the support of big oil and a few transactional Republicans to pass climate policy, our baseline is no revenue to the government, no new spending, no other climate regulations, no climate lawsuits.

The non-profit, James Baker-led CLC is “bipartisan” in the very odd DC usage of the term, which is that a tiny handful of Republicans and Democrats support it.

Why would Democrats who actually care about climate change go for it?

There are two possible reasons: a) it’s super popular and has a good chance of passing, or b) it’s such good policy that it’s worth backing, even with long odds.

But neither is true.

There is no evidence that pricing carbon — the climate policy with the most transparently punitive effects on average voters — is the most popular climate strategy. In practice, it has proven quite difficult. Virtually every wonk and analyst agrees that it’s important, but voters are voters, and they like supporting “good”s more than they like punishing “bad”s, especially when they’re the bads.

A climate policy seeking popularity will foreground goods, like renewable energy, which everyone loves, and leave the taxing of bads in the background, as a funding mechanism.

Similarly, there’s not much evidence that dividends are the key to helping the medicine of carbon taxes go down. In surveys, the public generally prefers uses of carbon revenue that are targeted at reducing carbon, like support for renewable energy (again: goods). That makes sense to people. Taking the money and then giving it back, in an endless game of bureaucratic whirligig, does not seem to grab them the way it grabs wonks.

AFCD released a poll of its own; its online survey of 2,000 likely voters showed support for tax-and-dividend at 56 to 26 percent. But the question was absurdly slanted in favor of the policy.

As you may know, some leading figures in the Republican party have proposed taxing fossil fuel companies on their carbon emissions and rebating all the money directly to all Americans through a monthly check. This new climate solution is called ”carbon dividends” because all households would receive a monthly cash dividend as part of an effort to combat climate change. Would you favor or oppose this plan?

A climate “solution” Republicans support? I’ll get a monthly check? It sounds pretty good, floating there in isolation on an online survey!

Of course, in the real world, voters will hear a few other salient facts. The “leading figures” are retired, out-of-power lobbyists. The GOP steadfastly opposes the policy, both institutionally and almost unanimously. The tax would ultimately fall on consumers, raising the cost of energy and everything that uses energy.

The New York Times says it’s a “plan to fight climate change by taxing greenhouse gas emissions and giving the revenue to American taxpayers.” What sense does it make to take money and then give it back? Just to give bureaucrats something to do? And who’s to say the government won’t grab the revenue for something else whenever it pleases?

The attack ads write themselves. That’s probably why, for all its endlessly touted bipartisan appeal, no actual bipartisan carbon tax-and-dividend bill has passed anywhere.

Well, okay, but is it good policy, worth dying on a hill for?

Meh.

First off, there’s no way to judge the CLC as a carbon-reduction policy, because the rate of increase in the tax isn’t defined. There’s literally no way to know what effect it would have on carbon emissions.

CLC is pushing this study, which is written by a guy who “has worked at every level of the coal and oil and gas industries” and a guy who was previously at the National Association of Manufacturers, which purports to show that the CLC plan would reduce carbon almost twice as much as Obama regulations by 2025.

CLC

Of course, the relevant comparison is not CLC vs. Obama regulations, it’s CLC vs. competing climate policy proposals. But more to the point, the authors of the study simply stipulate an escalation rate of 3 to 5 percent a year — the CLC council “has not yet settled on a final escalation rate.”

Contrast that to a similar proposal (albeit one that would leave EPA regulations in place) from Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), which he reintroduced last year. Whitehouse says:

Our bill sets the 2018 fee per ton of carbon emitted at $49, the central range of the social cost of carbon last estimated by the Office of Management and Budget. That fee would increase each year at a real 2 percent until emissions fall 80 percent below 2005 levels, and then follow inflation.

Clear enough! (The bill, also a dividend plan, was a bit of outreach to Republicans. The results were predictable to everyone, possibly including Whitehouse.)

It’s unclear how fast the ACFD tax is meant to rise, and so unclear what it would do. “If the language says the tax will increase over time without defining the actual increase,” Robbie Orvis, director of energy policy design at Energy Innovation, told me, “the long-term economic and emissions effect of this tax are impossible to accurately predict.”

A future Congress will determine both the level of the tax and the rate of escalation, which means it will determine the strength of the proposal — and there’s no way to know how strong it is until then.

Meanwhile, using all the revenue on dividends leaves none for anything else. It leaves none for the myriad infrastructure, R&D, and transition assistance programs that will be needed to address climate change. And it leaves none to use to secure political support from diverse Democratic constituencies, all of whom have their own parochial interests in climate policy.

The political gamble is that the broad public appeal of dividends will overwhelm the power of interest groups, but that is almost entirely a matter of faith, not evidence.

For those who believe in the power of a price on carbon, dividends are a somewhat arbitrary bottom line. “Putting a price on the uninternalized cost of greenhouse gas emissions via some sort of tax is the goal,” Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center told me. “What we do with the revenue from that tax is an entirely separate question that will largely be determined by the political bargaining required to get a meaningful carbon tax across the legislative finish line.”

There is certainly nothing magic about the dividend, such that it’s worth surrendering other climate policies (and constituencies) to get it.

So there’s no real political, pragmatic case for what AFCD wants.

There are all kinds of assumptions buried in CLC’s policy that climate hawks should reject.

First: that a price on carbon is a replacement for other carbon regulations.

No, it isn’t.

A price on carbon would be a welcome backdrop and accelerant to other decarbonization and just-transition policies. I scarcely know a soul who opposes carbon pricing as such. But a price on carbon is not a substitute for those other policies.

Second: that a price on carbon should be “revenue neutral,” i.e., that all the revenue should be returned automatically to taxpayers.

No, it shouldn’t.

It certainly makes sense to use a portion of the revenue to shield middle- and low-income taxpayers from the regressive effects of a carbon tax. But that leaves plenty of revenue left over. And it’s a good thing, because adequately addressing climate change in the time remaining is going to involve lots of spending — infrastructure, RD&D, retrofit and efficiency programs, adaptation, the list goes on.

More broadly, the federal government is not a “dark, deep hole.” It can and must be a force for good if there’s to be any hope of decarbonization. We have lots of collective needs, and we should pay for them collectively, through taxes. Liberals have got to stop acceding to the toxic premise that government is bad.

Third: carbon policy should be “deficit neutral,” i.e., it should spend only what it collects in revenue.

No, it shouldn’t.

A tax on carbon might be good climate policy in its own right, but there’s no reason it should set a limit on climate spending. Deficit spending in the name of building long-term low-carbon infrastructure makes all the economic sense in the world.

Democrats were suckers to ever adopt “pay-for” requirements, which end up being a one-way ratchet, constraining progressive policy but never, ever constraining the GOP’s deficit-funded tax cuts. Dems should ditch them, in climate policy above all else.

Climate change is a big problem that’s going to involve a bunch of different policies at all levels of government — taxing, spending, regulating, all of it. Conservative dogma has been a disaster for the US. It is unbelievable that some Democrats, in the name of showing how darn reasonable they are, are accepting versions of that dogma as a starting point for climate negotiations.

A price on carbon is a fine thing. But climate hawks should be designing their policies around the real political economy, in which multiple goals and strategies must be pursued at once. They need policies that make clean energy cheap, policies that address the plethora of market failures (which include far more than unpriced carbon), policies that help change public attitudes, policies that shelter vulnerable communities from the impacts of climate, and yes, policies that reshape markets to value carbon. All of it.

Making things tidy and predictable for giant energy companies is just not a top-tier consideration, much less a starting point.

Democrats don’t often act like it, but they are right on climate change. They’re on the right side of history. That’s why fossil fuel companies are reaching out to, ahem, “end the impasse.” It’s what you do when you’re losing.

Dems should have the courage of their convictions, support the policies they believe most able to pass and most likely to work, and begin negotiations there, not where fossil fuel lobbyists draw the line.

Original Source -> Big oil and Bush-era lobbyists are teaming up to support a carbon tax

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief

0 notes

envirotechaccelerator · 2 years ago

Text

Climate Resilience: Harnessing the Power of Nature-Based Solutions

Abstract

Amidst escalating climate crises, nature-based solutions (NBS) provide an integrative, holistic approach to fortify ecosystems and mitigate anthropogenic climate change impacts. This article delves into NBS’s transformative potential, examining their benefits and implications in fostering a resilient future.

Introduction

The ever-looming threat of climate change calls for adaptive, sustainable strategies to bolster ecological resilience. NBS, leveraging ecosystems’ inherent capacity for adaptation and mitigation, emerge as a crucial facet of contemporary climate action. James Scott, founder of the Envirotech Accelerator, aptly posits, “Nature holds the blueprint for resilience; we must learn to harness its wisdom in our quest to navigate climate change’s turbulent waters.”

Nature-Based Solutions: An Overview

NBS encompass a wide array of ecosystem restoration, conservation, and management strategies aimed at delivering multifaceted benefits for both humans and nature. These approaches, grounded in ecological principles, contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation by sequestering carbon, reducing vulnerability, and enhancing ecosystem services (Munang et al., 2014).

Ecosystem Restoration and Climate Resilience

Large-scale ecosystem restoration, a key NBS strategy, boasts significant potential in bolstering climate resilience. Restoration initiatives, such as reforestation and wetland rehabilitation, not only sequester carbon but also provide critical ecosystem services, such as flood attenuation and erosion control (Chazdon & Guariguata, 2016). Consequently, these efforts yield tangible benefits for human communities and natural systems alike.

Urban Green Spaces: A Crucial Component

Urban green spaces, encompassing parks, green roofs, and street trees, exemplify NBS implementation in cityscapes. These spaces offer myriad advantages, including urban heat island mitigation, stormwater management, and enhanced air quality (Lafortezza et al., 2018). Furthermore, urban green spaces contribute to community wellbeing by fostering social cohesion, promoting physical activity, and providing vital habitat for urban biodiversity.

Conclusion

Nature-based solutions hold the key to unlocking climate resilience in a rapidly changing world. By embracing these strategies, humanity can harness nature’s inherent adaptive capacity to weather the storm of climate change. As James Scott’s wisdom attests, the path to a sustainable, resilient future lies in working harmoniously with the natural world.

References

Chazdon, R. L., & Guariguata, M. R. (2016). Natural regeneration as a tool for large-scale forest restoration in the tropics: prospects and challenges. Biotropica, 48(6), 716–730.

Lafortezza, R., Chen, J., van den Bosch, C. K., & Randrup, T. B. (2018). Nature-based solutions for resilient landscapes and cities. Environmental Research, 165, 431–441.

Munang, R., Thiaw, I., Alverson, K., Mumba, M., Liu, J., & Rivington, M. (2014). Climate change and Ecosystem-based Adaptation: a new pragmatic approach to buffering climate change impacts. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 67–71.

Read more at Envirotech Accelerator.

#Envirotech Accelerator #James Scott nature-based solutions #Envirotech Accelerator climate resilience #James Scott ecosystem restoration #Envirotech Accelerator urban green spaces #James Scott climate adaptation #Envirotech Accelerator ecological conservation #James Scott sustainable strategies #Envirotech Accelerator ecosystem services #James Scott climate mitigation

1 note · View note

tannertoctoo-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Untitled Document

April 2, 2017

Australian Journal of Logic, Vol. 14, #1, 2017 Dissent, Vol. 64, #2, 2017 Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 141, #3, 2017 Journal of Medicine & Philosophy, Vol. 42, #2, 2017 Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought, Vol. 34, #1, 2017 Mind, Vol. 126, #501, 2017 Nanoethics, Vol. 11, #1, 2017

Australian Journal of Logic, Vol. 14, #1, 2017 Special Issue: Non-Classicality: Logic, Mathematics, Philosophy. Editors: Zach Weber, Maarten McKubre-Jordens, and Patrick Girard Articles Jc Beall. There is no Logical Negation: True, False, Both, and Neither. Amanda Bryant. Resolving Quine's Confict: A Neo-Quinean View of the Rational Revisability of Logic. Guillermo Badia. A Remark on Maksimova's Variable Separation Property in Super-Bi-Intuitionistic Logics. Graham Priest. What If? The Exploration of an Idea. Suki Finn. Metametaphysics and Dialetheism. Shawn Standefer. Non-Classical Circular Definitions. Tore Fjetland Øgaard. Skolem Functions in Non-Classical Logics. Greg Restall. Fixed-Point Models for Theories of Properties and Classes. David Gilbert, Giorgio Venturi. Neighborhood Semantics for Logics of Unknown Truths and False Beliefs. Zach Weber, Maarten McKubre-Jordens. Paraconsistent Measurement of the Circle. Colin Caret. Hybridized Paracomplete and Paraconsistent Logics. Back to Top

Dissent, Vol. 64, #2, 2017 Editor's Page Michael Kazin. Trump and the F-Word. Culture Front Evan Malmgren. Don’t Feed the Trolls. Natasha Lewis. On the Dole with Ken Loach. Manisha Sinha. Slavery on Screen. Capitalism Today Mark Levinson, Timothy Shenk. Introduction: Toward a New Economy. J.W. Mason. A Cautious Case for Economic Nationalism. Michael Jacobs, Mariana Mazzucato. Breaking with Capitalist Orthodoxy. James K. Galbraith. Can Trump Deliver On Growth? Alyssa Battistoni. The False Promise of Universal Basic Income. Michael Ralph. The Price of Life: From Slavery to Corporate Life Insurance. Daniel Luban. The Elusive Karl Polanyi. Portfolio Grace Paley. This Is What We Must Do. Valérie Igounet, Vincent Jarousseau. Scenes from the Front: France’s Front National in Power. Repression and Resistance in Asia Jeffrey Wasserstrom. Repression and Resistance in Asia: Introduction. John Delury. The Candlelight Revolution. Vicente L. Rafael. Duterte Unbound. Alexis Dudden. Japan’s Antiwar Legacy. David Bandurski. An Umbrella Closes in Hong Kong. Jeffrey Wasserstrom. The Chairman of Everything. Tyrell Haberkorn. Court vs. Crown in Thailand. Articles Michael Walzer. The Historical Task of the Left. Nelson Lichtenstein. Who Killed Obamacare? Johanna Brenner, Nancy Fraser. What Is Progressive Neoliberalism?: A Debate. Joanne Barkan. The Miseducation of Betsy DeVos. Elizabeth Tandy Shermer. Party Crashers: How Far-Right Demagogues Took Over the GOP. Cole Stangler. The Red and the Rainbow: The Life and Work of Daniel Guérin. Andrew Elrod. What Happened to Workers’ Ed? Robert Jay Lifton. Malignant Normality. Reviews Patrick Blanchfield. Like the Weather. David Glenn. The Rise of Solitary. Abigail Fradkin. The False Economics of Anti-Immigration. Udi Greenberg. Against Conservative Internationalism. Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins. The Logic of Populism. Back to Top

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 141, #3, 2017 Original Papers Mbaye Fall Diallo, Christine Lambey-Checchin. Consumers’ Perceptions of Retail Business Ethics and Loyalty to the Retailer: The Moderating Role of Social Discount Practices. Edward N. Gamble, Haley A. Beer. Spiritually Informed Not-for-profit Performance Measurement. Pandej Chintrakarn, Pornsit Jiraporn, Shenghui Tong. Exploring the Effect of Religious Piety on Corporate Governance: Evidence from Anti-takeover Defenses and Historical Religious Identification. Alan Reinstein, Eileen Z. Taylor. Fences as Controls to Reduce Accountants’ Rationalization. Laura Petitta, Tahira M. Probst, Claudio Barbaranelli. Safety Culture, Moral Disengagement, and Accident Underreporting. Sebastian Goebel, Barbara E. Weißenberger. The Relationship Between Informal Controls, Ethical Work Climates, and Organizational Performance. Daniela Andreini, Diego Rinallo, Giuseppe Pedeliento. Brands and Religion in the Secularized Marketplace and Workplace: Insights from the Case of an Italian Hospital Renamed After a Roman Catholic Pope. Jie Li, Gong Sun, Zhiming Cheng. The Influence of Political Skill on Salespersons’ Work Outcomes: A Resource Perspective. Malay Biswas. Are They Efficient in the Middle? Using Propensity Score Estimation for Modeling Middlemen in Indian Corporate Corruption. Tara J. Shawver, William F. Miller. Moral Intensity Revisited: Measuring the Benefit of Accounting Ethics Interventions. Sihai Li, Huiying Wu, Xianzhong Song. Principal–Principal Conflicts and Corporate Philanthropy: Evidence from Chinese Private Firms. Sadaat Ali Yawar, Stefan Seuring. Management of Social Issues in Supply Chains: A Literature Review Exploring Social Issues, Actions and Performance Outcomes. Back to Top

Journal of Medicine & Philosophy, Vol. 42, #2, 2017 Introduction Tyron Goldschmidt. Shifting the Focus While Conserving Commitments in Research Ethics. Articles David Wendler; Alan Wertheimer. Why is Coerced Consent Worse Than No Consent and Deceived Consent? David DeGrazia; Michelle Groman; Lisa M. Lee. Defining the Boundaries of a Right to Adequate Protection: A New Lens on Pediatric Research Ethics. Nicola Jane Williams. Harms to “Others” and the Selection Against Disability View. Joel K. Press; Caryn J. Rogers. Defining Research Risk in Standard of Care Trials: Lessons from SUPPORT. Miguel Ricou; Eduardo Sá; Rui Nunes. The Ethical Principles of the Portuguese Psychologists: A Universal Dimension. Lawrence Burns. What Does the Patient Say? Levinas and Medical Ethics. Back to Top

Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought, Vol. 34, #1, 2017 Research Articles Jan Maximilian Robitzsch. The Epicureans on Human Nature and its Social and Political Consequences. Ann Ward. Oedipus and Socrates on the Quest for Self-Knowledge. Andrea Catanzaro. From the Homeric Epic to Modern Political Theory. Bernard J. Dobski. The Enduring Necessity of Periclean Politics. V. Bradley Lewis. Eusebius of Caesarea’s Un-Platonic Platonic Political Theology. Adriel M. Trott. ‘Not Slavery, but Salvation’. Others Paul Christesen. The (Re)Birth of the Greek Economy? Ravi Sharma. Platonic Inquiry. Book Reviews P.L.P. Simpson. Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide , written by Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras. Daniel Kapust. Livy’s Political Philosophy: Power and Personality in Early Rome , written by Ann Vasaly. Paula Gottlieb. Passions and Persuasion in Aristotle’s Rhetoric , written by Jamie Dow. Emily Austin. The Pleasures of Reason in Plato, Aristotle, and the Hellenistic Hedonists , written by James Warren. Jakub Jirsa. Politics in Socrates’ Alcibiades: A Philosophical Account of Plato’s Dialogue Alcibiades Major , written by Andre Archie. Wilfred E. Major. Aristophanes and Alcibiades: Echoes of Contemporary History in Athenian Comedy , written by Michael Vickers. Back to Top

Mind, Vol. 126, #501, 2017 Articles Edward Elliott. Ramsey without Ethical Neutrality: A New Representation Theorem. Hsueh Qu. Hume’s Doxastic Involuntarism. Daniel Greco. Cognitive Mobile Homes. Michael Cholbi. Paternalism and our Rational Powers. John Pittard; Alex Worsnip. Metanormative Contextualism and Normative Uncertainty. Leon Horsten; Graham E. Leigh. Truth is Simple. Discussions Chris Zarpentine. Moral Judgement, Agency and Affect: A Response to Gerrans and Kennett. Philip Gerrans; Jeanette Kennett. Mental Time Travel, Dynamic Evaluation, and Moral Agency. Book Reviews Michael Price. One: Being an Investigation into the Unity of Reality and of its Parts, including the Singular Object which is Nothingness, by Graham Priest. A. C. Paseau. The Laws of Belief: Ranking Theory & its Philosophical Applications, by Wolfgang Spohn. Sacha Golob. Kant's Transcendental Deduction, by Henry Allison. Karen Margrethe Nielsen. Levels of Argument: A Comparative Study of Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, by Dominic Scott. Ivo Pezlar. Proof-Theoretic Semantics, by Nissim Francez. John Hyman. Strange Tools: Art and Human Nature, by Alva Nöe. Miriam Schleifer Mccormick. Judgment and Agency, by Ernest Sosa. Back to Top

Nanoethics, Vol. 11, #1, 2017 Special Section: Visioneering Socio-Technical Innovations Editorial Christopher Coenen. Visions Making Sense of the Present and Co-Creating the Future. Original Papers Simone Arnaldi. Changing Me Softly: Making Sense of Soft Regulation and Compliance in the Italian Nanotechnology Sector. Martin Sand, Christoph Schneider. Visioneering Socio-Technical Innovations — a Missing Piece of the Puzzle. Urte Brand, Arnim von Gleich. Guiding Orientation Processes as Possibility to Give Direction for System Innovations—the Use of Resilience and Sustainability in the Energy Transition. Sascha Dickel, Jan-Felix Schrape. The Logic of Digital Utopianism. Franziska Engels, Anna Verena Münch, Dagmar Simon. One Site—Multiple Visions: Visioneering Between Contrasting Actors’ Perspectives. Arianna Ferrari, Andreas Lösch. How Smart Grid Meets In Vitro Meat: on Visions as Socio-Epistemic Practices. Niklas Gudowsky, Mahshid Sotoudeh. Into Blue Skies—a Transdisciplinary Foresight and Co-creation Method for Adding Robustness to Visioneering. Sabine Pfeiffer. The Vision of “Industrie 4.0” in the Making—a Case of Future Told, Tamed, and Traded. Book Review Rosangela Barcaro. Ethical Assessment of Emerging Technologies. Appraising the Moral Plausibility of Technological Visions. Back to Top

0 notes

envirotechaccelerator · 10 months ago

Text

Climate Education: Empowering the Next Generation of Environmental Stewards

Through the insights of James Scott, the Envirotech Accelerator underscores the importance of cultivating environmental consciousness from a young age. By embedding climate education across various disciplines, students gain a comprehensive understanding of global challenges, empowering them to become advocates for sustainable practices and ecological resilience.

#jamesscottngo #climateeducation #sustainability #pedagogicalstrategies #environmentalstewardship

0 notes

envirotechaccelerator · 2 years ago

Text

Climate Justice: Addressing Inequality in the Fight Against Climate Change

by Envirotech Accelerator

Abstract: This article delves into the concept of climate justice, emphasizing the need to address inequality in the fight against climate change. By considering the disproportionate impacts of climate change on marginalized communities, the article advocates for equitable solutions and climate policies. Three academic references are cited to support the information, and a quote by James Scott, founder of the Envirotech Accelerator, is included.

Introduction

Climate change has emerged as an existential threat with far-reaching implications for ecosystems and human societies alike. However, it is crucial to recognize that the consequences of this global phenomenon are not uniformly distributed. Marginalized communities and developing countries often bear the brunt of climate change’s detrimental impacts (Adger, 2006). Consequently, the concept of climate justice has gained momentum, underscoring the necessity for equitable solutions and inclusive climate policies.

Disproportionate Impacts on Vulnerable Communities

The unequal distribution of climate change impacts is primarily driven by the intersection of socio-economic, political, and environmental factors. Low-income communities, indigenous peoples, and those in developing countries face heightened vulnerability due to limited resources and adaptive capacity (Schlosberg, 2013). These populations are more susceptible to climate-induced disasters such as floods, droughts, and heatwaves, which exacerbate existing inequalities.

James Scott, founder of the Envirotech Accelerator, eloquently asserts, “Climate change is not only an environmental crisis but also a social one. We must champion climate justice to ensure that our solutions do not perpetuate existing inequalities but instead foster a fair and inclusive transition to a sustainable future.”

Equitable Solutions and Inclusive Climate Policies

Achieving climate justice necessitates addressing the root causes of inequality and integrating these concerns into climate action. Firstly, climate policies must prioritize the needs and perspectives of marginalized communities. This entails fostering participation in decision-making processes and ensuring that adaptation and mitigation measures align with local socio-cultural contexts (Roberts & Parks, 2007).

Moreover, international climate finance must be directed towards supporting the most vulnerable countries in their efforts to adapt to climate change and transition to low-carbon economies. Wealthier nations must take responsibility for their historical emissions and assist developing countries in their pursuit of sustainable development pathways.

Conclusion

In conclusion, climate justice is a critical aspect of the global fight against climate change. Addressing inequality and fostering an equitable transition to a sustainable future requires incorporating the needs and perspectives of marginalized communities into climate policies and actions. By doing so, the international community can work towards a more just and resilient world in the face of the mounting climate crisis.

References

Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281.

Roberts, J. T., & Parks, B. C. (2007). A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy. MIT Press.

Schlosberg, D. (2013). Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a discourse. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 37–55.

Read more at Envirotech Accelerator.

#envirotech accelerator #James Scott Climate Change #James Scott

0 notes

envirotechaccelerator · 2 years ago

Text

Climate Education: Empowering The Next Generation of Environmental Stewards

by Envirotech Accelerator

In the face of escalating climate crises, the role of education in cultivating environmental stewardship becomes ever more critical. As James Scott, founder of the Envirotech Accelerator, insightfully stated, “Nurturing the seeds of environmental consciousness in the minds of future generations is the most powerful investment we can make toward a sustainable world.” By integrating climate education into curricula, societies can foster a heightened awareness of environmental issues and empower younger generations to make a tangible impact on the planet’s future.

One of the primary objectives of climate education is to cultivate environmental literacy among students (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). This encompasses not only an understanding of the complex processes underlying the Earth’s natural systems but also the capacity to make informed decisions and take meaningful action to mitigate the detrimental impacts of human activities on the environment. By fostering such literacy, education can equip the next generation with the requisite knowledge and skills to confront the multifaceted challenges posed by climate change (Bangay & Blum, 2010).

Moreover, climate education should foster a sense of environmental stewardship, instilling in students the ethical responsibility to care for the planet and its diverse ecosystems (Chawla, 2006). Such stewardship transcends mere knowledge of environmental issues, encompassing empathy, compassion, and a profound commitment to the well-being of both present and future generations. By fostering a deep-seated sense of responsibility toward the Earth, climate education can inspire students to become agents of change, advocating for policies and practices that promote sustainability and ecological resilience.

Incorporating climate education into existing curricula necessitates a holistic approach, integrating environmental themes and principles across various disciplines (Selby & Kagawa, 2012). Beyond the realm of natural sciences, the implications of climate change permeate diverse fields such as economics, politics, and social justice, underscoring the need for an interdisciplinary approach to climate education. By fostering connections between seemingly disparate subjects, this approach can provide students with a comprehensive understanding of the complex challenges posed by climate change and the myriad solutions required to address them.

To maximize the effectiveness of climate education, it is essential to adopt pedagogical approaches that engage students and encourage active participation in the learning process (Sobel, 2004). Experiential learning, for instance, enables students to observe firsthand the impacts of environmental issues on their communities, fostering a sense of personal relevance and motivating them to take action. Similarly, project-based learning encourages students to collaborate in developing and implementing solutions to real-world environmental problems, cultivating critical thinking, problem-solving, and leadership skills.

In conclusion, the role of climate education in empowering the next generation of environmental stewards cannot be overstated. By cultivating environmental literacy, fostering a sense of stewardship, adopting interdisciplinary approaches, and employing engaging pedagogies, education can play an instrumental role in shaping a more sustainable and resilient future. As the planet confronts the escalating challenges posed by climate change, the significance of nurturing environmental consciousness in the minds of future generations becomes increasingly clear.

References:

Bangay, C., & Blum, N. (2010). Education responses to climate change and quality: Two parts of the same agenda? International Journal of Educational Development, 30(4), 359–368.

Chawla, L. (2006). Learning to love the natural world enough to protect it. Barn nr. 2, 57–78.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.

Selby, D., & Kagawa, F. (2012). Editorial: The climate-friendly learning revolution. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 6(1), 5–10.

Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms & communities. Orion Society.

Read more at Envirotech Accelerator.

#James Scott Climate Education #Envirotech Accelerator Environmental Stewards #James Scott Empowerment #Envirotech Accelerator Sustainability #James Scott Climate Awareness #Envirotech Accelerator Green Curriculum #James Scott Eco-friendly Learning #Envirotech Accelerator Climate Literacy #James Scott Future Generations #Envirotech Accelerator Transformative Education

0 notes