This is where we offer some of our thoughts and perspectives to you. We won't promise they're better than anyone else's. Or even right. But we'll at least provide interesting ways of looking at things.
Combined with the information we provide in the other parts of this site, we hope to encourage interesting and meaningful conversations about things that affect you.
WHY CONTRIBUTE WHEN EVERYTHING IS FREE?
We're glad we asked.
If you've read some of our stories thinking...
... You want everyone to understand this
... You want better policies
... You want better conversations
... You want more like this
Then we need you to contribute.
It costs money to publish News in FiVe, and contributions are our only source of funding.
So if this article helped your understanding, please consider a small donation to help us keep doing this and help us reach more people.
Even a dollar or three every so often makes a difference.
In return, we'll keep providing you the most relevant, understandable, and accessible news and information.
It's secure and takes only about a minute.
Date: 2015-Jul-09           Author: Barry Shatzman
I have a question for the 5 members of the Supreme Court who told the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it may not tell power plants to cut pollution by almost a third of what they were emitting in 2005.
But first i wanna tell you a story.
A former work friend of mine once told me her husband would wait until the morning rush-hour had died down before leaving for work. Leaving later actually gets him to work earlier, she told me.
I didn't know how to respond. I mean... it was before the internet was invented so "WTF" wasn't available to me. I just said maybe his commute would be faster, but he sure wouldn't get there any earlier. But she insisted.
"OK," i said. "Let's say your husband's co-worker spends the night at your house, and the next morning leaves for work at 7. But your husband knows that if he leaves at 7:30 he'll get there earlier. Tell me... at what point along the way does your husband pass his friend?"
I thought about this conversation while writing about the Supreme Court's decision. This is years after the EPA already delayed protecting the environment from coal plants and large factories
Isn't it great to see democracy at work? On the one hand, we have scientists telling us that an astronomical rise in air crap in the past century coincides really well with the industrial revolution and an astronomical rise in the number of smokestacks spewing crap into the air every single second during that century.
On the other hand, we have big corporations telling us that the rise in the air crap index is just as likely due to a natural increase in whale farts. And since these companies obviously are just being altruistic and it's the scientists that have a hidden agenda, we have democracy to decide that their real money is more important than mythical threats to our air.
Which leads me to my question for each of the Supreme Court justices. Tell me... as you get closer to one those smokestacks constantly spewing thick black smoke, at what point along the way are you getting too much of that crap in your lungs?
Now relax and take a deep breath... seems like we've still got a while to come up with an answer.