Allen, P Vulcan

=<h1 class="widgetheadline h1" style="margin: 10px 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; font-size: 18px; font-family: Helvetica; color: rgb(31, 31, 31); cursor: pointer; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="widgetheadline-text custom-post-headline" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/paul-allen-environmental-legacy-2612778348.html" style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31); text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; outline: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 25px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 31px;">Allen's Environmental Legacy Lives On</a></h1><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-elid="2612778348" data-authors="Lorraine Chow" data-headline="Paul Allen's Environmental Legacy Lives On" style="margin: 10px; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; color: rgb(31, 31, 31); font-family: Helvetica; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body-description"><div class="widgetbrief">The world lost an <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/paul-allen-elephant-census-1993894628.html" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">important environmental icon</a> on Monday with the passing of Paul G. Allen. He died from complications of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in Seattle, according to his company <a href="http://www.vulcan.com/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Vulcan Inc</a>. He was 65.Allen, who co-founded Microsoft with his childhood friend Bill Gates and owned the Seattle Seahawks and Portland Trail Blazers, was also a major philanthropist devoted to making the world a better place.</div><div class="js-appear-on-expand" style="transition: all 350ms ease 0s; height: 0px; overflow: hidden; opacity: 0;" /><div class="widgetshow-more with-primary-color js-keep-reading js-page-view-and-reload-embeds" style="color: rgb(91, 91, 91); cursor: pointer; border-radius: 15px; font-size: 14px; float: left; padding: 7px; font-weight: 600; background-color: rgb(240, 240, 240);">Keep reading...</div><div class="widget__show-more with-primary-color js-keep-reading js-page-view-and-reload-embeds" style="color: rgb(91, 91, 91); cursor: pointer; border-radius: 15px; font-size: 14px; float: left; padding: 7px; font-weight: 600; background-color: rgb(240, 240, 240);">
</div></div></div>
=<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/paul-allen-elephant-census-1993894628.html">http://www.ecowatch.com/paul-allen-elephant-census-1993894628.html</a>==<a href="http://www.muckety.com/2038788B3FEB6698337A48A2BF7EB8C9.map?autoGroup=7,7&big=true">http://www.muckety.com/2038788B3FEB6698337A48A2BF7EB8C9.map?autoGroup=7,7&big=true</a>

charter schools w. balmer and wife=Charitable Plutocracy: Bill Gates, Washington State and the Nuisance of Democracy
Today’s multi-billionaires are a different species of philanthropist; they keep tight control over their foundations while also operating as major political funders.By Joanne Barkan / Nonprofit Quarterly April 27, 2016
This article was first published in the Nonprofit Quarterly (spring 2016; vol. 23, no. 1).
Once upon a time, the super-wealthy endowed their tax-exempt charitable foundations and then turned them over to boards of trustees to run. The trustees would spend the earnings of the endowment to pursue a typically grand but wide-open mission written into the foundation’s charter—like The Rockefeller Foundation’s 1913 mission “to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world.” Today’s multi-billionaires are a different species of philanthropist; they keep tight control over their foundations while also operating as major political funders—think Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, or Walmart heiress Alice Walton. They aim to do good in the world, but each defines “good” idiosyncratically in terms of specific public policies and political goals. They translate their wealth, the work of their foundations, and their celebrity as doers-of-good into influence in the public sphere—much more influence than most citizens have.
Call it charitable plutocracy—a peculiarly American phenomenon, increasingly problematic and in need of greater scrutiny. Like all forms of plutocracy, this one conflicts with democracy, and exactly how these philanthropists coordinate tax-exempt grantmaking with political funding for maximum effect remains largely obscure. What follows is a case study of the way charitable plutocracy operates on the ground. It’s a textbook example of the tug-of-war between government by the people and uber-philanthropists as social engineers.
The Case of Bill Gates and Washington State
This story begins in 1995, when the Washington State House of Representatives first considered legislation that would enable private individuals and organizations to obtain charters to create their own K–12 schools. These were to be taxpayer-funded schools, but privately run and exempt from many of the regulations governing district (regular) public schools. The funding would come from the resources of regular public schools: each student would “carry” his or her per-child funding out of the district system to a charter school.
The bill died in the state senate, so supporters went directly to voters with a ballot initiative to enable charter schools. The campaign attracted little money on either side, but turnout was high because the vote took place on the same day as the 1996 presidential election. Washingtonians rejected charter schools decisively: 64.4 percent against, 35.6 percent in favor.1
State representatives kept trying. They proposed new bills in 1997, 1998, and 1999, but got the same results: success in the lower chamber, failure in the senate.2
Wariness of charter schools didn’t mean that Washingtonians were completely satisfied with existing schools or feared change. Voters had legitimate concerns. Charter schools, they worried, would divert tax revenue from already underfunded district schools, especially those serving low-income and minority students. In addition, schools under private management might be less transparent and less accountable to the public than Washington’s district schools, which were overseen by locally elected boards.
Charter supporters tried another ballot initiative in 2000, and, for the first time, attracted the backing of a multi-billionaire philanthropist. Paul Allen had cofounded Microsoft in 1975 and The Paul G. Allen Family Foundation in 1988.3 The state places no limits on individual campaign contributions for ballot measures, so Allen was able to give $3.275 million of the total $3.4 million raised by the pro-charter side. Opponents raised only about $11,000. Outspent 309 to 1, they still defeated the initiative, although the millions given in support of charters shrank the margin of victory. The vote was 51.8 percent against charters and 48.2 percent in favor.4
In the next four years, the national context shifted. The debate around public education intensified as a controversial market-based education-reform movement grew stronger. “Ed-reformers” claimed that U.S. public schools were failing; that the culprits were bad teachers, teachers unions, and government bureaucracy; and that the private sector, using public resources, could run better schools. They promoted competition among schools to force out the weakest and measuring educational success via students’ standardized test scores.
The education-reform movement in general, and charter schools in particular, attracted a new wave of philanthropists, many of whom had made fortunes in high-tech industries and finance. Although they had no experience as educators, they aimed to “disrupt” and rebuild public schooling for urban low-income and minority children. They embraced the idea that giving grants to K–12 reform projects corresponded with investing capital in a business. They described their philanthropy in terms of strategic investments to maximize returns and data collection to verify results. Having succeeded in business, they reasoned, they would succeed in education. They came to see funding education-reform candidates and ballot initiatives as part of the same effort.
The Washington legislature finally passed a charter school law in 2004. Opponents responded by petitioning for a ballot measure to repeal the law. Mobilized by the teachers unions, League of Women Voters, state Democratic Party, and the Seattle School Board, they raised $1.3 million for the campaign. The unions contributed the most: the Washington Education Association gave $601,000, and the National Education Association gave $500,000.5
Charter school supporters raised three times as much—$3.9 million. Most of it came from three education-reform political funder-philanthropists, who donated about $1 million each: Bill Gates, who had recently made education reform the main focus of his domestic philanthropy; Walmart heir John T. Walton (from Wyoming), who advocated charters and tax-funded vouchers for parents to use for private-school tuition; and Donald Fisher (from California), founder of Gap and a major donor to the KIPP chain of charter schoolsSeattle Seahawks: In addition to the Seahawks, Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen runs basketball's Portland Trail Blazers, and part of Major League Soccer's Seattle Sounders—at least when he's not busy sniffing out tech investments or taking credit for most of Microsoft's breakthroughs. He's also the NFL's richest owner, valued at $15 billion—which is $10 billion more than the second-richest owner, Stan Kroenke. It can be nice to have an owner whose personal bottom line doesn't hinge on reining in the team's costs. No stranger to vanity projects, Allen donated $1.6 million last year to pass a ballot initiative allowing public charter schools in Washington state.=http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/08/3-claims-pro-nuclear-film-pandoras-promise/
By Denise RobbinsCNN aired the pro-nuclear power film Pandora’s Promise last night, which propagated three <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/11/07/myths-and-facts-about-nuclear-power/196793" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">common myths</a> about <a href="http://ecowatch.com/category/news/energy-news/nuclear-energy-energy/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">nuclear</a> power: it suggested the environmental movement’s “scare tactics” are what has inhibited nuclear power, claimed nuclear power is cheaper than <a href="http://ecowatch.com/category/renewable-business/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">renewables</a> and downplayed complications from nuclear waste. This led to a generally one-sided story, which has led to <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/some-thoughts-on-pandoras-promise-and-the-nuclear-debate/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">criticism</a> from many reviewers.Here’s how the film Pandora’s Promise propagated nuclear power myths:1. Claimed Nuclear Energy Is Cheaper Than Renewable EnergyThe enormous cost of building nuclear power plants is a key inhibiting factor for the energy source. Despite receiving <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/11/07/myths-and-facts-about-nuclear-power/196793#cost" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">immensely greater</a> subsidies than renewable energy from the beginning of its development, nuclear energy is still not competitive with fossil fuels in the U.S., and new wind energy is estimated to be <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/11/07/myths-and-facts-about-nuclear-power/196793#cost" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">less expensive</a> than new nuclear generation. Yet the Breakthrough Institute’s Michael Shellenberger asserted that nuclear power is “a much more economical alternative to very expensive solar panels or very expensive wind turbines that require backup power.” He also dismissed renewable energy and energy efficiency, one of the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/08/01/myths-and-facts-about-energy-efficiency/195171#benefits" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">cheapest</a> ways to address climate change, as a “<a href="http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2013/11/08/32831/cnn-pandoraspromise-11082013-renewable" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">religion</a>.”Renewable energy prices have actually been dropping while the costs of nuclear are <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/04/06/207833/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">on the rise</a>—as nuclear power has scaled up in France and the U.S., so have the costs of power plant construction. Meanwhile, solar prices have dropped <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/06/2717791/cost-pv-cells-solar-power-grid-parity/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">99 percent</a> in the last quarter century, and solar and wind energies are <a href="http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/30/solar-and-wind-power-to-be-cost-competitive-without-subsidies-by-2025-according-to-new-study-from-the-national-renewable-energy-laboratory/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">predicted</a> to be cost-competitive with fossil fuels—without the use of subsidies—by 2025.2. Blamed Environmentalists For Preventing Nuclear DeploymentPandora’s Promise focused on opposition to nuclear power from some in the environmental movement. In the film, author Mark Lynas even compared anti-nuclear activists to global warming deniers. However, this narrative paints a misleading picture: the lack of nuclear expansion in the U.S. comes down to a simple case of economics. Currently, nuclear power <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/11/07/myths-and-facts-about-nuclear-power/196793#environmentalists" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">cannot compete</a> with gas-fired power. As the libertarian Cato Institute’s Jerry Taylor <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/11/07/myths-and-facts-about-nuclear-power/196793#environmentalists" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">explained</a> that there’s “zero evidence” that environmental opposition is preventing new nuclear power plants, a myth that he said has been purported by nuclear advocates who “like to dodge the cost estimates.”3. Whitewashed The Issue Of Nuclear WasteAlthough nuclear power has potential to become a major power source, it comes with baggage. The U.S. has accumulated more than <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42219616/#.UnvRhvl4zKc" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">70,000 metric tons</a> of spent nuclear fuel, and continues to accumulate  2,200 tons per year, yet CNN’s documentary made light of this waste—Lynas claimed that nuclear waste is “not an environmental issue.”The Associated Press <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/11/07/myths-and-facts-about-nuclear-power/196793#risk" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">reported</a> that the nation “has no place to permanently store the material, which stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years.” Most of this waste currently “sits in water-filled cooling pools like those at the Fukushima Dai-ichi” at the power plants themselves, some of which “contain four times the amount of spent fuel that they were designed to handle.”The film also failed to mention leaks that currently challenge the upstate New York power plant, Indian Point. According to the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>, the plant <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/ltr-to-nrc-on-leak-at-indian-point-u2.html%20" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">experiences</a> consistent leaks during refueling, though the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not act on this. The scientists <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/ltr-to-nrc-on-leak-at-indian-point-u2.html%20" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">called</a> the status quo of nuclear waste cleanup “untenable,” yet CNN’s documentary barely glossed over this ongoing issue.Visit EcoWatch’s <a href="http://ecowatch.com/p/energy/nuclear-energy-energy/" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">NUCLEAR</a> page for more related news on this topic.