Archive for the ‘Environmental Legislation’ Category
Friday, July 10th, 2009
Environmental News Service (ENS) posted an article with the header: “17 Major Economies Pledge to Set Greenhouse Gas Limit by December.” The leaders of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States said they are “convinced that climate change poses a clear danger requiring an extraordinary global response…”
The leaders promised to ’spare no effort to reach agreement in Copenhagen, with each other and with the other Parties’ in December in Copenhagen, where the UN Climate Conference will take place. These countries produce 80% of all pollution worldwide.
The major economies realize developing countries have greater priorities for economic and social development and feel that moving quickly to a low-carbon economy is an “opportunity to promote continued economic growth and sustainable development.” There is an urgent need to move forward at lowest possible cost in the area of clean energy.
Part of the plan for lowering CO2 emissions is to prevent future “deforestation and forest degradation and to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emissions by forests, including providing enhanced support to developing countries for these purposes.” The plan also includes doubling investments in clean technologies like solar energy, smart grids, carbon capture, use, and storage, better vehicles, bio energy, etc., by 2015.
Read more: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2009/2009-07-09-01.asp.
Posted in Alternative Energy, CO2 Emissions, Conservation, Countries/Continents, Environmental Legislation, Environmental News Service, Environmentalism, Global Warming, Plants, Science, Trees, Weather/Climate | No Comments »
Wednesday, June 17th, 2009
I just read a very interesting article on ENS (Environmental New Service) website. It included a letter to Congressional leaders from medical and scientific experts urging Obama’s Cancer Plan to expand to include cancer prevention. The article stated: “It is now beyond dispute in the independent scientific community that environmental and occupational exposures to carcinogens are the primary cause of non-smoking related cancers. An October 2007 publication on environmental and occupational causes of cancer by one of us (Dr. Richard Clapp) further emphasized that the increasing incidence of cancer is due to preventable exposures to carcinogens in the workplace and environment.”
Since 1975 exposure to cancer causing agents in the environment has increased. Remember the early 70’s the Clean Air and Water Act was enacted because we were polluting horribly. All the reports I’ve read say our air and water have indeed cleaned up a great deal since the early 70’s. Yet this letter states that more work related and environmental pollutants are causing the majority of cancers and that trend began in the mid 70’s. Hmmm.
The NCI still claims 94% of all cancers are caused by smoking, obesity, sun, yada, yada, yada and only 6% to environmental factors. But that consensus came from a 1981 report from Sir Richard Doll in the U.K. Here is where motive changes how we should view Sir Doll’s report. He was also a consultant for Monsanto, and the asbestos industry. Just before he died in 2002, “Doll admitted that most cancers, other than those related to smoking and hormones, “are induced by exposure to chemicals often environmental.”
This was scary stuff I was reading. We’ve been mislead for quite awhile. We are not causing our own cancers as much as we have been lead to believe. There is a list of cancers increasing at a rapid rate caused by factors not under our control. It is clear that other agencies besides the NCI need be involved in the prevention of cancer like the EPA, FDA, and OSHA. The agencies that can control the rise of preventable cancers because what we are breathing, drinking, and eating is affecting our health.
And as far as new cures for cancer, this letter had disturbing facts, but not hard to believe. I’m helping my mother through the aftermath of cancer and do not trust that the standard route works all that well either. My suspicions were confirmed when I read:
Furthermore, the NCI has touted the imminent success of new cancer treatments – promises that have seldom borne out, and which have been widely questioned by the independent scientific community. For instance, in 2004, Nobel Laureate Leland Hartwell, President of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Control Center, warned that Congress and the public are paying NCI $4.7 billion a year, most of which is spent on “promoting ineffective drugs” for terminal disease.
Well then, there you have it. Cancer is more easily preventable than cureable.
Read the very candid letter from the medical and scientific community and list of cancers on the rise and their causes:
http://world-wire.com/news/0906150001.html.
Posted in EPA, Environmental Legislation, Environmental News Service, Environmentalism, FDA, Federal Government, Food, Health, Hormones in Food, Industry, Legislators, Pollution, Science, U.S. Food Supply | No Comments »
Saturday, May 16th, 2009
Repower Michigan will be holding a round table discussion in Monroe at the IHM Motherhouse at 610 W. Elm, on Wednesday, May 20th, at 7:00-8:00 pm. Repower Michigan will talk about how clean energy legislation will help Michigan. There are a lot of misleading ads out there right now about what is and isn’t clean fuel, this might be a good place to find out and ask questions about Michigan’s energy future and how it will help Michigan’s economy as well. Hopefully there will be discussions about job training possibilities too.
It’s only an hour long, a visit to the Motherhouse is interesting, and Repower Michigan encourages your help to make sure your neighbors know the truth about what clean energy can really do for Michigan, and so that Representative John Dingell sees the strong support for clean energy here. It’s also a way to volunteer, which is an ideal of the Obama administration. This might be one way to do that.
Here are the details that were emailed to me:
Repower Michigan Roundtable
IHM Motherhouse
610 W. Elm Ave.
Monroe, MI 48162
Wednesday, May 20th
7:00 PM
RSVP Now. http://www.repoweramerica.org/page/event/detail/wwf
Posted in Alternative Energy, Environmental Legislation, Michigan Energy Legislation, Michigan Environmental News, Michigan/Great Lakes, Monroe, Michigan, Rep. Dingell | No Comments »
Wednesday, April 29th, 2009
I noted before that during the previous administration there seemed to be a lack of current comprehensive air quality reports, but new reports have just been released by the American Lung Association that used the EPA’s study conducted over a recent 3-year period.
Relative to the American Lung report, an ABC news article stated: “Roughly 60 percent of Americans live in areas where air pollution has reached unhealthy levels that can make people sick, suggests the 2009 State of the Air report released today by the American Lung Association.” The study concentrated on increased levels of particulate matter, and ozone because they pose health risks. The results are not good, “Air pollution remains widespread and dangerous with nearly every major city burdened by some type of pollution from either ozone or particle pollution.” Even places that are considered pristine showed a rise in air pollutants.
The report also says that despite the “green movement” in the U.S., our air increases our health risks. I would call it more like a green crawl. The ABC article says that Americans aren’t all that concerned about air quality. Obviously not because more coalburners are going up. The general public believes dirty air is concentrated in industrialized areas. But that is a big error. Poor air quality is widespread and aggravating conditions like asthma and bronchitis. We just may be blaming our stuffed up heads on pollen and springtime, when it’s industry pollution and the ozone that are tipping the overload. My husband and I have terrible sinus problems this year like never before.
Monroe did not fair well on the particulate test. It got a D. The report is incomplete for ozone in Monroe since there were no figures for it at all. The absence of ozone reporting is represented by the “-” in the report. But with Wayne County having both ozone and particulate reports complete and receiving an overall F for air quality, and Lucas County, OH getting an F for ozone, and D for particulates also, it doesn’t look much better for Monroe that is sandwiched between them.
Parameters for measuring particulates were changed by the EPA in 2006 also, (On September 21, 2006, the EPA announced a revised 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality standard for PM2.5). I could not determine from the explanation for this change, whether EPA parameters were more strict or loose. Monroe passed the EPA’s annual rating though. Go figure. According to the explanation of methodology:
[] The EPA determines whether a county violates the standard based on the 4th maximum daily 8-hour ozone reading each year averaged over three years. Multiple days of unhealthy air beyond the highest four in each year are not considered. By contrast, the [Lung Association] system used in this report recognizes when a community’s air quality repeatedly results in unhealthy air throughout the three years. Consequently, some counties will receive grades of “F” in this report showing repeated instances of unhealthy air, while still meeting the EPA’s 1997 ozone standard or the 1-hour ozone standard set in 1979. The EPA adopted a new ozone standard on March 12, 2008. This grading system has not been adjusted to reflect the new standard.
The EPA’s annual rating gave Lucas County a pass, but failed Wayne. Somehow I don’t feel all that assured about Monroe’s “pass” status for air quality by the EPA. Our health is being measured in parts per million again, and among changing standards.
The ABC news article: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AllergiesNews/story?id=7449100&page=1
The American Lung website: http://www.stateoftheair.org/2009/states/
How the study was done: http://www.stateoftheair.org/2008/methodology/
Posted in Alternative Energy, Clean Air Act, Coalburners, Conservation, EPA, Environmental Legislation, Environmentalism, Fossil Fuel, Health, Michigan Pollution, Monroe Pollution, Monroe, Michigan | No Comments »
Monday, April 20th, 2009
Thursday, April 16th, House Energy & Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman and Subcommittee Chair Ed Markey introduced The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES). This is a first step for a cleaner future that will benefit all of us in the long run. It will be an uphill battle of course because the oil and coal industry have been the status quo for energy in the U.S. since the last major transformation in our country—the industrial revolution. And with quarterly earnings that netted upwards of 40 billion dollars for some of them not long ago, there are some mighty deep pockets to push propaganda and thwart efforts for new innovative replacements for petro/coal based energy. So be prepared to see all types of ads this week since April 22 is EARTH DAY.
The new ACES bill addresses global warming concerns but will it also embrace measures to safeguard wildlife and habitat? We’ve seen them left out in the cold before. According to Defenders of Wildlife, “Scientists warn that global warming could threaten one-third of the world’s plant and vertebrate animal species with extinction by 2050.”
I’ve already done blogs about reductions in fish, bird, and bat populations. The apes are always at risk, as are elephants mainly due to loss of habitat by increasing populations of people and their needs. We destroy and do not replace, and we pollute and do not clean up after ourselves.
Defender’s urges: “That’s why it’s crucial that comprehensive global warming legislation include dedicated policies and funding to ensure wildlife can survive in a changing climate.
Please contact your Representatives to urge them to support this bill and strengthen the legislation by dedicating 7 billion dollars of the revenues from it to safeguard both wildlife and natural resources from the impacts of climate change.
Monroe’s Rep. is John Dingell – (313) 278-2936 or click on Defender’s of Wildlife link on my home page.
I’ve already called this morning and evidently Rep. Dingell is getting a lot of calls about this. His office stated he is very much interested in this bill and the future of wildlife and habitat.
Posted in Alternative Energy, Animals and Extinction, Animals in Peril, CO2 Emissions, Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth, Environmental Legislation, Environmentalism, Global Warming, Legislators, Michigan, Michigan Environmental Policy, Michigan/Great Lakes, Monroe, Michigan, Nature, Pollution, Rep. Dingell, Weather/Climate, Wildlife | No Comments »
Friday, April 17th, 2009
Environmental Defense announced that just today “EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a proposed ruling that global warming pollution “endangers” Americans’ health and well-being.” This ruling is the beginning of a chain of events where the Clean Air Act can be used to establish national emission standards for large polluters to include new motor vehicles and coal-fired plants.
Another effort begins next week when “the House Energy and Commerce Committee will begin hearing on comprehensive energy and climate legislation.” Chairman Henry Waxman plans on moving the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” out of committee by Memorial Day.
Finally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intends to bring the bill to the House floor this year.
It couldn’t come at a more appropriate time since next Wednesday, April 22, is EARTH DAY!
Posted in Alternative Energy, Automobile, CO2 Emissions, Coalburners, EPA, Environmental Defense, Environmental Legislation, Environmentalism, Global Warming, Global Warming Policy, Industry, Pollution | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, February 25th, 2009
An appeal was filed last year in the Supreme Court when a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia threw out the EPA’s cap and trade program for mercury, and the court told the EPA how they “erred by taking power plants off the list of hazardous pollution sources when it issued its Clean Air Mercury Rule” that advocated the cap and trade program. The court then gave the EPA two years to develop mercury emissions standards for existing power plants. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/02/us-court-of-appeals-gets-tough-on-epa-and-mercury-pollution/
Well, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the appeal Monday. The court’s decision not to hear the case this time around “invalidates the U.S. EPA’s so-called Clean Air Mercury Rule, which would have allowed dangerous levels of mercury pollution to persist under a weak cap-and-trade program that would not have taken full effect until after 2020,” according to an article on ENS website.
The article went on to say, “The Supreme Court also granted the Obama administration’s request, made two weeks ago, to drop the Bush administration appeal.” So the idea of cap and trade for mercury is pretty much a dead dog. To top it all off, Lisa Jackson as the newly appointed EPA Administrator promises to move quickly to develop stricter mercury standards for power plants—uh, oh.
Let’s see how clean coal can get, LOL.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2009/2009-02-24-093.asp
Posted in Bush Administration, Coal, Coalburners, EPA, Environmental Legislation, Environmentalism, Fossil Fuel, Global Warming, Industry, Mercury, Utilities | 1 Comment »
Tuesday, February 24th, 2009
Our power grids are basically a century old and have not been upgraded in decades. They are a hodge podge of lines connected to grids. As an article on ENN stated they pretty much “prop each other up,” winding across the country in a tangle.
Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, and Energy Secy., under president Clinton, how-long-ago-was-that, has called our grids “Third World.” Of course little to nothing has been done administration to administration to upgrade U.S. infrastructure. Certainly not in the past 8 years, even though $50 billion was spent to rebuild Iraq. And now that we want to move forward and are capable of producing alternative energy from wind and solar, we simply do not have the grids/lines to accommodate that additional power.
This may pose a problem for our auto industry that plans to proceed with plug in cars. I thought our auto companies conferred with utility companies as to whether the grids could handle the additional use?
And I think we have the answer as to why the U.S. needs to spend money on infrastructure at this time. We CANNOT move ahead with alternative energy without rebuilding/upgrading our grids to move more power through more lines. The new lines are needed from remote areas where wind turbines are best situated to urban centers where the most power is needed.
The problem as the ENN article stated, we “have about 200,000 miles of power lines divided among 500 owners.” Upgrades involve multiple states, multiple companies, and tons of permits. There is no easy answer in this situation. It seems states have “[] little incentive to push improvements that would benefit neighboring states.” And “in most states, rules used by public service commissions to evaluate transmission investments discourage multistate projects of this sort. In some states with low electric rates, elected officials fear that new lines will simply export their cheap power and drive rates up.”
Sometimes we have to wonder if the states are all that united. The federal government is going to have to step up and create unity out of this mess, which is going to be yet another massive argument of states rights vs. federal government, private industry vs. the fed. gov’t., and citizens vs. everyone over land rights and easements for new lines.
I think the best thing to do would be change what energy has the right of way in the grid. For instance: New York’s Maple Ridge Wind Farm is the example in this article that produced enough energy to congest the lines so that they had to shut down or PAY FEES FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONTINUING TO PUMP POWER INTO THE LINES. Whaaaaat???
That’s the problem right there. A big majority of Americans want alternative energy. So alternative energy should have the right of way in those lines. The preference should not be fossil fuel produced electricity over clean, cheap wind or solar power. This small change would make a hill of beans difference I think. Charge the polluting sources with fees for usage after wind and solar. Reduce the fossil fuel supplied electricity during peak hours that the wind or solar farms are running energy through the lines.
This looks like another case of “They’re just not getting it,” which is really about not wanting to get it.
http://www.enn.com/energy/article/38057
Posted in Alternative Energy, CO2 Emissions, Conservation, Energy Infrastructure, Environment and Jobs, Environmental Legislation, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Fossil Fuel, Green Construction, Legislators, Solar Energy, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Utilities, Wind Power | No Comments »
Tuesday, January 13th, 2009
The Senate Bill S 22 I blogged about last night has advantages for Michigan. The 200 million acres slated for protection under the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009includes 9 states of which Michigan is one of them.
An article on (ENS) Environmental News Service website highlights some of the details of this package of 160 public land bills that also includes four ocean bills. The ocean bills are important to Michigan and the Great Lakes. They are:
The Ocean and Coastal Exploration and NOAA Act will authorize the National Ocean Exploration Program, National Undersea Research Program, and the Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to increase scientific knowledge for the management, use and preservation of oceanic, coastal and Great Lake resources.
The Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act will authorize the establishment of an integrated system of coastal and ocean observations for the nation’s coasts, oceans and Great Lakes.
The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act will authorize a coordinated federal research program on ocean acidification.
The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act will authorize funding for a program to protect important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, aesthetic, or watershed protection values, and that are threatened by conversion to other uses.
Read more about this bill that took quite a lot of effort and an even longer time to get passed due to opposition by one Senator:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2009/2009-01-12-03.asp
Posted in Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Conservation, Environmental Legislation, Environmental News Service, Environmentalism, Global Warming, Legislators, Michigan/Great Lakes, National Parks and Forests, Public Lands | No Comments »
Monday, January 12th, 2009
In an unusual Sunday vote called by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Bill 22 moved forward with a vote of 66-12 that would add 200 million more acres of U.S. land under the Wilderness Protection Act. The Associated Press reported that this bill is “the largest expansion of wilderness protection in 25 years. Prior to this, the bill met with opposition from Republicans. The Sunday vote was an effort to bypass their stalling that some say will “derail” the pledged cooperation between Republicans and Democrats in the near future.
In any event, the bill is making its way through to senate approval and according to the same AP article includes California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range, Oregon’s Mount Hood, Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia for protection under the act.
This is pretty binding stuff once it’s decided. It would take another act of Congress to take the same land away from the Wilderness Protection Act. I wondered what the Wilderness Protection Act actually does. In my mind if a place is already a national park, why does it need further protections? According to Wikipedia, which is a good enough source for explaining things, the basics of the Wilderness Protection Act are:
-
-
The lands protected as wilderness are areas of our public lands.
-
-
Within wilderness areas, we strive to restrain human influences so that ecosystems [the Wilderness Act, however, makes no specific mention of ecosystems] can change over time in their own way, free, as much as possible, from human manipulation. In these areas, as the Wilderness Act puts it, “the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man”—untrammeled meaning the forces of nature operate unrestrained and unaltered.
-
Wilderness areas serve multiple uses. But the law limits uses to those consistent with the Wilderness Act mandate that each wilderness area be administered to preserve the “wilderness character of the area.” For example, these areas protect watersheds and clean-water supplies vital to downstream municipalities and agriculture, as well as habitats supporting diverse wildlife, including endangered species, while logging and oil and gas drilling are prohibited.
-
Along with many other uses and values for the American people, wilderness areas are popular for diverse kinds of outdoor recreation—but without motorized or mechanical vehicles or equipment. Wilderness is the haven of quiet beyond the end of the road, the wild sanctuary we meet on its own terms by leaving the machinery of twenty-first-century life behind. The wild popularity of wilderness recreation shows how hungry Americans are for just such sanctuaries.
-
The Wilderness Act was reinterpreted by the Administration in 1986 to ban bicycles from Wilderness areas, which led to the current vocal opposition from mountain bikers to the opening of new Wilderness areas.
Interesting, because I did see some protesting the fact that this will be 200 million more acres no one can use, unless we decide to see the place the good old fashion way—by hiking. But the whole idea is to protect the wilderness from man so we either walk through it leaving the least amount of impact, or we don’t see it at all.
There is also the questionable $3 million earmark to Alaska for another road to nowhere through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge there. Maybe they should add that area to the Wilderness Act. No mechanical or motorized vehicles in protected areas, no need for a road. And didn’t Alaska’s governor denounce earmarks anyway?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ja3vNS7u_ovPaeUpzrEKqDzs5TjAD95KSENO0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act
Tags: Virginia
Posted in Bureau of Land Management, California, Colorado, Conservation, Endangered Species, Environmental Legislation, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Legislators, National Parks and Forests, Nature, Nevada, Plants, Public Lands, Trees, Wildlife | No Comments »
