Archive for the ‘U.S. Dept. of Energy’ Category
Thursday, July 9th, 2009
A paper recently published by the American Geophysical Union stated: “Using short term trends that show little temperature change or even slight cooling to refute global warming is misleading…especially as the long-term pattern clearly shows human activities are causing the earth’s climate to heat up.”
The article went on to say:
In their paper “Is the climate warming or cooling?” David R. Easterling of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center and Michael Wehner of the Computational Research Division at the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory note that a number of publications, websites and blogs often cite decade-long climate trends, such as that from 1998-2008, in which the earth’s average temperature actually dropped slightly, as evidence that the global climate is actually cooling.
The climate expert’s paper was “carefully reviewed by other researchers and scientifically defensible.” The climate is variable, and even though our overall climate is getting warmer, we “can’t expect it to do so in a monotonic way – or that each year will be warmer than the preceding year.”
Real climate scientists are looking at trends over thousands of years and basically ignore decade long cooling periods because they mean very little in the big picture. However, the experts say that these are precisely the short term trends critics like to “cherry pick” to influence segments of the general public into believing for instance that a decade of cooling in a particular area is evidence against human-induced climate change.
The research was funded by the DOE Office of Science’s Office of Biological and Environmental Research through its Climate Change Prediction Program.
Read the whole article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090504141047.htm.
Posted in CO2 Emissions, Environmentalism, Global Warming, Science, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Weather/Climate | 9 Comments »
Friday, March 20th, 2009
According to a current article on ENS, Environmental News Service, “President Barack Obama Thursday announced $2.4 billion in economic stimulus funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” that is meant to meet his goal of putting one million plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015. The DOE, Dept. of Energy, is also offering $1.5 billion in grants for U.S. manufacturers to produce the batteries for the plug-ins, $500 million in grants for U.S. manufacturers to produce the electric motors and other components, along with a kicker $400 million to “demonstrate and evaluate plug-in hybrids and other electric infrastructure concepts” like charging stations, and the people who will work on these new cars. The DOE plans to further support projects that help develop this market further.
So it looks like plug-ins are on their way. The bonus is that consumers get a piece of the pie too. Purchasing a plug-in hybrid will get us a tax credit of up to $7,500. But, we’re going to need a new electric infrastructure all right. Our power grids are 50 years old.
This is good news for me. A lot of what I hear is good news for me like giving me $5000 to get my gas hog off the road, then turning around and giving me the $7,500 tax credit for going with a plug-in. There is no need to twist my arm because I think the Chevy Volt is sweet, but I’ll take any and all offers to get me moving toward buying a green car in the very near future.
But of course, as of right now, the $5000 for a trade-in isn’t solid, this new stimulus to create plug-in cars has just been announced, and GM, the creator of the sweet little Volt I would like, is still struggling in this economy. Meanwhile my gas-guzzler is really getting old. I don’t feel guilty for driving it because it only leaves the driveway twice a week, three times tops. I consolidate everything to minimalize running around. But I’m beginning to notice a time lag from when I turn the key and the ignition actually strikes. This tells me my time with my old car is limited and I probably won’t make it to the era of the plug-in without buying another car first. It figures.
Read more: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2009/2009-03-20-094.asp
Posted in Alternative Energy, Automobile, Energy Infrastructure, Environmental Capital, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Funding for Green Business, Industry, U.S. Automakers, U.S. Dept. of Energy | No Comments »
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 »
Wednesday, January 21st, 2009
The Grist website offered a good introduction as to who’s who in the Obama administration that’s going to be watching over all things environmental.
The lineup looks good, although I worry a little about the agricultural industry and hopes for eliminating CAFO’s. But time will tell. We’ll see the direction this administration takes soon by the rulings President Obama overturns his first few weeks in office. Hopefully the animals in peril from being delisted from the Endangered Species List will soon be reinstated, and their habitat protected.
I’ve signed quite a few environmental petitions for various things aimed at the White House ASAP. Many, many people do want change. Right now I’d like to see change in my heating bill! Not enough sun this winter to help out.
http://grist.org/feature/2008/11/13/index.html
Tags: Obama Administration
Posted in Dept. of the Interior, EPA, Environment and Jobs, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Global Warming Policy, U.S. Dept. of Energy, White House Council on Environmental Quality | 2 Comments »
Monday, December 8th, 2008
I caught a real hoot of an interview on Planet Green between Bob Woodruff and Laura Bush yesterday. She said one of her passions is our national parks. She’s hiked in many, mentioning Denali National Park in Alaska, the park Sarah Palin wants to run a natural gas line through.
Mrs. Bush talked about her geothermally heated ranch, with water collection system, and the fact that White House switched to LED holiday lights. She went on to say that oil is a limited natural resource that will run out, as all of our natural resources worldwide. She won’t admit anything about global warming however; opting to say that it doesn’t matter. We should be practicing conservation anyway.
About global warming, she said she reads the latest worldwide reports like everybody else. She evidently hasn’t read about her husband’s horrible environmental legacy that has had a devastating effect on the national parks she avows to love. There is something seriously wrong with this picture because it was also reported that the Park Service, Dept. of Energy, and Interior are trying to overhaul the parks for more sustainability, or greening them up so to speak. Doesn’t President Bush appoint these dept. heads? Bush is doing his best to further the opposite.
There are plenty of things up Bush’s sleeve before he leaves office. Environmentalists are calling it a Fire Sale for the Oil and Gas Industry. As CBS news website reported:
Late on Election Day, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management announced a Dec. 19 auction of more than 50,000 acres of oil and gas parcels alongside or within view of Arches National Park and two other redrock national parks in Utah: Dinosaur and Canyonlands. ‘We find it shocking and disturbing,’ said Cordell Roy, the chief Park Service administrator in Utah. ‘They added 51,000 acres of tracts near Arches, Dinosaur and Canyonlands without telling us about it. That’s 40 tracts within four miles of these parks.’
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/16/national/main4608048.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4608048
Then there is the administration’s push to weaken Clean Air Act protections for “Class 1 areas” of national parks nationwide. According to the Washington Post, “[It] has sparked fierce resistance from senior agency officials. All but two of the regional administrators objecting to the proposed rule are political appointees.” The article also said, “In written submissions, EPA regional administrators have argued that this switch would undermine critical air-quality protections for parks such as Virginia’s Shenandoah, which is frequently plagued by smog and poor visibility.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803813.html. Poor visibility from pollution smog over a national park. Sure, man doesn’t affect the environment. Keep believing that until we choke everyone out of existence.
I blogged about other attacks on our national parks by Bush/Cheney too like the repeal of the roadless rule. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/04/were-about-to-lose-one-of-the-largest-forests-in-america-to-big-money-interests/
http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/03/pine-trees-in-danger-from-beetles-as-bush-looks-to-trample-our-biggest-forest/.
On top of this Bush just undid a 25 year old statute banning guns in National Parks. Yep, while hiking through one of them, minding your own business, a gunshot could ring out. Real nice place to take the kids and camp hey? The only reason for guns in national parks is for hunting or nuts. I thought critters in National Parks were protected? I thought humans in National Parks were protected from gunshots out of nowhere.
Right after this interview was a segment on Joshua Tree National Park. It’s getting harder to find older trees, and all the trees seem to be in decline. In some parts they are sure to be extinct soon. It was explained Joshua trees need a high desert environment, which is cooler. They also need a couple of nights of freezing weather that no longer happens due to global warming. Fires that weren’t as much a threat before in Joshua Tree Park have ravaged thousands of acres due to drier grasses. All it takes is a lightening strike. There are many more parks in danger of losing the very symbol for which they are known. The wetlands of Everyglades Park are retreating, and the glaciers of Glacier National Park are well…you know. Will we rename the parks? Will the parks even resemble places to preserve any more?
Scientists claim our National Parks are laboratories where effects of climate change are quick to appear. This does not bode well then, and further attacks on our parks by Bush/Cheney is just inexcusably the meanest turn any president has taken against our national treasures. If the First Lady is genuinely concerned she should take her passionate call for parks that are in peril to the source of that perilher husband, oh and let’s never forget Cheney.
Posted in Bureau of Land Management, Clean Air Act, Conservation, Dept. of the Interior, Energy Infrastructure, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Fossil Fuel, Global Warming, National Forest, National Parks and Forests, Natural Gas, Natural Gas Suppliers, Oil Industry, U.S. Dept. of Energy | 1 Comment »
Thursday, January 31st, 2008
I was listening to Good Morning America this morning and it seems cities around the country are having a hard time controlling speeding drivers. Follow along here. Scottsdale, AZ was the first city to have speed enforcement cameras on one of its highways. Other cities are following suit. A county in Maryland that has speed cameras simply sends a citation to the speeder in the mail if they are clocked at more than 11 mph over the limit. Eleven miles over is a far cry from one driver that was caught doing 131 mph past a 65 mph sign. This camera system has its detractors that claim the cameras aren’t always accurate and they are limited. But the cameras work.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety knows that Americans speed and on all types of roads. The speed cameras have got the 75 mph crowd way down from 15 percent to less than 2. That’s quite a drop. But why do we speed? Because we can. And most of the time we do it around 20 percent over the limit. We should be asking why during this oil crunch and with CO2 emission overload hasn’t our federal government lowered the speed limit to 55 mph like it did in the 70’s?
The idea of speeding because we can is bolstered by our car industry. Don’t get me wrong; it’s sheer joy to hear pistons slamming while jumping out in front of the guy that wasn’t going to let me on the expressway. But that’s about it. Keep traveling too fast and get caught, not to mention burning way too much gas and emitting excessive CO2 in the process. We should wonder about the contradiction of producing speedy cars in a country of speed limits. It’s stupid irony.
Lowered speed limits and the introduction of ethanol pumps, something I have yet to see anywhere, were the combination of choice in the 70’s when gas was high. I don’t think ethanol is the best idea, it will burden the space for food crops and give us another empire that is corn rich, but among alternative choices, it has its place. So where are the ethanol pumps? Are they gone the way of a lower speed limit?
Some of the excuses look extremely flimsy for all the things we do and don’t. If we had ethanol pumps back in the 70’s, than we should most surely be able to get them out there now and fast. It isn’t like we don’t have the technology. Ditto for lowering the speed limit. As for car manufacturers, Daimler-Chrysler (at the time) had the technology to produce hydrogen buses for Iceland 5 years ago but “nada” for us now. Ford and GM are slow to present true hybrids and keep lobbying on fuel economy issues. They claim they need time to produce 40-mpg cars. But back in 1984, the Big 3 automakers produced a total of 35 cars that got 40 mpg or more. GM had 19, Ford had 6, and Chrysler had 10 of those gas savers. I say drag out those engineering plans and slap a new, sleek, light weight body on those babies and get em out there! My girlfriend who is in the market for a hybrid came back from the auto show disappointed and a little unnerved by the propaganda she heard like, “this is a REAL car,” because it goes too fast for the speed limits and burns mega petro.
Have you followed the logic and gathered a clear idea that nothing adds up here? We chase our tailbackwards! The experience and technology is there, so we have to look to the reason it’s not happening. There is only one industry that benefits from speeders, inefficient fuel economy, and no alternative fuel sources readily availableOIL.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4221537
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/19/super-cheap-high-mpg-cars-1984/
Posted in Alternative Energy, Alternative Energy Sources, Automobile, Bush Administration, CO2 Emissions, Chrysler, Conservation, Energy, Energy Costs, Environmental Legislation, Environmental Spin, Environmentalism, Ethanol, Ford, Fossil Fuel, Fuel Economy, GM, Global Warming Policy, Industry, Legislators, Methods for Lowering Energy Costs, Oil Industry, Oil Lobby, Politics, Pollution, The Denial Machine, U.S. Automakers, U.S. Dept. of Energy | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, January 30th, 2008
Did you know that a lake could blow up from CO2 gases settled on the bottom? Until 1986 scientists didn’t think so either. I was watching the History Channel. A Professor Riskin hypothesized about methane gas sea explosions causing prehistoric earth to scorch. The scientific community was not convinced about gas exploding out of the ocean until in 1986 Lake Nios in Cameroon, Africa exploded from 1.6 million tons of CO2 gas being released that had settled on the bottom. Over 1700 people were asphyxiated up to 16 miles away along with all their livestock, some 3000 head of cattle.
Scientists argued for a while that it was a volcanic eruption and a mix of sulfur that caused the explosion, but sulfur substances weren’t found. The survivors of the explosion claimed they smelled sulfur but there is evidently something called olfactory hallucinations associated with CO2 asphyxiation and one of them is the smell of sulfur.
According to an article on Bnet, it was believed carbon dioxide gas build-up had a volcanic origin and built up slowly in the lake over a long period of time. U.S. researchers didn’t know exactly what triggered the explosion, but it was never believed a volcano or earthquake was responsible. French researchers disagreed. They believed the exploding cloud that dispersed throughout the area traveling at 40 mph was a mix “of steam, carbon dioxide and sulfur compounds that had been building up in a layer of groundwater heated by volcanic rocks far below the lake. These compounds reportedly were injected into the lake when the pressure of the steam eventually cracked the rock that had been holding it down.”
The problem is “U.S.scientists said lake temperatures were not elevated, its bottom did not appear to have been disturbed, there were no volcanic sulfides in the lake and no suspended sediments that might have resulted had steam rushed through bottom sediments.”
Either way we look at it, whether the CO2 was just laying there and blew or was caused by too much pressure from too much CO2 being injected into the rock fissures, it does not bode well for a future with too much CO2 around. So much for the gasification process relative to “clean coal.”
Coal burns filthy. The reason why it’s recently being touted as “clean” is because of a gasification process where the CO2 pollution is trapped, and liquified. The pollution never gets into the air but the liquified CO2 needs some place to go. Just like the spent fuel of a nuke, the best place for the leftover liquid CO2 is to put it in the ground by injection. But do we know how much CO2 is safe to inject? Will we have to worry about CO2 geisers in the future? If so the future is looking pretty prehistoric. Told ya we’re dinosaurs.
Read more about the Lake Nios’ explosion:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v131/ai_4645289
Posted in Africa, CO2 Emissions, Coal, Coal Mining, Coalburners, Countries/Continents, EPA, Environmental Legislation, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Fossil Fuel, Global Warming, Global Warming Policy, Industry, Michigan/Great Lakes, Morality, Oil Drilling, Oil Industry, Politics, Pollution, Refineries, Science, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Volcanoes | 2 Comments »
Friday, January 18th, 2008
I don’t know if any other people interested in moving forward with all types of alternative energy have noticed the purposeful placement of the word “foreign” in many of the presidential contenders, Bush/Cheney,and legislator’sspeeches. When a politician says they will make sure to fund research for new technologies to get us away from “foreign” oil dependence, they are probably talking money for a new type of oil drilling process. Technically, they won’t be lying, just misleading, if you tend to disregard that tricky little word “foreign.”
Granted, it’s been said that we do not have alternative technology available yet to take up the brunt of our oil demand, but it seems we keep looking to only one, and not a combination of alternative sources. What about a combination of alternative energy sources? I hear this idea floating around, but no gelling. The Sierra Club of Michigan has a very good presentation that shows a combination of energy sources, wind, solar, geothermal, etc., plus conservation programs like reclaiming wastewater, and recycling may meet all of our energy demands in Michigan. But we’re not advancing toward a future that will no longer be reliant on one big massive conglomerate like the oil cartel is to us right now. It seems we work toward monopolies in this country. Then we’re upset when we’re stuck with them without a choice. We should be looking to all venues to move forward for our energy future, not reinforcing the idea of fossil fuel again, like it’s all right because it belongs to us.
I see the big push to get away from “foreign” oil as the big ruse to drill in the Arctic circle, the polar bear habitat, Utah, even Livonia, MI for Pete’s sake, and anywhere a slant oil drill can legitimately be utilized to “not’ enter our protected National Parks. They do so anyway at an angle right under protected habitat, while doing a great deal of damage with all the accompanying paraphernalia like roads, pipeline, trucks, heavy equipment, and trash. Ditto for coal mining. Using coal is getting away from “foreign” oil, all oil, but is still perpetuating the use of filthy fossil fuel that will eventually run out. Sure it might be thousands of years before it does, but at what price, gutting the countryside, ruining the earth trying?
So beware of that tricky little “foreign” word that comes before oil. It’s not a detail that should go unnoticed, because it doesn’t make any difference. It does, or they wouldn’t be slipping it in there. It makes all the difference in our lives, our environment, and our world whether our future continues to poke around the earth and the oceans below for oil or coal that is “OURS.” Our oil and coal burn just as filthy as the “foreign” stuff.
Posted in Alternative Energy, Alternative Energy Sources, Arctic Oil Drilling, AuSable River, Bottled Water, Bush Administration, CO2 Emissions, Coal, Coal Mining, Coalburners, Conservation, Earth, Energy, Energy Infrastructure, Environmental Legislation, Environmental Spin, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Fossil Fuel, Funding for Green Business, Geothermal Power, Industry, Legislators, Michigan Energy Legislation, Michigan Environmental Policy, Michigan Pollution, Michigan Sierra Club, Michigan/Great Lakes, Morality, National Parks and Forests, Ocean Pollution, Oil Drilling, Oil Industry, Oil Lobby, Oil Spills, Petroleum By-Products, Politics, Pollution, Public Lands, Reclaimed Wastewater, Recycling, Refineries, Science, Solar Energy, The Denial Machine, The Sierra Club, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Wind Power, Yellowstone Park | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, January 16th, 2008
I caught the end of a program on the Science Channel tonight that featured Stirling Energy Technologies. Stirling has been around since the 80’s relative to alternative energy sources. Stirling is not selling retail to the public on an individual basis yet, but considering I have a large satellite dish out here in the boonies I would have no problem owning a solar dish in the future.
The FAQ page for Stirling describes:
Our Solar Dish Stirling system is shaped much like large satellite dishes (approximately 37 in diameter) and covered with curved mirrors. These solar dishes are programmed to always face the sun and focus that energy on a collector in much the same way that a satellite dish focuses radio waves on a tuner. This collector is connected to a Stirling engine, which uses the thermal power generated by the focused solar energy to heat liquid hydrogen in a closed-loop system. The expanding hydrogen gas creates a pressure wave on the pistons of the Stirling engine, which spins an electric motor creating electricity with no fuel cost or pollution. This technology is referred to as solar thermal or concentrating solar power.
The company also says that at a “power plant producing 1,000 MW, the cost per kWh would be less than ten cents,” and “[o]ne dish on an annual basis can produce 55,000-60,000 kWh of electricity. This is equivalent to the total energy required for 8-10 homes in the U.S.” ChaChing!
Stirling may save the Western part of our country in the future. Right now Stirling is planning a solar field 5 miles square in the desert that will supply the entire city of San Diego with electricity. Of course as more of this type of technology is utilized, the more the engineers can improve and modify, modify, modify. Remember computers back in the 70’s? I used to do keypunch and then worked on a desktop computer in U of M hospital’s personnel dept. The mainframe to those computers back then took up a whole room. We had to type the info on forms with 7 carbon copies first, then input the data too because we couldn’t trust that the system wouldn’t go down and dump everything. The miracle of innovation, and modification is apparent as I type this on my little laptop that I can take anywhere and doesn’t even require a mouse. See what I mean?
The sooner we unleash all the technology that is out there to see what we actually can come up with, the sooner it gets modified down to convenient personal size. Right now it would take 20,000 dishes to equal a coalburner or nuke plant. But with future innovation and modification in no time we could see that number down to hundreds as the size of the equipment is reduced. Better yet our own personal dish, and mini power station no bigger than a small boiler that produces everything we need with absolutely no fuel used or pollution produced to keep us nice and cool as the sun sears on. Am I taking it too far? I don’t think so.
Read more about Stirling: http://www.stirlingenergy.com/faq.asp?Type=all
Posted in Alternative Energy, Alternative Energy Sources, Bush Administration, Conservation, Environment and Jobs, Environmentalism, Financial, Global Warming, Global Warming Policy, Green Investments, Green Products, Legislators, Morality, Oil Lobby, Politics, Pollution, Science, Solar Energy, The Science Channel, U.S. Dept. of Energy | 1 Comment »
Monday, December 10th, 2007
I was lookingon the Internet for websites to find out how our political candidates stand on the environment. Fortunately, I received my League of Conservation Voters newsletter in the mail today. The LCV has a new Presidential Candidate Profiles Website. It has the most comprehensive analysis of the candidate’s positions on global warming, energy, and how they’ve voted in the past. It also has Operation: Spotlight. Real interesting. The objective of the LCV is to target 14 states with a total of 159 electoral votes to elect environmentally friendly legislators in those states.
Unfortunately, Michigan is on the list of the 14 states that need a change in order to be environmentally up-to-par. I say unfortunately because we are surrounded by the world’s 2nd largest freshwater supply, and we can clearly see the fight for freshwater is in America’s future after this summer’s droughts. While our current legislators work to get a multi-state compact signed to keep our water here where it belongs, we have a Republican Senate that is not too terribly friendly to the environment. So we fight to keep freshwater here, and then do nothing to stop the industry pollution that threatens it? No sense to it at all. I know we have the Great Lakes Legacy cleanup thing going. You know where they dumped all the dredged up toxic sludge from the first project? Right near my house near Pt. Mouille game reserve, various protected wetlands, and another DNR game reserve all on the banks of Lake Erie again. It’s all just getting moved around.
As far as our federal congress, a small group of Republican Senators has already blocked the House’s new energy bill. The LCV sites Senator Sununu for standing “with a minority in the Senate that sided with big oil and big coal to block a measure that is good for jobs, good for the economy, good for national security, good for consumers and good for the planet.” The power behind the lobby of big polluters is a force to be reckoned with. The LCV website is very informative as to who and who isn’t being bought by big energy, oil, lumber, coal, etc. According to the LCV, among the top candidates who are up for re-election or looking to move to the senate and receiving massive contributions by polluters to stop any progress forward to protect our earth, our health, and the lives of everything on the planet:
- Heather Wilson (NM) 835,512
- James Inhofe (OK) 636,965
- Pete Domenici(NM)567,928
- Steve Pearce(NM) 547,415
- Arlen Specter(PA) 546,303
What’s up with New Mexico? I know it has plenty of open land. It’s a shame its legislators are being backed by dirty money, by that the LCV means polluter’s money, because New Mexico has a lot of open space. It could be an ideal place for solar or possibly geothermal energy. And it is one of 5 states fed by one river threatened by global warming. Three people on that list will vote against the environment. Where’s the sense? If New Mexico runs out of water, watch them eyeball Michigan. It’s irresponsible. Add up that column above and it totals $3,134,123.00 to keep polluting. And it’s very early yet. Imagine the contribution total by November, 2008. It’s a sad statement considering the same money could be invested in alternative energy sources creating a win win situation no matter how the future progesses.
Check out more of “Operation: Spotlight, exposing the influence of dirty money in Congress” on the LCV website. This is valuable info. Politicians have scorecards for their voting history for specific environmental bills year by year. If you’re concerned about the environment, it is essential to know the candidates. This is a must see checklist for doing your homework before elections: http://www.lcv.org/
http://www.lcv.org/OperationSpotlight/home.html
Posted in Alternative Energy Sources, CO2 Emissions, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Coalburners, Conservation, Drought, Earth, Environment and Jobs, Environmental Legislation, Environmental Spin, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Fossil Fuel, Geothermal Power, Global Warming, Great Lakes, Great Lakes Pollution, Great Lakes Water, League of Conservation Voters, Legislators, Mercury, Michigan Clean Water, Michigan Energy Legislation, Michigan Environmental Policy, Michigan Pollution, Oil Industry, Oil Lobby, Politics, Pollution, Solar Energy, State Gov't., The Denial Machine, U.S. Dept. of Energy | 6 Comments »
