Our World and Everything in It

The NRDC and other organizations like Greenpeace and Center for Biological Diversity have filed a suit against the Bush Administration again on behalf of the polar bear according to the NRDC. The polar bear is on the endangered list, but it seems its habitat is not. Soooo there is a lot of leeway (loopholes) in that plan for Big Oil.

The White House has been flooded with petitions to protect the polar bear and its habitat, but the NRDC and others have had to file suit even as Bush’s time in office is limited. Likewise, the Center for Biodiversity has a lawsuit against the Dept. of Interior, lead by good ole Dirk Kempthorne, for attempting to expand oil and gas development in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas or the “Polar Bear Seas.” It’s called the “Five Year Plan.” Real nice. In five years we should be on our way to oil independence.

It’s more tail chase logic. Allow oil companies to invade polar bear country with the industry that produces the fuel that emits CO2 fueling global warming that is melting the polar bear’s habitat in the first place. It’s another pretty package with little inside from the Bush administration. Apparently, we are to assume the package itself is a big portion of the actual present. And so goes this administration’s polar-bear-is-an-endangered-species offering that sounds right and just but turns right around and gives oil companies the upper hand in the Arctic.

An Arctic that is diminished with one million square miles, six times the size of California, melted away in the past 30 years. For those that want to argue this all happened before, well it wasn’t the Medieval Warming Period from somewhere in the 900’s-1300’s era. We’re a heck of a lot warmer now. According to New Scientist Environment website we might have to go back 6000 to 125,000 years to get as warm as we’re getting and it’s only going to get worse. This is not just natural phenomenon happening here. Anyway the difference between thousands of years ago and now is almost 7 billion people.

Look at the more dense population areas of the world. They are along the water. Take a pitcher of water with ice cubes in it and watch as they melt. No water level change, but add ice and that pitcher overflows. Imagine the scenario if all the ice that covers the land in our coldest regions slips into the surrounding water. That’s adding some mighty big ice cubes to our albeit mighty big oceans/seas but the pitcher will still overflow.

Big Oil’s intrusion in the Polar Bear Seas is adding insult to injury or in this case certain death to the polar bear. And it’s unnecessary. There are some 63 million acres of land leased for oil exploration that hasn’t been touched. The intruder polluters also endanger birds, fish, and other mammals with potential oil spills.

Organizations like the NRDC, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, Center for Biodiversity, and others are making progress. Shell put off drilling in the Beaufort Sea off the Arctic Refuge coast for another year. Now if they can just hold the Bush Administration and Dirk Kempthorne at bay for oh, a couple of months, maybe a new administration will have a little more empathy for the polar bear and our environment. 

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11644

http://www.nrdc.org/naturesvoice/feature1.asp

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2008/081006.asp

According to an article on ENS, “The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing today to review the Bush administration’s record on public health and environmental matters, but it was conducted in the absence of Ranking Member Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican and former chair of the committee.”

It figures. Remember Inhofe, the senator waiving his own list of scientists that don’t agree with global warming, many of which belong to the “The Friends of Science Society,” a Canadian group I’ve blogged about before that seem to have ulterior motives:

So Inhofe boycotted this meeting, urged two witnesses not to appear, and the rest of the Republicans on the committee didn’t show either. It’s only a matter of time hopefully that we find out just how much environmental damage the Bush administration did. It affects our health and the future of our children. This is why I cannot understand people’s grasping at straws to avoid admitting and dealing with a rapidly growing global warming problem.

According to the article, the GAO or Govt. Accountability Office has already uncovered the following:

·         EPA political officials worked with the White House and the Pentagon to undermine the process for evaluating toxic chemical risks.

·         EPA has severely weakened its Office of Children’s Health Protection and largely ignored its Children’s Health Advisory Committee.

·         Despite the president’s campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, the White House reversed course and rejected actions to control global warming pollution.

·         In one of its first official acts, the Bush EPA announced that it was suspending the newly strengthened standard for arsenic in tap water.

·         The EPA story is the same for soot, smog, and lead standards - all weaker than its own scientists recommended.

·         Over the last seven years, the pace of Superfund cleanups has dropped by about 50 percent compared to the last seven years of the prior administration, from about 80 cleanups per year to 40 or less.

·         EPA has decided that it will not set a health standard for the toxic rocket fuel perchlorate in our drinking water, even though EPA data show that up to 16.6 million people are exposed to unsafe levels.

I don’t know about anyone else, but with or without Inhofe and the Republicans presence on the latest committee, there is enough evidence above to show that more than likely we’ve been lied to about plenty relative to the environment. And the animals that have taken a hit because of Bush’s tampering with the Endangered Species List goes beyond polar bears.

I still have a qualm that when the Bush administration is over we’re going to hear these words regarding the state of our world and everything it it, “It’s much, much worse than we thought.”

Read the article: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2008/2008-09-24-02.asp.

Gas will more than likely shoot to $6 per gallon because Ike is now the size of Texas itself and will more than likely destroy rigs and pipeline. So we are to drill elsewhere for more? Isn’t that perpetuating a problem?

We’ve been told by science, not politicians that man may have a hand in the rapid global warming we’re seeing. The administration in play for the past 8 years is an oil administration. They would do and say whatever to keep oil flowing and have. As a result, Americans are doubtful about global warming; more so than citizens of other developed countries that don’t simply shrug global warming off on Al Gore. Other countries are trying to affect change.

Meanwhile, this administration has flat out lied to us about a war, what would make us think especially after the latest news that government regulators party with oil lobbyists that maybe we’ve been lied to by this government about the environment?

And what about all the offshore drilling that everyone wants? Those rigs aren’t hurricane proof either. Hurricane Hannah ran up the side of the east coast, the gulf is getting lambasted now, and the west coast took a beating late winter and early spring this past year. There really is not safe place for a rig, except maybe in your backyard.

But why should we open up our backyards to more oil exploration in the first place when we have almost 70 million acres leased for oil that is producing NADA—absolutely nothing. That type of production would boost our oil by 5 million barrels per day, and enough time to progress with alternatives. Alternatives will insure we no longer have to worry about pipelines and oil rigs getting damaged from what will assuredly be intensified storms due to global warming we’re helping to grow. 

The real fear is that hurricanes running too closely together might join into one mammoth and frightening proposition. Ditto for tornadoes.  Oil is only an interim fix, we need to harness the power of some of that nature we’re seeing attack us.

I wonder how much energy Ike is putting out?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm?cnn=yes.

The lawsuit is the latest attack on the EPA for not regulating emissions again. This time it’s emissions from oil refineries. The New York Times article stated that 15% of all CO2 emissions comes from oil refineries. The other states are

New York atty. Andrew Cuomo leads the current fight, claiming it’s another example of the Bush Administration’s “do-nothing policy” regarding global warming.

Last year the Supreme Court ruled that it was the duty of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas under the Clean Air Act. The NY Times article said, “Since then, the agency’s director has said it is the job of Congress to regulate them.” Don’t you love it?

The EPA is like Teflon. Nothing sticks. They’ve been sued to set standards for power plant emissions and recently by California to regulate emissions from autos.

As far as the EPA turning out any standards for any of the above, so far nada.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/us/26epa.html?_r=1&ref=environment&oref=slogin

At one hundred kilowatts per hour per for one device, Swell Fuels lever operated pivoting float is something we should be using right now. A World Wire article stated: “The patent-pending device uses a pivoting float and a lever arm that unfolds to capture the up and down motion of ocean waves, producing electricity in the process.” How ingenious.

Swell Fuels is ready to go with this product but guess what? Politics and special interest groups are blocking this and many more innovative ways of creating energy for the future. We’re being told by many different articles including one in the Detroit Free Press this weekend about wind power, that the costs and time involved in alternative energy is too much, that’s why we’re not moving forward. Baloney. Innovation is being blocked to say the least.

Read more about this curious but effective invention: http://world-wire.com/news/0808120002.html.

First I read one of those quick moving news feeds that the EPA warned it’s enforcement officers not to speak to Congress. That little bit of info just peaked my curiosity–speak up about what?

Now four senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee are urging Steven Johnson, the third EPA administrator under Bush, to resign as it appears he lied to a Senate committee.

Johnson claims he acted alone when he decided California should not regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles, but he was originally going to issue a partial waiver to CA. Someone changed his mind. The preceding EPA administrators left just as questionably and quickly as Johnson.

Christine Todd Whitman, 2001-2003, resigned just before reports of the clean up of 9/11 came out and according to SourceWatch,  “Eric Shaeffer, the EPA’s head of regulatory enforcement under Whitman, resigned under protest. He told Flanders that Whitman is ‘a Republican first and an environmentalist way down the list.’”

Michael Leavitt was Bush’s second appointee as EPA Administrator. Twelve states and several NE cities sued the EPA to block the new Clean Air rules during his leadership. The states argued the rules would weaken both environmental and health protection for citizens. Nice real nice. Scientist’s discontent with censorship was surfacing along with altered reports about global warming too. Leavitt left the EPA to head up Health and Human Services. That’s when a memo from Leavitt’s new department suggested its employees should buy hybrid. It suggested the whole federal fleet should go hybrid. This suggestion was via e-mail to 67,000 employees! So was Leavitt environmentally minded or not, altering reports of global warming on the one hand, then telling employees to buy foreign hybrids on the other?

And now Stephen Johnson appears to have succumbed to political pressure from the White House too. Who will be the replacement this time, someone from oil, someone from the NRA and/or hunting industry, or lumber, or coal…? I mean we had Steven Griles as Deputy Secretary of the Interior that oversees the EPA, and USFWS among other things, that resigned and went to work for Conoco Phillips oil as a lobbyist. The Deputy Chief of Staff to the Dept. of Interior, Sue Ellen Wooldridge, denied living with Griles when she still worked for the EPA. And then there was Philip Cooney, former head of the White House Council for Environmental Quality. Cooney was caught editing important data from scientific reports for quite awhile as well as pressuring the EPA to go along, so much so, that in 2002 the EPA removed an entire section on global warming from its annual report about air pollution. Cooney came to his position at the council as a lawyer and former lobbyist  for the American Petroleum Institute.  He left to work for Exxon Mobil. Right now a former lobbyist for an Intl. Hunt Club heads the USFWS. Ethics abound in the Bush administration.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902020.html 

A short synopsis of what I gathered from a brief presentation of Al Gore’s speech in Washington today:

Gore thanked all of the congressman present and the many that he has conferred with over the years and around the world. He said he hoped to lift partisanship from global warming efforts.

He went on to say that America needs to shake off its complacency because the survival of the United States is at risk, as well as, what’s at stake for all civilization relative to global warming.

He acknowledged what many of us are currently thinking that so many things are going so wrong simultaneously. The economy is tanking. We’re losing job. The mortgage industry is in dire straights. We still have security risks, and the Iraq war. Gas prices keep rising. Food prices are rising.  And our weather is increasingly horrible, posing new threats to the economy as many homeowners lose everything they own to fires, floods, and tornadoes.

Global warming is advancing faster than originally thought in 2001, (National Geographic’s “Planet Earth” series proves this). Our own U.S. Navy subs went under the Arctic Ice Cap, and it’s now believed 75% of it will be gone in just 5 years. Greenland is disappearing with 20 million tons of ice melting into open water daily. Sea levels will rise. And based on the latest round of increased lightening strikes during storms, scientists say that a 1% increase in global warming will increase lightening strikes 10% more. The problem is bigger than we think.

So the bulk of America’s problems can be categorized as economic, environmental, and as national security issues. After speaking with leaders from around the world, scientists, engineers, CEO’s of major corporations, etc., all agree that old solutions that treat each of these categories separately is a mistake because at the core of every bad issue is our dangerous dependency on fossil fuels.

America needs to end dependency on carbon-based fuels!  (Roar from the crowd). It’s easy to see that these same measures to help the environment can:

• Ease the economy by offering thousands of new jobs in new green industry right here in America
•  Stop the energy/safety threat we suffer through control by foreign oil interests. These foreign (enemy) interests have a stranglehold on us. If we don’t need oil, we won’t need them. Oil fuels their wealth and power.  

Gore stated that the U.S. is borrowing money from China to purchase oil in the Middle East. We end up polluting while accelerating global warming. In that statement alone are the three categories of our problems economics, security, and the environment. We’re dealing with potential enemies to supplies us with our needs while they drain our bank account.

The quickest, cheapest, best answer to all three problems is the efficient production of electricity for all of our needs. Science proclaims that the sun provides enough cumulative energy every 40 minutes to provide 100% of the entire world’s needs. Now why wouldn’t we use that instead? Gore also reiterated what I’ve already learned, that there is enough wind through the U.S. corridor to provide all of America’s energy needs. Add geothermal power to the equation and we simply have enough energy to get away from fossil fuels once and for all.

Gore remembers a statement that was made long ago that if oil got to $30 per barrel then alternative energy sources would be competitive. We’re closing in on being 5 times that limit and greater demand for alternative energy by big corporate consumers is already bringing costs down.

The logic then follows that we must put an end to our old fossil fuel solutions. We need a new start. Gore presented a strategic challenge to all of America. It is the linchpin of a bold new strategy to change America’s direction. He urged Americans to strive to reach 100% reliance on clean alternative energy sources within the next 10 years! And we should never think we can’t, because we can. Gore sited the walk on the moon at this juncture. (Huge applause and ovation).

Talking about solutions 40 years away is ridiculous. We have to aim for less than 10 years and if that challenge is not politically viable, Gore said, “Then ask the people.” (Another huge ovation).

Gore stated that our country can’t afford 10 more years of a tanking economy, job outsourcing, horrible weather disasters whereby the home insurance business may bottom out, and 10 more years of troop deployments to dangerous regions who happen to have huge oil supplies. Hmmm that last statement was interesting. Did we really invade Iraq for the oil and how is that playing out, and what oil companies and people are benefiting from our grief?

That’s pretty much all CNBC and CNN allowed us to watch. CNN announced at the same time Gore was giving this speech that John McCain was in Kansas getting an ovation for his idea about offshore oil drilling. I think Gore can forget partisan unity at this point.   

My 85-year-old mother asked me why there aren’t as many stars at night? I told her; to begin with, it has to be a clear night to see a bunch of stars. She said it seems when she was young there were a lot of starry nights. She’s intently watching the skies over Monroe to see if we have any clear nights, and how many stars are visible.

She thinks there aren’t as many clear nights because of pollution. My mother also remarked that some of her friend’s children were down from northern Michigan for a visit and it was quite noticeable to them that our skies are different, not as clear, even in the daytime.

I’m still wondering when the EPA is going to release reports about all types of things in our air, water, and land mass. It’s the same old stall or obstruction used by the Bush Administration against the environment for 8 years. I witnessed the put-off again on the news today when President Bush, during his talks in Britain with Gerald Brown, said that the U.S. would embrace environmentalism when China and India agree to the same pact or “whatever the U.S. does just won’t be affective.”

What a crock. First of all the U.S. only has 300 million citizens compared to both China and India with over one billion citizens each, yet the U.S. holds its own creating one quarter of earth’s total pollution. I think we could make quite a big dent in cleaning up the environment without China and India along for the ride. Has this administration ever heard the term, leading by example? Besides India is making huge strides by using their pollution for methane production to fuel their cooking and lighting needs. Bio Tech India has both a portable and permanent models of residential bio mass digesters. Just feed the digester food scraps and it produces methane gas to burn. Bio Tech India is also working on incorporating human waste into the works. India is already using the cow dung from its sacred cows for methane and energy production. Just think of all the fuel we could get from doggy parks, and litter boxes.

So it’s the same old song and dance from Bush. I really didn’t expect much more from his regime, but then I read an article on ENS website that congress is wondering about the big stall on reports about clean air, water, and land too, and what it’s costing us health wise.  It seems Congress “questioned the health effects of a new White House policy that delays the completion and release of chemical assessments into a public database maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

There it is, the purposeful stall from the Bush regime that delays the release of assessments that inevitably affect our health in a bad way, but no doubt help some big polluter down the line. I’m starting to feel like a Polar Bear more and more all the time.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-12-093.asp

If you’ve never heard of or viewed the panorama of Utah’s Red Rock Canyon area, do it. It is absolutely beautiful. I saw a travel channel segment on Zion National Park and want to visit there. It looks like a place of God. Our national parks are a real treasure, but the Bush administration doesn’t have much time left, and is trying for land grabs right out of OUR national parks to drill for oil.

If Bush has his way, oil drills will destroy eleven million acres of national park in Utah’s Red Rock Canyon. I’m hearing about these attempted land grabs happening all over the place. What I want to know is what is the sense? We know we’re short of refineries in the U.S. It’s a well known fact every time the U.S. has an oil crisis, large or small, that right away we want to invade new areas and drill for more oil. But it’s of no use unless it’s refined, and we don’t have enough refineries.

And it’s not likely we’ll be seeing brand new refineries in the future because of global warming. And yes even the Bush/Cheney administration admitted quite a while ago in 2002 that humans do indeed cause global warming. The U.S. EPA submitted a 268-page report to the UN back then admitting to and agreeing with scientists that oil refining, fossil fuel power plants, and car emissions are significant causes of global warming.

It’s 2008. What aren’t they getting? I know what the Bush administration is getting–more neglectful of our rights when they simply try to take over public lands for nothing more than filling the pockets of the rich from oil production. Trashing these beautiful areas of our country will not sit well with a court system that has been standing for the environment in a number of cases so far.

According to an Earthjustice report, just recently another federal court judge ruled that: “After years of court battles, Kane County must halt its illegal efforts to create roadways through Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and other wilderness areas,” which is in another area of Utah’s Red Rock Canyon. A U.S. District Judge “ordered the county to take down its signs inviting vehicles into areas closed to protect sensitive streams, wildlife habitat, archeological treasures, and wilderness values.”

This is good news but Dirk Kempthorne, Secy. of Interior, needs to hear from us again, even though he and the Bush administration know that attempts to drill in Utah’s Red Rock Canyon is going to meet with some mighty big resistance since this judge’s ruling.

http://action.wilderness.org/campaign/utahm00/xwnke5k44xx5mjj?

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2008/utah-county-must-stop-illegal-seizure-of-rights-of-way.html

Bush admits humans cause global warming: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2023835.stm

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_us_lack_sufficient_oil_refining.html

Now that the polar bears made the list, the push is on for global warming legislation. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has scheduled the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act S2191 for a floor vote in early June.

It looks like another senate vote that requires 60 votes. Currently about 40 senators support the bill, and another 20 are undecided. Environmental Defense Action Fund  “is working to find the votes and to strengthen, protect and pass the bill to put the Senate on record in favor of a strong policy to cap and reduce America’s global warming pollution. But I don’t think this is a strong policy yet. It’s a start.

I’m not the only one that thinks so. I ran into this article on http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/tags/americans_climate_security_act that says Friends of Earth took out ads to oppose this bill. FOE “thinks it does not go far enough and would be a windfall to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries.”

I saw another URL that Greenpeace opposes it also. So I looked the thing over @ http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s2191is.txt.pdf.

I found a lot of things right off the bat that were ludicrous like the sections below:

On page 7:  (5) the ingenuity of the people of the United States will allow the United States to become a leader in curbing global warming. Sure, but only if Big Oil and those in its pockets let us do so.

Then page 8 says that the idea is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough between 2007 and 2050 to avert the catastrophic impact of global climate change and to accomplish that purpose while preserving (23) robust growth in the United States economy, and (24) avoiding the imposition of hardship on United States citizens.

Right, just like many state energy packages lately that throw the entire burden on consumers in the form of higher rates. Boohoo, multimillion-dollar companies can’t afford to change quickly. What, they couldn’t see this coming for the last 8 years? Heck, there were climate change talks in 1994. I did a blog on companies that just forged ahead with their polluting practices, regardless of a growing global movement for the environment, that in the end would cry they couldn’t afford a fast turnaround. Why should we pay for their lack of foresight? Oh we have to think of the economy. We can’t let big business falter. Well why don’t we do away with the old fat cats and get new environmental industry going? The economy isn’t choosy about what affects its growth.

And finally my favorite part that really disappointed me about this bill is on page 13. It’s the same do-you-think-we’re-stupid list of what constitutes greenhouse gas:

(15) GREENHOUSE GAS.—The term ‘‘greenhouse gas’’ means any of—
       (A) carbon dioxide;
       (B) methane;
       (C) nitrous oxide;
       (D) sulfur hexafluoride;
       (E) a hydrofluorocarbon; or
       (F) a perfluorocarbon

This is the same long tired list that allows the removal of one or two gases while not reducing any of another. As long as the total greenhouse gas emissions of an industry falls within the limits of what that industry is allowed per year, and this sounds really high also, than it’s legal. This is what is wrong with the cap and trade solution, too many gases on the list to choose from. What if all industry decides to go the easy, cheap route and eliminates the same two gases only? For example: A coal burning facility decides to install what is called a scrubber on its plant. Lets say the scrubber collects most of the sulfur emissions and nitrous oxide depending on how it’s configured, and that alone lowers the overall emissions of the plant that’s allowed by law. CO2 just keeps on spouting forth. This is not to say that the sulfur or nitrous oxide is any less dangerous to overall global warming. Actually, it’s worse, but CO2 is the most concentrated in the atmosphere right now, and it’s not being dealt with because that industry concentrates on sulfur or nitrous oxide or hydrofluorocarbon instead.

All in all, it looks to me like the U.S. Court of Appeals did the environment a whole lot more justice than this bill when it vacated the EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule and told them cap and trade of mercury is nothing more than moving that pollution around. Amen.