Our World and Everything in It

The Clean Corporate Citizen (C3) program, established under Administrative Rules R324.1501 to R324.1511, allows regulated establishments that have demonstrated environmental stewardship and a strong environmental ethic through their operations in Michigan to be recognized as Clean Corporate Citizens. The C3 program is built on the concept that these Michigan facilities can be relied upon to carry out their environmental protection responsibilities without rigorous oversight, and should enjoy greater permitting flexibility than those that have not demonstrated that level of environmental awareness. Clean Corporate Citizens who voluntarily participate in this program will receive public recognition and are entitled to certain regulatory benefits, including expedited permits. http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3307_3666_4134—,00.html

While I’m happy that DTE is looking into investing in environmentally sound alternatives in the future, and this attempt to clean up AROUND Monroe’s coalburner is great progress, the Clean Corporate Citizen’s award is a little out of place here. What about the mercury? What about the CO2? Has DTE turned our coalburner into a carbon capture plant, because unless all three things are addressed with this award, than clean is a subjective word?

The award comes from Michigan’s DEQ whose budget has recently been slashed again. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/?p=414. The same DEQ that warns they will have fewer regulators looking out for Michigan’s wetlands, rivers, and streams, and will not likely to be able to respond to pollution spills.

If you read about the Clean Corporate Citizen program above it says, “regulated establishments that had a strong environmental ethic THROUGH their operations in Michigan…”  Come on, DTE just recently installed scrubbers that DO NOT address CO2 and or the resultant mercury emissions. It’s the second largest burner in the country.

I especially like the part above that says: “should enjoy greater permitting flexibility than those that have not demonstrated that level of environmental awareness.”  DTE is now a Clean Corporate Citizen who can enjoy EXPEDITED permits says the Dept. of Environmental Quality that no longer has the funds to regulate what happens to much of our state’s surface waters. The same surface waters of which 25% do not fall under the Great Lakes Compact protection either, thanks to Michigan’s senate.

Lovely.

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.   

Ah, how soon we forget. Just a little over a year ago the United States Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could not bypass its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. That ruling caused a rush to court on behalf of other industry polluters, i.e., coal burning facilities. But luck ran out for the coal industry when the of U.S. Court of Appeal’s basically threw the EPA’s cap and trade program out, and told the EPA that they were wrong by taking power plants off the list of hazardous pollution sources with its “Clean Air Mercury Rule.” Now the EPA has two years to develop mercury emissions standards for existing power plants. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=232

So it seems a little redundant for citizens to have to sign a petition to send a message to our state congress to get Michigan moving. This particular petition calls for Governor Granholm to issue an executive order to immediately direct Michigan’s DEQ (Dept. of Environmental Quality) to regulate CO2 emissions from coal and other power facilities.

The real goal here is to show our state government we are indeed watching what does or does not happen in Michigan as far as legislation to move forward to bring new jobs to boost the economy, while continuing to curb pollution in Michigan. Our two houses and the governor continue to come to a stalemate regarding jobs, the environment, pollution, and our economy. We wouldn’t be as afraid to loose jobs in polluting industries like construction of coalburners, refineries, and even nuke plants, if we had a decent RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) and Energy Efficiency program to entice more green industry into our state, which seems to go hand in hand with the technical industries also.

Job growth in a new sector certainly takes the sting out of job loss and poor working conditions in waning manufacturing sectors. So get on with it Michigan! We’re missing a golden opportunity to transform ourselves quickly from old manufacturing status quo to something new completely that’s being afforded by green industry.

Perhaps signing a petition to nudge our politicians forward is a very good idea to show we want the green—both industry and paycheck green.

Take the time to sign at:   http://progressmichigan.org/page/s/globalwarming.
 

Hopefully, everyone in Michigan realizes by now that we are not simply in an economic downturn. We are going through a transformational change away from a predominantly manufacturing state toward more economic diversity. We should have done this long ago. Michigan has suffered horrible ups and downs in the economy from relying too heavily on the auto industry. If we can just hang tight and move to change wisely, things will get increasingly better for Michigan. Dr. Charles Ballard, an economist, writes about transformational change in his book “Michigan’s Economic Future.”
http://www.absolutemichigan.com/dig/michigan/michigan-books-michigans-economic-future/

We don’t need anyone to tell us we’re going through something much different than regular economic cycles. We know we’re trying to expand our markets, many of which will be green markets.  Back in 2006, Governor Granholm issued an Executive Directive for the development of a comprehensive plan for meeting the state’s electric power needs that would include alternative sources and a timetable. As a result the MPSC, Michigan Public Service Commission, developed the 21CEP or 21st Century Energy Plan. That plan calculated what would happen if Michigan’s economy went through a tranformational change for the worse, which is evident as loss of manufacturing capacity and jobs continues: http://www.emaee.org/articles.php?id=42 and http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/electric/capacity/energyplan/newenergy_oct11_2006rev.pdf

The MPSC calls transformational change for the worse “low load growth sensitivity” and the results of this low demand for electricity is found on page 67 of the above pdf from the MPSC. The table there shows no new coal plants are needed until 2021. This is big difference from DTE’s rate filing before the MPSC that shows no growth demand until 2012, a nine year difference. But it shows that even DTE doesn’t expect any increase in electricity demand for years. Pages 73-75 of http://efile.mpsc.cis.state.mi.us/efile/docs/15417/0001.pdf

There should be a moratorium on any new permits for coalburners then. The rush to get scrubbers on Michigan’s coalburners satisfies Michigan’s lax CO2 laws that state if a number of emissions are eliminated, then the owner of the coalburning facility can apply for a permit to expand that facility and not have to capture or control the remaining emissions. Unfortunately sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxide (NOx), mercury, and CO2 are all lumped together. The scrubbers will eliminate the sulfur and nitrogen, but the mercury and more CO2 are good to go. Why the rush to put scrubbers on coal plants now if not to apply for permits, and before the rules change? Any new permits for expansion or new construction of coalburning facilities should be denied because by DTE’s own admission, the increase in demand for electricity in Michigan is simply not there, at least for awhile. 

We’ll soon be seeing a new media blitz from the coal industry because people are catching on that coal is not clean. The industry is throwing $30 million dollars into an advertising and public relations campaign under the name of Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC). But the list that follows are all polluters like Billiton the largest mining company in the world, or CONSOL the largest producer of bituminous coal in America. They just don’t have motivation to cut into that kind power unless it’s from the kindness of their hearts.

AMEREN, American Electric Power, Arch Coal, Arkansas Electric Coop, Associated Electric Coop, Association of American Railroads, Basin Electric Power Coop, BHP Billiton, Buckeye Industrial Mining, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Group, CONSOL Energy, CSX, Detroit Edison, Duke Energy, Edison Electric Institute, First Energy Corp, Foundation Coal, Hoosier Energy, Massey Energy, National Mining Assoc., National Rural Electric Coop, Norfolk Southern, Peabody Energy, Southern Co., Tri-State Generation and Transmission, Union Pacific Railroad, Western Farmers Electric Coop.

This group is using other groups like America’s Power and Clean Coal USA to advertise across the country to make their coal look green. So be alert. There is nothing new. There is not a new kind of coal plant that generates electricity with lower CO2 emissions. There is coal that has very low sulfur content. And sulfur content and other particulates can be removed by what is termed “scrubbers.”  That’s not new technology, but it will help alleviate lung problems. Until something drastically changes coal users like the cheap dirty stuff because everything else costs money. This is a good article about it from the Wall Street Journal: http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Clean-Coal-Oxymoron-WSJ.htm

In 2001 President Bush committed to more advanced clean coal technologies. According to an article on DOE’s website: “The Clean Coal Power Initiative is providing government co-financing for new coal technologies that can help utilities meet the President’s Clear Skies Initiative to cut sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollutants from power plants by nearly 70 percent by the year 2018. Also, some of the early projects are showing ways to reduce greenhouse emissions by boosting the efficiency by which coal plants convert coal to electricity or other energy forms.” Come on, 10 more years to just get sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury pollutants down? That’s lame. http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/.

Not much is new with coal except for trapping the gas, and where to put it. Our Michigan CO2 well should be about full this weekend. It didn’t hold nearly enough liquid CO2. It’s not a solution. How many more holes are we going to rip into the earth? We have over 500,000 mines in the U.S. Many are old and abandoned. We have over 500,000 oil wells, many are done, fini. That’s a lot of holes in the ground. Will the earth heal quickly from the millions of holes we’ve drilled?
 

I can’t believe it. The Bush administration hasn’t exited yet and things are changing for the environmental good already. According the Environmental News Service today, Feb. 8th, 2008, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia “vacated two rules issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that failed to set strict limits on mercury emissions from power plants.” Vacated, I can’t believe it. That means “No Way!”

· The EPA’s cap and trade program was thrown out the window by the court.
· Then 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 article went on to say, “the EPA now has two years to develop mercury emissions standards for existing power plants.”

The Clean Air Mercury Rule was an attempt by the EPA to limit the amount of mercury discharged by industry. There were two caps. The first was to be 38 tons of emissions reduced by first getting rid of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide called “co-benefits” by the rule. The rule suggests mercury reductions are achieved by doing this. But mercury is a chemical element. It is what it is. It is not sulfur and nitrogen. They are what they are. Granted they’re bad for the respiratory system, but what about the mercury? The court obviously got tired of this nonsense too and told the EPA to get on the ball. There was also an obvious problem with this little statement in the Clean Air Mercury Rule: “”…and because recent information demonstrates that it is not appropriate or necessary to regulate coal and oil-fired utility units under section 112 of the Clean Air Act.” What?

I griped about all of this in another blog when DTE (Detroit area energy provider) announced they were installing scrubbers for sulfur and nitrogen on their Monroe coalburner. Whoopty Doo. Scrubbers do nothing about the mercury, but today the courts sure did. I also predicted that  utility companies would continue too long on their same course and then whine about the cost to reverse things and comply with new clean air policy. How soon before we hear the sob stories?  So predictable. When companies have a big lobby, they throw all foresight to the wind.  They don’t need to stay on the ball. They pay to change the play instead.  And the taxpayer bears the brunt. Read about that again: http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/?m=200701.

This ruling comes on the heals of the June 2007 edict by the Court of Appeals that vacated the EPA’s Incinerator Rule. The court blasted the EPA for violating the Clean Air Act for relaxing limits on emissions of smog-forming compounds from large power plants, factories, and other industrial sources,” according to Chemical and Engineering News. Smog and smoke have always been pretty self explanatory to me. If you can see it in the air, it’s substantial, and you probably shouldn’t be breathing it. As a result of the court’s ruling, chemical plants, refineries, and other industrial facilities that burn the waste they generate in on-site incinerators must comply with the law’s most stringent rules governing hazardous air pollutants. So what about Holcim Cement?

As I sit in a county with the nation’s second largest coalburner that sits on Lake Erie, and a Holcim cement plant that’s big on incinerating and has racked up big fines for doing it, it’s going to be real interesting how the court’s rulings play out.

The announcement of the court ruling today: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-08-01.asp.
The June, 2007 ruling about incinerators: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i25/8525news7.html.
The EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule that is defunct as of today: http://www.epa.gov/camr/basic.htm.
A disturbing report about mercury hot spots: http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2004/Fort-Wayne-Indiana-Mercury11jan04.htm.
 

I was looking on 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                

I don’t know if many people are aware that mercury vapor lights are being phased out. I went to get a socket extender at an electrical supply company and the notices were on the counter. It’s due to their mercury content. We pretty much have voluntary disposal policy in Michigan as far as batteries, bulbs, and stuff with mercury in them. I guess they don’t trust us from throwing them into landfills that aren’t designated as toxic. What I really want to know is what’s going on in the minds of those that created the new policy about mercury vapor lights? Have they noticed the large amount of coal-fired plants in Michigan?

The Detroit Free Press just had an article about Michigan’s unwillingness to just stop. Stop building more coal-fired plants. We’ve lost population. The idea of needing 7 more coalburners as the article pointed out is absurd. And Detroit is making a new area downtown for technical type business and hopefully green business. I keep asking what green businesses will buy into a state that supports fossil fuel plants? Luke warm “green” isn’t enticing.  

So I ask you: Is this not a ludicrous ruling—no more mercury vapor lights? Awful lot of farmers in Michigan and people like me with a pole barn with a mercury vapor light illuminating the entire yard out of darkness. I have no problem recycling my vapor lights, but how about regulating the coal-fired plants that some studies estimate dump 2591 lbs. of mercury the atmosphere annually in Michigan. People can dispute all they want. But the state of Michigan “has had a statewide fish consumption advisory for inland lakes since 1988. The advisory warns against eating more than one meal a week of rock bass, perch or crappie over nine inches in length, or any size largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, walleye, northern pike or muskie from inland lakes. Women of childbearing age and children under age 15 are advised not to eat more than one meal of these fish per month.” While airborne mercury poses no problem, when it hits earth, groundwater, streams, and creeks there is a problem.

Not eat fish more than once a month? That’s a little frightening to me. It tells just how much of that mercury blanketed water. Over a ton of mercury is deposited onto everything in Michigan every year, to me, that means 10 tons of mercury over ten years that doesn’t completely go away. I think we need to step up to plate in Michigan and make the changes that really have an impact on cleaning up our environment and show by example we are in earnest about being a “green” state. And while we’re at it can we please mandate bottle returns on those plastic water bottles?  It drives me nuts knowing they end up in landfills and virtually never break down not in the next few lifetimes anyway.

 If you want to read more about Michigan and mercury this covers just about everything and if it’s not here the people to contact are:http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-ess-ECOSMercurySurvey1-10-05final.pdf.     

Now we’re finally getting solid documentation that man is indeed having a great impact on the environment. The NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that humans caused nearly ½ of the bad weather we experienced last year. This is not a U.N. conspiracy like some like to call environmentalism. This is that voice on the weather band on your car audio: “This is NOAA weather and hazard” at least that’s what it sounds like. This is our national weather service that did the study spanning 1998 to 2006.

The NOAA ran 42 different tests using data of weather conditions relative to human activity and El Nino’s. The article I read on MSN went into detail how they did it, why it took awhile, and the not so surprising results. At least a growing majority of us are seeing and believing. It’s a pretty good weather page from MSN.

Look at some of the weather reports on there for just this past week:

A cyclone hit the coast of Bangladesh with winds up to 155 mph.  At least 425 people were killed, 1000 fishermen, and hundreds more are unaccounted for. The summer floods there just killed 1000 people.

Vietnam flooded last weekend. 100,000 people have no food. They lost it all, 190,000 houses are submerged. The flooding has been going on for a month with over 250 dead.

A major 7.7 earthquake in Chile “crushed cars, damaged thousands of houses, blocked roads and terrified people for hundreds of miles around Wednesday. Chilean authorities reported at least two deaths and more than 150 injuries.

The quake, which struck at 12:40 p.m., shook the Chilean capital 780 miles to the south of the epicenter, and was felt as far away as the other side of the continent — in Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1,400 miles to the east.”

The next day the northern part of Chile was hit with huge aftershocks of 6.2 and 6.8 injuring about 100 people and killing 2.

Atlanta’s out of water.

This is a wake up call. The longer we wait for policy, the more it’s not going to be pretty. On the NOAA weather site they have listed the major catastrophic weather events going back to 1990. I did the same about 2 years ago, and wouldn’t have now that I see how nicely they’ve compiled it!  I went back to 1990 and printed a list of all catastrophic events per page for each year to 2001. 1990 barely filled a quarter of a page. 2001 was 2 ½ pages printed no double spacing. I don’t think I used NOAA, but another International Weather Service that had the events by year but not in a neat little list.

Check out the NOAA website yourself and scan the climate events. There are many recently and as you scan down to 1990 it dwindles to about 2 or 3 events. That’s a scannable eye opener. Every line scanned represents a catastrophe somewhere in the world where someone died.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20481186/wid/18298287/.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/hazards/index.php.
 

That story made the news last week but the event happened in August. Four bottlenose (Flipper) dolphins encircled an injured surfer after a shark attack, bringing him to shore. It’s not the first time dolphins have saved a human. An article stated that dolphins protecting humans goes back to ancient Greece. I told you that to ask you this.

Why are we allowing dolphin hunts by a small Japanese village? Dolphins have been friends with humans for centuries and we knowingly allow their slaughter? And this is not about relations with Japan. There are Japanese that want the slaughter banned also. One of the key reasons, and the Japanese government knows this, is that the dolphin meat is contaminated with high levels of mercury.

The Japanese retested the dolphin meat themselves and were surprised.

The other reason this event should not be such a big problem to stop is because it is an isolated event. It happens in a cove outside of a small fishing village in Japan called “Taiji.”  Notoriety is building about these fisherman chasing dolphins into a cove where they are trapped by nets in the thousands. Some 20,000 human friendly dolphins are caught and slaughtered. I didn’t want to read about it. There is a video of it on “You Tube.” I guess the poor little guys aren’t always dead when…

So this event happens in one small fishing village, not as a custom throughout Japan, and there are Japanese that want it stopped also. The meat is poison, and the Japanese government knows about it. It only a matter of time you might say, meanwhile, Flipper is being stripped alive.

This should not be a big problem to fix. This should be about a few talks with Japanese officials urging them to prohibit killing dolphins by a few of their citizens. The argument is there is no market for poison fish anyway. The fisherman should not only be in trouble for killing dolphins this way, but selling mercury tainted meat. Besides, knowing what we know about dolphins, this is as cannibalistic as eating bushmeat. Let me go one step further in adding that the levels of mercury in our friends the dolphins is about as rotten a deal as killing them outright. So we that pollute are no better. And for those that don’t think man pollutes enough to cause change on earth, how did those dolphins get saturated with mercury?

Our congress people will not move on this unless we make it known that we want it stopped. The world needs to realize better policy concerning the creatures of earth that are threatened by our pollution. Write your congress people about getting Japan on board to prohibit Taiji from killing dolphins.

Read about what I read about at: http://www.savejapandolphins.org/weblog.html

The dolphin rescue story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21689083/