A few bits of environmental news

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1892 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 5:15 pm:        The latest from grist.com... 1. LAKE AND BAKE Aerial photos of the bizarre and desiccated Owens Lake To the east of California's Sierra Nevada Mountains is Owens Lake, or rather what used to be Owens Lake before the river feeding it was diverted to slake the unending thirst of Los Angeles. The drained lake bed -- brilliantly colored in parts thanks to bacterial growth, salt crusts, and human tinkering -- is all that's left of what once was a 200-square-mile lake. Now, due to the toxic dust that blows off its surface, the dry lake bed is the single largest source of particulate-matter pollution in the U.S. Photographer David Maisel captures the beauty and the beast that is Owens Lake -- in a photo exhibit of his aerial images, on the Grist Magazine website. today in Grist: Photos of the toxic yet strangely beautiful Owens Lake -- by David Maisel <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4069> 2. DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS -- UNLESS YOU'RE BUYING THE HOT DOGS Texas chemical plants cause problems for nearby residents The Houston Chronicle is running an investigative series on chemical plants and their effects on nearby residents, and it ain't pretty. There's a fair bit of evidence suggesting that companies dramatically underreport their annual emissions. On top of that, accidental leaks -- or what the industry calls "fugitive emissions" -- are a major cause of chemical pollution and often much worse for human health than the more high-profile expected emissions. "Fugitives" are often closer to the ground where the wind is slower, which can allow greater concentrations to accumulate, and due to current lax rules, they're sometimes allowed to leak for years. However, the Chronicle found, folks living near refineries are less likely to complain about pollution if the companies that own them invest in a little PR -- small things like providing hot dogs for community events or offering to replace residents' trees after accidental emissions kill them. Want some toxins on your frank? straight to the source: Houston Chronicle, Dina Cappiello, 18 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4072> straight to the source: Houston Chronicle, Dina Cappiello, 16 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4073> straight to the source: Houston Chronicle, Dina Cappiello, 18 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4074> 3. THE AXIS OF INTRANSIGENCE U.S. pushes to remove global-warming references from disaster talks The U.S. delegation to an upcoming global conference on natural disasters is pushing to have references to global warming removed from the U.N. action plan to be ratified there. The document cites global warming as one factor among many leading to "a future where disasters could increasingly threaten the world's economy, and its population." U.S. delegation head Mark Lagon said that he doesn't want the "controversy" over global warming to "distract" the conference. On one side of the debate are the 25-nation European Union, which supports the Kyoto Protocol, and the developing countries that stand to be most battered by the natural disasters in question. On the other are the U.S. and Australia, the only two developed nations to spurn Kyoto, plus Canada and, um, Iran. straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Associated Press, Charles J. Hanley, 19 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4070> straight to the source: Terra Daily, Agence France-Presse, 19 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4071> 4. THE MAOIST THAT ROARED China tries to balance need for energy with environmental caution China's economy, as we report with obsessive regularity, is growing like gangbusters, and with it grows the country's need for energy. One response to this need is an aggressive push to develop nuclear energy: Conservative estimates project the commissioning of two new reactors a year through 2020, quadrupling nuclear output to 16 billion kilowatt-hours by 2010 and doubling that figure again by 2015. Even if this massive growth takes place, in 2020 nuclear will still provide less than 4 percent of the country's energy, leading some to question whether the investment is worth the risk. As David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists points out, "The cost of cleaning up after Chernobyl ... is greater than all of the benefits of the entire Soviet nuclear power industry combined, and it could have been worse." As if to reassure critics that it is taking environmental concerns seriously, this week the government ordered a work stoppage on some 30 large construction projects, 26 of them power plants, citing violation of environmental regulations. straight to the source: The New York Times, Howard W. French, 15 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4067> straight to the source: MSNBC.com, Associated Press, 19 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4068> 5. FORD: "TOUGH" Two California drivers fight Ford to keep their electric vehicles An around-the-clock protest began Friday in Sacramento, Calif., to save two electric vehicles from being repossessed and scrapped by their maker. The electricity-powered Ford Ranger pickup trucks were two of many produced by Ford Motor Co. during a new-vehicle pilot program in 1999 and then leased to drivers. Lessees David Raboy and William Korthof say they're ready to purchase the vehicles, which cost very little to maintain, require no gasoline, and have no direct emissions. But Ford is ready to (ahem) pull the plug on these EV Rangers because, according to a spokesflack, "we've moved on from electric vehicles and our focus is more on hybrids." Raboy understands that cars are sometimes discontinued, but he wants to know why his truck is to be demolished and why the company can't sell it to him instead. "How about the Excursion -- it's being discontinued," he said. "It gets 12 miles per gallon. Why not go back and crush all of those?" Indeed. straight to the source: The Mercury News, Associated Press, Jim Wasserman, 15 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4064> straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Eric Bailey, 18 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4063> straight to the source: Sacramento Bee, Thuy-Doan Le, 18 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4062>   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1900 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 5:14 pm:        TREES: THE QUICKER PICKER-UPPER? Study says trees can play crucial role in battle against global warming Planting forests to remove carbon dioxide from the air -- a form of carbon sequestration -- would be roughly as effective in the battle against global warming as conserving energy or switching to new fuels, according to a new study from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. The study pegs the cost of removing a ton of CO2 from the air using large swaths of forest at between $25 and $75, roughly comparable to the cost of energy-efficiency measures. Of course, it would cost more than $7 billion a year and use an area the size of Texas to remove 20 percent of the CO2 from the atmosphere, but really, would losing the use of Texas be that bad? (We kid! We're not messing with you, Texas. We've heard it's unwise.) Although the authors stress that the ultimate effectiveness of such sequestration efforts depends on a number of currently unknowable factors -- alternative land uses, the development of tracking mechanisms -- they conclude that, when the U.S. finally joins the battle in earnest, forests should be considered alongside other weapons in its arsenal. straight to the source: Reuters, Christopher Doering, 19 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4081> straight to the report: Land Use & Global Climate Change, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, June 2000 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4082>   gozerbrown Citizen Username: Gozerbrown Post Number: 619 Registered: 3-2002 Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 11:01 am:        Note, I always enjoy your environmental news. I agree that things are out of control, however, I think people don't realize that by buying so much crap they probably don't really need (or could do without), they are helping in contributing to this problem. I'm not trying to make excuses for companies who do bad things, but aren't we all a little to blame for buying too many shoes and cars and hot dogs?   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1913 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 1:00 pm:        Gozer, there is no question in my mind that you are absolutely right, and that is an excellent point. The problem exists at both ends of the transaction: we buy and sell way too much crap! Such arguments immediately draw the ire of capitalists - but many of them refuse to accept that pure capitalism is not about profits by any means whatsoever. True capitalism, as I understand it, requires following rules - explicit or implied - that are also for the benefit of society. Those rules include not knowingly selling unsafe or ineffective products, not sending all profits outside the economic system that generated them, not breaking the law, etc. There are aspects of capitalism that government can, and should, take responsibility for when businesses renege on the moral contract that exists between them and the buying public. It is very easy to criticize the government for not doing it's part. But there is also a great need for the average citizen to take more responsibility in making better purchasing decisions. How to make this happen? I wish I knew the answer.   peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 900 Registered: 8-2002 Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 1:39 pm:        My Dad is so against the spend spend spend culture -- very much from a environmental and waste point of view (he's a retired enegineer). He and his buddies at work once figured out -- that if everyone stopped making and buying "stupid" appliances (that's of course in the eye of the beholder) like electric can openers, at least one nuclear power plant could be shut down. Don't know if that's exactly right -- but sure worth considering. Pete   mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1656 Registered: 4-2002 Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 2:34 pm:        Pete: Sounds like my Dad. Of course he still has a rotary phone. I am not sure can openers are needed at all anymore. Seems like most cans have pull-top lids. During the blackout of 1977 (I know, I am getting old), we had an old fashioned can opener and able to open cans for dinner. Our stove had pilot lights (no electric starters) so we were in business. Most of our friends had electric openers, so they were out of luck (unless they came over).   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1939 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 9:23 am:        DROUGHT, DROUGHT, LET IT ALL OUT Drought is up, and climate change seems partly to blame, report says The proportion of the planet's land area suffering from drought has more than doubled since the 1970s, to about 30 percent, according to a recent study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Researchers attribute about half of that change to rising temperatures caused by global warming rather than to a lack of precipitation. The drying has been widespread in Europe, Asia, Canada, western and southern Africa, and eastern Australia, said Aiguo Dai, the study's lead author. Climate models predict that rising temperatures will lead to most of earth's land masses experiencing more warm-season drying in coming decades. "Our analyses suggest that this [greenhouse-related] drying may already have begun," said Dai. straight to the source: New Scientist, 22 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4111> straight to the source: Rocky Mountain News, Jim Erickson, 11 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4120> TWO DEGREES OF SEPARATION Report warns of major climate catastrophe in as few as 10 years A task force of leading politicians, academics, and business leaders from around the world has quantified global warming's so-called "point of no return." And it's bloody soon! In as little as 10 years, says a report by the task force, the global average temperature could rise 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit from its pre-industrial level. At that point, the authors contend, the tipping point will have been reached and major droughts, sea-level rise, and widespread crop failures are all but certain. So far, global average temperature has risen about 1.4 degrees since 1750, meaning we've still got a couple of degrees before the threshold is reached. To help beat the clock, the report calls on all G8 nations to produce a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025 and double their expenditures on low-carbon energy technologies by 2010. "There is an ecological time bomb ticking away," said British Member of Parliament Stephen Byers, who co-chaired the task force with U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). straight to the source: The Independent, Michael McCarthy, 24 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4114> straight to the source: CNN.com, Associated Press, 24 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4119>   gozerbrown Citizen Username: Gozerbrown Post Number: 638 Registered: 3-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:01 am:        Pull-top lids probably take more energy to make than an old-fashioned can, though. I am still a firm believer in people taking personal responsibility for what they do to the environment. That boils down to driving too much and buying too much stuff. Even turning the thermostat down a couple of degrees and putting on a sweater can conserve energy.   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1956 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 4:21 pm:        more from Grist... THE CLEAR SKIES' THE LIMIT Lawmakers defend states' rights, introduce Clear Skies competition Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) and George Pataki (R-N.Y.), in a letter to a Senate committee that's convening today to deliberate the Bush administration's Clear Skies bill, emphasized the importance of protecting state environmental enforcement powers. Both California and New York have put in place environmental regulations stricter than federal standards, which some enviros say may be weakened if Clear Skies is approved. Meanwhile, a bipartisan ... no, make that tri-partisan trio of senators -- Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) -- yesterday introduced a competing, more-strict clean-air bill. The legislation, dubbed the Clean Power Act, would require stringent caps on power-plant emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide beginning in 2010 and a 90 percent cut in mercury emissions by 2009. straight to the source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Associated Press, Devlin Barrett, 25 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4125> straight to the source: MarketWatch, Stephanie I. Cohen, 25 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4126> straight to the source: FXstreet.com, 25 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4127> GIVE PEAS A CHANCE War-torn countries fight to protect genetic variability of crops Scientists and agricultural breeding specialists have developed a system to recover and restore rare but valuable crop varieties that might otherwise be lost forever to the ravages of war and heedless development. Called "smart aid," the strategy involves searching out important genetic varieties -- such as those able to withstand flood or extreme drought -- and revitalizing those stocks to help replenish damaged farmland. "Restoring agriculture is usually the first step in creating economic growth and laying the foundations for durable peace," says Ian Johnson, head of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. Although the process has been successful in many countries, it may become more difficult as expanding international patent laws create a larger and more restrictive commercialized seed trade. The latest example of this can be seen in Iraq, where the U.S. implemented rules to prohibit the trade of patented seeds between Iraqi farmers. No word yet on whether that's helping to win hearts and minds. straight to the source: New Scientist, Fred Pearce, 22 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4123> SOAP OPERA Degassed water may reduce need for detergents Researchers at the Australian National University in Canberra have found an effective alternative to caustic, strong-smelling detergents: water. Good ol' water. Degassed water, to be specific. According to their findings, published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry, if dissolved air present in everyday water is removed, H2O becomes at least as effective a degreaser as regular detergent, getting clothes clean, sans chemicals. This could be good news for the environment, since water can be degassed cheaply and efficiently simply by passing it through a porous membrane, a method much easier on the earth than manufacturing conventional detergents that have been linked to some nasty things, including massive algal blooms. So goodbye, detergent. And hello, water, soap of the future. straight to the source: Nature, Philip Ball, 24 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4124>   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1977 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 4:07 pm:        Amazing! Bush does something right!! Smokestack Lightening ConocoPhillips will pay half a billion to clean up refineries The largest refinery settlement in U.S. history was announced yesterday, as ConocoPhillips, the nation's largest oil refiner, agreed to spend more than $525 million to clean up nine refineries, a deal that will remove 47,000 tons of harmful pollutants from the air each year. This is the 13th such settlement since 1998. While coal-fired power plants produce far more total pollution -- and are fighting much harder against EPA enforcement efforts -- refineries can be more harmful to the health of communities where they are located, as their emissions come from low smokestacks and do not readily dissipate. Some critics question the strength of the settlements (California has opted out of this latest, saying it would be a step back from the state's current regs) and the EPA's will and ability to enforce them. Nonetheless, says John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Bush administration's progress in cleaning up refineries "is pretty extraordinary." straight to the source: The New York Times, Michael Janofsky, 28 Jan 2005 straight to the source: The Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin, 28 Jan 2005 straight to the source: The Oakland Tribune, Douglas Fischer, 28 Jan 2005   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1989 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 4:26 pm:        More from Grist... 1. DISTORT REFORM The literary, political, and scientific distortions in "State of Fear" We tried to ignore it, really we did. But Michael Crichton's new techno-thriller novel, "State of Fear," is climbing the best-seller charts, titillating the talk shows, and being brandished by climate flat-earthers as support for their skepticism. The book features a global cabal of ruthless environmentalists trying to engineer hurricanes, floods, and tidal waves, all in order to convince a skeptical public that global warming is a threat. On "Good Morning America," a credulous Matt Lauer asked Crichton whether enviros can really control the weather, so we thought we'd step in and answer: No, they can't. Nor is much of anything else in the book plausible. Read two reviews of the book, one on its literary merits and one on its scientific merits -- today on the Grist Magazine website. today in Grist: A review of the distorted plot and politics in "State of Fear" -- by Dave Roberts <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4183> today in Grist: A review of the distorted science in "State of Fear" -- by Gavin Schmidt <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4182> 2. THE SHALLOW END OF THE SECRETARIAL POOL Senate confirms Bodman to head Energy Department Sam Bodman's nomination to serve as energy secretary sailed through the Senate yesterday, despite his having little to no experience working on energy issues. Now he can get to work pushing Bush's big energy bill through Congress, fighting for the opening of the proposed nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and pressing for oil and gas drilling within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A public fight over the refuge may flare up (again) as soon as next week, as the House Resources Committee is scheduled to vote on Feb. 9 on whether to open the area to resource extraction. Still no word on Bush's pick to fill another key environment-related role in his administration, head of the U.S. EPA. straight to the source: CNN.com, Reuters, 31 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4178> straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Associated Press, H. Josef Hebert, 31 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4179> 3. MEET THE PARENTS "Natural family living" is a growing trend Parents of today's youngest generation are increasingly choosing to raise their kids in more natural, even old-fashioned, ways, say supporters of a lifestyle called "natural family living." This parenting approach involves trusting instincts over published experts and using more natural means to feed, medicate, and nurture children, which can translate into gentler effects on the environment as well. Oragnic and locally grown food choices often play an important part. "We're willing to pay a little more not to have pesticides in our bodies and our kids' bodies," says Amy Williams-Derry, a Seattle mom. This type of thinking isn't just for hippies anymore; mainstream doctors say they are more frequently being asked about natural approaches to child-rearing. Says family-practice physician Fernando Vega, "The natural family movement is much bigger than the dominant culture realizes." straight to the source: The Seattle Times, Marsha King, 30 Jan 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4176> 4. THE BRICK OF DISASTER Autism may be linked to environmental factors, research says A new study looking into possible environmental causes of autism, a neurological disorder that affects communication and social-interaction abilities, demonstrates that a suite of pollutants working in combination can critically affect a developing embryo. The research focused on several chemicals found more than a decade ago in Brick, N.J., an area with an unusually high rate of the disorder. A federal study done in 2001 dismissed any connection between the pollutants and the autism found in one in 150 children in Brick, but residents pressed for more study, and their story reached a team of scientists who decided to look at the effects of the contaminants in combination. Said Carol L. Reinisch of the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, Mass., who led the research in the community, "What this study showed is it's the mixture of these chemicals that cause the uptick in an enzyme that's very important to neural development." straight to the source: Asbury Park Press, Kirk Moore, 01 Feb 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4177> 5. PAYING FLIP SERVICE California puts John Muir on its official quarter California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and state first lady Maria Shriver yesterday introduced the new California quarter, bearing the likeness of venerable conservationist John Muir and the once-almost-extinct California condor he did so much to preserve. "Muir lit the torch of conservation in our state," said the governor, whose environmental record, while not perfect, shines in comparison to many of his fellow party members in Washington, D.C., where the torch of conservation is, shall we say, sputtering. Muir, a Scottish transplant, traveled over and wrote extensively about the Western U.S., laying the groundwork for the national park system and national green groups like the Sierra Club. straight to the source: MSNBC.com, 01 Feb 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4180>   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2011 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Friday, February 4, 2005 - 4:52 pm:        1. ON THE RIGHT TRACK New GOP leaders emerging in battle against climate change Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a leader in the Senate fight against Kyoto in 1997, has now got legislation in the works to address the global-warming problem. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) also plans to introduce a number of climate-related bills. Other senators, from Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) to Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), are joining the growing consensus that something must be done to stop the planet from overheating. You may have noticed the R's after all those names. How long can the top R hold out? today in Grist: The congressional climate is changing -- in Muckraker <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4221> 2. SHOCKED, SHOCKED TO FIND POLITICIZATION IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT EPA inspector general finds proposed mercury rule biased for industry Brace yourself -- your entire worldview is about to be shaken. Turns out, in coming up with its new rules on power-plant mercury emissions, the U.S. EPA violated agency protocol and ignored scientific evidence in order to stay in line with a predetermined goal that favors industry. Such is the conclusion of a new report from EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley. Said one EPA staff member present at meetings between administrators and staff, "Everything about this rule was decided at a political level. ... The political level made the decisions, and the staff did what they were told." The rules ended up exactly in line with those proposed in Bush's Clear Skies legislation, which would institute a cap-and-trade system and give power plants until 2018 to reach targets on emissions reductions. The report was promptly attacked by industry groups, Senate Environment Committee Chair James Inhofe (R-Okla.), and EPA Assistant Administrator (and former industry lobbyist) Jeffrey Holmstead, who said the rule-making process isn't even over and accused Tinsley of being politically biased. straight to the source: The Washington Post, Shankar Vedantam, 04 Feb 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4218> straight to the source: The New York Times, Felicity Barringer, 04 Feb 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4219> straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Alan C. Miller and Tom Hamburger, 04 Feb 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4220>   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2030 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 4:12 pm:        WHY DO FISH & WILDLIFE SCIENTISTS HATE AMERICA? Fish & Wildlife Service scientists report political pressure, distortion When two public-interest groups sent a survey on scientific integrity to 1,400 scientists at the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, agency administrators warned the scientists not to respond -- not even in their personal time. Now that 414 of them have defied the warnings, it is clear why the bureaucrats were nervous. More than half of the respondents reported that agency officials had reversed or withdrawn scientific conclusions in response to industry pressure. One in five said that they had been directed to withhold or alter technical information from reports, and almost half claim they were pressured to avoid making findings that might lead to greater protections for endangered species. As to this political interference, an agency spokesflack responded, "There's nothing inappropriate about people higher up the chain of command supervising the work of people below them and reaching different scientific conclusions." Uh ... there isn't? straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Zachary Coile, 10 Feb 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4287> straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Julie Cart, 10 Feb 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4288>   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2043 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:11 pm:        Ah, here's one particularly near to my heart... Dropping the Hybrids Off at the Pool Hybrid incentive bills introduced in Congress Fuel-efficient hybrids, the cars of choice for greens of means, are a hot topic in Congress, with two bills introduced this month that could further fuel their popularity. One bill, unveiled in the House last Tuesday by California Reps. Darrell Issa (R) and Brad Sherman (D), would let states decide whether or not to allow hybrid vehicles to use highway carpool lanes when they're occupied by just one person. Right now, since some funding for carpool lanes comes from the federal government, the feds make the rules about which cars are allowed -- so far, that's meant only electric or other alternative-fuel vehicles (and, you know, old-fashioned carpools). A separate bill reintroduced in the House this week by Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and supported by President Bush would offer tax credits of between $600 and $4,000 to buyers of hybrids and other fuel-efficient cars. straight to the source: MSNBC.com, Associated Press, 03 Feb 2005   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2053 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 7:40 pm:        UNILATERALISM IS STARTING TO LOOK PRETTY GOOD, HUH? E.U. battles with U.K. over CO2 emissions Tony Blair has fashioned himself a climate champion of late, vowing to make the issue of global warming central to the U.K.'s 2005 leadership of the G8 nations. So it's rather embarrassing for him that the E.U. has just threatened to take legal action against the U.K. over its projected carbon-dioxide emissions. Last April, the U.K. submitted a plan to the European Commission calling for the country to be permitted just over 811 million tons of CO2 emissions. In early July, the commission approved the plan, giving the U.K. two months to request changes. In October -- not two months later, but three! -- in response to heavy industry pressure, the U.K. revised its plan to include almost 22 million tons more -- a, um, whopping 3 percent increase. This week, a spokesflack for Stavros Dimas, the E.U.'s environment commissioner, said flatly that it would be "illegal" for the U.K. to institute its revised plan. Legal action could take years to resolve and throw Europe's new carbon-trading system into chaos. U.K. Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett vowed to fight on. straight to the source: Financial Times, Fiona Harvey and Raphael Minder, 14 Feb 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4329> straight to the source: The Times, David Charter and Rory Watson, 15 Feb 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4330> straight to the source: The Guardian, David Gow and Mark Milner, 15 Feb 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4331>   cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3137 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 8:55 am:        From today's NY Times: Clear Skies, No Lies By Gregg Easterbrook SUPPOSE Al Gore had become president and proposed a law to cut pollution from power plants by about 70 percent at a low cost, to discourage the lawsuits that often stall clean-air rules from being enforced, and to serve as a model for a future system to regulate greenhouse gases. Chances are Mr. Gore would have been widely praised. Instead George W. Bush got the White House and announced a plan to do those very things, yet it has been relentlessly denounced by Democrats, environmentalists, editorial pages and even characters in a Doonesbury cartoon. Critics both real and drawn assert that the program, which is called Clear Skies and is scheduled to be voted on by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today, is a shocking assault on clean-air law, an insidious weakening of environmental protections wrapped up with an Orwellian label. These criticisms are off target, except it is true that Clear Skies is a really dumb name. Mr. Bush's proposal would cut by more than 70 percent the amounts of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury emitted by power plants. The first two substances cause acid rain and contribute to respiratory disease; the third is a poison. The plan would also permanently cap plant emissions nationwide, meaning that pollutant levels must not rise no matter how much more power is generated in the future. The proposed cap for sulfur dioxide is 90 percent lower than the amount emitted in 1970; the cap for nitrogen oxide is 94 percent lower than 1970. So, under the Bush plan - supposedly a sellout to industry - sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, the two power-plant emissions of most concern to public health, would be nearly eliminated as compared with levels in 1970. Clear Skies would also moot the long-running controversy over the "new source review" rule, which may require operators of the old power plants in the Midwest to add pollution controls when those plants are modified. Those plants too would have to participate in the 70 percent overall reduction, a deeper cut than required by any interpretation of the "new source" standard. Opponents of Clear Skies rightly note that existing Clean Air Act language already mandates somewhat greater reductions than the Bush plan - for instance, a 93 percent cut in sulfur dioxide from the levels in 1970, versus Clear Skies' 90 percent - and that the reductions must be complete by 2012, rather than by 2018 as in Mr. Bush's bill. But here's the rub: the existing Clean Air Act, though successful, is a complex set of rules that requires a case-by-case drawing up of plans for states, localities and even individual power plants. A raft of lawsuits often accompanies every Clean Air Act regulation - it is common for both industry and environmental organizations to sue to block the same set of rules. This is why, on average, it takes about a decade to complete a Clean Air Act rulemaking. The Clear Skies plan would replace that case-by-case system with a streamlined "cap and trade" approach. This plan simply sets an overall reduction for the power industry as a whole, then leaves it up to companies and plant managers to decide for themselves how to meet the mandates, including by trading permits to one another. In practice, cap-and-trade systems have proved faster, cheaper and less vulnerable to legal stalling tactics than the "command and control" premise of most of the Clean Air Act. For example, a pilot cap-and-trade system, for sulfur dioxide from coal-fired power plants, was enacted by Congress in 1990. Since then sulfur dioxide emissions have fallen by nearly a third (the reason you hear so little about acid rain these days is that the problem is declining - even though the amount of combustion of coal for electricity has risen.) A pleasant surprise of that 1990 program was that market forces and lack of litigation rapidly drove down the predicted cost of acid-rain controls. Now Mr. Bush proposes to apply the same cap-and-trade approach to the entire power industry, in the hope that market forces and fewer lawsuits will lead to rapid, relatively inexpensive pollution cuts. Here is the real beauty of the Clear Skies plan, something that even its backers may not see: many economists believe that the best tool for our next great environmental project, restraining greenhouse gases, will be a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide. Should President Bush's plan prove that the power industry as a whole can be subjected to a sweeping cap-and-trade rule without suffering economic harm or high costs, that would create a powerful case to impose similar regulation on carbon dioxide, too. Though you'd never know it from the press coverage, the administration's idea has respectable support - from the National Research Council, which is a wing of the National Academy of Sciences, and from the former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christie Whitman, who since leaving the administration has become a leading critic of the Republican right. Yes, as in any lawmaking, there is a legitimate danger that factions in Congress will insert into the Bush bill language that does dilute environmental protection. But the underlying idea of the president's proposal is sound and deserves support, even from the comics page. Gregg Easterbrook, an editor at The New Republic and a fellow of the Brookings Institution, is the author of "The Progress Paradox."   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2067 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 4:30 pm:        WAVE HELLO Ocean energy poised for takeoff Though wind power is the fastest-growing renewable energy source, many researchers, power companies, and municipal officials are looking to the oceans for juice. Though it is in its infancy, ocean power -- generated from either waves or the tides beneath -- shows great promise. According to the Electric Power Research Institute, the amount of wave energy off U.S. coasts represents nine to 10 times the power generated by the nation's hydroelectric dams. Test projects are in the works for New York's East River, San Francisco, and Hawaii. Though they caution that the effects of ocean turbines on wildlife need to be carefully studied, most environmental groups are optimistic. "The bedrock of a robust electricity system is a diversity of energy sources," said EPRI's Hank Courtright. Adds Jared Blumenfeld of San Francisco's environment department, "We need to take some calculated risks with new technologies." straight to the source: Reuters, Leonard Anderson and Timothy Gardner, 13 Feb 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4338> straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Christopher Reynolds, 15 Feb 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4339> straight to the source: The Honolulu Advertiser, Jan TenBruggencate, 16 Feb 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4340>   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2116 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 3:46 pm:        BUSH STICKS JOHNSON IN THE EPA President Bush announces nominee to head EPA Today President Bush announced his new pick to lead the U.S. EPA: Steve Johnson, who's been the agency's temporary head since Mike Leavitt left six weeks ago to head the Department of Health and Human Services. If confirmed by the Senate, Johnson, a 24-year EPA veteran, will be the first professional scientist to hold the position. The choice of Johnson, a low-key, wonky agency vet whose work has focused on pesticides, may signal a new approach from the White House; Bush's previous EPA administrators, Christie Whitman and Mike Leavitt, were both significant players in the Republican Party (and one of them still is!). Johnson will preside over some tough battles, including a contentious one now under way about how to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, was fairly beside himself with enthusiasm, calling Johnson "the best we could expect as a nominee from the Bush administration." straight to the source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Associated Press, Deb Riechmann, 04 Mar 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4470>   lumpyhead Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 1163 Registered: 3-2002 Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 3:51 pm:        Notehead- I heard on the news that the most pollution of all comes from cooking fires in Southeast Asia. Cooking fires are putting more soot in the air than all of our acid rain pumping emmissions. The air quality in this region is worse than other other and attributed directly to cooking. What do you think of this?   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5714 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 4:58 pm:        What news are you listening to? That doesn't sound plausible. Think of it in terms of amount of fuel consumed. For sure, I consume more energy driving to and from work than I possibly could cooking my food. I assume that amount of pollution created is roughly proportional to the amount of energy consumed. Of course, not all things are equal, but it's a good place to start.   SO Refugee Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 25 Registered: 2-2005 Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 9:27 pm:        Right Tom, but I'm sure the technology in your car is greater in terms of reducing pollution as opposed to someone cooking with cow dung, for example...   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5717 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 9:47 pm:        That's why I said not all things are equal, but if I consume ten times as much energy, I bet I will not produce LESS pollution than the cow dung barbecue. In other words, pollution is somewhere within the same order of magnitude, given the same amount of energy. Remember that we are about one thirtieth of the world's population and we consume, what?, three quarters of the amount of energy that the planet consumes. So it's easy for us to look down our noses at others, but it's hard to do the real work of improving it.   lumpyhead Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 1167 Registered: 3-2002 Posted on Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 9:39 am:        I don't know Tom. I think cow flatulence contributes to pollution levels. We should ban them.   tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 3137 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 11:28 pm:        cow flatulence is a big contributor of methane. Livestock in general is pretty bad for the environment, hogs in the southeast are incredibly destructive to the water table because of the vast amounts of waste they produce that goes unprocessed right into the waterways. We'd never allow that for human ••••, is pigshit any better for you? Just because the idea of cow farts is amusing doesn't mean that it can't be a problem. Obviously it's not going to be banned, you've got to eat after all, but it can certainly be managed better than it is.   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2118 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 2:23 pm:        Some sources of greenhouse gases are more easily or feasibly changed than others.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5719 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 7:33 pm:        There is a stockhouse full of reasons for us to reduce the amount of beef we consume, many of them being environmental. At the very least, we should consider what we are consuming and producing while we eat our food.   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2123 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 9:42 pm:        more from Grist... HALF A BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER EPA proposes stronger protections on lead in drinking water The U.S. EPA has proposed strengthening protections against lead in drinking water for the first time since 1991. The move comes in response to the recent brouhaha in the Washington, D.C., area, where residents were not informed of widespread lead contamination until years after it was discovered. The changes would require utilities to run stricter water tests, report the results of the tests to homeowners, and notify state and federal regulators in advance of any changes to water treatment. "We need to free people from worrying about lead in their drinking water," said EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin H. Grumbles, whose name never ceases to delight us. The changes -- which must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget -- are already drawing fire from critics who say that they don't address the scale of the problem, and that the EPA does not adequately enforce rules even as they're now written. straight to the source: The Washington Post, Carol D. Leonnig, 08 Mar 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4501> POLLUTER ACTUALLY PAYS Illinois power plants will spend half a billion on pollution controls A 1999 lawsuit against Illinois Power has ended in a proposed settlement of more than $520 million, most of which will go to installing new pollution controls. The suit charged that Illinois Power had violated the Clean Air Act by upgrading several plants without modifying pollution-reduction equipment, as required under the Clean Air Act's new-source review rules. The settlement, which will be finalized once the government receives public comment and makes a recommendation to the court, also includes $15 million for mitigation and other green projects and a $9 million civil penalty -- the largest the government has won in an emissions suit. The U.S. EPA estimates that the new pollution controls, which will be installed over a seven-year period, will more than halve the sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-oxide emissions from five of the company's plants. Says Thomas L. Sansonetti, an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, "The citizens of Illinois could not have asked for a better result." straight to the source: The New York Times, Michael Janofsky, 08 Mar 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4498> straight to the source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Bill Lambrecht, 07 Mar 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4499>   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2149 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 3:42 pm:        CAP AND BETRAYED Bush administration releases weak mercury rules The U.S. EPA is releasing its plan to reduce mercury emissions today, and even jaded environmentalists are appalled. "This is ... the most dangerous, dishonest, and illegal air-pollution rule I have ever seen come out of the agency," said ex-EPA official and Natural Resources Defense Council attorney John Walke. If the agency had classified mercury as a "hazardous air pollutant" -- as the Clinton administration did -- existing regulations would have forced reductions of power-plant mercury emissions to five tons a year within three to five years. Instead, it reversed Clinton's assessment, opting for a plan that will reduce emissions to 15 tons a year by 2017. Instead of mandating reductions at every plant, the agency opted for a cap-and-trade program that critics say will leave high concentrations of mercury around several power plants, generally in poor communities. Both the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and the EPA's own inspector general have found that the agency distorted scientific and economic analyses to justify the plan. Mercury is a neurotoxin that damages brain development in fetuses and young children. straight to the source: Knight Ridder, Seth Borenstein, 14 Mar 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4558> straight to the source: The Boston Globe, Beth Daley, 15 Mar 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4559> straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Alan C. Miller and Tom Hamburger, 15 Mar 2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl\?forward_id=4560>   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2182 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 9:28 am:        Report: Earth's ecosystem at risk Wednesday, March 30, 2005 Posted: 8:45 PM EST OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- Humans are damaging the planet at an unprecedented rate and raising risks of abrupt collapses in nature that could spur disease, deforestation or "dead zones" in the seas, an international report said on Wednesday. The study, by 1,360 experts in 95 nations, said a rising human population had polluted or over-exploited two thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends, ranging from clean air to fresh water, in the past 50 years. "At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning," said the 45-member board of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. "Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted." Ten to 30 percent of mammal, bird and amphibian species were already threatened with extinction, according to the assessment, the biggest review of the planet's life support systems. "Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fibre and fuel," the report said. "This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on earth," it added. More land was changed to cropland since 1945, for instance, than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined. "The harmful consequences of this degradation could grow significantly worse in the next 50 years," it said. The report was compiled by experts, including from U.N. agencies and international scientific and development organizations. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the study "shows how human activities are causing environmental damage on a massive scale throughout the world, and how biodiversity -- the very basis for life on earth -- is declining at an alarming rate." The report said there was evidence that strains on nature could trigger abrupt changes like the collapse of cod fisheries off Newfoundland in Canada in 1992 after years of over-fishing. Ecosystems and the services they provide are financially significant and...to degrade and damage them is tantamount to economic suicide. -- Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Program Future changes could bring sudden outbreaks of disease. Warming of the Great Lakes in Africa due to climate change, for instance, could create conditions for a spread of cholera. And a build-up of nitrogen from fertilizers washed off farmland into seas could spur abrupt blooms of algae that choke fish or create oxygen-depleted "dead zones" along coasts. It said deforestation often led to less rainfall. And at some point, lack of rain could suddenly undermine growing conditions for remaining forests in a region. The report said that in 100 years, global warming widely blamed on burning of fossil fuels in cars, factories and power plants, might take over as the main source of damage. The report mainly looks at other, shorter-term risks. It estimated that many ecosystems were worth more if used in a way that maintains them for future generations. A wetland in Canada was worth $6,000 a hectare (2.47 acres), as a habitat for animals and plants, a filter for pollution, a store for water and a site for human recreation, against $2,000 if converted to farmland, it said. A Thai mangrove was worth $1,000 a hectare against $200 as a shrimp farm. "Ecosystems and the services they provide are financially significant and...to degrade and damage them is tantamount to economic suicide," said Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Program. The study urged changes in consumption, better education, new technology and higher prices for exploiting ecosystems. "Governments should recognize that natural services have costs," A.H. Zakri of the U.N. University and a co-chair of the report told Reuters. "Protection of natural services is unlikely to be a priority for those who see them as free and limitless."