-
-
related tags:
- Environmental Protection Agency
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Clean Air Act
- Great Lakes Basin
- Great Lakes 2008 Earth Day Challenge
- EPA Great Lakes 2008 Earth Day Challenge
- College of Menominee Nation
- United States Environmental Protection Agency
- Drinking Water
- Lisa Jackson
- EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
- Clean Water Act
- Great Lakes
- Electronic Waste
- Pollution
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
- MITW
- Tribal School
- Coal
- Earth Healing Initiative
- fracking
- coal ash
- Environment
- Rev. Jon Magnuson
- Interfaith
- E-waste
- Lake Superior
- Ecumenical
- Atrazine
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Keshena
- Cedar Tree Institute
- Interfaith Earth Healing Initiative
- Northern Great Lakes Synod
- mountaintop removal
- Lake Michigan
- Lake Erie
- Episcopal
- Presbyterian
- Carcinogens
- Earth keeper Initiative
- First Nations Peoples
- Sierra Club
- United Methodist Church
- ELCA
- Colony Collapse Disorder
- Natural Gas
- Toxicity
- Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
- Earth Keepers
tagged w/ EPA
-
Republican Attacks On EPA Kick Off 2012 Agenda
With the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set to finally enact stricter air pollution standards in accordance with the Clean Air Act and two subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions requiring them to do so, powerful Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are working to make sure that the new standards never see the light of day. The specific measures being targeted are the EPA’s new standards for carbon emissions from power plant smoke stacks.
Fred Upton (R-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, along with Republicans Joe Barton (TX) and Ed Whitfield (KY) sent a letter last week to the White House, demanding that the Obama administration take action to stop the EPA from regulating carbon emissions from power plants.
From their letter:
“We are concerned about the regulation’s impact on jobs and the economy, and that it will not comply with all applicable Executive Orders…
“In this rulemaking, EPA may be seeking to do precisely what Congress and the American public rejected in the last Congress. The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation from the 111th Congress would have significantly raised the cost of energy and driven US jobs overseas.
“We ask for your help in supporting policies that will encourage economic growth and job creation rather than additional costly regulations that will raise new barriers to job creation and burden struggling businesses and families.”
The three men certainly know how to include the buzzwords that appeal to American citizens – jobs, economy, raising energy prices – but when put through the truth test, their claims simply don’t hold up. For example, enacting the new standards has the opposite effect on the job market – it would create tens of thousands additional jobs for American workers, not destroy them. The conservative Heritage Foundation has also been beating the drum about regulations raising energy costs, which could actually happen. However, any rate increases would be a corporate decision, not a government decision. The electric energy industry in America currently generates $370.5 billion a year in revenue, with an average revenue of $9.88 per KwH sold. With the national average to produce a kilowatt hour of electricity being around 10 cents, that leaves the company a profit of more than $9 per Kwh of electricity sold, meaning that any rate increases are the result of protecting profits, not because they can’t afford the increase.
So why are these Republicans trying to dismantle the work of the EPA? Simple – they are in the pockets of the dirty energy industry. Fred Upton has received more than $640,000 from electric utilities over his career, and an additional $308,000 from oil and gas. Joe Barton has a combined total of more than $3 million from electric utilities and oil and gas over the course of his career. And Ed Whitfield has gotten more than $600,000 from the two sectors during his tenure in Washington. All of these men have a direct financial stake in the profitability of the dirty energy industry. After all, the more money these companies spend on complying with new standards, the less they have to purchase politicians in Washington.
These latest attacks on the EPA and the environment are not a surprise. In fact, the anti-environmental record of the US Congress over the last year was so awful that Democratic Congressmen Henry Waxman, Edward Markey, and Howard Berman prepared a report last December detailing the numerous ways in which the 112th Congress earned the reputation as the most anti-environmental Congress in history:
“House Republicans have repeatedly voted to undermine basic environmental protections that have existed for decades. They have voted to block actions to prevent air pollution; to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of authority to enforce water pollution standards; to halt efforts to address climate change; to stop the Department of the Interior from identifying lands suitable for wilderness designations; to allow oil and gas development off the coasts of Florida, California, and other states opposed to offshore drilling; and to slash funding for the Department of Energy, including funding to support renewable energy and energy efficiency, by more than 80%.
“The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011. Of the 770 legislative roll call votes taken in the House this year, 22% – more than one out of every five – were votes to undermine environmental protection. During these roll calls, 94% of Republican members voted for the anti-environment position, while 86% of Democratic members voted for the pro-environment position.
“The Environmental Protection Agency was the most popular target of House Republicans. Of the 191 anti-environment votes, 114 targeted EPA; 35 targeted the Department of the Interior; and 31 targeted the Department of Energy.”
And that was just in their first year. Imagine what they can accomplish the next round of elections this coming November.
By Farron Cousins | 6 February 12With the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set to finally enact stricter air... more-
- coolplanet
- added this
- 3 days ago
- |
- 8 comments
-
-
Carcinogenic Dioxin Set Free: EPA Kneels to Monsanto and Big Agriculture
Dioxin is the most toxic man-made chemical known regarding damage to health and the environment.
The EPA has withheld a study about dioxin for decades in order to protect large industries that produce dioxin while manufacturing herbicides and pesticides, plastics, chlorine, bleach, and other chemicals. In addition, industrialized agriculture (Big Ag) has pressured the EPA to withhold the report because dioxin becomes concentrated in animal products like meat, eggs and dairy.
The non-cancer portion of the EPA report is due out by the end of January 2012, with the cancer portion to follow at some unspecified date.
Dioxin is an umbrella term for a class of super toxic chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, liver disease, immune system damage and many other health problems. There is no safe ‘threshold’ dose as our bodies have zero defense against dioxin, according to health consultant Jonathan Campbell.
Dioxin has a half-life of over 100 years in the environment when it is below the surface or dumped in waterways.
Prior Dioxin Contamination
Monsanto and Dow Chemical were the largest producers of 2,4,5-T herbicide that created dioxin as a byproduct and was used as an agricultural herbicide before the 1950′s. Monsanto, Dow Chemical and other makers of dioxin-contaminated herbicide 2,4,5-T produced 50 MILLION pounds of these chemicals per year for agricultural uses in the US! Since 1947, more than 300 million pounds of dioxin laden 2,4,5-T was sprayed on more than 400 MILLION acres of US land, mostly on farms and agricultural property.
The 2,4,5-T dioxin-containing herbicide was later combined with 2,4-D to create Agent Orange for chemical warfare against Viet Nam.
Both Monsanto and Dow Chemical were aware, since the 1950s, that German company Boeringer was able to produce herbicide 2,4,5-T without any detectable dioxin by slow cooking the chemical for about 12 hours. But Monsanto and Dow ignored this information and cooked their 2,4,5-T batches in 45 minutes or less, thus contaminating the product with dioxin — presumably for higher profits.
Monsanto and Dow Chemical were also aware that dioxin caused health problems. Monsanto and Dow Chemical would go bankrupt if they were actually held accountable for their crimes against humanity and the environment. The herbicide 2,4,5-T was phased out in the late 1970s.
Current Sources of Dioxin Emissions
While dioxin may be produced naturally by forest fires and volcanoes, man-made dioxin emissions are the primary source of contamination. Dioxin has risen dramatically due to an increase in manufacturing of chlorinated organic chemicals (weed killers) and plastics. Here is a list of some of the top sources of dioxin emissions:
Plastics made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC). This includes products ranging from shampoo bottles to wall paper to plumbing pipes.
Incinerating trash (municipal city burning and individual household backyard burning).
Herbicides (weed killers) and pesticides that contain chlorine.
Paper bleaching — most paper products are contaminated.
Medical waste mass-burn incinerators.
After reading this list, it becomes apparent that many industries, especially chlorine manufacturers, herbicide makers, plastic producers and paper mills would be severely affected if dioxin were properly regulated or eliminated. Industrialized farming (Big Ag) also has a big stake in the EPA’s upcoming report because the largest source of human absorption of dioxin is through consuming animal products like meat, dairy and eggs.
View a chart of the top 30 dioxin polluters in the US.
EPA Drags Its Feet in Reporting on Dioxin Hazards
The EPA has delayed its Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of TCDD (dioxin) report for decades due to pressure from Big Industry. For example, President Bush delayed the report in a “last-minute gift” to the chemical industry just before leaving office. Another example is when the EPA and the Chlorine Institute (later the Chlorine Chemistry Council of the American Chemistry Council) were chummy co-sponsors of a conference on dioxin in 1990, indicating that the industry may have undue influence over the EPA.
The EPA has a history of shielding Monsanto from accountability. In the town of Nitro, West Virginia, the Big Monsanto plant produced dioxin-contaminated 2,4,5-T herbicide from 1948 to 1969 and they burned the waste in open pit fires. The EPA has conducted study after study but has failed to force remediation that could cost Monsanto as much as $4 billion.
How To Avoid Dioxin
• A vegan diet is recommended, especially for nursing mothers. Beef and pork contain the highest concentrations of dioxin. Freshwater fish is unsafe.
• Use only oxygen bleach products instead of chlorine bleach.
• Use unbleached paper products.
• Avoid herbicides (weed killers) and pesticides that contain chlorine.
Read the rest of health consultant Jonathan Campbell’s suggestions to avoid dioxin.
Conclusion
It is obvious that collusion between our taxpayer-funded government and Big Industry has resulted in the death and disease of untold numbers of Americans. The criminals of Big Industry will not stop producing dioxin-laced products until they are held accountable.
Hemp can replace many plastics: it is natural, biodegradable, uses little water and no herbicides or pesticides are necessary. Ron Paul is an outspoken critic of the failed war on drugs that prevents the use of industrial hemp. Industrial hemp should not be classified as a drug.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/carcinogenic-dioxin-set-free-epa-kneels.htmlDioxin is the most toxic man-made chemical known regarding damage to health and the... more-
- Anonmaly
- added this
- 11 days ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
EPA Unveils Interactive Map Of America’s Carbon Polluters
In a major advance for concerned citizens, the Obama administration has unveiled an interactive website that displays the thousands of major greenhouse gas polluters across the United States. The new site, at ghgdata.epa.gov, features a Google map and charts driven by the greenhouse gas reporting database of facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of greenhouse pollution. The EPA established the rule requiring this reporting in 2009, in response to a law passed under George W. Bush at the end of 2007.
This comprehensive and well-designed site, developed by the government contractor SAIC, makes it easy to find out facts like:
The top carbon polluter in America is the Scherer mega-coal plant in Juliette, Georgia.
The ten most polluting coal plants produce a combined 188 million tons of greenhouse pollution a year.
Kansas has 103 reporting greenhouse polluters.
There are only two major emitters of highly dangerous HFC pollution in the United States, a Dupont plant in Louisville and a Honeywell plant in Baton Rouge.
People can also download the underlying data set for their own analysis.
The site does not display greenhouse pollution from the transportation or agribusiness sectors. The omission of the pollution from the millions of cars across America makes sense, but the exclusion of industrial agriculture pollution is a loophole inserted by Congress to protect the dangerous business model of Big Ag.In a major advance for concerned citizens, the Obama administration has unveiled an... more-
- coolplanet
- added this
- 30 days ago
- |
- 3 comments
-
-
Work Halted at 4 More Ohio Fluid-Injection Wells in Wake of Earthquakes | Linked to Fracking?
CNN...
Work halted at 4 more Ohio fluid-injection wells in wake of quake
From Maggie Schneider, CNN
updated 6:18 PM EST, Sun January 1, 2012
.
Officials have shut down fluid-injection wells in eastern Ohio in the aftermath of heightened seismic activity in the area.
.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Ohio officials order the closure of four fluid-injection wells near Youngstown
This comes amid a probe looking at links between "fracking" and recent quakes
"We need to get more information," an official says of any possible connection
A magnitude 4.0 quake struck Saturday, one of 11 to occur in the past year
.
(CNN) -- Work has been halted at four more fluid-injection wells in eastern Ohio in the aftermath of heightened seismic activity in the area, a state official said.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources Director James Zehringer had announced on Friday that one such well -- which injects "fluid deep underground into porous rock formations, such as sandstone or limestone, or into or below the shallow soil layer," the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency explains -- was closed after a series of small earthquakes in and around Youngstown.
Then on Saturday, a magnitude 4.0 earthquake struck that released at least 40 times more energy than any of the previous 10 or more tremors that had rattled the region in 2011.
Andy Ware, deputy director of Ohio's natural resources department, told CNN on Sunday that Zehringer and Gov. John Kasich subsequently have ordered the closure of four other nearby injection wells as well.
The decision comes as authorities investigate a possible link between the earthquakes and hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking. That controversial drilling technology involves injecting water, sand and chemicals deep into the ground at high pressure to crack the shale and allow the oil or gas to flow.
Last Friday's order affecting the first well in Youngstown came six days after a magnitude 2.5 earthquake that struck that area around 1:24 a.m. on December 24. After Saturday's larger earthquake, scientists recommended that operations stop at all wells within a 5-mile radius of that original site.
"We need to get more information," Ware said.
The epicenter for Saturday's tremor was 5 miles northwest of Youngstown, 6 miles southeast of Warren and 55 miles east-southeast of Cleveland, the U.S. Geological Survey reported. According to the preliminary estimate, the earthquake struck 1.4 miles deep.
There was a lot of shaking "and a rumbling sound," said Jimmy Hughes, a former Youngstown police chief running for sheriff of Mahoning County. "I could see the house move. ... It seemed like the ground was moving. "
Ohio is far from the edges of Earth's major tectonic plates, with the nearest ones in the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, the U.S. Geological Survey explains on its website. Still, there are many known faults in this region, with the federal agency noting that it is likely there are additional "smaller or deeply buried" ones that haven't been detected.
While earthquakes are not unprecedented in the area, the rate of them in the past year has been unusual. That fact led Zehringer, the Ohio department head, to act late last week.
"While conclusive evidence cannot link the seismic activity to the well, Zehringer has adopted an approach requiring prudence and caution regarding the site," the natural resources department said Friday in a press release, explaining its decision to shut the first well.
Ben Lupo -- CEO of D&L Energy, an independent natural gas and oil exploration, production and marketing group that oversees the first well that was closed -- recently told CNN affiliate WKBN that there's full cooperation with experts, though he expressed grave doubts that the injection wells were to blame for the quakes.
"We have approximately 1,000 wells between Ohio and Pennsylvania and we've never had a problem ... with an earthquake or spill," Lupo said.
Dr. Won-Young Kim, one of the Columbia University experts asked by the state to examine possible connections between fracking and seismic activity, said that a problem could arise if fluid moves through the ground and affects "a weak fault, waiting to be triggered." He explained the underground waste "slowly migrates" and could cause issues miles away, adding that the danger could persist for some time as the fluid travels and seeps down toward the fault.
"In my opinion, yes," the recent spate of earthquakes around Youngstown is related to a fluid-injection well, Kim stated -- though there has been no definitive determination, by the state or other authorities, indicating as much.
There have been "moderately frequent" reports of earthquakes in northern Ohio since the first recorded one was reported in 1823, the federal agency noted. A 1986 tremor, measuring magnitude 4.8, caused some damage. Another in 1998 measured a 4.5 and was centered in northwest Pennsylvania.
.
CNN's Susan Candiotti and Ross Levitt contributed to this report.
.CNN... Work halted at 4 more Ohio fluid-injection wells in wake of quake From... more-
- EthicalVegan
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 13 comments
-
-
Worldwide Hippies News Briefs Saturday
Moon countdown: Hours until 1st NASA probe arrives
Spain says deficit bigger than expected, hikes taxes
Court blocks EPA rule in last-minute orderMoon countdown: Hours until 1st NASA probe arrives Spain says deficit bigger than... more-
- joeeddy
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
New EPA mercury rules are a bonafide big deal
Wednesday, at long last, the EPA unveiled its new rule covering mercury and other toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants.
Anyone who pays attention to green news will have spent the last two years hearing a torrent of stories about EPA rules and the political fights over them. It can get tedious. After a certain point even my eyes glaze over, and I’m paid to follow this stuff.
But this one is a Big Deal. It’s worth lifting our heads out of the news cycle and taking a moment to appreciate that history is being made. Finally controlling mercury and toxics will be an advance on par with getting lead out of gasoline. It will save save tens of thousands of lives every year and prevent birth defects, learning disabilities, and respiratory diseases. It will make America a more decent, just, and humane place to live.
A couple of background facts to contextualize what the new rule means:
First, remember that the original Clean Air Act “grandfathered” in dozens of existing coal plants back in 1977, on the assumption that they were nearing the end of their lives and would be shut soon anyway. Well, funny story … they never shut down! There are still dozens of coal plants in the U.S. that don’t meet the pollution standards in the original 1970 Clean Air Act, much less the 1990 amendments. These old, filthy jalopies from the early 20th century, mostly along the eastern seaboard and scattered around the Midwest, are responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of the air pollution generated by the electricity sector in America, including most of the mercury. They have been environmentalists’ bête noire for over 30 years now.
Second, mercury rules get directly at these plants in a way no other rules have. There’s no trading system for mercury like there is for SO2 (the Bush administration tried to set one up, but the court struck it down). There are no short-cuts either. Every plant that’s out of compliance has to install the “maximum available control technology.” There is some flexibility — more than industry admits — but there’s no getting around the fact that this is going to be an expensive rule. It’s going to kick off a huge wave of coal-plant retirements and investments in pollution-control technology. That is, despite what conservatives say, a good thing, since the public-health benefits will be far greater than the costs. Every country on earth is modernizing its electric fleet. Even China’s ahead of us. These crappy old plants are an embarrassment and good riddance to them.
Third, this has been a long time coming. (Nicholas Bianco has some good history here.) An assessment of mercury was part of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. EPA stalled and stalled, got sued, and finally did the assessment. Sure enough, as had been known for years, they found mercury is harmful to public health. Then more stalling and more stalling until the Bush administration’s malformed 2004 proposal, which instantly got caught up in (and struck down by) the courts. So when the mercury rule finally goes into effect in 2014, 24 years will have passed since Congress said mercury needs regulating. It’s been a fight for enviros every step of the way.
So anyway, this is an historic day and a real step forward for the forces of civilization. It’s the beginning of the end of one of the last of the old-school, 20th-century air pollution problems. (Polluters and their rented conservatives will try to kick up dust about this, but check out this letter to Congress [PDF] from a group of health scientists, which says “exposure to mercury in any form places a heavy burden on the biochemical machinery within cells of all living organisms.”) Long after everyone has forgotten who “won the morning” in the fight over these rules, or what effect they had on Obama’s electoral chances, the rule’s legacy will live on in a healthier, happier American people.
by David Roberts, cross-posted from Grist
More at the linkWednesday, at long last, the EPA unveiled its new rule covering mercury and other... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 3 comments
-
-
Inhofe Calls For New Hearings On EPA’s Flawed Endangerment Findings
IPCC USEING FLAWED FINDINGS TO PUSH POLITICAL AGENDA-
- AnthologyJoe [removed]
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Exposed: Shoddy Research In IPCC 2007 Report On Climate Change
CLIMATE CHANGE HAS BEEN MANUFACTURED FOR POLITICAL REASONS-
- AnthologyJoe [removed]
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
On Fox News, Ed Whitfield Denies ‘Any Benefit’ To Babies And Pregnant Women From Reducing Mercury Levels
As U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administration Lisa Jackson announces the first-ever Clean Air Act rules to limit mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants, Republicans are already attacking this historic advance for public health. The health risks of this potent neurotoxin are enormously well-documented. Methylmercury from coal pollution accumulates in fish, poisoning pregnant women and small children. Mercury can harm children’s developing brains, including effects on memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills. But Republicans are willing to argue that the profits of the coal industry outweigh the well-being of America’s children.
“There are already strict regulations relating to mercury emissions,” Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), the chair of the House energy and power subcommittee, falsely claimed in an interview today with Fox News. “Obviously whatever controls the EPA has in place are not working if our fish are tainted,” Fox’s Alisyn Camerota shot back. Whitfield then made the false claim that “there is not going to be any benefit from this new regulation in reducing mercury levels”:
CAMEROTA: As I’m sure you know, for the past years doctors have been advising pregnant women not to eat any fish when they are pregnant because the mercury levels are so high in fish. So what to do about this? Obviously whatever controls the EPA has in place are not working if our fish are tainted.
WHITFIELD: Well, let me just say this to you, the scientists that testified before our committee were unanimous in the view that there is not going to be any benefit from this new regulation in reducing mercury levels. All of the benefits were calculated from the reduction of particulate matter, which is already covered under ambient air quality standard regulations. This is about closing coal plants, and that’s precisely what it is about.
Whitfield and energy committee chair Fred Upton (R-MI) have assiduously avoided having medical experts testify about the EPA’s mercury rules, instead parading utility and coal industry officials before their committee to make exaggerated claims about the costs of upgrading power plants to protect children’s health. At one such hearing, Rep. Joe Barton denied the “medical negative” of mercury exposure.
The glimmer of fact in Whitfield’s claims is that the health costs of mercury poisoning of our nation’s children over decades of unlimited coal pollution are difficult to quantify. Mercury poisoning is rarely fatal and hard to detect, but causes undeniable, insidious developmental harm to fetuses and babies.
Cost-benefit analyses conducted by epidemiologists for the new rule emphasize the equally real live-saving impact of cutting the deadly soot pollution from the few dozen ancient coal plants that emit most of the nation’s mercury pollution. By conceding that cutting the particulate matter would save thousands of lives, Whitfield was in effect admitting that current ambient air quality standards are not sufficient to protect American health either.
Economists are beginning to recognize that the costs of coal pollution outweigh the benefits of “cheap” coal electricity. Unless the coal industry cleans up its act, coal power is making the American economy sick.
By Brad Johnson on Dec 21, 2011 at 2:38 pmAs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administration Lisa Jackson announces the... more-
- coolplanet
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 2 comments
-
-
Major Medical News: U.S. Government Announces Plan to Stop Using Animals in Laboratory Toxicity Testing!
.
PCRM | PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE...
.
.
Government Announces Plan to Replace Animals in Toxicity Testing
December 20, 2011
.
The Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration just announced a joint effort to use high-throughput robotics—instead of animals—to test 10,000 chemicals and drugs for potential toxicity. I’ve asked PCRM’s Chad Sandusky, Ph.D., to provide details:
Current testing is largely based on experiments on animals—rodents, rabbits, dogs—and uses methods that are cruel, time-consuming, expensive, and in some cases use thousands of animals in a single test. For example, a reproductive toxicity study uses 2,600 animals and requires a minimum of two years at a cost of $380,000. PCRM toxicologists and government affairs staff have pushed government and industry scientists to implement nonanimal methods.
The new method was developed after the National Research Council issued a mandate (often referred to as Tox21) several years ago to replace antiquated animal-based (in vivo) toxicity testing with testing using mostly human cells and tissues. At PCRM’s toxicology department, we are convinced this will offer not only a dramatic reduction in animal use, but also a faster and cheaper approach to safety testing.
While Congress has been drafting revisions to the law that regulates chemicals (known as the Toxic Substances Control Act or TSCA), we’ve met with congressional offices to make sure that new nonanimal methods are required as they become more widely available. We’ve successfully gained support for these important changes, so animal testing will be greatly reduced—and eventually eliminated—when the bill is passed.
To learn more about how replacing animals in toxicity testing with this technology will make the world a safer place for people—and for the millions of animals now used in these cruel tests—visit www.ReformToxicityTesting.org
.
.
.. PCRM | PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE... . . Government... more-
- EthicalVegan
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 29 comments
-
-
Ron Paul: the most anti-environmental candidate ever ????
In a field in which all the candidates are weak in terms of protecting the environment, Ron Paul is unquestionably the worst. Here is his position (taken directly from his website):
"Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington."
OK, what’s wrong with this proposal? Here are a few things:
Why just property owners? Why not other people with health effects? Is there some reason why a tenant with asthma can’t sue, but a company with paint damage can go to court? Because property values matter, but not human health?
Who would be the defendants? If you live in a big city, how do you sue all of the polluters for damage? Do you sue everyone who has a car or truck for contributing to air pollution? How do you pay for the expert witnesses and legal fees?
Why only damages? If he truly believed in property rights, he’d allow injunctions to stop the harm from continuing.
How would courts handle the immense body of litigation? The pollution suits would be the world’s biggest class actions, with millions of plaintiffs, swarms of defendants, huge fees for expert witnesses, etc. Is that really what conservatives want?
We’ve already tried this approach, and it didn’t work. This is more or less where the law stood fifty years ago. We didn’t pass modern environmental laws because we loved regulation; we passed them because the old system led to massive air and water pollution.
This isn’t a policy proposal. It’s a libertarian fantasy. And a callous one at that.
Cross-posted from the environmental law and policy blog Legal Planet.
More at the linkIn a field in which all the candidates are weak in terms of protecting the... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 153 comments
-
-
Rewritten Headlines: Video Games to Lindsay Lohan
It's the Rewritten News with your Rewritten News team!-
- TonyDiGerolamo
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
EPA Releases Formerly Confidential Chemical Information
– As part of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s commitment to enhance the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s chemicals management program and increase transparency, the agency is making available to the public hundreds of studies on chemicals that had been treated as confidential business information (CBI).– As part of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s commitment to enhance the... more -
EPA displays erectile dysfunction regarding delays on carbon limits on oil refineries as CO2 emissions climb
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, struggling with an ambitious agenda on clean air regulations, said it will delay proposing the country's first-ever greenhouse gas limits on oil refineries.
The delay is the latest setback for the agency's new raft of clean air rules on everything from smog to mercury pollution that are heavily opposed by industry.
The EPA had been required to propose the rules on refineries by mid-December, as part of a court settlement with states and environmental groups.
"EPA expects to need more time to complete work on greenhouse gas pollution standards for oil refineries," a spokeswoman for the agency said. The EPA is working with the litigants to develop a new schedule to replace the current mid-December date for a rule proposal, she added.
The EPA made the comments after sources on both sides of the issue told Reuters the agency would not make the deadline.
The EPA has not told refiners exactly how it plans to cut emissions, and that figuring out how to do so is taking additional time, an oil industry source said.
"How they are going to regulate greenhouse gases, they are not sharing that with us," the source said.
The petroleum industry says it is more difficult to cut emissions from refineries than it is from power plants, the EPA's top target of emissions. Many power utilities can switch from coal, which emits large amounts of carbon dioxide when burned, to burning cleaner natural gas. Refineries, however, mostly already run on natural gas, they argue.
Tough rules on greenhouse gas emissions could add expenses to companies including Exxon Mobil Corp, Valero Energy Corp, and ConocoPhillips.
But refiners can easily cut emissions -- and save money, a source with one of the litigants said. They can do so by replacing inefficient boilers, installing better valves to reduce leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and by generating power with "waste heat" given off at the plants.
The delays on greenhouse gas plans come after President Barack Obama forced the EPA in September to delay new limits on smog emissions until 2013, saying it was part of an effort to reduce regulatory burdens on business.
That decision came as Republicans in the House of Representatives complained about EPA's raft of new clean air regulations, saying they would kill jobs and add expenses to businesses as they struggle with the weak economy.
RECORD EMISSIONS
The delay comes as time may be running out for world efforts to control global warming emissions. Concentrations of carbon dioxide and two other greenhouse gases reached record levels last year and will linger in the atmosphere for decades, even if the world halts output of the gases today, the World Meteorological Organization, the U.N.'s weather agency, said on Monday.
The United States is sticking with Obama's pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by about 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. But a comprehensive energy and climate bill failed in the Senate last year, leaving emissions control largely to agencies including the EPA and the Department of Transportation. Last week those agencies proposed doubling auto fuel efficiency.
Meanwhile, U.S. CO2 emissions from energy sources last year rose nearly 4 percent as factories ran harder and as consumers boosted air conditioning during the hot summer.
The EPA has also delayed proposing a plan on reducing emissions from power plants, which are the country's single largest source of emissions blamed for warming the planet.
Those rules were initially delayed in June and again in September. Last week Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, said the plan on power plants would be rolled out early next year.
It was unclear if the EPA would also miss the deadline to finalize the rules on refineries by mid-November, 2012.
More at the linkThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, struggling with an ambitious agenda on clean... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 3 months ago
- |
- 32 comments
-
-
Naomi Klein schools Keystone XL
PLEASE SHARE this Thought Bubble by RETWEETING:
TWEET:
#Canada hates unethical oil: http://clicktotweet.com/qZt7B | And so does @NaomiAKlein and @SapienceFilm. The world needs more Canada.
Alberta's Tar Sands are a true embarrassment for us Canadians; not only is it a human rights crisis for the Indigenous communities living in Alberta and British Columbia, but an environmental disaster of epic proportions.
Many pipelines transport this dirty oil all around North America, and our exports make us the United States' biggest provider of oil. In the last few years, a new extension to a current pipeline has been proposed to carry Tar Sands oil all the way to Texas, putting some of North America's most fragile ecosystems and waterways in serious peril.
Bill McKibben and his team at 350.org helped spearhead a movement called Tar Sands Action (http://www.tarsandsaction.org), enlisting the help of people all over the US and Canada willing to express their dismay and anger about this possible new pipeline.
As of November 6th, thousands of people have risked arrest, standing in front of the White House, as well as Canada's Parliament in Ottawa, to protest.PLEASE SHARE this Thought Bubble by RETWEETING: TWEET: #Canada hates unethical... more-
- thoughtbubbler
- added this
- 3 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
EPA Regulations Will Create New Jobs Says American Electric Power CEO
“We have to hire plumbers, electricians, painters, folks who do that kind of work when you retrofit a plant. Jobs are created in the process — no question about that.” — Mike Morris, CEO, American Electric Power
What happens when the GOP mantra that environmental regulations kill jobs is proven false? In politics, that usually means doubling down on the original false argument.
Even after losing a bid to roll back EPA’s cross-state air pollution rule last week,
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul vowed to keep fighting federal air pollution standards, saying that he would not “let this administration continue to pass job-killing regulations.”
But those regulations aren’t killing jobs. And as we’ve pointed out several times, strong, well-designed environmental regulations have never killed jobs. The entire anti-environmental regulation platform of the Republican party is based on a made up scenario that has somehow trumped reality.
In fact, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that regulations are having virtually no impact on job losses. In 2010, only 0.3% of job losses occurred because of government regulation, according to the figures.
What about coming EPA regulation of mercury and carbon emissions? Won’t that cause a “train wreck” that will kill tens of thousands of jobs? Well, estimates vary on the precise jobs impact. One report from the University of Massachusetts estimates that more than 250,000 jobs will be created through installation of new equipment at existing power plants and construction of new clean energy facilities.
Net job creation is a bit harder to gauge, as there will be jobs lost in some areas of the industry in a shift away from coal to natural gas and renewables. But leading power providers are contradicting GOP “job-killing” talking points by explaining that new air-quality regulations will have an overall positive impact on job creation. The Washington Post just ran a piece on the impact of EPA rules:
“AEP chief executive Mike Morris said that retrofitting plants would add jobs but that he needs more time from the EPA.” [Note: These regulations have been in the works for a decade.]
“We have to hire plumbers, electricians, painters, folks who do that kind of work when you retrofit a plant,” Morris said. “Jobs are created in the process — no question about that.”
Another AEP coal plant in nearby Conesville required more than 1,000 temporary workers to build a scrubber for one of its units. The plant then added 40 full-time employees to monitor the scrubber, which doubled the footprint of the unit. The device requires so much machinery it has its own control room.
Ralph Izzo, chief executive of the New Jersey utility PSE&G, said installing scrubbers at two of his company’s coal plants created 1,600 jobs for two years, plus 24 permanent ones.
This has been the story of how industry responds to regulations. Since the founding of the EPA in the 1970′s, aggregate emissions of ozone, particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and lead have come down 63%. The economic impact? A tripling of Gross Domestic Product.
The Washington Post story points to a 1998 study on the net impact of EPA regulations on major industries:
“Based on the available literature, there’s not much evidence that EPA regulations are causing major job losses or major job gains,” said Richard Morgenstern, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan think tank Resources for the Future who worked at the EPA starting under the Reagan administration and continuing into President Bill Clinton’s first term.
“A decade ago, in a landmark study, Morgenstern and others looked at the effect of regulations on four heavily polluting industries — pulp and paper mills, plastic manufacturers, petroleum refiners, and iron and steel mills — between 1979 and 1991.
“The researchers concluded that higher spending to comply with environment rules does not cause “a significant change” in industry employment. When jobs were lost, they were often made up elsewhere in the same industry. For every $1 million companies spent, as many as 11 / 2 net jobs were added to the economy.”
Despite these historical facts, Republicans continue to claim that environmental regulations are killing jobs. This is egregiously false.
If we’re serious about transitioning away from coal in order to clean up local air pollution, improve public health and combat climate change, there will be job impacts in the coal industry. That’s a fact. And we need to be prepared to transition workers in the sector to new types of jobs.
But we will see major job gains in other sectors on the industry, creating a net-neutral or, possibly, substantial net-positive jobs impact — all while reaping the economic benefits in public health and investment in cleaner generation. That’s a fact, too.
It’s time to stop the nonsensical claims that strong environmental regulations kill jobs. As Republican candidates continue to campaign on this platform, we need to hold them accountable for their distortions.
By Stephen | Nov 14, 2011“We have to hire plumbers, electricians, painters, folks who do that kind of... more-
- coolplanet
- added this
- 3 months ago
- |
- 1 comment
-
-
Koch Brothers Behind Push To Dismantle EPA
During last week’s Americans For Prosperity (AFP) event, a common theme kept creeping into the speakers’ presentations: Dismantle the EPA. And as the major funders of AFP, Charles and David Koch are the ones pulling the strings of the American elected officials who keep clamoring for an end to all environmental protections.
Since the new Republican-controlled Congress took over earlier this year, calls for the EPA to be disbanded and general attacks on the agency have been constant. In the last 11 months, we have covered those stories here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Those in favor of saying goodbye to the EPA include presidential candidates like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, elected officials like Republican Representatives Mike Rogers and David McKinley, and even media figures like Fox News’s John Stossel. The attacks include false claims that the agency is destroying jobs, or just general claims that the agency’s usefulness has run its course.
But when you look past those claims, the money from the Koch brothers and their organizations is all that you can see.
In addition to GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain pledging his loyalty to the Kochs at last week’s event, we were also privy to a rousing anti-EPA speech by Republican representative Mike Pompeo of Kansas. As Think Progress reports, Pompeo told the crowd the following about his efforts to completely strip the EPA of their funding:
“We’re trying. Indeed, I personally tried. … We’ve got a Senate that has a deeply different worldview, and there my bill sits. We won’t be able to slow down the growth of the EPA dramatically until we change the view of folks in Congress, and I speak mostly of the Senate here, and we get a new leader in the White House.”
Lee Fang from Think Progress has detailed Rep. Pompeo’s connections to the Kochs, who have personally been involved with helping Pompeo climb his way into the top 1% of income earners:
Pompeo developed much of his wealth from a firm he founded, Thayer Aerospace, which he ran with investment funds from Koch Industries. According to a December 11, 1998 article in the Wichita Business Journal, “[Pompeo's] company’s capital base is drawn in part from Wichita’s Koch Venture Capital, a division of Koch Industries.” Pompeo sold Thayer in 2006.
Pompeo still relies on Koch for his private wealth. After the sale of Thayer, Pompeo became the President of Sentry International, a business specializing in the manufacture and sale of equipment used in oilfields. Sentry International is a partner to Koch Industries through its Brazilian distributor, GTF Representacoes & Consultoria.
Pompeo won his Republican primary largely with the support of Koch Industries’ PAC, which gave him one of his largest endorsements in March. Despite the fact that Koch Industries is the recipient of tens of millions in federal contracts, Pompeo boasted about the endorsement: “The employees of the Koch Companies have jobs here in the Wichita because of their own hard work and creativity, not because a federal agency deemed it to be so.”
With $31,400 in contributions from KOCHPAC, Koch Industries is by far the greatest contributor to Pompeo’s campaign.
So to be clear, Congressman Pompeo owes not only his election but his personal fortune to the Koch brothers, and now that he is in a position of power, he is doing his best to push their agenda within the chambers of Congress.
The money in politics database organization Open Secrets has a lengthy list of specific legislation that Koch Industries has lobbied for and against. On the "against" list, you’ll find legislation such as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 – a bill that would have put Americans to work building a green energy infrastructure; the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act – again, a bill that would have created green energy jobs and infrastructure; and the Clean Air Protection Act – a bill that would limit the amount of acceptable emissions into our atmosphere.
The Koch brothers, through their PACs and other organizations, have funded numerous efforts to defeat legislation aimed at reducing pollution or protecting the environment. After all, their companies don't pay the real cost for the pollution they release.
That’s why it is important to follow the money on these stories, especially when dealing with Congress members who are attempting to dismantle the few environmental protections that are currently in place, like Mike Pompeo. Because more often than not, these efforts are supported by fat cat checks from a member of the Koch family.
Farron Cousins
11 November 11During last week’s Americans For Prosperity (AFP) event, a common theme kept... more-
- coolplanet
- added this
- 3 months ago
- |
- 2 comments
-
-
The most bizarre anti-EPA ad you will ever see
This ad was made by the staff (?) for Bette Grande, who is the Republican (and I even use that term loosely here) in North Dakota running for the House. If you think this is just bizarre wait until you see her announcement video. Does this have Koch Industries written all over it or what? And, she is also a member of ALEC which makes this all the more understandable. And it is also obvious that because she is a scientific illiterate, fear is all that is left. What a horrible joke politics has become.This ad was made by the staff (?) for Bette Grande, who is the Republican (and I even... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 3 months ago
- |
- 22 comments
-
-
BP Wins Approval for New Deep-Water Oil Drilling in Gulf of Mexico
Los Angeles Times...
.
BP wins approval for new deep-water drilling in Gulf of Mexico
October 26, 2011 | 12:05 pm
BP
BP won approval from the Interior Department to drill its first exploratory oil well in the Gulf of Mexico since the blowout of its Macondo well a year and a half ago touched off the country’s worst offshore environmental disaster.
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement said that BP met more stringent safety requirements devised by the federal government in the aftermath of the disaster. The company also planned to follow even tougher voluntary standards that exceeded the government’s rules.
“This permit was approved only after thorough well design, blowout preventer, and containment capability reviews,” said bureau director Michael R. Bromwich.
At more than 6,000 feet, the proposed well would be in deeper water than the Macondo well. It is part of the company’s Kaskida prospect located in an area called the Keathley canyon about 250 miles south of Lafayette, La. The company submitted the application to drill in January.
Cleanup of gulf waters continues in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed 11 workers and spewed nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the sea over several months.
Last week, the Interior Department granted approval to a broader exploration plan from BP for the Kaskida prospect based on its adherence to the agency’s new rules.
Environmentalists have said that the new regulatory agency, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, is better than its predecessor, the Minerals Management Service, which had exercised uneven, sometimes lax oversight of offshore energy projects, investigations showed.
But they argue that more work needs to be done to improve offshore drilling safety, including a redesign of blowout preventers and modernization of cleanup procedures.
.
Photo: BP corporagte logo. Credit: Oli Scarff / Getty ImagesLos Angeles Times... . BP wins approval for new deep-water drilling in Gulf of... more-
- EthicalVegan
- added this
- 4 months ago
- |
- 27 comments
-
-
Groups sue Obama administration for scrapping stricter smog rules
Environmental groups sued the Obama administration Tuesday for scrapping a stricter limit for smog-forming pollution, saying the decision violated the law and put politics ahead of protecting public health.
The lawsuit filed in the federal appeals court in Washington by four environmental and public health groups came after the White House last month said it would not support setting a new standard for ground-level ozone until 2013, outraging environmentalists.
Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson had said in 2009 at the recommendation of scientific advisers that she wanted a more stringent standard to protect public health.
But President Barack Obama, facing a re-election race in 2012 and under pressure from business groups and Republicans, rejected the final proposal. The White House said setting a new standard would create "needless uncertainty" at a time when the economy was struggling.
The cost of complying was estimated at between $19 billion and $90 billion a year, making it one of the most expensive environmental regulations ever and earning it a spot on a list of rules targeted by House Republicans.
The Clean Air Act prohibits the EPA from considering compliance costs when setting a public health standard.
"EPA assured us repeatedly that they were going to finalize action on that proposal to strengthen the standard," said David Baron, managing attorney for Earthjustice, which sued on behalf of the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Appalachian Mountain Club and Natural Resources Defense Council. "Then all of a sudden, the Obama administration abruptly reversed course and said they weren't going to strengthen the standards after all."
The new standard would have replaced one set in 2008 by President George W. Bush. Public health experts, the EPA's scientific advisory panel and Obama's top environmental official have said that standard fell short of fully protecting public health.
Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, triggers asthma attacks, causes lung damage and increases the risk of dying from lung disease.
Documents released last week by the EPA show that the agency wanted to change the standard from 75 parts per billion measured over eight hours to 70 parts per billion. An advisory committee had recommended a range of 60 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion. It will now move forward with the level set by Bush, while laying the groundwork for a new standard.
The White House said the EPA's proposed regulation was based on outdated scientific evidence. It said other regulations imposed by the EPA would reduce smog in the meantime.
The administration's decision angered environmentalists to a degree unseen in Obama's presidency.
Frances Beinecke, the head of the council and a member of the president's commission on the Gulf oil spill, told the group's members that Obama had "dropped us like a hot potato."
More at the linkEnvironmental groups sued the Obama administration Tuesday for scrapping a stricter... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 4 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
