tagged w/ Environmental Policy
-
Know the enemies of the earth among us. If you've ever wondered why clean energy legislation is always stalled or voted down, consult this list of corrupt oil/coal company reps that also happen to be public officials. You may be shocked (or not) to find a representative from your home state on this unwanted list.Know the enemies of the earth among us. If you've ever wondered why clean energy... more
-
-
The following guest post was written by AlisonHamm, a blogger for the Media Consortium. The Media Consortium is a network of the country’s leading independent journalism organizations. We support smart, powerful and passionate journalism that redefines American political and cultural debate. The Media Consortium is creating a solid cooperative infrastructure that will serve a 21st-century audience and offer a sustainable future for independent media.
Over 15,000 people from 192 countries began to work towards an international climate deal today in Copenhagen. These discussions are part of the largest and most important United Nations climate change summit in history. After two years of contentious negotiations, heads of states are convening through Dec. 18 to curb greenhouse gases, encourage the development of clean energy, and transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to help developing nations curb climate change.
It’s going to be a lively 11 days. Jacob Wheeler has already posted video (below) of a demonstration to save the climate for In These Times‘ blog, The ITT List. For live coverage of the Cop15 summit, make sure to check out video streams hosted by The UpTake and OneWorld.
Robert Eschelman reports in The Nation that Cop15’s probable outcome will be a draft agreement. But what will this potential deal look like? “Four issues will dominate the negotiations taking place inside Copenhagen’s Bella Center. First, developed nations, such as the United States, must commit to significant reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions. Second, developing countries like India and China will have to reduce the rate at which their emissions increase over the next several decades. Third, developed countries will have to provide clean energy technologies and funding to developing nations as they address the effects of climate change. And, finally, negotiators will have to agree on how to monitor and enforce an international climate agreement.”
The U.S. has taken some good first steps to reaching such an agreement. Last week, President Barack Obama announced the country’s commitment to a global fund that will mobilize $10 billion per year by 2012 to support developing countries that are already experiencing the effects of climate change. It’s an important first step. But as Yes! Magazine reports, using the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to manage this money isn’t a good idea. “Both have track records of saddling poor countries with debt, requiring government spending cuts that undermine national economies, and handing lucrative contracts to transnational corporations.”
President Obama has also changed the timing of his Copenhagen visit from this Wednesday, Dec. 9, to the conference’s big finale on Friday, Dec. 18. Grist consulted with a panel of experts regarding the significance of the schedule switch. They all agree: It’s a big deal. Obama’s arrival on the last day “changes the game,” according to Kenneth P. Green, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “It suggests that a ‘deal’ is already in the bag, and Obama’s expecting that he’ll get to bask in the glow of a new global agreement, flagrantly repudiating the position of the Bush administration in previous climate negotiations.” Andrew Light, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, believes that Obama’s appearance at the end of the conference will “transform the Copenhagen climate conference into the largest summit yet of world leaders focused on global warming.”
Scientists warn that without such an agreement in Copenhagen, the Earth will face ever-rising temperatures, flooding of coastal cities (about half of the human race lives within 100 miles of a coastline), more extreme weather events, and the spread of diseases.
Air America features a comprehensive look at what’s at stake in Copenhagen. “The change in U.S. administrations a year ago had aroused hopes the long-running climate talks might finally produce an all-encompassing package in 2009 to combat global warming and help its victims. Too little time and too little agreement, however, especially between rich and poor countries, mean the 192-nation Copenhagen conference is likely to produce, at best, a framework — a basis for continuing talks and signing internationally binding final agreements next year.”
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.The following guest post was written by AlisonHamm, a blogger for the Media... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
There were several articles posted on Current yesterday about Pew's Shocking new poll about American's belief in global warming.
The timing of the report was interesting given that it was released a day after 18 scientific organizations wrote Congress to reaffirm the consensus behind global warming. At the end of the day, it makes me feel sorry for our political leaders who are forever trapped between the information and the political will of an under educated country. The situation that this article sheds light on continues my week long ponder about the difference between management and leadership.
Grist reporters Dave Roberts and John Hiskes followed up with a break down of the stats and discuss the difference between opinion and fact:
John Hiskes of Grist covered the details, a few which are below:
The poll found that only 57 percent of respondents believe that “the earth is getting warmer,” compared with 71 percent in April 2008. Pew has asked similar sets of questions six times since June 2006 and has never found such a dramatic rise in skepticism.
Those who believe warming is caused by human activity (burning fossil fuels) wavered between 41 and 50 percent in the first five polls. This fall, the figure dropped to 36 percent.
Those who consider global warming a “very serious problem” ranged between 41 and 47 percent in the first five polls. This fall, the figure fell to 35 percent.
The shift was most pronounced among political independents. In that group, those who believe there is solid evidence for climate change fell from 75 percent in the April 2008 poll to 53 percent (that’s 22 points). Democrats who believe there is solid evidence for climate change dropped from 83 percent in the last poll to 75 percent. Republicans slipped from 49 percent to 35 percent.
Other recent polls haven’t found the rise in skepticism that Pew documents. An August Zogby poll found a majority of Americans wanted additional or continued action from Congress on climate change. A July poll from WorldPublicOpinion.org found Americans lagging other countries in demanding a climate plan, yet still asking their government to do more. For a bit of context on what scientists think, yesterday 18 leading scientific organizations sent a letter to U.S. senators reminding them of the scientific consensus that climate change is happening, that it is caused by human activities, and that its effects will be severe.
Dave Roberts of Grist responded with a friendly reminder that political opinion does not actually change scientific facts:
It should be noted, of course, that 57% ain’t bad, given the public’s generally low level of scientific knowledge. About 79% of people know the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa, while 80% believe prayer accelerates healing. Some 75% believe in angels but just 39% believe in evolution. Public opinion on matters of science is of great interest for a great many reasons, but it is a poor guide for public policy. Everyone deserves to have their voice heard on how we might best respond to what’s happening, but what’s happening is happening and we can’t change it by not acknowledging it. As Bill McKibben is fond of saying, nature doesn’t negotiate.
Related links
Hilarity continues at the capitol in the name of survivaball
Holy aquponic plants batman (video)
Saving the National Parks one photo at a time: Ian ShiveThere were several articles posted on Current yesterday about Pew's Shocking new... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
Hannah McCrea of Warming Law (changing the climate in the courts) wrote the following synopsis:
Coverage and analysis is slowly trickling in of the landmark ruling (pdf) handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit late yesterday, in which a 2-judge panel held that a group of states and environmental groups could sue several electric utility companies for creating a “public nuisance” through their emissions of climate-warming greenhouse gases. This is a truly historic ruling that should be celebrated and utilized by environmentalists, but that also brings with it certain dangers. In this, the first of two posts we will be publishing discussing the implications of this case, we will address the background and context of this ruling. In the second post, we will discuss its possible impacts and what steps environmentalists should take next.
In this case, Connecticut v. American Electric Power, No. 05-5104) (2nd Cir, Sept. 21, 2009), eight states (Connecticut, New York, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin), along with the City of New York and several private land trusts (including the Open Space Institute and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire), sued six electric utility companies (including American Electric Power, Southern Company, Xcel Energy, and Cinergy Corporation) seeking to abate the “public nuisance” of global warming. Plaintiffs argued that the energy companies were the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the U.S., and were collectively responsible for “ten percent of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions from human activities.” Claiming to represent the interests of 77 million people, their environments, and their economies, and citing the harmful impacts of global warming on these interests, the plaintiffs sought to require each of the electric utilities “to abate its contribution to the nuisance by capping its emissions of carbon dioxide and then reducing those emissions by a specified percentage per year for at least a decade.”
In contemplating the impact of this case, it is useful to understand where “nuisance” litigation fits in the larger picture of climate litigation. To date, environmentalists and industry have tried to use courts in a variety of ways to bring, or block, action on climate change. Environmentalists have attempted to compel state governments as well as the federal government to regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases under several existing federal statutes, most notably the Clean Air Act, though also under the National Environmental Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. (Massachusetts v. EPA — probably the most famous global warming case to date — represented the pinnacle of these efforts, in which a coalition of states and environmental groups convinced the Supreme Court that carbon dioxide qualified as a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act and could therefore be subject to EPA regulation without any further authorization from Congress.) Meanwhile, industry has attempted to use courts to block federal and state action on climate change, arguing, for example, that state-led global warming initiatives are preempted by federal law.
“Nuisance” cases have, in recent years, represented the third, and least successful, prong of global warming-related litigation. Several lawsuits – including a recently-dropped lawsuit brought by California against automakers, and the Connecticut v. AEP lawsuit against electric utilities – sought to convince courts to use their common law authority to hold emitters responsible for the tort of creating a “public nuisance” in the form of global warming.
This approach may seem far-fetched in an environmental world dominated by an alphabet soup (CAA, CWA, RCRA, NEPA, CERCLA, etc) of federal statutes, but as yesterday’s opinion effectively explains, courts have actually had a long and robust history of taking leadership on environmental issues by using their common law authority. The Second Circuit’s opinion noted, for example, that between 1907 and 1915, the Supreme Court issued four separate rulings addressing the “nuisance” of air pollution, in response to actions brought by the State of Georgia against the nearby Tennessee Copper Company. Georgia successfully argued the Company was emitting noxious emissions that were destroying plants and crops in Georgia, and in a sequence of rulings the Court created a mandate establishing the boundaries of acceptable emissions and minimum abatement requirements for the Company, finally “set[ting] definitive emissions limits, impos[ing] monitoring requirements, and apportion[ing] costs between the defendants.” Of course, decades later, the courts’ common law authority to address noxious emissions would be displaced by the passage of the Clean Air Act, yet prior to this legislation courts were responsible for assigning liability to polluters.
The story of Georgia v. Tennessee Copper mirrors precisely what is happening in this suit. Global warming has been diagnosed as a serious health and environmental risk for decades, but the political branches have not responded, making court action necessary. Despite this history, however, environmental advocates were skeptical that nuisance suits aimed at addressing greenhouse gas emissions would ever go anywhere, for several reasons:
1. The magnitude of global warming is much larger than anything courts have tried to tackle in the past using common law.
2. Conservatives have successfully raised doubts about whether global warming is even a justiciable issue, and whether courts have any constitutional role invoking their common law authority to evaluate its harmful impacts.
3. Massachusetts v. EPA, which empowered the EPA to address greenhouse gas emissions (albeit within the confines of the Clean Air Act), served to provide federal courts with an out, meaning they could claim global warming was already being addressed by the political branches of government and that they were therefore displaced from ruling on it.
Indeed, to date, the handful of global warming-related nuisance lawsuits brought in federal court have been dismissed at the district court level, all on similar grounds. (A recent status update of several common law global warming-related lawsuits can be found here.) Connecticut v. AEP in particular was dismissed by a federal judge in New York’s Southern District in September 2005 for “presenting non-justiciable political questions” that were beyond the court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit, and were assigned a panel that included then-Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, along with two Republican appointees — Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin (appointed by George H.W. Bush) and Judge Peter W. Hall (appointed by George W. Bush). The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on June 7, 2006, after which three years passed with no opinion. (At her confirmation hearing, now-Justice Sotomayor was asked by Senator Chuck Grassley what had happened to the “missing case.” She declined to answer, citing ABA rules for judges that precluded her from discussing outstanding decisions, though she did explain that the decision was initially delayed by one year because the panel was waiting for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.)
Thus, yesterday’s opinion quietly emerged after more than a three-year wait, and with only two of the three assigned judges’ signatures, since Judge Sotomayor had been elevated to the Supreme Court. In a sweeping ruling, the Second Circuit thoroughly refuted the district judge’s dismissal of the case, doing away with virtually every argument put forward by the energy industry for why this case should not go forward. In the words of the Court of Appeals:
We hold that: (1) Plaintiffs-Appellants’ claims do not present non-justiciable political questions; (2) Plaintiffs-Appellants have standing to bring their claims; (3) Plaintiffs-Appellants state claims under the federal common law of nuisance; (4) Plaintiffs-Appellants’ claims are not displaced; and (5) the discretionary function exception does not provide Defendant-Appellee Tennessee Valley Authority with immunity from suit. Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings.
The 139-page opinion goes on to methodically address every concern that industry raised about the courts’ taking a role in adjudicating global warming, effectively holding that while climate change may be larger in scale than past problems the courts have addressed, it is not fundamentally different from any of those problems, and there are ultimately no jurisprudential obstacles to the courts taking this on. The court further noted that while Massachusetts v. EPA may mean that court action on global warming can be displaced by regulatory action, the fact that the EPA has not yet acted on its Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions means the authority of the courts is not presently displaced. The Second Circuit therefore remanded the case back to the district court, which must now determine whether the defendants in this case are in fact guilty of creating a public nuisance through their emissions of greenhouse gases, as the plaintiffs have charged.
The opinion thus opens up a whole new avenue by which environmentalists can seek to compel major emitters to modify their global warming-causing behavior and, without a doubt, this is wonderful news. But as we will discuss in Part II, rather than heading back down to the district court, industry may try to take this ruling up to the Supreme Court. If it does take this route, and the Court decides to review the case, there would of course be no guarantee that the Court’s conservative majority would agree with the Second Circuit’s ruling. For this reason, environmentalists and progressives should work quickly to take advantage of this ruling as another significant prod to get EPA, and, more important, Congress, to take action on regulating carbon emissions. The best solution here would be for EPA or Congress to move quickly and displace the courts’ role here, producing a more comprehensive solution to the global warming crisis and preserving this extremely good precedent for use on another day.
Hannah McCrea of Warming Law (changing the climate in the courts) wrote the... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
On December 7, 2009, the Danish Ministry of Climate and Energy will gather delegates from all over the world to meet in Copenhagen for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, (aka COP15). The goal of Danish government is that the “COP15 conference will result in an ambitious global agreement” that include every country of the world. This will be the global green event of the year and is controversial taboot. Current Green will be keeping you up to date on all the latest developments and will provide a 360 degree point of view of the conference via guest bloggers over the course of the next few months. This week our guest blogger (unbeknown to him) is Stephen Thomson, a Current Green community member who used the format of video rant to express his opinions about what's on the line at Copenhagen.
Related Links (aka more sound offs my Stephen)
The Robin's Nest: A New Set of Circumstances (video)
What Would Jesus Call It? "Govt Plan" or "Public Option" (video)
The Road to Copenhagen: Are We On Track? (video)On December 7, 2009, the Danish Ministry of Climate and Energy will gather delegates... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
The New York Times is reporting news that's a bummer to swallow:
Officials of several European countries have cited what they see as a lack of political will on the part of the United States to adequately address climate change. The American reluctance to accept any agreement that would require legally binding and internationally enforceable targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could doom the, they said.
Really: so...what is happening between the desire for the every day person wanting to make sure they have a happy and healthy planet for to pass onto their to their children? (rhetorical question: don't feel obliged to reply). Hasn't this all been said a million times before? It's beginning to feel like a lot of "blah blah blah." But the message is clear: (blah blah blah) You need to tell your political leaders how you think they should be managing the issues. (blah blah blah). I know, you've heard it all before. (Blah blah blah). I"m sick of it to (picking up the phone now) blah blah blah. (dialing my Representative). (Blah blah blah) (every phone call or email equals 1,000 people calling in) (blah blah blah).
Soo.. don't just sit there. What are you going to do about it?
Great orgs who will help you make contact: 1sky and the energy action coalition.The New York Times is reporting news that's a bummer to swallow:
Officials of... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
In the video above I outlined key elements of the bill is an extremely over simplified way, and discuss some of the complexities about the political climate.
There are people out there that live and breathe these issues, so if you are on twitter, I highly recommend following @katesheppard and @david_h_roberts. Other people who are consistantly chatty about the topic include @michaeloko who does PR for the NRDC and @JesseJenkins an energy and climate policy analyst.
If you want to hear NPR break down cap and trade, you can smirk as they tried to be funny in this fabulously simplified and understandable piece. Kate Sheppard broke down the waxman markey also known as the aces bill or HR2454 in bullet points (love that). And Dave Roberts just posted a piece on why he's not freaked out about the Waxman-Markey Bill. This is an excellent article with a lot of great points that will give you hope at the end of the day. And who doesn't want a little hope at the end of the day?
In the video above I outlined key elements of the bill is an extremely over... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
Gavin Newsom visited our offices last week to participate in an interview with questions submitted and voted on by you.
It was our very first live streaming interview, and a pleasure to have San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom in the office speaking out San Francisco's leadership role in sustainable policy.
I asked our community to submit questions and vote to determine which questions were used to interview Mayor Newsom. The top 6 questions were picked, and I reached out to a few of our green blogger colleagues to pick a few extra questions for the Mayor from the bunch that were submitted.
The topics ranged from national issues such as solar energy, wind and wave power, to local issues such as the raise in fares on Muni, San Francisco's new recycling and composting law, the potential closing of 220 California State Parks, and the High Speed Rail and public transporation on the I-5.
The remaining questions focused on how to get the green message out, Mayor Newsom said it was all about reaching the kids and starting environmental education early, new sustainable technologies and ended with a question about the one thing they he can transform from beginning to end if he were elected Governor
It was our first time doing anything like this, and I have to say, there is something thrilling about producing a live streaming show. It brings me back to my days in the theater when anything could happen. In the words of one our people here, "the show didn't suck." Hind sight being 20/20, if I could go back and do it again, I would have taken more time to understand the political thinking behind moving forward on desalination. When in Hawaii a few weeks ago, I actually had a chance to drink some of their desalinized water, but once I started looking into it, the equation doesn't add up: the process of gathering fish kills an already stressed population, and it has a highly acidic byproduct. It feels like we are avoiding the elephant in the room: over population and over consumption. So I'll keep that in mind for next time: or perhaps I'll dedicate an entire show to the subject matter. What say you?
While this was our first live streaming web show, it certainly isn't our last. We'll soon be launching a weekly web show on Current Green that involves your participation to help steer the discussion. So, stay tuned for more info. You know that I am looking forward to your comments and feedback.Gavin Newsom visited our offices last week to participate in an interview with... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
That was my one and only attempt at sports announcing. Don't worry, I'll keep my day job.
Two things:
The page might change: so don't get confused. Voting does not get turned off, but the questions listed above will be the questions asked on Thursday.
There are 5 other questions that are not in this list that were hand selected by Treehugger, Grist, Good Magazine, Huffington Post Green, and Chelsea Green. So surprises await you.
Top 6 questions from the Current Green community:
What's the thing you can really transform?
Less routes and higher fares on MUNI?!?!
Which areas of California are most suitable for wind farms?
What issues arise with sustainability & safety in new energy tech?
What's your take on the proposal to close 220 state parks?
Would you be willing to establish a 5 yr challenge to buy all SF electricity from solar/wind providers? If no, why not?
So see you on Thursday, June 11th, 12PST at www.current.com/green for the live streaming interview with Gavin Newsom.
Related Links:
Gavin Newsom
Environment
Current Green
That was my one and only attempt at sports announcing. Don't worry, I'll... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
Hello Monday!
As you know, this coming Thursday, Current Green is live streaming our interview with Gavin Newsom about his run for Governor. Why would we bother? I know it may seem a little like naval gazing given that Gavin is the mayor of our hometown, but some might assert that California is defining the forefront of domestic and international environmental policy solutions. So if that's the case: don't you want in?
You only have until 5pm today to post your question!!
Want to know what he is talking about? No pressure, but the future of our conversation depends on you. The interview will be designed by the questions you choose to ask. So you tell us (or rather, Gavin) what topics should be the top priority of the political leaders agenda as it regards to conservation and sustainability policies.
Want to know more about Gavin Newsom and his green platform??
Then, you have until 5pm PST, Tuesday to vote. (If you really believe your question is all that and more: you may want to drop a line to a few friendly people and ask them to vote for your question).
So fire up your webcam and ask your question to Gavin Newsom! RIGHT NOW. Go Go Go! (But not in the comments section silly, on the special page we made where everyone can vote your question up and down.)
Oh, and just in case your question was so hot that no one got it, all is not lost, since the editors of Treehugger, Grist, Huffington Post Green, Good Magazine, and Chelsea Green are going to hand pick the question that most represents their interests.
Hello Monday!
As you know, this coming Thursday, Current Green is live streaming... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
Hey folks,
As you know, San Fran's Mayor, Gavin Newsom is running for Governor, and boy oh boy is he thumping on the green platform. Here's your chance to determine and shape the environmental issues that our political leaders discuss with the media. You can hit play, and listen to me chatter about how it works...or you can just read below.
Here's how it works
1. Submit your questions to Gavin Newsom about his green platform and run for Governor by Monday, 5pm PDT
2. Vote. Often. The six questions that make it to the top of the list are going to be asked by Current Green. Last chance to vote is 5pm PDT, Tuesday.
3. Come back and see what additional 5 questions the editors of Treehugger, Huffington Post Green, Good Magazine, Grist, and Chelsea Green select.
3. Watch and banter during the live stream and chat on Thursday, 12pm PDT, at www.current/green.
P.S. Want more info on Gavin Newsom's platform on the environment? HAVE more info to share? Check it and clip it.Hey folks,
As you know, San Fran's Mayor, Gavin Newsom is running for Governor,... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
In the wake of simply not being satisfied with how the certain groups are going in giving attention and adequate focus to the truly important environmental news and crises we face, I have created the group, Earth Care. This is a description of what the group will be about:
"This group will be posting environmental news that doesn't get the attention it deserves on other groups. This will not be a group about green "fads" or "trends" but the meat of the environmental issues and crises that must see the light of day. Climate Change (no denier propaganda), Earth Science, environmental tech, and anything to do with longterm environmental effects on our planet and our future will be discussed here along with action items. This group truly believes in Earth Care."
And I absolutely want to see viewer created content in this group. So please consider joining Earth Care and giving attention to the important issues that slip into the abyss in other environmental groups that must please corporate sponsors. I will delineate more as the group hopefully gets going.
Thanks, and thanks for caring for our Earth!In the wake of simply not being satisfied with how the certain groups are going in... more
-
-
There has been no more reliable cheerleader for President Obama’s energy and climate change policies than Daniel J. Weiss of the left-leaning Center for American Progress.
Mr. Obama’s recent enthusiasm for nuclear power, including his budget proposal to triple federal loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors to $54 billion, was too much for Mr. Weiss.
The president’s embrace of nuclear power was disappointing, and the wrong way to go about winning Republican votes, he said, adding that Mr. Obama should not be endorsing such a costly and potentially catastrophic energy alternative “as bait just to get talks started with pro-nuke senators.”
The early optimism of environmental advocates that the policies of former President George W. Bush would be quickly swept away and replaced by a bright green future under Mr. Obama is for many environmentalists giving way to resignation, and in some cases, anger.
Mr. Obama moved quickly in his first months in office, producing a landmark deal on automobile emissions, an Environmental Protection Agency finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, a virtual moratorium on oil drilling on public lands and House passage of a cap-and-trade bill.
Since then, in part because of the intense focus on the health care debate last year, action on environmental issues has slowed. The Senate has not yet begun debate on a comprehensive global warming bill, the Interior Department is writing new rules to open some public lands and waters to oil drilling and the E.P.A. is moving cautiously to apply the endangerment finding.
Environmental advocates largely remained silent late last year as Mr. Obama all but abandoned his quest for sweeping climate change legislation and began to reach out to Republicans to enact less ambitious clean energy measures.
But the grumbling of the greens has grown louder in recent weeks as Mr. Obama has embraced nuclear power, offshore oil drilling and “clean coal” as keystones of his energy policy. And some environmentalists have expressed concern that the president may be sacrificing too much to placate Republicans and the well-financed energy lobbies.
Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, whose political arm endorsed Mr. Obama’s candidacy for president, said that Mr. Obama’s recent policy emphasis amounted to “unilateral disarmament.”
cont.There has been no more reliable cheerleader for President Obama’s energy and... more
-
-
exporting waste illegally to poor countries has become a vast and growing business
to minimize costs of compliance of environmental lawsexporting waste illegally to poor countries has become a vast and growing business
to... more
-
-
Blog update from Al Gore:
I want to personally thank every single one of you who wrote, called and emailed their member of the House of Representatives in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Those supporting the status quo are sure double their efforts in the Senate to try and stop this legislation so our work it far from over.
To give you a picture of what we are up against, ExxonMobil has already spent more than $9.3 million lobbying Congress this year. However, I know we can succeed. That’s why, if you haven’t yet, I encourage you to join the Alliance for Climate Protection today by clicking here: http://www.climateprotect.org/
President Obama was absolutely correct when he stated:
"We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don’t believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth. It’s just not true."
We need to carry this message to the Senate. Our actions will determine whether this historic bill becomes law.Blog update from Al Gore:
I want to personally thank every single one of you who... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
You expressed shock, we will hopefully provide more answers and insight into the situation. We've gone to Doug Kendall, President of the Constitutional Accountability Center
http://theusconstitution.org/ who will answer your questions on Monday.
Excerpt from the article:
"In a ruling that will shock and dismay environmentalists everywhere, the US Supreme Court decided that the Clean Water Act shouldn't prevent mining companies from dumping their toxic waste into lakes--even with full knowledge that doing so will exterminate every trace of life within."
Full story at the link:
http://current.com/items/90258179_supreme-court-shock-ruling-says-lethal-mining-waste-can-be-dumped-in-lakes.htmYou expressed shock, we will hopefully provide more answers and insight into the... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
"Artificial earthquakes triggered by deep-crust drilling operations have always been of interest here, and The New York Times brings the idea back into the media cycle today with a new article – complete with a sidebar titled "The Danger of Digging Deeper."
Don't miss the interactive graphic.So the scene this time is the countryside two hours north of San Francisco, with a company called AltaRock. "Residents of the region, which straddles Lake and Sonoma Counties," we read, "have already been protesting swarms of smaller earthquakes set off by a less geologically invasive set of energy projects there. AltaRock officials said that they chose the spot in part because the history of mostly small quakes reassured them that the risks were limited."
Serious seismic problems arise when you begin to tap into – and then break through – very deep rocks. The reference case for The New York Times here is something that happened in Basel, Switzerland, back in 2006 (a seismic event mentioned briefly in The BLDGBLOG Book). The specific drilling technique used in Basel, we read, was one that "created earthquakes because it requires injecting water at great pressure down drilled holes to fracture the deep bedrock."
The opening of each fracture is, literally, a tiny earthquake in which subterranean stresses rip apart a weak vein, crack or fault in the rock. The high-pressure water can be thought of loosely as a lubricant that makes it easier for those forces to slide the earth along the weak points, creating a web or network of fractures.
A very similar technique, however, will soon be put into widespread use in northern California. There, in the foggy hills and forests, AltaRock "has received its permit from the federal Bureau of Land Management to drill its first hole on land leased to the Northern California Power Agency, but still awaits a second permit to fracture rock."
One resident awesomely points out: “If they were creating tornadoes, they would be shut down immediately. But because it’s under the ground, where you can’t see it, and somewhat conjectural, they keep doing it.”
more at the link as well as some fabulous images"Artificial earthquakes triggered by deep-crust drilling operations have always... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
In the video above I outlined key elements of the bill is an extremely over simplified way, and discuss some of the complexities about the political climate.
There are people out there that live and breathe these issues, so if you are on twitter, I highly recommend following @katesheppard and @david_h_roberts. Other people who are consistantly chatty about the topic include @michaeloko who does PR for the NRDC and @JesseJenkins an energy and climate policy analyst.
If you want to hear NPR break down cap and trade, you can smirk as they tried to be funny in this fabulously simplified and understandable piece. Kate Sheppard broke down the waxman markey also known as the aces bill or HR2454 in bullet points (love that). And Dave Roberts just posted a piece on why he’s not freaked out about the Waxman-Markey Bill. This is an excellent article with a lot of great points that will give you hope at the end of the day. And who doesn’t want a little hope at the end of the day?In the video above I outlined key elements of the bill is an extremely over simplified... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
It's weird listening to NPR is "dude." But somebody's gottta do it. Great simple explanation of making sense of the cap and trade legislation.
"Congress is about to take up legislation to curb carbon emissions with a cap-and-trade program. To understand how the cap-and-trade system works, no textbook is required. You just have to be familar with the word dude — like surfer dude." You can listen at the link.It's weird listening to NPR is "dude." But somebody's gottta do... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
You gotta love Kate Sheppard for breaking it down in plain English.
"You keep hearing about the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill—aka the American Clean Energy and Security Act, ACES, H.R. 2454—but what’s actually in it? We combed through the 946-page beast so you don’t have to.
Here are the highlights of the bill, which is sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and was passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on May 21.
Renewable electricity standard
The bill creates a renewable electricity standard (RES) that would require large utilities in each state to produce an increasing percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. Qualifying renewable sources are wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, marine and hydrokinetic energy, biogas and biofuels derived exclusively from eligible biomass, landfill gas, wastewater-treatment gas, coal-mine methane, hydropower projects built after 1992, and some waste-to-energy projects.
The RES:
* Requires 6 percent of electricity to come from renewables by 2012
* Requires 20 percent of electricity to come from renewables by 2020
* Up to 5 percent can actually come from efficiency improvements
* If a state determines that its utilities cannot meet the target, the efficiency component can be increased to 8 percent and the renewable component decreased to 12 percent
Emission cuts
The bill would put a cap on emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases, and would require high-emitting industries to reduce their output to specific targets between now and the middle of the century. (This is the “cap” part of the “cap-and-trade” program.) The bill covers 85 percent of the overall economy, including electricity producers, oil refineries, natural gas suppliers, and energy-intensive industries like iron, steel, cement, and paper manufacturers.
* Emission cuts would start in 2012
* The cap-and-trade program would be completely phased in by 2016
The goals for U.S. emission reductions, below 2005 levels:
* 3 percent cut by 2012
* 17 percent cut by 2020
* 42 percent cut by 2030
* more than 80 percent cut by 2050"
The rest of the article is at the link...You gotta love Kate Sheppard for breaking it down in plain English.
"You keep... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
