EPA v. the World, round 2…. maybe TKO…

Earlier, I mentioned three articles and then promptly forgot to post the third and final article.

The EPA’s Stalin Era, via Salon

I just really do not understand how a group of scientist, that comprise the EPA, allow for the bastardization of scientific policy that is designed to protect our citizenry.

…. illuminates an entirely new manner in which the Bush administration has diluted science and put public health at risk. This year, largely in obeisance to the Pentagon, the nation’s biggest polluter, the White House diminished a little-known but critical process at the Environmental Protection Agency for assessing toxic chemicals that impacts thousands of Americans.

The article investigates possible toxic poisoning of residents outside of an air base and the lack of assistance from the EPA in getting the situation under control. Many site the Bush Administration as controlling what is considered “allowable” science. (edit. note: WTF? Shouldn’t all science be allowed… hypothesis, results, conclusion)

Public health officials say this attempt to derail the scientific evaluation of toxins is one of the most damning legacies of the Bush administration. In late September, the Government Accountability Office issued a scathing critique of the EPA’s new toxic-assessment procedures. It concluded that the secretive procedures compromise scientific credibility and sacrifice the public’s trust in government. Despite such hefty criticism, public officials fear that because the new procedures have been instituted at the EPA so far below the public radar, their harmful impact will survive long after Bush leaves office. It will take a bold and expedient move by Barack Obama or the next Congress to curtail the influence of the Pentagon and other government agencies on the EPA.

The article goes on and I think it is an important read. For example, did you know that the government puts a value on human life, and in the Bush Administration it has dropped $1Million dollars? You can find the article in the link above. I do think the author is correct by saying it will only be fixed by a bold move on the part of President Obama. I will watch with baited breath to see who he puts in charge of this organization.

change is upon us

I really like Al Gore. He wrote an Op-Ed piece in the NY Times. He is a man that when he talks (or writes), I listen (or read).

The piece is his suggestion for how we should embrace a new energy policy under President Obama’s administration. He outlines a five step plan and all of it seems doable and necessary.

Some excerpts:

As Abraham Lincoln said during America’s darkest hour, “The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.” In our present case, thinking anew requires discarding an outdated and fatally flawed definition of the problem we face.

One of the five ideas:
Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings — and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.

A conclusion:
Of course, the best way — indeed the only way — to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution.

I think the whole article is well worth the read and you can find it HERE.

and then there were 5

7 OF THE “DIRTY DOZEN” WERE NOT RE-ELECTED IN THEIR DISTRICTS!!!

The Dirty Dozen is a list put together by the NRDC of the government officials that have the worst environmental record.

1. Rep. Tim Walberg – R, Michiga – Walberg served only one term, but distinguished himself as a reliable vote against the environment. He scored just 5% (out of 100) on LCV’s annual ranking of votes on environmental issues. In 2007 and 2008, he voted against ever piece of legislation but one that LCV identified as key for improving energy efficiency and investing in clean energy. He also voted against the No Child Left Inside Act, which funds outdoor programs for school age children.

Democrat Mark Schauer won his seat Tuesday.

2. Rep. Anne Northrop – R, Kentucky – Northrop had a dismal 7% lifetime LCV score when she was voted out of office in 2006, and voters opted to give the incumbent who defeated her, Democrat John Yarmuth, another term.

3. Sen. Elizabeth Dole – R, North Carolina – Dole’s 2008 reelection campaign will be remembered for the ad that accused her challenger, Democrat Kay Hagan, of being “godless” with a fake voice-over meant to sound like Hagan. But Dole’s record as a Senator did more damage to the country. She had just a 4% lifetime LCV voting score.

In 2008, she voted against renewable energy production and energy conservation measures, but supported subsidies for oil companies while they were reaping record profits. (She also took more than a quarter million dollars of campaign contributions from Big Oil, according to LCV.) In 2007, she voted against raising the fuel economy of American vehicles and for the development of liquid coal fuels. And that just scrapes the surface.

4. Dean Andal – Andal had a 9% LCV rating as a state senator when he chose to run against Democrat Jerry McNerney, a renewable energy advocate, for his Congressional seat. Voters didn’t buy it.

5. Rep. Steve Pearce – R, New Mexico – In just one of 80 chances, over five years as a U.S. representative, did Pearce vote in favor of environmental protections favored by the LCV. He consistently voted against renewable energy development, and in favor of oil and gas drilling. In his race for a Senate seat, voters opted for his challenger, Rep. Tom Udall, for the seat vacated by Sen. Pete Domenici, who never scored better than 20% on LCV’s annual Scorecard (and twice scored zero) in the last decade in the Senate.

6. Rep. Bob Schaffer – R, Colorado – A former congressman, Schaffer lost to Rep. Mark Udall in a race for the Senate in Colorado. He left Congress to work for an oil company, and his campaign received significant funding from the oil industry, according to LCV.

7. Rep. Joe Knollenberg – R, Michigan – Knollenberg is synonymous with inaction on global warming. He twice tried to pass an amendment that would have barred federal agencies from doing anything about global warming, including holding educational seminars. That line of thinking was of a piece with his voting record, which has favored polluting industries over clean energy. Voters opted for something new, Democrat Gary Peters.

Good Morning

Good Morning everybody!

Today is a very special day where we exercise our constitutional right to VOTE.

So get out there and do it.

I will have results, as they comes in, through out the day.

If you haven’t yet, and need help with environmental propositions or candidate positions please go HERE.

tomorrow is the day

After the 2000 debacle, I am always hesitant to say this, but… tomorrow we will know who our new president is and the results of the individual propositions.

I have spent the time researching the issues that concern the environment and I hope they have been of help to you. Please go to the “Election 2008″ category (on the right) for a full write up of each ballot measure, as well as links to the different positions of all the candidates.

I look forward to reporting the news as it comes in tomorrow.

Please get out and VOTE.

GOOD sheet – Election ’08

You know I love those GOOD Sheets! Starting today, you can find them online and in Starbucks discussing the differences between the two candidates. Well worth the read for someone who may be undecided.

HERE is the link.

60 some odd days… right? RIGHT?!?!

The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.

Once such rules take effect, they typically can be undone only through a laborious new regulatory proceeding, including lengthy periods of public comment, drafting and mandated reanalysis.

You can read the whole article HERE. (It may require a free registration.)

California Propostion 10

This is the final ballot measure having something to do with the environment. Tomorrow, I will post a summary of the ballot measures. But remember, you can go to the link on the right hand side of the screen labeled “Election 2008″ and get all the information you need about ballot measures and candidates.

Proposition 10: California Alternative Fuels Inititative

It sets up a rebate program to give money back to people who purchase vehicles that are powered by fuel sources other than regular gasoline, as well as a rebate for people who buy fuel-saving vehicles (like the Toyota Prius). The state government would pay for the rebates, up to a total of $5 billion.

The initiative authorizes $5 billion in bonds paid from state’s General Fund, allocated approximately as follows:

* 58% in cash payments of between $2,000 and $50,000 to purchasers of certain high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles;
* 20% in incentives for research, development and production of renewable energy technology;
* 11% in incentives for research and development of alternative fuel vehicle technology;
* 5% in incentives for purchase of renewable energy technology;
* 4% in grants to eight cities for education about these technologies; and
* 3% in grants to colleges to train students in these technologies.

Argument FOR:
– The funding it provides will allow the generation of electricity from renewable sources, and provide consumer rebates for the purchase or lease of “clean alternative fuel vehicles”.
– The funding will allow the replacement of “older polluting diesel trucks with clean alternative fuel trucks” and provide for research into alternative fuels.
– The programs funded by Prop. 10 will help reduce dependence on foreign fuel produced by “hostile foreign governments.”
– The diesel trucks that could be replaced produce dangerous pollution.
– Alternatives to high-priced gasoline are important

Argument AGAINST:
– Would require taking $10 billion out of the state’s general fund over a 30 year period at a time when the state is already in debt.
– Average consumers would not benefit from the rebate created by Proposition 10 that goes to those who buy vehicles that run on non-petroleum based fuels; instead, critics say, the main beneficiaries of the rebate would be “companies that have large vehicle fleets.”
– There are relatively few mechanics who know how to fix natural-gas engines and few filling stations offer natural gas.
– The proposition was initiated by one person/interest group and as such lacks the vetting that would have come had it gained input from a wider variety of sources. Shames says, “A well-intentioned individual with an excessive amount of money doesn’t necessarily have the capacity to present a comprehensive policy initiative on a complex topic.”

Recommendation: NO

It comes down to this… natural gas vehicles can provide a moderate reduction in pollution contributing to global warming. But this measure is not worth the cost to the state. It legislates a market for natural gas, therefore adding pressure to drill, while diverting funds and research from other alternatives. It is no surprise that the major investor in the “yes” campaign, has the most to profit from such a move; T. Boone Pickens.

link to the website in FAVOR
link to the website in OPPOSITION

Maine Bonds for Water Project, Question 3

Bonds for Water Project:

“Do you favor a $3.4 million bond issue to support drinking water programs, to support the construction of wastewater treatment facilities and to leverage $17 million in other funds?”

If passed, the measure would:

* Fund the state’s revolving loan fund that communities can apply to for low-interest loans.
* Stipulate that every $1 of state money raised will attract $5 in federal money, according to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Argument FOR:
- The $40.5 million the state has spent since 1988 from the clean water and drinking water revolving funds have leveraged $201 million in federal funds

This is interesting in that this question, so far, has no organized opposition.

My recommendation: YES

It is so hard to judge some of these out of state ballot issues. I am interpreting the supporting argument to mean that everyone feels there is a strong return on investment for the financial output. There seems to be no opposition since the other ballot measures are garnering most of the attention. The governor, a senator and a congressperson support this measure.

There are no websites for either side.

presidential positions

HERE is a link, provided by GRIST, on the two major candidates and their positions on Endangered Species.

Know who your voting for.

« Previous Page — Next Page »