DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Catastrophic Climate Change
*****************************************************
#Post#: 536--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pollution
By: AGelbert Date: December 12, 2013, 2:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfQ-z1FS9e0&feature=player_embedded
Wetlands going up in smoke. It's Criminal and stupid
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
to make biomass
pellets from hardwood forests when duckweed
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/ethanol/msg218/#msg218<br
/>,hemp, switchgrass, willow brush and a host of other fast
growing species of plants can supply this biomass renewably.
>:(
#Post#: 548--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pollution
By: AGelbert Date: December 13, 2013, 11:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Shale-Oil Boom's Dirty Secret
The US produces 7.8 million barrels of oil a day. Of this, the
EIA estimates that 29 percent comes from shale oil formations.
Production from these wells declines 60-70 percent in the first
year alone. To maintain current production, the US needs to
drill 6,000 new wells per year at a cost of $35 billion a year.
On the other hand, solar is on pace to produce over 5,300 MW of
solar this year --enough to power 885,600 average American
households. The average price of solar has also dropped 60%
since 2011, and the average cost of a completed PV system is
$3.05/W. Most solar electric systems last 30 years and pay for
themselves in 4-5 years.
What if we spent $35 billion on solar instead of shale oil
wells? The US could produce nearly 11,500 MW of new clean energy
every year. We could power over 11.2 million new homes by 2020,
and produce 28 percent of all California energy by 2020.
[img width=640
height=1450]
HTML https://s3.amazonaws.com/mosaic-landing/Shale-Oil-Boom.jpg[/img]
Infographic created by Aven Satre-Meloy
Learn More:(at link below)
Mosaic President Billy Parish on the fastest way to 100% clean
energy.
Get the scoop on impact investing.
Why you should care about crowdfunding.
How to find good investments.
HTML http://joinmosaic.com/blog/shale-oil-booms-dirty-secret
#Post#: 622--------------------------------------------------
Honor The Earth: Triple Crown of Pipeline Rides
By: AGelbert Date: December 26, 2013, 2:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v6_1DLth9U&feature=player_embedded
#Post#: 633--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pollution
By: AGelbert Date: December 28, 2013, 2:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
US EPA Nails Fracker With Record Fine
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.naturalgaswatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Chesapeake_energy_operations.jpg[/img]
[img width=100
height=50]
HTML https://events.recruitmilitary.com/uploads/event/sponsor_logo/516/Chesapeake_Energy_Logo.jpg[/img]Chesapeake<br
/>Energy's "PLAY"-ground toxify the USA areas
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
The woes just keep piling up for Chesapeake Energy. The company
is front and center in the nation’s natural gas fracking boom
and it just got hit with one of the largest ever civil penalties
for violating Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The penalty
was levied against its subsidiary, Chesapeake Appalachia LLC.
Wait, what? We thought the fracking industry was notoriously
exempt from the Clean Water Act, thanks to a loophole engineered
back in 2005 by former Vice President (and former Halliburton
oil company executive) Dick Cheney.
So, how’d they do that?
EPA nails Chesapeake Energy for clean water violations
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/8.gif
[img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
Fracking And The Clean Water Act
Fracking is an unconventional gas and oil drilling method that
involves pumping vast quantities of a chemical brine deep
underground, to shake deposits loose from shale formations.
Though natural gas is billed as a clean alternative to coal and
oil, fracking has been linked to a raft of local pollution
issues, and emissions of methane (a powerful greenhouse gas)
from drilling sites may be wiping out any advantage that natural
gas has as a fuel.
The Clean Water loophole makes it almost impossible to gather
direct evidence that traces fracking to a growing list of water
contamination episodes, though the link between fracking waste
disposal and earthquakes is becoming beyond dispute.
Under the Obama Administration, the EPA has been doggedly
pursuing other avenues to bring fracking companies to account
for environmental damage, and one of them is the Clean Water
Act’s Section 404.
In announcing the action against Chesapeake last week, EPA
described the alleged violations like this:
The federal government and the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP) allege that the company
impounded streams and discharged sand, dirt, rocks and other
fill material into streams and wetlands without a federal permit
in order to construct well pads, impoundments, road crossings
and other facilities related to natural gas extraction.
See what they just did? Section 404 does not apply directly to
fracking brine, which is exempt from federal disclosure
regulations under the Clean Water Act. It covers general
construction activity common across a wide range of industries.
[img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img][img<br
/>width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
Evidently Chesapeake Energy saw the writing on the wall. Some of
the violations were discovered by its own internal audit and the
company has been working with EPA since 2010 to comply with
remediation orders.
The settlement includes an estimated payment of $6.5 million to
restore 27 sites in West Virginia, 16 of which involved fracking
operations. It also includes a civil penalty of $3.2 million,
which EPA describes as “one of the largest ever levied by the
federal government for violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA),
under the Section 404 program.”
Fracking In The Headlines Again
For those of you keeping score at home, the EPA announcement
follows a string of bad press for the fracking industry and
Chesapeake.
Just this past August, Bloomberg News reported that oil and gas
land deals have fallen off the cliff, indicating that the
natural gas boom is turning into one whopper of a bust (it could
turn around if the Obama Administration opens up the export
market, but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms).
As for Chesapeake Energy, this year the company settled with a
group of homeowners in Greenbrier, Arkansas for damages from
earthquakes, which were linked to fracking waste disposal by the
US Geological Survey.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been pursuing
the Ponzi-like financial angle of the fracking boom, and in June
2012 he won a “landmark agreement” with Chesapeake Appalachia to
renegotiate more than 4,400 leases in New York State.
Also last year, Bloomberg reported that Chesapeake Energy paid a
tax rate of less than one percent on profits of $5.5 billion,
legendary investor T. Boone Pickens dumped his Chesapeake stock,
and an in-depth report in Rolling Stone compared Chesapeake’s
land “flipping” practices to the ongoing mortgage crisis.
This is just a random sample so feel free to add your Chesapeake
story to the comment thread.
Author
Tina Casey specializes in military and corporate sustainability,
advanced technology, emerging materials, biofuels, and water and
wastewater issues. Tina’s articles are reposted frequently on
Reuters, Scientific American, and many other sites. You can also
follow her on Twitter @TinaMCasey and Google+.
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/27/epa-hits-chesapeake-energy-with-record-fracking-fine/#beaP55dZhQFrbGTk.99
Agelbert NOTE: I am CERTAIN that ALEC is busy writing "Clean
Water Act IMPROVEMENT" legislation
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png
to exempt frackers from Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA).
The profit over planet bastards are quite predictable. >:( :P
#Post#: 636--------------------------------------------------
Woke up
By: AGelbert Date: December 28, 2013, 11:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru_i_Q3voTk&feature=player_embedded
#Post#: 679--------------------------------------------------
Texas Supreme Court Favors Landowner Over TransCanada in Keyston
e XL!
By: AGelbert Date: January 9, 2014, 3:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]Texas Supreme Court Favors Landowner Over TransCanada in
Keystone XL Eminent Domain Case[/move]
[img width=200
height=130]
HTML http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2012/8/14/1344970546338-awesome_mc_ht_smiley.gif[/img]
Tar Sands Blockade | January 9, 2014 9:33 am
The Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of landowner Julia Trigg
Crawford, ordering
TransCanada to submit information by Feb. 6 as the justices
weigh arguments to hear the case regarding eminent domain abuse.
[img width=740
height=440]
HTML http://files.cdn.ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/barn.jpg[/img]
The controversial clause of eminent domain benefits oil and gas
companies trying to seize private land to extract or transport
fossil fuels. Photo credit: Tar Sands Blockade
Texas’s highest court delivered a clear victory for pipeline
opponents and landowners fighting TransCanada’s overreach on
property rights. At the heart of Crawford’s case is the ability
of TransCanada, a foreign corporation, to use eminent domain
under the state’s “common carrier” clause since their pipeline
transports 90 percent Canadian tar sands and 10 percent North
Dakota oil. There is no on ramp for Texas oil therefore
violating the definition of a common carrier under Texas law.
Crawford said she looks forward to her family’s day in court,
“As a landowner, property rights are key to my livelihood and
family legacy. A foreign corporation pumping foreign oil simply
does not qualify as a common carrier under Texas law.
TransCanada does not get to write their own rules. I look
forward to the Supreme Court hearing our case and our plea to
protect the fundamental rights of property owners.”
The ruling on Wednesday from the Texas Supreme Court means that
Crawford will be able to take the next step in the appeals
process against TransCanada. The southern segment of the
Keystone XL pipeline, also known as Gulf Coast Segment,
stretches from Cushing, OK, to Beaumont, TX, and carries tar
sands or dilbit which is a combination of tar sands and
[font=arial black]chemicals that react very differently when
spills occur than traditional Texas oil.
“We’re thrilled, because the Supreme Court has finally ruled in
favor of us—the little guys—and against a foreign oil
giant,”[/font] ;D Julia Trigg Crawford continued. “Basically,
TransCanada said that it wanted a waiver from responding to our
petition, and the Supreme Court said, ‘[font=arial black]No, you
must respond’[/font].” [img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
Crawford says her case has broad implications, because if she
wins, TransCanada and other foreign oil companies will no longer
be able to use eminent domain to seize land for their private
profit without direct proof their pipeline is carrying Texan
oil.
Visit EcoWatch’s KEYSTONE XL and TAR SANDS pages for more
related news on this topic.
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/09/landowner-over-transcanada-keystone-xl-eminent-domain-case/
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/09/landowner-over-transcanada-keystone-xl-eminent-domain-case/
#Post#: 680--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pollution
By: AGelbert Date: January 9, 2014, 5:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
8 Sickening Facts About Flame Retardants
December 11, 2013
By Dr. Mercola
Your couch cushions, your child’s car seat, your carpeting, and
your mattress all have a toxic secret in common. >:(
They probably contain flame-retardant chemicals that have been
linked to serious health risks like cancer, birth defects,
neurodevelopmental delays in children, and more.
How these chemicals have grown to become so ubiquitous is a
story of great deception, power and greed, with the chemical
industry and Big Tobacco at the helm. As reported in an
investigative series “Playing With Fire” by the Chicago
Tribune:[sup]1[/sup]
“The average American baby is born with 10 fingers, 10 toes and
the highest recorded levels of flame retardants among infants in
the world. The toxic chemicals are present in nearly every home,
packed into couches, chairs and many other products. :P
Two powerful industries — Big Tobacco and chemical manufacturers
— waged deceptive campaigns that led to the proliferation of
these chemicals, which don’t even work as promised.” ???
Eight Facts About Flame Retardants That Might Shock You
HBO recently aired a documentary, Toxic Hot Seat, which is based
on the Chicago Tribune’s comprehensive investigation. You can
watch the trailer above. The film highlights some of the most
disturbing facts about flame-retardant chemicals, which were
summed up by Rodale News.[sup]2[/sup] As you read through them,
you’ll see how the use of flame-retardant chemicals is easily
among the major toxic cover-ups in the US. >:(
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hWwfcsJXHM&feature=player_embedded
1. Studies Have Proven Their Harm
It’s estimated that 90 percent of Americans have some level of
flame-retardant chemicals in their bodies, and the chemicals are
also known to accumulate in breast milk.
This alone is highly disturbing because many studies have linked
them to human health risks including infertility, birth defects,
lower IQ scores, behavioral problems in children, and liver,
kidney, testicular, and breast cancers.
2. Flame Retardants Produce More Toxic Smoke
If an object doused in flame retardants catches fire (yes, they
can still catch fire), it gives off higher levels of carbon
monoxide, soot, and smoke than untreated objects. Ironically,
these three things are more likely to kill a person in a fire
than burns, which means flame-retardant chemicals may actually
make fires more deadly.
Flame-retardant chemicals belong to the same class of chemicals
as DDT and PCBs (organohalogens), and like the former, they,
too, build up in the environment. These chemicals also react
with other toxins as they burn to produce cancer-causing dioxins
and furans.
3. Banned from Children’s Pajamas but Still Widely Used in
Furniture and Baby Products
A flame-retardant chemical known as chlorinated tris (TDCPP) was
removed from children's pajamas in the 1970s amid concerns that
it may cause cancer, but now it’s a ubiquitous addition to couch
cushions across the United States.
It can easily migrate from the foam and into your household
dust, which children often pick up on their hands and transfer
into their mouths. Tris is actually the most commonly used flame
retardant in the US today, used in nap mats, car seats,
strollers, nursing pillows, furniture, and more.
4. Female Fire Fighters in California Have Six Times More Breast
Cancer
Female firefighters aged 40 to 50 are six times more likely to
develop breast cancer than the national average, likely due to
California’s early use of flame-retardant chemicals.
Firefighters of both genders also have higher rates of cancer,
in part because of the high levels of dioxins and furans they’re
exposed to when flame-retardant chemicals burn.
According to one firefighter in the HBO documentary:3 “It's Love
Canal, and it's on fire… These fires that we're going to now are
an absolute toxic soup.”
5. Flame-Retardant Chemicals Provide No Benefit for People
The chemical industry claims that fire-retardant furniture
increases escape time in a fire by 15-fold. In reality, this
claim came from a study using powerful, NASA-style flame
retardants, which did give an extra 15 seconds of escape time.
This is not the same type of chemical used in most furniture,
and government and independent studies show that the most widely
used flame-retardant chemicals provide no benefit for people
while increasing the amounts of toxic chemicals in smoke.
Drops in fire-related deaths in recent decades are not related
to the use of flame-retardant chemicals, but instead are due to
newer construction codes, sprinkler systems, fire alarms, and
self-extinguishing cigarettes.
6. Big Tobacco Was Instrumental in the Spread of Flame-Retardant
Chemicals
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.pnghttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
Flame-retardant chemicals were developed in the 1970s, when 40
percent of Americans smoked and cigarettes were a major cause of
fires. The tobacco industry, under increasing pressure to make
fire-safe cigarettes, resisted the push for self-extinguishing
cigarettes and instead created a fake front group called the
National Association of State Fire Marshals. The group pushed
for federal standards for fire-retardant furniture… ;)
7. California’s Misguided Fire Safety Law Led to Countrywide Use
of These Toxic Chemicals >:(
In 1975, California Technical Bulletin 117 (TB117) was passed.
It requires furniture sold in California to withstand a
12-second exposure to a small flame without igniting. Because of
California's economic importance, the requirement has
essentially become a national standard, with manufacturers
dousing their furniture with the chemicals whether they're going
to be sold in California or elsewhere in the States. As reported
by Rodale News:
“Sadly, though the original author of TB117 had specifically
included language requiring that any chemical used to make
furniture fire resistant be safe for human health, politicians
removed that language before the law went into effect.”
8. The Chemical Industry Has Spent Millions to Keep TB117 in
Place
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png
Numerous bills in California have been introduced that would
update TB117 to state that toxic chemicals were no longer
required for furniture, but the deep-pocketed chemical industry
has defeated them each time.
The industry even went so far as to hire Dr. David Heimback, a
burn expert and star witness for the manufacturers of flame
retardants, told the tragic story of a 7-week-old baby who was
burned in a fire and died as a result, three weeks later, after
suffering immensely.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/tissue.gifThe
fire was said to
have been started by a candle that ignited a pillow that lacked
flame retardant chemicals, where the baby lay.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/shame.gifhttp://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/> [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>
The story was heard by California lawmakers, who were deciding
on a bill that could have reduced the use of flame retardant
chemicals in furniture. The problem, as we detailed in a
previous article, was that the entire story was a clever hoax, a
complete fabrication, from beginning to end! :o ??? [img
width=120
height=100]
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg[/img]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif
Do You Have a Choice About the Flame Retardants Used in Your
Furniture and Mattress?
Given the outdated regulations in place about the use of
flame-retardant chemicals in consumer products, it’s quite
difficult to avoid these toxic chemicals because of their
abundant use in household goods and even in the foam insulation
used in your walls. Research published in Environmental Science
& Technology revealed that 85 percent of couch foam samples
tested contained chemical flame retardants.4 The samples came
from more than 100 couches purchased from 1985 to 2010.
As of July 1, 2007, all US mattresses are required to be highly
flame retardant, to the extent that they won't catch on fire if
exposed to a blowtorch. ::) This means that the manufacturers
are dousing them with highly toxic flame-retardant chemicals,
which do NOT have to be disclosed in any way. :P This is
probably the most important piece of furniture you want to get
right, as you are spending about one-third of your life on it.
However, you can have a licensed health care provider write you
a prescription for a chemical-free mattress, which can then be
ordered without flame retardants from certain retailers. You can
also find certain natural mattresses on the market that don’t
contain them. For instance, our wool mattress does not have
flame-retardant chemicals added because wool is a natural flame
retardant.
Good News! Safer Furniture May Be Coming in 2014
Given the blatant dangers posed by flame retardants, in late
November 2013 California’s governor ordered that TB117 be
rewritten to ensure fire safety without the use of these
chemicals. Starting in January 2014, furniture manufacturers
will begin producing furniture that’s not required to use
flame-retardant chemicals, and full compliance is expected by
January 2015.
Unfortunately, the updated law only states that the chemicals
are no longer required; it doesn’t ban them outright. This means
that some companies may continue to use them, and if you’re in
the market for new furniture, you’ll need to ask for that made
without flame-retardant chemicals.
Tips for Reducing Your Exposure to Flame-Retardant Chemicals
Even with California’s revised law, these chemicals are still
widely used. Plus, unless you’ve revamped your home using only
natural, chemical-free materials, they’re likely lurking in your
home right now. Until these chemicals are removed from use
entirely, tips you can use to reduce your exposure around your
home include:[sup]5[/sup]
•Be especially careful with polyurethane foam products
manufactured prior to 2005, such as upholstered furniture,
mattresses, and pillows, as these are most likely to contain
flame retardants called polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or
PBDEs. If you have any of these in your home, inspect them
carefully and replace ripped covers and/or any foam that appears
to be breaking down. Also, avoid reupholstering furniture by
yourself, as the reupholstering process increases your risk of
exposure.
•Older carpet padding is another major source of PBDEs, so take
precautions when removing old carpet. You'll want to isolate
your work area from the rest of your house to avoid spreading it
around, and use a HEPA filter vacuum to clean up.
•You probably also have older sources of the PBDEs known as Deca
in your home as well, and these are so toxic they are banned in
several states. Deca PBDEs can be found in electronics like TVs,
cell phones, kitchen appliances, fans, toner cartridges, and
more. It's a good idea to wash your hands after handling such
items, especially before eating, and at the very least be sure
you don't let infants mouth any of these items (like your TV
remote control or cell phone).
•As you replace PBDE-containing items around your home, select
those that contain naturally less flammable materials, such as
leather, wool, and cotton.
•Look for organic and "green" building materials, carpeting,
baby items, mattresses, and upholstery, which will be free from
these toxic chemicals and help reduce your overall exposure.
Furniture products filled with cotton, wool, or polyester tend
to be safer than chemical-treated foam; some products also state
that they are "flame-retardant free."
•PBDEs are often found in household dust, so clean up with a
HEPA-filter vacuum and/or a wet mop often.
HTML http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/12/11/8-flame-retardant-facts.aspx
#Post#: 682--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pollution
By: AGelbert Date: January 10, 2014, 5:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Feather in his cap-and-trade: Brown pledges polluter fees to
poor communities
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif
By Brentin Mock
While free-market environmentalists push cap-and-trade systems
as a panacea for climate change worries, many in the
environmental justice community have yet to buy into it. Their
reasons for this vary, but one major concern is that there’s
little guarantee that overburdened communities won’t still catch
the brunt of industrial pollution. What stops billionaire
companies like ExxonMobil from continuing to pollute poor
communities if, rather than rein in their emissions under the
established cap, they can simply purchase more permits to
pollute?
When California started its cap-and-trade system in late 2011,
lawmakers addressed these concerns by requiring 25 percent of
all revenue from permit auctions to go toward programs that help
disadvantaged communities. Also, 10 percent of the revenue would
have to be spent directly in those communities. But last year,
when the auction dividends started rolling in, Gov. Jerry Brown
reneged on that deal, putting $500 million from the permit
auction profits into the state’s rainy day fund.
This obviously didn’t endear many environmental justice
activists to the cap-and-trade dream.
The governor is on the path to redemption, though. When he
unveiled his budget Thursday, it included plans to not only pay
back $100 million of what he “borrowed” from cap-and-trade fees,
but also a pledge to make some much needed investments in
low-income communities across the state.
“It is encouraging that the governor agrees with the 83 percent
of Californians polled who say that these revenues should be
directed to communities hardest hit by last century’s carbon
pollution generated by fossil fuel
companies,”
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif<br
/>Miya Yosh itani, executive director of the Asian Pacific
Environmental Network, said in a press statement.
“Based on what’s been reported, the governor is making critical
investments in existing programs that will help disadvantaged
communities cope with the worst impacts of the climate crisis,
while at the same time creating jobs and saving low-income
consumers money,” said Vien Truong, Environmental Equity program
director of the Greenlining Institute in Berkeley. “This will
bring real benefits to communities hit first and worst by
pollution and climate change as well as the recession.”
Of the $850 million available from new polluter fees, said
Truong, roughly $600 million will be spent on improving public
transit, energy efficiency programs, renewable energy, and urban
forestry projects that can provide jobs for youth of color.
But, as is always the case with budget negotiations, the devil
is in the details. Consider the $200 million from the fees is
supposed to go to low-carbon transportation initiatives. Some of
that will go to greening the trucks that serve commercial ports
in places like Long Beach and Oakland. As thousands of trucks
run in and out of these ports, and idle in traffic as they pass
through cities, they spray asthma-causing soot.
California has a fund for greening commercial trucks, but it’s
been empty for a while now. The Greenlining Institute is asking
for $30 million out of the new budget for the purchase of hybrid
and zero-emission trucks and buses throughout the state.
But some of that low-carbon money is also committed for rebates
for purchasers of electric vehicles — a perk much less likely to
benefit residents of low-income communities. Legislators will
have to work out how much of the $200 million will go to each of
these line items. That process — and the rest of the state’s
budget wrangling — won’t be finished until June, at the
earliest.
Still, if Brown’s proposed funding for low-income communities
survives the legislative process, this could be a game-changer,
proving that it is possible to design cap-and-trade programs to
take into account communities that bear the brunt of industrial
pollution. Time will tell.
I’m curious to hear from environmental justice advocates who
aren’t sold on cap-and-trade — especially those in living with
the system in the Northeast — if you think that Brown’s proposal
could adequately address your concerns. After all, as goes
California, so goes the country. While cap-and-trade has been a
non-starter in Congress so far, I’m sure we haven’t seen the
last of it.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-081.gif
Brentin Mock is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist who writes
regularly for Grist about environmental justice issues and the
connections between environmental policy, race, and politics.
Follow him on Twitter at @brentinmock.
HTML http://grist.org/cities/feather-in-his-cap-and-trade-brown-pledges-polluter-fees-for-poor-communities/
#Post#: 683--------------------------------------------------
Re: Pollution
By: AGelbert Date: January 10, 2014, 8:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPyTHzNapDs&feature=player_embedded]<br
/>
3 Billion liters of embalming fluid in the USA (never mind the
metals and concrete) is stupid and unsustainable. :emthdown:
I like the Minnesota Mayo clinic approach. ;D
#Post#: 693--------------------------------------------------
Romanians Resisting Pollution
By: AGelbert Date: January 13, 2014, 2:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYaSWWysubA&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page