It's painfully apparent that the consequences of the BP offshore drilling disaster are going to be much more severe, both for the environment and the economy, than was initially thought.
One of the truthiness-laden refrains of American political discourse that we hear too often (ad nauseum) is that regulation is somehow harmful for the economy, that government action (on any front) would strangle business activity. In the public debate, the accurate and truthful case is not made frequently enough about how government regulation actually strengthens our economy and boosts our economic performance.
In his opening statement to today's hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget, Senator Jeff "Energy Smart" Merkley (D-OR) took a moment to make a statement about the value of regulation to reduce pollution.
In just about a month from now, Progressive Blue will celebrate 2 years!! Woo Hoo!! In this short time, we have built a small but pretty dedicated community here--one I hope of which we are all proud.
We've weathered some storms, outlasted the nay-sayers, and shown that while civil discourse isn't always easy, it sure beats the alternative!
Politicians in both parties have complained that proposed federal climate change bills are "unfair" to Midwestern states, which rely largely on coal to generate electricity. Utility companies and corporate groups have tried to reinvent themselves as defenders of the public interest against those who would unjustly "punish" consumers living in coal-dependent states.
Coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic lower respiratory diseases. [...] Each step of the coal lifecycle--mining, transportation, washing, combustion, and disposing of post-combustion wastes--impacts human health. Coal combustion in particular contributes to diseases affecting large portions of the U.S. population, including asthma, lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke, compounding the major public health challenges of our time. It interferes with lung development, increases the risk of heart attacks, and compromises intellectual capacity.
In the Des Moines Register, Lee Rood highlighted some of the extra burdens Iowans bear because of coal-fired power plants. Several other nearby states, such as Missouri and Indiana, are even more dependent on coal for their electricity.
Humanity engages in many outrages, against each other, against ourselves, against the hability of our planet. Genocide ... hunting species to extinction ... CO2 emissions and global warming/ocean acidificiation ... And, sadly, there seems to be a tendency toward 'out of sight, out of mind' for many of these, for many of us. We have our lives to live, the problems before us and the pesky inbox often dominate our thinking and our action over the large, serious problems that don't necessarily slap us in the face and stand outside, it seems, our ability to impact.
When it comes to 'out of sight, out of mind' on energy issues, there is a long list of items. But, when it comes to raping the environment to feed our wasteful energy habits, North America has two extremely egregious examples: mountain-top removal (MTR) and Canadian Tar Sands.
Now roughly accounting for 10 percent of the United States' oil imports, the processes for transforming tar sands into fuel for America's gas guzzlers makes traditional oil production (even into ANWR) look benign in comparison. Devastating for the local (water, forests), regional (air pollution, bird), and global (GHG emissions) environment, Tar Sands is the wrong answer to North America's energy challenges.
Was cleaning out my computer when I found my letter of September 12, 2003, to UAW Leader Ron Gettelfinger. Of course, the letter did not work. Posting this to say that it did not take a rocket scientist to predict Detroit's predicament. I wrote to the head of the union knowing that when bad times come, that the manufacturing workers traditionally bear the brunt of the layoffs.
In these trying times when many Americans are being downsized and forced to move very small fortune can be found in these changes in consumer demand. This is just a little story of ordinary people bringing on change.
We may not move to a new house every day but every little bit counts and moving day without all the waste sounds like a good idea.
For years, Fortune 500 companies have rented reusable plastic crates to relocate from one office to another. Pharmacies and supermarkets regularly use them to ship merchandise.
Now the crates are coming to the residential moving market, thanks to consumers' desire for options they see as both convenient and environmentally responsible, and to the cost of cardboard boxes (which has remained high in many areas in spite of a recent collapse in the cost of the recycled cardboard from which most are partly made).
Plastic may be widely disliked because of the fact that it is such a oil based product but unlike recycle or remanufacture the only cost of reuse is getting the item from one place to another and some occasional soap and water. Cardboard boxes rented from U-Haul last for about four uses and Spencer Brown, the owner of of rentgreenbox.com, claims that some of his plastic bins have been used 400 times
(ACTION and agriculture... - promoted by poligirl)
Tom Vilsack appears to be on track for unanimous confirmation by the Senate as Secretary of Agriculture in Barack Obama's cabinet. At his confirmation hearing yesterday, Republicans didn't ask hostile questions, and Vilsack didn't have to explain away any embarrassing behavior like Treasury Secretary-nominee Timothy Geithner's failure to fully meet his tax obligations over a period of years.
Despite the lack of drama, Vilsack made a number of noteworthy comments during the hearing. Join me after the jump for some highlights.
