Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    07 May '09 15:03
    I will post from time to time news of current controversies on environmental issues. I am interested to see how people react or opine on these issues.

    Fire away:
  2. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    07 May '09 15:05
    #1

    Quote

    U.S. EPA announced plans yesterday to reconsider two Bush-administration exemptions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA.

    The agency plans to withdraw regulations reclassifying some hazardous manufacturing byproducts as non-waste, which exempted those materials from RCRA disposal regulations.

    The Bush administration's rules, which took effect in January, labeled waste burned in industrial boilers "emission-comparable fuel," or ECF, if its emissions are comparable to fuel oil emissions. The rules also set conditions under which wastes may be burned to ensure comparable emissions levels. The exemptions would have resulted in more than 100,000 tons of additional materials a year falling beyond RCRA, the nation's primary hazardous-waste law
    ...
    EPA also announced plans to reconsider another exemption that changes RCRA by excluding hazardous secondary materials from regulation. The materials excluded are those that are generated and reclaimed by the generator or transferred by a generator to a reclamation facility.

    The American Petroleum Institute and other industry groups support the rule, calling it a "positive development" that would eliminate unnecessary waste of resources and reduce the amount of hazardous waste being disposed.

    Karen Matusic, an API spokeswoman, said her group is preparing comments for a public meeting that EPA is holding in June to discuss the issues surrounding the implementation of the rule.
    But Lisa Evans, an attorney with Earthjustice, called the rule "a very big rollback in protections." She called EPA's announcement "monumental" and a "step forward" for ensuring that communities are protected from hazardous emissions.

    unquote
  3. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    07 May '09 15:07
    #2

    The Wall St Jnl reports:

    Quote:

    New federal greenhouse gas emission regulation could expose a raft of smaller emitters to litigation, a nominee for a key post in the Environmental Protection Agency told lawmakers Thursday.

    The potential for smaller emitters to be regulated under the Clean Air Act is one reason why business groups warn that EPA regulation of greenhouse gases could create a cascade of legal and regulatory challenges across a much broader array of sectors. The Obama administration has said that isn't their intent.

    Regina McCarthy, nominated to be EPA's Director of Air and Radiation, told lawmakers that even while the government has flexibility in setting the threshold of emitting facilities to be regulated, she acknowledges the risk of lawsuits to challenge those levels for smaller emitters. Ms. McCarthy's office is responsible for drafting federal emission rules.

    Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) has put a hold on Ms. McCarthy's nomination in part because of her responses on the greenhouse gas issue.

    Under the Obama administration, the EPA is moving forward to declare greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public health and welfare, which will trigger new rules once finalized. The EPA says that only around 13,000 of the largest emitters, such as refiners, smelters and cement plants would likely be regulated.

    Many legal experts say that based on clear Clean Air Act statutes, however, regulations could be applied to any facility that emits more than 100-250 tons a year, including hospitals, schools and farms. Taken in aggregate, farm animals are major greenhouse gas sources because of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from flatulence, belching and manure. Buildings often emit greenhouse gases from internal heating or cooling units.

    "It is a myth … EPA will regulate cows, Dunkin Donuts, Pizza Huts, your lawnmower and baby bottles," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said earlier this year, dismissing concerns raised by groups such as the Chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers.
    But in responses to a senator's questioning, Ms. McCarthy acknowledged that legal suits could be brought against small emitters.
    Asked how she would protect smaller sources against suits, Ms. McCarthy said she would talk with the litigants: "I will request that I be informed if any such notice is filed with regards to a small source, and I will follow-up with the potential litigants."

    Bill Kovacs, the head of environment and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said, "There's no way she can talk to the litigants and control them." By the Chamber's estimate, there are 1.5 million facilities -- such as large office buildings that have their own boilers -- that produce over the 250-ton limit.

    Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, says her group is prepared to sue for regulation of smaller emitters if the EPA stops at simply large emitters.

    unquote
  4. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    07 May '09 15:11
    #3

    This one hits me where I live on weekends, at my beach house down on the Delaware shore.

    I expect now to see fish staggering around, pickled to the gills:

    Quote

    Wastes spill into Indian River (Wilmington News Journal)
    Vegetable processor slow to cut off flow

    A Millsboro vegetable processing plant spilled an estimated 675,000 gallons of waste liquids into an Indian River tributary late Sunday and early Monday, after apparently missing a chance to cut off and limit the pollution.

    Environmental officers are still investigating the release from the Pinnacle Foods plant south of Millsboro, and did not release details about the contents of the waste.

    Company officials Tuesday did not return phone calls about the incident. A Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control notification described the material only as "mix liquid."

    Pinnacle, which operated independently as a Vlasic foods plant until 2001, has had troubles in the past with discharges of brine sludges and partially treated wastewater.

    DNREC on Tuesday said only that the investigation was continuing. The agency's notice described the material as "not considered to be hazardous" by the Environmental Protection Agency, but also said the spill might have gone unreported for some period of time.

    A security staffer said the problem had been noticed, DNREC said in a brief summary, "but no one was contacted from the plant operations. This resulted in the problem getting worse, and resulted in the discharge to Iron Branch Creek."

    During earlier pollution control episodes, DNREC cited concerns that the plant's pollution could add nutrients, such as nitrogen or phosphorus compounds, to an Inland Bays ecosystem already overburdened with nutrient pollution.

    In 2000, Vlasic agreed to take a cornfield that it owned out of production in a compromise that allowed the company to continue discharging its treated wastewater into the Inland Bays watershed. The arrangement eliminated the field as a source of fertilizer runoff.
    The same company paid a $10,000 fine in 2001 after spilling thousands of gallons of partially treated pickle processing waste.

    unquote
  5. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    07 May '09 18:01
    #4


    Greenwire reports on EPA budget and priorities:

    Quote

    EPA: Record request boosts infrastructure, enforcement (05/07/2009)

    President Obama today laid out the details of his plans to ramp up funding for programs at U.S. EPA, an agency facing an increasingly heavy workload from an administration pledging to bolster environmental protection and tackle global warming.

    The Obama administration's proposed fiscal 2010 budget would increase the agency's total funding by nearly $3 billion, from the $7.6 billion in the fiscal 2009 omnibus to $10.5 billion, according to the proposal issued in February. The agency saw a series of budget cuts under President George W. Bush's administration.

    The detailed proposal issued today includes increased funding for air, water and climate programs, and would slash several local and regional programs seen as duplicative of broader federal efforts.

    Climate change and clean air programs would receive a significant boost under the proposed budget. The White House requested $249 million for clean air and climate change research and development, a $13 million increase from fiscal 2009. The agency's science and technology programs will include research on criteria air pollutants to develop federal clean air standards, studies of the effects of toxic air pollutants on human health and implementation of the renewable fuels provision of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, according to the budget request.

    The administration also requested $481 million for clean air and climate programs and management, a $19 million increase from fiscal 2009. Those programs will include efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses and support the development of a comprehensive climate change strategy, the development of a mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule, and strategies to attain federal clean air standards.

    The budget proposal also raises funding levels for EPA's compliance and environmental stewardship programs. Compliance programs and management would receive $586 million for fiscal 2010, a $24 million increase. Compliance and environmental stewardship research funding would receive $47 million, a $4 million increase.

    Water, Superfund

    The White House proposed a massive increase for water infrastructure, including $2.4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, a low-interest wastewater loan program that helps states construct water treatment facilities. The fund received $689 million in fiscal 2009. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund would receive $1.5 billion, up from $829 million this year.

    The administration proposes requiring at least 20 percent of the cash for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving funds be used for "green" infrastructure or water and energy-efficiency improvement projects.

    The fiscal 2010 budget request also would increase funding for science and technology related to clean and safe water initiatives from an estimated $146 million in fiscal 2009 to $168 million. The funding would help small communities meet new drinking water standards for arsenic, microbial contaminants and disinfection byproducts. Money also would go toward research aimed at managing water risks associated with carbon capture and sequestration activities, a high priority for many lawmakers.

    The Obama administration's plan also would use some of the science and technology cash for research on beach evaluation tools, following an outcry over the lack of funding for beach renourishment projects in the economic stimulus package.

    Science and technology funding for land preservation and restoration would increase from an estimated $24 million in 2009 to $36 million. Some of the funding is slated for groundwater research focusing on the transport of contaminants.

    Funding for healthy communities and ecosystems related to environmental programs and management would rise sharply in the White House budget plan, from about $660 million in 2009 to $981 million in fiscal 2010. Much of that increase can be attributed to a massive influx of cash for the Great Lakes by way of Obama's $475 million Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The project would combat major problems in the Great Lakes including aquatic invasive species, contaminated sediment and nonpoint source pollution. Money also would go toward brownfields programs.

    Cash for clean and safe water initiatives related to environmental programs and management would rise by $20 million under the White House proposal, from $479 million in 2009 to $499 million.

    The White House plan would continue EPA's focus on local watershed management, supporting ecosystem management and partnership collaborations in estuaries across the nation. Funding also would go toward helping states implement water monitoring programs aimed at helping the agency develop water quality standards and total maximum daily loads.

    Cash for EPA's Superfund program would increase slightly from $1.29 billion in fiscal 2009 to $1.3 billion in the White House proposal. Funding for EPA's Office of Inspector General would remain roughly level at $45 million, as would money for EPA's leaking underground storage tank cleanup, which would receive $113 million.

    Obama has indicated he plans to reinstate the Superfund excise taxes that expired in 1995. Though the taxes would not kick in until 2011, the administration says they could generate more than $1 billion per year.

    Cuts

    Obama's proposed budget would terminate a competitive grant program for local communities to slash greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that the program duplicates more substantial federal emission reduction programs. The program lacks focus and the scope is too broad to effectively compare competing grant proposals and target funds, according to the White House. Congress provided $10 million for the new program in 2009.

    The administration also seeks to eliminate $15 million in earmarked funds for California to retrofit existing diesel engines. The budget proposes to maintain funding for the nationwide Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, which addresses the same issue for all states including California. The nationwide program is more effective at reducing diesel emissions because it provides resources based on merit rather than arbitrarily restricting grants to a specific area, the budget proposal states.

    The administration's proposal would eliminate homeland security grants for drinking water and wastewater systems, citing declining obligations and decreased state demand. The budget plan notes many high-priority activities have been completed.

    Funding for grants to rural Alaskan tribal communities for the construction of new or improved drinking water and wastewater systems was sliced by $8.5 million. The program will receive $10 million under the White House proposal. The budget notes the program has a history of management problems and said infrastructure funding increases in other portions of the budget would subsidize the cut.

    About $145 million in water infrastructure earmarks also were eliminated in the budget proposal. The administration said the state revolving funds formula program would be a more effective way to allocate funds.

    unquote

    c'mon, folks -- comments, questions ..
  6. 09 May '09 13:06 / 1 edit
    Ho Hum scrotebin. I'll give you a mercy comment. I think this is what is wrong with this country today. And It makes me angry
  7. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    09 May '09 17:34
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Ho Hum scrotebin. I'll give you a mercy comment. I think this is what is wrong with this country today. And It makes me angry
    Do we care what makes you angry, Joe?

    Does anyone care about you at all, Joe?

    Are you even worthy of four lines of text, Joe?
  8. 10 May '09 00:15
    Originally posted by Scriabin
    Do we care what makes you angry, Joe?

    Does anyone care about you at all, Joe?

    Are you even worthy of four lines of text, Joe?
    Don't know don't care.

    Don't know don't care.

    Three lines are fine.

    Thank you!
  9. 10 May '09 04:45
    Originally posted by Scriabin
    #4


    Greenwire reports on EPA budget and priorities:

    Quote

    EPA: Record request boosts infrastructure, enforcement (05/07/2009)

    President Obama today laid out the details of his plans to ramp up funding for programs at U.S. EPA, an agency facing an increasingly heavy workload from an administration pledging to bolster environmental protection an ...[text shortened]... tive way to allocate funds.

    unquote

    c'mon, folks -- comments, questions ..
    thanks for all the info,put some work into that I see. Ms Mc Carthy is going to talk to the litigants personally?! what?! give me a break. Obama has big plans for the EPA im afraid. I,ve heard some say like Hitlers brown shirts we will have Obamas green shirts. these are all power moves .this one in particular masked to help the enviroment.save the planet! all based on a false science.the main stream media spoon feeds our nation of sheep this crap and they eat it up.ALL the small emitters will be directly effected by this and Ms McCarthy knows this as well as Obama
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    10 May '09 05:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon

    * I,ve heard some say like Hitlers brown shirts we will have Obamas green shirts. BOING!

    * these are all power moves BOING!!

    * this one in particular masked to help the enviroment.save the planet! BOING!!

    * all based on a false science. BOING!!!

    * the main stream media spoon feeds our nation of sheep this crap BOING!!!!

    * and they eat it up. BOING!!!!!!!
  11. 10 May '09 05:27
    Originally posted by FMF
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [b]
    * I,ve heard some say like Hitlers brown shirts we will have Obamas green shirts. BOING!

    * these are all power moves BOING!!

    * this one in particular masked to help the enviroment.save the planet! BOING!!

    * all based on a false science. BOING!!!

    * the main stream media spoon feeds our nation of sheep this crap BOING!!!!

    * and they eat it up. BOING!!!!!!!
    [/b]
    LOL!!!!! I had a feeling you would jump in after that
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    10 May '09 05:36
    BOING!!!
  13. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    10 May '09 08:52
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    thanks for all the info,put some work into that I see. Ms Mc Carthy is going to talk to the litigants personally?! what?! give me a break. Obama has big plans for the EPA im afraid. I,ve heard some say like Hitlers brown shirts we will have Obamas green shirts. these are all power moves .this one in particular masked to help the enviroment.save the ...[text shortened]... the small emitters will be directly effected by this and Ms McCarthy knows this as well as Obama
    Can you help me find my old pair of green jackboots?

    Were you of age in 1990 when I was still fairly new at EPA and had to deal with the same right wing arguments you now use?

    Do you have any rational basis to say all the environmental regulation of which you complain is based on "false science?"

    What is your evidence for so broad an assertion?
  14. 10 May '09 10:15
    Originally posted by Scriabin
    Can you help me find my old pair of green jackboots?

    Were you of age in 1990 when I was still fairly new at EPA and had to deal with the same right wing arguments you now use?

    Do you have any rational basis to say all the environmental regulation of which you complain is based on "false science?"

    What is your evidence for so broad an assertion?
    yes i was of age long before 1990. I was being facetious about the green shirts, so put your boots back if you find them.Now,to some of my claims.man-made global warming is damm near turning into a religion not a science. and there are many scientist world wide who assert this.If anything its a global cooling.I assume we r close in age and thats all we heard as kids.nothing about warming.according to Dr.Leonard Weinstein man has contributed less than 0.3 degrees c to warming and by 2100 MAY contribute an additional 0.4. the media is crying out "artic ice is down 7%" but,says nothing about Antartic sea ice up over 43% since 1980.(doesnt fit).Reducing man made CO2 emission will not save the planet. CO2 is not a pollutant and reducing it does nothing to abate the the real pollutants,sulphur,particulates,metals,etc.this man made global warming is a political agenda not science. If you want me to google every scientist and authority on this I will but it will take some time. A couple i qouted from for the above are: dr.leonard weistein(45yrs senior research scientist-NASA,senior research fellow at national institute of aero space)-mark johnson(meterologist AMS CBM/NWA)-don easterbrook(geologist,western washington university)
  15. 10 May '09 12:13
    http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html