Organizers and Leaders: Start Here

Comment

Comment by amy oconnor on September 23, 2009 at 3:06pm

Pasco Company Scores a $200M Trade Agreement to Help China "Go Green"

http://efloridainnovation.com/index.php?post_id=529616#

Great for China what about the U.S. ?? ( ...may bring more than 1,000 green jobs to Pasco Co. in the coming years.) Sorry for being SO negative but WE NEED GREEN JOBS NOW

Why can't "our" companies help "our" efforts to become more green ???? Why aren't they making these deals with "our" government ?
2 Key Words - "Government Mandate".....

we do not have one !!!



Dais has signed a five-year contract with Genertec – America (overseas subsidiary of China General Technology (Group) Holding, Limited, which is a state-owned company) to sell breakthrough heating/cooling, and water clean-up products built around the innovative Dais nanotechnology materials.

Dais products are expected to reduce energy usage, energy costs and CO2 emissions, supporting a government mandate to lower the carbon footprint in China - one of the most populated countries in the world.

Comment by Robert Schultz on September 22, 2009 at 9:25am

EPA Plans Scientific Scrutiny of New Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining Permits
Agency announces further environmental review of dozens of permits, citing harmful impacts to waterways, legal concerns


http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=129941.0
Washington, D.C. - Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that it has concerns about the environmental harm that would be caused by the issuance of dozens of mountaintop removal permits that the agency had been reviewing since June. EPA's actions were welcomed by local and national groups working to end the practice of mountaintop removal. While noting it is only a first step, the groups commended EPA for its decision.

“EPA’s action today creates a welcome reprieve for the people who live below these enormous mining sites and the waste dumps they put into our waters,” said Judy Bonds, co-director of Coal River Mountain Watch. “We will continue our fight for a total, complete reprieve for our children and for our beloved mountains and streams.”

Of the 79 permits under review, EPA has determined that—for each and every permit at issue—the destruction of streams and harm to watersheds in the region raise questions about the legality of the permits under the Clean Water Act. Under a procedure adopted by the Obama administration in June, EPA’s action today is expected to trigger a 60-day joint review of the permits between EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, if the Corps disagrees with EPA’s initial review. Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy joined EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in making the announcement.

“We applaud this action by the Obama Administration to return the rule of law to the Appalachian coalfields,” said Mary Anne Hitt, Deputy Director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign. “The next step in the administration's review process should confirm that these permits cannot be issued. The ultimate solution to protecting communities, mountains and streams is to now revise Bush administration rules to make clear that mining and other industrial waste cannot be used to fill streams.”

“While many mountains, streams and communities continue to be impacted or annihilated by mountaintop removal because of years of lawless mining, EPA's announcement today provides people with some hope that from this day forward, real science and laws will be applied before any more permits are issued,” said Janet Keating, executive director of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. “The public needs to know that this announcement does not apply to existing mountaintop removal permits. We ask that our politicians don't cry that ‘the sky is falling,’ but instead let the scientific experts at EPA do the job that taxpayers expect of them to protect our water, air and land for us and for future generations.”

“We are pleased, but not surprised, that these 79 mines failed to pass muster under the Clean Water Act at this stage in the review. We have been saying for years that these types of mines are too destructive to proceed,” said Joe Lovett, executive director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment. “It is satisfying to know that there are finally leaders at EPA and in other federal environmental agencies who are willing to acknowledge that reality.”

“For this stage in the permitting review process, EPA is doing the right thing, and we commend Administrator Jackson for her leadership,” said Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel for Earthjustice. “These mines, if permitted, would destroy many miles of streams in a region already devastated by mountaintop removal. We are confident that if EPA and the Corps do the ‘enhanced’ review as promised, they will determine that all of the mines with valley fills will cause unacceptable harm and violate the law. The next step should not only be to conduct the review and deny permits for mines that destroy waters, but the administration must also reinstate the clean water rules that prevented industries from dumping their waste into streams.”

In contrast to the result of an earlier review of other similar permits, where EPA allowed some mines like Peg Fork that have destructive valley fills to proceed even though they would cause unlawful destruction of waterways, EPA’s action today shows that it is now looking closely at the law and science in its permit review process and also providing some welcome public transparency. Earlier this year, the EPA conducted a review of 48 applications pending before the Army Corps of Engineers for Clean Water Act permits to fill streams. At the end of its review, the EPA identified the Peg Fork mine and five other mines as projects of high concern, and instructed the Army Corps not to issue those permits. Unfortunately, the EPA raised no objections to 42 of those 48 mines, and eventually allowed the issuance of the Peg Fork mine permit with minimal additional conditions. Despite that decision, those permits still fail to satisfy the requirements for permits issued under the Clean Water Act. Many of these permits would still have unacceptable adverse impacts on local waterways and therefore violate the Clean Water Act.

Mining operations have already destroyed at least 2,000 miles of Appalachian streams, permanently burying them beneath piles of toxic waste and debris. Entire communities have been permanently displaced by mines and an area the size of Delaware has been flattened.

More information on pending permits and the effects they would have on Appalachia can be found at http://action.sierraclub.org/WhatsAtStake

More information on mountaintop removal mining is available at:
http://www.earthjustice.org/mtr

Comment by Jeffrey Michael Paganini on September 21, 2009 at 11:39pm

Watching, dear Bob you are 100% right, Iam with you all the way, Your friend surferpags, never know when I turn up, but dealing with our world, surferpags

Comment by Wayne J.R. Bowser, LEED AP on September 21, 2009 at 7:18pm

Join me this Wednesday on The Green Revolution Show and let's talk about all the potential we have in this great country to rid ourselves of our reliance on Foreign Oil and get us back to where we're leading the world in innovation and INDEPENDENCE!

Call-in between 11am and 12noon (Pacific Time, including AZ) 12noon and 1pm (Mountain Time) and between 2pm and 3pm (Eastern Time) on (347) 637-3101.

Comment by Mike Johnston on September 21, 2009 at 6:16pm

Please read this story regarding the potential of natural gas:

Please read this story regarding the potential of natural gas:

"Shale gas is the most important energy development since the discovery of oil"

Then take the time THIS WEEK to write a letter to your local newspaper and/or contact your representatives in the House and Senate and ask them to pass the legislation we need NOW to begin to transition to a clean, secure, domestic energy future. This story shows that the capacity is there and we already know the technology is there. All that remains is to demonstrate enough WILL on the part of the American people to make it so...

Comment by Robert Schultz on September 18, 2009 at 11:27am

Permit approved for Controversial WV Coal mine, despite protests against a topless America

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a Clean Water Act permit last month for Consol Energy’s Peg Fork mountaintop removal coal mine in Mingo County, West Virginia. This controversial decision marks the first time during the Obama administration that the Army Corps approved a mine permit to which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had previously objected, opening the door for many new mountaintop removal coal mines in Appalachia. The decision to allow this operation to proceed also demonstrates the Department of Interior's lack of will to enforce the clear mandates of a critical Surface Mining Act regulation.

"We are disappointed that the administration has approved a new mountaintop removal mine without making any commitment to adopt new regulations or policies that would end this destructive practice," said Ed Hopkins, Director of Sierra Club's Environmental Quality Program. "While we appreciate that the Obama administration is taking a harder look at mountaintop removal coal mining, unless that results in decisions that end the irreversible destruction of streams, the harder look isn’t going to do the job."

"We are not willing to sacrifice our homes to the potential of flooding from a mountaintop removal coal mine," said Mingo County resident Wilma Steele. "The Army Corps should protect our homes from being washed away."

The permit would violate the Surface Mining Act as well as the Clean Water Act. This mining operation would be impermissible under the Surface Mining Act's buffer zone rule, which protects intermittent and perennial streams. The Department of Interior, therefore, has the duty to use the buffer zone rule to prevent giant stream destruction projects like those at the Peg Fork mine from going forward.

"The Department of Interior's continuing failure to force the mining industry to comply with the buffer zone rule is a reminder that it is business as usual at Interior," said Joe Lovett, of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment. Lovett called for Secretary Ken Salazar to "reverse the Bush Administration's refusal to enforce the Surface Mining Act and to protect our irreplaceable streams."

Earlier this year, the EPA conducted a review of 48 applications then pending before the Army Corps for Clean Water Act permits to fill streams. At the end of its review, the EPA identified the Peg Fork mine and five other mines as projects of high concern, and instructed the Army Corps to not issue those permits.

Following the EPA’s review, the Army Corps revised Consol Energy's permit for this mountaintop removal mine and issued the permit on Friday, August 7. But the revised permit still fails to satisfy the requirements for permits issued under the Clean Water Act. The original permit application proposed mining over 800 acres of mountainous terrain and dumping mining waste into eight valley fills and over 3 miles of streams. The revised permit that received EPA approval still allows two valley fills immediately, with the potential for up to six additional valley fills if EPA is satisfied with the results of downstream water quality monitoring from the initial fills. Even with these alterations, the Peg Fork mine would still have unacceptable adverse impacts on local waterways and therefore violates the Clean Water Act.

The Peg Fork permit decision comes just as the EPA begins the process of reviewing more than 80 applications for Clean Water Act permits for mountaintop removal mining under the coordinated review process announced by the Obama administration in June. Mining companies have already buried close to 2,000 miles of Appalachian streams beneath piles of toxic waste and debris. Entire communities have been permanently displaced by mines the size of Manhattan.

"The Obama administration needs to commit to ending the devastation caused to our communities by mountaintop removal. The time to make that commitment is now," said Judy Bonds of Coal River Mountain Watch. "We can not live through another generation of permits that will bury hundreds more miles of streams and blast apart our mountains."

"Science and the law are at odds with this permit decision," said Janet Keating of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. "In my opinion, the Corps' decision to issue this and other permits boils down to political pressure from coal-friendly legislators."

"A big part of the problem is that the Obama administration is still operating under the failed and broken regulations adopted during the Bush administration," said Joan Mulhern of the environmental law firm Earthjustice. "The White House and the agencies can and should immediately initiate the process for changing those regulations and restoring the environmental protections that existed prior to 2001."

Comment by Dr. Hans J. Kugler, PhD on September 18, 2009 at 11:02am

Dave:
You are not the only one frustrated to the hilt!
The Washington Bozos - - retarded or paid off by special interests, mostly both - - only rarely comprehend when something is just plain good for our country and needs supporting.
Follow the money trail: Example
In regards to the environment THE WORST ANYBODY COULD DO IS COAL STRIP MINING; a true environmental disaster in which mountains full of trees (important for balancing CO2) are blown up to get (in the cheapest way) to the coal. The resulting waste is washed into lakes and streams and (because of toxic minerals like mercury, arsenic, cadmium) kills fish and wildlife. Yet, the Obama administration informed a W-VA congressman (also lobbyist for the coal industry) that they would not stand in the way of 24 coal strip mining projects.HOW DISGUSTING!
Why?
Coal unions and the coal industry invested $ 38 million in the Obama campaign. Do I have to say more?
Please check out - - and possibly support - - www.ElToroEXPOSED.com

Comment by Dave Clement on September 17, 2009 at 4:06pm

My rep, Jeff Flake still doesn't get it after 2 meetings and 1000 letters!-
(Any suggestions?)
Dear David,
Thank you for contacting me about me about H.R. 1835, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2009.
As you may know, H.R. 1835 was introduced by Congressman Dan Boren (D-OK) on April 1, 2009. This legislation would offer tax credits for buying natural gas vehicles, building fueling stations, and manufacturing natural gas and bi-fuel vehicles. It would also require 50 percent of all new vehicles purchased or placed in service by the U.S. government to be capable of operating on compressed or liquefied natural gas. H.R. 1835 has been referred to the House Committees on Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, and Science and Technology.
Despite the benefits of natural gas, the demand for natural gas vehicles has been low, causing many automakers to discontinue manufacturing them in the U.S. On August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act was signed into law, offering consumers a $4,000 tax credit for purchasing an alternative fuel vehicle through 2010. However, these tax incentives have not had a major effect on the number of natural gas-powered vehicles sold since 2005.
While natural gas may have financial and environmental benefits, I believe that the private sector must be free to innovate. A healthy free market is driven by demand, and Congress should not legislate which type of vehicles that automakers must manufacture. Rather than handing out federal tax dollars, Congress should reduce regulations and obstacles that hinder the development of clean energy.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so again in the future. I also encourage you to visit my website, which may be found at http://flake.house.gov/.
Sincerely,
JEFF FLAKE
Member of Congress, Arizona District 6

(Very frustrating!)

Comment by Robert Schultz on September 11, 2009 at 8:43am

Good commentary Lee.

Our world is evolving, and I believe we are headed for many major changes as we go forward past the era of cheap oil. We will need to find other forms of fuel for our vehicles, and more importantly, we should reduce the distance we have to ship material goods. By becoming more "community based" or regional in how we make products, grow food provide energy, etc. Our local economies will be based on a more independent supply system of materials and resources produced locally, which will be more self-sufficient. If our cars run on Natural Gas, Bio-diesel, or electricity produced nearby. We will have fewer fluctuations in price and availability due to the World Economic Market, our local economies will have a built in resilience and sustainability, making them much more stable.

See more info on post-cheap oil at TransitionUS.org
The coming shocks are likely to be catastrophic if we do not prepare. As Richard Heinberg states: “Our central survival task for the decades ahead, as individuals and as a species, must be to make a transition away from the use of fossil fuels – and to do this as peacefully, equitably, and intelligently as possible”.

Comment by Lee Taylor on September 11, 2009 at 6:48am

A note to Richard Barnard, new Friend at Pickens Plan

Hi, Richard,

Re Pickens Plan, I spend some time thinking about what is happening in the world, and why.

The thing that comes across to me is that much of our world, as we now have it, just kinda "evolved", in the easiest way that was possible. And the thing that is the easiest, is to just improve on what we were already working on. Doesn't matter that much what it is, it is easier to "improve" on something, than to start over with something that makes more sense.

That is where I feel we are with energy. When motor vehicles started out, their energy needs were pretty basic, and the crude fuels for them came on line at just about the same time. Fuel technology developed at the same time as the needs, and it was both plentiful, and available, as long as we could produce enough of it to keep it cheap, and the economies of scale followed so that we could do that.
And an entire economy followed. One that has a tremendous investment financially and scale-wise. Half the world, one way or another, now depends on delivering that stinky stuff to our cars. AND KEEPING THAT SYSTEM WORKING, so that the investment can be recouped.
However, there are so many things that make that make petroleum fuels not overall desirable now. WE WILL PROBABLY NEVER ELIMINATE PETROLEUM FUELS, there are many, many uses that are not easily changable, (aircraft use, for one major application), but two things become so incredibly important now.
First, we are spending WAY too much of our money overseas to acquire the excess oil that we need to feed our totally petroleum-based economy. Sending money overseas, money that does not regenerate the American economy. Money that is just plain lost to us, and buying a product that is totally expended. That's just plain foolish, when, with some rather minor changes to the way that we utilize our energy assets, we can just about eliminate oil importation. And I am only concerned about supporting the American economy, not providing all our assets to an Arab world. Especially an Arab world that supports activities like 9/11. It is OUR money that supplied the money to support that activity. That's just plain stupid of us.
We have "enough" oil in the US to supply our necessary needs, if we can cut down on the overall usage. Only by restricting the growth of petroleum usage can we keep the costs of it under control. We are not doing that right now. Use is exceeding availability, and costs rise exponentially with that fact.

Second, petroleum fuels used to the extent that we use them now, have tremendously destructive side effects Incredibly complex, and environmentally, financially destructive. If you have ever actually looked at an oil refinery, you will be amazed to understand how gasoline and other fuels can possibly be produced by these unbelievably complex factories at anywhere even remotely affordable prices. It is all economies of scale----we can afford to build these kinds of incredibly complex systems, IF we continue to consume the quantities of fuels they are capable of producing.
But that kind of investment can be so much more efficiently utilized to produce other kinds of energy. It takes a windmill to produce electricity. It takes a filter, and a compressor to produce CNG. That statement is overly simplistic, but In comparison to what it takes to convert oil into its usable products-------------------------------There is no way in the world that an alien studying the Earth could ever comprehend why we would use petroleum as a fuel, when there are so many other, MUCH EASIER energy sources available. Cheaply, and cleanly.

The reason that we keep using petroleum as fuels is because the investments have already been made. The money has been spent, and now the profits from that money depend on continuing to use the volumes that make the profits possible.

My feeling is that we can no longer afford to keep increasing petroleum usage, when other much more practical energy sources are now available and do-able. And we need ALL energy resources, INCLUDING OIL, to continue increasing our lifestyle comforts.

And that's what it is all about. Making life as comfortable as we can, economically and in a manner that isn't so destructive to our environment.

Lee Taylor

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last