Mind Vomit by the ikss ~ a journal
Header
Monday, Apr. 12, 2004it's all about the environment
Navigation
the archives
The last few dribbles...
- -
Wednesday, Jul. 06, 2005
good-bye diaryland -
Thursday, Jan. 13, 2005
Social Security -
Thursday, Jan. 13, 2005
save the arctic refuge -
Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2005
it's surreal -
Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2005
the latest entry
Contact the ikss
~ the ikss guestbook ~
email the ikss
notes to the ikss
New here? Start here
The Usual Suspects (Cast)
the ikss Mission Statement: Please Read
the ikss bio
the ikss profile, including favorite diaryland links
somebody out there loves me
�Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead�
-Lucille Ball
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
REGISTER TO VOTE
"The time is always right to do what is right"
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
"The "seven social sins": Knowledge without character,
Science without humanity,
Wealth without work,
Commerce without morality,
Politics without principles,
Pleasure without conscience,
Worship without self-sacrifice."
--Gandhi
"We have not inherited the world from our forfathers -
We have borrowed it from our children."
--Kashmiri, proverb
This guy gets an added bonus for calling himself after a lesser-known character from The Godfather. And here�s his headline:
�I have an abnormally large uvula.�
~~~
Politics:
Bush Green Light for Carbon Dioxide May Cost Consumers Millions
This is part one of a two part series.
As President Bush continues his refusal to address the connection between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change, the North American coal industry is in a mad dash to seize on the President's willfulness to lock in some long-term profits -- at the considerable future expense of the American consumer.
Bush's decision in 2001 to break his campaign pledge to regulate carbon emissions came after intense pressure from the coal industry, a major campaign contributor that has also supplied the White House with a number of key cabinet appointees.[1]
International economists generally agree that the pressure for America to take meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources will inevitably lead to carbon regulations within the next decade, if not sooner. Even industry experts openly acknowledge that carbon rules are a matter of "when," not "if."[2]
In anticipation of these rules, many major utilities have already begun investing in cleaner sources of power -- e.g. wind mills and energy efficiency -- in order to offset their carbon emissions. Some investors have begun to assign risk premiums to oil, gas and coal firms that don't take carbon regulation seriously.[3]
But the White House, taking its cues from GOP leadership and the fossil fuels industry, continues to use industry-funded "studies" to question climate science and delay the inevitable.
The one area of general agreement is that the cost of removing carbon dioxide from smokestack emissions will be high; removal technology is largely untested, and cannot be used on older plants, which emit the most pollutants. The costs of eventually installing the equipment on some plants could also run into the tens of millions of dollars, if not more. The looming question is over who will pay this cost: consumers or coal plant operators.
A raft of new coal-fired power plants is in the proposal stage. If they are approved prior to the enactment of carbon regulations, utilities will be able to pass the eventual cost on to consumers -- at potentially daunting prices. The reason: as part of the process for approving new coal facilities, proponents must adopt a rate structure that is acceptable to Public Utility Commissions (PUC). If subsequent regulatory action drives up the cost of electricity from coal plants, the operators can petition their PUC to recoup these costs from their consumers.
Any plants built after carbon regulations are passed will have to invest in the pollution technology up front, and so will need to reveal the costs to PUCs before they receive approval. These costs could prompt utility regulators to steer energy policy toward investments in efficiency and renewable technologies that actually cost less than a carbon-regulated coal plant.
In essence, the industry is sprinting to secure long-term profits by beating the regulators to the punch. If they succeed, America's electricity consumers -- and its children and environment -- will take the hit.
Show your support for a bipartisan effort against global warming through Environmental Defense.
SOURCES:
[1] "How industry won the battle of pollution control at EPA," New York Times, Mar. 6, 2004.
[2] "AEP, Cinergy Disclose Details On Ways to Cut Carbon Dioxide," Wall Street Journal, Feb. 19, 2004.
[3] Ibid.
Bush Opens Door to More Coal Burning
The second story in a two part series.
In a little-noticed development with potentially devastating consequences for energy consumers, public health and the environment, the Bush Administration has been laying the groundwork for a resurgence of coal-fired power generation across the nation.
Many of the Administration's actions to roll back the Clean Air Act -- such as its weakening of New Source Review rules (rules requiring better emission controls) and its retreat on regulating mercury emissions -- are custom tailored for the coal industry. Coal-burning power plants are the largest single source of mercury and greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.[1]
With these key regulatory victories under its belt, the coal industry is leading a gold rush to acquire federal permits for coal-fired power plants before it loses control of the White House to a more public-health-friendly administration. Since Bush took office, more than 94 new coal-fired power plants have reached the planning and permitting stages, according to government sources and media reports.
"I think most Americans would be shocked that utilities are dragging the 19th century into the 21st century," says Dan Becker, director of global warming and energy program at the Sierra Club.[2]
Industry lobbyists, many of them working from inside the administration, claim that the resurgence of coal will be good for consumers. They point out, correctly, that North America sits on abundant coal reserves. Electricity generated from burning coal has been the cheapest domestic source of power since the industrial revolution; roughly 50 percent of the power produced in the U.S. still comes from coal.
But what industry officials fail to mention is the certainty that the federal government will eventually have to enact carbon and mercury regulations. According to the EPA, eight percent of American women of child-bearing age have enough mercury in their blood to pose a significant risk of nervous system damage to their children. And roughly 630,000, or 15 percent of all babies born in the U.S. each year, are exposed to dangerous levels of mercury in the womb.[3]
While President Bush has abandoned a Clinton-era proposal to virtually eliminate mercury emissions from coal plants, political pressure from health advocates will inevitably force the issue. Once mercury regulations are enacted, all coal facilities -- both newer, more efficient plants and the old polluting behemoths -- will be forced to invest in expensive technology to remove mercury from their smokestack emissions.
The upshot: if the White House enacts strong mercury regulations before the new slate of coal-fired power plants is approved, plant proponents will have to include the costs of compliance in their applications to rate-setting agencies. But if the plants are approved before stronger mercury rules are enacted, the eventual costs of removing mercury from smokestack emissions will be passed on to consumers in the form of escalating electricity costs.
The tragedy is that, with meaningful investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy technology, the U.S. could avoid building any new coal generation facilities -- and could begin to shut down some plants currently in operation. But unless President Bush undergoes a miraculous change of priorities, American consumers can count on getting burned.
SOURCES:
[1] "How industry won the battle of pollution control at EPA," New York Times, Mar. 6, 2004.
[2] "America's New Coal Rush," Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 26, 2004.
[3] "Estimate of Fetuses Exposed to High Mercury Doubles," Los Angeles Times, Feb. 6, 2004.
~~~
Bush Administration Scores "F" on Children's Health
The Bush Administration has received a grade of "F" on protecting the health and safety of America's children. On Monday the Children's Environmental Health Network (CEHN) released the "Bush Administration Report Card 2001-2004," reviewing 16 policy areas ranging from air quality regulation to lead poisoning prevention, to support for children's environmental health programs, and more.
Describing a consistent pattern of actions and inactions, CEHN concluded that "this Administration's track record is toxic to our children." The CEHN report card explores the federal record of the past three years in detail, noting that "this Administration had ample opportunity to do better" in many areas.
In mercury regulation, for example, the Bush Administration received an "F" for its attempts to weaken regulation and reduction of environmental exposure to this neurotoxin. CEHN notes that in a July, 2000 report, the National Academy of Sciences determined that "each year more than 60,000 children are born at risk for neurodevelopmental problems associated with in-utero mercury exposure. The NAS recommended that every effort should be made to reduce the release of mercury into the environment."
CEHN gave the Bush Administration a "C" for prevention of lead poisoning. Despite the long-recognized neurotoxicity of lead to children, the Bush Administration's proposed FY2005 budget cuts $35 million from lead hazard control grants -- a funding reduction of 20%.
The administration is also seeking to reduce or eliminate funding for Health and Urban Development (HUD) programs that help low-income families find safe and affordable housing, including $50 million in HUD lead hazard control grants.
CEHN assigns an "F" for the Bush Administration's consistent lack of commitment to children's environmental health research and programs. A few examples:
Under President Bush, the Office of Children's Health Protection has been leaderless for over two years.
In October 2001, the administration announced funding for four new research centers into children's environmental health, only to have EPA cut the budgets for the original eight. Congressional pressure restored some of this funding, but the total number of centers will ultimately be 11, not 12.
EPA also cut funding for the National Children's Study, which would follow approximately 100,000 children from before birth to at least age 18, assessing the impact of environmental factors on health.
The Bush Administration also received "F" grades for failing to promote or support other aspects of children's environmental health, such as placing politics above science in setting policy, and consistently impeding the public's access to information.
"Each Administration's actions -- and inactions -- profoundly affect the lives and well-being of children, through childhood and beyond," CEHN states in the executive summary. "Even as this report is being finalized, a number of emerging issues reiterate the overwhelming pattern that children are losing out to other priorities of this Administration."[1]
SOURCES:
[1] Children's Environmental Health Bush Administration Report Card, 2001-2004, Children's Environmental Health Network.
~~~
Word of the Day for Monday April 12, 2004
improvident im-PROV-uh-duhnt; -dent, adjective:
Lacking foresight or forethought; not foreseeing or providing for the future; negligent or thoughtless.
last / next
~~~~~~~~~~~peace, love and smooches~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't know why you'd wanna, but on the off-chance you may feel tempted to steal any of my words and claim them as your own, please be advised:
All material
Copyright 2002-2005, Howl-at-the-Moon Words
***DISCLAIMER: These are my thoughts and my thoughts alone. If you know me in my "real life" off the net and have come across this page purely by accident, please keep in mind that you were not invited here and I would suggest you leave this page now. However, should you choose not to do so, please be warned that reading my thoughts here is not an invitation to discuss them off-line. You may discover things you do not know about me and may not like very much. Such is life. Again, this is MY space and I will use it as I see fit. If you are offended by anything here, well that's pretty much your own fault at this point.
I say all of this with love, of course, but there it is.
