Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Week 9: Post your Blog Entries as Comments to my Main Post Each Week
Post by Sunday at midnight.
1. Mark Whitaker
2. The Bush Administration, with Time Short, Removes More Environmental Regulations
3. Think of the argument in the Freudenberg article about what really is a 'good business climate,' or what was really the effects of endangered species protections (associated slowing of self-destructive extraction industries, thus, their job rates stopped falling). Then think how self-destructive for the American economy these issues are in the long term.
--------------------------
Bush officials plan to dial back environmental protections
* Story | Change ahead on environment under President Obama
* Story | California Valley farms could grow clean energy
* Story | Oil man preaches energy independence
* Story | Supreme Court shows little sympathy for whales beset by sonar
* Story | Environmentalists face high hurdle in Sequoia forest dispute
Uranium mining may be near the Grand Canyon.
MCT
Uranium mining may be near the Grand Canyon. | View larger image
By Renee Schoof | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — In the next few weeks, the Bush administration is expected to relax environmental-protection rules on power plants near national parks, uranium mining near the Grand Canyon and more mountaintop-removal coal mining in Appalachia.
The administration is widely expected to try to get some of the rules into final form by the week before Thanksgiving because, in some cases, there's a 60-day delay before new regulations take effect. And once the rules are in place, undoing them generally would be a more time-consuming job for the next Congress and administration.
The regulations already have had periods of public comment, and no further comments are being taken. The administration has proposed the rules and final approval is considered likely.
It's common for administrations to issue a spate of regulations just before leaving office. The Bush administration's changes are in keeping with President Bush's overall support of deregulation.
Here's a look at some changes that are likely to go into effect before the inauguration.
GRAND CANYON
Higher prices for uranium, driven by expanded interest in nuclear power, have resulted in thousands of mining claims being filed on land within three miles of the Grand Canyon.
The House of Representatives and Senate natural resources committees have the authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to order emergency withdrawals of federal land from future mining claims for three years, while Congress decides whether a permanent ban is needed. The House committee issued such a withdrawal order in June for about 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon, including the land the claims were filed on.
Now the Department of Interior has proposed scrapping its own rule that puts such orders from the congressional committees into practice.
The Interior Department could decide to use its own power to halt new claims, but it doesn't see any emergency that would prompt such action, department spokesman Chris Paolino said. The department would require environmental impact studies before it approved any mining on the claims, he added.
One of the main hazards from uranium mining is seepage from tailings piles that poisons water. A report for the Arizona Department of Game and Fish said people would be at risk if they ingested radium-226, arsenic and other hazardous substances from water and tainted fish.
Environmental groups say the government must consider the possible danger of uranium leaching into the Colorado River, a source of drinking water for Phoenix, Las Vegas and Los Angeles. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano in March urged Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to halt new claims and order a study of uranium mining near the canyon.
MOUNTAINTOP-REMOVAL COAL MINING
Another proposed rule change from the Department of Interior would change rules on dumping the earth removed for mining into nearby streams.
The current rule, dating from the Reagan administration, says that no surface mining may occur within 100 feet of a stream unless there'd be no harm to water quality or quantity. The rule change essentially would eliminate the buffer by allowing the government to grant waivers so that mining companies can dump the rubble from mountaintops into valleys, burying streams.
The new rule would let companies explain why they can't avoid dumping into streams and how they intend to minimize harm. A September report on the proposal by the department's Office of Surface Mining said that environmental concerns would be taken into account "to the extent possible, using the best technology currently available."
The government and mining companies have been ignoring the buffer since the 1990s, said Joan Mulhern, an attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit law firm for environmental protection.
Before the rule can be changed, however, the Department of Interior must get written approval from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson.
"In order to concur, the EPA would have to find that the activities authorized by the rule would not violate water-quality standards, and all the evidence is to the contrary," Mulhern said.
AIR POLLUTION
Two rule changes would apply to electric power plants and other stationary sources of air pollution.
The first mainly concerns older power plants. Under the Clean Air Act, plants that are updated must install pollution-control technology if they'll produce more emissions. The rule change would allow plants to measure emissions on an hourly basis, rather than their total yearly output. This way, plants could run for more hours and increase overall emissions without exceeding the threshold that would require additional pollution controls.
The other change would make it easier for companies to build polluting facilities near national parks and wilderness areas. It also would change the way that companies must measure the impact of their pollution.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
The Endangered Species Act prohibits any federal actions that would jeopardize the existence of a listed species or "adversely modify" critical habitats. The 1973 law has helped save species such as the bald eagle from extinction.
Bush administration officials have argued that the act can't be used to protect animals and habitats from climate change by regulating specific sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
A proposed rule change would allow federal agencies to decide for themselves whether timber sales, new dams or other projects harm wildlife protected under the act. In many cases, they'd no longer have to consult the agencies that are charged with administering the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
OTHERS
Among the rule changes and plans that might become final are commercial oil-shale leasing, a new rule that would allow loaded, concealed weapons in some national parks, and oil and gas leasing on wild public lands in West Virginia and Utah.
MORE FROM MCCLATCHY:
With time short, Bush pushes EPA to relax power-plant rule
Memos tell wildlife officials to ignore global-warming impact
Wolves may lose endangered species protection
---
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/55441.html
1. Mark Whitaker
2. The Bush Administration, with Time Short, Removes More Environmental Regulations
3. Think of the argument in the Freudenberg article about what really is a 'good business climate,' or what was really the effects of endangered species protections (associated slowing of self-destructive extraction industries, thus, their job rates stopped falling). Then think how self-destructive for the American economy these issues are in the long term.
--------------------------
Bush officials plan to dial back environmental protections
* Story | Change ahead on environment under President Obama
* Story | California Valley farms could grow clean energy
* Story | Oil man preaches energy independence
* Story | Supreme Court shows little sympathy for whales beset by sonar
* Story | Environmentalists face high hurdle in Sequoia forest dispute
Uranium mining may be near the Grand Canyon.
MCT
Uranium mining may be near the Grand Canyon. | View larger image
By Renee Schoof | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — In the next few weeks, the Bush administration is expected to relax environmental-protection rules on power plants near national parks, uranium mining near the Grand Canyon and more mountaintop-removal coal mining in Appalachia.
The administration is widely expected to try to get some of the rules into final form by the week before Thanksgiving because, in some cases, there's a 60-day delay before new regulations take effect. And once the rules are in place, undoing them generally would be a more time-consuming job for the next Congress and administration.
The regulations already have had periods of public comment, and no further comments are being taken. The administration has proposed the rules and final approval is considered likely.
It's common for administrations to issue a spate of regulations just before leaving office. The Bush administration's changes are in keeping with President Bush's overall support of deregulation.
Here's a look at some changes that are likely to go into effect before the inauguration.
GRAND CANYON
Higher prices for uranium, driven by expanded interest in nuclear power, have resulted in thousands of mining claims being filed on land within three miles of the Grand Canyon.
The House of Representatives and Senate natural resources committees have the authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to order emergency withdrawals of federal land from future mining claims for three years, while Congress decides whether a permanent ban is needed. The House committee issued such a withdrawal order in June for about 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon, including the land the claims were filed on.
Now the Department of Interior has proposed scrapping its own rule that puts such orders from the congressional committees into practice.
The Interior Department could decide to use its own power to halt new claims, but it doesn't see any emergency that would prompt such action, department spokesman Chris Paolino said. The department would require environmental impact studies before it approved any mining on the claims, he added.
One of the main hazards from uranium mining is seepage from tailings piles that poisons water. A report for the Arizona Department of Game and Fish said people would be at risk if they ingested radium-226, arsenic and other hazardous substances from water and tainted fish.
Environmental groups say the government must consider the possible danger of uranium leaching into the Colorado River, a source of drinking water for Phoenix, Las Vegas and Los Angeles. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano in March urged Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to halt new claims and order a study of uranium mining near the canyon.
MOUNTAINTOP-REMOVAL COAL MINING
Another proposed rule change from the Department of Interior would change rules on dumping the earth removed for mining into nearby streams.
The current rule, dating from the Reagan administration, says that no surface mining may occur within 100 feet of a stream unless there'd be no harm to water quality or quantity. The rule change essentially would eliminate the buffer by allowing the government to grant waivers so that mining companies can dump the rubble from mountaintops into valleys, burying streams.
The new rule would let companies explain why they can't avoid dumping into streams and how they intend to minimize harm. A September report on the proposal by the department's Office of Surface Mining said that environmental concerns would be taken into account "to the extent possible, using the best technology currently available."
The government and mining companies have been ignoring the buffer since the 1990s, said Joan Mulhern, an attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit law firm for environmental protection.
Before the rule can be changed, however, the Department of Interior must get written approval from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson.
"In order to concur, the EPA would have to find that the activities authorized by the rule would not violate water-quality standards, and all the evidence is to the contrary," Mulhern said.
AIR POLLUTION
Two rule changes would apply to electric power plants and other stationary sources of air pollution.
The first mainly concerns older power plants. Under the Clean Air Act, plants that are updated must install pollution-control technology if they'll produce more emissions. The rule change would allow plants to measure emissions on an hourly basis, rather than their total yearly output. This way, plants could run for more hours and increase overall emissions without exceeding the threshold that would require additional pollution controls.
The other change would make it easier for companies to build polluting facilities near national parks and wilderness areas. It also would change the way that companies must measure the impact of their pollution.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
The Endangered Species Act prohibits any federal actions that would jeopardize the existence of a listed species or "adversely modify" critical habitats. The 1973 law has helped save species such as the bald eagle from extinction.
Bush administration officials have argued that the act can't be used to protect animals and habitats from climate change by regulating specific sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
A proposed rule change would allow federal agencies to decide for themselves whether timber sales, new dams or other projects harm wildlife protected under the act. In many cases, they'd no longer have to consult the agencies that are charged with administering the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
OTHERS
Among the rule changes and plans that might become final are commercial oil-shale leasing, a new rule that would allow loaded, concealed weapons in some national parks, and oil and gas leasing on wild public lands in West Virginia and Utah.
MORE FROM MCCLATCHY:
With time short, Bush pushes EPA to relax power-plant rule
Memos tell wildlife officials to ignore global-warming impact
Wolves may lose endangered species protection
---
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/55441.html
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Week 6: Post your Blog Entries as Comments to my Main Post Each Week
Bird Flu: The End of the Nature vs. Social Dichotomies, and More, in "Risk Society"
Post by Sunday at midnight.
Where was everybody at class Friday? Many were absent on an important day: the start of our discussions of Beck/ecological modernization. Read Bronner and Goldblatt articles (and the short one entitled 'Ecological Modernization' after them; read Mythen; read bits from Beck himself) to prepare for next session.
At this point in the course, as we move from the second theory discussed into the third theory discussed, below is an appropriate news article bridging eco-Marxist ideas ('second contradition of capital' comes to mind) and growing political and economic awareness of the massive levels of environmental damage. This damage is increasingly causing both the economic unrest mentioned by the eco-Marxists (the 'second contradiction of capital') and the environmental-political unrest heralded by Ulrich Beck's ideas of the world's states moving into a 'risk society' situation.
There was an attempt in China in the 1990s to do some ecological modernization--to introduce a kind of environmental costs as listed as deductions from profits of the Chinese economic expansion. However, because it showed that the Chinese economy was growing backwards and destroying itself instead of really developing when the costs were tallied, the idea was left unimplemented. This 'ecological economics' accounting was politically rejected for continuing blindly more 'treadmill' expansion types of alliances....and the endless short term developmentalism goals that lead to further environmental destruction.
------------------------------------
Nature loss 'dwarfs bank crisis'
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Barcelona
* The global economy is losing more money from the disappearance of forests
than through the current banking crisis, according to an EU-commissioned
study. *
It puts the annual cost of forest loss at between $2 trillion and $5
trillion. [That's annual lost--the U.S. has bailed out banks 'only' around 1.2 trillion dollars so far.]
The figure comes from adding the value of the various services that forests
perform, such as providing clean water and absorbing carbon dioxide.
The study, headed by a Deutsche Bank economist, parallels the Stern Review
into the economics of climate change.
It has been discussed during many sessions here at the World Conservation
Congress.
Some conservationists see it as a new way of persuading policymakers to fund
nature protection rather than allowing the decline in ecosystems and
species, highlighted in the release on Monday of the Red List of Threatened
Species, to continue.
* Capital losses *
Speaking to BBC News on the fringes of the congress, study leader Pavan
Sukhdev emphasized that the cost of natural decline dwarfs losses on the
financial markets.
"It's not only greater but it's also continuous, it's been happening every
year, year after year," he told BBC News.
* Teeb will... show the risks we run by not valuing [nature] adequately." *
Andrew Mitchell
Global Canopy Programme
"So whereas Wall Street by various calculations has to date lost, within the
financial sector, $1-$1.5 trillion, the reality is that at today's rate we
are losing natural capital at least between $2-$5 trillion every year."
The review that Mr Sukhdev leads, The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity (Teeb [that's an abbreviation]), was initiated by Germany under its recent EU
presidency, with the European Commission providing funding.
The first phase concluded in May when the team released its finding that
forest decline could be costing about 7% of global GDP. The second phase
will expand the scope to other natural systems.
* Stern message *
Key to understanding his conclusions is that as forests decline, nature
stops providing services which it used to provide essentially for free.
So the human economy either has to provide them instead, perhaps through
building reservoirs, building facilities to sequester carbon dioxide, or
farming foods that were once naturally available.
Or we have to do without them; either way, there is a financial cost.
The Teeb calculations show that the cost falls disproportionately on the
poor, because a greater part of their livelihood depends directly on the
forest, especially in tropical regions.
The greatest cost to western nations would initially come through losing a
natural absorber of the most important greenhouse gas.
Just as the Stern Review brought the economics of climate change into the
political arena and helped politicians see the consequences of their policy
choices, many in the conservation community believe the Teeb review will lay
open the economic consequences of halting or not halting the slide in
biodiversity.
"The numbers in the Stern Review enabled politicians to wake up to reality,"
said Andrew Mitchell, director of the Global Canopy Programme, an
organisation concerned with directing financial resources into forest
preservation.
"Teeb will do the same for the value of nature, and show the risks we run by
not valuing it adequately."
A number of nations, businesses and global organisations are beginning to
direct funds into forest conservation, and there are signs of a trade in
natural ecosystems developing, analogous to the carbon trade, although it is
clearly very early days.
Some have ethical concerns over the valuing of nature purely in terms of the
services it provides humanity; but the counter-argument is that decades of
trying to halt biodiversity decline by arguing for the intrinsic worth of
nature have not worked, so something different must be tried.
Whether Mr Sukhdev's arguments will find political traction in an era of
financial constraint is an open question, even though many of the
governments that would presumably be called on to fund forest protection are
the ones directly or indirectly paying for the review. [if you just removed subsidies, it would cost nothing...]
But, he said, governments and businesses are getting the point.
"Times have changed. Almost three years ago, even two years ago, their eyes
would glaze over.
"Today, when I say this, they listen. In fact I get questions asked - so how
do you calculate this, how can we monetize it, what can we do about it, why
don't you speak with so and so politician or such and such business." [that the 'ecological modernization' turn we are talking about]
The aim is to complete the Teeb review by the middle of 2010, the date by
which governments are committed under the Convention of Biological Diversity
to have begun slowing the rate of biodiversity loss.
* Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk *
Published: 2008/10/10 00:23:07 GMT
---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7662565.stm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)