CLEAR April 2007

clear@lists.cheatlakeclear.org

1 participants
3 discussions

Mon-River Trail in Penna.
by Duane330＠aol.com 26 Apr '07

26 Apr '07

SHEEPSKIN TRAIL- GREAT NEWS- see below message Begin forwarded message: Date: April 26, 2007 12:03:22 PM EDT Subject: Good News Regarding the County Commissioner’s Meeting in Uniontown this morning, the commissioners voted unanimously to purchase the trail bed from the WV state line to Georges Township (the southern end of the Sheepskin Trail) from CSX Corporation. The money for this transaction was made available from the McKenna Foundation and the County is paying the transfer fees associated. This is truly the first major step in several years towards making the trail through Point Marion to West Virginia a reality. A survey and some deed work still remains to be done, but we are finally moving forward. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

37th Earth Day.. "inconvenient truth"
by Duane330＠aol.com 22 Apr '07

22 Apr '07

How eager are we to fight global warming? Statewide poll finds most Pennsylvanians see individual efforts as too inconvenient Sunday, April 22, 2007By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette On this 37th Earth Day, most Pennsylvanians think global warming is an inconvenient truth, but not many are willing to be inconvenienced enough to do anything about it. Seven out of 10 Pennsylvanians agree that global warming exists and is a concern, according to a survey by two Mansfield University researchers released last week, but significantly fewer are willing to do so much as change a light bulb to help address the problem. Instead, they are looking to government or science for solutions, said Tim Madigan, associate professor of sociology at Mansfield University. "Our results suggest that a majority of people in the state are not very committed to taking broad action against global warming," said Mr. Madigan, who along with co-researcher Dr. Janice Purk surveyed 920 Pennsylvanians over the age of 18 about their willingness to take 10 specific steps to reduce global climate change. The survey results do show that the number of people who agree that global warming is occurring is up from 5-in-10 in 1999, to 7-in-10, a significant increase, but the impact on behavioral change has not been as great. The 10 personal actions that people were asked if they do, or would do, were: use compact fluorescent light bulbs, compost kitchen scraps, take reusable bags to the grocery store, buy from environmentally friendly companies, wash dishes by hand, own a hybrid car, purchase a solar power system for their home, allow clothes to air dry, buy a windmill and stop eating meat. If those surveyed were already taking the step, they received a score of two for that item. If they said they would take the step, they received a score of one. Those unwilling to change got a zero for that item. Out of 20 possible points, half of those surveyed scored a six or lower on the "action index," which the researchers created to measure the feasibility of a social solution to global warming. If few people are willing to change their behavior, a social solution is impossible and government action or scientific innovation, or both, will be required. "Since the majority of people are not very willing to change many of their behaviors, and belief in global warming is not strongly related to taking action, the social solution to the problem of global warming does not look very promising," Mr. Madigan said. Slightly more than half of those surveyed said they would use fluorescent light bulbs, take reusable bags to the grocery and buy from environmentally friendly companies. Slightly less than half said they'd feed the composter. Only 41 percent said they'd be willing to drive a hybrid car or install solar panels; 38 percent were willing to wash dishes by hand; 30 percent were willing to stop eating meat. Just 26 percent would let their clothes air dry and 25 percent said they would buy a windmill. Only 13 percent of those surveyed had seen former Vice President Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth," and those who had seen it scored less than a point higher than those who had not. "Assuming that Gore's movie had a casual impact," Mr. Madigan said, "it would take many more such movies to change attitudes and behaviors enough to reverse the trends as he calls for in his book and movie." The random telephone survey was done at the end of February and the beginning of March of residents throughout the state and has a 3.2 percent margin of error. ____________________________________ ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

The Supreme Greenhouse
by Duane330＠aol.com 03 Apr '07

03 Apr '07

The Court Rules on Warming April 3, 2007, Editorial, New York Times. It would be hard to overstate the importance of yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court that the federal government has the authority to regulate the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by motor vehicles. It is a victory for a world whose environment seems increasingly threatened by climate change. It is a vindication for states like California that chose not to wait for the federal government and acted to limit emissions that contribute to global warming. And it should feed the growing momentum on Capitol Hill for mandatory limits on carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas. The 5-to-4 ruling was a rebuke to the Bush administration and its passive approach to the warming threat. The ruling does not require the government to regulate greenhouse gases. But it instructs the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its refusal to regulate emissions, urges it to pay attention to the scientific evidence and says that if it takes the same stance, it has to come up with better reasons than its current “laundry list” of excuses. The ruling also demolishes President Bush’s main justification for not acting — his argument that because the Clean Air Act does not specifically mention greenhouse gases, the executive branch has no authority to regulate them. The president has cited other reasons for not acting, including costs. But his narrow reading of the Clean Air Act has always been his ace in the hole. The court offered a much more “capacious” reading of the act, as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The plaintiffs — 12 states and 13 environmental groups — had argued, and the court agreed, that while the act does not specifically mention greenhouse gases, it gives the federal government clear jurisdiction over “any air pollutant” that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger “public health or welfare.” This interpretation was first set forth by Carol Browner, administrator of the E.P.A. under President Clinton, and remained agency policy until Mr. Bush reversed it in 2001. The administration had also argued that the states did not have standing to sue on this issue because they could not show that they would be harmed by the government’s failure to regulate greenhouse gases. The court ruled that the states have a strong and legitimate interest in protecting their land and their citizens against the dangers of climate change and thus have standing to sue. The ruling reinforces state efforts in other ways. California and nearly a dozen other states have adopted their own regulations requiring lower greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. These rules, however, require federal approval, which seemed unlikely as long as the agency could claim that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant — a claim it can no longer make. The E.P.A. had also argued that reducing emissions would require it to tighten fuel efficiency standards, a job assigned by law to the Department of Transportation. The automakers have made much the same argument against California ’s emissions rules. But the court said that the E.P.A. could not shirk its responsibilities just because another department sets mileage standards. The agency is clearly in for some serious soul-searching. The decision was unnervingly close, and some of the arguments in the dissent, written by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., were cause for concern — especially his comments about the “complexities” of the science of climate change, which is too close for comfort to the administration’s party line. Still, the Supreme Court, for the first time, has said that global warming is a real and present danger. This can only encourage those on Capitol Hill and in the states who are growing increasingly impatient for aggressive action. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

CLEAR April 2007