June 2010 - EC - lists.bikelover.org

Fwd: State and Local Victories - Late June edition
by Paul Wilson 30 Jun '10

30 Jun '10

these are in the Clubhouse website, so you will need the password. Good opportunity to learn about the Clubhouse website, if you don't know how to use it. paul w. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Scott Elkins <scott.elkins(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:04 PM Subject: State and Local Victories - Late June edition To: CONS-CRP-MEMBERS(a)lists.sierraclub.org *State and Local Victory Tracker: http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/chapters/tracker/* We now have victories posted on the Tracker from 38 states plus the District of Columbia; but we need to hear from the rest of you, and we need more local victories from our California chapters! Highlights this time include important clean energy victories from Texas, Oklahoma and Maryland: * The Lone Star (Texas) Chapter capped a year-long effort by convincing their state energy office to strengthen residential building codes to require greater energy efficiency<http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/chapters/tracker/2010/6-10-TX-building-code…> . * In Oklahoma, our chapter led the advocacy effort that saw passage of legislation to establish an important renewable energy goal<http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/chapters/tracker/2010/05-10-OK-renewable-go…>and a path for no new coal-powered power plants in the state. * Our Maryland Chapter pushed the bar up a notch on their existing Renewable Electricity Standard, by strengthening the mandate for solar powered electricity<http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/chapters/tracker/2010/05-10-MD-solar-energy…> . Share your recent and historic victories on the Tracker by filling out this form: http://tinyurl.com/y8fn9an. It takes just five minutes or so, and helps to both spread the word about your success and demonstrate the power of the Sierra Club to improve our world. Scott Elkins, Director for Chapter Coordination Sierra Club 612-659-9124 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-CRP-MEMBERS list, send any message to: CONS-CRP-MEMBERS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Financial Times: Pollution Laws to Cause NG to Replace Coal
by James Kotcon 29 Jun '10

29 Jun '10

2 1

Re: [EC] FW: BBC Story Airing Tonight!
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 28 Jun '10

28 Jun '10

Saw it! The BBC did a good job covering this story. -Jonathan John Christensen wrote: > /Fingers crossed but link to story is included./ > > John Christensen > Mountain View Solar and Wind > Consultation, Sales, and Installation > 410-499-4873 cell > 304-754-8505 > john(a)mtvsolar.com <mailto:john@mtvsolar.com> > www.mtvsolar.com <http://www.mtvsolar.com> > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Mountain View Builders <mailto:mtviewbuilders@verizon.net> > *To: *Mike McKechnie <mailto:mike@mtvsolar.com> > *Sent:* 6/28/2010 12:08:06 PM > *Subject:* BBC Story Airing Tonight! > > The BBC piece is airing tonight at 7PM -- we are having a viewing > party beginning at 6:30 PM at the Mountainside Restaurant in > Berkeley Springs, WV! Hope to see you there! > > ** Mike McKechnie on his company's approach ** > Mike McKechnie explains how his company, Mountain View Solar and > Wind, approaches doubtful local consumers who have been married to > coal energy for generations. > < > _http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8763236.stm_ > > > > Thanks, > Kelly > __________________________ > Kelly J. Waugh > *Mountain View Builders, LLC > **Mountain View Solar & Wind, LLC > > *T: 304.258.4320 > F: 304.258.4250 > > Kelly(a)MTVSolar.com > mtviewbuilders(a)verizon.net > > www.mountainviewbuilders.com > www.MTVSolar.com > > Main Office: > 15 Greenway Drive > Berkeley Springs, WV 25411 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > EC mailing list > EC(a)osenergy.org > http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

1 0

Shale Gas > Not Under My Back Yard
by Duane330＠aol.com 26 Jun '10

26 Jun '10

Energy: Science Magazine: June 25, 2010 Natural Gas From Shale Bursts Onto the Scene <NOBR>Richard A Engineering ingenuity is unlocking a vast storehouse of natural gas buried beneath American soil from Texas to New England. The sudden great promise of clean, homegrown shale gas has all kinds of people excited. National-security types see it as a replacement for foreign oil and gas, environmentalists as a replacement for dirty coal and even oil. And because it yields only 45% of the carbon dioxide emissions of coal, advocates of taming global warming see it as a temporary crutch while carbon-free energy sources are developed and deployed. Everyone seems to agree with a March study by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates that concluded that shale gas "provides the potential to transform North America's energy landscape." The problem is that word "potential." Every link in the chain between the newly abundant domestic energy source and its transformative impact is still shrouded in uncertainty. And a rising tide of NUMBY—not under my backyard—that's greeting shale gas in the Northeast could hobble the revolution (_see sidebar_ (http://www.info-aaas.org/l.jsp?d=5148.573988.654.0r2V29Nui) ). Full story at _http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5986/1624?sa_campaign=Email… (http://www.info-aaas.org/l.jsp?d=5148.573987.654.0r2V29Nui) ____________________________________ Energy: Not Under My Backyard, Thank You <NOBR>Richard A. Now that drillers have figured out how to extract gas trapped in shale rock (_see main text_ (http://www.info-aaas.org/l.jsp?d=5148.573986.654.0r2V29Nui) ), a new and perhaps more hazardous style of drilling is coming to parts of the country unfamiliar with the ways of the oil and gas industry. To those outside the industry, the scariest part of the new drilling might be the way drillers unleash the gas. They drill straight down, turn the drill to go horizontally, and then pump in chemically treated water to pressurize a horizontal section of the well until surrounding rock fractures and begins to give up its gas. Many local residents and environmentalists have worried that this "fracing" (pronounced and sometimes written "fracking") might propagate fractures upward into overlying aquifers so that escaping gas, chemicals, and brine will contaminate groundwater. Full story at _http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5986/1625?sa_campaign=Email… (http://www.info-aaas.org/l.jsp?d=5148.573985.654.0r2V29Nui) ____________________________________

1 0

Fwd: PATH EIS scoping meetings
by James Kotcon 25 Jun '10

25 Jun '10

Note that the fedeal agencies do NOT propose to assess the impacts of the entire route, they propose to only evaluate the segments crossing federal lands. They claim it is the responsibility of the North American Electric Reliablity Council and the WV PSC to protect the environment in those other sections. We will ant a good turnout at these to demand that the entire project be considered, as demand side management aternatives would be faster, safer, cleaner and cheaper. JBK

3 2

Fwd: Grassroots Briefing and strategy call EPA's proposed coal ash rule: June 29, 3pm ET
by James Kotcon 23 Jun '10

23 Jun '10

Anyone want to join in the National briefing and strategy call next Tuesday? I will be out of town that day, is there someone who can participate? Bill Price and I have outlined a fairly aggressive campaign in WV (the National Coal Campaign is pulling out all the stops on this) and he will be circulating an outline of upcoming actions, etc. The goal at this point will be for the Chapter Energy Committee (us) to prepare our comments to EPA, and request a public hearing before July 21. National will send a series of Convio alerts beginning within a week, and Bill suggested that the Chapter save our alert for announcing a public hearing, probably sometime shortly after July 21, as that message will be much more targeted and local to West Virginia. We are also planning a rally/protest (possibly at the Governor's office) to coincide with July interim meetings, July 19-21. And there will be phone-banking, editorial board meetings, and possibly formal testimony. But staying current on the National strategy would be helpful, so I hope someone can join the call-in next Tuesday. Jim Kotcon >>> Sam Flenner <samf.environmentalintegrity(a)gmail.com> 6/22/2010 7:44 PM >>> Please excuse cross postings. Hello All, This is the National Grassroots Organization conference call that we promised months ago before the rule was delayed. Please do not confuse it with other strategy calls scheduled for later this week. And please join us. Sam ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lyndsay Moseley <Lyndsay.Moseley(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:41 PM Subject: Grassroots Briefing and strategy call EPA's proposed coal ash rule: June 29, 3pm ET To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)lists.sierraclub.org Friends and Colleagues: You are invited by Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, NRDC, SELC, Physicians for Social Responsibility and many others to join a national grassroots community briefing and strategy session on the EPA?s recently proposed coal ash rule, next Tuesday June 29th at 3pm ET. If you can participate, please RSVP by June 25th, with "Grassroots coal ash call" in the subject line to: energy.intern(a)sierraclub.org. NOTE: The call-in information will be sent separately to all who RSVP by June 25th. What: Briefing and strategy call on EPA coal ash rule When: June 29, 2010 at 3pm ET RSVP: If you can attend, please RSVP by June 25th, with "Grassroots coal ash call" in the subject line to: energy.intern(a)sierraclub.org. NOTE: The call-in information will be sent separately to all who RSVP by June 25th. Coal ash is the second-largest industrial waste stream in America, second only to mining waste. Coal ash contains arsenic, selenium, lead, boron and mercury. These substances leach out of coal ash at disposal sites around the country ? and sometimes burst out of a ruptured dam, as they did in December 2008 in Kingston, Tennessee, flooding a river valley, destroying three homes, and covering 300 acres with thick, toxic sludge. The terrible disaster in Tennessee has helped create an historic opportunity to win significant long-term protections for communities from the dangers of toxic coal ash, but we need your help to get the job done. EPA published their proposed rule in the Federal Register on Monday June 21, triggering a 90-day public comment period. Please join this call for a briefing and strategy session as we seek to demonstrate strong public support for the EPA subtitle C option. (For a quick briefing/overview of the rule as proposed, see the attached summary document). Many of you are already actively participating in our coalition efforts. For those who might be newer to coal ash issue, please join us to learn more and get connected to others at the national level. Ways you can engage: 1. Participate in the strategy session on June 29th, 3pm ET. Please RSVP to: energy.intern(a)sierraclub.org (NOTE: call-in information will be sent separately to all who RSVP by June 25). 2. Join the coal ash listerv, if you haven't already (instructions included in attached document). 3. Participate in massive grassroots response to demonstrate support by mobilizing your networks to generate public comment and turnout at EPA hearings; organizing letters of support for strong EPA, and pushing back against industry influence in Congress and mobilize Champs to support strong EPA rule. These are things we will be brainstorming together on the conference call. 4. Invite other potential allies to join the coalition! We hope you?ll join us. Resources attached: Summary of EPA's rule Coal ash - myths vs. fact Summary of EPA's proposed rule Environmental community letter to Administrator Jackson Environmental community letter to President Obama (signed by 240 organizations) Coal ash listserv (sign-up directions attached) Lyndsay Moseley Washington Representative Sierra Club 408 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 tel: 202-548-4581 fax: 202-547-6009 Samuel E. Flenner III Outreach Associate Environmental Integrity Project samf.environmentalintegrity(a)gmail.com 317.352.2339 c-317.850.0436 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

3 2

Rolling Stones article on fly ash.....
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 23 Jun '10

23 Jun '10

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64853

1 0

Save the Mountain: Stop Pine Creek MTR Mine
by Jim Sconyers 22 Jun '10

22 Jun '10

Please send your message about this MTR permit and share widely. Tell the EPA to reject Pine Creek MTR mine permit Dear Sandra, On April 1, Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, announced strong new guidelines on mountaintop removal (MTR) mining permits. The first test of these tough guidelines for new permits is here. Coal-Mac, Inc. has applied for a new mountaintop removal mine permit for Pine Creek, West Virginia. Join us in telling the EPA that they must protect America's mountains and reject the Pine Creek mine permit. Pine Creek mine would contaminate 2.75 miles of streams, streams that already have dangerous levels of pollution from surface mining, which has made it nearly impossible for aquatic life to survive. Pine Creek mine is also expected to produce 14.3 million tons of coal, which would emit over 40 million tons of carbon dioxide greenhouse gases, further spurring climate change. We need your help to stop the further degradation of the Appalachian Mountains, the contamination of streams and drinking water and the exacerbation of the climate crisis. Please encourage the EPA to keep its word. Tell the EPA to uphold the Clean Water Act and protect Americans' health by rejecting the Pine Creek mine permit. Thank you for taking action to protect the mountains, streams and communities of Appalachia! For the mountains, Amanda Starbuck Global Finance Campaign Rainforest Action Network 221 Pine Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 USA Phone: (415) 398-4404 Fax: (415) 398-2732

1 0

WVDEP concludes investigation on Buckeye Creek
by Duane330＠aol.com 18 Jun '10

18 Jun '10

============================================================ Friday, June 18, 2010 @ 4:40 PM ============================================================ The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Oil and Gas released its final report on an incident that took place in Doddridge County last summer. In the report, the agency concludes that the petroleum- based material in the stream was most likely associated with Tapo Energy’s drilling activity, but there is insufficient credible evidence to conclude that the discharge was anything other than accidental. As a result of the investigation, Tapo Energy was issued a notice of violation for discharging pollutants into the waters of the state and was assessed a penalty of $10,000. In Aug. 2009, the DEP was notified of an orange substance on the surface of Buckeye Creek near West Union. The Office of Oil and Gas inspectors spent many hours monitoring the cleanup of the material and investigating the incident. The report, which can be found on the agency’s website at http://www.dep.wv.gov/oil-and-gas/Pages/default.aspx, provides chronological detail of the agency’s actions in the investigation, as well as its findings. In addition to the report, all available public information related to the investigation can be found on the Office of Oil and Gas’ site under the heading Buckeye Creek Discharge Investigation.

1 0

"Gasland" movie critical of drilling
by Duane330＠aol.com 18 Jun '10

18 Jun '10

_‘Gasland’ movie critical of drilling_ (http://www.timesleader.com/news/_lsquo_Gasland_rsquo__movie_critical_of_dri…) An organization funded by the natural gas industry disputes the HBO film’s conclusions. By _Steve Mocarsky_ (http://www.timesleader.com/reporter/Steve_Mocarsky.html) _smocarsky(a)timesleader.com_ (mailto:smocarsky@timesleader.com) Staff Writer, The Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader, June 18, 2010 After Josh Fox was offered nearly $100,000 to lease his 20 acres in Wayne County to a gas company, he heard two different accounts – one, a story of easy money, the other a tale of horror. The 37-year-old independent filmmaker set out to find the truth about natural gas drilling, and his conclusions can be seen in his documentary film “ Gasland,” to air on HBO at 9 p.m. on Monday. And while representatives of the gas industry call the film a piece of propaganda filled with exaggerations and inaccuracies, Fox stands by his work and says it’s the industry’s response that is propaganda. In a phone interview Thursday afternoon, as he was getting ready for a special screening of the documentary at the HBO Theater in New York City that night, Fox said a land man with a gas company told him in 2008 that the company probably wouldn’t even drill on the land. But he heard from others that environmentally, gas drilling was “very polluting.” “There was such a disparity between what was being said and what was being offered, I needed to see with my own eyes,” Fox said. So, Fox set out for the village of Dimock in Susquehanna County to talk with folks whose well water was polluted by natural gas migration from leaking gas wells. “It was completely a disaster area. There were Halliburton trucks swarming everywhere. Water was bubbling and fizzing; some you could light on fire. There was a feeling of regret and betrayal in the air,” Fox said. Residents were unaware of the contamination until Norma Fiorentino’s water well exploded on Jan. 1, 2009, Fox said. The state Department of Environmental Protection fined the drilling company and ordered the wells capped. Fox visited 23 other states where natural gas drilling was taking place. He interviewed people whose health and quality of life were negatively impacted; scientists, one of whom warns of the dangers of drinking water infused with chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (commonly called fracking), which releases the gas from the underground shale formations; and government officials on both sides of the issue. One of the officials Fox interviewed was DEP Secretary John Hanger, who minimized the negative effects of fracking but refused to drink a glass of water from an affected well, according to a synopsis of the film on the HBO website. On the same day as a special screening of the film in Montrose earlier this month, Energy in Depth – a gas-industry-funded organization, released an alert on its website entitled “Debunking Gasland,” pulling out numerous quotes from the movie and disputing them. Energy In Depth claimed that Fox was “misstating the law” when he said that a 2005 energy bill exempted the oil and gas industry from the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund law and other regulations. The industry is regulated under every single one of those laws, said Energy In Depth spokesman Chris Tucker. The organization states that Fox was “flat-out making stuff up” when he said the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah gas fields of Wyoming are directly in the path of a 1,000-year-old migration corridor of pronghorn antelope, mule deer and sage grouse, each species of which is endangered. Energy in Depth countered that three species of the pronghorn are endangered and none are found near the Pinedale Anticline, citing the Great Plains Nature Center; that only mule deer from New Mexico, noting that mule deer are so plentiful in Wyoming, there is a mule deer hunting season; and citing a U.S. Fish and Wildlife report stating that the sage grouse is not on the endangered list and there are “robust populations” of the bird in Wyoming. Fox also blamed an algae bloom that killed fish and other aquatic life in Dunkard Creek in Washington County on natural gas development, Tucker said. But DEP reports show the bloom was caused by coal mine drainage. The organization also cites a reference in the documentary to Colorado resident Lisa Bracken, who reported to environmental regulators occurrences of natural gas in the West Divide Creek, which she believed was related to natural gas drilling. “Fox blames methane occurrence in West Divide Creek, Colo., on natural gas development,” the release states. Energy In Depth published links to reports on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission website that showed the methane was naturally occurring. Tucker said those reports were available long before “Gasland” was released. Theo Stein, communications director for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, said a commission investigation revealed that the methane Bracken reported bubbling in her beaver ponds near the creek was naturally occurring swamp gas from rotting vegetation. Stein confirmed, however, that about a quarter-mile upstream, some methane gas was still present from a gas migration into the creek from a leak in a well drilled in 2004 by EnCana Oil & Gas, the company that will begin drilling in Luzerne County next month. EnCana received the largest fine in Colorado’s history for allowing that leak to occur. Tucker, who is a native of Kingston Township and has been closely following the development of the Marcellus Shale in Northeastern Pennsylvania, said the press release was addressing only Bracken’s claims in the documentary. He was unfamiliar with the incident involving EnCana and said the issue alert was not meant to be misleading.

1 0

Fwd: Re: [WVaPATH] PATH EIS scoping process begins TODAY
by James Kotcon 17 Jun '10

17 Jun '10

I can only second what Bill and Cindy write below. Let's start turning out some comments. I will prepare a more detailed response for the Chapter, but dozens or hundreds of letters will be needed, so please put this on your "to do" list. JBK >>> Bill Howley <billhowley(a)hughes.net> 6/17/2010 10:56 AM >>> Well, you all have seen Cindy's email about the EIS process. This is big and requires us to move quickly. As far as I can see, they haven't posted any meeting schedules anywhere. These scoping meetings will determine what gets studies and how it gets studied. Of all the public meetings to be held in the EIS, THESE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT. We need to get lots of people to the meetings to push the following ideas: The EIS needs to cover the entire PATH project, not just where the line crosses federal lands. This is actually required by federal law, although bureaucrats try to minimize their workload by just focusing on federal lands. The power companies will be looking to limit the EIS as much as possible. The EIS needs to have an indepth evaluation of the need for PATH. The NPS/USFS have said that the "no build" option is a part of the EIS process. The consulting firm they have hired, CH2M Hill, will not want to recommend "no build" because they also work for power companies and don't want to get a bad reputation among future clients. We are the only ones who can advocate fully for the "no build" option in the EIS process. We need to list the broad range of environmental impacts of PATH -- habitat fragmentation, forest destruction, invasive species, fragmentation of forest floor ecosystems, etc. (be sure to mention greenhouse gases) We need to get ourselves organized quickly, with lots of people, because these meetings will be happening within a month and will likely require some travel, because there will only be three of them. If you want questions answered directly, call the NPS planning coordinator for the PATH EIS, Morgan Elmer at -- Morgan McCosh Elmer, Project Manager NPS Denver Service Center – Planning 12795 W Alameda Pkwy PO Box 25287 Denver CO 80225 (303) 969-2317 cell 303-648-1046 fax: 303-969-2920 Morgan_Elmer(a)nps.gov On 6/17/2010 7:45 AM, clrank(a)hughes.net wrote: ATTENTION ALL: ~~~ Scoping process begins today (June 17, 2010)..... public meetings to be held as well.... Dates and Meeting Notices: The public scoping period will commence on the date this notice is published in the Federal Register and last for at least 30 days or until 15 days after the last public scoping meeting. The National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service will hold public meetings near the parks and forest to provide the public an opportunity to review the proposal and project information, and provide comments. All public meetings will be announced through local media, mailings, and the NPS planning Web site at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/ appa/, at least 15 days prior to each meeting. The meetings will be concluded at least 15 days prior to the close of comment. ContentsFederal Register Vol. 75, No. 116 Thursday, June 17, 2010 Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Potomac–Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) Project; Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia , 34477–34479 [2010–14581][TEXT] [PDF] ~~~~~ [Federal Register: June 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 116)] [Notices] [Page 34477-34479] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17jn10-95] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE U.S. Forest Service Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) Environmental Impact Statement, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, and Monongahela National Forest, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior and U.S. Forest Service, Agriculture. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for construction and right-of-way permits requested from Harpers Ferry National Historical Park (NHP), Appalachian National Scenic Trail (NST), Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, and Monongahela National Forest, in connection with the proposed Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service (NPS), lead agency, along with cooperating agencies, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and conducting public scoping meetings for construction and right-of-way permits requested from the agencies by PATH Allegheny Transmission Company, LLC; PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corporation; Potomac Edison Company; and PATH West Virginia Transmission Company, LLC, collectively referred to herein as Applicants. The Applicants are seeking permits for proposed construction of a new 765kV electric transmission line that would cross federal lands within Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia. In May 2009, the Applicants submitted [[Page 34478]] right-of-way applications (Form 299) for those portions of the PATH project proposed to traverse Harpers Ferry NHP, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal NHP, Appalachian NST, Potomac Heritage NST, all managed by the National Park Service; and Monongahela National Forest managed by the U.S. Forest Service. These applications also serve as the application for Special Use Permits for construction of the proposed project. The Applicants' proposed project would modify and expand existing rights-of-way across Harpers Ferry NHP and Appalachian NST. In particular, the Applicants propose modification and expansion of existing right-of-way agreements held by Potomac Edison Company over Harpers Ferry NHP and Appalachian NST to allow for placement of the 138 kV Millville-Doubs transmission line as an underbuild on the PATH transmission structures; and also the grant of a new 200-feet-wide right-of-way for the PATH transmission line. While the PATH Project would require a 200-feet right-of-way, it would only require an expansion of the existing right-of-way corridor across Harpers Ferry NHP and Appalachian NST by approximately 105 feet. The Applicants seek a new right-of-way authorization across Chesapeake and Ohio Canal NHP and Potomac Heritage NST. The requested right-of-way would be approximately 200 feet wide, with a distance over the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal NHP and Potomac Heritage NST properties of approximately 400 feet. The proposed crossing route will be adjacent to (on the north side) existing transmission rights-of-way for the 138 kV Millville-Doubs transmission facility operated by Potomac Edison Company and the 500 kV Mt. Storm-Doubs transmission facility operated by Dominion Virginia Power. The Applicants' proposed crossing of the Monongahela National Forest would require USFS authorization for a new 200-feet-wide right-of-way. The Applicants' stated purpose for the PATH project is to strengthen the electrical transmission grid for reliability purposes at the direction of PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), the regional transmission organization. PJM oversees the overall movement of wholesale electricity throughout a region comprising all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia. PJM has a duty to maintain reliability of the transmission grid according to standards set by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. PJM's Regional Transmission Expansion Plan has identified numerous projected reliability criteria violations that the proposed PATH project is designed to alleviate and has directed construction of a line of sufficient capacity to address these violations by connecting the existing Amos Substation in Putnam County, West Virginia, with two existing 500 kV transmission lines that are in close proximity to each other at a point approximately three miles southeast of New Market, Maryland. The federal action under consideration in this EIS is the Applicants' proposal that the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service grant the requested permits. The agencies' purpose in taking action is to respond to the application for permits in consideration of the needs expressed therein and the public interest, and in light of the missions, purposes and resource management of the affected NPS and USFS units, as expressed in statutes, regulations, and policies. Federal action is needed because the Applicants have submitted the required applications to the National Park Service in accordance with 36 CFR part 14 and applicable NPS management policies and to the U.S. Forest Service in accordance with 36 CFR part 251.54 and Special Uses Handbook (FSH 2709.11). The National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service therefore have a responsibility to consider whether, and with what conditions, if any, to issue the requested permits. The National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service will analyze no- action and proposed action alternatives and possibly other alternatives or mitigation strategies that respond to the purpose, need, and objectives of this proposal. The goal of the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service is to identify issues and concerns with the proposed action, additional alternatives, and alternative mitigation strategies through the public scoping process. This notice initiates the public participation and scoping process for the EIS. The public is invited to comment on the purpose, need and objectives for federal action, the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action to be analyzed in the EIS, the appropriate scope of analysis, or any issues associated with the proposal. More information about the purpose of and need for federal action, and issues identified to date is available from the NPS planning Web site at http:// parkplanning.nps.gov/appa/. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewers concerns and comments. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to participate in subsequent administrative appeal or judicial review. Dates and Meeting Notices: The public scoping period will commence on the date this notice is published in the Federal Register and last for at least 30 days or until 15 days after the last public scoping meeting. The National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service will hold public meetings near the parks and forest to provide the public an opportunity to review the proposal and project information, and provide comments. All public meetings will be announced through local media, mailings, and the NPS planning Web site at , at least 15 days prior to each meeting. The meetings will be concluded at least 15 days prior to the close of comment. ADDRESSES: Comments on issues, potential impacts, or suggestions for additional alternatives can be submitted using any one of the following methods. You may submit comments through the NPS planning Web site at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/appa/, which is the preferred method. You may mail your comments to the National Park Service, Attention: PATH EIS Planning Team, Denver Service Center--Planning, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225. Comments may also be submitted at any of the three public meetings to be announced. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Morgan Elmer, Project Manager, Denver Service Center--Planning, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, Co 80225, telephone 303-969-2317. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety. The National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service will not consider anonymous comments. All others will be included in the administrative record [[Page 34479]] upon which the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service will ultimately reach a decision. Margaret O'Dell, Regional Director, National Capital Region, National Park Service. Pam Underhill, Superintendent, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, National Park Service. Jason Reed, District Ranger, Monongahela National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. [FR Doc. 2010-14581 Filed 6-16-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-70-P http://parkplanning.nps.gov/ appa/ __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic Recent Activity: Visit Your Group MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. Get real-time World Cup coverage on the Yahoo! Toolbar. Download now to win a signed team jersey! Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

Good news! Re: Valley Fills & NWP21
by Frank Young 17 Jun '10

17 Jun '10

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced today it has suspended the use of Nationwide Permit 21 (NWP 21) in the Appalachian region of six states. NWP 21 is used to authorize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States for surface coal mining activities. The suspension is effective immediately and applies to the Appalachian region of Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. ------------ Forwarded message ------------ Whoo-hoo!!!!!!!!! I guess everything everyone went through that night was worth it!!! http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/06/17/corps-suspends-streamlined… ~~~~~ ------------ Forwarded message ------------ From: Bill Price <bill.price(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Jun 17, 2010 Subject: [fom] Good news on NWP21 To: 'FOM' <fom(a)lists.riseup.net>, 'The Alliance for Appalachia' <the-alliance-for-appalachia(a)googlegroups.com> NWP 21 is suspended in Appalachian Region. See attachment. Bill Price, Sierra Club EJ Program 922 Quarrier Street, Suite 304 Charleston, WV 25311 Cell 304-389-8822 Fax 304-342-3182 __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Working since 1967 for the conservation and wise management of West Virginia's natural resources MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

Obama's speech tonight
by Jim Sconyers 15 Jun '10

15 Jun '10

Subject: Obama's big speech tonight Hi, Tonight, President Obama will address the nation about the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico and call for clean energy legislation to end America's addiction to oil. But the energy bills currently in the Senate have already been packed with more offshore drilling and taxpayer handouts to Big Oil. I signed a petition urging President Obama to use tonight's speech to demand a bill free of new offshore drilling or tax breaks for Big Oil. Can you join me at the link below? http://pol.moveon.org/obamaoilspeech/?r_by=21126-9116415-a9Chsjx&rc=paste Thanks! PS - We need clean renewable energy NOW, not more handouts for dirty dangerous deadly destructive coal, oil, and nuclear. Tell the President to have some spine and principle and lead us into the clean energy future now! Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Twilight of the coal era?
by Frank Young 14 Jun '10

14 Jun '10

" The electricity market is in the doldrums, but the market for new generating stations that use natural gas is going strong, industry experts say. Why? Because gas is beginning to replace coal, according to Randy H. Zwirn, president of the Siemens Power Generation Group. " ----------------------------------------- NC power plants quitting coal for gas http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/twilight-of-the-coal-era/?hp __._,_.___

1 0

The Nation on Marcellus
by Jim Sconyers 14 Jun '10

14 Jun '10

Marcellus is a major article in the June 21 The Nation. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fw: National Law Review Coal Ash Analysis
by Jim Sconyers 13 Jun '10

13 Jun '10

Note that this aticle like a lot of commentary considers "beneficial" use in road building, construction, etc. but does not even mention dumping millions of tons at mine sites. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Sam Flenner <samf.environmentalintegrity(a)GMAIL.COM> To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Sun, June 13, 2010 2:34:06 PM Subject: National Law Review Coal Ash Analysis NATIONAL LAW REVIEW Coal Ash Regulations: EPA Speaks--Sort of... Article By: J. David Brittingham Thomas P. Doyle Dinsmore & Shohl LLP posted on: Saturday, June 5, 2010 On Tuesday May 4, 2010, EPA started the process of federal regulation over the disposal and storage of coal combustion residuals, commonly referred to as coal ash. Coal ash has been largely exempt from federal regulation, leaving oversight to individual states. The December 2008 breach of a coal ash storage facility and the subsequent massive spill in Kingston, Tennessee brought coal ash storage and disposal national attention. On one side, many people and environmental groups are calling for action from the federal government. Conversely, many people are worried about additional oversight and duplicative regulatory controls in an area where state law exists. Many of the arguments against federal regulation concern the continued ability to recycle coal ash waste. Coal ash is used in concrete, cement, roadways, and other materials. Both sides of the debate argue in the context of the possible re-classification of coal ash as a hazardous waste. Solid Waste is federally regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act1 (RCRA), which gives EPA the authority to control all aspects of hazardous waste. Subtitle C governs the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Subtitle D sets forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. Subtitle D leaves the majority of regulation to each individual state. Coal ash has been exempt from federal regulation since the inception of the "Bevill Exclusion." In October 1980, RCRA was amended by adding section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii), to exclude "solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals" from regulation as hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA. This exclusion held pending completion of a study and a Report to Congress, required by section 8002 (f) and (p), and pending a determination by the EPA Administrator either to promulgate regulations under Subtitle C or to declare such regulations unwarranted. In 1993 and 2000, EPA published regulatory determinations stating that coal ash waste does not warrant regulation under Subtitle C and should remain excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. However, in 2000, EPA determined that national non-hazardous waste regulations under RCRA Subtitle D were needed for coal combustion wastes disposed in surface impoundments and landfills and used as fill in surface or underground mines (minefill). EPA further determined that beneficial uses of these wastes, other than for minefilling, pose no significant risk and no additional national regulations are needed. Since 2000, EPA has continued to conduct research and receive comments in regards to proper regulation of coal ash disposal and use. After Kingston, EPA promised to release a proposal for regulation by the beginning of 2010. On May 4, 2010, EPA finally broke its silence. However, instead of releasing a final proposal, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson requested feedback. Two options were broadly laid out and EPA is seeking public opinion and guidance on each. EPA will hold hearings and seek public comment for 90 days, but there is no time table for a final decision. Both proposals released by EPA would still regulate coal ash waste under RCRA. Under the first proposal, EPA would reverse its August 1993 and May 2000 Bevill Regulatory Determinations regarding coal ash waste and list these residuals as special wastes subject to regulation under subtitle C of RCRA, when they are destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments. An EPA e-mail sent after Jackson's comments said the agency was creating a "special waste" classification within the hazardous waste regulations, "to help remove the stigma that some believe attaches when a waste is called hazardous." Under the second proposal, EPA would leave the Bevill determination in place and regulate disposal of such materials under subtitle D of RCRA by issuing national minimum criteria. The Subtitle C option creates federal oversight; the Subtitle D option leaves enforcement to the states and citizen lawsuits. Under both alternatives EPA is proposing to establish dam safety requirements to address the structural integrity of surface impoundments to prevent catastrophic releases. Regulation under Subtitle C would normally classify a substance or material as hazardous and would lead to stricter rules and federal enforcement. Many people were concerned that if coal ash waste was re-classified as hazardous and regulated under Subtitle C, any beneficial use of coal ash would be severely hindered. EPA appears to be looking for a way around this main concern. Under the proposal that regulates coal ash waste under Subtitle C, coal ash would be classified as a "special waste" and could still be used in "beneficial" ways. Since the Kingston spill, one side has been advocating for a hazardous classification and regulation under Subtitle C, while the other side argued to leave the non-hazardous classification in place, continue to utilize and explore beneficial uses, and let states regulate to their specific needs. After EPA's May 4, 2010 announcement, the debate remains largely the same. The only thing EPA has clarified is that no matter the action taken, coal ash will continue to be recycled and apparently will not be classified as hazardous. EPA explained in its own summary of the proposed rules that regulation under Subtitle C would reverse the 1993 and 2000 classification exemptions, but would not change the 2000 Regulatory Determination for beneficially used coal ash waste. However, EPA is clarifying this determination and seeking comment on potential refinements for certain beneficial uses. Both approaches focus on the storage facilities and only apply to the disposal of coal ash from electric generating units. EPA will require composite liners and groundwater monitoring at new dry ash landfills, while existing surface impoundments will have to be retrofitted with liners. Under the Subtitle C option, wet ash storage facilities would specifically be phased out and EPA thinks the new safety requirements under Subtitle D would also lead to the phase out of wet ash containers.2 EPA specifically mentioned Kingston, Tennessee and how the new regulations are being put in place to avoid accidents like the spill in December 2008. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson commented that she hopes the proposals will begin a national dialogue about coal ash regulation and disposal. It appears EPA wants safety without hindering beneficial use or too much regulation. Either way, both sides of the debate still have questions and time to advocate their position. More information about the EPA's proposed regulation can be found here. Click here for the EPA's unofficial pre-publication copy of the proposed rule for public reference. This document has not been published in the Federal Register and is not an official version of the final rule. The official rule will be available here as soon as it is published by the Federal Register Office. Click here to view a chart comparing the key differences between the EPA's Subtitle C and Subtitle D options. ________________________________ (1) 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. (1976). (2) While Subtitle D would require coal ash ponds to be retrofitted with a composite liner, it would not “phase out” coal ash ponds. To continue to use the wet ash pond, a company would have to remove all the materials, put the lining in, and then return the wet coal ash to the impoundment. If pond owners elect not to line the existing ponds, Subtitle D requires the owner to discontinue usage of the coal ash pond and implement closure of the pond within five years. © 2010 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved. · Printer-friendly · Email this Article · Download PDF · ShareThis About The Author J. David Brittingham Partner J. David Brittingham is a Partner in the Product Liability and Toxic Tort Practice Groups. David's practice includes general litigation and dispute resolution, with an emphasis on product liability, mass torts, toxic torts and commercial matters. He primarily represents businesses and manufacturing concerns regarding claims of a complex or severe nature. David's experience with complex litigation in both state and federal courts includes the management, discovery, resolution and/or trial of class actions, multi-district litigation, multi-party suits and claims of mass torts. He has managed... david.brittingham(a)dinslaw.com (513) 977-8455 www.dinslaw.com Contributors Thomas P. Doyle Associate Thomas P. Doyle is a member of the Litigation Department. His practice focuses on general litigation and includes product liability, medical malpractice, and mass tort litigation. Prior to joining the firm, Thomas clerked for the Honorable Judge AJ Wagner, Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. thomas.doyle(a)dinslaw.com (513) 977-8551 www.dinslaw.com -- Samuel E. Flenner III Outreach Associate Environmental Integrity Project samf.environmentalintegrity(a)gmail.com 317.352.2339 c-317.850.0436 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Fwd: Big Climate Majority - A Stanford Survey Shows
by Paul Wilson 13 Jun '10

13 Jun '10

incase any of you missed this. Byrd voted against the Murkowski resolution. best, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anne Ehrlich <aehrlich(a)stanford.edu> Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:15 PM Subject: Fwd: Big Climate Majority - A Stanford Survey Shows To: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS(a)lists.sierraclub.org June 8, 2010 > New York Times > > > The Climate Majority > > > > > By JON A. KROSNICK > > > Stanford, Calif. > > ON Thursday, the Senate will vote on a resolution proposed by Lisa > Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, that would < > http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/06/07/07climatewire-thursday-is-high-noon…>scuttle > the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to limit emissions of greenhouse > gases by American businesses. > > Passing the resolution might seem to be exactly what Americans want. After > all, national surveys released during the last eight months have been > interpreted as showing that fewer and fewer Americans believe that climate > change is real, human-caused and threatening to people. > > But a closer look at these polls and a new survey by my Political > Psychology Research Group show just the opposite: huge majorities of > Americans still believe the earth has been gradually warming as the result > of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop > it. > > In our survey, which was financed by a grant to Stanford from the National > Science Foundation, 1,000 randomly selected American adults were interviewed > by phone between June 1 and Monday. When respondents were asked if they > thought that the earth’s temperature probably had been heating up over the > last 100 years, 74 percent answered affirmatively. And 75 percent of > respondents said that human behavior was substantially responsible for any > warming that has occurred. > > For many issues, any such consensus about the existence of a problem > quickly falls apart when the conversation turns to carrying out specific > solutions that will be costly. But not so here. > > Fully 86 percent of our respondents said they wanted the federal government > to limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit, and 76 percent > favored government limiting business’s emissions of greenhouse gases in > particular. Not a majority of 55 or 60 percent — but 76 percent. > > Large majorities opposed taxes on electricity (78 percent) and gasoline (72 > percent) to reduce consumption. But 84 percent favored the federal > government offering tax breaks to encourage utilities to make more > electricity from water, wind and solar power. > > And huge majorities favored government requiring, or offering tax breaks to > encourage, each of the following: manufacturing cars that use less gasoline > (81 percent); manufacturing appliances that use less electricity (80 > percent); and building homes and office buildings that require less energy > to heat and cool (80 percent). > > Thus, there is plenty of agreement about what people do and do not want > government to do. > > Our poll also indicated that some of the principal arguments against > remedial efforts have been failing to take hold. Only 18 percent of > respondents said they thought that policies to reduce global warming would > increase unemployment and only 20 percent said they thought such initiatives > would hurt the nation’s economy. Furthermore, just 14 percent said the > United States should not take action to combat global warming unless other > major industrial countries like China and India do so as well. > > Our findings might seem implausible in light of recent polls that purport > to show that Americans are increasingly skeptical about the very existence > of climate change. But in fact, those polls did not produce conflicting > evidence at all. > > Consider, for example, <http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf>the > most publicized question from a 2009 Pew Research Center poll: “From what > you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature > on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, or not?” This > question measured perceptions of scientific evidence that the respondent has > read or heard about, not the respondents’ personal opinions about whether > the earth has been warming. Someone who has had no exposure to scientific > evidence or who perceives the evidence to be equivocal may nonetheless be > convinced that the earth has been heating up by, say, the early blossoming > of plants in his garden. > > Or consider a < > http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continu…>widely > publicized Gallup question: “Thinking about what is said in the news, in > your view, is the seriousness of global warming generally exaggerated, > generally correct or is it generally underestimated?” This question asked > about respondents’ perceptions of the news, not the respondents’ perception > of warming. A person who believes climate change has been happening might > also feel that news media coverage of it has been exaggerated. > > Questions in other polls that sought to tap respondents’ personal beliefs > about the existence and causes of warming violated two of the cardinal rules > of good survey question design: ask about only one thing at a time, and > choose language that makes it easy for respondents to understand and answer > each question. > > Imagine <http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/07/rel18e.pdf>being > asked this, from a poll by CNN: “Which of the following statements comes > closest to your view of global warming: Global warming is a proven fact and > is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities like power > plants and factories; global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused > by natural changes that have nothing to do with emissions from cars and > industrial facilities; or, global warming is a theory that has not yet been > proven.” > > Notice that the question didn’t even offer the opportunity for respondents > to say they believe global warming is definitely not happening — not the > sort of question that will provide the most valid measurements. > > When surveys other than ours have asked simple and direct questions, they > have produced results similar to ours. For example, in November, an ABC > News/Washington Post survey found that < > http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1096a7GlobalWarming.pdf>72 > percent of respondents said the earth has been heating up, and a December > poll by Ipsos/McClatchy found this proportion to be 70 percent. > > Our surveys did reveal a small recent decline in the proportion of people > who believe global warming has been happening, from 84 percent in 2007 to 80 > percent in 2008 to 74 percent today. Statistical analysis of our data > revealed that this decline is attributable to perceptions of recent weather > changes by the minority of Americans who have been skeptical about climate > scientists. > > In terms of average earth temperature, 2008 was the coldest year since > 2000. Scientists say that such year-to-year fluctuations are uninformative, > and people who trust scientists therefore ignore this information when > forming opinions about global warming’s existence. Citizens who do not trust > climate scientists, however, base their conclusions on their personal > observations of nature. These low-trust individuals were especially aware of > the recent decline in average world temperatures; they were the ones in our > survey whose doubts about global warming have increased since 2007. > > This explanation is especially significant, because it suggests that the > small recent decline in the proportion of people who believe in global > warming is likely to be temporary. If the earth’s temperature begins to rise > again, these individuals may reverse course and rejoin the large majority > who still think warming is real. > > Growing public skepticism has, in recent months, been attributed to news > reports about < > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1>e-mail > messages hacked from the computer system at the University of East Anglia > in Britain (characterized as showing climate scientists colluding to silence > unconvinced colleagues) and by the discoveries of < > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/science/earth/19climate.html>alleged > flaws in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. > > Our new survey discredited this claim in multiple ways. First, we found no > decline in Americans’ trust in environmental scientists: 71 percent of > respondents said they trust these scientists a moderate amount, a lot or > completely, a figure that was 68 percent in 2008 and 70 percent in 2009. > Only 9 percent said they knew about the East Anglia e-mail messages and > believed they indicated that climate scientists should not be trusted, and > only 13 percent of respondents said so about the I.P.C.C. reports’ alleged > flaws. > > Interestingly, Americans are not alone in having their views portrayed > inaccurately. A February BBC News survey asked Britons, “From what you know > and have heard, do you think that the earth’s climate is changing and global > warming is taking place?” < > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8500443.stm>Seventy-five percent > of respondents answered affirmatively, down a somewhat improbable eight > percentage points from 83 percent in November. A BBC headline blared, > “Climate Skepticism on the Rise,” when it should have proclaimed that a huge > majority of Britons still share common ground with one another and with > Americans on this issue. > > GLOBAL warming has attracted what political scientists dub an “issue > public”: millions of Americans who are passionate about this subject and put > pressure on government to follow their wishes. For over a decade, this group > has been of typical issue-public size, about 15 percent of American adults. > > Although issue publics usually divide about equally on opposing sides — > think of abortion or immigration — 88 percent of the climate change issue > public in our survey believed that global warming has been happening; 88 > percent attributed responsibility for it to human action; 92 percent wanted > the federal government to limit the amount of greenhouse gases that > businesses can emit. Put simply, the people whose votes are most powerfully > shaped by this issue are sending a nearly unanimous signal to their elected > representatives. > > All this makes global warming a singular issue in American politics. Even > as we are told that Americans are about equally divided into red and blue, a > huge majority shares a common vision of climate change. This creates a > unique opportunity for elected representatives to satisfy a lot of voters. > > When senators vote on emissions limits on Thursday, there is one other > number they might want to keep in mind: 72 percent of Americans think that > most business leaders do not want the federal government to take steps to > stop global warming. A vote to eliminate greenhouse gas regulation is likely > to be perceived by the nation as a vote for industry, and against the will > of the people. > > Jon A. Krosnick is a professor of communication, political science and > psychology at Stanford. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS list, send any message to: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: DEP Public Notice - County - Mercer - Applicant - Appalachian Power Co. ...
by Duane330＠aol.com 10 Jun '10

10 Jun '10

FYI -- coal ash disposal in trib of New River.......... See forwarded permit for review........................DN

1 0

job posting
by Jim Sconyers 07 Jun '10

07 Jun '10

<Can you help us get the word out about this job posting, please? Below and attached.> Hi folks - The West Virginia Sierra Club is looking to hire a Lobby and Outreach Organizer to work on shale (Marcellus) gas and related water issues in West Virginia. If you are interested, please apply. Or if you know someone who might be good, please pass the word on to them. Job Description and Help Wanted Ad below. Lobby and Outreach Organizer Position The West Virginia Sierra Club works to protect the environment in West Virginia. We are seeking an individual to promote better regulation and/or legislation for shale (Marcellus) gas drilling in WV. This is a contract job, equivalent to 3/4 time, with salary and expenses. Duration is July 1 - December 31, 2010. Responsibilities Represent the Club and the environment at legislative or agency meetings. Grassroots outreach to citizens, communities, and organizations. Ø Public education: prepare fact sheets, presentations to groups, newsletter articles, web content. Ø Meet with/present to community groups. Ø Media: generate letters, op-eds, radio/TV/newspaper articles and coverage. Qualifications Ø Self-starter with experience working independently and as part of a team. Ø Public speaking and presentation skills Ø Excellent writing skills Ø Concern for WV environmental issues in general. Knowledge of shale (Marcellus) gas and water issues is a plus. Requirements Ø Able to travel (mileage reimbursed). Ø Some weekend and evening work necessary. Ø Ability to work with boards, committees, and a wide range of people. Desired Ø Computer skills (email, web, Word, Excel, PowerPoint). Ø Prepare print material - flyers, pamphlets, fact sheets, etc. Ø Engage and activate individuals and groups. Questions? Contact Karen Grubb (304.367.4878, karen.grubb(a)fairmontstate.edu), or Jim Kotcon (304.293.8822, jkotcon(a)wvu.edu). To apply, send a letter of application outlining your interests and abilities, a resume, and names and contact info for 3 references to: karen.grubb(a)fairmontstate.edu All material must be submitted electronically. References must include email addresses. Application deadline is June 20, 2010. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd:Options for phasing out coal in ES&T (Free!)
by James Kotcon 05 Jun '10

05 Jun '10

These could be some very useful studies, especially for those who need technical data. Perhaps it could even be useful in CCS rule-making, etc. JBK >>> Al Sattler <alsattler(a)IGC.ORG> 6/3/2010 10:43 PM >>> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es101320m Can the U.S. phase out coal’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030? A new paper by a leading group of scientists, engineers, and architects argues that the U.S. could eliminate CO2 emissions from coal in 20 years. -------------------------- http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a Options for Near-Term Phaseout of CO2 Emissions from Coal Use in the United States Pushker A. Kharecha* ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#cor1 )† ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#afn1 ), Charles F. Kutscher‡ ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#afn2 ), James E. Hansen† ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#afn1 ) and Edward Mazria§ ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a#afn3 ) -------------------------- http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903306e Gigaton Problems Need Gigaton Solutions1 ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903306e#fn1 ) Achieving sustainability requires commanding the whole problem, not just iterative efforts that barely strike a moving target. ------------------------------ http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903626u Is Carbon Capture and Storage Really Needed?1 ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903626u#fn1 ) If CO2 cannot be stored at profit, perhaps it is best to switch to low-carbon alternative energy post haste. ------------------------------ http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903036u Why the Debate about Land Use Change Should Not Only Focus on Biofuels1 ( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903036u#fn1 ) Extensive change of the landscape for energy production is not limited to farmland alteration. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

Fwd:Natural Gas/Gulf Oil Spill call on Monday (was: What are we doing?)
by James Kotcon 05 Jun '10

05 Jun '10

Who plans to be on this one? JBK >>> Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> 6/4/2010 5:23 PM >>> Michael Brune, Club Executive Director, will be hosting a call at 5 pm Pacific/8 Eastern Monday June 7 for volunteers and staff to "talk about our natural gas campaign and policies and answer questions". Call 1 866-501-6174 — code 223-9223#. This call may be an opportune moment for the Club's grassroots to talk to Michael about the need not only for more Sierra Club militancy on the Gulf oil tragedy but also more specificity on how the Club proposes to "get off oil". And it's not just a matter of "getting off oil". It's getting off all fossil fuels as fast as possible and not wasting another generation of infrastructure and investment on the illusory but fatal temptation of so-called "transition fossil fuels" like natural gas. New NG capacity will continue carbon spewing and fossil-fuel dependency while competing with and slowing the massive transition to renewable power for which the Gulf catastrophe so cruelly demonstrates our need most dire. -- Ed M. - - - - - - - - - - On May 24, 2010, at 3:17 PM Joe Cook wrote: > Barb, Wayne and others, > > I agree that the Sierra Club appears to be missing in action at this > seminal moment for us to shine a light on this issue and engage our > membership to light a fire under and spray dispersant on Obama, his > administration and the Congress. Where is the net roots call to > action and marching feet on the ground in DC to stop the leak, do the > clean up and call a timeout on offshore drilling? Now is the time to > expose the dirty, greedy and inhumane fossil fuel industry and tout > the alternative -- clean, renewable energy. At the same time, the > Kerry-Liberman bill is a travesty in the face of the Gulf blowout and > should be exposed as such. > > Joe Cook > > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Wayne Kenton > <waynekenton(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> Barb, >> >> How do we get the Sierra Club leadership angry, how do we get them to >> respond, how do we get them to get a plan to engage their grassroots >> – are we not a grassroots group? Where is the national call to >> action conference call today? >> >> After two days of sending out emails like this I am asking everyone >> on this list – where is the red button to push! Where is our action >> team response? I want to know what is happening what we are doing >> and how grassroots is being empowered. >> >> I was sent this important web site to read up on what is happening in >> the Oil world, please read and digest. >> >> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6489#comments_top >> >> www.NRDC.org has Robert Redford on CNN commercials airing as I write >> this call for political leadership today over the Gulf Crisis, where >> is ours! You want to grow public support, then we need to get out >> there with a message and plan that people can support, if you don’t >> people we find a group that does support their interests and >> concerns. Redford is saying the same thing I have been saying, this >> is urgent and to lead Mr. Obama. >> >> Maybe we should be generating a list of actions the Sierra Club could >> be doing now, since nothing seems to be happening… >> >> Wayne >> >> PS. I am not on the leadership list server so some please tell what >> is happening there???? >> >> From: Chp & Grp Global Warming Energy Chairs >> [mailto:CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf >> Of Barbara McKasson >> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 11:46 AM >> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG >> Subject: Re: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Brune video >> >> We have been told that Micheal Brune, Carl Pope, Allison Chin and >> Robin Mann are responding to the oil spill situation. However, it >> seems they are forgetting that this is supposed to be a grassroots >> organization. I have not seen much on prompting grassroots leaders >> and members to respond to this - and I am a Sierra Club group >> chair!. Let's use the unique strength of Sierra Club as a grassroots >> organization. >> >> This is not the time to hold back!! We must push the Obama >> Administration to be more proactive on this. We need people calling >> Congress and the White House to step up the government response and >> to pressure BP to do more. Using toxic dispersants to hide the huge >> amount of oil that scientists say is gushing out daily is not a good >> solution, yet the Obama administration is allowing it to continue. >> It seems the Obama administration is trying to silence the scientists >> also. If dispersants are used, it should be a less toxic solution! >> We should be making A LOT OF NOISE about this. If we can't hold the >> Obama Administration accountable, who will? The federal government >> response so far has been underwhelming. >> >> Also, we cannot afford to be cowed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. I >> have always been told that we should respond directly and quickly to >> every attack on the Sierra Club. It doesn't seem that this is being >> done this time! >> >> Barb McKasson, Chair >> >> Shawnee Group Sierra Club >> >> In a message dated 5/23/2010 8:32:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, >> Dave.Hamilton(a)SIERRACLUB.ORG writes: >>> No matter how Mike came off in that particular interview, (Mathews >>> is always tough) he is anything but tepid in the way he is >>> responding or the way he is preparing the organization to address >>> the disaster over the long term. We have been putting together a >>> very aggressive policy package on oil savings, as well as >>> ypositioning the issue as the central driver and game changer for >>> what happens in Washington for the foreseeable future. >>> >>> DH >>> >>> -----Rodney Robinson <rodney(a)CAL.NET> wrote: ----- >>> >>> ======================= >>> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG >>> From: Rodney Robinson <rodney(a)CAL.NET> >>> Date: 05/23/2010 03:25AM >>> Subject: Re: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Brune video >>> ======================= >>> Chris Matthews actually says "get on this the stick Michael! You >>> don't >>> seem very excited about this." >>> and I would have to agree with Chris’ request. Get on the >>> stick. >>> Michael presents the Sierra Club as an entity to ignore. There is >>> no >>> fire in the belly. Where is the outrage. A month into this and this >>> is >>> the response we get from the Sierra Club. Shameful. >>> >>> I did not see, through the eyes of CBS News or any other source, >>> the >>> gulf coast chapter members or anyone else on the beaches Friday >>> scooping up the oil mess as it hit shore. Where are the BP execs to >>> be >>> found cleaning the beaches. >>> °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° >>> A friend just sent this to me. I missed the original 60 minute >>> broadcast and had intended to catch it in the eworld. >>> >>> Here it is in the event that you missed it or would want to pass >>> the >>> link to a friend. >>> >>> >>> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25474.htm >>> >>> ***************************************** >>> And... You may want to subscribe to the newsletter below. >>> ***************************************** >>> >>> Government of the USA in Exile >>> Free Americans Reaching Out to Amerika's Huddled Masses Yearning to >>> Breathe Free >>> Via <prez(a)usa-exile.org> >>> >>> May >>> 21, 2010 >>> >>> http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/05/21/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T1 >>> >>> Gulf Oil Spill Effects to Reach Arctic and Europe, >>> >>> Expert Says >>> >>> By the CNN Wire Staff >>> >>> May 21, 2010 -- Updated 1801 GMT (0201 HKT) >>> >>> Washington (CNN) -- The damaging effects of the massive oil spill >>> in >>> the Gulf of Mexico will be felt all the way to Europe and the >>> Arctic, >>> a top scientist told a congressional panel Friday. >>> >>> "This is not just a regional issue for the wildlife," said Carl >>> Safina, the president of the Blue Ocean Institute. Safina, who >>> recently returned from the Gulf Coast region, presented several >>> photographs, including one of an oil-covered bird. >>> >>> "There will be a nest empty in Newfoundland," Safina said, noting >>> common migratory patterns. Safina warned that multiple forms of >>> marine >>> life in the Atlantic Ocean "come into the Gulf to breed." >>> >>> Safina's briefing to representatives of the House Energy and >>> Commerce >>> Committee was scheduled as part of an ongoing effort to draw on a >>> broad range of expertise for cleanup efforts. >>> >>> "We have to use science to find solutions," said Rep. Ed Markey, D- >>> Massachusetts. Markey has been strongly critical of the current >>> cleanup effort, calling it ineffective. >>> >>> Meanwhile, another congressman, concerned about people who are >>> working >>> to clean up the spill, has asked the White House to set up >>> temporary >>> health care centers along the Gulf Coast to serve volunteers and >>> workers. >>> >>> Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-Louisiana, envisions such clinics as >>> providing "medical checkups to people who have come in contact with >>> the oil and assist in monitoring the health effects of the oil leak >>> on >>> south Louisianians." >>> >>> He sent the request Wednesday to Health and Human Services >>> Secretary >>> Kathleen Sebelius. There was no immediate response from the agency. >>> >>> "Many residents and volunteers are being exposed to hazardous >>> materials on a daily basis, and some will have to travel hours to >>> get >>> treatment at the nearest health care facility. It is imperative >>> that >>> temporary health care clinics be established to provide basic >>> health >>> care services in this geographic area," he said. >>> >>> He has also asked Sebelius to "appoint a health care coordinator to >>> oversee and streamline the health care response." >>> >>> Melancon emphasized that BP should be responsible for such health >>> care >>> services in his state. The energy giant was operating the oil rig >>> that >>> exploded and sank in April, triggering the spill. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> ------------------------------------------ >>> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10139730.stm >>> >>> US oil spill: BP 'recovering less oil' than >>> estimated >>> >>> BP has said the amount of oil recovered from a leaking Gulf of >>> Mexico >>> oil well on Thursday was less than half an earlier estimate. >>> >>> BP said it siphoned 2,200 barrels in the 24-hour period to midnight >>> on >>> Thursday, down from an estimate of 5,000 barrels earlier in the day. >>> >>> The US government has formed a team to develop a more precise >>> estimate >>> of the amount of oil gushing from the well. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> ----------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> White House Covers Up Menacing Oil "Blob" >>> >>> by Wayne Madsen >>> >>> Global Research, May 21, 2010 >>> Oilprice.com >>> >>> In an exclusive for Oilprice.com, the Wayne Madsen Report (WMR) has >>> learned from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S. >>> Army >>> Corps of Engineers sources that U.S. Navy submarines deployed to >>> the >>> Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean off the Florida coast have >>> detected >>> what amounts to a frozen oil blob from the oil geyser at the >>> destroyed >>> Deep Horizon off-shore oil rig south of Louisiana. The Navy >>> submarines >>> have trained video cameras on the moving blob, which remains frozen >>> at >>> depths of between 3,000 to 4,000 feet. Because the oil blob is >>> heavier >>> than water, it remains frozen at current depths. >>> >>> FEMA and Corps of Engineers employees are upset that the White >>> House >>> and the Pentagon remain tight-lipped and in cover-up mode about the >>> images of the massive and fast-moving frozen coagulated oil blob >>> that >>> is being imaged by Navy submarines that are tracking its movement. >>> The >>> sources point out that BP and the White House conspired to withhold >>> videos from BP-contracted submersibles that showed the oil geyser >>> that >>> was spewing oil from the chasm underneath the datum of the Deep >>> Horizon at rates far exceeding originally reported amounts. We have >>> learned that it was largely WMR's scoop on the existence of the BP >>> videos that forced the company and its White House patrons to >>> finally >>> agree to the release of the video footage. >>> >>> The White House is officially stating that it does not know where >>> the >>> officially reported 10 miles long by 3 miles wide "plume" is >>> actually >>> located or in what direction it is heading. However, WMR's sources >>> claim the White House is getting real-time reports from Navy >>> submarines as to the blob's location. We have learned that the blob >>> is >>> transiting the Florida Straits between Florida and Cuba, propelled >>> by >>> the Gulf's Loop Current, and that parts of it that is encountering >>> warmer waters are breaking off into smaller tar balls that are now >>> washing ashore in the environmentally-sensitive Florida Keys and >>> Dry >>> Tortugas. >>> >>> Corps of Engineers and FEMA officials are also livid about the >>> cover- >>> up of the extent of the oil damage being promulgated by the >>> National >>> Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its marine >>> research >>> vessel in the Gulf, RV Pelican. NOAA stands accused by the >>> aforementioned agencies of acting as a virtual public relations arm >>> for BP. NOAA is a component of the business-oriented Department of >>> Commerce. >>> >>> Similarly, the Coast Guard, which takes its orders from the >>> cover-up >>> operatives at the Homeland Security Department, is denying the tar >>> balls washing up on the Florida Keys are from the oil mass. WMR has >>> been told the Coast Guard is lying in order to protect the Obama >>> administration, which has thoroughly failed in its response to the >>> disaster. The White House's only concern is trying to limit >>> political >>> damage to its image in the electorally-important state of Florida >>> while the Pentagon has spent between $25 and $30 billion on oil >>> spill >>> operations in the Gulf and the Atlantic to date. >>> >>> WMR sources also report that the oil mass has resulted in dead >>> zones >>> in the Gulf of Mexico that have cut off oxygen and killed massive >>> numbers of marine creatures and plant life. Seafood wholesalers >>> from >>> the Gulf Coast to New Jersey and New York have been told that the >>> supply of shrimp, oysters, and other seafood from the Gulf is >>> severely >>> in short supply and that they can expect a possible total cut-off >>> as >>> the situation worsens. The shortage will also affect the supply of >>> seafood, especially shrimp, to national seafood restaurant chains >>> like >>> Red Lobster and Long John Silver's. >>> >>> There is also evidence that BP, Halliburton, and Transocean sank a >>> drill to a depth of 35,000 feet at the Deep Horizon site some six >>> months ago without the required permits from the federal >>> government. >>> WMR has learned from U.S. government sources that the drilling at >>> 35,000 feet caused a major catastrophic event that required the >>> firms' >>> oil rig personnel to quickly pull up the drill and close the drill >>> hole. >>> >>> However, the Deep Horizon re-sank the drill some six months after >>> the >>> unspecified "catastrophe," resulting in another, more destructive >>> chain of events following the explosion that destroyed the rig, >>> killing eleven workers. When the Deep Horizon blew up, WMR has been >>> told it also "blew down," cracking the the sub-seabed pipe that may >>> have been re-drilled to a depth of between 25,000 to 30,000 feet, >>> again, without a government permit. >>> >>> Government sources also report that BP is intent on recovering as >>> much >>> oil as possible from the undersea geyser rather than simply >>> plugging >>> and capping the well, which would then place it off-limits to >>> further >>> drilling. The Corps of Engineers reports that BP is playing a game >>> with Obama, convincing him of the feasibility of "shooting junk" >>> into >>> the subterranean pipe, which would stop up the pipe with a >>> manufactured chemical compound called "MUD." However, WMR has been >>> informed that BP actually intends to shoot cement into the pipe in >>> an >>> attempt to cap the well with the later intention of digging a >>> trench >>> for side drilling from the pipe to recover as much oil as possible. >>> The technology that would be employed by BP is the same technology >>> that was used by Kuwait to conduct slant drilling of Iraq's >>> Rumallah >>> oil field -- an event that helped trigger Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. >>> >>> Corps of Engineers and FEMA sources also give a failing grade to >>> both >>> Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who stands accused of >>> being woefully incompetent in handling the disaster, and Interior >>> Secretary Ken Salazar. Government sources say both secretaries >>> should >>> immediately step down or be fired. >>> >>> -------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/21-6 >>> Published on Friday, May 21, 2010 by CommonDreams.org >>> >>> Boycott BP >>> >>> by Robert Weissman >>> >>> Why? >>> >>> Because BP must pay. >>> >>> Eleven oil workers are dead. One of the largest oil spills in U.S. >>> history continues to worsen. BP's oil gusher at the floor of the >>> Gulf >>> of Mexico may be 100 times worse than BP first estimated (and 20 >>> times >>> worse than the company presently claims). 100 times! >>> >>> BP's oil gusher is now threatening coastal lands in Louisiana and >>> is >>> almost certain to destroy fisheries and the livelihoods of people >>> who >>> fish and shrimp in the Gulf, or rely on the Gulf for tourism >>> business. >>> The giant plumes of oil deep underwater will exact an unknown toll >>> on >>> sea life. And the spreading oil may even wind up in currents that >>> eventually take it to the U.S. Eastern shores. >>> >>> BP CEO Tony Hayward is sanguine about the whole problem. The >>> Financial >>> Times quotes him saying, "I think the environmental impact of this >>> disaster is likely to have been very, very modest." >>> >>> A boycott will send a message to BP that its shoddy oversight of >>> this >>> project and its history of environmental and worker safety >>> violations >>> is unforgivable. Take the BP Boycott Pledge, and commit not to buy >>> gas >>> from BP for at least three months. Go here: www.beyondBP.org >>> >>> BP cares desperately about its public image. This is the company >>> that >>> has sought to rebrand itself as "Beyond Petroleum." BusinessWeek >>> estimates the BP brand as worth $3.9 billion -- the highest among >>> oil >>> companies. "Not even an Alaskan oil spill or an explosion at a >>> Texas >>> refinery has put a dent in BP's strong [brand] performance," said >>> BusinessWeek in 2006. This time must be different. A boycott will >>> express the organized consumer anger that BP so fears. >>> >>> This is a company that should fear the public's wrath, for the >>> Deepwater Horizon blowout was a preventable disaster. While much >>> remains unknown, there is mounting evidence that BP could have >>> averted >>> the catastrophe. BP made a conscious decision not to install a >>> $500,000 safety device that could have prevented the blowout. There >>> is >>> good reason to believe BP's contractors on the Deepwater Horizon >>> made >>> multiple mistakes leading up to the disaster, but it is ultimately >>> BP's job to make sure its contractors are exercising sufficient >>> care. >>> And Mike Williams, the chief electronics technician on the >>> Deepwater >>> Horizon, told 60 Minutes that BP pressured its contractors to skirt >>> other safety measures that might have prevented the disaster. >>> >>> All this from a company that made $14 billion in profits in 2009 -- >>> a >>> bad year. First quarter profits in 2010 were over $6 billion. >>> >>> After the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, Tony Hayward >>> reportedly >>> asked why bad things keep happening to BP. >>> >>> But this is not a case of bad things happening to good people. BP >>> has >>> one of the worst environmental and safety records of any oil >>> company >>> operating in the United States. BP has pled guilty in just the last >>> few years to two crimes and paid more than $730 million in fines, >>> penalties and settlements for environmental crimes, willful >>> disregard >>> for workplace safety and energy market manipulation. >>> >>> BP sometimes says it will pay for the harms caused by the spill, >>> but >>> at other times hedges what it may be willing to do. There will be >>> litigation and fines, and BP won't have the final say on what it >>> wants >>> to pay. In any case, cash compensation for economic harms caused -- >>> while necessary -- doesn't bring back destroyed ecosystems and does >>> little to mitigate the company's culpability for not preventing the >>> blowout in the first place. >>> >>> The only good that can come out of the BP disaster is if it forces >>> the >>> United States to fundamentally reorient energy policy. As a matter >>> of >>> simple common sense, the Obama administration should reverse its >>> new >>> policy and stop offshore drilling expansion. More fundamentally, >>> BP's >>> oil gusher is yet another reminder of the need for a massive shift >>> away from fossil fuels and to investments in efficiency and >>> renewable >>> energy. The disaster also emphasizes how crucial it is to hold Big >>> Oil >>> accountable. The BP boycott is a way to start. >>> >>> There are no "good" oil companies, but BP is a particularly bad and >>> irresponsible actor. Consumers should make it pay. Take the BP >>> Boycott >>> Pledge: . >>> >>> Robert Weissman is the president of Public Citizen. >>> >>> >>> On May 22, 2010, at 8:37 PM, Thomas Mathews wrote: >>> >>> > I watched the video, Fred. The last line is Chris Matthews >>> telling >>> > Brune to "get on this Michael! You don't seem very excited about >>> > this." >>> > >>> > And, in fact, Brune's comments are rather, shall we say, tepid. >>> He >>> > doesn't even respond substantively to Rush Limbaugh's attack on >>> > Sierra Club. The other guest, Joan Walsh from Salon.com, does a >>> much >>> > better job of defending Sierra Club than does Brune. >>> > >>> > And, of course, Brune does not go on the offensive against >>> Obama's >>> > handling of the oil spill. Matthews does though. Big time. >>> > >>> > Give Brune some time, I suppose. He's still new on the job. >>> > >>> > Tom Mathews >>> > Iowa Chapter >>> > = >>> > >>> ===================================================================== >>> = >>> > Please see: >>> > >>> > http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageNavigator/adv_oilspill >>> > >>> > The Club has been responding since the first day. Our national >>> > leaders -- Mike Brune, Carl Pope, outgoing president Allison Chin >>> and >>> > incoming president Robin Mann, have been speaking continually in >>> > public and with the media, there is a national response group >>> working >>> > on the oil spill and our Gulf Coast chapters are fully >>> mobilizing. >>> > Here's >>> > a signup form: >>> > >>> > >>> http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageServer? >>> pagename=20100429VolunterGulfCoastOilSpill&autologin=true >>> > >>> > Fred >>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Fwd: coal to clean energy?
by Paul Wilson 04 Jun '10

04 Jun '10

please contact the intern if you have info. thanks, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cramer, Virginia <virginia.cramer(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:17 PM Subject: coal to clean energy? To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Hi everyone, I'm passing along this note from a Club intern in MI. This information would clearly be great for all of us to have compiled so please send her anything you have that might be useful. She's at sierraclubintern(a)gmail.com. thanks, ginny Hello All. I am in the process of compiling a report of nationwide examples of how new alternative energy businesses erected out of the ashes of a fallen coal plant. One Michigan example is Manistee when a coal plant was denied and Mariah began developing the Windspire wind turbine. With great success and much needed job creation, this company continues to thrive today. Mariah donated the wind turnbine that currently powers the Michigan Govenor's own residence! I know there has to be several examples of this transition---or evolution to alternative energy and we want to collect those stories. Please feel free to repost far and wide and please send information and links to me, Stephanie at: sierraclubintern(a)gmail.com I would greatly appreciate any help you can offer! Have a great day! Stephanie Vollick Sierra Club Intern, Beyond Coal Royal Oak, MI Cell: 248-842-7443 -- Virginia Cramer Deputy Press Secretary Sierra Club tel: 804-225-9113 x 102 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

PSC on PATH- Procedural Order grants the Second Proposal to Toll the statutory due date, until 5/16/2011
by Frank Young 03 Jun '10

03 Jun '10

We expected this, but now it's official. Click on the blue type in the "description" below to read the order. ----- Original Message ----- From: WV Public Service Commission To: fyoung(a)mountain.net Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:00 PM Subject: [PSC Docket] Activity on PSC Case(s) on 06/03/2010 The Following Cases had activity on 06/03/2010. Subscription Name Case Number Case Name Description(click link to view document) E-mail notification 09-0770-E-CN PATH West Virginia Transmission Company, LLC; PATH Allegheny Transmission Company, LLC; PATH-WV Land Acquisition Company; and PATH-Allegheny Land Acquisition Company Commission Procedural Order granting the Second Proposal to Toll the statutory due date, until 5/16/2011; setting for Evidentiary Hearing beginning 1/10/2011; the Evidentiary Hearing ends on 1/25/2011;For details see Internet Hearing Information; granting the 9/22/2009 Protective Motion regarding the Confidential CEII Data and Confidential Forecast Data; Applicants submit, within 30 days, appropriate motions for protective treatment for all additional documents filed under seal; directing the Applicants to update time-sensitive information contained in the right-of-way information packets distributed by its right-of-way agents; denying the Rappaport/Haverty/WCIG/Wilson requests regarding the Applicants right-of-way agents and land acquisition activities; directing the Applicants to work closely with its right-of-way agents to assure that the agents are providing accurate and timely information to landowners, and are abiding by applicable state and federal rules and regulations; denying Ms. Bonhage-Hale's motion requesting that the Applicants provide a list of property owners along the route of the proposed transmission line; Applicants are not required to respond to the data requests filed by Earl and Delores Irons, Ryan Gaujot, and John W. Cobb; denying the Baker motion for clarification; granting, in part, the JCIG motion to compel and denying, in part, as described in the Discussion section of this Order; the JCIG motion for additional time to file prefiled testimony in denied as moot; denying the WCIG motion to compel as described in the Discussion of this Order; denying as moot the Howley motion in limine; Applicants file supplemental testimony on issues of electrical need and any other issues requiring supplementation by Noon on 7/8/2010; Staff and Intervenors propound discovery on supplemental testimony filed 7/8/2010 due by Noon on 10/29/2010; Staff's and Intervenors prepared direct testimony and rebuttal to the direct testimony of Applicants due by Noon on 11/18/2010; deadline for propounding discovery in response to testimony due 11/19//2010 is due by Noon on 11/30/2010; Applicant's rebuttal testimony to the direct testimony for Staff and Intervenors, and for Staff and Intervenor rebuttal testimony to the direct testimony of one another due by Noon on 12/17/2010; deadline for propounding discovery in response to the rebuttal testimony due 12/17/2010 is due by Noon on 12/28/2010; Written opening statements due by Noon on 1/6/2011; Initial briefs and proposed orders may be filed until Noon on 2/22/2011; Reply Briefs may be filed until 3/10/2011; etc. This is an automated message. Do not respond to this message. The Public Service Commission of West Virginia does not accept electronic filings, you will receive a hard copy in the mail. If you wish to respond to the enclosed document, you may do so in writing. Please send your response to the Executive Secretary at the address below. Please add docketnotify(a)psc.state.wv.us to your address book to ensure delivery of this notice. About this Notice: You were sent this email at fyoung(a)mountain.net because you have subscribed to this particular case and or case type, etc. If you do not wish to receive further messages for this case(s), please go to manage your subscriptions. Please add docketnotify(a)psc.state.wv.us to your address book to ensure delivery of this notice. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us at: Public Service Commission Of West Virginia P.O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323 304-340-0300 or Toll Free 1-800-344-5113 Fax: 304-340-0325

1 0

Fw: Picking the Right Low-Carbon Investment Strategy
by Jim Sconyers 02 Jun '10

02 Jun '10

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Wed, June 2, 2010 12:43:22 AM Subject: Picking the Right Low-Carbon Investment Strategy Chris Paine blog circulated May 28 by Jim Magavern: Picking the Right Low-Carbon Investment Strategy So what would all the nuclear largesse mean in practice if the K-L bill as written becomes law, and perhaps 12-24 new nuclear power plants are constructed over the next fifteen years in response to the incentives the bill creates? American taxpayers and consumers will have to pay through the nose for the electricity from these plants, which is likely to cost - depending on the project ownership and finance structure-anywhere from 17-34 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) (California Energy Commission, December 2009) when it enters the grid around 2018, instead of buying end-use efficiency "negawatts" today at less than 5 cents per kilowatt hour, industrial waste heat cogeneration today at less than 9 cents per kWh, wind at less than 11.5 cents per kWh, and a wide variety of other renewable sources at less than 17 cents per kilowatt hour, with the expectation of further price declines. In a recent analysis from DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), for example, big box commercial rooftop PV solar is expected to decline from about 11 - 15 cents/kWh (Phoenix versus Kansas City) today to 4.5 - 6 cents per KWh in 2015. Not only will new-nuclear cost more than these other cleaner sources, but the effective carbon displacement arrives 5-7 years later than the other technologies, further raising the overall cost of meeting the GHG reduction targets. The harder, farther, and earlier we push on energy efficiency in a climate bill, the fewer costly nuclear, coal CCS or other "low-carbon" generating plants we'll have to build later on to meet the GHG reduction targets. So there is actually a triple-barreled economic benefit from deferring widespread deployment of the most costly decarbonization pathways (nuclear, coal CCS, renewables in less-favorable locations) until we absolutely need them to stay on track with meeting our reduction targets: (1) lower electricity costs; (2) earlier GHG reductions; and (3) less required future investment in low-carbon central station power plants that have other serious environmental drawbacks. This strategy not only frees up funding for massive early investments in more cost-effective energy efficiency, but it also allows more time for technology innovation to reduce future nuclear (and coal CCS) costs and environmental impacts. The same holds true for currently costly, land-intensive combinations of remotely located large-scale renewables and new high-voltage transmission lines. Rapidly evolving technology and plummeting manufacturing costs may enable a higher proportion of clean energy to come from equally or more cost-effective distributed-generation mounted along highway embankments and atop buildings and parking lots, lessening the burden imposed by some large-scale renewable deployments on the natural environment. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Fw: Natural Gas Initiative
by Jim Sconyers 01 Jun '10

01 Jun '10

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Michael Brune <Michael.Brune(a)sierraclub.org> To: HQ-ANNOUNCEMENTS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 3:51:25 PM Subject: Natural Gas Initiative ***************************GlobalMessage********************************* THIS MESSAGE IS AN INFORMATIONAL MESSAGE BEING SENT TO ALL SIERRA CLUB STAFF, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MEMBERS OF ALL ADVISORY COMMITTEES, COUNCIL EXCOM, AND MANY OTHER NATIONAL COMMITTEE LEADERS,CHAPTER CHAIRS, CHAPTER CONSERVATION CHAIRS, GROUP CHAIRS, AND CCL DELEGATES. ***PLEASE DO NOT REPLY *** TO SENDER OR FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO LISTS WHO HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE. *********************************************************************** From: Michael Brune June 1, 2010 To: Sierra Club Volunteers and Staff Re: Natural Gas Initiative Friends and Colleagues: In one of my first messages to you as the Sierra Club’s new executive director, I spelled out four matters I consider priorities for my first three months. Today I’d like to discuss our plans for addressing one of those priorities: the regulation of natural gas. The topic has come up often in my travels and it is important that we address it even as we focus so much attention on the disaster BP has created in the Gulf. As the recent natural gas boom changes the energy landscape, new production techniques raise environmental concerns about this fuel. Let me repeat now what I have been telling those of you who fear that your favorite landscapes and the communities you love may be at risk: The Sierra Club has your back. We will stand with you to ensure that natural gas extraction is effectively regulated and that the industry employs the safest and most environmentally sound techniques. We stand at a crossroads today. The time is coming when coal and oil will be the energy of the past. Over the past five years Sierra Club has led a nationwide effort with our chapters and local allies that prevented the construction of more than 125 coal-fired power plants. Just two weeks ago the Mississippi Chapter won a David-versus-Goliath battle to block Southern Company’s proposal to build a massive new coal plant. On the horizon are the predominance of new clean-energy projects and the country’s reliance on wind and solar. The only question is how long it will take (and what we’ll lose as many of our leaders dither). As the Sierra Club works hard to stop the worst of the worst, we have to fight equally hard to promote the best of the best, starting with energy efficiency and moving on to the range of renewables, from responsibly sited wind and solar projects to distributed generation in communities across the country. During the transition from old to new, we acknowledge that some fuels will remain in use, even though they should have no place in our long-term energy vision. Several years ago the Sierra Club, using its standard democratic processes and taking into account the best scientific evidence, acknowledged that natural gas will be part of the transition from far dirtier energy sources—particularly coal—to a clean-energy future (http://bit.ly/SCnaturalgaspolicy). This policy was born of the Club’s realization that the threat of climate disruption is severe and that we need an immediate solution to get off coal on a massive scale. A commitment to problem solving is one of our organization’s great strengths. The responsible use of natural gas will help the nation address the complex problem of climate change, but only if we do it right. We must be clear that energy efficiency, distributed solar and wind, and appropriately sited large-scale wind, solar and geothermal projects are true clean-energy solutions and should be at the front of the line for new energy investments. Indeed, it is a priority for the Club to build a package of grassroots campaigns so that we can more effectively build a movement and make dramatic progress at the local, state and federal levels to stabilize energy demand and create a larger share of the pie for clean energy. We must also wrestle with the environmental challenges raised by the use of natural gas. Modern natural gas production techniques can cause significant environmental damage, and the risks are multiplied by the increasing use of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) technology that allows for recovery of gas from deep in shale formations. Expanded natural gas production without adequate regulation has led to serious problems, from fouled well water in Wyoming, to polluted rivers in the Northeast, to air-pollution in Texas. These problems are exacerbated by legal loopholes that exempt the industry from basic environmental laws, by outdated state regulations that do not fully control modern gas-production practices, and by the limited capacity of authorities to enforce those laws on the books. A volunteer-led task force has developed a policy calling for the strict regulation of natural gas fracturing (http://bit.ly/frackingpolicy). Among the types of drilling projects the Club opposes are those in which the contents of fracking fluids are not disclosed to the public or contain an unacceptable toxic risk, and those that fail to protect drinking and surface water or violate air-quality standards. To implement this policy, the Club recently formed the Hydraulic Fracture Implementation Task Force and the Hydrofracking Team on the Activist Network (http://bit.ly/activistnetworkgasfrack). The task force is developing model regulatory standards based on detailed best management practices, overseeing an effort to push for them in pilot states, and guiding the identification of areas that should be off-limits to natural gas production. It has already worked with chapters and coalition partners to submit extensive technical and legal comments on numerous state and federal regulatory proposals governing natural gas production. It has also joined with several groups to form a team of attorneys and experts to develop model regulations. The growing team will include engineering, hydrology and toxicology specialists and other technical experts. Grassroots advocacy for natural gas regulation is essential. That’s why we’re launching a natural gas campaign to coordinate hard-hitting efforts across the country to make sure that this industry is regulated and using best practices. Watch for upcoming opportunities to get involved. I applaud the excellent work our chapters and activists have already done, and I encourage those of you involved in these efforts to keep pushing for environmental safeguards. Doing sophisticated campaign work on efficiency and renewables is critical to our success. Getting it right on natural gas is also essential as we move toward a clean-energy future. The Sierra Club has experienced tremendous success in recent years in our efforts to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate disruption. Securing major improvements in natural gas extraction practices and regulation is a top priority. I’m looking forward to working with you to get this crucial work done. I welcome your feedback and ideas. To let me know what you think please visit: www.sierraclub.org/ed/memos And next Monday, June 7, at 5 p.m. Pacific, I will host a call with all volunteers and staff to talk about our natural gas campaign and policies and answer questions (1 866-501-6174; Code 223-9223#). Onward, Michael Brune Executive Director Sierra Club 415-977-5662 Follow on Facebookand Twitter www.sierraclub.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the HQ-ANNOUNCEMENTS list, send any message to: HQ-ANNOUNCEMENTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Fw: NRDC on nuclear provisions in American Power Act
by Jim Sconyers 01 Jun '10

01 Jun '10

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: dave o'leary <dave.oleary(a)MDSIERRA.ORG> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 3:12:45 AM Subject: NRDC on nuclear provisions in American Power Act Here is write-up of many of the issues with the nuclear provisions in the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill. It is a little long, but that's only because there are so many opportunities for improvement in the bill in ways that strengthen our arguments for more emphasis on efficiency and renewables programs. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/cpaine/packing_the_nuclear_pork_barre.html Those concerned about nuclear waste and taxpayer money waste can both find appalling aspects of the bill. Those who are interested in good government issues, or who are expressing outrage over lack of regulatory oversight in the BP gulf oil disaster should also read through this and take note of the proposals for further "streamlining" of the licensing process. One thing that is not mentioned in this summary is the relative job creation potential of energy efficiency spending vs. construction and operation of nuclear plants. I encourage you to read through this and find at least a couple of things that will resonate with your Senators, then call and suggest that they work to improve the bill - thanks - David O'Leary Sierra Club - Maryland Chapter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Fw: You have been invited to Organizing the Team.
by Jim Sconyers 01 Jun '10

01 Jun '10

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Sierra Club Online Communities <community.manager(a)SIERRACLUB.ORG> To: CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 11:39:35 AM Subject: You have been invited to Organizing the Team. Sierra Club Online Communities Bob has invited you to Organizing the Team We need to recruit people who want to take direct action in response to the BP oil disaster. Message: This is our kickoff event. It starts now and everyone is a part of the event. Let's see how many people we can find who want to take action to repair or mitigate BP's injury to our ecosystem. Click here to view event details Note: Please do not reply to this message. This system message was sent from a notification-only email address. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC June 2010