EC June 2010

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

10 participants
27 discussions

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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC June 2010