by David Model, Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 08:11:40 AM EDT
One of the core messages in John Feffer's article in AlterNet, August 5/08 (http://www.alternet.org/water/93170/ ) is that we should be very cautious about relying on technology to solve the problems of agriculture, energy, and climate-change. I would expand his message to a total prohibition on counting on high-tech solutions to solve our current problems.
by Forgiven, Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:29:55 AM EDT
Crossposted at MLW
There has been a lot of talk recently about the "energy crisis". I wonder if this is the same energy crisis we heard about in the 70's? If it is then that means for over 30 years instead of solving our domestic energy needs, we have ignored them and allowed them to grow. In 1970 we were importing about 24% of the oil we used and the embargo back then threw our economy into a tail-spin, imagine what would happen today when we import about 70%. Rather than using the past 30 plus years to develop new or existing technologies to reduce or break our dependence on oil, we have elected to do something worse than nothing. Instead of our vehicles getting smaller and more fuel efficient during this time they have actually gotten larger.
by Chelsea Sexton, Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:12:07 AM EDT
March 17, 2008
Dear Gov. Schwarzenegger,
President George Bush called on Americans this month to "get off oil" and start to drive electric vehicles. With gas nearing $4 a gallon, global warming threatening disaster, and our national security at risk, the president got it right.
Unfortunately, powerful California regulators are perilously close to killing the electric car all over again.
On March 27, the California Air Resources Board will revise their history-making program that put more than 5,000 highway-capable Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) on the road and reduced our output of carbon dioxide--the main global warming gas--by one million metric tons.
But new revisions by the Board's staff will profoundly weaken the program again instead of propelling our country toward a pollution-free future. This proposal would require each automaker to produce only about 150 ZEVs per year through 2015.
That's less than what consumers are demanding...
by bored now, Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:14:29 PM EDT
the chicago tribune reports:
Rebuffing bipartisan pressure from members of Congress, the Bush administration's top environmental regulator on Tuesday declined to stop the BP refinery in northwest Indiana from dumping more pollution into Lake Michigan.
Stephen Johnson, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said he saw nothing wrong with the permit Indiana regulators awarded in June to BP, the first company in years allowed to increase the amount of toxic chemicals pumped into the Great Lakes.
by bored now, Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 10:24:04 AM EDT
the bp refinery in whiting, indiana has been given permission to increase its dumping of mercury, ammonia and industrial sludge into lake michigan by the indiana department of environmental management. this reverses a 20 year old consensus that our great lakes should be cleaner and no longer an industrial dumping ground. the mercury permit exempts bp from a 1995 federal regulation limiting mercury discharges into the great lakes.
chicago area's metropolitan water reclamation commissioner deb shore spoke before the IL-IN-MO regional caucus at yearlykos about the recent decision by the state of indiana to allow bp to increase dumping into lake michigan. the great lakes, as deb likes to say, constitutes 20% of the world's fresh water and it's a precious resource we need to care for.
so deb laments that it's too bad nobody told the lake about bp's plans, or indiana's consent. her opening remarks can be seen here: