Biz

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Senate backs down (again) from climate bill; EPA steps up

Posted By on Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:47 AM

It's an election year, so, of course, our representatives in Washington are watching their every move. And, for some reason, they seem to be more concerned with avoiding any chance of offending giant corporations, with their deep, deep financial pockets, than they are with doing what's right for our country ... and the average everyday folks like you and me.

We know we've got a climate problem. We know big business doesn't want to change their polluting ways, 'cause that'll cost money — money they'd prefer to shove into their personal pockets. We know it's usually the poorest folks who suffer the worst from a lack of environmental legislation.

So, really, it should be no surprise to read headlines like "U.S. Senate delays action on scaled-back energy bill" when there's an election less than three months away. I mean, heaven forbid our elected officials actually do their job without worrying about their own political careers. What are we thinking, that the Senate actually works for us?! Bahahahaha.

Fortunately, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should give two toots about the upcoming election or what corporate polluters want, so it's flexing its muscles ... muscles which, by the way, damn near completely atrophied during the W. Bush years.

The Environmental Protection Agency Thursday rejected an effort to keep it from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, saying that e-mails released in last fall’s “Climategate” scandal gave it no reason to reconsider the science of global warming.

In a sternly written opinion, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said she didn’t agree with requests from the GOP attorneys general from Texas and Virginia, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other conservative groups that questioned the underlying science linking humans to global warming and also warned of the potential economic burdens from new climate rules.

EPA last December concluded that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and welfare, a decision clearing the way this spring for climate-based regulations for new cars and trucks. Next year, the agency is expected to write standards for power plants and other major industrial sources of heat-trapping gases.

In their petitions, EPA’s opponents had highlighted stolen e-mails from prominent climate scientists that they allege showed collusion to hide contrary information debunking global warming. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had also warned that the EPA rules would lead to “unprecedented bureaucratic licensing and regulatory burdens on farmers, ranchers, small businesses, hospitals and even schools.”

But Jackson said the groups’ arguments lack merit.

“These petitions — based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy — provide no evidence to undermine our determination,” Jackson wrote.

Read the rest of this Politico article, by Darren Samuelsohn, here.

If you missed it, here's Lisa Jackson, EPA's Administrator, earlier this year, on David Letterman (in two parts):

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Phrase of the week: 'food desert'

Posted By on Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:27 AM

If you tuned into last night's Mecklenburg County Commission meeting, whether in person, on TV or on Twitter, you've already heard about our area's "food desert" problem — not to be confused with "food desserts," which is a whole other problem.

But let me start by asking you this: If you didn't have a car or adequate public transportation to get to the store, what stores near your home offer food? And, what kind of food do they offer?

When I asked myself the same question, I quickly realized that if my husband and I were to live off of the food within walking distance from our home, we would subsist on little more than fried seafood, beer and HoHos. Hardly a healthy diet. But, on the upside, we could play the lottery and hope to win enough money for a car that could take us to an actual grocery store. Woo hoo!

We're not that unfortunate, though; however, a lot of people in Charlotte are. According to the Mecklenburg County Health Department's report, 73,000 people in Mecklenburg County— in 60 neighborhoods — live in "food deserts." That means there isn't a full-service grocery store within close proximity to their homes. Which means they're likely eating crap and that they're going to get sick, and maybe even die, because of it.

Obviously this is a problem that warrants action, but how to act? The county's not in the grocery business.

Read more about Mecklenburg County's food deserts:

Mecklenburg Officials Eye “Food Deserts” -- The Charlotte Business Journal

Starved for nutrition in ‘food desert’: Access to healthy food choices limited in poor communities -- The Charlotte Post

Study: Lack of fresh food in neighborhoods hurts health -- The Charlotte Observer

Further reading:

Obesity Rates Keep Rising, Troubling Health Officials -- The New York Times

Let's be real: The lack of stores aren't the only problem encouraging obesity in today's society. The reality is mass-produced, crap food is cheaper ... kinda. It's cheaper on the front end, but much more costly overall:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Oil spill news: BP still sucks

Posted By on Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Have you seen these BP headlines from around the globe?

Where's all that oil spill waste going? Much of it to 'communities of color,' study finds — AL.com (The site for Birmingham, Huntersville and Mobile, Ala., news.)

Final spot for oil-spill debris: common landfillsThe Miami Herald

But, let's face it, dumping trash and toxic waste near poor folks is nothing new for Alabama's long-standing Good 'ol Boy club.

Also, did you hear? BP's getting free government money. Now, that's interesting.

BP project pockets stimulus fundsThe Sacramento Bee

Oh, and all of those harmless dispersants? They're freaking the Obama administration's scientists out ... as they freakin' should: BP oil spill: Obama administration's scientists admit alarm over chemicalsThe Guardian

But, at least there are a few people helping us find the funny in BP's big-ass, life-altering disaster. You've gotta laugh to get through some shit. For me and the Alablamastanian branch of my family tree — the shrimpers and fishers now out of work, those folks watching the towns they've always lived in shrivel and their white beaches bleed oil — laughing is a good and needed break from the severe depression this oil spill has caused.

Presenting: BP spills coffee ...

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Duke Energy and Cherokee Indians friends again

Posted By on Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM

That sounds like it's straight out of an 1800s newspaper, but it's not. Duke Energy has been eying some land — land the federal government stole from American Indians when they forced them on the Trail of Tears — for a new electrical station. The site Duke Energy originally chose just happens to be in sight of a several thousand-year-old Indian mound, where the tribe once buried their dead. Incidentally, it's also near the tribe's first settlement — on land they had to buy back for millions of dollars.

Here's a snip from Bruce Henderson's article in The Charlotte Observer:

The tribe had complained that it wasn’t consulted about Duke’s plans to build the station near Kituwah. Swain County placed a 90-day moratorium on such projects in March, and Duke temporarily stopped work.

The following month a citizens’ group filed a complaint asking the N.C. Utilities Commission to stop the project. The group charged that Duke ignored the archaeological importance of Kituwah and broke utilities law in not seeking the commission’s approval.

The commission’s Public Staff, which represents utility customers, later agreed with Duke that it didn’t need a permit to start work. The complaint, however, is still before the commission.

Duke says it needs to build the electrical station and upgrade power lines to meet growing electrical demand, including expansion of the Harrah’s casino on the Cherokee reservation.

The Cherokees lost Kituwah in the early 1800s, when the federal government forced them off their land. The Eastern Band, who escaped into the mountains, repurchased 309 acres for $3.5 million in 1996.

What always amazes me about large corporations that claim their main motivations are saving people money, being a good neighbor and boosting stockholder earnings, is that it often takes a bright light on their plans to actually get them to pay attention to the "good neighbor" part.

Good neighbors would have been all, "my bad, I'll find another site," instead of duking things out bureaucratically and in the media. What ends up happening is the injured party is eventually vindicated and the company ends up spending more money — on all that red tape, legal fees and, eventually, on the site they could have and should have started with. All of this, of course, counters their want to keep expenses low to keep prices low to keep shareholders happy. In the meantime, the company ends up coming across as a giant, uncaring, insensitive asshat — and definitely not as a good neighbor.

Why not do the right thing to begin with? Be a good neighbor. Do what's right. In the end, that will translate to better prices and higher earnings. Not only that, doing the right thing will earn you the heart of the people you serve, Duke Energy, which — I'll tell you since you don't seem to grasp this — is invaluable.

The rest of us have to read between the spin, yo. This story is about David v. Goliath, not about being a good neighbor or penny pinching.

Though, you can't ignore our part in this brouhaha. Duke Energy is an electricity supplier, they make money when they have energy to sell and customers to buy it. So when we demand more electricity, they will do what they have to do to increase our supply. The only reason they have to install a new station at all is because our demand for electricity is up, and rising.

Put that in your peace pipe and smoke it.

Not familiar with the Trail of Tears? You should be:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,


Travelers giving the train a chance

Posted By on Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Trains rule, ya'll. I'm telling you. Sure, they're slower. In exchange, you get a load of room, you can plug in your electronics — and actually use them, there's a snack bar that sells alcohol (you can't drink and drive, but you can drink and ride) and there's even a dining car for mealtimes. Plus, there's none of the hassle you get at the airport. You don't have to pay for parking at Charlotte's current train depot. There aren't long lines. You can actually watch your luggage as it's loaded onto the train. And, let's face it, the people watching is wonderful.

Because I love the train so much, I was happy to read this headline: Charlotte-Raleigh train traffic up 200% in the Charlotte Business Journal.

Here's a snippet from the Journal's article, by James Gallagher:

Ridership on trains between North Carolina’s two largest cities climbed from 5,258 in June 2009, to 15,426 in June 2010. Amtrak officials credit the surge to the new mid-day trains, which started running June 5. The new service added two more trains to the four already running. Three of the trains run from Raleigh to Charlotte; the others run from Charlotte to Raleigh.

The new service, which takes just over three hours to complete and includes stops in Cary, Durham, Burlington, Greensboro, High Point, Salisbury and Kannapolis, is expected to attract 43,000 riders in its first year.

Seriously, trains rule. And, as things go, I'm not the only one who thinks so. As I was working on this post, the Catawba Riverkeeper — without any prompting from me — mentioned the train on Twitter:

TWEET CRF Train

So, I asked him how much he paid. While I waited for his response, I looked up the cost of a round-trip ticket from Charlotte to Raleigh: $50! That's it. And that's not even including discounts from AAA or for veterans, or what you'd pay for parking in Raleigh. What a deal. Just wait until we have high-speed trains. You'll love it.

Now, if only we could ride trains all over the region ...

By the way, here's David's (a.k.a. our Riverkeeper's) response from the train:

TWEET CRF Train 2

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Dems may have lost their minds over coal ash regulation

Posted By on Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Here are the two unlined, high-hazard coal ash ponds on Mountain Island Lake (aka our drinking water).Thanks to Nancy Pierce and Southwings for the photo.
  • Here are the two unlined, high-hazard coal ash ponds on Mountain Island Lake (aka our drinking water).Thanks to Nancy Pierce and Southwings for the photo.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been trying to classify coal ash as hazardous waste for more than three decades. Each and every time, though, they're blocked by powerful Washington lobbyists working on behalf of the energy, coal and waste industries.

Problem is, coal ash is a big, bad problem. North Carolina has more unlined, high-hazard coal ash ponds than any other state. ("High-hazard" means should the earthen dams that hold coal ash ponds in place fail, it's likely people will die.)

There are four unlined, high-hazard coal ash ponds just up the road from Uptown Charlotte, and two of those are on the edge of our city's main drinking water source.

We know the groundwater near the unlined, high-hazards ponds is contaminated. We know, from Duke Energy's own record keeping, that the run off from the coal ash ponds — which pours into the Catawba River system (a.k.a. our drinking water) 24/7/365 — contains heavy metals and toxic substances like arsenic.

So, why are our representatives in Washington voicing "strong opposition" to the EPA's proposed coal ash rule?

From the Center for Public Integrity:

The Center’s probe revealed the havoc that coal ash has wreaked on the environment and on human health near ponds, landfills, and pits where ash gets dumpedwhile a debate over federal regulation dragged on for decades. That debate flared again after the disastrous December 2008 coal-ash spill in Eastern Tennessee, a spill which led EPA to pledge to finally regulate the waste, which is a toxic byproduct of burning coal to produce electricity.

In May, after months of behind-the-scenes politicking over its proposal, the EPA unveiled a 563-pagedraft plan that would essentially classify coal ash as “hazardous” under federal waste law, triggering a series of strict controls for its dumping. A second option included in the EPA plan would deem coal ash “non-hazardous” and subject it to less stringent national standards amounting to guidelines for the states.

Political pressure against regulating the ash has been mounting ever since, and includes several Democrats on the House energy panel and in the Senate.

In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, 31 members of the House energy committee — nine Democrats and 22 Republicans — said the hazardous approach “could destroy jobs and increase electricity rates.” The letter argued that the label would “stigmatize” and “deal a crippling blow” to the recycling of coal ash into such products as cement. And it warned of potentially higher costs to utilities and consumers, citing an industry group’s predicted loss of 14 percent of the U.S. generating capacity as a result of stricter regulation.

“Closure of that amount of capacity would create reliability problems for the electric system and would cause electricity rates to increase unnecessarily,” stated the July 29 letter, which was organized by Democratic Rep. Rick Boucher. His home state of Virginia has two of the 63 cases identified by the EPA nationwide where coal ash may have tarnished groundwater and harmed ecology.

A similar letter, circulated by Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, two Democrats from North Dakota, and signed by 33 other senators, has also been sent to EPA’s Jackson.

Environmental advocates say the lawmakers’ arguments echo almost word for word the utility industry’s letters to the EPA opposing its coal ash waste plan.

The letters are also reminiscent of those decrying a draft determination backing the hazardous approach put forward by the EPA in 2000, when the agency appeared on the verge of proposing stricter federal controls for coal ash. Ultimately, it was fierce industry lobbying and political pressure that prompted the agency to back away from the hazardous option and instead pledge to issue the non-hazardous guidelines, a pledge that languished during the Bush administration.

“They brought up the stigma and cost arguments in 2000, and they’re bringing it up now,” says Lisa Evans, an EarthJustice attorney who has battled for federal regulations of coal ash. She notes that, in its current proposal, the EPA has found that both the cost to consumers and to the recycling industry are negligible. At the same time, the agency has uncovered more data proving the toxicity of coal ash. Not to mention all the human health and environmental devastation the lack of regulations has caused across the country.

“I’m pretty convinced that a lot of these legislators would have been more hesitant about signing onto this letter if they had heard from us first,” says Steve Slesinger, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which supports the EPA’s current proposal.

Read the entire article here.

In news you can use, the EPA is coming to Charlotte next month specifically to talk about coal ash. Find out more about the hearings, and how you can sign up to speak at them, here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 2, 2010

Ready your wallets: Here comes the tax-free weekend

Posted By on Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM

It's the weekend all you shoppers save for; this upcoming weekend is the state's famous tax-free weekend for all things education related — oh, and computers. And new kicks.

Click here for the finer details, from the North Carolina Department of Revenue.

And here's the spin:

Last year, North Carolina forfeited an estimated $12.3 million in sales tax revenue during the state's three-day back-to-school tax-free weekend.

This year, during the holiday that begins Friday, it is expected to give up even more.

Still, state legislators say that revoking the popular shopping weekend was never much of an option - despite the $800 million deficit facing lawmakers this year. That's not to say that the legislature didn't look at repealing the mandatory tax break on school supplies, clothes, sports gear and computers.

Such a move would not be unprecedented. Both Georgia and the District of Columbia have repealed their tax-free holidays to save money.

But in North Carolina, the tax holiday's popularity with shoppers and retailers made legislators hesitate to call off the tax-free weekend.

"Yes, it was discussed and it was discussed very honestly, but it was a relatively brief discussion," said Rep. Pryor Gibson, a Democrat from Wadesboro, the House finance committee co-chairman. "A lot of the debates we have over cuts or anything like that get strung out. But ... there was pretty strong unanimity that if you're going to provide tax relief for families, this was as good a place as you could get."

Read the rest of this News and Observer article, by Sue Stock, here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, July 26, 2010

Charlotte isn't only city pondering biomass

Posted By on Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:43 PM

In Rothschild, Wis., people are also wondering if a biomass energy plant is the right answer. But, unlike residents in the Q.C., the conversation in Rothschild is heated.

The controversy makes Rothschild ground zero in a complicated and often emotional national debate about exactly how "green" wood-burning generators are. As similar proposals emerge across the country, scientific studies question whether trees will regrow fast enough to convert the carbon released into the air during biomass burning -- the crux of "green" claims by proponents of biomass plants.

Residents and officials here and elsewhere are being forced to decide whether their concerns about biomass' environmental effects overrule the promise of badly needed jobs and a chance to support the advancement of renewable energy.

That conflict exists for communities far beyond central Wisconsin's borders, but it is intensely personal to Rothschild and Wausau-area residents, both those who trust that the local project will be and those who don't.

Read the rest of this Rapids Tribune article, by Kathleen Foody and Amy Ryan, here.

Of course, here in Charlotte, the ReVenture eco-industrial park is speeding toward becoming a reality. While area environmentalists think most of the plans for the park are terrific, they're beginning to voice concerns about plans for a biomass energy plant slated to be built inside the park.

But, for some reason, Charlotte, the place long-known as a "hornet's nest" because of the outspoken populace, doesn't have much of a conversation going on about the topic. Why is that? What do you think about constructing a biomass energy plant on the edge of the Catawba River and Mecklenburg County?

Further reading: Not everyone in the Q.C. is excited about biomass

Here's a peek into a meeting in Russell, Mass., where things got a little snippy when the topic turned to their own biomass plant.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thinking outside of the bottle

Posted By on Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:31 PM

A Huntersville inventor has found a way to help us save energy and plastic.

Clearwater Manufacturing has created a mini-water-bottling machine no larger than a hotel icemaker. It sanitizes, fills and caps glass and aluminum bottles of water on site for immediate sale and consumption.

The company plans to lease or sell the machine to universities, hospitals, military bases, companies, theme parks and cruise lines.

Called the Boomerang Water Bottling System, it produces six bottles a minute of highly purified water. That's up to 2,800 bottles a day.

"Producing the bottled water in-house eliminates the need for trucks to deliver water, thereby eliminating vehicle emissions," said Colin Van Rooyen, Clearwater's chief operating officer, who calls the machine a "win-win-win."

"The environment wins by eliminating landfill contribution and reducing CO {-2} emissions by 95percent after the first return," he said. "The consumer wins with a convenient, sustainable bottled water product, and the Boomerang machine owner wins with higher profits."

Read the rest of this Charlotte Observer article here.

In addition to controversies about chemicals leeching out of plastic and into our drinks, food and waterways, water bottles are also controversial because they're made from petroleum products. More than that, not everyone recycles them ... even though it's illegal to throw most of them away in North Carolina.

This, my friends, is a problem. Not because the recycling police are coming for you, but because our mass consumption of plastic is one more way our society demands oil from foreign suppliers. Also, we're sacrificing our health and the environment for our convenience and the idea that we should have a brand-new bottle every time we're thirsty. That's not cool.

It's simple to be part of the solution, though. One of the easiest ways for you to reduce your demand for petroleum is to use a reusable metal water bottle or a reusable glass. Using bio-degradable, non-petroleum based plastics (like those made from corn or hemp) are another option. And when you do choose plastic, always recycle.

P.S. When you buy water in plastic bottles, you're most likely getting tap water anyway. So you might as well use the water from your own faucet.

Here's a snippet from the documentary "Tapped," which tackles not only the issue of foreign oil in our water bottles — which leach all kinds of chemicals into the water, but also the reality that, soon, we'll soon fight over water just as we fight over oil today. It's worth a watch.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Utility companies trying to greenwash climate legislation

Posted By on Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:15 AM

And who's at the center of it all? Duke Energy's own Jim Rogers, of course!

Here's the deal: Right now, two things are happening in parallel. The first is getting all the attention, but the second is, in practical terms, more significant. Yet the first may screw up the second. Let me explain.

The first thing is, Democrats in the Senate are now talking about passing a limited cap-and-trade system that only covers electric utilities. This is widely seen as a second-best measure, something short of an economy-wide system but better than no CO2 restrictions at all. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), among others, is working on legislative language for such a system (though he has said he's skeptical it can get to 60 votes). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is apparently going to go for it, including such a system in the coming energy bill, and he's deep in negotiation with various stakeholders about it.

The second thing is, EPA is working on a whole suite of new Clean Air Act regulations. I'm not talking about the much-discussed EPA regulation of greenhouse gases -- I mean tightened standards on traditional ("criteria") air pollutants. The Clean Air Act dictates that EPA regularly revisit pollution standards and update them to reflect the best current science. Needless to say, that wasn't done during the Bush years, so there's a huge backlog of work. Every single criteria pollutant is being revisited. The upshot is, there are tons of new standards either recently released or on their way in the next year or so. (Also relevant are upcoming regulation of coal ash and tightened Clean Water Act standards.)

The utilities see an opening here. Their support will be crucial for getting the energy bill through the Senate. In exchange for their support, they are now asking to be exempted from the EPA's new rules (as they are in Sen. Dick Lugar's [R-Ind.] proposed energy bill). Darren Samuelsohn and Coral Davenport have a great story today on the heated negotiations going on around this issue as we speak.

A deal to exempt utilities from new Clean Air Act rules in exchange for their support for a utility-only cap-and-trade system would be a terrible deal.

Read the rest of this Grist.org article, by David Roberts, here to find out why it would be so bad.

Further reading from Grist.org:

Accept more poison to get less carbon? Kill this crazy idea NOW, by Van Jones

How to make energy programs work better (for free!), by David Roberts

"Cap and trade" is a phrase that's thrown around a lot these day, but what does it mean? This video will help clear things up for you:

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Search Events


© 2019 Womack Digital, LLC
Powered by Foundation