Environmental Protection Agency: Senator trying to take key agency out of the loop

First, let's take a moment to give thought to those impacted by the earthquake in Haiti. Needless to say, international relief agencies need your support; the American Red Cross and International Red Cross are two of the leading organizations. Give what you can.

And let's not be distracted by comments from pompous religious zealots who wish to claim that this natural disaster is the fault of the Haitian people consorting with the devil. Small minds deserve small attention.

But back on the environment front, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has proposed legislation - actually an amendment to be tacked on a government spending bill - that would deprive the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. The crux of the issue has to do more with politics than with a difference in environmental opinion. The EPA is an executive branch agency and there are those who would prefer to see greenhouse emissions regulation originate from Congress - a decidedly less scientific body greatly influenced by outside interests opposed to decisive action to curb CO2 emissions.

The EPA's December declaration that pollution from greenhouse gas emissions endangers public health and that the agency would take action under the Clean Air Act met with support from conservation and environmental groups and disdain from lobbyists and supporters of fossil fuel energy industries. But this recent announcement was not solely on the EPA's initiative; it was the result of a Supreme Court ruling some three years ago. As reported by the Miami Herald:

"The EPA's move to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions is part of its compliance with a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring the agency to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger the country's health and welfare. If the agency found that such emissions are indeed dangerous -- which it did -- the court instructed the EPA to address the problem."

The wheels of Congress and the EPA, both, turn slowly and it will be years before one can expect regulations to take effect. But action must be taken now if the scientific-based input from the EPA is to be considered and not shut out of the discussion. The Center for Biological Diversity has started a drive to send letters to all members of Congress to oppose the Murkowski amendment. If you would like to add your voice, click here.

We must not forget that there are strong forces at work in opposition of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. There are huge economic interests from industries who have operated on a centuries-old business model, that of utilizing fossil fuels (oil and coal), and are not prepared to accept the fact that that business model is not only a finite model, but that the inevitable change to cleaner alternative energies must start now in earnest.

If you would like to get a perspective from the "liberal, radical, tree-hugger" side of the aisle, there are interesting articles in the latest issue of Rolling Stone (Issue 1096). One article, by contributing editor Jeff Goodell, details the extent of the lobbying campaigns by the oil and coal industries; while writer Tim Dickinson follows up with an article listing 17 leading businesspersons and politicians and others who are pushing hard to derail efforts to curb global warming. It's always good to know who are policymakers are either up against or being influenced by.

Read the Miami Herald article on Sen, Lisa Murkowski.
Join The Center for Biological Diversity's letter campaign.
Read about climate change opposition in Rolling Stone.

Thanksgiving 2007: Forward thinking for Nature's sake

On 11/12/07, RTSea wrote: As we in the U.S. approach our Thanksgiving holiday, I find myself thinking more about the challenges ahead than whatever bounty we have enjoyed over the past year. Today, I listened to a roundtable of respected journalists give their opinions as to whether corporations will truly embrace the necessary changes to address global warming. Their responses were not encouraging. Actions taken by individuals and corporations when it comes to climate change, must be the result of decisions based on long-term thinking, not short term. And that has always been a tremendous challenge - whether satisfying our personal finances or the needs of corporate shareholders.

There is no time like the present to re-orient our thinking when it comes to the long term demands of the environment. We cannot wait for some ecological disaster to occur and then we spring into action to save the day. Nature does not work like that. Think of Nature as one of those huge ocean liners. As it approaches port, to turn or slow down, the crew must initiate action many miles off shore. To wait until you see the dock only guarantees that there will be a tremendous crash.

While I do not accept all of the concepts behind the Gaia environmental theory, one concept I do see as valid is the fact that Nature will always seek a balance. It will do what it takes to try to continue to exist in some manner or another. And if that means the reduction or even extinction of a species - including humans - then so be it. So we must be conscious of what we are doing now as our actions will have a lasting legacy for years to come.

In regards to forward-thinking and the environment, Bill Clinton was recently quoted in Rolling Stone, "Think of this: As far as we can tell, the first Homo Sapiens rose up from the African savannah give or take 150,000 years ago. That means it took us 150,000 years to grow to our present population of 6.5 billion. Now all of a sudden, in the next forty-three years, we are going to go from 6.5 billion to 9 billion - at the very time we are facing climate change, resource depletion and real identity tensions all over the world. That is why I think more about fifty years from now than fifty days from now."

Getting businesses on the side of Nature

On 06/22/07 RTSea wrote: One of the challenges we face is re-orienting the thinking of governments and industry regarding the economic impact of environmental issues. It is one thing to weigh differing business ideas and say this one is the better choice economically; the other will have to wait. But Nature does not work that way: Nature does not say, okay, since it will hurt you economically, we will just magically maintain the fish count even though you are overfishing the species. Or, sure, let us just put off the effects of global warming until you all figure out when it would be the most convenient time to deal with it.

There is an interesting trio of articles in the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine (Issue no. 1029). First, an interview with Al Gore that is enlightening and, in many ways, optimistic. The second article goes after the positions and steps taken by the current U.S. administration regarding global warming. Depending on your political persuasion, you can take it for gospel or with a grain of salt, but there is no denying that the current administration has not made great strides in dealing with environmental issues. The third article, titled "What Must Be Done", addresses just how businesses and government can turn "green" into gold, that the so-called negative impact of addressing environmental issues has more to do with a mental mindset that prefers the status quo. The same inventive, pioneering spirit that put a man on the moon - and gave us everything from velcro to advanced computers - needs to be reawakened to address the issues facing this planet.