Slashdot Mirror

Can you point out to me where in the document you link for "Haliburton Loophole" it says that that's a myth? All I see is the Energy Policy Act of 2005; Section 322 of that document indicates that ‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.’’ are exempted from the "Underground Injection" provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Additionally the Clean Water Act was amended to clarify that "water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas..." are NOT classified as pollutants. These two things together seem to indicate that they can in fact pump whatever they'd like into wells to facilitate oil production, even if it's not labeled specifically as "The Haliburton Loophole". Am I missing something?

You need to plug in the actual CO2 emissions instead of their predicted CO2 emissions. All that growth out of poverty in China meant much more CO2 than was assumed. The IPCC overview uses a linear trend. As you can see from:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...
the CO2 emissions increased quite a bit faster in the late 90's. This overproduction of CO2 means the models would predict more warming if you feed in the actual CO2 emissions.

Seriously, mod the person whose posting a "I beleive untrue things that sound moderate" up while the basic observable facts of the situation down.

Deniers are the worst kind of people.

Here are some statistics to show that, as pertains the Arctic, the Earth is measurably warming. I can tell you offhand that annual temperatures in Alaska have warmed by 3 degrees in the last century, and winter temperatures by 6 degrees. Southeastern Alaska is characterized by stable temperatures throughout the year, heavy precipitation, and a gradual transition from getting most of that as rain vs snow as one goes further north. Thus the warming is shall we say particularly noticeable to costal inhabitants. Another good measure of long-term climactic changes is the extent of permafrost.[pdf] Much of the ground in Alaska, and practically all the ground above the Arctic Circle is permanently frozen. Ice being less dense than water, if you happen to melt it, you create a subsidence and potentially a small lake. Either way, it's extremely disruptive to what little vegetation (or structures) there are that can survive on top of permafrost and hence easy to observe. Other good measures are the many glaciers, which I am told take thousands of years to form. 98% of all glaciers in Alaska are in retreat, and I mean visibly, over the last two decades. I lived in a fairly glacier-heavy area, and every successive spring brought more bare rock where once there was towering ice. The most dramatic of these was Columbia, of course, and I'm told that is not strongly linked to climate changes, but nine miles of ice melting in two decades is really an incredible pace.

I've recently been probing my ignorance of atmospheric science. I've found a couple fairly informative resources, including this more general introduction to the maths, and a more thorough examination of carbon dioxide's role as a greenhouse gas. It really doesn't take a great deal of learning to see that, aside from the observed warming trend, a higher partial pressure of carbon dioxide must result in increased heat transfer to the Earth's surface. There's really nowhere else for it to go. What happens from there is obviously a complex topic, but as you say, the glass jar experiments show pretty clearly that CO2 absorbs long-wave outgoing radiation. Where else do you imagine the heat goes?

Here are some statistics to show that, as pertains the Arctic, the Earth is measurably warming. I can tell you offhand that annual temperatures in Alaska have warmed by 3 degrees in the last century, and winter temperatures by 6 degrees. Southeastern Alaska is characterized by stable temperatures throughout the year, heavy precipitation, and a gradual transition from getting most of that as rain vs snow as one goes further north. Thus the warming is shall we say particularly noticeable to costal inhabitants. Another good measure of long-term climactic changes is the extent of permafrost.[pdf] Much of the ground in Alaska, and practically all the ground above the Arctic Circle is permanently frozen. Ice being less dense than water, if you happen to melt it, you create a subsidence and potentially a small lake. Either way, it's extremely disruptive to what little vegetation (or structures) there are that can survive on top of permafrost and hence easy to observe. Other good measures are the many glaciers, which I am told take thousands of years to form. 98% of all glaciers in Alaska are in retreat, and I mean visibly, over the last two decades. I lived in a fairly glacier-heavy area, and every successive spring brought more bare rock where once there was towering ice. The most dramatic of these was Columbia, of course, and I'm told that is not strongly linked to climate changes, but nine miles of ice melting in two decades is really an incredible pace.

I've recently been probing my ignorance of atmospheric science. I've found a couple fairly informative resources, including this more general introduction to the maths, and a more thorough examination of carbon dioxide's role as a greenhouse gas. It really doesn't take a great deal of learning to see that, aside from the observed warming trend, a higher partial pressure of carbon dioxide must result in increased heat transfer to the Earth's surface. There's really nowhere else for it to go. What happens from there is obviously a complex topic, but as you say, the glass jar experiments show pretty clearly that CO2 absorbs long-wave outgoing radiation. Where else do you imagine the heat goes?

If climate change is WMD, it must be wielded by a certain faction

The most potent element in climate change is methane gas.

The greatest living producers of methane gas are bovines, (cattle) on its own, contributing up to 30% of world greenhouse gas emissions [EPA report

The number of bovines in captivity (in US, Europe and Asia, excluding India) tend to outnumber those in the wild

For the captive cattle population in the US, roughly 1/3 are converted to foodstuffs each year [source: "download fact sheet"]

We've got them right where we want them, but somehow they still manage to execute their global-climate attacks. Time for a diplomatic solution?

(j/k ... this is 'Murica, we don't do diplomatic solutions.)

Nature does not pollute itself.

Huh? Really? I give you the Sumas Mountain runoff (Swift Creek) as an example of nature polluting itself. You can find lots of examples of rivers naturally polluted with lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium and other heavy metals.

I was thinking this bill could actually much worse than just wishing for a scientific process that doesn't exist: there is a large and gaping flaw in its logic. Much of our regulations are issued because of large-scale damage to the ecosystem that costs much more to deal with its consequences than prevent (e.g., the added health costs of air pollution). However, in large systems, especially those involving human beings and livelihood, it is utterly impossible to reproduce something, like the climate change over the entire Earth,. According to the logic, to regulate dumping chemicals in a lake, you'd have to show that not dumping chemicals in the same lake under the same conditions doesn't result in mass fish die offs, increased risk of cancer for local inhabitants, etc. Since regulations are issued only after something becomes a problem, you can't ever reproduce the pristine conditions. How do you know it was chemicals and wasn't the weather that killed all those fish? You didn't reproduce the experiment.

As for the EPA using secret science, this is an utter load of bull-shit. All of EPA's studies are on-line and publically available. Here is a link to the searchable database containing the superfund site Records of Decision: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/c...

This is another manufactured crisis like the "war" on Christmas attempting to make people on the left (or anyone who doesn't agree with them) into demons. Assholes.

The purpose of the bill and the reporting being done on it from GOPNews is to frame policy debate within the myth that what the EPA is doing isn't ALREADY TRANSPARENT. At least it's sufficiently transparent to those who understand the science. It will always be opaque to those who are ill-informed about science. I've been researching proposed regulations in drinking water. An enormous volume of scientific documentation regarding the studies and methods that are being used were freely available at http://epa.gov./ Schedules for periods of public comment and dissenting opinion documentation are posted there also. So how much more do they have to do to be transparent in the eyes of clueless people.

Couple of points.

1) EPA has no jurisdiction for mold remediation in your house so there are no regulations about how you can go about cleaning it.
2) The EPA does have a mandate to help you and they did: http://www.epa.gov/mold/moldgu... That's the first hit on googling: EPA mold remediation residential, and clicking 'who should do the cleanup'. They clearly state for less than 10 sq feet do it yourself, don't pay anyone.

You didn't even need to pay the person you eventually paid, let alone the person scamming you. Don't blame the EPA or science for your lack of awareness or ability to spend 20 seconds using google. They did what they should to help you.

I agree that simply restricting EPA's regulation is an "end of pipe" solution to the problems at EPA (restricting the power to restrict). But while I think the environment is the most important legacy our generation will leave (or not), there are many problems at EPA. A pile of lead silicate in the sunshine at a mining site is governed by 1872 laws and the cleanup paid by Superfund. Try collecting a stack of leaded silicate at a recycling operation. Outdated EPA codes discourage innovation or investment. In 1960 the USA had 7 secondary (recycling) copper smelters, by 2001 there were 0, because EPA enforcement of "waste" (scrap raw material, defined as "waste") is stronger than enforcement of "extraction" (mined raw material, defined as a "commodity") codes. The codes on EPA books were influenced by property value, making resources extracted from populace more difficult. 14/15 of the largest Superfund sites are at hard rock mining sites EPA can't figure out how to regulate... so they double down regulating recyclers, in a perverse "pecking order" show of strength. Visit this EPA Calculator to see EPA's attempt to put their Codes into legal interpretation, and run virgin leaded ore through it (follow "specific exclusions" path for mined ore, defined under "commodity" exclusion) http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/...

I really liked my colleagues (state env regulatory agency) and hate to sound like a jerk. But that social group-think, and "reverence of the environment", doesn't belong in scientific method, and is part of the problem. There is kind of pseudo-religious hostility towards rewriting environmental regulations, which become ossified and subject to work-arounds. Too many environmental regulators seem spoiled by the knee-jerk support of environmentalists, who fetishize the environmental codes, opposing rewrites and sunsetting of old EPA rules (again, out of justifiable but cynical suspicion the RCRA and CERCLA laws won't be replaced by new ones). Resistance to identified problems with EPA testing methods (like TCLP tests applied to vitrified solids, hah!) feeds the backlash at the GOP over continued use of the old code. How many of the comments here simply dismiss the idea in the article because it comes from the GOP? And how often are Democrats willing to sunset an old code before implementing a new one? It's a vicious intractable political cycle.

All I can think of is to put USGS.gov (US Geological Survey) or NASA in charge of EPA, as the problems at EPA are entrenched officials who don't know how to steer their ocean liner to catch the sunset. RCRA and CERCLA are broken, EPA officials know it, but they are too afraid that if they are removed they won't be able to get replacement law enacted, and won't be able to hire the type of people that would write good regulations out of the new laws. Or if it's a coding problem, maybe a software engineer can fix it.

10M gallons is a lot of water, isn't it? 97B is unimaginable, isn't it?

Well, at least until you start figuring that American families average 300 gallons.

Any idea where the EPA came up with that figure? I don't see any source citation on their page...

Far be it from me to question the honesty of a government agency, but it's not like they haven't lied to us "for our own good" in the past.

10M gallons is a lot of water, isn't it? 97B is unimaginable, isn't it?

Well, at least until you start figuring that American families average 300 gallons. So 10M gallons for a single well is 'merely' 1 years worth of water for a 100 families. With 115M households, that's ~12.6T gallons of water used by people at home every year. Meaning Fracking is .8% of domestic water usage.

Then figure that 'domestic' is only 8.5% of our water usage, with irrigation taking up 37% and thermoelectric power 42%.

I don't object to making fracking companies pay a premium, import their water, use treated & filtered sewage, or other options to leave the 'good water' to people who need it, but let's face it - your average water company could save more water patching leaks they've let sit for a while(17% of domestic usage is wasted on leaks) than what fraking companies use.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released its annual Climate Protection Partnerships report, highlighting the steps more than 21,000 organizations across the United States have taken to reduce greenhouse gas pollution while achieving significant environmental and economic benefits.

“The urgency to act on climate change is clear,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “Through investments in cleaner technologies and energy-efficient practices, EPA’s Climate Protection Partners show us that we can cut the harmful carbon pollution that fuels climate change and protects public health—while continuing to grow a strong, sustainable economy.”

The achievements outlined in this report support the goals of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan by cutting energy waste, encouraging energy efficiency, and saving money for American families and businesses. The report, "EPA’s Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Protection Partnerships 2012 Annual Report" includes accomplishments such as:

-- In 2012, EPA's climate protection programs prevented 365 million metric tons of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions—equivalent to the emissions from the annual electricity use of more than 50 million homes.

-- Americans saved more than $26 billion on their utility bills in 2012 with the help of ENERGY STAR® and prevented greenhouse gas emissions equal to the annual electricity use of 35 million homes.

-- Since the Green Power Partnership was introduced in 2001, more than 1,400 organizations have committed to using about 29 billion kilowatt-hours of green power each year.

-- More than 450 partners have installed over 5,700 megawatts of new combined heat and power since the Combined Heat and Power Partnership launched in 2001.

-- In 2012, EPA’s methane and fluorinated greenhouse-gas-program partners used EPA tools and resources to prevent emissions equal to the annual electricity use from more than 10 million homes.

-- In total, more than 21,000 organizations and millions of Americans have partnered with the EPA through the Office of Atmospheric Programs’ climate partnerships and produced significant environmental benefits.

EPA’s climate protection programs continue to advance greenhouse gas reduction goals and deliver greater benefits each year. These benefits can only grow as more businesses, public sector institutions, households, and others adopt the practices promoted by the climate protection partnerships. All of these benefits are the result of voluntary actions by individuals, businesses and industry.

These reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are increasingly important to tackle climate change challenges. The global average temperature for every decade since the Industrial Revolution has been hotter than the previous decade, and the 12 hottest years on record have all occurred within the past 15 years. Scientists have observed changes in precipitation, rising sea level, melting ice and altered weather patterns, including more frequent and intense storms.

The report further outlines the environmental accomplishments of these programs. To read the full report: http://www.energystar.gov/about/sites/default/uploads/files/2012_AnnualReport_Final.pdf. To learn more about climate change: www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Or, perhaps retain storm drainage on golf courses so their fertilizer doesn't end up in streams to begin with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... If golf courses and farmers wouldn't mow and plow right down to the water and then over-fertilize, we could reduce phosphorus in streams a ton. If you're interested in the health of golf course sized stream in the US, I recommend checking out the EPA Wadeable Stream Assessment (I worked on the field work in Arkansas) http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/...

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today issued a final rule that is a crucial step in the development of a national electronic manifest (e-Manifest) system, which will upgrade the current paper-based system of tracking hazardous waste to an electronic one.
“Today’s action is a key step in bringing the oversight of these potentially dangerous materials into the 21st century,” said Mathy Stanislaus, EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. “Once fully implemented, the national e-Manifest system will provide greater access for emergency responders to information about the types and sources of hazardous waste that are in transit between generator sites and waste management facilities.”
The final rule authorizes the use of e-Manifests to track hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. This will allow the current process, which requires paper forms, to be streamlined and greatly reduce the millions of paper manifests produced each year.
The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act requires EPA to issue a regulation authorizing the use of electronic manifests as the legal equivalent of the current paper manifest forms used to track shipments of hazardous waste from a generator’s site to the ultimate site of disposal. EPA’s goal is to promote the greatest possible use of electronic manifests.
The e-Manifest program is the vanguard of the agency-wide initiative to develop new tools to reduce the reporting burden on regulated entities, and provide the agency, states and the public with easier access to environmental data. EPA estimates the national e-Manifest system will ultimately reduce the burden associated with preparing shipping manifests by between 300,000 and 700,000 hours, and result in cost savings of more than $75 million per year for states and industry. In line with the agency’s e-Enterprise principles, the e-Manifest system will significantly improve access to higher quality and more timely waste shipment data, and will empower communities through increased transparency and more accurate information on completed waste shipments and management trends.
The final rule will establish the legal and policy framework for using electronic manifests; however, several more steps will be needed before the e-Manifest program can be implemented. These include establishing the system and initial fee structure. This year, EPA will work with states, industry and other stakeholders to develop plans for the many key aspects of the system and address concerns of intersystem compatibility. The Agency will also begin developing the initial fee structure of the system, including implementation and compliance dates, through a rulemaking. Stakeholders and interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule when it becomes available.
For more information:
http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/transportation/manifest/e-man.htm

I for one am very happy about this. CFLs are presented as a benefit for the environment, but does anyone think most bulbs are disposed of properly? How many are brought back to Home Depot, for instance? Bottom line for me is the mercury. I don't like it near my children. A broken bulb is a nightmare...who wants to deal with this?: http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl-0.

Moreover, I think the difference in efficiency presented always overlooks something important: In colder climates especially, much of the time the "inefficient" incandescent bulb's "wasted energy" is not wasted at all -- it is radiated as heat that helps to warm your home.

I have incandescent bulbs that have lasted twenty years without being changed. I have had CFLs that last a month, in the same socket that the previous incandescent lasted for years.

I'm sorry for being so truthful but you're a fucking liar. I'm 61 years old and never saw a bulb in use last much longer than a year. Shelf life? Sure. Are you a politician? Or a PR guy for BP or Mobile? CFLs plural that lasted a month? I've been using them for a decade and never saw any like that.

Peddle your lies somewhere else. Oh, wait, I read on. It gets better.

When an incandescent bulb breaks, you release highly toxic nothing gas and some bits of tungsten. When a CFL breaks, you call in the hazmat team to deal with it.

LOL. Incandescents have no toxic gasses, and Bullshit on your hazmat, too. Who's paying you to lie like that?

I'll skip the rest of the laughable bits and ROTF over this: "The important measure is not current but wattage, since that's what is used in billing. According to this they use 1/3 to 1/5 as many watts."

Do you know where you are, dudus? Wattage is voltage times amperage and everybody here knows that. Take your troll to reddit, morons there are stupid enough to swallow your bullshit.

Have a nice day, shill.

> I'm also VERY unhappy about the EPA cleanup for these bulbs.

O RLY?

> I broke a 150W equivalent one and following the instructions for cleanup was HORRIBLE. Who can leave the windows open for WEEKS? Come on.

That is an interesting use of the word "weeks" with which I was previously unfamiliar.

The instructions are horrible? You need to keep the windows open for weeks? Which EPA CFL cleanup instructions are you unhappy with? Certainly not these:

http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl
http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl-0

Directly copied from the article:

Open a window or door to the outdoors and leave the room for 5-10 minutes.

and if you have to vacuum:

Continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the H&AC system shut off, as practical, for several hours.

Now keep in mind that cleanup instructions, risks, cautionary notices, etc. such as this border on paranoia, because it is all about CYA to avoid civil lawsuits.

Take cellphone warnings on fuel pumps for example: they "forbid" the use of cellphones near the pump, even though the risks are based on urban legends. Why? Because people will sue the gas station if they start a fire while they happen to be on the phone (whether by smoking or electrostatic discharge, etc) at the pump, then in civil court blame the cellphone and the facility for not posting warnings, and in a civil trial the burden of proof is often on the defendant so they have to pay out. With this ridiculous scenario lawyers dream up based on equally ridiculous suits in the past, they have the company post these ridiculous warnings on the pumps, to protect themselves against this sort of liability.

My point is, the EPA instructions are not nearly as bad as you made them out to be, and even as paranoid as they are (minutes to hours to air out the room) they are overly cautious to protect against lawsuits. I can think of a scenario for CFLs:

Suzie is replacing a compact fluorescent light bulb (her home is very modern, you see - central HVAC, "green" lighting throughout, tight construction) and the central heat is on as her newborn baby Johnny is sleeping soundly two rooms away. She is still a little sore from labor and felt a twinge of pain and jerked a little. The new CFL slips from her hand and shatters when it hits the floor. She dutifully cleans up the light bulb, throws it in the trash and never gives it a second thought, until 24 to 30 months later when she notices her precious little snowflake doesn't seem to be hitting certain milestones, and seems withdrawn at times, but very prone to repeated habits and regular tantrums when Suzie doesn't get him fed on time, or to bed on time. Concerned, she takes little Johnny to the doctor, and the child is diagnosed autistic. Suddenly Suzie remembers Jenny McCarthy rambling on about mercury and vaccines and autism, and the light bulb goes on - the EPA must be at fault! CFLs have mercury, she, being a klutz, broke one as her infant child slept in his crib, and followed the cleanup instructions. They never mentioned airing out the room or shutting down the HVAC, so clearly the EPA is to blame for her precious snowflake's being autistic. THE EPA MUST PAY!!! (Never mind that if it was caused by mercury, it was more likely the mercury she played with as a child but the fact that she got into her older brother's chemistry kit and suffered heavy metal poisoning symptoms was never mentioned in court)

Somewhere, some EPA staff lawyer thought about that scenario or one like it, and came up with the overly-cautious cleanup instructions as a CYA measure. Even so, again, it is nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

> I'm also VERY unhappy about the EPA cleanup for these bulbs.

O RLY?

> I broke a 150W equivalent one and following the instructions for cleanup was HORRIBLE. Who can leave the windows open for WEEKS? Come on.

That is an interesting use of the word "weeks" with which I was previously unfamiliar.

The instructions are horrible? You need to keep the windows open for weeks? Which EPA CFL cleanup instructions are you unhappy with? Certainly not these:

http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl
http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl-0

Directly copied from the article:

Open a window or door to the outdoors and leave the room for 5-10 minutes.

and if you have to vacuum:

Continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the H&AC system shut off, as practical, for several hours.

Now keep in mind that cleanup instructions, risks, cautionary notices, etc. such as this border on paranoia, because it is all about CYA to avoid civil lawsuits.

Take cellphone warnings on fuel pumps for example: they "forbid" the use of cellphones near the pump, even though the risks are based on urban legends. Why? Because people will sue the gas station if they start a fire while they happen to be on the phone (whether by smoking or electrostatic discharge, etc) at the pump, then in civil court blame the cellphone and the facility for not posting warnings, and in a civil trial the burden of proof is often on the defendant so they have to pay out. With this ridiculous scenario lawyers dream up based on equally ridiculous suits in the past, they have the company post these ridiculous warnings on the pumps, to protect themselves against this sort of liability.

My point is, the EPA instructions are not nearly as bad as you made them out to be, and even as paranoid as they are (minutes to hours to air out the room) they are overly cautious to protect against lawsuits. I can think of a scenario for CFLs:

Suzie is replacing a compact fluorescent light bulb (her home is very modern, you see - central HVAC, "green" lighting throughout, tight construction) and the central heat is on as her newborn baby Johnny is sleeping soundly two rooms away. She is still a little sore from labor and felt a twinge of pain and jerked a little. The new CFL slips from her hand and shatters when it hits the floor. She dutifully cleans up the light bulb, throws it in the trash and never gives it a second thought, until 24 to 30 months later when she notices her precious little snowflake doesn't seem to be hitting certain milestones, and seems withdrawn at times, but very prone to repeated habits and regular tantrums when Suzie doesn't get him fed on time, or to bed on time. Concerned, she takes little Johnny to the doctor, and the child is diagnosed autistic. Suddenly Suzie remembers Jenny McCarthy rambling on about mercury and vaccines and autism, and the light bulb goes on - the EPA must be at fault! CFLs have mercury, she, being a klutz, broke one as her infant child slept in his crib, and followed the cleanup instructions. They never mentioned airing out the room or shutting down the HVAC, so clearly the EPA is to blame for her precious snowflake's being autistic. THE EPA MUST PAY!!! (Never mind that if it was caused by mercury, it was more likely the mercury she played with as a child but the fact that she got into her older brother's chemistry kit and suffered heavy metal poisoning symptoms was never mentioned in court)

Somewhere, some EPA staff lawyer thought about that scenario or one like it, and came up with the overly-cautious cleanup instructions as a CYA measure. Even so, again, it is nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs-dangerous
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/some-comfort-about-broken-cfls
http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl

Turn on your brains Americans.. don't just recycle what ever garbage you here and then act as if you know the " EPA cleanup rules"

http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl
"Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment. "

"What if I can't follow all the recommended steps? or I cleaned up a CFL but didn't do it properly?
Don't be alarmed; these steps are only precautions that reflect best practices for cleaning up a broken CFL. Keep in mind that CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury -- less than 1/100th of the amount in a mercury thermometer. "

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced design assistance to help the capital cities of Michigan, Wisconsin and Washington develop designs for greener, healthier, more vibrant neighborhoods. The designs will provide models for the growing number of communities interested in sustainable designs that improve the environment, strengthen local economies, and protect people’s health. The cities, which were selected through a national competition, are:

- Lansing, Mich. will receive assistance to develop options for transforming a 14-acre parking lot between the state capitol and Hall of Justice into a public park that showcases green infrastructure and renewable energy technologies. The design assistance aims to help reduce combined sewer overflows, prevent flooding, reduce the heat island effect, beautify public spaces near major civic buildings, and connect pedestrian walkways and transit to community and state institutions.

- Madison, Wis. will receive assistance to explore ways to make pedestrian and bicycle improvements and add green infrastructure, such as trees and rain gardens, to streets in the Triangle Neighborhood. The project aims to make it easier for residents to access nearby transit, open spaces, and the Monona Bay, and also improve water quality in the bay.

- Olympia, Wash. will receive assistance to incorporate green infrastructure along Capitol Way to reduce stormwater runoff, improve access to businesses and the waterfront, and adapt to climate change. The project aims to strengthen connections between the capitol campus and downtown, encouraging people to walk and bike to shops and restaurants.

This is the fourth year of the Greening America’s Capitals program. To date, 15 capital cities have received assistance, including Boston; Charleston, W.Va.; Hartford, Conn.; Jefferson City, Mo.; Little Rock, Ark.; Jackson, Miss.; Lincoln, Neb.; Montgomery, Ala.; Phoenix, Ariz.; Washington; Baton Rouge, La.; Des Moines, Iowa; Frankfort, Ky.; Helena, Mont.; and Indianapolis, Ind.

EPA recently posted reports for Baton Rouge, Des Moines, Frankfort, Helena, and Indianapolis. EPA assistance will help the cities pursue green infrastructure, more walkable streets and other amenities. View design options for each city at http://www.flickr.com/photos/usepagov/sets/72157633206541248/

Greening America's Capitals is an EPA program conducted in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Transportation through the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. The partnership is helping communities across the country create more housing and transportation choices, reinforce existing investments, and support vibrant and healthy neighborhoods that attract businesses.

More information on Greening America’s Capitals and a link to the reports:
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/greencapitals.htm

More information on the Partnership for Sustainable Communities:
http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov

I had a half page memo typed as to why you were wrong but I can't be bothered to type it out. . .

You need to see a doctor about this.

See Jane Q Public's response. . .

The freezing point of propylene glycol has little to do with what I said. Automotive antifreeze is most commonly ethylene glycol, while propylene glycol is marketed as a "green" alternative.

The rest of your statement just sounds truthy, but it's wrong.

Nope.

ou mean scientists like Árpád Pusztai

No, I mean scientists that know how to design a decent experiment. See this for example (p 16): "he main conclu- sion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."

including a familiarity with the methods by which GMO crops are evaluated for safety, I've decided they are not sufficiently rigorous to convince me of the crops' safety.

ok, this could be interesting. Are you worried that starch in GMO corn is different than starch in non-GMO corn? What exactly is your problem with the current methods?

those foods are exempt from the food additive regulations.

You still don't get it. As a food, anyone can eat any nucleic acid on the planet without being harmed. That is why it is not treated as an additive.

3) When GMO crops are evaluted, they are not done so with sufficient rigor.

There is enough rigor for the scientists involved. It is a simple chemical analyses that to find all the anomalous chemicals in the GMO plant. None have been found so far. All your "what if's" are just fear mongering when you have no facts to support your stand.
Where Bt crops are involved you might want to look here

Genetically engineered foods are overseen by the FDA, but there is no approval process.

They are also overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the EPA where there is an approval process.

I like the selective emphasis.

FDA encourages informal consultation between producers and FDA scientists to ensure that safety concerns are resolved. However, producers remain legally responsible for satisfying section 402(a)(1) of the act, and they will continue to be held accountable by FDA through application of the agency's enforcement powers.

how about this alternate emphasis

FDA encourages informal consultation between producers and FDA scientists to ensure that safety concerns are resolved. However, producers remain legally responsible for satisfying section 402(a)(1) of the act, and they will continue to be held accountable by FDA through application of the agency's enforcement powers.

Again you missed the paragraph before that one.

Section 402(a)(1) of the act will continue to be FDA's primary legal tool for regulating the safety of whole foods, including foods derived from plants genetically modified by the new techniques. Section 402(a)(1) of the act will be applied to any substance that occurs unexpectedly in the food at a level that may be injurious to health. This includes a naturally occurring toxicant whose level is unintentionally increased by the genetic modification, as well as an unexpected toxicant that first appears in the food as a result of pleiotropic effects. Such substances are regarded by FDA as added substances whose presence adulterates the food if present at a level that "may render" the food injurious to health.

FDA does not expect that there will be any serious question about the GRAS status of transferred genetic material.

Obviously GMO organisms are safe because we have no expectations they won't be safe.

Way to take a statement out of context. They are talking about whether or not to class transferred genetic material as an additive (section 409 of the Act) that needs separate approval. There are other sections of the act that GMOs fall under. The consumption of the genetic material itself is not an issue; What the genetic material produces is and that is covered by other regulations from agencies including the EPA and the USDA.

Picking and choosing what to post is a weak way to argue.

This is even all beside the point of the question I posed which is "Does a county have the regulatory authority to pass a bylaw that bans GMO's?"

...No other part of nature has ever sensed that it has inflicted damage to the natural environment, and just carried on, multiplying the same efforts...

"parts of nature" don't "sense that (they have) inflicted damage to the natural environment..." This makes no sense at all, because you are anthropomorphizing "nature" which is not an organism at all, and does not sense or reason, or make decisions. Perhaps you are referring to individual species? Please, give an example of a species "sensing" the damage it's inflicting on the environment, and what steps it took to rectify the problem.

I mean, aside from Man. I direct your attention to the Clean Air Act of 1970, http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/, a very successful "sensing" by humans of the damage they inflicted on the environment, and steps taken to reverse the damage.

California has mobile SMOG checks that are also "voluntary". Vehicles are flagged out of traffic by a CHP officer, at which point you're allowed to choose whether you want to have your car smogged. Although if you refuse to have your car checked, your license plate is recorded and logged for later analysis.

-Section 4.3

"The license plate numbers of vehicles whose operators decline to participate in the Roadside Inspection Program are recorded and entered into a laptop computer for later analysis."

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/roadside.pdf

Plenty of organisms develop resistances to alcohol, bleach, peroxide, and other things we use.

Citation needed. Especially for chlorine bleach.

Regardless, the use of alcohol and other sanitizing agents does absolutely NOTHING to contribute to DRUG resistant organisms.
Yes, properly washing with soap and water has been shown to be just as effective as sanitizing using an agent such as bleach or alcohol for some types of organisms. There are plenty of exceptions, for example Anthrax spores.
But the point of antibacterial soaps is that the vast majority of the time proper washing with soap and water is either inconvenient or simply not possible.

You could pick just about any bacteria or virus you want and breed in resistance to ethanol, chlorine, fire, whatever

Again, citations are needed for this kind of silly claim. Boiling your drinking water is every bit as effective today as it ever has been. Even the toughest super-bugs have never been shown to develop a resistance to chlorine-based bleaches.

Citation needed? You kidding me? Get a spray bottle and spritz yourself with bleach. What exposure (concentration and time) does it take for you to die?
Now do the experiment again on various molds or fungi. On parasitic mites and worms. On plant spores. There are tons of organisms that resist bleach, alcohol, etc. How the fuck do you think plant seeds evolved? It's a fucking resistance to being digested by stomach acid. If the seed survives the stomach it gets shit out in a nice pile of warm fertilizer.

Go put some tap water under a microscope. Look at all the buggers. Boils the water. Then look again. Lots of stuff is dead. Lots of stuff still lives.
Would you cook your chicken and pork to just 100 degrees? Go ahead, try it. It'll be extra juicy and tender!

You can palpate your own genitals all you want with your "citation needed" crap all day long, though. It's incredible how you jackasses can google about all day to find a Shitipedia article (or edit one) to support your own positions, but when it comes to someone else's argument you take the laziest, most passive-aggressive and contrary position possible and demand that they do all the thinking and research for you so you can sit there while you stick your fingers in your ears and sit on your own dick.

Here, go ahead and ignore this information:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC238613/
http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/owrcCatalog.nsf/1ffc8769fdecb48085256ad3006f39fa/208c8ba0e54feb3a8525702d00592dbf!OpenDocument
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC291561/

Even though CFL's contain mercury, they result in a net reduction in environmental mercury emissions due to their much lower power consumption, since tatistically, half of your power comes from coal, which emits mercury as it is burned. Furthermore, $120 for LED bulbs is ridiculously unrealistic in 2013. I've seen them recently at IKEA for under $10 (albeit in low wattage flavors). Home Depot gets $13, before rebates. $78 gets you a six-pack of them.

http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/what-are-connections-between-mercury-and-cfls
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/40222476/
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Cree-60W-Equivalent-Soft-White-2700K-A19-Dimmable-LED-Light-Bulb-BA19-08027OMF-12DE26-2U100/204592770#

Contrary to the politically charged summary, and your pointless hate mongering, this is not a conservative vs liberal issue.

Its strictly dollars and cents. CFC is a toxic nightmare, and LED costs more to buy and operate than incandescent.

From here:

Standard incandescent bulbs The CFL used here has a lifetime of 1,300 hours, so we would need 23 bulbs over the period of this study. I was able to purchase a single incandescent of this type for $0.34, so our total cost for bulbs over 30,000 hours would be $7.82.

As it uses 60 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, an incandescent bulb would use 1,800,000 watt hours, or 1,800 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $180.00 to run an incandescent bulb over this period.

Thus, the total cost of a 60 watt incandescent bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $187.82.

CFL bulbs The CFL used here has a lifetime of 8,000 hours, so we would need 3.75 bulbs over the period of this study. I was able to purchase a single CFL for $1.24, so our total cost for bulbs over 30,000 hours would be $4.65.

As it uses 13 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, a CFL bulb would use 390,000 watt hours, or 390 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $39.00 to run a CFL bulb over this period.

Thus, the total cost of a CFL bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $43.65.

LED bulbs The LED bulb used here has a lifetime of 30,000 hours, so we would need only one bulb over the period of this study. Unfortunately, that single bulb has a cost of $119.99.

As it uses 7.5 watts, over a period of 30,000 hours, an LED bulb would use 245,000 watt hours, or 245 kilowatt hours. At the current approximate price of $0.10 per kilowatt hour, you would have to pay $24.50 to run an LED bulb over this period.

Thus, the total cost of an LED bulb over a 30,000 hour lifespan is $144.49.

For people who take the mercury danger seriously, CFCs are arguable worse than incandescent, and to-date, LEDs yield very little cost saving.

Banning needlessly inefficient technologies when there are reasonable alternatives available is one of them.

Reasonable alternatives would not be priced at $27 a pop or pose a serious mercury contamination risk for disposed of bulbs, or evacuation in the case of broken ones.
.
Contrary to the article and the summary, the payback period on some of the newer bulbs is way longer than the devices actually last in real-life environments. And again, inefficiency is not an issue if you are heating your house anyway.

LED is the only technology with any real promise, but the cost has to come down to 1/10th what it is today before they
will be accepted by people on a budget.

I'm all for being environmentally friendly but CFLs are nasty...look what you gotta do if you break one: http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl
 

How big of a problem is breaking CFL's? In over 10 years of using CFL's, I haven't broken any. but then, the only non-CFL I remember breaking is one where the base was stuck in the sock and the bulb broke when I was twisting it.

Spending 15 minutes in cleanup for something that happens very rarely seems like a small tradeoff. If the longer lifetime of CFL's let's me avoid one bulb change of a bulb that requires me to go out to the garage to get a ladder, then it's already saved me more time that it would take to clean up a CFL.

On the surface, this seems great...much more energy efficient (e.g. less electrical consumption, less energy converted to heat, etc.), good quality of light (finally), and they last a long time, but the mercury threat will spell the demise of these. Unfortunately, it will take a few decades of these being tossed into the waste stream and the obligatory horrific mercury-caused maladies as it "may be toxic to blood, kidneys, liver, brain, peripheral nervous system, central nervous system." Fantastic...environmentalists and politicians making decisions based on emotions rather than on science.

You know what else contains mercury? Coal.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4217864

Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury—plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

What do you think coal power station (the most common kind) emissions contain? Or the ash heaps? Fairy dust?

Coal power station emissons

Reducing energy consumption by using more efficient bulbs reduces the need for coal power and hence coal-based pollution. And the line about LEDs s true of any electronics, they're just semiconductors after all. There is nothing in there to break and release any more than in your computer or flatscreen TV or your phone or your car or ... (all of which contain ... LEDs). Have you klooked at an LED? You'd pretty much have to grind them up to to powder to get the metal out. Talk about scare mongering ...

(Xolotl, AC because using a different computer without my password)

I'm all for being environmentally friendly but CFLs are nasty...look what you gotta do if you break one: http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl

On the surface, this seems great...much more energy efficient (e.g. less electrical consumption, less energy converted to heat, etc.), good quality of light (finally), and they last a long time, but the mercury threat will spell the demise of these. Unfortunately, it will take a few decades of these being tossed into the waste stream and the obligatory horrific mercury-caused maladies as it "may be toxic to blood, kidneys, liver, brain, peripheral nervous system, central nervous system." Fantastic...environmentalists and politicians making decisions based on emotions rather than on science.

LED bulbs aren't much safer as they may contain "lead and nickel, the bulbs and their associated parts were also found to contain arsenic, copper, and other metals that have been linked to different cancers, neurological damage, kidney disease, hypertension, skin rashes and other illnesses in humans, and to ecological damage in waterways. UC Irvine’s Oladele Ogunseitan said that while breaking a single bulb and breathing its fumes would not automatically cause cancer, it could be the tipping point for an individual regularly exposed to another carcinogen."

I'm advocating torches and if you buy three torches at my online store you'll get a free pitch fork...perfect for the looming protests before the next election cycle...they make great stocking stuffers too...

Today, EPA issued its annual report that tracks the average fuel economy of vehicles sold in the United States. The report shows that model year 2012 vehicles achieved an all-time high fuel economy of 23.6 miles per gallon (mpg). This represents a 1.2 mpg increase over the previous year, making it the second largest annual increase in the last 30 years. Fuel economy has now increased in seven of the last eight years.

“Today’s new vehicles are cleaner and more fuel efficient than ever, saving American families money at the gas pump and helping to keep the air that we breathe cleaner,” said Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “Each year new technologies are coming on line to keep driving these positive trends toward greater and greater efficiency.”

Fuel economy will continue to improve under the Obama administration’s historic National Clean Car Program standards. The program doubles fuel economy standards by 2025 and cuts vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by half. The standards will save American families $1.7 trillion dollars in fuel costs, and by 2025 will result in an average fuel savings of more than $8,000 per vehicle. The program will also save 12 billion barrels of oil, and by 2025 will reduce oil consumption by more than 2 million barrels a day – as much as half of the oil imported from OPEC every day.

The large fuel economy improvement in model year 2012 is consistent with longer-term trends. Fuel economy has increased by 2.6 mpg, or 12 percent, since 2008, and by 4.3 mpg, or 22 percent, since 2004. The average carbon dioxide emissions of 376 grams per mile in model year 2012 also represented a record low. While EPA does not yet have final data for model year 2013, preliminary projections are that fuel economy will rise by 0.4 mpg, and carbon dioxide emissions will decrease by 6 grams per mile in 2013.

EPA’s annual “Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through 2013” attributes much of the recent improvement to the rapid adoption of more efficient technologies such as gasoline direct injection engines, turbochargers, and advanced transmissions.
Consumers have many more high fuel economy choices due to these and other technologies, such as hybrid, diesel, electric, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Consumers can choose from five times more car models with a combined city/highway fuel economy of 30 mpg or more, and from twice as many SUVs that achieve 25 mpg or more, compared to just five years ago.

The new report can be found at: http://epa.gov/otaq/fetrends.htm

While methane does have a higher infrared cross-section than carbon dioxide, it is not that much higher;

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html Methane is about 20x more effective than CO2 at greenhouse warming over the period of 100 years. I personally think a 20x increase is more than "not much higher".

EPA is announcing the availability of $4 million in grant funding to establish clean diesel projects aimed at reducing emissions from marine and inland water ports, many of which are in areas that face environmental justice challenges.

“Ports are essential to the nation’s economy and transportation infrastructure, but they also are home to some of the nation’s toughest environmental challenges,” said Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “These grants will help port authorities to provide immediate emissions reductions that will benefit those who work and live in port-side communities.”

Most of the country’s busiest ports are located near large metropolitan areas and, as a result, people in nearby communities can be exposed to high levels of diesel emissions. Older diesel engines can emit large amounts of air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter (PM). These pollutants are linked to a range of serious health problems including asthma, lung and heart disease, other respiratory ailments, and even premature death. Clean diesel projects at ports, employing readily available technology, will make immediate emissions reductions and provide health benefits.

This grant competition is available under the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) Program and is the first competition to focus on solely reducing emissions at ports. DERA funds are used to clean up the legacy fleet of diesel engines that were produced before more recent environmental standards. This grant competition is intended to help solve some of the complex air quality issues in port communities.

Under this competition, EPA anticipates awarding between two and five assistance agreements to port authorities through the DERA program. Port authorities, governmental or public agencies that operate ports, are able to work directly with a variety of fleet owners to lower emissions from different types of equipment used in a port setting. Projects may include drayage trucks, marine engines, locomotives, and cargo handling equipment at marine or inland ports. Priority will be given to ports located in areas of poor air quality.

The objectives of the assistance offered under this program are to achieve significant reductions in diesel emissions in terms of tons of pollution reduced and reductions in diesel emissions exposure from fleets operating at ports. The program also seeks to build partnerships among port stakeholders to promote ongoing efforts to reduce emissions from port operations. Community groups, local governments, terminal operators, shipping carriers, and other business entities are encouraged to participate through partnerships with eligible port authorities. The closing date for receipt of proposals is February 13, 2014.

This funding opportunity is being offered in addition to EPA’s annual National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC) Funding Assistance Program. EPA intends to make future awards under the NCDC Funding Assistance Program, subject to the availability of funding.

For more information and to access the Request for Proposals and other documents, please visit http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ports/ports-dera-rfp.htm

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is recognizing landmark green chemistry technologies developed by industrial pioneers and leading scientists that are contributing to the use of chemicals and products that are safer for people’s health and the environment.
During the 18 years of the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge program, EPA has received about 1500 nominations and presented awards to 93 technologies. Winning technologies over the lifetime of the program are responsible for reducing the use or generation of more than 826 million pounds of hazardous chemicals, saving 21 billion gallons of water, and eliminating 7.8 billion pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent releases to air.
“Today, EPA is recognizing groundbreaking scientific solutions to real-world environmental problems that improve the bottom line for America’s manufacturing sector. These revolutionary technologies have great potential to make consumer products from adhesives to paints safer for us to use, as well as safer and less costly to manufacture by reducing hazardous wastes, energy, and water wastes, “ said Jim Jones, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “EPA congratulates the 2013 winners and looks forward to continuing to work with them as their technologies are adopted in the marketplace.”
The Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards are presented in five categories: academic, small business, greener synthetic pathways, greener reaction conditions and designing greener chemicals. The awardees will be honored at a ceremony in Washington, DC.
In the academic category, Professor Richard Wool, University of Delaware, Newark, Del. was recognized for creating several materials from less toxic and renewable biobased feedstocks such as vegetable oils, chicken feathers and flax that can be used as adhesives, composites, foams, and even circuit boards and as a leather substitute.
In the small business category, Faraday Technology Inc., Clayton, Ohio was recognized for developing a plating process that allows chrome coatings to be made from less toxic trivalent chrome. This reduces millions of pounds of hexavalent chromium without comprising performance for uses such as aircraft parts.
Winners in the “greener reaction conditions, designing greener chemicals, and greener synthetic pathways,” categories are:
- Life Technologies, Austin, Texas — for developing a more efficient, much less wasteful way to manufacture the key chemicals used to perform genetic testing. The new process prevents about 1.5 million pounds of hazardous waste a year.
- The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Mich. — for improving TiO2-based paints. Dow’s EVOQUE technology uses a polymer coating that, when applied to TiO2, improves dispersion of the pigment, decreasing the amount of the chemical needed and allowing it to work better. This technology will significantly reduce energy usage, water consumption, NOx and SOx emissions, and algae bloom.
- Cargill, Inc., Brookfield, Wis..— for developing a vegetable oil-based transformer fluid that is much less flammable, less toxic, provides superior performance compared to mineral oil-based fluids and has a lower carbon footprint.
EPA’s Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Program award winners have significantly reduced the hazards associated with designing, manufacturing, and using chemicals. An independent panel of technical experts convened by the American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute selected the 2013 winners from among scores of nominated technologies.
More information: http://www2.epa.gov/green-chemistry

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently accepting applications for environmental education projects under the agency’s Environmental Education Grant Program. The program works to engage communities across the country through a wide variety of educational projects that have a lasting impact on people’s health by facilitating environmental stewardship.. Projects in the past have engaged students in stream monitoring, created sustainable mentoring communities, and provided professional development to teachers on subjects including science, technology, engineering and math.
Eligible organizations include local education agencies, colleges or universities, state education or environmental agencies, tribal education agencies, 501(C)(3) nonprofit organizations, and noncommercial educational broadcasting entities working in education.
This competitive grants program will total $2.77 million. Each of the ten EPA regional offices will award two or three grants and one or two grants will be awarded from EPA’s headquarters in Washington, DC. Each award will be an estimated $75,000 to $200,000. EPA expects to award between 22 and 32 grants nationwide.
For more information about the program and how to apply: http://www2.epa.gov/education/environmental-education-ee-grants

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in partnership with the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is currently accepting applications for the third annual Presidential Innovation Award for Environmental Educators. The award recognizes outstanding K-12 teachers and their local education agencies nationwide for excellence in integrating environmental education into their lessons and demonstrating the connection between health and the environment for their students.

Successful applicants demonstrate creativity, innovation, community engagement and leadership as students learn more about civic responsibility and environmental stewardship. Past winners have increased student participation in local watershed cleanup efforts, created school-wide recycling programs, and implemented green land stewardship practices. Winners went on to use their awards to bring high-tech science equipment into the classroom and expand the number of students on field trips and in labs.

Applicants have until February 28, 2014 to apply for the award under updated criteria released in November. Up to twenty teachers nationwide will receive award plaques and a financial award of $2,000 to support their professional development in environmental education. Each teacher’s school will also receive a $2,000 award to help fund environmental education activities and programs that support the teacher. Winners will also be considered for the National Environmental Education Foundation’s Richard C. Bartlett award, which recognizes outstanding teachers who engage students in interdisciplinary solutions to environmental challenges.

More information about the program and how to apply: http://www.epa.gov/education/teacheraward

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has appointed Dr. Francesca Grifo as the agency’s new scientific integrity official. Dr. Grifo’s responsibilities in her new role include coordinating and carrying out EPA’s scientific integrity policy and chairing a standing EPA scientific integrity committee.
“Science is, and continues, to be the backbone of this agency and the integrity of our science is central to the identity and credibility of our work,” said Gina McCarthy, administrator for EPA. “Dr. Grifo brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to EPA that will help continue our work to implement the agency’s scientific integrity policy.”
Dr. Francesca Grifo has many years of experience in scientific research, academia, and science policy. She comes to EPA from the Union of Concerned Scientists and has devoted her career to strengthening scientific integrity in the government.
EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment depends upon the integrity of science. It is the agency’s key responsibility to conduct, utilize, and communicate scientific information with the highest degree of integrity, and transparency to the American public.
For more information: http://www.epa.gov/research/htm/scientific-integrity.htm

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing draft guidelines that will help the federal government buy greener and safer products. In response to broad stakeholder interest, EPA is seeking public input on these draft guidelines and a potential approach to assessing non-governmental environmental standards and ecolabels already in the marketplace.
  “As the largest purchaser in the world, the U.S. government is working to reduce its environmental footprint,” said Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “The government buys everything from furniture to lighting to cleaning products. These guidelines will make it easier for federal purchasers to meet the existing goal of 95 percent sustainable purchases while spurring consumers and the private sector to use and demand safer and greener products.”
The draft guidelines were developed by EPA, the General Services Administration, and others following several listening sessions with a wide range of stakeholders on how the federal government can be more sustainable in its purchasing and how it can best meet the numerous Federal requirements for the procurement of sustainable and environmentally preferable products and services. The draft guidelines were designed to assist federal purchasing decision makers in more consistently using existing non-governmental product environmental performance standards and ecolabels.
The draft guidelines address key characteristics of environmental standards and ecolabels, including the credibility of the development process and the effectiveness of the criteria for environmental performance. The draft guidelines were developed to be flexible enough to be applied to standards and ecolabels in a broad range of product categories.
For more information on the draft guidelines visit: http://www.epa.gov/epp/draftGuidelines

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made available $2 million in funding for rebates to help public and private construction equipment owners replace or retrofit older diesel construction engines. The rebates will reduce harmful pollution and improve air quality in local areas.

“Exhaust from diesel construction equipment affects children, senior citizens and others in neighborhoods across the country”,” said Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. "These rebates will help equipment owners protect public health and improve air quality near construction sites while updating their fleets.”

Rebates will be offered as part of the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, also known as DERA. This is the second rebate program offered since Congress reauthorized DERA in 2010 to allow rebates in addition to grants and revolving loans. The rebates will support the program’s effort to replace and update existing diesel vehicles, and will target where people are exposed to unhealthy air.

Since 2008, DERA has awarded more than $500 million to grantees across the country to retrofit, replace, or repower more than 50,000 vehicles. By cutting air pollution and preventing thousands of asthma attacks, emergency room visits and premature deaths, these clean diesel projects are projected to generate health benefits worth up to $8.2 billion.

Public and private construction equipment owners in eligible counties that are facing air quality challenges are encouraged to apply for rebates for the replacement or retrofit of construction equipment engines. EPA will accept applications from November 20, 2013, to January 15, 2014 and anticipates awarding the rebates in February 2014.

Construction equipment engines are very durable and can operate for decades. EPA has implemented standards to make diesel engines cleaner, but many older pieces of construction equipment remain in operation and predate these standards. Older diesel engines emit large amounts of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM). These pollutants are linked to health problems, including asthma, lung and heart disease, and even premature death. Equipment is readily available that can reduce emissions from these engines.

To learn more about the rebate program, the list of eligible counties, applicant eligibility and selection process, please visit http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/dera-rebate-construction.htm

It wasn't cyanide in decking, it was arsenic, and it hasn't been allowed in most applications since 2004.

The certification rules only apply to new stoves. There's even a tax break if you replace your stove this year, and it's been in place for the past two years. The EPA is exploring ways to help people change out their old wood stoves—those things are not healthy.

Some cities have rules that restrict the use of wood-burning stoves when air pollution is high.

And that's about it. As one store page I found puts it: "When the EPA first started looking at woodstove particulate emissions, the front pages were emblazoned with headlines screaming, WOOD STOVES TO BE OUTLAWED!! When the regulations which specifically allow wood burning were subsequently passed, the story got maybe one paragraph on page 23."—The Chimney Sweep Online

Please, folks, stop posting scare stories. The Washington Times, where this piece of crankery comes from, is paid to scare you—by the Unification Church yet. So is Fox News. Just 'cause these guys want you scared doesn't mean you have to go along with the program.

The certification rules only apply to new stoves. There's even a tax break if you replace your stove this year, and it's been in place for the past two years. The EPA is exploring ways to help people change out their old wood stoves—those things are not healthy.

Some cities have rules that restrict the use of wood-burning stoves when air pollution is high.

And that's about it. As one store page I found puts it: "When the EPA first started looking at woodstove particulate emissions, the front pages were emblazoned with headlines screaming, WOOD STOVES TO BE OUTLAWED!! When the regulations which specifically allow wood burning were subsequently passed, the story got maybe one paragraph on page 23."—The Chimney Sweep Online

Please, folks, stop posting scare stories. The Washington Times, where this piece of crankery comes from, is paid to scare you—by the Unification Church yet. So is Fox News. Just 'cause these guys want you scared doesn't mean you have to go along with the program.

This is a list of approved wood fired stoves including their output:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/caa/woodstoves/certifiedwood.pdf

--
Teun

They're trying to put in a catalytic element, same as they do with cars.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

"The two general approaches to meeting the EPA smoke emission limits are non-catalytic and catalytic combustion."
http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/woodstoves.html

Your inability to READ casts a very different light on all your insane rantings on this story.