Enviornment

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On June 06, 2004 at 10:45 am):

Hey everyone:

Brian and I along with a couple other members of 2020 have been working on an idea for an online commercial comparing the United States dependence on foreign oil (mostly the middle east’s) and its support of islamic terrorist organizations, the other idea is to compare how removing our dependence on oil will aid the economy of our country.

Terrorism Link basics:

Basically, the theory is that the major sources of funding for Islamic Terrorist organizations comes from oil, whether directly or indirectly. For instance, most prominent Saudis have made their money from the oil industry one way or another. We learned from 9/11 that a large source of funding of groups such as Al-Quaida is from prominent Saudis and similar groups of people. Thus, cutting down the amount of oil purchased (not just changing who we purchase it from which is not going to have any affect) will lead to less money for such people who support terrorism.

Economy Link Basics:

Here the idea is that, a major source of our international trade deficit (~20%) is due to oil purchases. Somewhere around $2-5 Billion in US subsidies (Brian check this number for me) goes to the oil/gas companies to keep oil cheap. If this money was put towards implementing Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology and companies began investing in other renewable energy sources of fuel (the technology is there I assure you, the infrastructure is not), then we could begin to remove ourselves from our oil dependence and a very large boom in the Economy from the increased domestic investments and domestic job creation would also be realized.

What are your thoughts, Ideas, questions, concerns?

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Moving the environment to the forefront

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On April 21, 2004 at 1:20 am):

I recently read a press release on the overfishing of our oceans, and how marine life is in danger of collapsing if something is not done soon. My first reaction was, “this will have no impact in the U.S.” If the Pentagon’s report on global warming did not have an impact, then nothing will.

We have talked about this quite a bit, but it still frustrates me how difficult it is to make environmental issues into key election issues, particularly when polls show most Americans favor stronger environmental regulations.

So I have two questions. First, why is the U.S., alone among the world’s industrialized nations, the only country to not take the threat of global warming and other environmental threats seriously? I don’t this can simply be blamed on the Bush Administration, as global warming has never been taken very seriously by most Americans.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, what can we do about this? What specific measures, both short-term and long-term, can be done to change the public mindset in America about the environment? I’m open to suggestions!

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Union of Concerned Scientists

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On April 20, 2004 at 5:17 pm):

There is another discussion going on in the science and technology section concerning the report from the Union of Concerned Scientists and their issues with how the Bush administration has been using science knowledge in policy making decisions. Check it out. The use of science knowledge in Environmental policy making is perhaps the biggest problem with this admin (other than their complete lack of care for said environment). Hop over to another group and see what is going on there as well!

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Essay contest

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On April 20, 2004 at 7:58 am):

Hey everyone:

there is an essay contest being put on by www.abetterearth.org. The winner gets a large sum of money, but more importantly this is a wonderful place for us as an environmental policy group to state our individual opinions on the environment! I highly recommend participating.

Read Comments or Add a Comment

New Source Review

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On April 19, 2004 at 3:23 pm):

Hey everyone, for those of you who missed it, there was a wonderful report on Dateline last night concerning former (now retired due to frustration with the Bush admin) EPA Official Bruce Buckheit. He was the man who investigated and forced Tampa Power to improve their coal plants. During the interview the Environmental movement gained a huge unexpected Ally in the CEO of TECO which owns Tampa Power. Take a peek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4759864/

What do you all think of this. Are there merits to Bush’s current plan of attack? How should the EPA approach the New Source Review legislation?

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Pres Kerry?

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On March 03, 2004 at 9:36 am):

Well the nomination is all but official. Sen. John Kerry is going to be the Democratic Nominee. We all know Bush’s record on Environmental concerns, but what is Kerry’s? What are his stances? Good points, bad points? Perhaps we can as a group make some suggestions to his campaign? What do you all think?

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Local Issues

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On February 19, 2004 at 8:08 am):

Again what are the major environmental issues affecting you locally? This is an incredibly important topic, hence why I am reposting it. Take a min and fill us all in, Chances are we have no idea what is going on in your local communties, but it is probably similar to what we are experiencing. This can help us determine what other issues we should work to fix in the future.

Read Comments or Add a Comment

How environmental issues impact other areas

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On February 19, 2004 at 8:05 am):

Here is a question to provoke some thought. We are constantly focusing on what we need to do to help secure our environmental future. But the environment affects us in so many ways. What are some direct ways in which this affects us daily.

One that I thought of that is a bit interesting is the War on Terror.

Read Comments or Add a Comment

President’s 2005 Interior Budget

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On February 12, 2004 at 8:33 am):

President Submits FY 2005 Budget

Claim of “Full Funding” for LWCF not borne out in

Details

On Monday, the White House released a $2.4

trillion budget for FY 2005 that

funds the Department of the Interior at more than

$15 billion. The budget

contains funding for a variety of conservation,

recreation, wildlife, and

historic

preservation programs that have been the hallmark

of the recently created

Conservation Trust Fund (CTF), a six-year program

designed to provide

increased

funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund

(LWCF), as well as other

programs. Unfortunately, the President under

funds the Conservation Trust

Fund by

more $500 million. Further, the overall LWCF

program comes in at $314

million

($220 million for federal LWCF and $94 million

for stateside LWCF), despite

the

President’s pledge to fully fund the program at

its $900 million authorized

level. Finally, at a time when too many Americans

are overweight and

overstressed, the President has zeroed out

funding for close-to-home

playgrounds and ball

fields in the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery

Program (UPARR).

So, how did it get to this point?

A Little Background

For forty years, the Land and Water Conservation

Fund has provided Americans

with access to outdoor recreation areas. LWCF is

arguably the most

successful

conservation and recreation program ever

established, responsible for the

acquisition of nearly eight million acres of

conservation lands and waters,

and

providing places for a variety of recreation

activities for America’s

families,

including:

. More than 40,000 athletic and playing

fields, including baseball,

soccer, football, softball, and other sporting

facilities;

. Nearly 12,000 hiking, horseback riding,

bicycling, and exercise trails;

. More than 20,000 family picnic locations;

. Nearly 5,000 campgrounds and overnight

recreation areas;

. More than 10,000 swimming and boating

facilities; and

. More than 600 hunting and nature areas.

Despite this continuing success, both the federal

and stateside of LWCF were

meagerly funded during the 1980’s and early

1990’s. The strong citizen

grassroots movement created by AHR in the

mid-1990’s helped shepherd the

program to

new funding heights and brought awareness to

“permanent and full funding”

for

conservation and recreation. Many of you guided

this campaign in your states

with activities to raise the visibility of the

program.

Congress got into the act and created the

Conservation and Reinvestment Act

(CARA), which fully funded LWCF and a variety of

other programs. The bill

passed the House by a wide margin and had strong

support in the Senate

before being

derailed by congressional appropriators who did

not want to lose control

over

spending for conservation programs. Instead,

Congress created the

Conservation Trust Fund, a six-year, $12 million

program that mirrored CARA

in its

conservation and recreation approach. Although

the program’s funding was

still at

the whim of congressional appropriators, it was a

good first step toward

fully

funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Meantime, then-presidential candidate Governor

George W. Bush campaigned on

LWCF, saying in the second presidential debate,

“I believe we ought to fully

fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, with

half the money going to

states

so states can make the right decisions for

environmental quality.”

With support in Congress and with the

newly-elected President, it appeared

that LWCF was in for bountiful times.

Regrettably, the seeds sown through

that

enthusiasm have not borne fruit.

For the past four years, the President has

consistently unveiled his banner

touting full funding for LWCF as part of his

commitment to conservation and

recreation, but when you read the fine print, it

spells trouble for the

integrity

of LWCF. With each succeeding year, the President

has managed to take the

$900 million authorized under LWCF and squeeze

out the traditional land

acquisition and state recreation assistance

programs to the point where the

majority of

these so-called LWCF funds are being used on

lands that are not accessible

to

the average American. A weak Congress has

followed suit and the result is

that the shared vision that brought together

conservationists, the outdoor

recreation and sporting goods industries, park

and recreation specialists,

advocates

for urban and wilderness areas, land trusts

proponents, and the youth sports

community has been blurred.

What You Can Do

The grassroots citizen’s movement that has been

the backbone for promoting a

permanent and fully funded Land and Water

Conservation Fund needs to make

their voices heard. Most newspapers have done

stories about the submission

of the

President’s FY 2005 budget that purports to fully

fund LWCF. Advocates for

LWCF need to send letters-to-the-editor that

dispute the “fuzzy math” used

in

calculating how LWCF funds are being spent.

Most people read the letters-to-the-editor

section than almost any other

part

of the newspaper. It’s easy to submit your own.

Just use the sample provided

below and include your name, address, and daytime

phone number – newspapers

always check with the person who signed the

letter before printing.

Please send AHR a copy of any printed letters, as

we want to track the

number

of letters-to-the-editor that are being

generating across the country. You

can email a copy to ahr@ahrinfo.org or fax them

to 202-429-2621.

Sample Letter-to-the-editor

With the release of his FY 2005 budget, the

President is once again telling

Americans of his commitment to fully fund the

Land and Water Conservation

Fund

(LWCF), a forty year-old program that is

authorized to provide $900 million

annually for conservation and recreation areas

that are accessible to all

Americans. While raising the visibility of a

program that has provided

outdoor

recreation opportunities in 98 percent of the

counties in this country is

appreciated, a closer look at the numbers reveals

that only one-third of the

$900

million is being spent on programs consistent

with the vision set forth by

President Eisenhower’s commission when it

recommended the creation of a

program that

would provide Americans close-to-home recreation.

The remaining two-thirds of that spending are

diverted toward programs

outside of LWCF’s purview, including incentives

for private conservation

purposes on

private lands where the average American will be

shut out. While providing

these incentives is worthy of attention, these

efforts should augment, not

supplant, efforts to create publicly-accessible

parks and open spaces for

all Amer

icans.

Since its passage by Congress in 1964, LWCF has

been responsible for the

acquisition of nearly eight million acres of

national parks, forests, and

wildlife

refuges, as well as the creation and enhancement

of almost 40,000 state and

local parks and recreation areas. LWCF is

America’s premier conservation

tool,

providing safer, cleaner, and healthier places

for Americans to fish, swim,

hike, bike, play ball, or picnic with family

members.

As spring approaches, and Americans of all sizes

gravitate towards the

outdoors, it is important to take stock of the

places that allow us

opportunities

for recreation, sports, and physical activity.

Before diverting all his

attention to private conservation practices, the

President should more

wisely and

effectively invest our limited financial

resources to fully fund the Land

and

Water Conservation Fund as it was initially

intended: to provide every

American a

place to explore the Great Outdoors. Now that

would be a commitment worth

shouting about.

******************************************* ******

Tom St. Hilaire

Executive Director

Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation

1615 M St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

P – 202-429-2666

F – 202-429-2621

www.ahrinfo.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

http://www.IMBA.com

–^————— ————————————————-

This email was sent to: JMeyerT4A@aol.com

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here:

http://topica.com/u/?aVxiCp.a3ZVBx.Sk1leWVy

Or send an email to: imba-unsubscribe@topica.com

TOPICA – Start your own email discussion group.

FREE!

http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/ index2.html

–^———————————– —————————–

—– End forwarded message —–

HTML Attachment [ Download File Save to my Yahoo! Briefcase ]

Lorissa – could you forward this to the Environmental Policy guides to distribute to their list? Thought it might be good to help spread the word 🙂

megan

M e g a n M a c D o n a l d

Government and Community Relations Advisor

Supervisor Tom Wilson, Fifth District

—–Original Message—–

From: imbajim@aol.com [mailto:imbajim@aol.com]

Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 2:55 PM

To: imba@topica.com

Subject: IMBA: LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND NEWS

Here’s the latest on LWCF. Please send letters to editors, saying you’re a

mountain bicyclist; you value open space, parks and trails; and you support

full funding for LWCF.

Jim Hasenauer

======================================== =========================

To: Friends of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (and UPARR, too)

From: Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation

Date: 02.04.04

President Submits FY 2005 Budget

Claim of “Full Funding” for LWCF not borne out in Details

On Monday, the White House released a $2.4 trillion budget for FY 2005 that

funds the Department of the Interior at more than $15 billion. The budget

contains funding for a variety of conservation, recreation, wildlife, and historic

preservation programs that have been the hallmark of the recently created

Conservation Trust Fund (CTF), a six-year program designed to provide increased

funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), as well as other

programs. Unfortunately, the President under funds the Conservation Trust Fund by

more $500 million. Further, the overall LWCF program comes in at $314 million

($220 million for federal LWCF and $94 million for stateside LWCF), despite the

President’s pledge to fully fund the program at its $900 million authorized

level. Finally, at a time when too many Americans are overweight and

overstressed, the President has zeroed out funding for close-to-home playgrounds and ball

fields in the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR).

So, how did it get to this point?

A Little Background

For forty years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has provided Americans

with access to outdoor recreation areas. LWCF is arguably the most successful

conservation and recreation program ever established, responsible for the

acquisition of nearly eight million acres of conservation lands and waters, and

providing places for a variety of recreation activities for America’s families,

including:

. More than 40,000 athletic and playing fields, including baseball,

soccer, football, softball, and other sporting facilities;

. Nearly 12,000 hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, and exercise trails;

. More than 20,000 family picnic locations;

. Nearly 5,000 campgrounds and overnight recreation areas;

. More than 10,000 swimming and boating facilities; and

. More than 600 hunting and nature areas.

Despite this continuing success, both the federal and stateside of LWCF were

meagerly funded during the 1980’s and early 1990’s. The strong citizen

grassroots movement created by AHR in the mid-1990’s helped shepherd the program to

new funding heights and brought awareness to “permanent and full funding” for

conservation and recreation. Many of you guided this campaign in your states

with activities to raise the visibility of the program.

Congress got into the act and created the Conservation and Reinvestment Act

(CARA), which fully funded LWCF and a variety of other programs. The bill

passed the House by a wide margin and had strong support in the Senate before being

derailed by congressional appropriators who did not want to lose control over

spending for conservation programs. Instead, Congress created the

Conservation Trust Fund, a six-year, $12 million program that mirrored CARA in its

conservation and recreation approach. Although the program’s funding was still at

the whim of congressional appropriators, it was a good first step toward fully

funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Meantime, then-presidential candidate Governor George W. Bush campaigned on

LWCF, saying in the second presidential debate, “I believe we ought to fully

fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, with half the money going to states

so states can make the right decisions for environmental quality.”

With support in Congress and with the newly-elected President, it appeared

that LWCF was in for bountiful times. Regrettably, the seeds sown through that

enthusiasm have not borne fruit.

For the past four years, the President has consistently unveiled his banner

touting full funding for LWCF as part of his commitment to conservation and

recreation, but when you read the fine print, it spells trouble for the integrity

of LWCF. With each succeeding year, the President has managed to take the

$900 million authorized under LWCF and squeeze out the traditional land

acquisition and state recreation assistance programs to the point where the majority of

these so-called LWCF funds are being used on lands that are not accessible to

the average American. A weak Congress has followed suit and the result is

that the shared vision that brought together conservationists, the outdoor

recreation and sporting goods industries, park and recreation specialists, advocates

for urban and wilderness areas, land trusts proponents, and the youth sports

community has been blurred.

What You Can Do

The grassroots citizen’s movement that has been the backbone for promoting a

permanent and fully funded Land and Water Conservation Fund needs to make

their voices heard. Most newspapers have done stories about the submission of the

President’s FY 2005 budget that purports to fully fund LWCF. Advocates for

LWCF need to send letters-to-the-editor that dispute the “fuzzy math” used in

calculating how LWCF funds are being spent.

Most people read the letters-to-the-editor section than almost any other part

of the newspaper. It’s easy to submit your own. Just use the sample provided

below and include your name, address, and daytime phone number – newspapers

always check with the person who signed the letter before printing.

Please send AHR a copy of any printed letters, as we want to track the number

of letters-to-the-editor that are being generating across the country. You

can email a copy to ahr@ahrinfo.org or fax them to 202-429-2621.

Sample Letter-to-the-editor

With the release of his FY 2005 budget, the President is once again telling

Americans of his commitment to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund

(LWCF), a forty year-old program that is authorized to provide $900 million

annually for conservation and recreation areas that are accessible to all

Americans. While raising the visibility of a program that has provided outdoor

recreation opportunities in 98 percent of the counties in this country is

appreciated, a closer look at the numbers reveals that only one-third of the $900

million is being spent on programs consistent with the vision set forth by

President Eisenhower’s commission when it recommended the creation of a program that

would provide Americans close-to-home recreation.

The remaining two-thirds of that spending are diverted toward programs

outside of LWCF’s purview, including incentives for private conservation purposes on

private lands where the average American will be shut out. While providing

these incentives is worthy of attention, these efforts should augment, not

supplant, efforts to create publicly-accessible parks and open spaces for all Amer

icans.

Since its passage by Congress in 1964, LWCF has been responsible for the

acquisition of nearly eight million acres of national parks, forests, and wildlife

refuges, as well as the creation and enhancement of almost 40,000 state and

local parks and recreation areas. LWCF is America’s premier conservation tool,

providing safer, cleaner, and healthier places for Americans to fish, swim,

hike, bike, play ball, or picnic with family members.

As spring approaches, and Americans of all sizes gravitate towards the

outdoors, it is important to take stock of the places that allow us opportunities

for recreation, sports, and physical activity. Before diverting all his

attention to private conservation practices, the President should more wisely and

effectively invest our limited financial resources to fully fund the Land and

Water Conservation Fund as it was initially intended: to provide every American a

place to explore the Great Outdoors. Now that would be a commitment worth

shouting about.

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Nuclear Waste Dumping

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On February 04, 2004 at 12:06 pm):

I am sure most of us have heard about the proposed Nevada site for the dumping of the nuclear waste. What you may not know is that this is currently being fought inthe courts and yet the Bush admin has added it to the Energy Bill/Budget. See the link below. What are your thoughts/concerns about this? If you don’t like it what should we do with the waste we have (remember lets not use Nuclear power isn’t an answer to this, we already have the waste and we need to do something with it).

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/14/yucca.mount ain.ap/index.html

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/ feb2004/2004-02-04-10.asp

Read Comments or Add a Comment

State of the Union

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On January 24, 2004 at 4:41 pm):

Wow sorry, this past week has been crazy. Seminar to give, probe to fix, experiments to run and well lots of biking and running. Fell behind. Sorry. Well, if it isn’t too late, I wanted to get everyone’s opinion on Bush’s State of the Union and how it pertained to the Environment. Wait, what is that you say, he didn’t mention the environment? How could that be? Well why didn’t he, what does this say about the policy towards it, with minimal fallout from this oversight what does this say about American’s feelings toward Environmental protection?

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Score one for the EPA!

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On January 24, 2004 at 4:38 pm):

Supreme Court Rules EPA Can Block State Clean Air Permits

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, January 22, 2004 (ENS) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the federal government has the authority to override decisions by state officials that afford less environmental protection than mandated by the Clean Air Act.

By a 5 to 4 margin the court upheld a lower court ruling that found the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) followed the law when it blocked construction at an Alaskan zinc mine because of concerns about the laxness of state pollution control permits.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2004/2004-01- 22-11.asp

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Article of the week

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On January 24, 2004 at 4:31 pm):

James Jeffords (every Democrats Hero right? Speaks out against Bush’s environmental policy. What do you think he missed, what do you think he overreacted on, is this the proper way to approach the issue of Bush’s environmental plans?http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/30/de ms.radio/index.html

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Global Warming not a big deal?

Post submitted by JessicaMorey (On January 14, 2004 at 4:39 pm):

I’ve been keeping up a lively discussion with one of my environmental engineering profs. He’s definitely an environementalist, supports alternative energy, waste reduction, But to my shock he says global warming is not a big deal and that we definitely shouldn’t sign the Kyoto protocol and that most climatologists agree. He recommended a climatologist from the university of virginia, Pat Micheals so here’s an article from him… pretty interesting.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles /michaels-031016.html

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Major Environmental Issues

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On January 14, 2004 at 9:44 am):

Hey Everyone:

Another question in guiding this discussion towards Concensus. All of us are from various areas around the country, as far North as Alaska and as far South as Florida. What are the 3 biggest environmental concerns to your area of the country?

Read Comments or Add a Comment

National Parks

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On January 14, 2004 at 9:28 am):

Saw this quick article and thought it would be something we all would be interested in. It doesn’t give much in detail, so I would be interested if any of you knew what was the damage that is threatening these parks. I know the Everglades is being threatened by two major things. First of all the immense growth of the Miami area has begun to encroach upon the Glades and related to this, the run off from area farms have begun to cause severe erosion and contamination of the swamp lands for which the Glades are famous…

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st ory&cid=514&e=7&u=/ap/20040114/ap_on_re_us/endange red_parks

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Article for the week

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On January 08, 2004 at 1:40 pm):

Hey everyone, thanks to Aadil for the new article. Again we will need one for next friday, if you have one send it to me at Josh550@yahoo.com. Here it is…

http://www.harvardmag.com/on-line/010451.ht ml

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Listserve

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On December 13, 2003 at 11:25 pm):

Hey everyone: I know there are some people here who weren’t members of the original Environmental group (those of us at the conf). I have been emailing updates to the members. If you would like to receive these updates, email me (Josh550@yahoo.com) and I will add you to the listserve. Thanks

Josh

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Article 2: GM Foods

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On December 12, 2003 at 2:02 pm):

Click here for the article.

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Genetically Modified Foods

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On December 10, 2003 at 3:31 pm):

Hey everyone, this seems to be something that has hit a chord with many of us, so I have decided to make it a new thread.

In response to Brian’s last post, yes I entirely agree that GM foods need to be tested. Unfortunately, to date, when we are told that they were tested, that means scientific tests have been performed to show that the desired trait is expressed (e.g. the corn has bigger kernals due to the change, or the pesticide is naturally created by the pear…), it does not to my knowledge state that it was FDA approved for consumption and especially doesn’t mean that the long term health affects (if any) have been determined.

Perhaps the greatest problem is that countries who have decided against utilization of GM seeds such as Mexico, are seeing the strands show up in their crops, strictly from the seeds of GM plants in the SW US blowing into their lands. It seems only a matter of time before the whole of the Western Hemisphere is contaminated. Therefore, not only does testing on the how this affects the crops and our health need to be conducted, but to borrow from our other foreign policy blunders, an exit strategy, e.g. how to remove the seeds from the population, needs to be determined in the case that they are deemed harmful.

What are ya’lls thoughts?

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Articles

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On December 05, 2003 at 3:56 pm):

Hey everyone:

Here is the first article. I thought it would be a cool idea to start with our gov’t and what they are publishing (plus it was a quick and easy find, 🙂 Here is the link to the EPA’s write up on the Clear Skies act. It also has a link to how it will affect state by state (certainly up for debate, hint hint, wink wink). What are your opinions, Clear Skies a good start? Fall short? Now please lets not get off topics. Lets designate this week to this article. Next Friday either I or someone else will publish another article, so don’t publish something else in this thread unless it relates to this article. Talk with you soon

http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Environmental solutions

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On October 31, 2003 at 7:40 pm):

Alright people aren’t biting on this as a separate thread, so how about as a new question…

Hey everyone, here is a question for ya. How can each of us look to help the environment today? While we are all looking for the broad reaching goals of reducing fossil fuel usage and getting clean air legislation, one of the most powerful and realistic acheivements in the short term is little things that we all can do. I remember Aadil’s idea of talking with local government about creating a bottle cleaning program (for beer or soda… I think Beer). I personally maintain little gas usage by riding my bike to school the 15 miles each way rather than sit in traffic and burn fuel each morning. I also liked the article talking about Calgary and their decision to turn down the wattage in street lamps and such. What other ideas do you have?

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Membership

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On October 31, 2003 at 7:36 pm):

Hey Everyone,

Again, having trouble getting ya’ll to bite on this guy, maybe posing it as a new question in the main thread will get it some attention?

One major issue right now is the stagnation in membership and in the online conversation. Under this thread it would be interesting to hear some plans you each have as to how you plan to attract new members to the 2020 site and to the Environmental group in particular. Hopefully by working through this post we can get some ideas of how to start attracting newbies :-).

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Welcome to 2020 Dems Environmental Group

Post submitted by JoshuaCaldwell (On September 23, 2003 at 11:37 am):

Welcome to the Environmental blog. We are striving to reach a consensus on what our overarching goals are for the year 2020 and what the best possible methods of approach are for reaching these goals. We hope to reach this consensus through stimulating discussion of the issues we face and ideas for how we think they can be repaired, reversed or revamped. The policy guides, Josh and Jess, will introduce topics to be discussed and the goal will be to attain consensus on such topics in a reasonable manner. We’ll start by exploring our broader enviromental objectives for the year 2020, and from there work towards consensus on policy means. Don’t lose sight of your desires and ideals, but be prepared to compromise with the others present. If you have any recommendations of how we can improve the blog or specific policy agendas, please don’t hesitate to post your comments. Periodically, once a consensus is reached we will put the issue in the “State of Consensus” link and move onto a new topic.

We’ve been discussing how to prioritize our environmental objectives (Check out the “State of Consensus” link). From people’s comments I’ve gathered the following info: Our top priority should be to make environmental concerns central to any policy. One person mentioned that to achieve this we need a broader public awareness of environmental issues. Thus it was suggested we reorder our objectives as follows:

1) Develop a comprehensive awareness of environmental issues in the public domain

2) Prioritize Environmental issues at all levels of government (and in all policy areas?)

3) Attain a prominent environmental role for the US in the International Community

This sounds good to me- what do you all think?

Also I hear a thread about making connections between environmental issues and all other important issues, ie. renewable energy and security, EPA regulations and health costs… So should we add to an objective with this thread? which one? how? make it an objective of its own?

Read Comments or Add a Comment

Leave a Reply