SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TigerPaw who wrote (5783)8/7/2001 6:02:05 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
This is from the Web site of the Chesapeake Bay Program, which includes the EPA and state agencies. Look, no alarmism, nor anything about HW:

What are the major issues facing the Chesapeake Bay? The number one issue facing the Bay is the reduction of excess nutrients. Excess nutrients cause blooms of algae, which block sunlight needed by Bay grasses to grow. Algae also deplete oxygen as they die, robbing other living resources of the oxygen they need to live. In addition to excess nutrients, the other major stressors on the Bay are chemical contaminants, air pollution and landscape changes. For more on Bay stressors, click here.

Who’s polluting the Chesapeake Bay? In some way, everyone who lives in, works in or visits the Bay region pollutes the Chesapeake. Every time we drive or ride in a car or truck, tailpipe emissions pollute the air. This pollution eventually can be deposited on land or on water. Other sources of pollution include just about everything from farms to factories to parking lots to urban and suburban areas to wastewater treatment plants to our own yards and gardens. No one is exempt, so everyone has to be part of pollution prevention and reduction efforts.

What is the major source of pollution in the Bay? The major source of pollution is runoff from land into the Bay and its rivers. This runoff carries the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, which, in large amounts, are harmful to the Bay system. For example, fertilizers and animal waste contain both nitrogen and phosphorus; when it rains, these nutrients can be washed off the land into creeks and streams and can end up in the Bay. For more on nutrient pollution, click here.

How do storm drains affect the Bay? How do storm drains affect the Bay? Basically, anything that can be drained, spilled or dropped into a storm drain can end up in a waterway to the Bay. In most cases, storm drains dump directly into open water without treatment, so rain carrying pollutants, trash or debris eventually can make it to the Bay. This is why street and neighborhood cleanup efforts have an impact on water quality in our neighborhoods, as well as in the Bay.

What is Pfiesteria? Pfiesteria piscicida is a free-swimming, single-celled organism that's been linked to fish kills in the Bay region, as well as in other areas along the East Coast. Under certain conditions, this organism can reach toxic levels and may cause lesions on fish. Prolonged human exposure to an active outbreak of Pfiesteria may result in significant, but temporary, health impacts, including short-term memory problems and respiratory difficulties. Officials in Maryland and Virginia are monitoring waters for any future outbreaks while research on this organism continues. For more on Pfiesteria, click here.

Is seafood from the Bay safe to eat? Generally, seafood from the Bay and its rivers is safe to eat. However, there are some areas that have posted fish consumption advisories. That means that fish or shellfish harvested from these areas should not be eaten. Also, fish that do not appear to be healthy (taken from any area) should not be eaten, especially ones with lesions or other signs of disease. For more on crabs and shellfish, click here.

Is it safe to swim in the Bay? Though people do have some concern about water quality in certain rivers, especially near industrial areas, it is generally safe to swim in the Bay and its tributaries. However, swimmers (along with boaters and fishermen) should obey any signs posted by state officials that restrict certain activities. Because potential human health impacts are an important issue, state agencies constantly test for problems related to human health issues in the tidal rivers of the Bay. Where human health concerns are identified, appropriate fish consumption advisories or other warnings are issued.

What are algae? Algae are single-celled organisms that are capable of making their own food, sort of like plants. They are mobile, and some are large enough to see with the naked eye. Many types, including blue-green, brown and red, can be found in the Bay watershed. Algae harm the Bay when they grow excessively, causing what's known as an algal bloom. Blooms block sunlight needed by Bay grasses, and as algae die, they use up oxygen needed by finfish and other living things in the water.

What is happening to water quality? Generally, the Bay and its rivers are cleaner than they were 10-15 years ago. Reductions in nutrients and sediments are having an effect in many portions of the Bay system. There also is improvement in the amount of dissolved oxygen available to aquatic living resources -- another indicator of water quality. However, more work is needed in certain areas. For more on water quality, click here.

Are toxic chemicals a problem in the Bay? Since the 1980s, Bay scientists have agreed that the nature, extent and severity of toxic effects vary widely throughout the Chesapeake system. Based on research, scientists determined that -- unlike nutrient pollution -- there was no evidence of severe, system-wide toxics problems in the Bay or its rivers. However, scientists identified three localized problem areas called toxic hot spots in the Bay's tidal rivers. These hot spots, or Regions of Concern, were characterized in 1993. They are the Elizabeth River in Virginia, the Baltimore Harbor/Patapsco River in Maryland, and the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia. These three specific areas were targeted for intense management efforts by the partners in the Bay Program because scientific experts agreed that these are areas where data indicate that there is a probable chemical contaminant-related impact on living resources (other than humans). In a Bay Program report released in 1999, ten more areas in the tidal Bay were designated as Areas of Emphasis, which means there is significant potential for chemical contamination to impact living resources. In the same study, eight areas were given a clean bill of health. For more on toxic pollution, click here.

How will human population growth affect the Bay? The population in the Bay region is at 15.3 million people and it shows no signs of slowing down. Basically, more people mean more pollution and more demands on resources. For example, from 1970 to 1994, population in the Chesapeake Bay watershed grew 26%. During this same time frame, the amount of vehicle miles traveled in the watershed increased by 105%. The exhaust emissions from cars add to nutrient pollution in the Bay directly and indirectly. The quality of life in the Bay region is threatened by increased traffic congestion as residents of the region spend more of their time commuting on congested roads. Additional impacts to communities and local governments include: economic and fiscal impacts, due to the need for increased government services, and quality of life impacts, such as loss of open space and community identity. When the population of any area grows, demand for goods and services also increases. That's great when the growth occurs in an area that's already developed. But, when people start living farther from jobs and services, demand also grows for infrastructure, such as roads, so that people can reach stores, schools and work places. All of these factors put a strain on the Bay watershed, mainly because more people create more pollution. For more on population, click here.

What is suburban sprawl? Suburban sprawl is the development of land father away from populated areas and from centers of business. Because this construction tends to be located in more rural areas, farms, forests and wetlands may be replaced by new housing developments and infrastructure needed to support these developments. The accompanying pollution -- including wastewater treatment plants and septic tanks, more vehicle miles traveled, more storm water runoff, more impervious surface and other factors -- disrupts or harms the Bay system. Sprawl also harms wildlife and other creatures. When land including farms, wetlands or forests is used for development, animals may be displaced and must find a new habitat and new areas to search for food.

How can individuals help the Bay? We all live downstream, so most everything that occurs in the Bay watershed eventually can affect the quality of our lives - and the quality of the lives of the wildlife, plants and other living resources around us. Participating in recycling efforts, energy conservation and car pools are fairly easy activities that any individual can choose to do. On a larger scale, individuals can join a local watershed group or environmental organization. To learn more about how you can help, click here.

chesapeakebay.net are the major



To: TigerPaw who wrote (5783)8/8/2001 6:32:10 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
Yes, the economy is doing pretty well too:

washingtonpost.com
Productivity Takes Surprise Jump
Report Bolsters View That New Economic Era Has Begun

By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 8, 2001; Page A01

Government figures released yesterday provided potent ammunition for those who believe the U.S. economy has entered a new era in which technology and a more flexible labor market are making American companies more productive than before.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that productivity -- which measures output per hour worked -- grew at an unexpectedly strong 2.5 percent rate in the second quarter, compared with a revised 0.1 percent rate in the previous quarter.

In large part, the improved efficiency in the April-June period resulted from companies' laying off workers and cutting work hours to bring labor costs into line with sluggish demand for their goods. But companies were able to increase overall national production slightly even with reduced workforces -- and the higher productivity figure didn't fit the usual pattern for recessions and slowdowns, when productivity typically begins to fall.

Furthermore, revised figures for 1998 through 2000 showed that productivity rose at an annual rate of 2.6 percent during that period. That is a bit lower than the 3.2 percent annual rate originally estimated, but it is still well above the pace recorded during most of the 1970s, '80s and early '90s. And it is robust enough to ease the concerns, voiced by some new-economy skeptics, that the productivity gains of recent years were illusory.

"If you believed before that there was some fundamental change in the way the economy functions, you should believe it still," said Neal Soss, an economist with Credit Suisse First Boston in New York.

The question of whether productivity shifted into higher gear in the late 1990s has been a hotly contested and important one for economists and policymakers. With higher productivity, living standards can rise more rapidly because companies can offer their workers more generous wage increases without worrying so much about higher costs, because increased output offsets increased wage bills.

Even with rising productivity, the new economy remains vulnerable to ups and downs, as has been apparent during the recent months of extremely weak economic growth, layoffs, falling profits and sagging stock prices. But productivity gains can translate over the long term into higher rates of economic expansion without inflation.

That has major implications for the Federal Reserve's interest rate policy. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who believes that advances in technology have greatly enhanced U.S. corporate efficiency in recent years, has cited this phenomenon as a major justification for the central bank's low-interest-rate policy. The theory is that because companies' productivity is greater, they needn't raise prices as much to cover increased labor costs, so the danger of rekindled inflation has receded.

Productivity numbers are notoriously subject to computational problems, and some analysts and policymakers have voiced doubts about whether increased productivity growth represents a solid trend or is merely an ephemeral statistical blip. Yesterday's figures bolstered the believers in productivity growth rather than the doubters.

Recessions and slowdowns normally cause productivity to decline because output falls faster than companies cut their payrolls. But the 2.5 percent increase in the second quarter, which applied to non-farm businesses, was not only positive; it was a full percentage point higher than many economists had forecast.

Moreover, the original estimate of productivity growth in the first quarter was revised from a 1.2 percent decline to a 0.1 percent gain, noted Brian Jones, an economist at Salomon Smith Barney Inc. "So even the one observation [the skeptics] had to hang their hat on doesn't exist anymore."

Layoffs and cutbacks in work hours were a big part of the story, as the total number of hours worked fell 2.4 percent in the second quarter. To some extent, that reflected companies' dismissal of temporary workers they had hired during boom times, although temporary workers are far from the only ones affected.

"It's across the board -- it's layoffs, downsizing, sabbaticals -- it's every which way a company can do to reduce its workforce after eight years of bloating itself," said Jeffrey Joerres, president of Manpower Inc., a temporary employment services company.

Still, the economy continued to grow over the past several quarters despite the reduction in hours worked because productivity growth is increasing. "That's not the normal response you get in the kind of slowdown that we've gone through," noted Jones of Salomon Smith Barney.

The 2.6 percent growth in productivity for 1998-2000, he added, implies that the economy can now grow at about 3.5 percent a year without generating inflationary pressure, after the 1 percent annual increase in the labor force is added to productivity growth. "That's well above what a lot of prior estimates had been" of the economy's potential growth, Jones said.

But some analysts warned that the figures released yesterday don't bear out the most optimistic claims about the new economy.

"It certainly is good news for those who believed we have structurally changed productivity growth," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Bank One in Chicago. "And it supports Greenspan's continual optimism" about the subject. But, she said, the figures do not support the view, espoused by some new-economy enthusiasts, that the economy now has a long-term potential growth rate of 4 percent to 4.5 percent. "It's probably closer to 3 percent to 3 1/2 percent," Swonk said.



To: TigerPaw who wrote (5783)8/8/2001 6:40:28 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 93284
 
Also from the Washington Post, July 28th:

Nevertheless, the longest economic expansion in U.S. history continued through the second quarter. Despite the recent slow growth, the nation's unemployment rate last month was a only 4.5 percent, six-tenths of a percentage point above the three-decade low reached last fall.

Given the plunge in business investment and a steep fall in corporate profits, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said this week that "what is really quite remarkable is that with this extraordinary litany of negative elements that have been going on day by day, month by month, the economy is still standing." Not only that, he said, but "the rate of deterioration is slowing, very clearly. . . . And that's suggestive of the fact that there is some fundamental support in the system."

Many other forecasters and policymakers believe the liquidation of inventories and cuts in business investment will run their course in coming months with economic growth gradually improving.

At the White House, President Bush described the economy as "puttering along."

"It's not nearly as strong as it should be," Bush said. But the income tax refund checks that began going out this week should help revive growth, he said. "Given the economic news of today, the tax cut looks more and more wise," Bush said.

Peter Hooper, chief economist at Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown in New York, agreed that growth is likely to pick up. But he cautioned that yesterday's report on the gross domestic product -- the measure of production of all goods and services in the United States -- showed that "the economy is in a bit more fragile state than we had previously thought. . . . Without a significant chunk of the tax rebate going into spending very soon, we worry if GDP growth will even achieve the modest 1.5 percent rate we forecast for this quarter."

Bruce Steinberg, chief economist at Merrill Lynch & Co. in New York, was more optimistic.

" "Growth in the third quarter should be slightly firmer, thanks to tax rebates, through we still expect it to be weak at around 2 percent," Steinberg said. "But we still look for a rebound by the fourth quarter, with growth around 3.5 percent and growth around 4 percent next year."

Steinberg acknowledged that the Merrill Lynch predictions were a good deal stronger than those of many other economists, public and private. For instance, Federal Reserve officials also expect a pickup but they generally are looking for growth of 3 percent to 3.25 percent in 2002.

Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services in Boston, said: "While we're still skating on the edge of recession, I think the outlook for the economy is now quite encouraging. . . . Outside of the manufacturing sector, things aren't all that bad.

"Unemployment is still about as low as it's been in a generation, people are still building and buying homes as fast as ever, foreigners still see the United States as the best place in the world for their money, and inflation remains dormant. The Fed has been pumping out money all year, pushing down short-term interest rates and making it easy to finance homes, autos, furniture and even vacations," Cheney said.

As part of the GDP report, the Commerce also revised its estimates for the previous three years, 1998 through 2000. Most of the revisions, which were based on new and revised data and some methodological changes, were minor. However, the department had significantly overestimated investment last year in business spending on software and equipment, and, to a lesser extent, consumer spending. The result was a downward revision in growth for the period from the fourth quarter of 1999 to the fourth quarter of last year. The new estimate is 2.8 percent, down from 3.4 percent.

On a quarterly basis, however, the gain for last year's final three months was revised upward to a 1.9 percent annual rate from 1 percent, and the increase for the first quarter of this year was raised to 1.3 percent from 1.2 percent.

The Commerce Department reported separately yesterday that new home sales last month ran at an annual rate of 922,000, up 1.2 percent from the month before. Sales in recent months have moved up and down within a narrow range at what historically is a very high level. Such sales are supporting a high rate of construction of new housing, with investment in that sector up at a 7.4 percent annual rate in the second quarter, according to the GDP report. In the first quarter, housing was also a strong contributor to growth, rising at an 8.5 percent rate.

In another report released yesterday, the University of Michigan said its final reading on its consumer sentiment survey for this month was 92.4, slightly lower than June's final number of 92.6. After falling sharply from December through April, the university's index has stabilized as consumers' expectations for their personal financial situation and the overall economy have improved.

washingtonpost.com



To: TigerPaw who wrote (5783)8/8/2001 8:54:37 AM
From: jlallen  Respond to of 93284
 
You must be related to Chicken Little....???

JLA