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 : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (3978)6/17/2002 3:28:14 PM
From: Raymond Duray  Respond to of 15516
 
Thanks, Mephisto, :)



To: Mephisto who wrote (3978)6/17/2002 5:54:20 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Bad Bargain on Clean Air
Editorial
The New York Times

June 17, 2002

The Bush administration's decision last week to relax air-quality rules governing older coal-fired power plants is
exasperating. It would have been one thing if the administration had unveiled its proposals in tandem with a strategy for
dealing with the extra air pollution that the rollbacks will inevitably cause. It offered no such strategy, beyond another vague
promise to deliver its much-touted "Clear Skies" proposals. In effect, the president has asked the country to trade real health
protections now for hypothetical gains later on.


Christie Whitman, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said that her new rules commanded "broad
support," but she must have had a rather limited audience in mind. The power companies and the big refineries were thrilled.
But the rollbacks inspired virtually unanimous condemnation from environmentalists, from state attorneys general up and
down the Eastern seaboard and from James Jeffords, whose Senate committee will consider "Clear Skies" if and when it arrives
on Capitol Hill. To Mr. Jeffords, the notion of exchanging existing law for a diaphanous promise represented a "devastating
defeat for public health and our environment."

The main retreat involved a section of the Clean Air Act known as "new source review."
The provision compels utilities to install modern pollution controls whenever they build new
power plants or significantly upgrade existing units so as to produce more
power (and, inevitably, more pollution). Written in 1977, the provision was aimed mainly
at hundreds of aging, coal-fired plants that were exempted from the act's stringent regulations
in the expectation that they would soon be retired.

Most of these "grandfathered" plants are still going strong, contributing heavily to smog and acid rain.
Plants in the Midwest send so much pollution eastward on the prevailing winds that it is almost
impossible for states like New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to meet federal clean air
standards. One of the few ways to get a handle on this pollution is to make sure than
when the plants upgrade, they install controls.


In 1999, the Clinton administration and Eastern states led by Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
of New York sued 51 power plants
for illegally making major upgrades without installing
the necessary controls. In short order two major producers in Ohio and
Virginia agreed to make billion-dollar investments in new pollution controls,
while the federal government reached a similar agreement with a Florida utility. Nevertheless,
other companies continued to complain that the law punished them for making
even routine repairs and discouraged them from expanding capacity to produce more electricity.
Though Mr. Spitzer's investigation found no evidence that either charge was true, the complaints
found a warm response in Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, which ordered a review.

The net result is new rules that, through various complex definitional changes, will allow the utilities to upgrade their old
plants without adding costly new antipollution equipment.
The rules will be subject to public comment and, conceivably, court
tests. We also recommend Congressional intervention. What the administration is doing is directly contrary to what Congress
intended a quarter-century ago.

nytimes.com Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company



To: Mephisto who wrote (3978)6/17/2002 7:30:45 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
In Alaska, hotter weather provokes startling changes

iht.com

Timothy Egan The New York Times
Tuesday, June 18, 2002

ANCHOR POINT, Alaska To live in Alaska when
the average temperature has risen about 7
degrees Fahrenheit over the last 30 years means
learning to cope with a landscape that can sink,
catch fire or break apart in the turn of a season.

In the village of Shishmaref, on the Chukchi Sea
just south of the Arctic Circle, it means high water
eating away so many houses and buildings that
people will vote next month on moving the entire
village inland.

In Barrow,
the northernmost city in North
America, it means coping with mosquitoes in a
place where they once were nonexistent, and
rescuing hunters trapped on breakaway ice at a
time of year when such things once were unheard
of.

In Fairbanks to the north, where wildfires have
been burning off and on since mid-May, it means
living with hydraulic jacks to keep houses from
slouching and buckling on foundations that used
to be frozen all year. Permafrost, they say, is no
longer permanent. Here on the Kenai Peninsula, a
recreation wonderland a few hours' drive from
Anchorage, it means living in a 4 million-acre (1.6
million-hectare) spruce forest that has been killed
by beetles, the largest loss of trees to insects ever
recorded in North America, federal officials say.
Government scientists tied the event to rising
temperatures, which allow the beetles to
reproduce at twice their normal rate. In Alaska,
rising temperatures, whether caused by
greenhouse gas emissions or nature in a
prolonged mood swing, are not a topic of debate or
an abstraction. Mean temperatures have risen by
5 degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 degrees centigrade) in
summer and 10 degrees Fahrenheit in winter
since the 1970s, federal officials say. While
President George W. Bush was dismissive of a
report the government recently released on how
global warming will affect the nation, the leading
Republican in this state, Senator Ted Stevens,
says that no place is experiencing more startling
changes from rising temperatures than Alaska.
Among the consequences, Stevens says, are
sagging roads, crumbling villages, dead forests,
catastrophic fires and possible disruption of
marine wildlife. These problems will cost Alaska
hundreds of millions of dollars.

"Alaska is harder hit by global climate change
than any place in the world," Stevens said.


Scientists have been charting shrinking glaciers
and warming seas in Alaska for some time. But
only recently have experts started to focus on
what the warming means to the people who live in
Alaska.

The social costs of higher temperatures have been
mostly negative, people here say. The Bush
administration report, which was drafted by the
Environmental Protection Agency, also found few
positives to Alaska's thermal rise. But it said
climate change would bring a longer growing
season and open ice-free seas in the Arctic for
shipping.

"There can no longer be any doubt that major
changes in the climate have occurred in recent
decades in the region, with visible and measurable
consequences," the government concluded in the
report to the United Nations last month.

It does not take much to find those consequences
in a state with 40 percent of the nation's surface
water and 63 percent of its wetlands.

Here on the Kenai Peninsula, a forest nearly twice
the size of Yellowstone National Park is in the last
phases of a graphic death. Century-old spruce
trees stand silvered and cinnamon-colored as they
bleed sap.

A sign at Anchor River Recreation Area near this
little town poses a question many tourists have
been asking, "What's up with all the dead spruce
trees on the Kenai Peninsula?" The population of
spruce bark beetles, which have long fed on these
evergreen trees, exploded as temperatures rose,
foresters now say. Throughout the Kenai, people
are clearing some of the 38 million dead trees,
answering the call from officials to create a
"defensible space" around houses for fire
protection. Last year, two major fires occurred on
this peninsula, and this year, with temperatures
in the 80s (around 30 centigrade) in mid-May,
officials say fire is imminent.

"It's just a matter of time before we have a very
large, possibly catastrophic, forest fire," said Ed
Holsten of the Forest Service.

Joe Perletti, who lives in Kasilof in the Kenai
Peninsula, has rented a bulldozer to clear dead
trees from the 10 acres where he lives.

"It's scary what's going on," Perletti said. "I never
realized the extent of global warming, but we're
living it now. I worry about how it will affect my
children."

Perletti, an insurance agent, said some insurers
no longer sold fire policies to Kenai Peninsula
homeowners in some areas surrounded by dead
spruce.

Another homeowner, Larry Rude, has cut a few
trees down, but is taking his chances at the house
he owns near Anchor Point. He says he no longer
recognizes Alaska weather.

"This year, we had a real quick melt of the snow,"
Rude said, "and it seemed like it was just one
week between snowmobiling in the mountains
and riding around in the boat in shirt-sleeve
weather."

Other forests, farther north, appear to be sinking
or drowning as melting permafrost forces water
up. Alaskans have taken to calling the
phenomenon "drunken trees."

For villages that hug the shores of the Bering,
Chukchi and Beaufort seas, melting ice is the
enemy. Sea ice off the Alaskan coast has retreated
by 14 percent since 1978 and thinned by 40
percent since the mid-1960s, the federal report
says. Climate models predict that Alaska
temperatures will continue to rise over this
century, by up to 18 degrees Fahrenheit.

Kivalina, a town battered by sea storms that erode
the ground beneath houses, will have to move
soon. Stevens said it would cost $102 million, or
$250,000 for each of the 400 residents.

The communities of Shishmaref, Point Hope and
Barrow face a similar fate. Scientists say the
melting ice brings more wave action, which gnaws
away at ground that used to be frozen for most of
the year.


Barrow has not only had beach erosion, but early
ice breakup. Hunters have been stranded at sea,
and others have been forced to go far beyond the
usual hunting grounds to find seals, walruses and
other animals.

"We've had so many strange events, things are so
different than they used to be, that I think most
Alaskans now believe something profound is going
on," said Glenn Juday, an authority on climate
change at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
"We're experiencing indisputable climate
warming. The positive changes from this take a
long time, but the negative changes are
happening real fast."