The Good News for the Environment Thread

[SinnerCal]

Thanks, Rainbow! :colors:

Here's a bit of positive news I received in an email today regarding Sea Shepherd. :boat: (Good news for us Aussies in particular!) :yea:

Dear Sea Shepherd Supporter,

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is starting an Australian Chapter in Melbourne with branches in Perth, Sydney and Byron Bay/Brisbane/Gold Coast. An office has been donated free of charge by Phil and Trix Wollen of the Winsome Constance Kindness Trust. The main initial expenses will be outgoing phone calls only, so we are fortunate to have this great base to build upon. This chapter of Sea Shepherd will be making its main objective to support the marine conservation work of Sea Shepherd which is carried out by mostly volunteer crews on their two vessels the Farley Mowat and the Sirenian.

[Bowwowmeow]

"Winsome Constance Kindness Trust"
What an appealing name!
:dolphin:

[Bowwowmeow]

Here is some positive news about offshore oil drilling in California. :yea:

House Votes to Continue Offshore Drill Ban


By H. JOSEF HEBERT (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
May 19, 2006 7:54 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - Despite talk of an energy crisis and the need for independence from foreign oil, Congress seems to be in no mood to open more of the country's coastal waters to energy development.
The House late Thursday rejected an attempt to end the quarter-century ban on oil and natural gas drilling that has been in effect for 85 percent of the country's coastal waters from Alaska to New England despite arguments that new supplies are needed to lower energy costs.
Lawmakers from Florida and California, who led the fight to continue the drilling moratorium, said they feared energy projects as close as three miles from shore could jeopardize multibillion-dollar tourism industries in their states.
"People don't go to visit the coasts of Florida or the coast of California to watch oil wells," Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., said.
The issue, which dominated debate on a $25.9 billion Interior Department spending bill, saw the sides split largely along geographic, not partisan lines. Republicans and Democrats from coastal states opposed lifting the drilling restrictions.
The fight to open the waters off both coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico to energy companies - at least for natural gas - was led by Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa.
He called natural gas "the mother's milk" of an array of industries from chemical and fertilizer companies to the makers of bricks, and said if there isn't more gas found domestically, prices will remain high and industries will be forced overseas where the fuel is cheaper.
"This is about the economy of America," said Peterson, pleading with fellow lawmakers to end the offshore drilling moratorium that Congress first imposed in 1981 and which it has been extended every year since. It covers virtually all outer continental shelf waters outside of the western Gulf of Mexico where U.S. offshore oil and gas wells are concentrated.
"Natural gas beyond three miles belongs to all Americans and we are entitled to use it," argued Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, whose district, like Peterson's, lies far from the ocean waters that were at the heart of the House debate.
Most lawmakers made clear they felt otherwise.
First, the House rejected by a lopsided 279-141 vote an attempt by Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, to lift the long-standing moratorium as it applies to oil drilling.
Then the House voted 217-203 to put back into the Interior bill the language - stricken last week by a committee at Peterson's request - that also continues the ban on natural gas drilling in those same waters.
The overall bill was approved 293-128 and sent to the Senate.
"Drilling for natural gas means drilling for oil," argued Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., citing industry pronouncements that where there is gas, often oil is found and probably would be developed. "Drilling three miles off our coast will not lower gas prices today or anytime in the near future."
Peterson sought to ease the coastal-state lawmakers' concerns.
Lifting the moratorium wouldn't mean drilling right away, he said. The presidential moratorium would not be affected by the congressional action, he said. And President Bush has said he has no intention of tinkering with the moratorium, which also had been the policy of his two predecessors.
But Capps said if Congress lifts its ban, there would be growing pressure on the White House to do the same.
Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., was more blunt. "Our coasts are simply too valuable to risk this. I can't depend on the president. The president is an oil man."
Separately, by a 252-165 vote, the House, directed the Interior Department to renegotiate contracts on oil leases that allowed companies to avoid federal royalty payments even when oil prices soared. To get companies to renegotiate the contracts - which date back to the 1990s but involve leases still producing - it barred companies from receiving new leases unless they renegotiate the earlier ones.
In other action on the Interior bill, the House:
- Approved a restriction on road-building in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska.
- Barred the Interior Department from selling wild horses for slaughter as part of its wild horse and burro adoption program.
- Told the Environmental Protection Agency not to implement a 2003 directive that environmentalists contend reduces wetlands protection.
Separately, an attempt to debate climate change - and for the first time bring up for a vote the idea of mandatory caps on greenhouse gases - was blocked. A "sense of Congress" resolution on the subject was ruled out of order.
The climate provision offered by Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash., would have put lawmakers on record as agreeing that human actions were contributing to global warming and that carbon emissions into the atmosphere should be limited.
---
The bill is H.R. 5386
---
On the Net:
House: http://www.house.gov

[Bowwowmeow]

Dam Broken to Restore Calif. Wetlands


By GILLIAN FLACCUS (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
August 24, 2006 5:58 PM EDT
HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. - The ocean flowed into historic wetlands Thursday for the first time in more than a century after bulldozers peeled back the last layer of an earthen dam.
Environmentalists who worked for 30 years to restore the massive Bolsa Chica area cheered and sipped champagne as the salty water poured into the fragile ecosystem that had been tapped as an oil field for decades.
The event capped a two-year project that cost more than $100 million and shunted a portion of the scenic Pacific Coast Highway onto an overpass.
Officials said it would take at least six hours for the ocean water to fill the 387-acre basin. The area had been separated from the ocean for 107 years.
The eight state and federal agencies involved in the project call it the largest and most ambitious restoration of coastal wetlands in the history of California, where 95 percent of saltwater marshes have been given over to development.
The Bolsa Chica wetlands project is at the cutting edge of a new and evolving science, said Shirley Dettloff, a member of the conservation group Amigos de Bolsa Chica and a former member of the California Coastal Commission.
"Not many wetlands have been restored in the world, especially in an oil field," said Dettloff, who's been fighting for the wetlands for 30 years. "Even we locals sometimes forget that this was the second-largest functioning oil field in the state of California for years, since the 1930s."
The degraded wetlands are already home to 200 species of birds, including six on state or federal lists of endangered and threatened species, said Marc Stirdivant, executive director of Bolsa Chica Land Trust.
Tidal flows and ebbs will fill and drain the basin twice a day, restoring a natural rhythm that should replenish the fragile ecosystem and could attract more species.
The area was connected to the ocean until 1899, when a duck-hunting club diked ponds to make it easier to catch their prey.
At one time, as many as 4,884 homes were proposed on 1,100 acres of the wetlands. The plan was scaled back to 3,300 homes by 1996.
A year later, the state paid $25 million for 880 acres, and that parcel was added to 300 acres that Signal Landmark had given to the state for wetlands preservation in 1973.
Now, homebuilding is confined to the upper mesa area of Bolsa Chica, with a 356-home development under way.
The restoration of the wetlands was partly funded by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to make up for marine habitat that was destroyed during their expansion. The rest of the money came from voter-approved bonds.
The flooding of another 200-acre portion of the wetlands' original footprint is on hold for at least 30 days because an oil company, Aera Energy LLC, believes the work could create an oil spill. Another nearly 400 acres is still being leased from the state by oil companies.
---
On the Net:
Land trust: http://www.bolsachicalandtrust.org/restoration.html
Amigos de Bolsa Chica: http://www.amigosdebolsachica.org

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer:
:yea: :yea: :yea: :yea: :yea:

[Oracl]

Very good news for the environment. :agree: :thumbsup:

[Bowwowmeow]

3 States to Work on Pacific Ocean Health


http://my.eimg.net/harvest_xml/NEWS/img/20060918/450e19c0_3ca7_1552720060918-1511165850.jpg (http://enews.earthlink.net/article/pho?guid=20060918/450e19c0_3ca7_1552720060918-1511165850&article_path=/article/gen&article_guid=20060918/450e19c0_3ca6_15526200609181458888435)

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, left, and Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski playfully arm wrestle as they wait to meet with California Gov. DON RYAN

From Associated Press
September 18, 2006 6:28 PM EDT
GRANTS PASS, Ore. - The governors of Oregon, Washington and California announced an agreement Monday to press the federal government to give greater support to state efforts to combat threats to the ocean, such as pollution, climate change and declining fisheries.
Noting two national panels had identified the need to act quickly to protect the nation's oceans, the West Coast Governors' Agreement on Ocean Health, announced at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in Portland, said oceans need to be managed on an ecosystem level that crosses political boundaries, which demands increased coordination between states and the federal government.
The announcement came as salmon fishermen are coping with sharp cutbacks to protect chinook from Northern California's Klamath River, scientists are studying a growing zone of oxygen-depleted water killing fish off Oregon and Washington that may be triggered by global warming, and the Bush administration is promoting offshore fish farms that would be beyond state control.
Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said the agreement builds on the three states' work setting up a "clean-car corridor" to limit tailpipe emissions that contribute to global warming.
"Once again, Oregon, California and Washington are coming together to address the threats facing our ocean," he said.
Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire said the agreement gives the three states a greater voice opposing offshore oil and gas drilling and promoting federal research. "It sends a message to the world that we will stand up for our quality of life," she said.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said from Long Beach, Calif., that the agreement with two Democratic governors would give the states more influence in Washington, D.C. "It is harder for the federal government to ignore us if we speak with one voice," he said.
In the next six months, the governors said they would jointly call on the White House and Congress to provide enough federal funding to implement existing controls on non-point source pollution, identified as a top threat to coastal waters.
One chief source of that pollution is agricultural runoff, which is responsible for dead zones in Washington's Hood Canal and the Mississippi Delta in the Gulf of Mexico.
The governors will formally repeat their opposition to offering federal leases to drill for oil and gas off the West Coast, and support development of a regional research plan for the West Coast, including ocean observation programs and mapping the sea floor and ocean habitats.
They will also ask the White House Council on Environmental Quality to help them get more technical help from federal agencies to address threats to the ocean.
Long-term goals include ensuring clean coastal waters and beaches, restoring healthy coastal habitats, reducing harm from offshore development, expanding ocean research, and promoting sustainable economic development in coastal communities.
After the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy identified dire threats to the oceans in 2003 and 2004, respectively, the federal government has been slow to take action, said Mark Abbott, dean of the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University and co-chairman of the Governor's Climate Change Advisory Group.
"We are demanding more of our oceans and we are seeing many more complex problems emerge," Abbott said. "We haven't seen the level of federal commitment we need."
Leon Panetta, chairman of the Pew Oceans Commission and former chief of staff to President Clinton, said from Los Angeles that states are far ahead of the federal government in addressing ocean threats.
"Our oceans are in crisis," Panetta said. "Unfortunately there isn't a lot of strong leadership on this issue coming out of Washington, either from the president or from Congress. In that vacuum, we're seeing a lot of leadership being shown at the regional and state level."


:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

[paul]

hopefully something will be done soon.

[1vegan]

BBC news (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5365728.stm)

The state of California is suing six carmakers for costs associated with their cars' greenhouse gas emissions.

The suit names General Motors, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Chrysler and Nissan.

California is asking for "monetary compensation" for the damage which it says their emissions are doing to health, economy and environment.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), a pan-industry body, called it a "nuisance" suit and suggested it may be dismissed.

"Right now, global warming is harming California," runs the state's complaint.

"Human-induced global warming has, among other things, reduced California's snow pack (a vital source of fresh water), caused an earlier melting of the snow pack, raised sea levels along California's coastline, increased ozone pollution in urban areas, [and] increased the threat of wildfires."

State lawyers want any judgement for damages to be ongoing, so that manufacturers will be liable every year.

Guto Hari, the BBC's North American business correspondent, notes that California has taken an aggressive stance on global warming, passing legislation to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.

'Time to answer'

The lawsuit, lodged on behalf of the Californian people by state attorney-general Bill Lockyer, alleges that emissions from cars made by the firms in question account for 30% of all carbon dioxide emissions in California.

The complaint alleges that the firms' activities have harmed the state's environmental health, with California having to spend million of dollars responding to environmental threats such as coastal erosion.

Mr Lockyer said he had not put a figure of the level of damages he was seeking but that it was likely to run into "hundreds of millions of dollars".

"Global warming is causing significant harm to California's environment, economy, agriculture and public health," he added.

"The impacts are already costing millions of dollars and the price tag is increasing. It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis."

'Most significant'

This is the latest in a series of legal and quasi-legal cases in the US aimed at forcing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions

* An Inuit group is taking the federal government to the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights

* Conservation groups are trying to force the government to protect coral and polar bears from the effects of global warming

* There are ongoing attempts to force the Environmental Protection Agency to define CO2 as a pollutant and regulate emissions

Roda Verheyen of Climate Justice, an international organisation which co-ordinates legal climate cases, said California's suit took action to a new level.

"It is the most significant piece of climate change litigation that has ever been brought," she said.

Car manufacturers have their own case against California pending over laws requiring them to reduce emissions.

The AAM said in a statement: "Automakers will need time to review this legal complaint [by California], however, a similar nuisance suit that was brought by attorneys-general against utilities was dismissed by a federal court in New York."

I like this, it might be another step forward in fighting global warming :)

I don't think this is just a nuissance suit, I think their claims do have some merit :)

[Raven]

Ummm Honda, Nissan and Toyota are jap cars, i see they are only sueing two American car makers.

[1vegan]

They list General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler.

I don't know if one should see (Daimler) Chrysler as an American car maker.


But General Motors (and others) make cars under a couple of brand names.

[Raven]

Didnt see the general motors :no: To be honest i think it is just a big publicity stunt. Some cars in America are huge and guzzle huge amounts of petrol, just seems odd to me. :rubchin:
It just reminds me of sueing McDs for the increase in obesity. People should be buying cars that have smaller engines and using more public transport. If people are going to buy these cars they are going to make them.

[my3labs]

This was discussed in length during the movie "An Inconvenient Truth". I believe that California is one of the best states in trying to reduce global warming by reducing car emmisions.
Whether it's a publicity stunt or not, I think it's good because it will bring awareness to the problem.
I believe that the US is one of only two or three countries not participating in the Kyoto protocol.

[my3labs]

Branson pledges $3B to fight climate change
POSTED: 1:26 p.m. EDT, September 21, 2006

NEW YORK (AP) -- British business mogul Richard Branson on Thursday pledged to invest about $3 billion over the next decade to combat global warming and promote alternative energy, saying that it was critical to protect the environment for future generations.

Branson, the billionaire behind the multi-platform Virgin brand, said the money would come from 100 percent of the profits generated by his transportation sectors -- trains and airline companies. It will be invested in efforts to find renewable, sustainable energy sources in an effort to wean the world off oil and coal. (Watch as Branson puts his money where his mouth is on fighting global warming -- 2:07)

The so-called "rebel billionaire" -- wearing a dress coat with no tie and denim pants -- made the announcement on the second day of the Clinton Global Initiative, an annual conference of business, political and nonprofit leaders hosted by former President Clinton.

"Our generation has inherited an incredibly beautiful world from our parents and they from their parents," Branson said at a news conference, with Clinton at his side.

"We must not be the generation responsible for irreversibly damaging the environment. We must hand it over to our children in as near pristine a condition as we were lent it from our parents."

Clinton praised Branson, calling him one of the "most interesting," "creative" and "genuinely committed" people he had ever known.

Branson said he was inspired to contribute after a meeting with Al Gore, who served as Clinton's vice president and has been highly visible in raising awareness about global warming and environmental issues. Gore was scheduled to speak Thursday afternoon.

Branson's commitment assured that the Clinton Global Initiative conference would surpass its goal of matching last year's efforts. By early Thursday afternoon, initiative organizers said they had 114 commitments amounting to $5.7 billion. In 2005, the conference resulted in $2.5 billion in pledges.

About 50 current and former world leaders were expected to attend the summit, which is in its second year.

On Thursday morning, Afghan President Hamid Karzai joined Jordanian Queen Rania Al-Abdullah, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu for a panel discussion on managing diversity in a globalized world.

All stressed the importance of cultural exchange and education.

Karzai said the West had, at times, exhibited a "lack of morality when it applies to dealing with the rest of the world" because it often did not realize how its intervention or lack thereof would affect itself.

He noted that he had urged Western governments for years before the Sept. 11 attacks to help the people of Afghanistan. "But no attention was paid because you in the West were not hurt," Karzai said. "It was only us and that didn't matter, and that is wrong. Seriously."

Asked about the furor caused by Pope Benedict XVI's recent speech that quoted a medieval figure referring to Islam as violent, Tutu stressed the commonalities among all religions, but added: "I think that the pope probably wishes he hadn't said what he said and has tried to apologize. But it shows how very difficult it is to say sorry. ... To say sorry in public is one of the most difficult things."

The initiative began Wednesday with a slew of world figures, from first lady Laura Bush unveiling a plan to bring clean drinking water to Africa and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf stressing the importance of Palestinian peace.

The conference brings together government, business and nonprofit sectors in an effort to spur action on poverty, health care, global warming and religious/ethnic conflict.

[paul]

intresting reading, 1 vegan.

even if it is a publicity stunt.it will get people thinking.

[Raven]

Yes i think it will get people thinking. I am just concerned about where it will stop. How can they just target cars. What about farmers, plane companies, lorries, i just dont understand why they are just targeting car companies. :rubchin:

[Raven]

Oh just remembered but havent Honda just produced a car that is said to be the most eco friendly around? shouldnt they be helped not suied?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4852448.stm

[my3labs]

Mayor Announces Plan To Cut Greenhouse Emissions

September 27, 2006

By Associated Press

SEATTLE - Mayor Greg Nickels, who has enlisted 307 U.S. mayors in an effort to meet the international Kyoto Protocols for reducing greenhouse gases, on Wednesday announced his plan for city residents to lead the way.

"Climate change is the biggest threat facing our planet," Nickels said. "With the release of the Seattle Climate Action Plan, we start down a hopeful - but challenging - road toward a solution."

The plan has a $37 million tab for two years, most of it from a proposed $361 million property-tax levy to improve transit, cycling and walking options, which city voters will consider next month.

"If you care about climate disruption, you should vote for this," said Steve Nicholas, who heads the city's Office of Sustainability and Environment.

Other money sources for the plan, already approved by the City Council, include a 10 percent tax on parking and a $25-per-worker fee on businesses in the city.

King County's proposed 0.1 percentage point increase in the sales tax to improve bus service would help as well, Nickels spokesman Marty McOmber said Wednesday. County voters also will decide that initiative in November.

More than 150 nations, nearly every industrialized country except the United States, have agreed to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions. U.S. tailpipes and smokestacks are responsible for one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gases.

Nickels' goal for Seattle is to reach the Kyoto target of a 7 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from 1990 levels by 2012.

"When it comes to climate change, we are all part of the problem - and part of the solution," Nickels said in a news release.

City government has already cut its emissions by 60 percent, and operates the only electrical utility, Seattle City Light, that has achieved zero net greenhouse gas emissions, the mayor's office said in a news release.

In addition to encouraging individual efforts, the plan would:

-Invest in improved freight mobility to ease traffic congestion.

-Renovate the King Street Station as a transportation hub.

-Start a community education-awareness campaign to link fossil fuel use and climate change.

-Start the Neighborhood Climate Protection Matching Fund to encourage local efforts, such as biodiesel cooperatives and car- and tool-sharing.

Nickels has been pressing his fellow mayors to support the protocols since the treaty was enacted in February 2005. In June 2005, the U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously approved his challenge to meet or exceed the protocols.

So far, 307 U.S. cities in 46 states and the District of Columbia - cities with a total of 51 million citizens - have made commitments to comply.

[dreamer]

Schwarzenegger signs global warming bill By SAMANTHA YOUNG, Associated Press Writer
12 minutes ago



Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday signed into law a sweeping global warming initiative that imposes the nation's first cap on greenhouse gas emissions, saying the effort kicks off "a bold new era of environmental protection."

Standing on picturesque Treasure Island with San Francisco's skyline in the background, Schwarzenegger called the fight against global warming one of the most important issues of modern times.

"We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late," Schwarzenegger said during an address before signing the bill.

Mayor Gavin Newsom and New York Gov. George Pataki, as well as Democratic legislators, joined Schwarzenegger for the high-profile ceremony. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who struck a deal with Schwarzenegger over the summer to develop clean technologies, joined the ceremony via video link.

Blair called the bill-signing "a proud day for political leadership" and "a historic day for the rest of the world, as well."

California's efforts on global warming have been in the spotlight since Schwarzenegger and the state's legislative Democrats reached an accord last month on the Democrat-authored bill to cut greenhouse gases.

The negotiations culminated in the last week of the legislative session, handing the Republican governor a key victory during an election year in which he has sought to portray himself as a friend to the environment.

On Wednesday, Schwarzenegger called the bill signing a historic occasion.

"It will begin a bold new era of environmental protection in California that will change the course of history," he said.

He expected other states, the federal government and even other nations to follow.

"I'm convinced of that ... because nothing is more important than protecting our planet," he said.

Schwarzenegger's Democratic opponent in the November election, state treasurer Phil Angelides, also supports the new law.

It imposes a first-in-the-nation emissions cap on utilities, refineries and manufacturing plants in a bid to curb the gases that scientists blame for warming the Earth. Two years ago, a state board adopted tight regulations on automobile tailpipe emissions, an initiative that is being challenged in federal court by automakers.

This week, Schwarzenegger also was expected to sign a second Democrat-sponsored global warming bill with consequences beyond the state's borders. That bill would prohibit California's large utilities and corporations from entering long-term power contracts with suppliers whose electricity sources do not meet the state's greenhouse gas emission standards.

The measure by Sen. President Pro Tem Don Perata is intended to force coal plants in the western U.S. to install cleaner technologies.

California's efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions from industry and automobiles are part of a goal to reduce the state's emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, an estimated 25 percent reduction. California is the world's 12th largest producer of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere.

Schwarzenegger issued an executive order in 2005 calling for an even more ambitious reduction — cutting the levels of greenhouse gases to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

In an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press, Schwarzenegger described the emissions-cap bill as one step in a long-term strategy by the nation's most populous state to combat global climate change. He said the state should further reduce industrial emissions and adopt initiatives such as placing greater emphasis on renewable energy and hydrogen-fueled cars.

The industrial emissions cap has been praised by environmentalists as a step toward fighting global climate change, but business leaders have warned that it will increase their costs and force them to scale back their California operations.

Schwarzenegger said it is possible to protect the environment as well as the state's economy. He expects the law will lead to a new business sector in California devoted to developing the technologies industries can use to meet the tougher emission requirements.

"We can save our planet and boost our economy at the same time," the governor said.

I'm sure he's not popular with George W. at the moment:D

[Bowwowmeow]

Go Ahhhhnold. :D

[dreamer]

In some ways Arnold seems like a decent Republican...if there is such a thing;) :whistle:

[Bowwowmeow]

Calif. Presents Plan to Save Salton Sea


By CHRISTINA ALMEIDA (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
October 18, 2006 7:13 PM EDT
LOS ANGELES - After two years of often intense debate and research, state officials have finished an environmental report providing 10 alternatives to help save the Salton Sea, California's largest lake.
The report, scheduled to be released Thursday, outlines various solutions to increasing salinity levels, dropping water levels and threats to critical habitat areas, according to an executive summary obtained by The Associated Press. The lake is a critical North American habitat for migrating birds.
"All of us are relieved," said Dale Hoffman-Floerke, chief of the Colorado River and Salton Sea office for the Department of Water Resources, which prepared the report along with the Department of Fish and Game. "This has definitely been work over a long period of time."
The alternatives include various levels of new infrastructure with construction costs ranging from $2.3 billion to $5.9 billion in today's dollars. All the alternatives feature a reduced lake, various levels of habitat protection and air quality management, said Hoffman-Floerke.
"We don't have all the answers. There is still a lot of uncertainty out there as far as water quality issues, but I think we've done a pretty good job ... with the information we have," she said.
The state will now enter a 90-day public comment period before they will have to submit a "preferred alternative" to the state Legislature. Since the report was finished later than expected, state officials will miss by about two weeks the Dec. 31, 2006, deadline for the alternative imposed by the Legislature, Hoffman-Floerke said.
---
On the Net:
California Department of Water Resources' Salton Sea Web site, http://www.saltonsea.water.ca.gov/

[Bowwowmeow]

California to Restrict Ocean Fishing

http://my.eimg.net/harvest_xml/NEWS/img/20061119/455fe4d0_3ca7_1552720061119-1664953366.jpg (http://enews.earthlink.net/article/pho?guid=20061119/455fe4d0_3ca7_1552720061119-1664953366&article_path=/article/top&article_guid=20061119/455fe4d0_3ca6_15526200611191628396930)

The Point Sur State Marine Reserve is seen in an aerial view Sept. 24, 2006 in Big Sur, Calif. Despite intense opposition from fishermen, California wildlife regulators are creating the nation's most extensive network of "marine protected areas," stretches of ocean where fishing will be banned or severely restricted. MARCIO JOSE SANCHEZ

By TERENCE CHEA (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
November 19, 2006 11:04 PM EST
MONTEREY, Calif. - Flying over California's rugged Central Coast, Mike Sutton pointed to kelp forests and rocky reefs just below the water's surface that will soon be off-limits to fishing under one of the nation's most ambitious plans to protect marine life.
"We're trying to make sure our oceans are protected as our land," said Sutton, a marine expert at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.
Despite intense opposition from many fishermen, California wildlife regulators are creating the nation's most extensive network of "marine protected areas" - stretches of ocean where fishing will be banned or severely restricted.
The first chain of refuges, covering some 200 square miles and stretching from Santa Barbara to Half Moon Bay, just south of San Francisco, is due to take effect early next year. The state plans similar protected zones along the more intensely fished coasts of northern and southern California.
Conservationists say such networks are a new approach to saving the oceans from overfishing. They believe California's plan could serve as a model for other states and countries.
"It's the beginning of a historic shift in how we restore, protect and manage our oceans," said Warner Chabot, vice president of the Ocean Conservancy. "We're doing something that's as historic for the oceans as what Teddy Roosevelt did 100 years ago when he created national parks and forests."
However, the planned restricted areas overlap with some of California's most productive fishing grounds, and commercial and recreational fishermen question whether they're even necessary given the existing array of state and federal regulations.
"We're duplicating conservation efforts unnecessarily," said Vern Goehring, manager of the California Fisheries Coalition. "There are significant actions already under way to prevent overfishing in California."
Fishermen say the no-fishing zones will put more pressure on areas outside the reserves and could lead to increased seafood imports from countries with fewer marine protections.
At Monterey's Fisherman's Wharf, longtime trollers and crabbers say the new restrictions will cripple their industry, hurt fishing communities and leave Californians with less fresh, local seafood.
"We're being regulated out of business," said Mike Rivets, a 70-year-old fisherman for salmon, crab and tuna.
But scientists say more must be done to protect marine life.
A report in this month's issue of the journal Science warns that nearly a third of the world's seafood species have collapsed - meaning their catch has declined by 90 percent or more - and all populations of fished species could collapse by 2048 if current fishing and pollution trends continue.
"We've mismanaged the oceans from abundance into scarcity," said Karen Garrison, an ocean expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We can't protect our oceans without setting aside safe havens where fish can grow big and the whole food web can thrive."
The protected areas will include marine reserves where all fishing will be banned, as well as marine parks and conservation areas that will allow some forms of sport fishing.
All the restricted zones are designed to harbor rockfish, abalone, shellfish and other species that stay in one area, rather than migratory fish such as salmon and tuna. Sea otters and other marine mammals are expected to benefit from the increased food supply.
Governments worldwide have been creating marine sanctuaries with various levels of restrictions for the past 40 years.
In June, President Bush created the world's biggest protected marine area in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, covering 140,000 square miles of largely uninhabited islands, atolls and coral reefs where commercial fishing will be phased out over the next five years.
Australia created a network of reserves on the Great Barrier Reef last year. South Africa and New Zealand are working on plans to protect coastal fisheries.
The Fish and Game Commission voted for the Central Coast preserves in August after two years of negotiations between fishermen, conservationists and coastal residents. Conservation groups had sought even greater restrictions, but were generally pleased with the outcome.
Many fishermen, however, are embittered.
"They felt betrayed by the process. They felt that all their input was ignored," said Bob Fletcher, who heads the Sportfishing Association of California.
In the Central Coast port of Morro Bay, Darby Neil is worried about the fate of Virg's Landing, the charter boat operator his grandfather started more than 40 years ago.
"They've already squeezed us down to nothing," Neil said. "It's already so severe that we really can't take anymore."


:yea: :yea: :yea: :yea: :yea:
California's got a looooooooong coastline, too. :agree:

[Oracl]

:cheer:

[paul]

its a good start

[Fauxmage]

Calif. 1st to Ban Dry-Cleaning Chemical


By SAMANTHA YOUNG (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
January 25, 2007 11:03 PM EST
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California regulators on Thursday enacted the nation's first statewide ban on the most common chemical used by dry cleaners, pleasing environmentalists but worrying some small businesses.
By 2023, no more dry-cleaning machines that use the toxic solvent perchloroethylene, a potential carcinogen, will be permitted in the state.
The regulation by the California Air Resources Board will phase out the fluid next year, banning dry cleaners from buying machines that rely on the solvent. The state's 3,400 dry cleaners who now use it must get rid of machines that are 15 years or older by July 2010.
"Dry cleaners have known this is a problem for quite some time," board member Dorene D'Adamo said. "There is a cost to society, and believe me, taxpayers are paying for it."
The rule was approved unanimously by the seven-member board and was embraced by environmental and health advocates. They urged the board to accelerate the ban because of the chemical's health effects. The solvent has contaminated one in 10 wells in California.
For consumers, the air board estimates that the additional expense of the new equipment will turn what is now a $15 bill into $16.20 to $16.60.
Cleaners said eliminating the most common dry cleaning solvent could drive them out of business because alternative methods are unproven and more costly.
"It could shut down some mom-and-pop operations - the little guys that can't afford it," said Bob Blackburn, president of the California Cleaners Association.
The cost of converting could be significant for dry cleaners, 85 percent of which are small business with a slim profit margin. Replacing a machine that uses perchloroethylene can cost between $41,500 and $175,000.
What alternative should be allowed in California is still under debate. Dry cleaners that switched to other systems sought to sway the board in favor of their preference.
Although the air board did not endorse a substitute, the regulation would give cleaners a $10,000 incentive to buy a machine that uses carbon dioxide or a what is known as a "wet cleaning" system.
Environmentalists urged the board to ban the most common alternative, which uses hydrocarbons. Critics said it could lead to increased ozone pollution.
"It seems to me there needs to be some clarity," said air board member Ron Rogers. "I think some of the primary options are really questionable at best."
The board's vote follows similar action five years ago by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Southern California. That agency became the first regulatory body in the country to ban perchloroethylene, forcing more than 2,000 dry cleaners to stop using the chemical by 2020.
Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned the chemical for dry cleaners in residential buildings by 2020. But those operations are a small fraction of the nation's cleaners, said Jon Meijer, vice president of the International Fabricare Institute, an industry association based in Maryland.
In California, for example, only 50 of 5,210 dry cleaners operate out of residential buildings.
California declared perchloroethylene a toxic chemical in 1991. State health officials told the air board Thursday that it can cause esophageal cancer, lymphoma, cervical and bladder cancer. The solvent, which has a strong, sweet odor, also can affect the central nervous system.
Business owners disputed those claims.
"We believe perc has served the industry well for many years with no related health problems," said John Horst, owner of Margaret's Cleaners in La Jolla, which has operated for more than 50 years.
About 70 percent of the state's dry cleaners use the chemical and will be affected by the regulation.
Cleaners operating in residential buildings must remove their perchloroethylene machines by July 2010. Health advocates want the earlier timeline appplied to cleaners operating near schools, retirement homes, day care centers and medical buildings.

"Business owners disputed those claims."
Of course they did. :rolleyes: Fortunately, they are not being allowed to define what is safe for the environment, anymore than tobacco companies are allowed to claim that cigarettes are healthy.

[Oracl]

California is really amazing in the way they seem to be so often the first state with initiatives like this! :thumbsup: :yea:

[Fauxmage]

Its on account of all the hippies and tofu eaters. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I guess its because California has so many beautiful, as yet unspoiled ecosystems and natural wonders. I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are more people living here who are not native to the state, than there are folks who were born here, like me, but no matter, it seems that Californians love their state, and are willing to fight to keep as much of the land and the animals from being destroyed as possible. I don't know for sure, though. Its a mystery why so many people in California seem to value something other than the almighty dollar. I'm glad they do, though. Because there are still enough people who don't care about the environment to make it necessary to keep fighting.

[Fauxmage]

EU May Make Harming Environment a Crime


By AOIFE WHITE (AP Business Writer)
From Associated Press
February 09, 2007 7:39 PM EST
BRUSSELS, Belgium - Companies and individuals found responsible for environmental disasters should face criminal charges, the European Union's executive said Friday in proposing a measure that would punish serious offenses across the 27-nation bloc with up to five years in prison or a $975,000 fine.
Under the proposal, European courts would be allowed to put a company out of business and order those convicted to clean up the environment.
EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said those found responsible for such disasters as last year's dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast, in which 10 people died, should be punished.
"The recent hazardous waste disaster in the Ivory Coast shows how environmental crimes can have devastating effects on people and the environment," he said.
The proposal faces a tough review by member governments and the European Parliament, which will have the final say on whether to adopt the measure.
Several nations, including Britain and Denmark, are reluctant to give the EU a say over such a sensitive national issue as criminal sanctions - laws traditionally drafted by national parliaments and not the EU institutions in Brussels.
EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini said the measure was "crucial to avoid criminals profiting" from different judicial systems among member countries. "We cannot allow safe havens of environmental crime inside the EU."
Frattini said corporations were behind 73 percent of environmental crimes. "It is not enough to punish and prosecute managers. It's very important also that corporations pay fines," he said.
Dumping toxic substances, shipping hazardous waste or trading in endangered species can have devastating effects on health and the environment, the EU executive said.
"In serious cases, criminal sanctions such as prison sentences should be applied, as they have a much higher dissuasive effect than, for example, administrative sanctions," the proposal said.
This law would not cover oil spills, which would be included in separate proposal on pollution from ships later this year.
Friday's proposals are a legal first for the European Commission. The EU's Court of Justice ruled in 2005 that the commission has the power to draft criminal laws and decide what constitutes a crime, notably in the area of the environment.
The bulk of the EU's proposals are already punishable under civil or criminal statutes in the United States. In December, for example, two oil tanker crew members were indicted by a federal grand jury after allegedly dumping fuel-tank sludge and oily bilge water into Northern California waters.
The EU draft law would force member governments to make sure a list of environmental crimes - all already banned by national and EU law - are treated as criminal offenses.
It would cover releasing hazardous substances that pollute the air, water or soil; illegal shipments or treatment of waste; the unlawful trade in endangered species or ozone-depleting substances; and running a plant either involved in "dangerous activity" or storing dangerous substances.
Prison sentences or maximum fines should be reserved for serious cases in which people have been killed or seriously injured, or where there has been "substantial damage to air, soil, water, animals or plants," the EU said.
Environmental groups welcomed the plan but said the list of punishable crimes should be expanded.
"It's a good first step to ensure more liability and more oversight over what the governments are doing," said Paul De Clerck, a campaigner for Friends of the Earth. "But it's difficult to say whether the EU member states will back the proposal. Countries like Britain may be cautious, because this could take away an element of national sovereignty."
The 27 nations have different standards of what constitutes a crime against the environment, and the executive said many set inadequate punishments.
Dimas said Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Slovakia and Sweden were among those countries with the highest standards. He said France, Italy, Malta and Cyprus would have to make the most changes to existing laws.
Co-Green leader in the European Parliament, Monica Frassoni, said EU-wide action to tackle environmental crime was overdue.
"We have to ... make sure that the legislation is unambiguous to ensure that criminals cannot hide behind the legal personality of companies to evade possible jail sentences," Frassoni said.
British Conservative member Timothy Kirkhope said, however, that the penalties should be left to national governments. "This appears to be a worrying erosion of British sovereignty. Notwithstanding our support for environmental protection, this is a blow to Britain's ability to decide things for ourselves," he said.


I hope they succeed, and set a precedent for the whole world.

[Fauxmage]

http://img.getactivehub.com/act2/custom_images/earthjusticeaction/ej_logo_post110204.gif (http://www.earthjustice.org/) To: Earthjustice Supporters From: Buck Parker, Executive Director Re: Victory for Appalachian communities & mountains http://img.getactivehub.com/act2/custom_images/earthjusticeaction/mtr_people.gif
Today the natural legacy of Appalachia has been preserved for all generations
Dear Laura,
I am delighted to brighten your day with news of an important victory (http://action.earthjustice.org/ct/Pd_0v211W4tg/) in our fight to stop hugely destructive mountaintop removal coal mining in Appalachia.
Today, a federal judge in West Virginia ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers illegally issued permits allowing mining companies to bury streams under millions of tons of waste.
Mountaintop removal scars the landscape and causes environmental and economic tragedy in its wake. This destructive mining practice permanently buries streams, dislocates local residents, decreases the value of homes, and obliterates the forests and natural beauty that have been a cornerstone of Appalachian culture for generations. It is one of the most environmentally destructive practices occurring anywhere in this country today.
In September 2005, Earthjustice and the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment went to court challenging five mountaintop removal coal mining permits in West Virginia. We believed that the Corps approved these permits without proper evaluation of environmental impacts - which is in violation of the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Today, the court agreed.
Today's ruling sets a strong precedent and is a first and important step in stopping this shameful destruction. Thank you for helping to make this possible through your support of Earthjustice.
To learn more about this ongoing struggle and meet the people most affected by mountaintop removal , please visit www.StopMountaintopRemoval.org (http://action.earthjustice.org/ct/P1_0v211W4tt/).
Sincerely,
http://img.getactivehub.com/act2/custom_images/earthjusticeaction/bucksig2.jpg http://img.getactivehub.com/act2/custom_images/earthjusticeaction/buck_11-4.jpg
Vawter "Buck" Parker
Executive Director
Earthjustice

[Oracl]

:thumbsup: :yea:

[Bowwowmeow]

'Landmark' Ocean Plan Passes in Calif.

By LISA LEFF (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
April 13, 2007 11:10 PM EDT

SAN FRANCISCO - One of the nation's most ambitious plans to protect marine life was approved Friday when a state panel voted to ban or restrict fishing across more than 200 square miles of water off Central California.
The Fish and Game Commission unanimously designated 29 marine preserves between Santa Barbara and Half Moon Bay, 13 of which would be off-limits to all anglers, commercial and recreational. Deep water fishing would be prohibited in the rest.

The plan is the first piece envisioned in a statewide network of similarly protected areas. Commissioners and environmental groups praised its passage at a meeting in Bodega Bay as a landmark for ocean conservation.

"This is big. This is a watershed transformation of how states restore and protect the oceans for future generations," said Ocean Conservancy vice president Warner Chabot. "No other state is close to this."

Representatives from the fishing industry and sport fishing fans said the regulations went too far, encompassing areas where fish species are not at risk and posing severe economic hardships for coastal communities.

"There is no question there is a pretty significant economic consequence to what the state is doing," said Steve Scheiblauer, harbormaster for the city of Monterey.

Scheiblauer predicted that 30 of the 100 commercial fishing boats that operate out of Monterey harbor would leave in search of more promising waters, meaning less of the fresh local fish that draws tourists.

The regulations, expected to go into effect this summer, were designed to maintain the diversity of a marine population that includes mammals such as otters and whales, crustaceans like crabs and abalone, and migrating Coho salmon and steelhead trout.

While California already has 80 coastal reserves, including a dozen in territory covered by the new rules, the latest designations offer greater protection, said John Ugoretz, an environmental program manager with the Department of Fish and Game.

"The existing 80 areas, while providing appearance of protection, are all very small and all basically allow all types of fishing to occur," Ugoretz said.
By contrast, only trolling for fish near the ocean's surface will be allowed in the conservation areas where fishing still will be allowed when the plan goes into effect, he said.

The Fish and Game Commission initially approved the regulations in August, but continued to take testimony from fishermen and environmentalists until minutes before voting.

The only change commissioners made since August was deciding that kelp harvesting could continue until leases expire.

The California Department of Fish and Game already has identified waters between Half Moon Bay and Point Arena in Mendocino County as the next part of the state where protected marine areas will be proposed.

Good for the environment and the animals!
:yea: :yea: :yea:

[Charmagne]

Very good news!:agree:

[Oracl]

Excellent! :agree: :thumbsup:

[Gliondrach]

I saw a telly programme a couple of days ago about Hawaii and the problems caused by pollution and humans. Plastic bags are damaging dolphins and birds. Hundreds of tons of plastic objects from all the countries round the Pacific Rim washes up on the beaches and also on Midway. On Midway baby albatrosses are dying because their stomachs are half-filled with plastic. Plastic fishing things, toys, toothbrushes, cigarette lighters, and even a printer cartridge.

The slight good news is that children and others are being encouraged to become guardians of their envrionment.

[Oracl]

Children are the future so let's hope they will take this on board. :agree: :crossfingers:

[Gliondrach]

That programme is repeated today on BBC2 at 6.10 PM. It's called Natural World.

[SinnerCal]

Rudd signs Kyoto ratification document

December 3, 2007 - 5:02PM
Source: ABC

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has signed the instrument of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr Rudd says it is the first official act of the new Government and demonstrates the commitment to tackling climate change.

The ratification document will be sent to the United Nations and it comes into effect 90 days after that.

Mr Rudd says Australia will be a full member of the Kyoto Protocol before March next year.

The agreement means Australia's greenhouse gas emissions should not be higher than 8 per cent above 1990 levels.

Ratifying the treaty was one of Labor's major campaign promises.

The Greens say the move makes today a historic day for Australia, but comes years too late.

Mr Rudd, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, Environment Minister Peter Garrett and Treasurer Wayne Swan are now preparing to go to Bali next week for the United Nations conference on climate change.

:thumbsup:

[Gliondrach]

The United Nations should have a teleconference to avoid all the pollution of travelling by air. But swanning off to exotic Bali is more exciting.

[my3labs]

:thumbsup:
:agree:

[thevegantwins]

This could have gone into either the Good for Environment or Good for Animals thread but this morning, when I was at the gym, CNN had a report on veganism. The focus was on how not only was vegan food really tasty but great for the environment. They showed how a dish of stir fried veggies and rice had 24X less of a carbon footprint that a plate containing a slab of dead cow. They also interviewed a researcher regarding that study which showed that going vegan was more beneficial to the planet than switching to a hybrid car. Unfortunately, they also said that even cutting down from one hamurger from two would be better for the environment. The segment continued with an interview with Russell Simmons who is a vegan music promoter. He began talking about factory farming and the numbers of animals murdered each year for human consumption. I then had to leave to get to work so I missed the rest of the interview.

[Gliondrach]

Good. A lot of people will have seen it. I saw a programme on telly yesterday which said that a hundred million people go to bed hungry every night - 20 million of them children. There's famine in Ethiopia and central India but more people in India and China want to eat meat, with all the waste of food that that entails. As vegans know, there is more than enough land to grow vegan food for everyone.

[Oracl]

This could have gone into either the Good for Environment or Good for Animals thread but this morning, when I was at the gym, CNN had a report on veganism.
This is very positive. :agree: I received a DawnWatch email about it. :)