America Is Your Park Launches Today, Vote At LivePositively.com For the Timucuan Ecological and Historical Park To Win $100,000!
Washington D.C. (June 29, 2011) – If you’re reading this, you should get to
your the Timucuan Ecological and Historical Park – STAT! The National Park Foundation, in partnership with Coca-Cola, America’s State Parks and the National Recreation and Park Association, launched today the second annual America Is Your Park campaign and is encouraging all Americans to get outdoors and embrace a healthy
lifestyle, while also embracing the importance of keeping our parks
protected and preserved.
Families are also invited to vote for their favorite park to win the title
of “America’s Favorite Park” and a $100,000 recreation grant made possible
by the Coca-Cola Live Positively initiative.
“Last year, millions of Americans showed their passion for their favorite
parks by voting, so this year we’ve raised the stakes – more parks can win
and there are more ways to vote,” said L. Celeste Bottorff, Vice President,
Living Well, Coca-Cola North America. “We’re asking people to be ‘digital’
by voting online for their favorite park and then get ‘physical’ by getting
out and having fun with us this summer.”
Throughout the summer, people can help their favorite national, state or
local park win big with just a click of a button and there is no limit on
the amount of times one can vote. There are four different ways people can
vote:
1. Click on their favorite park at LivePositvely.com and vote
2. Upload photos of themselves in their favorite park to LivePositvely.com
3. Starting August 10, they can upload video of themselves in their
favorite park to LivePositvely.com
4. Starting July 11, people also can vote by checking into a park using
Facebook Places
The three parks that receive the most votes by September 6, 2011 will be
awarded grants in the following amounts: First Place - $100,000; Second
Place - $50,000; and, Third Place - $25,000. These grants will help
restore, rebuild or enhance recreation areas in parks where people can play
and be active.
The campaign encourages people to attend active healthy living events at
local parks in select cities this summer. Additionally, people can watch,
download and share fitness-in-the-park videos from LivePositively.com
featuring fitness icon Jake Steinfeld, founder of “Body By Jake.”
“Our national parks are home to our country’s treasures -- from our iconic
landscapes to the hallowed places where history happened,” said Neil
Mulholland, President and CEO, National Park Foundation. “Thanks to
dedicated partners like Coca-Cola and the America Is Your Park campaign,
our nation’s parks can continue to receive the vital support they need.”
Last year, thanks to more than 1.6 million votes cast by its supporters,
Bear Head Lake State Park in Ely, Minnesota was named “America’s Favorite
Park.” The park is using the grant to build a new warming hut to ensure
safety and comfort for winter sports enthusiasts all season long.
For more than 40 years, Coca-Cola has supported America’s parks through
partnerships with individual parks and national park organizations. The
Company has donated more than $14 million for restoration and renovation of
our country’s parks, including the restoration of more than 260 miles of
“Active Trails” for families to hike and explore, and development of the
first sustainable recycling program at The National Mall, a national park
in the heart of Washington, D.C. Most recently, Coca-Cola donated $1
million to The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation’s Peopling of
America® Center, which helps to oversee the historic restoration of the
national park.
About The National Park Foundation
You are the owner of 84 million acres of the world’s most treasured
landscapes, ecosystems, and historic sites -- all protected in America’s
nearly 400 national parks. Chartered by Congress, the National Park
Foundation is the official charity of America’s national parks. We work
hand in hand with the National Park Service to connect you and all
Americans to the parks, and to make sure that they are preserved for the
generations who will follow.
Join us – This is Your Land. www.nationalparks.org
FACEBOOK http://www.facebook.com/nationalpark
TWITTER http://twitter.com/goparks
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
Earn Discounts and Deals Just by Recycling
Recyclebank is a company that gives points and rewards to people who recycle and engage in green activities. Members can use the points that they have earned to claim rewards from places like Bloomingdales and Macy’s or get deals or discounts on products like Dove, Aveeno, and Kashi. These are only a few of the rewards; Recyclebank has over 100 rewards to choose from. If you want to get involved go to http://www.recyclebank.com/ and register now. You can begin to earn points by learning about different recycling activities and taking quizzes or by referring friends to Recyclebank on Facebook or Twitter.
There are many other ways to earn points on Recyclebank after registering. First, members can recycle their electronic devices at recyclebank.flipswap.com. Second, members can apply for a Gconomy Visa Card. Members can earn points by shopping with the card at participating Recyclebank Reward Partners (any company that offers rewards on Recyclebank is a partner) or anywhere Visa cards are accepted. Third, members can participate in conservation challenges on “The Future Friendly Neighbors” Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/futurefriendly. Fourth, members can earn points by recycling Kashi boxes and Ziploc bags. There will be a points code on the products that members can enter on recyclebank.com to earn points. Fifth, members can earn points monthly by making a pledge on Aveeno’s Facebook page at https://www.face book.com/aveeno?sk=app_192486454119700. Sixth, members can earn points by recycling at home. Only some communities and waste haulers participate in Recyclebank’s Home Recycling program. Members will have to provide Recyclebank with their address, and Recyclebank will determine if the member is eligible for home recycling. The items that members can recycle at home are dependent on what each City accepts for recycling, so members should contact their local government to see what their City accepts. If members are in an area where there are no participating communities or waste haulers, then Recyclebank suggests that members send their local government or waste haulers a letter informing them about Recyclebank.
Recyclebank is a great resource because Recyclebank gives points for some of the recycling activities people already engage in. All you have to do now if you already recycle or are interested in green activities is go to recyclebank.com, find what you are interested in and earn as many points as you like. This program is great even for those people who are just beginning to recycle because Recyclebank gives easy step by step instructions and tips for proper recycling. Now people can not only help save the environment but they can be rewarded for their actions. The more people join programs like Recyclebank the more it will get other people interested in recycling and in turn this will help save the environment.
-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
There are many other ways to earn points on Recyclebank after registering. First, members can recycle their electronic devices at recyclebank.flipswap.com. Second, members can apply for a Gconomy Visa Card. Members can earn points by shopping with the card at participating Recyclebank Reward Partners (any company that offers rewards on Recyclebank is a partner) or anywhere Visa cards are accepted. Third, members can participate in conservation challenges on “The Future Friendly Neighbors” Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/futurefriendly. Fourth, members can earn points by recycling Kashi boxes and Ziploc bags. There will be a points code on the products that members can enter on recyclebank.com to earn points. Fifth, members can earn points monthly by making a pledge on Aveeno’s Facebook page at https://www.face book.com/aveeno?sk=app_192486454119700. Sixth, members can earn points by recycling at home. Only some communities and waste haulers participate in Recyclebank’s Home Recycling program. Members will have to provide Recyclebank with their address, and Recyclebank will determine if the member is eligible for home recycling. The items that members can recycle at home are dependent on what each City accepts for recycling, so members should contact their local government to see what their City accepts. If members are in an area where there are no participating communities or waste haulers, then Recyclebank suggests that members send their local government or waste haulers a letter informing them about Recyclebank.
Recyclebank is a great resource because Recyclebank gives points for some of the recycling activities people already engage in. All you have to do now if you already recycle or are interested in green activities is go to recyclebank.com, find what you are interested in and earn as many points as you like. This program is great even for those people who are just beginning to recycle because Recyclebank gives easy step by step instructions and tips for proper recycling. Now people can not only help save the environment but they can be rewarded for their actions. The more people join programs like Recyclebank the more it will get other people interested in recycling and in turn this will help save the environment.
-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Can Floridians and Their Children Breathe Easy This Summer?
Florida has many power plants; and according to an Environment Florida report, Dirty Energy’s Assault on Our Health: Ozone Pollution, those power plants are estimated to emit more smog-forming pollution than 45 other U.S. states. Now that the summer has arrived, smog is going to become even more of a problem because sunlight and hot weather cause smog to concentrate. Florida’s children who live in high smog areas and are exposed to the smog are going to be greatly affected by the high levels of smog concentration as they participate in summer activities outdoors. High levels of smog may even cause children to develop a diminished lung capacity. Smog can also affect children even when they are in the womb, by affecting their birth weight and by negatively affecting their growth. Adults are not immune from the health effects that exposure to smog pollution may cause either. This pollution can cause damage to lung tissue and the ability to breathe normally can be diminished.
What is our government doing about this problem? In July 2011 the U.S. EPA is geared up to finalize standards that will reduce emissions that cause the formation of smog. These rules will still allow smog to remain in the air but they are supposed to reduce the allowable level of emissions that create smog so that the air can be safe to breathe. Although the U.S. EPA is set to develop stricter standards they are being opposed by Congress and lobbyists that have threatened to block the rules. Florida Senator Bill Nelson and Congressman Ted Deutch support the stricter rules. Some in Congress feel that the stricter standards are not necessary because there are already smog standards in place from 2008, so they ask “why increase the standards and put pressure on the power plant industry?” They also ask, “if the standards in 2008 were supposed to protect the air that we breathe, then why does EPA need to set stricter standards?”
It can be assumed that the 2008 smog standards were enough to protect the public health but the fact that the U.S. EPA finds it necessary to finalize stricter standards makes me think that those standards are not enough to protect the health of Floridians and their children. Shouldn’t Floridians be able to breathe safely especially in the summer months when people want to enjoy the outdoors? I would say so, and the EPA is set to go ahead and set the stricter standards.
-Antoinette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
What is our government doing about this problem? In July 2011 the U.S. EPA is geared up to finalize standards that will reduce emissions that cause the formation of smog. These rules will still allow smog to remain in the air but they are supposed to reduce the allowable level of emissions that create smog so that the air can be safe to breathe. Although the U.S. EPA is set to develop stricter standards they are being opposed by Congress and lobbyists that have threatened to block the rules. Florida Senator Bill Nelson and Congressman Ted Deutch support the stricter rules. Some in Congress feel that the stricter standards are not necessary because there are already smog standards in place from 2008, so they ask “why increase the standards and put pressure on the power plant industry?” They also ask, “if the standards in 2008 were supposed to protect the air that we breathe, then why does EPA need to set stricter standards?”
It can be assumed that the 2008 smog standards were enough to protect the public health but the fact that the U.S. EPA finds it necessary to finalize stricter standards makes me think that those standards are not enough to protect the health of Floridians and their children. Shouldn’t Floridians be able to breathe safely especially in the summer months when people want to enjoy the outdoors? I would say so, and the EPA is set to go ahead and set the stricter standards.
-Antoinette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
Clean Water Jobs Act, the Right Solution?
Can the State of Washington clean its waterways and create jobs? In Washington, toxic runoff from roads and urban areas is the number one cause of water pollution. The major toxic substance affecting the state’s waterways is petroleum. A proposed bill, The Clean Water Jobs Act (Bill SB 5604 / HB 1735), seeks to clean up the water through the funding of local projects. The idea behind the act is to make polluters pay to clean up the pollution that they have caused. The act allows for a 1 percent fee on the first possession of petroleum products, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers which contribute to storm water pollution. After fees are collected local governments will have to compete through a grant process to receive a portion of the money that has been collected by the State. It is estimated that the act will raise about $100 million annually.
This bill is designed to strengthen the State of Washington’s economy and create jobs while protecting the State’s waterways. This is a noble course of action by the State of Washington to make polluters pay for the damage they have caused to the environment. While it does seem fair that polluters will have to pay for their actions, the question remains, “how is the State going to distribute this money?”
Though it appears that the local governments will receive a substantial amount of the funds, preference is given to cities and counties that are using low-impact development (LID) like rain gardens and porous pavements, and cities and counties are required to show that they have met a match requirement by showing that they can “provide fifty percent of project or activity costs in matching funds from other nonstate fund sources.” SB 5604, Sec. 4. (2) (iv)(A).
If the act places an emphasis on using the funds for LIDs, then it seems that the job creation from this act will be temporary because all that the workers will be needed for is the construction phase, and then some of the jobs will no longer be needed leaving jobs only for those workers needed for maintenance of the new infrastructure.
Despite the fact that every bill has points that some people like or dislike, Washington believes that this is the best solution to clean up their waterways. If the Clean Water Jobs Act is such a great solution, then why hasn’t the federal government tried to create a similar bill? Well, maybe this type of scheme is best fit on a small scale, or maybe Washington will be a test state and then other states may follow and create similar acts. Nonetheless, this bill has been heavily lobbied against, so it is likely that even if the federal government wanted to try this, lobbyists would make it pretty difficult for it to pass through the U.S. Congress. Well time will tell whether this method that Washington has proposed will pass and if it is passed, whether or not it will work and achieve the goals the legislature has in mind.
-Antoinette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
This bill is designed to strengthen the State of Washington’s economy and create jobs while protecting the State’s waterways. This is a noble course of action by the State of Washington to make polluters pay for the damage they have caused to the environment. While it does seem fair that polluters will have to pay for their actions, the question remains, “how is the State going to distribute this money?”
Though it appears that the local governments will receive a substantial amount of the funds, preference is given to cities and counties that are using low-impact development (LID) like rain gardens and porous pavements, and cities and counties are required to show that they have met a match requirement by showing that they can “provide fifty percent of project or activity costs in matching funds from other nonstate fund sources.” SB 5604, Sec. 4. (2) (iv)(A).
If the act places an emphasis on using the funds for LIDs, then it seems that the job creation from this act will be temporary because all that the workers will be needed for is the construction phase, and then some of the jobs will no longer be needed leaving jobs only for those workers needed for maintenance of the new infrastructure.
Despite the fact that every bill has points that some people like or dislike, Washington believes that this is the best solution to clean up their waterways. If the Clean Water Jobs Act is such a great solution, then why hasn’t the federal government tried to create a similar bill? Well, maybe this type of scheme is best fit on a small scale, or maybe Washington will be a test state and then other states may follow and create similar acts. Nonetheless, this bill has been heavily lobbied against, so it is likely that even if the federal government wanted to try this, lobbyists would make it pretty difficult for it to pass through the U.S. Congress. Well time will tell whether this method that Washington has proposed will pass and if it is passed, whether or not it will work and achieve the goals the legislature has in mind.
-Antoinette Vanterpool, Legal Intern
Cruisin' on a Sunday Afternoon
As I sat on the deck of a luxury ocean liner not so long ago, I stared out at a pristine horizon where the sky blended into the sea without notice. The smell of saltwater filled the air, with the soft sound of calypso music serenading me as I drifted off to sleep. The peacefulness of this moment is in sharp contrast to what was actually happening below deck, in the hidden confines of this travelling polluter, as well as that which happens once the ship reaches port.
Since its ambitious beginnings in the 1960s, the cruising industry has quickly transformed from an exclusive lifestyle amenity of the rich and famous to a popular vacation alternative for society in general. In fact, the cruise industry is one of the most rapidly growing and highly visible segments of the tourism sector, with the number of cruise ship passengers growing almost twice as fast as any other international tourist representation in the last decade.
In Florida, as surprising as it may seem, there are no state laws to regulate the dumping of cruise ship pollutants into our waters. Instead, the practices of the cruise industry are governed in Florida by voluntary agreements between the State, the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association (FCCA) and the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL). These Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s), as they are known, delineate that member cruise lines agree to discharge wastewater beyond Florida territorial waters (outside 3 miles) and stipulate that cruise ships will not discharge ballast water while in port. However, beyond three miles, dumping may legally be commenced to the detriment of our marine ecosystem.
For many years now, the cruise industry has been successful in veiling its environmental offenses through comforting, glossy pamphlets filled with visions of crystal clear oceans and sleek, appealing ocean liners that hygienically float amidst the horizon. An examination of travel agency brochures, cruise industry websites and television vacation advertisements suggests that the industry is environmentally responsible and that it has always been as such. Furthermore, press releases and promises by the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL), the official trade organization of the cruise industry, support and persist in this deceptive public relations campaign. Unfortunately, reality is quite different. Most recently, the public attention that has been focused on the environmental impacts of the entire maritime industry has shifted to a particular interest in the cruise industry. This is due in large part because of the cruise industry=s preemptive attack to promote a positive image, but also as a result of the high visibility of these colossal ships and their blatant disregard for the environment on which they rely for business.
While the cruising industry represents a relatively small fraction of the entire maritime industry worldwide, as of January 2008, passenger ships accounted for approximately 12% of the world shipping fleet. It is notable that the environmental effects of the cruise industry is a major issue to many, but the industry is also a major contributor to the U.S. economy as it generates more than $32 billion in total annual benefits and creates more than 330,000 U.S. jobs. Furthermore, cruises are becoming increasingly popular in the United States, as ports of call in the United States handled 8.6 million cruise embarkations in 2008, accounting for 75% of worldwide passengers and 6.3% more than in 2009. However, the line between economic and environmental sustenance is a fine one.
To the cruise industry, a leading priority is demonstrating to the public that their ships are safe and healthy for passengers and the communities at which they harbor. Ironically, these cruise ships have also been dubbed Afloating cities,@ based on the comparison of the volume of wastes produced and disposed to that of many small cities on dry land. As a matter of fact, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that a single passenger aboard a cruise liner will generate approximately 100 gallons of wastewater per day, to include 10 gallons of sewage. More specifically, a Amega-ship@ with 5,000 passengers and crew will produce nearly 500,000 gallons of wastewater and 50,000 gallons of sewage every day of the year. Even further, during a typical week long voyage, a cruise ship carrying 3,000 passengers and crew is estimated to generate 210,000 gallons of sewage; 1 million gallons of graywater (wastewater from sinks, showers, and laundries); more than 130 gallons of hazardous wastes; 8 tons of solid waste; and 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water. If this abundance of waste is not properly treated and disposed of, the effects on human health and the environment could be irreversible. Regrettably, existing laws are inadequate to address these wastes and enforcement of such laws is virtually non-existent. This hardly seems to support the vision of healthy people and vibrant coastal communities that the cruise industry so publicly supports, with their actions and government studies showing otherwise.
A significant step towards acknowledgement of this growing problem took place in 2000, when an alliance of 53 environmental advocacy groups appealed to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address cruise ship discharges through regulatory action. The petition requested an investigation into wastewater, oil, and solid waste that was being emitted from cruise ships. In response, the EPA released a long-overdue assessment of discharges from cruise ships in December 2008. This report contained a 162-page summary of recent data collection activities. It examines the five prominent cruise ship waste streams (sewage, graywater, oily bilge water, solid waste, and hazardous waste) and discusses the nature and volume of the waste stream discharge, applicable federal regulations, environmental management (including treatment), potential adverse environmental impacts, and actions by the federal government to address the discharges, while incorporating a range of options and alternatives to regulate cruise industry waste streams.
With this, a new debate has begun to emerge in the United States, concentrating on the need for strict adjustments to the current legal and regulatory structure governing waste disposal practices of the cruise line industry. Until the recent attention given to the industry by the EPA, the environmental impacts of the growing cruise industry had gone unchecked, with proposed legislation failing to look beyond taxation and labor issues. Concerned citizens, environmental groups, federal agencies and legislators have begun to recognize the depth and scope of pollution from the cruise line industry and how much harm is being done to our environment. However, it may be a matter of Atoo little, too late, with regulations still lacking focus and consequences to deter the cruise industry.
-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern
Since its ambitious beginnings in the 1960s, the cruising industry has quickly transformed from an exclusive lifestyle amenity of the rich and famous to a popular vacation alternative for society in general. In fact, the cruise industry is one of the most rapidly growing and highly visible segments of the tourism sector, with the number of cruise ship passengers growing almost twice as fast as any other international tourist representation in the last decade.
In Florida, as surprising as it may seem, there are no state laws to regulate the dumping of cruise ship pollutants into our waters. Instead, the practices of the cruise industry are governed in Florida by voluntary agreements between the State, the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association (FCCA) and the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL). These Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s), as they are known, delineate that member cruise lines agree to discharge wastewater beyond Florida territorial waters (outside 3 miles) and stipulate that cruise ships will not discharge ballast water while in port. However, beyond three miles, dumping may legally be commenced to the detriment of our marine ecosystem.
For many years now, the cruise industry has been successful in veiling its environmental offenses through comforting, glossy pamphlets filled with visions of crystal clear oceans and sleek, appealing ocean liners that hygienically float amidst the horizon. An examination of travel agency brochures, cruise industry websites and television vacation advertisements suggests that the industry is environmentally responsible and that it has always been as such. Furthermore, press releases and promises by the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL), the official trade organization of the cruise industry, support and persist in this deceptive public relations campaign. Unfortunately, reality is quite different. Most recently, the public attention that has been focused on the environmental impacts of the entire maritime industry has shifted to a particular interest in the cruise industry. This is due in large part because of the cruise industry=s preemptive attack to promote a positive image, but also as a result of the high visibility of these colossal ships and their blatant disregard for the environment on which they rely for business.
While the cruising industry represents a relatively small fraction of the entire maritime industry worldwide, as of January 2008, passenger ships accounted for approximately 12% of the world shipping fleet. It is notable that the environmental effects of the cruise industry is a major issue to many, but the industry is also a major contributor to the U.S. economy as it generates more than $32 billion in total annual benefits and creates more than 330,000 U.S. jobs. Furthermore, cruises are becoming increasingly popular in the United States, as ports of call in the United States handled 8.6 million cruise embarkations in 2008, accounting for 75% of worldwide passengers and 6.3% more than in 2009. However, the line between economic and environmental sustenance is a fine one.
To the cruise industry, a leading priority is demonstrating to the public that their ships are safe and healthy for passengers and the communities at which they harbor. Ironically, these cruise ships have also been dubbed Afloating cities,@ based on the comparison of the volume of wastes produced and disposed to that of many small cities on dry land. As a matter of fact, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that a single passenger aboard a cruise liner will generate approximately 100 gallons of wastewater per day, to include 10 gallons of sewage. More specifically, a Amega-ship@ with 5,000 passengers and crew will produce nearly 500,000 gallons of wastewater and 50,000 gallons of sewage every day of the year. Even further, during a typical week long voyage, a cruise ship carrying 3,000 passengers and crew is estimated to generate 210,000 gallons of sewage; 1 million gallons of graywater (wastewater from sinks, showers, and laundries); more than 130 gallons of hazardous wastes; 8 tons of solid waste; and 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water. If this abundance of waste is not properly treated and disposed of, the effects on human health and the environment could be irreversible. Regrettably, existing laws are inadequate to address these wastes and enforcement of such laws is virtually non-existent. This hardly seems to support the vision of healthy people and vibrant coastal communities that the cruise industry so publicly supports, with their actions and government studies showing otherwise.
A significant step towards acknowledgement of this growing problem took place in 2000, when an alliance of 53 environmental advocacy groups appealed to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address cruise ship discharges through regulatory action. The petition requested an investigation into wastewater, oil, and solid waste that was being emitted from cruise ships. In response, the EPA released a long-overdue assessment of discharges from cruise ships in December 2008. This report contained a 162-page summary of recent data collection activities. It examines the five prominent cruise ship waste streams (sewage, graywater, oily bilge water, solid waste, and hazardous waste) and discusses the nature and volume of the waste stream discharge, applicable federal regulations, environmental management (including treatment), potential adverse environmental impacts, and actions by the federal government to address the discharges, while incorporating a range of options and alternatives to regulate cruise industry waste streams.
With this, a new debate has begun to emerge in the United States, concentrating on the need for strict adjustments to the current legal and regulatory structure governing waste disposal practices of the cruise line industry. Until the recent attention given to the industry by the EPA, the environmental impacts of the growing cruise industry had gone unchecked, with proposed legislation failing to look beyond taxation and labor issues. Concerned citizens, environmental groups, federal agencies and legislators have begun to recognize the depth and scope of pollution from the cruise line industry and how much harm is being done to our environment. However, it may be a matter of Atoo little, too late, with regulations still lacking focus and consequences to deter the cruise industry.
-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern
What's that Smell?....
As you drive down Interstate 95 through Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas, the smell of paper pulp mills often fills the air. While this brings back nostalgia of trips up and down the eastern seaboard as a child, the adult in me now wonders the current state of regulation against such industries.
I found the most recent answer to begin in April 2010, when the EPA proposed new rules in an attempt to reduce air pollutants such as mercury and dioxin that are emitted from paper pulp mills, refineries and chemical and manufacturing plants. Under the proposed EPA regulations, existing industrial boilers that fail to bring their facilities up to “Maximum Achievable Control Technology” would have to be upgraded or even replaced. This drew immediate concern from industry groups, who flooded the new regulations with over 4,800 comments, objecting to the cost burden imposed upon them and claiming that is was unreasonable. The industry groups vehemently urged the EPA to delay the air emissions regulations for industrial boilers so that they could further analyze the cost burden and impact on the economy that may result from these new restrictions.
In the wake of this opposition, the EPA responded by reconsidering the standards proposed in the initial regulations. At the time, the American Chemistry Council President, Cal Dooley, stated that, “[the] EPA is reconsidering major portions of these rules, and businesses should not be asked to comply until final requirements are clear, otherwise, businesses would be forced to unecessarily spend millions, if not billions, to comply with rules that may change.” Thus, industry was spared for the moment, and seemed to have one of the largest agencies in the land in their pocket.
On February 21, 2011, the EPA responded by presenting revisions that would cost the industries 50% less to implement, while also estimating that for every dollar spent to cut these pollutants, the public will see $10 to $24 in health benefits. It seemed like a win-win situation, with little room for complaining on behalf of industry. Recently, however, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers began spearheading a campaign with industry groups to request that the EPA once again suspend the new rules limiting emissions from boilers for the same reasons. Now, I ask, who was being unreasonable? I suppose industry would simply prefer the EPA to turn the other cheek and ignore their activities.
The industry seems optimistic that they can further influence the EPA to continue to alter its position. “We expect there will be significantly different final rules,” stated Alicia Meads, director of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. “It’s very counterproductive for these facilities to be installing new pollution control devices that they may not have to,” according to Meads. Delay is the friend of industry.
Overall, these regulations are aimed at cutting toxic air emissions such as mercury and soot. Additionally, the EPA has projected that the rules will create 2,200 jobs in excluding, making or installing new pollution controls. Finally, the reduced emissions will prevent 2,600 to 6,600 premature deaths, according to the agency. There doesn’t seem much to complain about within the contents.
Unfortunately, I suppose industry wants to see if it can get more of a financial break, allowing more premature deaths while saving a few bucks.
-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern
I found the most recent answer to begin in April 2010, when the EPA proposed new rules in an attempt to reduce air pollutants such as mercury and dioxin that are emitted from paper pulp mills, refineries and chemical and manufacturing plants. Under the proposed EPA regulations, existing industrial boilers that fail to bring their facilities up to “Maximum Achievable Control Technology” would have to be upgraded or even replaced. This drew immediate concern from industry groups, who flooded the new regulations with over 4,800 comments, objecting to the cost burden imposed upon them and claiming that is was unreasonable. The industry groups vehemently urged the EPA to delay the air emissions regulations for industrial boilers so that they could further analyze the cost burden and impact on the economy that may result from these new restrictions.
In the wake of this opposition, the EPA responded by reconsidering the standards proposed in the initial regulations. At the time, the American Chemistry Council President, Cal Dooley, stated that, “[the] EPA is reconsidering major portions of these rules, and businesses should not be asked to comply until final requirements are clear, otherwise, businesses would be forced to unecessarily spend millions, if not billions, to comply with rules that may change.” Thus, industry was spared for the moment, and seemed to have one of the largest agencies in the land in their pocket.
On February 21, 2011, the EPA responded by presenting revisions that would cost the industries 50% less to implement, while also estimating that for every dollar spent to cut these pollutants, the public will see $10 to $24 in health benefits. It seemed like a win-win situation, with little room for complaining on behalf of industry. Recently, however, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers began spearheading a campaign with industry groups to request that the EPA once again suspend the new rules limiting emissions from boilers for the same reasons. Now, I ask, who was being unreasonable? I suppose industry would simply prefer the EPA to turn the other cheek and ignore their activities.
The industry seems optimistic that they can further influence the EPA to continue to alter its position. “We expect there will be significantly different final rules,” stated Alicia Meads, director of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. “It’s very counterproductive for these facilities to be installing new pollution control devices that they may not have to,” according to Meads. Delay is the friend of industry.
Overall, these regulations are aimed at cutting toxic air emissions such as mercury and soot. Additionally, the EPA has projected that the rules will create 2,200 jobs in excluding, making or installing new pollution controls. Finally, the reduced emissions will prevent 2,600 to 6,600 premature deaths, according to the agency. There doesn’t seem much to complain about within the contents.
Unfortunately, I suppose industry wants to see if it can get more of a financial break, allowing more premature deaths while saving a few bucks.
-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern
Make Money, by Buying a Tree and Planting it.....
April 29, 2011, was Arbor Day, so thank a tree and plant one.
You’re breathing oxygen, right? Well, trees produce oxygen. They are your friend. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1 acre of trees produces 4 tons of oxygen annually. That's enough oxygen to keep 18 people alive for one full year. If breathing wasn’t enough for you, how about the fact that buying and planting a tree will save you money!
For instance, "[p]lanting trees on the west and east sides of your house can reduce air-conditioning costs by as much as 20%," asserts Lorna Vogt, manager of One Million Trees for One Million People, a Salt Lake County, Utah, agency who is endeavoring to plant 1 million trees in 10 years. Additionally, in cooler climates, evergreens can create windbreaks, which can cut heating bills by as much as 30%, claims Vogt.
Now hold on. I know you are excited to get keep breathing and start saving cash, but it is important to remember that “proper tree care starts when you select a tree and that what you do to your tree in its first few years of life will affect its shape, strength, and even its life span.” At the suggestion of the Arbor Day Foundation (www.arborday.org), a nonprofit conservation and education organization, you should follow a few simple steps to ensure your tree gets off on the right foot and keep it healthy throughout its life. Follow the links for more information...
1. Find a Tree
2. Selecting a Healthy Tree
3. Tree Planting
4. The Importance of Mulch
5. Tree Watering
6. When to Prune
7. Keys to Good Tree Pruning
8. Annual Tree Pruning Steps from Planting to Maturity
9. How to Identify Pest and Disease Problems
So, run out to your local nursery and transplant a sapling today. The life you save may just be your own!!
-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern
You’re breathing oxygen, right? Well, trees produce oxygen. They are your friend. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1 acre of trees produces 4 tons of oxygen annually. That's enough oxygen to keep 18 people alive for one full year. If breathing wasn’t enough for you, how about the fact that buying and planting a tree will save you money!
For instance, "[p]lanting trees on the west and east sides of your house can reduce air-conditioning costs by as much as 20%," asserts Lorna Vogt, manager of One Million Trees for One Million People, a Salt Lake County, Utah, agency who is endeavoring to plant 1 million trees in 10 years. Additionally, in cooler climates, evergreens can create windbreaks, which can cut heating bills by as much as 30%, claims Vogt.
Now hold on. I know you are excited to get keep breathing and start saving cash, but it is important to remember that “proper tree care starts when you select a tree and that what you do to your tree in its first few years of life will affect its shape, strength, and even its life span.” At the suggestion of the Arbor Day Foundation (www.arborday.org), a nonprofit conservation and education organization, you should follow a few simple steps to ensure your tree gets off on the right foot and keep it healthy throughout its life. Follow the links for more information...
1. Find a Tree
2. Selecting a Healthy Tree
3. Tree Planting
4. The Importance of Mulch
5. Tree Watering
6. When to Prune
7. Keys to Good Tree Pruning
8. Annual Tree Pruning Steps from Planting to Maturity
9. How to Identify Pest and Disease Problems
So, run out to your local nursery and transplant a sapling today. The life you save may just be your own!!
-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)