Climate Security Act would infict 6.9% GDP cut

[Mech]

Global Warming Bill Would Inflict New Great Depression

Lieberman-Warner legislation would slash 6.9 percent GDP off U.S. economy

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, March 21, 2008


A new bill aimed at combating global warming currently being considered by the Senate would, if passed, inflict a new great depression on America by reducing GDP by 6.9 percent - a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930.

The shocking consequences of the Lieberman-Warner legislation, known as America's Climate Security Act, were revealed by the Environmental Protection Agency's economic analysis of the bill this week, which forecast a whopping $2.9 trillion would be shaved off the economy by the year 2050.

In comparison, despite the fact that America is teetering on the brink of a recession or is already in one according to many experts, GDP still increased by 0.7 percent in 2007. Imagine what effect a -6.9 percent swing would have - an economy ten times worse than it is now.

As JunkScience.com's Steven Milloy highlights, "For more perspective, consider that during 1929 and 1930, the first two years of the Great Depression, GDP declined by 8.6 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively."

And what would we get for such a massive self-inflicted wound? It ought to be something that is climatically spectacular, right? You be the judge.

The EPA says that by the year 2095 — 45 years after GDP has been slashed by 6.9 percent — atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would be 25 parts per million lower than if no greenhouse gas regulation were implemented.

Keeping in mind that the current atmospheric CO2 level is 380 ppm and the projected 2095 CO2 level is about 500 ppm, according to the EPA, what are the potential global temperature implications for such a slight change in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Not much, as average global temperature would only be reduced by a maximum of about 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius, according to existing research.

Sacrificing many trillions of dollars of GDP for a trivial, 45-year-delayed and merely hypothetical reduction in average global temperature must be considered as exponentially more asinine than the dot-bombs of the late-1990s and the NINJA subprime loans that we now look upon scornfully.

Add to this the fact that, as climate cult alarmists are loathe to admit, ice core samples clearly show that carbon dioxide is a consequence of temperature increase and not a cause of it, sometimes lagging behind by as much as 800 years, and the whole issue starts to look even more harebrained.

Global temperatures have remained reasonably flat since a decline in 1998 and cooling trends are now being observed despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels have increased in the atmosphere (see graph below).



Indeed, the latest evidence from climatological surveys shows that the earth's upper oceans and the troposphere, the primary indicators of climate change, have not been warming for the last 4 years.

Meanwhile, places like Saudi Arabia and China have experienced their coldest winters for decades if not a hundred years plus.

On the whole, the world is getting colder (see above), which is why "global warming" suddenly became "climate change" when temperature levels since 2003 started to prove the alarmists wrong.

Once again, the enviro-mentalists are proposing measures that would make life hell for the poor and middle classes and completely ransack the economy while creating global financial instability that would make today's problems look like a walk in the park - all based on the justification of saving the planet from a potential 0.10 degrees Celsius increase in temperature that isn't even guaranteed because the science behind it is complete bunk.

In another example of outright frothing lunacy, NASA climate scientist Dr. James E. Hansen recently issued a report that called for phasing out coal power completely by the year 2030.

"An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects," states the report.

As the Business and Media Institute points out, coal fired plants account for no less than 50 percent of all electricity generated in the United States. To eliminate coal use would completely cripple the global economy and lead soaring energy costs to at least a doubling of current levels.

As we reported earlier this month, a recent Carnegie Institution report calls for carbon emissions to be reduced to near zero in order to combat global warming, despite the fact that such a move would return man to the stone age if not end civilization as we know it and kill billions. (the plan all along?)

The proposal was afforded serious gravitas by news outlets like the Washington Post absent even a passing mention of what its disastrous consequences would be for humanity.

[Swamp Gas]

Global temperatures have remained reasonably flat since a decline in 1998 and cooling trends are now being observed despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels have increased in the atmosphere

Indeed, the latest evidence from climatological surveys shows that the earth's upper oceans and the troposphere, the primary indicators of climate change, have not been warming for the last 4 years.

On the whole, the world is getting colder, which is why "global warming suddenly became climate change; when temperature levels since 2003 started to prove the alarmists wrong.

Once again, the enviro-mentalists are proposing measures that would make life hell for the poor and middle classes and completely ransack the economy while creating global financial instability that would make today's problems look like a walk in the park - all based on the justification of saving the planet from a potential 0.10 degrees Celsius increase in temperature that isn't even guaranteed because the science behind it is complete bunk.

In another example of outright frothing lunacy, NASA climate scientist Dr. James E. Hansen recently issued a report that called for phasing out coal power completely by the year 2030.

I would not go as far as to say that Watson is being funded by the Coal, Nuclear, and Oil industries, as most of the other "skeptics", but there is one glaring fact that he is overlooking and spinning...The Global Average Temperatures. It is still going up. The average mean Land temperature of Northern Hemisphere actually went down 0.01 degree centigrade last year, but ocean and average mean again went up.

See this page for the most accurate information on planetary temperature:

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/global.html#temp

Now, Hansen, I agree with him. Replace Diesel, Nuclear, Oil, and Coal with Solar, Hydrogen Fuel, and Lithium Ion. This is the main reason behind the Exxon Mobil/Coal funded "research". The Oil industry are not terribly good visionaries, and cannot see the future of energy, which eventually will yield magnetic and other-dimensional power.

I dislike Lieberman very much, but I also dislike Limbaugh as equally, who says Global Warming is a scam. So, since both are crapheads, then they cancel each other out.

[KNOWTHIS]

Setting CO2 aside. How about other greenhouse gas emissions such as the neurotoxin mercury? Are global warming skeptics OK with that too?

www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/sources.asp

Two of the biggest sources of mercury pollution are chlorine chemical plants and coal-fired power plants. Chlorine plants, which use massive quantities of mercury to extract chlorine from salt, "lose" dozens of tons of mercury each year; power plants emit around 50 tons of mercury pollution annually. Facilities that recycle auto scrap are another big source of mercury pollution, pouring 10 to 12 tons of mercury into the air every year. The most common way Americans are exposed to mercury is through tuna fish.

Coal is naturally contaminated with mercury, and when it is burned to generate electricity, mercury is released into the air through the smokestacks. The bulk of this mercury pollution could be eliminated with the installation of pollution-control devices. Similar devices have proved very successful on municipal incinerators, which were once a significant source of mercury pollution.

But in January 2004 the Bush administration proposed to weaken and delay efforts to clean up mercury emissions from roughly 1,100 coal-fired boilers at more than 460 electric power plants. Essentially, the administration's plan treats mercury as if it were a run-of-the-mill air pollutant instead of a hazardous air pollutant, allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to avoid requiring power plants to reduce emissions by the maximum amount technologically achievable.

www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/effects.asp

Mercury and Human Health

Once in the human body, mercury acts as a neurotoxin, interfering with the brain and nervous system.

Exposure to mercury can be particularly hazardous for pregnant women and small children. During the first several years of life, a child's brain is still developing and rapidly absorbing nutrients. Prenatal and infant mercury exposure can cause mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness and blindness. Even in low doses, mercury may affect a child's development, delaying walking and talking, shortening attention span and causing learning disabilities.

In adults, mercury poisoning can adversely affect fertility and blood pressure regulation and can cause memory loss, tremors, vision loss and numbness of the fingers and toes. A growing body of evidence suggests that exposure to mercury may also lead to heart disease.

[Mech]

Ok....so I take it you are willing to go back to the stone age and "live" worse of than people did during the great depression.

Personally, i like refrigeration, driving a car, household heat and other amazing things that come from a "carbon footprint".

If you support this looney Leiberman/Warner bill....you are cutting your own throat.

Period.

[Swamp Gas]

You know that accusation has no merit. Lieberman is a worm, and that is beyond doubt. The Greening of Technology has almost nothing to do Lieberman. I think you are mixing Technology and Politics. The only car I have found that could accelerate like the Tesla Roadster or it's new less expensive siblings was the 1965, 700 HP 427 Cobra. So you really need to accelerate faster than Zero to sixty in 3.8 seconds?

Hydrogen Fuel can power Aircraft Carriers as well as large trucks. Refrigeration does not use freon anymore. Besides, Diesel, Coal, Nuclear, and Oil are filthy polluting technologies, and if you lived in a city environment, you would understand the need for Green Tech more.

I simply think it is an evolutionary step from Diesel Coal, Nuclear, and Gas to Lithium Ion, Hydrogen Fuel, and Solar. I do not think that the embracing of more advanced technology is "going back to the stone age". No offense meant, but the logic is escaping me, strictly on a technological level, and not on a political level.

It is like saying going from MP3s, Cassettes, 45s, 33s, 78s, and 8 tracks to 24bit/96khz DVD-Audio is going to the stone age. Sure, everybody is playing mp3s or putting gas in their vehicles, but is gas/diesel or mp3 a more advanced technology?

And lastly, yes Lieberman is a slimy character, but if you are embracing Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity on rejecting Green technology, then as I said before, they cancel each other out.

[Mech]

There is NO infrastructure to speak of said technologies Swamp...NONE whatsoever.

It will take DECADES to catch up to where even Europe is at this moment...much less the proposed plans..

Cutting emissions RIGHT NOW would be economic suicide in an already failing economy as far as i'm concerned.

I say we should extract the oil in North Dakota RIGHT NOW and bring gas prices down to 1990 levels....and use the taxes off of that money to invest in the NEW energy economy that is COMING...NOT HERE.

A LOT of people are going to suffer economically at the hands of these assholes in light of what they are proposing.

[KNOWTHIS]

It seems very bizarre to me that the very same people who express great concern over the dangers of thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines are perfectly willing to ignore the dangers of mercury released through industrial emissions. The latter is arguably much worse because we have no control over it.

Green technology/research/development could actually be a great boon to the economy as consumer demand for such measures increase. It's an ideal way to create new job opportunities, products etc. If it’s so bad for business then why is there such a growing demand for it?


www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/manufacturing-ceos-take-to-airwaves-to-support-cap-on-global,317009.shtml

Manufacturing CEOs Take to Airwaves to Support Cap on Global Warming Pollution

Chief executives from top American manufacturing companies are taking to the airwaves in an unprecedented national advertising campaign that calls on Congress to drive economic growth with a cap on global warming pollution.

The ad, sponsored by Environmental Defense Action Fund, features the CEOs of two respected American brands – Robert Lane of Deere & Co. and Alexander M. “Sandy” Cutler of Eaton Corp. – along with Frank Knapp, president of the 5,000-member South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.

Together they say solving climate change is an opportunity to jumpstart the U.S. economy, and that America can own the energy technologies that will power the 21st Century if Congress acts quickly. Amid a heated national debate over job losses, the business leaders point to the job-creating power of a national cap on global warming pollution.

"We joined this effort because green is not only good for the environment, it's also good business," said Sandy Cutler, chairman and chief executive officer of Eaton, a Cleveland, Ohio-based diversified industrial manufacturer with 70,000 employees worldwide. "This ad tells the real story about climate change: American companies can lead the way and win the race for new technologies and the jobs that come with them if Congress acts now."

"Small business entrepreneurs are ready to be turned loose on developing new energy technologies and conservation efforts. We are just waiting for the federal government to open the gate," said Frank Knapp Jr., of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce. "It's not just about creating a new industry and jobs, it's also about protecting our existing businesses and employees from the negative impact of global warming."

www.myrtlebeachonline.com/business/story/376952.html

Energy needs inspire business

Forget the arguments over whether global warming is real. Many American businesses and researchers are well past all that and are scrambling to find ways to make money in a world that must slash its use of fossil fuels.

Energy entrepreneurs have sparked an energy revolution that's just starting in the United States but already producing new ideas, more jobs and growing exports.

"You have a cavalcade of human intellect springing forth just when we need it," said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., a co-author of "Apollo's Fire: Igniting America's Clean Energy Economy."

"The ice is melting in the North Pole but the ice also is melting to resistance to progress here in this country," he said. "It's a race to figure out who will win, and I'm betting on our grandkids."

[KNOWTHIS]

There is NO infrastructure to speak of said technologies Swamp...NONE whatsoever.

That's because of the "wars for oil" mentality of the last several administrations and the lobbying interests of oil companies which don’t wish to compete with alternative fuel sources.

[Mech]

knowthis said:

It seems very bizarre to me that the very same people who express great concern over the dangers of thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines are perfectly willing to ignore the dangers of mercury released through industrial emissions.

PFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!

Yeah! Ok Dude.

I don't even want to get into how those "Green" lightbulbs those eco-nuts are pushing...you know...those ones that give you CRAPPY LIGHTING?

Are now FILLING UP LANDFILLS FULL OF MERCURY...and getting into our streams and river...but Eh Ehm....I digress.

Every technology creates some kind of pollution. Like it or not.

Choosing to live in the stone age and with technology...ill choose technology...thanks.


I do more for the environment in one day at my job than these bitchy whiny starbucks latte' drinking, rich boy eco-idiots ever will.

[Swamp Gas]

Please don't start with this childish name-calling. Eco-Nuts for example. Thetaloops and I are ecology advocates. I would expect more from you. Why don't you keep it on facts and figures, then the conversation can remain civil.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that Exxon Mobil, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and all of the people you seem to hate are espousing the same ideas as you are putting forth.

Does not agreeing with Rush Limbaugh and Bush throw a red flag up at all?

Should I call them "Pollution Nuts"?

As far as Eco-Lights go, I agree with you on them. Old fashioned tungsten is better.

The technology is HERE NOW, and being utilized. Imagine, as KNOWTHIS says, if instead of $3 trillion being for Oil Wars, it was put into infrastructure and Clean Energy. We would be up and running in 5 years, much like the Manhattan Project. The Cro-Magnon Oil companies simply do not have any futuristic vision except to drill for more oil. They will do EVERYTHING to make sure the public HATES Green Technology. They will fund EVERYTHING that attempts to be "Skeptical" of Green Technology. They co-own the media that tells us to HATE Green Technology.

Like it or not, Solar, Lithium Ion, and Hydrogen Fuel are here to stay, and they are the next step in energy evolution. If we don't start now, and debunk Exxon Mobil, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Fred Singer every step of the way, then we will be addicted to oil forever, and fight wars for oil forever. Since Russia has the most oil, is the USA ready to go to war eventually with them to grab their supplies?

[Mech]

Huh....

Well ...it doesnt help you saying Paul Watson and Alex Jones...or ANYONE who disagrees will Al Gore and the UN IPCC's theories on Global warming..now called... "climate change"... are "working for Exxon or "the oil industry".

I think that is a bunch of crap. Name ONE source of Oil funding for Alex Jones and Steve Watson.

By the way...there ARE ECO-NUTS out there...I can name a few...how about that looney texas professor who thinks humans should be wiped out by ebola to "save the Earth"? THAT IS truly an Eco-Nut...and that is just ONE example.

Calling people who simply wish to have affordable fuel for their lives can be called pollution nuts if you wish....it doen't offend me. I certainly understand what they are going through.

Also...some "green" technology...IS...well....CRAP. Look at that stupid Toyota Prius. Small..underpowered...unsafe. I wouldnt be caught dead driving one on the US highways. Thats a death sentence waiting to happen.

We all pollute. Some do more than others.

I still say the air is WAYYYYYY cleaner around here than it was in the 1940s when all the smokestacks around here were belching smoke. Now you hardly see it at all.

We have mabye 10 unhealthy air days out of 360 up here.. I think thats pretty good considering the modern lifestyle.

I still say the BIGGEST threats to MAN right now..isnt climate change.......its WAR, GMOS and GMO foods, chemtrails and corrupt governments/corporations.

CO2 is the LAST thing on my mind.

[Swamp Gas]

mech said:

Well ...it doesnt help you saying Paul Watson and Alex Jones...or ANYONE who disagrees will Al Gore and the UN IPCC's theories on Global warming..now called... "climate change"... are "working for Exxon or "the oil industry".

I think that is a bunch of crap. Name ONE source of Oil funding for Alex Jones and Steve Watson.

I would imagine you would have thought Fred Singer, when he was working for the tobacco industry as a lobbyist was saying "Tobacco does not cause cancer", was helping economy? Now Singer works for the Oil Industry, and spouts the same pseudo bunk as he did before.

I hate to break the news, but the "skeptics" are outnumbered by hard-core climate scientists 100 to 1. In the world of science, that is an overwhelming number, and to say all of the people who think CO2 and pollution is a problem are "controlled by Eco-Nuts" is fuel to people who pass off what you are saying as crazy. The way to convince someone of an opposite point of view is logic and not name calling.

When I say these "skeptics" are being funded by the oil industry, I mean either direct funding, or by proxy. By proxy, here is the equation that the Limbaughs, Singer's, Watson's, Bush's, and Coulter's work by. There is a massive plan to eliminate everything about the 60s, and ecology is one of them.

Hippy=Beatnik=Antiwar=Feminist=vegetarian=Liberal=Environmentalist=Communist=
Gay Rights=Animal Rights=Civil Rights=Unions=Woodstock=Raves=PEACE

Now Jones and Watson...They should stick to Globalization and the Police State. When it comes to Progressive ideas, their Right Wing Roots come out quite a bit. I frankly turn them off, and delete what they say about ideas that I know are correct, having lived through them. Vaccines, NWO, Money, Surveillance are all good, but their opinions on Social ideas are a bit backward.

[KNOWTHIS]

mech said:

knowthis said:

It seems very bizarre to me that the very same people who express great concern over the dangers of thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines are perfectly willing to ignore the dangers of mercury released through industrial emissions.

PFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!

Yeah! Ok Dude.

I don't even want to get into how those "Green" lightbulbs those eco-nuts are pushing...you know...those ones that give you CRAPPY LIGHTING?

Are now FILLING UP LANDFILLS FULL OF MERCURY...and getting into our streams and river...but Eh Ehm....I digress.

Every technology creates some kind of pollution. Like it or not.

Choosing to live in the stone age and with technology...ill choose technology...thanks.

I do more for the environment in one day at my job than these bitchy whiny starbucks latte' drinking, rich boy eco-idiots ever will.

I notice that you never bother to answer my questions. You dodge and then launch in to petty personal attacks. Where you see "eco-idiots" as a threat, I see a bunch of lazy, hay chewing, anti-environmental hillbillies who are more interested in flaunting around town in their gaudy shit kickers and going off-roading in their over-sized redneck pick-up trucks than they are worrying about their own inbred children’s future. The same exact types who voted for Bush...TWICE, and spend the rest of their leisure time drinking too much beer and screeching about how many Muslims they ought to kill.

I mean, as long as we’re going to generalize and be insulting.

And if you want to talk about reverting back to the Stone Age. Just wait until we’re forced to spend billions and billions of dollars each year like China dealing with the adverse effects of years of out-of-control pollution.

For those that believe that caring about our own planet is such a terrible idea, why don't they strap themselves to a rocket and go colonize Mars or something. They can go and ruin that atmosphere for themselves.

BTW, they are mercury-free ecological light bulbs which work just fine.

[Mech]

author=knowthis

..................as a threat, I see a bunch of lazy, hay chewing, anti-environmental hillbillies who are more interested in flaunting around town in their gaudy shit kickers and going off-roading in their over-sized redneck pick-up trucks than they are worrying about their own inbred children’s future. The same exact types who voted for Bush...TWICE, and spend the rest of their leisure time drinking too much beer and screeching about how many Muslims they ought to kill.

LOL!!!!

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Now THAT shit was FUNNY!!!

I just about pissed myself and fell out of my chair on that one.

.........And if you want to talk about reverting back to the Stone Age. Just wait until we’re forced to spend billions and billions of dollars each year like China dealing with the adverse effects of years of out-of-control pollution.

Out of control pollution? WHERE? There a few toxic sites here and there....but many of them are in the process of remediation. I should know...I work for a company that aids in brownfield clean-ups and other types of remediation.

I guess I see things differently because Im exposed to these type of things on a DAILY basis.

[Swamp Gas]

A little history of the Big Gun Denier, S Fred Singer, in pay of tobacco AND Oil. There's a pattern repeating:

www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer-one-whopper-on-top-of-another


S. Fred Singer: One Whopper on Top of Another


Dr. S. Fred Singer, denier for hire, wades into the Financial Post letters page today to claim, once again, that he is innocent of accepting money from big oil or big tobacco. Complaining of previous attention from the DeSmogBlog, the good doctor says:

"Although tobacco has nothing to do with the global warming debate, Mr. (Kevin) Grandia suggests that I sell my science to special interests. And since he cannot show that I am 'in the pay of the oil lobby,' tobacco will have to do."

Well, Fred, yes we can show that you are "in the pay of the oil lobby ." Tobacco is a bonus.

The question we have, still, is how you can look facts in the face and, with no apparent pang of conscience, deny them? How do you find the nerve to admit on CBC, as you did last Wednesday , that you took money from ExxonMobil, and then write a letter to the National Post business pages this week saying that you didn't?

Finally, you complain that, because we won't apologize for calling you a liar, your only recourse is an expensive lawsuit. Well, here again, as long as you continue to lie in public, we're going to continue calling you a liar, your threats of a lawsuit notwithstanding. Your other recourse might be to admit your past indiscretions and stop committing new ones - an option that, clearly, has never occurred to you.

As for your question about who pays our lawyer, the answer is John Lefebvre, who is himself a lawyer, a philanthropist and past-president of NETeller, a firm that has been providing secure online transactions since 1999. John also pays the lion's share of expenses for this blog. And bless him for that.



Here are the two figures on the Global Warming issue that are not scientists, yet taking opposite views.

[Swamp Gas]

Out of control pollution? WHERE? There a few toxic sites here and there....but many of them are in the process of remediation. I should know...I work for a company that aids in brownfield clean-ups and other types of remediation.

www.progress.org/2003/corpw34.htm


Bush Administration Tells Taxpayers to Pay for Mining Companies' Toxic Pollution corporate privilege

Unlimited Toxic Waste Dumps Allowed on Public Lands

Mining corporations, many of which are not even American, receive huge welfare handouts from U.S. taxpayers in the form of access to public land at far less than the market value. Billions of dollars' worth of precious metals and other natural resources have been taken from public land, without any compensation to U.S. taxpayers.

Now in a new development, instead of reforming this scandalous situation, the Bush administration is making it even worse by telling mining corporations they can pollute public lands without liability -- the full cost and liability hits the taxpayers instead.

Here is a recent news announcement from the Mineral Policy Center.

Bush Administration Bestows Special Privilege at Huge Taxpayer Cost
A new opinion issued by the Bush administration will permit unlimited toxic waste dumping by companies that mine for gold, silver, copper and other precious metals on public lands owned by U.S. taxpayers.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton was pressured by members of Congress sympathetic to the National Mining Association to have the new opinion issued by the Interior Department Solicitor’s Office.

The decision nullifies a limit reflected in federal mining law, which was reinforced by a previous decision issued in 1997.

“Negotiated behind closed doors between the Bush administration and America’s most toxic industry, this outrageous reversal directs the government to quit enforcing existing federal law,” said Steve D’Esposito of Mineral Policy Center.

Added D’Esposito: “It puts clean water and community health at increased risk, with an open invitation to dump massive quantities of toxic mining waste on unlimited amounts of our public lands.”

More toxic waste is produced by hardrock mining than any other industry in America, as shown by the industry’s own reports to EPA. 2.8 billion pounds of toxic waste were produced by hardrock mines in 2001—including 366 million pounds of arsenic, 355 million pounds of lead and 4 million pounds of mercury—according to the most recent numbers released last month by EPA.

America’s federal mining law was written in 1872 to encourage homesteading in the American West. For each 20-acre mining claim, the law allows 5 additional “millsite” acres for activities “ancillary” to mining. In 1872, a millsite provided room for equipment to process newly-extracted ore.

But modern mining techniques and pollution are dramatically more dangerous and toxic now. Chemical leach technology, widespread since the 1970s, uses poisons like cyanide to extract trace amounts of metal from tons of earth. Millsites are now used for dumping these giant piles of “waste rock” and “tailings” contaminated with poisons like cyanide and massive amounts of heavy metals like arsenic, lead and mercury.

Now mining companies, seeking more public land for dumping toxic waste rock, have succeeded in pressuring the Bush administration into lifting the 5-to-20 ratio established under the mining law.

The new opinion issued by Deputy Solicitor Roderick Walston directly contradicts an opinion issued in 1997 by then-Solicitor John Leshy, which stated the millsite provision of 5 acres for each claim should be enforced. Leshy’s opinion gave federal land managers the ability to deny mine permits in cases where hardrock mines proposed dumping excessive amounts of waste on public lands.

Leshy said: “President Bush is trying hard to paint himself as a moderate on the environment. There is nothing moderate about capitulating to the hardrock industry’s request for an unlimited legal right to dump polluting waste on our public lands.”



The USA and other "civilized" countries are also dumping in other countries

www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2005/waste_dumping_grounds_of_the_w.html

archive.greenpeace.org/toxics/html/content/pcbwaste.html


What about pesticides into our water and into food?

www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=102

The facts say otherwise that the US is cleaning up it's act.

I almost forgot, Depleted Uranium:

www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

[Swamp Gas]

Exxon Mobil's Fraudulent Denial Machine:

www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets

[Swamp Gas]

Look who is th biggest polluter in the Eastern Mediterranean, also run by crazed Right Winger neoCons

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/913917.html


Israel is biggest polluter in eastern Mediterranean

By Reuters

Israel is the biggest polluter in the eastern Mediterranean, dumping over 140 tons of heavy metals into the sea every year with government approval, an environmental group claimed in a recently published report.

According to the Zalul organization, more than 100 permits for discharging wastewater into the sea are granted by a government committee every year -sometimes very close to bathing beaches.

"The state of Israel's coastal waters is appalling," the environmental group Zalul said in its State of the Sea Report for 2007.
Advertisement
"There is a big problem in Israel confronting industries and municipalities and the government doesn't want to invest money," Yariv Abramovich, Zalul's managing director, told Reuters.

The 21 countries ringing the Mediterranean share problems like coastal overdevelopment, over fishing and pollution but in Israel, long preoccupied with security issues, environmental awareness has been slow to take hold.

After a successful battle against fish cages destroying the coral reefs of the Red Sea, Zalul is focusing its clean-up fight on wastewater permits issued by a government committee.

Of the heavy metals and pesticides discharged into the sea under government licenses, are 130 tons of pesticides, 5 tons of arsenic, 1,300 tons of ammonia and a ton of cyanide, the Zalul report said.

"There are concerns that industries important to the Israeli economy are treated leniently when the conditions of the permits are drawn up," the report said.

The Environmental Protection Ministry said Zalul's report was not accurate and beaches were much cleaner than they used to be. "Israel is in one of the better positions in this area," a
ministry spokesman said.

The most recent United Nations report on the Mediterranean ranked the greater Tel Aviv area as one of the 10 most polluting urban centers in the Mediterranean.

Israel's largest polluter is the Shafdan, or the Dan Region Association of Towns for Sewage and Environmental Issues. It is responsible for the sewage of the greater Tel Aviv area,
consisting of 26 municipalities.

Shafdan spokesman Amnon Liebermann said 96 percent of the area's waste was recycled as water. However, the remaining 4 percent is discharged as sludge into the sea.

Following a government decision, the Shafdan began preparations to burn the sludge. But the Environmental Protection Ministry now says it wants to look at agricultural solutions, such as turning the sludge into fertilizer.

Sagit Rogenstein, Zalul's national projects director, said burning the sludge would release harmful chemicals. "So you would be breathing it instead of swimming in it," she said.

Liebermann said the Shafdan was open to other options. It invested 50 million shekels (e12.5 million) to experiment with a solution called enviro, which mixes the sludge with calcium. The end product can be used for agriculture or building material.

"We believe that in six months we will use enviro on 15 percent of the sludge," Liebermann said.

Ironically, a government proposal to help clean up the polluted Kishon River in northern Israel could increase the problems in the Mediterranean.
The plan calls for a pipeline to take waste from the factories along the river, including Israel's biggest oil refinery, and spill it directly into the sea.

"We've been working with the ministry and bringing experts from abroad to prove there are ways of further reducing pollution from factories and the worst idea is to divert it to the sea," Rogenstein said.

Environmental consultant Daniel Levy said some progress has been made in recent years in reducing pollution.

"I would give the government credit...But we have reached a plateau," he said.

[KNOWTHIS]

Mech, I really don’t want to argue with you anymore. I think we could learn to 'respectfully' disagree with each without all of the emotion and defensiveness which we’re all guilty of. If not, I’m going to need a break from this forum because I’m going to end up with an aneurysm.

[Mech]

It only happens when we talk about the climate debate.

I should probably stay awy from this thread...it gets too heated.

Plenty of other topics.

[Swamp Gas]

mech said:

I should probably stay away from this thread...it gets too heated.

LOL

What do we expect with a Global Warming thread

[KNOWTHIS]

I would never advocate censorship of any type but we might all benefit from at least a temporary break from this topic. I've said what I had to say in the China/Olympics thread and that's going to be it for me for a while. I'm going to focus on other issues.