Off-duty police officers are patrolling streets, looking for people illegally watering their lawns and gardens. Residents are encouraged to stealthily rat out water scofflaws on a 24-hour hot line. One Texas lake has dipped so low that stolen cars dumped years ago are peeking up through the waterline.
The nation's most drought-stricken state is deep-frying under relentless 100-degree days and waterways are drying up, especially in the hardest-hit area covering about 350 miles across south-central Texas. That's making folks worried about the water supply — and how long it might last.
"The water table's fallin' and fallin' and fallin,' like a whole lot of other people around here," said Wendell McLeod, general manager of Liberty Hill Water Supply Corp. and a 60-year resident of the town northwest of Austin. "This is the worst I can recall seeing it. I tell you, it's just pretty bleak."
There are 230 Texas public water systems under mandatory water restrictions, including those in and near San Antonio, Dallas, Houston and Austin. Another 60 or so have asked for voluntary cutbacks. Water levels are down significantly in lakes, rivers and wells around Texas.
Liberty Hill's Web site urges its 1,400 or so residents in all-red letters to stop using unnecessary water with this plea: "If we follow these strict guidelines, we may have drinking water." The town's shortage eased some with the arrival this week of 35,000 gallons a day from a nearby water system, but residents are still worried.
77 Texas counties in severe droughtAccording to drought statistics released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 77 of Texas' 254 counties are in extreme or exceptional drought, the most severe categories. No other state in the continental U.S. has even one area in those categories. John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas state climatologist at Texas A&M University, said he expects harsh drought conditions to last at least another month.
In the bone-dry San Antonio-Austin area, the conditions that started in 2007 are being compared to the devastating drought of the 1950s. There have been 36 days of 100 degrees or more this year in an area where there are usually closer to 12.
Among the most obvious problems are the lack of water in Lake Travis and Lake Buchanan near Austin, two massive reservoirs along the Colorado River that provide drinking water for more than 1 million people and also are popular boating and swimming spots. Streams and tributaries that feed the lakes have "all but dried up," according to the Lower Colorado River Authority.
Lake Travis is more empty than full, down 54 percent. All but one of the 12 boating ramps are closed because they no longer reach the water, and the last may go soon. The receding waters have even revealed old stolen cars shoved into the lake years ago, authorities said.
There's no threat to the area's drinking water supply, Rose said, but there are increased boating hazards from the "sometimes islands" that pop up when the water's low, increased risk of wildfires, and more interactions between humans and wildlife.
"We're seeing deer and armadillo and other animals in places we don't typically see them," he said. "They're starving for water and food."
At the Oasis, a popular restaurant with a deck overlooking Lake Travis, the islands are even starting to grow heavy vegetation.
"You can see all the white on the rocks where the waterline used to be," said Becca Torbert, a server at the restaurant who says the boat traffic is down, but the water is down even more.
San Antonio policing water offendersSan Antonio, which relies on the Edwards Aquifer for its water, is enduring its driest 23-month period since weather data was recorded starting in 1885, according to the National Weather Service. The aquifer's been hovering just above 640 feet deep, and if it dips below that the city will issue its harshest watering restrictions yet.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
European environment ministers stress need for acceleration in negotiations
The EU presidency held the ministerial meeting in Åre, Sweden where the 27 EU environment ministers focused on issues in preparation for the climate change negotiations in the autumn.
Sweden holds the rotating European Union Presidency for the second half of the current year 2009 till the end of the year. The EU is a unique negotiating machine, with its 27 countries all with different skills and contacts.
It is now less than five months until the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, where a new agreement will be reached. The EU plays a leading role in the international negotiations and is keen to reach an ambitious climate change agreement in December.
The chairs of the two advisory groups for the UN climate change negotiations, Michael Zammit Cutajar and John Ashe, presented their view of the current situation in the talks and what was needed in order to reach a successful conclusion in Copenhagen.
The view was that the negotiations are moving far too slowly, but that there are also negotiations underway in parallel processes, such as in the G8, a group made up of eight large industrialized economies, the Major Economies Forum (MEF), which gathers both industrialized countries and rapidly growing economies such as China and India, and bilateral meetings that can boost the negotiation process.
Denmark’s Minister for the Climate and Energy Connie Hedegaard reported during the meeting from the Greenland Dialogue, an informal network of environment ministers from all over the world, and Italy’s Environment Minister Stefania Prestigiacomo reported from the G8 and MEF.
In the subsequent discussion, it was confirmed the two-degree target is significant and gives new momentum ahead of the continued negotiations in the autumn.
The two-degree target, which the MEF countries supported at the beginning of July, means that the global temperature may increase by a maximum of two degrees compared with pre-industrial levels.
The G8 countries supported a 50% reduction in global emissions and an 80% reduction on the part of industrialized countries. The countries of the G8 and MEF are together responsible for around 80% of the world's emissions.
In the discussion, the EU’s trendsetting role in reaching successful conclusions at the G8 and MEF was emphasized, and strong support was given for continued clear EU leadership. ?“The EU has taken the lead by presenting the most ambitious goal that any group of countries has established. From now until Copenhagen, we will take the lead to speed up the negotiations. Other countries need to follow the EU’s example and do more. The gap between what science demands and the offers that are on the table is far too wide”, said Andreas Carlgren.
Carlgren continued: “The EU countries will use all our contacts in order to work together to increase the possibilities of reaching an ambitious climate change agreement with sufficient global emissions reductions and financing. We need clear reductions in emissions, both from industrialized countries and rapidly growing economies.”
EU COMMISSIONER DIMAS
The discussions also touched on financing and comparable measures. European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas presented a report on financing.?
"There is a significant short-term need to help developing countries with strategies for development with reduced emissions, and measures for adaptation to a changing climate", said Commissioner Dimas.
Commissioner Dimas also presented a report on comparable measures and the process for the EU's ‘scaling up’ to 30% if a sufficiently ambitious agreement is reached in Copenhagen. The heads of state and government have decided that the EU will contribute with a 30% reduction in emissions by 2020, compared with 1990 levels, if other industrialized countries make comparable commitments and the rapidly growing economies commit to significant measures.
“Our offer is not unconditional. We will use the increase from 20 to 30% as a lever to gain adequate offers from other countries”, commented Andreas Carlgren
Sweden holds the rotating European Union Presidency for the second half of the current year 2009 till the end of the year. The EU is a unique negotiating machine, with its 27 countries all with different skills and contacts.
It is now less than five months until the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, where a new agreement will be reached. The EU plays a leading role in the international negotiations and is keen to reach an ambitious climate change agreement in December.
The chairs of the two advisory groups for the UN climate change negotiations, Michael Zammit Cutajar and John Ashe, presented their view of the current situation in the talks and what was needed in order to reach a successful conclusion in Copenhagen.
The view was that the negotiations are moving far too slowly, but that there are also negotiations underway in parallel processes, such as in the G8, a group made up of eight large industrialized economies, the Major Economies Forum (MEF), which gathers both industrialized countries and rapidly growing economies such as China and India, and bilateral meetings that can boost the negotiation process.
Denmark’s Minister for the Climate and Energy Connie Hedegaard reported during the meeting from the Greenland Dialogue, an informal network of environment ministers from all over the world, and Italy’s Environment Minister Stefania Prestigiacomo reported from the G8 and MEF.
In the subsequent discussion, it was confirmed the two-degree target is significant and gives new momentum ahead of the continued negotiations in the autumn.
The two-degree target, which the MEF countries supported at the beginning of July, means that the global temperature may increase by a maximum of two degrees compared with pre-industrial levels.
The G8 countries supported a 50% reduction in global emissions and an 80% reduction on the part of industrialized countries. The countries of the G8 and MEF are together responsible for around 80% of the world's emissions.
In the discussion, the EU’s trendsetting role in reaching successful conclusions at the G8 and MEF was emphasized, and strong support was given for continued clear EU leadership. ?“The EU has taken the lead by presenting the most ambitious goal that any group of countries has established. From now until Copenhagen, we will take the lead to speed up the negotiations. Other countries need to follow the EU’s example and do more. The gap between what science demands and the offers that are on the table is far too wide”, said Andreas Carlgren.
Carlgren continued: “The EU countries will use all our contacts in order to work together to increase the possibilities of reaching an ambitious climate change agreement with sufficient global emissions reductions and financing. We need clear reductions in emissions, both from industrialized countries and rapidly growing economies.”
EU COMMISSIONER DIMAS
The discussions also touched on financing and comparable measures. European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas presented a report on financing.?
"There is a significant short-term need to help developing countries with strategies for development with reduced emissions, and measures for adaptation to a changing climate", said Commissioner Dimas.
Commissioner Dimas also presented a report on comparable measures and the process for the EU's ‘scaling up’ to 30% if a sufficiently ambitious agreement is reached in Copenhagen. The heads of state and government have decided that the EU will contribute with a 30% reduction in emissions by 2020, compared with 1990 levels, if other industrialized countries make comparable commitments and the rapidly growing economies commit to significant measures.
“Our offer is not unconditional. We will use the increase from 20 to 30% as a lever to gain adequate offers from other countries”, commented Andreas Carlgren
Friday, July 24, 2009
Iran's Women A Driving Force Behind Green Movement
Her eyes, wide open, she seemed to be staring into nothingness as her body was drained of its blood.
The world watched Neda Agha-Soltan, a 26-year-old music student, die from a gunshot wound after protesting peacefully in Tehran. The video, circulated on YouTube, was something that a lot of people won't forget very soon. I know, as an Iranian, I never will.
Even though official reporting of events has been very limited due to restrictions by the government, we were able to get a glimpse of what is going on in the streets via amateur videos and photos. What was evident in all those images is a very clear presence of women of all ages in the protests. Photos showed young, green-clad girls standing defiantly next to other, male protesters.
The images give evidence of the bravery of Iranian women. Today those women are not just fighting for a sheerer head-scarf or the freedom to show a little more of their arms; they are fighting to change the political face of the country and thus their future.
For years many women have carried out subtle campaigns of civil disobedience. They pushed the boundaries with acts as small as wearing brighter nail polish, more make up and even by smoking cigarettes in cafes. These were considered huge steps. But these protests were as far as women would go because they feared punishment.
Azadeh Moaveni, who reported for Time Magazine from Tehran, in her latest book "Honeymoon in Tehran" described how the general population in Iran was not ready for revolt: "Every few months an editor at Time would ask whether we could do an 'Iranian youth at boiling point' story, and I would explain that Iranian youth weren't even heating up yet."
Moaveni's view, which was very apt at the time, shows how so much changed this June when election results were announced and young Iranians felt anger and frustration. Many women, who used to be preoccupied with the latest fashion trends and what to wear to the next party, faced bullets and batons in the streets. Risking their lives, or imprisonment, they were fighting for what they had yearned for over many years. They were trying to get their rights by peaceful means because they knew the consequences.
Women have been undoubtedly a great part of the so called "Green Movement." Zahra Rahnavard, the wife of opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi, became a key part of the campaign. Her presence meant a promise of a more open arena for women in the political scene and maybe some relaxation of the rigid social laws. Young women appreciated the attention that Mousavi gave his wife, treating her as his equal and a friend. They envisioned that such relationships would become more widespread in Iran if he became the next president.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration of an overwhelming victory, however, was a big blow to their hopes. They now feel betrayed and dejected. One friend who supported Mousavi told me two days before the election that if Mousavi didn't win, she wouldn't stay in Iran for a moment longer.
Times change
When in 1979 the Iranian Revolution took place, all people who participated had one vision in mind: Get rid of the despotic Shah and replace him with democracy. But the revolution had a different outcome. Velayat-e Faqih -- the current ruling system -- gives power to the Supreme Leader. So in a way Iranians, after so much bloodshed and hard work, have accepted what could be considered little change.
But how could today, if the uprising were to result in big changes, be any different? The answer lies within the family structure in Iran. In 1979, even though a revolution took place, patriarchy was at the heart of many families. The mindset was that in families, fathers and husbands had the last word. It was a pyramid-shaped system, where men were at the top. They were in most cases the sole breadwinners and decision makers. In a larger sense, that would apply to the country too. People needed a single power at the top to decide everything.
Today, if we look at family structures in Iran, in many cases there has been a shift in power. Women have taken a place at the top of the pyramid alongside men. They are decision makers and breadwinners, educated and open-minded. This makes Iranian society today more fertile for democracy and the present autocratic system less acceptable.
When women can't openly protest in the streets, they find other ways to rebel. But in the end, they express their discontent.
A glimmer of hope in dark times
For now all that occupies Iranians' minds is sadness and sorrow, and nothing can heal their wounds. But there was a single moment of hope after the protests ended. Ali Shahrokhi, head of the Legal Commission in Parliament, announced on June 23 that the parliament is reconsidering the Shiite law of stoning. Stoning is a capital punishment that can be meted out on any woman convicted of adultery. Iran has decreased its used considerably, but the punishment does still exist in the law. Talks of removing it from the country's laws are gathering strength.
There is still a very long way to go for Iranian women, but it is interesting that the parliament brought the issue into more light after these tumultuous days, and especially after the death of Neda Agha-Soltan.
The world watched Neda Agha-Soltan, a 26-year-old music student, die from a gunshot wound after protesting peacefully in Tehran. The video, circulated on YouTube, was something that a lot of people won't forget very soon. I know, as an Iranian, I never will.
Even though official reporting of events has been very limited due to restrictions by the government, we were able to get a glimpse of what is going on in the streets via amateur videos and photos. What was evident in all those images is a very clear presence of women of all ages in the protests. Photos showed young, green-clad girls standing defiantly next to other, male protesters.
The images give evidence of the bravery of Iranian women. Today those women are not just fighting for a sheerer head-scarf or the freedom to show a little more of their arms; they are fighting to change the political face of the country and thus their future.
For years many women have carried out subtle campaigns of civil disobedience. They pushed the boundaries with acts as small as wearing brighter nail polish, more make up and even by smoking cigarettes in cafes. These were considered huge steps. But these protests were as far as women would go because they feared punishment.
Azadeh Moaveni, who reported for Time Magazine from Tehran, in her latest book "Honeymoon in Tehran" described how the general population in Iran was not ready for revolt: "Every few months an editor at Time would ask whether we could do an 'Iranian youth at boiling point' story, and I would explain that Iranian youth weren't even heating up yet."
Moaveni's view, which was very apt at the time, shows how so much changed this June when election results were announced and young Iranians felt anger and frustration. Many women, who used to be preoccupied with the latest fashion trends and what to wear to the next party, faced bullets and batons in the streets. Risking their lives, or imprisonment, they were fighting for what they had yearned for over many years. They were trying to get their rights by peaceful means because they knew the consequences.
Women have been undoubtedly a great part of the so called "Green Movement." Zahra Rahnavard, the wife of opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi, became a key part of the campaign. Her presence meant a promise of a more open arena for women in the political scene and maybe some relaxation of the rigid social laws. Young women appreciated the attention that Mousavi gave his wife, treating her as his equal and a friend. They envisioned that such relationships would become more widespread in Iran if he became the next president.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration of an overwhelming victory, however, was a big blow to their hopes. They now feel betrayed and dejected. One friend who supported Mousavi told me two days before the election that if Mousavi didn't win, she wouldn't stay in Iran for a moment longer.
Times change
When in 1979 the Iranian Revolution took place, all people who participated had one vision in mind: Get rid of the despotic Shah and replace him with democracy. But the revolution had a different outcome. Velayat-e Faqih -- the current ruling system -- gives power to the Supreme Leader. So in a way Iranians, after so much bloodshed and hard work, have accepted what could be considered little change.
But how could today, if the uprising were to result in big changes, be any different? The answer lies within the family structure in Iran. In 1979, even though a revolution took place, patriarchy was at the heart of many families. The mindset was that in families, fathers and husbands had the last word. It was a pyramid-shaped system, where men were at the top. They were in most cases the sole breadwinners and decision makers. In a larger sense, that would apply to the country too. People needed a single power at the top to decide everything.
Today, if we look at family structures in Iran, in many cases there has been a shift in power. Women have taken a place at the top of the pyramid alongside men. They are decision makers and breadwinners, educated and open-minded. This makes Iranian society today more fertile for democracy and the present autocratic system less acceptable.
When women can't openly protest in the streets, they find other ways to rebel. But in the end, they express their discontent.
A glimmer of hope in dark times
For now all that occupies Iranians' minds is sadness and sorrow, and nothing can heal their wounds. But there was a single moment of hope after the protests ended. Ali Shahrokhi, head of the Legal Commission in Parliament, announced on June 23 that the parliament is reconsidering the Shiite law of stoning. Stoning is a capital punishment that can be meted out on any woman convicted of adultery. Iran has decreased its used considerably, but the punishment does still exist in the law. Talks of removing it from the country's laws are gathering strength.
There is still a very long way to go for Iranian women, but it is interesting that the parliament brought the issue into more light after these tumultuous days, and especially after the death of Neda Agha-Soltan.
Sensitive to an array of pollutants, Kathy Hemenway uprooted herself to find a clean environment. Should the rest of us worry?
No paint on the walls. No carpets on the floors. No TV in the living room. Or the bedroom. Or the kitchen. No TV anywhere in the house.Kathy Hemenway's home in Snowflake, Ariz., is a refuge from the gases, chemicals and electromagnetic fields that are nearly ubiquitous in our 21st century world.
Her chemical sensitivities began when she was just a kid. "I couldn't figure out why people liked perfume," she says. "It gave me a headache. And fabric stores gave me a sore throat."Those problems grew more severe in adulthood, so she started making small changes -- using natural, fragrance-free shampoos and soaps; avoiding air fresheners, fresh paint, pesticides and lawn-care chemicals; and becoming super-diligent about housekeeping, but only with natural cleaners such as baking soda and vinegar.Then she started moving -- from homes with carpet to homes with hardwood floors, then from Menlo Park, Calif., where she was a successful software engineer, to Santa Cruz and a home with all the other safe stuff plus fresh ocean air.
But after an accidental exposure there to nearby lawn chemicals, Hemenway began to have trouble breathing and even more trouble sleeping. She grew agitated, jittery and depressed, and felt as if she were in a fog, she says. She also became sensitive to many more substances than usual and had to use an oxygen tank to recover from even mild exposures, such as breathing exhaust fumes on the freeway. She wound up at the Environmental Health Center in Dallas for treatment, which included oxygen therapy and sauna sessions (for detoxification), a special diet (rotated every four days) and nutritional supplements she took orally and intravenously. After that, she says, "I was desperate for a safe home, and that's when I decided to go to the safest place I could find."She found Snowflake."It's hard, frequently devastating, to accept that you're never going to get better unless you move to a whole other environment," Hemenway says of her leap 10 years ago. But, she decided, the quality of her life depended on it.The house she built in this remote high desert town is not only a no-paint, no-carpet zone, but also a no-plywood, no-particleboard, no-tar paper zone. And no pesticides were used on the foundation or on the land before the foundation was laid.The exterior of the house is made of masonry blocks, and most of the interior framing is made of steel. So is the roof. The floors are glazed ceramic tile throughout the house, and in the bedroom the walls and ceiling are too.The house has radiant in-floor heating instead of forced-air heating. "It doesn't blow the dust around," Hemenway says, "and you don't have the combustion byproducts of a forced-air furnace."And not to worry -- she can watch TV. But to avoid its electromagnetic field, she keeps the set in a barn about 200 feet from the house and records programs there, then brings the DVDs inside and plays them on a projection system.Hemenway is one of millions of Americans who believe that sprays meant to freshen the air actually pollute it, that chemicals meant to beautify our yards in fact poison them, and that many of the products and materials that make modern life fast and convenient also make people sick. They cite studies connecting a host of suspect substances to a host of human illnesses, from headaches and sniffles to immune disorders and cancer.Most people can't move to Snowflake and build "safe houses," of course (and if too many of us did, we'd mess up the air quality anyway). Fortunately, most are not as sensitive to environmental pollutants as Hemenway, whose condition is recognized by many -- but not all -- medical professionals as "environmental illness."Still, a connection between health and the environment is widely recognized in the medical and scientific communities. More than 30 years ago, for example, the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory was established at UC Irvine especially to study the connections between air quality and health. Raising awareness of these connections empowers people, says Robert Phalen, the laboratory's founder and current director and also a professor of medicine."Within the last year or two, there's been a tremendous awareness about green buildings -- and healthy buildings too," says Peter Sierck, the principal of Environmental Testing & Technology in San Diego, which specializes in testing for mold, moisture, electromagnetic fields and general indoor air quality.But some researchers worry that consumers' fears are getting ahead of the scientific evidence. Some have ripped out carpets to avoid chemical releases or renounced miracle fabrics in favor of natural fibers.Many people have concerns about perfumes, shampoos, soaps and other products that produce odors, says Dr. Ware Kuschner, an associate professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine who practices at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. He does research on the health effects of indoor and outdoor air pollution. "But the link between exposure to these products and serious adverse health effects is often quite tenuous."That's because the harm a substance can do generally depends on how much of it you're exposed to and how long you're exposed to it -- as well as how sensitive you are.Knowing whether to be concerned, or how much to be concerned, isn't easy. Scientists at regulatory agencies spend years making official risk assessments.Still, it's possible to set some priorities, and you probably shouldn't spend too much time worrying about things that are very unlikely to happen, says Dr. Philip Harber, a professor of occupational and environmental medicine at UCLA. "Many more people die of drowning in a swimming pool than die of exposure to mold. . . . It's really important not to overlook the obvious."
Her chemical sensitivities began when she was just a kid. "I couldn't figure out why people liked perfume," she says. "It gave me a headache. And fabric stores gave me a sore throat."Those problems grew more severe in adulthood, so she started making small changes -- using natural, fragrance-free shampoos and soaps; avoiding air fresheners, fresh paint, pesticides and lawn-care chemicals; and becoming super-diligent about housekeeping, but only with natural cleaners such as baking soda and vinegar.Then she started moving -- from homes with carpet to homes with hardwood floors, then from Menlo Park, Calif., where she was a successful software engineer, to Santa Cruz and a home with all the other safe stuff plus fresh ocean air.
But after an accidental exposure there to nearby lawn chemicals, Hemenway began to have trouble breathing and even more trouble sleeping. She grew agitated, jittery and depressed, and felt as if she were in a fog, she says. She also became sensitive to many more substances than usual and had to use an oxygen tank to recover from even mild exposures, such as breathing exhaust fumes on the freeway. She wound up at the Environmental Health Center in Dallas for treatment, which included oxygen therapy and sauna sessions (for detoxification), a special diet (rotated every four days) and nutritional supplements she took orally and intravenously. After that, she says, "I was desperate for a safe home, and that's when I decided to go to the safest place I could find."She found Snowflake."It's hard, frequently devastating, to accept that you're never going to get better unless you move to a whole other environment," Hemenway says of her leap 10 years ago. But, she decided, the quality of her life depended on it.The house she built in this remote high desert town is not only a no-paint, no-carpet zone, but also a no-plywood, no-particleboard, no-tar paper zone. And no pesticides were used on the foundation or on the land before the foundation was laid.The exterior of the house is made of masonry blocks, and most of the interior framing is made of steel. So is the roof. The floors are glazed ceramic tile throughout the house, and in the bedroom the walls and ceiling are too.The house has radiant in-floor heating instead of forced-air heating. "It doesn't blow the dust around," Hemenway says, "and you don't have the combustion byproducts of a forced-air furnace."And not to worry -- she can watch TV. But to avoid its electromagnetic field, she keeps the set in a barn about 200 feet from the house and records programs there, then brings the DVDs inside and plays them on a projection system.Hemenway is one of millions of Americans who believe that sprays meant to freshen the air actually pollute it, that chemicals meant to beautify our yards in fact poison them, and that many of the products and materials that make modern life fast and convenient also make people sick. They cite studies connecting a host of suspect substances to a host of human illnesses, from headaches and sniffles to immune disorders and cancer.Most people can't move to Snowflake and build "safe houses," of course (and if too many of us did, we'd mess up the air quality anyway). Fortunately, most are not as sensitive to environmental pollutants as Hemenway, whose condition is recognized by many -- but not all -- medical professionals as "environmental illness."Still, a connection between health and the environment is widely recognized in the medical and scientific communities. More than 30 years ago, for example, the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory was established at UC Irvine especially to study the connections between air quality and health. Raising awareness of these connections empowers people, says Robert Phalen, the laboratory's founder and current director and also a professor of medicine."Within the last year or two, there's been a tremendous awareness about green buildings -- and healthy buildings too," says Peter Sierck, the principal of Environmental Testing & Technology in San Diego, which specializes in testing for mold, moisture, electromagnetic fields and general indoor air quality.But some researchers worry that consumers' fears are getting ahead of the scientific evidence. Some have ripped out carpets to avoid chemical releases or renounced miracle fabrics in favor of natural fibers.Many people have concerns about perfumes, shampoos, soaps and other products that produce odors, says Dr. Ware Kuschner, an associate professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine who practices at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. He does research on the health effects of indoor and outdoor air pollution. "But the link between exposure to these products and serious adverse health effects is often quite tenuous."That's because the harm a substance can do generally depends on how much of it you're exposed to and how long you're exposed to it -- as well as how sensitive you are.Knowing whether to be concerned, or how much to be concerned, isn't easy. Scientists at regulatory agencies spend years making official risk assessments.Still, it's possible to set some priorities, and you probably shouldn't spend too much time worrying about things that are very unlikely to happen, says Dr. Philip Harber, a professor of occupational and environmental medicine at UCLA. "Many more people die of drowning in a swimming pool than die of exposure to mold. . . . It's really important not to overlook the obvious."
CARS program can benefit economy, environment and wallet
Residents planning to buy or lease a new car this year may want to step it up and cash in on the Car Allowance Rebate System. CARS is a federal program that helps buyers purchase a more fuel-efficient vehicle.Those who qualify for the “Cash for Clunkers” program can save from $3,500 to $4,500 on their purchase by trading in their gas-guzzling older vehicle. The promotion is valid from late July through Nov. 1 or until the allotted money runs out. The rebate is in addition to any promotional discounts offered by the dealer or manufacturer of the vehicle.There are some caveats, however.Restrictions apply to the trade-in vehicle as well as the new vehicle to be purchased.According to www.cars.gov, the trade-in vehicle must be less than 25 years old, have a “new” combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per gallon or less, be driveable, and be insured and registered to the same owner for at least a year.It gets trickier. Very large pickup trucks and cargo vans have different requirements.
= 1225756800) && (nAdsysTime = 1225756800) && (nAdsysTime = 1241568000) && (nAdsysTime = 1243382400) && (nAdsysTime = 1244073600) && (nAdsysTime
David Oakley Jr., of Oakley Chevrolet Buick Pontiac in Bartlesville, said he has seen some interest in the program but it’s not for everyone.“Not every car or individual will merit using it,” he said. “The program is complicated enough that we’ll have to look at it case by case.”Oakley said the program is environmentally driven, meant to rid the roads of non fuel-efficient vehicles. However, he said a person’s auto may not “be enough of a clunker,” depending on the fuel economy standard.Also, if the vehicle trade-in is worth more than $4,500, the person can just trade in the car and forget the rebate, according to Oakley.The good news is consumers don’t have to send away for a voucher. The dealership will handle the paperwork and apply a credit at purchase. However, before stepping onto the car lot, make sure the prospective dealer has registered for the program.Also, the dealer is required to tell the purchaser how much the scrap metal is worth (all trade-ins will be scrapped). And dealers are prohibited from charging a fee to sell or lease a vehicle under the CARS program.Oakley said the final rules should be posted today and dealerships that started the process early may be in trouble if the rules have changed.“There are still some things to work through, like getting the cars to a scrap metal site. It’s a shame we have to scrap the cars because someone like a single mother may have been able to use one of the vehicles,” he said.Restrictions on the new vehicles include a purchase price of not more than $45,000; for passenger vehicles, it must have a combined fuel economy of at least 22 miles per gallon. For category 1 trucks, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 18 miles per gallon; for category 2 trucks, at least 15 miles per gallon; and category 3 trucks have no minimum fuel economy requirement. (See inset.)Oakley said he hopes a lot of people aren’t disappointed if the rebate isn’t what they expected.“They don’t have to feel silly if they can’t make heads or tails of the rules either,” he said.The value of the credit is determined by the difference of the combined fuel economy of both vehicles. For a credit of $3,500, the difference must be at least 4 but less than 10 miles per gallon higher. For the $4,500 credit, the difference must be at least 10 miles per gallon higher.Oakley cautions those considering the program to do their homework first; log on to www.cars.gov and check out the fuel economy ratings for the trade-ins.Prospective buyers can find the combined fuel economy of the new vehicle on the window sticker or visit www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm and search for the vehicle.“Also, consider your needs when shopping for a new car,” said Oakley. “Don’t buy a car you don’t really want just to get the credit.”
= 1225756800) && (nAdsysTime = 1225756800) && (nAdsysTime = 1241568000) && (nAdsysTime = 1243382400) && (nAdsysTime = 1244073600) && (nAdsysTime
David Oakley Jr., of Oakley Chevrolet Buick Pontiac in Bartlesville, said he has seen some interest in the program but it’s not for everyone.“Not every car or individual will merit using it,” he said. “The program is complicated enough that we’ll have to look at it case by case.”Oakley said the program is environmentally driven, meant to rid the roads of non fuel-efficient vehicles. However, he said a person’s auto may not “be enough of a clunker,” depending on the fuel economy standard.Also, if the vehicle trade-in is worth more than $4,500, the person can just trade in the car and forget the rebate, according to Oakley.The good news is consumers don’t have to send away for a voucher. The dealership will handle the paperwork and apply a credit at purchase. However, before stepping onto the car lot, make sure the prospective dealer has registered for the program.Also, the dealer is required to tell the purchaser how much the scrap metal is worth (all trade-ins will be scrapped). And dealers are prohibited from charging a fee to sell or lease a vehicle under the CARS program.Oakley said the final rules should be posted today and dealerships that started the process early may be in trouble if the rules have changed.“There are still some things to work through, like getting the cars to a scrap metal site. It’s a shame we have to scrap the cars because someone like a single mother may have been able to use one of the vehicles,” he said.Restrictions on the new vehicles include a purchase price of not more than $45,000; for passenger vehicles, it must have a combined fuel economy of at least 22 miles per gallon. For category 1 trucks, the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 18 miles per gallon; for category 2 trucks, at least 15 miles per gallon; and category 3 trucks have no minimum fuel economy requirement. (See inset.)Oakley said he hopes a lot of people aren’t disappointed if the rebate isn’t what they expected.“They don’t have to feel silly if they can’t make heads or tails of the rules either,” he said.The value of the credit is determined by the difference of the combined fuel economy of both vehicles. For a credit of $3,500, the difference must be at least 4 but less than 10 miles per gallon higher. For the $4,500 credit, the difference must be at least 10 miles per gallon higher.Oakley cautions those considering the program to do their homework first; log on to www.cars.gov and check out the fuel economy ratings for the trade-ins.Prospective buyers can find the combined fuel economy of the new vehicle on the window sticker or visit www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm and search for the vehicle.“Also, consider your needs when shopping for a new car,” said Oakley. “Don’t buy a car you don’t really want just to get the credit.”
Dela. officials deny river dredging permit
Delaware's environmental secretary on Friday dealt a blow to plans to deepen the Delaware River shipping channel, denying environmental permits requested by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Collin O'Mara, head of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, said the Corps has failed to submit additional information requested by the state and has made significant modifications to the project since submitting its permit application in January 2001.
O'Mara also noted that with the passage of time since a hearing officer issued a 2003 report recommending that DNREC deny the permits unless additional information was provided, "the record is now stale."
The proposed dredging project has been a source of friction among officials in Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey for nearly a decade.
The Corps has proposed deepening the channel from 40 feet to 45 feet along a stretch of more than 100 miles from Philadelphia to the mouth of the Delaware Bay. Supporters say the dredging would allow the river to accommodate bigger ships and keep local ports competitive, while opponents argue it will mostly benefit a few oil refineries while stirring up toxic sediments that would threaten water quality and wildlife.
O'Mara noted that the Corps' most recent environmental impact statement was completed 12 years ago.
"If the Army Corps conducted the proposed deepening now, it would do so with little knowledge of the Delaware River's current environment," he wrote in a seven-page order. "I find that approval now, based upon outdated information, would impose an undue risk of harm to Delaware's environment and public health."
Richard Pearsall, a spokesman for the Corps' Philadelphia district office, said officials were reviewing O'Mara's decision.
"We're just going to reevaluate our position here," he said.
The Corps recently began soliciting bids for the first phase of the dredging project. Pearsall said there were no plans to halt the bid solicitation process.
In its permit application to DNREC, the Corps sought permission to remove almost 22.5 million cubic yards of material from the channel running from the mouth of the Delaware Bay at Lewes to the Delaware-Pennsylvania border near Claymont. The amount later was revised to 17.7 million cubic yards. The dredge spoils would be deposited at sites in Delaware and New Jersey.
While denying the permits, O'Mara did not prohibit the Corps from submitting a new application with updated information.
Collin O'Mara, head of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, said the Corps has failed to submit additional information requested by the state and has made significant modifications to the project since submitting its permit application in January 2001.
O'Mara also noted that with the passage of time since a hearing officer issued a 2003 report recommending that DNREC deny the permits unless additional information was provided, "the record is now stale."
The proposed dredging project has been a source of friction among officials in Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey for nearly a decade.
The Corps has proposed deepening the channel from 40 feet to 45 feet along a stretch of more than 100 miles from Philadelphia to the mouth of the Delaware Bay. Supporters say the dredging would allow the river to accommodate bigger ships and keep local ports competitive, while opponents argue it will mostly benefit a few oil refineries while stirring up toxic sediments that would threaten water quality and wildlife.
O'Mara noted that the Corps' most recent environmental impact statement was completed 12 years ago.
"If the Army Corps conducted the proposed deepening now, it would do so with little knowledge of the Delaware River's current environment," he wrote in a seven-page order. "I find that approval now, based upon outdated information, would impose an undue risk of harm to Delaware's environment and public health."
Richard Pearsall, a spokesman for the Corps' Philadelphia district office, said officials were reviewing O'Mara's decision.
"We're just going to reevaluate our position here," he said.
The Corps recently began soliciting bids for the first phase of the dredging project. Pearsall said there were no plans to halt the bid solicitation process.
In its permit application to DNREC, the Corps sought permission to remove almost 22.5 million cubic yards of material from the channel running from the mouth of the Delaware Bay at Lewes to the Delaware-Pennsylvania border near Claymont. The amount later was revised to 17.7 million cubic yards. The dredge spoils would be deposited at sites in Delaware and New Jersey.
While denying the permits, O'Mara did not prohibit the Corps from submitting a new application with updated information.
Elephant dies while rescuing its calf in Tamil Nadu
An elephant died while trying to save its calf which had slipped and fallen into a pit near Katteri village in the Barliyar forest range of Nilgiris in Tamil Nadu on Thursday.
The calf fell into the pit during the midnight hours and the mother elephant struggled to reach it.
It is also believed that the elephant aged around 22 years with its calf was trying to cross the Barliyar forest area.
Initially, forest rangers found it difficult to carry out the rescue operation since the location was quite steep.
“It was very difficult to reach the spot as it is on a steep slope. Rescuers had to climb using ropes and other things but we finally managed to reach there. The calf wasn’t injured. We rescued the animal after struggling for five to six hours,” said Kannn, Conservator of Forests, Nilgiris Range.
However, environmentalists say that private tea estate owners are using illegal methods to frighten elephants in the region that often result in the jumbos falling into dug up pits and trenches around the tea gardens.
“The area has a thick presence of elephant herds. It is called as migration corridor and has a number of private tea estates. These estates have illegally installed solar fencing in order to drive away the elephants,” said Jayachandran, an activist of Green Movement.
Experts have opined that massive deforestation, poaching and people encroaching upon forest corridors have forced the elephants to move out of their natural habitats in search of food and water
The calf fell into the pit during the midnight hours and the mother elephant struggled to reach it.
It is also believed that the elephant aged around 22 years with its calf was trying to cross the Barliyar forest area.
Initially, forest rangers found it difficult to carry out the rescue operation since the location was quite steep.
“It was very difficult to reach the spot as it is on a steep slope. Rescuers had to climb using ropes and other things but we finally managed to reach there. The calf wasn’t injured. We rescued the animal after struggling for five to six hours,” said Kannn, Conservator of Forests, Nilgiris Range.
However, environmentalists say that private tea estate owners are using illegal methods to frighten elephants in the region that often result in the jumbos falling into dug up pits and trenches around the tea gardens.
“The area has a thick presence of elephant herds. It is called as migration corridor and has a number of private tea estates. These estates have illegally installed solar fencing in order to drive away the elephants,” said Jayachandran, an activist of Green Movement.
Experts have opined that massive deforestation, poaching and people encroaching upon forest corridors have forced the elephants to move out of their natural habitats in search of food and water
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)