U.S. Forest Service employee is dead after being struck by a falling tree as he helped clean up a marijuana growing operation in eastern Oregon.
Forest Service workers and members of the Baker County Narcotics Team were removing a marijuana garden in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest southwest of Unity when the dead tree toppled and hit the man Thursday morning.
Efforts were made to revive him, but he died at the scene. His name was not released.
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest spokeswoman Judy Wing says Forest Service crews often assist in marijuana eradication, pulling out plants, picking up garbage and assessing the environmental damage caused by the operations.
The Oregonian reports that the death is being investigated by federal, state and local authorities
Friday, August 21, 2009
Teddy Roosevelt and the search for new ‘wilderness warriors’
Theodore Roosevelt had his delicate spots—he was an asthmatic child and later a naturalist who reveled in birdwatching. But 100 years after his presidency, the image of him that endures is decidedly more swaggering—an outdoorsman who loved to hunt, a mountaineer, a populist who thundered against corporate “despoilers” of the public welfare.
He also left a legacy of 234 million acres of national parks and other protected American wilderness. Historian Douglas Brinkley, who has written acclaimed books on Ford Motor Company and Hurricane Katrina, focuses on the conservationist work of the larger-than-life president in his new book, the 960-page Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America.
We spoke recently about Roosevelt and how he might have taken on today’s despoilers.
Q. Roosevelt’s time in the Badlands, on his African safari, and in the mountains with John Muir—he seemed link it all to his work in public. What was it that he found in the wilderness that made him such a powerful leader?
A. He had chronic asthma as a boy and got very skeptical about hyper-industrialization, seeing the smokestack factories along the East River in New Jersey. Yet when he’d go to the Catskills and later the Adirondacks, his illness would go away. He found that being out in the wild was the cure to his respiratory illness.
He also created a philosophy that what made American democracy unique was wilderness. He believed that it would have medium-sized cities surrounded by what we today would call greenbelts. And that if you let sprawl happen it would desecrate the beautiful American landscape.
He was also very influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and this notion of the need for species survival and the classification of species. Roosevelt’s greatest accomplishment may have been his leadership in inventorying the biotic America. He wanted to know what kind of wildflowers we had, what insects, what types of prairie grass. And he wanted to educate people that the planet was one whole thing, one biological organism.
Q. What would he think of the so-called unscientific America today, where so many people reject evolution?
A. He would be aghast at people ignoring science. He pushed for science and biology to be taught in public schools. He wanted all children to grow up understanding Darwin and Huxley. On the other hand he was a bit of a romantic about nature. The combination of the two made him almost an ideal president for the current environmental moment.
Q. Today we’ve got big business interests—the National Association of Manufacturers for one—saying the world is going to end if we pass a climate change bill. It sounds like Roosevelt faced the same kind of opposition when he took on the mining industry and others who didn’t want places like Grand Canyon to be protected. What was his strategy?
A. He would have taken his fist and smashed the National Manufacturing Association. I’m not kidding, he was that vigorous a figure. Anybody who put a company profit over the public welfare, Roosevelt called them despoilers. It was his favorite word. He also called them swine. It was a trend of capitalism he worried about, that we would create a culture where the corporations could do what they wanted for their profits and do damage to the public welfare.
Q. Do we have anyone of any influence speaking like that today?
No, we don’t. Roosevelt cloaked himself in American mythology—he’d wear a cowboy hat and bandana, carry a gun, and present himself as kind of an archetype of American manhood—so he could talk to common people. Sometimes 200,000 people would come to hear him give conservation speeches.
He didn’t see it as negotiable. He was a pragmatist, but there were some things that you couldn’t negotiate. You couldn’t partially mine the Grand Canyon. It needed to be preserved forever. And that was the end of the conversation. Even though Congress voted to mine it for zinc and asbestos, Roosevelt used an executive order and overruled them.
Roosevelt also called for a global conservation congress that would have global environmental laws. One hundred years ago, in 1909, he called for that. He knew that it doesn’t go any good to save birds in America if they go down to Central America and the whole flock is massacred. It doesn’t do any good for us to keep the Rio Grande clean if Mexico’s going to dump sewage in it. So Roosevelt’s notion that we could work in a global fashion on conservation issues is very timely today.
Q. Did he have any success with that?
A. No. The first one he passed was with Canada and Mexico, and it was successful. But they were planning the global one when he left office and went to Africa to collect for the Smithsonian Institute. William Howard Taft came in with the Republican big business crowd, and they threw out the idea.
Q. A politician going to the wilderness for self-reflection—that’s such an exotic idea today, Appalachian Trail jokes notwithstanding. What’s lost with that?
A. Well, it’s tough to do. I think it’s good that President Obama visited Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon last weekend. But I’d also like the president to get into some of the wilderness areas of America and to start thinking of immediate things that can be done on climate.
For example, ANWR in Alaska should become a national monument or park. Obama should create a national caribou reserve. Roosevelt created national buffalo reserves—the Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma and at the Flathead Reservation in Montana—wildly successful efforts to keep the buffalo alive and thriving. We need to do that now for the caribou that climate change has put under great stress in Alaska.
Historian Douglas BrinkleyPhoto: Danny Turner for HarperCollinsQ. And Obama could do that through executive order?
A. He can. He could do it tomorrow with an executive order declaring ANWR a national monument. The only problem is a weird stipulation put on ANWR in 1980 that says it would be sacrosanct for only one year, and then Congress would have to agree to it. [Ed: More on conservation law in Alaska.] He would have to use the political muscle to get votes on Capitol Hill. But he could get them. It’s just a matter of wanting to have these fights.
And on the Mexican border, wildlife is dying like crazy because they’re building a wall that’s killing off an entire wildlife corridor. The wall is idiotic. There’s a lot that can be done besides the big difficulty of weaning the world off of its addiction to petroleum. Those are proactive things the Obama administration should be doing now.
Q. Do you see any way that the Republican Party might embrace his conservation legacy and reclaim the environmental heroes in its past?
A. We’re on the verge of a new green revolution, and I think I think there’s an opportunity for the Republican Party to reinvent itself as promoting it. The problem is the oil lobby and the coal lobby are so powerful in Republican politics that nobody wants to stand up to them. Until you get a Republican of great vision who can be Rooseveltian in putting long-term public welfare over short-term corporate good, I don’t see it coming any time soon.
Q. How do we make environmentalism badass again, the way it was for Roosevelt?
A. Everybody likes TR, because we can see that his legacy is not a Democratic legacy or a Republican one, it’s a great American legacy. I don’t think we have to be at partisan odds over clean air, clean water, and keeping our forest reserves intact. Those should just be American goals. And I think Roosevelt helps that process along.
There’s always a need for an alliance between sportsmen—hunters and anglers—and the preservationists in the environmental movement. They have different interests, but when they work together they can get a lot of things done. It can often mean those extra Congressional votes. I know for a fact that these hunt clubs, many of them for their own reasons, want to have caribou and polar bears saved in Alaska right now. Green activists might be able to form alliances with them, working against the extraction industries. Roosevelt provides an example of bringing those communities together in a common, concerted eff
He also left a legacy of 234 million acres of national parks and other protected American wilderness. Historian Douglas Brinkley, who has written acclaimed books on Ford Motor Company and Hurricane Katrina, focuses on the conservationist work of the larger-than-life president in his new book, the 960-page Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America.
We spoke recently about Roosevelt and how he might have taken on today’s despoilers.
Q. Roosevelt’s time in the Badlands, on his African safari, and in the mountains with John Muir—he seemed link it all to his work in public. What was it that he found in the wilderness that made him such a powerful leader?
A. He had chronic asthma as a boy and got very skeptical about hyper-industrialization, seeing the smokestack factories along the East River in New Jersey. Yet when he’d go to the Catskills and later the Adirondacks, his illness would go away. He found that being out in the wild was the cure to his respiratory illness.
He also created a philosophy that what made American democracy unique was wilderness. He believed that it would have medium-sized cities surrounded by what we today would call greenbelts. And that if you let sprawl happen it would desecrate the beautiful American landscape.
He was also very influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and this notion of the need for species survival and the classification of species. Roosevelt’s greatest accomplishment may have been his leadership in inventorying the biotic America. He wanted to know what kind of wildflowers we had, what insects, what types of prairie grass. And he wanted to educate people that the planet was one whole thing, one biological organism.
Q. What would he think of the so-called unscientific America today, where so many people reject evolution?
A. He would be aghast at people ignoring science. He pushed for science and biology to be taught in public schools. He wanted all children to grow up understanding Darwin and Huxley. On the other hand he was a bit of a romantic about nature. The combination of the two made him almost an ideal president for the current environmental moment.
Q. Today we’ve got big business interests—the National Association of Manufacturers for one—saying the world is going to end if we pass a climate change bill. It sounds like Roosevelt faced the same kind of opposition when he took on the mining industry and others who didn’t want places like Grand Canyon to be protected. What was his strategy?
A. He would have taken his fist and smashed the National Manufacturing Association. I’m not kidding, he was that vigorous a figure. Anybody who put a company profit over the public welfare, Roosevelt called them despoilers. It was his favorite word. He also called them swine. It was a trend of capitalism he worried about, that we would create a culture where the corporations could do what they wanted for their profits and do damage to the public welfare.
Q. Do we have anyone of any influence speaking like that today?
No, we don’t. Roosevelt cloaked himself in American mythology—he’d wear a cowboy hat and bandana, carry a gun, and present himself as kind of an archetype of American manhood—so he could talk to common people. Sometimes 200,000 people would come to hear him give conservation speeches.
He didn’t see it as negotiable. He was a pragmatist, but there were some things that you couldn’t negotiate. You couldn’t partially mine the Grand Canyon. It needed to be preserved forever. And that was the end of the conversation. Even though Congress voted to mine it for zinc and asbestos, Roosevelt used an executive order and overruled them.
Roosevelt also called for a global conservation congress that would have global environmental laws. One hundred years ago, in 1909, he called for that. He knew that it doesn’t go any good to save birds in America if they go down to Central America and the whole flock is massacred. It doesn’t do any good for us to keep the Rio Grande clean if Mexico’s going to dump sewage in it. So Roosevelt’s notion that we could work in a global fashion on conservation issues is very timely today.
Q. Did he have any success with that?
A. No. The first one he passed was with Canada and Mexico, and it was successful. But they were planning the global one when he left office and went to Africa to collect for the Smithsonian Institute. William Howard Taft came in with the Republican big business crowd, and they threw out the idea.
Q. A politician going to the wilderness for self-reflection—that’s such an exotic idea today, Appalachian Trail jokes notwithstanding. What’s lost with that?
A. Well, it’s tough to do. I think it’s good that President Obama visited Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon last weekend. But I’d also like the president to get into some of the wilderness areas of America and to start thinking of immediate things that can be done on climate.
For example, ANWR in Alaska should become a national monument or park. Obama should create a national caribou reserve. Roosevelt created national buffalo reserves—the Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma and at the Flathead Reservation in Montana—wildly successful efforts to keep the buffalo alive and thriving. We need to do that now for the caribou that climate change has put under great stress in Alaska.
Historian Douglas BrinkleyPhoto: Danny Turner for HarperCollinsQ. And Obama could do that through executive order?
A. He can. He could do it tomorrow with an executive order declaring ANWR a national monument. The only problem is a weird stipulation put on ANWR in 1980 that says it would be sacrosanct for only one year, and then Congress would have to agree to it. [Ed: More on conservation law in Alaska.] He would have to use the political muscle to get votes on Capitol Hill. But he could get them. It’s just a matter of wanting to have these fights.
And on the Mexican border, wildlife is dying like crazy because they’re building a wall that’s killing off an entire wildlife corridor. The wall is idiotic. There’s a lot that can be done besides the big difficulty of weaning the world off of its addiction to petroleum. Those are proactive things the Obama administration should be doing now.
Q. Do you see any way that the Republican Party might embrace his conservation legacy and reclaim the environmental heroes in its past?
A. We’re on the verge of a new green revolution, and I think I think there’s an opportunity for the Republican Party to reinvent itself as promoting it. The problem is the oil lobby and the coal lobby are so powerful in Republican politics that nobody wants to stand up to them. Until you get a Republican of great vision who can be Rooseveltian in putting long-term public welfare over short-term corporate good, I don’t see it coming any time soon.
Q. How do we make environmentalism badass again, the way it was for Roosevelt?
A. Everybody likes TR, because we can see that his legacy is not a Democratic legacy or a Republican one, it’s a great American legacy. I don’t think we have to be at partisan odds over clean air, clean water, and keeping our forest reserves intact. Those should just be American goals. And I think Roosevelt helps that process along.
There’s always a need for an alliance between sportsmen—hunters and anglers—and the preservationists in the environmental movement. They have different interests, but when they work together they can get a lot of things done. It can often mean those extra Congressional votes. I know for a fact that these hunt clubs, many of them for their own reasons, want to have caribou and polar bears saved in Alaska right now. Green activists might be able to form alliances with them, working against the extraction industries. Roosevelt provides an example of bringing those communities together in a common, concerted eff
Thursday, August 20, 2009
ABA cautions Senate on impact of climate change legislation
The American Bakers Association (ABA) joined other food-related trade organizations urging caution to the Senate Agriculture and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committees to fully consider the impact proposed climate-change legislation would have on the nation’s ability to provide an abundant, affordable food supply to both U.S. and world consumers.
“If not crafted correctly, climate-change legislation could significantly increase the price of food–especially the staples of a basic diet such as bread and other baked goods,” said Robb MacKie, ABA President and CEO.
At a minimum, ABA and other organizations said that any climate change legislation should include the following safeguards:
• Carbon-credit allowances should be distributed in a fashion that takes into account the needs of manufacturers, distributors or retailers of food, agricultural commodity, feed or household products.
• If an emissions cap is adopted, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should not be allowed to lower the cap in the future or use the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions to levels less than the cap.
• Food processors, agricultural commodity handlers and processors, farmers, ranchers and others should be permitted to generate offsets. A well-designed offset system should strike a balance between the need for affordable offsets and the need for productive farmland.
• The legislation should preempt or harmonize state and regional climate-related programs.
• Climate-change legislation should be contingent upon Senate ratification of an international agreement among nations to reduce greenhouse gases.
• Any climate change legislation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions also should ensure a safe and affordable supply of food, feed and other agricultural products.
“ABA supports the goals of the legislation and is working with its food industry partners and key policymakers to achieve those goals in a cost effective way for bakers and consumers,” MacKie said.
“If not crafted correctly, climate-change legislation could significantly increase the price of food–especially the staples of a basic diet such as bread and other baked goods,” said Robb MacKie, ABA President and CEO.
At a minimum, ABA and other organizations said that any climate change legislation should include the following safeguards:
• Carbon-credit allowances should be distributed in a fashion that takes into account the needs of manufacturers, distributors or retailers of food, agricultural commodity, feed or household products.
• If an emissions cap is adopted, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should not be allowed to lower the cap in the future or use the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions to levels less than the cap.
• Food processors, agricultural commodity handlers and processors, farmers, ranchers and others should be permitted to generate offsets. A well-designed offset system should strike a balance between the need for affordable offsets and the need for productive farmland.
• The legislation should preempt or harmonize state and regional climate-related programs.
• Climate-change legislation should be contingent upon Senate ratification of an international agreement among nations to reduce greenhouse gases.
• Any climate change legislation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions also should ensure a safe and affordable supply of food, feed and other agricultural products.
“ABA supports the goals of the legislation and is working with its food industry partners and key policymakers to achieve those goals in a cost effective way for bakers and consumers,” MacKie said.
US unions, green groups unleash climate change campaign
A coalition of US environmental groups and major labor unions on Wednesday unveiled a national campaign to refute charges that legislation to battle climate change would cost US jobs in a recession.
"The fact of the matter is, you're either going to have both, or you'll have neither," Leo Gerard, the head of the United Steelworkers union, told reporters on a conference call to announce the 50-stop, 22-state push.
"This is about creating good family-supporting jobs as we do the right thing for the planet," said Gerard, who predicted that legislation to fight global warming would create hundreds of thousands of jobs "if we do it right."
The "Made In America" Jobs Tour will open Thursday in Ohio -- a critical political battleground in US presidential elections and stretch into September, when lawmakers return from their month-long August break.
The US Senate is poised to consider climate change legislation when it returns in early September, three months before December global climate change talks in Denmark's capital Copenhagen.
"There is no time to wait, we need the jobs now and we must address global warming pollution that is already changing our climate," said Frances Beinecke, the head of the Natural Resources Defense Council environmental group.
The US House of Representatives passed legislation in June that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050, create "green" jobs and wean the US economy from oil imports.
Those levels would be reached through a "cap-and-trade" system that caps pollution levels for large industrial sources but allocates them pollution permits that can be traded.
The House measure faces fierce opposition from Republicans and some business groups who charge it will cost jobs at a time when the battered US economy is mired in recession.
US President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the Congress mostly support the legislation, which they say will help avert environmental calamity while fostering the growth of well-paid "green" jobs.
"Our country and the rest of the world is really living through what's going to be recognized a the third economic revolution," said Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
"And where the agricultural revolution took 3,000 years, and the Industrial Revolution took 300 years, this revolution as we change from a national to an international economy ... this revolution is only going to take 30 years."
Gerard said the United States must fight to keep alive its ability to design and build high-technology "green" technologies, like solar power cells and wind turbines in the face of what he described as unfair competition from China.
"And if you make real things that will reduce our carbon footprint, and create good family-supporting jobs in America, that ought to be the direction this country is going in. I've have enough of Wall Street throwing up on my shoes because they pigged out at the candy store," he said.
"The fact of the matter is, you're either going to have both, or you'll have neither," Leo Gerard, the head of the United Steelworkers union, told reporters on a conference call to announce the 50-stop, 22-state push.
"This is about creating good family-supporting jobs as we do the right thing for the planet," said Gerard, who predicted that legislation to fight global warming would create hundreds of thousands of jobs "if we do it right."
The "Made In America" Jobs Tour will open Thursday in Ohio -- a critical political battleground in US presidential elections and stretch into September, when lawmakers return from their month-long August break.
The US Senate is poised to consider climate change legislation when it returns in early September, three months before December global climate change talks in Denmark's capital Copenhagen.
"There is no time to wait, we need the jobs now and we must address global warming pollution that is already changing our climate," said Frances Beinecke, the head of the Natural Resources Defense Council environmental group.
The US House of Representatives passed legislation in June that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050, create "green" jobs and wean the US economy from oil imports.
Those levels would be reached through a "cap-and-trade" system that caps pollution levels for large industrial sources but allocates them pollution permits that can be traded.
The House measure faces fierce opposition from Republicans and some business groups who charge it will cost jobs at a time when the battered US economy is mired in recession.
US President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the Congress mostly support the legislation, which they say will help avert environmental calamity while fostering the growth of well-paid "green" jobs.
"Our country and the rest of the world is really living through what's going to be recognized a the third economic revolution," said Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
"And where the agricultural revolution took 3,000 years, and the Industrial Revolution took 300 years, this revolution as we change from a national to an international economy ... this revolution is only going to take 30 years."
Gerard said the United States must fight to keep alive its ability to design and build high-technology "green" technologies, like solar power cells and wind turbines in the face of what he described as unfair competition from China.
"And if you make real things that will reduce our carbon footprint, and create good family-supporting jobs in America, that ought to be the direction this country is going in. I've have enough of Wall Street throwing up on my shoes because they pigged out at the candy store," he said.
World youth tell leaders to clean up
An international gathering of youth and children, billed as the largest ever of its type on climate change, on Thursday pressed world leaders to do far more to curb damage to the environment."We young people -- 3 billion of the world population -- are very concerned and frustrated that our governments are not doing enough to combat climate change ... we feel that radical and holistic measures are needed urgently from us all," they said in a statement following their conference in Deajeon in South Korea, itself one of the world's fastest growing polluters."We now need more actions and less talking."Organised by the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), the some 700 people from 10 to 24 years old and from dozens of countries met to discuss their concerns ahead of the U.N. climate conference in December in Copenhagen.That meeting will try to find an agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol and set limits on emissions that are driving up global temperatures."We are the generation of tomorrow. The decisions that are made today will define our future and the world we have to live in. So we young people of the world urge governments to commit to a strong post-Kyoto climate regime. It is our lives we are talking about," UNEP quoted 23-year-old delegate Anne Walraven as saying.The statement also urged governments to impose strict laws on polluters, develop independently-monitored carbon action plans and encourage greater use of green fuels."Make engaging environmental education mandatory in schools and universities and promote community environmental awareness -- an informed public is a powerful public."And they called on ordinary people to use alternative transport, pressure businesses to come up with environmentally-friendly products and push their own governments to act to improve the environment.UNEP said they pledged to stage large rallies across 100 capitals to urge global leaders to take action on climate change under the U.N.'s "Seal the Deal!" campaign.
Despite Defeat, Australian Government Vows to Move Ahead With Emissions Legislation
Australia's government promises to push through a sweeping carbon emissions trading system despite a parliamentary defeat. The plan would require the country's biggest polluters to buy permits for emitting carbon dioxide. Government ministers want the legislation to be passed before United Nations climate change talks in December. The Australian government has proposed what some say is the world's most ambitious carbon trading program. It would force the country's 1,000 worst polluters to buy carbon dioxide permits and would cover about 75 percent of emissions. The aim is to curb greenhouse gas pollution by between five and 25 percent by 2020. The plan needs the approval of Australia's upper house of parliament, the Senate. A recent vote, however, saw the plan defeated by an unusual alliance of Greens, who think the program does not go far enough to protect the environment, and conservative lawmakers, who say it will damage industry and cost jobs. Undeterred, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the government will try again to have the legislation passed."We will bring this bill back before the end of the year because we on this side understand we have to start the economic transformation we need. If we don't, this nation goes to Copenhagen with no means to deliver our targets. And if we don't, the message to Copenhagen would be that Australia is once again going backward on climate change," said Wong. Conservative politicians think that Australian businesses, especially the dominant resources sector, will lose their competitive edge under the government's carbon trading program. Federal opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull proposes a different plan that he says would help both the economy and the environment. However, he says the climate change minister rejected it. "We put forward a report only a few days ago which showed some alternatives that would make for a scheme that was greener, cheaper and smarter. A greener, cheaper and smarter scheme and she just dismissed it out of hand and said it was a mongrel idea," he said. There is hope that a compromise can be reached to allow the carbon trading mechanism to pass through the Senate. The opposition and the government have struck a deal to approve the part of the climate legislation that sets renewable energy targets. It means 20 percent of Australia's power supply must come from renewable sources by 2020. But there still is no agreement on the more contentious legislation covering carbon trading, which still divides Australia's parliament. If the political impasse continues it could trigger an early election.The debate over emissions trading has prompted a flurry of research into how Australia, which relies heavily on coal to generate electricity, can reduce pollution. The mining industry is spending vast amounts to find ways to produce coal that burns more cleanly. James McGregor is a government scientist who says that storing carbon emissions deep underground is one way forward. "What we do is when we compress the carbon dioxide at the back end of the capture plant we compress to what's known as a supercritical liquid. So a supercritical liquid is at room temperature. It has the density of a solid but it behaves like a liquid, so we can use standard pumping systems to move carbon dioxide around," he said. Australia, one of the world's worst per capita emitters of greenhouse gases, also is pursuing a renewable energy options, including wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power. Much of the debate has focused on Australia's vulnerability to climate change, which many scientists say is worsened by human emissions of greenhouse gases - mostly from burning coal and oil. Warmer temperatures are expected to change weather patterns, causing more droughts and floods in parts of the world.But a former senior official of the World Bank thinks the needs of developing countries must be urgently considered. David Freestone, who is visiting Australia, says that poorer economies feel the full force of a shifting climate. "There's big floods in China, in India. You see in Africa the increased desertification now in the Sahelian regions, in the south of the Sahara," he said. "The incidents of droughts - and Australia knows this more than anyone I would imagine - the incidents of droughts has radically increased. Fifty percent of the Earth could be suffering droughts within the next 50 years." In Australia, climate change skeptics say that warming temperatures are part of a natural cycle and are not influenced by man's use of fossils fuels. The majority of Australians disagree and want their political leaders to take a decisive stand against global warming that many believe has the potential to inflict more severe damage.
Perry nets endorsement thanks to opposing climate change rules
Gov. Rick Perry's stance against climate change legislation has already won him at least one endorsement.
The Texas Chemical Council on Tuesday threw its support behind Perry's reelection bid. The group said in a press release:
Gov. Perry is a longtime champion of causes important to the Texas chemical industry, including his recent stand against federally proposed cap-and-trade legislation and regulation of CO2 by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is clear that such policies being discussed in Congress would set our nation on the road to the largest tax burden ever levied upon American families.
Implementing such federally proposed regulations would cripple Texas' energy sector, irreparably damaging both the state and national economies and severely impacting national oil and gas supplies. Texas' energy industry fuels the nation, supplying 20 percent of the nation's oil production, one-fourth of the nation's natural gas production, a quarter of the nation's refining capacity, and nearly 60 percent of the nation's chemical manufacturing.
Regulating greenhouse gases could boost demand for natural gas, which generates less greenhouse gas when burned than oil or coal. Greater demand for natural gas might cause prices to rise.
And higher natural gas prices are bad for the Texas chemical industry, which relies on natural gas as a major feedstock. If natural gas prices rise too much compared with oil, Texas chemical makers have difficulty competing with the European chemical makers, which tend to use oil as a feedstock.
Perry has aligned himself with voters who oppose regulation of greenhouse gases. He says Texas has been going green on its own, without federal help. And he questions whether humans contribute to climate change.
Jump for full press release from the chemical group.
Texas Chemical Council Endorses Rick Perry for GovernorThe Texas Chemical Council (TCC) has endorsed Gov. Rick Perry for re-election.
"Governor Rick Perry is a proven leader who has solidified Texas' reputation as the best state in the nation to do business through policies that attract capital investment and generate high-paying, high-quality jobs that sustain our state's economy," said TCC President and CEO Hector L. Rivero. "As a major economic engine since the 1940s, the chemical industry is among the first high-tech industries in Texas and continues to be an innovator through advanced research and development.
"Our products improve the quality of life of every Amer ican and millions of people around the world. Governor Perry's leadership to lower taxes, pass meaningful tort reforms, and provide a fair and balanced regulatory system has enabled the Texas chemical industry to compete in the global economy and keep high paying jobs and investment in Texas."
Gov. Perry is a longtime champion of causes important to the Texas chemical industry, including his recent stand against federally proposed cap-and-trade legislation and regulation of CO2 by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is clear that such policies being discussed in Congress would set our nation on the road to the largest tax burden ever levied upon American families.
"I am thankful to have the support of the Chemical Council, whose member companies represent an integral part of our state's economy and are providing jobs for hardworking Texans," said Gov. Perry. "I am proud of our state's chemical industry and l ook forward to helping maintain its strength in the years to come.&r dquo;
Implementing such federally proposed regulations would cripple Texas' energy sector, irreparably damaging both the state and national economies and severely impacting national oil and gas supplies. Texas' energy industry fuels the nation, supplying 20 percent of the nation's oil production, one-fourth of the nation's natural gas production, a quarter of the nation's refining capacity, and nearly 60 percent of the nation's chemical manufacturing.
The Texas Chemical Council is a statewide trade association of chemical manufacturers in Texas. TCC currently represents 77 member companies who operate more than 200 manufacturing facilities across the state with over $50 billion in physical assets and employing over 74,000 Texans. The chemical industry pays more than $1 billion in state and local taxes each year and is responsible for nearly a half-million Texas jobs. Texas chemical products are the state's larges t export with approximately $35 billion in exports annually.
.
The Texas Chemical Council on Tuesday threw its support behind Perry's reelection bid. The group said in a press release:
Gov. Perry is a longtime champion of causes important to the Texas chemical industry, including his recent stand against federally proposed cap-and-trade legislation and regulation of CO2 by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is clear that such policies being discussed in Congress would set our nation on the road to the largest tax burden ever levied upon American families.
Implementing such federally proposed regulations would cripple Texas' energy sector, irreparably damaging both the state and national economies and severely impacting national oil and gas supplies. Texas' energy industry fuels the nation, supplying 20 percent of the nation's oil production, one-fourth of the nation's natural gas production, a quarter of the nation's refining capacity, and nearly 60 percent of the nation's chemical manufacturing.
Regulating greenhouse gases could boost demand for natural gas, which generates less greenhouse gas when burned than oil or coal. Greater demand for natural gas might cause prices to rise.
And higher natural gas prices are bad for the Texas chemical industry, which relies on natural gas as a major feedstock. If natural gas prices rise too much compared with oil, Texas chemical makers have difficulty competing with the European chemical makers, which tend to use oil as a feedstock.
Perry has aligned himself with voters who oppose regulation of greenhouse gases. He says Texas has been going green on its own, without federal help. And he questions whether humans contribute to climate change.
Jump for full press release from the chemical group.
Texas Chemical Council Endorses Rick Perry for GovernorThe Texas Chemical Council (TCC) has endorsed Gov. Rick Perry for re-election.
"Governor Rick Perry is a proven leader who has solidified Texas' reputation as the best state in the nation to do business through policies that attract capital investment and generate high-paying, high-quality jobs that sustain our state's economy," said TCC President and CEO Hector L. Rivero. "As a major economic engine since the 1940s, the chemical industry is among the first high-tech industries in Texas and continues to be an innovator through advanced research and development.
"Our products improve the quality of life of every Amer ican and millions of people around the world. Governor Perry's leadership to lower taxes, pass meaningful tort reforms, and provide a fair and balanced regulatory system has enabled the Texas chemical industry to compete in the global economy and keep high paying jobs and investment in Texas."
Gov. Perry is a longtime champion of causes important to the Texas chemical industry, including his recent stand against federally proposed cap-and-trade legislation and regulation of CO2 by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is clear that such policies being discussed in Congress would set our nation on the road to the largest tax burden ever levied upon American families.
"I am thankful to have the support of the Chemical Council, whose member companies represent an integral part of our state's economy and are providing jobs for hardworking Texans," said Gov. Perry. "I am proud of our state's chemical industry and l ook forward to helping maintain its strength in the years to come.&r dquo;
Implementing such federally proposed regulations would cripple Texas' energy sector, irreparably damaging both the state and national economies and severely impacting national oil and gas supplies. Texas' energy industry fuels the nation, supplying 20 percent of the nation's oil production, one-fourth of the nation's natural gas production, a quarter of the nation's refining capacity, and nearly 60 percent of the nation's chemical manufacturing.
The Texas Chemical Council is a statewide trade association of chemical manufacturers in Texas. TCC currently represents 77 member companies who operate more than 200 manufacturing facilities across the state with over $50 billion in physical assets and employing over 74,000 Texans. The chemical industry pays more than $1 billion in state and local taxes each year and is responsible for nearly a half-million Texas jobs. Texas chemical products are the state's larges t export with approximately $35 billion in exports annually.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)