So far, the industry's voluntary recycling (mostly encouragement to consumers to do it themselves) hasn't worked. A trio of high schoolers has the answer.
Having heard that the children's Christmas book Santa Claus Goes Green had ignited a little protest campaign from the right, I ordered a copy, read it, and found it mild in content and strikingly well-illustrated. What's the big fuss about? Well, one passage in the text implies that melting glaciers are impairing polar bear habitat; and melting sea ice is in fact the problem for polar bears. This minor imperfection (melting ice is associated with climate change, and is related to polar bear population issues) serves as justification for an Amazon reviewer attack on the whole book. Sample comment:
Great, let's raise a new legion of the Hitler youth, except this time it's the religion of global warming. Pay no mind to the fact that 1934 was the hottest year on record and that global temps have held steady or declined over the past 10 years while CO2 emissions have only increased. Let your kids make up their own minds by using FACTS rather than preaching your own twisted political ideology. Anyone who purchases this garbage should be punched in the face.
Exquisitely well-reasoned, eh? Since when did recycling and energy efficiency (the steps Santa Claus takes to become more green) threaten the American way of life?
It's disheartening, if not disturbing to see how embittered the anti-climate change crowd has become. The book doesn't indoctrinate; it suggests ways we can live more sustainably on the planet even if climate change doesn't concern you.
While his fellow GOP'ers in Washington condemn the proposed federal stimulus bill as 'wasteful spending,' Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is counting on at least $920 million from the wasteful bill to balance the state's budget.
He's relying on money from President Obama's proposed economic stimulus package as well.
"We're placing $920 million into the calculations today," Pawlenty said. "That number will increase. Let me just be candid with you but that number will increase."
An Ohio-based group this week urged Congress to invest in
infrastructure to aid shipping on the Great Lakes as part of a
nationwide economic recovery package.
Lake Carriers' Association President Jim Weakley said the organization's 16 member companies hauled more than 100 million tons of cargo last year.
"Investing in America's maritime transportation infrastructure is key to America's future," Weakley told the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
A recent study showed Great Lakes shipping is a major source of jobs, including 44,000 directly related to maritime transportation and another 200,000 between the mining and steel industries, according to information supplied by the Lake Carriers' Association.
Can we please see the methdology behind this study? So 200,000 people in mining and steel would be unemployed if not for lake carriers?
Here's the best part:
In terms of emissions, Great Lakes vessels produce 90 percent fewer emissions than trucks and 70 percent fewer emissions than trains, the study concluded.
Is the dumping of invasive species that cost billions to control not an "emission"?
information has surfaced suggesting that the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) assisted Kennecott-Rio Tinto by forgoing
proper procedure in allowing the company to reconstruct a road crossing
in Fall of 2004. With Kennecott’s persistence, the DEQ
approved an ill-designed plan to install a new culvert on the Triple A
Road where a branch of the Salmon Trout River flows.
Repeated time after time after time, this is how the partnership between favored corporations and government 'regulators' degrades our natural resources and the public's confidence in those regulators.
The Akron Beacon Journal reports on a local documentary being filmed about Cuyahoga Valley National Park as a sidebar to Ken Burns' production on the national park system. It'll be interesting to see whether Burns gives much time to any of the other Great Lakes parks, from Apostle Islands to Indiana Dunes to Pictured Rock.
Since we all know that nobody but Nestle wants to interpret the Great Lakes Compact as giving license to unlimited exports of Great Lakes water out of the Basin under the mask of 'a product,' surely no one but Nestle can object to an interpretive Congressional resolution as follows, right?
"The word 'product' as used in the definitions of 'diversion' and definition of 'product' in Section 1.2 of the Great Lakes Compact shall not be construed to include water itself as a product in any package, container, or bulk transfer in any form."