Rockcastle Creek, Kentucky – contaminated by coal sludge
❝ Aleigha Sloan can’t remember ever drinking a glass of water from the tap at her home…
“You just don’t touch that tap water unless absolutely necessary. I mean, like showers and things — you have to do what you have to do. But other than that, no,” she says. “I don’t know anybody that does…”
“You take it for granted until you don’t have it,” BarbiAnn Maynard says about a clean water supply. “I think that’s the attitude of a lot people right now, but I don’t think they understand how close they are to it happening to them.”
❝ Americans across the country, from Maynard’s home in rural Appalachia to urban areas like Flint, Mich., or Compton, Calif., are facing a lack of clean, reliable drinking water. At the heart of the problem is a water system in crisis: aging, crumbling infrastructure and a lack of funds to pay for upgrading it.
Americans think they “rose up” against a corrupt political system by installing someone for whom corruption, profiteering and greed are his religion. Who is dumb and who is dumber?
❝ In a surprise reversal, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it is withdrawing its plan to suspend environmental protections for an area of Alaska that is home to the world’s most valuable wild salmon fishery.
❝ The EPA proposed last year to “reverse clean water safeguards” for the Bristol Bay watershed, paving the way for a massive gold and copper mine to be built in the region.
The controversial proposal would have canceled an EPA protection put in place during the Obama administration. After years of study, the EPA found in 2014 that a mine “would result in complete loss of fish habitat” in some areas of the bay, and that “all of these losses would be irreversible. The Bristol Bay watershed is one of the most pristine ecosystems in the world, supplying about half of the world’s sockeye salmon.
❝ A CNN investigation last fall found that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt ordered his staff to reverse the environmental protection within hours after meeting with the CEO of the mining company, Pebble Limited Partnership.
You really don’t needs reams of study to learn the EPA has become a criminal enterprise – now owned by even sleazier creeps than the last Bush administration.
China can achieve a goal of doubling the size of its economy by 2020 even if annual expansion slows to 6.3 percent, according to a senior Communist Party official, signaling a greater willingness to tackle debt and pollution at the expense of growth…
In its blueprint for 2016 to 2020, China set a minimum annual growth target of 6.5 percent for the five-year period to achieve the goal of doubling gross domestic product from 2010 levels…Over the weekend, Yang Weimin, an official from the Communist Party committee overseeing economic policy, said annualized growth of 6.3 percent in 2018-2020 would do.
Based on current economic performance, the 2020 target won’t be a “huge barrier,”…China is seen growing 6.8 percent this year and 6.5 percent in 2018, according to economist estimates compiled by Bloomberg…
Yang’s remark is “a heads up on how the new thought will be implemented,” said Zhu Ning, deputy director of the National Institute of Financial Research at Tsinghua University in Beijing.
There have been times when the United States was governed and advised by technocrats, economists and, yes, even politicians who understood the value of adjusting the course of government to benefit most of the people. Not just the moneybags who could afford to belong to the Fake President’s country club.
❝ The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has adjusted the social cost of a ton of carbon from around $51 to $1 in its proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan, a significant reversal of a policy developed by the Obama administration and widely adopted by governments both local and foreign…
❝ The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has adjusted the social cost of a ton of carbon from around $51 to $1 in its proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan, a significant reversal of a policy developed by the Obama administration and widely adopted by governments both local and foreign.
❝ When adjusted to 2017 dollars, the estimate placed the social cost of carbon at around $51/ton for 2020. That value has been adopted by some states, companies and foreign governments as the go-to number for assessing the damages of carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. Canada, for instance, has embraced the U.S. value and has signed an agreement with Mexico that will see the two countries harmonize their assessments of damage caused by carbon…
❝ When adjusted to 2017 dollars, the estimate placed the social cost of carbon at around $51/ton for 2020. That value has been adopted by some states, companies and foreign governments as the go-to number for assessing the damages of carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. Canada, for instance, has embraced the U.S. value and has signed an agreement with Mexico that will see the two countries harmonize their assessments of damage caused by carbon.
❝ That officials are now seeking to rewind the existing social cost of carbon is no surprise, given that President Donald Trump issued an executive order in March directing agencies to stop using the Obama administration’s estimate and disbanding an interagency working group charged with reviewing the issue. The new policy on the social cost of carbon made its debut in a Sept. 27 regulatory impact analysis for the Bureau of Land Management’s delay of the 2016 methane waste prevention rule for the oil and gas industry.
What? You thought Trump and the Trumplets in the Republican Party give a damn about methane pollution, carbon pollution, any kind of pollution which isn’t a clear and present danger to the Lives of the Rich and Richer?
As the Russians say, “It is to laugh.”
❝ And that was just in 2015, according to a new global report on the consequences of humanity’s actions.
Delhi — Udit Kulshrestha/Bloomberg
❝ Pollution in all its forms killed 9 million people in 2015 and, by one measure, led to economic damage of $4.6 trillion, according to a new estimate by researchers who hope to put the health costs of toxic air, water and soil higher on the global agenda.
In less-developed nations, pollution-linked illness and death drag down productivity, reducing economic output by 1 percent to 2 percent annually, according to the tally by the Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health, published Thursday by the U.K. medical journal. The report is intended to illuminate the hidden health and economic consequences of harmful substances introduced into the environment by human activity…
❝ The report represents an “extremely comprehensive and rigorous quantification” of pollution costs, said Francesca Dominici, a professor of biostatistics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who wasn’t involved in the study.
“In the scientific community, I don’t think there is any disagreement about the cost-benefit analysis of controlling pollution,” Dominici said. Reducing air pollution from vehicles and power plants, for example, would simultaneously improve human health and reduce planet-warming carbon emissions, she said. “The major barrier has been political, but not scientific.”
❝ As large as that figure is, it may even underestimate the full cost of pollution. Because the amount is derived from death rates, it doesn’t include the price of medical expenditures or lost productivity from those sickened but not killed by pollution-related disease. And it doesn’t measure some forms of pollution that are likely to have health effects, such as soil tainted with heavy metals or industrial toxins, because data to calculate its influence on health are insufficient.
No surprise when Bloomberg offers articles like this one. Folks selling services to investors realize that folks in all walks of life can develop a conscience about principled profit-making versus scumbags who don’t care how their profits are acquired.
Trump’s idea of family transportation
❝ The U.S. House of Representatives passing an appropriations package that includes an approximately 40 percent cut to the ENERGY STAR program:
“Let’s be clear: This would be a debilitating cut to one of the most popular federal programs in history. ENERGY STAR has been such a money-saver for consumers and businesses because the products deliver enormous energy savings, and we can trust the label. Now Congress is threatening the integrity of the program.”…
❝ ENERGY STAR was created in 1992 under President George H. W. Bush’s administration and has maintained strong bipartisan support for more than 25 years. More than 16,000 companies and other organizations participate. The program delivered $34 billion in savings to American households and businesses in 2015 alone. Almost half of all American households knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR product from 2014-2015.
RTFA for more details if you haven’t learned about ENERGY STAR from personal experience.
I’m pleased as any retiree could be with the number of long-lasting, smartly-engineered products I’ve bought over the years since the program started. I can’t afford to subsidize shoddy products rolled out to the American consumer based solely on profit margins. I love the idea of efficient engineering as a requirement for sale in this nation.