Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Let Your Voice Be Heard! Clean Energy or Dirty COAL?
Sign for Clean Energy by posting to the blog. We will print names and cities of residence to take to the meeting. For additional privacy, please email bmerrell@gmail.com. Anyone who breathes air along the Wasatch Front is welcome to join the petition. Please send name and city of residence. Thanks!
Rocky Mountain Power has recently applied (2006) to the Utah Public Services Commission to build three more coal-fired power plants to serve Utah. The current two coal-fired plants located near Delta, Utah produce approximately 15 million tons of toxins into the air we breathe each year. The building of three more plants would allow for about 21 million additional tons of pollution annually into Utah skies. The City of Bountiful is also considering a long-term contract with IPA. If signed, a 3rd coal-fired plant would be built near Delta, Utah. Each plant produces approximately 7 million tons of pollution annually into our air. We are all aware that pollution along the Wasatch Front is at an all time high.
Gratifyingly, Rocky Mountain Power has pilot-tested the market's appetite for renewable energy and now over 51,000 Utah customers draw at least some of their energy successfully from wind power! Logan, Utah has rejected coal-fired power and is researching geo-thermal power. Utah is an excellent source for geo-thermal power.
Dr. Brian Moench, an MD at LDS Hospital stated: “Healthy adults will experience a low-grade inflammatory response in their circulatory systems that over many years will accelerate atherosclerosis and affect every organ in their bodies. It means that more people will get cancer of every variety, especially in the lungs. . . . on average the life expectancy of every resident in the valley. . . will be shortened by at least three years, the same amount as if they had smoked a quarter of a pack of cigarettes a day. . . . The impact on children is frequently the most tragic. . . . Eighty percent of cancer is environmentally caused. Childhood leukemia [has tripled]. . . . Children that live in urban smog have an increased incidence of brain and other types of cancer” (Salt Lake Tribune, January 20, 2007, emphasis added).
The goal of this petition is to encourage Rocky Mountain Power and Bountiful City to not sign contracts for more coal power, but to research diversifying the sources of energy supplying Utah - currently 93% coal based (53% is the national average) - which will improve our air quality, help prevent further damage to the health of Utahns, and maintain Utah's reputation as a great place to work and play.
Name City of Residence
Rocky Mountain Power has recently applied (2006) to the Utah Public Services Commission to build three more coal-fired power plants to serve Utah. The current two coal-fired plants located near Delta, Utah produce approximately 15 million tons of toxins into the air we breathe each year. The building of three more plants would allow for about 21 million additional tons of pollution annually into Utah skies. The City of Bountiful is also considering a long-term contract with IPA. If signed, a 3rd coal-fired plant would be built near Delta, Utah. Each plant produces approximately 7 million tons of pollution annually into our air. We are all aware that pollution along the Wasatch Front is at an all time high.
Gratifyingly, Rocky Mountain Power has pilot-tested the market's appetite for renewable energy and now over 51,000 Utah customers draw at least some of their energy successfully from wind power! Logan, Utah has rejected coal-fired power and is researching geo-thermal power. Utah is an excellent source for geo-thermal power.
Dr. Brian Moench, an MD at LDS Hospital stated: “Healthy adults will experience a low-grade inflammatory response in their circulatory systems that over many years will accelerate atherosclerosis and affect every organ in their bodies. It means that more people will get cancer of every variety, especially in the lungs. . . . on average the life expectancy of every resident in the valley. . . will be shortened by at least three years, the same amount as if they had smoked a quarter of a pack of cigarettes a day. . . . The impact on children is frequently the most tragic. . . . Eighty percent of cancer is environmentally caused. Childhood leukemia [has tripled]. . . . Children that live in urban smog have an increased incidence of brain and other types of cancer” (Salt Lake Tribune, January 20, 2007, emphasis added).
The goal of this petition is to encourage Rocky Mountain Power and Bountiful City to not sign contracts for more coal power, but to research diversifying the sources of energy supplying Utah - currently 93% coal based (53% is the national average) - which will improve our air quality, help prevent further damage to the health of Utahns, and maintain Utah's reputation as a great place to work and play.
Name City of Residence
Data on Climate Change
Elizabeth,
Please see the attached slide. I’ve also pasted it below into the body of this email. It’s from James Hansen, the leading climatologist with NASA who is considered by most to be the most trusted name in the U.S. on climate change issues and research. This graph represents the real “meat” of the global warming issue by simultaneously showing the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) in the atmosphere. These two gases are cited as the two most responsible for the phenomenon. The third line (bottom) also charts the earth’s average temperature.
Now, first note that this data shown goes back nearly 450,000 years. How did they collect this? Easy. By taking ice cores in the Artic and Antarctic regions and doing chemical analysis on the cores.
Second, note the routine up and down iterations of the lines with a definite overall pattern. Those variations represent various climate cycles throughout time. Now, note the distinctive parallel between the level of gases and the temperature, which of course indicates the definite relationship between the buildup of these gases in the atmosphere and the rise in worldwide temperatures. The gases trap the sun’s heat, which is a natural process and something that must happen in order to keep the planet’s temperature regulated, which enables us to live here. But when those gases start to exceed the normal level, more heat becomes trapped and it becomes warmer. Hence global warming.
Third, and most important, please note the sudden spike in CO2 and methane starting in the early part of the 1800s, which coincides with the start of the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. You can see that CO2 levels always peaked around 285 to 300 ppm (parts per million) then came back down until the industrial revolution. Since then it’s been going up to where it is today at approximately 385 ppm.
Last, note the temperature line that absent of any downward turns since the Industrial age, in fact it’s starting to trend upward.
That is the crux of global warming. Some may say the Hollywood or environmental groups lie. Regardless of who one believes, the data doesn’t lie. I know of no environmental advocate or scientist who wouldn’t love to be able to stand up in front of the TV camera and say, “Well folks, we were wrong. Global warming is not happening.”
If people still refuse to believe that this is real, then they would likely be real easy to convince that the earth is flat and that smoking is not dangerous to one’s health.
Tim
Please see the attached slide. I’ve also pasted it below into the body of this email. It’s from James Hansen, the leading climatologist with NASA who is considered by most to be the most trusted name in the U.S. on climate change issues and research. This graph represents the real “meat” of the global warming issue by simultaneously showing the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) in the atmosphere. These two gases are cited as the two most responsible for the phenomenon. The third line (bottom) also charts the earth’s average temperature.
Now, first note that this data shown goes back nearly 450,000 years. How did they collect this? Easy. By taking ice cores in the Artic and Antarctic regions and doing chemical analysis on the cores.
Second, note the routine up and down iterations of the lines with a definite overall pattern. Those variations represent various climate cycles throughout time. Now, note the distinctive parallel between the level of gases and the temperature, which of course indicates the definite relationship between the buildup of these gases in the atmosphere and the rise in worldwide temperatures. The gases trap the sun’s heat, which is a natural process and something that must happen in order to keep the planet’s temperature regulated, which enables us to live here. But when those gases start to exceed the normal level, more heat becomes trapped and it becomes warmer. Hence global warming.
Third, and most important, please note the sudden spike in CO2 and methane starting in the early part of the 1800s, which coincides with the start of the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. You can see that CO2 levels always peaked around 285 to 300 ppm (parts per million) then came back down until the industrial revolution. Since then it’s been going up to where it is today at approximately 385 ppm.
Last, note the temperature line that absent of any downward turns since the Industrial age, in fact it’s starting to trend upward.
That is the crux of global warming. Some may say the Hollywood or environmental groups lie. Regardless of who one believes, the data doesn’t lie. I know of no environmental advocate or scientist who wouldn’t love to be able to stand up in front of the TV camera and say, “Well folks, we were wrong. Global warming is not happening.”
If people still refuse to believe that this is real, then they would likely be real easy to convince that the earth is flat and that smoking is not dangerous to one’s health.
Tim
Tim's Call for Citizen Response to Coal Issues
All,
YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED NOW TO STOP BOUNTIFUL CITY FROM INVESTING MILLIONS INTO MORE POLLUTING COAL. PLEASE TAKE A FEW MINUTES, READ ON, AND MAKE THOSE CRITICAL PHONE CALLS. AND PLEASE PASS THIS EMAIL FAR AND WIDE!
It’s been reported recently that Bountiful City officials are supporting their city’s participation in the proposed Intermountain Power Unit #3 950 MW coal power plant. This idea, if approved by the City Council, puts Bountiful City residents at a huge financial risk. But even more importantly, this will only add to Utah’s TREMENDOUS air quality problems, not address it. In addition, it will contribute greatly to the largest environmental problem ever, global climate change. Folks, it’s now time to push back in a big way.
The Council is most likely going to vote this month at their next meeting scheduled for March 27. The City Council, City Manager, and Mayor need to hear from you with letters, emails, and phone calls. Bountiful residents and all Utahns need to let Bountiful city officials know that you want them to do better, that you’d rather payer slightly higher rates for clean power rather than higher rates for dirty power (see below). Pollution and greenhouse gas emissions know no borders.
Ten reasons why Bountiful City should vote no on IPP#3 and yes on a new direction:
1. This coal plant purchase is very risky in spite of what is being said!! A $33 million debt to purchase 15 MW of traditional pulverized coal-based power from a plant that doesn’t even have a clear permit yet, and won’t be built until at least 2013 AT THE EARLIEST is incredibly risky. Consider this - "Wall Street is every day becoming more aware of the risks of building new coal plants - both the carbon-cost risks and the reputation risks," says Dan Bakal, director of electric power programs for CERES, a coalition of environmental groups and institutional investors. [CNN.money.com – 3/2/07] See http://www.ceres.org/ .
2. There are far better ways that Bountiful City can make up that 15 MW and more. The renewable energy sector is growing by leaps and bounds and is getting cheaper every day. It was announced recently that a 400 MW wind farm will be developed in Utah in 2008-09. Unfortunately, no Utah municipality or utility chose to inquire about purchasing this power. As a result, it is all being purchased by Los Angeles and Pasadena. Currently a 150 MW geothermal plant is being proposed near Cache Valley and Bountiful City could easily be a participant in that project. Yet city officials have stated publicly that there are no other options besides IPP #3. They also will claim that renewables are simply too expensive compared to the price they are being quoted for the IPP #3 contract. But these prices are not guaranteed. Energy is most certainly going to cost more in the future, regardless of the source. The highest cost volatility, however, lies with coal-based power due to coal prices, transportation increases, carbon taxes, and carbon regulations, all factors that have little or no effect on renewables. IN OTHER WORDS, when IPP#3 comes on line in 2013, it’s very likely that a locally owned geothermal plant or wind farm will produce power for the same cost or cheaper, without the externalities!
3. Bountiful could do much more on energy efficiency measures, with offering a compact fluorescent bulb exchange for customers [see http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls], a local tax credit on energy efficient appliances, tiered rates to promote efficiency and conservation, implementing new energy efficiency building standards in all new residential and commercial construction resulting in structures that use 60-80% LESS energy [see http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19], demand side management like Rocky Mountain Power’s Cool Keeper program to shave off the curve on peak load during hot summer afternoons, and educating the commercial sector on energy efficiency retrofit measures, promoting swamp coolers in lieu of air conditioners, and tree planting programs to provide more shade. It is established that most energy efficiency measures have very rapid paybacks. Obtaining energy through efficiency is the cheapest form of electricity. (see http://www.swenergy.org/).
4. IPP Unit #3 is not a done deal. Regardless of what has been reported, it is absolutely not true that this plant is going to get built in spite of Bountiful’s decision. Such statements are for the purpose of contradicting the many shifting market forces in the energy business, forces that are making Wall Street very jittery over new coal plant investments. See first point. And see this - http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2007/03/09/nocoal/index.html?source=daily or see this from the U.N. Secretary General - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6410305.stm
5. The DAQ permit for this plant is uncertain. It has been appealed by the Utah Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Trust, and Western Resource Advocates. The appeal has not been heard because the Utah Air Quality Board erroneously decided in 2005 that these organizations did not have legal standing, a decision that was unanimously reversed in a 5-0 decision by the Utah Supreme Court in November of 2006. The appeal is scheduled to be heard in October and November of 2007.
6. Bountiful City has a responsibility to address air quality. This winter’s inversions have proven to be the worst air quality in Utah since records were kept. The first week of March, the Wasatch Front had some of the worst air quality in the nation. IPP is a major source of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide in the state and is located just 80 miles upwind from the Wasatch Front and 1.5 million people.
7. Bountiful City has a responsibility to address climate change. Global warming is here and not only threatens the polar ice caps, polar bears, and cultures far to the north. The consequences for Utah and the southwest are looking more dire all the time, with reduced snowpack, warmer temps, quicker snow melt, more droughts, more wild fires, reduced or non-existent ski seasons, etc. IPP’s existing two coal-fired units emit approximately 16 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. If the third unit is built, it is expected to emit nearly 7 million tons annually, making IPP the nation’s second largest CO2 emitting coal plant. For a 15 MW purchase, Bountiful will be directly responsible for approximately 112,000 additional tons annually just from this one source. Ask the council to take measures to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint, not increase it.
Estimated emissions from IPP#3, in TONS per year up to: PM= 496.5, NOx = 2,775, SO2 = 3,567.5, CO = 5,946, VOCs = 107, CO2= 7.5 million tons. Remember, these emissions are in addition to what the two existing 900 MW units are already putting out.
9. Question the Contract – Has Bountiful City performed a legal review of the contract they are being asked to sign with UAMPS? Have they thoroughly reviewed all the fine print of a contract that binds them to purchase this power for 30 years or more whether they need it or not? Are there any guarantees they will be able to sell that power back AT THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE if they don’t need it? It is most likely that more states and cities will follow California by rejecting new carbon-based power contracts because of more restrictions, making the market for this power smaller and smaller. The city of Truckee, CA recently rejected such a contract for many reasons, including very questionable language in the contract.
10. Keep your future energy dollars local for long term economic development. $33 million dollars spent on local energy sources and efficiency measures will come back to the city many times over in reoccurring long-term economic development. Geothermal, wind, solar – put it to local use and create home based jobs and sustainable prosperity without exacerbating the problems of bad air and global warming.
Call and/or write the Bountiful City Council and Mayor Joe Johnson this week. When contacting them, PLEASE be respectful. This is a difficult decision for the Council but they do want to hear from you. There is a financial risk regardless of what decision they make. But the point they need to hear is that you would rather see them take on the risk associated with cleaner, renewable energy and more efficiency, in lieu of the risk associated with more dirty coal.
Bountiful Mayor Joe Johnson 801-298-6146 or jjohnson@BountifulUtah.gov
Bountiful City Manager Tom Hardy 801-298-6140 or thardy@bountifulutah.gov
Council - Barbara Holt, John Pitt, Richard Higginson, Fred Moss, Tom Tolman - one general number 801-298-6100
Tim Wagner
YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED NOW TO STOP BOUNTIFUL CITY FROM INVESTING MILLIONS INTO MORE POLLUTING COAL. PLEASE TAKE A FEW MINUTES, READ ON, AND MAKE THOSE CRITICAL PHONE CALLS. AND PLEASE PASS THIS EMAIL FAR AND WIDE!
It’s been reported recently that Bountiful City officials are supporting their city’s participation in the proposed Intermountain Power Unit #3 950 MW coal power plant. This idea, if approved by the City Council, puts Bountiful City residents at a huge financial risk. But even more importantly, this will only add to Utah’s TREMENDOUS air quality problems, not address it. In addition, it will contribute greatly to the largest environmental problem ever, global climate change. Folks, it’s now time to push back in a big way.
The Council is most likely going to vote this month at their next meeting scheduled for March 27. The City Council, City Manager, and Mayor need to hear from you with letters, emails, and phone calls. Bountiful residents and all Utahns need to let Bountiful city officials know that you want them to do better, that you’d rather payer slightly higher rates for clean power rather than higher rates for dirty power (see below). Pollution and greenhouse gas emissions know no borders.
Ten reasons why Bountiful City should vote no on IPP#3 and yes on a new direction:
1. This coal plant purchase is very risky in spite of what is being said!! A $33 million debt to purchase 15 MW of traditional pulverized coal-based power from a plant that doesn’t even have a clear permit yet, and won’t be built until at least 2013 AT THE EARLIEST is incredibly risky. Consider this - "Wall Street is every day becoming more aware of the risks of building new coal plants - both the carbon-cost risks and the reputation risks," says Dan Bakal, director of electric power programs for CERES, a coalition of environmental groups and institutional investors. [CNN.money.com – 3/2/07] See http://www.ceres.org/ .
2. There are far better ways that Bountiful City can make up that 15 MW and more. The renewable energy sector is growing by leaps and bounds and is getting cheaper every day. It was announced recently that a 400 MW wind farm will be developed in Utah in 2008-09. Unfortunately, no Utah municipality or utility chose to inquire about purchasing this power. As a result, it is all being purchased by Los Angeles and Pasadena. Currently a 150 MW geothermal plant is being proposed near Cache Valley and Bountiful City could easily be a participant in that project. Yet city officials have stated publicly that there are no other options besides IPP #3. They also will claim that renewables are simply too expensive compared to the price they are being quoted for the IPP #3 contract. But these prices are not guaranteed. Energy is most certainly going to cost more in the future, regardless of the source. The highest cost volatility, however, lies with coal-based power due to coal prices, transportation increases, carbon taxes, and carbon regulations, all factors that have little or no effect on renewables. IN OTHER WORDS, when IPP#3 comes on line in 2013, it’s very likely that a locally owned geothermal plant or wind farm will produce power for the same cost or cheaper, without the externalities!
3. Bountiful could do much more on energy efficiency measures, with offering a compact fluorescent bulb exchange for customers [see http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls], a local tax credit on energy efficient appliances, tiered rates to promote efficiency and conservation, implementing new energy efficiency building standards in all new residential and commercial construction resulting in structures that use 60-80% LESS energy [see http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19], demand side management like Rocky Mountain Power’s Cool Keeper program to shave off the curve on peak load during hot summer afternoons, and educating the commercial sector on energy efficiency retrofit measures, promoting swamp coolers in lieu of air conditioners, and tree planting programs to provide more shade. It is established that most energy efficiency measures have very rapid paybacks. Obtaining energy through efficiency is the cheapest form of electricity. (see http://www.swenergy.org/).
4. IPP Unit #3 is not a done deal. Regardless of what has been reported, it is absolutely not true that this plant is going to get built in spite of Bountiful’s decision. Such statements are for the purpose of contradicting the many shifting market forces in the energy business, forces that are making Wall Street very jittery over new coal plant investments. See first point. And see this - http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2007/03/09/nocoal/index.html?source=daily or see this from the U.N. Secretary General - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6410305.stm
5. The DAQ permit for this plant is uncertain. It has been appealed by the Utah Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Trust, and Western Resource Advocates. The appeal has not been heard because the Utah Air Quality Board erroneously decided in 2005 that these organizations did not have legal standing, a decision that was unanimously reversed in a 5-0 decision by the Utah Supreme Court in November of 2006. The appeal is scheduled to be heard in October and November of 2007.
6. Bountiful City has a responsibility to address air quality. This winter’s inversions have proven to be the worst air quality in Utah since records were kept. The first week of March, the Wasatch Front had some of the worst air quality in the nation. IPP is a major source of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide in the state and is located just 80 miles upwind from the Wasatch Front and 1.5 million people.
7. Bountiful City has a responsibility to address climate change. Global warming is here and not only threatens the polar ice caps, polar bears, and cultures far to the north. The consequences for Utah and the southwest are looking more dire all the time, with reduced snowpack, warmer temps, quicker snow melt, more droughts, more wild fires, reduced or non-existent ski seasons, etc. IPP’s existing two coal-fired units emit approximately 16 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. If the third unit is built, it is expected to emit nearly 7 million tons annually, making IPP the nation’s second largest CO2 emitting coal plant. For a 15 MW purchase, Bountiful will be directly responsible for approximately 112,000 additional tons annually just from this one source. Ask the council to take measures to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint, not increase it.
Estimated emissions from IPP#3, in TONS per year up to: PM= 496.5, NOx = 2,775, SO2 = 3,567.5, CO = 5,946, VOCs = 107, CO2= 7.5 million tons. Remember, these emissions are in addition to what the two existing 900 MW units are already putting out.
9. Question the Contract – Has Bountiful City performed a legal review of the contract they are being asked to sign with UAMPS? Have they thoroughly reviewed all the fine print of a contract that binds them to purchase this power for 30 years or more whether they need it or not? Are there any guarantees they will be able to sell that power back AT THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE if they don’t need it? It is most likely that more states and cities will follow California by rejecting new carbon-based power contracts because of more restrictions, making the market for this power smaller and smaller. The city of Truckee, CA recently rejected such a contract for many reasons, including very questionable language in the contract.
10. Keep your future energy dollars local for long term economic development. $33 million dollars spent on local energy sources and efficiency measures will come back to the city many times over in reoccurring long-term economic development. Geothermal, wind, solar – put it to local use and create home based jobs and sustainable prosperity without exacerbating the problems of bad air and global warming.
Call and/or write the Bountiful City Council and Mayor Joe Johnson this week. When contacting them, PLEASE be respectful. This is a difficult decision for the Council but they do want to hear from you. There is a financial risk regardless of what decision they make. But the point they need to hear is that you would rather see them take on the risk associated with cleaner, renewable energy and more efficiency, in lieu of the risk associated with more dirty coal.
Bountiful Mayor Joe Johnson 801-298-6146 or jjohnson@BountifulUtah.gov
Bountiful City Manager Tom Hardy 801-298-6140 or thardy@bountifulutah.gov
Council - Barbara Holt, John Pitt, Richard Higginson, Fred Moss, Tom Tolman - one general number 801-298-6100
Tim Wagner
Governor Huntsman Energy Goals
Elizabeth,
That’s great. Bring him (the energy efficiency expert). Also, check out the website or Governor Huntsman’s energy efficiency plan that he issued a year ago. You’ll note that he has set a goal of increasing energy efficiency by 20% by 2015, the most aggressive EE plan in the nation. You’ll also note that the AIA (American Institute of Architects) have called for the design of commercial buildings to see the reduction of fossil fuels by 50% by 2010. That’s very aggressive but very doable. The other night I attended the Logan city council meeting where the council voted “NO” on a similar IPP contract. During that meeting the manager of the city’s light and power division tried to claim that efficiency and conservation would only net about a 1% in energy savings. It’s bunk to be quite honest. Many studies on efficiency show savings of 10-20% or more, and the payback for the upfront costs are within a year to three years. Very, very good. Here’s the website for the guv’s energy efficiency plan. The larger point is that Bountiful could gain so much in energy efficiency measures (I can provide lots of information on this) in order to offset most of the projected need for IPP 3.
http://energy.utah.gov/energy
Tim Wagner
Director, Utah Smart Energy Campaign
Utah Chapter Sierra Club
That’s great. Bring him (the energy efficiency expert). Also, check out the website or Governor Huntsman’s energy efficiency plan that he issued a year ago. You’ll note that he has set a goal of increasing energy efficiency by 20% by 2015, the most aggressive EE plan in the nation. You’ll also note that the AIA (American Institute of Architects) have called for the design of commercial buildings to see the reduction of fossil fuels by 50% by 2010. That’s very aggressive but very doable. The other night I attended the Logan city council meeting where the council voted “NO” on a similar IPP contract. During that meeting the manager of the city’s light and power division tried to claim that efficiency and conservation would only net about a 1% in energy savings. It’s bunk to be quite honest. Many studies on efficiency show savings of 10-20% or more, and the payback for the upfront costs are within a year to three years. Very, very good. Here’s the website for the guv’s energy efficiency plan. The larger point is that Bountiful could gain so much in energy efficiency measures (I can provide lots of information on this) in order to offset most of the projected need for IPP 3.
http://energy.utah.gov/energy
Tim Wagner
Director, Utah Smart Energy Campaign
Utah Chapter Sierra Club
Hello to all my friends,
I am sending you a friendly message about the need to voice your concern about coal issues that will pollute our air! I hope you are not offended as I answer all the questions and concerns in one email! If you just need a reminder to voice your thoughts call 298-6142 for the Mayor's office or email at ecall@bountifulutah.gov . Tim Wagner's contact information is at the bottom of the page if you want to contact him for more information.
The Bountiful City Council is back in town from their Washington D.C. trip so now is an ideal time to express your concern. Perhaps you are only sure enough to call and say that you are not sure that coal is a good option and you would like to explore other options. Perhaps you are only sure enough to say that you want to preserve and improve our air quality, not worsen the problem.
Maybe you are concerned that the coal plant will ultimately drive your property values down and add future tax issues as the government taxes the dirtiest sources of energy. Whatever your main issue, please let your feelings be heard. As I mentioned before, this is an area that concerns me greatly and has done so for about 4 years. I know Mayor Joe Johnson as a wonderful and inspirational leader. I know that he will be concerned when polite Bountiful citizens and other Davis County residents call.
I have received some emails asking for reasons why the coal power may be a good thing. I am working with a team of 5 doing a presentation for a WSU class now. One person, Morgan, is addressing the positive aspects of the coal picture. No doubt the system they are considering is less polluting than the ancient coal plants that covered cities in black film years ago. It is also cheap in the short run. We have so many better options right now than coal plants that are more economical and preserve our health and the beauty of this valley! It is so much simpler to choose a worthwhile energy source now than to alter or shut one down after it is built.
A couple of emails focused on the global warming issue, claiming that they do not buy the global warming issue. May I suggest that the global conferences involving 20,000 scientists from all over the world all agree to the global warming issue. Visit the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for details. http://www.ipcc.ch/ I thought the issue was clearly defined in 1989 when I was studying environmental biology in a class at BYU. The evidence has mounted with great intensity since then. The only place where a "controversy" is drummed up is within the popular media. A documentary that avoids political slant is "An Inconvenient Truth." Another documentary discusses the many options for clean energy- "Kilowatt Hours."
Most of us do not have the time to spend studying this issue and reading the scientific reports which are so detailed that training is required to understand the documents. Renting the above films provides some speedy education on the subject. We are also striving to set up an informational meeting and a film viewing that will explain some of these issues. We are trying to select a date at the Bountiful Library so keep in touch!
As we involve ourselves in the rhetoric please recognize the solid nature of the data compiled and analyzed by people who have nothing to gain by proving that global warming is happening. You may enjoy flipping through the slides of those who search for workable plans to trap CO2 in the earth on the IPCC website. These professional are certain of the many consequences of the climate change and they are seeking inventions and innovations to stop or slow the damage. I can see that if they could convince us to act, we could all be powerful agents for good. I want to be one of those who is working for a common good! I read a wonderful book that tells our history of water management starting from 14th century in Europe. Water: A Natural Resource, by Laura Outwater details many of the losses we have already sustained in our environment. I notice that so much of our American dream was facilitated by resources that we have now squandered. It is a beautiful book of history and science!
My husband just came in and it is time for me to go to bed. He says that he doesn't know much about the science but he can see the smog and he can feel the burn in his lungs. That is real and he knows that along that issue he can help influence a change. I encourage education and responsibility for ourselves and our children! I love this city and I want it to make choices that are smart for a long time!
Here's to your health and happiness!
Elizabeth Merrell
CALL TIM FOR MORE INFORMATION!
Tim Wagner
Director, Utah Smart Energy Campaign
Utah Chapter Sierra Club
2159 So. 700 E., Suite 210
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
office: 801/467-9294
I am sending you a friendly message about the need to voice your concern about coal issues that will pollute our air! I hope you are not offended as I answer all the questions and concerns in one email! If you just need a reminder to voice your thoughts call 298-6142 for the Mayor's office or email at ecall@bountifulutah.gov . Tim Wagner's contact information is at the bottom of the page if you want to contact him for more information.
The Bountiful City Council is back in town from their Washington D.C. trip so now is an ideal time to express your concern. Perhaps you are only sure enough to call and say that you are not sure that coal is a good option and you would like to explore other options. Perhaps you are only sure enough to say that you want to preserve and improve our air quality, not worsen the problem.
Maybe you are concerned that the coal plant will ultimately drive your property values down and add future tax issues as the government taxes the dirtiest sources of energy. Whatever your main issue, please let your feelings be heard. As I mentioned before, this is an area that concerns me greatly and has done so for about 4 years. I know Mayor Joe Johnson as a wonderful and inspirational leader. I know that he will be concerned when polite Bountiful citizens and other Davis County residents call.
I have received some emails asking for reasons why the coal power may be a good thing. I am working with a team of 5 doing a presentation for a WSU class now. One person, Morgan, is addressing the positive aspects of the coal picture. No doubt the system they are considering is less polluting than the ancient coal plants that covered cities in black film years ago. It is also cheap in the short run. We have so many better options right now than coal plants that are more economical and preserve our health and the beauty of this valley! It is so much simpler to choose a worthwhile energy source now than to alter or shut one down after it is built.
A couple of emails focused on the global warming issue, claiming that they do not buy the global warming issue. May I suggest that the global conferences involving 20,000 scientists from all over the world all agree to the global warming issue. Visit the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for details. http://www.ipcc.ch/ I thought the issue was clearly defined in 1989 when I was studying environmental biology in a class at BYU. The evidence has mounted with great intensity since then. The only place where a "controversy" is drummed up is within the popular media. A documentary that avoids political slant is "An Inconvenient Truth." Another documentary discusses the many options for clean energy- "Kilowatt Hours."
Most of us do not have the time to spend studying this issue and reading the scientific reports which are so detailed that training is required to understand the documents. Renting the above films provides some speedy education on the subject. We are also striving to set up an informational meeting and a film viewing that will explain some of these issues. We are trying to select a date at the Bountiful Library so keep in touch!
As we involve ourselves in the rhetoric please recognize the solid nature of the data compiled and analyzed by people who have nothing to gain by proving that global warming is happening. You may enjoy flipping through the slides of those who search for workable plans to trap CO2 in the earth on the IPCC website. These professional are certain of the many consequences of the climate change and they are seeking inventions and innovations to stop or slow the damage. I can see that if they could convince us to act, we could all be powerful agents for good. I want to be one of those who is working for a common good! I read a wonderful book that tells our history of water management starting from 14th century in Europe. Water: A Natural Resource, by Laura Outwater details many of the losses we have already sustained in our environment. I notice that so much of our American dream was facilitated by resources that we have now squandered. It is a beautiful book of history and science!
My husband just came in and it is time for me to go to bed. He says that he doesn't know much about the science but he can see the smog and he can feel the burn in his lungs. That is real and he knows that along that issue he can help influence a change. I encourage education and responsibility for ourselves and our children! I love this city and I want it to make choices that are smart for a long time!
Here's to your health and happiness!
Elizabeth Merrell
CALL TIM FOR MORE INFORMATION!
Tim Wagner
Director, Utah Smart Energy Campaign
Utah Chapter Sierra Club
2159 So. 700 E., Suite 210
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
office: 801/467-9294
Please respond to the city with calls
Hello,
I too want to breathe better, not have my eyes burn all the time and see the beautiful landscape that was created for us. Please consider the note below and call too.
I appreciate your time.
-Crystal
I too want to breathe better, not have my eyes burn all the time and see the beautiful landscape that was created for us. Please consider the note below and call too.
I appreciate your time.
-Crystal
Please vote no to COAL power
Dear Mayor Johnson and the City Council,
I am writing to request that you vote against the coal power plant.
I know that this valley can grow in wealth and beauty as long as
the health issues do not become over-bearing. Air quality is
already a major concern here that can be seen and felt on a
regular basis. Please think over the long term about the many
costs that this plant will incur. I see many options that are
already available and many more that are rapidly improving.
Please do not select this option and saddle generations with
a power source that will be an embarrassment and an eyesore
as well as a health liability. I truly believe that the difference in
cost will not be an issue as we choose to select an option that
will work well decades into the future.
To quote Tom Hardy, "We need to find additional sources for energy.
We'll be glad to look at a better option."
In the meantime perhaps the city can place some of the responsibility
for power back with the citizens. Can we help people to conserve
unneeded power? Can we choose to bill at a higher rate for energy
use beyond a base unit? Can we walk the streets or call for people
who are willing to invest in their own energy that can supply part of their
home use as well as an option of returning energy to the grid? I think
we can!
Please recognize that this is a time when we can recognize our needs
and our limited resources and decide to make a better choice. I am
willing to help and I have an enthusiastic son who is hoping to develop an
Eagle project that serves our community energy crisis. Please let me
know of any opportunities.
Thank you for serving our community,
Elizabeth Merrell
I am writing to request that you vote against the coal power plant.
I know that this valley can grow in wealth and beauty as long as
the health issues do not become over-bearing. Air quality is
already a major concern here that can be seen and felt on a
regular basis. Please think over the long term about the many
costs that this plant will incur. I see many options that are
already available and many more that are rapidly improving.
Please do not select this option and saddle generations with
a power source that will be an embarrassment and an eyesore
as well as a health liability. I truly believe that the difference in
cost will not be an issue as we choose to select an option that
will work well decades into the future.
To quote Tom Hardy, "We need to find additional sources for energy.
We'll be glad to look at a better option."
In the meantime perhaps the city can place some of the responsibility
for power back with the citizens. Can we help people to conserve
unneeded power? Can we choose to bill at a higher rate for energy
use beyond a base unit? Can we walk the streets or call for people
who are willing to invest in their own energy that can supply part of their
home use as well as an option of returning energy to the grid? I think
we can!
Please recognize that this is a time when we can recognize our needs
and our limited resources and decide to make a better choice. I am
willing to help and I have an enthusiastic son who is hoping to develop an
Eagle project that serves our community energy crisis. Please let me
know of any opportunities.
Thank you for serving our community,
Elizabeth Merrell
Letter to the Mayor about Coal- Kent
Dear Mayor Johnson and the City Council,
I typically don't get very involved in city council matters. However, this one has been eating at me and I've just got to voice my opinion.The biggest single issue that could drive me from Utah is air quality. Not only a matter of aesthetics and beauty, but of health for my children as well. The brown haze and ugly refineries are an eye-sore. The lake-stink is, I believe, technically an unrelated problem, yet it does exacerbate the perception that air quality is poor. Building a new coal plant is a poor solution to our energy problems. Clean energy is a wise investment that will yield real economic benefit to our community by positively impacting property values and attracting bright, forward-thinking minds. Thank you for listening. I would be happy to provide volunteer effort to pursue clean energy alternatives. Just let me know if I can help.
Kent Merrell
Letter to the Mayor #2
Dear Mayor Johnson and the City Council,
I have been watching for ways for our beautiful city to save energy, as I promised. While seeking bids to improve the exterior of my 1960s home I met a knowledgeable and fascinating individual who works along the Wasatch Front specializing in energy reduction. He also served on the city planning and zoning commissions in Michigan. He is well aware of the varied needs for a city of our size and can assist inmaking calculations to assess the needed energy alterations necessary to meet your goals. Mark Hidden of Triple Seven Home Improvement can be reached at 435-640-0283.
In addition to Mark's talent Tim Wagner of SLC and Robert Davies of Cache Valley both study energy impact and options. Davies is a physicist, former meteorologist and educator who has taught at USU, Whitman College and Seattle University. He is happy to present to any number of people with a presentation that takes about 90 min., with options for shorter versions of 30-45 min. overview presentation. He can be reached at 435-753-5707 and is associated with The Climate Project in Cache Valley. Wagner is a great resource here in our valley. He has spent years gathering information and working with experts. Tim is ideally suited to open the doors for clean energy in Bountiful. His contact information follows:
Tim Wagner
Director, Utah Smart Energy Campaign
Utah Chapter Sierra Club
2159 So. 700 E., Suite 210
Salt Lake City , UT 84106
office: 801/467-9294
cell: 801/502-5450
fax: 801/467-9296
All three of these men are happy to set a date with the council to inform and advise on opportunities to escort our city into energy-saving, resource-sparing and money saving technologies and practices. Note their email contact addresses in the cc box. Please take some time to hear their ideas. Again, feel free to call upon me as a citizen who will choose energy-saving options and who will call upon others and persuade as many as possible to do the same.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Merrell
PS- I am so thrilled that our governor is taking positive action and I think this sets a great pattern for the rest of Utah. I am sure that you are familiar with the information on this website. I am just highlighting it in reference to our own energy crisis.
http://energy.utah.gov/energy/governors_priorities/utah_policy_to_advance_energy_efficiency_in_the_state.html
I have been watching for ways for our beautiful city to save energy, as I promised. While seeking bids to improve the exterior of my 1960s home I met a knowledgeable and fascinating individual who works along the Wasatch Front specializing in energy reduction. He also served on the city planning and zoning commissions in Michigan. He is well aware of the varied needs for a city of our size and can assist inmaking calculations to assess the needed energy alterations necessary to meet your goals. Mark Hidden of Triple Seven Home Improvement can be reached at 435-640-0283.
In addition to Mark's talent Tim Wagner of SLC and Robert Davies of Cache Valley both study energy impact and options. Davies is a physicist, former meteorologist and educator who has taught at USU, Whitman College and Seattle University. He is happy to present to any number of people with a presentation that takes about 90 min., with options for shorter versions of 30-45 min. overview presentation. He can be reached at 435-753-5707 and is associated with The Climate Project in Cache Valley. Wagner is a great resource here in our valley. He has spent years gathering information and working with experts. Tim is ideally suited to open the doors for clean energy in Bountiful. His contact information follows:
Tim Wagner
Director, Utah Smart Energy Campaign
Utah Chapter Sierra Club
2159 So. 700 E., Suite 210
Salt Lake City , UT 84106
office: 801/467-9294
cell: 801/502-5450
fax: 801/467-9296
All three of these men are happy to set a date with the council to inform and advise on opportunities to escort our city into energy-saving, resource-sparing and money saving technologies and practices. Note their email contact addresses in the cc box. Please take some time to hear their ideas. Again, feel free to call upon me as a citizen who will choose energy-saving options and who will call upon others and persuade as many as possible to do the same.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Merrell
PS- I am so thrilled that our governor is taking positive action and I think this sets a great pattern for the rest of Utah. I am sure that you are familiar with the information on this website. I am just highlighting it in reference to our own energy crisis.
http://energy.utah.gov/energy/governors_priorities/utah_policy_to_advance_energy_efficiency_in_the_state.html
Rob's Great Data on the Coal issue
While it's true that vigorous scientific inquiry continues on literally hundreds of aspects of the climate system, and that many details are not resolved, there is strong scientific consensus on the following three points:
1. Earth is warming
2. The strongest "forcing" term in the warming, by a large margin, is anthropogenic - arising from a combination of the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes.
3. The consequences of this warming over the coming century are likely to be significant to human civilization - and quite possibly catastrophic.
These three overriding conclusions are simply not under any serious challenge at all in the scientific community. The body of evidence that supports them is very broad and very deep. This is not to say that there aren't a few dissenters, but their number is a tiny fraction of the informed scientific community, and their arguments have been investigated diligently and resoundingly rejected on the basis of a broad body of data.
There is, however, good reason for Teena's confusion. The effort to obfuscate the level of consensus is well-funded, well-orchestrated, and well-disguised. I have literally a desktop full of information on the level of consensus and the efforts to confuse on this issue, if Teena is interested in spending some serious time educating herself, as I have.
She refers to the "National Association of Scientists" in her note below, which is not an organization. I believe she means to say the National Academy of Science. Again, as with any topic in science, there will be a spectrum of views. And again, there are many disagreements on some of the details of climate, and special interest groups are good at making it appear that these disagreements are significant. But the simple fact is - and I have ample documentation to this effect - these details do not impact the "big three" conclusions above. Rather, they primarily impact on the refinement of predictions, not wholesale reversal of them.
As one bit of documentation to my claims, the U.S. National Academy of Science, along with the national academies of ten other nations (Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom) have signed a document called "Joint Academies Statement: Response to Global Climate Change" , accepting wholeheartedly the results of the IPCC reports and calling for immediate and strong action. A copy can be found here:
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/G8_gb.pdf
Additional, similar statements have been made by the American Geophysical Union - the world's largest organization of Earth scientists (over 49,000 members fm 140 countries)
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
the American Meteorological Society (membership over 11,000)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
the National Research Council (a branch of the Nat'l Academy)
http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html
the Geological Society of America (membership 20,500 worldwide)
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm
the American Chemical Society (this is the world's single largest scientific organization, w/ a staggering 155,000 members worldwide)
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf
the Geological Society of London (the largest geoscience community in Europe , with a membership of over 9000):
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=Global_Warming_Essay
And there are many more. It is very important to note that these are professional, scientific organizations; they are not political entities nor ideological entities. Just science. You will find in these various documents statements that there are many uncertainties in the climate system; this is good science - which always points out the uncertainties. But you will also find in all of them calls for immediate action to mitigate. In other words, everyone agrees that, from a risk management standpoint, no further research is required: the stakes are simply too high, this is not an experiment humanity should conduct, and the conservative, prudent course of action is to act now to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Just for completeness, I was able to find one professional organization of scientists who were not convinced - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. However, their statement contains many references to the price of oil and economy, which I find less than convincing as a science statement on climate. It also turns out there has been considerable resistance to their stance from their own membership - something I've found no evidence of from the other organizations.
http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change.cfm
Next, as for the popular media, Teena's statement that the mainstream media is "100% behind global warming" is simply bizarre. While there is essentially no dissent in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the notion of anthropogenic climate change, a recent study of mainstream media articles showed over half STILL cast doubt in their coverage (in journalism, this is termed "inappropriate equivalence" - like giving equal time to flat-earthers).
Finally, I have to say that if Teena is also questions the science of evolution, as she implies, this is all but a lost cause. For the science of evolution is even stronger than that for climate change. The data are so broad and so deep. It can be difficult for people who are not trained scientists to understand the rigors of the scientific process, and there are many who excel at making arguments that are nonsense scientifically, but nevertheless sound good to the untrained mind. This is my greatest source of outrage: those who deliberately mislead. And we all have our proclivities for one belief over another. If one wants to believe in "creation science" or "intelligent design", so be it - but be clear these are not beliefs based on SCIENCE. Science is falsifiable, and these theories start from beliefs that are not testable through measurement. Similarly, many have ideological reasons for resisting the science of climate change and there are many disinformationists who take advantage. But at the end of the day, on this issue, the science is utterly, crystal clear on the big three questions I mentioned above. Since Teena seems to have a strong predisposition to distrust the overwhelming scientific body of evidence - of consensus - I have strong doubts you will make any headway. At the end of the day, it is my experience that such people , whose decisions ignore facts, based purely on ideological grounds and are so destructive to so, so many others, simply must be fought. Fought compassionately, to be sure - but fought aggressively and relentlessly in the public arena.
Finally, you (and Teena) can find a wealth of well-presented climate information - and more scientific discussion than you could ever want - at the following website:
www.realclimate.org
Another website to help you evaluate information based on the organizations presenting and funding it is SourceWatch - use it like you would use Wikipedia:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming
Best,
rob
1. Earth is warming
2. The strongest "forcing" term in the warming, by a large margin, is anthropogenic - arising from a combination of the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes.
3. The consequences of this warming over the coming century are likely to be significant to human civilization - and quite possibly catastrophic.
These three overriding conclusions are simply not under any serious challenge at all in the scientific community. The body of evidence that supports them is very broad and very deep. This is not to say that there aren't a few dissenters, but their number is a tiny fraction of the informed scientific community, and their arguments have been investigated diligently and resoundingly rejected on the basis of a broad body of data.
There is, however, good reason for Teena's confusion. The effort to obfuscate the level of consensus is well-funded, well-orchestrated, and well-disguised. I have literally a desktop full of information on the level of consensus and the efforts to confuse on this issue, if Teena is interested in spending some serious time educating herself, as I have.
She refers to the "National Association of Scientists" in her note below, which is not an organization. I believe she means to say the National Academy of Science. Again, as with any topic in science, there will be a spectrum of views. And again, there are many disagreements on some of the details of climate, and special interest groups are good at making it appear that these disagreements are significant. But the simple fact is - and I have ample documentation to this effect - these details do not impact the "big three" conclusions above. Rather, they primarily impact on the refinement of predictions, not wholesale reversal of them.
As one bit of documentation to my claims, the U.S. National Academy of Science, along with the national academies of ten other nations (Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom) have signed a document called "Joint Academies Statement: Response to Global Climate Change" , accepting wholeheartedly the results of the IPCC reports and calling for immediate and strong action. A copy can be found here:
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/G8_gb.pdf
Additional, similar statements have been made by the American Geophysical Union - the world's largest organization of Earth scientists (over 49,000 members fm 140 countries)
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
the American Meteorological Society (membership over 11,000)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
the National Research Council (a branch of the Nat'l Academy)
http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html
the Geological Society of America (membership 20,500 worldwide)
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm
the American Chemical Society (this is the world's single largest scientific organization, w/ a staggering 155,000 members worldwide)
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf
the Geological Society of London (the largest geoscience community in Europe , with a membership of over 9000):
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=Global_Warming_Essay
And there are many more. It is very important to note that these are professional, scientific organizations; they are not political entities nor ideological entities. Just science. You will find in these various documents statements that there are many uncertainties in the climate system; this is good science - which always points out the uncertainties. But you will also find in all of them calls for immediate action to mitigate. In other words, everyone agrees that, from a risk management standpoint, no further research is required: the stakes are simply too high, this is not an experiment humanity should conduct, and the conservative, prudent course of action is to act now to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Just for completeness, I was able to find one professional organization of scientists who were not convinced - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. However, their statement contains many references to the price of oil and economy, which I find less than convincing as a science statement on climate. It also turns out there has been considerable resistance to their stance from their own membership - something I've found no evidence of from the other organizations.
http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change.cfm
Next, as for the popular media, Teena's statement that the mainstream media is "100% behind global warming" is simply bizarre. While there is essentially no dissent in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the notion of anthropogenic climate change, a recent study of mainstream media articles showed over half STILL cast doubt in their coverage (in journalism, this is termed "inappropriate equivalence" - like giving equal time to flat-earthers).
Finally, I have to say that if Teena is also questions the science of evolution, as she implies, this is all but a lost cause. For the science of evolution is even stronger than that for climate change. The data are so broad and so deep. It can be difficult for people who are not trained scientists to understand the rigors of the scientific process, and there are many who excel at making arguments that are nonsense scientifically, but nevertheless sound good to the untrained mind. This is my greatest source of outrage: those who deliberately mislead. And we all have our proclivities for one belief over another. If one wants to believe in "creation science" or "intelligent design", so be it - but be clear these are not beliefs based on SCIENCE. Science is falsifiable, and these theories start from beliefs that are not testable through measurement. Similarly, many have ideological reasons for resisting the science of climate change and there are many disinformationists who take advantage. But at the end of the day, on this issue, the science is utterly, crystal clear on the big three questions I mentioned above. Since Teena seems to have a strong predisposition to distrust the overwhelming scientific body of evidence - of consensus - I have strong doubts you will make any headway. At the end of the day, it is my experience that such people , whose decisions ignore facts, based purely on ideological grounds and are so destructive to so, so many others, simply must be fought. Fought compassionately, to be sure - but fought aggressively and relentlessly in the public arena.
Finally, you (and Teena) can find a wealth of well-presented climate information - and more scientific discussion than you could ever want - at the following website:
www.realclimate.org
Another website to help you evaluate information based on the organizations presenting and funding it is SourceWatch - use it like you would use Wikipedia:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming
Best,
rob
More Information to get educated on coal issues
For more information:
National Public Radio
To hear some great audio programs that address both sides of each issue (sometimes in two programs instead of in one), log onto the Science Friday Archives and teaching tools and listen from your home computer or your Ipod w/ Podcasting.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/kids/sfkc-enviro.html
Some Great Program titles that apply to the issue include:
· History of Climate Change
· Coal Comforts
· Out of Gas
· Melting Glaciers
· Climate Change and Biodiversity
· It's Getting Hot in Here! A Discussion on Global Warming
· Wind Power
· Energy Alternatives
· Effects of Global Warming on Plants and Animals Worldwide
Two Programs on March 23 offer insight, entitled, "The Government and Climate Change" and "Carbon Trading or Carbon Taxes?"
http://www.npr.org/search.php?text=global+warming+Science+Friday&sort=DREDATE%3Anumberdecreasing&aggId=0&prgId=0&topicId=0&how_long_ago=0
State Websites
Many states have developed working websites on energy change- I have pointed out Ohio and California here: http://www.energy.ca.gov/
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageID=3
Non-profit for families
Join non-profit organizations that teach families, especially kids, how to curb an energy hog lifestyle. A slide show aimed toward children is featured: www.energyhog.org
Historical Science Book- Snapshot of our losses and our methods over 600 years
One of the best books of my 2005 reading was from Alice Outwater's Water: A Natural Resource. If you have ever wondered why people complain about environmental issues when life seems to go on without a hitch, read this fabulous history of the treatment of our water systems starting in the 1400s to the present. You will never view our rivers, our rodents or our friendly Western beavers the same again. One chapter is published to the internet and is found at the link below. More reading is required to link the beaver with the recharging of underground aquifers, but this is an excellent chapter and will lure you into further reading. http://www.shawsheen.org/Beavers/Natural_History_of_Beavers/natural_history_of_beavers.html
National Public Radio
To hear some great audio programs that address both sides of each issue (sometimes in two programs instead of in one), log onto the Science Friday Archives and teaching tools and listen from your home computer or your Ipod w/ Podcasting.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/kids/sfkc-enviro.html
Some Great Program titles that apply to the issue include:
· History of Climate Change
· Coal Comforts
· Out of Gas
· Melting Glaciers
· Climate Change and Biodiversity
· It's Getting Hot in Here! A Discussion on Global Warming
· Wind Power
· Energy Alternatives
· Effects of Global Warming on Plants and Animals Worldwide
Two Programs on March 23 offer insight, entitled, "The Government and Climate Change" and "Carbon Trading or Carbon Taxes?"
http://www.npr.org/search.php?text=global+warming+Science+Friday&sort=DREDATE%3Anumberdecreasing&aggId=0&prgId=0&topicId=0&how_long_ago=0
State Websites
Many states have developed working websites on energy change- I have pointed out Ohio and California here: http://www.energy.ca.gov/
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageID=3
Non-profit for families
Join non-profit organizations that teach families, especially kids, how to curb an energy hog lifestyle. A slide show aimed toward children is featured: www.energyhog.org
Historical Science Book- Snapshot of our losses and our methods over 600 years
One of the best books of my 2005 reading was from Alice Outwater's Water: A Natural Resource. If you have ever wondered why people complain about environmental issues when life seems to go on without a hitch, read this fabulous history of the treatment of our water systems starting in the 1400s to the present. You will never view our rivers, our rodents or our friendly Western beavers the same again. One chapter is published to the internet and is found at the link below. More reading is required to link the beaver with the recharging of underground aquifers, but this is an excellent chapter and will lure you into further reading. http://www.shawsheen.org/Beavers/Natural_History_of_Beavers/natural_history_of_beavers.html
Coal Power Power Plant: Is it a place for government influence?
Teena,
Thank you for sharing your feelings with me. May I suggest that "For now we see through a glass darkly…" [1 Corinthians 13:12]. The complete truth eludes all of us, yet I still have faith in efforts to live and learn with meaning. If I must choose between a fatalist lifestyle and the effort of education, I elect to search and study. I always feel more educated when I study both sides of an element and this issue is no exception.
I note your applause for the voluntary action of concerned citizens. Let me assure you that all of my action is voluntary. I am not a professional in this scene. I am truly voicing my opinion and asking that our government assist us in protecting the populous from harm.
When you state that you approve of voluntary stewardship does that mean that you ONLY approve of voluntary stewardship and that you either condone, accept or tolerate those who are not engaging in voluntary stewardship? If so, I am curious to know how you would feel about some issues.
If my neighbor sets up a BBQ grill in the backyard and continuously burns plastic flatware as he constructs a new form of art do you feel that he is within his rights, despite the fact that dioxin (a brain-altering chemical that harms humans and specifically children under extremely low concentrations) results when plastic is burned under low temperatures? What recourse would I or any other nearby victim have without government support? Would the situation be any different if a neighbor set up a meth lab in his basement? Do you feel that the government has a role in this situation? If a neighbor daily harvested a large tree from my yard to burn in his fireplace, should I appeal to the law? Do I own a voice in the shared resources of water, soil and air just as I do when I decide what to do with my own property? Do the actions of others affect and sometimes harm a large portion of the population? Is government an effective way to remediate the losses in any of these situations?
As a citizen, I believe that it is my duty, whether my opinion differs from others or not, to voice my conscience. I prefer to extend that conscience somewhat further by not only asking myself and my God what is right, but to apply reasoning and study with the God-given brain.
When prophets sought answers from God they were chastened in D&C 9:7-9, for God says, "Behold, ye have not understood. Ye have supposed that I would give it unto when ye took no thought save it was to ask me. Behold, I say unto you that ye must study it out in your mind, then you must ask me if it be right…"
Therefore, I gather that study is an essential component of discovering truth. Have you, then, viewed the film that you criticized in your letter? Have you read the studies on the IPCC website? How many hours have you devoted to gaining information on the study? Have you had any conversations with people who deal with the data on a daily basis? Do you believe that through constant study it may be possible to analyze a problem better than the casual observer?
It is not essential to rely on specialists as long as time and resources are within your reach to cure the ignorance that every person naturally possesses. When you have studied extensively, developed a theory, performed multiple experiments until the theory is either accepted or rejected, and then appealed to others who can repeat and confirm your findings, then you are educated. For most of us, it proves difficult to accomplish all the primary study for every question and every need we hold on this planet. Instead, we turn to the studies of others and we seek certain signs of credibility. We watch to see if the results are confirmed or rejected by independent parties that have no bias. We seek institutions of learning that have a strong record for precision and reliability. We watch for information that extends across political and national boundaries. We note that information collected over the longest time periods shows more credibility than short-term findings. By these standards, the findings of the IPCC rank among the most reliable in all of history. Their consensus is a truly unprecedented occasion.
When one person infringes upon the rights of others through irresponsible behavior the laws of the nation serve to protect us. That is the action that will be instituted in the USA when the government chooses cleaner energy and limits the pollution of our common resources of air, water and soil. This action will extend health to all, thus acting as the founding fathers intended to protect us from our own greed and avarice, a fear expressed by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson after the ratification of the Constitution.
Only governments are powerful enough to lead out in effective and broad changes that will level the playing field for capitalists, who are constantly forced to compete ruthlessly one against another. It is amazing what happens when carbon is priced. Just as we pay others to take away our visible trash we can place a dollar value on carbon emissions, which are fairly simple to calculate. Soon all of the innovation and technology that was streamlining a procedure for a manufacturer is pressed into action by the need to eliminate carbon emissions. On example of this occurred when the emissions for vehicles were first limited in the 1970s. At the time the task looked impossible and terribly costly. Still, the limits were set with a time goal in place. Before long a nifty little invention came to the scene and the price tag for compliance dropped immensely. Today all cars are manufactured with this technology, a catalytic converter, which removes pollution for a reasonable cost. [see Science Friday 3-23-07 for full story]
Today we seek further improvements that eliminate or reduce pollutants. The science, the history and the creativity of mankind all testify that change is well within our reach and that the time is ripe for us to curb our lustful living. We live among the richest 2% of all people who ever inhabited the planet. Do you feel that it is essential to consume, as a family, the energy equivalent of entire cities in other nations? I actually think that paying a little more or investing as a nation for better sources is the only responsible way to treat the other inhabitants on this planet. Other communities suffer from the global load of pollution and the effects of global warming but they reap none of the luxuries that we enjoy while we consume vast energy stores. If ethics are addressed, the evidence points toward conservation and reduction through changes in habit and altered sources of power. Since there is no natural dollar gain for choosing clean energy, government involvement is necessary. My preference is that government intervention moves to repair a faulty system, and it appears that pricing carbon is an excellent choice to mend the system while supporting capitalist ventures and free economic choices.
My mind is full of many other points of interest and responses to your letter, Teena, but my time is limited to respond. If you have true interest, go to the primary sources of data and research the question well. All of us participate in the sins of this generation. Not one of us is innocent when it comes to dropping the responsible stewardship that we know will support our planet. When we turn the keys on our cars and adjust our thermostats I hope not for a stab of guilt but for a plea for real change and a commitment to couple our efforts with many sectors and also to the allow the atoning and cleansing efforts of divinity in the heavens and the earth to their infinite work beside all that we can do for ourselves.
May your family find joy, beauty and health on this pretty blue planet,
Liz
Thank you for sharing your feelings with me. May I suggest that "For now we see through a glass darkly…" [1 Corinthians 13:12]. The complete truth eludes all of us, yet I still have faith in efforts to live and learn with meaning. If I must choose between a fatalist lifestyle and the effort of education, I elect to search and study. I always feel more educated when I study both sides of an element and this issue is no exception.
I note your applause for the voluntary action of concerned citizens. Let me assure you that all of my action is voluntary. I am not a professional in this scene. I am truly voicing my opinion and asking that our government assist us in protecting the populous from harm.
When you state that you approve of voluntary stewardship does that mean that you ONLY approve of voluntary stewardship and that you either condone, accept or tolerate those who are not engaging in voluntary stewardship? If so, I am curious to know how you would feel about some issues.
If my neighbor sets up a BBQ grill in the backyard and continuously burns plastic flatware as he constructs a new form of art do you feel that he is within his rights, despite the fact that dioxin (a brain-altering chemical that harms humans and specifically children under extremely low concentrations) results when plastic is burned under low temperatures? What recourse would I or any other nearby victim have without government support? Would the situation be any different if a neighbor set up a meth lab in his basement? Do you feel that the government has a role in this situation? If a neighbor daily harvested a large tree from my yard to burn in his fireplace, should I appeal to the law? Do I own a voice in the shared resources of water, soil and air just as I do when I decide what to do with my own property? Do the actions of others affect and sometimes harm a large portion of the population? Is government an effective way to remediate the losses in any of these situations?
As a citizen, I believe that it is my duty, whether my opinion differs from others or not, to voice my conscience. I prefer to extend that conscience somewhat further by not only asking myself and my God what is right, but to apply reasoning and study with the God-given brain.
When prophets sought answers from God they were chastened in D&C 9:7-9, for God says, "Behold, ye have not understood. Ye have supposed that I would give it unto when ye took no thought save it was to ask me. Behold, I say unto you that ye must study it out in your mind, then you must ask me if it be right…"
Therefore, I gather that study is an essential component of discovering truth. Have you, then, viewed the film that you criticized in your letter? Have you read the studies on the IPCC website? How many hours have you devoted to gaining information on the study? Have you had any conversations with people who deal with the data on a daily basis? Do you believe that through constant study it may be possible to analyze a problem better than the casual observer?
It is not essential to rely on specialists as long as time and resources are within your reach to cure the ignorance that every person naturally possesses. When you have studied extensively, developed a theory, performed multiple experiments until the theory is either accepted or rejected, and then appealed to others who can repeat and confirm your findings, then you are educated. For most of us, it proves difficult to accomplish all the primary study for every question and every need we hold on this planet. Instead, we turn to the studies of others and we seek certain signs of credibility. We watch to see if the results are confirmed or rejected by independent parties that have no bias. We seek institutions of learning that have a strong record for precision and reliability. We watch for information that extends across political and national boundaries. We note that information collected over the longest time periods shows more credibility than short-term findings. By these standards, the findings of the IPCC rank among the most reliable in all of history. Their consensus is a truly unprecedented occasion.
When one person infringes upon the rights of others through irresponsible behavior the laws of the nation serve to protect us. That is the action that will be instituted in the USA when the government chooses cleaner energy and limits the pollution of our common resources of air, water and soil. This action will extend health to all, thus acting as the founding fathers intended to protect us from our own greed and avarice, a fear expressed by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson after the ratification of the Constitution.
Only governments are powerful enough to lead out in effective and broad changes that will level the playing field for capitalists, who are constantly forced to compete ruthlessly one against another. It is amazing what happens when carbon is priced. Just as we pay others to take away our visible trash we can place a dollar value on carbon emissions, which are fairly simple to calculate. Soon all of the innovation and technology that was streamlining a procedure for a manufacturer is pressed into action by the need to eliminate carbon emissions. On example of this occurred when the emissions for vehicles were first limited in the 1970s. At the time the task looked impossible and terribly costly. Still, the limits were set with a time goal in place. Before long a nifty little invention came to the scene and the price tag for compliance dropped immensely. Today all cars are manufactured with this technology, a catalytic converter, which removes pollution for a reasonable cost. [see Science Friday 3-23-07 for full story]
Today we seek further improvements that eliminate or reduce pollutants. The science, the history and the creativity of mankind all testify that change is well within our reach and that the time is ripe for us to curb our lustful living. We live among the richest 2% of all people who ever inhabited the planet. Do you feel that it is essential to consume, as a family, the energy equivalent of entire cities in other nations? I actually think that paying a little more or investing as a nation for better sources is the only responsible way to treat the other inhabitants on this planet. Other communities suffer from the global load of pollution and the effects of global warming but they reap none of the luxuries that we enjoy while we consume vast energy stores. If ethics are addressed, the evidence points toward conservation and reduction through changes in habit and altered sources of power. Since there is no natural dollar gain for choosing clean energy, government involvement is necessary. My preference is that government intervention moves to repair a faulty system, and it appears that pricing carbon is an excellent choice to mend the system while supporting capitalist ventures and free economic choices.
My mind is full of many other points of interest and responses to your letter, Teena, but my time is limited to respond. If you have true interest, go to the primary sources of data and research the question well. All of us participate in the sins of this generation. Not one of us is innocent when it comes to dropping the responsible stewardship that we know will support our planet. When we turn the keys on our cars and adjust our thermostats I hope not for a stab of guilt but for a plea for real change and a commitment to couple our efforts with many sectors and also to the allow the atoning and cleansing efforts of divinity in the heavens and the earth to their infinite work beside all that we can do for ourselves.
May your family find joy, beauty and health on this pretty blue planet,
Liz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)