Presidential Elections

I've read several accounts that say all the Republican candidates question the science behind global warming and they are critical of any of the measures to slow carbin emissions.  What planet are these idiots from?! HELLLLOOOOOO (think Mushu, from Mulan :) Can these guys not see what is happening around them? Do they not read the news? The weather reports? For one, lets clear something up, it's NOT Global warming.... it's CLIMATE CHANGE  (stupid Al Gore). Yes, the temperature of the earth will increase, however, that's not the real problem. Yes, the earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles in the past, but that's not the problem! It's the change in events in different areas. Hurricanes will become stronger, if not more frequent, droughts will become worse, areas with rain will get more rain, areas without, will get less. Does that make sense? And the real problem behind the drastic change in weather events is that there are now lots & lots of people in those areas where the weather is going to change. You thought Las Vegas was dry before, ha, just wait. You thought the coast was a great place to live, you could deal with a random hurricane, ha, just wait. That doesn't even include the amount of sea level rise that will be happening within the next 50 years.  Even insurance companies have started looking at climate change and the amount of money it will cost them to insure houses in certain areas. hmmm, insurance companies that only care about money and like to bet on a sure thing, are looking into climate change. And guess what, this is all caused by an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Methane is also a problem in the atmosphere as a green house gas, and could become a bigger problem, but at the moment, it's closer to the bottom of the list as an issue. So, I guess my question is why are all the cadidates burying their heads in the sand? Why do they seem to think that by ignoring or questioning the science that this issue will go away. Or maybe they think if the ignore it, it doesn't exist?! Scientific data is mounting that the problem is not going away and the problem is caused by increased greenhouse gas emissions. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. I hate it when people don't listen. One of the many reasons I stopped teaching, but that's a tangent I don't need to take. How can people deny the mounting scientific evidence of what is going on around us? And why would they? I really don't even want to think about who I would have to choose from as a president. All the candidates at the moment suck, and I'm including Obama in that statement. Someone needs to step up, get a set of cajones, and quit being so damn wishy-washy. hmm, I guess that means we need  a woman in office.

If you don't have the money, you shouldn't buy it!

Okay, so I'm going to complain about California.  It's a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Way tooooo many people! Everywhere. Doesn't matter where you go, you have traffic jams, or just lots of people. ugh. anyway. Not to mention the fact that the weather and location make is a serious draw on water resources in the western US. But that is a rant for another day. Today I want to complain about the Cali government that seems to think wasting money on a high speed rail system is a good thing. Hellllllloooooooo!! They can't even pay their teachers, or their public employees, and they are talking about constructing a multi-billion dollar high speed rail system! Get your damn priorities in order! I understand that the rail system is an attempt to decrease the green house gas emissions, but there has got to be a cheaper way to do that. In order to pay the teachers and other public employees the government has proposed new sales and income taxes to be voted on in the next election. Wow, really? Why don't you try converting buses, and public vehicles to electricity, or liquid propane, or compressed natural gas. Or put solar panels on your parking lots & office buildings? Or put gardens on the roofs of your office buildings? There area millions of other, CHEAPER, ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions other than taxing the people some more. I don't even live there and it makes me mad! Someone needs to knock some sense into people! Good grief.

Changing management styles

My sister says I need an editor :) I guess she thinks that my rants and raves are disjointed and hard to follow. This coming from a lawyer. So I'll try to be more concise, although I'm sure it really doesn't matter too much, as I don't think many people read this.
So, onto today's rant.
I'm sure many have heard about the flooding this past year along the Mississippi & Missouri River valleys. Most are willing to blame the Army Corps of Engineers, I mean, they ARE the ones that originally put in the dams and they are the ones that decided when and how much water would be released when the flooding got to certain levels. So, I guess they are good enough to blame. Once the vast amount of water was released upstream, dikes and levees downstream were overrun, and some even broken by the excess water that came spilling down the river. And now the damage will cost over $2 Billion to fix. ouch.
With the building of dams & levees as flood control, developers have come in and built millions of homes on floodplains. With that development has come the destruction of MILLIONS of acres of wetlands. Over 50% of the wetlands that were originally found in the US have been destroyed. In some areas in the Midwest, almost all wetlands have been destroyed. And in case you didn't know, wetlands have many functions: sponge, filter, nursery, climate control, among others. So, people have bought the houses that have been built on the flood plains. Ummm, hmmm, that really doesn't seem very smart to me. Some may think my next sentiment harsh, but it's how I fell. If you build your house on a floodplain, don't come crying for money when it gets flooded. Are you stupid?! Of course it's going to flood, you built it right in the middle of a FLOODPLAIN!!! What the hell do you think that means? So, I feel sorry for those that have had their houses flooded or swept away by the floods, but, COME ON, what the hell did you expect?! If you can see the river from your deck and you aren't 35 feet above it, guess what, chances are, one of these days your house will be under water.
Has anyone ever been to the Grand Canyon? yeah, just SEEEEEE the power of the water out there! That is what water can do. You can't control water, at least not permanently, it will let you think you can control it, but you're seriously mistaken if you think you can. So all those levees and dikes and dams that have been used to try and control the water that is flowing down stream, they are really just a band-aid. In the long term, they won't do much good.
So, back to the ACOE and the $2 billion damage after the summer flooding. And tying it into the function of wetlands. Areas that still have large amounts of wetlands have better flood control. Ground that hasn't been drained for agriculture or homes is more likely to absorb more water. If there are fields or pavement, the water runs off. If more water runs off, it means more water in the rivers, which means more flooding is likely. Another benefit of wetlands is that it is a carbon sink. This means the plants that are found there absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. And when wetlands are destroyed greenhouse gases, which includes methane, are released into the air. So, not only is the function of the wetlands reduced, what they did hold is released. So the destruction multiplies the problem.
In 2007 the Council for Environmental Quality was tasked with rewriting the guidelines for flood control carried out by the ACOE. The original guidelines were drawn up in 1983 and flood control at that time was all about the money. Money from agriculture from drained wetlands and money from water, trapped behind a dam,  that was sold to cities for people living on the floodplains. With the current climate change problem and the increase in flooding and droughts the guidelines need a serious overhaul.  The original draft of the updated guidelines in 2007 was rejected by the National Academy of Science and it was sent back to the drawing board in 2009. The new updated guidelines are to include climate change and environmental impacts along with financial gain when determining the validity of a project. The new guidelines would include creating or restoring wetlands, and other nonstructural methods of flood control.  So, there are still no updated guidelines, and Congress is at it again. grrrrr. Those idiots have attached a paragraph to the omnibus legislation limiting the use of funds for "new start" programs. And since the new guidelines would be considered a "new start" no funding will be used to create wetlands along the river, it will just be used to fund the fixing of the dikes, dams and levees. that were destroyed this year. in the flood. Okay, so let me get this straight. The dams, dikes & levees didn't work in controlling the flood and were in fact destroyed by said flood....... and we know that the number of floods will increase due to climate change....... annnnnndddddd we want to rebuild the same structures that didn't work the first time? I remember hearing somewhere that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result!
One of the senators actually stated that the use of funds for habitat restoration would be a mismanagement of funds. He's from Missouri, so I'm sure he's upset that his summer home got flooded. But COME ON!!! Obviously what we have been doing ISN'T working!! Why would someone put the brakes on something that would work better? Oh, wait, let me guess, his campaign money comes from the developers that put their developments in the flood plain or from the agriculture coop that wants the land for corn.
Can we PLEASE have a Congress that doesn't have a hidden agenda?! I'd love to have a Congress that has the best interest of this country at heart, not the best interest of their damn pockets!

Solar Arrays in the Desert

A few years ago I read an article in Science or Scientific America about the idea of putting a gigantic solar array in the desert areas of the Southwest US. I thought it was a horrible idea then, still think it's a horrible idea. I read an another article today that said the BLM has started selling development rights to federal land in the Southwest US specifically for the purpose of putting in huge solar arrays. The area is large, "empty" and the sun shines over 300 days out of the year. It's actually a great place for solar power, but at whose expense.
The BLM has allowed one company to actually start development before the impact on the desert tortoise was researched. Uh, DUH! So, after this company has started putting their arrays in, the government scientist find out that, oops, this huge array that you are putting in will have a negative impact on a federally protected species. again, I say, Uh, DUH!! The solar array was to impact 5000 acres, 3500 of which was desert tortoise habitat. 
The BLM originally intended for solar development to take place on 700,000 acres of public land in six southwestern states, but has dropped the number to 300,000 because of complaints from many conservation groups and industry. However, they are still moving forward without any research. Although, they have launched one of the largest research projects to discover the impact on the tortoise, big horn sheep, mule deer, and many other species that use those areas for migration, foraging, or residence. Kind of like shutting the barn door once the horses have already left the building, putting the cart before the horse, and how many other million cliches about doing something "bass ackwards!"
So again, I bring up the point. What about all the buildings and parking lots in the southwest US? Nothing lives on them, other than our gas guzzling SUV's. Nothing uses them for migration, other than the random squirrel, or our gas guzzling SUV's. Nothing forages on them, not even our gas guzzling SUV's. So, why are we letting all that space go to waste? Why is it, the first thing anyone thinks of destroying is virgin/raw land? Why don't people think about using areas that we've already ruined and making them multi-use? We've already put buildings up in the middle of the desert, and created a heat sink that guzzles more water than was ever intended to go there. Why don't we make something positive out of it? Why not put up solar arrays, but put them over the parking lots, and on top of the buildings. Make use of "wasted space."
Oh, wait, I know, that kind of thing would take a little more thought and a little more money because they would have to find a way to work around people, instead of defenseless, endangered, or threatened animals. Instead of just coming in and mowing everything down and putting up what they want, they would need to stop and think and improvise. That might be a little to hard for them.

Congress is a mess

When our forefathers set up the government I don't think they had the chaos that reigns in mind. They set up the president, congress, and judicial system to check each other, keep all the kids on the playground playing fair. Such is not the case anymore. At least that's how things look to me. Republicans in Congress are threatening to put riders on bills, so they can fast track the XL pipeline & limit the EPA. (specifically, emissions regulations the EPA put in place) I really don't think the idea what to sneak stuff through Congress on the shirt-tales of something more important. Senators know that they can put riders on bills that have to pass, and so they get whatever they want. Back when Bill was in office they tried line-item-veto, but the Supreme Court said that was like the President writing his own laws, and that was unconstitutional. So we are stuck. I think it's time we got some real honesty in government. I know, hard to think of that, right?! Quit putting riders on bills that have to pass. If you want something, write up a real bill to put it through Congress. I hate people that try to do things the "easy" way. This is part of what is wrong with with our government today. I wonder what the "popularity" rating is of Congress? Does everyone hate them? I know they piss me off, and I think they should ALLLLLL get voted out of office and we should start over. Clean slate time, then something might actually get accomplished.

One for all?

I've been thinking a lot lately of my ineffectiveness. I can easily rant & rave on this blog and complain about about the insanity, but what does that really do? No doubt, nothing, since I'm probably the only one that even bothers to read it :) I've been wondering if there is anything I could really do. Our country and our planet are in a serious mess right now and I'm wondering what I could really do. In other words, I'm feeling really worthless. One thing that has been bothering me, is the way Congress is attacking the EPA. They keep trying to get around the regulations the EPA is trying to impose by passing laws that, pretty much, say the regulations are bogus, and no one has to listen to them. Or that the EPA can't make those regulations. It's like those jerks you used to play with on the playground that would change the rules cause they didn't like how the game was going. Yeah, you know you've played with jerks like that. Anyway. To me, it's disheartening, as I've stated before that these "jerks" have decided that the EPA doesn't know what they are doing and their power should be limited....by politicians. Okay, so let me get this straight. You have an government organization, created to administer laws & regulations that are there to improve our environment. These regulations were created AFTER lots of scientists conducted lots of studies and decided that yes, those regulations would in fact, improve our health & well being. So then, some politician (yes, I say that like it's a swear word) decides that his buddies, that are paying him kickbacks, don't like those regulations, so he decides he is going to introduce a bill in Congress to limit the power of the scientists. The ones that make regulations, so you don't die at a young age from lung cancer or stomach cancer or radiation poisoning, or any number of other things nasty things that a person can get from the drinking water or the air we breath. So, my problem with ineffectiveness is that what can I do? I can't vote all the congressmen out of office and put new ones in. I can't scream loud enough for everyone to hear. I don't have enough money to buy a large enough billboard. I can't knock people in the head until they realize they are being idiots. I can't seem to even get a job where I can really make a difference. So what, exactly, am I supposed to do? What can I do to get people to listen? We seriously, as the American people, need to vote all incumbents out of office and get a clean slate in Congress, maybe then we'll get some change going on. But then we'd all have to agree, and then we'd all have to vote. People can't even agree that climate change is occurring, and we are witness to that on a daily basis, so how would be get that many people to agree to vote incumbents out of office? We need a government that is actually in office to do the will of the people, not to fill their own damn pockets or fulfill their own damn agendas. That is not what this country was founded on. We need some serious change!

What is with the attack on the EPA?

At work, I have to read through this database to find articles relating to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. And while going through these articles I get to read all about the other goings on in the environmental/political/legal world. Pretty cool......eh, um, maybe cool isn't the word. Disheartening, yeah, I think that covers it better.
The EPA has made regulations on GHG emissions that are being argued about, shot down, and otherwise criticized left and right. Congress is actually going to pass a law that says the EPA can't regulate whatever they are trying to regulate. And Obama recommended that the EPA wait until 2013 to revamp their regulations on ozone, instead of trying to push through regulations right now.  Why? What it really comes down to is, no one wants to pay for clean air. The EPA is trying to regulate cross-state emissions, all states are in an uproar. The power companies are mad, the states are mad, the senators getting kickbacks from the power companies are mad.  EPA is setting limits on ozone, mercury, and a few other nasty things that are in our air from coal burning power plants and other fossil fuel burning emitting sources. So, I have to ask, what's more important, being able to breath when you're 80 or the bottom line right now, at the moment. Everyone sees it all in black & white, no one sees a way that all this can be accomplished.
Another instance is the EPA setting limits on what is going into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are 11 states involved and the EPA is trying to limit total maximum daily loads and those states are throwing a fit. why? They don't want to pay. Farmers don't want to pay, governments don't want to pay, people don't want to pay. The bay will be dead and then who will pay for all the lost jobs, lost tourism, etc?
 The EPA is trying to change regulations in regards to wetlands, through the Clean Water Act. Now, some may know that I have a thing for wetlands, have done several research projects on them, and have studied them quite a bit. So, I can tell you that the amount of wetlands in the US is decreasing, at an alarming rate. And it's not supposed to be. The rate for removal is supposed to be 0, as in ZERO, a big goose egg. Uh, yeah, it's not. at  all. not even close. The regulation says NO NET LOSS OF WETLANDS. yeah, words on paper is what that is, nothing in practice. Anyway, the point is, the rules committee in Congress has warned the EPA that they should think really hard about the regulations they'd like to propose.
So everywhere the EPA turns they are getting hammered from all sides, the government, the people, other agencies, green organizations. Yeah, the green "people" sue the EPA when they think the EPA aren't doing enough to protect whatever natural resource is in question. And this is after Congress or the President has said no to proposed regulations by the EPA. It's all a viscous circle. And all they are trying to do is set regulations on pollutants that will eventually do nothing but harm us or the environment. They totally get the shaft.
So, how do we fix this mess that we are in. Well. let's see.......Congress needs to stop appropriating money for worthless things, like vacations, boats, excess retirement pension, and whatever else they waste our money on, and start helping clean up the environment. It needs to be done, sooner rather than later, or we will seriously be paying some steep prices in this lifetime, in terms of water shortages, mudslides, sea level rising, or increased air pollution. Here's a novel concept, why don't the exec's from the polluting companies use some of their million dollar bonuses and give money to farmers that need to implement in mitigation plans in the Bay area. Or Senators that get paid too much, they should use their money to pay for clean-up of the air. Hmmm, or here's an even better one, the kickbacks that are paid to Senators so that regulations aren't passed, maybe that could actually be used to clean up the pollution created by power companies. oh, yeah, now that's a good idea. It amazes me that people (read that as rich CEO's of huge polluting companies) spend so much time and money trying to avoid complying with regulations that improve our air and water quality, when they could probably save time and money by just fixing their plants to comply in the first place. While being facetious, to an extent, I do have real ideas on how things can be improved, some are pretty simple while others come with a complete revamping of our government and our way of thinking. None of which will ever see the light of day, I'm sure.
I guess it really won't matter because sooner rather than later, we are not going to be able to do anything because we (the human race) will be extinct because we didn't want to pay to clean up the environment. The studies and research going on right now indicate that we will soon, relatively speaking (20 years say), be experiencing water shortages in the US. Serious water shortages. And not just from changing climate, but from water contamination, overuse, and any number of things we do. So in the grand scheme of things, we are screwed no matter what way you look at it. I guess everyone should just get what you can for yourself while you can and to hell with everyone and anything else. right?