Important state legislation that would help protect the quality of Cape Cod ponds has moved from the Senate Ways and Means Committee and is now before the full Senate for consideration.  Action by the Senate on this bill could begin as early as Thursday, Sept. 27.

Please call or write your state senator NOW (Senator Therese Murray or Senator Robert O'Leary on Cape Cod) and urge them to support S.536, "An Act Relating to the Distribution and Sale of Household Cleaning Products Containing Phosphorus."  Be sure to let your senator know you are a constituent, and don't forget to include your address and town.

Why is this bill important?

If passed, S.536 would phase out the sale in Massachusetts of household cleaning products containing phosphorus, which degrades the quality of freshwater ponds, lakes and rivers, including the approximately 400 sizable ponds found on Cape Cod.

Significant sources of phosphorus come from household cleaning products such as automatic dishwashing detergents, as well as from wastewater and fertilizers. Phosphorus pollution causes algae blooms resulting in the depletion of oxygen in water bodies, which harms water quality, destroys aquatic ecosystems, impacts tourism and reduces property values.  Treating phosphorus-impaired ponds is costly and controversial, and more communities will need to address this issue as populations continue to increase near fresh water bodies. Many of Cape Cod's once-pristine ponds are now showing the effects of phosphorus pollution, including instances of fish kills.

With the availability of cleaning products that perform effectively without the use of phosphorus, its continued use is an unnecessary threat to Massachusetts water resources.

Please pass this information on to all interested parties. 

"A decade ago we made a film that briefly touched on the subject of Hubble, but back then its first images were just coming in," said IMAX producer and director Toni Myers of her 1994 IMAX film "Destiny in Space." "Today, we have Hubble's entire phenomenal legacy of data to explore. With IMAX 3D, we can transport people to galaxies that are literally 13 billion light years away. Real star travel is here at last."http://www.space.com/news/cs_070924_hubble_imax.html

Why can't people just go out and rake the lawn, or sweep the driveway, sidewalks, even the roads

No, they have to use a machine to make things quicker for them

But how much quicker is it?

Raking in the noisemakers

Some towns seek to ban gas-powered leaf blowers

Landscaper Ian Cura used a leaf blower for a job in Newton on Friday. An alderman wants to outlaw gas-powered blowers. (Pat Greenhouse/ Globe Staff)

By Megan Woolhouse, Globe Staff | September 17, 2007

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/09/17/raking_in_the_noisemakers/?page=1

Will come to bother us one way or another

That's a lot of useable gas to collect; why not think of a good way to collect and transport for use

Hello!

Dung from mammoths sends warming signal

Expert worries Siberian permafrost melt will release organic matter

	Scientist Sergei Zimov takes a sample from a layer of melting permafrost in northeast Siberia on Aug. 28.                    View related photos
Reuters

Carmakers lose lawsuit on carbon emissions

Vermont case likely to impact California; industry expected to appeal

Toby Talbot / AP Tailpipe emissions, specifically carbon dioxide, were at the heart of a lawsuit thrown out Wednesday in Montpelier, Vt.

Updated: 7:41 p.m. ET Sept 12, 2007

MONTPELIER, Vt. - Vermont and several other states scored a victory on Wednesday in their battle to get automakers to comply with rules aimed at reducing global warming.

A federal judge ruled that states can regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, rejecting automakers' claims that federal law pre-empts state rules and that technology can't be developed to meet them.

"There is no question that the GHG (greenhouse gas) regulations present great challenges to automakers," Judge William Sessions III, sitting in the U.S. District Court in Burlington, wrote at the conclusion of his 240-page decision.

During a 16-day trial that concluded in May, auto industry executives testified that the regulations — adopted by California and 11 other states and pending in three others — would not stop global warming but would impose devastating new costs on the industry.

Slated to start phasing in as of 2009, the limits would require a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks by 2016, a standard the car makers have maintained would require average fuel economy standards for cars and the lightest category of trucks of 43.7 miles per gallon.

EPA waiver still needed
For the rules to take effect, the Environmental Protection Agency still must grant a waiver applied for by California under the federal Clean Air Act. California has won several such waivers in the past, allowing it to set up more stringent vehicle anti-pollution standards than the federal government's and then for other states to piggyback on them.

David Doniger, senior climate lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of several environmental groups that sided with Vermont, said the waiver request was given a big boost by an April 2 U.S. Supreme Court decision saying carbon dioxide was a pollutant worthy of regulation.

Doniger said the EPA could deny the waiver if it finds that achieving the carbon reduction standard was not technically feasible. But he said automakers "threw everything they had" at trial, providing copious documents and experts to try to persuade the judge that was the case, and he didn't buy it.

Gov. Jim Douglas hailed the court's ruling. "We were up against a very strong adversary in the auto industry, but the law and the facts were clearly on our side," he said. "Most of Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions are from motor vehicles, so if we're going to reduce our carbon footprint, we need to set high but achievable standards for automobiles."

Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of a main plaintiff in the Vermont suit, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said in a statement that "it makes sense that only the federal government can regulate fuel economy. Automakers support improving fuel economy standards nationally, rather than piecemeal."

McCurdy said his group may appeal the decision.

Automakers maintained that cutting carbon requires improving fuel economy, since carbon emissions are proportional to the amount of gasoline burned. And they said fuel economy, under a 1975 federal law, is solely under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

California angle
The states argued that they can regulate carbon emissions as a tailpipe pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

California upped the ante in 2005 by adding carbon dioxide to its list of regulated tailpipe emissions. Other states were required either to apply the enhanced California rules or revert to the federal standard.

Automakers filed suit in California, Vermont and Rhode Island. Vermont's case was the first to go to trial, after a federal judge in California put a similar case there on hold pending the outcome of the April U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, whose office represented the state in the trial, called the ruling "a major victory. They (automakers) will appeal, probably. But for folks who are concerned about global warming and environmental quality in this country and in the world, this was a good day."

A hearing is set for Oct. 22 in a similar case in California. But Matt Pawa, a lawyer who represented three national environmental groups in the Vermont trial, said the Vermont ruling makes it likely the California case will be dismissed.

"The persuasiveness of Judge Sessions' decision, we expect, should carry the day" in California, Pawa said.

He called the ruling "a historic win for the planet, for Vermont, for the cause to curtail global warming, and for the right of states to set more stringent limits on all kinds of pollution, including greenhouse gas emission standards."

When will we know the answers to the questions below which were produced during a gathering of people for discussion of the Cape Winds creation?

Will another ten years of environmental mishap continue before something is actually done?

There happens to be a lot of questions here, and with no answers attached!

http://www.sustaincapecod.org/community/Newsletter/A2Sep07

1. If it came to a choice between Cape Wind and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which would you choose?

2. What would Rachel Carson [exhibit currently on display at the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History] think of Cape Wind?

3. Mr. Vinick, if you were to name your most significant objection to the Cape Wind project, what would that be (only one)?

4. Mr. Gordon, if you were to name your most significant reason for Cape Wind to proceed, what would that be (only one)?

5. Mr. Gordon, where are you going to locate your building infrastructure— survey boats, crew boats, work boats, tugs, barges, cranes, pile drivers, and stock yards? And what danger to the Sound’s marine traffic will they constitute?

6. Mr. Gordon, as a developer, you say “we.” Who are your investors, foreign and local?

7. Mr. Gordon, why would you select a national park that we all own and share for free as the site for your project? Why should we give you 24 square miles of Nantucket Sound for free?

8. Mr. Gordon, your project is larger than Manhattan and larger than Yarmouth, and it will make the Boston “Big Dig” look like Tinker Toys with no benefit. Why not Otis Air Force Base?

9. Mr. Gordon, why has not one Cape Cod community publicly supported Cape Wind in writing?

10. Mr. Gordon, why not build wind farms on currently undevelopable lands such as state highway medians, which are already graded, highly accessible, and currently useless instead of building in pristine, highly prized recreational areas?

11. Mr. Gordon, how much will you dig up, and where will you move the Sound benthic substrate that is to be displaced by tower and substation pilings, wire trenches, and so on? What degree of bottom-dwelling and substrate animals will be affected?

12. Mr. Gordon, after Horseshoe Shoals, have you considered the Billingsgate Shoal?

13. Cape Wind claims that this electricity will be cheaper. Experts say that the Long Island wind plan will be four times the current cost of electricity. Why is Cape Wind refusing to tell us the true cost?

14. Is there common ground between the proponents and opponents of Cape Wind? Recognizing the existing energy crisis and the natural beauty of the Cape, is there a place to locate the wind farm where both sides can agree?

15. Cape Wind has refused to release the five years of wind data. Why should we believe the 10 days of information they released is accurate? Why are they afraid to release data?

16. Nantucket Sound and our beaches are the economic engine and the heart and soul of the Cape and Islands. Why would a 24-square-mile industrial plant with 40,000 gallons of oil be good for Cape Cod ?

17. How dirty is the Sandwich power plant? Will this wind power help us to get rid of the Sandwich power plant?

18. Will Cape Wind be compensating the mobile gear fishermen that will forever lose the ability to fish on the rich Horseshoe Shoals fishing grounds?

19. Please address the point that wind turbines are “yesterday’s technology.”

20. Assuming that turbines are installed in the Sound, what assurance do we have that when they are obsolete, they will be removed and not left to rust in the water? I come from Buffalo, New York, where Bethlehem Steel abandoned 15 square miles of steel plant.

21. Mr. Gordon, you are probably aware that only 2 percent of oil is used for electricity nationally. Why do you continue to claim that your project will reduce our dependence on oil for electricity?

22. Mr. Gordon, Cape Wind energy will mostly be sold to the highest bidder. What does that have to do with the Cape’s population and with our air quality—which is poor due to westerly winds coming from New York City? Also, I have been to the Danish coast—it is a nice place—but do you seriously compare its recreation usage and tourism to that of Cape Cod?

23. Would Cape Wind reduce the need for natural gas in producing electricity on Cape Cod?

24. If federal and state earmarks and grants and subsidies, which amount to $75 million a year, stop, is your project economically and commercially viable?

24. What is the life expectancy for the hardware initially installed? When and how will it be removed? What are the foreseen environmental impacts due to the maintenance and/or removal of the equipment?

25. What percentage of power remains on Cape Cod? And what percentage is exported?

26. Why can’t the windmills be farther out in the bay?

27. Cape Wind’s oil spill chart shows that in the event the 40,000 gallons of transformer oil spills, there is a “greater than 90 percent chance that our beaches will be polluted.” Why isn’t Cape Wind mapping the habitat that would be destroyed?

28. Specifics please: How many turbines? How big is the substation? How far off-shore? Are they visible?

29. Who is the Beacon Hill Institute, and who paid for the study that Charles Vinick cited?

30. Can Cape Cod residents be assured that they will benefit from the wind farm in the form of reduced utility bills or a stake in the profits?

31. Mr. Gordon, you’ve claimed that much of the Horseshoe Shoals area is not navigable due to shallow water, so putting 130 turbines there will not interfere with boating. If that’s true, how are you going to avoid dredging out large swaths of the sea floor to accommodate the wind turbine installation barges, which I understand are 400 feet long and draw up to 16 feet of water?

32. This question assumes that during the past six years of this debate, you have actually listened to what the other side has said. Please name one point that your opponent makes that you think makes sense and that you agree with. Please be sincere and specific with your answer.

33. Mr. Vinick, what power-generating alternatives do you recommend? If the shoals of Nantucket Sound were to be used to generate electric power, what do you recommend?

34. Mr. Gordon, are there devices that can use wave action to generate power? What are they? How much power can they generate? How well do they compare to windmills?

35. Mr. Vinick, in what way would a wind farm damage fishing in the Sound?

36. Mr. Gordon, is a decommissioning fund required if the wind turbines are no longer usable?

37. Mr. Gordon, your opponents claim Cape Wind will receive massive “subsidies.” Please put the subsidies you will receive in perspective versus fossil fuel and nuclear benefits [that are similarly available] from the government. For example, will you receive subsidies for construction?

38. Since the Massachusetts Maritime Academy is able to generate its own power and sell the extra to the “grid,” will the Cape Wind Nantucket Sound project power go first to the Cape and Islands [with whatever is left over being sold] to the grid? If not, why not?

39. Mr. Gordon, European wind farms have not been subjected to hurricane force winds. What assurances can you make that the proposed design will be able to withstand force 5 and greater winds?

40. Mr. Gordon, why are you reluctant to disclose the financial backers of this project?

41. Would each of you comment on the studies that show significant radar distortion with windmills and how this distortion will affect aviation as well as maritime safety?

42. Mr. Gordon, will the coal and gas fired power plants go away when the Cape Wind farm is up and running?

43. Mr. Gordon, if Cape Wind is successful in building this project, would or might your company advance proposals on deep-water-sited wind farms and/or current tidal flow water turbines?

44. Mr. Vinick, if you are successful in stopping the wind farm, would you support an expansion of the Canal power plant to generate the power needed in the future for the Cape and Islands?

45. Mr. Gordon, in your comments, you were totally silent on the economic factors of this project. Please tell us the following: How much private capital will Cape Wind put up? How much public subsidy does Cape Wind need or expect to receive in order to construct the 130 wind turbines? How much private profit does Cape Wind expect to receive from these turbines funded in large part by public subsidy?

46. Mr. Gordon, how much lower will energy bills be for the average Cape Codder as a result of the wind farm?

47. I understand that your company is proposing to build a diesel plant in Chelsea that seems to contradict your claims about dedication to helping the environment. How do you reconcile this, and do groups like Greenpeace support your diesel plant?

48. Mr. Gordon, is your company working on any deep-water wind technology? How deep is deep water?

49. What is the likely impact of Cape Wind on the cost of electrical power for the average customer?

50. Mr. Gordon, if this project were made to be a project awarded by a competitive process, would you still be interested, or are you interested only because you were given a competitive advantage?

51. What monetary gains will the Cape receive—that is, [will there be] lower electric rates [on Cape Cod]?

52. Mr. Gordon, you mention “jobs creation” as a major economic benefit for the Cape. Would you please be specific regarding the types of jobs, pay scales, and so on [you are referring to]?

53. Will the wind farm be funded so that it can be dismantled and the Sound returned to its original state when [the wind farm] becomes obsolete?

54. How do you think we can bring together the opposing forces on this issue to achieve the common good for our shared future?

http://www.sustaincapecod.org/community/Newsletter/A2Sep07