by J. Christoph Amberger
Baltimore — (TFN): According to the European mainstream and the UN, global warming is caused by evil Americans driving SUVs to the malls. The sole salvation of the world lies in establishing a barter system of carbon dioxide indulgences… and sorting household trash all the way to Tuesday.
But over the past few [...]
The EPA has settled claims with three defendants to pay fines totaling $170,000 for violating Clean Air Act regulations during the removal of asbestos from buildings in Hayward, California in 2000. Over 31,000 square feet of asbestos-containing materials, including acoustic ceiling, tiles, linoleum, insulation, fire-proofing, and stucco where removed from the former Hayward Chiropractic College and dumped in open containers. The asbestos removal project was also the subject of a criminal investigation of the building owner, who under a plea agreement served four months under house arrest and paid a $5,000 criminal penalty. Asbestos is a known human carcinogen and classified by the EPA as a hazardous air pollutant that poses a significant risk to human health, including cancers such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.For the full article, go to yosemite.epa.gov.For more information about the EPA's regulation of asbestos, go to epa.gov/asbestos.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reached a $20,000 settlement with a construction consultant for violating federal regulations governing asbestos removal from buildings in Hayward, Calif. in 2000.The construction consultant, Timothy Chu Construction Consulting Services, is paying a penalty of $20,000. Settlements were previously reached with the building owner, Cheng, Chow and Chu, Inc, for $149,000 and the construction company, Sincere Construction, for $1,500. The asbestos removal was also the subject of a criminal investigation which resulted in a plea agreement under which the building owner Clifford Cheng served four months under house arrest and paid a $5,000 criminal penalty.“This case was particularly important because of the large amounts of asbestos and the delay in mitigating the problem,” said Deborah Jordan, director of the Air Division in the EPA’s Pacific Southwest region. “We are pleased that all responsible parties were held accountable, and acknowledge
Back in September the Conservative's released their much ballyhooed Clean Air Act. Meant to be the centre piece of their so called green plan, the proposed legislation was immediately panned by the media and opposition parties as a piece of industry friendly rhetoric that does nothing to combat global warming or improve air quality.Today, that bill was sent back to parliament, drastically rewritten by a special committee to include short-term, mid-term and long-term targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions; a commitment to a system of international emissions carbon trading; and penalties of $20 per ton for any company that exceeds their emissions target. Harper's rented mule has returned as a thoroughbred that will make substantial progress towards reducing greenhouse gases, holding industry accountable and addressing global warming.The Conservative response? Hint at elections and release a new set of attack ads.In a clear demonstration of their environmental leadership, next
First of all he wants to re-name it the "Healthy Air and Climate Act", probably so he can take that into the next election as a piece of "successful NDP legislation" and woo environmental voters who seem to prefer the Greens right now.What I personally think is a little unrealistic is this:To set targets that Canada must meet, such as the Kyoto Protocol 2008 to 2012 targets, an 80 per cent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels, by 2050;First of all, I would like to see the NDP present a plan (including the cost, if possible) that would meet those targets in less than six years. Preferably one that keeps our economy intact. Second of all, the 80% long-term emissions cut is way more drastic than anything the Liberals have presented. We should wait until 2012 to see what other countries are planning to do before committing to something of that nature.
Canadian Press: The new federal Clean Air Act would do nothing to clean up the air or address climate change if it became law, which it won't, a David Suzuki Foundation campaigner said Friday. All opposition parties in the House of Commons have said they will vote against the bill, which means the chances of the minority Conservative government getting it passed are vanishingly small. "This is completely unnecessary legislation" said Morag Carter, director of the foundation's climate ... Link (Via Dr. Glen Barry)
