Environmental Action
«
September 2007
| Main
| November 2007
»
October 27, 2007
Hiking to Save the Mountains
Posted by Dan Stafford at 03:50 PM
As the comment period for the expansion of mountaintop removal mining comes to a close, I'm excited to talk a little bit about the 'hikes to save our mountains' that Environmental Action members hosted and ran this month.
From across the country we've gotten in some great photos which we can now use in our Congressional advocacy around MTR, so thanks to everyone who participated!
Below is just one picture from EA member Carrie Aikman:

October 03, 2007
Vote in the CNN Poll
Posted by Dan Stafford at 10:45 AM
If you check out CNN, they have a 'Heroes' section where they pick a handful of 'regular Joes' who work on specific issues. This week, they're highlighting 'saving the planet', and Larry Gibson of the I Love Mountains coalition is in the running!
It's a pretty great step that CNN is including the fight against mountaintop removal mining in this contest, and obviously if Larry wins, there will be even more coverage. So what are you waiting for? Get off your duff and vote!. Right now Larry is trailing, so let's make it count!
October 02, 2007
Solid Bill to Fight Mountaintop Removal Mining
Posted by Dan Stafford at 04:41 PM
By know you're aware how much I loathe mountaintop removal mining. Thankfully, a bill in Congress right now (H.R. 2169) would limit MTR by banning the pollution of streams and rivers. This move would severely limit the coal industry's ability to practice MTR.
Unfortunately, this bill is stuck in committee right now. Thankfully, the woman in charge of the committee is Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas. I know you don't normally think of 'Texas politician' and 'pro-environment' in the same sentence, but in this case it's true. Rep. Jackson-Lee has a long history of supporting the environment - which means she'll listen to folks like us.
Please take a moment right now, and ask her to move this bill out of her committee, and back into Congress for a vote. Click here to send her an email.
Mountaintop removal has ravaged the landscape of Appalachia. From the destruction of hundreds of mountains, to the pollution of thousands of miles of streams, it's one of the most destructive practices thought up in a long time.
Sometimes, a gentle push is all a committee chair needs to keep legislation alive. Please take a minute to ask Rep. Jackson-Lee to keep this legislation alive.
October 01, 2007
Energy Demand far Outpaces Population Growth
Posted by Dan Stafford at 11:34 AM
While not a favorite past time of many people, I enjoy poking around the Department of Energy website. Today, I was looking at United States energy use from 1949 to 2006.
The pretty frightening thing is that US energy use has increased 1038% between 1950 and 200, which compares to a population change of 87% in that same time period.
To break that down a little further, in 1950 every person in the U.S. used 2,220 kilowatt hours of energy each year. By 2000, that had jumped to 13,510 kilowatt hours per person, a 509% increase for every person.
Then, when you look at percentages of where our energy comes from, it gets even freakier. As you can see from the chart below, the % of our energy from fossil fuels has gone from a little under 70% in 1949 to a little over 71% in 2006 - however, even though the percentage has stayed about the same, the actual use has increased 11-fold.
When you look at renewables and nukes, the picture is even more bleak - we've gone from over 30% of our energy coming from renewables in 1949, to less than 10% in 2006, and nukes have gone from nothing to about 20%.

Now, the encouraging part of all of this is actually nukes. To be clear, I'm dead set against any increase in nuclear power, BUT, the fact that the energy sector could actually embrace a new power source to the degree that within 20 years it takes over a fifth of our energy supply seems encouraging, if only they'd embrace solar and wind the same way.
At least it destroys the argument that they can't just introduce some crazy new energy source, because they already have. Sadly, it was the wrong one. Let's make sure they get it right this time.
|