The purpose of the video was to publicize the dangers of drilling for natural gas, also known as fracking. The song highlights that fracking was made exempt from complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act by the Bush Administration and remains unregulated. Hazardous chemicals such as benzine and formaldehyde, among a number of secret chemicals considered “trade secrets”, are pumped into the ground to help release the natural gas from rock. These chemicals remain in the ground and can seep into water supplies.

The chorus features the lyric “I think my water’s on fire tonight”, referring to the HBO Documentary Gasland that showed resident’s near fracking wells had such polluted tap water that the water would set on fire if an open flame were held to the faucet. The EPA has began looking into the environmental impacts of fracking and recently released a report stating that hydraulic fracturing was probably to blame for well water contamination in Wyoming.

Check out the video below:

Read more about fracking from our previous article here.

References:

John Muir called himself a “poetico-trampo-geologist-bot” and it’s likely to remain the best description of preservation’s most popular poster child. He was a Kerouac or McCandless, with a scholarly command kept in check by his whimsical humor and self-prescribed duty to share the wilderness with the world. And of equal marvel, his beard remains a silent bond and dream to any man whose pores have touched cold mountain water.

This is his legend:

In 1867, Muir traveled 1,000 miles from Indiana to the Gulf of Mexico, after dropping out of Wisconsin University after two and half years. “I was only leaving one university for another, the University of Wisconsin for the University of the Wilderness,” said Muir. From the Gulf he sailed north to San Francisco, wandered into the city, and allegedly asked the first person he saw how to get out of town.  The man asked where Muir was going. “Anywhere wild,” he said.

In that headstrong fashion, he continued to tramp through the wilderness and in 1868 followed an eastern trail to the Sierra Nevada, through a “window opening into heaven, reflecting the creator,” which most of us know as the pristine Yosemite Valley.

But the influence he cultivated in the Yosemite Valley almost languished as an unrealized ghost. It’s likely he would have continued his life as a man who invented an archaic alarm clock or automatic book-page turner, a man tied to economic and industrial excitement of the late eighteen-hundreds, if it weren’t for an accident at an Indianapolis carriage factory blinded him for nearly a month.

“God has to nearly kill us sometimes to teach us lessons,” he said, and from then on coveted the wilderness, “determined to devote the rest of life to the study of all the inventions of God.”

In 1871, Muir invited Ralph Waldo Emerson to join him “in a month’s worship with Nature in the high temples of the great Sierra Crown beyond our holy Yosemite.” Much of the philosophy Muir championed was actually born out of Emerson and the transcendentalists. But all hopes of the philosophical camping trip of the millennium were extinguished when Emerson and his grey-haired traveling companions declined the invite. The wilderness can be “a sublime mistress, but an intolerable wife,” warned Emerson, and he countered Muir with an opportunity live in Massachusetts as a permanent guest. Muir refused and marked the incident as “a sad commentary on culture and the glorious transcendentalism,” and later reduced Emerson’s famous Walden retreat as a “mere saunter” from Concord and scoffed the philosopher for “seeing forests in orchards and patches of huckleberry brush.”

Muir’s first summer in the Sierra he spent as a goat herder, and during the period he noticed “hoofed locust” moving into the High Sierra and saw the damaging effects of overgrazing.

To combat the problem, he wrote “God’s First Temples: How Shall we Preserve our Forests,” and spearheaded his first unsuccessful effort to establish a national park in the Southern Sierra in 1876.

While the effort died in the Senate, Muir attracted the nation’s leading literary monthly, Century, and its editor Robert Underworld Johnson.

When I took this position at Modern Serenity, it was hashed out over electronic contracts and email. Johnson and Muir settled their agreement around a campfire near the Tuolumne River.

“What had become of the luxuriant meadows and wildflowers that had supposedly existed in the mountains?” Asked Johnson.

Muir explained the sheep and overgrazing and Johnson’s said, “Obviously, the thing to do is to make Yosemite a national park.”

Subsequently, Johnson offered Muir an opportunity to publicly argue for a 1,500 square-mile Yosemite National Park, and Muir agreed to write two articles, The Treasure of the Yosemite and Features of the Proposed National Park. Muir’s illustrative pieces argued for the valley preservation for its environmental service as a critical watershed, but more importantly as “a noble mark for the lover of wilderness, pure and simple.”

Johnson became Muir’s strongest advocate at the time, lobbying to the House of Representative for the creation of Yosemite National Park. The bill passed quietly on September 30^th, 1890, bolstered not only by Muir’s steadfast belief in transcendental value of wilderness, but also the interest of South Pacific Railroad – who anticipated the value of the park as a popular tourist site.

But just as corporate interest helped establish Yosemite Valley as a national park, it also led to its partial destruction, as energy and water interests veiled as public utilitarian services flooded Hetch-Hetchy valley, situated within the national park, in order to meet the needs of San Francisco’s growing population.

During the debate Johnson publicly expressed the popular sentiments of preservationists: they didn’t want to deny San Francisco a water resource. Their point, as Scholar Roderick Nash points out in Wilderness and the American Mind, is that “of course civilization must have its due, they conceded, but in this case other sources of water were available.”

“These temple destroyers, devotees of ravaging commercialism, seem to have a perfect contempt for Nature, and instead of lifting their eyes to the God of the Mountains, lift them to the Almighty Dollar,” said Muir.

Today, as California state parks are being closed and policy makers pin price tags to Muir’s oldest stomping grounds, it’s important to rekindle passion that belonged to a man the 1912 American Review called “the most magnificent enthusiast about nature in the United States, the most rapt of all prophets of our out-of-door gospel.”

References

John Muir: A Brief Biography. The Sierra Club http://www.sierraclub.org/john_muir_exhibit.

Solyndra filed a pre-application for the government loan in 2006, in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which secured roughly 10 billion dollars in tax incentives and loan guarantees for green-technology companies. In 2007, the Department of Energy invited the company to submit a full loan application, and in 2009, Solyndra received conditional government commitment for the $535 million loan.

According to bankruptcy documents, the money was used to fund a second fabrication facility. The total cost for the facility was $753 million and the company secured private investment to secure the difference.

After securing the loan both President Obama and Vice President Biden championed the company as the “true engine of economic growth.”

Earlier this month a republican led comittee released emails that suggest the government was warned about the risk associated with Solyndra.

One email, dated March 10, 2009, states the deal “is not ready for primetime,” citing the fact that the company still needed to raise 200 million dollars in private equity and that there are “serious issues with the DOE subsidy cost model which we need to address very quickly.”

To raise that private equity, Solyndra filed a Form S-1 with the United States Security and Exchange Commission on March 16th 2010, a process that could have resulted in more private investors for the company. However, some audits suggest the company was not ready to go public, and Solyndra pulled its application June 18th, 2010, due to “adverse market conditions.”

According to the original S-1 application, Solyndra started shipping their photovoltaic systems in July 2008  and increased their revenue through the date the S-1 was filed, March 16th 2010. But the S-1 also reports Solyndra’s economic woes, stating, “we had an accumulated deficit of 557.7 million at January 2, 2010.”

A major private investor was the George Kaiser Foundation who owns 35.7% of Solyndra. The foundation is also responsible for donating $50,000 to $100,000 to Barack Obama’s president campaign in 2008. Kaiser donated $2,300 personally.

White house visitor logs indicate Kaiser visited Obama aids several times since 2007. His first meeting was March 12th, when he met with Austan Goolsbee, Senior Economic Adviser to Obama, and Heather Higginbottom, Deputy Assistant to Obama for Domestic Policy. On March 13th Kaiser met with Jason Furman, member of Obama’s National Economic Council.

An email statement released by the Kaiser Foundation on September 1st stated, “Kaiser is not an investor in Solyndra and did not participate in any discussion with the US government  regarding the loan.” Kaiser, Goolsbee or Higginbottom were not contacted before the time of publication.

House members Henry Waxman of California and Diane DeGette of Colorado said Brian Harrison, Solyndra Chief Executive Officer, reported three months ago that the company was fiscally sound.

“He did not convey to us the perilous condition of the company, and the committee should know why,” wrote Waxman and DeGette in a letter to Cliff Sterns, the Florida Republican who heads the House Energy and Commerce Committee oversight panel.

“Regulatory and policy uncertainties in recent months created significant near-term excess supply and price erosion,” said Harrison in a statement on the company website. “Rasing incremental capital in this environment was not possible.”

Now, Solyndra, who specializes in light-weight rooftop solar panels, has a four-week period to sell the company or begin liquidation. “The debtors intend to pursue all potential turnkey buyers, specifically interested parties in both the US and overseas,” stated the bankruptcy document. “The debtors believe that this process would yield a far greater return to the debtors creditors than a piece-meal liquidation.”

On August 31^st, Solyndra terminated 900 full time employees, leaving 113 core employees. Gross bi-weekly payroll was cut from $3.5 million to $650,000 dollars. Terminations were executed without warning employees.

Solyndra still has several accounts open with Wells Fargo bank and said disruption of these accounts would harm both current business operations as well as “a sale of their assets for the benefit of the creditors.”

On September 8th, the same day as the FBI raid on Solyndra, solar company 1366 Technologies Inc. secured 150 million dollars from the government.

“Every project that receives financing through the Energy Department goes through a rigorous financial, legal and technical review process,” White House spokesperson Eric Schultz said.

It is important to note that despite the Solyndra scandal, the Department of Energy’s renewable energy loan guarantee program has had many more successes than failures. It plays an important role in expanding renewable energy in the US and helps move solar, wind, geothermal, etc. towards economies of scale where they will be able to compete with traditional energy sources. We will cover some of the program’s successes in upcoming pieces.

A paper written by Burrell E. Montz of Binghamton University’s Department of Geology and Environmental Studies delineates some of the many environmental hazards posed by flooding.  Much of the risk involves contamination, which can range from less serious, accidental contamination by household products that leak into the water systems to more serious contamination of human water sources or plant and animal ecosystems.  It is easy to imagine how these ecosystems can be completely destroyed by rapid, overwhelming flooding, seriously endangering the species that inhabit them.  On a personal note, my current town has been reeling from flooding ever since Irene hit, and one of the many ramifications is that the town’s water has been deemed unsafe and all residents are being told to drink bottled water.  I can only imagine the carbon footprint created by my town’s bottled water consumption, let alone that of all the similarly affected towns across the east coast.

A number of factors can influence the severity of the environmental threat posed by flooding. Montz reports that “depth of water, velocity of flows, and duration of inundation, in combination with land-use attributes” can all impact the environmental damage posed.  It makes sense of course that areas with faster and greater volumes of water would take the greatest hit, but we may not immediately think that areas intended for specific purposes may be more prone to environmental damage.  For example, farmland would be in great danger because vast acres of cleared land are left without the protection that trees can provide.  The devastation would be magnified in farm areas where pesticides or other chemicals are used, since they would be flooded into water systems at high rates.

Of course, there are ways in which we can adequately prepare and therefore lessen the potential for serious environmental harm.  Sandbagging can reduce the risk of flooding in certain areas, which would obviously decrease the risk of secondary environmental effects.  Montz also recommends being mindful of all household chemicals and potentially hazardous materials beforehand, as to avoid letting them be washed into the flood waters.  Residents should also severely limit water use in their homes during the heavy rains that lead to flooding, because town water waste and treatment facilities are likely so overburdened that household use just compounds the threat of flooding.

Regions across the country are now being reminded that preparedness can save resources, human lives, and environmental integrity.  Unfortunately, natural disasters like floods often remind individuals and communities of the costs associated with some of our current ways of life.  In one such instance, a town in Pennsylvania is suffering after a different generation, forty years prior, decided to forego the protection of extra levees in favor of picturesque river views (New York Times).  Reflection on the environmental implications to the whole region adds yet another dimension of consideration for communities weighing similar options.

Floods can be ruinous, and portions of our country may be victimized by flooding as an unavoidable result of severe weather patterns.  However, it is important to know how you can minimize damage to your family, property, and even natural environment.  Whether or not you have been lucky enough to escape Irene’s and Lee’s wraths, please take a moment to consider your flood preparedness plan.  The state of New York’s Department of Health has a thorough online reference to help you prepare for floods, and other states across the country have comparable resources immediately available.  A little consideration and forethought may go a long way in protecting your home and community.

New York Department of Health’s Flood Preparedness Guide:

http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/emergency/flood/

Works Cited

“Flood Preparedness.” New York State Department of Health. Web. 13 Sept. 2011. <http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/emergency/flood/>.

Montz, Burrell E. “Quick Response Report #93 – The Environmental Impacts of Flooding in St. Maries, Idaho.” University of Colorado Boulder. 7 Feb. 1997. Web. 13 Sept. 2011. <http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/research/qr/qr93/qr93.html>.

Saulny, Susan. “A Choice Made Decades Ago Comes Back to Haunt a Town.” The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 11 Sept. 2011. Web. 12 Sept. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/us/12flood.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=levee%20or%20view&st=cse>.

Photo: Mateusz Atroszko

This is an interview with Sarah Worley who is a hobby beekeeper in California. She keeps hives at her farm and at another location near her.  Follow her beekeeping and farming adventures at www.beewenchfarm.com or www.beewench.blogspot.com

How did you become interested in beekeeping?

I got interested in beekeeping about 4 years ago after seeing an article about “The Bee Movie”. I was amazed to learn that 1/3 of all the foods we eat is pollinated by bees and that bees were declining in numbers around the world.

How do you get started in beekeeping?

First I read and read and read…then I joined a local beekeepers group and asked questions. Its really important that you talk with beekeepers in your local area if possible, because each region is different for bee management.

What kind of gear do you need before you begin?

First, of course, you need a hive. There are a couple of different types of hives to choose from. There is the Langstroth hive, which is the typical square box you see. There is the Top Bar Hive, which is a long trough shaped hive that is managed a little bit differently. You need a veil to protect your face and a hive tool at minimum. I also would suggest a smoker and a bee jacket and gloves. You also need bees!

Where did you get your bees and gear from?

I got my bees from feral swarms in my area. I gave my name to local farm supply stores, police and fire departments for them to call me if anyone reported a swarm in their area. I purchased most of my gear and one of my hives from beekeeping supply companies. My Top Bar Hives were built by my dad and me.

You said you have a Top Bar Hive, what does that mean?

A Top Bar Hive is a horizontal trough shaped hive that is commonly used in tropical or more temperate climates. Instead of adding boxes, or supers, on top of the hive like a Langstroth hive, you had bars along the length of the hive for the bees to build their comb on.

Is there a benefit to Top Bar hives?

I prefer working with Top Bar Hives because I feel they are less invasive during inspections. I only have to move a bar or two at a time to check on the bees instead of taking the entire top off the hive.

Have you ever been stung?

Hahaha! Yes, of course. I get asked this a lot, and yes, I’ve been stung. It isn’t a big deal, it hurts for a moment and then is gone. I make every effort to not get stung but sometimes it happens.

Were you scared or nervous when you first started?

I was a little nervous. Mostly because I wanted to make sure the bees were taken care of properly, and I was a little scared of getting stung. I dont know why, it’s not a big deal. And after it finally happened I decided to stop being nervous. It’s really important when you are working with the bees to be calm and relaxed because the bees can sense your worry and may become more agitated.

How much time does it take to take care of your hives?

Personally, I dont spend a lot of time on my hives. I prefer to let the bees do their own thing as much as possible. I figure that the bees having been taking care of themselves in the wild for a long time, they can probably continue that. I check that there are bees flying in and out of the hive every week or so and do hive checks about 3 times a year. 2 times a year when I harvest and once during the winter to make sure the bees have plenty of honey to last them. Luckily, I live in a temperate climate and can check the bees during the winter on a sunny day.

How many hives do you have? How much honey do you get from each?

Currently I have 3 hives. Two Top Bar Hives and one Langstroth hive. This spring I plan to add two more Top Bar Hives. I dont take a lot of honey from my bees normally. Like I said, I dont do a lot of management and we only use the honey for ourselves. This year and last year, I’ve harvested about 2 gallons of honey from each hive during the year. I harvest once in late spring and once in late summer to take advantage of the different nectar flows. Harvesting this small amount leaves the bees with plenty of honey to get them through the winter.

What else can you do with bees besides get honey?

Well, there is the beeswax and pollen and also propolis. I use the beeswax from my bees for making soap and beauty products like lipbalm. Many people feel that pollen and propolis have healing properties and it is well known that consuming local pollen helps with seasonal allergies.

Are there different types of honey?

Yes, there are. The type of honey is determined by location and time of the year, or nectar flow. Many beekeepers move their bees to certain “crops” to take advantage of the nectar flow. Lavendar, Orange and Buckwheat are very popular for beekeepers.  During the spring the honey is traditionally lighter in color with a sweeter taste. During the late summer or fall the honey is darker in color, with a deeper taste.

How long does a bee live?

On average a worker bee lives 40-50 days. A queen bee usually has a lifespan of 4-8 years.

Is it true there is only one queen in the hive?

Yes, each hive only has one queen. That queen lays all of the eggs in the hive.

What is your favorite part of beekeeping?

All of it! Seriously, I love being a beekeeper…its so much fun to watch the bees go about their work. Each bee has a job in the hive and the hive works so well because each bee does its job. I love the sweet golden honey we get during the year and answering all the questions people have about beekeeping.

The standards for environmental literacy were passed by the Maryland State Board of Education, a 12-member board of individuals appointed by the governor.  The fact that this was not a legislative initiative is just one of the points of contention being raised by opponents.  In addition, some have been outspoken about their concern for exactly what will be taught to fill the environmental literacy requirement.  State Senator J. B. Jennings, for example, has publically questioned whether the curriculum is going to be “fact-based” or “theory-based,” implying that lessons about global warming and climate change would fall in the latter camp.  Regardless of the reality that there is wide-spread scientific consensus regarding the existence of global warming and anthropogenic climate change, those concerned about this point should note that the literacy standard does not mandate any specific curriculum.  In fact, the individual schools are encouraged to take a multidisciplinary approach to incorporating the type of education in the manner that they see fit.

Others have voiced concern about instating an environmental literacy requirement while some students still struggle with basic academic skills.  The fact is that tests have shown improvement in science, math, reading, and social studies scores in students who had received integrated environmental education as a part of their core courses.  This means that in addition to instilling students with important and timely environmental knowledge, Maryland’s new graduation requirements may help student performance across the board.  It is also worthwhile to note that a number of independent organizations including NOAA Chesapeake BWET and the Chesapeake Bay Trust provide Maryland schools with guidelines and suggestions for curricula and how to take full advantage of local resources.

Despite how individuals may feel about Maryland’s new environmental literacy requirement, it is undeniable that educators across the country are watching closely at what may be the next big trend in pedagogy.  If the thought of an environmentally literate populous in Maryland makes you “green” with envy, there is now reason to truly believe that this could soon happen in your state, too.  Our delegates in Washington D.C. are currently drafting a piece of legislation called No Child Left Inside, which is being spearheaded by Senator Jack Reid of Rhode Island and Senator John Sarbanes of Maryland.  If passed this bill would “increase environmental education opportunities for students across the country,” according to Senator Sarbanes.

Now is the time to call your local Senator or Representative and ask him or her to support this groundbreaking legislation for educational betterment.  It may also be prudent to take action locally, as evidenced by Maryland’s recent moves.  The Maryland State Board of Education advertises itself as a “voice of the people” which “solicits the views of interested groups and the public at large.” This being said, it is true that a number of state and local advocacy groups worked tirelessly in order to bring this recent initiative to fruition.  If you, too, see a vision of greener education in your state, take faith in the notion that voices are being heard in Maryland.  Environmental literacy for all may be even closer than we had imagined.

Three of five leases for Julia Field, located 250 miles from Louisiana, expired in 2008. Exxon Mobil applied for an extension a month before the leases ran out, but the Department of the Interior denied the request in February 2009, as well as a series of subsequent appeals, citing a lack of commitment by the company to develop the field. According to government regulations a company needs to prove its commitment to producing oil in order to extend a lease.

The company applied for a suspension of production so they could tie their Julia wells to a production unit Chevron planned to build eight-miles away. Regulators denied the request because at the time Exxon and Chevron reached no formal agreement.

“The Interior decision is the first time that the Interior has determined that a ‘production facility’ will ‘facilitate development’ when the lessee owns the ‘production facility,’ but will not ‘facilitate development’ when the lessee does not own the ‘production facility,’” the complaint said.

An Interior department spokeswomen said, “Our priority remains the safe development of the nation’s offshore energy resources, which is why we continue to approve extensions that meet regulatory standards.”

Oil production in the Gulf has received more scrutiny since the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010. An investigative report conducted by the Republic of Marshall Islands (the county Deepwater Horizon was flagged under) states a “deviation from the well abandonment plans submitted to and approved by the Minerals Management Service” contributed to the biggest oil spill in U.S. history.

If Exxon loses the court case, some officials say that the U.S. government stands to gain more royalties, which according to the Wall Street Journal could amount to almost 11 billion dollars over ten years.

In the complaint Exxon says “The interior decision is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.”

While three leases are being contested, two of the five leases for the field do not expire until 2013.

Exxon is the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, and in 2008 the company received $792.3 million in government contracts.

The court case is Exxon Mobil Corp v. Salazar et. al, U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, No. 11-01474.

Many of the top-tier Republican presidential candidates have stated in so many words that they believe that anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is a hoax, engaging familiar rhetoric that there is still not scientific consensus regarding climate change.  This is simply not true.  Eight years ago, Science Magazine reported that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, created by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, had unambiguously stated its certainty that “the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities” (Oreskes).

The article goes on to recount that the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements confirming their agreement with the scientific consensus about the anthropogenic nature of climate change.  Since 2004, scientists across the board have outspokenly supported the consensus opinion, to the point that some sources now report a complete lack of dissention among scientific associations of national or international standing.  Of course, scientific history has taught us that the scientific consensus can be proven wrong with time; however, to assert that this consensus does not exist, as many of the Republican candidates have done, is purely disingenuous.

Creating or fueling popular doubt in climate change is nothing more than a campaign tactic.  Many Americans are looking for a reason to maintain the comfortable status quo, and the belief that any doubt still exists can be just such a reason.  Allowing us to believe that climate change consensus does not exist is analogous to telling us that we do not need to worry yet or begin to change behavior, because it might all be some made up concern.  This is therefore a dangerous strategy and ought to be exposed.

A look at recent statements made by the Republican presidential candidates reveals that most of them refuse to consider climate change to be an issue worth our time and money.  Last week Texas Governor Rick Perry said in a discussion with New Hampshire business stakeholders that he believes that “there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects” (“Perry on Climate Change”).  He continues that “we’re seeing weekly or even daily scientists who are coming forward, questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what’s causing the climate to change.”

Perry then employs one of the most-used denial techniques, reminding his audience that the Earth’s climate has warmed and cooled since the beginning of time.  This is of course correct, but inconsequential to the fact that human-driven climate change is happening at a much greater rate than ever before experienced.  The governor concludes by discussing what he foresees as the fiscal cost to our country and the world of dealing with climate change, stating that he “[does not want] America to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven, and, from [his] perspective is more and more being put in question” (“Perry on Climate Change”).

Michele Bachmann, another of the race’s frontrunners, argued on the floor of the House of Representatives in 2009 that “carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of nature,” adding that “there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas… it is a harmless gas” (Graves).  Representative Bachmann, that is simply not true.  In 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a statement saying that greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide – “threaten the public health and welfare of the American people” (Associated Press).  Many scientific associations have since supported this assertion. Once again, Bachmann is playing to the public’s confusion and espousing “data” that is misleading at best. Bachmann has also followed the other candidates in attacking the EPA, promising that it will be closed if she is elected President (Broder).

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has also evoked the idea that global warming is a natural part of the Earth’s warming and cooling processes.  In a radio interview with Rush Limbaugh in June, Santorum said that he thinks global warming is “a beautifully concocted scheme” created by liberals who want to take advantage of this “natural process” in favor of more governmental regulation (“The Rick Santorum Interview”).  His only reference to scientific consensus – which, as we know, purports that humans have severely influenced the Earth’s warming – is to call it “the junk science behind the whole narrative.”

Herman Cain, while admittedly a dark horse for the candidacy, has also been outspoken regarding his disbelief in global warming.  In an interview with CBS News’s Brian Montopoli in June, Cain said, “I don’t believe global warming is real” (“Herman Cain Interview”).  He later added, “the science, the real science, doesn’t say that we have any major crisis or threat, when it comes to climate change.”  The environmental stances of Presidential hopefuls Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich may be harder to ascertain, as both have formerly shown pro-environmental initiative but have more recently backed away from outright agreement that global warming exists (Hymas).

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney may be slightly more of a friend to the environmental message.  He told a crowd in New Hampshire earlier this summer that he believes “that humans have contributed to” global warming (Graves).  He went on to add that “it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors,” a bold statement for a Republican candidate to make, and one that falls well outside the party’s mainstream message of late.  However, last month Romney was quoted as saying “I don’t think carbon is a pollutant in the sense of harming our bodies” (Weiner).  As the governor of Massachusetts, Romney originally supported a regional greenhouse gas reduction initiative but later withdrew support, citing economic reasons.

The Huffington Post (Graves) reports that former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman may be the most pro-environment candidate in the Republican field, and the liberal political magazine Mother Jones agrees.  As governor of Utah, Huntsman brought the state into the Western Climate Initiative and set a goal for the state to return to 2005 emissions levels by 2020 (Hymas).  Two years ago he also stated that he was “enormously frustrate[ed]” by his party’s lack of climate action (Hymas).  In fact, Huntsman received a lot of flack just last week for tweeting that he believes in evolution and climate change, and he followed up on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday night by saying “the minute that the Republican Party becomes… the anti-science party, we have a huge problem” (Weiner).  However, now that he is a serious presidential candidate, Huntsman seems to be backtracking.  He now reportedly opposes a regional cap-and-trade program that he once supported, reminding us all that rhetoric means little if these candidates do not having the conviction to follow through with environmental policies (Weiner).

The environment must be one of the central priorities for this decade, and the administration inaugurated in 2012 must be dedicated to championing that priority.  Before voting in the Republican primaries and eventual presidential election next year, please consider the environmental ramifications of your vote.  I implore everyone to do some research and decide whose platform – and policies – you can truly get behind.

The agreement will also create jobs in these communities because of the anticipated workforce shortage in the water industry. The partnership calls for providing job training to help the unemployed become qualified to fill those positions.

Funds, which are yet to be announced, will come from state’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). The EPA annually provides grants to each state DWSRF program to “promote safe and affordable drinking water”—authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

The SDWA, passed by Congress in 1974, is the main federal law that protects American’s drinking water. It was later amended to include the protection of drinking water sources, which includes lakes, rivers, reservoirs, springs and ground water wells.

Nationwide, small water and sewage treatment facilities, with limited funding and resources, face challenges due to rising costs and aging equipment and pipes. These challenges are what has sparked this partnership between the EPA and USDA.

“EPA and USDA have joined forces to leverage our expertise and resources to improve drinking water and wastewater systems in small towns across the country,” said Nancy Stoner, acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Water, in a statement. “A critical part of this agreement is to ensure that we have a well trained, professional workforce available to replace workers when they leave or retire.”

According to a 2005 published report by the American Water Workers Association (AWWA) titled, “Succession Planning for a Vital Workforce in the Information Age,” the water utility workforce will decline in the next 10 years. Specifically, the AWWA projects 37 percent of water utility workers and 32 percent of wastewater utility workers will be eligible for retirement within the next decade. Additionally, the U.S Department of Labor estimates that the demand for water and wastewater operators will increase by 20 percent through 2018.

With about 13.9 million people unemployed and a 9.1 percent unemployment rate, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, this sings opportunity.

Under the agreement, EPA and USDA will “work together to promote jobs by targeting specific audiences, providing training for new water careers and coordinating outreach efforts that will bring greater public visibility to the workforce needs of the industry, and develop a new generation of trained water professionals,” according to a press release.

“08/08/2011: EPA and USDA Create a Partnership to Improve Drinking Water Systems and Develop Workforce in Rural Communities.” Environmental Protection Agency. 8 Aug. 2011. Web. 18 Aug. 2011.

“Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States Environment Protection Agency and the United States Department of Agriculture–Rural Development Utilities Service.” EPA.gov. 8 Aug. 2011. Web. 12 Aug. 2011.

“Employment Situation Summary.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 5 Aug. 2011. Web. 18 Aug. 2011.

The incident is now being called the “worst oil spill of the decade” in UK waters.

The Gannet Oil leak was about 112 miles off the coast of Aberdeen, Scotland. Alex Salmond, leader of Scottish regional government, reiterated a Reuters report that about 750 barrels have leaked so far. On Sunday Shell reported contradictory numbers, announcing the spill has leaked between 12 and 120 barrels and was “under control.”

Company officials report the size of the spill to be 20 miles long and 2.5 miles wide.

“We continue to expect the oil sheen will be naturally dispersed through wave action and will not reach shore,” Shell said.

The Gannet field is operated by Shell U.K. Limited, which runs the field on behalf of Esso Exploration, a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil.