Revised Senate Climate Bill Released - Plus the EPA Analysis

good job of reporting David.

I like that word you employ for the whiners- "disingenuous". Mark my words, you will get someone predicting that this bill will cost every american family an additional $5000 per year before this thread runs out. Won't be reality based, but there it will be.

Seems it's easy to "just say no" without any thought whatsoever. Luckily there are people who are actually trying to address our common issues, not hide from them.

Why do we need a Climate Bill when it is based on false science paid for by the UN?

It must be very lonely being the last flat-earther.

Please don't show your ignorance.

Col. George it isn't the UN's fault. It is either them sun spots or all that aomic bomb testing. At least that is what the wacko's back in the 1950's blamed everything on.

so soon it starts, David.

Work towards some policy remedies has been slow, but nonetheless it is progressing. See the link to the article in today's Washington Post that I put in my response to George above. It's been a battle against those who don't want the world to change, but action is edging forward.

I read this article earlier and was glad that it appeared in the W Post. Yesterday POTUS 44 visited a solar power plant.

"...President Barack Obama will make Arcadia history on Tuesday when he becomes the first commander in chief to walk through this citrus-and-cow-town turned solar energy mecca. "

Sarasota, FL...Herald Tribune

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20091024/ARTICLE/910241061/2055/NEWS?Title=Arcadia-abuzz-over-Tuesday-visit-by-Obama

I'm not sure why, Johnice, but Gather keeps cutting off comments with URLs. Can you try hotlinking the article?

Interesting piece on Marketplace tonight about Helena, Montana and the destruction of the pine forests caused largely by the disappearance of prolonged, deep winter freezes that were cold enough to kill most of the beetles that have, in the past few years, devastated the forest. This happened recently after the beetle population had been naturally controlled by the cold forever... even the die-hard Republicans were lamenting the climate change in their own lifetimes. This is a case of not being able to see the forest because there are no trees!

The evidence is just so overwhelming, it's clear those remaining denialists are doing so out of pure uninformed ideology and fear of having to actually take responsibility for our actions.

James, that beetle population is not controled any more because the tree huggers went to court and prevented the Forest Service from controlling them.

Accurate information on the western pine beetle can be found here.

Col, I said "largely" because there is more than one reason, but there is one major reason. "Tree huggers" is such a juvenile phrase. Decisions were made on all sides of the political spectrum that contributed to the problem. You don't hear the residents of Helena resorting to name calling in the interviews on the radio- they know the causes (plural) of the trouble their forests are in, and climate change looms very large in the discussion, to the extent that people who would "never vote for a Democrat" are fully convinced of the problems caused by warmer winters. You can listen yourself at marketplace online (they even post on Gather).

I am for less pollution. But These bills wold cost me about $75 to 300 a month out of my pocket.
If it did get near the upper estimate, I would become homeless.
There has to be a better way to address this issue without forcing a huge financial burden on the poor.
When I ran for public office, I supported bio-fuels, and still do.
But by using corn and wheat, prices of foods that use corn and wheat have gone up.
There has to be a better way other than forcing many to become homeless. Even at the lowest estimate of 75 bucks, it would force me to choose between medicine, food, and the monthly buss pass I buy.
If there is no better way, then the climate bills should die.

But These bills wold cost me about $75 to 300 a month out of my pocket.

And not dealing with climate change will cost you thousands a month. At least.

There has to be a better way to address this issue without forcing a huge financial burden on the poor.

There are of course lots of provisions to help the poor deal with any costs, plus incentives to make changes.

There has to be a better way other than forcing many to become homeless.

No one is being forced to be homeless. Let's stick with facts.

If there is no better way, then the climate bills should die.

Everything you've said is based on not knowing what is in the bills. Learn what is in them rather than basing reactions on fear of the unknown.

Ed da Head, having an atmosphere that is not capable of sustaining human life is going to be a bit of a financial disaster in itself.

I agree Robert. We do need clean air.
Springfield mo is building a coal power plant that is lower than EPA's requirements. Yet, under this bill's lower"quota" would have the Springfield's new plant needing those "trade units."
This bill will force many to become homeless. I have seen the numbers, and I could very well be one of the homeless.
I do agree we need to end pollution.
But the "fines" for many of the coal burning power plants will make many homeless.
And not one new "nuke" power plant has been started in decades.
IF all of those "fines" were removed, and more help and incentives to clean up emissions would be much better.

The EPA is attempting to force Portland to go into debt for a huge centralized water treatment plant that will lead to debt service that will be resisted by already stressed rate- and tax-payers. The persons doing this are burrowed-in appointees who do not represent actual people separate from those who lobby at them from industries who can afford fancy lobbyists.

In some cases, we have revolving-door users shaking hands with their regulators (yeah, right).

Behind this push appears to be to be some of the most nefarious international actors out there, including big-name engineering companies and big-name financing houses eager to do the bonding and debt service that could enable them to own a monopoly on water.

Over 22 neighborhood groups and employers oppose changing a gravity-fed water system that initiates in pristine forest carefully kept clear of human and cattle waste since the 1800's.

The city and federal officials that we hoped would represent us appear to represent instead whoever it is that has leaned on the EPA to require an expensive, energy-intensive degradation of a model city water system.

Our elected officials appear to be afraid of being jailed by the feds if they represent the people who elected them. The city council members have joked about their fear of jail publicly.

A member of the Public Utility Review Board wrote an opinion piece for the paper arguing it would be worth it to go to jail for such a cause.

Needless to say, she is no longer on the board, and other members were removed as well, so the appointer could appoint more pliant reviewers.

Our officials appear to be afraid to ask Barbara Boxer for a waiver, even though she has obtained exceptions from Bush-era mandates for her own jurisdiction. They are moving to mandate that we sequester water underground, where much radon gas is known to be, in the kind of system that has led to terrible adverse events in other cities.

They want us to buy huge ultra-violet machines that contain mercury rather than using sunshine that is used now in our reservoirs.

Under the circumstances, I do not trust 900 pages from Barbara Boxer.

I would expect the beneficiaries of the 900 pages to be interesting characters who want to extract special advantage from emission allowances and other fine print indulgences.

Who will be the transparency guru who will track who the special beneficiaries are? Will that be you, David? Will you let us know?

Such smiling faces as they write fine print that enriches their already-rich friends. At some point, this gig has got to be up. It seems to me they have gone far enough in taking from the poor to enable jet-setting lifestyles.

The depth of corruption is utterly stunning, and they title things such green-sounding names.

A comment by Dan E was removed as I had indicated previously I would do. The reason has nothing to do with the comment itself, which I have included inside my comment further below.

The reason is that Dan E stole my icon photo several weeks ago and posted it on his site, then refused to delete it for three days during which I made repeated requests for its removal and made clear that he did not have my permission to use the photo. His excuse was that it was okay for him to steal due to "fair use" that allows copyright infringement. I explained that he was in error as Gather is a pay-for-post site and the "fair use" only applies to individual educational purposes. This was confirmed by a copyright and intellectual property attorney. It was also confirmed by Gather.

Stealing other's photos, articles, and other intellectual property is illegal. It is also against Gather TOS. Dan E refused to remove my photo from his site, and even took pride in doing so, joking that he knew he what he was doing was wrong but chose to do it anyway just to irk liberals. Eventually Gather forced him to remove the photo he stole. They also warned him about his other repeated Gather TOS violations, based on which he has made minor tweaks to some of the blog articles that he steals from other sites in their entirety and posts on Gather. In other articles he merely continues to break the law and TOS.

Again, Dan E was informed that his continued and repeated dishonesty is not welcome in any of my posts. He was informed that any attempt to comment on my posts would result in his comment being deleted and the above notice being posted in its place. Removal of his comment has nothing to do with its content, which I have reproduced below. It has everything to do with his dishonesty and other violations of TOS, the law, and common decency.

My apologies for this interuption. Should Dan E choose to continue to insert comments in my posts I will delete them as well.

The EPA is attempting to force Portland to go into debt for a huge centralized water treatment plant that will lead to debt service that will be resisted by already stressed rate- and tax-payers.

Mary, I don't know the specific circumstance on the Portland drinking water treatment issue so cannot comment directly. I did find the following article that adds some information to the very nice summary you provided.

In general, primary treatment (which is very limited) is usually insufficient. In Portland's case it appears the only treatment to drinking water trickling from the watershed is chlorination. While Portland does appear to have a relatively pristine watershed (a rarity that must be protected), I suspect there are legitimate concerns. Still, this is something that Portland should be discussing with EPA, which it appears has been the case. I hope that a workable solution is reached.

Under the circumstances, I do not trust 900 pages from Barbara Boxer.

This is a non sequitur, Mary, as I'm sure you know since you clearly have done your research on this situation. Again, I hope that all parties reach the best decision and path forward in your case. But the situation in Portland has nothing to do with Senator Boxer's bill. To begin with, Boxer is not the EPA, who is the party responsible for the Portland water case. In addition, Boxer has had her committee staff (not her personal staff) working on this issue, as have other Senators like John Kerry, with whom the bill was cosponsored.

Furthermore, your accusation of "they have gone far enough in taking from the poor to enable jet-setting lifestyles" is entirely without merit. As is your accusation that "The depth of corruption is utterly stunning, and they title things such green-sounding names." It's understandable that you are upset because of the potentially huge costs of installing better pre-treatment of drinking water, but this shouldn't be conflated with the attempts to deal with what scientists tell us is a very real problem that needs critical attention.

Excellent comments Mary!

The largest contributor to pollution of of rivers and streams is cities and towns that refuse to increase taxes to pay for proper sewage treatment. Even Greenpeace admitted this some years ago in an interview in the St. Louis Post Dispatch news paper (after Greenpeace had sabotaged an industrial waste water treatment plant on the Mississippi for PR purposes, causing very significant environmental damage).

I don't know what the reasons are for the EPA demands on the water supply in Portland, but the EPA is pretty dependable and trustworthy when it comes to water treatment and safety, in my experience.

To follow up, the point was that the EPA has had to sue communities and companies to force them to stop polluting water supplies or using polluted water supplies.

So you guys in Portland want to drink polluted water?

BTW David theer are many other valid reasons for deleting Dan E. other than the fact that he is a theif.

Good post and information, David. If the opponents would stop complaining and read the bill there would be some substance to the discussion. At least that's my opinion.

Unfortunately, most opponents get their information from their biased "news" stations and blogs. Even most of Congress doesn't actually read the bill (usually they read a summary or if they are really interested they have staffers read it and provide them with analysis). That actually is reasonable given the amount of work that needs to be done, and is exactly what happens in big companies as well (CEOs read the "executive summary," not the entire reports).

The real problem is that people have a tendency to decide their position before knowing any of the actual details of a bill. Again, they get instructions from bloggers, who are fed talking points by lobbying groups. Then the bloggers just copy from each other until the shear volume of blogs saying the same thing (because they copied it) makes it look like it might be true. Usually it isn't, which is why there is so much crazy information out there that people fall for.

Very good post David, if the politicians as well as the public does not bother reading the bill how will they make an intelligent vote on the environmental issue?

I think coal is the greatest issue of all right now and their is not much time left to come together in Washington and start making decisions on the public good in America and the world that we affect with everything we do.

If this bill turns into a political payoff then its going to be pretty hopless, their is a point of no return to the global warming crisis we face.

The burning of coal has more than one problem and encompasses mountain top removal, water pollution and more environmental damage than any other source of conventional fuel being used today.

Politics is the only reason coal is even part of the discussion.

First Solar announced earlier this year cost parity with coal ($1/watt), and production capacity of an average nuclear plant per year - and growing.

First Solar Passes $1 Per Watt Industry Milestone

First Solar Produces 1 Gigawatt of Clean Solar Electricity

Unfortunately, I think Steve is right that "politics is the only reason coal is even part of the discussion." Coal is inherently dirty, and "clean coal" is more of a function of effective advertising than reality.

I was heartened to see Obama highlight funds going to solar energy and modernizing the power grid.

Keep up the good fight, Steve. Your links are incredibly informative.

I think Steve is right also.

Unfortunately coal is the most abundant source of energy in America. Even if coal could be made clean through scrubbing or some technology not yet available we still have the problem with oversight and government is not trustworthy at this time to oversea any big business that operates through lobbies.

Because government oversight is not reliable I do not favor nuclear energy as an option. I live 7 miles from three nuclear reactors that were finally shutdown by the EPA, not because they were doing their job but because a whistle blower decided it was time to get the truth out. The main valve that was responsible for shutting down the reactor was completely rotted away, it no longer existed and was ignored until this person stepped forward and made the problem public. This is not the only nuclear plant that has been found to be in dangerous condition thanks to political payoffs and nuclear power cannot be used unless it can be safely monitored.

As far as I know, the job of oversight for nuclear plants is not held by the EPA, but by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, a watered down version of the old Atomic Energy Commission). The NRC has long demonstrated its incompetence and the way it is beholden to the Energy Industry. The fact that the EPA doesn't have responsibility for nuclear plants means that it has to have strong and legally defensible reasons for "marching in" to the jurisdiction of another government agency.

Your right James, my mistake. But in any case government agencies are not trustworthy to oversee of these reactors as long as they are allowed to take bribes to look the other way.

We have to keep those costs external to the business community at all costs. (Or something like that.)

Something like that, Larry. :)

The following comment was left above and deleted for the reasons stated. I have reproduced it here so that I may address it's lack of veracity.

"Great post Mary, You are wise to not trust Senator Boxer and her cronies, any carbon tax will have no effect on global warming and suffice to enrich but a few while making the rest of us suffer."

While Mary's comment may or may not have its own merit (see my comment to her above), the comment reproduced above has, as usual, no merit nor relevance in reality. Scientists have made clear that climate change is real and is significantly impacted by man-made carbon dioxide emissions reaching the upper atmosphere. Of this the science has been amply demonstrated by tens of thousands of studies by thousands of scientists over more than three decades of research.

The policy options being considered can be debated with respect to which options are likely to have the greatest positive result, but one can not debate the possible remedies by denying the existence of the disease. That is dishonest.

As for the "to enrich but a few while making the rest of us suffer" baloney, it is not surprising that the majority of those denying climate change are associated with free market lobbying groups representing the industries most responsible for carbon dioxide emissions.

For a story about one of the last remaining denialists in Congress, read this.

For other articles documenting the last of honesty by climate change denialists, go here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

All honest discussions are welcome. Dishonest ones are not.

David, You forgot to mention the majority of those espousing Global Warming work for the UN.

David, Honest discussion would not be referencing your own articles on the subject.

David, You forgot to mention the majority of those espousing Global Warming work for the UN.

I didn't mention it because it isn't true, George.

David, Honest discussion would not be referencing your own articles on the subject.

How so? It saves repeating what has already been discussed in detail elsewhere.

So much for freedom of speech....

All honest discussions are welcome. As you know.

Stealing is illegal, in case you weren't aware.

Nora is lying and spreading false information considered part of our free speech rights? I don't think it is.

Nora of course is a known wacko her own right.

All countries have recognised the fact that global warming is enhanced by human activity and will cause grave damage to our environment and throw our children into a life of misery and despair.

The next phase unfortunately has to be political and that is where we stand now. If global warming is legislated like health care and other important legislation we are in danger of not doing enough to make meaningful change because the politicians that we are counting on will play games until they get every last lobby dollar available.

Their are responsible companies that are sighnig onto new technology available and these companies are the future big business that will succeed in not only cleaning up their act but will be the big money makers as the environment continues to deteorate and people start seeing the effects of man made global warming more and more.

Finding a policy solution is difficult when the minority party decides that no action is better than addressing the problem. Which, of course, is how the problems kept getting worse - because no one had the guts to deal with them honestly.

Despite what some would have us believe, the smart companies are shifting toward more sustainable technologies. Those companies latched onto the past will fall behind just like those who felt shoeing horses would be a continued growth area.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAkiDhS0XIA

Thank you for providing a perfect example of the kind of deceit employed by the free market groups.

Monckton has zero scientific training, nor any expertise in anything relevant to climate change science. He is a journalist and right wing lobbyist. He also is associated with the Heartland Institute, as well as other free market lobbying groups whose mission statements require them to fight anything that might lead to policy remedies they don't like. They have a long history of denying science when they don't like the policies being discussed to deal with that science.

They have also admitted to hiring writers and other non-scientists, not to evaluate the science, but specifically to push the Heartland Institute's political position by attacking those who seek to educate the community about the science.

Keep in mind that the scientific community has reached a scientific consensus based on more than thirty years of research. These scientists represent all types of scientific organizations, including those in government, academia, industry (and yes, even any valid skeptic information), independents, NGOs, and everyone else. If the data are valid then they are included.

The scientific consensus is backed by robust data and is endorsed by every major scientific organization in the world. Lord Monckton, on the other hand, has no scientific background and shills for the free market lobbying groups.

You tell me who is more reliable. Scientists who study the science, or non-scientists who don't want their businesses to have to pay for all the costs they have been foisting upon society?

On the mark David. Old Winston keeps the propaganda mills in business.

David,
"Keep in mind that the scientific community has reached a scientific consensus based on more than thirty years of research."

Is that the same kind of consensus that the Neo-Darwinian community has 'reached' claiming that the universe started from nothing via only material causes, that the incredible complexity of even the simplest life simply 'happened' from non-life, and that chemistry and physics are sufficient to describe everything in the world around us?

It's the kind of scientific consensus based on the sum total of all of the relevant and valid scientific data. Which is pretty robust.

"Is that the same kind of consensus that the Neo-Darwinian community has 'reached' claiming that the universe started from nothing via only material causes, that the incredible complexity of even the simplest life simply 'happened' from non-life..."

This sort of question comes from a profound misunderstanding of what science is. Science doesn't pretend to give the Answer. It tries to explain how things work and predict their behavior. It's always based on what we know now.

Philosophy and religion deal with Answers.

In the same way that the Neo-Darwinian conclusions reach well beyond what science dictates (and does so due to a material worldview that requires it) so too might climate 'scientists' overstep the foundations of good science in order to promote an agenda.

I'm curious as to whose agenda scientists are trying to promote. I mean, climate scientists through time have come from every country (that has scientists) with every kind of political and socio-economic system and from every kind of scientific organization (government, academic, NGOs, conservative think tanks, skeptic organizations, free market organizations, independents, etc.). Furthermore, the sum total of ALL of this science dates back several decades and continues today from all of these areas. Additionally, all valid science must go through the peer-review process to ensure the methods are sound and the conclusions drawn are supported by the data. The science then gets discussed, evaluated, tested, retested, and only after all of this has been done over the test of time does it lead to an overwhelming conclusion of what is happening. That is what happened with climate change.

So "promote an agenda" doesn't make any sense at all for scientists. But it does make sense for non-scientific free market lobbying groups like Heartland Institute whose mandate is to fight anything that might lead to policy remedies its membership doesn't like.

I am on record on the internet as opposing coal use and mountain-top removal. I am on record as opposing many behaviors of corporations whose pollution has children asking how long they have to live given the level of pollutants in their blood (The World According to Monsanto). I post frequently on Renewable Energy World, where my comments can be searched.

I am a supporter of renewable energy because of the corruption, pollution, topographical destruction, violence, and other deleterious effects of using fossil fuels. I have made efforts to reduce my own energy use, and a founder of Solar Oregon has reviewed my use, pronounced it good and helped me brainstorm ways to make it even better. I do not take kindly to being demonized and lumped with denialists, with whom I have had vigorous disagreements.

It is unreasonable to call our government a government of the people while they write 900-page bills legislators themselves do not read. I am glad you are willing to concede they do not read these monstrosities.

We do not have government helpful to the ordinary person when excuses for poor behavior are written in language designed to be inaccessible to the ordinary person.

Who will be the auditors on this bill to see who profits? This question did not get answered, and I asked you directly.

I find it interesting when you deny corruption in government. Have you not read the papers and watched the perp walks? A wholesale denial of corruption in government is as stunning as the well-documented corruption itself.

We do not have government helpful to the ordinary person when excuses for poor behavior are written in language designed to be inaccessible to the ordinary person.

I agree that the language becomes cumbersome, but bills are actually required to be written in common language these days (as opposed to legalese), and in fact are readily accessible.

That doesn't mean they are easy to read. After all, these are laws, not just some list of goals with no meaning. And laws that have such far reaching impacts must consider all of the interactions between various jurisdictions of government, both federal and state as well as local. There are financial ramifications, both spending and income. In short, they will be big because they are big laws.

And unlike in the past, bills are made available on the internet and are easy to find. They can be reviewed directly, or there are groups out there that analyze and summarize them.

Who will be the auditors on this bill to see who profits? This question did not get answered, and I asked you directly.

While I offered an indirect response in my previous comments, I didn't answer it directly because it's a biased question with no legitimate answer. Your premise is that the bill is only being passed to profit someone, and your bias is that those who would profit are Barbara Boxer's pals. Both your premise and bias are faulty. The bill is being offered to deal with a problem that has been identified. In all major bills there are provisions for who will manage the process, who will allocate the funds, who will audit the performance and progress, and what mechanisms will be in place to deal with inconsistencies or failures. That's one of the reasons the bill is so long. Frankly, rather than being accusatory toward me for not satisfying your need to have answers, perhaps you could do some research on the bill and determine the answers yourself. After all, I'm not claiming to be in Senator Boxer's or Senator Kerry's minds, just reporting that the bill has been revised.

I find it interesting when you deny corruption in government. Have you not read the papers and watched the perp walks? A wholesale denial of corruption in government is as stunning as the well-documented corruption itself.

I find it interesting that you seem to think solely in an "either/or" mode. I never said there wasn't corruption in government. What I said was that your broad statement about "the depth of corruption" and its premise and innuendos were unmerited. Of course there is corruption, but frankly the US has next to none compared to other countries. But that isn't the point. The point is that you took your dissatisfaction with an EPA action on one Portland drinking water system and used it to condemn in one fell swoop the entire regulatory process of the United States, including EPA, Congress, and all the other relevant agencies. That's just silly. And worse, it distracts from a real discussion of real issues based on real facts.

David the final bill that was passed by the House was not put up for review on the internet. 300 pages were added at the last minute and NO Representative read the bill let alone those 300 pages. I have no idea what the final Cap and Trade bill said but I did read the proposed bill that was on the net. I seen NO place in it where it does a thing for the environment other than a mandate that is not only unreasonable will do no good. It boils down to nothing but a giant tax and power grab.

That is one of the reasons I don't believe the story about CO2

You're a little weak on facts there, George. Please provide some support. Also explain the portions of the bill to which you are referring, including accurate citations to paragraphs and links to the actual bill.

Here's a start.

That is one of the reasons I don't believe the story about CO2

By the way, there is no logic in your statement. It is a total non sequitur.

Great post David. Keep up the good work.

Emission allowances are specifically in the legislation, if the description above is accurate.

Emissions may cause specific challenges for people downwind of them. When the EPA allows these emissions, it can make it difficult and extremely expensive for those harmed to recover for harm done. Sometimes people die before issues get anywhere near trial.

Erin Brockavich did prevail in a highly publicized pollution case. She cannot begin to answer all the requests for her services that flood in.

Carbon dioxide is one thing--plants need it, and the Chinese harvest it for soft drinks.

For me, however, as a cancer survivor, other issues are even more worrisome: mercury, mountain-top destruction, slag heaps and slag floods, and so on. Truthout has been a source for information on some of these incidents, if you want to get with the season and make yourself sick. These are sad, sad stories.

Not only have governments approved the emissions, but sometimes subsidized the construction of the plants and the mines. When they indemnify big banks, they are perpetuating this stuff.

Government is implicated in harm, but government can prevent suits against itself, although some victims become impoverished and end up on Medicaid, so taxpayers are tapped to cover some of this harm.

Polluters can afford to hire Ph.D.'s, but often they begin by hiring interns. They give them good write-ups and eventually get them in the government if they can control them. The revolving-door phenomenon is well documented. I will provide more details on request.

Nonetheless, some academics have been able to talk about some of these issues. If you are offshore, or in academia, it is safer to document.

As for Portland's water, the last testing showed exceptionally good city water and virtually none of the toxins often found in city water because filtering does not generally get estrogen mimics and many other remnants of pharmaceutical and agricultural chemicals out.

We don't have these toxins because citizens over the years have worked furiously to protect the watershed from logging and other proposed uses that could harm our water.

I hope you guys saw the show with Nicholas Kristof explaining about river water to a host who was pretty much clutching himself in horror. Many cities take their water from rivers and are unable to get fancy toxins out. By now, this is well documented, even in the major media. Kristof is NYT.

Ultra-violet light has a risk of breaking lights and getting mercury in the water, especially in a places subject to earthquakes or weather events attributed to Global Weirding, the new title that I like much better.

So now now you guys get to call people Weirding Deniers? I can't imagine anyone wants to deny weirding frankly.

Water science supports using full-spectrum light from the sun, not to mention that doing so requires fewer fossil fuels and is gentler on the ratepayers, in a place suffering from high unemployment and loss of employers.

The adverse events that have happened in city water systems have happened in places with closed storage and where human error can prove fatal in centralized processes that use chemicals and where sunlight does not hit, in more ways than one.

To fiddle with a system that is gravity-fed and has required little pumping with exemplary safety for so many years makes no sense, though I hear the city has sent Australians on a wild crypto hunt in the tributaries, even though those cryptos don't survive the trip to the lower altitudes of the city.

If they find any exotic cryptos in the tributaries, they think the EPA will allow them to let a contract because Bush-era rules have not been updated. The testing does not have to happen near where the water will be used. I'm not sure which engineering company is ahead in the process. I wouldn't be surprised if they allowed parts of it to both who have previously been mentioned. If you are aware of world water issues, these companies are not too popular in parts of Central and South America. Portland people are trying to prevent control of our system by financial institutions and multi-national contractors.

At the Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility, quite near Portland, they joke about wanting lower costs than Portland, which means they don't have to work too hard, though my observation is they work hard and think hard even though perhaps they don't have to.

The Durham facility was lauded as the best in the country, with Robert Kennedy in attendance when they opened a new process.

Robert Kennedy told one of the workers he had never seen anything like it. Usually he has to sue water-treatment facilities. Durham is now producing slow-release struvite fertilizer (5-29-0, 10% mg) in various sizes for various uses. This fertilizer has no plastic, making it in an exalted class among slow-release fertilizers.

High-phosphorus fertilizer is in big demand because we are thought to be at Peak Phosphorus, along with our other Peaks. It appears this is a sought-after fertilizer for golf courses, making it pretty high value.

Durham bought the equipment which they will own in likely less than 7 years, and contributed to the design of the equipment. After processing, the water is so clean that a 50-cent goldfish turns into a weighty koi in the test tank before the water goes into a river or is used as irrigation.

As part of the present lease/purchase deal, the owner of the equipment markets the fertilizer. I console myself with the Durham experience that science does matter in some micro-environments.

No science supports doing to Portlanders what is planned. Obama said science was going to matter now, and I heard he went to MIT to talk about it. One of my son's professors was invited to the event.

As much as I think MIT is a great place, the student body is largely imported. Some will stay here, and some will go home.

But MIT isn't the only place where innovation happens.

It happens with ordinary people, in small jurisdictions sometimes with enlightened people employed by ratepayers who may or may not understand the extraordinary treasures who work very hard for them.

The EPA is no more consistent than other too-big-to-be-accountable organizations where the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. There are burrowed-in hold-outs from former times whose directives are being sustained without regard for the harm in them to ordinary people from debt-service, unnecessary costs, more risk and more energy use.

These issues are not simple right/left issues. They are issues having to do with very fine details and with specific local repercussions regarding who the actual people are who will be benefiting from specific provisions in specific legislation. Sometimes this is very difficult to find out, especially for ordinary people rather than people who appear to be peers to the people who can dispense information or not.

I have not tried to contact the EPA myself, but people among the groups involved have, and whistleblowers on the Public Utility Review Board have had repercussions for not getting along to go along.

The revolving-door and burrowed-in issues have been covered by many of the transparency groups.

As for accountability, I do not regret asking the question. You choose not to be part of the accountability question, that's fine. Thanks for answering.

Perhaps you would not get your phone calls returned or your letters answered with any more success than we are having here. Fair enough.

I still assert that we have major problems with accountability in the federal government, and when House members, charged with watching over financial issues, cannot get straight answers themselves, I conclude we need mechanisms of accountability that are far better than what we have now.

And I do not feel alone in perceiving this need, though I do get that I am persona non grata here.

Why is it disingenuous to insist on time to study the final mark of a bill, that if passed, will affect much of the nation financially? One mark of this congress has been a continual rush to try and get things voted on quickly. No matter how you look at it, that is not something we should be doing with such costly and widely cast legislation.

I don't know what the chances of this passing are. The GOP (-) Sen Graham (SC) are against it, most Blue Dogs are against it and a few liberals from industrial states aren't for it either. If ObamaCare passes, you mightl have the momentum to get it but I think it will be a narrow victory. If ObamaCare is defeated, so is cap and trade. 2010 is going to weigh very heavily in this debate.

Personally I hope its defeated. Its too big, too clumsy, and far too expensive. At a time when the nation's economy is at best in disarray, adding this to it will have a negative effect to say the least. With the national deficit making Bush2 look like Calvin Coolidge, it's also looking more like a tax for revenue than anything else.

Why is it disingenuous to insist on time to study the final mark of a bill, that if passed, will affect much of the nation financially?

It's not disingenuous to insist on it, it's disingenuous to insist you haven't had it, or will not have had it. The principles of the bill have been discussed for 9 months. Staffs talk to each other. Members of both parties are in the committees. We both know the truth is that the minority party likes to claim it doesn't have any chance to review the bill, when in fact they can provide input at any time.

One mark of this congress has been a continual rush to try and get things voted on quickly.

First off, this congress isn't doing anything that past congresses have always done. The majority gets first shot, especially when the minority party is offering nothing but whining. If Boehner wants to contribute, all he has to do is go to Pelosi and ask. But he prefers to play the victim. It's a game.

No matter how you look at it, that is not something we should be doing with such costly and widely cast legislation.

What is it about the House bill and/or the current draft Senate bill that you think should not be done? What parts do you think would add to the costs? And whose costs would be added to? How does that compare to not doing anything and just "kicking the can down the road" as the current presidential chief of staff is fond of saying, and has been the norm for decades?

I don't know what the chances of this passing are...2010 is going to weigh very heavily in this debate.

I don't either, but I do think that some sort of health reform bill will pass and some sort of climate change legislation will pass. Will it weigh in 2010 - you betcha. But it will be a propaganda battle between "we're doing something to address the problems that have been ignored" versus "it costs business too much." We'll see if Americans have matured by then.

Personally I hope its defeated.

Is that because you don't think there is a problem? Or because the wrong party is in power? Or because it will help Republicans in 2010? Or because the minority party has offered something better?

Its too big, too clumsy, and far too expensive.

Which parts do you think are too clumsy and/or expensive? How would you address the goals in a different way?

At a time when the nation's economy is at best in disarray, adding this to it will have a negative effect to say the least. With the national deficit making Bush2 look like Calvin Coolidge, it's also looking more like a tax for revenue than anything else.

Clearly if the world economy hadn't been sent into a tailspin during the tenure of the previous administration we'd be in an easier position, but frankly, you and I both know the minority party would have fought change even in the best of times. That's what they do, especially when the mantra of the minority party is "stay the course" (not so much referring to the Bush I doctrine as the general definition of conservatism). But the point is that if we don't do anything things will just continue to get worse. So the choice is "either you pay me now, or you pay me more later."

The bill left committee in no final form. It is more sketches and lack of payment ideas than much set even in wet concrete. You can say what you will about the opposition but since many members of your own party seem confused about what's in it, it's obvious there is not just partisanship involved.

Past congresses didn't make promises backed up by the president to let bills be reviewed by the public prior to being voted on and then before being signed. Anything this big needs time to be reviewed and reviewed again. If we cross this Rubicon, there will be no turning back. That may delight many people here but at least as many in the country are totally against it. Nothing this size has been tried in decades and given the track record of most such attempts, debating this slowly is an excellent idea.

Highlight me if you will a single government entitlement program that has stayed within budget forecasts. That to me is one of the critical problems with all of this mess. Never mind the government making a problem they created even worse.

Americans maturing? Right David, if they agree with what you and the Dems want with this program, they are mature. If they disagree like me and others based on principles and fiscal matters, they are not.

LOL, Bush put the world into a tail spin? You didn't just blame the maturation of decades of bi-partisan stupidity on one man did you? You of all people never fell for that line that I've seen before. Like the Dems ever fought any of his budgets for instance as spending too much (except fore the war). For that matter in the last few decades, no Dem congress has done much of anything to reduce spending. We both agree that neither have the Repubs since the Clinton years done so but it's simply laughable to put it all on one man.

Nope, both Bush2 and LBJ are fixing to be passed up for the stupid spenders of the last 50 years award. These new programs are just salt in the wound. Pretty soon, I think we will have far worse problems than health care for DC to muck up.

Tracking the consequences of law, including who benefits and including whether its terms will be applied in ways that are discriminatory or not, these considerations are important to some of us. It was the basis of the Watergate incident, was it not?

I do not see why it is biased to ask who profits and who will track this. I do not know the specific answers for this bill, and I do not have the resources to find it out. I am not a lawyer or a congressperson. Even congresspeople have trouble getting answers. It does not mean questions should not be asked. We still kind of have a first amendment, on some days, depending on whether you talk about a particular food with a big law firm behind it. See truthout and a recent attempt to muzzle Michael Pollan.

It is a big bill because it is a big bill. OK, but interesting details can hide in a torrent.

Asking for accountability seems basic to me if you want a law to accomplish specific things. There is cost accounting, and there is performance auditing. If you want a better climate from the bill, then a way of performance auditing ought to be recommended if you want to accomplish the goal and learn from the process.

That congressional staffs have conferred with each other is not reassuring. I understand lobbyists are in that discussion. But where are ordinary people in that scenario, especially the ones the greatest distance from D.C. and especially the middle class who can't afford to buy anything to get a rebate on?

The EPA is not consistent in enforcement, and this matters when considering new law. The rules are one set on the Potomac and another set in some other places.

Some individuals in the EPA are shocked that biocides are sprayed at public expense in marine environments, and they believe it violates a law. It probably does. But once a law is on the books, predicting how or whether it will be enforced is a gambler's game, often involving who brings complaints in fancy packages and who can get a phone call returned.

Sending more taxes to D.C. will dis-employ people when employees and employers on Main Street can't pay them. If an employer has to choose between going to jail or laying off somebody, triage requires the lay-off.

Transition movements are calling for more local business and walkable neighborhoods. Tax credits left on Main Street might help some with that, but taxes sent to Washington don't.

When government programs give money to multi-national banks and construction corporations, small business can indeed be knocked out, as chronicled by Jane Jacobs in The Death and Life of America's Great Cities.

Small businesses employ a lot of people.

People in the African American neighborhoods of Portland can tell you stories of that because their homes and businesses were seen as expendable when large organizations wanted their property. Many of these stories will likely die with the elders.

I know I'm playing hip-hop in the cathedral here. I just can't resist sometimes. I am no longer as poor as I was when I lived in the 'hood, but a part of my heart is still there.

First, I help run a 300 member organic farmers coop. covering a few thousand acres of crops. We have had carbon traders try to make deals with us selling our carbon rights for alot of money($30,000yr.). Its a 10 year contract. He just wants to pay us for doing nothing, just can't cut our existing trees down. The buyer said that he thinks the carbon credits he paid 30k for will be worth 100k in a few years and will sell them and pocket 60k a year.. Nothing is being down, the land will not change regardless if we get the money or not and some corrupt trader(probably the ones that trashed our econony) abd has not done anything.
This whole climate change bill is just paperwork, nothing is being done..
The only way we can help the environment is in a non-governmental way where the consumers choose the products they want based on cleanliness or energy and price. Thus the destructive energy producers will start going down hill because they can not make a product with any demand.. With no tax-payer cost we could have the same positive environmental effects we all want without government and wall-street corruption muddling up the entire law they made to please their lobbyists.

The carbon tax is probably the most ignorantly devised system I have ever seen.

Lastly, one important revelation.. The Democrats are largely responsible for our country's environmental catastrophe.
8 of the 10 most polluted cities have a big Democrat majority.. A majority of Repubs live in rather clean rural environments, even the farmers. Iowa and North Dakota use more chemicals than just about anywhere and they keep winning drinking water quality awards.I don't know if its just a coincidence but it seems like the Repubs do what is right priviately and Democrats pretend to do what is right legislatively and are complete hypocrits in there daily lives and until those crime-ridden and pollution filled cities(Obamas Chicago is the best example of a liberal-crime ridden-polluted city) due their part and tax their own citizens and not us rural conservation minded conservatives who will and should be getting lots of carbon credits.

See my comment at Oct 30, 2009, 1:54pm EDT below.

I haven't had time to get to a few of the really long comments above but will try to come back to them. But I did want to address one of the comments above from jason b (Oct 30, 2009, 11:36am EDT).

Lastly, one important revelation.. The Democrats are largely responsible for our country's environmental catastrophe.

This isn't a revelation for two reasons. One, it isn't true. And two, the information you present to support it is non-sensical by any interpretation. See my specific comments below.

8 of the 10 most polluted cities have a big Democrat majority

Actually, I'm surprised that it isn't 10 out of 10, so I'd like to see your source (assuming you didn't just make it up). Bottom line is that most highly populated urban areas tend to have Democratic majorities. Just look at the presidential election maps and you'll see blue islands in even the most conservative red states. And big cities tend to have pollution problems (millions of people in a small area, usually near water or in a mountain valley that traps pollutants), ergo, cities are polluted. Of course, if you replaced all the Democrats with Republicans in cities you would still have pollution since it has nothing to do with political party.

Repubs live in rather clean rural environments, even the farmers. Iowa and North Dakota use more chemicals than just about anywhere and they keep winning drinking water quality awards.

Iowa has 3 million people in the entire state, less than half of the number that live in New York City alone. North Dakota has less than 645,000 people in the entire state (and shrinking), just slightly more than live in Washington DC. And lots of Democrats live in both states, so your premise is faulty on two (actually several) fronts anyway.

I don't know if its just a coincidence

It's not a coincidence, it's related to population density. Has nothing to do with political party.

but it seems like the Repubs do what is right priviately and Democrats pretend to do what is right legislatively and are complete hypocrits in there daily lives and until those crime-ridden and pollution filled cities(Obamas Chicago is the best example of a liberal-crime ridden-polluted city) due their part and tax their own citizens and not us rural conservation minded conservatives who will and should be getting lots of carbon credits.

I'm sorry, but that is the biggest lapse in logic I've encountered in quite some time. Cities have lots and lots of people. Countryside has lots and lots of nothing. Your claim that it has to do with political party is, frankly, ridiculous.

And by the way, the lack of logic extends way beyond your example, as pollution is actually pretty common in rural areas. Farmers in Kansas uses tons of pesticides on their crops, some of which runs off into the surface and groundwaters. Other rural activities like raising hogs are hugely polluting. So are driving cars and trucks that no longer meet clean air standards and pollution controls. The list goes on. Again, the bottom line is population density. It has nothing to do with political party.

By the way again, many cities DO tax their citizens more to help cover the costs of the population density effect, including proper sewage treatment (can't just dump the pot behind the barn), clean water (can't just drink the local stream), roads (dirt roads don't work well in Manhattan), produce a huge proportion of the GDP (subsistence farming doesn't work for 99% of Americans), etc.

It is irresponsible for the Republicans to waste time by holding up discussion on these critical proposals. I don't see anything productive coming from them. Are they so intent on cutting down the other side that they don't see the forest for the trees?

I would prefer that the minority party participate a little more in governing this country. After all, that is what we elect our representatives to do. Instead it seems like they just play the delay and deflect game in hopes of people forgetting who it was that got us into this mess by the time the next election comes around.

The thought that a liberal can take a fact and make it fiction and people actually believe him proves the dumbing down of our society by the liberal brainwashing our our public eduction system.. The republicans are just as bad, so I'm blaming all politicians, lobbyists, and sales people.
The Facts are simple, you guys read into facts too much, which are undeniable like evolution. Pollution ALWAYS tends to be greatest where the highest density of democrats live.. Thank you! You can't argue with it or take that out of context..
The problem is in the polluted inner cities and those folks should be paying for these carbon credits ONLY buy local property surcharges. To tax people like me with 130 acres of pure carbon sequestration going on, no farming, just hunting(which reduces pollution, thank you) is ludicrous.. I'm sick of people trying to pass the cost of their ignorant materialistic consumption addictions and the polluting effect on people like me..
This is a democracy were are not Marxists who make people who have to pay for people who don't have.. Wrong, If you guys want to go back to Marxist ideologies, go right ahead..

Pollution ALWAYS tends to be greatest where the highest density of democrats live.. Thank you! You can't argue with it or take that out of context..

Did you even read my comment above? Your statement is, frankly, bizarre and ridiculous.

This is a democracy were are not Marxists who make people who have to pay for people who don't have.. Wrong, If you guys want to go back to Marxist ideologies, go right ahead..

Marxist? When was the US ever Marxist?

Steve, I might be a little on the eccentric side for a 28 year old. But from Dec- through March every year the last 10 years I have not used any petroleum(except for an occasional chainsaw). I have 2 mules, no electricity, no nothing just a lot of manual labor farming to do 10 Zapotec indian friends with me out in the woods.
I now have 130 acres of woods and praire. I cut hay once a year, otherwise it gets planted with 4,000 trees every spring and sits there.. It gets hunted a little and thats it.. Its what all my conservative christian friends. For us, its a responsibility for each citizen to due his part without gloating, and we believe this is a not government issue but a personal security issue and our desire to please God by protecting the land he has borrowed to us; most importantly this is a culture problem, a way for us to deny God and our turn to materialism and narcissism.. Until we can turn our backs on our materialistic lifestyles, nothing can be improved by the Government. And yes, Bush was a horrible President by asking people to spend money after 9/11, it was sick to hear him say that.
REMEMBER--Do what you can do personally and the need for government action will be unnecessary and will prove that the people our country is what makes it great not our Fed. Government!

I now have 130 acres of woods and praire. I cut hay once a year, otherwise it gets planted with 4,000 trees every spring and sits there.. It gets hunted a little and thats it.. Its what all my conservative christian friends.

All your conservative christian friends have their own 130 acres on which they do nothing but cut hay, plant trees and hunt? Oddly enough, the vast majority of my conservative christian friends live in cities. Ironically, they tend to be the most affluent and materialistic ones of the people I know.

Great Jason - most folks are not going to live like you do. I'm interested in developing those technologies and access to them, so that people can live reasonably well without creating significant problems for your children and their children. Even if you teach them to "live off the land", they're going to have to have land to live off of.

Federal policies are necessary because corporations have to have ground rules for doing business. Many of them have been pressing the federal government for climate policies because they accept the science of climate change, and because they need to plan for the future. Also, most individuals are not going to live off the land, and they need access to products that are going to allow them to take the individual action you propose. Net metering laws and renewable portfolio standards are examples of policies that are sorely needed.

What I'm trying to get at is: Our governement can't fight wars right, we can't manage our debts, we can't keep SS and Medicare from going bankrupt, We can't keep anything in budget and most our projects fail economically. I just don't think our politicians have the actual inteligence, good governance, economic ability to actual write a climate change law that is going to produce a certain positive result for this said price. I just lost my trust in them.

I just lost my trust in them.

And yet we vote them back into office more than 95% of the time. We badger them to "bring home the bacon" for their states and districts, then whine about "pork" (defined as "bacon that goes anywhere but to my district"). We complain that they don't do anything about the big issues (say, health care) and then we latch onto every idiotic "death panel" claim like it has meaning. We go out into the streets to protest taxes that haven't been raised, socialism that isn't happening, can't tell the difference between socialism, fascism, communism or capitalism, and generally get all worked up about things that mostly aren't even true.

This one is on us. If we took our role in the governance of this country a little more seriously then so would the politicians. But WE make them cater to our silly and uninformed whims, WE make them earmark projects to our districts, etc.

We need to be more serious. And that means being more informed.

"I just don't think our politicians have the actual inteligence, good governance, economic ability to actual write a climate change law that is going to produce a certain positive result for this said price."

First, I don't know what you would consider "a certain positive result for this said price." Second, I hope you have written your representatives. Third, politicians cater to their perceived constituencies. If their major contributors are industries, those are going to be the interests they serve - unless there is a massive public groundswell in another direction. Then industries will lie to influence public opinion - mainly by telling the public that responsible action is really a new tax, or will cost jobs, etc.

The best antidote to K-Street (corporate/professional lobbying) is public financing of campaigns.

"If we took our role in the governance of this country a little more seriously then so would the politicians."

There's a difference between being a "consumer" and being a "citizen". The latter has skin in the game. The former has no skin.

There's a difference between being a "consumer" and being a "citizen". The latter has skin in the game. The former has no skin.

Well said, Steve.

The Republicans are threatening to boycott tomorrow's work session on the bill.

Yes, so they can say they haven't had time to read it. But of course, they haven't had any of their staffs reading it over the last week that it was released. And they'll be sure to find some "death panel" provision or other such nonsense that they will exploit instead of being adult and just having the language modified.

Yes, I have harrassed all my representatives on a daily basis. 2nd, PORK-- I don't know who is asking for PORK but their is way to much infrastructure pork, clean and dirty energy pork, etc, etc. PORK is anything that we ask Government to do which is outside the bounds of maintaining security and safety of its people.
Clean Energy has lots of profit to be made it shouldn't need pork.
Healthcare is profitable is has been getting fattened by PORK ever since FDR.
Dirty Energy is profitable and shouldn't be get PORK.
Farmers are the largest recipients of welfare and they shouldn't be getting PORK either as it just screws all its free-trade partners(NAFTA).
Any bill after 50 pages is PORK. This health care bill has over 1,800 pages of pork that the lawyers are drooling over so everybody in this bill is getting little chunks of pork drawing in over 1,900 chunks of it that DC coyotes are waiting to gluttonize on.

James, As an avid Tree hugger myself.. Planted over 12,000 trees with nothing but a metal spade in clay soil I just wanted to add something.
In Helena and other places the beetles are also surviving through evolutionary forces. Every leaving creature wants to adapt to PROCREATE, it just so happens that in some places the bad bugs ADAPT faster than the trees. If the climate is changing in Helena they need to rapidly plant improved species that will live in a warmer climate and if we change the climate and get it to cool, the new species will die and the pines will come back naturally.
I do believe from first hand work that climate change is more noticeable by deforestation as it relates to rainfall than any other man made pollution. This problems have almost exclusively occurred in developing and 3rd world nations which is very sad. Brazil-China-Haita-Guatemala, etc. We have destroyed too much wetlands in the USA.

Jason B.'s lifestyle has counterparts in the city, though some of the ones I know are yoga and/or zen practitioners with austere lifestyles. They ride bikes and transport things with carts. They farm on city lots. They glean and run Food Not Bombs and other free food and stuff exchanges. They are learning to preserve food. Krauts and other fermented foods are really in right now. The Revolution Will Not Be Micro-waved is a popular book.

Some are militant vegans, and some are not. They start community-supported kitchens, with libraries and lectures with your dinner.

None of this will be encouraged or affected by long pages of fine print honed by lobbyists, who will no doubt like it if taxpayers are forced to help support congresspeople.

A group working to protect our watershed and our housing affordability have come to understand that writing or testifying in front of officials, on their turf, with their rules, is to be used. They can change the agenda at the last minute. They can deny you time to speak. They can still control the conventional press by threatening to shut down access if the press doesn't cooperate with them. They pass no-bid contracts on the day before Thanksgiving and other holidays.

Consequently, we have come to understand that we waste our time unless we build our message and our art and music until we can do a dramatic event that they will not know about until after it happens. That way they can't line the police up to conk us on the head and cart us off, not in bike carts, how energy-profligate of them.

Some of our participants have worked in the press, and they know if you have scantily clad people doing art and music, the press will probably show up, especially if you time it for a slow-news day, 70's-redux.

Not everybody in government forgets the little people. It's too bad so many of the good ones blow whistles and get booted out. It has become very difficult to stop the march of collusion between government leverage points and international conglomerates who want to build moats around monopolies of food, water, shelter, and energy.

Nonetheless, we are a resilent, hard-working, and creative people, when there's no other choice. I'm reminded of Sometimes a Great Notion. The Empire does not end if this bill goes down.

Jason and his idealistic counterparts won't get the credit they are due for a long time, I would venture, no matter what happens with this bill.

Jason, I admire your dedication to living a sustainable lifestyle. I wish we all did. But one note, which is not a criticism but a reality check. What you are doing is rather unusual and not something the masses could do. The reality is that our society has grown too much for each and every one of us to remove ourselves from "modern society" and do what you do. It would be nice in many ways, though it's unlikely that we, en masse, will move out of the city, get 130 acres of our own, and plant trees. In fact, the tendency of moving into cities continues unabated, and in places like China and India the trend is accelerating. Mostly it's to seek jobs.

So while what you are doing is admirable, it isn't practical for very many people. We need to find more sustainable ways to deal with the other 99.9%.

Mary, within the context of what I just wrote to Jason, you note that there are counterparts in the city. I agree that there are, though clearly not to the extent Jason is describing. Obviously a city dweller can choose to use a bike for transport, but the rest of the city is taking the train, subway, taxis, buses, or even driving (though the latter is not something I prefer to do in the city).

That said, I like your suggestions and hope that we can stimulate greater environmental awareness (both "eco" related and "areal" related) by city dwellers. I encourage those reading this that haven't read Mary's comment above to do so. Clearly we need to change our habits, and we need to do so dramatically and rapidly.