Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:46:25 +0000
Reply-To: samcvt@COMCAST.NET
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Sam Conant <samcvt@COMCAST.NET>
Subject: Re: Environmental Tax?
I've got another comment about our nation's energy demands and coal and gas-fired, nuclear powered energy producing facilities:
Before I proceed though, I hope folks might we interested in doing some searching on the www and find the pros and cons in re the massive and what I consider terribly destructive industrial development by Hydro-Quebec in northern Quebec.
As I mentioned in my previous note, the Entergy nuclear power facility in Vermont is sited along the banks of the Connecticut River in Vernon, Vermont. I don't have a clue as to the hundreds of gallons of fresh water the facility draws from the river, but I do know that an almost equal amount of that water is return to the river downstream of the intake lines. That out-flowing water is substantially higher in temperature than the temperature of the water entering the intake lines. The Connecticut is a river which flows through many towns along its passage from extreme Northern New Hampshire southward to Long Island Sound. Within the past month, folks on each side of the river who enjoy fishing have been reporting an unxious malady known as "snot algae." In fact, the algae is also showing up, now in a few feeder rivers and streams in the Connecticut River northern watershed. It doesn't take a mental giant to figure out that increasing the flowing temperature of the river has p
robably contributed to the nurturing of that algae as well as other forms of "alien" growth.
So, when I consider the ever increasing demand for more and more electrical energy and the resources to light up and produce product from the facilities we now have and those the industry slobbers about building - including coal and gas fired as well as nuclear - I can't help but consider the effect of discharging warmer water into than is removed from their fresh and salt water cooling towers.
Sam Conant
Colchester, Vermont
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "NORMAN WALKER" <crosseye3@msn.com>
Complicate it all you want to--the people that get it dirty should clean it up. And anyone that don't
like clean air and clean water is not very bright. This is the only place we got to live and that goes
for our children, grand children, etc. Just because some contamination cannot be prevented at this
time is no excuse to not try. Being against clean air and clean water to enhance ones on finances is
irresponsible and in the long run very expensive.
Norm.
----- Original Message -----
From: samcvt@comcast.net
To: ZakAssoc@aol.com ; gerald@geraldbowman.de ; billheil@bellsouth.net ; prsanjuan@onelinkpr.net ; tomjean3381@earthlink.net ; bob@manning.org ; adriennej@hotmail.com ; Billfred5@aol.com ; YCREEK@aol.com ; jscribner@asienterprises.com ; Toppop10101@aol.com ; stick02@comcast.net ; lbrowndyke@yahoo.com ; p.carney@yahoo.com ; foxunlimited@bellsouth.net ; jazzfish01@att.net ; drlbinks@verizon.net ; ItsNewsT0Me@aol.com ; ajdjr73@earthlink.net ; Rivetkckr@aol.com ; edandjuliegarcia@verizon.net ; crosseye3@msn.com
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: Environmental Tax?
What I've been reading from Joe, Zak et. al. makes sense.
Jeff, on the other hand, seems fixated on his initially stated belief that all scientific documentation about contemporary global warming is, in his words, "junk science." It is that sort of one-way thinking which is delaying credible and genuine attention to the real components of our ecology and environment(s). Jeff stated his belief that common sense should be the prevailing initiator of global preservation. He apparently cannot comprehend that it is our governmental and industrial "common sense" which are the primary underpinning entities in the U.S. which is resisting focussed and purposeful attention aimed at reducing our industrial and transportational impact right here at home.
Also, I believe it was John who joined in with his claim suggesting that because other countries are contributing significantly to environmental contamination and pollution and not adhering to their agreed to reductions (Kosovo) they are as much or more to blame than the U.S. I agree with John on that point.
However, I defy anyone who knows anything about the chemicals we humans have created since the 1940s alone to try stating believably that many of those chemicals are not contaminating and polluting our air and our water. Additionally, as a former parent of teens who seemed at times to be hell bent in their efforts to control and manipulate me with their power struggles, I recall stating memorably (so the adults they are now tell me) that their primary requirement was to control their personal bladder and bowel movements, and my job had been to teach them that. I have no influence in any neighborhood, community, state and nation but my own. So, even though I am concerned about other countries and their destruction of our globe, I believe our nation must make significant changes to reduce our environmental and ecological impact on this earth.
Zak states correctly that agricultural run-off is a substantial contributor to contamination and pollution of our domestic water resources. Anyone wanting to refute Zak's point, is welcome to go to the www and enter the site concerned about Lake Champlain, especially the southern and northern bays. Mississquoi and St. Albans Bays in the north have been well-documented insofar as the reasons for the decrease in water quality there. On the other side of Vermont is Lake Morey. The folks who own property around that beautiful lake have been assertive in dealing with what had become an almost completely unusable body of water. They have reversed the process using some relatively drastic correction means.
On Lake Champlain's Malletts Bay where I live, we are concerned about the number of failed and failing septic systems on property(ies) with summer residences often within a few feet of the lake shore and the "acceptable" leaching from neighborhoods and houses which use septic systems. Most of Colchester, Vermont's second largest community which surrounds Malletts Bay does not have a municipal sewage treatment facility, and leases a small portion of two other communities treatment systems for neighborhoods adjacent to those communities. On a recent TV program I was hosting, in an attempt at being humorous, I remarked that we should have had a flying over satellite take photos of the buildings adjacent to our beautiful bay's shoreline 30, 20, 10 years ago and now. I hypothesized that the images might show clearly that most of the buildings had either shifted or been raised in elevation because of the failing and ;depth increases of the septic systems. WOW! Did I get angry phone
calls from those home and summer camp owners! {;?)
Part of my "common sense" agrees with Joe's recommendation about nuclear power generation. But, there is another part of my thinking which is opposed to increasing our dependency on that power generation source.
Vermont has one nuclear power facility which sits on the river bank of the Connecticut River in the extreme southeastern corner of the state. The facility was expected to be closed down, by contract and plan, but was purchased by Entergy and has been granted approval to increase its generation beyond the capacity intended and licensed initially. They are now seeking a substantial extension of operating time (many more years) and, our citizens and governor are at odds about the facility. One significant issue has to do with storage of the residual waste from the facility. The rods are now stored on site, and it appears that there is not and will not be a waste storage resource created and approved anywhere in the United States any time soon. The Vernon, VT (Entergy) site is running out of storage capacity, and anyone willing to do even some meager research will learn that this situation is not unique to Vermont's nuclear energy site.
It seems to me that what we citizens of the United States need to do is allow a collective, socio-environmental conservation and preservation-minded common sense to emerge without a bunch of what I call "yahoo-blathering" about international competition, economic power and industrial growth and marketing, and that we must begin this socio-cultural change fairly soon. I fear that failing to begin this process, we will be furthering the destruction of our planet's capacity to sustain ecologies and societies and, thus, our very survivability.
And, I guess this is a bit more than I planned to write on this subject ... "From The West Coast of New England."
Ciao
Sam Conant
Colchester, Vermont
-------------- Original message --------------
From: ZakAssoc@aol.com
In a message dated 7/28/2007 9:55:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, gerald@geraldbowman.de writes:
Well Jeff I am all in favor of your suggestions for agriagricultural run off, North Carolina has a real problem in that way.
The California laws are examples of what can work, especially the example of the lumber mills. What happens when an organization of factory refuses to go along? THe carbon tax is ok if it is put to use to actually combat the problem. Besides it is another way for everyone to be involved in addressing the issue.
Gerald
The real "clean-up" we need is in the areas of agricultural run off, trash deposited in our streams and along our roadsides and in various other places by people who act like pigs, hog farming waste and other things like that. As Gary points out below, we already have gone to unleaded fuels, recycling, and other conservation measures that may have initial expenses but often pay for themselves later. What we don't need are things like a carbon tax or other expensive government regulations for which we will never stop paying and that won't cure global warming anyway.
JLS
We live in the Sonoma Wine Country one hour north of SF across the GG Bridge. A truly beautiful and mostly pristine area. Our biggest problem, also, is the agriculture run off and those responsible have been served notice. Then we have garbage, discarded furniture, plastic bottles, junk, etc., that cloughs up our streams, rivers and water ways. The state and local counties/communities have pitched in with their tax $$$$ along with some good old community pitch in work parties. It's working and it feels good doing it.
Zak
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
