@danon5,
Good advise, and i shan't. Is that a word??? LOL
hbg, a beautiful pic!
@Stradee,
aktbird57 and the WildClickers have supported 2,932,770.2 square feet!
Marine Wetlands habitat supported: 222,873.8 square feet.
American Prairie habitat supported: 68,868.9 square feet.
Rainforest habitat supported: 2,641,027.6 square feet.
@ehBeth,
Lovely Beth
Yesterday was a good day for gardening just until the snow showers.
Gardening geer at the ready...hoping for warmer weather today and less wind.
Wishing all a warm spring day
http://rainforest.care2.com/i?p=583091674
@Stradee,
Clickety click!
Hatchin’ time in the UK
Found a Prince!
http://able2know.org/topic/89445-199#post-3625699
@Izzie,
picture taken just a little over three years ago - 25 march 2006 - in patagonia .
notice how the penguin's feathers are finely and tightly arranged to keep water away from the skin .
" hello , hello !
can jimmy come out to play this afternoon ?
it's nice enough for a swim - i'm already wearing my swimming trunks . "
click - click ...
@hamburger,
Izzie,
What happened to the "tadpole"??
@ehBeth,
ehbeth wrote :
Quote:Re: Stradee (Post 3625703)
stradee - snow showers?
perhaps stradee lives in PICKLE LAKE :
Quote:Thursday night Cloudy. A few rain showers and wet flurries beginning overnight. Risk of freezing rain. Low zero.
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/on-120_metric_e.html
THE LAND OF THE WILDCLICKERS
Quote: Pickle Lake, "Ontario's Last Frontier", is the most northerly community in Ontario that is accessible year-round by road. Vast virgin forests, never touched by a logger's axe, stretch for hundreds of miles beyond the horizon. This huge wilderness is only 300 miles from the coast of Hudson Bay, Ontario's subarctic. The region offers viewing opportunities for moose, woodland caribou, timber wolf, black bear, game birds, bald eagles, the ever-present song birds, and migratory birds such as ducks and geese.
@ehBeth,
Can you believe that??? Had just finished mowing, and the temps began dropping so i decided to wait for trimming, etc. Then the clouds appeared, then snow showers!
Today cold and windy, no clouds - just brrr. Tomorrow weather says mild temps, and high 70's for Saturday and 80's by Sunday.
I'll wait for the weekend before dragging out power tools.
Spring weathers a trip.
izzie, that is the cutest! Hear the lil critters singing, but haven't seen many. We have Pond Turtles just reappearing since winter though. They are numerous and occasionally one will wander near the house. Then they get a ride back to the pond. Can't figure out why they head out for higher ground, especially during the warmest days of summer.
hbg, shhh! Don't tell anyone there's actually an old growth forest that hasn't been logged!
@Stradee,
The Wildclickers have supported 2,932,814.6 square feet!
Marine Wetlands habitat supported: 222,903.4 square feet.
American Prairie habitat supported: 68,868.9 square feet.
Rainforest habitat supported: 2,641,042.4 square feet.
~~~
Gonna be in the minus temps overnight tonight, but warm up nicely during the day. I'm looking forward to the sunshine.
@ehBeth,
crossing the MOOSE RIVER from MOOSENE to MOOSE FACTORY
(had enough moose ?) .
lunch in MOOSE RIVER :
BANNOCK cooked over an open fire in a teepee .
click-click ...
hbg
greetings from ontario's northland ...
yes , they do have a post-office ... and a railway-station .
the railway is the only land connection to the south of ontario - unless one wants to tramp through mosquito infested forests and bogs for about 250 km - there is no road access .
@ehBeth,
Very cold again today here too, Beth.
Looking forward to warmer days although there is sunshine.
great pics all ~ thanks
hgb, the snowgeese are numerous grazing right next to horses and deer. Meadows crowded with wildlife, animals looking well fed and healthy.
http://rainforest.care2.com/i?p=583091674
@Stradee,
eastern lake ontario
.............................
the sun is shining and the thermometer reads 14 C - but there is still the cold northerly wind - and humidity is down to 20 % .. YIKES - that more like in the sahara , i believe .
we usually have too much humidity along the great lakes . the extreme dryness has helped start many grassfires in the area .
when people throw a cigarette butt into a wet ditch there is usually no problem , but since everything is extremely dry , it doesn't take much to start a grassfire .
hbg
The United States Congress designated the Ruby Mountains Wilderness in 1989 and it now has a total of 93,090 acres. All of the wilderness is in Nevada and is managed by the Forest Service.
Description
Glaciers scoured the northern end of the Ruby Mountains during the last ice age, creating the U-shaped Lamoille Canyon, also known as Nevada's Yosemite. Hanging valleys, towering summits, and year-round snowfields characterize the Wilderness area.
The Ruby Crest National Recreation Trail crawls along the top of theWilderness for 40 miles.
@hamburger,
California had serious widlfires last season, and we're hoping there isn't a repeat during the summer.
The foothills were surrounded by numerous fires, air quality was at zero for weeks - and from the porch i watched billowing smoke filter through the pines. We had no idea if the fire would hit the canyon {less than a mile from my house}
Living near lakes has its advantages although as you said, the wind and cold seem to last forever during the Fall, Winter, and Spring. That and the fire danger during the warmest months of the year.
@Stradee,
G'day and Good Evening to the Wildclickers.
Clicked. Dropped the numbers
got distracted.
Stradee - Moose Factory is the traditional home of those willow bird 'decoys' that I posted photos of earlier in the thread. A really interesting place to visit in James Bay. It was such a surprise to find the tides right in the middle of the continent there.
Clicked. Have been AWOL for a while. Spring is so labor intensive around here and too, too much to do.
The EPA Readies a Hammer
Jolting Congress into action on greenhouse gases
Friday, April 17, 2009
AS SOON as next week, the Environmental Protection Agency could follow through on an order from the Supreme Court to either declare carbon dioxide a pollutant or to say why it isn't. That decision could usefully signal to the world that the United States is serious about regulating greenhouse gas emissions. But it should also send a shiver down Congress's collective spine. Because the regulation of carbon will have a profound effect on the American economy, this vital task should be the responsibility of Congress, not of unelected officials at the EPA.
The EPA does have the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate air pollutants that have "effects on [public] welfare," "on . . . weather, . . . and climate, . . . as well as effects on . . . personal comfort and well-being." Emitted greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, will have such effects. The Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA affirmed this when the majority concluded that the EPA had the authority to control emissions from motor vehicle tailpipes and ordered the agency to issue an endangerment finding. Then-EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson was close to doing so on the basis of public welfare, but he opted for another public comment period after intense pressure from the Bush administration.
The probable and impending endangerment finding by current EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson would fulfill the court's mandate and then require Ms. Jackson to devise regulations for the transportation sector. But having declared greenhouse gases a pollutant, the agency would have to set about the long process of regulating such gases from all other sources as well. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce expresses concern about the impact of such regulation on the construction industry, because residential and commercial buildings are larger sources of global-warming pollution than are motor vehicles. Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), then-chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, predicted last year that seeking to control climate change with such piecemeal regulation would lead to a "glorious mess."
The best way to stop this from happening is for Congress to adopt a more rational scheme, by putting a price on carbon with a tax (ideally) or a cap-and-trade market. Next week, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), the current chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, will hold hearings on the discussion draft of comprehensive energy legislation that he and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the energy and environment subcommittee, released before the Easter recess. While the proposal details many ambitious programs for renewable energy and efficiency, it is noticeably mute on the contours of a cap-and-trade system. Specifically, it doesn't say whether the pollution allowances would be auctioned or a portion given away to industry to ease the transition to a carbon-constrained economy. This is an important question, one whose answer will have a profound impact on the way Americans live -- one of many basic issues that should be settled by their representatives in Congress.
And here we go:
EPA to Propose Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 17, 2009 11:18 AM
The Environmental Protection Agency today plans to propose regulating greenhouse gas emissions on the grounds that these pollutants pose a danger to the public's health and welfare, according to several sources who asked not to be identified.
The move, coming almost exactly two years after the Supreme Court ordered the agency to examine whether emissions linked to climate change should be curbed under the Clean Air Act, would mark a major shift in the federal government's approach to global warming.
Former President George W. Bush and his deputies opposed putting mandatory limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for years on the grounds that it would harm the economy; Congress is considering legislation that would do so but it remains unclear whether it can pass the proposal and enact it into law in the near future.
Late last month EPA sent the White House a formal finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare; the Office of Management and Budget signed off on the determination Monday.
When reached this morning, EPA spokesman Allyn Brooks-LaSure declined to comment on the matter.
President Obama pledged to limit greenhouse gases as a candidate, but has urged Congress to send him a bill that would cap them and allow emitters to trade pollution allowances nationwide. EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson, in a speech at the Aspen Environment Forum last month, emphasized that the administration still hopes the country will develop a legislative answer to the question of how best to limit greenhouse gases.
"The best solution, and I believe this in my heart, is to work with Congress to form and pass comprehensive legislation to deal with climate change," Jackson said. " We hope to avert a regulatory thicket where governments and businesses spend an inordinate amount of time fighting. We are not looking for a doomsday solution."
According to a congressional aide who's been briefed on EPA's proposal, the agency indicates its preference for legislative action in the finding itself. But the endangerment finding also makes a broader case that the U.S. must act to limit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, according to the aide, saying the science underlying its determination is "compelling and overwhelming."
The agency also is planning to include a "cause or contribute" finding for cars, which implies that not only are greenhouse gases dangerous in general, but that such emissions from cars and trucks are reasonably likely to contribute to climate change.
Some business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have warned that if the federal government regulates carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act it will end up imposing an enormous regulatory burden on small operations such as individual stores and even some office buildings.
EPA must hold a 60-day public comment period before finalizing its finding, and it would then have to look at regulating individual sectors of the economy, such as motor vehicles and power plants. Those two sectors account for roughly half of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions.
In a teleconference with reporters this week David Doniger, policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center, said he did not think the agency would target small emitters of greenhouse gases if it began regulating emissions under the nearly 40-year old Clean Air Act.
"That is just not true," said Doniger. "EPA is able to focus on the big stuff, the big sources of global warming pollution."
Even before the formal announcement, experts predicted the decision would transform the federal government's role in regulating commercial operations across the country. Roger Martella, who served as EPA's general counsel under Bush and is now a partner at the firm Sidley Austin in Washington, issued a statement saying, "The proposed endangerment finding marks the official beginning of an era of controlling carbon in the United States."
"This means that EPA's mission of environmental protection will burst outside those bounds and place it on the stage as one of the most influential regulators of both energy use and the greater economy in the upcoming year," Martella added. "The proposal, once finalized, will give EPA far more responsibility than addressing climate change. It effectively will assign EPA broad authority over the use and control of energy, in turn authorizing it to regulate virtually every sector of the economy."
Many opponents of regulating carbon dioxide will now turn their attention to Congress, hoping to achieve a more modest cap on greenhouse gases through the legislative process than one that could be imposed by the federal government.
Fred Singer, who heads the Arlington, Va.-based Science and Environmental Policy Project and has repeatedly questioned the idea that humans contribute to climate change, said in a statement that the EPA proposal "is based on shoddy science and would impose a huge economic burden on American households . . . Congress must stop this unwarranted action by means of legislation, but without committing the same errors as EPA."
