Pollution

When a slick new company arrives on the scene with lofty promises of social responsibility, you have to wonder if there might be a catch. But when that company is in the business of selling bottled water alongside pricey cups of coffee, well, you can probably stop wondering.

As a world-peace kind of guy, I admit I was drawn in by their ongoing advertising pitch:

"By purchasing Ethos Water, customers can join a growing community of individuals who are committed to make a difference. For each bottle purchased, $0.05 will be donated toward Starbucks goal of contributing $10 million over the next five years to help alleviate the world water crisis."

See what I mean? It sounds pretty good, doesn’t it. As long as you don’t really stop to think. As long as you ignore the fact that the company is offering nickels when you could give dollars instead – if you got your water from home. As long as you close your eyes to the staggering environmental costs of America’s growing obsession with bottled water.

Why do I hate this man? No, it's not what you think. I don't hate him for any of the things he has done. I hate him for the things he won't do over the next three years that ONLY he could accomplish.

I saw this link on DailyKos and was just blown away. The story concerns a report published by the Woods Hole Research Center, which is one of the best environmental research facilities in the world. To truly understand the impact of the article, you have to know this:

Deep in the heart of the world's greatest rainforest, nine days' journey by boat from the sea, Otavio Luz Castello is anxiously watching the soft waters of the Amazon drain away. Every day they recede further, like water running slowly out of an unimaginably immense bath, threatening a global catastrophe.

He pointed out what was happening on Wednesday, standing on an island in a quiet channel of the giant river. Just a month ago, he explained, it had been entirely under water. Now it was jutting a full 15 feet above it.

It is a sign that severe drought is returning to the Amazon for a second successive year.

More after the jump.

I am really rushed this morning, but I got this alert from Molly Diggins of the North Carolina Sierra Club and wanted to pass it along. The meeting on the bill will be at noon today (Wednesday). And if anyone does go to support the moratorium, please let them know that you heard about it on BlueNC so that in the future they will think to keep the netroots informed.

From Molly Diggins:

All,

The NC Senate will take up a bill to place a moratorium on new landfills in NC. This is the same measure they attempted to move through a special provision in the budget but the House took a position this year that it would not accept any special provisions in the budget.

The original title to this blog entry was "Whores," which I have replaced in the interest of a kinder, gentler BlueNC.

Leave it to the New and Observer to find the few short-sighted jerks who would happily sell North Carolina's future to Big Oil. The truth is, there have always been greedy people who would prostitute themselves for whatever get-rich scheme might come along. And Barbara Barrett, the N&O's Washington stenographer, has spotted what she thinks is an exciting new trend based on a precious few interviews on the Outer Banks.

KITTY HAWK - Along North Carolina's coastline, a new tone is creeping into conversations about offshore drilling. Where once there was nearly universal opposition to platforms in the ocean, some speak of them in a new way -- as a possibility, an inevitability, even a financial benefit to a region long fearful of the damage drilling could do to tourism and ecology.

Just how many are "some," Babs? You found a couple of business hacks, two Republicans in Congress, and one civil servant to make your lame case. Gee golly, that looks like a big new trend to me!

Rick Martinez, the Puppet in Residence at the News and Observer is in rare form this morning, with an article worth examining if only for its sheer ignorance.

Last week the U.S. House of Representatives took the first step at getting at it when it voted, 232 to 187, to lift the congressional moratorium and allow states to decide whether to allow drilling off their coastlines (Jones voted with the majority). While $3-a-gallon gasoline grabbed headlines as the reason for bipartisan support, I think Jones identified the real cause. Up to 75 percent of the payments from new offshore oil and gas leases would go to the states. That could be some serious cash.

Plenty of people living in North Carolina's rural counties instinctively support Republican candidates. Years of frightwing propaganda about freedom, family values and taxes have filled their brains and their cups with the bright red free-market Kool-Aid we've come to expect from North Carolina conservatives.

I wonder how long those delusions will hold out? I wonder how long these hard-working folks will vote for candidates who want to pollute the air they breathe and the water they drink.

Fresh country air just isn't what it used to be. So concluded more than 300 agricultural scientists at a recent conference outside Washington, D.C.

tell that to the fish.

And how much noise does a jet boat make?

And, if it took 2 years to get the Coast Guard to approve their use, maybe there IS a problem with the things? I am a Coast Guard veteran, and am well aware of the ease of Coast Guard approval usually.

Link Texthttp://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/SPORTS03/60628070">Link TextJet Boats in Lake Fontana

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - May 19, 2005)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

k the gentlemen from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and Washington (Mr. Dicks) for the $11 million Superfund increase in the committee-approved bill, but I believe more should be done.

[Page: H3639] GPO's PDF My amendment provides Superfund with an additional $130 million. This extra funding is offset from the EPA's Science and Technology Account which received $765 million in the committee-approved bill.

Duke Energy wants to burn some more coal. That's to be expected. But here's what has me worried. Whatever new coal plants they build (and they will build them) will come on line no sooner than 2011. That's five years out. So imagine how far in the future anything even remotely resembling renewable energy must be. Here's how I'd handle it:

Dear Duke Energy.

Please move forwared and build your new coal plants. We'll make permitting as and easy as possible. Be sure the plants are as green as green can be and then some.

There's only one condition: Give us a date certain by which you'll have 33 percent of your power generation from alternative sources. Give us the month, the day and the year. Hit that date and you'll be rich beyond your wildest dreams, and I know they're pretty wild. Miss that date and penalties will kick in big time.

We'll make it worth your while to innovate. And it'll cost you if you don't.

So we have four numbers to discuss:

Date
Percentage of source shifted
Upside benefit
The penalty cost

Let's make a deal.

Press release below.