June 21, 2005
Reader disputes part of editorial, provides more info
Editor:
Thank you for the editorial board's support for quickly
implementing the recommendations of the Community Based Resource Team's
Highway 321 improvements. However, the editorial contained a factual
error.
The editorial stated in part, "The project (Highway 321 construction)
and 15 other highway projects were halted so The University of
Tennessee Center for Transportation Research could study them. The 321
work was stopped in mid-construction, leaving a mess for motorists and
a business concern for the merchants."
This is not true.
The initial UT project study and the work of the Resource Team did not in any way slow the ongoing construction.
What is dragging out the work is that construction began
without all the required permits in hand. As is currently common
practice, the contractor began work on sections that had been
permitted, while attempting to get missing permits needed to finish the
job. In cases dealing with wetlands, stream disruption, and other
environmentally sensitive issues, permitting can be a long process
without a guaranteed result.
The practice of starting work on pieces of a project without all the
permits in place is a form of economic blackmail. Since the project is
already under way, if a regulatory agency denies a permit, they can be
seen as responsible for wasting, in this case, tens of millions of
dollars in completed construction. Few agencies can withstand this sort
of pressure.
This whole practice would be comical except that the
contractor puts public funds (our money) at risk in this game of
chicken. Since it is our money, it borders on being criminal.
Gov. Bredesen has done a great job in reining in the abuses of TDOT.
Hopefully this is another practice that will become an artifact of a
corrupt past.
Erik Plakanis
Gatlinburg Greenspace Committee
©The Mountain Press 2005
Wednesday, March 29 saw the release of a important
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a four-year research effort conducted by 1300
experts from 95 countries. According to the research, over 60 per cent of
the ecosystems that support live on EARTH are being degraded or being used
at an unsustainable rate.
The American Progress Action Fund transforms progressive ideas
into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action,
grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other
progressive leaders throughout the country and the world.
Here are a some important articles from their website at americanprogressaction.org
"Bush Blocks Progress on Global Warming" (21 December 2004)
"U.S. Stays Out of Global Warming Pact" (16 February 2005)
|
Climate Change . . . No Change?
By Josh Oakley
JUST SAY "NO" TO AIR POLLUTION
By now, 141 countries have formally pledged to implement the changes
necessary to cut emissions of pollution that we know for a fact cause
climate change . . . but NOT the President, the Republicans, or even
some of the Democrats--who have decided not to join the agreement. Our
country has decided NOT to join the Kyoto International Treaty to curb
emission of carbon particles into the air.
These people don't seem to realize that if we do not have a good place
for our children and grandchildren to live, no amount of money or oil
will make up for the damage we cause now.
True, we are paying for prior generations' mistakes, and we are
learning our lessons slowly but surely, but there are a lot more
questions to ask.
THE WORLD'S BIGGEST POLLUTER
No matter what reasons politicians and right-wing think tanks
give for why it is not good to join the world in combating the
destructive nature of our own energy consumption, the fact remains that
the United States is the world's biggest polluter, with over six tons
of carbon dioxide emitted per person per year in our country.
The United States, Canada, and Australia all remain hostile to any
language suggesting people are changing the composition of the earth's
atmosphere. Yet the U.S.'s own Environmental Protection Agency
(according to their official government website) operates under the
premise that "scientists know for certain that human activities
are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere."
Is there a chance these three countries resist language about
global warming and climate change because they are, in fact, the three
largest polluters in the world?
GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL
Tim Barnett, speaking at the National Association for the Advancement
of Science, said: ãThe debate over whether or not there is a
global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people.ä
He measured the change in ocean temperatures. NASA predicts that this
year will be the warmest on record. Even a Pentagon Minority Report
from 2003 (hushed up by the White House) predicts negative effects of
prolonged dependence on fossil fuels, including natural disasters and
climate change.
Anyone with eyes, lungs, and a heart knows that releasing large
quantities of pollutants into the environment has negative side effects
in the present--and even more in the future, especially for our
children and grandchildren.
THE NEED FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
We spend less than half as much on developing new sources of
renewable energy as we do on nuclear weapons. A short-term sacrifice in
our economy would net a long-term gain in sustainability and
independence from foreign oil. The potential benefits of weaning
ourselves from fossil fuels outweigh any short-term economic risks.
Only an idiot would argue it is good to rely on burgeoning amounts of
foreign oil at the same time that we are running up record national
deficits. Right now, the United States is like a drug addict with a
hundred-year-old oil habit. Yet we have the opportunity to use nuclear
energy to replace oil, instead of making thousands of bombs that can
destroy entire cities.
Do we really want to spend ten billion dollars next year developing
weapons of mass destruction, while telling other countries that they
should not? We should be using this money to develop safe energy that
we can produce in our country, thereby decreasing our reliance on
foreign oil and simultaneously decreasing the amount of pollution we
release into our environment. What would our grandchildren say if they
survived to adulthood?
My only hope is that my country and the human race will
survive long enough to learn from the mistakes of our past, to not
forget our history of shooting ourselves in the foot only to complain
about not having enough time to make up our minds. We must survive long
enough to make the changes that are necessary. We must ensure that
humanity is not the only species in the history of our world to destroy
itself while able to prevent its own imminent destruction.
WORKING ON THE RAILROADS
Why is it necessary to allow vehicles that are 2-3 times larger than
passenger automobiles on our highways? One would think we could move
goods on the railways already in operation, and construct more tracks
to meet future needs.
This idea may seem to President Bush like just a ãmyth of
Europe.ä But a viable railroad system in the United States could
focus on commercial distribution of goods (which would have a big
advantage in economy of delivery and a lower impact on the
environment). The railroa |
