The apparent targeting of seven wolves from Yellowstone National Park packs as they roamed outside the park boundaries is raising concern that liberal hunting rules in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho are putting the National Park Service's effort to restore wolves to the Yellowstone ecosystem at risk.
National Parks Traveler has the story.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Dolphin killings in Gulf of Mexico prompt NOAA alert
A recent wave of dolphin killings by humans has prompted the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to issue an alert to law enforcement authorities and environmental regulators in the Gulf coast region.
Outside magazine has the story.
Outside magazine has the story.
October temperatures fifth-highest on record
October 2012 has gone down in the record books as a notably warm month, continuing a trend that has now lasted several years.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climactic Data Center recently announced that the average world-wide temperature for the month made it the fifth-warmest October since records were first kept in 1880.
According to the report, all or part of seven continents experienced temperatures that were higher than average. These include northern Africa, most of Australia, western and far eastern Asia, most of Europe, northeastern and southwestern North America, and central South America.
The combined average temperature over the planet's land and ocean surfaces was 58.23 degrees Fahrenheit (14.63 degrees Celsius), which was 1.13 degrees Fahrenheit (0.63 degrees Celsius) warmer than the twentieth century average. The margin of error associated with the calculation is 0.22 degrees Fahrenheit (0.12 degrees Celsius).
Not all regions of the world experienced a warmer-than-average month. In the United Kingdom, for example, temperatures averaged 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.3 degrees Celsius) below the 1981-2010 mean. It was the coldest October since 2003 in the British Isles.
Southern Africa, central Asia, other parts of western and northern Europe, and northwestern and central North America also experienced lower than average temperatures during October.
The month was the 332nd consecutive month, and the 36th consecutive October, with an average temperature above land and sea surfaces that exceeded the twentieth century average.
The last October in which temperatures were below the twentieth century norm occurred in 1976.
This image shows temperature variations from the twentieth century average. Courtesy NOAA National Climactic Data Center.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climactic Data Center recently announced that the average world-wide temperature for the month made it the fifth-warmest October since records were first kept in 1880.
According to the report, all or part of seven continents experienced temperatures that were higher than average. These include northern Africa, most of Australia, western and far eastern Asia, most of Europe, northeastern and southwestern North America, and central South America.
The combined average temperature over the planet's land and ocean surfaces was 58.23 degrees Fahrenheit (14.63 degrees Celsius), which was 1.13 degrees Fahrenheit (0.63 degrees Celsius) warmer than the twentieth century average. The margin of error associated with the calculation is 0.22 degrees Fahrenheit (0.12 degrees Celsius).
Not all regions of the world experienced a warmer-than-average month. In the United Kingdom, for example, temperatures averaged 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.3 degrees Celsius) below the 1981-2010 mean. It was the coldest October since 2003 in the British Isles.
Southern Africa, central Asia, other parts of western and northern Europe, and northwestern and central North America also experienced lower than average temperatures during October.
The month was the 332nd consecutive month, and the 36th consecutive October, with an average temperature above land and sea surfaces that exceeded the twentieth century average.
The last October in which temperatures were below the twentieth century norm occurred in 1976.
This image shows temperature variations from the twentieth century average. Courtesy NOAA National Climactic Data Center.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Obama urges action on climate change, makes no specific promises about federal mitigation efforts, during first post-election press conference
President Barack Obama spoke bluntly about the reality of climate change during his first post-election press conference yesterday, asserting that it is time for Congress to put in place new policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The president, who was re-elected Nov. 6 with a huge electoral college majority and a nearly three percentage point edge in the popular vote, did not specify any particular actions he would take.
"I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions," Obama said during the media event at the White House Wednesday. "And as a consequence, I think we've got an obligation to future generations to do something about it."
Obama pointed out that his administration has taken actions on its own to lower greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, specifically mentioning efforts to increase use of renewable energy and recent regulations that raise the mininum fuel economy that must be achieved by motor vehicles.
He also said that he would begin an intensive effort to seek out advice about how best to proceed to achieve lower emissions in the future, promising a "wide-ranging conversation" with other elected officials, scientists, and engineers.
The Obama administration has not indicated that it will ask Congress to enact an emissions tax or fee. However, a report in The Hill magazine published earlier this week included an interview with an administration official who said that Obama might be open to it as part of a more wide-ranging revision of the federal tax code.
John M. Reilly, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the co-director of that institution's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said that the view among academic experts is that a tax on greenhouse gas emissions would be an effective response to climate change.
"Our work estimated that such a tax, starting at $20 per ton of CO2 and rising at 4 percent real per year, would reduce U.S. emissions by about 14 percent below 2006 levels by 2010 and by 20 percent by 2050," Reilly said in an e-mail message.
He also pointed out that the tax might take a big chunk out of the federal budget deficit, raising as much as $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
The president himself said during his press conference Wednesday that he did not think a tax on carbon dioxide emissions is politically feasible.
The president, who was re-elected Nov. 6 with a huge electoral college majority and a nearly three percentage point edge in the popular vote, did not specify any particular actions he would take.
"I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions," Obama said during the media event at the White House Wednesday. "And as a consequence, I think we've got an obligation to future generations to do something about it."
Obama pointed out that his administration has taken actions on its own to lower greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, specifically mentioning efforts to increase use of renewable energy and recent regulations that raise the mininum fuel economy that must be achieved by motor vehicles.
He also said that he would begin an intensive effort to seek out advice about how best to proceed to achieve lower emissions in the future, promising a "wide-ranging conversation" with other elected officials, scientists, and engineers.
The Obama administration has not indicated that it will ask Congress to enact an emissions tax or fee. However, a report in The Hill magazine published earlier this week included an interview with an administration official who said that Obama might be open to it as part of a more wide-ranging revision of the federal tax code.
John M. Reilly, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the co-director of that institution's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said that the view among academic experts is that a tax on greenhouse gas emissions would be an effective response to climate change.
"Our work estimated that such a tax, starting at $20 per ton of CO2 and rising at 4 percent real per year, would reduce U.S. emissions by about 14 percent below 2006 levels by 2010 and by 20 percent by 2050," Reilly said in an e-mail message.
He also pointed out that the tax might take a big chunk out of the federal budget deficit, raising as much as $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
The president himself said during his press conference Wednesday that he did not think a tax on carbon dioxide emissions is politically feasible.
New York Gov. Cuomo says his state will begin efforts to mitigate climate change
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is out with a detailed statement outlining specific steps the Empire State will take to mitigate the effects of climate change.
New York, along with sister state New Jersey, was hit hard by tropical storm Sandy in October. Cuomo, a Democrat thought to be among his party's leading contenders for the presidential nomination in 2016, has argued that the severity of the storm may be linked to ongoing human-caused global warming.
"We will not allow the national paralysis over climate change to stop us from pursuing the necessary path for the future," Cuomo wrote in his op-ed.
The editorial column appears in today's edition of the New York Daily News.
New York, along with sister state New Jersey, was hit hard by tropical storm Sandy in October. Cuomo, a Democrat thought to be among his party's leading contenders for the presidential nomination in 2016, has argued that the severity of the storm may be linked to ongoing human-caused global warming.
"We will not allow the national paralysis over climate change to stop us from pursuing the necessary path for the future," Cuomo wrote in his op-ed.
The editorial column appears in today's edition of the New York Daily News.
Reuters: Plea bargain in BP oil spill case could come today
Reuters reports this morning that a plea deal could come as soon as today in the criminal case arising from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
The report said that BP itself is expected to plead guilty to criminal charges arising from the incident and pay a record fine.
BP, in a press release issued today, confirmed that it is in discussions with federal authorities. The company's statement also said that any deal with the U.S. Department of Justice would have no impact on any federal or state efforts to invoke civil penalty provisions of environmental laws or private lawsuits not already settled.
A plea deal may also cover allegations that BP violated criminal provisions of federal securities law, according to the BP statement.
Reuters also reports that two BP employees may be indicted in connection with the incident, which was the largest oil spill accident in history. Eleven people were killed, while 17 more were injured, when the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded.
UPDATE (10:00 AM MST) - BP said this morning that it will plead guilty to 14 criminal charges and pay a record $4.5 billion in fines and fees.
"All of us at BP deeply regret the tragic loss of life caused by the by Deepwater Horizon accident as well as the impact of the spill on the Gulf Coast region," Bob Dudley, BP's Group Chief Executive, said in a statement. "We apologize for our role in the accident, and as today's resolution with the U.S. government further reflects, we have accepted responsibility for our actions."
BP will pay $4 billion for violation of U.S. environmental laws over the next five years. It will also pay $525 million to resolve criminal allegations under federal securities laws.
The company will also take an additional $3.85 billion charge against income. That follows a $38.1 billion hit against the company's bottom line already experienced since the Deepwater Horizon incident.
The report said that BP itself is expected to plead guilty to criminal charges arising from the incident and pay a record fine.
BP, in a press release issued today, confirmed that it is in discussions with federal authorities. The company's statement also said that any deal with the U.S. Department of Justice would have no impact on any federal or state efforts to invoke civil penalty provisions of environmental laws or private lawsuits not already settled.
A plea deal may also cover allegations that BP violated criminal provisions of federal securities law, according to the BP statement.
Reuters also reports that two BP employees may be indicted in connection with the incident, which was the largest oil spill accident in history. Eleven people were killed, while 17 more were injured, when the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded.
UPDATE (10:00 AM MST) - BP said this morning that it will plead guilty to 14 criminal charges and pay a record $4.5 billion in fines and fees.
"All of us at BP deeply regret the tragic loss of life caused by the by Deepwater Horizon accident as well as the impact of the spill on the Gulf Coast region," Bob Dudley, BP's Group Chief Executive, said in a statement. "We apologize for our role in the accident, and as today's resolution with the U.S. government further reflects, we have accepted responsibility for our actions."
BP will pay $4 billion for violation of U.S. environmental laws over the next five years. It will also pay $525 million to resolve criminal allegations under federal securities laws.
The company will also take an additional $3.85 billion charge against income. That follows a $38.1 billion hit against the company's bottom line already experienced since the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Roadless rule fight ends
The long fight over a far-reaching federal regulation aimed at preserving roadless areas of the national forests ended Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court decided it would not review an appeals court decision upholding it.
The court's decision means that the rule can go into effect more than ten years after it was finalized by the Clinton administration.
"The Roadless Rule is now indisputably the law of the land," Jamie Williams, the president of the Wilderness Society, said in a statement.
Getting to that point required battles in two federal courts of appeal and the hostility of the George W. Bush administration, which declined to defend it in one appeals court, tried to replace it with a rule that would establish protections on the basis of state preferences, and exempted the nation's largest temperate forest - Alaska's Tongass National Forest - entirely from the rule.
The Bush administration also managed to secure exemptions from the rule for Idaho and Colorado.
Roadless areas are considered to be biologically important because they allow for the preservation of cold-water fish habitat and the sustained connection between a variety of habitats for native wildlife populations.
Areas of forest not sliced up by roads are also more resistant to wildfire and provide refuge for species impacted by human activities elsewhere and by global climate change.
The Forest Service first initiated efforts to protect them during the 1920s, when it set aside "primitive areas", and by the 1960s federal law recognized their ecological significance when Congress enacted the Wilderness Act.
That landmark law required the Forest Service to protect roadless areas pending Congressional decisions about which of the areas to designate as wilderness, and in the 1970s the agency completed an evaluation of its acreage that qualified.
The Clinton administration imposed a moratorium on additional road-building in the national forest roadless areas in 1999 and then, just before leaving office in Jan. 2011 and after a lengthy process that involved the most extensive public involvement process in U.S. history, finalized the regulation to protect them.
Two federal appeals courts later upheld the validity of the Roadless Rule against attacks from motorized recreation advocates, grazing, mining, and timber interests, and a small number of municipalities, counties, and states.
Critics argued that the regulation intruded on Congress' exclusive authority to designate wilderness areas.
The Roadless Rule affects 58.5 million acres of the 193 million-acre national forest system.
There are more than 380,000 miles of roads, mostly built to support timber extraction activities, in the national forests.
The regulation does not require closure of existing roads, does not prevent off-road vehicle use in the national forests, and does not affect opportunities to conduct mining operations in the national forests. It also does not prevent holders of grazing permits from allowing their livestock to roam on federal government-owned forests.
The Supreme Court's orders denying review came in Colorado Mining Association v. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, No. 11-1384 and Wyoming v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 11-1378.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
