Sell Resources

what kind of person would donate to the Natural Resources Defense Council? http://www.nrdc.org

should the natural resources defense council be investigated over its propaganda website.? source ( undercover agent on climate Control )

Can I donate to charities without constant mailings and requests for more money? I'm looking for a way to donate to charities whose causes I support, while avoiding some problems I've had in the past. 1. I don't want to drown in request for money from other charities. I would rather pick one or two charities that are active in an area I care about, and give my donations to them. I've had bad experience with this in the past -- any little donation gets me on a "sucker list". Just because I give to one charity doesn't mean I want to give to all of them. 2. I don't want constant requests for more money from the charity I donate to. I want to give a donation once or twice a year and that's all. I ESPECIALLY don't want phone requests for to deal with some "emergency" that really isn't emerging -- it's been there all along, but is just a good emotional story. I gave to the Natural Resources Defense Council several years ago, and they were horrible about this. I don't mind legitimate communications from the charity. I just don't want constant solicitations.

Why do Sen Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy and Robert Kennedy oppose the Environmentally friendly Cape Wind Project? The Cape Wind Project would construct 130 wind turbines in a 24 square mile area of Nantucket Sound. The project could supply 75% of the electricity needs for Cape Cod and the islands of Nantucket and Martha"s Vineyard. It is backed by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council. It is also supported by 80% of the Massachusetts residents. The Kennedys like to protray themselves as Environmentally Friendly but seem to act in unfriendly manners when it comes to protecting the Environment. They fly in chartered jets, drive Large limousine type vehicles, own multitudes of large mansions and seem to think that peons should be concerned about the environment but not themselves.

Isn't McCain's energy plan socialistic by nature? A lot of people like to accuse Obama of being socialist. But I it seems like McCain's energy plan is the one that fits this bill. McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants in the US, relying heavily on this power source like France does (McCain often cites France as an example to follow). In France, the government controls both the construction of nuclear power plants and the generation and distribution of electricity. According to Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, "It would take a massive shift in government policy to proceed in the French direction, and it would be antithetical to the United States and how it operates, since it would be a quasi-socialist system.” Other energy experts say his plan would require billions of dollars in new subsidies and be an inefficient use of taxpayers’ money. According to Tom Cochran, a physicist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, “The two big hurdles to the construction of nuclear plants in the United States are that they are not economically competitive and cannot be privately financed" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/us/politics/10nuclear.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin Do you think McCain's nuclear energy plan is socialistic by nature?

So Americans now think Global Warming is a Myth!? Or just the Bush loving, brainless, real-public-kunts? http://www.climatehotmap.org/ People in Alaska are starting to freak out. The retreat of the sea ice allows the oceans to pound the coast more, and villages there are suffering from the effects of that erosion. There is melting, roads are buckling, there are forests that have been infested with beetles because of a rise in temperatures. I think residents there feel it's visible more and more, more than any other place in the country. Dan Lashof, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council It's ok World, when the shit hits the fan, just blame it on those pesky Americans. Who apparently, seem to be behaving like they live on a different planet then the rest of us. =)

why are "we, the people of the U.S." doing this? Bush Signs Oceans Legislation into Law WASHINGTON, DC, January 12, 2007 (ENS) - President George W. Bush today signed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act into law. Passed in the final hours of the last Congress, the measure strengthens current law by requiring an end to overfishing and by requiring that science, not politics, dictate how many fish can be caught per year. The legislation also strengthens penalties for illegal fishing in international waters. "The act sets a firm deadline to end overfishing in America," the President said, "contributes to replenishing America's fish stocks; strengthens enforcement of America's fishing laws; and implements international agreements on fishery management and the protection of polar bears." Environmentalists are pleased with the law. Sarah Chasis, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Oceans Initiative, said, "Signing this bill into law is an exciting and significant step toward restoring our oceans. We hope that the administration will craft regulations that will bring the letter of this law to our waters." "Our oceans are in serious trouble and fisheries management is just a part of the puzzle," Chasis said. "We look forward to working with the President and Congress to tackle other critical needs, including passage of healthy oceans legislation to protect, maintain, and restore the sustainability and productivity of ocean ecosystems." * * * U.S. Completes Oil Spill Cleanup in Lebanon WASHINGTON, DC, January 12, 2007 (ENS) - The U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, in consultation with the Lebanese Ministry of Environment, has completed a project to clean oil from 68 miles of Lebanon's shoreline from Byblos to Enfeh. The cleanup was required as a result of an oil spill that took place in July 2006 during the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict when Israeli bombs struck the Jiyyeh power utility 20 miles south of Beirut. Restoration focused on areas of high economic importance including commercial harbors, public beaches, and several historic sites. More than 36,000 bags of oil-contaminated waste were collected and more than 220 local laborers, including fishermen, were hired and trained to perform critical cleanup functions. In addition, local businesses were used to provide and operate heavy equipment, and also to supply support services. USAID says those trained now possess a valuable skill and will be able to serve as experienced responders for future oil spill operations in Lebanon and internationally. In addition to cleaning Byblos Port, a World Heritage Site, over 100 affected fishing boats were cleaned and repainted. The $5 million project was funded as part of the more than $230 million U.S. commitment to Lebanon for humanitarian, reconstruction and security assistance announced by President George W. Bush on August 21, 2006.

Who is more energy efficient? BUSH or GORE? Published on Sunday, April 29, 2001 in the Chicago Tribune Bush Loves Ecology -- At Home by Rob Sullivan The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude. Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem. No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy. This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford. Yes, the same George W. who believes arsenic and drinking water might not be such a bad combo, the same man who reneged on his campaign promise to lower carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the same man who is doing everything in his power to fling open the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. How does the President reconcile an eco-friendly abode for his own family with his persistent stand against anything that smacks of an environmentally friendly agenda for the nation as a whole? The answer to that perplexing question is a real mystery. Perhaps sound ecological practices are only for those who can afford them: as a self-proclaimed strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution, Bush must be aware that clean air and clean water are not guaranteed in that glorious document. Perhaps in Bush's Brave New Corporate World, clean natural resources are merely commodities in a free-market economy: if you can pay for them, fine; if not, tough. The rest of us will just have to put up with more toxic dumps and more public lands being turned over to logging, mining and oil companies. According to David Heymann, the house's architect and associate dean of the University of Texas architecture department, Heymann designed the house so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place." In a USA Today interview, Heymann said, "There's a great grove of oak trees to the west that protects it from the late afternoon sun. Then there is a view out to the north looking at hills, and to the east out over a lake, and the view to the south . . . out to beautiful hills." I suppose in George W.'s architectural world only the rich and powerful have views; vistas that the public owns as part of its shared heritage are up for lease and sale. Heymann also termed the house "stunningly small." Really? Would it be stunningly small for a single mother in South Central Los Angeles? How stunningly small would it be for an immigrant Latino family in San Antonio Maybe in the rarified heights where second homes are the norm, 4,000 square feet is small and on a stunning scale as well, but in Main Street America that much elbow room is pretty big for the first and only home. But then most of us can't reconcile what might at first glance appear to be inherently irreconcilable. Maybe some day, like our noble president, we will be able to make that kind of staggering mental feat. That is, if we ever stop misunderestimating ourselves. Rob Sullivan is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles.

Who owns this House? The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem. No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy. This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.

What do you think people would say if they knew that environmental groups were funded by Big Oil foundations? The Rockefeller Brothers (Standard Oil and Co) Fund has funded dozens of environmental groups such as Tides Foundation; the Tides Center; SeaWeb; Greenpeace; the Environmental Media Services; the National Environmental Trust; Human Rights Watch; the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; Friends of the Earth; the David Suzuki Foundation; the Natural Resources Defense Council; the Environmental Defense Fund; the Ocean Conservancy; the H. John Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment; Alliance for Justice; the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Council on Foundations; the American Oceans Campaign; the Sierra Club;

Are you pleased that George Soros is so deeply ensconced in the White House? Does it make you proud? For those interested in finding out how a real communist got a White House job, the Van Jones scandal isn’t over - Soros Money Financed Communist Van Jones By Cliff Kincaid Tuesday, September 15, 2009 When the list of donors to the Van Jones “Green for All” organization is examined, one name stands out-the Open Society Institute of billionaire George Soros. The Green for All 2008 annual report is also notable for the pictures of the powerful people who associated with Jones. They include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Al Gore. While the Open Society Institute was supporting Green for All in 2008, when Jones was running it, the Soros-funded organization was financially underwriting the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights when Jones was in charge of that group. The Open Society Institute gave the Ella Baker Center $151,800 in 2006 and $140,000 in 2007. Jones ran this group during the years 1996-2007. He then emerged as a senior fellow at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress. Other funders of the Green for All group included Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, the Rockefeller family, Men’s Warehouse, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the New World Foundation, the Schwab Charitable Fund, the Streisand Foundation, the Service Employees International Union, and the Tides Center and Foundation. The 990 IRS forms of the Open Society Institute also disclose $560,000 in 2007 and $455,000 in 2006 to the Equal Justice Society, whose president, Eva Paterson, emerged as the major apologist for Jones when he came under attack for his communist background and anti-American statements. Paterson, who said that she hired Jones at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, wrote a column for the Huffington Post about how Glenn Beck, one of Jones’ major critics, was allegedly “fabricating” his attacks on Jones. “Beck has said repeatedly that Van is some kind of a mysterious ‘czar,’ accountable to no one but the President,” she said. “A simple Internet search shows that this claim is false. A March 10, 2009, press release announced that Van was hired by the Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality-to work on her staff as a ‘special advisor.’ In other words, Van is within the normal White House chain of command, reporting to an office confirmed by the United States Senate, just like most White House staffers. Media outlets sometimes use the ‘czar’ shorthand. But the facts show that Van has no mysterious role or extra-constitutional powers.” In fact, that March10 release does not say that Jones was “hired” by the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. It says that, “White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair Nancy Sutley announced today that Van Jones will serve as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at CEQ.” Sutley had a role in announcing the appointment, but not in making the hiring decision. This was confirmed when my Freedom of Information Act requests to the CEQ failed to disclose any documents about his hiring. Instead, the CEQ told me to contact the White House, which did not respond. We have subsequently learned that White House official Valerie Jarrett said that “we” had recruited Jones for his job at the CEQ. The “we” has never been identified but Jarrett is close to Barack and Michelle Obama. Paterson did report a piece of information that, if true, is startling. She said, “Beck has implied on two occasions that Van Jones and other Obama appointees were not vetted by the FBI. False. I was interviewed in my own office by an FBI agent, dutifully vetting Van. Yet another fabrication on the part of Mr. Beck.” If the FBI did investigate Jones’ background, we don’t know what the bureau discovered, and whether that information was taken into consideration or disregarded before he was hired by the White House. Jarrett, however, had said that the White House had been following Jones’ career for years. Josh Nelson, another advocate for Jones, wrote an ill-timed column for the Huffington Post entitled “I Stand With Van,” appearing on September 5, just hours before Jones submitted his resignation. He urged people to go to a standwithvan.com website to show their solidarity with Jones. One of the featured prominent endorsements of Jones came from Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP. For those interested in finding out how a real communist got a White House job, the Van Jones scandal isn’t over. One of the most fascinating preliminary answers involves the George Soros connection. Why would an organization associated with someone who made billions of dollars by exploiting the global capitalist system want to underwrite the activities of a communist? We have previously noted that Soros has escaped press scrutiny because he has funded a variety of news media organizations, in addition to major elements of the Democratic Party. Soros was a major backer

Do you support "America's Climate Security Act of 2007?"? S. 2191 was introduced Oct. 18th by Senators Lieberman and Warner, who are Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection. A key supporter of the bill, Environmental Defense, issued a statement saying that the bill would require that covered sectors, about 80% of the U.S. economy, reduce emissions by 15% below 2005 levels in 2020, a "strong target" that they say "helps put the U.S. on the path to much deeper reductions by the middle of the century." The bill also has support from the National Wildlife Federation, Exelon Corporation, PGE Corp; Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies. http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/acsabill.pdf

Am I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous? I got a letter from an environmental-protection organization: Dear Cherish, For the second time in a month, the Bush Administration has taken aim at endangered wolves in Greater Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies. This morning, the administration announced plans to strip the region's 1,500 wolves of protection under the Endangered Species Act. Just last month, the administration handed down a new License to Kill rule that would allow Wyoming and Idaho to slaughter hundreds of wolves by hunting, trapping and aerial gunning. Our partner organization, the Natural Resources Defense Council, has already filed suit in federal court to block the License to Kill rule. And NRDC responded immediately to this morning's news by announcing a second lawsuit that will challenge the plan to drop wolves from the endangered species list. Meanwhile, the NRDC Action Fund is responding by stepping up our mobilization campaign by sounding the media alarm and building unstoppable public pressure on Congress to take action in defense of America's wolves. If you haven't done so already, you can tell your own Representative to oppose the Bush Administration's wolf-killing plans here: http://www.nrdconline.org/ct/b7egLAE1Rq9O/ And your donation will enable us to keep running our wolf-saving ad in national newspapers: http://www.nrdconline.org/ct/bpegLAE1Rq9W/ The Bush Administration has launched this newest attack on wolves despite the opposition of hundreds of thousands of Americans . . . despite the objection of leading wildlife biologists . . . and despite the fact that wolves have NOT fully recovered in the Northern Rockies. Stripping wolves of their federal protection will leave them at the mercy of states that are ready to launch wolf extermination campaigns at the behest of special interests, including livestock ranchers and elk hunting outfitters. By unleashing this wolf-killing machine, the Bush Administration threatens to destroy one of the greatest success stories of the Endangered Species Act: the return of the gray wolf to Yellowstone and its surrounding wildlands. We must not let that happen! I know you'll continue standing with us in the critical weeks ahead as we go all-out to ensure a future for America's wolves. Sincerely, Frances Beinecke President NRDC Action Fund What can be done about this? How can we stop the Bush Administration from brutally MURDERING the wolves? And yes, this IS related to dogs. Because dogs are descended from wolves and there is no "wolves" section around here. "Dogs" is the closest topic.

Summarize in four sentences? Lois Gibbs found her voice at Love Canal. Thirty years later, in her latest crusade, she has Fortune 500 companies rolling over faster than she can create her hit list. In 1978 Lois Gibbs was a 27-year-old housewife with two young children, living in a subdivision in Niagara Falls, New York. Her husband worked in a nearby chemical plant, which emitted an acrid smoke that crept over the homes and lapped at doors and windows. Nobody minded the odor--it was the smell of jobs. The community's future looked bright--until Gibbs and her neighbors were told that the land beneath them contained more than 21,000 tons of chemical waste buried by the Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now the Occidental Chemical Corporation). She immediately wondered whether the Love Canal waste dump was linked to the serious, unexplained illnesses suffered by her children--asthma, epileptic seizures, liver and urinary tract problems. Gibbs soon discovered many families were ill, and her anger transformed the shy housewife into one of the nation's strongest voices for environmental justice. You might call her the Rosa Parks of the environmental movement. "She was an ordinary citizen, but she had enormous natural leadership qualities," says Linda Greet, director of the health program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Her organizing set the tone and scope of what was to become the 1980 Superfund bill." In the preface to Gibbs's autobiography, Ralph Nader wrote, "Lois Gibbs proved that an 'average' person could become empowered enough to change not only her life but the fives of others. [She is] a role model for people struggling for social justice around the world." It turned out Love Canal was just the beginning for Gibbs. The tragedy set off a firestorm of phone calls from citizens concerned that they; too, were suffering from toxic atrocities in their own communities. "Three thousand people called the Love Canal Homeowners Association near the end of our struggle," says Gibbs. "They were saying, 'Oh, my God, I have one of those sites.' Or, 'They want to put one in my backyard.' I remember thinking, 'I have to help them.'" The petite brunette, whom we remember with a placard in her hand and a three-year-old daughter balanced on her hip, had no idea how to create a national nonprofit organization. "Before Love Canal my biggest decision was what to make for supper," she says with a laugh. But by 1981 she had $20,000 in hand to found the Citizen's Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, which has since been renamed the Center for Health, Environment and Justice and is located in Falls Church, Virginia, just across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. Today Gibbs is a 57-year-old mother of four with the girl-next-door appearance of Sally Field and the strong-willed spunk of Erin Brockovich. She is as comfortable negotiating in the boardroom as she is sitting around the dining room table alongside working-class families. With a $1.5 million budget, and 14 full-time staff, her group is taking on one seemingly invincible corporation after another--and winning. McDonald's felt her early wrath when she hatched the "McToxics" campaign in 1987 to persuade the fast-food chain to stop using wasteful Styrofoam clamshell containers, which carry suspected carcinogens. "When you burn Styrofoam it releases greenhouse gases and dioxin," says Gibbs, "and when it's buried it doesn't ever degrade." Instead of launching a boycott, her group simply requested that McDonald's wrap sandwiches in paper. Gibbs's foot soldiers were the company's most valued customers: children. Recruited through scout groups and parent-teacher associations, they poured into their local McDonald's at rush hour with television crews and newspaper reporters in tow. When a segment of a boy crying because a McDonald's manager wouldn't let him have his burger wrapped in paper was aired on prime-time TV news, "it launched us into a national arena," says Gibbs. "McDonald's rolled over, and most of the fast-food industry fell in line." The same tactic worked when her group revealed "Victoria's Dirty Little Secret," a cleverly named campaign (duplicated by activists protesting the forests logged for catalogues) that aimed to stop the angelwinged lingerie icon's parent company, Intimate Brands, from using polyvinyl chloride (PVC) bottles for its bath gels, lotions, and body sprays. At first Gibbs approached politely, contacting the company's executives and public relations representatives. She explained why it would be socially responsible to stop using toxic PVC, a plastic that, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is hazardous to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system; increases the risk of cancer; and has been linked to reproductive problems. Next she teamed up with Greenpeace and reached out to the company's core customers: women 18 to 22 years old, a time in their fives when studies show that they're apt to develop lifel

POISONOUS FLEA COLLARS! WHAT'S YOUR OPINION? Just thought I'd post this bit of information. Can flea and tick collars harm your health and your pet's? The answer is yes, according to a new report by the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Poison on Pets II" found that some collars release invisible toxic residues on pets' fur that can get onto people when they touch their dogs or cats. Unsafe levels of those chemicals can remain on pet fur for two weeks after a collar is placed on an animal. The NRDC tested dog and cat fur for propoxur and tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) after placing widely available flea and tick collars on the animals. Collars made by Hartz, Zodiac, and Bio Spot were used in the study, but any products containing propoxur or TCVP can pose serious health risks. Both pesticides can damage the brain and nervous system, disrupt hormones, and cause cancer. These chemicals can cause a variety of poisoning symptoms from nausea and vomiting to seizures and respiratory paralysis. In large doses they can poison and even kill cats and dogs. Children are particularly vulnerable because their bodies are still developing and they tend to put their hands in their mouths after playing with pets so they're more likely to ingest pesticide residues than adults. According to the report, pesticides in this class of chemicals have been linked to delays in motor development, ADHD, and Parkinson's Disease. Propoxur levels were so high in some collars that they pose a cancer risk in children that is up to 1,000 times higher than the EPA's acceptable levels, and up to 500 times higher for adults, the report say. Wal-Mart is working with suppliers to eliminate propoxur from the products it sells. Luckily, you don't need toxic chemicals to banish fleas and ticks. Here are some healthier alternatives: Try non-chemical methods first. Give your pet regular baths with a simple pet shampoo that's free of pesticides. Use a flea comb in between baths. If you're short on time, focus on the areas where ticks like to hide: Between the toes, around the ears, and at the base of the tail. Check out this video for tips on combing your pet. Wash your pet's bedding in hot water on the same day that you bathe the animal. Vacuum regularly to eliminate any fleas and hidden eggs. Choose the least toxic products. Avoid products that list propoxur, tetrachlorvinphos, or amitraz as active ingredients. Instead, look for ingredients that are considered both safer and effective such as, Lufenuron (Program), Nitenpyram (Capstar), Methoprene (Nylar), or Pyriproxyfen (Biolar). Search this product guide to find out if the products you're already using contain potentially harmful pesticides and to find safer options. Pills are considered the healthiest method for dealing with fleas and ticks, according to the report, since they usually contain the least toxic chemicals, and don't leave residues on your pet or in your home. Look for products with Lufenuron or Nitenpyram or talk to your vet about getting a prescription for Spinosad. Don't assume "natural" is always best. Essential oils, for example, are not always the safest option. Penny royal, tea tree, lavender, cinnamon, and eucalyptus oils are all very toxic to pets, according to the NRDC. Cedarwood, lemongrass, peppermint, rosemary, and thyme oils are better choices. Want to do more? It would be far easier for consumers if hazardous chemicals weren't in the products lining store shelves in the first place. Sign a petition requesting that the EPA ban toxic pesticides from pet products.

Is this simply pure propaganda for this "green job" sham? Why is it on Y! homepage? The **potential** of green jobs: http://green.yahoo.com/blog/greenpicks/231/what-the-green-collar-economy-means-for-you.html So, what exactly is a "green collar" job, and more importantly, how do you get one? There's no definitive term just yet, but here's the short answer according to Pete Altman at the Natural Resources Defense Council: "A green job is just like a regular job only the result of what you are making or doing is good for the environment." And, it turns out that what's good for the environment is going to be good for America's workforce. A reportfrom the University of Amherst Massachusetts says that a $100 billion investment in green programs would create about two million jobs over two years. About 750,000 green jobs already exist, according to a 2008 U.S. Conference of Mayors' report. compare to: The **actual nature** of green jobs: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123336500319935517.html Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was all smiles in 2006 when he signed into law the toughest anti-global-warming regulations of any state. Mr. Schwarzenegger and his green supporters boasted that the regulations would steer California into a prosperous era of green jobs, renewable energy, and technological leadership. Instead, since 2007 -- in anticipation of the new mandates -- California has led the nation in job losses. The regulations created a cap-and-trade system, similar to proposed federal global-warming measures, by limiting the CO2 that utilities, trucking companies and other businesses can emit, and imposed steep new taxes on companies that exceed the caps. Since energy is an input in everything that's produced, this will raise the cost of production inside California's borders. hater police........Did you ignore the fact that a "plan" similar to Obama's "green jobs" plan was implemented in California in 2006. The results: massive failure. chote........"The reason most Republicans put down "green" jobs is that very few Republicans stand to make money off of them." The reason it failed in California is PRECISELY because it didn't make any money. It simply put the state farther in debt.

Where is the application for the Cosmogirl/seventeen 2024 internships for summer 2010? They used to have this in Cosmogirl (which i don't think exists anymore...) But they would offer internships including: Law-The Office of New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo Advertising-Saatchi & Saatchi Finance-Merrill Lynch Government-Office of New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney Sports-National Basketball Association (NBA) International Affairs-The United Nations Association Music-J Records Environment-Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Architecture/Interior Design-Gensler New York TV News-BET Networks I just want to know if this program still exists (maybe under Seventeen's magazine), and where the application is and its deadline. thanks!

tap water is better than bottle? Health in a Bottle? Bottled water has gained tremendous popularity, as word about the hazards of tap water is getting out. However, many bottled waters were found to be simply processed water using distillation, reverse osmosis, de-ionization or filtration. So, is bottled water safer than tap water? Tests have discovered that some bottled waters contained more chlorine by-products than surface and ground waters. And the pesticides, herbicides, and pharmaceuticals that are found in household tap water are appearing in bottled water with alarming frequency. The Natural Resources Defense Council report on the subject concluded that, "there is no assurance that bottled water is any safer than tap water." Throw into that mix that plastic containers contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which leach into your water. Skip the plastic bottles for storing. Instead store in glass bottles, and for water-on-the-go, get a reusable thermos. I hope you will take these tips and keep yourself well watered. I invite you to visit often and share your own personal health and longevity tips with me. -Dr. Mao

Obama says: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable"? Why it is unacceptable? you can accept Israel who is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or having developed nuclear weapons, or even having a nuclear weapons program. Then what about "Negev Nuclear Research Center" near Dimona. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, Israel possesses around 75–200 weapons. On May 26, 2008, ex-US president Jimmy Carter stated Israel has, “150 or more nuclear warheads” at a press conference at the annual literary Hay festival in Wales. To whom US is trying to Lie, to the people of the world who know about the war in Iraq, the main purpose behind this war and now the say words are coming again "Iran and weapons of mass destruction". Well, the world has seen the results of Iraq now they will see again in Iran!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the people think about this let's see??????????????/

Gray Wolf Help Group?!? Help Gray Wolf survive group?!?!? My friends and I made a group; its called the P.B.A group (Polar Bear Assiociation.) We heard that many Gray Wolves are going to be killed in Montana, and we want to help. We are going to raise money in our town and send it to the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) They use this money to fight in court to put them back in the Endangered Federal List. I need ideas what we should do. We made copies of flyers which we created, we made word searches, we bought props, we made and signed a petition. We are going to go sometime this week to Shoprite and ask to donate money to the Gray Wolves there. Also to mention, we are pre teens-teens. We also are planning to have garage sales and sell lemonade to raise money. Do you guys have any more ideas we could use? I am a co- boss and I really want to make a impact. Hunters from Montana start hunting around May 4th, most of the Wolves shall die. Please help the wolves, help our diverse envoirment. Also to mention, we made seven different flyers, we have five wolf toys, a photo frame of a wolf, word search, 5 dollars, and a adult. Any ideas what else we could do? *Remember: We are teenagers, so we cant really do much, but we could make a difference!* Thanks in advance Regards, Karina*

Please someone proof read this. Also, please critique my story and tell me what I need to work on. Thnxs lots? Air pollution is a dangerous issue happening here on Earth. Air pollution has effected the ozone layer, caused humans to have problems with their lungs, and produces acid rain. Air pollution has effected the ozone layer which has caused global warming, according to Stratospheric Ozone. Thanks to global warming, the ice poles are melting; soon, the polar bears will have to be swimming underwater. -Another issue with air pollution is that it causes humans to have lung problems like asthma and lung disease. In a recent survey provided by Natural Resources Defense Council, about 20 million people have gotten asthma due to air pollution that is caused by pollution from cars, factories, smokers, and power plants. In the past year, asthma has killed over 5,000 people in the U.S. Also, "Outdoor Air Pollution & Lung Disease". The Australian Lung Foundation <http://www.lungnet.org.au/fact_sheets/pollution-health.html> quotes that 7% about 1,500 people get lung cancer due to a.p

Should we thank the environmentalists? .. for refusing to become a part of the solution? BP wants to expand on oil refinery in Whiting, Indiana. That would be a good thing, considering that a shortage of refineries is one of the many reasons why gas prices are so high. But one group of people out there is determined to see that this expansion never happens ... environmentalists. On Wednesday of this week, The Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit that challenges air permits granted to BP's refinery by the State of Indiana. Just keep these details in mind ... This investment by BP has the potential to increase gas and diesel output by 1.7 million gallons a day. It will also create 2,000 construction jobs and 80 new permanent jobs. This environmental group also says that the permits granted by Indiana "simply do not protect the public and do not live up to the law." Don't you love that phrase, "protect the public"? http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32183 A shortage of oil refining capacity is often mentioned as one reason for soaring gasoline prices. So as a result of the Reid’s, Pelosi’s and tree huggers, we will see prices hit $5.00 per gallon or more….. Correct?

Will More Drilling Mean Cheaper Gas? A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. (If oil prices continue to skyrocket, the savings would be greater, but not by much.) Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration — currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a Congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush — might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. So, all this extra drilling may save you 8 cents a gallon by 2027 but make the oil companies billions of dollars. Is this another example of Republicans spinning the facts in order to make the oil companies richer? Source: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884,00.html

Why did barry ONCE AGAIN staff his "Spill Panel" with greenies and NOT ONE with DRILLING EXPERIENCE? Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. - LEFTIST GREENIE Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland's Center for Environmental Science. - LEFTIST GREENIE Terry Garcia, a National Geographic Society executive. _ LEFTIST GREENIE Cherry Murray, dean of Harvard's engineering school. LOTS of drilling experience at HAHVAD Frances Ulmer, chancellor of the University of Alaska Anchorage. Yep, one MORE GREENIE http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100614/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_obama_commission_members Yet MORE ivory tower scholarly "experts" like the jackasses who surround the Dear Leader... NO PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE IN ANY OF THEM. What do YOU think their "recommendation" is going to be?

Why is Pres Obama so afraid of asking real experts any questions about deep water drilling? Funny thing? Liberals inspire me every minute. Check this question: Why are Republicans so afraid of my questions about deep water drilling? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20100625103434AAe3hsN Now lets check the facts, who is afraid of what : All right, lib, lets listen to oil drilling experts... not "Under my Administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over. . . To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. . . I want to be sure that facts are driving scientific decisions, and not the other way around." —President Obama, April 27, 2009 The President has appointed a seven-person commission to take what he says will be an objective look at what caused the Gulf spill and the steps to make offshore drilling safe. But judging from the pedigree of his commissioners, we're beginning to wonder if his real goal is to turn drilling into a partisan election issue. Mr. Obama filled out his commission last week, and the news is that there's neither an oil nor drilling expert in the bunch. Instead, he's loaded up on politicians and environmental activists. One co-chair is former Democratic Senator Bob Graham, who fought drilling off Florida throughout his career. The other is William Reilly, who ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President George H.W. Bush but is best known as a former president and former chairman of the World Wildlife Fund, one of the big environmental lobbies. The others: • Donald Boesch, a University of Maryland "biological oceanographer," who has opposed drilling off the Virginia coast and who argued that "the impacts of the oil and gas extraction industry . . . on Gulf Coast wetlands represent an environmental catastrophe of massive and underappreciated proportions." • Terry Garcia, an executive vice president at the National Geographic Society, who directed coastal programs in the Clinton Administration, in particular "recovery of endangered species, habitat conservation planning," and "Clean Water Act implementation," according to the White House press release. • Fran Ulmer, Chancellor of the University of Alaska Anchorage, who is a member of the Aspen Institute's Commission on Arctic Climate Change. She's also on the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which opposes nuclear power and more offshore drilling and wants government policies "that reduce vehicle miles traveled" (i.e., driving in cars). • Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who prior to her appointment blogged about the spill this way: "We can blame BP for the disaster and we should. We can blame lack of adequate government oversight for the disaster and we should. But in the end, we also must place blame where it originated: America's addiction to oil." On at least five occasions since the accident, Ms. Beinecke has called for bans on offshore and Arctic drilling. • Rounding out the panel is its lone member with an engineering background, Harvard's Cherry A. Murray, though her specialties are physics and optics. Whatever their other expertise, none of these worthies knows much if anything about petroleum engineering. Where is the expert on modern drilling techniques, or rig safety, or even blowout preventers? The choice of men and women who are long opposed to more drilling suggests not a fair technical inquiry but an antidrilling political agenda. With the elections approaching and Democrats down in the polls, the White House is looking to change the subject from health care, the lack of jobs and runaway deficits. Could the plan be to try to wrap drilling around the necks of Republicans, arguing that it was years of GOP coziness with Big Oil that led to the spill? White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel took this theme for a test drive on Sunday when he said that Republicans think "the aggrieved party here is BP, not the fisherman." He added that this ought to remind Americans "what Republican governance is like." The antidrilling commission could feed into this campaign narrative with a mid-September, pre-election report that blames the disaster on the industry and Bush-era regulators and recommends a ban on most offshore exploration. The media would duly salute, while Democrats could then take the handoff and force antidrilling votes on Capitol Hill. Even as this commission moves forward, engineering experts across the country have agreed that there is no scientific reason for a blanket drilling ban. The Interior Department invited experts to consult on drilling practices, but as we wrote last week eight of them have since said their advice was distorted to justify the Administration's six-month drilling moratorium. Judging from that decision and now from Mr. Obama's drilling commission, the days of "science taking a back seat to ideology" are ver

If the ice caps are melting due to global warming, why do we need a $87 million polar ice breaker ? Ice Breaker story: http://www.jsonline.com/business/36173094.html Natural Resource Defense Council story on ice caps melting http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp

Do You Think the U.S. is Prepared for N. Korea and Iran? I support Governor Granholm and US Senator Stabenow in the building of Homeland Security funding like the Natural Resource defense Council for a making Michigan an addition to the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Location of U.S. Nuclear Weapons 2006: Minot AFB, ND / Weapons / B-52H Bombers , Minuteman III ICBMS, ACMS,ALCMS 194 B 61 -7Bombs 130 B 83-1, 0 Bombs (inactive) 200 W 80-1/ALBMs 300 W 80-1 ALCMs 300 W 78s (in 100 ICBM silos) 300 W 78s (in 50 ICBM silos) 30 W 78s in spares 1,254 Total Whiteman AFB MO / Weapons B-2 Bombers 35 - B61- 7 Bombs 41 - B 61-11 Bombs 60 B 83 – 1 0- Bombs (inactive) Kings Bay, GA / Weapons Triton SLBMS, SLCMS 612 W 76s / Trident I C4 468 W 76s / Trident I C4 (inactive) 140 W 88s/ Trident II D5 144 W 80-0 / SLCMs 1,364 Total Barksdale AFB / Weapons 52H Bombers 210 B 61 – 7 Bombs 130 B 83 -1 0- Bombs (inactive) Pantex Plant TX / Several types of warheads await dismantlement Warren, AFB NE / Wea

Pleasee help with Environmental Science work! thank you! p.s if ur not gonna help don't say anything at all!? 11. This agency is in charge of finding reliable energy sources. The amount of energy fuels coming from foreign oil, coal, and other fossil fuels is required to be reduced over the next ten years. Replacement fuels and technologies are part of their research and development division. They are currently looking into renewable and environmentally compatible wind power, solar energy, and biomass energy sources. (1 point) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Department of Transportation (DOT) The Department of Energy (DOE) 12. The slash and burn system of deforestation reduces the number of oxygen producing trees and puts more carbon in the air. (1 point) True False 13. Illegal hunting and fishing practices are still occurring globally. (1 point) True False 14. Some poor countries sell off their natural resources or accept toxic waste from other countries in order to improve their economy. (1 point) True False 15. Countries sign laws and treaties to protect different species. There is enough funding to supply the enforcement needed. (1 point) True False 16. Countries which use the most natural resources have always been willing to participate in global communications to resolve many environmental problems. (1 point) True False 17. The first Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970. At the time, it was the best attended protest of its kind. (1 point) True False 18. The Environmental Defense Fund, The Friends of the Earth, and The Natural Defense Council, are all divisions of The Environmental Protection Agency. (1 point) True False 19. After the first Earth Day, two more environmental groups were established; Greenpeace in 1970 and the Sierra Club in 1971. These two groups went on to be the most popular and outspoken of the environmental awareness groups. (1 point) True False 20. The Environmental Protection Agency is in charge of all of the following except: (1 point) 1970 The Clean Air Act (CAA) Required the reduction of pollutants being released into the air. 1972 The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) - Regulated dumping of hazardous contaminants into water ways, lakes and oceans. 1971 The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act - which provided monitoring, management and protection for the animals. 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Established protection regulations for species that are headed for extinction. 21. The EPA is also in charge overseeing all of the following environmental acts except: (1 point) 1977 The Clean Water Act (CWA) Established clean drinking water standards, and enforced regulations on factory discharge water. 1980 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) This Act listed the hazardous substances that could cause danger to the environment and enforced cleanup of sites contaminated by those substances. 1990 The Pollution Prevention Act Established a national goal of eliminating pollution and finding ways to reduce toxins, recycle resources, and increase public awareness of all EPA issues. 1970 The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was established to be in charge of highway design, construction, and maintenance, as well as automotive safety. 22. All the plumbing fixtures and toilets should be low flow, which reduces the amount of water needed while still maintaining the pressure. (1 point) True False 23. American consumers have the lowest amount of waste per person in the world. (1 point) True False 24. Some examples of biodegradable materials are diapers made of cellulose and plastic bags made from cornstarch. (1 point) True False 25. One of the least difficult wastes to deal with is nuclear waste. (1 point) True False

True Or False Evironmental Science? 12. The slash and burn system of deforestation reduces the number of oxygen producing trees and puts more carbon in the air. (1 point) True False 13. Illegal hunting and fishing practices are still occurring globally. (1 point) True False 14. Some poor countries sell off their natural resources or accept toxic waste from other countries in order to improve their economy. (1 point) True False 15. Countries sign laws and treaties to protect different species. There is enough funding to supply the enforcement needed. (1 point) True False 16. Countries which use the most natural resources have always been willing to participate in global communications to resolve many environmental problems. (1 point) True False 17. The first Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970. At the time, it was the best attended protest of its kind. (1 point) True False 18. The Environmental Defense Fund, The Friends of the Earth, and The Natural Defense Council, are all divisions of The Environmental Protection Agency. (1 point) True False 19. After the first Earth Day, two more environmental groups were established; Greenpeace in 1970 and the Sierra Club in 1971. These two groups went on to be the most popular and outspoken of the environmental awareness groups. (1 point) True False

Why do Republicans praise George "Dubya" Bush? Tax Cuts: Economic Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001: Reduced lowest tax rate for 15% to 10%, and the highest from 39.6% to 35%. Obliterated a $230 BILLION surplus and created a $413 BILLION deficit. A study by the Tax Policy Center found that low- and middle-income Americans, the bottom 60% of Americans only recieved 13.7% of the tax cuts. No Child Left Behind: By the end of President Bush's first term, complaints about the administrations failure to fund the Act were shelling the White House. Kyoto Protocol Set requirements for 38 industrialized nations to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Bush pulled out of the treaty. With the rejection of the protocol and the decision to withdraw from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, President Bush seemed to be leading the country on a road not traveled since after World War I, that of isolationism. Domestic Policies "This administration, in catering to industries that put America's health and natural heritage at risk, threatens to do more damage to our environmental protections than any other in U.S. history." - The National Resources Defense Council He accused Democrats of wanting to make Social Security a Federal program, even though it HAS been a federal program since it's inception under Roosevelt. (lol) I don't think I need to go into the War in Iraq. "George Bush dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts. He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence, but you can't run the world on faith." - Bruce Bartlett, domestic policy advisor to Ronald Reagan Speaking of Reagan, to be fair, Bush did reinstate one of Reagan's policies that stopped federal funds going to international organizations that advocated or paid for abortions. For the record, I'm not a Democrat. lol, the infamous "But he's protected us from the terrorists!" rebuttal. Find out what Micahel Scheur, the former head of the CIA's Osama Bin Laden unit has to say about terrorism and U.S. intervention. Here, I'll start educating you with a quote. “I think both of them (McCain and Obama) are equally unable to cope with the threat represented by Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Islamists. They really don’t have a clue about what this war is about. Mr. McCain is very confident, but he’s clueless. Mr. Obama is equally clueless. They continue to tell Americans these people are Islamo-fascists, and they hate us because of our freedoms and they hate us for our liberties. What they hate us for is the unusually virulent strain of obsessive compulsive disorder that’s present in the American governing class, and that’s called interventionism. That’s what the cause of this war is. And neither Mr. McCain, nor Mr. Obama, nor Mrs. Clinton, nor any of the rest of them who are in the camp campaign—except Mr. Paul, Mr. Kucinich perhaps—had that idea.”

Can these be Future organz for the Morrow? Natl Bionics Council. Natl Space Solar Power Conference Intl Hydroturbine Undersea Dev Comm TeleEdVideo Planning Comm Nelson Ins for Marine research Fed Bureau for Marine Sciences NASA- NATIONAL AEROSPACE & SCIENCES ADMIN. NTP- Natl Tea Party. Pedophile Assoc. Natl Islamic Terror Assn. Home Defense Assoc. Organic Home Dev Council Urban Renewal Dev Corp. Body Armor Marketting Grp. Hi Rise Organic Farming CoOp. Organic Farm Co-Op. Eden Resorts Corp for Au Natural R&R, Trade. SOT: Singles Only Travel for ages 25 plus. JuryVideo: Jurors see cases via 2 way TV mode. US Border Rights Assn Undersea Tourisim Council of Hawaii. Deep sea Resources Assn Global Mine Clearing Assc. Cult Deprogramming Grp. XTreme Sports Dev Assn. Naturist Golf Assn: Golf in the buff, worldwide. Naturist Race Yachting. Dome Home Dev. Algae Fuels Dev Comm Converticar Design Assoc. etc.

Which part of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's speech is wrong? (#5)? Friends and Colleagues, Let's look at the situation of the world today: Iraq was attacked under the false pretext of uncovering weapons of mass destruction and overthrowing a dictator. The dictator is toppled and WMDs are not uncovered. A democratic government is established by the votes of the people but, after 6 years, the occupiers are still there. They insist on imposing colonial agreements on the people of Iraq by keeping them under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Millions of people have been killed or displaced, and the occupiers, without a sense of shame, are still seeking to solidify their position in the political geography of the region and to dominate oil resources. They have no respect for the people of Iraq and disregard any dignity, rights or status for them. The UN is not capable enough to solve the problems and to remove aggression, occupation and imposition. In Palestine, 60 years of carnage and invasion is still ongoing at the hands of some criminal and occupying Zionists. They have forged a regime through collecting people from various parts of the world and bringing them to other people's land by displacing, detaining, and killing the true owners of that land. With advance notice, they invade, assassinate, and maintain food and medicine blockades, while some hegemonic and bullying powers support them. The Security Council cannot do anything and sometimes, under pressure from a few bullying powers, even paves the way for supporting these Zionist murderers. It is natural that some UN resolutions that have addressed the plight of the Palestinian people have been relegated to the archives unnoticed. In Afghanistan, production of narcotics has multiplied since the presence of NATO forces. Domestic conflicts continue. Terrorism is spreading. And innocent people are bombarded on a daily basis in streets, markets, schools and wedding ceremonies. The people of Afghanistan are the victims of the willingness of NATO member states to dominate the regions surrounding India, China, and South Asia. The Security Council cannot do anything about it because some of these NATO members also happen to be the major decision makers in the Security Council. In Africa, efforts are made to reestablish the relationships of the colonial era. By starting civil wars in large countries including Sudan, disintegration of those countries is planned in order to serve the interests of some corrupt powers. In case there is a national resistance, the leaders of the resistance are put under pressure by legal mechanisms created by the very same powers. In Latin America, people find their security, national interests and cultures to be seriously endangered by the menacing shadow of alien domineering governments, and even by the embassies of some empires. The lives, properties and rights of the people of Georgia and Ossetia and Abkhazia are victims of the tendencies and provocations of NATO and certain western powers, and the underhanded actions of the Zionists. The never-ending arms race and the proliferation and stockpiling of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and the threats to use them, and the establishment of missile defense systems, have made the situation unstable. Sources: 1.http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september232009/iran_pres_un_9-23-09.php 2.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freeamericanow/message/55451 3.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AyaanHirsiAlitoo/message/245 P.S. Links are not for promotion but authentication.

I Need Help with CIVICS TODAY (I will give you the points for the best Answer)? 1. Which of the following is NOT a factor that influences justices when they decide a Case? A. legal views B. Social condition C. the law D. direct political pressue 2. Which of the following provides an inexpensive and convenient way for citizens to get directyl directly involved in an election? A. e-mailing candidates B. party web sites C. grassroots Web sites D. newsgroups 3. Human rights include all of the following rights EXCEPT: A. safety B. food C. wealth D. shelter 4. What of the following is NOT a power or duty of a state governor? A. adopt laws B. appoint officials C. issue executive orders D. prepare a budget 5. Which of the following countries ia an example of a present-day totalitarian regime? A. Mexico B. Soviet Union C. Great Britain D. North Korea 6. _____ can be used to cut the government's debts. A. Surpluses B. Bonds C. Taxes D. Deficits 7. Which of the following terms does NOT describe the United States economy. A. free enterprise B. government-run C. market economy D. capitalism 8. What was the written plan for government drawn up by the Plymuth colnists? A. Articles of Confederation B. magna carta C. declaration of independence D. mayflower compact 9. The defendant is formally presented with charges and asked to enter a plea at the: A. booking B. arraignment C. indictment D. sentencing 10. Workers who cut a company's costs by being more efficient are an example of which factor affecting supply? A. productivity B. technology C. changes in the cost of resource D. changes in taxes and subsidies 11. In the 1980s, what type of economies became increasngly unattractive? A. market economies B. mixed economies C. command economies D. traditional economies 12. The U.S. House of Representatives and the terms for debate are controlled by the powerful: A. rules committee B. conference committee C. speaker of the House D. committee chairperson 13. Which of the following is NOT part of the governmen's role in regulating market activities? A. regulating natural monopolies B. regulating advertising and product lables C. regulating mergers D. regulating prouct safety 14. which of the follwing is NOT an example of an item that would have elastic demand? A. an expensive item B. an item taht has attractive substitutes C. an item that can be purchased later D. an itemthat has few substitutes 15. The U.S. Chamber of Commercere represents which type of interest group A. special cause interest group B. ethnic interst group C. economic interest group D. public interest group 16. What typ of lawsit cn be filed when a person is accidentally injured or killed? A. negligence suit B. equity suit C. breachof contract suit D. property dispute 17. Which of the following is NOT a case that usually would be heard in a federal court? A. a dispute over patent right B. a dipute over child support C. a suit involving the U.S. Defense Deparatment D. a case involving a violation of the freedom of speech 18. When manufactures buy raw materials like steeel, plastic, and glass, they are acting in their role as. A. producers B. consumers C. charitable organization D. employes 19. what signals that a price is too high? A. shorage B. surplus high demand C. high demand D. market supply 20. Which of the following is one way for the FEd to stimulate the economy? A. contract the money supply B. sell treasury bills C. raise the discount rate D. buy U.S. government bonds 21. Someone who move permenetly to a new country is referred toas a(n) A. immigrant B. naturalized citizen C. citizen D. alien 22. Which United Nations agency tries to promote a higher standard of living around the world? A. security council B. general assembley C. Economics and Social Council D. Trusteeship Council 23. Who counts the electoral vote and declares the winner as the next president? A. The electoral college B. stae representatives C. stae governors D. congress 24. When tow parties cannot agre on the term of a new contact, they might bring in a thired party who tries to help the3m reach an agreement. This prosess is know as. A. collective bargaining B. arbitration C. negotations D. mediation 25. Which of the following is NOT an automatic stabilizer for the economy/ A. tax cuts B. progressive federal income taxes C. welfare programs D. unemployment insurance programs

Why doen't the US begin using coal to produce oil? South Africa has been doing do for years!? SECUNDA, South Africa -- Every day, conveyor belts haul about 120,000 metric tons of coal into an industrial complex here two hours east of Johannesburg. The facility -- resembling a nuclear power plant, with concrete silos looming over nearby potato farms -- superheats the coal to more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. It adds steam and oxygen, cranks up the pressure, and pushes the coal through a series of chemical reactions. Then it spits out something extraordinary: 160,000 barrels of oil a day. For decades, scientists have known how to convert coal into a liquid that can be refined into gasoline or diesel fuel. But everyone thought the process was too expensive to be practical. The lone exception was South Africa, a one-time pariah state that had huge reserves of coal and, thanks to anti-apartheid sanctions, limited access to foreign oil. Sasol Ltd., a partly state-owned company, built several coal-to-liquids plants, including the ones at Secunda, and became the world's leading purveyor of coal-to-liquids technology. Now, oil prices are above $70 a barrel, and Sasol has emerged as the key player at the center of the world's latest alternative-energy boom. China is building a coal-to-oil plant costing several billion dollars in Inner Mongolia and may add as many as 27 facilities -- including some with Sasol's help -- over the next several years, according to a recent tally by Credit Suisse. In the U.S., the Defense Department is studying coal-to-oil technology as a way to reduce the American military's dependence on Middle Eastern crude oil. And the National Coal Council, an industry association, is pushing for government incentives to help generate some 2.6 million barrels of liquid fuel a day from coal by 2025. That would satisfy some 10 percent of America's expected oil demand that year. The plan would require 475 million tons of coal a year, which represents more than 40 percent of current annual U.S. production. Industry officials believe America's coal reserves are big enough to allow for the extra production. Coal-to-liquids "is not going to replace oil," says Lean Strauss, a Sasol executive who directs the company's overseas energy business. "But it's an important substitute. It is one of the solutions to energy security." In June, two senators from coal-producing states, Barack Obama of Illinois and Jim Bunning of Kentucky, introduced a bill to offer loan guarantees and tax incentives for U.S. coal-to-liquid plants. Sasol has found a particularly receptive audience in Montana's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, who says he carries a lump of coal and a vial of liquefied coal with him at all times. He is lobbying coal companies and others to build coal-to-liquid plants across his state, which has some of the biggest coal reserves in the U.S. Current estimates indicate the world has just 41 years of known oil reserves and 65 years of natural-gas supplies. It has enough coal reserves to last an estimated 155 years, with some of the largest reserves in the two biggest oil-consuming countries, the U.S. and China. It's far from clear, however, that the world would be better off -- economically or environmentally -- by burning more coal to fuel cars and trucks. One problem is that coal-to-oil projects are extremely expensive. A single plant capable of producing about 80,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day -- less than 0.5 percent of America's daily oil diet -- would cost an estimated $6 billion or more to build. Energy analysts reckon that some coal-to-liquids projects can offer an acceptable return on investment when oil is priced as low as $30 or $35 a barrel, though such ventures might require government tax incentives to reduce operating costs. It seems likely that oil prices will stay above that level for a while, but the longer-term outlook is anyone's guess. An earlier flurry of interest in coal-to-oil facilities in the U.S. during the Carter administration in the late 1970s died after oil prices collapsed. Coal-to-oil projects also pose serious environmental questions. When the South African facility superheats coal and turns it into a gas, one of the main waste products is carbon dioxide, thought to be a significant cause of global warming. The Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S.-based environmental advocacy group, estimates that the production and use of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and other fuels from crude oil release about 27.5 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon. The production and use of a gallon of liquid fuel originating in coal emit about 49.5 pounds of carbon dioxide, they estimate. Even some boosters of the coal-to-oil plants describe them as carbon-dioxide factories that produce energy on the side. "Before deciding whether to invest scores -- perhaps hundreds -- of billions of dollars in a new industry like coal-to-liquids, we need a much more serious assessment of whether this is an industry that should proceed at all," said David Hawkins, director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, at a recent U.S. Senate hearing. Coal-to-oil is one of several promising but potentially polluting technologies that are receiving new attention amid high oil prices. Energy companies are trying to unlock natural gas trapped in shale and other difficult rock formations. They're also tapping oil-soaked sands in Canada and so-called heavy oils in politically challenging places such as Venezuela. Environmentalists fear these new sources will outshine conservation as the way to address the world's growing thirst for energy. In South Africa, environmental groups say Sasol's facilities have emitted huge volumes of carbon dioxide and pollutants, including sulfur dioxide. They say these have caused a host of respiratory problems in nearby communities. Sasol says its emissions of these pollutants are small compared to emissions by other companies' coal-burning electricity plants in the region. Sasol officials acknowledge their facilities emit greenhouse gases and that building more coal-to-liquids facilities around the world "could have potentially significant implications, in the long run, for our commitment to reducing carbon intensity," according to a recent company report on its social and environmental programs. Sasol says it plans to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions per ton of product by 10 percent by 2015. Sasol and many other coal-to-oil proponents say that future coal-to-liquids plants can be built with newer technologies that trap carbon dioxide and store it, sharply reducing their emissions. To many South Africans, Sasol is a huge success story. The company's daily production now meets about 30 percent of South Africa's transport-fuel needs. The country's 50-rand bank note even features a picture of one of Sasol's plants. Sasol's share price has more than tripled over the past three years. Analysts estimate it earned about $2 billion in the year ended June 30, about 35 percent higher than the year before -- such a sharp rise that South African authorities are contemplating a "windfall tax" on the company. Coal-to-oil technology dates back to the 1920s, when two German chemists, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, developed a process to convert coal into a gas and then use it to make synthetic fuels. Coal-to-oil technology helped fuel the Nazi war machine, which lacked access to sufficient crude oil. International oil companies also experimented with the process but put it aside because oil was cheaper. South Africa took a different view. The country lacked oil, but had enormous deposits of coal, much of which had limited market value because of its poor quality. In 1950, the government set up Sasol as a state-owned company and authorized funding for its first project, a coal-to-liquids facility called Sasolburg in the South African countryside. When oil prices soared in the 1970s, South African officials decided to up the ante. They lent Sasol $6 billion to build two new facilities at Secunda -- each 10 times as large as Sasolburg. The government also privatized the company, listing it on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange in 1979. (The government maintains a 23.5 percent stake). By the time the facilities were completed in the early 1980s, international oil prices were collapsing. The project was nonetheless a success for the white-dominated apartheid government because international sanctions were restricting South Africa's ability to buy foreign oil. The plants managed to stay profitable by continually boosting efficiency and expanding their end products to include plastics, fertilizers and explosives. Besides the government loans, Sasol at various times received cash payments from the government when oil prices fell below a certain level. It eventually paid back the loans and stopped receiving subsidies for its coal-to-oil business by 2000. Today, Secunda is a buzzing industrial hub with 16,000 employees, miles of interlocking pipes and cables, and eight colossal silos. The silos, each big enough to contain a football field, cool steam involved in the conversion process. Fuel trucks wait along the edge of the facility to fill up with gasoline. Nearby mines produce more than 40 million metric tons of coal a year -- as much as all of Illinois. Outside the plant gates, Secunda has a boomtown feel. It has some 35,000 people, a BMW dealership and a multistory casino hotel called Graceland designed to evoke the "grand old age of Colonial America." A growing focus for Sasol is marketing its technology overseas. The company first tried to do so in the 1990s, after apartheid ended, but executives found doors slammed in their faces. Oil was trading for less than $25 a barrel at the time. "We sat in corridors waiting for meetings that never happened because they didn't even know who Sasol was," recalls Pat Davies, Sasol's chief executive. Sasol made its first inroads in countries such as Qatar that have big stockpiles of hard-to-transport natural gas. These countries were interested in Sasol's technology for turning natural gas into liquid fuel. As oil prices began to perk up, Sasol drew interest on the coal front from China, with its big coal reserves and energy needs. In marketing materials produced for Chinese government officials and investors, Sasol offers a simple message: By 2015, 70 percent of China's oil imports will come from the Middle East. Yet the country has coal reserves equivalent to more than half the oil in the Middle East. By 2004, Chinese energy planners began meeting with Sasol executives in Beijing to discuss the coal-to-oil process. That was followed by a series of meetings with policy makers and Chinese companies, capped by a gathering in Cape Town in June attended by visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. Coal-generated pollution is emerging as a major environmental crisis in China. Yet Chinese officials are apparently willing to accept more coal use if it means improving the country's energy security, especially if local companies can design facilities to use relatively clean-burning varieties of coal. Shenhua Group, China's largest coal producer, has started work on China's first commercial coal-to-oil facility, designed eventually to produce as many as 200,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day. Although that plant uses a different process from Sasol's at Secunda, Shenhua officials are in negotiations with Sasol to jointly build at least one additional 80,000-barrel-a-day plant using the South African company's technique. While Sasol would charge a fee for licensing its technology, its main interest is to share ownership in the facilities once they're built because it wants a share of the long-term profits. In China, Sasol is asking for a 50 percent equity stake in the projects. A Shenhua official says negotiations are going smoothly and the company hopes to begin construction soon. In Montana, at least two companies, including the world's largest private-sector coal company, Peabody Energy Corp. of St. Louis, have said they are looking at potential coal-to-oil sites. Montana's Gov. Schweitzer says any excess carbon dioxide from a facility could be given to oil companies to be injected back into the ground to enhance recovery from old wells. Bringing Sasol on board is critical, says Gov. Schweitzer. He says Wall Street banks want the South Africans to play a role because Sasol is the only company with a track record in the business. To woo Sasol executives, he says, he took them on a flight over Montana coal country last year. "These are the guys everyone wants to take to the prom," Gov. Schweitzer says. Sasol officials say they're interested in Montana and other potential sites in the U.S., provided they can find a suitable partner and receive tax or other incentives. Coal-to-oil "is coming to the United States," Gov. Schweitzer proclaims. When it does, he says, other countries "will be scrambling to protect their oil supplies -- and we'll be energy independent." First published on August 17, 2006 at 12:00 am Shai Oster in Beijing contributed to this article. Sorry for long article. Simple fact is that the US has th largest reserve of coal in the world. Coal to Oil technology is a proven fact, used be Germany in WWII and more recently by South Africa during there period of Aparthide. This country needs long term options and this seems like a viable option. -5dollar galon gas may make people demand for solutions at a louder scream

Why doen't the US make oil from coal, South Africa's been doing this for years. Don't we have alot of coal ? SECUNDA, South Africa -- Every day, conveyor belts haul about 120,000 metric tons of coal into an industrial complex here two hours east of Johannesburg. The facility -- resembling a nuclear power plant, with concrete silos looming over nearby potato farms -- superheats the coal to more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. It adds steam and oxygen, cranks up the pressure, and pushes the coal through a series of chemical reactions. Then it spits out something extraordinary: 160,000 barrels of oil a day. For decades, scientists have known how to convert coal into a liquid that can be refined into gasoline or diesel fuel. But everyone thought the process was too expensive to be practical. The lone exception was South Africa, a one-time pariah state that had huge reserves of coal and, thanks to anti-apartheid sanctions, limited access to foreign oil. Sasol Ltd., a partly state-owned company, built several coal-to-liquids plants, including the ones at Secunda, and became the world's leading purveyor of coal-to-liquids technology. Now, oil prices are above $70 a barrel, and Sasol has emerged as the key player at the center of the world's latest alternative-energy boom. China is building a coal-to-oil plant costing several billion dollars in Inner Mongolia and may add as many as 27 facilities -- including some with Sasol's help -- over the next several years, according to a recent tally by Credit Suisse. In the U.S., the Defense Department is studying coal-to-oil technology as a way to reduce the American military's dependence on Middle Eastern crude oil. And the National Coal Council, an industry association, is pushing for government incentives to help generate some 2.6 million barrels of liquid fuel a day from coal by 2025. That would satisfy some 10 percent of America's expected oil demand that year. The plan would require 475 million tons of coal a year, which represents more than 40 percent of current annual U.S. production. Industry officials believe America's coal reserves are big enough to allow for the extra production. Coal-to-liquids "is not going to replace oil," says Lean Strauss, a Sasol executive who directs the company's overseas energy business. "But it's an important substitute. It is one of the solutions to energy security." In June, two senators from coal-producing states, Barack Obama of Illinois and Jim Bunning of Kentucky, introduced a bill to offer loan guarantees and tax incentives for U.S. coal-to-liquid plants. Sasol has found a particularly receptive audience in Montana's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, who says he carries a lump of coal and a vial of liquefied coal with him at all times. He is lobbying coal companies and others to build coal-to-liquid plants across his state, which has some of the biggest coal reserves in the U.S. Current estimates indicate the world has just 41 years of known oil reserves and 65 years of natural-gas supplies. It has enough coal reserves to last an estimated 155 years, with some of the largest reserves in the two biggest oil-consuming countries, the U.S. and China. It's far from clear, however, that the world would be better off -- economically or environmentally -- by burning more coal to fuel cars and trucks. One problem is that coal-to-oil projects are extremely expensive. A single plant capable of producing about 80,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day -- less than 0.5 percent of America's daily oil diet -- would cost an estimated $6 billion or more to build. Energy analysts reckon that some coal-to-liquids projects can offer an acceptable return on investment when oil is priced as low as $30 or $35 a barrel, though such ventures might require government tax incentives to reduce operating costs. It seems likely that oil prices will stay above that level for a while, but the longer-term outlook is anyone's guess. An earlier flurry of interest in coal-to-oil facilities in the U.S. during the Carter administration in the late 1970s died after oil prices collapsed. Coal-to-oil projects also pose serious environmental questions. When the South African facility superheats coal and turns it into a gas, one of the main waste products is carbon dioxide, thought to be a significant cause of global warming. The Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S.-based environmental advocacy group, estimates that the production and use of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and other fuels from crude oil release about 27.5 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon. The production and use of a gallon of liquid fuel originating in coal emit about 49.5 pounds of carbon dioxide, they estimate. Even some boosters of the coal-to-oil plants describe them as carbon-dioxide factories that produce energy on the side. "Before deciding whether to invest scores -- perhaps hundreds -- of billions of dollars in a new industry like coal-to-liquids, we need a much more serious assessment of whether this is an industry that should proceed at all," said David Hawkins, director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, at a recent U.S. Senate hearing. Coal-to-oil is one of several promising but potentially polluting technologies that are receiving new attention amid high oil prices. Energy companies are trying to unlock natural gas trapped in shale and other difficult rock formations. They're also tapping oil-soaked sands in Canada and so-called heavy oils in politically challenging places such as Venezuela. Environmentalists fear these new sources will outshine conservation as the way to address the world's growing thirst for energy. In South Africa, environmental groups say Sasol's facilities have emitted huge volumes of carbon dioxide and pollutants, including sulfur dioxide. They say these have caused a host of respiratory problems in nearby communities. Sasol says its emissions of these pollutants are small compared to emissions by other companies' coal-burning electricity plants in the region. Sasol officials acknowledge their facilities emit greenhouse gases and that building more coal-to-liquids facilities around the world "could have potentially significant implications, in the long run, for our commitment to reducing carbon intensity," according to a recent company report on its social and environmental programs. Sasol says it plans to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions per ton of product by 10 percent by 2015. Sasol and many other coal-to-oil proponents say that future coal-to-liquids plants can be built with newer technologies that trap carbon dioxide and store it, sharply reducing their emissions. To many South Africans, Sasol is a huge success story. The company's daily production now meets about 30 percent of South Africa's transport-fuel needs. The country's 50-rand bank note even features a picture of one of Sasol's plants. Sasol's share price has more than tripled over the past three years. Analysts estimate it earned about $2 billion in the year ended June 30, about 35 percent higher than the year before -- such a sharp rise that South African authorities are contemplating a "windfall tax" on the company. Coal-to-oil technology dates back to the 1920s, when two German chemists, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, developed a process to convert coal into a gas and then use it to make synthetic fuels. Coal-to-oil technology helped fuel the Nazi war machine, which lacked access to sufficient crude oil. International oil companies also experimented with the process but put it aside because oil was cheaper. South Africa took a different view. The country lacked oil, but had enormous deposits of coal, much of which had limited market value because of its poor quality. In 1950, the government set up Sasol as a state-owned company and authorized funding for its first project, a coal-to-liquids facility called Sasolburg in the South African countryside. When oil prices soared in the 1970s, South African officials decided to up the ante. They lent Sasol $6 billion to build two new facilities at Secunda -- each 10 times as large as Sasolburg. The government also privatized the company, listing it on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange in 1979. (The government maintains a 23.5 percent stake). By the time the facilities were completed in the early 1980s, international oil prices were collapsing. The project was nonetheless a success for the white-dominated apartheid government because international sanctions were restricting South Africa's ability to buy foreign oil. The plants managed to stay profitable by continually boosting efficiency and expanding their end products to include plastics, fertilizers and explosives. Besides the government loans, Sasol at various times received cash payments from the government when oil prices fell below a certain level. It eventually paid back the loans and stopped receiving subsidies for its coal-to-oil business by 2000. Today, Secunda is a buzzing industrial hub with 16,000 employees, miles of interlocking pipes and cables, and eight colossal silos. The silos, each big enough to contain a football field, cool steam involved in the conversion process. Fuel trucks wait along the edge of the facility to fill up with gasoline. Nearby mines produce more than 40 million metric tons of coal a year -- as much as all of Illinois. Outside the plant gates, Secunda has a boomtown feel. It has some 35,000 people, a BMW dealership and a multistory casino hotel called Graceland designed to evoke the "grand old age of Colonial America." A growing focus for Sasol is marketing its technology overseas. The company first tried to do so in the 1990s, after apartheid ended, but executives found doors slammed in their faces. Oil was trading for less than $25 a barrel at the time. "We sat in corridors waiting for meetings that never happened because they didn't even know who Sasol was," recalls Pat Davies, Sasol's chief executive. Sasol made its first inroads in countries such as Qatar that have big stockpiles of hard-to-transport natural gas. These countries were interested in Sasol's technology for turning natural gas into liquid fuel. As oil prices began to perk up, Sasol drew interest on the coal front from China, with its big coal reserves and energy needs. In marketing materials produced for Chinese government officials and investors, Sasol offers a simple message: By 2015, 70 percent of China's oil imports will come from the Middle East. Yet the country has coal reserves equivalent to more than half the oil in the Middle East. By 2004, Chinese energy planners began meeting with Sasol executives in Beijing to discuss the coal-to-oil process. That was followed by a series of meetings with policy makers and Chinese companies, capped by a gathering in Cape Town in June attended by visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. Coal-generated pollution is emerging as a major environmental crisis in China. Yet Chinese officials are apparently willing to accept more coal use if it means improving the country's energy security, especially if local companies can design facilities to use relatively clean-burning varieties of coal. Shenhua Group, China's largest coal producer, has started work on China's first commercial coal-to-oil facility, designed eventually to produce as many as 200,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day. Although that plant uses a different process from Sasol's at Secunda, Shenhua officials are in negotiations with Sasol to jointly build at least one additional 80,000-barrel-a-day plant using the South African company's technique. While Sasol would charge a fee for licensing its technology, its main interest is to share ownership in the facilities once they're built because it wants a share of the long-term profits. In China, Sasol is asking for a 50 percent equity stake in the projects. A Shenhua official says negotiations are going smoothly and the company hopes to begin construction soon. In Montana, at least two companies, including the world's largest private-sector coal company, Peabody Energy Corp. of St. Louis, have said they are looking at potential coal-to-oil sites. Montana's Gov. Schweitzer says any excess carbon dioxide from a facility could be given to oil companies to be injected back into the ground to enhance recovery from old wells. Bringing Sasol on board is critical, says Gov. Schweitzer. He says Wall Street banks want the South Africans to play a role because Sasol is the only company with a track record in the business. To woo Sasol executives, he says, he took them on a flight over Montana coal country last year. "These are the guys everyone wants to take to the prom," Gov. Schweitzer says. Sasol officials say they're interested in Montana and other potential sites in the U.S., provided they can find a suitable partner and receive tax or other incentives. Coal-to-oil "is coming to the United States," Gov. Schweitzer proclaims. When it does, he says, other countries "will be scrambling to protect their oil supplies -- and we'll be energy independent." First published on August 17, 2006 at 12:00 am Shai Oster in Beijing contributed to this article.

Ahh Starbuck you've done it again? This is what I started and California will take back the state from radical environmentalists. November elections will see a lot of this hoax just disappear and guess what the world will still be here going through its natural processes. Hopefully this will end these radicals reign for a long time. (12-20) 04:00 PST Copenhagen - -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a swarm of California officials came to the U.N. climate summit last week to brag about their state's accomplishments and show foreigners that it is the cutting edge of U.S. action to curb emissions. But like President Obama, they got caught in a train wreck of discord in the 13-day meeting that ended Saturday, as the 193 nations present agreed only to "take note" of a U.S.-brokered, nonbinding statement of intentions that glossed over the world's differences on who should shoulder which responsibilities in the fight against climate change. The diplomatic clash set up a catch-22 for California. The inconclusive results of the climate negotiations have made the state's leadership in climate policy all the more important. California's aggressive actions on auto emission standards, renewable energy, building weatherization and solar panels are encouraging other states and cities in the United States and around the globe to plunge ahead with their own similar policies. But the stalemate in Copenhagen may also increase the political risk in California, where resistance to the state's climate policies is gathering force. "A train wreck always raises concerns," said Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills (Los Angeles County), who wrote the state's landmark climate-change law in 2006 and was one of the state's leaders in Copenhagen. "It fuels the argument that because of the recession we can't move forward," she said. "The opposition has used the recession to try to do a general rollback, and they may do that here with this." Pavley and other state officials worry that failure of the U.N. climate negotiations will embolden opponents who hope to roll back California's climate policies in next year's election. Ballot measure Conservatives, led by Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda (Yuba County), Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Granite Bay (Placer County), and anti-tax advocate Ted Costa, have submitted to the attorney general an initiative for the November ballot that would freeze the state's compliance with its own climate mandate, the 2006 law known as AB32. GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has pledged to suspend compliance with the law immediately if elected. "People who are trying to use AB32 in next year's election will use any negative result out of Copenhagen," said Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, the powerful agency that is drawing up the web of regulations that will enforce the bill. "They already believe they've caught something they can use to get people to the polls." California officials have been traveling to climate summits and other diplomatic venues for several years to boast about their track record. By nearly any standard, their pride is well earned. The state is viewed far and wide as a leader in climate policies such as AB32. In the past year, Schwarzenegger has signed several climate agreements with foreign state, provincial and municipal governments, including: -- An agreement with 10 other states in Brazil, Indonesia and the United States to work jointly to protect tropical forests, possibly creating tradeable offsets for California's cap-and-trade program. -- A partnership with the U.N. Development Program to offer technical assistance to Africa for low-carbon development. -- A partnership with Jiangsu Province in China to share policy know-how and to cooperate on technology. It is the first state-level agreement between China and the United States to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the crucial phase comes next year, when the air board must release its plans to implement AB32, which is intended to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. "If this conference does not get a strong agreement, some will say that Copenhagen has failed, that we talk grandly but we are fooling ourselves," and that much like in the fairy tale, the emperor has no clothes, the Republican governor told a news conference Tuesday. "Perhaps the real success is to give us the opportunity to think differently again. Perhaps the success comes in realizing that something different needs to be done and in fact is already being done." Many experts agree. "AB32 is a real leadership issue," said Peter Miller, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco. "Now that the federal process has slowed, California is more important. It's the same here in Copenhagen. If the forward movement slows, there will be more weight on the sub-national actors." Some studies show that approximately half the overall U.S. emis Green eggs, they are already out of money. Next year the state will again be short by 21 billion. There is no more help coming, the state will go broke as it should. The average state worker now makes twice as much money as the private sector and the liberals have turned it into a real mess.

Poll: Where do you come down on Global Warming - Chamber of Commerce (who knows it's a scam) or the "greens"? Climate Bill Backers Quit Chamber of Commerce By Amanda DeBard The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business trade association, has suffered the defection of five of its members, including Apple Inc. and Nike Inc., over its hard-line opposition to pending climate change legislation. The resignations, submitted in just the past two weeks, have shined a spotlight on the deep divisions in industry over how to deal with the issue of climate change. The chamber is leading the charge against President Obama's effort to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere. But three utilities, along with business powerhouses Nike and Apple, support the climate legislation that passed the House in June. Disagreements are common in large trade associations. But resignations over policy are rare, an indication of how high the stakes are in opposing a top-agenda item of a sitting president. Apple is the latest company to publicly split with the chamber over climate policy. The maker of Macintosh computers and iPhones said Monday that it wishes the chamber would "play a constructive role in addressing the climate crisis" and finds it frustrating to be at odds with the chamber over regulating greenhouse gas emissions, according to a letter to the chamber from Catherine A. Novelli, Apple's vice president of worldwide government affairs. As a result of the chamber's position, Apple said, it would resign its membership effective immediately. In response, the chamber said its position on climate change is misunderstood, explaining that it opposes the pending legislation rather than comprehensive climate policy. "The chamber is a consensus-driven organization and welcomes input from any company that wants to work on a comprehensive approach to reduce greenhouse gases," said Eric Wohlschlegel, a chamber spokesman. "While well continue to represent the broad majority of our membership on this goal, we recognize that there are some companies who stand to gain more than others with the current options on the table." Three major utilities - PG&E Corp. of California, Exelon Corp. of Chicago and PNM Resources of New Mexico - said they also disagree with the chamber's position on its call for a public hearing on the Obama administration's assertion that there is a link between carbon dioxide and public health and welfare. The link, if it exists, would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate all carbon dioxide emitters. The hearing would be the equivalent of a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century," Peter Darbee, PG&E's chief executive, said in a blog post last month announcing the split. "The carbon-based free lunch is over," John Rowe, Exelon's chief executive, said last month. Mr. Rowe said the world's climate problem cant be fixed free of charge, but his company supports the legislation because it "will drive low-carbon investments in the most inexpensive and efficient way possible." Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power generator, could earn more than $1 billion a year in profit if the pending legislation becomes law, Mr. Rowe said. PNM Resources said it objected to calls to put "the science of climate change on trial" and would withdraw from the chamber. The utility had previously informed the chamber that it would allow its members on the chamber's board to lapse. The three utilities are members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a group of businesses and environmentalists that supports the pending legislation. The House-passed climate bill was based in part on proposals advocated by USCAP. Nike also quit the chamber's board late last month, but will retain its membership in the group. The global athletic company said it "does not believe that on the issue of climate change the chamber represents the diversity of views held by board members." Separately, Johnson & Johnson, General Electric Co. and the San Jose Chamber of Commerce have said the chamber's position on climate change does not reflect their corporate views, but they have not severed ties with the business group. Pete Altman, climate campaign director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the actions of the companies show their frustration with what he called the chamber's "retrograde" position on climate change regulation. "Companies keep proving me wrong, because I think it's hard for them to leave the chamber. It's a big hurdle, because this is just not normally what companies do in order to express opinions," Mr. Altman said. "I have been surprised at how many companies are leaving or publicly criticizing the chamber." He added that the departures were based on a mix of reasons. He noted that some utility companies see the chance to profit from the legislation, while manufacturers desire a climate bill that gives them certainty about the future. In the cases of Nike and Apple, he said, they have made corpor

can you help me better understand this article like summarizing it in words i know? WASHINGTON — With oil prices in record territory, presidential candidates stumping for votes in corn-centric Iowa, and congressional Democrats anxious to pass an energy bill to cut the nation's dependence on Mideast oil, this should be the right moment for ethanol. But a plan to dramatically increase ethanol production has become a major sticking point in congressional negotiations to complete work on the bill. And it has created a challenge for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose Democratic caucus has split over the issue. Pro-ethanol Democrats and farm groups want the bill to require a nearly fivefold increase by 2022 in the amount of home-grown alternative fuels that must be blended into gasoline. They say the mandate would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and help America's farmers. Democrats on the other side, joined by environmental and food-industry groups, think the mandate could raise the price of corn used for food; harm the environment by using more land to produce biofuels; and gouge taxpayers by expanding ethanol subsidies. Because of the provision's popularity among farm-state lawmakers from both parties, it is seen as the glue holding together an energy bill that is expected to include the first significant increase in vehicle fuel-economy rules in decades. And it might be enough to coax a signature from President Bush, who has made reducing reliance on foreign energy sources a priority. "All along, energy-bill watchers have believed that the renewable-fuel standard was going to carry the entire bill," said Bill Wicker, a spokesman for Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). "It's just very popular." The sense of political urgency for Pelosi to work out a compromise has risen along with prices at the pump. "How she marries these various interests is really a challenge," said Sierra Club lobbyist Melinda Pierce. "The Democratic Party pie gets sliced differently every time, but it's the leader's job to figure out how to put it all together." House Democratic leaders want to vote on the bill next week, as soon as Congress returns from its recess. Ethanol has been hotly debated since 1978, when Congress approved a tax break for the fuel. It has long been a key topic on the presidential campaign trail through the Corn Belt -- especially in Iowa, which is first in the nation in ethanol production and in voting on presidential nominees. In 2005, when it drafted the last energy bill, Congress decided to require that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol be added annually to U.S. gasoline supplies by 2012, an amount expected to be reached soon. California uses about a billion gallons of ethanol. At the heart of this year's dispute on Capitol Hill is the Senate bill's renewable fuel standard, which would mandate 36 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2022 -- up to 15 billion from corn-based ethanol. After 2016, an increasing portion would have to be advanced biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol produced from plant materials, such as switch grass and wood chips, thought to be easier on the environment than corn-based ethanol. The House version of the bill includes no such mandate. Instead, it offers tax incentives to promote research on cellulosic ethanol. A Pelosi spokesman said the San Francisco Democrat wanted an expansion of the renewable fuel standard that would include "a significant boost to the cellulosic ethanol industry." Rep. Henry A. Waxman of Beverly Hills is one of the many Democrats critical of the proposed standard. "It certainly would enrich the corn lobby, but it doesn't offer the country the sustainable energy future that we need," he said. "Congress just gave the corn-based ethanol industry everything it wanted two years ago." But Matt Hartwig of the Renewable Fuels Assn., a Washington-based trade group, says what is at stake is energy security. "This isn't about giving the ethanol industry or any other energy industry what it wants. It is about making a choice as to our nation's energy future," he said. The fight has scrambled the usual alliances. The National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. and the National Corn Growers Assn., allies in the recent fight to win House approval of a trade agreement with Peru, are on opposite sides of the battle over ethanol. Republicans are divided on the issue too, with some lawmakers from oil-producing states opposing the mandate, and others from corn-growing states supporting it. Environmental groups, which support alternative fuels, want to ensure that stepped-up production does not damage the environment. They worry about more pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, and the conversion of grasslands and wildlife habitats to farmland. "We are strong proponents of biofuels," said Jim Presswood, an energy expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We think they're a critical piece of solving global warming and reducing oil dependence. We just want to make sure they're done right." Forty-six Democrats, including several Californians, recently wrote congressional leaders to express similar concerns: "Rapid expansion of ethanol made from corn and other food crops has also created new unforeseeable challenges, including rising food prices, rising animal feed prices, heightened competition for water, water pollution, and the loss of grasslands and other valuable wildlife habitats." The Senate measure included a requirement that the process used to create any new biofuel emit 20% less greenhouse gas than the production of gasoline, but environmentalists say the measure might not account for all of the potential environmental effects. Rainforest Action Network, Friends of the Earth and other environmental groups recently wrote the House speaker urging her to reject the fuel mandate. The groups asserted that the measure could lead to the clearing of Indonesian rain forests for palm oil plantations. Democrats have also written to congressional leaders to say the country would benefit far more from biofuels made from nonfood sources. That would do more, they said, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without reducing the availability -- or increasing the price -- of corn used for animal feed. About 24% of the nation's corn is expected to go to ethanol production this year, up from 13% in 2004, before Congress enacted the ethanol mandate. Even though corn production has increased, corn prices have shot up. A bushel sold for about $3.50 last week, up from about $2 two years ago. Food industry groups recently wrote lawmakers to complain that diverting corn from food to fuel "strains the supply for the commodity and increases prices for all users." "The only winner of the renewable fuel standard has been corn farmers," said Scott Faber, vice president of federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Assn. "Clearly, the losers have been moms who are having to pay more for the price of milk, meat and other basic staples at the supermarket." Ethanol proponents, who say critics have exaggerated the problems, contend that the ethanol mandate's effect on food prices would be negligible, perhaps no more than 0.2%. "We see a greater effect than that from a hard freeze in California," the National Corn Growers Assn. and other proponents recently wrote in a letter to lawmakers. Lawmakers who support a mandate for increased production of domestically produced alternative fuel also emphasize a need to wean the U.S. from imports. "Sure, there are environmental considerations, but there are also national security considerations," said Wicker, Sen. Bingaman's spokesman. "A lot of people who are supporting renewable fuels are doing it partly because they want to displace oil imported from parts of the world where they hate us." Jon Doggett, vice president of public policy for the National Corn Growers Assn., said corn growers would be stepping up efforts to win passage of the renewable fuel standard as lawmakers visited their districts during the two-week Thanksgiving recess. "Gas is over $3," he said, "and there's a lot of constituents who are going to want to know what they're going to do about it."

i really really dont understand this newsarticle can u plz summarize it so i can understand it better? WASHINGTON — With oil prices in record territory, presidential candidates stumping for votes in corn-centric Iowa, and congressional Democrats anxious to pass an energy bill to cut the nation's dependence on Mideast oil, this should be the right moment for ethanol. But a plan to dramatically increase ethanol production has become a major sticking point in congressional negotiations to complete work on the bill. And it has created a challenge for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose Democratic caucus has split over the issue. Pro-ethanol Democrats and farm groups want the bill to require a nearly fivefold increase by 2022 in the amount of home-grown alternative fuels that must be blended into gasoline. They say the mandate would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and help America's farmers. Democrats on the other side, joined by environmental and food-industry groups, think the mandate could raise the price of corn used for food; harm the environment by using more land to produce biofuels; and gouge taxpayers by expanding ethanol subsidies. Because of the provision's popularity among farm-state lawmakers from both parties, it is seen as the glue holding together an energy bill that is expected to include the first significant increase in vehicle fuel-economy rules in decades. And it might be enough to coax a signature from President Bush, who has made reducing reliance on foreign energy sources a priority. "All along, energy-bill watchers have believed that the renewable-fuel standard was going to carry the entire bill," said Bill Wicker, a spokesman for Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). "It's just very popular." The sense of political urgency for Pelosi to work out a compromise has risen along with prices at the pump. "How she marries these various interests is really a challenge," said Sierra Club lobbyist Melinda Pierce. "The Democratic Party pie gets sliced differently every time, but it's the leader's job to figure out how to put it all together." House Democratic leaders want to vote on the bill next week, as soon as Congress returns from its recess. Ethanol has been hotly debated since 1978, when Congress approved a tax break for the fuel. It has long been a key topic on the presidential campaign trail through the Corn Belt -- especially in Iowa, which is first in the nation in ethanol production and in voting on presidential nominees. In 2005, when it drafted the last energy bill, Congress decided to require that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol be added annually to U.S. gasoline supplies by 2012, an amount expected to be reached soon. California uses about a billion gallons of ethanol. At the heart of this year's dispute on Capitol Hill is the Senate bill's renewable fuel standard, which would mandate 36 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2022 -- up to 15 billion from corn-based ethanol. After 2016, an increasing portion would have to be advanced biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol produced from plant materials, such as switch grass and wood chips, thought to be easier on the environment than corn-based ethanol. The House version of the bill includes no such mandate. Instead, it offers tax incentives to promote research on cellulosic ethanol. A Pelosi spokesman said the San Francisco Democrat wanted an expansion of the renewable fuel standard that would include "a significant boost to the cellulosic ethanol industry." Rep. Henry A. Waxman of Beverly Hills is one of the many Democrats critical of the proposed standard. "It certainly would enrich the corn lobby, but it doesn't offer the country the sustainable energy future that we need," he said. "Congress just gave the corn-based ethanol industry everything it wanted two years ago." But Matt Hartwig of the Renewable Fuels Assn., a Washington-based trade group, says what is at stake is energy security. "This isn't about giving the ethanol industry or any other energy industry what it wants. It is about making a choice as to our nation's energy future," he said. The fight has scrambled the usual alliances. The National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. and the National Corn Growers Assn., allies in the recent fight to win House approval of a trade agreement with Peru, are on opposite sides of the battle over ethanol. Republicans are divided on the issue too, with some lawmakers from oil-producing states opposing the mandate, and others from corn-growing states supporting it. Environmental groups, which support alternative fuels, want to ensure that stepped-up production does not damage the environment. They worry about more pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, and the conversion of grasslands and wildlife habitats to farmland. "We are strong proponents of biofuels," said Jim Presswood, an energy expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We think they're a critical piece of solving global warming and reducing oil dependence. We just want to make sure they're done right." Forty-six Democrats, including several Californians, recently wrote congressional leaders to express similar concerns: "Rapid expansion of ethanol made from corn and other food crops has also created new unforeseeable challenges, including rising food prices, rising animal feed prices, heightened competition for water, water pollution, and the loss of grasslands and other valuable wildlife habitats." The Senate measure included a requirement that the process used to create any new biofuel emit 20% less greenhouse gas than the production of gasoline, but environmentalists say the measure might not account for all of the potential environmental effects. Rainforest Action Network, Friends of the Earth and other environmental groups recently wrote the House speaker urging her to reject the fuel mandate. The groups asserted that the measure could lead to the clearing of Indonesian rain forests for palm oil plantations. Democrats have also written to congressional leaders to say the country would benefit far more from biofuels made from nonfood sources. That would do more, they said, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without reducing the availability -- or increasing the price -- of corn used for animal feed. About 24% of the nation's corn is expected to go to ethanol production this year, up from 13% in 2004, before Congress enacted the ethanol mandate. Even though corn production has increased, corn prices have shot up. A bushel sold for about $3.50 last week, up from about $2 two years ago. Food industry groups recently wrote lawmakers to complain that diverting corn from food to fuel "strains the supply for the commodity and increases prices for all users." "The only winner of the renewable fuel standard has been corn farmers," said Scott Faber, vice president of federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Assn. "Clearly, the losers have been moms who are having to pay more for the price of milk, meat and other basic staples at the supermarket." Ethanol proponents, who say critics have exaggerated the problems, contend that the ethanol mandate's effect on food prices would be negligible, perhaps no more than 0.2%. "We see a greater effect than that from a hard freeze in California," the National Corn Growers Assn. and other proponents recently wrote in a letter to lawmakers. Lawmakers who support a mandate for increased production of domestically produced alternative fuel also emphasize a need to wean the U.S. from imports. "Sure, there are environmental considerations, but there are also national security considerations," said Wicker, Sen. Bingaman's spokesman. "A lot of people who are supporting renewable fuels are doing it partly because they want to displace oil imported from parts of the world where they hate us." Jon Doggett, vice president of public policy for the National Corn Growers Assn., said corn growers would be stepping up efforts to win passage of the renewable fuel standard as lawmakers visited their districts during the two-week Thanksgiving recess. "Gas is over $3," he said, "and there's a lot of constituents who are going to want to know what they're going to do about it."

i NEED HELP PLEASE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE? 1. The ________works with the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce marine biology regulations along the coast and in the Great Lakes channels. (1 point) Coast Guard Department of the Interior (DOI) Center for Disease Control (CDC) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2. A main division of the Department of Health, the _________, is responsible for efforts to prevent diseases, disabilities, and environmental health threats. (1 point) Coast Guard Department of the Interior (DOI) Center for Disease Control (CDC) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3. The _________ is the branch of the Department of Health that is responsible for overseeing food inspection processes, prohibits the shipping of mislabeled products, and checks quality controls and labels for cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. (1 point) Coast Guard Department of the Interior (DOI) Center for Disease Control (CDC) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4. This division is in charge of recycling water for reuse on agricultural areas and landscape areas in National Parks. (1 point) US Geological Survey US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Reclamation Mineral Management Service 5. This division is in charge of mapping land and water, and global positioning technologies for the United States. (1 point) US Geological Survey US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Reclamation Mineral Management Service 6. This division is in charge of reestablishing the endangered species that are facing possible extinction. (1 point) US Geological Survey US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Reclamation Mineral Management Service 7. This division is in charge of US oil reserves, all mining activities, oil drilling, and natural gas extraction procedures. (1 point) US Geological Survey US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Reclamation Mineral Management Service 8. This agency was implemented to develop regulations for a more efficient and safe national transportation system. It is in charge of all forms of transport systems and vehicles. It has improved the safety standards for rail service, commercial jets, and for American ships. (1 point) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Department of Transportation (DOT) The Department of Energy (DOE) 9. This is a division of DOI, in charge of the health, biodiversity, and control of the use of public lands and reserves. It regulates cattle grazing on public lands, controls populations of wild burros and horses on reserves, and is in charge of keeping records on native and endemic species. (1 point) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Department of Transportation (DOT) The Department of Energy (DOE) 10. This Agency was established by Congress to oversee all aspects of pollution, including contamination, environmental clean up, hazardous waste spills, and pesticide use. They research solutions, policy development, and regulation enforcement. (1 point) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Department of Transportation (DOT) The Department of Energy (DOE) 11. This agency is in charge of finding reliable energy sources. The amount of energy fuels coming from foreign oil, coal, and other fossil fuels is required to be reduced over the next ten years. Replacement fuels and technologies are part of their research and development division. They are currently looking into renewable and environmentally compatible wind power, solar energy, and biomass energy sources. (1 point) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Department of Transportation (DOT) The Department of Energy (DOE) 12. The slash and burn system of deforestation reduces the number of oxygen producing trees and puts more carbon in the air. (1 point) True False 13. Illegal hunting and fishing practices are still occurring globally. (1 point) True False 14. Some poor countries sell off their natural resources or accept toxic waste from other countries in order to improve their economy. (1 point) True False 15. Countries sign laws and treaties to protect different species. There is enough funding to supply the enforcement needed. (1 point) True False 16. Countries which use the most natural resources have always been willing to participate in global communications to resolve many environmental problems. (1 point) True False 17. The first Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970. At the time, it was the best attended protest of its kind. (1 point) True False 18. The Environmental Defense Fund, The Friends of the Earth, and The Natural Defense Council, are all divisions of The Environmental Protection Agency. (1 point) True False 19. After the first Earth Day, two more environmental groups were established; Greenpeace in 1970 and the Sierra Club in 1971. These two groups went on to be the most

Environmental Science plz help me out? 1. The ________works with the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce marine biology regulations along the coast and in the Great Lakes channels. Coast Guard Department of the Interior (DOI) Center for Disease Control (CDC) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2. A main division of the Department of Health, the _________, is responsible for efforts to prevent diseases, disabilities, and environmental health threats. Coast Guard Department of the Interior (DOI) Center for Disease Control (CDC) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3. The _________ is the branch of the Department of Health that is responsible for overseeing food inspection processes, prohibits the shipping of mislabeled products, and checks quality controls and labels for cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. Coast Guard Department of the Interior (DOI) Center for Disease Control (CDC) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) The US Department of the Interior (DOI) is in charge of many different divisions dealing with natural resources of the country. For questions 4–7, identify the division that each statement best describes. 4. This division is in charge of recycling water for reuse on agricultural areas and landscape areas in National Parks. US Geological Survey US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Reclamation Mineral Management Service 5. This division is in charge of mapping land and water, and global positioning technologies for the United States. US Geological Survey US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Reclamation Mineral Management Service 6. This division is in charge of reestablishing the endangered species that are facing possible extinction. US Geological Survey US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Reclamation Mineral Management Service 7. This division is in charge of US oil reserves, all mining activities, oil drilling, and natural gas extraction procedures. US Geological Survey US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Reclamation Mineral Management Service For questions 8–11, identify the agency that each statement best describes. 8. This agency was implemented to develop regulations for a more efficient and safe national transportation system. It is in charge of all forms of transport systems and vehicles. It has improved the safety standards for rail service, commercial jets, and for American ships. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Department of Transportation (DOT) The Department of Energy (DOE) 9. This is a division of DOI, in charge of the health, biodiversity, and control of the use of public lands and reserves. It regulates cattle grazing on public lands, controls populations of wild burros and horses on reserves, and is in charge of keeping records on native and endemic species. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Department of Transportation (DOT) The Department of Energy (DOE) 10. This Agency was established by Congress to oversee all aspects of pollution, including contamination, environmental clean up, hazardous waste spills, and pesticide use. They research solutions, policy development, and regulation enforcement. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Department of Transportation (DOT) The Department of Energy (DOE) 11. This agency is in charge of finding reliable energy sources. The amount of energy fuels coming from foreign oil, coal, and other fossil fuels is required to be reduced over the next ten years. Replacement fuels and technologies are part of their research and development division. They are currently looking into renewable and environmentally compatible wind power, solar energy, and biomass energy sources. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Department of Transportation (DOT) The Department of Energy (DOE) 12. The slash and burn system of deforestation reduces the number of oxygen producing trees and puts more carbon in the air. True False 13. Illegal hunting and fishing practices are still occurring globally. True False 14. Some poor countries sell off their natural resources or accept toxic waste from other countries in order to improve their economy. True False 15. Countries sign laws and treaties to protect different species. There is enough funding to supply the enforcement needed. True False 16. Countries which use the most natural resources have always been willing to participate in global communications to resolve many environmental problems. True False 17. The first Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970. At the time, it was the best attended protest of its kind True False 18. The Environmental Defense Fund, The Friends of the Earth, and The Natural Defense Council, are all divisions of The Environmental Protection Agency. True False 19. After the first Earth

Can you translate these English paragraphs to Tagalog about UAE??? Introduction Background: Definition Field Listing The Trucial States of the Persian Gulf coast granted the UK control of their defense and foreign affairs in 19th century treaties. In 1971, six of these states - Abu Zaby, 'Ajman, Al Fujayrah, Ash Shariqah, Dubayy, and Umm al Qaywayn - merged to form the United Arab Emirates (UAE). They were joined in 1972 by Ra's al Khaymah. The UAE's per capita GDP is on par with those of leading West European nations. Its generosity with oil revenues and its moderate foreign policy stance have allowed the UAE to play a vital role in the affairs of the region. Geography Location: Definition Field Listing Middle East, bordering the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf, between Oman and Saudi Arabia Geographic coordinates: Definition Field Listing 24 00 N, 54 00 E Map references: Definition Field Listing Middle East Area: Definition Field Listing Rank Order total: 83,600 sq km land: 83,600 sq km water: 0 sq km Area - comparative: Definition Field Listing slightly smaller than Maine Land boundaries: Definition Field Listing total: 867 km border countries: Oman 410 km, Saudi Arabia 457 km Coastline: Definition Field Listing 1,318 km Maritime claims: Definition Field Listing territorial sea: 12 nm contiguous zone: 24 nm exclusive economic zone: 200 nm continental shelf: 200 nm or to the edge of the continental margin Climate: Definition Field Listing desert; cooler in eastern mountains Terrain: Definition Field Listing flat, barren coastal plain merging into rolling sand dunes of vast desert wasteland; mountains in east Elevation extremes: Definition Field Listing lowest point: Persian Gulf 0 m highest point: Jabal Yibir 1,527 m Natural resources: Definition Field Listing petroleum, natural gas Land use: Definition Field Listing arable land: 0.77% permanent crops: 2.27% other: 96.96% (2005) Irrigated land: Definition Field Listing 760 sq km (2003) Total renewable water resources: Definition Field Listing 0.2 cu km (1997) Freshwater withdrawal (domestic/industrial/agricultural): Definition Field Listing total: 2.3 cu km/yr (23%/9%/68%) per capita: 511 cu m/yr (2000) Natural hazards: Definition Field Listing frequent sand and dust storms Environment - current issues: Definition Field Listing lack of natural freshwater resources compensated by desalination plants; desertification; beach pollution from oil spills Environment - international agreements: Definition Field Listing party to: Biodiversity, Climate Change, Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol, Desertification, Endangered Species, Hazardous Wastes, Marine Dumping, Ozone Layer Protection signed, but not ratified: Law of the Sea Geography - note: Definition Field Listing strategic location along southern approaches to Strait of Hormuz, a vital transit point for world crude oil Government Country name: Definition Field Listing conventional long form: United Arab Emirates conventional short form: none local long form: Al Imarat al Arabiyah al Muttahidah local short form: none former: Trucial Oman, Trucial States abbreviation: UAE Government type: Definition Field Listing federation with specified powers delegated to the UAE federal government and other powers reserved to member emirates Capital: Definition Field Listing name: Abu Dhabi geographic coordinates: 24 28 N, 54 22 E time difference: UTC+4 (9 hours ahead of Washington, DC during Standard Time) Administrative divisions: Definition Field Listing 7 emirates (imarat, singular - imarah); Abu Zaby (Abu Dhabi), 'Ajman, Al Fujayrah, Ash Shariqah (Sharjah), Dubayy (Dubai), Ra's al Khaymah, Umm al Qaywayn (Quwayn) Independence: Definition Field Listing 2 December 1971 (from UK) National holiday: Definition Field Listing Independence Day, 2 December (1971) Constitution: Definition Field Listing 2 December 1971; made permanent in 1996 Legal system: Definition Field Listing based on a dual system of Shari'a and civil courts; has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction Suffrage: Definition Field Listing none Executive branch: Definition Field Listing chief of state: President KHALIFA bin Zayid al-Nuhayyan (since 3 November 2004), ruler of Abu Zaby (Abu Dhabi) (since 4 November 2004); Vice President and Prime Minister MUHAMMAD bin Rashid al-Maktum (since 5 January 2006) head of government: Prime Minister and Vice President MUHAMMAD bin Rashid al-Maktum (since 5 January 2006); Deputy Prime Ministers SULTAN bin Zayid al-Nuhayyan (since 20 November 1990) and HAMDAN bin Zayid al-Nuhayyan (since 20 October 2003) cabinet: Council of Ministers appointed by the president note: there is also a Federal Supreme Council (FSC) composed of the seven emirate rulers; the FSC is the highest constitutional authority in the UAE; establishes general policies and sanctions federal legislation; meets four times a year; Abu Zaby (Abu Dhabi) and Dubayy (Dubai) rulers have effective veto power elections: president and vice president elected by the FSC for five-year terms (no term limits); election last held 3 November 2004 upon the death of the UAE's Founding Father and first President ZAYID bin Sultan Al Nuhayyan (next to be held in 2009); prime minister and deputy prime minister appointed by the president election results: KHALIFA bin Zayid al-Nuhayyan elected president by a unanimous vote of the FSC; MUHAMMAD bin Rashid al-Maktum unanimously affirmed vice president after the 2006 death of his brother Sheikh Maktum bin Rashid al-Maktum Legislative branch: Definition Field Listing unicameral Federal National Council (FNC) or Majlis al-Ittihad al-Watani (40 seats; 20 members appointed by the rulers of the constituent states, 20 members elected to serve two-year terms) elections: elections for one half of the FNC (the other half remains appointed) held in the UAE on 18-20 December 2006; the new electoral college - a body of 6,689 Emiratis (including 1,189 women) appointed by the rulers of the seven emirates - were the only eligible voters and candidates; 456 candidates including 65 women ran for 20 contested FNC seats; one female from the Emirate of Abu Dhabi won a seat note: reviews legislation but cannot change or veto Judicial branch: Definition Field Listing Union Supreme Court (judges are appointed by the president) Political parties and leaders: Definition Field Listing none Political pressure groups and leaders: Definition Field Listing NA International organization participation: Definition Field Listing ABEDA, AFESD, AMF, FAO, G-77, GCC, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt (signatory), ICRM, IDA, IDB, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, IMSO, Interpol, IOC, IPU, ISO, ITSO, ITU, LAS, MIGA, NAM, OAPEC, OIC, OPCW, OPEC, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UPU, WCO, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO Diplomatic representation in the US: Definition Field Listing chief of mission: Ambassador (vacant) chancery: 3522 International Court NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20008 telephone: [1] (202) 243-2400 FAX: [1] (202) 243-2432 consulate(s): New York, Houston Diplomatic representation from the US: Definition Field Listing chief of mission: Ambassador (vacant); Charge d'Affaires Martin R. QUINN embassy: Embassies District, Plot 38 Sector W59-02, Street No. 4, Abu Dhabi mailing address: P. O. Box 4009, Abu Dhabi telephone: [971] (2) 414-2200 FAX: [971] (2) 414-2603 consulate(s) general: Dubai Flag description: Definition Field Listing three equal horizontal bands of green (top), white, and black with a wider vertical red band on the hoist side Economy United Arab Emirates Top of Page Economy - overview: Definition Field Listing The UAE has an open economy with a high per capita income and a sizable annual trade surplus. Despite largely successful efforts at economic diversification, nearly 40% of GDP is still directly based on oil and gas output. Since the discovery of oil in the UAE more than 30 years ago, the UAE has undergone a profound transformation from an impoverished region of small desert principalities to a modern state with a high standard of living. The government has increased spending on job creation and infrastructure expansion and is opening up utilities to greater private sector involvement. In April 2004, the UAE signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement with Washington and in November 2004 agreed to undertake negotiations toward a Free Trade Agreement with the US. The country's Free Trade Zones - offering 100% foreign ownership and zero taxes - are helping to attract foreign investors. Higher oil revenue, strong liquidity, housing shortages, and cheap credit in 2005-07 led to a surge in asset prices (shares and real estate) and consumer inflation. Rising prices are increasing the operating costs for businesses in the UAE and adversely impacting government employees and others on fixed incomes. Dependence on oil and a large expatriate workforce are significant long-term challenges. The UAE's strategic plan for the next few years focuses on diversification and creating more opportunities for nationals through improved education and increased private sector employment. GDP (purchasing power parity): Definition Field Listing Rank Order $167.3 billion (2007 est.) GDP (official exchange rate): Definition Field Listing $192.6 billion (2007 est.) GDP - real growth rate: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 7.4% (2007 est.) GDP - per capita (PPP): Definition Field Listing Rank Order $37,300 (2007 est.) GDP - composition by sector: Definition Field Listing agriculture: 1.8% industry: 59.3% services: 38.9% (2007 est.) Labor force: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 3.065 million (2007 est.) Labor force - by occupation: Definition Field Listing agriculture: 7% industry: 15% services: 78% (2000 est.) Unemployment rate: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 2.4% (2001) Population below poverty line: Definition Field Listing 19.5% (2003) Household income or consumption by percentage share: Definition Field Listing lowest 10%: NA% highest 10%: NA% Inflation rate (consumer prices): Definition Field Listing Rank Order 11% (2007 est.) Investment (gross fixed): Definition Field Listing Rank Order 21.8% of GDP (2007 est.) Budget: Definition Field Listing revenues: $58.88 billion expenditures: $38.06 billion (2007 est.) Public debt: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 22.9% of GDP (2007 est.) Agriculture - products: Definition Field Listing dates, vegetables, watermelons; poultry, eggs, dairy products; fish Industries: Definition Field Listing petroleum and petrochemicals; fishing, aluminum, cement, fertilizers, commercial ship repair, construction materials, some boat building, handicrafts, textiles Industrial production growth rate: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 4.3% (2007 est.) Electricity - production: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 57.06 billion kWh (2005) Electricity - consumption: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 52.62 billion kWh (2005) Electricity - exports: Definition Field Listing 0 kWh (2005) Electricity - imports: Definition Field Listing 0 kWh (2005) Oil - production: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 2.54 million bbl/day (2006 est.) Oil - consumption: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 372,000 bbl/day (2005 est.) Oil - exports: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 2.54 million bbl/day (2004 est.) Oil - imports: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 137,200 bbl/day (2004) Oil - proved reserves: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 97.8 billion bbl (2007 est.) Natural gas - production: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 45.07 billion cu m (2005 est.) Natural gas - consumption: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 39.56 billion cu m (2005 est.) Natural gas - exports: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 6.848 billion cu m (2005 est.) Natural gas - imports: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 1.343 billion cu m (2005) Natural gas - proved reserves: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 5.823 trillion cu m (1 January 2006 est.) Current account balance: Definition Field Listing Rank Order $41.67 billion (2007 est.) Exports: Definition Field Listing Rank Order $156.6 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.) Exports - commodities: Definition Field Listing crude oil 45%, natural gas, reexports, dried fish, dates Exports - partners: Definition Field Listing Japan 23.4%, South Korea 10.3%, Thailand 5%, India 4.8% (2006) Imports: Definition Field Listing Rank Order $101.6 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.) Imports - commodities: Definition Field Listing machinery and transport equipment, chemicals, food Imports - partners: Definition Field Listing China 13.1%, India 10.2%, US 8.9%, Japan 6.2%, Germany 6.1%, Italy 4.7% (2006) Economic aid - donor: Definition Field Listing since its founding in 1971, the Abu Dhabi Fund for Development has given about $5.2 billion in aid to 56 countries (2004) Economic aid - recipient: Definition Field Listing $5.36 million (2004) Reserves of foreign exchange and gold: Definition Field Listing Rank Order $76.62 billion (31 December 2007 est.) Debt - external: Definition Field Listing Rank Order $57.52 billion (31 December 2007 est.) Stock of direct foreign investment - at home: Definition Field Listing Rank Order $44.37 billion (2007 est.) Stock of direct foreign investment - abroad: Definition Field Listing Rank Order $14.14 billion (2007 est.) Market value of publicly traded shares: Definition Field Listing Rank Order $138.5 billion (2006) Currency (code): Definition Field Listing Emirati dirham (AED) Exchange rates: Definition Field Listing Emirati dirhams per US dollar - 3.673 (2007), 3.673 (2006), 3.6725 (2005), 3.6725 (2004), 3.6725 (2003) note: officially pegged to the US dollar since February 2002 Fiscal year: Definition Field Listing calendar year Transnational Issues Disputes - international: Definition Field Listing boundary agreement was signed and ratified with Oman in 2003 for entire border, including Oman's Musandam Peninsula and Al Madhah enclaves, but contents of the agreement and detailed maps showing the alignment have not been published; Iran and UAE dispute Tunb Islands and Abu Musa Island, which Iran occupies Illicit drugs: Definition Field Listing the UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to Southwest Asian drug-producing countries; the UAE's position as a major financial center makes it vulnerable to money laundering; anti-money-laundering controls improving, but informal banking remains unregulated

Environmental science!! Please Help!!? 1. The ________works with the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce marine biology regulations along the coast and in the Great Lakes channels. Coast Guard Department of the Interior (DOI) Center for Disease Control (CDC) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2. A main division of the Department of Health, the _________, is responsible for efforts to prevent diseases, disabilities, and environmental health threats. Coast Guard Department of the Interior (DOI) Center for Disease Control (CDC) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3. The _________ is the branch of the Department of Health that is responsible for overseeing food inspection processes, prohibits the shipping of mislabeled products, and checks quality controls and labels for cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. Coast Guard Department of the Interior (DOI) Center for Disease Control (CDC) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) The US Department of the Interior (DOI) is in charge of many different divisions dealing with natural resources of the country. For questions 4–7, identify the division that each statement best describes. 4. This division is in charge of recycling water for reuse on agricultural areas and landscape areas in National Parks. US Geological Survey US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Reclamation Mineral Management Service 5. This division is in charge of mapping land and water, and global positioning technologies for the United States. US Geological Survey US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Reclamation Mineral Management Service 6. This division is in charge of reestablishing the endangered species that are facing possible extinction. US Geological Survey US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Reclamation Mineral Management Service 7. This division is in charge of US oil reserves, all mining activities, oil drilling, and natural gas extraction procedures. US Geological Survey US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Reclamation Mineral Management Service For questions 8–11, identify the agency that each statement best describes. 8. This agency was implemented to develop regulations for a more efficient and safe national transportation system. It is in charge of all forms of transport systems and vehicles. It has improved the safety standards for rail service, commercial jets, and for American ships. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Department of Transportation (DOT) The Department of Energy (DOE) 9. This is a division of DOI, in charge of the health, biodiversity, and control of the use of public lands and reserves. It regulates cattle grazing on public lands, controls populations of wild burros and horses on reserves, and is in charge of keeping records on native and endemic species. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Department of Transportation (DOT) The Department of Energy (DOE) 10. This Agency was established by Congress to oversee all aspects of pollution, including contamination, environmental clean up, hazardous waste spills, and pesticide use. They research solutions, policy development, and regulation enforcement. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Department of Transportation (DOT) The Department of Energy (DOE) 11. This agency is in charge of finding reliable energy sources. The amount of energy fuels coming from foreign oil, coal, and other fossil fuels is required to be reduced over the next ten years. Replacement fuels and technologies are part of their research and development division. They are currently looking into renewable and environmentally compatible wind power, solar energy, and biomass energy sources. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Department of Transportation (DOT) The Department of Energy (DOE) 12. The slash and burn system of deforestation reduces the number of oxygen producing trees and puts more carbon in the air. True False 13. Illegal hunting and fishing practices are still occurring globally. True False 14. Some poor countries sell off their natural resources or accept toxic waste from other countries in order to improve their economy. True False 15. Countries sign laws and treaties to protect different species. There is enough funding to supply the enforcement needed. True False 16. Countries which use the most natural resources have always been willing to participate in global communications to resolve many environmental problems. True False 17. The first Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970. At the time, it was the best attended protest of its kind True False 18. The Environmental Defense Fund, The Friends of the Earth, and The Natural Defense Council, are all divisions of The Environmental Protection Agency. True False