Author: Bethany Rack (Page 2 of 2)

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/campaign_over_bottle_bill_expa.html

The Bottle Bill? yes, you read that correctly. There is an on going initiative in the state of Massachusetts to expand the bottle tax to larger bottles that would have an impact not only consumers, but grocery stores would also have to raise their prices. We are really just talking about a nickel. And a nickel is to most of us is nothing.

This demand curve goes back to the basic supply and demand curve anyone would learn in Economics 101. You can tax either the consumer or the producer, either way the effect on the market is exactly the same.

This article highlights mostly on the party that is opposed to increasing the bottle tax. Most of their support is in the form of donations for campaign ads to be aired in Massachusetts. Those that have donated include the American Beverage Association donated $5 million, Stop and Shop gave another $300,000 and the Springfield-based Big Y Foods gave $90,000.

I found it interesting to see that The Massachusetts Sierra Club, an environmental group, is the main funder of supporting the bottle bill expansion. I thought that the Sierra Club made an effort to stay out of Political issues?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/dialing-911-climate-change

This article was actually written by the Keynote speaker, Sandra Steingraber that was hosted yesterday at Lafayette College. Steingraber talks about fracking in her home state of New York. She offers a parallel of the New York her daughter sees and the world she once lived in. Steingraber offers many of the same points in this article as she did in her keynote speech. If anyone missed her keynote speech last night, I would highly suggest reading this article.

It has been rumored that the agency appears to be laying the groundwork for new measures to curb Methane. Questions have been raised as to whether or not Methane is the answer to the climate change issue. Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy has said that the EPA is “looking at what are the most cost-effective targeted regulatory and/or voluntary initiatives that we may be able to put on the table that significantly takes a chunk out of the emissions from the oil and gas sector.” I personally cannot wait to see what doors the use of methane could open for the preservation of our fossil fuels for future generations.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/04/environmental-protection-agency-setting-its-sights-on-methane

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/08/army_corps_of_engineers_will_m.html#incart_related_stories

This article presents some strong accusations against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, claiming that the Government employees are said to be regulators of environmental law, but also a main component in the pollution that exists in the Columbia River. The main issue at hand is the lubricants that are used in the turbines on the eight dams on the Columbia are polluting the river. These lubricants are put in place to increase the efficiency of the turbines, but also have killer effects on the marine life in the river. In July 2013, Columbia Riverkeeper, the accusing party, sued the Corps and demanded to know what was going into the water and how much of it was going in. This is especially difficult matter to make a conclusion on because the Corps is not regulated under any permits. As part of the settlement, the Corps will pay $143,000, but admits no wrongdoing and all other charges were dropped. Who is going to enforce environmental policy when the U.S. Government can’t even hold itself to a higher standard?