Global Warming News

Status
Not open for further replies.
   / Global Warming News #1,141  
"Markets will always decide the highest and best use for a particular piece of property"


Who defines what the "best and highest" use is? If it's the market it almost always will be the most profitable use. That , believe it or not is not always the best use of land. Those of us who like to hunt, fish, camp and hike want to have unspoiled places to do those things. To me and others who like wild places that is the highest use. Not Golf courses and Condo developments, shopping malls like a development corp. is planning on doing to some of the last unspoiled wilderness here in Maine. I don't trust most business to do the right thing, I just don't. They don't have a good record in my book. When it's just about profit and nothing else it don't work. There are to many greedy people in the world.

The folks with the most lawyers? :p
I think a lot of people who like nature don't have much trust in businesses. There must be a reason for that. In my experience, when push comes to shove, businesses are pretty much forced to think of profit first. Shred documents, shred nature, it's all the same mentality.

Plum Creek could certainly exist without the profit they will get from developing Moosehead. They look at unspoiled nature and see dollars.
Dave.
 
   / Global Warming News #1,142  
Our issues here are simlar, but our government has found themselves an out to the just compensation part. The local push here is for preserved open space. So what our government is doing is anyone in a rural area is required to put land into Native Growth (size determined by planning and development) in order to receive a permit. To get out of having to pay for the land, they leave you ownership of the now unusable land and continue to tax it. As 90% of Western Washington will qualify as wetland under Washington's defination, they often will designate the property as wetland and then act as if they are doing you a favor in allowing you to do anything on the property. Since the government doesn't actually take ownership of the property and you willlingly chose to put the property into Native Growth, they don't have to compensate you for the loss of usage. However if you refuse, they will not issue the permit and may chose to persue legal action for illegal activity within a wetland which can of course be suspended if you place a portion of your land into Native Growth.

Sounds like that scene in "Goodfellas" where the restaurant owner comes to Big Paulie looking for some relief from the Joe Pesci character. "What do I know about running a restaurant, but if you want me as a partner, okay, you run the business, but you've got to pay me my tribute every week" And the poor guy does that every week until the business goes belly up. While Big Paulie skims the profits off the top.
Well it wasn't Big Paulies problem was it? He didn't own the thing did he? It was that "greedy" businessman who was trying to make a profit from a business, whose fault it was, Right?
Question for all you guys out there who think that government is just "the public interest"
Why doesn't the government ban cigarettes?
I would hold that there IS an overwhelming body of actual evidence that smoking kills/harms people, so why not just outlaw its use?
Could it be that the relationship between the "evil" Big tobacco companies and the government is the same as the one between a pimp and his "wh-re"
 
   / Global Warming News #1,143  
The folks with the most lawyers? :p
I think a lot of people who like nature don't have much trust in businesses. There must be a reason for that. In my experience, when push comes to shove, businesses are pretty much forced to think of profit first. Shred documents, shred nature, it's all the same mentality.

Plum Creek could certainly exist without the profit they will get from developing Moosehead. They look at unspoiled nature and see dollars.
Dave.

Don't know where one quote started and the other ended, so just a general reply.
I would like to preserve the view out my kitchen window (80 acres of former avocado groves, and orange groves)
I know that one day I will see the first bulldozer start to cut into the earth and a development will go in.
So I guess I should go and talk to my neighbor about not developing it, so I can continue to enjoy my view!
Everybody would like to enjoy some benefit on somebody
else's dime, but sorry, that's not how things work.
 
   / Global Warming News #1,145  
Fallingbrock,
Speaking of grasping at straws - I'll bite

Could you show us where the US Constitution addresses the issue insider trading ? .....or freedom of speech, or much of anything that does not require interpretation which is and has always been debatable. Every amandment shows that things were missed or times have changed or both. Seems like if it was perfect it would tell us clearly what to do with monopolies. Where does it say that I can't have my own nuke?

Loren
 
   / Global Warming News #1,146  
When the cost of coal vs alternative energies is discussed, these coal-related costs never seem to be part of the discussion:


CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - More than a year after a Tennessee coal ash spill created one of the worst environmental disasters of its kind in U.S. history, the problem is seeping into several other states.

It began Dec. 22, 2008, when a retaining pond burst at a coal-burning power plant, spilling 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash across 300 acres into the Emory River and an upscale shoreline community near Knoxville. It was enough ash to cover a square mile five feet deep.
While the Tennessee Valley Authority's cleanup has removed much of the ash from the river, the arsenic- and mercury-laced muck or its watery discharge has been moving by rail and truck through three states to at least six different sites. Some of it may end up as far away as Louisiana.
At every stop along the route, new environmental concerns pop up. The coal-ash muck is laden with heavy metals linked to cancer, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering declaring coal ash hazardous.

"I'm really concerned about my health," said retiree James Gibbs, 53, who lives near a west-central Alabama landfill that is taking the ash. "I want to plant a garden. I'm concerned about it getting in the soil." Gibbs said that since last summer there has been a "bad odor, like a natural gas odor."

After the spill, the TVA started sending as many as 17,000 rail carloads of ash almost 350 miles south to the landfill in Uniontown, Ala. At least 160 rail shipments have gone out from the cleanup site, said TVA spokeswoman Barbara Martocci.

Since the EPA approved that plan, unusually heavy rain including about 25 inches from November through February has forced the landfill to deal with up to 100,000 gallons a day of tainted water.

The landfill operators first sent it to wastewater treatment plants a common way that landfills deal with excess liquid in two nearby Alabama cities, Marion and Demopolis.

After what the EPA calls unrelated problems with ammonia in Marion, the landfill in January started using a commercial wastewater treatment plant in Mobile, Ala., 500 miles from the original spill.

A month ago, however, after a public outcry about discharging it into Mobile Bay, that company refused to take more of the landfill water.

A private treatment facility in Cartersville, Ga., also briefly took some of the befouled liquid in February, although Georgia environmental officials said Friday the company did not have a required state permit.

Hi-Tech Water Treatment Services stopped accepting wastewater from the Alabama landfill, manager Amalia Cox said, after becoming "concerned about payments and the publicity."

In a landfill management plan presented to Alabama environmental officials, tanker trucks could haul the dirty water to a non-hazardous waste disposal site in Louisiana and to a public wastewater plant in Mississippi. The plan also says there are "negotiations underway" on taking it to an unspecified facility in Georgia.

Neither the TVA, the companies hired to take the ash, nor environmental regulators want to discuss the disposal problems.

TVA's coal ash cleanup manager, Steve McCracken, and agency spokeswoman Martocci referred disposal questions to Knoxville, Tenn.-based contractor Phillips & Jordan.

So did the owners of the 977-acre landfill, Perry-Uniontown Ventures and Perry County Associates.

Phillips & Jordan, which operates the Alabama landfill with a subsidiary, Phill-Con Services, has a $95 million disposal contract with TVA.

The operators, who are in a financial dispute with the landfill owners, referred questions about the ash water to a Nashville public relations firm, McNeely, Pigott and Fox.

In a statement issued through the PR firm, Phill-Con Services president Eddie Dorsett said the landfill had received about 1.4 million tons of TVA's coal ash with another 1.6 million tons projected for delivery. Dorsett declined to answer questions about where the ash water is being taken for treatment or any problems it may have caused elsewhere.

In a letter to Alabama environmental officials, the landfill operators said they are trying to reduce the excess wastewater, partly by using lime and soil to solidify it. They also said TVA is making new efforts to "minimize moisture in the ash waste or to better bind up the moisture in the ash waste."

TVA's McCracken said he was unaware of any new effort to further dry the dredged ash.

"We are not planning to do anything different," McCracken said.

Federal and state environmental regulators have been only minimally involved with disposal of the landfill wastewater.

Even though coal ash contains toxic materials, it isn't considered hazardous waste.

EPA officials late last year delayed a decision whether to propose reclassifying coal ash as hazardous. Doing so would limit where it could be sent for disposal, possibly increasing the projected $1.2 billion cleanup cost for TVA ratepayers and affecting the ability to recycle the ash into cement and building materials.

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management, which is paid $1 for each ton of the coal ash, monitors the landfill and has found no rules violations involving its excess water, spokesman Scott Hughes said.

He said there are no restrictions on where the landfill sends the drained water, even to other states, as long as recipients have proper permits to treat it.

In Demopolis, about 20 miles from Uniontown, officials failed to renew their wastewater treatment operating permit but the wastewater plant has continued receiving the landfill's drained fluids while operating under a special state order.

Hughes said Thursday that new orders propose additional monitoring of the wastewater at the landfill and allow Demopolis to accept it. If arsenic and other pollutant concentration levels meet standards, he said, there is no limit to how much landfill wastewater that Demopolis can take. He said Demopolis is the only treatment plant in Alabama currently taking the landfill wastewater.

An attorney for the Demopolis wastewater system, Woodford "Woody" Dinning Jr., said the shipments are being tested on arrival.

David Ludder, Tallahassee, Fla.-based environmental attorney who represents Gibbs and other neighbors, said, "ADEM recovers a good bit of money off that coal ash. They get a fee for every ton of ash that gets disposed of there. EPA has a vested interest because they have to get the spill cleaned up in Tennessee and they can't do it without a place to put the ash."

Dave.
 
   / Global Warming News #1,147  
My understanding Dave is that elevated mecury levels in fish, ocean and fresh water, is due in large measure to coal plant emissions. It's a mess. :(
 
   / Global Warming News #1,148  
Interesting article Dave - I knew a little about the problem but this article makes me wonder if things are being done as well as they should be. Imagine what will come in the future as we try to safely dispose of nuclear wastes. Looks like Yucca Mountain is not going to be the elusive answer.

Loren
 
   / Global Warming News #1,149  
Don't know where one quote started and the other ended, so just a general reply.
I would like to preserve the view out my kitchen window (80 acres of former avocado groves, and orange groves)
I know that one day I will see the first bulldozer start to cut into the earth and a development will go in.
So I guess I should go and talk to my neighbor about not developing it, so I can continue to enjoy my view!
Everybody would like to enjoy some benefit on somebody
else's dime, but sorry, that's not how things work.


Maybe you could convince your neighbor to sell the development rights and place the land under a conservation easement. :)

The issue being discussed is a lot more than 80 acres of fallow agricultural land. Plum Creek Timber: real estate developments

Fortunately, some deals are being made to preserve a good part of the area, however, adding 1000+ homes/units a couple golf resorts and a couple hotels and a couple marinas to the Moosehead area is not in the public interest.

You and I both know that once development on that scale begins, it will spread like a cancer throughout the region. The road traffic alone for residents, visitors, service and supply vehicles will damage watersheds and wildlife.

You can enjoy the area today. Rent a vacation cottage, camping, fish, hunt, bird watch, nature hikes, canoeing, snowmobile, etc. So, it isn't, nor has it ever been, a case of fencing people out. It's about how much value is placed on a modicum of remaining somewhat wild places you may visit and wildlife may prosper.

I really doubt the intent of the Framer's was to facilitate the obliteration of nature. Even it that were so, we know today that is wrong. We also know the Framer's didn't really understand the role of Nature. The viewpoint of that era was of Nature as a endless provider of sustenance and resources bequeathed by a higher being for the benefit of Man. Guess what, every well has a bottom. We know many things now that were not even guessed at 200+ years ago. That would be the problem with treating the Constitution as something it never was to begin with - a perfect document that can decide all issues for all times.
Dave.
 
   / Global Warming News #1,150  
I don't think a lot of us that don't listen to Fox radio think government is going to solve the problem like all you "my profit is sacred guys" think. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, just how it's done and when enough is enough. They bought it as working forest land and that's how it should stay. Basically there are allegations with pretty good evidence here in Maine that the Plum Creek development corporation bought the Land Use Regulation Commitee (state government). It doesn't surprise me. There is not a real big difference between Government and big business. I hope most people are aware that it's a revolving door and there are a lot of people being bought and sold. Not everyone but enough. I don't want business to run rampant over the country but it sure seems like they are trying sometimes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Tractor & Equipment Auctions

2017 FREIGHTLINER M2 S/A SWEEPER TRUCK (A51406)
2017 FREIGHTLINER...
2013 Bobcat T180 (A47477)
2013 Bobcat T180...
2006 Utility Trailer Trailer, VIN # 1UYVS13256P972701 (A55788)
2006 Utility...
2016 Ford F-450 4x4 Ambulance (Diesel), VIN # 1FDUF4HT5GEC45875 (A54865)
2016 Ford F-450...
20'x12' Livestock Metal Shed (A53316)
20'x12' Livestock...
2017 JOHN DEERE 350G LC EXCAVATOR (A52705)
2017 JOHN DEERE...
 
Top