AP updated 2 hours, 59 minutes ago
DETROIT - General Motors Corp. said Tuesday its Chevrolet Volt rechargeable electric car should get 230 miles per gallon of gasoline in city driving, more than four times the mileage of the current champion, the Toyota Prius.
GM came up with the figure in early tests using draft guidelines from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for calculating the mileage of extended range electric vehicles, said Tony Posawatz, GM's vehicle line director for the Volt.
If the figure is confirmed by the EPA, which does the tests for the mileage posted on new car door stickers, the Volt would be the first car to exceed triple-digit gas mileage, Posawatz said.
The Volt is powered by an electric motor and a battery pack with a 40-mile range. After that, a small internal combustion engine kicks in to generate electricity for a total range of 300 miles. The battery pack can be recharged from a standard home outlet.
Most automakers are working similar plug-in designs, but GM could be the leader with the Volt, which is due in showrooms late in 2010.
Toyota's Prius, the most efficient car now sold in the U.S., gets 48 miles per gallon of gas. It is a gas-electric hybrid that runs on a small internal combustion engine assisted by a battery-powered electric motor to save gasoline.
The first-generation Volt is expected to cost near $40,000, making it cost-prohibitive to many people even if gasoline returns to $4 per gallon. The price is expected to drop with future generations of the Volt, but GM has said government tax credits and the savings on fuel could make it cost-effective, especially at 230 miles per gallon.
"We get a little cautious about trying to forecast what fuel prices will do," Posawatz said. "We achieved this number and if fuel prices go up, it certainly does get more attractive even in the near-term generation," he said.
GM was to present details of the mileage figure on Tuesday morning at an event at its technical center in the Detroit suburb of Warren. INTERACTIVE
Traded-in clunkers
Figures for the Volt's highway and combined city/highway mileage have not yet been calculated, Posawatz said. The combined mileage will be in the triple digits as well, he said, but both combined and highway will be worse than city because the engine runs more on longer highway trips.
The EPA guidelines, developed with input from automakers, figure that cars like the Volt will travel more on straight electricity in the city than on the highway. If a person drives the Volt less than 40 miles, in theory they could go without using gasoline.
The mileage figure could vary as the guidelines are refined and the Volt gets further along in the manufacturing process, Posawatz said.
GM is about halfway through building about 80 Volts that will look and behave like the production model, and testing is running on schedule, Posawatz said.
Two critical areas, battery life and the electronic switching between battery and engine power, are still being refined, but the car is on schedule to reach showrooms late in 2010, he said.
GM is simulating tests to make sure the new lithium-ion batteries last 10 years, Posawatz said.
"We're further along, but we're still quite a ways from home," he said. "We're developing quite a knowledge base on all this stuff. Our confidence is growing."
The other area of new technology, switching between battery and engine power, is proceeding well, he said, with engineers just fine-tuning the operations.
Click for related content
Vote: Would you buy a Volt for $40,000
Scrap yards get busy crushing clunkers
eBay, GM set to start car-selling trial Tuesday
"We're very pleased with the transition from when it's driving EV (electric vehicle) to when the engine and generator kick in," he said,
GM also is finishing work on the power cord, which will be durable enough that it can survive being run over by the car. The Volt, he said, will have software on board so it can be programmed to begin and end charging during off-peak electrical use hours.
Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Co. and Daimler AG are all developing plug-ins and electric cars, and Toyota Motor Corp. is working on a plug-in version of its gas-electric hybrid system. Nissan Motor Co. announced last month that it would begin selling an electric vehicle in Japan and the U.S. next year.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Obama To Do Fewer Toxic Cleanups
updated 10:04 p.m. PT, Sun., Aug 9, 2009
WASHINGTON - AP -For years, the Bush administration was criticized for not cleaning up enough of America's most contaminated waste sites. The Obama administration plans to do even less.
Environmental groups and some Democratic lawmakers railed against President George W. Bush's cleanup record. But this time, they're shying away from speaking out against a popular president who's considered an ally in the fight to clean up the environment.
In Obama's first two years in office, the Environmental Protection Agency expects to begin the final phase of cleanup at fewer Superfund sites than in any administration since 1991, according to budget documents and agency records. The EPA estimates it will finish construction to remove the last traces of pollution at 20 sites in 2009 and 22 sites in 2010.
During the eight years of the Bush administration, the agency finished construction at 38 sites on average a year.
"Certainly, we are very disappointed that we can't get our ... numbers up," said Elizabeth Southerland, the acting deputy of the EPA's hazardous waste cleanup program, known as Superfund.
Obama’s team gives familiar explanation
The explanation by the Obama team is the same one put forward time and time again by Bush officials: The sites on the list have become increasingly complicated, contaminated and costly. That means it takes years for sites to reach the final cleanup stage, and as a result fewer are getting there.
Of the 527 contaminated properties still needing cleanup on the Superfund list, 40 have progressed to the point where all that's left is removing the last piles of contaminated soil, building a treatment plant to strip the groundwater of toxic pollutants, or capping a landfill so contamination does not enter the drinking water or air in surrounding neighborhoods.
At the other 1,060 hazardous waste sites still on the list, construction is finished and the last stages of the cleanup are under way — a process begun before Obama took office.
When EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson explained this trend to a Senate committee this year, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer replied: "That's the same answer the Bush administration gave us and I don't buy it."
Later, in an interview with The Associated Press, Boxer elaborated. "It doesn't matter to me who the president is. What matters to me is these sites get cleaned up," she said.
But not everyone is so critical of Obama's Superfund numbers.
Lack of money plagues Superfund
Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and some Democratic lawmakers who highlighted how little the Bush administration did on hazardous waste cleanups are now silent. They say it's because Obama, unlike Bush, wants to address the problem that has plagued Superfund for years — a lack of money.
A tax on petroleum, chemicals and large companies once helped EPA pay for the multimillion cleanups. It expired in 1995 and Superfund has been on financial life support since.
The pool of money ran dry in 2004, when Superfund cleanups that did not have a company to foot the bill ceased to be subsidized by the tax on polluters and started being paid by taxpayers.
Obama, unlike Bush, has called for the reinstatement of the tax in 2011. That will require action by Congress. It will also be up to Congress to set aside more money for cleanups if the tax is reinstated. In the past, when Superfund was flush in cash from the tax, Congress did not always provide more money for cleanups.
Sometimes, cleanup comes with delays
Supporters also point out that the Obama administration has asked for slightly more money in its budget for Superfund — $1.31 billion compared with the $1.29 billion in Bush's last year. There's also an extra $600 million from the economic stimulus plan for cleanups at 50 sites across the country.
But neither has helped boost the number of sites ready for the final stage of cleanup, although they could down the road.
Cleanups come with surprises. Workers can discover contamination they didn't know existed, leading to a new series of delays.
Poisoned mining town about to expire
Mercury in dental fillings not risky, officials say
California bans suction dredge mining
Southerland, the Superfund manager, says that has happened more often in recent years as money has been more targeted on the cleanup, rather than studies to map out the contamination.
"The problems are the same," said Katherine Probst, an expert on Superfund at the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Resources for the Future. "The point is they need more money, whether it is under Bush or Obama."
In the meantime, EPA officials say they are looking to find a new way to measure Superfund progress.
WASHINGTON - AP -For years, the Bush administration was criticized for not cleaning up enough of America's most contaminated waste sites. The Obama administration plans to do even less.
Environmental groups and some Democratic lawmakers railed against President George W. Bush's cleanup record. But this time, they're shying away from speaking out against a popular president who's considered an ally in the fight to clean up the environment.
In Obama's first two years in office, the Environmental Protection Agency expects to begin the final phase of cleanup at fewer Superfund sites than in any administration since 1991, according to budget documents and agency records. The EPA estimates it will finish construction to remove the last traces of pollution at 20 sites in 2009 and 22 sites in 2010.
During the eight years of the Bush administration, the agency finished construction at 38 sites on average a year.
"Certainly, we are very disappointed that we can't get our ... numbers up," said Elizabeth Southerland, the acting deputy of the EPA's hazardous waste cleanup program, known as Superfund.
Obama’s team gives familiar explanation
The explanation by the Obama team is the same one put forward time and time again by Bush officials: The sites on the list have become increasingly complicated, contaminated and costly. That means it takes years for sites to reach the final cleanup stage, and as a result fewer are getting there.
Of the 527 contaminated properties still needing cleanup on the Superfund list, 40 have progressed to the point where all that's left is removing the last piles of contaminated soil, building a treatment plant to strip the groundwater of toxic pollutants, or capping a landfill so contamination does not enter the drinking water or air in surrounding neighborhoods.
At the other 1,060 hazardous waste sites still on the list, construction is finished and the last stages of the cleanup are under way — a process begun before Obama took office.
When EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson explained this trend to a Senate committee this year, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer replied: "That's the same answer the Bush administration gave us and I don't buy it."
Later, in an interview with The Associated Press, Boxer elaborated. "It doesn't matter to me who the president is. What matters to me is these sites get cleaned up," she said.
But not everyone is so critical of Obama's Superfund numbers.
Lack of money plagues Superfund
Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and some Democratic lawmakers who highlighted how little the Bush administration did on hazardous waste cleanups are now silent. They say it's because Obama, unlike Bush, wants to address the problem that has plagued Superfund for years — a lack of money.
A tax on petroleum, chemicals and large companies once helped EPA pay for the multimillion cleanups. It expired in 1995 and Superfund has been on financial life support since.
The pool of money ran dry in 2004, when Superfund cleanups that did not have a company to foot the bill ceased to be subsidized by the tax on polluters and started being paid by taxpayers.
Obama, unlike Bush, has called for the reinstatement of the tax in 2011. That will require action by Congress. It will also be up to Congress to set aside more money for cleanups if the tax is reinstated. In the past, when Superfund was flush in cash from the tax, Congress did not always provide more money for cleanups.
Sometimes, cleanup comes with delays
Supporters also point out that the Obama administration has asked for slightly more money in its budget for Superfund — $1.31 billion compared with the $1.29 billion in Bush's last year. There's also an extra $600 million from the economic stimulus plan for cleanups at 50 sites across the country.
But neither has helped boost the number of sites ready for the final stage of cleanup, although they could down the road.
Cleanups come with surprises. Workers can discover contamination they didn't know existed, leading to a new series of delays.
Poisoned mining town about to expire
Mercury in dental fillings not risky, officials say
California bans suction dredge mining
Southerland, the Superfund manager, says that has happened more often in recent years as money has been more targeted on the cleanup, rather than studies to map out the contamination.
"The problems are the same," said Katherine Probst, an expert on Superfund at the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Resources for the Future. "The point is they need more money, whether it is under Bush or Obama."
In the meantime, EPA officials say they are looking to find a new way to measure Superfund progress.
Generics - page 2
The FDA, says Buehler, is meticulous in studying the effect of different time-release formulas. If clinicians observe a significant difference between the two, they will not permit pharmacists to substitute the generic for the brand-name drug. Patients on Coumadin, for example, are not advised to alternate between the brand-name blood thinner and the generic warfarin. Torprol XL does not fall into this category.
But Lever's concerns go beyond patient experiences. He has counted 150 recalls of both generic and brand-name drugs in the past several years, a figure that makes him wonder if the manufacturing process needs further regulatory scrutiny.
Indeed, in late June the FDA ordered U.S. Marshals to seize 33 generic drugs manufactured in Michigan by Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories. The company had been warned last October that it had violated manufacturing standards by, among other things, failing to investigate inconsistent batches and distributing products whose ingredients may have been compromised.
Buehler characterizes this incident as an exception instead of the rule and proof that the FDA is closely regulating the production process. Manufacturing problems, he says, aren't exclusive to generic-drug makers either. Brand-name producers, for example, have been forced to recall several asthma drugs, including Advair and Pulmicort. In one case, Schering-Plough shipped asthma inhalers without any medicines in them.
Patients, of course, should discuss complications related to generic or brand-name prescriptions with a physician or pharmacist. If a generic drug seems less effective and is meant to control a condition that can be measured, such as high blood pressure or cholesterol, Graedon recommends keeping a diary of laboratory tests to evaluate the results.
What the Research Shows
Patients do themselves a disservice, however, when they correlate an emergent symptom with a new drug regimen without further investigation. The connection could be coincidence, or it could stem from the perception that generics are inferior.
Researchers have compared generic and brand-name drugs in one conclusive study published last December in the Journal of the American Medical Association and found no difference between such drugs used to treat cardiovascular conditions. The study reviewed 47 previously published articles in which researchers compared several drugs, including statins and beta-blockers.
Despite the lack of convincing evidence to show that generics are harmful, the study's co-author Dr. William Shrank wrote that among the 43 editorials he reviewed, more than half "expressed a negative view of generic-drug substitution."
Shrank can't explain why some physicians discourage generic drugs, but the American Medical Association has discredited this position, noting that the scientific evidence is too weak to support such concerns.
Buehler agrees. "If there was a problem with generics," he says, "we'd be hearing much more than we hear now."
But Lever's concerns go beyond patient experiences. He has counted 150 recalls of both generic and brand-name drugs in the past several years, a figure that makes him wonder if the manufacturing process needs further regulatory scrutiny.
Indeed, in late June the FDA ordered U.S. Marshals to seize 33 generic drugs manufactured in Michigan by Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories. The company had been warned last October that it had violated manufacturing standards by, among other things, failing to investigate inconsistent batches and distributing products whose ingredients may have been compromised.
Buehler characterizes this incident as an exception instead of the rule and proof that the FDA is closely regulating the production process. Manufacturing problems, he says, aren't exclusive to generic-drug makers either. Brand-name producers, for example, have been forced to recall several asthma drugs, including Advair and Pulmicort. In one case, Schering-Plough shipped asthma inhalers without any medicines in them.
Patients, of course, should discuss complications related to generic or brand-name prescriptions with a physician or pharmacist. If a generic drug seems less effective and is meant to control a condition that can be measured, such as high blood pressure or cholesterol, Graedon recommends keeping a diary of laboratory tests to evaluate the results.
What the Research Shows
Patients do themselves a disservice, however, when they correlate an emergent symptom with a new drug regimen without further investigation. The connection could be coincidence, or it could stem from the perception that generics are inferior.
Researchers have compared generic and brand-name drugs in one conclusive study published last December in the Journal of the American Medical Association and found no difference between such drugs used to treat cardiovascular conditions. The study reviewed 47 previously published articles in which researchers compared several drugs, including statins and beta-blockers.
Despite the lack of convincing evidence to show that generics are harmful, the study's co-author Dr. William Shrank wrote that among the 43 editorials he reviewed, more than half "expressed a negative view of generic-drug substitution."
Shrank can't explain why some physicians discourage generic drugs, but the American Medical Association has discredited this position, noting that the scientific evidence is too weak to support such concerns.
Buehler agrees. "If there was a problem with generics," he says, "we'd be hearing much more than we hear now."
Generic Drugs Better ?
Generic drugs--cheaper forms of name-brand medicines--account for most of the pills dispensed by pharmacies in the U.S. Using these alternatives saved American consumers $121 billion last year, according to Generic Pharmaceutical Association, a trade group.
Yet many people doubt that the less expensive pills are as effective as the brand-name drugs they replace. Thirty percent of 1,000 adults polled in May by Prescription Solutions, a pharmacy benefit manager, either didn't believe generics were as good as their brand-name counterparts or were unsure. People tend to associate cost with quality, says Jacqueline B. Kosecoff, Prescription Solutions' chief executive. "Generic often connotes something different."
In Pictures: What You Should Know About Generic Drugs
That's one reason some consumers hesitate to trust generic drugs. They also read about patients' accounts of their troubling experiences online and even occasionally hear about drug manufacturing companies that violate standards and are forced to issue product recalls.
Yet Gary J. Buehler, director of the office of generic drugs in the Food and Drug Administrations' Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, sees little cause for concern. The FDA, he says, is confident that generics perform as well as brand-name medicines. The agency says rigorous quality and safety measures show that generics are of identical strength, purity and quality as the original brand-name drug.
"I don't think consumers should be worried," he says. "There's a lot of anecdotes out there, but we haven't seen any real scientific evidence."
Why the Concern?
While there is no evidence to support the claim that generics are inferior, patients often cite their own experiences as proof--and the Internet is home to countless testimonials.
Joe Graedon, a pharmacologist who runs People's Pharmacy, a Web site clearinghouse for drug-based medical advice, says he has received "hundreds and hundreds" of patient complaints about dozens of drugs. One of the most frequently discussed drugs has been the generic antidepressant Bupropion (brand names Wellbutrin and Zyban). Patients have cited a lack of efficacy or intolerable side effects such as severe depression and fatigue. (Wellbutrin IS an antidepressant and IS for patients who are deoressed. Fatigue is a familar sign of depression.)
The FDA is investigating these claims, and while Buehler cannot comment on the case, he does note that "hundreds of thousands of people take this drug successfully."
Dr. Harry Lever, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, shares Graedon's concerns about the number of patient complaints. In particular, he is puzzled by occasional reports from patients that they fare better on the brand-name beta-blocker Toprol XL--which is used to treat cardiac conditions such as high blood pressure--than they do when taking the generic version. Since the time-release formula of the generic Toprol is not identical to the brand name, he says, it may not be as effective.
(Good enough for the FDA, good enough for me- and WAY cheaper.)
Yet many people doubt that the less expensive pills are as effective as the brand-name drugs they replace. Thirty percent of 1,000 adults polled in May by Prescription Solutions, a pharmacy benefit manager, either didn't believe generics were as good as their brand-name counterparts or were unsure. People tend to associate cost with quality, says Jacqueline B. Kosecoff, Prescription Solutions' chief executive. "Generic often connotes something different."
In Pictures: What You Should Know About Generic Drugs
That's one reason some consumers hesitate to trust generic drugs. They also read about patients' accounts of their troubling experiences online and even occasionally hear about drug manufacturing companies that violate standards and are forced to issue product recalls.
Yet Gary J. Buehler, director of the office of generic drugs in the Food and Drug Administrations' Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, sees little cause for concern. The FDA, he says, is confident that generics perform as well as brand-name medicines. The agency says rigorous quality and safety measures show that generics are of identical strength, purity and quality as the original brand-name drug.
"I don't think consumers should be worried," he says. "There's a lot of anecdotes out there, but we haven't seen any real scientific evidence."
Why the Concern?
While there is no evidence to support the claim that generics are inferior, patients often cite their own experiences as proof--and the Internet is home to countless testimonials.
Joe Graedon, a pharmacologist who runs People's Pharmacy, a Web site clearinghouse for drug-based medical advice, says he has received "hundreds and hundreds" of patient complaints about dozens of drugs. One of the most frequently discussed drugs has been the generic antidepressant Bupropion (brand names Wellbutrin and Zyban). Patients have cited a lack of efficacy or intolerable side effects such as severe depression and fatigue. (Wellbutrin IS an antidepressant and IS for patients who are deoressed. Fatigue is a familar sign of depression.)
The FDA is investigating these claims, and while Buehler cannot comment on the case, he does note that "hundreds of thousands of people take this drug successfully."
Dr. Harry Lever, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, shares Graedon's concerns about the number of patient complaints. In particular, he is puzzled by occasional reports from patients that they fare better on the brand-name beta-blocker Toprol XL--which is used to treat cardiac conditions such as high blood pressure--than they do when taking the generic version. Since the time-release formula of the generic Toprol is not identical to the brand name, he says, it may not be as effective.
(Good enough for the FDA, good enough for me- and WAY cheaper.)
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Global Warming a Military Concern?
Barack Obama. Al Gore. John Kerry. These are the names of some of the most frequent and forceful advocates for climate action. But because of their political affiliations, all three have baggage and so their massage can fall upon deaf ears when it reaches those who question the reality of climate change. Would those same climate deniers listen and change their beliefs if the messenger was not a politician but instead a member of the military, perhaps the most revered institution in the country?
I would wager that many would. Climate deniers, and those who wish to convert them, would do well to read John Broder's New York Times article today, "Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security." In it, Broder reports that for some time the military has been factoring in climate change into their war game scenarios. They expect that in the decades to come, global warming will cause population displacement, mass drought, and food shortages that will provide the U.S. will significant national security threats.
Writes Broder:
Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.
An exercise last December at the National Defense University, an educational institute that is overseen by the military, explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.
Changing the Frame
Climate activists have shifted their messages over the years to reflect what they viewed the American public wanted to hear a the time. The message has gone from one about far away places ("Save the Polar Bears", "Save the Arctic") to an economic one ("Green Jobs Now"). Sadly, no message, issue report, or organizing push has been strong enough to overcome the myriad reasons that those who oppose strong climate action put forward.
Skeptics don't believe in the science and probably don't spend much time sitting around reading IPCC reports. Climate change is a slow process and its invisible causes--methane, CO2, and HFC gases--don't stir the public to take immediate action.
The time might be right for a national security message, delivered by the right spokespeople--the military. Imagine if General David Petraeus addressed the Congress on climate change. As the commander of the United States Central Command, he has the authority and position to bring great weight to the fact that we need action now. Think Limbaugh has the guts to shout him down? Think Glenn Beck would dismiss him as a loon? I doubt it. Business has come over to the side of climate action. Maybe it's time some smart green group start to work with the national security crowd to amplify a message that must be heard now.
Point well taken. If the military is a believer and taking global warming into consideration in their different military preparations for various scenarios, perhaps the rest of the world should too.
I would wager that many would. Climate deniers, and those who wish to convert them, would do well to read John Broder's New York Times article today, "Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security." In it, Broder reports that for some time the military has been factoring in climate change into their war game scenarios. They expect that in the decades to come, global warming will cause population displacement, mass drought, and food shortages that will provide the U.S. will significant national security threats.
Writes Broder:
Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.
An exercise last December at the National Defense University, an educational institute that is overseen by the military, explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.
Changing the Frame
Climate activists have shifted their messages over the years to reflect what they viewed the American public wanted to hear a the time. The message has gone from one about far away places ("Save the Polar Bears", "Save the Arctic") to an economic one ("Green Jobs Now"). Sadly, no message, issue report, or organizing push has been strong enough to overcome the myriad reasons that those who oppose strong climate action put forward.
Skeptics don't believe in the science and probably don't spend much time sitting around reading IPCC reports. Climate change is a slow process and its invisible causes--methane, CO2, and HFC gases--don't stir the public to take immediate action.
The time might be right for a national security message, delivered by the right spokespeople--the military. Imagine if General David Petraeus addressed the Congress on climate change. As the commander of the United States Central Command, he has the authority and position to bring great weight to the fact that we need action now. Think Limbaugh has the guts to shout him down? Think Glenn Beck would dismiss him as a loon? I doubt it. Business has come over to the side of climate action. Maybe it's time some smart green group start to work with the national security crowd to amplify a message that must be heard now.
Point well taken. If the military is a believer and taking global warming into consideration in their different military preparations for various scenarios, perhaps the rest of the world should too.
Florida Bay Dying?
updated 6:30 a.m. PT, Wed., Aug 5, 2009 AP
ISLAMORADA, Florida - Boat captain Tad Burke looks out over Florida Bay and sees an ecosystem that's dying as politicians, land owners and environmentalists bicker.
He has been plying these waters for nearly 25 years, and has seen the declines in shrimp and lobster that use the bay as a nursery, and less of the coveted species like bonefish that draw recreational sportsmen from around the world.
"Bonefish used to be very prevalent, and now we don't see a tenth of the amount that we used to find in the bay, and even around the Keys because the habitat no longer supports the population," says Burke, head of the Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association.
Experts fear a collapse of the entire ecosystem, threatening not only some of the nation's most popular tourism destinations — Everglades National Park and the Florida Keys — but a commercial and recreational fishery worth millions of dollars.
Florida Bay is a sprawling estuary at the state's southern tip, covering nearly three times the area of New York City.
The headwaters of the Everglades — starting some 300 miles north near Orlando — used to end up here after flowing south in a shallow sheet like a broad, slow-moving river, filtering through miles of muck, marsh and sawgrass.
'Virtual garden of Eden'
Historically, the bay thrived on that perfect mix of freshwater from the Everglades and saltwater from the adjacent Gulf of Mexico. It was a virtual Garden of Eden, home to a bounty of wading birds, fish, sea grasses and sponges.
But to the north of the bay, man's unforgiving push to develop South Florida has left the land dissected with roads, dikes and miles of flood control canals to make way for homes and farms, choking off the freshwater flow and slowly killing the bay.
Ill effects
The ill effects extend even across the narrow spit of land that makes up the Florida Keys to the shallow coral reefs in the Atlantic Ocean. Many popular commercial fish like grouper and snapper begin their lives in the bay before migrating into the ocean to the reefs.
"If Florida Bay heads south and there's a lot less fish in there, well, when that's done, it's all over down here," Burke says. "When that goes, your reefs are going to go, too, and it'll just be a chain reaction.
"You could argue that the bay has already collapsed," he says.
Algae blooms block life-giving sunlight from penetrating the water's surface. Sea grasses that filter the water and provide habitat for the food chain are dying. And some migratory birds aren't returning.
"The health of Florida Bay is very much tied to the state of the Everglades, and the Everglades isn't improving either," says Tom Van Lent, senior scientist with the not-for-profit Everglades Foundation. "Their fates are one and the same."
Struggle to curb pollution
For decades, the state has struggled to find a way to restore natural flow through the Everglades and curb the pollution caused by runoff from sugar farms, cow pastures and urban sprawl. It is the largest such wetlands restoration effort ever.
"Having that water coming down from the Everglades is key," says Rob Clift of the National Parks Conservation Association. "It has to be restored."
Attempts to fix the Everglades by constructing water treatment marshes and reservoirs, among other things, have been dogged by politics, funding shortfalls, and contentious, litigation-filled disagreements over the best solutions. And while land has been purchased and some projects completed, key restoration components are undone.
"It's really aggravating," Burke says. "We've seen very little, if any, really ground breaking projects that would help change the flow into Florida Bay."
Lawsuits
A litany of lawsuits filed by parties favoring one solution over another are partly to blame, says Carol Wehle, executive director of the South Florida Water Management District, the state agency overseeing Everglades restoration.
Name an environmental group, and the agency has been sued by them.
Wehle calls them "obstructionists." Her agency heads back to court Aug. 6 for closing arguments in yet another lawsuit.
"There are a handful of people that choose not to participate in this process and instead use litigation, and who is losing? The environment is losing," Wehle says.
The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, who call the Everglades their ancestral home, have sued the water district repeatedly. It's the tribe and a few others who now have the district back in court as part of an effort to block the state's planned $536 million purchase of land in the Everglades from U.S. Sugar Corp.
Tribe spokeswoman Joette Lorion says the deal could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars, leaving little money to pay for actual projects, and will create more delays as officials figure out exactly what to do with all the new land.
National parks try to shrink carbon footprints
Fla. budget forces Everglades deal to shrink
"Meeting upon meeting, and the Everglades continues to die," Lorion says.
The water district says the deal is a historic opportunity to take sugar out of production and provide land to build much-needed reservoirs and treatment areas to clean and store water.
Back on Florida Bay, Burke just wants something done before it's too late. To the casual onlooker, the area is stunning even today. But Burke knows better.
"In a lot of ways," he says, "it's still pristine and beautiful down here, but it's also on its last dying breath."
ISLAMORADA, Florida - Boat captain Tad Burke looks out over Florida Bay and sees an ecosystem that's dying as politicians, land owners and environmentalists bicker.
He has been plying these waters for nearly 25 years, and has seen the declines in shrimp and lobster that use the bay as a nursery, and less of the coveted species like bonefish that draw recreational sportsmen from around the world.
"Bonefish used to be very prevalent, and now we don't see a tenth of the amount that we used to find in the bay, and even around the Keys because the habitat no longer supports the population," says Burke, head of the Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association.
Experts fear a collapse of the entire ecosystem, threatening not only some of the nation's most popular tourism destinations — Everglades National Park and the Florida Keys — but a commercial and recreational fishery worth millions of dollars.
Florida Bay is a sprawling estuary at the state's southern tip, covering nearly three times the area of New York City.
The headwaters of the Everglades — starting some 300 miles north near Orlando — used to end up here after flowing south in a shallow sheet like a broad, slow-moving river, filtering through miles of muck, marsh and sawgrass.
'Virtual garden of Eden'
Historically, the bay thrived on that perfect mix of freshwater from the Everglades and saltwater from the adjacent Gulf of Mexico. It was a virtual Garden of Eden, home to a bounty of wading birds, fish, sea grasses and sponges.
But to the north of the bay, man's unforgiving push to develop South Florida has left the land dissected with roads, dikes and miles of flood control canals to make way for homes and farms, choking off the freshwater flow and slowly killing the bay.
Ill effects
The ill effects extend even across the narrow spit of land that makes up the Florida Keys to the shallow coral reefs in the Atlantic Ocean. Many popular commercial fish like grouper and snapper begin their lives in the bay before migrating into the ocean to the reefs.
"If Florida Bay heads south and there's a lot less fish in there, well, when that's done, it's all over down here," Burke says. "When that goes, your reefs are going to go, too, and it'll just be a chain reaction.
"You could argue that the bay has already collapsed," he says.
Algae blooms block life-giving sunlight from penetrating the water's surface. Sea grasses that filter the water and provide habitat for the food chain are dying. And some migratory birds aren't returning.
"The health of Florida Bay is very much tied to the state of the Everglades, and the Everglades isn't improving either," says Tom Van Lent, senior scientist with the not-for-profit Everglades Foundation. "Their fates are one and the same."
Struggle to curb pollution
For decades, the state has struggled to find a way to restore natural flow through the Everglades and curb the pollution caused by runoff from sugar farms, cow pastures and urban sprawl. It is the largest such wetlands restoration effort ever.
"Having that water coming down from the Everglades is key," says Rob Clift of the National Parks Conservation Association. "It has to be restored."
Attempts to fix the Everglades by constructing water treatment marshes and reservoirs, among other things, have been dogged by politics, funding shortfalls, and contentious, litigation-filled disagreements over the best solutions. And while land has been purchased and some projects completed, key restoration components are undone.
"It's really aggravating," Burke says. "We've seen very little, if any, really ground breaking projects that would help change the flow into Florida Bay."
Lawsuits
A litany of lawsuits filed by parties favoring one solution over another are partly to blame, says Carol Wehle, executive director of the South Florida Water Management District, the state agency overseeing Everglades restoration.
Name an environmental group, and the agency has been sued by them.
Wehle calls them "obstructionists." Her agency heads back to court Aug. 6 for closing arguments in yet another lawsuit.
"There are a handful of people that choose not to participate in this process and instead use litigation, and who is losing? The environment is losing," Wehle says.
The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, who call the Everglades their ancestral home, have sued the water district repeatedly. It's the tribe and a few others who now have the district back in court as part of an effort to block the state's planned $536 million purchase of land in the Everglades from U.S. Sugar Corp.
Tribe spokeswoman Joette Lorion says the deal could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars, leaving little money to pay for actual projects, and will create more delays as officials figure out exactly what to do with all the new land.
National parks try to shrink carbon footprints
Fla. budget forces Everglades deal to shrink
"Meeting upon meeting, and the Everglades continues to die," Lorion says.
The water district says the deal is a historic opportunity to take sugar out of production and provide land to build much-needed reservoirs and treatment areas to clean and store water.
Back on Florida Bay, Burke just wants something done before it's too late. To the casual onlooker, the area is stunning even today. But Burke knows better.
"In a lot of ways," he says, "it's still pristine and beautiful down here, but it's also on its last dying breath."
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Scam threatens victims with arrest
Scam threatens victims with arrest
Calls from a real debt collector are scary enough; these calls are from abusive thugs armed with enough personal data to make them seem legit. Don't be fooled.
[Related content: banking, financial privacy, payday loans, debt reduction, bills]
By MSN Money staff and wire reports
Con artists armed with Social Security numbers, bank account information and other sensitive personal data are threatening consumers with arrest, the Better Business Bureau warns.
The callers claim to be lawyers with the "Financial Accountability Association" or the "Federal Legislation of Unsecured Loans," trying to collect on defaulted payday loans, the BBB says. The callers demand immediate payments of as much as $1,000, by wire or by credit or debit cards, to head off lawsuits before they go to court. In some cases, victims have received dozens of calls in an afternoon.
Facebook users: Become a fan of MSN Money
"Because the scammers have so much information about potential victims, BBB is concerned that this may be the result of a data breach," says Steve Cox, a BBB spokesman. "Thousands of people may have had their personal information compromised, and, given the scammers' tactics, it appears that those who have previously used payday loan services could be particularly at risk."
Many of the intended victims had visited online payday loan sites. The scammers often have a victim's Social Security number, old bank account numbers or driver's license numbers, as well as home addresses, employer information and even the names of friends and professional references, the BBB says.
More from MSN Money
22 ways to protect your identity
Who clicks on spam? We do
Has the Social Security code been cracked?
When a parent steals your identity
When debt collectors come knocking
A poster on 800notes.com describes the experience:
"Got a message on my cell phone asking to speak to my husband stating not to disregard this message and (may) God help us if he did not call back for whatever may unfold upon you. A few months back I visited a payday online site and filled it out, but decided against it because of the fees. I answer the phone the next time I see the number and tell them my husband is not home so they speak to me and tell me my husband will be charged with loan fraud, they will call his job and he will probably lose the job, etc.
"So I ask them, has a letter been sent to our address about this matter? No they say it has been e-mailed. I tell them that I will go to my bank tomorrow to research this issue and to see if any money has ever been deposited without my knowledge because I feel like this is a scam, and he tells me if you do that I will download your case right now. I said good bye. This is such a scam but what scared me is that had the last four digits of my husband's Social Security number and the name of my mother and sister-in-law due to the filling out of the application."
Video on MSN Money
Defending against debt collectors
It's against the law for a debt collector to harass you. Know what your rights are and how to exercise them.
What to do if you're called
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, among other things, prohibits collectors from making threats, harassment or misleading statements, or contacting third parties such as family members.
The BBB offers the following advice to consumers if they receive suspicious telephone calls about outstanding debts:
Ask debt collectors to provide documentation that substantiates the debts. Every collector must send a written validation notice within five days of contacting someone, including the name of the creditor and how to proceed.
Do not provide or confirm any bank account, credit card or other personal information over the phone until you have confirmed the legitimacy of the call.
File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission online if a caller is abusive, uses threats or otherwise violates federal telemarketing laws.
File a complaint with the BBB online if you believe a debt collector is trying to scam you.
According to complaints online, phone numbers that the scammers are calling from include 949-468-5107, 415-200-0274, 213-784-5745, 408-715-1614 and many others.
Calls from a real debt collector are scary enough; these calls are from abusive thugs armed with enough personal data to make them seem legit. Don't be fooled.
[Related content: banking, financial privacy, payday loans, debt reduction, bills]
By MSN Money staff and wire reports
Con artists armed with Social Security numbers, bank account information and other sensitive personal data are threatening consumers with arrest, the Better Business Bureau warns.
The callers claim to be lawyers with the "Financial Accountability Association" or the "Federal Legislation of Unsecured Loans," trying to collect on defaulted payday loans, the BBB says. The callers demand immediate payments of as much as $1,000, by wire or by credit or debit cards, to head off lawsuits before they go to court. In some cases, victims have received dozens of calls in an afternoon.
Facebook users: Become a fan of MSN Money
"Because the scammers have so much information about potential victims, BBB is concerned that this may be the result of a data breach," says Steve Cox, a BBB spokesman. "Thousands of people may have had their personal information compromised, and, given the scammers' tactics, it appears that those who have previously used payday loan services could be particularly at risk."
Many of the intended victims had visited online payday loan sites. The scammers often have a victim's Social Security number, old bank account numbers or driver's license numbers, as well as home addresses, employer information and even the names of friends and professional references, the BBB says.
More from MSN Money
22 ways to protect your identity
Who clicks on spam? We do
Has the Social Security code been cracked?
When a parent steals your identity
When debt collectors come knocking
A poster on 800notes.com describes the experience:
"Got a message on my cell phone asking to speak to my husband stating not to disregard this message and (may) God help us if he did not call back for whatever may unfold upon you. A few months back I visited a payday online site and filled it out, but decided against it because of the fees. I answer the phone the next time I see the number and tell them my husband is not home so they speak to me and tell me my husband will be charged with loan fraud, they will call his job and he will probably lose the job, etc.
"So I ask them, has a letter been sent to our address about this matter? No they say it has been e-mailed. I tell them that I will go to my bank tomorrow to research this issue and to see if any money has ever been deposited without my knowledge because I feel like this is a scam, and he tells me if you do that I will download your case right now. I said good bye. This is such a scam but what scared me is that had the last four digits of my husband's Social Security number and the name of my mother and sister-in-law due to the filling out of the application."
Video on MSN Money
Defending against debt collectors
It's against the law for a debt collector to harass you. Know what your rights are and how to exercise them.
What to do if you're called
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, among other things, prohibits collectors from making threats, harassment or misleading statements, or contacting third parties such as family members.
The BBB offers the following advice to consumers if they receive suspicious telephone calls about outstanding debts:
Ask debt collectors to provide documentation that substantiates the debts. Every collector must send a written validation notice within five days of contacting someone, including the name of the creditor and how to proceed.
Do not provide or confirm any bank account, credit card or other personal information over the phone until you have confirmed the legitimacy of the call.
File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission online if a caller is abusive, uses threats or otherwise violates federal telemarketing laws.
File a complaint with the BBB online if you believe a debt collector is trying to scam you.
According to complaints online, phone numbers that the scammers are calling from include 949-468-5107, 415-200-0274, 213-784-5745, 408-715-1614 and many others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)