Overriding MA's withdrawal from RGGI

From Reuters:

A pact by northeastern states to control greenhouse gases is getting a renewed push in Massachusetts, whose governor rejected the historic plan three months ago because it would raise energy costs. [read the rest]

Senator Pamela Resor has proposed legislation to bring Massachusetts back into the initiative, over Gov. Romney's veto if necessary.

CA has water surplus

I wonder if they'll treat water as a commodity and try to sell it?

State has abundance of water in the bank: Reservoirs at 100% capacity -- and snowmelt will boost supply, Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer. This article from Saturday tells us:

If California suddenly went dry, and no rain or snow fell for two straight years, the state would still have enough water to go around thanks to this year's wet winter, meteorologists and water experts said Friday.

One meterologist is quoting as saying "we're in fat city" -- and calls this a "superb water year".

Given that one way to look at water is as a commodity, would or could California try to sell some of their surplus? I've always thought of southern CA, at least, as the consumer, not the producer of water. Is selling off physically feasible?

Ecopsychology

While throwing out some old magazines, I came across an August 2005 issue of Discover. The article of interest was entitled "Are the Desert People Winning?". The article posits that according to anthropologists, the cultures of our world are in mainly two groups; forest or arid lands.

The theory of ecopsychology is essentially how our cultures derive from our environment. For example, those from rainforests tend to be polytheistic whereas those from the desert tend to be monotheistic.

The import of this cross-cultural research in relation to our environment, is that as we continue to deforest our lands, expend our natural resources, and overpopulate, our variety of cultures will diminish to one dominate culture.

Think this will affect our laws? Hasn't it already?

Cleaner Cars in Maine

The Conservation Law Foundation wins in the Maine courts.

"In a move that will protect Maine's new clean car standards, astate court last week refused a request by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers to block Maine's right to determine howto clean its own air. Instead, the court indicated that it would likely dismiss the automakers' claims altogether. The decisionis a victory for CLF -- which had intervened in the case -- and for public health, the environment and consumers.The new emissions regulations will dramatically reduce tail pipe emissions from cars and trucks, helping reduce air and global warming pollution and saving consumers money at the pump. Under the new rules, automakers must -- for the first time in history-- start reducing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. By model year 2016, the rules will result in average emissions reductions of 30 percent. The state of Maine passed the regulations into law in December 2005 and the automakers' trade group immediately filed suit challenging the rules. The group, comprised of the nation's largest carmakers including Ford, General Motors and Toyota, claimed that the Maine Board of Environmental Protection violated procedure by failing to reexamine industry arguments when creating the law. The Kennebec County Superior Court disagreed, and pointed out that it would likely dismiss the case because the automakers had made a procedural error of their own. CLF stands ready to fend off similar claims by automakers inother New England states as they try to avoid making cars cleaner for our environment and cheaper for consumers." Except from the CLF newsletter.