Intensive logging created New England's rich wetlands

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927942.600-intensive-logging-created-new-englands-rich-wetlands.html

THOSE who enjoy the wetlands and seafood of New England's coastline may be surprised by who they have to thank: the loggers of the 18th and 19th centuries. In clearing vast tracts of land, those prolific loggers released so much sand and dirt that open-water bays turned into swamps.

While logging devastated the landscape, it had the opposite effect on the coast. The wetlands it boosted buffer the coastline from storms, stop pollutants in the ocean from reaching the shore, and shelter marine organisms. "No wetlands, no seafood," says Matthew Kirwan of the US Geological Survey in Laurel, Maryland.

For purists who favour returning New England to its natural state - and restoration is a multibillion-dollar endeavour - the theory presents a conundrum. Many New England marshes are much bigger than they were before the arrival of European settlers, says Kirwan, so restoring the environment to a "natural" state would mean losing much of the marshland and its benefits.

Boehner fires back at Dem senators with vow to push forward with repeal

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/135895-boehner-fires-back-at-dem-senators-with-vow-to-push-forward-with-repeal

Incoming House Speaker John Boehner's office (R-Ohio) pointedly vowed on Tuesday to push ahead with legislation repealing healthcare reform.

Boehner's office responded to a letter sent by the Senate's top five Democrats, vowing to block a House bill repealing healthcare reform, with a terse, 65-word note.

Boehner's office wrote:

Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:

Thank you for reminding us – and the American people – of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with ‘Big Pharma,’ resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion.

The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now. You’re welcome.

- Speaker-Designate John Boehner’s Press Office

What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming has halted

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html

Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000 delegate UN climate jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico, the Met Office was at it again.

Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since 1996.

Globally, it insisted, 2010 was still on course to be the warmest or second warmest year since current records began.

But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.

Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.

Turn out the lights, the party's over

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/pruden-turn-out-the-lights-the-party-s-over/

Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do, nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun.

The global-warming caravan has moved on, bound for a destination in oblivion. The United Nations is hanging the usual lamb chop in the window this week in Mexico for the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, but the Washington guests are staying home. Nobody wants to get the smell of the corpse on their clothes.

Everybody who imagined himself anybody raced to Copenhagen last year for the global-warming summit, renamed "climate change" when the globe began to cool, as it does from time to time. Some 45,000 delegates, "activists," business representatives and the usual retinue of journalists registered for the party in Copenhagen. This year, only 1,234 journalists registered for the Cancun beach party. The only story there is that there's no story there. The U.N. organizers glumly concede that Cancun won't amount to anything, even by U.N. standards.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, who wrote and sponsored the cap-and-trade legislation last year, says he'll be too busy with congressional business (buying stamps for the Christmas cards and getting a haircut and a shoeshine) even to think about going to Cancun. Last year, he joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi and dozens of other congressmen in taking staffers and spouses to the party in Copenhagen. The junket cost taxpayers $400,000, but Copenhagen is a friendly town and a good time was had by all. This year, they're all staying home, learning to live like lame ducks.

[Video]Quantitative Easing Explained

Stop Bashing Business, Mr. President

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704361504575552080488297188.html

Although I was glad that you answered a question of mine at the Sept. 20 town-hall meeting you hosted in Washington, D.C., Mr. President, I must say that the event seemed more like a lecture than a dialogue. For more than two years the country has listened to your sharp rhetoric about how American businesses are short-changing workers, fleecing customers, cheating borrowers, and generally "driving the economy into a ditch," to borrow your oft-repeated phrase.

My question to you was why, during a time when investment and dynamism are so critical to our country, was it necessary to vilify the very people who deliver that growth? Instead of offering a straight answer, you informed me that I was part of a "reckless" group that had made "bad decisions" and now required your guidance, if only I'd stop "resisting" it.

I'm sure that kind of argument draws cheers from the partisan faithful. But to my ears it sounded patronizing. Of course, one of the chief conceits of centralized economic planning is that the planners know better than everybody else.

Taxes, fees and fake corporate environmentalism

http://chuckdevore.com/2010/09/taxes-fees-and-fake-corporate-environmentalism-or-how-i-chose-budget-truck-rental-instead-of-u-haul/

“Environmental Fee?!?” I thought. I clicked on the link to explain this unexpected fee and U-Haul treated me to a rambling eight paragraph paean to their environmental consciousness, saying, in part, “For more than 60 years, the U-Haul Companies have provided an economical, sustainable and environmentally friendly means for families to move to a better future.” And that “sharing” trucks rather than buying one for the average family’s twice a decade move reduces “hundreds of thousands of tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually.” And “With 15,000 locations across the United States and Canada, U-Haul truck sharing helps to reduce the carbon footprint of many local communities.” So far, the $5 fee hadn’t been explained – I was on the edge of my seat for the punch line – until finally, in the last paragraph: “The Customer money collected as an environmental fee is expended to reduce the negative impact of our business on future generations. Aerodynamic fuel saving truck skirts, the fuel economy gauge, storage re-use centers, environmentally friendly truck wash soap, are examples of where these funds go.”

Ahh, I see.

Except that it’s a line of B.S. meant to make the customer feel better about forking over another $5 to U-Haul for the good cause of the environment – a fee I didn’t recall paying the last time I rented from U-Haul.