Of course, Interior appropriations are not just for Montana–
Here are a host more.
Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill benefits Minnesota. Review-Messenger.
Congress approves $475M to restore the Great Lakes. Deb Price / Detroit News Washington Bureau
Boxer Secures Funding for Key Investments Throughout California. California Chronicle
Funds for North Dakoka. Bismark Tribune.
Schumer: Additional $1 Billion Worth Of Critical Water And Sewer Grants across the country. News Channel 34
Funds for Oregon. My Central Oregon.com
Simpson gets money for Idaho. News release by Mike Simpson. Note that he also voted for a successful amendment not to monitor livestock shit in our air. . . . “Language to prohibit funds from being used to implement EPA rules requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock manure. This language will protect farmers and ranchers from burdensome, unnecessary regulations at a time when the agriculture industry is struggling.”
Congress approves $1.9M to research mysterious disease killing N.J. bats. By Brian T. Murray/The Star-Ledger
Congress approves $4M in funding to preserve N.J. Highlands. By Lawrence Ragonese/The Star-Ledger
Folks might want to look this up for their own state and post in the comments. Most states got something.
Comments
Here’s the text from the summary relating to the Simpson proviso:
(Sec. 420) Prohibits funds in this Act or any other Act from being used to promulgate or implement any regulation requiring the issuance of permits under the Clean Air Act for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor, or methane emissions resulting from biological processes associated with livestock production.
—
Comes of the heels of a recent report stating that livestock may be responsible for up to 51 percent of GHG emissions worldwide.
I’m all for state management of wolves in Idaho, so it’s a disappointment to see that $1M of federal monies will go to livestock loss reimbursement in Idaho. If the state actually put the wolf tag fees where they should be, we might be on our way to a sustainable program where the tag fees would support livestock loss reimbursement programs.
So why are we spending trillions for so-called green power, tearing up landscape, when livestock are as big a culprit as anything?
“”Comes of the heels of a recent report stating that livestock may be responsible for up to 51 percent of GHG emissions worldwide.””
Two key words, Ralph, “may” and “worldwide”. I would be interested in seeing the data of the total livestock GHG impact for the west compared to a single coal burning plant in the area such as Bridger. I have not seen these stats broken down by state/region: has anyone?
++So why are we spending trillions for so-called green power, tearing up landscape, when livestock are as big a culprit as anything?++
Maybe some people like to eat steak. Besides getting a toy in your Happy Meal you also get a hambuger patty. Some on here do not believe in hunting so if one wants to eat meat then you must raise it.
jdubya,
My generalization is hasty, but I wanted to jump on what may be a real sneaky tradeoff on climate change.
Politico has an article on livestock’s win today.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28818.html
Methane, emitted by cattle, has 23 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. Nitrous Oxide – not sure if live stock emit this gas, but old natural gas fire power plant do in large quantities – 296 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide.
Why does such a Bozo from idaho get ANYTHING?
There is MUCH evil in what Simpson got in here:
Over half a billion $$$ for Haz Fuels “reduction” – on BLM lands that means of course, to be used is to kill sagebrush and trees, and grow weeds for cattle to eat.
Over a million $$$ for “Trail Construction” in the SNRA – that much moolah sounds like OHV trails to me …
A million bucks to “prevent sage grouse listing” …
Bills like this one are the core what the federal government really does, and should really interest the public, but, of course, it doesn’t.
Instead folks get exciting over some that isn’t even tangible — purely symbolic.