Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scaled back job-creating legislation to four items including a tax holiday for companies that hire the unemployed.
Also to be included in the measure, Reid told reporters in Washington today, is an extension of the Build America Bonds Program, a provision allowing small businesses to write off some expenses quickly, and an extension of federal highway construction funds.
Reid said other elements of an $85 billion package outlined earlier today will be taken up in subsequent legislation. These items include an extension of unemployment benefits set to expire at month’s end and a subsidy to help laid-off workers buy health insurance from their former employer.
“The American people need a message,” Reid said. “We don’t have a jobs bill, we have a jobs agenda. We’re going to move forward on that jobs agenda.”
Asked if Republicans would support the stripped-down version of the jobs legislation, Reid told reporters, “Republicans are going to have to make a choice” whether to support “a bipartisan bill that will create jobs.”
To contact the reporter on this story: James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net Last Updated: February 11, 2010 15:11 EST
Senate offers some hope for legislation to combat climate change
Wednesday, February 10, 2010; A16
CLIMATE CHANGE legislation, according to conventional wisdom, is all but dead for the year. It fell victim to Senate gridlock, yawning gaps between lawmakers over how and even whether to tackle the issue and President Obama's decision last year to place it third on his list of priorities, after the stimulus and health care. The president himself seemed to admit at least temporary defeat last week; at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, Mr. Obama cited speculations that the Senate might pass only a modest energy bill. Such a bill inevitably would contain expensive subsidies and research programs, but it would not place a price on carbon.
Putting a price on the burning of oil, gas and coal is the most efficient way to limit American greenhouse emissions, but Mr. Obama -- though he supports the idea -- didn't even mention carbon pricing when he discussed energy with reporters on Tuesday.
A version of such a scaled-down energy bill passed the Senate Energy Committee last year, and it contains some worthwhile provisions, such as updating building codes and the electricity grid. It is also incomplete, lacking both much in the way of revenue to pay for its programs and any economy-wide emissions limit. The House-passed Waxman-Markey climate bill, by contrast, contains a cap-and-trade provision aiming to provide for both, but that bill is marred by giving away far too many valuable pollution permits to politically favored groups, a scheme of which many senators are rightly skeptical.
Is there no alternative between simple do-nothingism and House complexity? In fact, there is. An alternative proposal increasingly capturing interest on Capitol Hill is the CLEAR Act, sponsored by Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). The bill would cap the amount of carbon the United States produces and sell pollution permits to those who produce or import dirty fuels. Suppliers would pass these costs to customers, , which would discourage carbon-guzzling. It would also raise costs, of course, but the government would rebate 75 percent of the revenue from the permit auctions back to the populace.
Ms. Cantwell and Ms. Collins estimate that 80 percent of Americans would break even or come out ahead, even as consumption patterns shifted toward greener goods and greater energy efficiency. Congress would use the rest of the money to pay for some of the things in that energy bill, things that merely raising the price of carbon might not accomplish -- investing in transmission infrastructure, for example, or basic research and development. There is a risk that lawmakers will waste some of this cash, but it's a defensible one.
Meanwhile, The Post's Juliet Eilperin reports that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) might propose a simple tax on carbon, with all proceeds returned to taxpayers, perhaps via a cut in payroll taxes. Though it might be tougher to pass, such an approach is also very appealing for similar reasons. At the same time, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who is trying with Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) to assemble a bipartisan bill, has been discussing the Cantwell-Collins proposal with his colleagues, reportedly to some favorable reaction. In other words, there is a chance that the failure of the House's bill in the Senate and the search for a Plan B will yet produce better legislation.
If climate-change researchers sound alarmist, it's only because they're alarmed
Gerald Butts
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Feb. 09, 2010 6:23PM ESTLast updated on Thursday, Feb. 11, 2010 3:11AM EST
In the Hollywood version of how science influences policy, the brilliant scientist has a eureka moment in the lab and calls the president, who promptly dispatches a square-jawed hero to save the day. In the real world, both science and politics are enormously more complicated.
It is in this real-world context that we must place the imbroglio surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's research. Breathless media claims that the scientific consensus supporting the reality of climate change and its causes has collapsed are simply untrue.
At its heart, the debate centres on the role and process of science in creating a platform for human progress. If anything has been “revealed,” it is the challenge of communicating complex science to a media world that requires scientists to reduce their research to a sound bite.
Let's start with what we know.
Yes, some scientists showed poor judgment in private e-mail exchanges later hacked and made public. Yes, some errors in fact and incomplete citations have been found in the IPCC's 1,000-page reports. That said, even scientists who have criticized the IPCC agree that anthropogenic climate change is both a fact and an urgent threat to the planet.
All independent reviews undertaken so far (by The Associated Press, the University of Michigan and The Economist, for example) agree that none of the stolen e-mails or errors bring into question the science supporting climate change. To conclude otherwise is to misunderstand the process and power of science, and to dismiss the need to draw on the best available evidence and consensus to guide national policies.
Science is not a cold body of facts, but an organized system of inquiry, discovery, evaluation and learning. Science not only welcomes the correction of errors, its key attribute is that it is self-correcting over time. As new research arises, old hypotheses gain or lose support. While this process never stops, generally accepted conclusions do accumulate, based on the overwhelming weight of evidence. The fact and threat of anthropogenic climate change are clearly among those conclusions.
Leading up to the Copenhagen conference, 850 scientists in Canada and 12 professional science societies wrote to Parliament with one voice. Climate-change impact is real, it's appearing faster than forecast and our commitments to avert it are less than we need to succeed. The official national science societies of each G8 country, plus South Africa, Brazil, India, China and Mexico, drew a similar consensus in an open letter to their heads of government.
We pride ourselves at the World Wildlife Fund in being a science-based conservation organization. We have 50 years of global field work behind us and a proven track record of research, policy development and responsible advocacy. Core to our mission is giving voice to threats to biodiversity and the world's natural systems that are brought to light by science. Calling us an “environmental pressure group,” as Margaret Wente recently did, is like calling The Globe and Mail an online political blog. Without such advocacy, science that is vital to our species' long-term prosperity but perhaps counter to our short-term material interest would remain unheard. If the scientists involved sound alarmist, it is only because they are alarmed.
In the process of developing science-based climate-change policy, we should welcome criticism. We will have better science and better policy as a result. For this to be effective, the media should submit criticisms and counterclaims to the same level of scrutiny and scientific rigour to which IPCC scientists are being held – something that has been frankly and deplorably absent.
In the end, this controversy is illuminating not because of what it reveals about the IPCC's research but what it tells us about ourselves. Yale University and Nature magazine recently published a finding that people react to scientific studies based on their own personal values and predispositions rather than on the scientific soundness of the study in question. More simply, we see the world as we want to see it, not as it is. Human-caused climate change challenges us to move beyond this self-centredness in order to make progress for ourselves and the generations that will follow us. It is not how any of us wish to see the world, but it is the nearest thing to a fact that science can provide.
Since we don't have a square-jawed hero to appeal to, you may want to ask your nearest scientist. Gerald Butts is president and CEO of WWF-Canada.
I know this post is a little dated but it goes to show what climate change can do to massive land ice. In the next post will be pictures of Ice bergs from Antartica.
In less than a day, a chunk of ice bigger than Rhode Island broke away from Antarctica and shattered into many pieces this week.
NASA's Aqua and Terra satellites captured the event, at the Ronne-Filchner Ice Shelf, in a series of photo-like images on Jan. 12-13.
The long, narrow tongue of ice is a bridge of sea ice linking the A-23A iceberg to the Ronne-Filchner Ice Shelf in West Antarctica. The ice bridge is fast ice, or sea ice that does not move because it is anchored to the shore. Compared to an ice shelf, the sea ice is a thin shell of ice over the ocean.
The difference in thickness is visible in the images. The taller, thicker Ronne-Filchner Ice Shelf casts a visible shadow on the ice bridge made of sea ice. This particular ice bridge breaks up and reforms regularly. Even though the images show a routine event, they provide a spectacular view of the sometimes dramatic arrival of summer in the Polar South.
Check out the Pictures with the link above and the information contained and check out the comments
The pictures below go with the previous article about climate change
Smooth Sailing
A ship sails pass the Ross Ice Shelf. Research Vessel Ice Breaker (RVIB) NATHANIEL B. PALMER in the background. Photographer: Michael Van Woert, NOAA NESDIS, ORA.
The Beauty of the Antarctic
Shown above is an iceberg in Gerlache Strait. Photographer: Rear Admiral Harley D. Nygren, NOAA Corps (ret.).
Huge Block of Ice
Pictured below is an iceberg off the Antarctic Peninsula. The size of the iceberg appears to be similar to that of a cruise ship. Photographer: Commander Richard Behn, NOAA Corps.
Mysterious and Captivating
An iceberg sits in the middle of the cool Arctic waters. Photographer: Michael Van Woert, NOAA NESDIS, ORA.
Views From Above
Flying over large tabular icebergs on the way to McMurdo Sound. Photographer: Mr. Ardo X. Meyer, NOAA (ret.).
On the Move
The image shows an Iceberg drifting slowly across the waters. Photographer: Michael Van Woert,
NOAA NESDIS, ORA
Point of Separation
In this picture, two large icebergs, designated B-15A and C-16, are captured in this Multi-angle Imaging Spectroradiometer (MISR) nadir camera view of the Ross Ice Shelf and Ross Sea in Antarctica. B-15A is the largest chunk left of a bigger iceberg, known as B-15 that broke off the Ross Ice Shelf in March 2000. That initial frozen hunk was about the size of Jamaica. At 71 miles (115 kilometers) long, B-15A is the largest free-floating object in the world. The image was acquired on December 10, 2000, prior to when B-15A broke off from the Ross Ice Shelf.
Formation of an Iceberg
Icebergs form when they are broken off from a glacier or an ice shelf. Here is an example of an iceberg breaking from a glacier. More than a decade ago a large iceberg (over a thousand square miles in area, and a quarter of a mile thick) broke off an Antarctic glacier and drifted into the Southern Ocean. This true color Landsat 7 image shows relatively small icebergs "calving" off the edge of B10A. The new icebergs drifted into international shipping lanes, posing a threat.
Closing In
Close-up of Icebergs grounded on Pennel Bank. Photographer: Michael Van Woert, NOAA NESDIS,
The World‘s Most Famous Ice Shelf
The above pictures focus on the famous Ross Ice Shelf. Note the size of the ice shelf compared to the people in the photo. The picture shows the Ross Ice Shelf, the largest in the world, at the Bay of Whales - the point where Amundsen staged his successful assault on the South Pole. 78 30 S Latitude 164 20W Longitude. Photographer: Michael Van Woert, NOAA NESDIS, ORA.
Follow the Leader
Note the arches in the icebergs off the Antarctic Peninsula. The icebergs are slowly moving along the waters. Photographer: Commander Richard Behn, NOAA Corps.
Stranded
Icebergs grounded on Pennel Bank. Photographer: Michael Van Woert, NOAA NESDIS, ORA
Simply Beautiful!
A southern view of the Ross Ice Shelf at the Bay of Whales. This is the southern-most navigable point on the planet and the point where Amundsen started his successful trek to the South Pole. 78 30 S Latitude 164 20W Longitude. Photographer: Michael Van Woert, NOAA NESDIS, ORA.
Massive Chunk
Above is a photograph of a large tabular iceberg off the Antarctic Peninsula. Photographer: Commander Richard Behn, NOAA Corps.
On the Edge
This stunning view shows the edge of the Ross Ice Shelf as seen by the NATHANIEL B. PALMER
Tip of the Iceberg
This perspective view shows the seaward edge of the floating Ross Ice Shelf. Photographer: Michael Van Woert, NOAA NESDIS, ORA.
Majority Leader proposes pared-down version, hopes for quick passage
The Associated Press
Senate Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid unveiled a pared-back jobs plan after having difficulty uniting his Democratic colleagues behind a broader bill.
updated 12:08 p.m. ET,Thurs., Feb. 11, 2010
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats on Thursday proposed a new, stripped-down version of their jobs bill in hopes of getting it through Congress quickly.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's latest bill is focused on several popular provisions aimed at boosting job creation, including tax breaks for companies that hire unemployed workers and for small businesses purchasing equipment. It also would renew highway programs and help states and local governments finance large infrastructure projects.
Reid, D-Nev., unveiled the pared-back plan after having difficulty uniting his Democratic colleagues behind a broader bill stuffed with unrelated provisions sought by lobbyists for business groups and doctors.
The move blows apart an agreement with key Republicans like Charles Grassley of Iowa, who worked with Democrats for weeks to produce a bill containing the extra provisions. They included a $31 billion package of tax breaks for individuals and businesses, an extension of several provisions of the USA Patriot Act and higher payments for doctors facing Medicare payment cuts.
The surprise move appears to insulate Democrats from criticism that greeted the earlier, lobbyist-backed legislation first leaked on Tuesday and officially unveiled only hours before Reid's announcement.
"The message is so watered down, with people wanting other things in this big package," Reid told reporters.
With his strong-arm tactics, Reid appears to be practically daring Republicans to try to block the pared-back bill.
"Well, Republicans are going to have to make a choice," Reid said. "I don't know in logic what they could say to oppose this."
Still, a number of the provisions dropped on Thursday — including help for the unemployed, the business tax breaks and a renewal of soon-to-expire provisions of the Patriot Act — are sure to return soon since they expire at the end of the month.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Spokesman says former president is 'in good spirits' after receiving stents
updated 5:11 p.m. ET,Thurs., Feb. 11, 2010
Former President Bill Clinton was hospitalized Thursday in New York City after experiencing chest pains, according to a spokesman.
"Today President Bill Clinton was admitted to the Columbia Campus of New York Presbyterian Hospital after feeling discomfort in his chest," spokesman Doug Band said in a statement. "Following a visit to his cardiologist, he underwent a procedure to place two stents in one of his coronary arteries."
"President Clinton is in good spirits, and will continue to focus on the work of his Foundation and Haiti's relief and long-term recovery efforts," said the spokesman.
A stent is small mesh tube that is used to treat narrowed or weakened arteries.
A hospital source said that Clinton called the head of cardiology at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital two days ago, saying that he was not feeling well. Clinton was originally scheduled to come in to the hospital Wdnesday but postponed the appointment until Thursday.
Clinton's wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, planned to New York City Thursday from Washington D.C., NBC confirmed.
In 2004, Clinton underwent a successful quadruple bypass operation to free four blocked arteries.
NBC's Robert Windrem and Andrea Mitchell contributed to this report.
What is a stent?
A stent is a wire metal mesh tube used to prop open an artery during angioplasty. The stent is collapsed to a small diameter and put over a balloon catheter. It's then moved into the area of the blockage. When the balloon is inflated, the stent expands, locks in place and forms a scaffold. This holds the artery open. The stent stays in the artery permanently, holds it open, improves blood flow to the heart muscle and relieves symptoms (usually chest pain). Within a few weeks of the time the stent was placed, the inside lining of the artery grows over the metal surface of the stent.
How common are stents?
Stenting is a fairly common procedure; in fact, over 70 percent of coronary angioplasty procedures also include stents.
What are the advantages?
In certain patients, stents reduce the renarrowing that occurs after balloon angioplasty or other procedures that use catheters. Stents also help restore normal blood flow and keep an artery open if it's been torn or injured by the balloon catheter.
Can stented arteries reclose?
Yes. Reclosure (restenosis) is also a problem with the stent procedure. In recent years doctors have used new types of stents called drug-eluting stents. These are coated with drugs that are slowly released and help keep the blood vessel from reclosing. Stents that are not coated with drugs are called bare metal stents. It is very important that patients with either type of stent take their anti-clotting medicines as directed.
What happens next?
Patients who've had a stent procedure must take one or more blood-thinning agents. Examples are aspirin and clopidogrel. These medications help reduce the risk of a blood clot developing in the stent and blocking the artery. Some recent studies have suggested that blood clots may develop later on (more than a year after stent placement) in the drug-eluting stents.
NOT long after the flood, when Noah was safely back on dry land, God promised: “Never again will I curse the ground because of man...And never again will I destroy all living creatures.” The implication is clear. “Man will not destroy this earth,” says John Shimkus, a Bible-reading Republican congressman from Illinois. So there is no need to worry about global warming.
On January 28th, America formally pledged to the UN that it would reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 17% (from what they were in 2005) by 2020. But there was a planet-sized catch. Meeting the target will depend on getting a climate bill through Congress, and that will be horribly hard. A bill to erect a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon-dioxide emissions squeaked through the House of Representatives last summer. But similar bills have stalled in the Senate, where nearly anything big needs a supermajority to pass.
Various obstacles block the way. First, Barack Obama has not yet decided what to do about health care, and he cannot wage two domestic wars at once. Second, cap-and-trade is a tough sell. An increasing number of Americans, like Mr Shimkus, doubt the science. The proportion who believe there is “solid evidence” that the earth is warming fell from 71% in 2008 to 57% last year. Among Republicans, disbelief is the norm: only 35% think there is solid evidence of warming, according to a Pew poll. The news that some climate scientists tried to muzzle dissenting voices has spread like the common cold on conservative blogs, fuelling widespread suspicion that global warming is an elaborate hoax. Many climate sceptics are furious. “My Carbon Footprint Will Fit Nicely in Your Liberal Ass,” reads a typical T-shirt. Even among Americans who believe in global warming, there is little appetite for tackling it. A hefty 85% told Gallup that the government should place a higher priority on fixing the economy, with only 12% saying the opposite.
Enter Maria Cantwell, the junior senator from Washington state. She is pushing a simpler, more voter-friendly version of cap-and-trade, called “cap-and-dividend”. Under her bill, the government would impose a ceiling on carbon emissions each year. Producers and importers of fossil fuels will have to buy permits. The permits would be auctioned, raising vast sums of money. Most of that money would be divided evenly among all Americans. The bill would raise energy prices, of course, and therefore the price of everything that requires energy to make or distribute. But a family of four would receive perhaps $1000 a year, which would more than make up for it, reckons Ms Cantwell. Cap-and-dividend would set a price on carbon, thus giving Americans a powerful incentive to burn less dirty fuel. It would also raise the rewards for investing in clean energy. And it would leave all but the richest 20% of Americans—who use the most energy—materially better off, she says.
Ms Cantwell’s bill is refreshingly simple. At a mere 40 pages, it is one-thirty-sixth as long as the monstrous House bill (known as “Waxman-Markey”, after its sponsors), which would regulate everything from televisions to “bottle-type water dispensers” and is completely incomprehensible to a layman. Instead of auctioning permits to emit, Waxman-Markey gives 85% of them away, at least at first. This is staggeringly inefficient: permits would go to those with political clout rather than those who value them most. No one is proud of this—Mr Obama wanted a 100% auction—but House Democrats decided that the only way to pass the bill was to hand out billions of dollars of goodies to groups that might otherwise oppose it. (There was plenty of pork left over for its supporters, too.)
The Senate will not pass a comprehensive climate bill any time soon. So Mr Obama is attacking the problem piece by piece, bypassing Congress. On February 3rd, he unveiled a plan to promote biofuels and a task force to study the improbable dream of “clean” coal. Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission ordered private companies to publish estimates of the climate-related risks they face. The Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, is trying to regulate greenhouse gases under existing laws. But regulation is no substitute for putting a price on carbon, which would harness the power of the market to cut emissions more cheaply.
Tell it like it is
Of all the bills that would put a price on carbon, cap-and-dividend seems the most promising. (A carbon tax would be best of all, but has no chance of passing.) Ms Cantwell has a Republican co-sponsor, Susan Collins of Maine, and says she is hearing positive noises from a few other Republicans, such as Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The most attractive thing about the bill is that it is honest. To discourage the use of dirty energy, it says, it has to be more expensive. To make up for that, here’s a thousand bucks.
This challenges the conventional wisdom in Washington, DC, that the only way to pass a global-warming bill is to disguise what’s in it. Leading Democrats try to sell cap-and-trade as a way to create jobs and wean America from its addiction to foreign oil. (It’s about “jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs,” said Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, last year.) Focus groups say this message ought to resonate. Frank Luntz, a pollster, released a study last month showing that voters are unswayed by melting ice caps but will support an energy bill that sticks it to the Saudis and creates American jobs. In real life, though, voters hear counter-arguments. Sure, cap-and-trade will create jobs, but it will destroy them, too. If the goal is to reduce dependence on foreign energy, why not mine more American coal? The only sound reason for acting to curb global warming is to curb global warming. Ms Cantwell does not put it so bluntly, but her bill speaks for itself.
Amount of enriched material unclear just 2 days after process was started
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, flanked by bodyguards, waves to supporters before addressing tens of thousands of Iranians gathered in Azadi Square in southwestern Tehran to mark the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution, on Thursday.
TEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed Thursday that Iran has produced its first batch of uranium enriched to a higher level, saying his country will not be bullied by the West into curtailing its nuclear program a day after the U.S. imposed new sanctions.
Ahmadinejad reiterated to hundreds of thousands of cheering Iranians on the anniversary of the 1979 foundation of the Islamic republic that the country was now a "nuclear state," an announcement he's made before. He insisted that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons.
It was not clear how much enriched material had actually been produced just two days after the process was announced to have started.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed Iran's claims, saying that country's leadership has made a series of statement based on politics, not physics.
The claim of new progress in Iran's nuclear program came a day after the U.S. Treasury Department imposed new sanctions, freezing the assets in U.S. jurisdiction of a Revolutionary Guard general and four subsidiaries of a construction firm he runs.
David Albright of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security said that any 20-percent enriched uranium produced just a few days after the start of the process would be "a tiny amount."
The United States and some of its allies accuse Tehran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to build nuclear weapons but Tehran denies the charge, saying the program is just geared toward generating electricity.
"I want to announce with a loud voice here that the first package of 20 percent fuel was produced and provided to the scientists," he said.
Enriching uranium produces fuel for nuclear power plants but can also be used to create material for atomic weapons if enriched further to 90 percent or more.
"We have the capability to enrich uranium more than 20 percent or 80 percent but we don't enrich (to this level) because we don't need it," he said in a speech broadcast live on state television.
Iran announced Tuesday it was beginning the process of enriching its uranium stockpile to a higher level. The international community reacted by discussing the imposition of new U.N. sanctions.
Revolutionary Guard assets frozen
The U.S. Treasury Department went ahead on Wednesday and froze the assets in U.S. jurisdictions of a Revolutionary Guard general and four subsidiaries of a construction firm he runs for their alleged involvement in producing and spreading weapons of mass destruction.
Tehran has said it wants to further enrich the uranium — which is still substantially below the 90 percent plus level used in the fissile core of nuclear warheads — as a part of a plan to fuel its research reactor that provides medical isotopes to hundreds of thousands of Iranians undergoing cancer treatment.
But the West says Tehran is not capable of turning the material into the fuel rods needed by the reactor. Instead it fears that Iran wants to enrich the uranium to make nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad restated Iran's position that it was not seeking to build nuclear weapons.
"When we say we do not manufacture the bomb, we mean it, and we do not believe in manufacturing a bomb," he told the crowd. "If we wanted to manufacture a bomb, we would announce it."
"We told them the Iranian nation will never give in to bullying and illogical remarks," Ahmadinejad added.
Western powers blame Tehran for rejecting an internationally endorsed plan to defuse the situation by having Iran export its low enriched uranium for enrichment abroad and returned as fuel rods for the Tehran reactor.
Iran, in turn, asserts it had no choice but to start enriching to higher levels because its suggested changes to the international plan were rejected.
The president said Iran will triple the production of its low-enriched uranium in the future but didn't elaborate.
"God willing, daily production (of low enriched uranium) will be tripled," he said.
A confidential document from the U.N. nuclear agency shared Wednesday with The Associated Press said Iran's initial effort at higher enrichment is modest, using only a small amount of feedstock and a fraction of its capacities.
BY ROBIN KNEPPER
Gov. Tim Kaine and House Speaker Bill Howell are asking Orange County supervisors to find a new site for a Wal-Mart Supercenter proposed in the Wilderness Battlefield area.
In a letter dated Monday to Board of Supervisors Chairman Lee Frame, the two note the importance of Virginia's Civil War battlefields and say they are concerned about the proposed retail center "at the gateway to Wilderness Battlefield in Orange County."
While the two state leaders write that they respect the board's authority to decide on a special-use permit for the proposed retail development at the intersections of State Routes 3 and 20, they add that the project "presents a unique opportunity to bring the interests of battlefield preservation and smart development effectively into balance."
"We strongly encourage your Board to work closely with Wal-Mart to find an appropriate alternate site for the proposed retail center in the vicinity of the proposed site yet situated outside the boundaries of Wilderness Battlefield and out of view from Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park," Kaine and Howell write.
"If you and your Board are amendable to this, we stand ready to offer the technical services of any and all state agencies that could be of help to the county and Wal-Mart."
Frame said today that supervisors have not yet decided how to respond to the letter. The county's Planning Commission has recommended approval of the special-use permit. Superviors have scheduled a public hearing on the issue July 27.
For more on this story, read Thursday's Free Lance-Star.
