<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
  xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
  xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>

<channel>
  <title>Green Options &#187; schwarzenegger</title>
  <link>http://greenoptions.com/tag/schwarzenegger</link>
  <description>Posts tagged 'schwarzenegger'</description>
  <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:29:59 +0000</pubDate>
  <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
  <language>en</language>
  <item>
    <title>Schwarzenegger Declares Statewide Drought, Orders Agencies to Address California&#8217;s Urgent Water Needs</title>
    <link>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/06/04/schwarzenegger-declares-statewide-drought-orders-agencies-to-address-californias-urgent-water-needs/</link>
    <comments>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/06/04/schwarzenegger-declares-statewide-drought-orders-agencies-to-address-californias-urgent-water-needs/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:29:59 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Nayelli Gonzalez</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[administration and bureaucracy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[local politics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[natural resources]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/06/04/schwarzenegger-declares-statewide-drought-orders-agencies-to-address-californias-urgent-water-needs/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2008/06/phpthumbphp.jpeg" alt="Governor" />California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a statewide drought today, following two straight years of below-average rainfall, very low snowmelt runoff and the largest court-ordered water transfer restrictions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in state history.</p>
<p>The governor also issued an <a href="http://gov.ca.gov/executive-order/9797/">Executive Order</a> meant to address related problems caused by the water shortages, such as extreme fire danger due to dry conditions, economic harm to urban and rural communities, loss of crops and the potential to degrade water quality in some regions.&#8221;</p>
<p>For the areas in Northern California that supply most of our water, this March, April and May have been the driest ever in our recorded history,&#8221; Governor Schwarzenegger <a href="http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/9796/">said during a press conference</a>. &#8220;As a result, some local governments are rationing water, developments can&#8217;t proceed and agricultural fields are sitting idle. We must recognize the severity of the crisis we face.&#8221;</p>
<p>His order directs the Department of Water Resources and other entities to promote state and local conservation programs to reduce water consumption locally and regionally for the remainder of 2008 and prepare for potential worsening water conditions in 2009.  The order also directs DWR to accelerate water transfers to shortage areas, pursue federal assistance and improve coordination between government agencies, identify risks to water supply and help farmers suffering losses.</p>
<p>Last month DWR released a final snow survey for the year that indicated snowpack water content was only at 67 percent the normal amount, and runoff was forecast at only 55 percent of the norm compared to previous years.&#8221;This drought is an urgent reminder of the immediate need to upgrade California&#8217;s water infrastructure,&#8221; the governor added.  &#8220;There is no more time to waste because nothing is more vital to protect our economy, our environment and our quality-of-life. We must work together to ensure that California will have safe, reliable and clean water not only today but 20, 30 and 40 years from now.&#8221;</p>
<p>Photo: <a href="http://gov.ca.gov/photos/9799/">Office of the Governor</a></p>
]]></description>
    <content:encoded><![CDATA[California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a statewide drought today, following two straight years of below-average rainfall, very low snowmelt runoff and the largest court-ordered water transfer restrictions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in state history.

The governor also issued an Executive Order [1] meant to address related problems caused by the water shortages, such as extreme fire danger due to dry conditions, economic harm to urban and rural communities, loss of crops and the potential to degrade water quality in some regions."

For the areas in Northern California that supply most of our water, this March, April and May have been the driest ever in our recorded history," Governor Schwarzenegger said during a press conference [2]. "As a result, some local governments are rationing water, developments can't proceed and agricultural fields are sitting idle. We must recognize the severity of the crisis we face."

His order directs the Department of Water Resources and other entities to promote state and local conservation programs to reduce water consumption locally and regionally for the remainder of 2008 and prepare for potential worsening water conditions in 2009.  The order also directs DWR to accelerate water transfers to shortage areas, pursue federal assistance and improve coordination between government agencies, identify risks to water supply and help farmers suffering losses.

Last month DWR released a final snow survey for the year that indicated snowpack water content was only at 67 percent the normal amount, and runoff was forecast at only 55 percent of the norm compared to previous years."This drought is an urgent reminder of the immediate need to upgrade California's water infrastructure," the governor added.  "There is no more time to waste because nothing is more vital to protect our economy, our environment and our quality-of-life. We must work together to ensure that California will have safe, reliable and clean water not only today but 20, 30 and 40 years from now."

Photo: Office of the Governor [3]

[1] http://gov.ca.gov/executive-order/9797/
[2] http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/9796/
[3] http://gov.ca.gov/photos/9799/]]></content:encoded>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/06/04/schwarzenegger-declares-statewide-drought-orders-agencies-to-address-californias-urgent-water-needs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>Peripheral Canal Bill a No Go - Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Canal Shot Down by California State Assembly</title>
    <link>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/05/06/peripheral-canal-bill-a-no-go/</link>
    <comments>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/05/06/peripheral-canal-bill-a-no-go/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 17:32:02 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Nayelli Gonzalez</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[local politics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[natural resources]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/05/06/peripheral-canal-bill-a-no-go/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2008/05/overview1.jpg" alt="Peripheral Canal" align="left" /></p>
<p>A California State Assembly committee <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/899623.html">last week</a> declined to entertain a controversial bill set to build a canal around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and shelved it until next year.</p>
<p>Senator Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, has worked on gaining approval from various parties for Senate Bill 27 for two years.  Ultimately, farmers, environmentalists and Delta locals opposed the proposed legislation and may have convinced the assembly committee to reject the bill as is.</p>
<p>Often viewed as a new permutation of the <a href="http://www.snugharbor.net/delta_history.htm">1980</a> &#8220;Peripheral Canal&#8221; bill, which proposed the construction of a Delta water-transfer facility and was viewed by many as threat to the local environment, SB 27 has been controversial from its inception.</p>
<p><!--more-->Environmentalists have decried the building of a &#8220;conveyance&#8221; system around the delta because of its potential to harm the endangered delta smelt, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_smelt">fish</a> that was legally protected from huge water pumping by a California federal judge last August.</p>
<p>Simitian plans to rework the bill and introduce a new one next year after learning the findings of the <a href="http://deltavision.ca.gov/AboutDeltaVision.shtml">Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force</a>, which has been appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to &#8220;identify a strategy for managing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a sustainable ecosystem that would continue to support environmental and economic functions that are critical to the people of California.&#8221;</p>
<p>Photo:  <a href="http://deltavision.ca.gov/AboutDeltaVision.shtml">Delta Vision</a></p>
]]></description>
    <content:encoded><![CDATA[

A California State Assembly committee last week [1] declined to entertain a controversial bill set to build a canal around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and shelved it until next year.

Senator Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, has worked on gaining approval from various parties for Senate Bill 27 for two years.  Ultimately, farmers, environmentalists and Delta locals opposed the proposed legislation and may have convinced the assembly committee to reject the bill as is.

Often viewed as a new permutation of the 1980 [2] "Peripheral Canal" bill, which proposed the construction of a Delta water-transfer facility and was viewed by many as threat to the local environment, SB 27 has been controversial from its inception.

Environmentalists have decried the building of a "conveyance" system around the delta because of its potential to harm the endangered delta smelt, a fish [3] that was legally protected from huge water pumping by a California federal judge last August.

Simitian plans to rework the bill and introduce a new one next year after learning the findings of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force [4], which has been appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to "identify a strategy for managing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a sustainable ecosystem that would continue to support environmental and economic functions that are critical to the people of California."

Photo:  Delta Vision [5]

[1] http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/899623.html
[2] http://www.snugharbor.net/delta_history.htm
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_smelt
[4] http://deltavision.ca.gov/AboutDeltaVision.shtml
[5] http://deltavision.ca.gov/AboutDeltaVision.shtml]]></content:encoded>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/05/06/peripheral-canal-bill-a-no-go/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>Schwarzenegger&#8217;s State of the State Address: Build More Dams and Sue the Feds</title>
    <link>http://ecoscraps.com/2008/01/11/scharzeneggers-state-of-the-state-address-build-more-dams-and-sue-the-feds/</link>
    <comments>http://ecoscraps.com/2008/01/11/scharzeneggers-state-of-the-state-address-build-more-dams-and-sue-the-feds/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Jennifer Lance</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://ecoscraps.com/2008/01/11/scharzeneggers-state-of-the-state-address-build-more-dams-and-sue-the-feds/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://ecoscraps.com/files/2008/01/schwarzenegger3.jpg" title="schwarzenegger3.jpg"><img src="http://ecoscraps.com/files/2008/01/schwarzenegger3.jpg" alt="schwarzenegger3.jpg" align="left" /></a>January 8, 2008</p>
<p>California Governor Schwarzenegger&#8217;s State of the State Address:</p>
<blockquote><p>Likewise, on infrastructure, I will continue to push for action. We have a water system built decades ago for 18 million people.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Today we have 37 million people. In 20 years, we will have 50 million people. We have to get going.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Already homes and businesses are facing mandatory cutbacks. Farms are unable to irrigate crops. Building permits are being denied.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>And yet raging flood waters run wasted into the sea because they can&#8217;t be captured. We must expand water storage. We must build new water delivery systems. We must fix the Delta and restore its ecosystem.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>We will also continue to make California the world&#8217;s environmental leader.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>We are leading on climate change, low carbon fuels, energy efficiency - and on clean, green technology. When it comes to cleaning our air, preserving our oceans, protecting our environment, California will continue to be the foremost advocate for change.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>And if we have to sue the federal government to get out of our way, we will do so.</p></blockquote>
<p>Full text of State of the State Address available <a href="/www.knbc.com/news/15007090/detail.html">here</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sierraclub.org">Sierra Club</a> perspective available at <a href="http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/01/schwarzenegger_62.html">California Progressive Report</a>.</p>
<p><em>Image courtesy of <a href="http://www.astro.com/im/vip/schwarzenegger3.jpg">astro.com</a> </em></p>
]]></description>
    <content:encoded><![CDATA[ [1]January 8, 2008

California Governor Schwarzenegger's State of the State Address:
Likewise, on infrastructure, I will continue to push for action. We have a water system built decades ago for 18 million people.
Today we have 37 million people. In 20 years, we will have 50 million people. We have to get going.
Already homes and businesses are facing mandatory cutbacks. Farms are unable to irrigate crops. Building permits are being denied.
And yet raging flood waters run wasted into the sea because they can't be captured. We must expand water storage. We must build new water delivery systems. We must fix the Delta and restore its ecosystem.
We will also continue to make California the world's environmental leader.
We are leading on climate change, low carbon fuels, energy efficiency - and on clean, green technology. When it comes to cleaning our air, preserving our oceans, protecting our environment, California will continue to be the foremost advocate for change.
And if we have to sue the federal government to get out of our way, we will do so.
Full text of State of the State Address available here [2].

Sierra Club [3] perspective available at California Progressive Report [4].

Image courtesy of astro.com [5] 

[1] http://ecoscraps.com/files/2008/01/schwarzenegger3.jpg
[2] http://ecoscraps.com/www.knbc.com/news/15007090/detail.html
[3] http://www.sierraclub.org
[4] http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/01/schwarzenegger_62.html
[5] http://www.astro.com/im/vip/schwarzenegger3.jpg]]></content:encoded>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://ecoscraps.com/2008/01/11/scharzeneggers-state-of-the-state-address-build-more-dams-and-sue-the-feds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>California Suing EPA for Blocking Car Emissions Rules</title>
    <link>http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/01/03/california-suing-epa-for-blocking-car-emissions-rules/</link>
    <comments>http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/01/03/california-suing-epa-for-blocking-car-emissions-rules/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Max Lindberg</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/01/03/california-suing-epa-for-blocking-car-emissions-rules/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://planetsave.com/files/2008/01/la-smog.jpg" title="la-smog.jpg"><img src="http://planetsave.com/files/2008/01/la-smog.jpg" alt="la-smog.jpg" /></a>They&#8217;ve done it, and help from other states is on the way.  California&#8217;s Attorney General Jerry Brown has filed a lawsuit with the US court of appeals challenging the EPA&#8217;s decision to block California from implementing tough new standards on vehicle emissions.  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is quoted as saying;</p>
<blockquote><p><em>&#8220;It is unconscionable that the federal government is keeping California and 19 other states from adopting these standards.  They are ignoring the will of millions of people who want their government to take action in the fight against global warming. That&#8217;s why, at the very first legal opportunity, we&#8217;re suing to reverse the US EPA&#8217;s wrong decision.  By implementing these standards, California would be eliminating greenhouse gases equivalent to taking 6.5 million cars off the road by the year 2020.&#8221;</em></p></blockquote>
<p>As I suggested in my &#8220;<a href="http://planetsave.com/blog/2007/12/20/open-challenge-to-california-and-all-state-governments/"><em>Open Challenge to California and all State Governments</em></a>&#8221; of Dec. 20, 15 other states or state agencies are joining the action, including Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico and New York.<!--more--></p>
<p>California&#8217;s action comes on the heels of the EPA&#8217;s denial of a waiver requsted by the state to impose new, tougher restrictions on car emissions.  The new law requires a 30 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by 2016.</p>
<blockquote><p>The refusal by EPA administrator Stephen Johnson last month, drew this comment from Brown,</p>
<p><em>&#8220;The denial letter was shocking in its incoherence and utter failure to provide legal justification for the administrator&#8217;s unprecedented action</em>.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><em>&#8220;The EPA has done nothing at the national level to curb greenhouse gases and now it has wrongfully and illegally blocked California&#8217;s landmark tailpipe emissions standards, despite the fact that sixteen states have moved to adopt them.&#8221;</em></p></blockquote>
<p>So the stage is set for a showdown between states executing their rights, and another government agency seemingly caught up in its arrogance and power.  Stay tuned.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080102211108.imafokqi&amp;show_article=1&amp;catnum=7">Source </a></p>
]]></description>
    <content:encoded><![CDATA[ [1]They've done it, and help from other states is on the way.  California's Attorney General Jerry Brown has filed a lawsuit with the US court of appeals challenging the EPA's decision to block California from implementing tough new standards on vehicle emissions.  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is quoted as saying;
"It is unconscionable that the federal government is keeping California and 19 other states from adopting these standards.  They are ignoring the will of millions of people who want their government to take action in the fight against global warming. That's why, at the very first legal opportunity, we're suing to reverse the US EPA's wrong decision.  By implementing these standards, California would be eliminating greenhouse gases equivalent to taking 6.5 million cars off the road by the year 2020."
As I suggested in my "Open Challenge to California and all State Governments [2]" of Dec. 20, 15 other states or state agencies are joining the action, including Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico and New York.

California's action comes on the heels of the EPA's denial of a waiver requsted by the state to impose new, tougher restrictions on car emissions.  The new law requires a 30 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by 2016.
The refusal by EPA administrator Stephen Johnson last month, drew this comment from Brown,

"The denial letter was shocking in its incoherence and utter failure to provide legal justification for the administrator's unprecedented action.
"The EPA has done nothing at the national level to curb greenhouse gases and now it has wrongfully and illegally blocked California's landmark tailpipe emissions standards, despite the fact that sixteen states have moved to adopt them."
So the stage is set for a showdown between states executing their rights, and another government agency seemingly caught up in its arrogance and power.  Stay tuned.

Source  [3]

[1] http://planetsave.com/files/2008/01/la-smog.jpg
[2] http://planetsave.com/blog/2007/12/20/open-challenge-to-california-and-all-state-governments/
[3] http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080102211108.imafokqi&#38;show_article=1&#38;catnum=7]]></content:encoded>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/01/03/california-suing-epa-for-blocking-car-emissions-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>Green Family Values:  No More Junk Toys!</title>
    <link>http://jenniferlance.greenoptions.com/2007/10/31/green-family-values-no-more-junk-toys/</link>
    <comments>http://jenniferlance.greenoptions.com/2007/10/31/green-family-values-no-more-junk-toys/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:45:04 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Jennifer Lance</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Money]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://jenniferlance.greenoptions.com/2007/10/31/green-family-values-no-more-junk-toys/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p>
<img src="/files/373/FleaMarket_PlasticToys.jpg" alt="" width="280" height="127" align="right" />Holiday season fanfare has already begun, and I am reminded of my holiday motto: <strong>No more junk toys!</strong>  Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and/or the Winter Solstice, if you have children, you know what junk toys are.  Junk toys are toys that will have little educational  value, are usually made of plastic, are overly commercial, and end up in our landfills.  Green parents often try to make these toys disappear, but it is better to prevent their buying and giving in the first place.  
</p>
<p>
Four years ago, before America was awash in greenwashing, <a href="http://www.mothering.com"><em>Mothering</em> Magazine</a> featured a great article title &#34;<a href="http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/consumerism/junk_toys.html">No More Junk Toys:  Rethinking Children's Gifts</a>&#34; by Judith Rubin.  Rubin writes,<em> </em>
</p>
<blockquote>
	<em>Like junk food, junk toys can be fun but are devoid of nutrition. Buying them requires little forethought. They are excessively commercial, and are often linked to cross-marketing schemes. They excite children at first, but that initial flicker doesn't endure. Also like junk food, junk toys have hidden environmental and social costs for which the consumers pay.</em>
</blockquote>
]]></description>
    <content:encoded><![CDATA[
Holiday season fanfare has already begun, and I am reminded of my holiday motto: No more junk toys!  Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and/or the Winter Solstice, if you have children, you know what junk toys are.  Junk toys are toys that will have little educational  value, are usually made of plastic, are overly commercial, and end up in our landfills.  Green parents often try to make these toys disappear, but it is better to prevent their buying and giving in the first place.  


Four years ago, before America was awash in greenwashing, Mothering Magazine [1] featured a great article title &#34;No More Junk Toys:  Rethinking Children's Gifts [2]&#34; by Judith Rubin.  Rubin writes, 


	Like junk food, junk toys can be fun but are devoid of nutrition. Buying them requires little forethought. They are excessively commercial, and are often linked to cross-marketing schemes. They excite children at first, but that initial flicker doesn't endure. Also like junk food, junk toys have hidden environmental and social costs for which the consumers pay.



The environmental and social costs of junk toys are huge!  Plastic toys are often made in sweatshops, sometimes by children themselves, and many of them send the wrong kind of messages to children.  For example, Bratz Dolls sexualize young girls [3], as well as have unfair labor practices, and Barbie's proportions are unrealistic.  According to Empoweredparents.com [4], 


	
	If she were alive, Barbie would be a woman standing 7 feet tall with a waistline of 18 inches and a bustling of 38-40. In fact, she would need to walk on all fours just to support her peculiar proportions. Yet media advertising, television and Hollywood would reinforce her message, influencing what would become the American ideal of beauty. 
	


Besides the materials and energy used in the production of junk toys, these plastic toys end up in landfills and oceans.  Life Magazine [5] reported that there is a swath of plastic garbage twice the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean.  Life reports, &#34;Except for the small amount that has been incinerated — and it's a very small amount — every bit of plastic made still exists.&#34;  


The safety of toys made in China has been in question lately with the recent rave of recalls [6].  Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a ban on toys containing phthalates.  The Governator said, &#34;These chemicals threaten the health and safety of our children at critical stages of their development.&#34;  Phthalates have been linked to cancer and reproductive problems.  This follows a ban last year in San Francisco [7] on toys containing BPA and certain levels of phthalates.  Despite such legal actions, junk toys still dominate the toy shelves.  


How can you tell a junk toy from a good toy?  Field naturalist Alicia Daniel offers the following list of questions to ask when selecting toys: 


	Will this toy eventually turn into dirt-i.e., could I compost it? Stones, snowmen, driftwood, and daisies-they will be gone, and we will be gone, and life goes on. 
	Do I know who made this toy? This question leads us to search for the hidden folk artist in each of us. 
	Is this toy beautiful? Have human hands bestowed an awkward grace, a uniqueness lacking in toys cranked out effortlessly by machine? 
	 
	Will this toy capture a child's imagination?


Every year, I send my family a reminder that we do not want any plastic toys or clothes made from synthetic fibers.  I wish I could say that they always followed our wishes, but somehow, the message flies out the window when they see some &#34;adorable&#34; plastic thing they think my children can't live without.  My  husband has changed the motto to &#34;No More Toys&#34; this year, but the grandparents have already scoffed at the idea.   Perhaps I should try sending my family Alicia Daniel's list to help them make appropriate gift selections.  If we are going to tell our children to reduce, reuse, recycle, shouldn't our holiday gift giving and receiving  reflect this practice? 



[1] http://www.mothering.com
[2] http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/consumerism/junk_toys.html
[3] http://ecochildsplay.blogspot.com/2007/07/bratz-dolls-too-sexy-and-sweatshop.html
[4] http://www.empoweredparents.com/1prevention/prevention_09.htm
[5] http://www.bestlifeonline.com/cms/publish/travel-leisure/Our_oceans_are_turning_into_plastic_are_we.shtml
[6] http://jenniferlance.greenoptions.com/2007/08/15/green_family_values_recall_recall_recall
[7] http://ecochildsplay.blogspot.com/2007/01/san-francisco-bans-certain-plastic-toys.html]]></content:encoded>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://jenniferlance.greenoptions.com/2007/10/31/green-family-values-no-more-junk-toys/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>Another North Dakota &#8220;David&#8221; Challenges the DEA</title>
    <link>http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/10/30/another-north-dakota-david-challenges-the-dea/</link>
    <comments>http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/10/30/another-north-dakota-david-challenges-the-dea/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:15:37 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Max Lindberg</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[Renewable Power]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[activism]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[amicus brief]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[farmers]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[federal court]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[federal court suit]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[food]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[gorvernor arnold schwarzenegger]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[hemp]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[industrial hemp]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[lawsuit]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[marihuana]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[marijuana]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[ndsu]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[north dakota]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[north dakota state university]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[schwarzenegger]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/10/30/another-north-dakota-david-challenges-the-dea/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p>
<img src="/files/430/hemp.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="240" height="166" align="right" />I love David and Goliath stories, and the recent news from North Dakota is just that: two farmers and a publicly funded land grant university sticking it to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).  As you know from an earlier article on <a href="/2007/10/16/california_governor_nixes_industrial_hemp_while_north_dakota_moves_on">Green Options</a> , and my subsequent podcast <a href="/2007/10/18/greening_the_golden_years_podcast_hemp_the_north_dakota_story">Greening the Golden Years Podcast: Hemp, The North Dakota Story</a>,  two North Dakota farmers, State Rep. Dave Monson and Wayne Hauge filed a lawsuit to end the DEA's ban on state-regulated commercial hemp farming in the U.S.
</p>
<p>
Now comes North Dakota State University, with a current student body of around 12,000, filing an amicus brief in support of the two farmers.  And NDSU has its own bone to pick with the DEA: an almost unbelievable snub of the small school.
</p>
<p>
In 1999, according to a news release from <a href="http://www.votehemp.com/PR/10-29-07_ndsu_files_amicus.htm">Vote Hemp</a>, the university applied for permission to grow non-drug industrial hemp to create varieties best suited for the North Dakota climate and soil conditions.  The DEA, according to the release, has chosen to ignore completely the 8 year old request.  How's that for big brother arrogance?
</p>
<p>
The DEA still holds that industrial hemp, almost completely bereft of the hallucinogenic compound that produces a &#34;high,&#34; can be used as a drug.  I read somewhere that smoking industrial hemp would produce nothing more than a bad headache.</p>]]></description>
    <content:encoded><![CDATA[
I love David and Goliath stories, and the recent news from North Dakota is just that: two farmers and a publicly funded land grant university sticking it to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).  As you know from an earlier article on Green Options [1] , and my subsequent podcast Greening the Golden Years Podcast: Hemp, The North Dakota Story [2],  two North Dakota farmers, State Rep. Dave Monson and Wayne Hauge filed a lawsuit to end the DEA's ban on state-regulated commercial hemp farming in the U.S.


Now comes North Dakota State University, with a current student body of around 12,000, filing an amicus brief in support of the two farmers.  And NDSU has its own bone to pick with the DEA: an almost unbelievable snub of the small school.


In 1999, according to a news release from Vote Hemp [3], the university applied for permission to grow non-drug industrial hemp to create varieties best suited for the North Dakota climate and soil conditions.  The DEA, according to the release, has chosen to ignore completely the 8 year old request.  How's that for big brother arrogance?


The DEA still holds that industrial hemp, almost completely bereft of the hallucinogenic compound that produces a &#34;high,&#34; can be used as a drug.  I read somewhere that smoking industrial hemp would produce nothing more than a bad headache.


According to the news release,  


	Gold can hypothetically and has in some instances been extracted from seawater, but the minimal concentration makes it technically and economically inefficient and commercially non-viable to do so. There are trace opiates in poppy seeds consumed on bagels, that could also be hypothetically be concentrated; but just as with industrial hemp is not a practical source of drugs for the illicit market


So what's the big deal, DEA?  


The farmers' case will be heard in federal court on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, in Bismark, North Dakota.  A press conference will follow, and I'll have an article and hopefully an interview that same day.


In any case, let's hear it loud and clear for the &#34;Davids&#34; of this world who aren't afraid to stand up and cry &#34;foul.&#34;  It's time someone put the DEA's feet to the fire.  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California could have set up the same scenario by signing a bill that passed through the state legislature, asking for approval to grow industrial hemp in four California counties.  Arnold obviously didn't have the stomach for a possible showdown with the DEA, and vetoed the publicly supported legislation.  Strange, too, because Schwarzenegger has been a big proponent of environmentalism, but, on the other hand had the temerity to tell a columnist [4] that &#34;marijuana is not a drug, it's a leaf.&#34;



[1] http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/10/16/california_governor_nixes_industrial_hemp_while_north_dakota_moves_on
[2] http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/10/18/greening_the_golden_years_podcast_hemp_the_north_dakota_story
[3] http://www.votehemp.com/PR/10-29-07_ndsu_files_amicus.htm
[4] http://www.planetsave.com/blog/2007/10/29/arnold-tells-british-mag-marijuana-is-not-a-drug/]]></content:encoded>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://maxlindberg.greenoptions.com/2007/10/30/another-north-dakota-david-challenges-the-dea/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- 134 queries in 0.561 seconds. -->