The overdevelopment of the Savos plan at the Mount Manresa site with 250 homes will jam the entrance of Staten Island with traffic. Our infrastructure in this already overdeveloped area from sewers to schools can't handle it. Flooding, lack of school seats, and danger to the community by crowding another community in an overdeveloped area must be considered in your decision to act now, before it is too late. The Growth Management task force missed the opportunity to protect the public with correct zoning, and residents of Staten Island will pay for this incredible oversight unless drastic action is taken by the City.

I believe our community needs to be aware of the choice our city has decided on and I believe the community should have a voice in what happens to these animals! I think we can all agree euthanizing the wildlife should be at the bottom of the list for possible options.

As a CT citizen and ratepayer, I am angry that my money is being used to hijack CT global warming mitigation and renewable energy efforts and underwrite, at the same time, fracking to the west of us. I also worry about the waste water from the fracking fields that will be seeking a home here unless the fracking is stopped.

The Department of Defense (DOD) has identified climate change as an "urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources (like water)." To help prepare for the growing threat of climate change, the DOD adopted a "climate change adaptation and resilience" directive earlier this year. Top officials were assigned jobs of determining how climate change should shape everything from weapons acquisition to personnel training. But House Republicans just passed an amendment to the defense spending bill that prohibits the DOD from spending money on its climate programs. Andrew Holland, who works at the American Security Project, said, "It's actually crazy to me, and it should be crazy to anyone in the military, that Congress is telling them not to do this." (1) In addition to climate planning, the DOD has been leading clean energy research and deployment, in order to reduce the need to go to war for fossil fuels, to save lives lost while transporting fuel for battlefield operations, and to help prevent climate chaos. Given the high costs--in lives, dollars and climate instability--of fossil fuel dependence, the military’s climate and clean energy programs should enjoy strong bipartisan support, not ideological opposition rooted in climate denial. The U.S. Senate maintained funding for the DOD climate directive in its defense spending bill. Senators on the conference committee reconciling the Senate and House bills can remove the anti-climate action amendment from the final legislation.  Please sign the petition to tell senators to reject the short-sighted, "crazy" House legislation that would stop the DOD’s new climate change program. (1) http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/06/republicans-trying-to-stop-pentagon-climate-plan-000149#ixzz4D6Dc1WRo

Dear Mr. Schultz, As the largest coffee vendor in the world, Starbucks could be leading efforts to reduce waste in the food industry. You say you "are working to shrink [your] environmental footprint and meet the expectations of [your] customers by reducing the waste associated with [your] business, increasing recycling and promoting reusable cups," yet your company's routine practices suggest otherwise. Though you sell reusable cups and give a discount to customers who use them, I've seen no active promotion of this reward system in the many Starbucks I have visited. I've also discovered that bringing one's own cup is no guarantee that a disposable cup won't get wasted in the process. Your website claims that you "have learned that widespread behavior change is unlikely to be driven by one company alone" and that you "will continue to explore new ways to reduce [your] cup waste but ultimately it will be [the] customers who control whether or not [you] achieve continued growth in the number of beverages served in reusable cups." My own efforts to get you to address the waste inherent in your drip coffee system suggests that this claim is disingenuous. Customers like me, who order decaf in a large travel mug (even one purchased at Starbucks), have noticed that it is routine practice to use a disposable paper cup to catch the coffee before transferring it to a travel mug. Several efforts to head off this practice when I order have proven useless. I've also visited some franchises that sell travel mugs, but won't even sell you coffee in a reusable container. They say it's the law, yet another franchise 20 miles up the road makes no such claim. After three attempts over the last two years to get your company to address these relatively minor concerns, with absolutely no sign of progress, I have come to seriously doubt Starbucks' sincerity regarding waste reduction. Since I believe that Starbucks has the capacity make a real difference, I feel it's time to ask other Starbucks customers to let you know that this is not OK with them either. A company that earns $20 billion a year while adding 4 billion cups to the global waste stream could be doing a lot more to promote reuse, yet I see no evidence that you are interested in addressing even relatively small problems that would actually save you money. So, how can I expect more substantive measures, like offering real cups to those who aren't taking the coffee out in ALL franchises? You should be ashamed. I'm asking anyone who believes that waste reduction is everyone's responsibility to do the following until we see some sign that Starbucks is really listening: 1)Sign this petition to ask Starbucks to renew its commitment to promoting reuse both within its company and within its industry. 2) Share this message with friends and family. 3) Frequent locally owned coffee shops that serve coffee in real cups on premises and promote the use of reusable containers. If we don't lead the charge to stop letting convenience trump common sense, who will? Starbucks could be very influential in leading this effort, but first you have to commit to eliminating systemic waste and actively promote reuse. Can you hear me now? I hope so, because I really do like your coffee! Sincerely, Pat Blakeslee Advocate for Zero Waste

I live in Oregon. The entire West coast is on fault lines, prime for earthquakes. Obama just approved 1,500 new oil fracking wells, which can contribute to this huge devastation. People living on the West coast are more important than oil.

The Cayadutta Creek, one of the most polluted streams in New York during much of the 20th Century, is now supporting trophy-sized brown trout in the lower portion of the stream below the sewage treatment plant to the Mohawk River (where NYS has not been stocking). These fish are now being threatened by overfishing and need to be protected by a "Catch and Release Only" zone.

The Pinelands Reserve is under threat from two proposed gas pipelines that could devastate this pristine forest area and drinking water resource. Pipelines used to transport oil and gas pose health and safety risks to New Jersey communities, including leaks and explosions. Building out and laying the pipeline projects would also devastate the treasured Pinelands. It is time for our elected officials to take action to protect the future of the Pinelands. Senator Sweeney has the influence to stop these projects in their tracks.

The U.S. Forest Service has announced they will "cut and leave" AND "burn" 3,600 acres of mature forest in the Mark Twain National Forest, in the Roaring River area. This is a management practice that is being used all over the country. They plan to create a stark "glade," destroying the existing habitat. They will be burning every 3 to 5 years in perpetuity. This will displace or kill all existing animals and plants. Carbon sequestration must be included in the new plan. Our forests are the greatest terrestrial carbon sink on the planet. The trees are already doing the job that scientists are struggling to accomplish. To our Representatives, we ask that you seriously consider “The 2015 Climate Initiative” by Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture and adopt its suggestions into our US Forest plan. The time is NOW to reevaluate the way our National Forests are being managed. (Correction, the old plan isn't 16 years old, it is from 2005 and it is very much outdated.)

California's Central Valley produces a large portion of the fruits and vegetables sold across the U.S. But did you know that oil field wastewater is being used to irrigate crops in two water districts in the region? And even though it’s happening in California, it impacts all of us at the grocery store. Mandarin oranges, carrots and grapes are just some of the crops grown in areas that are selling farmers wastewater from oil drilling operations — and it's unclear to what extent this toxic water could be impacting the food we eat. There has been no comprehensive testing to ensure that our food and health is protected from the hundreds of chemicals used in oil operations, some of which have been shown to be carcinogenic and toxic. It's inexcusable that the oil industry is allowed to use American families' dinner plates as a disposal site for toxic oil field wastewater. Tell California Governor Brown to stop allowing oil field wastewater to be dumped on farm fields!

The Lake Washington watershed is being exposed to asbestos and other hazardous toxins. Citizens think that it is impractical to ensure that the fine breakup of materials on barges will occur with zero discharge, including fugitive dust and runoff regardless of the permit stating that there will be no discharge.

There are many risks associated with potential copper, nickel and other sulfide mining operations within that watershed, including possible contamination from acid mine drainage and tailings basin failures. The U.S. Forest Service announced it is "deeply concerned" by potential mining near the Boundary Waters, and may withhold consent to renew two mining leases within the same watershed as the wilderness area. The agency announced a 30-day public comment period "to better understand public views" on the proposed renewal of the two leases. The Boundary Waters are too important to put at risk of this dangerous mining pollution. We can protect this natural treasure by not allowing toxic sulfide mines near the Boundary Waters, but the mining companies are using their political influence and deep pockets to try to fast-track mine proposals. Together we can make the Boundary Waters watershed off-limits to toxic mining.