This petition would require restaurants and bars to recycle glass, aluminum and plastic beverage containers. This is an industry that goes through hundreds of pounds of glass,aluminum and plastic, which end up in trash sites. This is incredibly irresponsible. The U.S. recycles 28% of its waste. The U.S. beverage recycling rate is only at 35%. The U.S. is the largest consumer of aluminum soft-drink and beer cans, but only recycles about 54% of aluminum cans. Glass, which saves about a ton of natural resources when a ton of glass is recycled, can be reused without any loss in purity or quality, and can reappear back on store shelves within thirty days. There are many benefits to recycling glass, such as reduction in carbon dioxide emission. However, under 30% of glass is recycled in the U.S. California has proved a leader in recycling glass, with 80% of its glass recycled. Many praise bottle bills, which give consumers financial incentives to recycle. Plastic products, which can be continuously reused for decades, yet usually only live to serve one purpose before thrown in the trash, pose the biggest problem to our environment in terms of beverage products. Not only does the reckless disposal of plastic products, usually bottles, pollute our oceans and coastlines, plastic bottles floating in the ocean can also serve as vessels for invasive species not native to certain environments. Furthermore, plastic that ends up in our landfills, can leak harmful chemicals into our soil, which can later contaminate drinking water sources. While there has been a 1.7% increase of recycled plastic bottles in 2011, the U.S. only recycles a little under 29% of plastic bottles, which is not nearly enough. Mandating restaurants and bars to recycle beverage products alone will not solve our nation's recycling problem,but it is a good start that will bring about productive changes and noticeable benefits. As a nation that prides itself on being a "leader", or "super power," its about time to start being the world's leader in energy conservation and innovation.

I'm a lifetime cyclist, now 60, with a neck injury that makes Boulder's big hills -or distances over 5 miles- quite painful. I plan to soon buy an electric bike, which "levels the playing field" for what I think is the actual majority of people, including me. Boulder is now re-doing its highly restrictive electric bike laws to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. I could spend my time seeking disability status but I want EVERYONE possible to use these 40-60 pound energy sippers when practical instead of the average 3,400 pound car. You get as much or little exercise as you want and don't arrive sweaty or exhausted. It's fun and can rehabilitate bodies weakened by age, injury or a sedentary lifestyle. If you use an ebike for half your usual driving mileage (14,500 mi/yr for the average American), a good $3000 model will pay for itself in saved gas in about 3 years. Indications are that they use 1-2% of the energy an average car does, far outdoing the 80-90% reduction in fossil fuel usage that climate scientists say we must accomplish, fast.

I live in a county where this use of frack water has been outlawed; my concern is for the rest of the state, as well as other regions where this proposed practice would disseminate highly toxic materials onto all roadways and their perimeters, to be spread thence to adjoining land and waterways by snowplows, rainfall and foot traffic.

The climate is changing rapidly and irrevocably. Fossil fuel companies ALREADY have the rights to more than enough carbon-based fuels to drive our planet past any possibility of recovery if they are burned. It is economically short-sighted and morally wrong for our state to invest in companies whose business model is incompatible with a sustainable planet.

As the Inupiat, of the Arctic Coast, have relyed upon the bounty for thousands of years. The ocean is our garden and our people continue to live in harmony. The polar bears, whales, fish, seals, sea birds, walrus and other creatures are apart of us and we need our foods to be healthy. Decisions to drill in the Arctic have met with serious flaws and failures. We are holding the Obama administration accountable. We will stand to defend the integrity of the Arctic Ocean from drilling. We urge you to create a comprehensive management and conservation plan before any further steps toward drilling are approved in this fragile ecosystem.

While Texas had 4 major cities with some of the highest growth rates in the country in 2012, severe draught and water shortages, now and worse to come, will threaten our well-being. The current Texas State Legislature, now in session, needs to address, if not prioritize, this impending crisis.

From 10 Reasons Why Gasification, Pyrolysis & Plasma Incineration are Not "Green Solutions" www.no-burn.org/downloads/BlowingSmokeReport.pdf The core impacts of all types of incinerators remain the same: they are toxic to public health, harmful to the economy, environment and climate, and undermine recycling and waste reduction programs. In the Tellus Report, commissioned by the Commonwealth and posted on its web site, there is all the necessary information on why the moratorium should not be lifted. Not only did Massachusetts commission this report, but the link takes you to the report posted on the Massachusetts web site. www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/priorities/tellusmmr.pdf From a lifecycle environmental emissions and energy perspective, source reduction, recycling and composting are the most advantageous management options for all (recyclable/compostable) materials in the waste stream. From a lifecycle environmental emissions and energy perspective, source reduction, recycling and composting are the most advantageous management options for all (recyclable/compostable) materials in the waste stream. Several factors lead us to conclude that gasification and pyrolysis facilities are unlikely to play a major role in MSW management in Massachusetts by 2020. Key issues informing this conclusion include: the lack of experience in the U.S. with large-scale alternative technology facilities successfully processing mixed MSW and generating energy; the long lead times to plan, site, construct, and permit such facilities; the significant capital costs required and the loss of solid waste management flexibility that is associated with the long-term contractual arrangements that such capital-intensive facilities require; and the relatively small benefit with respect to greenhouse gas emissions compared to diversion or landfilling. The prospects for anaerobic digestion facilities appear to be more favorable given the extensive experience with such facilities in the U.S. for the processing of sewage sludge and farm waste and the fact that no significant human health or Materials Management Options for MA Solid Waste Master Plan Review Final Report 2 environmental impacts have been cited in the literature. From a life-cycle net energy perspective, waste diversion through recycling provides the most benefit, saving an estimated 2,250 kWh per ton of solid waste. In considering potential sources of energy to meet the Commonwealth’s electricity needs, if 100% of MSW currently landfilled or exported (about 3.5 million tons) were processed by pyrolysis facilities, the maximum potential electricity production would be 2.3 million MWh per year or about 4% of the state’s 2005 electricity consumption. For both pollutant and energy impacts, the scenario analysis points to the significant benefits of broadening and strengthening the Commonwealth’s recycling and composting diversion programs and the modest additional benefits associated with shifting non-C&D MSW from landfills to new thermal processing facilities. Given the minimal benefits and large hazards of incinerators, the department that commissioned this report owes us all an explanation of why they would take action that is contrary to the technical, environmental, and economic information that they already have at their disposal. Until such explanation is forthcoming, the moratorium should remain or perhaps be turned into a permanent ban.

When it comes to protecting the health of Pennsylvanians, you would hope the government would always use the most stringent and comprehensive tests available and would report the full results of those tests to homeowners. But, you’d be wrong. For more than four years, the Department of Environmental Protection has been able to test for 45 contaminants in its water-sample analysis. Instead, it has only tested for fewer than half those contaminants for the last two years—leaving off numerous dangerous toxins including selenium, arsenic, mercury and chromium. A number of the contaminants left off the test cause nausea, vomiting, hair loss, cellular damage, tremors and more. These are all symptoms that have been reported by individuals living near gas drilling operations.

Charge a extraction fee for all raw oil that's pumped and make it so that fee doesn't get passed onto consumers. This could also include natural gas that is brought to surface. Maybe way to check fracking.

Governor Brown has declared war on the largest fresh water estuary remaining in California. North Delta Farmers, recreation and commercia fisherman, and legitamate environmentalist organizations demand that he and the greedy water purveyors to the stop this evil plan. We demand that the state support of this horror be stopped immediately. For more information go to www.restorethedelta.org

President Carter put Solar Panels on the Roof of the White House to show support for alternative energy. President Reagan took it down as a symbol of his non-support of clean energy.

Alberta's Tar sands coming into Maine for export????When NASA's Jim Hanson says "Game Over" for the planet, why are we still talking about this..."when the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power the world will know Peace(Jimi Hendrix)