Democratic members of Congress from the Hudson Valley had high marks on the annual New York League of Conservation Voters 2011 National Environmental Scorecard release Tuesday.
Both Democratic senators—Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand—had top scores of 100, said Marcia Bystryn, president of the league.
"New Yorkers care a lot about our environment," she said. "It should not come as a surprise both of our senators had perfect scores in 2011."
In the House, Rep. Nita Lowey, D-Harrison, achieved a 97, while Rep. Eliot Engel, D-Bronx, scored a 94.
On the Republican side of the aisle in the House, Rep. Nan Hayworth, R-Mount Kisco, was given a grade of 43.
"While her score is nothing to write home about," Bystryn said, "her score in the fifth highest in the Republican House."
Alex Taurel, the league's legislative representative, said the league talks to Hayworth all the time about environmental issues.
"We are going to keep working with her," he said.
Taurel said first session of the 112th Congress was the most anti-environment in the nation's history.
"It's a sad testament to the radical nature of the first session," he said.
The 2011 Scorecard includes 11 Senate and a record 35 House votes on issues ranging from protecting public health to clean energy and land and wildlife conservation.
Taurel said that one of the good stories from 2011 is that a lot of the anti-environment legislation that made it out of the House was not taken up by the Democratic-controlled Senate or enough votes were not obtained to pass.
New York's average scores were 100 for the Senate and 72 for the House of Representatives, compared with national averages of 55 for the Senate and 45 for the House.
Only Connecticut, Delware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, Oregon and Vermont had better House averages than New York.
The full 2011 National Environmental Scorecard can be found here.
One way or another we will soon find out as the hydro-fracking controversy comes to New York. It seems we've already drawn up party lines on this one, but, I urge everyone to study up on Dimock, Pa before they say this practice is harmless to the environment. Hopefully Watchdog will support banning this practice here as a conservation issue.
Clearing old trees in a managed approach is one thing, raping forests for short term profit another. History has shown that the earth's climate is very susceptible to long term change due to inconspicuous events. Our 'small part' is having dire consequence, especially on the oceans. FYI Volcanic activity is slower as the earth cools and sun activity has remained constant so neither are playing a part in our current warming.
And if the United States has been a leader when it comes to a clean environment, it has been no thanks to conservatives and big business, who fight it every step of the way, and have shipped our jobs overseas for cheap labor and lax environmental regs. Now you want those countries to clean up their act? Well that's just not good for business, is it?
Again if you missed it THE CLIMATE HAS BEEN CHANGING FOR HUNDREDS AND MULLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE THE APPEARANCE OF MAN. !!! Sorry about shouting, but you seem to have a hearing problem.
Taxes are higher here because Americans demand and deserve a better place to live than third world countries. Those other countries are a hell of a bargain because they are desperate for work, business and money. We worked hard to build a great country, and it doesn't come cheap or easy.
I also never said that humans didn't have any part in global warming/cooling. I said only a very small part.
I am happy that you have recognized that humans can in fact change the climate. Regarding your comment about fudging the numbers, I thought all of those scientists were cleared of any wrong doing. I don't know what papers you're reading. Same thing with ACORN. All cleared. Probably not talked about in great detail on Hannity or O'Reilly. People were up in flames when a pimp walks in to an ACORN facility trying to scam the system. When we find out it was all a sham, it's crickets with you people.
The "your" side would rather defame all the above, misrepresent and distort facts, listen to ignorant lying political pundits and quote reports from Exxon Mobile, than face reality. The "your" side refuse to discuss the science instead they fiddle like Nero while the earth 'burns'.
Krakatoa in 1883, Alaska in 1912 and Iceland in 1946...those three volcanic reruptions put more stuff into the air than HUMANS have form be beginning of humanity until 2100...and wait,...it's only 2012.... I would say that greater environmental cleanliness has caused warming. How so? Look at when I went to HS...in the late 1970's right after lead was taken out of gasoline. The Hudson froze over three of the four ewinters, and our air was of the worst quality insofar os pollutants, etc. went. Stop the insanity...NOW!
I've heard you bring up your nostalgic observation of how the Hudson froze in the 70's. That's a cute story, but your assertion that creating a cleaner environment created negative environmental impacts is just flat out wrong. Your story really makes little sense and isn't supported by any scientific facts. Shenanigans. Insanity.
Look what's going on around you and figure it out. I guarantee you we are not holding secret meetings to destroy big corporations but I fear they're having meetings that are destroying our world.
Bamber was quick to caution that the new study doesn’t alter his view that the climate is changing, and rapidly. “This new study doesn't change our view of the risks and threats from climate change,” he said in an online chat at the Guardian. “What it does do is improve our knowledge of the recent behavior of one part of the climate system.” Indeed, Wahr’s study clearly notes that lower-altitude glaciers and ice caps are melting, to the tune of about 150 billion tons of ice annually, which the study predicts could lead to an overall rise in sea levels. He concluded that the higher altitude and therefore colder Himalayan peaks may be temporarily impervious to factors causing melting. "One possible explanation is that previous estimates were based on measurements taken primarily from some of the lower, more accessible glaciers in Asia and were extrapolated to infer the behavior of higher glaciers. But unlike the lower glaciers, many of the high glaciers would still be too cold to lose mass even in the presence of atmospheric warming," Wahr said.
Try again though. It's entertaining. BTW, so these are the same people who you didn't believe before. Now you do? Which is it? Can you admit that you were unaware about the scientists cleared of wrong doing, because you let that slip off the radar. http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0209/Study-Himalayan-glaciers-melting-more-slowly-than-thought-but-seas-are-still-rising http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/10/glacier-data-climate-change-debate?intcmp=239
Every morning when I get up and walk into my tile bathroom, I notice that my feet are cold. This therefore proves that there is no global warming because if there was I'm sure my bathroom tiles would be hot and not cold which is what they were forty years ago when I did the same thing. Stay in your world. We will deal with the reasonable people who believe in science.