2012 Election Poll-What are the Issues that really matter to you?

What are the 5 most Important Issues in the upcoming election to you and your family.

Created March 23, 2012

Compare the Results of the 2010 Election Poll to the Issues of today- Poll Results from 2010 Election Issues

2010 Election (created Oct 28, 2010)-What issues are most important to you and your family in the up-coming Election?

Answer	Votes	Percent
Health Insurance	20	21%
Jobs / Employment	17	18%
Government Spending	17	18%
Republican	11	12%
Tea Party	9	9%
Ear Marks	5	5%
Democrat	5	5%
Other (see below)	4	4%
Green Legislation / Energy / Oil	3	3%
Lobbyist Activities	3	3%
Independant	1	1%
Climate Change	0	0%

Other Answer	Votes
Social Security Benefit Legislation	1
pro-life	1
Life	1
eliminate Progressives	1

Help Support Renewable Energy in St Louis

Because, it’s healthier for the environment and people than pollution from power plants? Because a diverse energy portfolio protects ratepayers from steep rate hikes and fosters competition that keeps electric rates low? Or because installing solar panels and wind turbines creates good jobs that can’t be outsourced and will grow our economy?

Establishing a strong Renewable Energy Standard in Missouri will do all of the above, and more—but we need your help now collecting voter signatures to put this issue on the November ballot.

The deadline is in early May, so don’t wait! Please sign up to attend one of two trainings to collect signatures for this crucial ballot initiative.

Thursday, March 22, 6pm-7pm: Thornhill Branch St. Louis County Library, 12863 Willowyck Dr., Maryland Heights, MO 63146. (Off of Fee Fee Rd. between Olive and Bennington, across from Parkway North High School. We will be in either the main reading room or small conference room).

Tuesday, March 27, 7pm-8pm: Missouri Coalition for the Environment, 6267 Delmar Blvd, Suite 2E, University City, MO 63130 (in the Delmar Loop).

Be sure to RSVP so that we can have adequate materials on hand; call jill. Thanks!

Jill Miller
St. Louis Regional Organizer
Renew Missouri
(314) 359-4697
www.renewmo.org

Twitter <—- Find Me —> Facebook
Web Site: http://stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scottscontracting
Job Site Photo Album
Green Blog

New Policy Brief- Middle Income Financing for Energy Efficiency

Increasing Middle America’s Access to Capital for Energy Improvements

While middle income Americans have historically invested in improvements that maintain and increase the value of their homes, they have seen an important source of financing – the equity in their properties – evaporate at the same time that their access to other loan products has been restricted.  A number of energy efficiency programs are deploying credit enhancements, novel underwriting criteria, and innovative financing tools to reduce risks for both financiers and borrowers in an effort to increase the availability of energy efficiency financing for middle income households.  While many of these programs are income-targeted, the challenges, opportunities, and emerging models for providing access to capital may apply more broadly across income groups in the residential sector.

Read the Brief  mi-policybrief-3-6-2012

Missouri’s Climate: News, Building Codes, Energy Costs, Carbon Data, Energy Sources, and more

• Midwest has experienced rising average temperatures with the largest warming seen in the winter months.

• The growing season has been extended by one week because of earlier last spring frosts and precipitation has become more frequent including increased instances of heavy downpours.

• Since the 1980s, large heat waves have become more frequent than any time in the last century.

• These effects of climate changeare predicted to continue, threatening the region’s economy, landscape, character, and quality of life.
  

  Image via Wikipedia

Missouri‘s Climate: News, Building Codes, Energy Costs, Carbon Data, Energy Sources, and more

02/17/12Scotty-Scotts Contracting, St Louis Renewable Energy

information supplied by: http://bcap-ocean.org/state-country/missouri

Climate Concerns Regional Issues & State Action:  According to the United States Global Change Research Program, the Midwest has experienced rising average temperatures with the largest warming seen in the winter months. The growing season has been extended by one week because of earlier last spring frosts and precipitation has become more frequent including increased instances of heavy downpours. Since the 1980s, large heat waves have become more frequent than any time in the last century. These effects of climate change are predicted to continue, threatening the region’s economy, landscape, character, and quality of life. Missouri does not have an official climate action plan but the State Environmental Improvement and Energy Resources Authority makes efforts to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy, which are administered through the Division of Energy.

BCAP Estimated Energy Savings If Missouri began implementing the 2009 IECC and Standard 90.1-2007 statewide in 2011, businesses and homeowners would save an estimated $99 million annually by 2020 and $200 million annually by 2030 in energy costs (assuming 2006 prices). Additionally, implementing the latest model codes would help avoid about 31 trillion Btu of primary annual energy use by 2030 and annual emissions of more than 2.1 million metric tons of CO2 by 2030. A 2010 BCAP analysis indicates that the weightedaverage incremental construction cost of upgrading to the 2009 IECC in Missouri would be $875.28 per home. On average, the annual energy savings per home would be $459.00, meaning the simple payback for homeowners would occur, on average, in 1.91 years.These estimates are conservative and represent the upper bound on incremental cost.

Missouri Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards For State Buildings Public Buildings Intro/Brief:  Since July 1, 2009, all new state-funded buildings must comply with Missouri Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard for Public Buildings, which is based on the 2006 IECC.  During the summer of 2008, the state of Missouri passed a wide-ranging package of energy efficiency initiatives, including homeowner tax incentives and minimum energy standards for state buildings. Passed in the state legislature on May 29 and signed by then-Governor Matt Blunt on July 10, the bill (SB 1181) required the Department of Natural Resources to establish minimum energy efficiency standards for state buildings, based on the 2006 IECC. The Commissioner of the Office of Administration may exempt any state building from meeting the minimum energy efficiency standard requirement for safety reasons or when the cost of compliance is expected to exceed the energy cost savings. Missouri has no mandatory or voluntary statewide energy code for private residential and commercial construction.  Public Buildings Code: Based on the 2006 IECC. TEXT: SB 1181 (2008) Citation: SECTIONS 8.295 – 8.837 – STATE BUILDINGS Application: Applies to all new and renovated state-owned construction. Approximate Stringency: As stringent as the 2006 IECC. Effective Date: July 1, 2009 Approved Compliance Tools: REScheck | COMcheck Background:  In response to legislation signed in 1993, for Energy Efficiency in State Facilities, a rule was finalized and published on January 26, 1996, with an effective date 30 days later that established “state building minimum efficiency standards.” The rule covered new state buildings (or portions), additions, substantial renovations, or existing buildings considered for lease (when over 10,000 sq. ft.) or acquisition by the state. ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1989 was adopted by reference for buildings other than single-family and multi-family residential buildings not over three stories high. For single-family and multi-family residential buildings, the latest editions of the Council of American Building Officials Model Energy Code (MEC) or ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.2-1993 was applicable. New editions/revisions to these adopted standards would automatically be adopted by reference and become effective three months after the date of their publication. (10 CSR 140-7, Department of Natural Resources.) No statewide requirements existed for other buildings; local cities and jurisdictions adopt their own requirements. Information last updated February 7, 2012 **** Based on:  2006 IECC Mandatory Date Passed:   Thursday, July 10, 2008 Date Effective:   Wednesday, July 1, 2009	History Missouri has no mandatory or voluntary statewide energy code for private residential and commercial construction. After the passage of SB 1181 in July 2008, all state-owned buildings must comply with Missouri Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard for Public Buildings, which is based on the 2006 IECC, beginning on July 1, 2009. The previous state-owned building code was based on ASHRAE 90.1-1989. Due to its history of strong local government, Missouri does not have a mandatory statewide energy code. However, however all local jurisdictions except class III counties have the right to adopt an energy code. As expected, this system creates a sometimes confusing patchwork of different codes throughout the state. Seethis page or see below for more details on local adoption.  Regardless of the system in place, the bottom line is that many jurisdictions in Missouri still don’t have an energy code—meaning that many residents do not receive the benefits of energy-efficient construction. Missouri has considered adopting a state code previously. For example, SB 745, drafted by BCAP in 2010, would have adopted the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 statewide. It also would have directed DNR to establish an automatic review cycle, either every three years or within nine months of the publication of a new model code version. In addition, HB 938 in 2011 would have established most of the 2006 International Code series as minimum statewide construction standards (the 2006 IECC was not specifically cited, but would have been included via its position as an alternative compliance path to Chapter 11 of the 2006 International Residential Code). Both bills, however, failed to move past the committee stage.  Local Adoption: For more, view the BCAP Missouri Gap Analysis Report, starting with pages 19-22. All local jurisdictions except class III counties have the right to adopt an energy code. As expected, this system creates a sometimes confusing patchwork of different codes throughout the state. It is typical for Missouri communities to adopt codes on a 6-year cycle rather than the 3-year code development cycle for ICC.  It is also typical for communities to follow the code adoption of surrounding communities. These adoption practices have developed two trends in Missouri; eastern Missouri communities are generally on the 2003 I-Codes and are moving/have moved to the 2009 I-Codes and western Missouri communities are generally on the 2006 I-Codes and are moving to the 2012 I-Codes.   Code Change Process:  Legislative: In Missouri, only the General Assembly is authorized to enact legislation to establish statewide building construction regulations and/or authorize a state agency to do so. However, there currently is no state regulatory agency authorized to promulgate, adopt, or update construction codes on a statewide basis.   Code Change Cycle:  No set schedule.  The most recent update to Missouri’s energy code for state-owned buildings became effective on July 1, 2009. Next Code Update:  There is no pending state energy code update.
Basic Facts Climate Zone:  4A, 5A  (zones based on DOE’s most recent zoning: zone numbers based on a spectrum, zone 1 represents very hot weather and zone 8 represents subarctic weather.  Letters indicate climate type, A-Humid, B-Dry, C-Marine) Population:  5,987,580 (2009, U.S. Census Bureau) Construction Activity:  New Housing Units Authorized by Permit: Total units: 13,273 Number of Housing Units by Structure Type: 1 unit: 7,777 2 units: 654 3 and 4 units: 854 5 or more units: 3,988 (2008, Real Estate Center) Projected Construction Rate:  7,782 dwelling units (-48% less than the previous year), maintaining an average value of $187,000  per dwelling unit. (2008, Real Estate Center) CO2 Emissions:  140.04 MMT CO2 (2007)	Energy Data Primary Energy Source:  Coal: 41% (2007, EIA) Energy Consumption:  Total Annual Energy Consumption of 1,964.1trillion Btu (2007, EIA) Energy Expenditures:  23,341.8 Million Nominal Dollars (2007, EIA) Energy Snapshot:  58% of the state’s natural gas supply is used for heating the home.Natural gas is the largest consumed source of energy for the state’s residential sector Residential use of natural gas in Missouri costs up to $12.97/thousand cu ft. Source: EIA
Materials supplied by: http://bcap-ocean.org/state-country/missouri	Materials supplied by: http://bcap-ocean.org/state-country/missouri

It all starts with using your energy efficiently. Scotty
Twitter <—- Find Me —> Facebook
Web Site: http://stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scottscontracting
Job Site Photo Album
Green Blo
g

Republicans Ax the Budget $61 Million

The Proposed cuts sound good in theory while actually doing more harm than good. (Using Simple Math anyone can see)

Did the proposed cuts enacted by the House in the wee hours make any one else sick?  If your are not sick yet your Health may soon suffer.

The newly elected Tea Party Republican Representatives lead the charge in Hand-Cuffing the EPA and their Pollution Control Measures.  The actions sound good in theory, but actually will create more harm than actual help.

Coal and Oil Industry backing the House Republicans cut the only Regulating Agency the Fossil Fuel Industries are forced to conform to The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).

• The Republicans Claim: “The People have Spoken” “we are acting in their best interest.”

Who are they kidding?  Here are Dirty Coal Figures that contradict the proposed cuts and show the proposed cuts only benefit the Fossil Fuel Industry and Contribute the Harmful GHG Emissions that are causing Climate Change and Global Warming.

• coal’s costs in environmental and public health damage would triple the cost of coal-generated electricity …best estimates of costs from coal’s annual air pollution at $188 billion and costs from its contributions to global warming at $62 billion ($250 Billion Dollars Combined) (quote)

Using Simple Math anyone can see:

• $61 Billion Cut from Budget – $250 billion Coal Pollution Costs = nets a negative$189 Billion in Pollution Costs from Coal.

The Proposed cuts sound good in theory while actually doing more harm than good. With Leadership like this it is no wonder why the US Budget is out of control.  When enacted programs net a negative numbers.  Who in their correct mind frame would continue to enact programs that do more harm than good?  It’s not hard to figure out that steps should be made to correct the Actions to create a

positive cash flow.

There are better ways to Balance an “Out of Control” Federal Spending Budget.

I suggest that future budget cuts should be made starting with the Politicians Salaries.

It seem that they want the Constituents to live on less.

I think turn-a-round is fair play – Ax and Cut the Elected Leaders Salaries.  The majority of them are responsible for the mess we are in now anyway. Scotty 2/20/11

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician

Share

Sen McCaskill Response about Nuclear Energy Power Plants

the following post is a response I received from an email  (Provided in Full)  I sent to Senator McCaskill about: 

Re: Senate Bill 50- Missouri Nuclear Agenda Just Say NO

From: senator@mccaskill.senate.gov

To: scottscontracting@gmail.com

Dear Mr. Scott,

Thank you for contacting me regarding nuclear energy. I appreciate hearing from you, and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As the United States seeks to become more energy independent and reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) it will be important to diversify our investments in all available energy sources.  Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and biomass will play a valuable role in achieving these objectives.  However, our country’s energy needs are considerable, and they continue to grow.  Even accounting for rapid expansion in recent years, renewable sources provide only a small percentage of our country’s total energy production.  We simply can’t address our energy needs through increased production of renewable energy alone.

To meet our energy demand, we must invest in a diversity of energy sources and new technologies.  Responsible development of new nuclear facilities, carbon capture and sequestration technology to reduce GHG emissions currently associated with coal energy, and expanded use of natural gas will all be necessary.

Along with significant investments in renewable energy, in February 2010, the Department of Energy announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to support the construction of two new nuclear reactors at a plant in Georgia.  This will be the first new nuclear power plant constructed in the United States in three decades.  To provide additional loan guarantees for other planned nuclear facilities, President Obama requested an increase in federal loan guarantee authority, from the current limit of $18.5 billion to $54 billion, in his fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget proposal.  It is important to note that this authority regards authorization for loan guarantees, not funding for direct subsidies or payments.  In addition to repaying the loans themselves, borrowers are required to pay fees to cover both administrative costs and risk of defaulting on the loan.

I support providing additional loan guarantee authority for the construction of new nuclear facilities.  However, I have concerns that the fees charged to borrowers may be insufficient to cover the costs of the guarantee.   In the past, the Congressional Budget Office has calculated that the Department of Energy often underestimates the costs of loan guarantees by at least one percent.  As we consider increasing nuclear loan guarantee authority, I want to be sure that the federal government is collecting fees sufficient to cover costs and protect taxpayers.

Additionally, as our country moves to expand nuclear energy production and open new facilities, it is important that we address the issue of long-term nuclear waste disposal.  Although funding for security measures has been increased in recent years, there is some concern that the number of storage sites presents an unnecessary security risk, and that a central repository would be a better solution to the issue of nuclear waste storage.

For more than 20 years, the Department of Energy has focused on developing a central repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.  This effort has been controversial, and opponents have argued that the potential for earthquakes, water infiltration, and other safety concerns make the site unsuitable.  The President’s FY 2011 budget proposes eliminating funding for work at Yucca Mountain, and White House officials have stated that they will officially withdraw a pending license application for the facility.   In January 2010, the Obama Administration announced the formation of a Blue Ribbon Commission charged with conducting a comprehensive review of nuclear waste management policy.  It remains to be seen whether Yucca Mountain will provide the best option for long term storage for our country’s nuclear waste, or if another solution needs to be found.

There are many legislative proposals concerning nuclear power currently being discussed and debated in the Senate, addressing incentives for new commercial reactors, research and development priorities, plant safety and security, and radioactive waste management policy.  During this session of Congress, the Senate may consider broad-based energy and climate change legislation.  Should the Senate consider such legislation, ideas from many of the legislative proposals that have been introduced to address nuclear energy issues would likely be incorporated.  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to find solutions to our country’s energy challenges.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill
United States Senator

P.S. If you would like more information about resources that can help Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf, please sign up for my email newsletter at www.mccaskill.senate.gov.

_______________________

Tell My Politician

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician Click Here

______________________

Re: Senate Bill 50- Missouri Nuclear Agenda Just Say NO

Jan 28, 2011

Solar is the Best Form of Renewable Energy- I don’t consider Nuclear Energy a form of Renewable Energy since the Waste will be placed in the Ground- IE: It could pollute the Water our Bodies Must Have-We Consume Everyday …

http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/

clipped from Google – 1/2011

Graphs Show- Nuclear Energy is not needed for Clean Energy Production

Jan 26, 2011

Renewable Energy Head-to-Head with Nuclear for Clean Energy Production.Last July we wrote about the North Carolina study that showed solarpower to be cheaper than power promised by planned nuclearconstruction in that state. …

http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/

clipped from Google – 1/2011

What Will It Take to Achieve a US Renewable Portfolio Standard?

Oct 04, 2010

Here’s another tidbit from the conference: Adding nuclear power into the mix of renewables might provide the political muscle to pass a federal RPS. After all, it IS carbon-free. Proponents claim, “Nuclear energy presents a safe, clean, …

http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/

Republicans Take Heed-Science the GOP can’t wish away

Suggestions for the Republicans in Office:

1. Get with the Program and push yourself away Monetary Feed Trough; supported by the Big Oil and Big Coal Campaign Donations, it is clouding your Judgment on Global Warming / Climate Change.

• The Fog in your Head is being caused by the CO2 emissions from Fossil Fuels

• The Donations have Clearly Altered Your Perceptions that: Fossil Fuels are not Destroying our Planet.
• If you think God will save us like Republican John Shimkus-Joke of the Day- Rep J Shimkus believes god will save us from Global Warming– I’d like to introduce you too Reality- “The World is Warming at an Alarming Rate” see the Following Web Links

• global warming (3)
• Global Warming Basics for Research (1)
• Global Warming Research (1)

See for Your Self and determine which Politician in your States Elected Officials- whose side of the Bread gets Buttered by the Big Oil and Big Coal Companies at: http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=congress (Missouri’s Roy Blunt made the Top 5. (That’s sure something to be proud of-NOT!))

If you think the USA does not want Clean Energy for Homes and Business- Take note of the Nov 2, 2010 Election and the Clean Green Energy-http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_%282008%29

It obvious that the Republican Party is not interested in Creating Jobs-yet so many Americans are out of Work-WTF? Is not a portion of your Pay Check created by the Taxes levied against our Pay Checks? Maybe Americans should claim Exempt on their W4′s?

Food For Thought: What if the Political Leaders Pay Checks were determined by the Performance of their Actions or Lack of Actions in the Congress and Senate. I bet many would be singing a different tune.

Mark my Words: Lack of Bi-Partisanship will be a factor in the Next Election

Republicans supposedly support Business Growth- How much will a Business Grow if the Un-Employed can’t buy any products?

I encourage everyone to contact your Leaders in the House and Senate, use the following web link to find your Elected Officials Contact Information and Let them know your Thoughts. They are supposed to Listen to their Constituents.
http://tellmypolitician.com

Science the GOP can’t wish away

By Sherwood Boehlert
Friday, November 19, 2010

Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on Washington, I couldn’t help thinking about an issue I hope our party will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party’s line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.

National Journal reported last month that 19 of the 20 serious GOP Senate challengers declared that the science of climate change is either inconclusive or flat-out wrong. Many newly elected Republican House members take that position. It is a stance that defies the findings of our country’s National Academy of Sciences, national scientific academies from around the world and 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists.

Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.

I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.

In a trio of reports released in May, the prestigious and nonpartisan National Academy concluded that “a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.” Our nation’s most authoritative and respected scientific body couldn’t make it any clearer or more conclusive.

When I was chairman of the House Committee on Science, top scientists from around the world came before our panel. They were experts that Republicans and Democrats alike looked to for scientific insight and understanding on a host of issues. They spoke in probabilities, ranges and concepts – always careful to characterize what was certain, what was suspected and what was speculative. Today, climate scientists – careful as ever in portraying what they know vs. what they suspect – report that the body of scientific evidence supporting the consensus on climate change and its cause is as comprehensive and exhaustive as anything produced by the scientific community.

While many in politics – and not just of my party – refuse to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change, leaders of some of our nation’s most prominent businesses have taken a different approach. They formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. This was no collection of mom-and-pop shops operated by “tree huggers” sympathetic to any environmental cause but, rather, a step by hard-nosed, profit-driven capitalists. General Electric, Alcoa, Duke Energy, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler signed on. USCAP, persuaded by scientific facts, called on the president and Congress to act, saying “in our view, the climate change challenge will create more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy.”

There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem’s existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution. The record flooding, droughts and extreme weather in this country and others are consistent with patterns that scientists predicted for years. They are an ominous harbinger.

The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We shouldn’t stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged through the mud in order to win a political argument. And no member of any party should look the other way when the basic operating parameters of scientific inquiry – the need to question, express doubt, replicate research and encourage curiosity – are exploited for the sake of political expediency. My fellow Republicans should understand that wholesale, ideologically based or special-interest-driven rejection of science is bad policy. And that in the long run, it’s also bad politics.

What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? He embraced scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was proud of his role in helping to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. That was smart policy and smart politics. Most important, unlike many who profess to be his followers, Reagan didn’t deny the existence of global environmental problems but instead found ways to address them.

The National Academy reports concluded that “scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming.” Party affiliation does not change that fact.

The writer, a Republican, represented New York’s 24th District in Congress from 1983 to 2007. He is a special adviser to the Project on Climate Science.

Joke of the Day- Rep J Shimkus believes god will save us from Global Warming–

When I read something like this a few things jump out at me and I really wonder what and who my Neighbors to the East voted for? With Leaders such as this Governing our Nation its painfully obvious why we are in the Mess we are in. The Old Adage of the Blind leading the Blind. I expect nothing less from the Republican Party who accepts the Largest Contributions from the Fossil Fuel Industry.

via Joke of the Day- Rep J Shimkus believes god will save us from Global Warming–.

Ecosystems: Understanding Our Place

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Scott’s Contracting <scottscontracting> wrote:

When I read this article the Education from growing up on a Cattle Ranch in North Missouri and taking care of the Land was re-enforced–> Specifically how taking care of the Soil (Earth) in the Fields directly affected the Yield from the Crops and Forage we raised for Livestock Production.<–

• Forage / Plants utilize the upper crust of the Earth (top 12 inches) of the Planet.
•  This area needs to have optimum nutrients for sustained plant growth.
• Without optimum nutrients in the soil, vegetation fails to produce the Forage which is needed for the Livestock to survive.

1. When a Forage Crop is grown the Plants utilizes the Soils Nutrients to grow.
2. The Forage Produced transforms these nutrients from the Soil into, Forage / Plant matter, which is then harvested, stored or fed to the Livestock.

The Nutrients in the Soil that were transferred inside the Plant / Forage, into beneficial attributes that supports the Livestock. (The Livestock perform best when the Plants / Forage have optimum nutrients.) Without the Nutrients in the Earth plants fail to grow and thus livestock fails to produce the needed meat we eat to survive.

This is just a small example on how the smallest minute nutrients located in our Earth’s Crust is transformed into actual living products that we use every day in our Lives.

“…everyone in the world depends completely on Earth’s ecosystems and the services they provide, such as food, water, disease management, climate regulation, spiritual fulfillment, and aesthetic enjoyment…”

Ecosystems: Understanding Our Place in the World
Snippets from: http://www.remodeling.hw.net/blogs/postdetails.aspx?BlogId=manschelblog&PostId=98448

by: Michael Anschel

Ecosystem services are arranged in four service or use categories: regulating (erosion control, gas exchange), providing (genetic diversity, pollination), provisioning (agriculture, mining), and informing (recreational, social). Much of human activity consists of taking a resource or service and, through human activity, creating a useful product for human use. When we act upon an ecosystem resource, whether it is mining, hunting, farming, weaving, or building, we add value and create a marketable product. We do this with little to no accounting as to the costs of our action to the ecosystem because historically we have held the idea that most resources are more or less infinite. More importantly, when one resource runs out, through human activity (technological advances) we typically replace the deleted resource with another one. Human activities that alter the ecosystem are thought of as an externality; an unaccountable price of living. Hidden within that statement is the assumption that our human actions can never overwhelm the environment that surrounds and supports human activities and human life.

According to a 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, put out by the World Resources Institute, everyone in the world depends completely on Earth’s ecosystems and the services they provide, such as food, water, disease management, climate regulation, spiritual fulfillment, and aesthetic enjoyment. Over the past 50 years, humans have changed these ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and fuel. This transformation of the planet has contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development. But not all regions and groups of people have benefited from this process—in fact, many have been harmed. Moreover, the full costs associated with these gains are only now becoming apparent.”

Read the Full Article here: http://www.remodeling.hw.net/blogs/postdetails.aspx?BlogId=manschelblog&PostId=98448

Wanted American Made Renewable Energy Producing Systems Product Information

I am starting a Promotion that will Highlight:

Building a Green America

• American Made Renewable Energy Producing Systems for American Homes and Business

If your organization is interested in Sharing Green and Eco Friendly Product information for People to gain greater understanding of Green and Eco Friendly Alternatives that will help reduce Climate Change, encourage American Job Growth, and Promote American Products Send Your Information for Publication by using the contact form below

• Products and Company Links will redirect back to your organizations contact information
• Scotts Contracting is offering this as a free service but will accept donations

Together we can Build a Green America.

Build Green, Scotty-Scott’s Contracting

Name(required)

Email(required)

Website

Comment(required)