Rick Ouellette
International Paper
office: (901) 419-4274 & cell: (901) 573-4002
Go to ipsustainability.com

In 1992 the Forest Heritage Center started a program, honoring those who have contributed to the forest industry of Oklahoma.  Heritage Foresters are pioneers of the Oklahoma Forest Industry.

Kurt Atkinson, Assistant Director Oklahoma Forestry Services, has been named the 2009 Heritage Forester. 

Kurt has been the Assistant Director and Chief of Resource Management Programs since 1982.   He was recently named "Oklahoma's Conservationist of the Year" as a result of his work with NRCS at both the state and national level.

Tom Smith of the Forest Heritage Center Board presents Kurt Atkinson the 2009 Heritage Forester Award.

It’s the most comprehensive report to date on the possible impacts of climate change for everyone across America, and begins an important process of redefining the sort of information we need in order to deal with climate change at national and regional scales. Effectively managing our response to a changing climate falls into two general categories:

1) Implementing measures to limit climate change and therefore avoid many of the impacts discussed in the report. These measures must reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and might include increasing our reliance on clean energy, and developing energy efficient technologies
2) Reducing our vulnerability and increasing our resilience to ongoing climate change in pro-active, community-based ways. Examples of this include such measures as developing more climate-sensitive building codes to keep people out of harm’s way, or planting more drought or heat tolerant crops, for example.

For more information go to the White House blog post.

The legislation would create a cap-and-trade system: Over the next decades, power plants, oil refineries and manufacturers would be required to obtain allowances for the pollution they emit. Those who need more or less could turn to a Wall-Street-like market in the allowances.

The 33 to 25 vote was a major victory for House Democrats, who had softened and jury-rigged the bill to reassure manufacturers and utilities -- and members of their own party from the South and Midwest -- that they would not suffer greatly.

"I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say that this is a turning point, in the history of the United States and [its] energy sources," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), one of the bill's chief sponsors. "This is a day we've waited a long time on."

The vote gives this bill more momentum than any previous legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, but it faces hurdles. In the House, Rep. Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.) has said he wants to take up the bill in his Agriculture Committee, seeking to change rules for those who raise corn for ethanol. The Senate has shot down previous cap-and-trade plans.

President Obama supports the bill, an aide said yesterday, though some provisions are weaker than what he advocated during the presidential campaign. In particular, Obama called for all pollution credits to be auctioned off by the government, but the House bill would give away about 85 percent of them.

After that shift and a weakening of the bill's demands for new renewable electricity, the environmental group Greenpeace withdrew its support. But many environmental activists have accepted the changes.

"None of the strength of the bill is affected by that," said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.

The bill, aiming to remake the way the United States uses energy, employs vast incentives and slow-growing punishments to shift from high-polluting fossil fuels to new sources such as wind, solar power and plant-based fuels. The bill calls for a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 and an 83 percent reduction by 2050.

Only a small segment of businesses, including utilities, factories and refineries that produce gasoline and other fuels, would have to buy pollution allowances. But because the United States depends heavily on fossil fuels, the new costs would probably be spread through the economy.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that the overall impact would be too small to significantly dampen economic growth. But the conservative Heritage Foundation has said it might cost a family $4,300 per year in a few decades.

"The actual paperwork isn't done at the retail level," said David Kreutzer, a climate policy specialist at the Heritage Foundation. "But it's going to jack the cost up, and they will have to pass the costs on to consumers."

This week's debate in the House Energy and Commerce Committee was, in essence, over before the first gavel. Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) had won over a majority by offering Democrats from heavy-polluting states promises to distribute the credits free and lower the bill's target for cutting emissions by 2020.

But the week still turned out to be lively and long, with debates lasting until nearly midnight on Tuesday and Wednesday. Republicans submitted amendments allowing the bill to be nullified if too many jobs are lost, if electricity prices go too high, or if China and India do not rein in their emissions. All failed.

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Obama administration projected on Monday in a detailed version of its fiscal 2010 budget proposal that a law to combat climate change would raise $624 billion over 10 years.

The White House said that most of the money - about $504 billion - would be used to make permanent a tax credit that provides working individuals as much as $400 and working families as much as $800. The tax credit was put into place earlier this year as part of an economic stimulus package, and starts to phase out when individual income reaches $75,000 or at $150,000 for married couples.

About $120 billion - or $15 billion a year - would be used to fund investments in clean energy research, development, adaptation and climate science, beginning in fiscal 2012. Any additional money raised beyond the $624 billion would be used to compensate vulnerable households communities, and businesses for increased energy costs, the administration said.

Separately, the Obama administration said, as it had earlier this year, that it wants to take away $31.5 billion in tax breaks from oil and gas companies. The largest item would involve repeal of a lucrative deduction for domestic manufacturers, part of the 2004 "American Jobs Creation Act," which would cost the industry $13.3 billion over 10 years. It also seeks to raise $5.3 billion over 10 years from a tax for offshore oil and gas production.

The Obama administration also wants to raise the fees charged for issuing some permits to oil and gas companies. Though a 2005 law prohibits the Bureau of Land Management from implementing new permitting charges, the U.S. has been charging such comparable fees under 2008 and 2009 spending measures. The Obama administration wants to end the ban permanently. It hopes to raise $46 million a year through the new fees.

The Obama administration also proposes inspection fees for oil and gas companies operating in U.S. coastal waters. The fees would be based on the number of oil and gas wells per facility, and are expected to generate $10 million in fiscal 2010. The government said that Minerals Management Service inspections are expensive, including the costs of as much as $20 million for helicopters, and that the fees will result in offshore developers funding about one-fourth of inspection costs.