
<?phpxml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>
<channel>
<title>Haaze.com / ingwanbugqwerty / All</title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com</link>
<description>Test Web 2.0 Content Management System</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 07:11:55 +0000</pubDate>
<language>en</language>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Supreme court rejects global warming lawsuit]]></title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=supreme-court-rejects-global-warming-lawsuit</link>
<comments>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=supreme-court-rejects-global-warming-lawsuit</comments>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 07:11:55 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>ingwanbugqwerty</dc:creator>
<category>Eco</category>
<guid>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=supreme-court-rejects-global-warming-lawsuit</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court today rejected a global warming lawsuit against five big power companies, its most important environmental ruling since 2007 and a victory for the utilities and the Obama administration.The justices unanimously overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that the lawsuit now involving six states can proceed in an effort to force the coal-burning plants to cut emissions of gases that contribute to climate change.In a defeat for environmentalists, the Supreme Court agreed with the companies that regulating greenhouse gases should be left to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the clean air laws.The ruling stemmed from a 2004 lawsuit claiming the five electric utilities have created a public nuisance by contributing to climate change. The lawsuit wanted a federal judge to order them to cut their carbon dioxide emissions. Lawyers for the power companies, including an Obama administration attorney representing the government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), said the scope of the lawsuit was unprecedented, involving national and international issues outside the power of federal judges.The utilities--American Electric Power Co Inc, Southern, Xcel Energy Inc and Duke Energy Corp, along with TVA--account for about 10 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The states of California, Connecticut, Iowa, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont said their citizens have been harmed by global warming and wanted their lawsuit to proceed to trial. &quot;The Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency action the Act authorizes, we hold, displace the claims the plaintiffs seek to pursue,&quot; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said for the court. The ruling involved the most important climate change case to reach the Supreme Court since its landmark 2007 ruling that authorized the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions. Although the EPA has found that greenhouse pollution poses a health hazard, it has yet to impose regulations on the power plants in the face of opposition from Republicans in Congress.EPA setting rules limiting emissions Ginsburg said the EPA is currently engaged in making rules to decide whether it should set limits on emissions from domestic power plants.&quot;The critical point is that Congress has vested decision-making authority in the EPA,&quot; she said in summarizing the ruling from the bench.If the plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the EPA's decision, they then can seek court review under procedures under the Clean Air Act, Ginsburg said. Coal-fired power plants emit about twice as much carbon dioxide--which warms the Earth by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere--as natural gas-fired plants. Nuclear power plants emit virtually no greenhouse gases.Peter Keisler, who argued for the power companies, said he was pleased the decision held that states and private parties should look to Congress, not the courts, to set policies on climate change and greenhouse gas regulation.American Electric Power spokesman Pat Hemlepp said power companies that emit greenhouse gases &quot;can continue to operate in accordance with environmental regulations without worrying about the threat of incurring substantial costs defending against climate change litigation.&quot;David Doniger, policy director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council environmental group, said, &quot;Today's ruling reaffirms the Environmental Protection Agency's duty under the nation's 40-year-old Clean Air Act to safeguard public health and welfare from dangerous carbon pollution. Now the EPA must act without delay.&quot;The Supreme Court case is American Electric Power v. Connecticut, No. 10-174.Story Copyright (c) 2011 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.<br/><br/>0 Vote(s) ]]></description>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[Burglar alarm marks territory with pepper spray]]></title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=burglar-alarm-marks-territory-with-pepper-spray</link>
<comments>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=burglar-alarm-marks-territory-with-pepper-spray</comments>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:10:45 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>ingwanbugqwerty</dc:creator>
<category>Technology</category>
<guid>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=burglar-alarm-marks-territory-with-pepper-spray</guid>
<description><![CDATA[(Credit:Heracles Research Corporation)Burglar alarms usually work by scaring off criminals with loud noises and the threat of police action. The Burglar Blaster from Heracles Research Corporation takes the law into its own hands.  It comes loaded with 4 ounces of painful, burning pepper spray. That's enough to dissuade a small elephant from stealing your flat-panel TV and cubic zirconia jewelry collection.  The concept behind the Burglar Blaster is really pretty simple. You screw this little terror to the wall where you expect criminals to come busting in. An intruder triggers the passive infrared motion sensor and the Blaster commences spraying mace at the offender. It runs on batteries, so all you really need for installation is a screwdriver and some determination. I know what's on your mind. What if you forget you have a Burglar Blaster and you come stumbling home late Saturday night with a hot date Hopefully, you had the foresight to set the entry time delay at up to 40 seconds. The device emits an obnoxious high-pitched tone to remind you to shut it off using the key or the hidden manual switch. The Burglar Blaster probably isn't the best solution for people who keep a Great Dane in the house or have sugar gliders on the loose. The potential to accidentally trip the mechanism is too high. It's also not ideal for cheapskates, as this pain dispenser costs a budget-thumping $600. Just be sure to warn your mother-in-law before she shows up for the weekend with a spare house key. <br/><br/>0 Vote(s) ]]></description>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
