award to black coalition on aids to perform brown field's out reach services some background united states epa awarded the department a grant to perform a community-wide assessment, and we will use this federal funding, to perform an inventory of the sites on the eastern side of the bay view community. and this is to support the green way, awarded of the open space corridor, e tending the bay trail south ward from att park to candle stick park and we are going to conduct the side investigations and we have a technical contractor. and urs corporation and we issued an rfp to get the services of a non-profit group to help with out reach. earlier this year, in may, i stood before you seeking your approval for an out reach grant award, that was continued. and we basically decided that the best approach to take was to reissue the rpf that was done in july and a new panel of evaluate ors was convened and we have five applicants that were scored by three, and the strongest proposals that received the score of 70 points or higher, and then, we will move forward to

united states can get something done. it would be better if congress were to act, but the reality of it is, it's going to happen in congress, and so it's going to happen through epaited states. >> and through the states. >> while these are positive steps in the right direction, let's be very clear. these are baby steps compared to the scale of the problem. >> here's the thing. i want to invert that around. what ends up happening is, what is so incidious about this new kind of rhetoric about futility we have seen in the american domestic political context, it's precisely your argument, right? they say, well, what are we really going to do, we're nibbling at the margins and china and india have all these coal plants. so what ends up happening, they have gone from denying the problem to saying the problem is so big we can't fix it. what i hear is why should we bother. >> the u.s. dragging its feet is compromising not only the entire planet, but is compromising u.s. economic --. interests. >> future. >> but also, what it's doing is, when i sit down with the head of the chinese climate negotiation team and talk, they are ready with india. they are ready to say, we wil

epa. that technology is already on line in the united states melissa: you both did a great job.we did learn a lot. the looks like it to be lights out with the eyes of the shutdown of going higher the house passed a temporary spending bill also defunding obamacare it is not expected to pass in the senate but that did not stop the speaker to rally support after the vote. >> the message is simple the american people don't want the government shut down and they don't want obamacare. [cheers and applause] melissa: while they quibbled obama came back swinging speaking to a crowd in the gritty misery. >> they are actually willing to plunge america into default if we cannot defund the affordable care everywhere to threaten default to make sure the americans continue not to have health care. >> a compromise cannot be reached a government will shut down and without an increase of the debt ceiling u.s. could start defaulting as early as mid october and judging by a today's events it doesn't look like it is going super well over there. up next my favorite day of the week, franchise friday w

united states. >> reporter: president obama has given the epa until next summer to propose yet a different rule controllingg power plants. that is the next step. jenna. jenna: we'll watch that, doug. thank you. gregg: right now the mainstream media is coming under some examination in the wake of the deadly shooting rampage at washington's navy yard on monday. a swarm of reporters and cameras seem to vanish pretty quickly, they moved on in a day or two time, a lot faster than other similar tragedies. why is that? kirsten powers joins us, "daily beast" columnist. lauren ashburn, editor-in-chief of the daily download. both are fox news contributors. good to see you both. what got us thinking was this article or column by paul farhy in "the washington post", opposed the question not only why the media moved on but why the american public seemed to move on and we could see that with ratings. kirsten, why do you think that is? >> i don't really know. it is something i have thought about a couple days ago, realizing it wasn't getting quite the coverage it has in the past. it is possible, you know, paul farhy went

now over the last 20 years gas production in the united states has increased about 40%, and over that same period of time, according to the epafugitive methane has declined 10%. that's the epa's numbers. another major study came out that woe sponsored by -- that was co-sponsored by the environmental dweefns fund the natural gas industry and the university of texas that came to similar results. so going -- >> but even though u.s. emissions are down because of natural gas there are issues with fracking. nuclear power of course being touted, we hope to have more nuclear power online in the united states with plants in the next decade or so but there are dangers in nuclear power.why not focus on wind and hydroelectric and solar? >> we should focus on all of them. this is the key thing to understand, though. is the environmental movement which has been advocating a global treaty often climate change and domestic regulations has opposed natural gas and nuclear and insisted that it all has to be from efficiency similasolarand wind. against the largest source of natural power, which is hydr hydroelectric. if you want to put all your

and one medical doctor says that epa kills people wrote -- kills people and it is senator john barrasso from wyoming. >> i came out with a report from the united statesenate that red tape is making americans sec when people are out of work fo a long period of time with 8 percent unemployment, more incidence of illness, and premature death because of the rules and regulations that are costly to our economy with little benefit to the environment. john: i came to the same conclusion but most people say what r-utah king about? it makes america cleaner. or reaction to unemployment making people sick? >> look at 40 years ago. the air and of water is cleaner. but now to get a small improvement is very expensive with energy and dollars and who fought. health. and a stroke, heart disease, depression, depress ion and cancer and a higher rate of suicide. john: that means the factory may not open and every business takes longer. money going to crate new things goes to pollution-control. >> closes down coal-fired power plants. there has been 50. impact of that to on the community with those who have paid jobs the issue over 1300 regulations better economically si

united states and illinois standards. the water is safe to drink. commissioner tom power said a joint study with the epaoes not mean there are dangerous levels in chicago water, the result of a small sampling is part of an egg wait to come up with better testing to catch worst-case scenarios of old homes with lead pipes and cast iron water mains built decades or even a century ago. the purpose of the study was to look at the correct protocol and make sure that we were catching the worst case scenario in lead concentrations and water. that was the purpose of the study. the study that was published in a science journal has raised old fears about lead, lead levels exceeding safety standards found in a small sampling. physically disturb water lines can stir up lead particulates. the sampling to place between 2005 and 200011. and at 12 of those found with water levels containing unsafe amounts of lead. the new news has raised concerns in vatican's currenmany can't comme this section id at water 5,000 ft. long. the commissioner has asked the water commissioner for more testing. we want to make sure that resid

climate plan directs epa to issue rules for cutting carbon emissions for both new and existing power plants. power sector, the single largest source of co-2 emissions in the united statess such, this action has been applauded by many as the most significant step the president can take to reduce carbon emissions absent legislative action. it's also this directive has also been derided by some as an action that is tantamount to a war on coal. the former is certainly true. that it is the most significant step the president can take. right now, with executive action. but the charges of war on coal, i argue, demonstrate misunderstanding or misstatement of what is being called the all of the above approach to u.s. energy policy. the reason is that in the view of the administration, the way we are approaching this is we must reduce co-2 emissions. the president has a target, a near term target of 17% reduction from 2005 by 2020, and we're about halfway there. but the idea is that all of the above means we will invest in the technology, research, development, and demonstration, so that all of our energy sources can be enabled as marketplace competitors in a low carbon energy w

united states and to the world. i also commend the administration for sending energy secretary earn any moniz, and epa administratorgina mccarthy to testify. it is unusual to have two cabinet secretaries working to circumvent congress through the back door, seek being to regulate what it was unable to legislate. no matter what the cost to jobs and economy really is. thought fowl oversight is necessary so the public can understand more clearly what is happening and what the impact, i believe, it is a disservice it o the public to suggest a policy approach will meaningfully address climate risk despite the fact of tense and billions in countless jobs lost. with the u.s. indeed is the envy of the world as it rights to energy access and the safe and responsibility development of energy resources. we stand at the very thresh hold of profound economic opportunity for the nation and future generations. so we should pursue constructing a new architecture of abundance as a central feature for future economic strength and to provide the economic foundation to address climate risks. there should be no question that the econom