Posted April 08, 2020 05:24:17I’ve always been fascinated by environmental protection.
When I was young, I had an uncle who worked for the government as a land surveyor.
He would go around collecting the land and measuring the water, which he then passed to the government.
When he was done, the land was taken back to the private landowner and they would have it re-grazed.
It was a very simple process, and the private owners didn’t do it any more.
In the early 1970s, when I was a student, I began to study environmental protection and started doing research into the subject.
I wanted to know more about how it was done.
It’s an interesting question, because the United States is not a particularly well-known and well-funded country for environmental protection programs.
And we’ve had a series of environmental disasters over the last decade.
The Great Recession of 2008 hit hard, and it was a difficult time for the federal government.
In order to maintain its budget, the federal budget was cut by nearly 40 percent.
In addition, the Department of Interior had a $8.5 billion budget shortfall and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was underfunded and understaffed.
The cuts in the federal agencies led to the creation of the Environmental Restoration Act of 1986, which was designed to help the states and the states’ territories manage their own environmental programs.
Environmental protection was a major area of federal responsibility for the early part of the 20th century.
In 1928, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Kyoto Protocol to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the industrialized world.
The protocol called for a reduction of the global temperature by 5 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, and included an ambitious goal to limit the total amount of CO2 emissions by 20 percent by the end of the century.
The Kyoto Protocol was implemented, and a major goal of the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change was to cut greenhouse gas emission by 70 percent by 2050.
Environmental Protection Agency director Daniel Fried is pictured on April 7, 2020, in Washington, D.C.
The EPA has spent the last few decades trying to achieve this goal.
But there are a number of challenges that have come with it.
The largest is the rise in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that contributes to the climate change caused by humans, and there are ways to reduce emissions, but the EPA has been reluctant to do so because of the economic cost of doing so.
But, as a result of these costs, the agency has had to do things like adopt policies that are in direct conflict with the Paris climate agreement.
So what’s the EPA doing to address the carbon emissions problem?
There are two programs that are funded through the EPA’s budget.
The first is the CO2 Emissions Reduction Assistance Program, or ERO.
This is a grant program that provides funding for low-income communities that have lost income from the effects of CO 2 emissions, like for instance, for those with homes in rural areas.
The EPA is paying a portion of the money to the communities.
In other words, the money goes directly to those communities.
The second program that has been supported by the EPA is the Community Climate Response Grant Program, also known as COPE.
This program is also funded through an ERO grant, and they are funding about $500 million per year.
These grants go directly to communities that are struggling to meet their carbon reduction goals.
It’s also an incentive program for low income communities to reduce their carbon emissions.
In many cases, the EPA grants the communities that the money is directed towards.
But that doesn’t mean that communities are getting any of the funding.
The COPE grants are not a direct payment to the community, but rather a program where communities can take advantage of the EPA grant money.
In some cases, COPE can be a significant benefit to communities because it provides a direct financial incentive for them to reduce carbon emissions, and that means that communities may be able to take advantage by increasing their carbon intensity.
One of the major issues with COPE is that it has been designed so that it only pays out when communities meet their goals.
So when communities are making progress towards reducing emissions, the COPE grant money is not directed at them, but is instead directed towards a group of other community members who have been working on the same issue.
So, if the community has a COPE project, it is not just the COPEs that get the funding, but also the community members working on that project.
That is a huge disadvantage to the COPES.
And it’s also one of the reasons why it is difficult to achieve the COPes goals.
I know that I’ve been critical of COPE in the past.
When it was first introduced, the goal was to get to zero carbon emissions by 2050, and then we would all be out of