Commentary on environmental news

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Sarah Palin on the Environment, II August 30, 2008

In an interview with Newsmax, Sarah Palin announces that she is a doubter that global warming is man-made, and talks about how drilling for more oil and natural gas will solve the energy problems of the United States.  In fact, she criticizes George Bush’s lack of action on allowing more oil drilling in Alaska. 

The most ironic thing about this interview, for me, was that she first outlined her reasons for being anti-abortion,

   ”I’m pro-life. I’ll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.’

and then followed this with her views on the importance of exploiting oil and natural gas.  So apparently the “future and potential” of human life does not need protecting from things like the proven detrimental health effects of air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels, and the negative effects of climate change–the intensification of tropical storms (were the victims of Katrina done exercising their potential, in her belief?), the loss of water and agricultural resources, and the more rampant spread of disease?  Interesting…

 

Palin and the Environment August 29, 2008

Sarah Palin hasn’t been in public office long enough to have much of a record on the environment, but her response to the listing of the polar bear on the Endangered Species list gives a hint of her potential to follow in Dick Cheney’s footsteps.  According to Reuters, Palin chooses oil profits over the well-being of biodiversity and environmental health, and supported the suing of the federal government over the listing of the polar bear.

 

McCain Doesn’t Lead, or Even Follow, on Clean Energy August 29, 2008

Filed under: Election 2008, John McCain, Politics, global warming — gaj @ 12:50 pm
Tags: , ,

When a number of politicians, public officials, and business people gathered in Nevada for the National Clean Energy Summit last week, the non-partisan group summarized their visions for America’s energy future with recommendations for action by the federal government, states, and others.  ThinkProgress.org has compiled McCain’s voting history on six of the main recommendations…and interestingly, his stated policy at his campaign web-site is not backed up with action.  In fact, he has voted against or been absent from key votes on many energy policy bills.  Whatever side you are on, you should check it out.

 

Coastal “Dead Zones”: Area Affected Doubles Every 10 Years August 15, 2008

Although the Dead Zone* in the Gulf of Mexico tends to receive the most publicity in the US, there are an increasing number of dead zones around the world and the area covered by dead zones is doubling about every ten years (reported in NY Times, original study in Science).

As reported by Bina Venkataraman in the New York Times, 

“What’s happened in the last 40, 50 years is that human activity has made the water quality conditions worse,” the study’s leader author, Robert J. Diaz, said in an interview.

The trend portends nothing good for many fisheries, said Dr. Diaz, a professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at the College of William and Mary. “Dead zones,” he said, “tend to occur in areas that are historically prime fishing grounds.”

Indeed, while the size of dead zones is small relative to the total surface of the oceans, scientists say they account for a significant part of ocean waters that support commercial fish and shellfish species.

The authors of the study conclude their report in Science with this observation:

Currently, hypoxia and anoxia are among the most widespread deleterious anthropogenic influences on estuarine and marine environments, and now rank with overfishing, habitat loss, and harmful algal blooms as major global environmental problems.  There is no other variable of such ecological importance to coastal marine ecosystems that has changed so drastically over such a short time as DO [dissolved oxygen].

The major cause of dead zones is the flow of too many nutrients down our rivers and out into coastal waters.  These nutrients come from agriculture (fertilizers), animal waste (from raising cows, pigs, poultry, etc.), and also from sewer overflows, air pollution, and other smaller contributors.  The entry of these nutrients into the rivers is made easier when wetlands and other riverside vegetation systems are destroyed for farmland or for other development. 

Better management of crop fertilization, manure disposal, and the requirement of ‘buffer zones’ of nutrient-absorbing vegetation and soil can all help lessen the problem of nutrient pollution (eutrophication) of our rivers and coastal zones.  Because the pollution often takes place across state and even national boundaries, this problem needs to be managed, and managed responsibly, at the highest levels.

_________________________

*A dead zone is a low-oxygen area in the ocean; the term tends to refer to areas where this low-oxygen (hypoxic) area is persistent in time, often leading to the death of sedentary and sessile organisms and attempts by mobile species to leave the area.

 

Bush Administration Solution to High Gas Prices? Cut Mass Transit Funding. August 14, 2008

The Department of Transportation is a little upset that Americans are driving less.  You see, they promised money to a number of states for road upkeep and when people started driving less, and thus consuming less gasoline, gasoline tax revenues declined. 

So, Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters, proposes that the slack be taken up by taking money from the MASS TRANSIT BUDGET [NY Times].  This, of course, at a time when much mass transit is pushed to the limit as former drivers look for more affordable ways to get to work. 

Way to get to the root of our nation’s transportation issues and do the best for the people, Secretary Powers!

 

Blame is easy, responsibility is not August 13, 2008

Filed under: Politics, global warming — gaj @ 2:17 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

Democrat or Republican (or other), few people I have encountered want a government that tells us what to eat, what to drink, where to live, what to drive, how much to drive, how much to exercise, how to raise our children, etc.  But when it comes to dealing with problems, we expect the government to solve things immediately.  We want lower taxes, but we want the roads we use to be pot-hole free and we want our local schools to be superior.  We want the government to let us drive whatever car we want, but we also want low gas prices.  We want to eat however much we want, but we complain when our health insurance is expensive.  We want the right to live right on the water, but we want clean lakes, rivers and oceans to play in. 

The problem is, life is full of compromises.  We have to exercise personal responsibility if we expect the government to have the time and resources to solve the real problems.

Many of the problems that we face today, and upon which we demand action by the government, could be lessened if Americans exercised more responsibility for their own actions. 

Let’s take a group of problems many of us complain about, which are really connected.  Traffic congestion, air pollution, gas prices, and our dependence on foreign oil.  For that matter, lets throw in our expanding waistlines and our desire for having some pristine wilderness areas left.  We want to be able to drive the car of our choice, we want to be able to drive whenever we want, and we want to be slim and muscular.  We don’t want high gas prices, we don’t want to be exporting our energy dollars to the Middle East or to Venezuela, we don’t want all our pristine lands and waters scarred by drilling operations and the infrastructure necessary to support them, and we don’t want to sit in traffic jams.  These desires cannot all be met.  Sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way.  At some point, there must be some compromise.  Would you rather compromise on your own terms, or on government-imposed terms?

A simple solution to many of these problems would be for Americans to change their relationships with their cars.  Rather than viewing our autos as some outward symbol of our strength and buying power, something to be used for the least little need of moving our bodies from one place to another, we need to view our cars as ONE option among many for getting from place to place, and JUST as transportation, not as the equivalent of couture fashion with which to make our superiority over our neighbors visible to all. 

The U.S. produces 10% of the world’s oil, and consumes 24% of the world’s oil (2006 data, EIA).  Of the oil we use,  47% of that goes to powering our cars as gasoline.  Another 23% goes to diesel and to home heating oil.  The rest goes to other uses like jet fuels, asphalt, propane, but also things like bubble gum, crayons, deodorant, plastics, etc.  How much effort would it really take for us to use 10, even 20, percent less of these products?  Most of us could live just fine with not getting plastic bags from the grocery store.  One less plastic use.  Most of us could get to work and run our errands just as well in a more fuel efficient vehicle, without any loss of function, safety, and probably for less cost.  Most of us could even ride our bikes, or walk some of the places to which we normally drive.  But for some reason, at least up until the recent rise in gas prices, few people have made these changes.  Where I used to live, there was a Wal-mart and a Home Depot separated by less than 1/4 mile of parking lot.  Most people would DRIVE from the Wal-mart to the Home Depot.  Is that a sign of anything but laziness and excess consumption?  Probably, a number of these people complain about not being able to fit into their old skinny clothes, too…and yet they can’t walk across a parking lot?   Reducing our dependence on our cars, especially on our big gas-guzzling cars, could go a long way towards reducing all the above problems.  More car-pooling or use of public transportation means less demand for oil in general, and thus less dependence on imports, reduces pollution and clears up some traffic congestion.  Walking or riding bikes when possible, whether for commuting or running errands, reduces demand for oil, traffic congestion, air pollution, and is a good form of exercise.  And probably, these changes are easier to deal with than being forced to do something. 

It is always tempting to see our own wants and needs as more important than those of others.  Why should _I_ drive a little, fuel-efficient car when no one else does?  Why should _I_ have to break a sweat riding my bike to work when others drive?  And sure, we all have busy days when maybe it really is necessary to save 30 minutes by driving back and forth to the pharmacy to pick up shampoo when it might be a walkable distance otherwise.  But we need to change our outlook, and demand responsibility by ourselves and others if we want to solve all of these problems. 

In many cases, being more responsible in our consumption of resources actually leads to improvements in quality of life as well.  Getting more exercise is good for our health.  Commuting on a bus or train instead of by car means you have a passive commute, and can read, sleep, pay attention to the morning news, or catch up on work during your commute time.  Buying a smaller car that uses less fuel means you have more money left over for other things–and more than enough money is saved that you can rent a larger car on the rare occasions that you need more space.  Even making choices at the store that save fuel in the big picture–like buying local produce, or buying less processed foods–often translate into healthier and tastier choices.  Trust me, there is a big difference in taste between produce that is grown locally and not picked way before it is ripe in order to be trucked thousands of miles.  If you are someone who hates to clean house, or who can never seem to keep things in their correct place, you’ll find that simply acquiring less stuff saves you a lot of time cleaning and neatening the house.  Think about the things that truly bring quality to your life, and you’ll probably find that it is not the size of your car or your option of getting new plastic bags every time you go the store.  If more Americans make changes that can positively impact both themselves and others, we will go a long ways towards solving some of the problems that we currently demand our politicians solve–and positive change will happen a lot faster.

UPDATE:  Check out this view of our carbon-emitting for another way of thinking about our excesses and their impacts on demands for natural resources…and needs vs. wants.

 

Politician, Green Thyself…and the rest of the Government August 13, 2008

Filed under: Politics, global warming — gaj @ 9:52 am
Tags: , ,

One of the major arguements I hear from Republicans against switching to greener technology is that it costs money, and what Americans want right now is to keep money in their pockets.  And yet, the combined use of greener technology and conservation has saved the government substantial money of late.  Under  Nancy Pelosi, the House has focused on decreasing its carbon emissions and energy use in general.  And, shockingly, many of the associated measures have saved money.

According to Dan Beard, House Cheif Administrative Officer, interviewed on PRI’s Living on Earth,

– ”…we directed our facilities manager to replace 30,000 light bulbs in the House of Representatives. We will save 120,000 dollars a year on our lighting bill as a result of installing those compact fluorescent light bulbs—Over a ten year period, over 1.2 million dollars.”

–”Our buildings are open 24/7 but we have turned up the air conditioning—I think that’s the right phrase, or turned it down—we’ve made it warmer in the middle of the night and we just changed our run times and we got a 15 percent savings in our electric bills.”

There are many more changes that have been made, but these two changes point to very simple changes, and save substantial money.  Think what would happen if every government building followed these rules…if, perhaps, Congress REQUIRED this change (although, really, shouldn’t building administrators see the logic of it without regulation?…hmm, conservation of energy and saving the taxpayer money.  Surely the politicians could agree on this? 

We need major changes on a number of our policies.  But perhaps a couple basic, common-sense moves by the government to show an awareness of the need to conserve and an interest in saving money for the tax-payer would increase the confidence of the American people in their politicians, encourage conservation beyond the government once people see that these measures save money, and give the politicians a little practice at working together.

 

Easy (and fashionable) Green Action: Save a Frog August 12, 2008

Filed under: Easy Green Actions — gaj @ 4:51 pm
Tags: ,

Cool t-shirt art.  Good cause.  Good combination.

 

Boehner takes vacation from golfing to criticize others on vacation August 12, 2008

Filed under: Election 2008, John McCain, Politics, global warming — gaj @ 10:50 am
Tags: , ,

I hate hypocrisy.  And I hate that the Republican party can’t seem to actually discuss energy policy in an intelligent manner.  As an independent, I try to listen to both sides.  But when I get e-mails like this, which assume that I can’t read the Washington Post, or watch TV and process the information I see, it makes me angry.  Look what I found in my inbox today:

Dear Friend,

More than a week ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in Congress voted to leave Washington, skipping town for five weeks without passing legislation to help lower gas prices. 

But while Democrats have been on vacation, House Republicans have continued to fight for solutions to high gas prices.   

Despite Democrats killing the lights, shutting off the cameras, and cutting the microphones, Republican Members of Congress have stayed on the House floor to demand a vote on the American Energy Act and talk with visitors to our nation’s Capitol about the need for an “All of the Above” energy reform plan.

The support from the public in the House chamber is overwhelming — as is the support from Americans across the country.  And Americans everywhere are asking:

“Why won’t the Democrats allow a vote on legislation that increases the supply of American-made energy, improves energy conservation and efficiency, and promotes the development and use of alternative and renewable energy technology?”

The Democrats in Congress believe the solution to the energy crisis is electing more Democrats who support Speaker Pelosi and her radical liberal friends who think “we’re better off without cheap gas.”  Meanwhile, Barack Obama’s solution to the energy crisis is simply about checking the air pressure on your car’s tires.

Sincerely,

Robert M. “Mike” Duncan
Chairman, Republican National Committee

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)
House Republican Leader

 

Now, Boehner has been talking big about not taking a vacation, but he has been doing a lot of golfing in Ohio while supposedly ’solving’ the energy problem…

Furthermore, McCain (who hasn’t cast a vote in the Senate for months), has missed votes on many energy-related issues.  Not inspiring a lot of confidence in me.

 

Bush Administration vs. Endangered Species August 12, 2008

According to the Washington Post,

The Bush administration yesterday proposed a regulatory overhaul of the Endangered Species Act to allow federal agencies to decide whether protected species would be imperiled by agency projects, eliminating the independent scientific reviews that have been required for more than three decades.

The rule change would mean that agencies, most of which have no biologists on staff, would be making decisions about how their projects affected endangered species.  Hmm, maybe while we’re at it, we should just let the chemical companies decide how much pollution is okay to dump in rivers, and let pharmaceutical companies decide if their drugs are safe…why bother with the whole FDA?

I’m not saying this is bad because the Department of Transportation, or any other agency, would purposely harm endangered species.  But their job is to get THEIR projects done, not to understand the biology and ecology of endangered species and act to protect them.  So if they reach a point where their actions may harm an endangered species, and they are being evaluated and funded based on their completion of projects, do you think that the completion of the project or the endangered species is going to win out? 

Those in the Bush Administration seem to live in a world where the relationships of humans with their environment is based completely on humans being able to extract as much benefit from the environment without any sort of stewardship.  This has never been sustainable. 

Think about farmers.  Farmers realize that if they try to extract the maximum yield from their land in one year, they will soon have completely useless land.  They realize that they must rotate crops, or leave lands fallow, often enough for the soil to replenish the nutrients needed to maximize plant growth.  They realize that they must irrigate their lands in a way that does not wash all the topsoil away, or erode parts of their land.  They manage for maximum plant yield over the LONG TERM.

Look at hunting groups, like Ducks Unlimited.  Ducks Unlimited realizes that to be able to hunt waterfowl, there must be suitable habitat for those waterfowl.  Their actions have been integral in preserving wetlands and undeveloped spaces.  Although hunting might be seen as a one-way, extractive sport, these hunters have realized that they must respect the land and the ecological needs of the animals in order to hunt them sustainably. 

We can keep extracting natural resources and using the landscape solely for our own needs, but it is not a sustainable policy.  It will leave an undiverse, naked landscape for our children or grandchildren.  This move again marks the Bush administration as short-sighted.