There is a gathering storm in the ongoing public debate over our responsibility to protect our environment. Most people recognize the two sides - environmentalists versus big business, or conservationists versus conservatives. Do we side with corporate interests or wilderness defenders? Many have already decided, taken sides, and that debate is not what this blog is about. It's the conflict that faces the tree-huggers among us that I want to talk about here. Real and substantial differences exist within the environmentalist community over current proposed climate change legislation. Now our side has to take sides.
Making law in a democracy is a result of compromise and negotiation, always has been. This is usually considered a hallmark and strength of the process. We wonder, however, when this process kills leadership, when does the compromise give up too much? How much do we give up to get SOMETHING done? The point of great divergence among some of the most respected environmental groups on the planet has seldom been so clearly drawn. It is the Waxman-Markey act that draws the dividing line today among environmentalists. Also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act or ACESA (HR 2454), it is Waxman-Markey that needs serious evaluation.
Many Americans turn to national or local organizations to inform them about these issues and possible solutions. From household recycling to greenhouse gasses, from toxic pollution to public transportation, these issues are as complex as they are important. Few people have the time and resources to fully investigate all the options in their personal lifestyle choices, much less the legislation, government regulations, and special interests that weigh in on some of the most important questions facing our society today. We must trust others to keep us informed. Problem now: "Who ya gonna call?"
There is a new coalition emerging in support of the current legislative compromise (ACESA). It is a coalition of divergent interests called the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). This group supports most of the provisions of the new legislation, including the so-called "Cap and Trade" schemes of offsetting carbon impacts with monetary contributions to a public fund. Pay to pollute? Cash for carbon release? Greenpeace and others say WE MUST DO MORE! The current version of carbon offset provisions will result in NO significant reductions for up to ten years! The current version moves enforcement of these schemes from the EPA to Dept. of Agriculture, necessitating a new beauracratic system without experience in this field of regulation.
Some of our oldest, most active and most respected environmental organizations have taken another view. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and the Nature Conservancy all are members of the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). So too, however, are multi-national corporate powers Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric and Alcoa Aluminum, General Motors, Ford Motor, Rio Tinto. Fossil fuel giants BP America (formerly British Petroleum), Shell Oil, and ConocoPhillips. Utility conglomerates like Pacific Gas & Electric, Duke Energy, NRG Energy. (A more complete list is here: http://www.us-cap.org/ ) This unsavory alliance played a major role in crafting the Waxman-Markey ACESA bill, passed by the US House of Representatives in July, and expected to make its way to the Senate vote soon.
It is apparent that this legislation represents a dangerous, irresponsible compromise that undermines the best work of scientists in guiding us toward effective climate initiatives. Here are some links to the organizations that stand against this unworkable half-measure:
Greenpeace statement of opposition:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-opposes-waxman-mark
Friends of the Earth - "We Can Do Better":
http://www.foe.org/global-warming/we-can-do-better
Rainforest Action Network:
http://understory.ran.org/2009/05/04/hansen-hopes-lawmakers-cap-and-trade-approach-to-climate-will-fail/
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Another Smudge on the Coal Industry
Historically, we know about the pitfalls of our reliance on coal as an energy source. (All puns intended.) Directly affecting human health, the dreaded Black Lung Disease was the impetus for much of the union organizing that was accomplished in the hills of West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania last century. The shocking evidence of how destructive strip mining and "mountain-topping" is to our scenic heritage in both the Eastern and Western mountain ranges has helped to make conservationists of millions of Americans. Research linking coal-fired electricity plants to soaring asthma rates among young children in the urban areas of our nation has energized many communities to take political action to protect these most innocent of victims. Recently the scientific studies confirming the global warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions has re-exposed the dirty secret about how we generate our power. Now one more lump of coal hits the fan.
The Boston Globe has a brief article today from Reuters reporting on a wide-ranging study conducted by the United States Geological Survey confirming the damage done to domestic, freshwater fish stocks by our continued reliance on coal. The lethal heavy-metal mercury has long been known to permeate the larger fish in our oceans. Top predator species like tuna, swordfish and marine mammals, notably porpoise, are known to harbor dangerous levels of the toxin. Now the USGS shows how this by-product of coal-burning plants is contaminating trout, bass, and catfish we once thought were free of the worst effects of pollution, and not just in still waters. In over 1,000 individual fish taken from 291 rivers and streams nationwide they found not one single catch was free of mercury and more than one in four fish had levels exceeding what is considered dangerous to people with an average amount of fish in their diet. 48 states, according to the article, have already issued advisories regarding eating fish caught in the wild due to the mercury contamination.
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2009/08/20/mercury_tainted_fish_found_widely_in_us_streams/
This isn't just about global warming, friends. It isn't only about kids getting sick in our cities or laying waste to some of the most beautiful landscapes in America. It's about the survival of our species, nothing less. Pick your own reason to stop coal plants, there are so many to choose from, but pick one quick and get involved with supporting real change in our energy policy. Wait too long to move on this and we'll all be looking at a lump of coal in our Christmas stocking.
The Boston Globe has a brief article today from Reuters reporting on a wide-ranging study conducted by the United States Geological Survey confirming the damage done to domestic, freshwater fish stocks by our continued reliance on coal. The lethal heavy-metal mercury has long been known to permeate the larger fish in our oceans. Top predator species like tuna, swordfish and marine mammals, notably porpoise, are known to harbor dangerous levels of the toxin. Now the USGS shows how this by-product of coal-burning plants is contaminating trout, bass, and catfish we once thought were free of the worst effects of pollution, and not just in still waters. In over 1,000 individual fish taken from 291 rivers and streams nationwide they found not one single catch was free of mercury and more than one in four fish had levels exceeding what is considered dangerous to people with an average amount of fish in their diet. 48 states, according to the article, have already issued advisories regarding eating fish caught in the wild due to the mercury contamination.
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2009/08/20/mercury_tainted_fish_found_widely_in_us_streams/
This isn't just about global warming, friends. It isn't only about kids getting sick in our cities or laying waste to some of the most beautiful landscapes in America. It's about the survival of our species, nothing less. Pick your own reason to stop coal plants, there are so many to choose from, but pick one quick and get involved with supporting real change in our energy policy. Wait too long to move on this and we'll all be looking at a lump of coal in our Christmas stocking.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Amid an ocean in crisis, a wave of optimism.
We know our oceans and the fish stocks that inhabit them are in a state of crisis. Recently, though, some very encouraging news has been released in the form of an important marine research paper. Published this month in the highly-respected journal "Science", new information details the work of 19 marine scientists, over a two year period, working in 10 large marine ecosystems around the world. Ecosystems that the global population relies on to feed itself. It has already been established that fully one billion humans on this fast-spinning rock rely on the oceans as their only source of protein. Most of the rest of us eat fish often enough that it makes up a significant part of our diets. The depth of understanding these scientists have provided regarding this crisis is worth celebrating for two big reasons.
Firstly, they have confirmed that strict management of fisheries is having a positive effect on the sustainability of these critical resources in areas of North America, New Zealand and Europe. While the findings do show that most of the world's fishing zones are still dangerously over-exploited and degrading, several areas that have been managed well are improving. This shows the promise and value of taking proven steps that will protect what is left. Oceans do recover, given time and careful management and moreover, there seems to still be time to act before a catastrophe is unavoidable.
One of the important differences between this group of scientists and those who have produced such important studies in the past is the team of people involved. By all accounts, this group that carried out the research was an unprecedented mix of two camps who are commonly at odds with each other. This is the second big reason that this study is so significant. Marine ecologists, characterized more by their concern with conservation, and those experts focused more on management of fisheries to produce maximum yields, have apparently found some real common ground at last. According to an article in the New York Times this convergence of interests has been a source of optimism for some who have been witness to deep divisions within the community. Quoting Steve Murawski, chief fisheries scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “This paper starts to bridge that gap.”
Back in 2006 one of the lead scientists on this recent study made a prediction that by 2048 the oceans would be in a state of general collapse due to over-fishing. When Dr. Boris Worm, marine ecologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, made this prediction, many from the other camp saw it as an over-stated, unfounded and alarmist prediction. Dr. Ray Hilborn, a professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle was one of those critics. Then something unusual happened, the two began a debate. First on a broadcast arranged by National Public Radio and eventually in other venues and settings, the two scientists began to understand they had many more points of agreement than either had realized. A continued dialog eventually led to this important collaboration, and Dr. Murawski of NOAA for one, is encouraged by the potential for progress.
It is now more clear that ever before that a combination of measures: catch quotas, no-take zones, and selective fishing gear, may well be adequate, not just to avoid total collapse of fish stocks, but indeed to actually rebuild ecosystems and help fish stocks recover. The BBC News website quotes from the paper published this Friday: "Some of the most spectacular rebuilding efforts have involved bold experimentation with closed areas, [fishing] gear restrictions and new approaches to catch allocations and enforcement."
The authors warned, however, that the signs of recovery should not be interpreted by policymakers as a sign that all was well beneath the waves. The majority of fisheries are still in serious trouble, and are not being managed or regulated properly. It doesn't take a scientist or a rare meeting of two opposing schools of thought to realize that data alone is not enough to solve one of the world's biggest challenges. It will require extraordinary, and unfortunately rare, political will on the part of our leaders. Leadership is often seen as being in rather short supply these days, let's hope we find some before our food supplies grow short as well.
Firstly, they have confirmed that strict management of fisheries is having a positive effect on the sustainability of these critical resources in areas of North America, New Zealand and Europe. While the findings do show that most of the world's fishing zones are still dangerously over-exploited and degrading, several areas that have been managed well are improving. This shows the promise and value of taking proven steps that will protect what is left. Oceans do recover, given time and careful management and moreover, there seems to still be time to act before a catastrophe is unavoidable.
One of the important differences between this group of scientists and those who have produced such important studies in the past is the team of people involved. By all accounts, this group that carried out the research was an unprecedented mix of two camps who are commonly at odds with each other. This is the second big reason that this study is so significant. Marine ecologists, characterized more by their concern with conservation, and those experts focused more on management of fisheries to produce maximum yields, have apparently found some real common ground at last. According to an article in the New York Times this convergence of interests has been a source of optimism for some who have been witness to deep divisions within the community. Quoting Steve Murawski, chief fisheries scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “This paper starts to bridge that gap.”
Back in 2006 one of the lead scientists on this recent study made a prediction that by 2048 the oceans would be in a state of general collapse due to over-fishing. When Dr. Boris Worm, marine ecologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, made this prediction, many from the other camp saw it as an over-stated, unfounded and alarmist prediction. Dr. Ray Hilborn, a professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle was one of those critics. Then something unusual happened, the two began a debate. First on a broadcast arranged by National Public Radio and eventually in other venues and settings, the two scientists began to understand they had many more points of agreement than either had realized. A continued dialog eventually led to this important collaboration, and Dr. Murawski of NOAA for one, is encouraged by the potential for progress.
It is now more clear that ever before that a combination of measures: catch quotas, no-take zones, and selective fishing gear, may well be adequate, not just to avoid total collapse of fish stocks, but indeed to actually rebuild ecosystems and help fish stocks recover. The BBC News website quotes from the paper published this Friday: "Some of the most spectacular rebuilding efforts have involved bold experimentation with closed areas, [fishing] gear restrictions and new approaches to catch allocations and enforcement."
The authors warned, however, that the signs of recovery should not be interpreted by policymakers as a sign that all was well beneath the waves. The majority of fisheries are still in serious trouble, and are not being managed or regulated properly. It doesn't take a scientist or a rare meeting of two opposing schools of thought to realize that data alone is not enough to solve one of the world's biggest challenges. It will require extraordinary, and unfortunately rare, political will on the part of our leaders. Leadership is often seen as being in rather short supply these days, let's hope we find some before our food supplies grow short as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
