When Profs Make Me Think

Oh Prof. Kennedy, I miss your thought-provoking questions......

The term "mitigation" is often used for construction projects. Often, if you disturb 1 acre of habitat, you would have to mitigate 1.4 acres of habitat. Is that fair, can we really restore other land to the same level as pristine land we are taking?

Uuuhhhhmmmm.....my brain hurts :(  but I gave it a shot:

Some pluses that I see with mitigation would be costs of environmental damage being internalized by the developer.  Without mitigation, the costs of environmental  damage is externalized and the government (at least in the US) would be responsible for restoration; mitigation helps avoid this.  However, this is also a way that may encourage further environmental degradation.  If a highly diverse area is developed and the requirement is to plant 1.4 acres of trees hundreds of miles away it will not help the area around the construction site.  As far as fairness, it can be fair.  I do see a lot empty buildings on already developed land sitting idle.  Maybe restoration or retrofitting older buildings is the answer to the development issue.  Why build on pristine land when there is plenty developed then abandoned to fall apart?

An interesting website that helps people make decisions about where and how to develop land is the Natural Capital Project (NCP) where Stanford U, Univ. of Minnesota, the Nature Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund joined together.  InVest 2.0 (NCP, n.d.) helps communities to assess the value of an ecosystem, find alternatives, and invest in natural capital.  After all, the idea is to find ways to work with nature, not against it.  

Natural Capital Project. (n.d.). InVest:  Integrated valuation of environmental services and tradeoffs. Retrieved from http://naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html

Ethics of Sustainability

Discuss whether or not you agree with Judge Weeramantry’s concept of sustainability. Does he appear to be using any particular value system? If so, which one(s)?

Judge Weeramantry is arguing for development with the concept of stewardship for future generations.  He interjects traditional knowledge and cultural respect for the environment and points out that past civilizations did this in many instances.  He gives several examples from the past that help him define sustainable development that combines land use with protecting the environment (Weeramantry, n. d., p. 10).

The Judge's speech touches on our responsibility towards the stewardship ethic (Radcliffe, 2000, p. 79) where our generation has an obligation to preserve/conserve natural resources for the next one (or even more), which I agree with.  While there are many programs to promote stewardship like the Energy Star program, the US as a whole needs a clearly defined vision, goal, and an action plan that balances development with its impact on the environment.  I think that we have some visions and goals in place via the clean water and air laws, but lack the cohesiveness needed to fully implement these throughout the US.  We have forces that attempt to diminish these laws (lobbying) citing economic peril (job killers) and reduce the laws effect or defund them making enforcement difficult. 

While the economy is important, valuing it above ecosystems damages the environment and diminishes people's well being.  Most certainly, promoting its unending growth leaves little chance we will be able to hold our responsibility to future generations. We do not have to believe that "no drop of water should flow into the sea without first serving the interests of man" (Weeramantry, n. d., p. 10) to flourish and benefit from what nature has to offer all of us.  We only need to learn how to balance our impact with preservation.  After all, past generations, that had fewer tools and technology, managed their resources very well and preserved some for the next generation as Weeramantry points out.  Why is it that we have such vast amount of information/tools at our hands but fail to do the same?

References:

Radcliffe, J. (2000). Chapter 4 – The need for an environmental ethic. In Green Politics. New York, NY: Pelgrave Publishers. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/ 

Weeramantry, C. (n. d.). Sustainable development:  An ancient concept revived. http://vizedhtmlcontent.next.ecollege.com/pub/content/956ff924-e558-475d-9593-465270545d68/ENV330.W2.Reading.pdf

Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism

Discuss the relationship between environmental justice and environmental racism. Can efforts towards environmental justice overcome environmental racism? Why or why not?

Environmental justice:

According to the EPA website (2010, ¶ 5) environmental justice is when:

"...all people enjoy the same degree of protection from environmental and health 

hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to maintain a healthy 

environment in which to live, learn, and work.". 

In other words, no group of people should have to bear a disproportionate burden of pollution/waste that all people create throughout their lives.  In our readings, Cole and Foster (2001) produced evidence from the United Church of Christ's Commission for Racial Justice (CRJ) study that finds three out of five (p. 55) of African Americans and Latinos live in communities with uncontrolled toxic waste sites.  Likewise, the Social and Demographic Research Institute (SDRI) found similar instances where researchers could predict where a toxic waste site was based on minority populations in an area, i.e. African Americans and/or Hispanics.  Other problems discovered were the government's unequal enforcement concerning fines and cleanup.  This study showed that even if a white community had a lower income the fines were higher, cleanup faster, and faster listing for the EPAs Superfund.

Environmental racism:

Even though inequalities exist in these communities, there are some who claim minorities are exposed to higher toxins because of lifestyle choices, social status, or the free market.  People who believe these statements to be true are accused of environmental racism.  However, vehement opponents to the environmental justice movement claim that in many instances the results are unfounded.  In fact, Clegg (1998) opposes government intervention and suggests "free enterprise and personal responsibility...is what poor people need" (¶ 14) to improve their condition.  He and others like him claim they are opposed to racism, but are definitely opposed to environmental groups and government trying to intervene in a more equal distribution of toxic sites and pollution.

Conclusion:

It is interesting to note that those most opposed to environmental justice laws feel that regulation and laws stifle the free market and its ability to operate properly.  However, poorer neighborhoods may need jobs but the only opportunities offered are the chemical industry and toxic dumps no one else wants in their backyard (NIMBY).  Many of these facilities are needed because of our consumption habits.  Without a societal effort to change consumption habits, these types of facilities will continue to exist.  As the CRJ report suggests, reduction is a solution to disproportionate environmental impacts (Cole & Foster, 2001, p. 56), and most likely they are right.  As seen above many people oppose government intervention and blame minorities for their "lifestyle choices".  On the other hand, there are laws and regulations trying to distribute toxic waste sites more equally.  However, as long as our society consumes products that have toxic side-effects at any point from cradle-to-grave we will have environmental inequalities.

References:

Clegg, R. (1998, November 9). Polluting race relations:  The end of the environmental justice movement. The weekly standard. pp 31-33. Retrieved from Opposing Viewpoints, hosted by GCPL

.

Cole, L. & Foster, S. (2000, December). From the ground up:  Environmental racism & the rise of the environmental justice movement. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/docDetail.action?docID=10032503&ppg=67

Fracking Opinion

I'm wondering why I kept this in my draft file and didn't post it in December?  I must have had a brain burp....

A blogger from Texas who is opposed to unsafe hydrofracking, like I am, first posted this article, Hydrofracking Sure to Contaminate Water found here. 

The first commenter below this article points out that a NYCDEC is a "generic position" and claims he "once knew an environmental engineering technician" which apparently makes him an expert on Mr. Hetzler's job (which he equates with "one step above a general laborer...[and]...not qualified" to have an opinion/knowledge about fracking.)  In all fairness, there are probably hundreds of employees with this sort of position, but he fails to mention his educational background or authority to determine Hetzler's expertise in the field. 

When anyone starts with "I once knew a person who did <insert job here>" has a very weak beginning to an argument and I tend to dismiss what they have to say unless there is more to the assertion.  In a previous post, I have included links to the EPA and their preliminary findings about hydrofracking in WY, which I find more reliable than someone who knows someone else who did something....

ARTICLE:

As an environmental engineering technician with NYSDEC Region 5, I managed scores of groundwater remediation projects in the 1990s. I’ve reviewed countless hydrogeologic reports and seen thousands of lab results from contaminated wells. I’m familiar with the fate and transport of contaminants in fractured media, and let me be clear:

Hydraulic fracturing as it’s practiced today will contaminate our aquifers. Not might contaminate our aquifers.

Hydraulic fracturing will contaminate New York’s aquifers. If you were looking for a way to poison the drinking water supply, here in the Northeast you couldn’t find a more chillingly effective and thorough method of doing so than with hydraulic fracturing. My experience investigating and remediating contaminated groundwater taught me some lessons. There’s no such thing as a perfect well seal. Occasionally sooner, often later, well seals can and do fail, period.

No confining layer is completely competent; all geologic strata leak to some extent. The fact that a less-transmissive layer lies between the drill zone and a well does not protect the well from contamination.

A drinking water well is never in “solid” rock. If it were, it would be a dry hole in the ground. As water moves through joints, fissures and bedding planes into a well, so do contaminants. In fractured media such as shale, water follows preferential pathways, moving fast and far, miles per week in some cases.

In the absence of oxygen (such as under the ground), organic compounds break down infinitesimally slowly. Chemicals injected into the aquifer will persist for many lifetimes.

When contamination occurs—and it will occur— we will all pay for it, regardless of where we live. Proving responsibility for groundwater contamination is difficult, costly and time-consuming, and while corporate lawyers drag out proceedings for years, everyone’s taxes will pay for the subsurface investigations, the whole-house filtration systems, the unending lab analyses.

I’d love to see hundreds more jobs created. But not if it means hundreds of thousands using well water will be at a high risk of contamination. Not if it means every New Yorker will be on the hook for the cost for cleanup and for creating alternate water supplies. If your well goes bad, neither you, nor your children, nor their children will ever be able to get safe, clean water back. That’s too high a price.

Drill for gas, absolutely, but develop safe technologies first.

Paul Hetzler
Canton

Sister Rosetta Tharpe always makes me smile...

Is it hot out there or is it just me?

I promised myself that I would note when our seasonal birds and other critters show up in NE Ohio for this 2012 Spring.  Before that thought had time to leave my head, the warmer-than-usual winter petered out the first week in March.  Wow.  I kept waiting for our big March/April snowstorm that we usually get after a warm-up, but it didn't happen.  (By the time it did storm the air and ground were so warm hardly any stuck to the ground and most of it fell as rain.)  Usually about mid-March the Robins show up, then later the Red-Wing black birds follow, and in the middle of this the spring Peeps start their nightly chorus while my hyacinths, tulips, and other early plants start sprouting.

First, the hyacinths, tulips, irises, and rhubarb have been sprouting since mid-December.  Yes, that's right, in NE Ohio these plants were growing.  However, it wasn't a huge growth spurt since we did have below freezing nights.  We didn't have the usual layer of snow to insulate/protect the plants from the freeze/thaw cycles either which worried me a bit.  In fact, we've only reached 40% or our usual snowfall for 2011-2012 season.  Yes, I know, a weak la Nina formed in the fall (2011) and that has contributed to our warmer-than-usual winter but still, I haven't seen a winter like this in 15 years with tons of snow before and after that year.  Maybe the accelerated climate change has kicked in like the climatologist suggest?  As NPR reports, March 2012s claim to fame is 7,700 daily temperature records broken across the US, while the 2011/2012 winter is the 4th warmest on record.  Not to mention the earlier than usual forest fires Thom Hartmann mentioned the other day on his radio show and plenty of other climate change indicators that weren't supposed to show up until 2025 or later.

Back to the birds and other critters.  This year I heard my first Red-Wing black bird on March 2, 2012.  I thought I was imagining it, but soon found out they were back.  By the 10th the Robbins were bobbing around snagging worms and such--note that the RW black birds came back first.  The night before the RW black birds showed up, the peeps started their nightly chorus (almost deafening in my neck of the woods).  Most unusual, the Blue birds showed up the 3rd week of March when they usually aren't around until May when the Hummingbirds appear.  Speaking of which, I thought I saw a Hummingbird yesterday April 15th.  I'll have to keep an eye out to make sure, though.  Usually they fly right up to my face to let me know they're back and I should put out the feeders.  Don't worry, I only use organic sugar with no red dyes.  BTW, the Clematis is already 18" high and the chives are flowering, but how relevant is that since I can't remember the 2 springs before with these plants (thanks to AUs accelerated classes for 2 years straight :)? 

All these early birds make me wonder if there is some seasonal plant/insect that doesn't show up early if it is warm, but goes by the length of days, will leave some hungry.  On the up side, the maple syrup producers did well as my cousin told me.  I thought that the warmer weather would slow the sap flow, but silly me, they just started a little earlier this year.  To top it off, the freezing nights with warmer days really got the sap flowing.  I'll have to drive over some afternoon and pick up a 2nd or 3rd tap.  Love that darker stuff--the later it's tapped the better for me--great that I have relatives who make maple syrup, too. 

Off to batten down the hatches with our crazy, wild wind blowing everything around.