Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Fraser Opposes Amendment #106

Prairie Warbler/Dendroica discolorImage via Wikipedia
Dear Editor,

Though the practice of forest clear-cutting may be less aesthetically desirable for the public, it creates preferred habitat for many species. Regenerating and young forest habitats created through forest management, including clear-cutting, provide food, shelter and breeding habitat and contain a greater diversity of wildlife species than any other forest age class. 

Over 90% of Massachusetts forest is now mature forest cover which shelters certain wildlife, but most are also wholly or partially dependent on early successional (young) forest habitat. If the thick canopy is not opened soon by environmentally-sound harvesting (logging), we may soon witness  further decline and eventual extinction of a number of species.  Early successional habitat is absolutely essential for birds such as grouse and woodcock. It is also essential for other species that although not officially listed as rare, are experiencing sharp population declines due, in part, to habitat loss- birds such as prairie warbler, brown thrasher and whip-poor-wills to name a few. 

It is for this reason I believe Amendment #106 to the Massachusetts House budget must be defeated.  It would ban clear-cutting in state forests including Department of Fisheries and Wildlife lands where vitally needed habitat is established and protected.  Today, less than 5% of the Massachusetts forest is early successional. Though small forest openings allow certain songbirds to perch and sing, they cannot mate and need additional acreage if they are to survive and thrive. Clear-cut areas are critically needed, despite public opposition.  Please contact your legislators to defeat budget amendment #106.

Genevieve Fraser
211 Dana Road
Orange, MA 01364
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Are The Magnetic Poles Flipping?

"The Blue Marble" is a famous photog...Image via Wikipedia By Opeyemi Parham



Wow. "Waving Overwhelming Wonder". That is the skill that I am honing as I bear witness to a world in chaos.
What May Be Coming Next has many possibilities.
In El Mundo Bueno *, the Japanese continue to demonstrate awe-inspiring interpersonal connection, and political transparency in dealing with the disaster as it continues to unfold. In el Mundo Bueno we all move forward together with a clear and powerful warning, regarding the dangers of nuclear energy. The entire world begins to move away from such deadly technologies.
In El Mundo Malo, the problematic nuclear reactors have escalating issues. Perhaps more damage, as aftershocks of 5 and 6 (we call those earthquakes elsewhere) continue. Perhaps a meltdown. Perhaps (this being el MUCHO mundo malo) a meltdown, followed by another tsunami, and contamination of the ocean, with radiation.
I do not speak these possibilities as a fear monger, but as an oracle.
With Katrina, we were offered to possibility of looking at our emergency preparedness, our classism, and racism in this country. Did we learn our lessons?
With Haiti, we marveled at the resiliency of a people with the spirit to be dancing on the beaches the night of their catastrophe. Then we sent aid that introduced cholera and worsened their suffering.
With BP Oil, we felt panic as raw crude bled into the gulf waters. We are chafing at the bit to begin drilling again, as gasoline prices soar to $3.50 a gallon, and the corporate villains in that scandal plot new ways to avoid paying damages.
With Haiti, we marveled at the resiliency of a people with the spirit to be dancing on the beaches the night of their catastrophe. Then we sent aid that introduced a Southeast Asian cholera and worsened their suffering.
FACT: the magnetic poles are shifting, possibly preparing for a "flip":
"The last time the poles switched was 780,000 years ago, and it's happened about 400 times in 330 million years. Each reversal takes a thousand years or so to complete, and it takes longer for the shift to take effect at the equator than at the poles. The field has weakened about 10% in the last 150 years. Some scientists think this is a sign of a flip in progress"
from http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question782.htm
FACT: we have no idea what this might look like, feel like or how it will affect humans, other than the likelihood of a period of time when the earth loses it's protection from solar radiation for an unspecified period of time. Maybe minutes. Or hours. Or days.
Learning more about how to protect ourselves from radiation exposure seem EXACTLY RIGHT, right now.
BY THEIR DIETS AND LIFESTYLE, THE JAPANESE ARE WELL EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH RADIATION EXPOSURE, relative to other parts of the world (like the Ukraine or Three Mile Island)) where radiation exposure has happened; I still trust that the biosphere/Gaia/Mother Earth is being as gentle as possible with us 7 billion humans...
She is saying "wake up, and STAY AWAKE"
My personal response to my own fears and anxieties is to remind myself to breathe, to inform and to share actual facts with as many as will listen. I  listen to that calm, still voice inside of me that is telling me what to do and how to refuel my heart with awe for the magic in my day to day world. I don't believe that the answers are on-line, or in the world of science. We must find them in co-created ways, for ourselves. We must use right and left brains, hearts, and souls to be with all of this change.
I will post the messages that I receive from Spirit, after I go and sweat my prayers for Japan and the World on Sunday, March 13.
                            In love and light-- OPEYEMI (eternally grateful)
* a phrase used by Starhawk in the novel "The Fifth Sacred Thing

--
                       Opeyemi  413-336-1291
                        P.O. Box 264
                        Hadley, MA. 01035  (www.ceremonyheals.com)
         buy Hope Beneath Our Feet: Restoring Our Place in the Natural World 
it will INSPIRE and encourage you!     http://www.hopebeneathourfeet.com   
                                                         
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, July 19, 2010

Sock Puppets Do BP's Bidding


end_of_the_skype_highlighting

BP and Dispersants: The "Regulated" Regulating the "Regulators"?

WASHINGTON - July 16 - WALA-TV in Mobile, Alabama is reporting: "At one point during Thursday's hearings into the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, the dispersants that are being used in the Gulf were referred to as the potential 'Agent Orange of the Gulf.'

"BP has used millions of gallons of the chemical Corexit to break down the oil. The Environmental Protection Agency approved the chemical, but put limits on how much could be used. That's because the [agency] believes it does pose some risk."

HUGH KAUFMAN
A noted expert at the Environmental Protection Agency, Kaufman said today: "Thursday's Senate testimony of EPA and NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] [officials] provides further confirmation that they are 'sock puppets' for BP and contributing to the poisoning of the Gulf. EPA green-lighted the massive use of toxic dispersants because BP wants to cover up the amount of oil contamination, not to protect the public health and environment."

Background: Kaufman "led the investigation for the EPA's Ombudsman that uncovered Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration cover-up[s] of the environmental effects of the 9/11 World Trade Center attack at the behest of the Bush White House."

Kaufman is extensively cited in "Scientists: Obama not doing enough + VIDEO: Shrimpers exposed to Corexit 'bleeding from the rectum.'"


###
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Environmental Politics at Play in Manomet Biomass Forestry Study

Per capita responsibility for current atmosphe...Image via Wikipedia


By Genevieve Fraser
A study commissioned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and released last week by the Manomet Center for Conservation Studies claims that power generated by the burning of biomass is worse for the climate than producing power from coal.
The Manomet study concludes that somehow coal is cleaner than wood by neglecting to include the other greenhouse gases that are released by burning coal - including the acid rain producing sulphur. In addition, determining a carbon footprint includes assessing more than the elements released at the time of its use. A carbon footprint also involves the process needed to extract that resource.
The Manoment study looked at the process of extracting wood but failed to include the process needed to extract coal which involves deeper and deeper mining operations, or removing mountains through deforestation where entire forests are removed and burned and rocks and soils blasted to smithereens. In extracting coal, massive equipment expends massive amounts of fuel, and all too often lives are lost. In short, mining for coal creates an ecological catastrophe.
Compare extracting coal to the process undertaken by a local logging company selectively harvesting trees from the woods while upholding environmental safeguards overseen by a forester with an approved forestry plan. (Clear-cuts are typically applied to monocultures - plantations of trees not native to New England - or trees that are at risk of disease and fire.)  And though oil is less "dirty" than coal, the carbon footprint needed to extract it should also be part of the equation - as exemplified by the BP horror show in the Gulf.
Another consideration is the long-distance travel needed to bring coal and oil to Massachusetts markets.
A tip-off that the state of Massachusetts is playing politics with their findings is found by comparing the state's press release to a press release issued by the Forest Guild, one of the major contributors to the Manomet report.  One would think they are discussing two different studies. 
"New Study Demonstrates the Climate Benefits of Sustainable Use Forest Biomass for Thermal Energy in Massachusetts," reads the headlines dated June 10, 2010.
"A new report released today confirms for the state of Massachusetts that sustainably using woody biomass from forests to replace oil heat can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A team led by Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences (Manomet), including the Forest Guild, the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, the Biomass Energy Resource Center, and private consultants, worked to answer questions about forest biomass and carbon for the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER). The study looked at how much wood might be available in Massachusetts and the carbon impact of using wood for energy. The Forest Guild contributed to the study by providing information on the potential impacts of biomass harvesting and guidelines for ensuring the sustainability of biomass harvesting."
"The team’s study of biomass availability showed that based on the best available economic data, between 150,000 and 250,000 green tons of forest biomass could be utilized. This would be enough biomass to supply as many as 16 typically sized thermal energy facilities in the state," the Forest Guild statement asserts. "Wood initially releases more CO2 per unit of energy than fossil fuels, but that CO2 is sequestered as the forest regrows. Therefore, the climate benefits of using sustainably harvested biomass increase significantly over time. Using forest biomass yields greenhouse gas reductions within approximately five years when it replaces thermal energy from oil and within approximately 20 years when it replaces electricity generated from coal. The carbon account varies depending on how the biomass is harvested, which the report describes in detail."
Note: Genevieve Fraser is an Independent candidate for state representative for the 2nd Franklin District.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Eco Scare Tactics Decried

Over Looking QuabbinImage by dawnzy58 via Flickr


LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

Recently, Leverett Police Chief Gary Billings found a “Wanted” poster tacked to the bulletin board of the Leverett Village Cooperative store which is now in the hands of the state police. The poster targets Herm Eck, chief forester of the Quabbin and Ware River watersheds. I was forwarded a copy of the poster and find it frighteningly similar to the scare tactics used by extreme pro-life activists prior to their acts of violence. At the top, the poster proclaims, “WANTED! For ecological crimes against the Quabbin watershed and environment.” Mr. Eck is referred to as a “Tree Nazi aka The Butcher of the Quabbin.”



Using forest management practices established for maximizing volume while maintaining quality, the Quabbin Reservoir and watershed has been superbly managed for over 50 years. In fact, the water quality is so pure the Commonwealth was given a waiver and does not need to install a filtration plant originally mandated by the federal government – saving the Commonwealth billions of tax dollars. Yet, these Eco-Terrorists believe that their view of what is best for the Quabbin is somehow superior. They need to get a life and stop their bullying and vicious assault on those who should be rewarded for their work, not condemned.



Genevieve Fraser

Orange, MA

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Sometimes Small Is Better re Bio Mass

Could Small-Scale Forestry Biomass Serve as an Economic Driver for the Region?

By Genevieve Fraser



While the debate rages over large-scale utility use of forestry biomass in Massachusetts, scant attention has been paid to the economic benefits of small scale biomass use as an economic driver. A centerpiece for this effort could be the creation of a no-waste, integrated wood products industrial park once envisioned by the now defunct Forest and Wood Products Institute based at Mount Wachusett Community College in Gardner, MA.



The “model” industrial park could contain a sawmill processing underutilized species and small logs. The waste would serve to power cogeneration turning biomass into electricity and thermal (heat) use. The centre could also include value-added functions such as flooring, furniture, cabinetry, boxes, pallets and an “incubator” such as a wood pellet manufacturer. However, with or without the sawmill component, any industrial park would be well served by the installation of a small scale cogeneration biomass plant.

Though the “model” industrial park has yet to materialize, the college did convert their heating system to biomass and have saved approximately $300,000 per year. The Athol-Royalston Regional High School also converted to a wood chip biomass system and saves about $20,000 annually. Hospitals are considered ideal candidates for biomass cogeneration due to their thermal (heating, cooling, cooking, sterilization) and electrical loads which operate 24/7 throughout the year. After reviewing the advantages, Cooley Dickinson Hospital installed a 230 kW Advanced Biomass Combined Heat and Power generation system at its Northampton Hospital site.

The US Environmental Protection Agency claims that biomass does not contribute to greenhouse gases because it recycles carbon already in the natural carbon cycle. No new CO2 is added to the atmosphere as long as the forests from which the wood came are sustainably managed. In addition, forest biomass contains only trace amounts of sulfur oxides as opposed to significant amounts contained in fuel oil and acid rain producing coal.

Currently, three electricity generation plants totaling 165 MW have been proposed for the state based on an abundant stock of low-quality wood in Massachusetts forests. Aside from traffic, air quality and water use issues, concerns have been raised that large scale or industrial forestry would tip the balance away from sustainability. But small scale biomass facilities could revitalize the region and serve as a powerful incentive for business and industry to locate in an area that can provide inexpensive, sustainable fuel.

At the June 2009 joint meeting of the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) and the Advisory Group of Stakeholders (AGS) for the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Forest Futures Visioning Process, the point was made that “the concept of ‘buy local’ has worked to strengthen the farming sector in the Commonwealth and could work for the forestry sector as well.”



“The Commonwealth still has several dozen mills that can process wood locally. DCR hopes that the Technical Steering Committee will consider in developing its recommendations strategies that could help re-vitalize local mills, help the climate (by reducing transportation carbon inputs) and replace plastic, concrete, steel, etc in buildings, bridges etc., thereby reducing the Commonwealth’s collective carbon emissions.”



NOTE:

Genevieve Fraser is an Independent candidate for state representative for the 2nd Franklin District. She is the recipient of a Massachusetts Environmental Commendation for her work as the organizer of the Acid Rain Awareness Weeks in 1984-85 and has worked as an Environmental Technical Writer.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Avoid Getting Stuck In Tar Sands

Location of bitumen depoits ("tarsands&qu...Image via Wikipedia

Published on Thursday, May 20, 2010 by The Capital Times (Wisconsin)
Don’t Switch to Tar Sands and Other Dirty Fuels

by Bruce Nilles and Kate Colarulli

As we’ve watched the Gulf Coast clean up from the massive BP oil disaster, besides BP picking up its own PR mission to improve its image, we’ve also noticed another disturbing PR campaign: The coal industry and the tar sands industry are both starting to use this disaster to tout the supposed “cleanliness” of their respective energy sources.

There are more and more “clean” coal ads appearing alongside oil cleanup articles, and the tar sands (also known as oil sands) industry has already made the outrageous claim that it is “safer” than offshore drilling. One executive said “that while there can be failures with conventional oil and oil sands projects, the damage would be much smaller and more modest than with offshore spills.”

This could not be farther from the truth, of course. One could compare the tar sands industry in Canada to a massive and permanent oil spill on land. When the tar sands industry destroys the environment from the get-go, who needs a spill?

Here’s a fact for you: The Canadian tar sands operations are intending to expand to the size of Florida (and have already destroyed 200 square miles).

The mining and production of oil from tar sands creates three times the carbon emissions as that of conventional oil. As if its global warming pollution were not bad enough, tar sands mining also results in the destruction of the Canadian boreal forest, a vital carbon reservoir for 11 percent of the world’s carbon and a global nesting ground for 166 million birds. In other words, not only does tar sands development create vast quantities of new carbon emissions, it destroys the Earth’s natural ability to capture carbon through the forest.

Think BP’s bad behavior only crops up in oil? Think again -- BP is actively involved in the tar sands industry and has recently been cited for cutting corners on a tar sands project that would have impacted the drinking water for the 8 million people residing in the Chicago area.

In October, BP was caught trying to undercount the pollution that would result from a proposed expansion of its Whiting refinery in order to process tar sands. The tar sands expansion would increase the refinery’s discharges of ammonia into Lake Michigan by 54 percent and its discharges of suspended solids -- the byproducts of making gasoline -- by 35 percent. Surely the people of Chicago would thank BP for adding byproducts of making gasoline to their drinking water.

If that incident doesn’t scare you, one of BP’s tar sands operations, ironically named Sunrise, is situated above Canada’s biggest freshwater aquifer. Rick Boucher, vice president of the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region One, fears that “it’s just a matter of time before an accident causes injury or death, and pollution of this massive underground freshwater system.”

Instead of taking every precaution to protect this water resource, last month BP’s management successfully beat down “a resolution that would have required the company to report on the environmental, financial and reputational risks of developing Canadian tar sands projects.” The tar sands have been called “the greatest environmental crime in history,” yet BP is steadily increasing its involvement.

This BP oil disaster should be a turning point in our energy policy here in the U.S. We should not keep relying on dirty energy sources like coal, oil and tar sands. We have available technologies such as electric vehicles, solar and wind power that would allow us to get off oil. It’s time to make the switch.

There is no room in America’s future for coal, oil and tar sands -- don’t let the BP oil disaster help chain our country to more dirty energy.
© 2010 Madison.com
This is a recent blog post from Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign, co-written by Kate Colarulli of the Sierra Club Dirty Fuels Campaign. Nilles earned his bachelor’s and law degrees at the University of Wisconsin.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sunday, April 18, 2010

I Believe by Samir Doshi

The helix of sustainability - minimum environm...Image via Wikipedia

Published on Sunday, April 18, 2010 by Burlington Free Press (Vermont)
I Believe.

by Samir Doshi

Advocates of the sustainability movement envision a future where our global society evolves toward a culture of environmental protection, social equity, democratic participation and representation, and an economy that is predicated on the Earth as the source of capital instead of just another resource.

Unfortunately, many do not see a worldwide transition toward a sustainable and desirable future without a catastrophic event that awakens people to transition past the current direction of the status quo. The thought being that unless we are on the brink of a collapse, our society as a whole will not act, as our priorities lie elsewhere.

Author Bill McKibben and climatologist James Hansen feel we already are at a "tipping point" in regard to our impact on the climate, and if we do not decrease the current level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, we will witness large-scale environmental and societal consequences in the coming decades.

In his book "Revenge of Gaia," renowned scientist James Lovelock states that we have 10 years to act to avoid a large collapse, but we already are past certain tipping points, and some consequences cannot be avoided. The attempts to convey this urgency have had some results at the governmental level, but rates of soil erosion, deforestation, hunger, carbon emissions, biodiversity loss and poverty continue to rise. Sure, there are numerous initiatives and organizations that are operating at a local level to help foster this transition, but haven't we seen similar efforts during the past decades while still increasing our overall impact?

There are numerous examples to show the level of participation and attention toward these issues is larger than ever before.

Last October, McKibben and his advocacy group 350.org helped to organize the largest worldwide environmental rally to support action to reduce our carbon footprint - more than 5,200 events in 181 countries came out in full force.

In another laudable effort, Elinor Ostrom won the 2009 Nobel Prize in economics for examining the role that common-pool resources have in bringing stakeholders together to work toward sustainable and equitable solutions for all parties involved. Ostrom's research re-examines Garret Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons," a widely referenced theory contending that population growth and individual selfishness take precedence over long-term interests of social and environmental welfare.

Paul Hakwen's recent book, "Blessed Unrest," documents how the world's largest movement of more than a million organizations emerged without any unified leader or common cause and ultimately can benefit environmental health and social equity.

Nevertheless, according to the latest Pew and Gallup polls, we see sustainable transitions take a back seat to economic development and growth, and in the U.S., national security. Again, it seems that only a catastrophic event can cause people to understand the link between the current ecological, social, and economic recessions. Neither Hurricane Katrina nor any of the recent widespread heat waves or droughts has inspired national collective and public action toward reducing natural-resource mismanagement.

Is a larger and more-devastating event needed to spur action? What about something on the order of the fantastical and unrealistic apocalyptic movie "The Day After Tomorrow," where climate change causes an overnight ice age?

Perhaps we should alter our strategy. What if we could choose hope rather than despair to instill the will for a transformation? Instead of a debilitating phenomenon, could we create something phenomenal that could inspire people so that a transformation is not only possible, but it is desirable? Remarkable and powerful initiatives are happening today that affect such grand scales they seem to be unrealistic. I believe we can realize the impossible, and it can catalyze action at a global level that will lead to a sustainable transformation.

The best example of achieving the impossible is forestry scientist Willie Smits' work in Borneo. Smits founded the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation (BOS) in 1991 and set out to protect orangutans that were losing their rainforest habitat in Borneo to huge levels of deforestation to develop palm plantations for biofuel oil. Smits thought that in order to save the ape species from extinction, he would have to restore their habitat.

In fewer than five years, BOS transformed 5,000 acres of degraded and lifeless tropical wasteland into a regenerated rainforest with more than 1,000 indigenous tree species, 100 native bird species, 25 percent more rainfall and 3,000 new jobs that use the sap from the native sugar palm to develop new products.

Amory Lovins, founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, has called Smits' efforts the "finest example of ecological and economic restoration in the tropics."

Similar efforts have been occurring in New England for many years. Nearly 30 years ago, biologist and ecological designer John Todd looked at the role of vegetation and aquatic microorganisms in breaking down wastes and producing beneficial products. The research progressed into the founding of the Eco-Machine, a technology that has been used to treat human and industrial wastewater and also paved the way for the field of biomimicry. There are over 100 different Eco-Machines treating waste in numerous countries worldwide.

Along with several organizations in New England and in the Southeast, I am working toward developing similar stories in the Appalachian coal fields. Through the single-resource dependency of coal and mountaintop-removal surface mining, Appalachian communities suffer some of the highest levels of environmental degradation, poverty, infant mortality, heart disease and high-school dropout rates in the country.

It is incredible this is occurring in the most biologically diverse temperate forest system in the world, and one of the most culturally storied regions in our country. More than a million acres, 1,200 miles of streams and 450 mountains have been blown up - the tonnage of explosives used in two weeks to remove mountaintops in Appalachia is equivalent to one of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in World War II. The coal fields have been labeled appropriately as America's "sacrifice zone" in order to perpetuate our addiction to coal.

While we need to stop the removal of mountains, we also need to help transition the area toward a more-diversified and resilient economy. In collaboration with universities and nonprofit organizations, we are researching how to regenerate the mined landscapes to develop native ecosystems that can support an industrial ecology of locally produced carbon-negative biofuel feedstocks, biochar and Agro-Eco-Park developments.

We are also working with newly established enterprises on agroforestry, sustainable agriculture and renewable-energy developments. As a partner in the Appalachian Transition Initiative headed up by David Orr and Bill Becker, we are working with local communities to transition their ecology and economy toward a resilient infrastructure, something many community members previously thought was impossible - but now feel is inevitable.

Similar to what Smits said of Borneo, Orr has stated Appalachia can be the proving ground for degraded rural landscapes all over the world: "If we can do it here," he says, "we can do it anywhere."
Copyright ©2010 Burlington Free Press
Samir Doshi is a doctoral candidate at the University of Vermont's Gund Institute and Rubenstein School for Environment and Natural Resources. His research explores the role that ecological design can play in the relationship between natural and social communities in Appalachia. He has worked as a farmer in New Zealand, developed water conservation projects in Fiji, helped establish and taught in a nonprofit school in India and even was a dishwasher for the 14th Dalai Lama. Contact Samir Doshi at Samir.Doshi@uvm.edu.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Call It Sludge, or Biosolids: It's Poison

Michelle Obama, official White House portrait.Image via Wikipedia

Published on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Toxic Sludge Taints the White House

by Jill Richardson

When First Lady Michelle Obama decided to plant a vegetable garden at the White House, she faced a problem that many new homeowners in America run into. Previous residents of her house had applied sewage sludge to her lawn, but left no warnings to alert the her about the potential toxicity of her soil as a result of the sludge application. When the Obamas tested the soil in preparation for planting their garden, they found some lead in the soil. At 93 parts per million (ppm), the lead showed that the soil was probably contaminated by something, even though at 93 ppm the lead itself was not necessarily a danger. Still, the Obamas took precautions to further lower the lead level to 14ppm, and make the lead unavailable to plants by adding soil amendments that diluted the lead and increased the acidity of the soil.

Sludge Politicized

Unfortunately for the Obamas, and for the entire nation, once the story hit the news, it became politicized. While the issue was initially raised as a comment on the safety of using sewage sludge as fertilizer - an issue that has no political party - the right soon grabbed a hold of the story as a way to make fun of the Obamas. Some on the left fiercely defended the Obamas in return. But the Obamas are not the villains in this story; they are the victims. They are among many other Americans whose yards and gardens are contaminated with sewage sludge without their knowledge and who, as a result, are exposed to toxic contaminants in the soil. And lead is just a fraction of the overall problem.

When it was conceived, the White House garden was intended as a symbol of support for home gardening and fresh, organic food. In fact, famed chef and visionary Alice Waters lobbied for the White House garden for more than a decade. When it finally became a reality last year, she said, "Fresh, wholesome food is the right of every American. This garden symbolizes the Obamas' commitment to that belief." But in planting her garden, Michelle Obama not only set the example she intended for home gardening, she also illustrated why using sewage sludge as fertilizer is so harmful.

How the White House Got Sludged

To the best of anyone's knowledge, the White House garden was first sludged in the Reagan years. During the 1980's, the nation was experiencing the aftermath of the Clean Water Act, which required wastewater treatment plants to remove toxins from wastewater before releasing the water into the environment as effluent. As a result, wastewater treatment plants across the country were left with sewage sludge, a grey jelly comprised of everything they removed from the water. Some cities -- most notably New York City -- dealt with sludge by dumping it in the ocean, a practice that environmental groups were working to end. As this played out in court in the 1980's, New York searched for a new way to dispose of sludge. Ocean dumping was finally banned by the Ocean Dumping Reform Act of 1988, a law that fully took effect in 1991.

There is no really "good way" to dispose of sludge. Recent EPA data shows that the majority of sludge samples tested contained a list from A to Z of toxins including metals, pharmaceuticals, flame retardants, semivolatile organics, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and steroids. Sludge may also include other substances (or organisms) that the EPA did not test for, including parasites, bacteria, viruses, dioxins, and pesticides. Yet today, wastewater treatment plants and even the EPA talk about "beneficial uses" for sludge: converting it to energy (while releasing pollutants into the air), using it as alternate daily cover in landfills, or spreading it on farmland, gardens and lawns as fertilizer.

Sludge PR

The language around sludge (and even the name of sludge itself) changed as wastewater treatment plants across the country looked for ways to dispose of sludge when ocean dumping was no longer an option. New York City shopped their sludge around, looking for a community that would welcome it as fertilizer. Understandably, nobody wanted it. For obvious reasons, sludge is a public relations nightmare, even before people understand the volume and variety of toxins it contains. It was in this environment, as the issue played out during the Reagan and Bush years, that the National Park Service began applying sludge at the White House.

Sludging the White House was but one part of the campaign to clean up sludge's public image. In the waning days of the first Bush administration, the sewage industry trade, lobby, and public relations group, the Water Environment Federation (WEF), held a contest among its members to rename sludge. The EPA liked the new name they selected - "biosolids" - so much, they gave WEF a $300,000 grant to promote the "beneficial use" of sludge. The EPA also modified its rules governing the application of sludge on America's farmland, which previously classified sludge as hazardous waste. With its nifty new name, "biosolids" now qualified as fertilizer - so long as it met some minimal requirements. Specifically, the EPA regulates the amounts of only nine heavy metals and fecal coliform bacteria that are permitted in sludge that is applied to land as fertilizer. And, while keeping high levels of lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals out of sludge is a nice gesture, compare that to the long list of chemicals and organisms that sludge may actually still contain.

What's In That Stuff, Anyway?

Sewage sludge is not only a mix of everything that goes down household drains, it also contains industrial and hospital waste. The root of the problem is our sewer system, which uses water as a means to transport waste and does not separate what goes down toilets or kitchen sinks from what goes down the drain at oil refineries, factories, or other industrial sites. Instead of forcing industry to bear the cost of disposing of its waste products responsibly, we let them send it to our wastewater treatment plants, mixed in with water, and taxpayers bear the cost of separating that waste out from the water and then dealing with it as sludge. Therefore, the contents of sludge are determined by the materials disposed of by nearby industrial sites (although some chemicals are more or less universal in all sludge, based on the EPA's tests).

It's Not Sludge, It's "Biosolids"!

Despite this, the EPA continued promoting the "beneficial use" of biosolids and the National Park Service continued applying it at the White House until as late as 2004. In the rest of the country, home gardeners could buy sludge for their own lawns or gardens in commercially marketed fertilizers like Milorganite (sludge from Milwaukee, marketed using the slogan "For Better Results. Naturally."), Hou-Actinite (sludge from Houston, marketed as "a naturally nutrient rich slow release organic fertilizer"), Allgro (which promises to help you "fertilize organically - while promoting environmental sustainability among American businesses"), and Vital Cycle (marketed as "a concentrated natural organic fertilizer"). Companies marketing sludge as fertilizer frame their products as natural, sustainable, and even organic, terms that are misleading and and dangerous. In fact, the USDA's organic standards specifically forbids applying sewage sludge to land that is farmed organically, and making any claim that sludge is organic is just plain wrong.

What's In Your Soil?

If, like Michelle Obama, a gardener moves to a new house that was previously owned by someone else, or builds a new house on land that was previously farmland, the gardener will have no way of knowing what contaminants are in the soil if the previous owner has applied sludge. Garden stores sell soil test kits, but those only test for pH and a few key nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium). University labs often offer more extensive soil testing for a low price ($10-$30 or so), and those can include tests for lead, cadmium, nickel, chromium, and a few other heavy metals. However, it is impossible for the average gardener to find an inexpensive soil test kit that could even begin to identify the long list of contaminants that may be in soil "fertilized" with sludge. Also, commonly-available tests may not be sensitive enough to detect small amounts of contaminants that may only be present in parts per million or parts per billion. (Depending on the substance, a tiny concentration may be enough to harm one's health.)

Sludge Isn't Harmless

Despite the EPA's claims of safety, sludge has not been used as fertilizer for decades without incident. People and animals have become ill or died, and farms have gone out of business due to land application of sludge. Harry Dobin, who ran a coffee truck one thousand feet from a sludge composting site, was one such casualty. He began experiencing health problems in 1991, when he was 25 years old. After months of worsening symptoms and a number of wrong diagnoses, doctors discovered Aspergillus fumigatus, a fungus common in composting sludge, in his lungs. By the time he was diagnosed, the disease was too advanced to treat. Dobin died nine months after he was diagnosed, on September 23, 1992.

In a more recent example, Andy McElmurray spread sludge on his Georgia dairy farm for more than a decade. The sludge fertilized crops fed to his cattle. All went well until he switched the crop he was growing and added lime to raise the pH of his soil in order to do so. The higher pH caused a toxic metal - molybdenum - to become bioavailable to the plants. The cows were poisoned by molybdenum, and many died. Ultimately, McElmurray went out of business. Even consumers are at risk, so long as farms use sludge as fertilizer. In McElmurray's case, a nearby NutraSweet factory had been sending thallium (used in rat poison) down its drains and it wound up in the sludge he applied to his land. When milk from a local grocery store was tested, it contained thallium at 11 times the legal limit for thallium in drinking water.

Michelle's Opportunity

It is truly a shame that Michelle Obama's vegetable garden is marred by past use of sewage sludge on the White House grounds. The historic garden has inspired many, both at home and abroad, and the First Lady is credited as one reason for a national surge in home gardening. It is not her fault that previous administrations were dishonest about the safety of sewage sludge as fertilizer, but now that she has uncovered the problem, she has the power and high-profile to do something about it to help other Americans. We hope she does.

The article originally appeared on PR Watch.org

Jill Richardson is the founder of the blog La Vida Locavore and a member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board. She is the author of Recipe for America: Why Our Food System Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, March 5, 2010

Joint Dismissal in Conservation Commission Case

Exterior of the new Walmart Supercenter in Nia...Image via Wikipedia


The neighbors of the Mackin French King parcel and the defendants,
Greenfield Investors, have signed a joint dismissal today of the appeal
in the Conservation Commission case in Franklin County Superior Court.
This appeal was filed before the amended Order of Conditions.

The neighbors believe that they essentially won one of their major
battles--which was to force the landowner to clean up his polluted
wetland, and to force the developer to move its massive store off
Wetland 4. The issue of size was not addressed, but will be in the next
phase. We are releasing the following statement:

"When we began this process 3 years ago, the Conservation Commission was
claiming that wetland 4 was not even a wetland, and the developer
presented plans to put its store and parking lot over that
wetland--destroying it completely.

Now, as a result of our intervention, the wetland must be restored---not
replicated elsewhere---and in fact it will be expanded. The Conservation
Commission review was so flawed, that the state Department of
Environmental Protection
had to file its own appeal of the Commission's
decision---and now we have a wetland resource that will be protected and
enhanced.

The neighbors remain concerned that to build a store this size the 100
foot buffer zone around this project had to be destroyed and paved over
in many areas---but we do not feel that court action would resolve this
problem. While the Conservation Commission ignored our concerns about
the incompatible size of this building--two and a half times larger than
Stop & Shop--we believe this issue will have more traction before the
Planning Board.

Now we move onto Phase II of this review, which is the special permit,
Major Development Review and site plan review of the store itself. The
homeowners in the Canada Hill neighborhood, and the whole eastern part
of town, will continue to assert that this proposal is incompatible with
a residential neighborhood, and that in its present state is
unacceptable---without safeguards and limitations to protect the
neighbors homes and property.

This project is located in the French King overlay district, whose
purpose is to create an attractive entryway into town, and to 'minimize
strip development and traffic congestion.' This overlay district was set
aside as a special overlay to 'protect scenic and naturaal features.'
Placing a big box store in this gateway to our town defies all rational
land use planning.

The neighbors also feel that an enormous superstore is incompatible with
existing uses, and will detract from the character and scale of
neighboring properties. The project as proposed has no screening, no
buffering, and no open spaces---it is a wall of concrete surrounded by a
sea of asphalt.

But the enormity of this project should concern all residents in
Greenfield and surrounding towns. We believe that a careful review of
this proposal will show that it will have a significant adverse fiscal
impact on the town, and surrounding towns, that it will adversely impact
adjacent properties, the neighborhood, and the environment, and that it
will result in unsafe vehicular circulation, reducing the service level
of traffic for the full length of High Street and surrounding
intersections. This project will also detract from the downtown as a
commercial center, and undermine the revitalization focus of current
efforts in our central commercial area.

We will be asking the Planning Board to dramatically scale back the size
of this project---which they have the right to do---and to limit the
time of operation and extent of facilities to protect the public health
and welfare.

This big box store three times the size of a football field is the wrong
size and in the wrong place for Greenfield and area towns. We hope that
these arguments will not be lost on the members of the Planning and
Zoning Board."
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, March 1, 2010

Bio-Mass Causes More Harm Than Fossil Fuels

Published on Monday, March 1, 2010 by The Times Online/UK
Green Fuels Cause More Harm Than Fossil Fuels, According to Report

by Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Using fossil fuel in vehicles is better for the environment than so-called green fuels made from crops, according to a government study seen by The Times.

[The expansion of the palm oil industry in Indonesia has turned it into the third-largest CO2 emitter, after China and the US. Indonesia loses an area of forest the size of Wales every year and the orang-utan is on the brink of extinction in Sumatra. (AFP/Conservation International/File/Kabir Bakie)]The findings show that the Department for Transport's target for raising the level of biofuel in all fuel sold in Britain will result in millions of acres of forest being logged or burnt down and converted to plantations. The study, likely to force a review of the target, concludes that some of the most commonly-used biofuel crops fail to meet the minimum sustainability standard set by the European Commission.

Under the standard, each litre of biofuel should reduce emissions by at least 35 per cent compared with burning a litre of fossil fuel. Yet the study shows that palm oil increases emissions by 31 per cent because of the carbon released when forest and grassland is turned into plantations. Rape seed and soy also fail to meet the standard.

The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation this year requires 3¼ per cent of all fuel sold to come from crops. The proportion is due to increase each year and by 2020 is required to be 13 per cent. The DfT commissioned E4tech, a consultancy, to investigate the overall impact of its biofuel target on forests and other undeveloped land.

The EC has conducted its own research, but is refusing to publish the results. A leaked internal memo from the EC's agriculture directorate reveals its concern that Europe's entire biofuels industry, which receives almost £3 billion a year in subsidies, would be jeopardised if indirect changes in land use were included in sustainability standards. A senior official added to the memo in handwriting: "An unguided use of ILUC [indirect land use change] would kill biofuels in the EU."

The EC hopes to protect its biofuel target by issuing revised standards that would give palm plantations the same status as natural forests. Officials appear to have accepted arguments put forward by the palm oil industry that palms are just another type of tree.

A draft of the new rules, obtained by The Times, states that palm oil should be declared sustainable if it comes from a "continuously forested area", which it defines as areas where trees can reach at least heights of 5m, making up crown cover of more than 30 per cent. "This means, for example, that a change from forest to oil palm plantation would not per se constitute a breach of the criterion," it adds.

Clearing rainforest for biofuel plantations releases carbon stored in trees and soil. It takes up to 840 years for a palm oil plantation to soak up the carbon emitted when the rainforest it replaced was burnt. The expansion of the palm oil industry in Indonesia has turned it into the third-largest CO2 emitter, after China and the US. Indonesia loses an area of forest the size of Wales every year and the orang-utan is on the brink of extinction in Sumatra.

Last year, 127 million litres of palm oil was added to diesel sold to motorists in Britain, including 64 million litres from Malaysia and 27 million litres from Indonesia. Kenneth Richter, biofuels campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: "The billions of subsidy for biofuels would be better spent on greener cars and improved public transport."


Copyright 2010 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Saturday, February 20, 2010

World's Top Firms Cause $2.2 Trillion of Environmental Damage

Published on Friday, February 19, 2010 by the Guardian/UK
World's Top Firms Cause $2.2 Trillion of Environmental Damage, Report Estimates
Report for the UN into the activities of the world's 3,000 biggest companies estimates one-third of profits would be lost if firms were forced to pay for use, loss and damage of environment

by Juliette Jowit

The cost of pollution and other damage to the natural environment caused by the world's biggest companies would wipe out more than one-third of their profits if they were held financially accountable, a major unpublished study for the United Nations has found.

[Black clouds over the central business district, Jakarta. The report into the activities of the world's 3,000 biggest public companies has estimated the cost of use, loss and damage of the environment. Photograph: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images]Black clouds over the central business district, Jakarta. The report into the activities of the world's 3,000 biggest public companies has estimated the cost of use, loss and damage of the environment. Photograph: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images
The report comes amid growing concern that no one is made to pay for most of the use, loss and damage of the environment, which is reaching crisis proportions in the form of pollution and the rapid loss of freshwater, fisheries and fertile soils.

Later this year, another huge UN study - dubbed the "Stern for nature" after the influential report on the economics of climate change by Sir Nicholas Stern - will attempt to put a price on such global environmental damage, and suggest ways to prevent it. The report, led by economist Pavan Sukhdev, is likely to argue for abolition of billions of dollars of subsidies to harmful industries like agriculture, energy and transport, tougher regulations and more taxes on companies that cause the damage.

Ahead of changes which would have a profound effect - not just on companies' profits but also their customers and pension funds and other investors - the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment initiative and the United Nations Environment Programme jointly ordered a report into the activities of the 3,000 biggest public companies in the world, which includes household names from the UK's FTSE 100 and other major stockmarkets.

The study, conducted by London-based consultancy Trucost and due to be published this summer, found the estimated combined damage was worth US$2.2 trillion (£1.4tn) in 2008 - a figure bigger than the national economies of all but seven countries in the world that year.

The figure equates to 6-7% of the companies' combined turnover, or an average of one-third of their profits, though some businesses would be much harder hit than others.

"What we're talking about is a completely new paradigm," said Richard Mattison, Trucost's chief operating officer and leader of the report team. "Externalities of this scale and nature pose a major risk to the global economy and markets are not fully aware of these risks, nor do they know how to deal with them."

The biggest single impact on the $2.2tn estimate, accounting for more than half of the total, was emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for climate change. Other major "costs" were local air pollution such as particulates, and the damage caused by the over-use and pollution of freshwater.

The true figure is likely to be even higher because the $2.2tn does not include damage caused by household and government consumption of goods and services, such as energy used to power appliances or waste; the "social impacts" such as the migration of people driven out of affected areas, or the long-term effects of any damage other than that from climate change. The final report will also include a higher total estimate which includes those long-term effects of problems such as toxic waste.

Trucost did not want to comment before the final report on which sectors incurred the highest "costs" of environmental damage, but they are likely to include power companies and heavy energy users like aluminium producers because of the greenhouse gases that result from burning fossil fuels. Heavy water users like food, drink and clothing companies are also likely to feature high up on the list.

Sukhdev said the heads of the major companies at this year's annual economic summit in Davos, Switzerland, were increasingly concerned about the impact on their business if they were stopped or forced to pay for the damage.

"It can make the difference between profit and loss," Sukhdev told the annual Earthwatch Oxford lecture last week. "That sense of foreboding is there with many, many [chief executives], and that potential is a good thing because it leads to solutions."

The aim of the study is to encourage and help investors lobby companies to reduce their environmental impact before concerned governments act to restrict them through taxes or regulations, said Mattison.

"It's going to be a significant proportion of a lot of companies' profit margins," Mattison told the Guardian. "Whether they actually have to pay for these costs will be determined by the appetite for policy makers to enforce the 'polluter pays' principle. We should be seeking ways to fix the system, rather than waiting for the economy to adapt. Continued inefficient use of natural resources will cause significant impacts on [national economies] overall, and a massive problem for governments to fix."

Another major concern is the risk that companies simply run out of resources they need to operate, said Andrea Moffat, of the US-based investor lobby group Ceres, whose members include more than 80 funds with assets worth more than US$8tn. An example was the estimated loss of 20,000 jobs and $1bn last year for agricultural companies because of water shortages in California, said Moffat.
© 2010 Guardian/UK


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, January 14, 2010

California Consumers To Benefit Directly From Emissions Permits

Top: Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide lev...Image via Wikipedia

Reaping the Dividends of Reduced Emissions

California residents stand to gain a lot from the state's efforts to cap greenhouse gases: less pollution, greener infrastructure, and a yearly check in the mailbox.

by Mike Sandler
 Copenhagen produced practically nothing. Congress seems paralyzed. Powerful lobbies say we should delay responding to the climate crisis until after the economy recovers. But some good news recently came out of California, where a state advisory committee recommended a policy that caps greenhouse emissions and sends money back to the people.
As part of its implementation of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the California Environmental Protection Agency convened a panel of economists, academics, and legal experts to form the Economic and Allocation Advisory Committee (EAAC), which presented its findings on January 11th, 2010. Despite intense pressure from utilities and petroleum lobbyists, who asked for free allowances and tons of questionable offsets, the EAAC recommended that the state sell (auction) 100 percent of emissions permits, requiring polluters to pay for the emissions they produce and to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit over time.
The Story of Cap And Trade screenshot

The Story of Cap & Trade
:: Annie
Leonard's newest video asks tough
questions about who cap and trade
really benefits—and what effect it would
have on climate change.
The revenues collected would be used in a variety of ways, but the majority of the money would be returned to California households through either cash "dividends" or tax cuts. The EAAC states that climate dividends could be sent to Californians as checks in the mail or through an electronic funds transfer system, and cites the precedent of the Alaska Permanent Fund, which sends revenues from fees on oil companies back to Alaskans each year.
The EAAC report notes that dividends provide several benefits. They preserve public ownership of a common asset-the air we breathe-which we all share equally. And returning the bulk of allowance value to households helps residents afford energy-saving reforms like retrofitting their homes. It's also a boon to low-income people who can least afford increases in energy and fuel prices.
The EAAC proposes the cap and dividend approach for "roughly 75 percent" of allowance value, with the remaining 25 percent "devoted to financing investments and other public expenditure," including research and development of clean energy technologies. The EAAC estimates that if the 75 percent dividend recommendation were implemented, each California family of four would receive an annual dividend of $388 in 2012, rising to $1,036 in 2020, adding a total of $7,004 to family incomes over the eight-year program.
The 75-25 split between consumers and investments is also found in a bill being considered in the U.S. Senate, the Carbon Limits and Energy for American Renewal (CLEAR) Act, introduced by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). The Cantwell CLEAR Act provides an alternative to the climate bill that passed the U.S. House, known as Waxman-Markey. Groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace criticized Waxman-Markey for giving away free allowances to the utilities (once again "on behalf" of consumers) and for allowing too many iffy offsets that dilute the market for permits. The Senate version of Waxman-Markey has not moved for several months. If the Senate remains stalled, then California's AB32 will proceed, and in 2012 Californians will face a carbon price, but perhaps also receive dividends in return.
But don't go to the ATM just yet. Numerous political obstacles remain. Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay who is now running for Governor, has called for the suspension of AB32 due to fears of impacts on the state's ailing economy, and State Assemblyman Dan Logue is collecting signatures for a statewide initiative to halt the emissions reductions as long as state unemployment is above 5.5 percent. The utilities still want handouts, and will be pressuring the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and elected officials to provide them with free allowances, or to run the consumer "rebates" through their utility bills (prolonging the low-carbon transition by shielding consumers from the price of carbon).
The EAAC recommendations also offered the option of tax cuts to consumers instead of dividends. Unfortunately, tax cuts favor wealthier families, and provide a less visible (and therefore less politically popular) use of allowance value. Dividends could also be hijacked by legislators who would prefer to spend the money on other projects or fill the State's gaping budget deficit. Spending the revenues on other uses is tempting, but by neglecting consumers, it could accidentally help build the constituency for Whitman, Logue, and other enemies of the carbon cap. Dividend supporters prefer to reserve a majority of permit revenues for consumers to help households deal with potential price impacts. With political support for AB32 solidified, the private sector will respond to the escalating carbon price by investing in new technologies, and legislators can fund worthy energy projects by instituting carbon fees and diverting subsidies away from fossil fuels.
Although it faces obstacles, the EAAC recommendation is remarkable in that it puts people first, bypassing powerful lobbyists and special interests. Perhaps such linking of climate solutions with household economics will counteract the economic scare tactics of climate deniers, give some momentum to the cap and dividend approach in the CLEAR Act, and help climate activists get past their post-Copenhagen blues.
Mike Sandler wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Mike is co-founder of the Climate Protection Campaign, based in Sonoma County, California.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]