The oil and energy industry, accustomed to getting what it wants when it comes to untapped oil and gas fields to drill, has been repeatedly frustrated in its attempts to get its hands on the sweet, sweet petroleum lying under the ecologically sensitive tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But after years of failing to secure drilling rights, it looks like the industry might get a nice consolation prize from the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
DFW is considering a land swap with Doyon Corporation -- a Fairbanks-based concern owned by the Athabaskan tribe -- in which the agency would transfer outright 110,000 acres of oil-laden upland territory within the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge to the energy developer, plus mineral rights to another 97,000 acres. In exchange, the refuge would gain 150,000 acres of wetlands now controlled by Doyon, plus 56,500 acres that fall under pending land claims owned by the company.
We're of mixed feelings on the matter. On the one hand, wetland protection is a great and necessary thing, and Alaskan wetlands are summer migration destinations for birds from all over North America and Asia. Some birds migrate from as far as Yunnan Province, China to southern Alaska.
On the other hand, we have to point out that despite industry assurances to the contrary, the impact of oil development extends far past the footprint of the drill pads, roads, and pipelines that are constructed. Roads and development chop contiguous habitat into smaller chunks, and small chunks of territory tend to support lower biodiversity than larger ones.
What's green, brown, and powerful? Compost, at least in Boston.
Beantown is planning an urban composting facility that will collect yard waste and other compostable plant material, bring it to an indoor facility, and use the methane and heat that decomposition produces to create electricity and high-quality fertilizer. Planners forecast that enough electricity to light 1500 homes will be produced by the plant when it goes online, as well as enough heat to run on-site year-round greenhouses and sell excess fertilizer.
So, in exchange for something worthless -- leaves, banana peels, and apple cores -- Boston gets locally produced food, electricity to help offset the cost of the facility, and a decreased greenhouse footprint, merely by taking advantage of heat and methane that was once wasted.
This is really one of those "so smart, the rest of us feel dumb for not thinking of it" sorts of schemes that we EnviroWonks can only hope more cities begin to adopt. How much yard waste, veggie trimmings, spoiled leftovers, and past-expiration food do we all throw away? Perhaps more significantly, how much compostable waste do city parks, supermarkets, farms, packing facilities, restaurants, and the like produce?
It seems to us that there's a lot of energy-rich trash we're throwing away, and we can only applaud Boston for realizing its true value. And maybe, with a little push from the rest of us, we can convince our hometowns to see the wisdom in urban composting plants.
Yesterday we told you about the rather large chunk of ice that broke off of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Western Antarctica this month. The new ice cube now floating (and melting) in the South Pacific measures in at a healthy 160 square miles, or nearly three times the size of Liechtenstein.
But it turns out this collapse might be just the, uh, tip of the iceberg. Scientists say the entire Wilkins Ice Shelf is in danger of breaking off at any moment. Such an event would be quite a big deal, as the shelf has an area of 5,282 square miles. That number doesn't mean much to us by itself, so we went searching for some context.
Here, in no particular order, are 10 things smaller than the Wilkins Ice Shelf:
Los Angeles County (4,752 square miles): Which, with its population of 10 million people, answers the question, "How many people could live on the Wilkins Ice Shelf?"
As anyone who has taken an economics course knows, the laws of supply and demand are simple: When demand increases while supply decreases, the price goes up, and demand will eventually go down. Economists, for all our eagerness to forecast and predict people's behavior, recognize there is a lag time between the increased prices and decrease demand, but they'll be darned if they can tell you what that is.
Well, it looks like Americans may have finally reached their threshold for what they are willing to shell out for gas. The Federal Highway Administration said this week that Americans drove 0.4 percent less in 2007 than 2006, from 3.01 trillion miles to a mere 3 trillion miles. 0.01 trillion miles doesn't sound statistically significant, until you realize that's actually 10 billion miles.
Using the combined CAFE for cars and light trucks produced in 2007 of 22.2mpg, that's about 450 million gallons of oil not turned into greenhouse gases and other pollutants by vehicles last year. Not bad.
Will this translate into reduced CO2 emissions? Well, mass transit ridership is increasing, and this year's New York Car Show is exhibiting lots of fuel efficient rides. Considering the U.S. was recently admonished by the International Energy Agency for having some of the sorriest CAFE standards in the world, we'd like to think that larger changed are imminent.
Of course, this week's news could be due to the economic downturn and the fact Americans are too busy trying to keep their homes from foreclosure to be able to joyride around the mall. But beggars can't always be choosers when it comes to reducing emissions.
A February ruling by a circuit court panel that found EPA in violation of the Clean Air Act for allowing plants to purchase emissions credits instead of forcing every plant to cut mercury emissions. So...now the president is appealing a court decision that said that the EPA is breaking its own law. Confusing enough for you?
As of 7:30 p.m. eastern time, neither agency had a statement on its website about the appeal. More on this story as it develops.
It shouldn't really come as a surprise, as scientists have been predicting it for 15 years now, but the Western Antarctic Wilkins ice shelf has just dropped a load of ice the size of Liechtenstein into the ocean. Scientists have been watching the ice shelf start to lose its integrity (not unlike our politicians) over the past month.
This one chunk of ice -- which according to scientists shattered like a piece of glass -- was one of the few sections of ice keeping the Wilkins ice sheet safely intact. Evidently, it's now only holding on by a thread, albeit a giant thread made of ice ... being held over an open flame of warm ocean waters.
The Antarctic you may remember is in the southern hemisphere, so while we are finally getting to experience an early spring up north, winter and its freezing temperatures are around the bend in the Antarctic. So start placing your bets now as to when the whole thing just gives up.
As it is, the ice breaking off Western Antarctica, no matter how big, isn't going to raise sea levels because this ice is actually floating on the ocean and not on land. Think of it like an ice cube melting in a glass of water -- it's not going to change the water level in the glass.
When you think of the USDA, what comes to mind? Beef, the Food Pyramid, and other items of a consumable nature, but we bet trees weren't on your list.
Unlike its sister agencies in the Department of Interior -- Fish and Wildlife, National Parks Service, Bureau of Land Management -- which all manage federal land, the Forest Service was placed under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture when it was created over a century ago.
But these days the Forest Service (don't let the name fool you, it handles grasslands as well), is more focused on conservation than logging. So this month, the House Appropriations committee -- which is responsible for approving the budgets of both departments -- asked the Government Accountability Office to see if it wouldn't be more efficient and economical to put all of the land management agencies under one roof.
This isn't the first time such an idea has been proposed. Since the 1970s there have been calls to consolidate the Forest Service with other agencies throughout the government to create a Department of Natural Resources.
We all had a good -- albeit melancholy -- laugh in 2006 when Saturday Night Live looked at a parallel universe where Al Gore was president (and where George W. Bush was baseball’s commissioner). The Gore administration was attacking global warming head on, but it turns out that global warming was fighting back.
Parallel-universe President Gore -- it feels great to write that, by the way -- told us: “In the last six years, we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack. As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine, but I assure you, we will not let the glaciers win.”
Turns out our shoulda-been president was onto something. Last week, the European Commission put out a report talking about the security risks climate change will pose in the coming decades, and that its members better arm up if they want to be safe from renegade glaciers and the millions of poor refugees they’re sure to create.
Here’s a few of the "highlights":
"Unmitigated climate change beyond 2ºC will lead to unprecedented security scenarios as it is likely to trigger a number of tipping points that would lead to further accelerated, irreversible and largely unpredictable climate changes."
"A drop in agricultural productivity will lead to, or worsen, food-insecurity in least developed countries and an unsustainable increase in food prices across the board. Water shortage in particular has the potential to cause civil unrest and to lead to significant economic losses, even in robust economies."
"Receding coastlines and submergence of large areas could result in loss of territory, including entire countries such as small island states. More disputes over land and maritime borders and other territorial rights are likely. There might be a need to revisit existing rules of international law, particularly the Law of the Sea, as regards the resolution of territorial and border disputes."
"Possible actions that could be developed include…Further build up EU and Member State planning and capabilities including civil protection and the use of crisis management and disaster response instruments (civil and military) to contribute to the response to the security risks posed by climate change."
Revisiting the Law of the Sea? Really? That sounds like something only the Bush Administration could come up with. You’re doing a heck of a job, Europe.
It's common knowledge that red tape often prevents things from being accomplished in a timely manner, if at all, in a bureaucracy. But the Bush Administration is now being charged with erecting such barriers to purposefully prevent species from qualifying for placement on the Endangered Species List.
And here we thought that Republicans were bastions of small, uncomplicated governments.
In what has become a familiar refrain under the Bush II Administration, the Interior Department -- which is responsible for the listing and enforcement of endangered species -- is being accused of disregarding scientific evidence for listing species, and de-listing animals against scientific judgment.
Documents uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act show intent to reduce the number of species that can be classified as endangered, including a memo from the head of the Endangered Species listing office advising his employees to only utilize scientific evidence that would reduce the likelihood of a species being listed. Yeah, we did a double take on that one too.
But you don't have to take our snarky words on the administration's intentions, let's go to the numbers:
0: The number of domestic (indigenous to the US) species listed as endangered since Dirk Kempthorne became Secretary of the Interior two years ago.
59: The total number of domestic species listed as endangered during the Bush presidency to date.
6: The number of foreign species in the US listed as endangered during the Bush presidency to date.
58-62: The number of species listed as endangered each year during the Bush I and Clinton Administrations.
280+: The number of species that are thought to deserve Endangered Species status.
184: Lawsuits filed under the Clinton Administration over endangered species listings.
369: Lawsuits filed under the current administration over endangered species listings.
Yeah, OK, we can be the change that we want to see in the world. But unless powerful people in powerful positions want to be that change as well, nothing's going to change.
So now, finally, there's a place where you can go for news and analysis of politics from an environmental perspective.
