Pasadena: apparently good for roses. trees.. not so much

I grew up in Pasadena.  In fact, I consider myself a second generation Pasadena girl. And, although, my mother technically grew up in La Canada, Colorado Blvd. was the place to be then, as it is now.

Anyone who has lived or visited this town can sense the history in every nook and cranny. Even though Pottery Barn attracts tourists, Le Sex Shoppe down the way announces our history.

That is why it is so devastating that a few blocks down, the Pasadena City Council cut down the ficus trees that have been in existence for as long as I can remember.  In all honesty, it is not so much that they were cut down, but how they were cut down.

 

This was the culmination of a plan that started ten years ago, that consists of removing 43 ficus trees from streets in the area.  The reasoning behind the removal is an alleged push by business owners in the area who are concerned with root destruction, as well as, what seems to be simple cleanliness issues (abundance of seed pods and residue from tree sap).  Last month, there was hope that a new vote would not pass, thereby saving the trees, but the wavering City councilman wavered the other way.

I am sure we will never know an exact time line of events, but the next decision on the part of the City Council is the one that seems the most devious.  Originally slated for an April removal, there was a decision to remove the oldest of the trees at 2 in the morning, last Friday, just hours before a scheduled protest by residents opposed to the tree destruction. I think that anyone who opposed the tree removal would feel less betrayed had there had been a reasonable discussion, and the opposition felt it had been heard.  

This does seem to have become a battle between residents and business owners, where the businesses have been winning.  Vroman’s Bookstore, established in 1894, is a central player in this particular district and the owner was very vocal in his support of the tree removal. However, many residents are asking people to use the power of money to influence change by not taking their business to the establishments in the area that supported the tree removal.  As a result, many owners, including Vroman’s, are now stating that they are disheartened by the decision of the City Council.

This however may backfire on them in another way, which is that the City Council feels betrayed and left to fend for themselves against the residents, and voters, of the town.  The businesses may suffer in the future, because of their side-stepping on their support of the tree removal by the council.

Since my focus is always about the environment, I feel it is important to say something about why the tree removal will do more harm than good.  I do believe that if the city had paid attention and cared for the ficus trees properly, they would probably never have been in this mess and the far reaching benefits of these trees would still be in place.  Old growth trees like this are fantastic for three things; shade, flood prevention and carbon capture.  

The shade and insulation provided by these trees is immeasurable.  Not only do they do a fantastic job of cooling the direct area underneath the trees, but the subsequent insulation provided to the neighboring buildings is immense.  So, now Vroman’s, or any other business, is going to be emitting even more CO2 with increased heating or cooling requirements by the simple fact that they do not have a tree either helping to cool in the summer, or by insulation in the winter.  

Obviously, I cannot say for certain, and only time will tell, but trees with large root structures are incredibly helpful in preventing floods.  The simple fact is that those roots and those trees need water.  In an area that is covered in cement, trees are indispensable in flood prevention, because all of the soil is covered.  As I said, this will remain to be seen.  I have no idea what the sewer and flood prevention system is like in this part of town.  Also, given that we are in a drought it may be a non-issue. However, time will tell if the tree removal has a disastrous effect on water absorption in the area.

Lastly, and most importantly, old growth trees are THREE TIMES more effective in trapping carbon dioxide than a new tree.  And to add insult to injury, an old growth tree, NEVER releases the carbon dioxide it has trapped.  We are in a race to trap greenhouse gases before they increase our planets temperature to unsustainable levels. To remove these trees without thought to see if there were other actions that could save these carbon sinks is irresponsible, to say the least.  When the world is doing its best to reduce emissions and meet new climate change goals, this decision seems irrational and petty.

In the meantime, we will have to wait and see what happens.  The last City Council meeting was rife with residents voicing their dissatisfaction with the elected officials and asked for a moratorium on future tree cutting.  One hopes that with information and a willingness to hear both sides of the argument, the Mayor and the City Council can make the best decision for the future.

the man who holds the future

 

Who is Todd Stern?  And, why should you care?

We are coming upon a time when the global community will be reviewing, reevaluating and rewriting the Kyoto Protocol.  This is the document that each and every country will have to agree to in our win over climate change.

Todd Stern is the man who is representing YOU in those talks.

Hillary Clinton appointed him yesterday to head a larger group of people responsible that will be known as the Global Climate Change Envoy, stating:

“As we take steps at home, we will also vigorously pursue negotiations, those sponsored by the United Nations and those at the sub-global, regional and bilateral level, that can lead to binding international climate agreements,” Clinton said.  “No solution is feasible without all major emitting nations joining together and playing an important part.”

Todd Stern was a senior White House advisor under President Clinton, so maybe it won’t surprise you that Hillary Clinton appointed him to his latest position.  However, please do not assume this is just nepotism.  His credentials do justify this role.

Time Magazine has published some facts about Mr. Sterns:

Law degree from Harvard in 1977 and After completing his law degree, Stern served as an attorney for the Legal Aid Society for two years, followed by more than a decade working for private firms

Under President Clinton, he was the senior White House negotiator at the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, which called for the stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently a senior fellow at the think tank Center for American Progress, where he focuses on climate change and environmental issues. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a vice chair of public policy for the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

“Evaporation and rainfall are increasing; glaciers are retreating; sea ice is shrinking; sea level is rising; permafrost is melting; wildfires are increasing; storm and flood damage is soaring. The canary in the coal mine is singing for all she’s worth.” — on reading the signs of climate change (Center for American Progress, May 28, 2004)

Obama’s Dream Green Team

 

Today, at 12p EST, the United States of America welcomed our 44th President, Barack Hussein Obama.  While it is expected that he will assist this country out of its vast inadequacies created by the Bush Administration, the one great hope, is the ‘green’ hope.  Many have talked in the weeks past of the Dream Green Team. But, we felt that on this day, it bears reminding who is on this team and welcoming them in their leadership roles of combating climate change.

 

Dr. Steven Chu – Department of Energy

Nobel Prize winning physicist.  He has a sophisticated grasp of the complexities of global warming and a strong belief that it needs to be fought agressively.  He has long been an advocate to alternative energy and nuclear power, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuel is necessary for our long term survival.

Lisa Jackson – Environmental Protection Agency

She comes from the post of serving as the New Jersey head of the  Department of Environmental Protection.  She has been a staunch defender of the environment in her state, setting policy on clean water, clean air, and land preservation.  During her confirmation hearings, many heard music when she said, “Science will be the backbone of what the EPA does.”

 

Jane Lubchenco – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Dr. Lubchenco is a marine ecologist and Professor of Zoology at Oregon State University.  Her expertise includes ocean ecosystems and the human/environment nexus: biodiversity, climate change, sustainability science, ecosystem services, marine reserves, coastal marine ecosystems, the state of the oceans and of the planet.

 

Carol Browner – Asst. to the President for Energy and Climate Change

She was the head of the EPA under President Clinton.  She believes that global warming is the greatest challenge we have ever faced.  She will act as a coordinator for environmental, energy, climate, transport and related matters for the federal government.

 

Nancy Sutley – White House Council on Environmental Quality

She is currently serving as the Deputy Mayor for Energy and Environment of Los Angeles.  She brings with her more than a decade in senior environmental, energy and water policy-making positions in California. She also has experience dealing with budget and legislative matters at the state and federal level.

 

Dr. John Holdren – White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Dr. Holdren is a professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University.  His work has focused on causes and consequences of global environmental change, analysis of energy technologies and policies, ways to reduce the dangers from nuclear weapons and materials, and the interaction of content and process in science and technology policy. 

navy granted ability to kill whales

The U.S. government opened the doors to allow the killing of whales by the Navy, over the next five years, during sonar testing off the Hawaiian Islands, according to the Environmental New Service.

This comes weeks after the U.S. Navy and the NRDC, and others, settled the law suit that contended sonar testing was causing irreparable damage, and sometimes death, to whales and dolphins in surrounding areas.

It should be noted that “Hawaii is the only place in the United States where humpbacks breed, calve, and nurse their young. Approximately 4,000-5,000 whales migrate to the Hawaiian Islands each winter. Although the population of humpbacks is increasing, these whales remain endangered.”

Each year the U.S. Navy is granted a letter of authorization by the NOAA.  The letter states the rules and regulations that the Navy must follow for marine protection. It is reissued, annually, provided the Navy abides by the terms and conditions of the letter, submits the required annual reports, and shows their activities do not result in more numerous effects or more severe harm to marine mammals than were originally analyzed or authorized. 

This year’s letter contains the provision that injury or death of up to 10 animals of each of 11 species over the five years is allowed by the regulations.  

Many criticize the NOAA since it was created as a means to protect marine mammals and other species.  This seems like another parting gift from the Bush administration and their slow destruction of the planet. No word on if this decision can be overturned when new leadership is in place after January 20th.

Office of Urban Policy

 

On February 11th, 2004, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order #12898, the Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.  The intent of this order was to ensure that each “Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.”

This came after numerous studies were released showing the negative effect of air and water pollution were more concentrated in minority communities. Unfortunately, Clinton never fully implemented the order, and Bush ignored it all together, to put it kindly.  As a result, we are still seeing a disproportionately high case of adverse effects due to environmental causes in the minority populations.  An example would be this publications ongoing research into Bisphenol-A and phthalates.

However, it looks as though the Obama administration is going to deliver on the promise made back in 1994.  Not only are his appointments to the EPA, Health and Human Services, White House Council of Environmental Quality, the assistant to the president on Energy and Climate Change, and HUD a significant notice that they are changing the direction of this country, but more compelling is the creation of the Office of Urban Policy.

The office is intended to better coordinate federal efforts to help America’s cities.   As we all know, Obama started his career as “community organizer”. As a result, he understands at the local level is really where you can impact change and that local government can play a vital role as we try to jump start our economy.  

It also seems that this will have a positive impact on the environment.  Adolfo Carrion, the appointee in charge of the OUP, has been a champion of affordable, energy efficient, green quality sustainable housing for low income family.

Add this all together and you have a team that is not only fighting for the environment, but fighting for the people that are the most at risk when something goes wrong in the environment.

The American Prospect has further information.

digital switch

February 17th.

If you have a television, you know why this date is significant. This is the day when all broadcasters are required to switch from analog to digital broadcasts. The decision was made by Congress in 2005 stating that digital was more efficient and allowed for the freeing up valuable chunks of wireless spectrum.

As a result, many programs were enacted for consumers to be able to make the switch, most notably the coupons to purchase the digital convertor boxes. However, The Commerce Department, the group responsible for handing out these coupons has run out money. This means the coupons cannot be made available to consumers.

In reaction to this news, Barack Obama has urged Congress to delay the switch. They fear that the government is not doing enough to ensure the success through out all communities, primarily rural, poor, elderly and minority groups.

This request has been met by criticism by varying groups, most notably the Bush Administration.

The one critique that environmental groups have had is that this new program does not take into account two things; the increase in purchase of plasma televisions, and the inadequacy in handling e-waste.

The problem of the convertor box is solved if you get a digital television, the most popular being plasma televisions. These are made using nitrogen triflouride, which is more damaging to the environment than carbon dioxide by 17,000 times. But if you do get a new television, what do you do with the old one? Many are taken to the dump, which is illegal. And, there are not enough e-waste programs to handle the abundance of discarded televisions. The switch is occurring without consideration for this problem being solved.

There is the hope that the digital switch is delayed, not only because many low income groups depend on their televisions for important news bulletins, but also because it many give the television and e-waste companies more time to come up with a solution.

A full account of the request by President-elect Obama can be found at The Boston Globe

bush: last 12 days

Although there are only a handful of days before the inauguration of our new President, the legacy of the Bush Administration will remain for days, months, and maybe years, to come.

In his final days, we have seen the passing of a handful of midnight rulings that will greatly impact the environment. In addition, it was announced today that the administration will ending efforts to come up with better fuel efficiency rules, leaving that to Obama. (Which may benefit from being in the better hands, honestly.)

Here is some information of the midnight rulings that have a negative impact on the environment.

Endangered Species Act: A rule change was put in place removing a provision that requires Fish and Wildlife Service scientists to make sure that endangered species won’t be harmed by federally approved logging, mining and road-building projects. The evaluations will now be handled by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Highway Administration. But many argue that their best interest is in the approval and implementation of the new projects, not the species affected.

In a separate announcement, the Fish and Wildlife Service said that it will prevent the effect of greenhouse gases on threatened wildlife from being factored into the Endangered Species Act.

Oil-Shale: An issuance of new rules that take the first step toward tapping an estimated 800 billion barrels of oil trapped in sedimentary rock in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado.

Oil shale is a sedimentary rock that contains trace amounts of oil, which can be extracted at high temperatures. But turning shale into usable oil is expensive, and the industry hasn’t been able to do it in a way that is profitable yet. There are also serious environmental consequences at every step. Digging the shale out of the earth damages the landscape, refining it dirties the air and both steps require massive amounts of water and energy.

Hazardous waste and air pollutants: The list of regulations about to get approved is astounding. Essentially, the EPA has opened the doors to a host of hazardous chemicals into our air and water. Here is a sampling:

-the definition of solid waste is revised
-fungicide limits are relaxed
-power plants are exempt from pollution controls
-ease of restirictions on power plants by national parks and wilderness
-hazardous waste to be used as fuel
-less reporting of animal pollution
-factory farms allowed to decide if they need a permit, or not, prior to dumping animal waste discharge
-lead standards lowered in air quality

and, believe it or not, the list goes on

Mining waste to be dumped in rivers and streams: The 25 year old ban disallowing the dumping of mining waste within 100 yards of rivers and streams has been lifted. Companies are allowed to place the bi-product of mining anywhere they like, even if it blocks the flow of important waters leading to towns or other ecosystems.

You can get a full listing of the midnight regulations from ProPublica

dear barack and michelle

Written for Grist.org, an open letter written by the top climate scientist, James Hansen, and his wife, explain why the current policy approach to climate change solutions are ineffectual and possibly a waste of time.

The entire letter is worth the time spent in reading it and deserves a great deal of attention. They suggest three primary steps that need to be taken: a moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2, an increase of price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100 percent dividend”, and urgent R&D on fourth generation nuclear power with international cooperation.

There is a profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet. A stark scientific conclusion, that we must reduce greenhouse gases below present amounts to preserve nature and humanity, has become clear to the relevant experts. The validity of this statement could be verified by the National Academy of Sciences, which can deliver prompt authoritative reports in response to a Presidential request1. NAS was set up by President Lincoln for just such advisory purposes.

Science and policy cannot be divorced. It is still feasible to avert climate disasters, but only if policies are consistent with what science indicates to be required.

The importance of this letter is for you, the citizen, to read and know what you need to demand of your policy makers. We, as a community, need to remember that the bottom line is that Barack, Michelle, Joe and Hillary are our employees. Our voice is an indication of measurables that we expect to be met, as any employer would give a staff member.

The time for celebration is over. We, now, need to demand that the change promised is the change done. This letter is a must read and a great starting point in educating yourself of the policy that must be enacted for the human race to survive.

note to the world: it’s over

 

I just read an article about the climate change summit that happened in Poland a few weeks back. I have heard disheartening things, like the United States was useless there. But, THIS, takes the cake.

 

IMAGINE that some huge rocky projectile, big enough to destroy most forms of life, was hurtling towards the earth, and it seemed that deep international co-operation offered the only hope of deflecting the lethal object. Presumably, the nations of the world would set aside all jealousies and ideological hangups, knowing that failure to act together meant doom for all.

At least in theory, most of the world’s governments now accept that climate change, if left unchecked, could become the equivalent of a deadly asteroid. But to judge by the latest, tortuous moves in climate-change diplomacy—at a two-week gathering in western Poland, which ended on December 13th—there is little sign of any mind-concentrating effect.

 

To be fair to the 10,000-odd people (diplomats, UN bureaucrats, NGO types) who assembled in Poznan, a semicolon was removed. At a similar meeting in Bali a year earlier, governments had vowed to consider ways of cutting emissions from “deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation [and forest management]”. After much haggling, delegates in Poland decided to upgrade conservation by replacing the offending punctuation mark with a comma.

The article is from the Economist and is quite good.

first 100 days

Yale e360 is a fantastic site, for those who have never visited it. This week they have gathered some of the best minds to address what Obama should do in his first 100 days.

Although the respondents — including entrepreneur Paul Hawken, Rajendra Pachauri of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, activist Van Jones, and green investing leader Mindy Lubber — represent a broad range of interests, they were largely in agreement on how best to solve the current economic and environmental challenges. Basically, they agree that weaning the country off fossil fuels and onto renewable sources of energy is the single best way to rebuild the U.S. economy; that Obama must use all the tools at his disposal — from invoking the Clean Air Act for regulating greenhouse gas emissions to persuading the new Congress to put a price on carbon — to tackle climate change and spur the move to alternative energy; that under an Obama administration the United States must lead in forging a new global climate change treaty; and that, given the rapidity of global warming, Obama must be made fully aware of the “scary” scientific facts — as environmentalist Bill McKibben puts it — and move with a sense of urgency.

You can go HERE for the full article. It will be interesting to see if he follows any of the advice.

Next Page »