drought, round 3

California is expected to have its third consecutive year of drought in 2009. And when it happens, authorities will be forced to impose water rationing on farmers, homes, and businesses.

A portion of water that California uses is stored in the Sierra Nevada snowpack. Current indications are that it is at higher levels than this time last year, but well below the normal average. The deficit could be made up during the “rainy” season from January-March. However, this week the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that La Nina has returned for a second year.

This year, under La Nina conditions, the reason season ended in February. In normal weather patterns, the rain ends in April. The loss of two months of rain, depletes our reserves. In 2008, runoff from the Sierras was down 57% from normal flows.

The demand for water is perpetually high in this fast-growing state, which is expected to add half a million people annually for the next decade. Its $30-billion-a-year agricultural industry produces more than half of the nation’s fruits, vegetables and nuts.

Among those clamoring for supplies of fresh water are wildlife biologists. Endangered species like the delta smelt have been disappearing from rivers whose flows are well below average. A year ago, a federal judge ordered water authorities to curtail the use of large pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta water system to help preserve the smelt.

You can help the situation by conserving your usage; shorter showers, watering landscape during non-peak hours, and washing full loads of laundry are some suggestions.

Water is a resource that we take for granted. We assume that when we turn on the faucet, and we have paid our bills, that water will be there. In the coming months, that may not be the case. Which is why it is so important to conserve now, and more importantly, make sure others start conserving. This is one case when your actions will directly affect what will happen in your household and your neighbor’s households, Just something to think about.

Interestingly, the article came from the New York Times, HERE.

california dreaming

Two bits of environmental news bits came out of California today that are of interest.

Bush eyes oil reserves off California coast, via ENN

The federal government is taking steps that may open California’s fabled coast to oil drilling in as few as three years, an action that could place dozens of platforms off the Sonoma, Mendocino and Humboldt coasts, and raises the specter of spills, air pollution and increased ship traffic into San Francisco Bay.

The bans that protected both of the nation’s coasts beginning in 1981, from California to the Pacific Northwest to the Atlantic Coast and the Straits of Florida, ended this year when Congress let the moratorium lapse.

Brown Takes on “Audacious” Bush EPA Plan, via NBC

California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed suit in federal court to block an “audacious attempt” by the Bush Administration to gut provisions in the Endangered Species Act mandating scientific review of federal agency decisions that may threaten endangered species and their habitat.

The new regulations, initially proposed by the departments of the Interior and Commerce in August 2008 and made final on Dec. 16, largely eliminate a requirement in the Endangered Species Act that mandates scientific review of the agency decisions that could affect endangered and threatened species and their habitats.

The changes allow federal agencies to undertake or permit mining, logging and other commercial activities on federal land and other areas without obtaining review or comment from federal wildlife biologists on the environmental effects of such activities.

clean coal, part 2

The folks at www.thisisreality.org did it again!

remember: in reality, there is no such thing as clean coal

another year end top ten

In the continuing series of Top Ten lists, here’s another from the New Scientist.

Climate change has continued to dominate environmental science in the past year. There are plenty of other issues out there, though, whether it’s a surprise cause of diabetes, or the precious metals we leave behind in waste dumps.

NewScientist.com is now making free all in-depth articles from the past 12 months. In case you missed them, here are the top 10 best features on environmental science.

1.) Climate change: The next ten years
2.) Is the diabetes epidemic down to pollution?
3.) What is your dinner doing to the climate?
4.) Save the climate by saving the forests
5.) The greening of Silicon Valley
6.) Is climate change causing an upsurge in US tornadoes?
7.) There’s gold in them there landfills
8.) The ice age that never was
9.) When crocodiles roamed the Arctic
10.) Bog barons: Indonesia’s carbon catastrophe

You can find links to all the articles, HERE.

top ten, round 1

This is the time of year for Top Ten Lists. A few were published today surrounding news of the environment. In the spirit of promoting the positive, I have decided to link to the sites.

The Top 10 Victories for the Environmental Movement in 2008

Environmental activists represent the planet against the interests of corporations and human greed, all in an attempt to preserve our natural world for future generations. Tactics vary from radical to judicial, yet they share many of the same goals and dreams.

For every new coal plant, for every new species facing extinction, and for every newly polluted stream, there is a victory of equal importance. This list compiles the most significant progress made by the environment and conservation movements in 2008. (please go to the site, for more specific details of each.)

1.) EPA Required to Regulate CO2 Emissions
2.) California’s Proposition 2
3.) Sumatran Elephant Sanctuary Expansion
4.) 320,000 Acres of Montana Forest Protected
5.) Greenpeace Activists Acquitted in the UK
6.) Sea Shepherd’s Migaloo Campaign
7.) Incandescent Light Bulb Bans
8.) Stronger EPA Regulations on Diesel Ships
9.) Removal of Two Maine Dams
10.) Barack Obama

remember that point I gave to the epa, yesterday? taking it back….

So, yesterday, The White House approved a plan that allows for debris from coal mining to be dumped into nearby streams and valleys.

Edward C. Hopkins, a policy analyst at the Sierra Club, said: “The E.P.A.’s own scientists have concluded that dumping mining waste into streams devastates downstream water quality. By signing off on this rule, the agency has abdicated its responsibility.”

The issue at hand is that this opens the doors for coal companies to blast the tops off of mountains, hauling the debris into valleys, with no concern for dumping on top of streams and blocking their flow. Which, of course, can have a negative impact to the ecosystems downstream.

And, as if that isn’t enough:

The Environmental Protection Agency is trying to finish work on a rule that would make it easier for utilities to put coal-fired generating stations near national parks. It is working on another rule that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment

The Bush Administration argues that these allowances means a lessening on our dependency to foreign oil. Although, critics argue that there are much more environmentally safe ways to mine with out blowing the tops off mountains. The Bush Administration is sending a message that you can’t have both an environment and choosing clean coal, which many argue is just not the case.

This is also a slap to the face of the new administration. President-elect Obama has stated many times that he does not agree with this ruling. The Bush Administration has stated it would participate in a smooth transition from one administration to the next; then turns around and creates these “midnight” rulings, that the next administration now has to spend time overturning.

Why does it not surprise me that Bush and Cheney would much rather support energy industries, then stay true to their word?

You can find the full article HERE, via the New York Times

america in transition

As we all know, we are in the process of transitioning from one president to another. In this case, we are also transitioning from one political climate to another.

Barack Obama has spoken many times about his concern for the environment and his plan to commit the United States to a green policy. In a move that supports what he has been saying, there was an announcement today about how his stimulus package will include a heavy dose of spending on environmentally friendly projects that will create “green”-collar jobs.

“Clean energy is going to be a foundation for rebuilding the American economy,” said Bracken Hendricks, an analyst at the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress and an adviser to the presidential-transition team. Generating jobs in concert with cutting pollution will be “a major component” of any economic-recovery plan, Hendricks said.

The plan outlines many things, including a greener infrastructure and public transportation. The hope is that with new policy, the creation of new jobs will follow. Jobs that cannot be outsourced, since the idea is being green and being local.

You can read the whole article HERE, via Bloomberg News

looking for a sign

I think this is particularly awesome.

Faith leaders concluded their two-day Interfaith Summit on Climate Change in Uppsala on Saturday by signing a manifesto demanding quick and extensive reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in the wealthy parts of the world.

Christian, Buddhist, Daoist, Sikh, Muslim, Jewish and Native American leaders signed the declaration that states, “We all share the responsibility of being conscious caretakers of our home, planet Earth. We have reflected on the concerns of scientists and political leaders regarding the alarming climate crisis. We share their concerns.”

So, I am going to generalize on this one, A LOT! That being said, the reason I find this promising is because in my mind there has always been a conflict with religion and saving the planet. Why? Well, because the same things that show up in climate change are the same things that show up if you believe in omega, Armageddon, the end of days.

If you believe in a God that is supposed to come back and reek havoc on Earth and destroy those who are unworthy, then you don’t care about the planet, per se, because you see it as confirmation in your faith. What I see as science at work, you see as God’s path.

That is why I find this promising. Because it appears to me as a shift in belief towards honoring what God has given you, instead of destroying the planet cause the ultimate hope is to go to heaven, is occurring.

“Today it is widely acknowledged that world religions have an important role to play in revisioning a sustainable future, because religions are the repositories of values and norms that guide human actions toward the natural world,” said Tirosh-Samuelson. “Through cosmological narratives, symbols, rituals, ethical directives, and institutional structures, religions shape how we act toward the environment.”

“Hence,” she said, “all attempts to transform our environmental attitudes so as to generate a sustainable world must include understanding of world religions and cooperation with religious people.”

The entire article can be found HERE, via The Environmental News Service

the power of the ocean

I have posted about this before, which you can find HERE, but I felt it was worth repeating since so many periodicals have been talking about it this week.

There has been a release of more data that shows harnessing the flow of rivers and the ocean, we can generate electricity on a level that could power the homes of many billions of people.

Systems could be sited on river beds or suspended in the ocean. The scientists behind the technology, which has been developed in research funded by the US government, say that generating power in this way would potentially cost only around 3.5p per kilowatt hour, compared to about 4.5p for wind energy and between 10p and 31p for solar power. They say the technology would require up to 50 times less ocean acreage than wave power generation.

I think that this news continues to be very promising. But, I am also at the point where I am tired of the talk and want more action. So, let’s start seeing these revolutionary devices built and creating electricity and the levels they are expecting.

You can find the latest article, HERE, via The Telegraph

green isn’t just the color of their fatigues

For the first time, the U.S. Army released a Sustainability Report in a move that shows its commitment to going green. This is due in part to a global action to environmentally sound living, but also because the Army has found, like many of us, that it is just simply cheaper to be green.

In their efforts, they have:

1.) committed to making all new buildings LEED certified
2.) decreased their water usage by a third
3.) moved towards making environmentally friendly “war machines”, including a tank that can be broken down into recyclable parts.
4.) built a 12 acre solar farm in Colorado

Nevertheless, “The Army is at the very early stages of its sustainability journey… There is still much progress to be made and still much to learn,” warns the 62-page report.

A shortfall is the Army’s inability to stop producing so much hazardous waste – 45 million pounds in 2006 alone. Not only is the amount large by any standard, but it is 35 percent higher than in 2003. One reason for the rise is that the Army produced more ammunition and trained its soldiers more often to prepare them in the “Global War on Terror.”

They may still have a long way to go, but at least they have started down the path. I, for one, think that is a major step in this progress.

You can find the entire article at the Environmental News Network, HERE.

« Previous Page — Next Page »