Mexico and U.S Agree on Oil

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/world/americas/mexico-and-us-agree-on-oil-and-gas-development-in-gulf.html?ref=earth

The United States signed and agreement with Mexico stating that they would collaborate on creating more strict regulations on the deep sea oil drills along the maritime border in the Gulf of Mexico. This agreement is crucial to the future of drilling in this area because it is believed by most experts that Mexico lacks the resources to deal with an oil spill. With the memory of the BP oil spill fresh in everyone's minds increased safety measures become crucial.

Before the BP oil spill, the biggest oil spill had been in 1979 at the hands of Pemex in the Gulf. This fact makes this agreement with the U.S. that much more crucial. Mexico plans on constructing more drilling sites at a depth that is of high risk. With increased regulation, the possibility of a spill will be greatly reduced.

The introduction of these drills has the potential to lower costs in the U.S. though, not as much as expected because of the increase in oil consumption of the Mexican working class.

Australian indigenous groups paid for fire management

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/indigenous-people-paid-to-manage-fires/story-e6frfku0-1226278378340

We have talked a number of times regarding controlled fires and the advantages of these techniques in maintaining forest health. In Australia, indigenous farmers can now actually profit from these management fires, which are designed to decrease harmful greenhouse emissions! As this article states, late dry-season fires are more intense, difficult to control and in turn, more harmful in terms of emissions.  Through strategic burns, the farmers would reduce the occurrence and strength of later season fires. This “savannah-burning methodology” is uniquely designed to benefit the indigenous farmers. Businesses participating in the carbon farming initiative (CFI) can buy “carbon credits” from landowners, thereby symbolically offsetting their own carbon footprint.

I find this approach to managing our detrimental effects on the environment very unique. From the companies’ standpoint, it is interesting that instead of pursuing goals that would directly decrease their own green-house gases; they are instead investing in and buying “Green.”  Instinctively, we might see this as a cop-out, but if we consider that at this time, the businesses in question do not have answers to their own emissions, they warrant respect at promoting other Green actions. It is also important that the indigenous are receiving compensation for their additional upkeep. As we have seen in class over and over again, it is the indigenous populations who are best in tune with the environment on which they depend, but are often exploited. The CFI easily could have made this maintenance mandatory, or mandated government employees to oversee this conservation. In this instance, there seems to be respect for the indigenous community.

The expansion of the CIF could mean great things for the farmers. According to the article, this industry could be worth almost 2.25 billion dollars a year! However, I tend to wonder about the future of this initiative.  Do you think that companies will pay to offset their greenhouse contribution? How do you think this will develop and will the proposed compensation be substantial? While the notion of carbon credits sounds attractive, I am sceptical that many businesses will partake. I suppose this goes to show that once again, at the root of everything, even good hearted attempts at environmental consciousness, is financial gain.

Monsanto Lawsuit Dismissed, to the Disappointment of Organic Farmers

http://www.pressherald.com/business/organic-farmers-lament-dismissal-of-lawsuit_2012-02-29.html

On Monday February 27^th, U.S. District Judge Buchwald of the Southern District of New York dismissed the Monsanto lawsuit filed by an organization of organic farmers who challenged the patenting of genetically modified seeds. This lawsuit was mentioned previously on this blog, so this is a follow-up with unfortunate news with regards to environmental justice. The problem with patenting life has been on my mind since our discussion of bioprospecting and biopiracy. The original idea behind patents was to protect an invention so that another person would not be able to physically recreate what you have made and make a profit from it. With the broadening of inventions to intellectual property and now to discoveries or tweakings of living organisms, it seems the patent has moved into a considerable gray area in regards to justice. In its first conception it was meant to protect the property and earnings of what was rightfully the inventor’s, now it is not so clear. With this new idea of patenting seeds, there is now an active role of non-patent holders. Before the only role of a non-patent holder was to not make and sell a patented product, it was a decidedly passive role. Now organic farmers must actively protect their fields from these “patented seeds” by incorporating buffer zones that take away land for their crops. Even if they did not buy the seeds and do not want them, if the wind carries a Monsanto seed to their field, these farmers could be in legal trouble.  I cannot believe that this is in the true spirit of patent law and I do not think this is just.

To be fair, Monsanto does spend significant amounts of money in research and development of these seeds and should have some say in how their “creation” is used. If there was nothing protecting their GM seeds they would have no incentive to develop them, and some GM seeds have done good despite the evil spin the media usually gives them. Some genetically modified rice has helped supplement vitamin A to developing countries that suffer health effects from vitamin deficiencies. Plus many genetically modified seeds allow farmers to use less chemical pesticides and herbicides, which protects our water resources. The bottom line for me is that farmers should not be punished and expected to protect their fields from GM seeds. If Monsanto doesn’t want their GM seeds spreading through natural means, the onus should be on them to stop it, not on their innocent neighbors. This legal ruling leaves the door wide open for Monsanto to treat organic farmers however they please. While Monsanto claims at the moment that they won’t sue farmers whose crops are contaminated by their seed, the patents that they own convey an entirely opposite legal meaning. Organic farmers should have protection of their livelihoods through the law just as Monsanto does, and the responsibility of the spread of GM seeds should be on the creators, not the innocent onlookers.

How Fracking is Destroying Communities

http://theodorecosmosophia.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/free-to-be-poisoned-how-fracking-is-destroying-the-communities-who-put-the-right-in-power/

Hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking, is a means to extract natural gas from underneath the earth. In order to extract natural gas, holes are drilled deep into the ground and then pressurized fluid is pumped through the holes which fractures the rock. The fractures allow gas to escape which is subsequently harvested for energy. This process however can lead to water pollution, environmental degradation, poor air quality, and health ailments.

The focus of this article is on the disproportionate share of environmental and health risks for the poor, "country" folk whose communities are targeted by fracking companies. The government is allowing companies to continue fracking because of racialized politics and prejudice against certain races and classes.

I found this article to be intriguing because 1) I did not know fracking was an environmental problem and 2) it is clear that environmental injustice is occurring because certain groups are being targeted by energy companies.  Fracking presents an interesting area for discussion, because one could argue that it is a greener way of obtaining energy since it utilizes natural gas. This lessens our dependence on oil and could impact our position in the global energy market. In light of the health risks however, it appears that this process needs to be reevaluated to protect the livelihoods of the individuals living near fracking sites.

What are your thoughts on the issue? Is the government turning a blind eye to the ramifications of this process? Should the communities receive monetary compensation if their water supply has been contaminated? Do the "benefits" of fracking (green energy, cheaper electricity, improved energy security) outweigh the negative impacts? 

"Japan Tsunami Debris Forecast Discussed by Scientists"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/japan-tsunami-debris_n_1305916.html

            This article about the long-term effects of the tsunami in Japan shows the inherently global nature of all environmental problems. Although the tsunami (which resulted from an earthquake) occurred almost a year ago, it continues to impact the environment, and its effects have had a farther geographic reach as more time has passed. The three to four million ton “soup” of debris that the tsunami created consists of varied waste containing everything from “lumber, fishing boats, and refrigerators” to cars and parts of demolished homes. The article indicates that of the three to four million tons that reached the ocean, one or two million tons is still floating in the Pacific, one to five percent of which may begin to pollute North America’s West coast.

            Though technology can help predicate what the effects of this sea-faring debris may be, the fact that the tons have greatly dispersed over thousands of miles of the Pacific defies tracking technology. The specious means by which North Americans in places such as Canada and Oregon have been attributing this newly found pollution on their coasts to Asia, therefore, lies in indicators such as labels bearing Japanese or Chinese characters.

            This article brings to light two issues: the problem of ‘placing blame’ for pollution and the implications of the nature of our environment as ‘global.’ If the debris, fishing buoys, and ‘Japanese’ paper and plastic products washing up on North America’s western coast are in fact a result of the migration of ocean pollution caused by the March 2011 Japanese tsunami, then the latter issue is at hand. It would imply and underscore the importance of caring about how countries across the globe handle the environmental impact of natural disasters. It would lead to seeing our environment always in a globally integrated light, and perhaps better consciousness about environmental practices we formally saw as not relevant to us.

            On the other hand, if the debris cannot be attributed to the tsunami, what does this say about our continent’s “blaming” of pollution on other countries? The video attached to this article includes a Canadian man talking about the pollution, and he presents an alternate cause apart from the cause that the article promotes: what if the debris is coming off of transatlantic ships bearing goods? Wouldn’t this indicate that it is a shared problem because of the mutual interaction and participation of free trade? In my opinion, the article takes a pretty neutral tone, and I do not mean to imply that it condemns the Japanese in any way. Rather, I think the article presents an opportunity to think about the interplay between natural disasters, the environment, and the agency of the people and states involved. Do you think this article is controversial? Objective? What do you make of rhetorical use of the images and videos showing the aftermath of the tsunami and subsequent pollution in Japan and its coast?

Entombing mercury for life

For a long time mercury was used (and still is in some parts of the world) in many different products or processes such as dental filings, clinical thermometers, and gold processing in mining. The use of mercury began to be phased out when it was found to be a highly toxic metal that attacks the nervous system and is one of the most dangerous environmental pollutants. This article describes the growing concern of mercury storage which poses just as big a problem as breaking the long period of dependence on the toxic metal because of mercury’s ability to seep in the environment.

In the Philippines, a report from a 30-year survey of mercury in fish in the Davao Gulf revealed that mercury effectively lowered children’s IQ levels for life and that mercury tainted water from the Diwalwal mining site which drains into the Agusan River posed dangers to the local people. “Tests made on weekly diets of rice, fish and mussels of people in the mining areas revealed the presence of mercury three times over the permissible levels” (BusinessMirror). These results clearly show that proper mercury storage is needed in the Philippines.

In the U.S. mercury is stored in metal flasks the size of a three-liter soda bottles which are further stored in metric-ton stainless-steel containers. Five thousand tons of mercury is stored at the facility and it is guarded by armed security. Alternatively, in Europe, mercury is placed in underground salt mines such as those found in Germany. The rock-salt walls are effective in sealing the mercury in, and they have proven to be stable for more than 200 years.

While the U.S. and Europe have developed reliable means of storing mercury, many other parts of the world, such as the Philippines, are in an ongoing struggle to discover a system that is environmentally and economically viable.  The Philippines are located by many earthquake fault lines, making underground storage an arguably impossible option. Also, the cost of construction, technology and security needs of an above-ground facility seem to be beyond Philippines reach according to consultants. In the meantime, since mercury can sell for a lot of money on the black market and is used by small-scale miners in the region, there have been issues with theft. At a hospital in Camarines Sur, for example, mercury that was used in thermometers and had been temporarily stored in the hospital was declared missing.  

There is an ongoing effort, led primarily by Ban Toxics, an organization working for environmental justice, to phase out mercury use among small-scale miners and eventually all other sectors. Their efforts will hopefully result in the formulation of a National Strategic Plan for Safe Handling and Permanent Storage of Mercury by this coming May.

http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/science/23706-entombing-mercury-for-life

National Parks to receive a share of research proceeds

Intellectual property rights are a highly contested issue. There are a host of challenges including defining what constitutes intellectual property, the group who has the knowledge, the worth of the knowledge, and transferring the knowledge to a market value. While we have discussed intellectual property rights---or traditional resource rights--in respect to indigenous communities, this article addresses the issue a little closer to home. A policy implemented in 2010 requires any scientist conducting research in a national park to share any profits with the National Parks Service. Independent research is being done in over 200 national parks. There have been concerns of private bioprospecting on public land for quite some time. In the 1980’s bacteria that simplified DNA testing was discovered in Yellowstone, but the park never received any compensation. Under the new policy, the National Parks Service is estimated to bring in between $635,000 and 3.9 million every year.

            Opponents of this policy are concerned this will lead to a privatization of public resources. Courts have ruled that the policy is legal as long as an environmental analysis is done to ensure no impact is made on the environment. The parks service justifies the policy saying that research in the parks can improve management practices and increase general knowledge on the park’s organisms. The National Parks Service also stresses on their website that exclusive rights are never given. Thus, researchers are just granted the license to use something, not harvest or own it.

            When we discussed traditional resource rights in class, I didn’t consider that I might be part of a group that could receive benefits from bioprospecting—or be wrongfully excluded. Yet, since national parks are public land, a share of the profits is being returned to the public (via the parks service).  This policy is different from intellectual property rights however because it doesn’t require knowledge. Hot springs bacteria from Yellowstone are an area of special interest because the hot springs environment forces unique and potentially useful adaptations in the bacteria. However, much is unknown about the bacteria and the public has no general knowledge of the bacteria’s uses. Is the land owner—the public--owed compensation for a resource they weren’t aware of? If yes, the implications could be quite broad.

Defining the group who needs to be compensated in traditional resource rights cases would become nearly impossible because one would have to include the group from whom they got the knowledge and potentially any other community where the resource exists, even if the community is unaware. On the other hand, giving no compensation could make national parks a huge potential revenue source for private companies.  This could also lead to a situation similar to one that took place in Madagascar. The indigenous community used a plant to treat diabetes, but a pharmaceutical company used it to treat cancer and claimed they didn't owe the indigenous population compensation because the indigenous community didn't know the plant could treat cancer. 

Does it matter if the community has knowledge of the resource or its uses? Do you think the parks service should receive a share of profits? Is this comparable to resource rights of an indigenous community? How is it the same or different?

The Real Cost of the Belo Monte Dam

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/02/201221111814807201.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/01/201212015366764400.html

I wanted to bring this issue to people's attention as it reflects many of the case studies we've discussed in class, unfolding in real time.

The building of the huge Belo Monte Dam in northern Brazil has incited controversy since the project's inception. The dam would be the world's third largest dam, costing roughly $14 billion and flooding about 400 square kilometers of Amazonian Forest. The dam is being built by Norte Energia, a consortium of ten mining, construction, and engineering companies, but the project is also heavily supported by the Brazilian government, who has named the area around Belo Monte and its zone of impact as areas of "public interest." The government supports this project as a way to meet Brazil's growing energy demands using clean, renewable energy.

Indigenous groups and environmentalists have tried to stop dam construction, asserting that the economic benefit the dam might bring would only serve the local companies, and not the local people. While environmental assessments of the project have been done, environmentalists argue that the dam will cause irreversible damage to the Amazon, a valuable source of natural resources and biodiversity. Additionally, the project will destroy the local people's main source of livelihood: fishing. In fact, one local group has already reported that the dam construction is dirtying the Xingu River, which they use for drinking and fishing. Furthermore, the workers brought in to construct the dam are transforming the nearby city of Altamira, which has seen increased crime and higher housing prices since the workers arrived.

The biggest social impact of the dam, however, is the displacement of roughly 24,000 people that have had to sell their homes and flee the areas affected by the dam's construction. Advocates for the local people attest that they have not received just compensation for their lost property and community; most of these residents were forced to agree to monetary settlements as the government's support for the project has left them with little legal recourse and no alternatives.

As the article and video discuss, is this dam worth the social and environmental costs? While the fact that this question is even being asked shows progress in the discourse about development projects and their impact on indigenous populations, with the dam already under construction it might be too little too late. With other viable alternatives to satisfy growing energy needs and debate over the true effectiveness of the dam, it's curious that the dam project has been able to push forward. Unfortunately this seems to be another case where economic interests of corporations and politicians overpower the social and environmental interests of the local people.

In the Adirondacks, Joy and Fear Over What a Resort May Bring

In the Adirondacks, Joy and Fear Over What a Resort May Bring

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/nyregion/in-struggling-tupper-lake-resort-project-creates-rift.html?_r=1&ref=earth

The article begins by calling Tupper Lake, New York, a “once-proud logging town in the northern Adirondacks has an embarrassment of natural riches.”  These include forested mountains, pristine lakes, clean air, and streams with an abundance of trout.  Despite these natural amenities, a series of economic blows has caused the failure of local industries and the population has been reduced by 1/5.  This negative trend is expected to continue without some larger-scale intervention.  Recently, the Adirondack Park Agency approved a resort development on 6,300 acres—the largest development the agency has ever approved.  This approval came after nearly a decade of disagreement between environmentalists and pro-development residents; it also came with hundreds of conditions on the project.  Some residents argued that the town needed this project that would jumpstart their economy, attracting a larger population to the proposed 650 units of housing, hotel, ski area, marina, and equestrian center, as well as the addition of jobs beginning with construction.   

            The article points to the clash between the locals who support the development and environmental groups, however, are the two mutually exclusive?  Can the interests of the people with respect to their economic needs of sustaining their town and the needs of the land both be met, or must one survive at the cost of the other?  At the end of the article, the author encouragingly notes that even some of the environmental groups have conceded that the development is indeed important.  Another note was that opposition to the project stemmed from concern that “the resort proposal would set a dangerous precedent by carving up a large section of the back-country for condominiums and single family homes, along with ‘great camps’ on parcels.”  The implications of this project could be much greater than the more than 6,000 acres it will touch directly.  Does this justify people outside of the community in having a say, or do the opinions of the locals who are losing their town take precedents?  Other residents maintain that the condition of the privately owned backcountry as it exists is far from pristine; it is mottled with logging roads and hunting cabins.  Is this imperfect condition a valid excuse for further disruption?    

BP Trial Date Announced

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-litigation-20120222,0,6311035.story

Nearly two years ago, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig spilled 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Now, the guilty parties are finally starting to pay for it. The largest oil spill in history has turned into this country's largest lawsuit. One hundred and twenty thousand plaintiffs are acting together in a conglomerated suit. Individuals, corporations, and state governments are standing with the Justice Department against BP and demanding that the petroleum megacorporation pays for what they consider gross negligence. BP stands to lose a possible seventeen billion dollars- a huge blow, considering that BP has earned an annual average of 22.74 billion over the last five fiscal years (Source). This comes on top of their fund for victims that is worth 20 billion dollars. They may choose to settle; however, the amount that this would entail has not been disclosed yet, as the trial date was just announced. Other companies who had invested in the well are also being forced to make reparations. MOEX Offshore, who had a ten percent investment in the well,  took a settlement of ninety million dollars to be split between the gulf states, while Transocean and Anadarko, two other companies involved with the well and rig, may be held liable as well. After two years of uncertainty and lost revenue, the states affected by the oil spill may finally see justice- and will certainly see some money.

This is important for a variety of reasons. Not only is it the biggest environmental lawsuit in history, it is the biggest lawsuit period. It transcends issues of race, class, gender, and other social stratifications due to its sheer size. Typically, in cases of environmental justice, we see that people without a voice are the ones on plaintiff side. But corporations and state governments are teaming up with the disenfranchised fishermen and unemployed oil workers, united against a common enemy. It will be interesting to see how this case goes. If the suit is successful or if the pressures on BP to settle are met, it might bring about a new era of corporate safety and concern for the environment.

Uganda's Power Drive Stills Rapids at the Headwaters of the Nile



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/02/120221-hydroelectric-power-nile-dam-in-uganda/



                This article highlights the idea of International Environmental Justice on a larger scale.  The dam will probably help Uganda offer less expensive power to its citizens—once it finishes the dams and only to those who can afford it.  But at the same time, dams displace families and reduce biodiversity at an alarming rate.  And this dam was also speculated to even potentially reduce the size of Lake Victoria: the Aral Sea has been the textbook case for what can happen when we siphon too much water off, and this dam highlights that justice.  While the dam could potentially do good things for Uganda, the International Rivers campaign is arguing for the rights of other nations in Africa to this water and for the effect this dam will have on their water habits and overall landscape.  

                I’m not too sure how I feel about the World Bank’s claim that this dam is the best outcome for all of Africa, and I think Kenya is right to be worried, as are other African countries that depend on the Nile for their water needs.  The justice of one nation taking almost all the water that sub-Saharan Africa depends on is slim to none—what makes them any better and gives them any more right to that water than anyone else?  Uganda could benefit from this, especially given how proactive they have tried to be in their resettlement funding, biodiversity protection initiatives, and tourism changes.  But a lot of that is Uganda selling their idea to potential supporters.

                The other interesting concept illustrated in this article is the fact that, while 60% of the sub-Saharan Africa uses hydropower, most are starting to switch to more reliable projects, especially with all of the climate changes that are presenting threats to dams on the continent with drying up or flooding.  Yet even though they are switching, more dams are still being planned at this very time: how many will the region be able to handle before we really do see Aral Sea version 2.0, and would Lake Victoria and the subcontinent be able to handle these potential changes. 

                Is this dam a good thing or a bad thing?  Uganda could grow, but is there international environmental justice in putting in a dam during a time when water levels are falling? 

The Human Cost of Mountaintop Removal Mining

     Mountaintop removal mining, also known as mountaintop mining, is a practice that has been occurring in the Appalachia region since the 1960s. It involves the removal of the excess rock lying on top of coal and other resource deposits. Once the resources are extracted, the top layers are put back on top of the mountain so that it slightly resembles its pre-removal appearance. The rubble and soil that aren't used for reconstruction are deposited in nearby valleys.

     There are several environmental problems associated with mountaintop removal mining. The practice greatly reduces biodiversity. The excess material has completely destroyed over 2000 miles of streams in Central and Southern Appalachia. It is also often contaminated with toxic materials from the explosives used to remove the tops of the mountains. It runs off into nearby rivers and streams that serve as water resources for the surrounding communities.  A number of toxins are also released into the air. This leads to a number of hazards not only to the plants and wildlife that depend on the mountains and water resources, but also to the people who live in the area.

     The organization I Love Mountains is dedicated to educating people about the the harmful effects of the mountaintop removal mining. It has recently released a new interactive site that allows you to see the effects of the process on the communities in the Appalachia region. The group used 21 peer-reviewed studies to comprise data specific to the region. According to the studies, "not only has mountaintop removal permanently destroyed more than 500 Appalachian mountains, but people living near the destruction are 50% more likely to die of cancer and 42% more likely to be born with birth defects compared with other people in Appalachia." Other problems associated with mountaintop removal are heart, respiratory, and kidney diseases, low birth weight, lowered life expectancy, and high poverty rates.


     The problems posed by mountaintop removal are clear. Though the process does eliminate the dangers associated with traditional, human-labor mining, it is still posing a some serious risks to the ecological and human communities of the Appalachian region. The issue reminds me of several of the case studies discussed in class where poor, local communities were the victims of environmental injustice. It is done by major corporations who are simply looking for the cheapest and most effective way to extract their resources with no regard to the environmental and ethical consequences of their practices. Those who are most affected are the poor communities in the surrounding areas. Due to their socioeconomic status, it is difficult for them to bring attention to the issue and seek environmental justice. We saw this in several of the articles we read in class, especially the more recent ones where the voices of indigenous populations were silenced by the ambitions of "the West."


To learn more about the issue and the studies, go to http://ilovemountains.org/the-human-cost. Here's a link to the YouTube channel for Appalachian Voices, another pro-mountain group, where you can find a number of videos about the debate on mountaintop removal: http://www.youtube.com/user/AppalachianVoices.

The debate over more nuclear power in Georgia.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june12/nuclear_02-15.html

Above is a link to an article that transcribes and has a recording of a recent PBS interview conference with two prominent figures in the debate over the contraction of new nuclear reactors in Georgia's Burke County. The interviewer is Jeffrey Brown of PBS and the interviewees are Stephen Smith of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and Tony Pietrangelo from the Nuclear Energy Institute. The debate is centered around questions of safety and prospects of potential economic benefit/ promise that this project holds for Georgia's collective future, including the governing bodies, residents and communities that should all have a say in the project and, of course, the investors who have a monetary stake in it. Pietrangelo represents the industry and its vested interests in building the plant, and Smith represents the dissenting public opinion that opposes the construction of more reactor cores. The interview is prefaced by with an excerpt from an Obama speech in which he reiterates his commitment to the goal of 80% of national power production being generated from clean-energy sources by 2035.

In the large picture it seems wind and solar power are the least environmentally invasive. Although wind turbines can pose threats to migratory birds and may be an eye-sore, and large scale photovoltaic energy production through the use of solar panels could be a threat to native species desert environments as a previous post elaborated on, these two sources of power are arguably the cleanest even in comparison to 'clean coal,' natural gas, and of course nuclear, which inevitably generates some radioactive waste which must be contained and is difficult to dispose. In the wake of the disasters in Japan where an earthquake induced tsunami devastated a nuclear power plant in Fukushima causing a meltdown that killed five hospitalized others and made for a radioactively toxic environment that has contaminated the surrounding areas in multiple ways. While Pietrangelo argues that this new "AP1000" design is safer and will conform to all the applicable Fukushima requirements and the plan has integrated some insights and design improvements acknowledging lessons learned from the Fukushima catastrophe (these include an ability for the reactor to shut down safely even in the event of a power outage). Stephen Smith argues that the design is indeed new and that poses a danger in and of itself given that there is no precedent for this type of reactor as no other exists in the United States, and the design is still in experimentally functional stages in the other countries. There are potential benefits to Georgia that the new Vogtle plant may provide. As it is an economically depressed area, it could use the stimulus in jobs and potential state revenue that the Plant might generate along with the electricity. Pietrangelo stresses that this $10 billion project has already been under construction for over a year and has $4 billion sunk into it. There is a governmental financial involvement in the form of $8 billion worth of conditional loan guarantees, however even without government involvement if the conditions are not met and funding is not appropriated, Pietrangelo feels there is enough private interest for the project to go ahead anyways. Stephen smith argues that the price tag is actually much higher than what was original projected, and tax-payers bear the risk if government money is used in the construction, Pietrangelo acknowledges this reality but feels Georgia also stands to gain economically. If the investment is made publicly on their behalf, and the project is not entirely bankrolled by private financiers, the money may recirculate into the Georgian hands, and could be spent on programs and projects that bolster the local economy and boost the state governments budget. Given that Georgia residents will have to bear the brunt of the nuclear burden of the in their backyard, a proverbial yard already dotted with reactor cores and relatively contaminated from past nuclear weapons facilities that have created current superfund sites, it seems that they should also deserve to reep the rewards. Stephen Smith argues that the rewards might not outweigh the risks, and that the public sentiment in Georgia is not sympathetic to a larger nuclear presence in their immediate environment.

The Cost of Overfishing for the EU

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16979976

This article highlights the revenue that the European Union loses due to the exploitation of fisheries every year. The research published by NEF states that restoring just 43 of over 150 overharvested fisheries would generate 3.5 million tons of fish and over 100,000 jobs. This research is extremely important and the responses from officials show that the EU may finally be ready to incorporate maximum sustainable yields as part of their fishing practices throughout the union. This type of research is crucial to show the EU the concrete amount of money it loses by allowing the exploitation of fisheries to occur under their leadership. The amount the EU loses due to overharvested fisheries is 2.7 billion pounds or 3.2 billion euros every year.

This article is a prime example for analysis under political ecology. The environmental aspect of the problem is clear, however the political landscape is fairly complex. No good solution can come about unless the situation is understood from multiple disciplines and points of view. Another study mentioned in the article found that half of fishermen in developed nations would not wish to abandon fishing for another occupation, even if their catch declined by 50%. The fishermen in developed countries are actually less likely to give up fishing than their counterparts in developing areas in Africa and Asia. The common belief that poorer communities are less likely to give up their livelihoods is actually reversed in this case.  One reason for this trend is that fishermen in developed nations receive subsidies and thus have a greater incentive to stay the course, even with declining yields. If this situation was taken as just political, just cultural, or just environmental a great amount of insight would be lost. The fishermen’s attitude to their tradition and culture is influenced by the political actions of subsidies and leniency in harvesting practices. Political leaders thus far have allowed less expensive short term harvesting, and in return have decimated an ecosystem service and lost (and continue losing) billions of euros in potential revenue in the long term. The tone of the article is hopeful however, highlighting the new research being done on overharvesting and maximum sustainable yields. The article also mentions important political leaders, like the Prince of Wales and his think-tank International Sustainability Unit, who are working on reforming fish harvesting practices throughout Europe. This would not be possible without the intersection of science and policy and the broad view that a framework like political ecology provides.

Clean Water Act Enforced in South Bend, IN

Clean Water Act Enforced in South Bend

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued this press release, which covers the implementation of the Clean Water Act in South Bend, IN through an over $500 million dollar improvement of the city’s combined sewer system. This decree, issued in December 2011, will directly affect those of us permanently or temporarily (as students) residing in the South Bend area through increased public health and conservation of the environment. Currently, the city’s combined sewer system (the means by which the city funnels a combination of wastes including sewage, industrial waste, debris, and rain runoff towards the wastewater treatment plant) is overloaded and dumps more than two billion gallons of untreated waste into the St. Joseph River every year. The United States Justice Department and the EPA found this practice in violation of the Clean Water Act, and are therefore demanding the overhaul of this system, which will decrease the instances of these overflows occurring by 95%.

            I decided to post this article because it directly involves all of us attending (or teaching) at Notre Dame. Personally, I have recently discovered the “East Race,” the portion of the St. Joseph River which the article purports the enforcement of the Clean Water Act will greatly improve. Additionally, I thought it fit nicely into our class discussions about the responsibilities of both local communities and national governments in the protection of their resources. Because the city of South Bend was found in violation by national bodies, the Justice Department and the EPA, it brings to mind the instance of local disregard for national environmental laws found in the Ok Tedi Mine in Papua New Guinea. There the locals were unopposed to the pollution occurring as a result of the copper industry because of the economic benefits it offered the community. The national government enforcing the Clean Water Act in South Bend is one example occurring in our midst where the effectiveness of a regulatory national government in prioritizing protection of the environment, even in light of the economic situation of the local community (South Bend), can be seen. Furthermore, this article shows how the economic situation of a country can enable or disable these sorts of government enforcement of national environmental laws, because it is rare in developing countries that both the state and federal governments are able to share and shoulder the costs of the renovation of the system in need.

            Ultimately, this article also shows the idea of political ecology at work. The movement to improve the combined sewer system must necessarily take into account the economics, politics, and social context of the South Bend community. The renovations will only be achieved through collaboration between these sectors, and it is only through this collaboration that the long-term effects of improved public health and quality of local environment may begin. Were you aware of this issue in South Bend? What do you think about the fact that, without the government’s urging, the city would have continued to pollute its river in such a manner? What questions do you think this article raises about the feasibility of protection of environments in newly industrialized countries who lack the finances to do so?

New Voices Seeking Input, More Transparency in Management of the Colorado River

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/02/15/colorado-river-management/

The Colorado River is a huge natural resource, which means it involves many stakeholders including project developers, native communities, and local businesses.  Up until now, however, the only stakeholders involved in the discussion of new water development projects for the Colorado River are the federal Bureau of Reclamation, state agencies, and major water users.  Recently, a few groups have become dissatisfied with the lack of transparency of information regarding new water development projects and their lack of decision-making power in these projects.  Nuestro Rio, a group representing Latinos from seven states surrounding the Colorado River, asked the government to consider their culture’s historic connections with the river.  The Colorado River Basin Tribes Partnership passed a resolution asking for more participation in a Colorado River planning study.  And Protect the Flows, a group representing over 350 businesses involved with the Colorado River, stresses the importance that a healthy river has on their business success. 

            Ignoring certain stakeholders from receiving information and making decisions concerning a natural resource that they value and are very involved in is an important issue in which environmental anthropology can be used to examine.  First of all, the fact that the federal Bureau of Reclamation, state agencies, and major water users are disregarding cultural groups that are native to the Colorado River can be seen as a form of environmental racism.  Of course, the cultural groups involved in Nuestro Rio and The Colorado River Basin Tribes Partnership do not legally own the property of the Colorado River now, but it was their ancestors who used to own that land and they had been racially marginalized off their own property.  The historic value of the Colorado River to these descendant groups should give them more authority in the river’s current developments.  Also, we see the classic case of more authoritative and “knowledgeable” institutions making the assumption that they know what is best to do regarding natural resources.  Local businesses that are directly involved with the Colorado River on a constant basis may have information about the river that these state and developmental institutions don’t have.  They may know if a certain development to the Colorado River may actually be a detriment to the environment.  This sheds light on the important responsibility that outside institutions should have in providing accurate information to a community or all stakeholders involved with an environmental concern.  The local stakeholders noted in this article have the right to pressure higher institutions for more transparency and I urge them to continue the struggle.

Economic development vs. environmental protection: Copper-nickel mining in Minnesota

http://www.startribune.com/local/139067154.html?page=1&c=y

This article is the latest in an ongoing dialogue in my home state of Minnesota about the possibility of the next mining boom in the northern part of the state. I believe this issue is a very good case study of the arguments for local economic developments versus the desire to preserve protected environments. On one hand, the basic economic argument is that these mines would bring a significant number of jobs to the region, as well as increasing revenue for the state from leasing state property. To bolster their argument, the mining companies promise clean, safe mines, financial backing for cleanup, and additional positive impacts on the economy. On the other hand, environmental advocates reject the claims that it is possible to safely mine for precious metals from sulfide rock formations, the substrate that causes acid mine drainage. This is especially problematic in areas like Minnesota that consist largely of wetlands. Therefore, the economic benefits are not worth the environmental damage which would have its own negative impacts on the tourism and fishing industries of the region. Furthermore, the mining industry is unpredictable and prone to booms and busts. These mines will operate for a relatively short time regardless, but if the mining companies fail as they have in the past, they will leave behind partially completed mines and someone else will be responsible for cleaning up after them, certainly an undesirable situation.

There is also a global element to this argument. If the minerals are not mined in MN, where strict environmental standards do exist, the corporations will look to other parts of the world that may not have the same regulations. Is it the best choice for the global environment to force these mining companies to search for other mineral deposits if it results in worse environmental impacts somewhere else? There is no easy answer to this question, but there are at least some obvious considerations. Are other mineral locations situated in areas as environmentally sensitive as northern MN? Are other mineral deposits as low-yield as this one? Sulfide mining is particularly dangerous in areas with large interconnected water sources, which likely does not include every other copper-nickel deposit in the world. To undergo this type of mining with its associated environmentally risks seems difficult to justify for a yield of less than 1% of the substrate, unless more mineral-rich deposits do not exist elsewhere.

Artificial glaciers preserve agricultural tradition in Tibetan highlands

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120214-artificial-glaciers-water-crops-in-indian-highlands/

This article is about the village of Skara, located on the edge of India’s Tibetan plateau’s technique of conserving water through the use of artificial glaciers. The livelihood of villagers in Skara mainly depends on their barley crops, which they consume and sell to surrounding areas. The water used to irrigate the crops traditionally has come from glacial melt water in the Himalayas. However, due to climate changes in recent years, water shortages have become increasingly more frequent and a serious threat to the farmers of Skara. In the late 1980s, an engineer from Skara, Chewang Norphel, developed an irrigation system of artificial glaciers to preserve the water. The water is diverted from rivers into valleys that are sealed off by rocks, where it pools and then freezes. This process is repeated until a decently sized glacier is formed. Currently, Skara uses ten artificial glaciers to sustain its farming.

I think one of the most interesting and important things to recognize about the case of Skara is that the solution came from an engineer native to the village instead of engineers from another country. Norphel’s solution was culturally sensitive and required specialized knowledge of the region and agricultural practices to work, the significance of which we discussed in relation to the article we read about the role of community in conservation. The article also emphasizes that the irrigation system was designed over the course of years and mainly sought to employ basic scientific principles that work within nature rather than sophisticated technology that works to overcome nature or in spite of nature.

I think a political ecology analysis is well suited to this topic. For the villagers in Skara, their agricultural practices are their livelihood. Instead of changing their agricultural practices or livelihood, the villagers adapted to the changes in their environment that preserved their traditional way of life. The article also points out that this solution is better and more cost effective for the environment than other alternatives such as dams or reservoirs, which could evaporate or become contaminated, so the solution is also good for the health and economy of the village. The article delves into a political ecology analysis a bit when it points out that while the artificial glaciers are an effective and innovative short-term solution, they are probably not sustainable long term as highland glaciers continue disappearing. While the artificial glaciers have been successful for Skara on several counts, the villagers will probably need to look to new innovative solutions in the future in order to continue their agricultural way of life.