New gas leak in Elgin platform in North Sea

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-17547372

In my last post I asked why Brazil is letting Chevron use such dangerous tactics when it seems like they have put a high priority on safety. This week’s article seems to imply that it is not just Brazil who displays this double standard, but that it is well saturated throughout the oil drilling regions of the world. I explore this further with the BBC’s article on the Elgin Well gas leak in the North Sea. A British union group called Unite has called for the three-mile exclusion zone to be extended to five miles for the safety of neighboring workers. It is regarded much too dangerous to return to the Elgin platform to extinguish the flare burning on the North Sea platform, yet the Elgin Well officials claim there is no risk the flare will ignite the gas cloud below. Obviously if there were no risk there would not be a total evacuation of the platform, so why pretend that nothing is wrong and that your methods are still safe? This is a clear tactic to save face, so why are we letting oil companies get away with it?

A pertinent quote from the article comes from Greenpeace’s John Sauven: "The industry consistently says that North Sea drilling is particularly safe and that spills can't happen here. Yet now we can see all too clearly that serious leaks can happen anywhere, and are extremely difficult to deal with. This incident shows us that if the oil and gas industry can't contain leaks in supposedly less risky places like the North Sea then there's no way they should be allowed to drill in fragile and high risk places like the Arctic." I tend to agree with Sauven, but this is an extreme stance. Many would oppose such staunch restrictions to an economic staple such as oil, but is there really any other way to ensure the health and safety of future generations and the environment?

This article demonstrates the very long and interdisciplinary problem with the extremes to which we are willing to discount the future for goods today. In health care, the U.S. continually ignores plans for preventative medicine that would show a vested interest in future health. Oil companies continually ignore the safety of their workers and the environment in order to get more goods now. It may not be a new problem, but it is an important one. Why do we stand for this blatant disregard for health and safety? Although a more philosophical question, I think it is at the heart of many of these environmental justice issues. I don’t necessarily think there is a clear solution to this problem, but awareness is the first step. Also, there are unions like England’s Unite and groups like Greenpeace who stand up for workers’ rights to safety and challenge big oil’s status quo in hazardous methods. What do you think can be done about increasingly hazardous oil techniques? Have I been too harsh on the oil industry, do you think there’s another side to this story?

Sustainable Tree House

http://inhabitat.com/beautiful-buildings-made-from-whole-trees/

Today, even among great innovative technology, wood remains one of the most widely used and sustainable ways of building. It is inexpensive, natural, recyclable, and if properly managed, sustainable. An architectural firm out of Wisconsin is taking advantage of this sustainable aspect and Green fad with construction that uses primarily whole, unmilled trees. The result is spirited and unique architecture built almost exclusively from tree branches.

One of the main concerns regarding the sustainability of wood as a building material is its role in forest depletion. And while most lumber companies strive to maintain sustainable practices, much of the wood is wasted and disposed of following milling. But as the article outlines very well, an unmilled tree has the strength potential  50 percent more than that of milled lumber. Whole Tree Architecture capitalizes on these factors, using local, unused,  “weak” scraps that are in fact quite strong.  This wasted wood is primarily  “weed trees” , the trees that are cut early to ensure the strength of others during forest management.  Although less than a foot in diameter, their strength is valuable:  “We’re confident that the natural connection is stronger than any man-made connection,”  Founder Roald Gundersun says.  This can be quite revolutionary for the lumber market, as the development of this type of style can embrace and benefit forest management practices. Roald Gundersun has been developing this building technique of whole tree structures for over 16 years, and it is clear that the refinements have paid off.  The portfolio that is presented showcases beautiful homes that have a direct visual relationship to their immediate surroundings.

It is clear that the market for this type of architecture now is quite small, but in my view, the potential is great. It not only introduces an interesting concept of being closer than ever to nature by bringing the natural environment into the built one, but has been developed and proven to be strong tectonically. Do you think that with time and further development, such initiatives will become more mainstream, or will these houses always fill a small and unique niche, appealing only to the outdoorsmen?  

Insects are now resistant.

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science-a-environmental/31779-overuse-of-genetically-engineered-bt-corn-tied-to-accelerated-resistance.html

This article, published in late March, addresses a novel but much anticipated concern for the familiar agribusiness giant already embroiled in controversy. A number of plant scientists are warning the EPA that Monsanto’s (and other biotech company's who share the licenses for the patents) prized GM biotech bt-corn is increasingly ineffective in the prevention and eradication of plant damaging insect infestations. While the patented Bt-corn has proven an effective tool in reducing corn rootworm infestations for a number of years now, corn entomologists and other scientists are expressing a collective concern that these biotech crops are losing ground in the battle against those pesky insects. This problem has been long predicted by scientists in the field, and the financial ramifications are not small.

The United States department of Agriculture estimates that the western corn rootworm are responsible for $1 billion in lost revenue annually, and that 30 million acres (out of 80 million grown) are currently infested. Monsanto has responded with claims that minimize the perceived threat of rootworm infestation. Danielle Stuart, a Monsanto spokeswoman indicated that rootworm only affected .2% of corn and that they were working closely with those farmers to treat the problem. Whosever’s data more accurately represents the physical extent of the infestation (and one imagines corn farmers and the USDA that regulates this agriculture does) the fiscal losses due to corn rootworm is easily quantifiable and cannot be denied, and the situation presents financial trouble for GM bt-corn farmers that already must purchase new patented seeds every season and poses health questions for consumers as additional pesticides are again necessary to combat the bugs. This issue traverses the non-gmo corn market as well as non-gmo corn farms in close proximity to GM corn can become contaminated with the patented bt-crop through cross-pollination. Also, organic farmers who do not use GM seeds have sometimes used a bacterial spray that contains the bt-toxin, however this treatment is rendered equally ineffectual against resistant rootworms.

On March 5^th, 22 scientists sent letters to the EPA urging federal regulators to take action over the issue. They mention “detections of greater than expected damage” that has grown into problem areas in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota over the past two years. The entomologists warn that these reports in combination with scientific studies illustrate that resistance to the toxin is “solidly established in the field and likely spreading.” In response to insect resistance, biotech corporations such as Monsanto have paired the bt toxin Cry3Bb1 with a second toxin “Cry34/35Ab1” in their newer SmartStax© line of seeds. However, scientists are doubtful this will solve the problem: “entomologists expressed concern that rapid emergence of resistance to the Cry3Bb1 toxin will quickly compromise the effectiveness of all other toxins with which it is partnered in so-called “pyramid” seeds.” The corn entomologists and other scientists were also critical of the EPA’s decision to reduce the size of the non-bt corn insect refuge areas previously mandated by federal guidelines for bt-corn growers. Of course, Bt-corn is not the only crop contributing to resistance, the same genetic modifications have been used for cotton, soy, and rice however in the states, with over 57% of our domestic corn being the GM bt-variety, this issue has a large bearing on our agricultural economy and food supply, especially in the corn belt, but also in the greater global economy as the U.S. is the world’s largest corn supplier.

Old Warnings about BT-cron resistance.

www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/business/06corn.html

This article was published in The New York Times during November of 2009 and expresses concern over farmers failing to follow federal guidelines regulating genetically modified BT-corn crops. The federal government requires bt corn farmers preserve one fifth of their land as an insect refuge where non-GM corn must be planted. The article mentions that a few years ago, approximately 90% of farmers were following federal guidelines by appropriating 20% of their crop field to non GM corn plants, recently surveys and studies conducted by an advocacy group suggest that around 25% of corn farms are now incompliant with the rules. The rates had steadily fallen: in 2007 80% of farmers were compliant, a year later 78% were compliant, and by 2009, more than a quarter of all U.S. corn farms were not following federal regulations to maintain a refuge area. Furthermore the article mentions that only 63% of farms had established a refuge area close enough to the farm fields.

The Genetically modified “bt-corn” was introduced by Monsanto in 2003 and has been very popular with corn farmers across the nation. The advantages of bt-corn were obvious for farmers and consumers alike as they increased productivity and reduced the need for pesticides. The main difference between the bt-corn and other non-gmo corn lies in the presence of a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (bt), which produces a specific protein, “Cry3Bb1,” an insecticidal toxin that makes the plant resistant to pests that would otherwise feed on the crop. This specific protein has never been expressed in corn, and has never even been present in the human food chain, but public health concerns aside, farmers have found it an effective tool to combat infestation. Unfortunately, overuse of the crop may render it useless.

The reason for those guidelines is to avoid the threat of insect resistance. The fear is that if the entire corn farm contains the bacterial toxin, insects such as the rootworm will develop resistance to the toxins and their offspring will in turn be resistant, rendering the GM crops ineffective at preventing infestation from the forthcoming generations of bugs. Gregory Jaffe is the biotechnology project director for The Center for Science in the Public interest, an advocacy group based in Washington D.C. that does not oppose GM practices but argues for stricter regulation of the industry. He warns these findings “should be a wake-up call to the E.P.A. that the regulatory system is not working.” The four transnational biotechnology corporations that hold patents for bt-corn—Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta, and Dow AgroSciences--are required to conduct annual surveys to determine the level of compliance with federal standards. Nicholas Storer, chairman of Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Technical Committee which conducts the surveys, said biotech seed companies are aware of the problems and have begun a “Respect the Refuge” campaign, that involves sending postcards personally to corn farmers putting up billboards alongside highways in the Corn Belt. As it seems many farms have not been in compliance, and the E.P.A has already stated it “will take action if necessary,” one wonders when they will feel it necessary, perhaps when insects have already developed resistance.

For Bolivian Farmers, Quinoa Boom Is Both Boon and Bane

http://news.yahoo.com/bolivian-farmers-quinoa-boom-both-boon-bane-093806693.html

            This article discusses the recent rising popularity of quinoa and the unprecedented effects it is having in the countries where it is cultivated. Quinoa is a vegetable that has been traditionally consumed by indigenous populations in the Andes, as it is one of the few crops that are able to grow at the high altitude. Primarily grown in Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador, quinoa has recently become popular due to its classification as a “superfood” and the fact that it is whole grain, gluten-free, and grown organically.

            The growing demand has had both positive and negative consequences for indigenous farmers. Prices for quinoa have risen and farmers are profiting. As the article states, 70% of the high school graduates in one of the main quinoa-producing regions of Bolivia can now afford to attend institutes of higher education; others are using their newfound economic success to improve their quality of life in ways like home renovations.

            However, there have been negative consequences as well. Violence and other conflicts over property rights high-quality quinoa-growing lands are spreading throughout the Andean highlands. Also, to accommodate the rising demand, farmers have altered their practices resulting in an upset of the balance in the ecosystem between llamas and the soil.

            After all the readings and class discussions we’ve had, I have to admit: this article worries me. This situation seems like another perfect storm for exploitation of indigenous farmers by large corporations and conflicts over traditional knowledge and practices. Basically every major issue we’ve touched on is present here: unclear land titles, overfarming of the land straining the environment and eroding the soil, etc. Furthermore, farmers are eating less quinoa because of economic pressure to sell it, leading to malnutrition. I think this situation has the potential to become a lot worse, especially if big corporations were to come in and try to profit from quinoa, possibly by patenting the seed. Fortunately, I think that that is less likely, since one of the big draws to quinoa for consumers is that it is organic and the indigenous farmers are directly profiting.

            One of the biggest things that we will need to wait and see is if the demand for quinoa continues to rise, fall, or plateau. Currently it seems to be the latest “trendy” health food, but as health consciousness continues to gain momentum, it is possible that quinoa could become more integrated into our diet and there is no “bust” as the article points out. If there is no bust, I think that the indigenous of Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador can benefit greatly from quinoa. If the land and farming practices were regulated, and if the farmers themselves continue to profit directly, then these communities would be able to develop in terms of education, health, and in other areas – and best of all, it would be on their own terms. 

Hyde Park Update from "The Augusta Chronicle"

          http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/government/2012-03-17/city-augusta-has-not-allocated-enough-money-relocate-hyde-park-residents

  This article gives us an update about how the Hyde Park community is doing today. Melissa Checker’s Polluted Promises was published in 2005, but I think it is important to remember that the topic we have been discussing is not something from history. Rather, the environmental degradation that has plagued Hyde Park has still yet to be resolved. As is seen in the article, the community has yet to be recognized as worthy of federal funds. Efforts to remedy the situation continue to come from the local level, though funds do come from the government through tax dollars. In this article, problems with recently announced plans to relocate and compensate current residents are discussed, and a dire lack of necessary funds is brought to light.

            Many of the complexities of the community that Checker discusses can be seen in this news article in The Augusta Chronicle. The relocation’s stipulations posit that each household “will receive relocation expenses and assistance to move into homes or apartments of equal size and value.” Funds were not appropriately apportioned, however. The Housing and Community Development department of Richmond County (in which Hyde Park falls) only allotted around $10,000 for each lot, whereas the median value of a house in Hyde Park averages around $13,100. Here is where the variety of incomes that Checker alludes to can be explicitly seen. The article says that funds have set $2.8 million as the total value of Hyde Park homes; $1 million of that is on a single street, Leona Street, where the average price of a home is “four times” the neighborhood average. Furthermore, funds will be necessary to pay employees at work on the resettlement, though this too will subtract from the overall money available to Hyde Park residents themselves. 

            Though a relocation process has been put into place, the dilemmas Hyde Park residents face are clearly far from over. What I found most interesting in this article was the difference in tone in comparison with that of Checker. Checker’s treatment of Hyde Park residents was one that portrayed them as dignified victims working towards just claims. Checker validated the residents, proving that the complete destruction of their livelihoods (and actual lives) by toxic waste and industry was the result of centuries of racism and neglect at the hands of the government. This article, on the other hand, limits its sympathies to the following statement: “The area’s low property values stem from its reputation of being contaminated by a nearby factory and former junkyard. Many residents moved away or even abandoned their properties completely.” After reading Checker and learning the awful truth of the situation, however, it is infuriating that the contamination is still viewed as merely heresay. Even more unbelievable is the way in which the preceding statement alludes to the presumed irresponsibility of residents who would “abandon their properties.” As was discussed in class, the people of Hyde Park will only find justice if they garner media attention, and unbiased and fair media attention to boot. 

For Schoolyard Gardens, a Global Network


http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/a-global-network-for-schoolyard-gardens/


Cities and towns are defined as "food deserts" if they do not have supermarkets and do have toxic soil. The Hunters Point district of San Francisco has been defined as a food desert, but has been getting help to combat this problem from the Edible Schoolyard Project. This project was designed to educate students on growing, cooking, and eating their own sustainable food. The goal is to integrate food education into school curriculum just as physical fitness education has been. The Edible Schoolyard Project has just launched a social media site that makes all of their resources public. The site is all encompassing for people who want to start their own project, and it offers tips and lessons from other schools that have already implemented a similar project. If a school is having financial problems with starting their own project, they can come to this website to search for help from the founders of the ESP. The founders can even offer specialized programs for different regions of the United States. For example, those students in Hunters Point cannot use the soil  that they already have, and must use raised garden beds, while students in the Adirondack Mountains of New York are learning to shear sheep. 


The site has seen huge success, and so has the ESP. There are 160 participating schools, and they are all over the world. An interesting point to note is that environmental groups have been late in supporting this project, according to the founders. People must realize that how the world grows food must be part of the environmental conversation, since it truly has an impact on the soil, air, and water. 


I think the Edible Schoolyard Project is a really important initiative. It truly brings environmental justice to those places who simply do not have the option to eat healthily. Something that stuck out to me in this article was a quote from a girl who is participating in the Hunters Point garden project. She said "When I’m not here, it’s back to eating fast food.” When this girl is not spending time working in the school's garden, she must resort to fast food. Expanding the Schoolyard project to something that is community wide could really help many more people who must eat fast food on a daily basis. By putting time into the garden, they see the benefits first hand of what they plant in the ground and what they feed their bodies.