Thursday, March 29, 2012
NY State's Preservation League joins the fracking wars
A New Weapon in the Fracking Wars
By Mireya Navarro
March 29, 2012, 9:59 am
In recent months, efforts to restrict future natural gas drilling in New York State have ranged from proposed buffer zones around gas wells for the protection of watersheds and aqueducts to outright drilling bans enacted by towns and villages.
Enter the historic preservationists.
 |
| Photo: Preservation League of New York State |
The Preservation League of New York State plans to announce this week that it will list swaths of land in drilling regions upstate as endangered historic and cultural resources and seek drilling restrictions around the properties.
League officials argue that proposed state rules that would govern hydrofracking once this type of drilling is green-lighted by the Cuomo administration do not take historic resources in the Marcellus or Utica Shale regions into account. As a result, they say, many valuable properties would be vulnerable to damage from industrial activity.
The officials say they are trying to protect buildings and agricultural landscapes dating back to the 1700s and 1800s in 30 counties. These include Greek Revival-style houses, barns and field patterns.
“You’re in effect seeing landscapes that existed 150 years ago,” said Daniel Mackay, the league’s director of public policy. “That type of setting is at risk of having its character transformed by the drilling, support traffic, pipelines and water withdrawals.”
In their comments to the state Department of Environmental Conservation, which is currently reviewing the proposed fracking regulations and an environmental impact study, preservationists are urging state officials to require a survey of historic and cultural resources as a condition of granting a drilling permit application. Once such resources are identified, buffer zones should be created to protect those sites, they say.
In the meantime, the league, a nonprofit member-based organization based in Albany, is adding all historic and cultural sites in the Marcellus and Utica Shale gas regions to its endangered properties program, known as Seven to Save. The goal is to make those sites a priority for the next two years and raise public awareness about them.
The effort includes channeling grant money into research to identify more historic sites.
League officials say that publicity and advocacy from Seven to Save designations have resulted in the rehabilitation of buildings like the Oswego City Public Library and the George Harvey Justice Building in Binghamton, among other places.
Resource: The New York Times - Politics & Policy
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Redford puts star power behind Colorado River film
WASHINGTON |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Actor and director Robert Redford, a longtime environmental activist, has teamed with his son to film a documentary about the Colorado River system, which conservationists believe is endangered by decades of development and global warming.
Redford, 76, who lives in Utah, traveled to Washington, D.C. along with Jamie Redford, a Northern California resident, to discuss the urgency of the message in their film, "Watershed," featured recently at the D.C. Environmental Film Festival.
 |
| Robert Redford and son team up for 'Watershed' |
"The watershed issue is something that's happening all over the world, where the need for water is greater than the amount of water to provide for it," Robert Redford told Reuters.
"I think we're picking the Colorado River as an example of what's going on with watersheds all over the world and trying to focus on that and draw attention to it."
The river flows from the Rocky Mountains 1,450 miles to the Gulf of California. But, as the Redfords' film points out, the water rarely makes it that far because of the multiple demands of agriculture, industry and communities upstream.
The film opens with an explanation of the history of the Colorado River system's development, starting with the Colorado River Compact of 1922, which provided for the equitable division and apportionment of the water among seven states in the U.S. and two in Mexico.
But "Watershed" holds that the compact, 90 years later, has transformed one of the world's wildest rivers to the point where it will soon be unable to provide sufficient water for the populations dependent upon it.
"With population in the region expected to reach 50 million by 2050, temperatures rising and precipitation patterns becoming more erratic, demand will outpace supply unless we embrace a new water ethic" Redford says in the film.
A star of hits including "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", "All the President's Men", "The Sting" and the Oscar-winning director of "Ordinary People," Redford hopes "Watershed" serves as a warning.
"There's a new water reality that people have to be aware of, and I think looking at the Colorado River as an example is what this film's about.
"I think it's using art as a tool for social awareness, you know, making a film about an issue and then getting it out to as many people as possible increases awareness. Maybe increased awareness will help solve our problem," he said.
The film illustrates the various demands on the Colorado River through the eyes of the people who live on it, from a fly-fishing instructor near the river's source to farmers and families living downstream. Jamie Redford said that by enlisting real people in the project, the issue was more likely to resonate with audiences.
"It was pretty clear from our point of view that what we wanted to do was specifically focus on people, and we wanted to take a positive look at what is a challenging situation," he said.
"So, in that regard, we found characters up and down the river from the headwaters all the way out to the Colorado delta in Mexico that are fighting to make a difference and are making a difference and setting an example of what you can do."
As a California native and long-time resident of Utah, Jamie's father said he has watched the gradual depletion of the Colorado for 50 years and that the issue is too important to ignore any longer.
"You've got 30 million people dependent on that water source, and a lot of that dependency is urban renewal, booming metropolitan cities. You've got drinking, you've got sanitation and you've got electrical generation. You pull that off the river," said Redford. "Plus, the agricultural water rights that the farmers and ranchers have. You've got a depletion that has to be looked at."
An early supporter of President Obama, Redford said he is disappointed by the administration and Congress's progress on future fuel sources, noting that non-sustainable, carbon-based fuels are a major contributing factor to global warming and the problems facing those who depend on the Colorado River. But no one in government, Redford said, is courageous enough to make decisions that could prevent worsening of the situation.
"The future is about young people," he said. "Young people coming on today, like Jamie my son, his son, other generations coming, what are we thinking about them?
"I think we have such a tendency to think short, short term, and therefore apply short term solutions to longer term problems. We're just not going to get there unless that changes."
(Editing By Chris Michaud and Bob Tourtellotte)
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/us-robertredford-watershed-idUSBRE82P0KW20120327
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Mission Accomplished? Not Yet
Last week we saw the news headline: 'World Meets UN Target for Safe Drinking Water.' I'm sure I wasn't the only blogger to wonder about this overly-optimistic announcement. Certainly it is an achievement to bring water to 2 billion people who didn't have it before, but what worried me is that the message many readers were likely to get was: Mission Accomplished.
I do understand that the UN needed to set a goal as something to strive for, and once accomplished, that groups would still work towards bringing clean water to even more people, but announcing that you've met your goal makes it sound like you're done. That worried me.
I feel much better now as it looks as though Richard Greenly and Richard Stearns were thinking the same thing:
By Richard Greenly & Richard Stearns
Lito Eduardo, a 12-year-old boy in Mozambique, is among the 40 percent of people in his country who don't have access to clean, safe water. As a result, he wakes up at 2 a.m., hours before dawn, and hikes two and a half miles to fetch water from a river well and perform the backbreaking task of lugging it home. If he left any later, the line would be too long to allow him to do anything else during the day.
"The first to reach the well is the first to collect water; there are so many who depend on it," he says.
Despite waking so early, Lito is usually late for school, and Lito's mother will need to make two more trips for water during the day. "I do not have time to help my husband in the field," she says.
The time and effort needed to find water creates a domino effect for Lito's family. Lito suffers in school because he misses class. His mother can't help in the fields because she's carrying water from the river. His father's productivity on the farm suffers without help from the rest of the family, resulting in meager meals for his wife and seven children.
It's nearly impossible for us to imagine what life would be like without access to clean water.
Most of us turn a knob in the morning and hot water squirts from the showerhead. We brush our teeth over a sink with clean, flowing water. Perhaps we fill a glass of water from the dispenser in the door of the fridge and drop a load of laundry into the washing machine. We're entirely dependent on clean water for a variety of uses all before leaving for work in the morning. It's a luxury we don't think about, but that 783 million people around the world go without.
We know exactly how to fix this situation. In fact, just this month the United Nations announced that the world has met one of its first Millennium Development Goals ahead of schedule: cutting in half the number of people who do not have access to clean water by 2015.
In the last 20 years, more than two billion people have received a local water source. Through organizations like World Vision and Water4, millions are gaining access to water inexpensively and on a sustainable basis. But with more than 780 million people still without water, there is much more work to do. And there is still a long way to go to improve sanitation and hygiene so that water supplies are not polluted.
Lack of clean water is more than an inconvenience or an everyday hardship. Without access to safe water, every area of your life is affected. Your whole day consumed with, "How do I get water?"
Communities lacking safe sources of water experience hunger, poor education for their children, and are constantly at risk of illness and death as a result of water-borne diseases. According to the World Health Organization, 10 percent of global diseases could be prevented by providing access to water as well as sanitation and hygiene. More than 6,000 children die each day, most under the age of 5, from diarrheal diseases caused by unsafe water and lack of basic sanitation facilities.
Gaining a safe and accessible source of water radically transforms communities like Lito's. While costs can vary, World Vision dug a borehole well for the northern Mozambique village of Nihessiue at a rate of roughly $50 per person. After the 500 families in Lito's community received a well supplying clean water, he said, "Now when I wake up I do not bother fetching water; I only sweep the yard. I can go to school for all of my classes." Their new well, his mother says, "means more food on the table as now I can help my husband with farming. We have increased the size of our garden and hope that we have a good harvest this year."
In many cases, Water4 doubles the impact of this work as they train crews to operate small businesses drilling wells and performing maintenance work. These jobs bring more benefit to rural communities.
This kind of progress is making a difference. Lito, and everyone else in the world, deserves safe, local water, just as most of us enjoy each morning. We have the means to achieve it. The only question is, Are we willing to make it happen?
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greenly/world-water-day_b_1372224.html
I do understand that the UN needed to set a goal as something to strive for, and once accomplished, that groups would still work towards bringing clean water to even more people, but announcing that you've met your goal makes it sound like you're done. That worried me.
I feel much better now as it looks as though Richard Greenly and Richard Stearns were thinking the same thing:
2 Billion Now Have Water, 780 Million Don't
- Let's Finish the Job
 |
| Photo: AP |
Lito Eduardo, a 12-year-old boy in Mozambique, is among the 40 percent of people in his country who don't have access to clean, safe water. As a result, he wakes up at 2 a.m., hours before dawn, and hikes two and a half miles to fetch water from a river well and perform the backbreaking task of lugging it home. If he left any later, the line would be too long to allow him to do anything else during the day.
"The first to reach the well is the first to collect water; there are so many who depend on it," he says.
Despite waking so early, Lito is usually late for school, and Lito's mother will need to make two more trips for water during the day. "I do not have time to help my husband in the field," she says.
The time and effort needed to find water creates a domino effect for Lito's family. Lito suffers in school because he misses class. His mother can't help in the fields because she's carrying water from the river. His father's productivity on the farm suffers without help from the rest of the family, resulting in meager meals for his wife and seven children.
It's nearly impossible for us to imagine what life would be like without access to clean water.
Most of us turn a knob in the morning and hot water squirts from the showerhead. We brush our teeth over a sink with clean, flowing water. Perhaps we fill a glass of water from the dispenser in the door of the fridge and drop a load of laundry into the washing machine. We're entirely dependent on clean water for a variety of uses all before leaving for work in the morning. It's a luxury we don't think about, but that 783 million people around the world go without.
We know exactly how to fix this situation. In fact, just this month the United Nations announced that the world has met one of its first Millennium Development Goals ahead of schedule: cutting in half the number of people who do not have access to clean water by 2015.
In the last 20 years, more than two billion people have received a local water source. Through organizations like World Vision and Water4, millions are gaining access to water inexpensively and on a sustainable basis. But with more than 780 million people still without water, there is much more work to do. And there is still a long way to go to improve sanitation and hygiene so that water supplies are not polluted.
Lack of clean water is more than an inconvenience or an everyday hardship. Without access to safe water, every area of your life is affected. Your whole day consumed with, "How do I get water?"
Communities lacking safe sources of water experience hunger, poor education for their children, and are constantly at risk of illness and death as a result of water-borne diseases. According to the World Health Organization, 10 percent of global diseases could be prevented by providing access to water as well as sanitation and hygiene. More than 6,000 children die each day, most under the age of 5, from diarrheal diseases caused by unsafe water and lack of basic sanitation facilities.
Gaining a safe and accessible source of water radically transforms communities like Lito's. While costs can vary, World Vision dug a borehole well for the northern Mozambique village of Nihessiue at a rate of roughly $50 per person. After the 500 families in Lito's community received a well supplying clean water, he said, "Now when I wake up I do not bother fetching water; I only sweep the yard. I can go to school for all of my classes." Their new well, his mother says, "means more food on the table as now I can help my husband with farming. We have increased the size of our garden and hope that we have a good harvest this year."
In many cases, Water4 doubles the impact of this work as they train crews to operate small businesses drilling wells and performing maintenance work. These jobs bring more benefit to rural communities.
This kind of progress is making a difference. Lito, and everyone else in the world, deserves safe, local water, just as most of us enjoy each morning. We have the means to achieve it. The only question is, Are we willing to make it happen?
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greenly/world-water-day_b_1372224.html
Sunday, March 25, 2012
25 Signs That A Horrific Global Water Crisis Is Coming
Economic Collapse Blog
Every single day, we are getting closer to a horrific global water crisis. This world was blessed with an awesome amount of fresh water, but because of our foolishness it is rapidly disappearing. Rivers, lakes and major underground aquifers all over the globe are drying up, and many of the fresh water sources that we still have available are so incredibly polluted that we simply cannot use them anymore. Without fresh water, we simply cannot function.
Just imagine what would happen if the water got cut off in your house and you were not able to go out and buy any. Just think about it. How long would you be able to last? Well, as sources of fresh water all over the globe dry up, we are seeing drought conditions spread. We are starting to see massive “dust storms” in areas where we have never seem them before.
Every single year, most of the major deserts around the world are getting bigger and the amount of usable agricultural land in most areas is becoming smaller. Whether you are aware of this or not, the truth is that we are rapidly approaching a breaking point.
If dramatic changes are not made soon, in the years ahead water shortages are going to force large groups of people to move to new areas. As the global water crisis intensifies, there will be political conflicts and potentially even wars over water. We like to think of ourselves as being so “advanced”, but the reality is that we have not figured out how to live without water. When the water dries up in an area, most of the people are going to have to leave.
And yes, it will even happen in the United States too. For example, once Lake Mead dries up there is simply no way that so many people are going to be able to live in and around Las Vegas.
Right now, most of us take for granted that we will always have access to an unlimited amount of clean water.
But when you take a hard look at the data, it quickly becomes clear that everything that we have always taken for granted about water is about to dramatically change.
That following are 25 signs that a horrific global water crisis is coming. The first 12 facts are about the United States, and the last 13 are about the rest of the world….
#1 Today, the United States uses approximately 148 trillion gallons of fresh water a year.
#2 According to the U.S. government, 36 U.S. states are already facing water shortages or will be facing water shortages within the next few years.
#3 Since 1998, the level of water in Lake Mead has plunged by more than 50 percent. Lake Mead supplies about 85 percent of the water used in Las Vegas, and at this point the lake has 5.6 trillion gallons less water than it used to have. Lake Mead is falling so fast that some believe that the Hoover dam could actually stop producing electricity in a few years. Needless to say, that would be a total disaster for that entire region of the country. In addition, if things continue at the current pace, it is being estimated that Lake Mead will run completely dry some time around the year 2021.
#4 According to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. interior west is now the driest that it has been in 500 years.
#5 The Ogallala Aquifer, which is a massive underground lake that stretches from South Dakota all the way to Texas, is rapidly drying up. The Ogallala Aquifer is believed to be the largest body of fresh water in the world, and right now it is being drained at a rate of approximately 800 gallons per minute. Right now it covers approximately 174,000 square miles, and since the 1950s we have drained enough water from it “to half-fill Lake Erie“. Once upon a time, the Ogallala Aquifer had an average depth of about 240 feet, but today the average depth is just 80 feet. If something is not done, we will definitely see a return of the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s. We need to start listening to the experts. Just consider what David Brauer of the Ogallala Research Service had to say when asked about the future of the Ogallala Aquifer….
#7 It is estimated that California only has a 20 year supply of fresh water left.
#8 It is estimated that New Mexico only has a 10 year supply of fresh water left.
#9 Things have gotten so dry in Arizona that now giant “dust storms” have been blowing through the city of Phoenix.
#10 Texas is has experienced one of the driest stretches that it has ever seen. Right now, approximately 81 percent of the state of Texas is experiencing “exceptional drought” conditions, and wildfires have burned an astounding 3.6 million acres in the state.
#11 Approximately 40 percent of all U.S. rivers and approximately 46 percent of all U.S. lakes have become so polluted that they are are now considered to be too dangerous to fish in, swim in or get drinking water from.
#12 Eight states in the Great Lakes region have signed a pact banning the export of water to outsiders - even to other U.S. states.
#13 It is being projected that by the year 2030, global demand for water will be 40 percent higher than it is today.
#14 Worldwide demand for fresh water tripled during the last century, and is now doubling every 21 years.
#15 According to USAID, one-third of the population of the earth will be facing severe or chronic water shortages by the year 2025.
#16 Of the 60 million people added to the world’s cities every year, the vast majority of them live in impoverished areas that have no sanitation facilities whatsoever.
#17 It is estimated that 75 percent of the surface water in India is now contaminated by human and agricultural waste.
#18 If you can believe it, according to a UN study on sanitation, far more people in India have access to a cell phone than to a toilet.
#19 In the developing world, 90 percent of all wastewater is discharged completely untreated into local rivers, streams or lakes.
#20 Every 8 seconds, somewhere in the world a child dies from drinking dirty water.
#21 Due to a lack of water, Saudi Arabia has given up on trying to grow wheat and will be 100 percent dependent on wheat imports by the year 2016.
#22 In northern China, the water table is dropping one meter every single year because of drought and overpumping.
#23 Incredibly, a new desert the size of Rhode Island is created in China every single year because of drought and overpumping.
#24 In China, 80 percent of all major rivers have become so horribly polluted that they do not support any aquatic life at all at this point.
#25 Collectively, the women of South Africa walk the equivalent of the distance to the moon and back 16 times a day just to get water.
Right now, more than a billion people around the globe do not have access to safe drinking water.
That number is going to keep increasing.
Without enough fresh water, people cannot grow enough food. Global food prices are already starting to skyrocket, and the coming global water crisis certainly is not going to help matters.
A massive, massive disaster is on the horizon. The era of gigantic amounts of cheap food and “unlimited” amounts of clean water is over.
A horrific global water crisis is coming.
You better get ready.
Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/25-signs-that-a-horrific-global-water-crisis-is-coming.html
Every single day, we are getting closer to a horrific global water crisis. This world was blessed with an awesome amount of fresh water, but because of our foolishness it is rapidly disappearing. Rivers, lakes and major underground aquifers all over the globe are drying up, and many of the fresh water sources that we still have available are so incredibly polluted that we simply cannot use them anymore. Without fresh water, we simply cannot function.
Just imagine what would happen if the water got cut off in your house and you were not able to go out and buy any. Just think about it. How long would you be able to last? Well, as sources of fresh water all over the globe dry up, we are seeing drought conditions spread. We are starting to see massive “dust storms” in areas where we have never seem them before.
Every single year, most of the major deserts around the world are getting bigger and the amount of usable agricultural land in most areas is becoming smaller. Whether you are aware of this or not, the truth is that we are rapidly approaching a breaking point.
If dramatic changes are not made soon, in the years ahead water shortages are going to force large groups of people to move to new areas. As the global water crisis intensifies, there will be political conflicts and potentially even wars over water. We like to think of ourselves as being so “advanced”, but the reality is that we have not figured out how to live without water. When the water dries up in an area, most of the people are going to have to leave.
Right now, most of us take for granted that we will always have access to an unlimited amount of clean water.
But when you take a hard look at the data, it quickly becomes clear that everything that we have always taken for granted about water is about to dramatically change.
That following are 25 signs that a horrific global water crisis is coming. The first 12 facts are about the United States, and the last 13 are about the rest of the world….
#1 Today, the United States uses approximately 148 trillion gallons of fresh water a year.
#2 According to the U.S. government, 36 U.S. states are already facing water shortages or will be facing water shortages within the next few years.
#3 Since 1998, the level of water in Lake Mead has plunged by more than 50 percent. Lake Mead supplies about 85 percent of the water used in Las Vegas, and at this point the lake has 5.6 trillion gallons less water than it used to have. Lake Mead is falling so fast that some believe that the Hoover dam could actually stop producing electricity in a few years. Needless to say, that would be a total disaster for that entire region of the country. In addition, if things continue at the current pace, it is being estimated that Lake Mead will run completely dry some time around the year 2021.
#4 According to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. interior west is now the driest that it has been in 500 years.
#5 The Ogallala Aquifer, which is a massive underground lake that stretches from South Dakota all the way to Texas, is rapidly drying up. The Ogallala Aquifer is believed to be the largest body of fresh water in the world, and right now it is being drained at a rate of approximately 800 gallons per minute. Right now it covers approximately 174,000 square miles, and since the 1950s we have drained enough water from it “to half-fill Lake Erie“. Once upon a time, the Ogallala Aquifer had an average depth of about 240 feet, but today the average depth is just 80 feet. If something is not done, we will definitely see a return of the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s. We need to start listening to the experts. Just consider what David Brauer of the Ogallala Research Service had to say when asked about the future of the Ogallala Aquifer….
“Our goal now is to engineer a soft landing. That’s all we can do.”#6 A federal judge has ruled that the state of Georgia has very few legal rights to Lake Lanier. Lake Lanier is the main water source for the city of Atlanta. Millions more people are expected to move into the Atlanta area in the coming years, and this is creating an absolute nightmare for city officials.
#7 It is estimated that California only has a 20 year supply of fresh water left.
#8 It is estimated that New Mexico only has a 10 year supply of fresh water left.
#9 Things have gotten so dry in Arizona that now giant “dust storms” have been blowing through the city of Phoenix.
#10 Texas is has experienced one of the driest stretches that it has ever seen. Right now, approximately 81 percent of the state of Texas is experiencing “exceptional drought” conditions, and wildfires have burned an astounding 3.6 million acres in the state.
#11 Approximately 40 percent of all U.S. rivers and approximately 46 percent of all U.S. lakes have become so polluted that they are are now considered to be too dangerous to fish in, swim in or get drinking water from.
#12 Eight states in the Great Lakes region have signed a pact banning the export of water to outsiders - even to other U.S. states.
#13 It is being projected that by the year 2030, global demand for water will be 40 percent higher than it is today.
#14 Worldwide demand for fresh water tripled during the last century, and is now doubling every 21 years.
#15 According to USAID, one-third of the population of the earth will be facing severe or chronic water shortages by the year 2025.
#16 Of the 60 million people added to the world’s cities every year, the vast majority of them live in impoverished areas that have no sanitation facilities whatsoever.
#17 It is estimated that 75 percent of the surface water in India is now contaminated by human and agricultural waste.
#18 If you can believe it, according to a UN study on sanitation, far more people in India have access to a cell phone than to a toilet.
#19 In the developing world, 90 percent of all wastewater is discharged completely untreated into local rivers, streams or lakes.
#20 Every 8 seconds, somewhere in the world a child dies from drinking dirty water.
#21 Due to a lack of water, Saudi Arabia has given up on trying to grow wheat and will be 100 percent dependent on wheat imports by the year 2016.
#22 In northern China, the water table is dropping one meter every single year because of drought and overpumping.
#23 Incredibly, a new desert the size of Rhode Island is created in China every single year because of drought and overpumping.
#24 In China, 80 percent of all major rivers have become so horribly polluted that they do not support any aquatic life at all at this point.
#25 Collectively, the women of South Africa walk the equivalent of the distance to the moon and back 16 times a day just to get water.
Right now, more than a billion people around the globe do not have access to safe drinking water.
That number is going to keep increasing.
Without enough fresh water, people cannot grow enough food. Global food prices are already starting to skyrocket, and the coming global water crisis certainly is not going to help matters.
A massive, massive disaster is on the horizon. The era of gigantic amounts of cheap food and “unlimited” amounts of clean water is over.
A horrific global water crisis is coming.
You better get ready.
Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/25-signs-that-a-horrific-global-water-crisis-is-coming.html
Water wars between countries could be just around the corner
By Fiona Harvey
Water wars could be a real prospect in coming years as states struggle with the effects of climate change, growing demand for water and declining resources, the secretary of state for energy and climate change warned on Thursday.
"Countries have not tended to go to war over water, but I have a fear for the world that climate instability drives political instability," he said. "The pressure of that makes conflict more likely."
Even a small temperature rise – far less than the 4C that scientists predict will result from a continuation of business as usual – could lead to lower agricultural yields, he warned, at a time when population growth means that demand for food was likely to be up by 70% by 2060. By the same time, he noted, the number of people living in conditions of serious water stress would have reached 1.8 billion, according to estimates.
"Climate change intensifies pressures on states, and between states," he told the conference, gathered to discuss whether climate change and natural resources should be regarded as a national security issue. "[Its effects] can lead to internal unrest … and exacerbate existing tensions. We have to plan for a world where climate change makes difficult problems even worse."
But Davey recalled previous global catastrophes that had been averted, including the threat of nuclear armageddon during the cold war, and successes such as the elimination of smallpox. He urged governments to work on adapting to climate change as a matter of urgency, as well as striving for an international agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
He warned that seeking to lift people out of poverty could not be achieved at the expense of degrading natural resources. He warned that policies for economic growth across the continent must reflect this immediately: "The impact [of degradation] cannot be reversed by policies conceived too late."
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/22/water-wars-countries-davey-warns
Water wars could be a real prospect in coming years as states struggle with the effects of climate change, growing demand for water and declining resources, the secretary of state for energy and climate change warned on Thursday.
Ed Davey told a conference of high-ranking politicians and diplomats from around the world that although water had not been a direct cause of wars in the past, growing pressure on the resource if climate change is allowed to take hold, together with the pressure on food and other resources, could lead to new sources of conflict and the worsening of existing conflicts.
 |
| Water wars have already started in parts of the world. Photo Dean Krakel/Getty Images |
"Countries have not tended to go to war over water, but I have a fear for the world that climate instability drives political instability," he said. "The pressure of that makes conflict more likely."
Even a small temperature rise – far less than the 4C that scientists predict will result from a continuation of business as usual – could lead to lower agricultural yields, he warned, at a time when population growth means that demand for food was likely to be up by 70% by 2060. By the same time, he noted, the number of people living in conditions of serious water stress would have reached 1.8 billion, according to estimates.
"Climate change intensifies pressures on states, and between states," he told the conference, gathered to discuss whether climate change and natural resources should be regarded as a national security issue. "[Its effects] can lead to internal unrest … and exacerbate existing tensions. We have to plan for a world where climate change makes difficult problems even worse."
But Davey recalled previous global catastrophes that had been averted, including the threat of nuclear armageddon during the cold war, and successes such as the elimination of smallpox. He urged governments to work on adapting to climate change as a matter of urgency, as well as striving for an international agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
His call was echoed by Ali Bongo Ondimba, president of the Gabonese Republic. He told the conference that Africa was the most vulnerable part of the world to climate change, but that African people had been responding to a changing climate for thousands of years – his own Bantu people had been forced, centuries ago, to move around Africa as areas dried out and food became scarcer.
Gabon had already started to take action to protect the 88% of its land that is covered by rainforest, and to reduce carbon emissions by its industries, with a view to a "transformation" by 2025.
He warned that seeking to lift people out of poverty could not be achieved at the expense of degrading natural resources. He warned that policies for economic growth across the continent must reflect this immediately: "The impact [of degradation] cannot be reversed by policies conceived too late."
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/22/water-wars-countries-davey-warns
Watershed Protection & New York City's Water Supply
by Elana Mass
Supplying drinking water to New York City is a tall order.
Approximately 1.4 billion gallons of water are consumed daily by eight million New York City residents and one million upstate customers. At present, all of New York City's drinking water is unfiltered. Although approximately ten percent of the supply, coming from the east-of-Hudson reservoirs, will begin filtration in 2012, the vast majority will remain unfiltered.
How does New York City keep its water supply clean and protected, especially in the face of increasing development pressures in the watershed?
New York City 's drinking water supply system consists of 19 reservoirs and 3 controlled lakes within a 1,972 square mile watershed that stretches north and west of the City.
The watershed has two subregions:
1. The Croton watershed on the east side of the Hudson River, providing about 10% of the City's water,
2. The Catskill/Delaware system to the west, which supplies 90%.
All watershed lands are subject to the Watershed Rules and Regulations (officially known as the Rules and Regulations for the Protection from Contamination, Degradation, and Pollution of the New York City Water Supply), which govern activities that could degrade water supply such as sewer collection, stormwater discharges, and impervious surfaces.
Before entering City pipes, all drinking water is treated with chlorine, fluoride, food-grade phosphoric acid, and sometimes with sodium hydroxide. Water quality and infrastructure are overseen by the City's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in coordination with the EPA and New York State 's Department of Health.
Supplying drinking water to New York City is a tall order.
Approximately 1.4 billion gallons of water are consumed daily by eight million New York City residents and one million upstate customers. At present, all of New York City's drinking water is unfiltered. Although approximately ten percent of the supply, coming from the east-of-Hudson reservoirs, will begin filtration in 2012, the vast majority will remain unfiltered.
How does New York City keep its water supply clean and protected, especially in the face of increasing development pressures in the watershed?
New York City 's drinking water supply system consists of 19 reservoirs and 3 controlled lakes within a 1,972 square mile watershed that stretches north and west of the City.
The watershed has two subregions:
2. The Catskill/Delaware system to the west, which supplies 90%.
All watershed lands are subject to the Watershed Rules and Regulations (officially known as the Rules and Regulations for the Protection from Contamination, Degradation, and Pollution of the New York City Water Supply), which govern activities that could degrade water supply such as sewer collection, stormwater discharges, and impervious surfaces.
Before entering City pipes, all drinking water is treated with chlorine, fluoride, food-grade phosphoric acid, and sometimes with sodium hydroxide. Water quality and infrastructure are overseen by the City's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in coordination with the EPA and New York State 's Department of Health.
An Ounce of Protection v. a Pound of Cure
In the densely developed Croton watershed, which contains extensive NYC suburbs, development pressures and the high cost of land have limited the DEP's ability to undertake protection mechanisms such as land acquisition (although land acquisition is used as an secondary layer of protection).
As a result, although water from this system currently meets health standards, the City is constructing a filtration plant, to be completed by 2012, that will correct aesthetic issues with color, taste and odor (that primarily occur in the summer) and to ensure the Croton supply's continued compliance with surface water regulations.
By contrast, the Catskill/Delaware system, covering 1,600 miles, remains unfiltered, making it the largest unfiltered water supply in the US. Maintaining quality standards for such a large water supply without filtration is a tremendous challenge that requires millions of dollars each year on outreach and education, land management, land acquisition, and partnerships with watershed non-profits and municipalities.
Given the time and energy devoted to developing and managing these programs, it might seem that a combination of filtration and disinfection would be a simpler way to achieve standards. Yet, the DEP has concluded that filtration and disinfection are insufficient without preemptive watershed protections.
To begin with are the costs involved: the construction cost for a filtration plant large enough to support the Catskill/Delaware system is estimated to be $6 - $10 billion dollars, with an additional $110 million annually in operation and maintenance.
By contrast, although the total cost of watershed programs are difficult to quantify, it is not more than $100 million a year. In addition are the health and safety issues that would arise: without preemptive land protections, significantly higher levels of disinfecting chemicals would need to be used to purify the water. By-products from these chemicals are known to pose serious health risks and their use is in fact limited by federal law. Finally, high levels of chlorine are believed to damage the fittings within the water delivery system.
For all these reasons, it is preferable to protect the drinking water at its source.
New York City's water supply protection programs rely on both regulatory and voluntary actions.
The DEP uses an innovative combination of regulation and voluntary programs and partnerships to protect the Catskill/Delaware watershed. Regulation alone cannot guarantee that water quality criteria will be met: with more than 70% of the Catskill/Delaware lands under private ownership (for residential, commercial, and agricultural uses), activities can only be constrained to a limited extent before regulatory takings issues arise.
The voluntary programs allow the DEP to work with watershed communities to meet quality criteria while enabling economic and productive use of land by landowners.
The watershed programs fall into three main categories:
- Land Acquisition Program (LAP)
Purchases are undertaken selectively, with properties prioritized for purchase based on the presence of key natural features such as streams and wetlands, proximity of land to reservoirs, and potential for development. Land is only purchased from willing sellers, and at fair market prices. Since 1997, the City has acquired or contracted easements for approximately 70,000 acres of land at a cost of $168 million. Prior to purchasing the land, the City consults with the municipality to ensure the community's interests are taken into account. Watershed communities are able to exempt certain areas from solicitation under the LAP. - Land Management
The DEP has numerous programs designed to encourage private landholders to protect watershed lands. These programs are operated in concert with watershed municipalities and non-profit partners, including the Watershed Agricultural Council (WAC) and the Catskill Watershed Corporation (CWC). Management programs include Stream Management, Wetlands Protection, the Watershed Forestry Program, Waterfowl Management, public outreach and education, and agricultural pollution prevention plans. - Capital Programs
On its own or with its partners, DEP undertakes numerous capital projects in the Catskill/Delaware watershed designed to preserve and improve water quality. These include:
Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) Upgrades.At its own cost, the City has upgraded and operates over 100 non-city treatment plants to ensure the highest degree of wastewater treatment; the DEP has also funded the construction of new WWTPs or septic systems were existing systems were failing.
Septic System Rehabilitation and Replacement.
In partnership with the CWC, the City has fixed over 2,000 failing septic systems in the watershed and helps cover the cost of pump-outs, maintenance, and inspections of single- and two-family septic systems.
Stormwater Retrofit Program.
Jointly administered by the DEP and the CWC, the program encompasses stormwater infrastructure assessments, maintenance, planning, and capital expenditures.
Sewer Extension Program.
Working with watershed municipalities, the DEP has extended sanitary sewers where systems were failing or likely to fail.
How to Measure Success
It should be noted that the water supply's unfiltered status is not a given: the DEP must regularly submit proof to the EPA that the water meets a set of filtration avoidance criteria. The criteria include quality standards for coliforms, turbidity, and disinfection by-products; operational criteria requiring that pathogens (like Giardia and viruses) be deactivated with a minimum of chlorine residual in the system; and watershed control criteria to minimize potential contamination of source waters.
To date, the EPA has issued a Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD) allowing the water to remain unfiltered provided that certain milestones are met over time to ensure that water quality is maintained.
To date, the EPA has issued a Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD) allowing the water to remain unfiltered provided that certain milestones are met over time to ensure that water quality is maintained.
Through the programs and partnerships described above, NYC's drinking water has maintained its reputation as one of the finest supplies in the United States. The innovative combination of watershed programs and partnerships limits the need for filtration and disinfection, and supports the adage “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Source: Prince William Conservation Alliance
Fracking Could Cause a New Global Water Crisis
“Does the rest of the world want to live this nightmare?”
As the oil and gas industry heads more towards hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, to access resources, a new report out today from Food & Water Watch states that the process may become a global environmental and public health threat. Numerous communities in the U.S. where fracking has occurred have suffered long-term damage to their public water, as gas and oil companies leave a legacy of carcinogens and climate damage in their wake. The group says that the worldwide community must heed the warnings out of stricken communities in the U.S. and ban the practice.
Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, states:
Fracking is a dangerous American export that should be viewed critically by countries just starting to engage in the practice. Modern drilling and fracking have caused widespread environmental and public health problems, as well as posed serious, long-term risks to vital water resources.”
“While the oil and gas industry is profiting off of this technology, it has been a disaster for Americans exposed to its pollution. They have dealt with everything from mysterious ailments likely caused by hazardous air pollution to well water contamination that has left rural communities unable to use their water for washing, brushing their teeth or cooking—much less drinking,” adds Hauter. “Does the rest of the world want to live this nightmare?”
Numerous communities where fracking has occurred in the U.S. have had their public water resources contaminated as a result of fracking. One community the report highlights is Dimock, Pennsylvania:
The report concludes:
Source:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/07-2
Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, states:
Fracking is a dangerous American export that should be viewed critically by countries just starting to engage in the practice. Modern drilling and fracking have caused widespread environmental and public health problems, as well as posed serious, long-term risks to vital water resources.”
 |
| Photo: Justin Woolford |
“While the oil and gas industry is profiting off of this technology, it has been a disaster for Americans exposed to its pollution. They have dealt with everything from mysterious ailments likely caused by hazardous air pollution to well water contamination that has left rural communities unable to use their water for washing, brushing their teeth or cooking—much less drinking,” adds Hauter. “Does the rest of the world want to live this nightmare?”
Numerous communities where fracking has occurred in the U.S. have had their public water resources contaminated as a result of fracking. One community the report highlights is Dimock, Pennsylvania:
In 2009, Pennsylvania regulators ordered the Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation to cease all fracking in Susquehanna County after three spills at one well within a week polluted a wetland and caused a fishkill in a local creek. The spills leaked 8,420 gallons of fracking fluid containing a Halliburton-manufactured lubricant that is a potential carcinogen. Fracking had so polluted water wells that some families could no longer drink from their taps. Pennsylvania fined Cabot more than $240,000, but it cost more than $10 million to transport safe water to the affected homeowners. In December 2010, Cabot paid $4.1 million to 19 families that contended that Cabot’s fracking had contaminated their groundwater with methane. In 2012, the U.S. EPA began providing clean drinking water to these families after Cabot had been released of its obligation to do so by the state of Pennsylvania.Fracking pollution hasn't been limited to water; it has also caused air pollution near fracking sites, the report states:
Hazardous air pollutants found near fracking sites include methanol, formaldehyde and carbon disulfide. Volatile organic compounds, including nitrogen oxides, benzene and toluene, are also discharged during fracking. These compounds mix with emissions from heavy-duty truck traffic, large generators and compressors at well sites to form ground-level ozone that can, in turn, combine with particulate matter to form smog. [...]
In Wyoming, drilling and fracking have caused ground-level ozone pollution to exceed amounts recorded in Los Angeles, affecting the quality of life for Wyoming residents.Methane, a key greenhouse gas, is also implicated in fracking, showing that heading towards fracking means heading toward more climate change:
Recent scientific studies have demonstrated that, due to the amount of fugitive methane released during modern shale gas development as compared to during conventional gas development, any increased use of shale gas instead of coal may actually accelerate climate change in the coming decades, not reduce climate change impacts.Food & Water Watch shows that the natural gas and oil industry have had their eyes worldwide to expand fracking, with some countries showing tremendous resistance to it:
[C]ountries around the world are grappling with how to address the push to drill and frack. In Europe, while France and Bulgaria have banned fracking in the face of strong public opposition, Poland has welcomed the industry. In China and Argentina, shale gas extraction is being developed with government support. In South Africa, pending an environmental review, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell may be granted permission to extract shale gas.These countries would be wise, Food & Watch believes, to learn the lessons of communities in the U.S. that have had their water and environment damaged by fracking.
The report concludes:
 |
| Photo: Adrian Kinloch |
Taken together, spills of toxic fracking fluid and fracking wastewater, water well contamination from the underground migration of methane and toxic fracking fluid local and regional air pollution problems from shale development, explosions at the sites of shale wells, and substantial emissions of the global warming pollutant methane during drilling and fracking make the dangers of shale development clear.Countries not yet exposed to the risks and costs of drilling and fracking have an opportunity to choose a different path, one that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Enacting a national ban on fracking and investing in the deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies will set a sustainable course.
Source:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/07-2
Fracking: Pennsylvania Gags Physicians
Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting high volumes of water, sand and chemicals into the ground to release natural gas. The issue of hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, is currently a contentious issue in New York. The Marcellus Shale, which covers areas in New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Maryland, totals 95,000 square miles, and is a prime target of oil and gas companies. Although hydraulic fracturing has been carried out in the U.S. for many years, it is being done much more frequently now and in larger areas of the country, the Marcellus Shale covers the largest region. Complaints from residents in areas where fracking has taken place raise the level of concern over the pollution of water resources.
If you are not following the fracking trail in your area, it's time to get involved.
Fracking: Pennsylvania Gags Physicians
By Walter Brasch
Part 1 of 3
Fracking is the controversial method of forcing water, gases, and chemicals at tremendous pressure of up to 15,000 pounds per square inch into a rock formation as much as 10,000 feet below the earth’s surface to open channels and force out natural gas and fossil fuels. After drilling down vertically, the natural gas company will create a lateral borehole that will fracture the shale and rock for up to about 6,000 feet.
Advocates of fracking argue not only is natural gas “greener” than coal and oil energy, with significantly fewer carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur emissions, the mining of natural gas generates significant jobs in a depressed economy, and will help the U.S. reduce its oil dependence upon foreign nations. Geologists estimate there may be as much as 2,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas throughout the U.S. If all of it is successfully mined, it could not only replace coal and oil but serve as a transition to wind, solar, and water as primary energy sources, releasing the U.S. from dependency upon fossil fuel energy and allowing it to be more self-sufficient.
The Marcellus Shale—which extends beneath the Allegheny Plateau, through southern New York, much of Pennsylvania, east Ohio, West Virginia, and parts of Maryland and Virginia—is one of the nation’s largest sources for natural gas mining, containing as much as 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and could produce, within a decade, as much as one-fourth of the nation’s natural gas demand. Each of Pennsylvania’s 5,255 wells, as of the beginning of March 2012, with dozens being added each week, takes up about 8.8 acres, including all access roads and pipe, according to data analysis by Nature Conservancy.
Over the expected lifetime of each well, companies may use as many as nine million gallons of water and 100,000 gallons of chemicals and radioactive isotopes within a four to six week period. The additives “are used to prevent pipe corrosion, kill bacteria, and assist in forcing the water and sand down-hole to fracture the targeted formation,” explains Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research. However, about 650 of the 750 chemicals used in fracking operations are known carcinogens, according to a report filed with the U.S. House of Representatives in April 2011. Fluids used in fracking include those that are “potentially hazardous,” including volatile organic compounds, according to Christopher Portier, director of the National Center for Environmental Health, a part of the federal Centers for Disease Control. In an email to the Associated Press in January 2012, Portier noted that waste water, in addition to bring up several elements, may be radioactive. Fracking is also believed to have been the cause of hundreds of small earthquakes in Ohio and other states.
The clauses are buried on pages 98 and 99 of the 174-page bill, which was initiated and passed by the Republican-controlled General Assembly and signed into law in February by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett.
Psychologists are also concerned about the effects of fracking and the law’s gag order. “We won’t know the extent of patients becoming anxious or depressed because of a lack of information about the fracking process and the chemicals used,” says Kathryn Vennie of Hawley, Pa., a clinical psychologist for 30 years. She says she is already seeing patients “who are seeking support because of the disruption to their environment.” Anxiety in the absence of information, she says, “can produce both mental and physical problems.”
The law is not only “unprecedented,” but will “complicate the ability of health department to collect information that would reveal trends that could help us to protect the public health,” says Dr. Jerome Paulson, director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health and the Environment at the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. Dr. Paulson, also professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, calls the law “detrimental to the delivery of personal health care and contradictory to the ethical principles of medicine and public health.” Physicians, he says, “have a moral and ethical responsibility to protect the health of the public, and this law precludes us from doing all we can to protect the public.” He has called for a moratorium on all drilling until the health effects can be analyzed.
Pennsylvania requires physicians to report to the state instances of 73 specific diseases, most of which are infectious diseases. However, the list also includes cancer, which may have origins not only from chemicals used to create the fissures that yield natural gas, but also in the blow-back of elements, including arsenic, present within the fissures. Thus, physicians are faced by conflicting legal and professional considerations.
“The confidentiality agreements are worrisome,” says Peter Scheer, a journalist/lawyer who is executive director of the First Amendment Coalition. Physicians who sign the non-disclosure agreements and then disclose the possible risks to protect the community can be sued for breech of contract, and the companies can seek both injunctions and damages, says Scheer.
In pre-trial discovery motions, a company might be required to reveal to the court what it claims are trade secrets and proprietary information, with the court determining if the chemical and gas combinations really are trade secrets or not. The court could also rule that the contract is unenforceable because it is contrary to public policy, which places the health of the public over the rights of an individual company to protect its trade secrets, says Scheer. However, the legal and financial resources of the natural gas corporations are far greater than those of individuals, and they can stall and outspend most legal challenges.
Although Pennsylvania is determined to protect the natural gas industry, not everyone in the industry agrees with the need for secrecy. Dave McCurdy, president of the American Gas Association, says he supports disclosing the contents included in fracturing fluids. In an opinion column published in the Denver Post, McCurdy further argued, “We need to do more as an industry to engage in a transparent and fact-based public dialogue on shale gas development.”
The Natural Gas committee of the U.S. Department of Energy agrees. “Our most important recommendations were for more transparency and dissemination of information about shale gas operations, including full disclosure of chemicals and additives that are being used,” said Dr. Mark Zoback, professor of geophysics at Stanford University and a Board member.
Read Parts 2 &3:
http://ecowatch.org/2012/fracking-pennsylvania-gags-physicians/
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Celebrate World Water Day
Here is a collection of links to World Water Day news and activities:
Donate Your Voice - Matt Damon & Gary White
Bringing Joy With Clean Water - Water.org
World Water Day 2012 - Voice of America
World Water Day 2012: Facts &Ideas For A Sustainable Future
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Review - Climate Change on the Move by Michael Werz and Kari Manlove
By Barbara Wheat
Countries around the globe have had to deal with the effects of emigration and immigration, but according to authors Werz and Manlove, the world will soon become familiar with another type of migration as climate migrants flee areas affected by the warming of the planet and the resulting dwindling resources. In their article, Climate Change on the Move, Werz et al. highlight the challenges the world will face once climate refugees are on the move en masse.
World population recently crossed the 7 billion mark, and according the United Nations, is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050 (Wertz et al. 73). Growing populations faced with decreasing natural resources, and hit with increasing natural disasters such as hurricanes and drought as a result of climate change, may not be able to cope with these “extreme circumstances” (74). An estimated 200 million people could become climate migrants by 2050.
Many areas expected to be hit the worst by climate change may be the least able to cope with the effects. Areas identified as being most at risk include:
-Asia: warming will shrink freshwater resources adversely affecting 1 billion people;
 |
| Photo: http://www.dialogue4health.ning.com/ |
Many areas expected to be hit the worst by climate change may be the least able to cope with the effects. Areas identified as being most at risk include:
-Asia: warming will shrink freshwater resources adversely affecting 1 billion people;
-Africa: agriculture yields could fall by 50%, food and water insecurity;
-Latin America: melting snowcaps will harm agriculture areas (73).
The authors also cite security issues as a cause of concern as the mobilization of climate refugees will likely aggravate conditions in areas already facing conflicts. Areas most likely to be hit hard by climate change are also the most vulnerable where government and political instability currently put their people at risk.
With the huge number of climate migrants expected in the coming years, it seems vital to take this into consideration when studying the globalized world. Thomas Friedman’s in-depth analysis in The World is Flat does not address issues related to the warming of the planet and how it will affect people around the world. His vision of the flat world seems to assume that all the pieces of the puzzle will fit nicely together. Closer inspection of problems in the world calls upon us to reconsider the globalized economy from angles other than that of the mega-corporation.
References:
Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat. A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century.
Updated And Expanded. 2005, 2006. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York. Print.
Updated And Expanded. 2005, 2006. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York. Print.
Werz, Michael, and Kari Manlove. Climate Change on the Move. D. Stanley Eitzen and
Maxine Baca Zinn, eds. Belmont: Wadsworth Centage Learning, 2009. Print.
Maxine Baca Zinn, eds. Belmont: Wadsworth Centage Learning, 2009. Print.
Kiribati & Global Warming: Entire Nation May Move To Fiji
Imagine a world where we will have hundreds of thousands of climate refugees. This kind of news will become more frequent with the result of climate change. It's time to think about what your plans are for the future.
Huffington Post-- Fearing that climate change could wipe out their entire Pacific archipelago, the leaders of Kiribati are considering an unusual backup plan: moving the populace to Fiji.
Kiribati President Anote Tong told The Associated Press on Friday that his Cabinet this week endorsed a plan to buy nearly 6,000 acres on Fiji's main island, Viti Levu. He said the fertile land, being sold by a church group for about $9.6 million, could be insurance for Kiribati's entire population of 103,000, though he hopes it will never be necessary for everyone to leave.
"We would hope not to put everyone on one piece of land, but if it became absolutely necessary, yes, we could do it," Tong said. "It wouldn't be for me, personally, but would apply more to a younger generation. For them, moving won't be a matter of choice. It's basically going to be a matter of survival."
Kiribati, which straddles the equator near the international date line, has found itself at the leading edge of the debate on climate change because many of its atolls rise just a few feet above sea level.
Tong said some villages have already moved and there have been increasing instances of sea water contaminating the island's underground fresh water, which remains vital for trees and crops. He said changing rainfall, tidal and storm patterns pose as least as much threat as ocean levels, which so far have risen only slightly.
Some scientists have estimated the current level of sea rise in the Pacific at about 2 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year. Many scientists expect that rate to accelerate due to climate change.
Fiji, home to about 850,000 people, is about 1,400 miles south of Kiribati. But just what people there think about potentially providing a home for thousands of their neighbors remains unclear. Tong said he's awaiting full parliamentary approval for the land purchase, which he expects in April, before discussing the plan formally with Fijian officials.
Sharon Smith-Johns, a spokeswoman for the Fijian government, said several agencies are studying Kiribati's plans and the government will release a formal statement next week.
Kiribati, which was known as the Gilbert Islands when it was a British colony, has been an independent nation since 1979.
Tong has been considering other unusual options to combat climate change, including shoring up some Kiribati islands with sea walls and even building a floating island. He said this week that the latter option would likely prove too expensive, but that he hopes reinforcing some islands will ensure that Kiribati continues to exist in some form even in a worst-case scenario.
"We're trying to secure the future of our people," he said. "The international community needs to be addressing this problem more."
Tong said he hopes that the Fiji land will represent just one of several options for relocating people. He pointed out that the land is three times larger than the atoll of Tarawa, currently home to more than half of Kiribati's population.
Although like much of the Pacific, Kiribati is poor – its annual GDP per person is just $1,600 – Tong said the country has plenty of foreign reserves to draw from for the land purchase. The money, he said, comes from phosphate mining on the archipelago in the 1970s.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/kiribati-global-warming-fiji_n_1334228.html?ref=topbar
Photo: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kr.html
Huffington Post-- Fearing that climate change could wipe out their entire Pacific archipelago, the leaders of Kiribati are considering an unusual backup plan: moving the populace to Fiji.
 |
| Aerial view of Kiribati |
"We would hope not to put everyone on one piece of land, but if it became absolutely necessary, yes, we could do it," Tong said. "It wouldn't be for me, personally, but would apply more to a younger generation. For them, moving won't be a matter of choice. It's basically going to be a matter of survival."
Kiribati, which straddles the equator near the international date line, has found itself at the leading edge of the debate on climate change because many of its atolls rise just a few feet above sea level.
Tong said some villages have already moved and there have been increasing instances of sea water contaminating the island's underground fresh water, which remains vital for trees and crops. He said changing rainfall, tidal and storm patterns pose as least as much threat as ocean levels, which so far have risen only slightly.
Some scientists have estimated the current level of sea rise in the Pacific at about 2 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year. Many scientists expect that rate to accelerate due to climate change.
Fiji, home to about 850,000 people, is about 1,400 miles south of Kiribati. But just what people there think about potentially providing a home for thousands of their neighbors remains unclear. Tong said he's awaiting full parliamentary approval for the land purchase, which he expects in April, before discussing the plan formally with Fijian officials.
Sharon Smith-Johns, a spokeswoman for the Fijian government, said several agencies are studying Kiribati's plans and the government will release a formal statement next week.
Kiribati, which was known as the Gilbert Islands when it was a British colony, has been an independent nation since 1979.
Tong has been considering other unusual options to combat climate change, including shoring up some Kiribati islands with sea walls and even building a floating island. He said this week that the latter option would likely prove too expensive, but that he hopes reinforcing some islands will ensure that Kiribati continues to exist in some form even in a worst-case scenario.
"We're trying to secure the future of our people," he said. "The international community needs to be addressing this problem more."
Tong said he hopes that the Fiji land will represent just one of several options for relocating people. He pointed out that the land is three times larger than the atoll of Tarawa, currently home to more than half of Kiribati's population.
Although like much of the Pacific, Kiribati is poor – its annual GDP per person is just $1,600 – Tong said the country has plenty of foreign reserves to draw from for the land purchase. The money, he said, comes from phosphate mining on the archipelago in the 1970s.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/kiribati-global-warming-fiji_n_1334228.html?ref=topbar
Photo: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kr.html
Friday, March 9, 2012
Ohio House Introduces Revised Great Lakes Compact Implementation Bill
New bill ratchets down daily water withdrawals limits, but rolls back tributary protections and thwarts public's appeal rights
Columbus, OH - A revised bill to implement the Great Lakes Compact was introduced unexpectedly in the Ohio House of Representatives, yesterday.
Representative Lynn Wachtmann (R-Napoleon) introduced House Bill 473, following months of negotiations by Governor Kasich's staff with Wachtmann and industry and environmental leaders. Wachtmann had sponsored a previous Compact bill that Governor Kasich vetoed last July.
The Kasich administration had been working with the House to craft a new bill since the Governor vetoed an overly industry-friendly bill approved mostly along party-lines by the General Assembly last year.
The bill was opposed by former Governors Bob Taft and George Voinovich, the governors of Michigan and New York, and environmental and conservation groups.
While the new bill is much improved, Governor Kasich's staff has signaled publicly that the bill's introduction was unexpected and that several important issues remain unresolved.
Sportsmen and conservation groups see the renewed debate as a second chance for Ohio to fully protect Lake Erie and the tributaries and ground water that feed the Lake from unsustainable water withdrawals and consumptive uses by stone and mineral mining and other industrial activities.
Conservation groups credit Governor Kasich and the Ohio DNR for achieving substantial improvements in the new bill, including:
The OEC and its environmental-conservation allies are urging the General Assembly to shore up four major issues:
Inadequate Protection for Tributaries and Groundwater
Current Ohio law (Ohio Revised Code Section 1522.07(B)(2) ) requires that both Lake Erie and its tributaries be protected from large water uses. This Compact bill, however, repeals the current law.
Instead, the new bill extends protections only if the entire Lake Erie basin is threatened by a proposed water withdrawal-but not if individual tributaries or groundwater sources may suffer a significant negative impact. The Compact and current Ohio law require that tributaries be protected from any water withdrawal or use that may cause significant harm.
Unprecedented Limitation on the Right of Aggrieved Citizens to Appeal a Permit
In an unprecedented move, the bill would thwart the ability of anglers, boaters and other recreational water users to appeal a water withdrawal or water use decision that may negatively impact their ability to enjoy Ohio's natural resources. Under the bill, only industrial facility owners applying for a permit or those who can prove injury to a direct economic or property interest could appeal a permit decision.
The bill effectively bars recreational fishers, boaters, and swimmers from appealing a permit that may decrease water levels and fish populations or result in increased toxic algal blooms. Limiting historic appeal rights long protected for all water users and instead reserving these rights only for those persons with a vested economic interest is an outright abandonment of Ohio's public trust responsibility and a radical move toward privatizing Ohio's water and natural resources.
90-Day Averaging of Water Withdrawals
The bill measures water withdrawals and consumptive uses based on an average over a 90-day period as opposed to a "per day" measure. This opens the door for mining and other extractive activities, including oil and gas fracking operations, to withdraw and/or consume quantities of water in excess of permit thresholds without having to obtain a permit. This could occur, for example, if a facility withdrew or consumed 6 million gallons of water in a single day and did not withdraw or consume any additional water over the remainder of the 90-day period. When the 6 million gallons is averaged over 90 days, it would not trigger the bill's proposed gallons-per-day permit thresholds. Fish and other wildlife do not live in a mean amount of water.
Experimental Permits
The OEC applauds the concept of experimental permits, which could encourage the development of new water conservation technology. A few revisions, however, are needed to close potential loopholes and give businesses certainty, while also protecting Lake Erie and its tributaries and encouraging technological advancement.
As the legislation currently is written, water users do not have to meet all the provisions of the decision-making standard within the Compact, particularly the "no significant impact" provision. This provision is required, however, if a permitee wanted to pursue using the technology under the new or increased water withdrawal and consumptive use regulatory program. In addition, the legislation does not outline how many times a water user could apply for an experimental permit.
Lake Erie is a precious resource that is vital to people, wildlife, and jobs. Lake Erie supplies drinking water to 11 million people, 3 million of whom live in Ohio, and supports 1 out of every 10 jobs in seven counties bordering Ohio's Lake Erie coastline. Tourism and travel in the Lake Erie basin generates $10.1 billion annually to the Ohio economy and supplies $1.4 billion in federal, state and local taxes.
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact is a binding agreement between the eight Great Lakes states that restricts water from being exported or withdrawn from the Great lakes drainage basin and requires minimum standards for how water will be managed within the basin. Ohio has until December 2013 to adopt and implement legislation that employs the Compact's water management provisions.
In 2011 the legislature passed a Great Lakes Compact bill that violated the Compact and gave a green light to industrial facilities to withdraw millions of gallons of water from Lake Erie and inland waterways that drain to it without government oversight.
"We look forward to working with the Governor and the General Assembly to ensure the legislation fully complies with the Compact, doesn't roll back current Ohio law, and guarantees that anglers and boaters can continue to enjoy Lake Erie and its connected waters for centuries to come. It is critically important that Ohio gets this right. We call on the General Assembly to take action to address the remaining issues in this bill," said Meyer.
The mission of the Ohio Environmental Council (OEC) is to secure healthy air, land, and water for all who call Ohio home. The OEC is Ohio's leading advocate for fresh air, clean water, and sustainable land use. The OEC has a 40-year history of innovation, pragmatism, and success. Using legislative initiatives, legal action, scientific principles, and statewide partnerships, the OEC secures a healthier environment for Ohio's families and communities.
Source: http://www.theoec.org/PressReleases/PR_RevisedCompact_3-8-12.htm
Columbus, OH - A revised bill to implement the Great Lakes Compact was introduced unexpectedly in the Ohio House of Representatives, yesterday.
Representative Lynn Wachtmann (R-Napoleon) introduced House Bill 473, following months of negotiations by Governor Kasich's staff with Wachtmann and industry and environmental leaders. Wachtmann had sponsored a previous Compact bill that Governor Kasich vetoed last July.
 |
| Cleveland Harbor Lighthouse |
The Kasich administration had been working with the House to craft a new bill since the Governor vetoed an overly industry-friendly bill approved mostly along party-lines by the General Assembly last year.
The bill was opposed by former Governors Bob Taft and George Voinovich, the governors of Michigan and New York, and environmental and conservation groups.
While the new bill is much improved, Governor Kasich's staff has signaled publicly that the bill's introduction was unexpected and that several important issues remain unresolved.
Sportsmen and conservation groups see the renewed debate as a second chance for Ohio to fully protect Lake Erie and the tributaries and ground water that feed the Lake from unsustainable water withdrawals and consumptive uses by stone and mineral mining and other industrial activities.
Conservation groups credit Governor Kasich and the Ohio DNR for achieving substantial improvements in the new bill, including:
- Significantly reduced limits on the amount of water an industrial operation may withdraw or use before triggering a permit;
- Strengthened protections for high-quality streams;
- Empowering Ohio DNR regulators to develop rules to enforce the Compact;
- Added checks and balances to ensure that permit requirements are followed; and
- Grounding in science the management of Ohio's Lake Erie basin water.
The OEC and its environmental-conservation allies are urging the General Assembly to shore up four major issues:
Inadequate Protection for Tributaries and Groundwater
Current Ohio law (Ohio Revised Code Section 1522.07(B)(2) ) requires that both Lake Erie and its tributaries be protected from large water uses. This Compact bill, however, repeals the current law.
Instead, the new bill extends protections only if the entire Lake Erie basin is threatened by a proposed water withdrawal-but not if individual tributaries or groundwater sources may suffer a significant negative impact. The Compact and current Ohio law require that tributaries be protected from any water withdrawal or use that may cause significant harm.
Unprecedented Limitation on the Right of Aggrieved Citizens to Appeal a Permit
In an unprecedented move, the bill would thwart the ability of anglers, boaters and other recreational water users to appeal a water withdrawal or water use decision that may negatively impact their ability to enjoy Ohio's natural resources. Under the bill, only industrial facility owners applying for a permit or those who can prove injury to a direct economic or property interest could appeal a permit decision.
The bill effectively bars recreational fishers, boaters, and swimmers from appealing a permit that may decrease water levels and fish populations or result in increased toxic algal blooms. Limiting historic appeal rights long protected for all water users and instead reserving these rights only for those persons with a vested economic interest is an outright abandonment of Ohio's public trust responsibility and a radical move toward privatizing Ohio's water and natural resources.
90-Day Averaging of Water Withdrawals
The bill measures water withdrawals and consumptive uses based on an average over a 90-day period as opposed to a "per day" measure. This opens the door for mining and other extractive activities, including oil and gas fracking operations, to withdraw and/or consume quantities of water in excess of permit thresholds without having to obtain a permit. This could occur, for example, if a facility withdrew or consumed 6 million gallons of water in a single day and did not withdraw or consume any additional water over the remainder of the 90-day period. When the 6 million gallons is averaged over 90 days, it would not trigger the bill's proposed gallons-per-day permit thresholds. Fish and other wildlife do not live in a mean amount of water.
Experimental Permits
The OEC applauds the concept of experimental permits, which could encourage the development of new water conservation technology. A few revisions, however, are needed to close potential loopholes and give businesses certainty, while also protecting Lake Erie and its tributaries and encouraging technological advancement.
As the legislation currently is written, water users do not have to meet all the provisions of the decision-making standard within the Compact, particularly the "no significant impact" provision. This provision is required, however, if a permitee wanted to pursue using the technology under the new or increased water withdrawal and consumptive use regulatory program. In addition, the legislation does not outline how many times a water user could apply for an experimental permit.
Lake Erie is a precious resource that is vital to people, wildlife, and jobs. Lake Erie supplies drinking water to 11 million people, 3 million of whom live in Ohio, and supports 1 out of every 10 jobs in seven counties bordering Ohio's Lake Erie coastline. Tourism and travel in the Lake Erie basin generates $10.1 billion annually to the Ohio economy and supplies $1.4 billion in federal, state and local taxes.
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact is a binding agreement between the eight Great Lakes states that restricts water from being exported or withdrawn from the Great lakes drainage basin and requires minimum standards for how water will be managed within the basin. Ohio has until December 2013 to adopt and implement legislation that employs the Compact's water management provisions.
In 2011 the legislature passed a Great Lakes Compact bill that violated the Compact and gave a green light to industrial facilities to withdraw millions of gallons of water from Lake Erie and inland waterways that drain to it without government oversight.
"We look forward to working with the Governor and the General Assembly to ensure the legislation fully complies with the Compact, doesn't roll back current Ohio law, and guarantees that anglers and boaters can continue to enjoy Lake Erie and its connected waters for centuries to come. It is critically important that Ohio gets this right. We call on the General Assembly to take action to address the remaining issues in this bill," said Meyer.
Source: http://www.theoec.org/PressReleases/PR_RevisedCompact_3-8-12.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)