Rainforest Protection Under Fire in Brazil..

The Brazilian forest plan, which sets guidelines to manage the Amazonian rain forest, is under attack by agricultural groups. These groups seek to change a policy which requires land owners to maintain up to 80% of their land as forest, a regulation which while often ignored, is an economic and managerial impediment for many cattle ranchers. Ranchers are the main culprit in Brazilian rain forest deforestation, and if they are successful in limiting the capacity of the Brazilian government to

The outcome of this policy debate has enormous implications for the protection of the Amazon rainforest and will also shine a light on the potency of the Brazilian governments environmental arm. This also relates back to efforts to protect the forests of South America, discussed in the prior post. There have also been successes in getting South American cattle producers to not use deforested land, which you can check out in the video below:

Bananas and the Emergence of Sustainability..

It seems comical, or perhaps inspiring, that it is in the banana business where we can see the emergence of sustainability as a market demand force. Two major banana producers, Chiquita and Dole, are vying for credit as the leaders in sustainable banana production. The two companies are at the forefront of Rainforest Certification in South American produce and commodity production, and highlight an encouraging and positive trend; the market, slowly, is demanding environmental accountability in its products.

It is no surprise when the market reacts to a demand. The fact that Chiquita and Dole, along with Kraft and Unilever for different products, are responding to the demands being made on them shouldn't shock us; that is what companies want to do, it is what they are designed to do and it is how a good business operates. What is unique is that companies are starting to see the light and that consumers are becoming increasingly aware of sustainability principles.

Many believe that it will be up to individuals, acting in the market, to create an industrial and commercial climate which promotes sustainability. Until consumers demand those kinds of products, producers will not respond. If left to their own devices, producers of goods and services will ignore environmentally positive behaviors in their pursuit of profit. It's their character, and blaming a company for acting that way is like blaming a poorly trained dog for urinating on the carpet; it's our job to train companies in how we want them to act, and now that we may be doing so, positive results could soon follow on a large scale.

What is left to be determined is for how long these kinds of practices will continue. Is sustainability a passing fad, one that will disappear the moment commodity prices rise, or is it permanent, a shift in consciousness for billions around the world ? The answer may be in our bananas.

For a little fun, an old school Chiquita banana commercial..

Cape Wind; America's First Offshore Wind Farm Moves Ahead

The Cape Wind Project has received federal approval to move forward, initiating what will be the nation's very first offshore wind farm. The project, which will power an incredible 200,000 homes, has been delayed and challenged intermittently for years, but has finally received approval to enter into the construction phase of the project. The wind farm will be located near Nantucket Island off the coast of Massachusetts.

The project is not without its critics, however. Environmental groups argue that the project will harm what they consider a pristine ecosystem outside of Nantucket. The argument is similar to those which have arisen during proposals for large scale solar farms in the American Southwest, where concerns have arisen over the impact they may have on regional ecosystems.

This kind of argument, while not necessary invalid, is hard to wrap a pragmatic mind around. While I truly do understand the ethical and environmental problems associated with energy development of the kinds discussed here, it is foolhardy to suggest that they ought not be developed under the auspices of absolute environmental preservation. Unless we are too give up energy consumption completely there will never be an energy source which is entirely environmentally neutral. What is important is to choose the option on the positive end of the spectrum. Wind and solar farms do not contribute to climate change, do not pollute the air and water and can over time be developed to have as little environmental impact as possible. Coal consumption contributes greatly to air and water pollution, human health problems, climate change (which itself is a far greater threat to species around the planet than any disruption created by wind and solar farms) and socioeconomic depression. It is not merely foolish to oppose such projects with their limited environmental impact, but it is irresponsible. It is the imperative of our generation to change the way that we use energy, which is at the heart of nearly every environmental problem and potential solution. Opposition to the development of alternatives on absolutist grounds is not just irresponsible, it borders on being anti-environment.

New Buffalo Policy Leads to Illegal Killings

According to Montana officials, at least two Yellowstone buffalo have been found shot to death outside of park boundaries, and a third buffalo has died under suspicious circumstances.

These killing have occurred only a week after Montana officials made the decision to allow Yellowstone buffalo to migrate outside of the park and into Montana. Local ranchers, who fear that Bison will transmit the disease brucellosis to cattle, have protested the decision and are at the heart of local outrage over the decision.

The issue with Yellowstone bison underscores the unresolved problem of human-wildlife interaction and the conflict which exists surrounding wildlife management decisions. What's more, the debate over the issue brings to light the struggle of local communities with federal land managers, who function under distinctly different directives.

In the West, federal land remains a massive section of the total land area. As federal management plans develop around wildlife and habitat protection, local communities which exist on the fringe of federal land areas will continue to see conflicts arise over how the land is managed. Forest Service land has progressively moved away from timber harvesting and toward recreation and habitat protection. National Parks continue to operate under the goal of preserving habitat and completely prohibiting development. Unlike timber or mineral resources, however, wildlife moves at will. Federal land managers can not simply erect a wall around parks and national forests to keep animals in. What's more, many forests and parks were not designed to accommodate wildlife movement and migration, putting important migration routes into public hands.

This dynamic is on full display in Montana. As private land owners continue to manage their land in a way which conflicts with federal wildlife policy goals, conflict will continue unabated. Unless private land owners can work with federal land managers, lawsuits will undoubtedly be filed and it will be left to the courts to determine the fate of the Yellowstone bison.

Environmental Groups Suing Over Climate Change

Environmental groups and six states are suing utility companies over greenhouse gas emissions. The claim is that a recent supreme court ruling qualifies carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases as criteria air pollutants, and must therefore be controlled under the clean air act. As has been noted in this blog previously, the EPA recently began research to determine whether or not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. However, the budget proposal that was just passed by Congress will strip funding and regulatory abilities for the EPA specifically targeted at greenhouse gas emission regulation.

As a result, the groups associated with the lawsuit are threatening to move forward with the case as a "backstop" measure to force greenhouse has regulation. While they would prefer EPA regulation or legislation, they will move forward with the suit in order force action.

Utility companies are claiming the usual industry talking points; regulation will increase cost, loss of jobs and so o and so forth. This threat is certainly an empty one, but it may very well have the intended effect of political entrapment.

Budget Bill Hits EPA, National Park Service

The recently passed 2011 spending bill, which will fund the federal government through the fiscal year. As part of the spending cuts being pushed for by Republicans, the Environmental Protection Agency lost 1.6 billion dollars in funding, or 16% of their budget, while the National Park Service by 127 million. These cuts reflect a deep, ideological dispensation within the Republican party toward low levels of environmental regulation and lack of concern for nature preservation.

As part of the EPA  cuts, special attention was paid to reducing or eliminating funding which would be used for climate change research and mitigation measures. What's more, it will limit the EPA's ability to control air quality and to begin more intensely regulating air pollutants, such as mercury and arsenic, indicating not only a disdain for the environment, but for public health. Representative Mike Simpson, a Republican from Idaho, accused the EPA of not knowing how to spend its increased funding, and that drawing back funding will allow Congress, which historically has little concern for the environment, to examine how that new funding will be used. This is certainly a power play by Republicans, who will use the time and their new House majority to impede the growth and effectiveness of the EPA.

The disproportionate cuts in the EPA and National Park Service suggest not only a lack of concern on the side of the Republicans, but of the President himself. While President Obama certainly made strides in his initial two years in improving the effectiveness and reach of the EPA, he caved in the recent budget proposal, despite historical evidence (see Clinton versus Gingrich) that when Republicans take the government hostage, they are apt to cave under public pressure. Instead of playing politics and trying to protect the gains he made in his first two years, he has taken the proverbial one step back after having taken two steps forward. This crushing blow to the EPA and the continued trend of defunding the National Park Service indicate that this country, and its leadership, are still a generation away (at least) from enacting meaningful, across the board, ideological policy that protects the environment across partisan, political lines.

A New Role for Congress; The Wolf No Longer Endangered..

Congress, for the first time ever, has acted to remove an animal from the endangered species list. The animal in question ? The Grey Wolf. While issues over the Grey Wolf have been rampant in recent months in the Mountain West, this effort by Congress is an unprecedented decision. No animal has ever been delisted by congress. Fallout has been significant in environmental circles, though it has been hailed in more conservative groups.

Idaho house speaker recently made the outrageous accusation that "If we don't take care of this problem soon, we won't have any wildlife to hunt or to look at." This kind of hyperbole has certainly contributed to the zeal that anti-Wolf groups have found themselves enraptured in over the past few months, and further illustrates the kind of anti-science, anti-anti-environmental attitude rampant in Idaho and even Congress.Furthermore, the state of Idaho has declared a state of emergency based on the wolf, which will grant the state special powers to eliminate wolves.

It is not hard to imagine why this world suffers from such environmental degradation when we have such a passion for destroying it.