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:

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.

Recylcing, E-waste, and Bad Policy..

E-waste, that is, old, ready for the garbage electronic gadgets, are the fastest growing segment of waste in the United States. However, electronic waste doesn't belong in a landfill, and can cause serious problems when it does. In order to tackle that problem many states have engaged in policy making aimed at propping up recycling programs and working with manufacturers to make sure the waste is dealt with properly. In Illinois, however,  lawmakers and environmental advocates are finding it very difficult to deal with the problem.

For more info on what to do with your e-waste, check out this video:

Local Food Sovereignty, Coming To a Home Near You ?

The small town of Sedgwick, Maine, a small rural farming community with a population barely above 1000, has passed a local ordinance which states that community members can enter into purchase agreements with food producers or processors where purchasers are able to wave liability for the producer. This is an attempt by the community to sidestep federal agricultural regulations which strain local food production opportunities and benefit the large scale food producers which currently dominate the agricultural sector. Ever increasing regulations place a disproportionate burden on small scale farmers, and in order to survive, many believe they will simply have to be excused from their application.

Local food production has been gaining in popularity in recent years and this marks the first claim of food sovereignty in the nation. While it can be assumed that the ordinance will be challenged  in the court of law, this can certainly be seen as a step in a movement which will play a significant role in reducing our nation's environmental impact and in reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with large scale agricultural production.

The benefits of small farms and locally produced food products have been bandied about for years. The environmental benefits are especially significant, as large scale, corporate food producers have become notorious for their impact on the environment and the general problems which the system creates for both the environment as well as the consumer and the traditional, small scale farmer. What's more, recent food born illness outbreaks, which have almost exclusively come from large scale producers, have created a public health crisis.

Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms, who was featured in the film Food Inc, briefly discusses here the role of the local farm, some of its challenges and why local food is better food. 

United Nations Discusses Hydro-Diplomacy..

Last week experts in water scarcity and water politics met to discuss ways to avoid major political conflicts in potentially water scarce regions in hopes of recommending effective proactive measures to the U.N. In particular the talks focused on the Arab world, where water conflict will likely be the most serious.

For more information on water scarcity, check out this video from the United Nations..

Obama Administration, Political Leaders Defend Nuclear Energy

Leaders in Washington defended American nuclear power this week, even going so far as to defend proposals to increase nuclear energy production. The U.S. secretary of energy and members of congress remain supportive of the Obama administration's plans to guarantee 36 billion dollars in loans for the nuclear energy industry in an effort to increase the industries role in the national energy supply.

New Forest Service Guidelines May Threaten Wildlife

As the Obama administration unveiled it's new Forest Service management planning rules, they were quickly met by opposition from wildlife conservation groups. What's the problem ? The new rules don't do enough to protect the already struggling wildlife populations on Forest Service land.

Food For Thought: Lessons From the Classroom...

Why do politicians neglect ecological principles in their decision making ?

   In the policy making arena decisions are often made using a cost-benefit model, which weighs the benefits and drawbacks of possible alternative decisions. Traditionally, cost benefit calculations are defined in financial or economic terms, not in ecological terms, and therefore cost benefit analysis' which dominate political decision making do not account for ecological factors. Attempts have been made to account for the economic qualities of healthy ecosystems. These calculations are commonly labeled as “ecosystem services”, most famously discussed by Robert Costanza. As Costanza describes, ecosystem services are not captured fully in commercial markets, and are not calculable in typical economic terms, say the way that manufactured or economic services are. As a result, ecological principles are ignored in the decision making process, as their economic value is unable to be defined by the traditional economic valuation system. By Costanza's calculations, healthy ecosystems provide services which would cost nearly 33 trillion dollars to duplicate. That is nearly twice the amount of global economic output. Hardly a trivial matter to be ignored in political decision making.

   Ecological considerations also come at the cost of traditionally defined economic development. For instance, land which may be important habitat for species or hold some unique and important position in regional biodiversity would be more strongly considered for its economic viability as a timber resource or, in parts of the developing world, as farm land. While that land may have economic value in terms of it's ecological health, that value is not captured commercially, and is therefore neglected in the decision making process.

   This failure to recognize either the economic or biological value of healthy ecosystems is a systematic failure on the part of the policy making and implementation system and it's cost-benefit analysis decision making model. This policy making system places a disproportionate emphasis on traditional economic values rather than on ecologically defined values, which makes it extraordinarily difficult for ecological considerations to be brought into the policy making arena.

The Environmentalist's Carbon Dilemma; Clean Coal Technology

    In Illinois this week, officials from the well known FutureGen project announced that they will begin work on a project to refit an existing power plant with carbon capture technology. As is the way of carbon capture technologies, all carbon emissions from the coal fired plant will be trapped and stored underground in large rock formations where, advocates say, it will be safe and sound.

    But carbon capture and storage creates a dilemma of sorts for environmental activists; is this technology, which could make a significant impact in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, worth it in comparison to cleaner, more environmentally neutral renewable technologies ? The effects of coal powered electricity generation are not limited to carbon dioxide emissions and their contribution to anthropogenic climate change. Mining practices themselves have enormous impacts on the environment, and just as significantly, can have a brutal impact on the socioeconomic status of coal mining towns.

    However, the threat of climate change is just as real, and perhaps even more significant in scope and impact. With renewable energy sources seemingly decades away from being utilized en mass, is carbon capture and storage an imperative transitional step ? Just as significantly, what impact will the successful employment of carbon capture have on the long term development of renewables ? If we are able to implement the technology successfully, suddenly our most powerful incentive to switch from renewable energy generation is lost, and the status quo and all of its environmental drawbacks are preserved. With the impending problems of climate change, is the option of not pursuing any and all possible carbon reduction technologies and practices even on the table ?

    The questions over carbon capture technology are significant for the thoughtful person. I suspect that the answers each person finds will reflect ones character. The most important thing is that you ask those questions and genuinely seek out their answers. Perhaps then we can begin a real dialogue over such a pressing issue.