Archive for the ‘Bureau of Land Management’ Category
Tuesday, January 13th, 2009
The Senate Bill S 22 I blogged about last night has advantages for Michigan. The 200 million acres slated for protection under the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009includes 9 states of which Michigan is one of them.
An article on (ENS) Environmental News Service website highlights some of the details of this package of 160 public land bills that also includes four ocean bills. The ocean bills are important to Michigan and the Great Lakes. They are:
The Ocean and Coastal Exploration and NOAA Act will authorize the National Ocean Exploration Program, National Undersea Research Program, and the Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to increase scientific knowledge for the management, use and preservation of oceanic, coastal and Great Lake resources.
The Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act will authorize the establishment of an integrated system of coastal and ocean observations for the nation’s coasts, oceans and Great Lakes.
The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act will authorize a coordinated federal research program on ocean acidification.
The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act will authorize funding for a program to protect important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, aesthetic, or watershed protection values, and that are threatened by conversion to other uses.
Read more about this bill that took quite a lot of effort and an even longer time to get passed due to opposition by one Senator:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2009/2009-01-12-03.asp
Posted in Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Conservation, Environmental Legislation, Environmental News Service, Environmentalism, Global Warming, Legislators, Michigan/Great Lakes, National Parks and Forests, Public Lands | No Comments »
Monday, January 12th, 2009
In an unusual Sunday vote called by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Bill 22 moved forward with a vote of 66-12 that would add 200 million more acres of U.S. land under the Wilderness Protection Act. The Associated Press reported that this bill is “the largest expansion of wilderness protection in 25 years. Prior to this, the bill met with opposition from Republicans. The Sunday vote was an effort to bypass their stalling that some say will “derail” the pledged cooperation between Republicans and Democrats in the near future.
In any event, the bill is making its way through to senate approval and according to the same AP article includes California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range, Oregon’s Mount Hood, Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia for protection under the act.
This is pretty binding stuff once it’s decided. It would take another act of Congress to take the same land away from the Wilderness Protection Act. I wondered what the Wilderness Protection Act actually does. In my mind if a place is already a national park, why does it need further protections? According to Wikipedia, which is a good enough source for explaining things, the basics of the Wilderness Protection Act are:
-
-
The lands protected as wilderness are areas of our public lands.
-
-
Within wilderness areas, we strive to restrain human influences so that ecosystems [the Wilderness Act, however, makes no specific mention of ecosystems] can change over time in their own way, free, as much as possible, from human manipulation. In these areas, as the Wilderness Act puts it, “the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man”—untrammeled meaning the forces of nature operate unrestrained and unaltered.
-
Wilderness areas serve multiple uses. But the law limits uses to those consistent with the Wilderness Act mandate that each wilderness area be administered to preserve the “wilderness character of the area.” For example, these areas protect watersheds and clean-water supplies vital to downstream municipalities and agriculture, as well as habitats supporting diverse wildlife, including endangered species, while logging and oil and gas drilling are prohibited.
-
Along with many other uses and values for the American people, wilderness areas are popular for diverse kinds of outdoor recreation—but without motorized or mechanical vehicles or equipment. Wilderness is the haven of quiet beyond the end of the road, the wild sanctuary we meet on its own terms by leaving the machinery of twenty-first-century life behind. The wild popularity of wilderness recreation shows how hungry Americans are for just such sanctuaries.
-
The Wilderness Act was reinterpreted by the Administration in 1986 to ban bicycles from Wilderness areas, which led to the current vocal opposition from mountain bikers to the opening of new Wilderness areas.
Interesting, because I did see some protesting the fact that this will be 200 million more acres no one can use, unless we decide to see the place the good old fashion way—by hiking. But the whole idea is to protect the wilderness from man so we either walk through it leaving the least amount of impact, or we don’t see it at all.
There is also the questionable $3 million earmark to Alaska for another road to nowhere through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge there. Maybe they should add that area to the Wilderness Act. No mechanical or motorized vehicles in protected areas, no need for a road. And didn’t Alaska’s governor denounce earmarks anyway?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ja3vNS7u_ovPaeUpzrEKqDzs5TjAD95KSENO0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act
Tags: Virginia
Posted in Bureau of Land Management, California, Colorado, Conservation, Endangered Species, Environmental Legislation, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Legislators, National Parks and Forests, Nature, Nevada, Plants, Public Lands, Trees, Wildlife | No Comments »
Monday, December 8th, 2008
I caught a real hoot of an interview on Planet Green between Bob Woodruff and Laura Bush yesterday. She said one of her passions is our national parks. She’s hiked in many, mentioning Denali National Park in Alaska, the park Sarah Palin wants to run a natural gas line through.
Mrs. Bush talked about her geothermally heated ranch, with water collection system, and the fact that White House switched to LED holiday lights. She went on to say that oil is a limited natural resource that will run out, as all of our natural resources worldwide. She won’t admit anything about global warming however; opting to say that it doesn’t matter. We should be practicing conservation anyway.
About global warming, she said she reads the latest worldwide reports like everybody else. She evidently hasn’t read about her husband’s horrible environmental legacy that has had a devastating effect on the national parks she avows to love. There is something seriously wrong with this picture because it was also reported that the Park Service, Dept. of Energy, and Interior are trying to overhaul the parks for more sustainability, or greening them up so to speak. Doesn’t President Bush appoint these dept. heads? Bush is doing his best to further the opposite.
There are plenty of things up Bush’s sleeve before he leaves office. Environmentalists are calling it a Fire Sale for the Oil and Gas Industry. As CBS news website reported:
Late on Election Day, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management announced a Dec. 19 auction of more than 50,000 acres of oil and gas parcels alongside or within view of Arches National Park and two other redrock national parks in Utah: Dinosaur and Canyonlands. ‘We find it shocking and disturbing,’ said Cordell Roy, the chief Park Service administrator in Utah. ‘They added 51,000 acres of tracts near Arches, Dinosaur and Canyonlands without telling us about it. That’s 40 tracts within four miles of these parks.’
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/16/national/main4608048.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4608048
Then there is the administration’s push to weaken Clean Air Act protections for “Class 1 areas” of national parks nationwide. According to the Washington Post, “[It] has sparked fierce resistance from senior agency officials. All but two of the regional administrators objecting to the proposed rule are political appointees.” The article also said, “In written submissions, EPA regional administrators have argued that this switch would undermine critical air-quality protections for parks such as Virginia’s Shenandoah, which is frequently plagued by smog and poor visibility.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803813.html. Poor visibility from pollution smog over a national park. Sure, man doesn’t affect the environment. Keep believing that until we choke everyone out of existence.
I blogged about other attacks on our national parks by Bush/Cheney too like the repeal of the roadless rule. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/04/were-about-to-lose-one-of-the-largest-forests-in-america-to-big-money-interests/
http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/03/pine-trees-in-danger-from-beetles-as-bush-looks-to-trample-our-biggest-forest/.
On top of this Bush just undid a 25 year old statute banning guns in National Parks. Yep, while hiking through one of them, minding your own business, a gunshot could ring out. Real nice place to take the kids and camp hey? The only reason for guns in national parks is for hunting or nuts. I thought critters in National Parks were protected? I thought humans in National Parks were protected from gunshots out of nowhere.
Right after this interview was a segment on Joshua Tree National Park. It’s getting harder to find older trees, and all the trees seem to be in decline. In some parts they are sure to be extinct soon. It was explained Joshua trees need a high desert environment, which is cooler. They also need a couple of nights of freezing weather that no longer happens due to global warming. Fires that weren’t as much a threat before in Joshua Tree Park have ravaged thousands of acres due to drier grasses. All it takes is a lightening strike. There are many more parks in danger of losing the very symbol for which they are known. The wetlands of Everyglades Park are retreating, and the glaciers of Glacier National Park are well…you know. Will we rename the parks? Will the parks even resemble places to preserve any more?
Scientists claim our National Parks are laboratories where effects of climate change are quick to appear. This does not bode well then, and further attacks on our parks by Bush/Cheney is just inexcusably the meanest turn any president has taken against our national treasures. If the First Lady is genuinely concerned she should take her passionate call for parks that are in peril to the source of that perilher husband, oh and let’s never forget Cheney.
Posted in Bureau of Land Management, Clean Air Act, Conservation, Dept. of the Interior, Energy Infrastructure, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Fossil Fuel, Global Warming, National Forest, National Parks and Forests, Natural Gas, Natural Gas Suppliers, Oil Industry, U.S. Dept. of Energy | No Comments »
Thursday, May 22nd, 2008
If you’ve never heard of or viewed the panorama of Utah’s Red Rock Canyon area, do it. It is absolutely beautiful. I saw a travel channel segment on Zion National Park and want to visit there. It looks like a place of God. Our national parks are a real treasure, but the Bush administration doesn’t have much time left, and is trying for land grabs right out of OUR national parks to drill for oil.
If Bush has his way, oil drills will destroy eleven million acres of national park in Utah’s Red Rock Canyon. I’m hearing about these attempted land grabs happening all over the place. What I want to know is what is the sense? We know we’re short of refineries in the U.S. It’s a well known fact every time the U.S. has an oil crisis, large or small, that right away we want to invade new areas and drill for more oil. But it’s of no use unless it’s refined, and we don’t have enough refineries.
And it’s not likely we’ll be seeing brand new refineries in the future because of global warming. And yes even the Bush/Cheney administration admitted quite a while ago in 2002 that humans do indeed cause global warming. The U.S. EPA submitted a 268-page report to the UN back then admitting to and agreeing with scientists that oil refining, fossil fuel power plants, and car emissions are significant causes of global warming.
It’s 2008. What aren’t they getting? I know what the Bush administration is getting–more neglectful of our rights when they simply try to take over public lands for nothing more than filling the pockets of the rich from oil production. Trashing these beautiful areas of our country will not sit well with a court system that has been standing for the environment in a number of cases so far.
According to an Earthjustice report, just recently another federal court judge ruled that: “After years of court battles, Kane County must halt its illegal efforts to create roadways through Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and other wilderness areas,” which is in another area of Utah’s Red Rock Canyon. A U.S. District Judge “ordered the county to take down its signs inviting vehicles into areas closed to protect sensitive streams, wildlife habitat, archeological treasures, and wilderness values.”
This is good news but Dirk Kempthorne, Secy. of Interior, needs to hear from us again, even though he and the Bush administration know that attempts to drill in Utah’s Red Rock Canyon is going to meet with some mighty big resistance since this judge’s ruling.
http://action.wilderness.org/campaign/utahm00/xwnke5k44xx5mjj?
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2008/utah-county-must-stop-illegal-seizure-of-rights-of-way.html
Bush admits humans cause global warming: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2023835.stm
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_us_lack_sufficient_oil_refining.html
Tags: Utah
Posted in Alternative Energy Sources, Bureau of Land Management, Bush Administration, Conservation, Dept. of the Interior, EPA, Earthjustice, Environmental Spin, Environmentalism, Fossil Fuel, Global Warming, Global Warming Policy, National Forest, National Parks and Forests, Oil Industry, Oil Lobby, Public Lands, Public Lands, Secy. Kempthorne, The Denial Machine | No Comments »
Friday, May 2nd, 2008
A report about the Colorado River and benzene was on BBC and I caught some of it, but the articles I found about it are extensive. BBC previewed a citizen singing a country song about poisoning his water with benzene. I guess people are just giving up the fight against big corporations taking over areas and punching holes in the ground for natural gas.
The article explains the process to obtain natural gas. I had no idea how toxic it is. “Each hydraulic fracturing attempt on a gas well uses about 1 million gal of fluid and most wells are “frac’ed” about 10 times, said hearing witness Theo Colborn, president of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a nonprofit group that focuses on health problems from low-dose chemical exposures. Many different chemicalsincluding surfactants, lubricants, foamers, plastics, biocides, antioxidants, acids, and alkalisare employed for fracturing operations, she said. These chemicals are added to alter the underground strata to allow methane to escape up the well pipe, she said. Her group has identified 171 products used in Colorado containing altogether 245 different chemicals, 92% of which have adverse health effects, she explained. She went on to say the chemicals have multiple health effects as developmental toxicants and endocrine disruptors that have adverse affects on hormones in the body.
There are lots of side affects. “More than half the volatile chemicals on the list Colborn’s group has identified irritate the skin, eyes, nose, lungs, and stomach. Some affect the nervous system, causing headaches, blackouts, and memory loss, she explained. ‘About 55% can cause cardiovascular and kidney damage, and 35 are carcinogens,’ she noted.”
Meanwhile, another article discloses how badly this particular natural gas exploration is beating up an entire area as well as leaching dangerous chemicals into the Colorado River. The implications are bad considering the Colorado is the only water supply to the four fasting growing states in the southwest. All that population explosion is dependent on this river, which is bad enough, let alone contaminating it too. “Green activists blame the Bush administration for opening the door too widely for energy companies, a charge backed up by a trail of executive orders and administrative actions, as well as the 2005 Energy Policy Act approved by a then-Republican-led Congress all geared toward deriving more energy from public lands.”
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/86/8606gov1.html
http://www.saveroanplateau.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=36
Tags: Endocrine Disruptors, Natural Gas Extraction
Posted in Bureau of Land Management, Bush Administration, Colorado, EPA, Environmental Legislation, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Fossil Fuel, Health, Industry, National Parks and Forests, Natural Gas, Politics, Pollution, Protesting Pollution, Public Lands | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, March 12th, 2008
I ran across a good website that explains RPS or Renewable Portfolio Standards. A state’s RPS spells out what is being enacted within the state to lower the state’s dependency on fossil fuels through conservation and alternative energy initiatives. And it draws jobsmany, many jobs! An analogy would be that an RPS is like a state’s environmental resume for new green businesses looking for a home fortheir headquarters/operations.
So all RPS’s aren’t the same of course. An RPS must be tailored to the state. All states won’t lean equally on the wind, solar, or geothermal power mix that are major parts of a state’s RPS. Some states will rely on solar more than wind, or wind more than geothermal power. An article that discusses Michigan’s RPS and how it already leaves solar out of the picture is http://www.photon-magazine.com/news_archiv/details.aspx?cat=News_PI&sub=america&pub=4&parent=624. That’s too bad because solar has been really good for me this winter in Michigan.
There is a lot of reading here and it’s very interesting. Twenty-four states have already established RPS’s and are experiencing a lot of job growth. Considering Michigan barely regulates its CO2 emissions, and keeps inviting more polluting industries into the state, I don’t find it surprising that Michigan doesn’t have an RPS yet. Of all the states that have suffered heavy job loss, an RPS should have been first on an agenda for our congress. Contact our reps. and senators to get moving on “green” job opportunities in the thousands in Michigan and cut the polluters loose.
The tax benefits to states that court “green” business is good also. The sercoline website below stated that in Nevada, one geothermal plant paid “$800,000 in county taxes and $1.7 million in property taxes. In addition, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management collects nearly $20 million each year in rent and royalties from geothermal plants producing power on federal lands in Nevada half of these revenues are returned to the state.” In Iowa, “the 240 MW of wind capacity installed in 1998 and 1999 produced $2 million per year in tax payments to counties and school districts and $640,000 per year in direct lease payments to landowners.”
So having, as well as, advertising a good RPS will garner states more jobs, a greater tax base, and a much healthier environment while helping alleviate overall global warming. The big bonus: it entices more business to come on board, like Minnesota: “The 143 wind turbines in the 107-MW Lake Benton I project in Minnesota, installed in early 1998, brought $250 million in investment.”
Are Michigan’s tradeoffs to polluting industries for a few hundred jobs saved here and there being offset against higher health care expense due to bad air, or water pollution, and include the loss of new “green” jobs that bring more tax revenue, and entice more businesses to invest in Michigan? I’d like to see that equation. I don’t think Michigan is heading in the right direction, except for the very temporary oil drilling blitz that will probably occur, whether we want it to or not. But at some point, our demand will exceed our supply and we won’t have oilmen in the White House to push that agenda any longer.
http://www.serconline.org/RPS/fact.html.
http://www.michigancleanenergy.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B43B4E9A9-4132-4A0D-A15F-39434E54B50C%7D.
Posted in Alternative Energy, Alternative Energy Sources, Bureau of Land Management, CO2 Emissions, Coal, Conservation, Environmental Legislation, Federal Government, Fossil Fuel, Geothermal Power, Great Lakes Pollution, Industry, Legislators, Michigan Environmental News, Michigan Environmental Policy, Michigan Pollution, Michigan/Great Lakes, Monroe Pollution, Pollution, Solar Energy, Wind Power | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, January 16th, 2008
This is a very good documentary about wolves by researcher Shaun Ellis and also a good tribute to “Wolf Moon” month of January. Find out more about wolves and why we should stop the eradication of this species once and for all.A majority of people have spoken,but legislators, especially in Alaska, continue the sportless killing by helicopter and plane.
Shaun Ellis doesn’t recite a documentary at you, he lives with the wolves. It’s good. Watch it. Learn.
Peace
Posted in Alaska, Animals and Extinction, Animals in Peril, Bureau of Land Management, Bush Administration, Defenders of Wildlife, Dept. of the Interior, Endangered Species, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Gov. Freudenthal, Governor Otter, Governor Palin, Humane Society Legislative Fund, Idaho, Illegal Hunting, Illegal Use of Animals, Legislators, Morality, NRDC, National Forest, National Geographic Channel, National Parks and Forests, Nature, Politics, Public Lands, Public Lands, Science, Secy. Kempthorne, Sport Hunting, Wildlife, Wolves, Wyoming, Yellowstone Park | No Comments »
Friday, January 11th, 2008
I blogged about the Farm Bill and the changes that are needed if we are ever going to get healthy and get the nation turned around so that the small farmer thrives once again. Not going to happen. The November 12th, 2007 issue of Time Magazine had a scathing article by Michael Grunwald called “Down on the Farm” about the farm lobby and the lopsided business of farm subsidies. The article is too long to outline here. But our future for free range chicken, pork, or beef, more fruits and vegetables, and less tainted meat and food supplies in general instead of the top five commoditiescorn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice is mighty bleak.
The article warns if you “eat, drink, or pay taxesor care about the economy, the environment, or our global reputation” the Farm Bill is a big deal. We still subsidize farmers billions of tax dollars every year. The trouble is that it is redistributed to millionaire farmers mostly when 60% of small farmers get no subsidies at all. Some of the subsidies even go to farms that are no longer in business!
Besides wasting billions of our money by staying status quo and helping the rich, the way our Farm Bill is laid out:
It contributes to our obesity, and illegal-immigration epidemics and to our water and energy shortages. It helps degrade rivers, deplete aquifers, elimiate grasslands, concentrate food-processing conglomerates and inundate our fast food nation with high-fructose corn syrup. Our farm policy is supposed to save small farmers and small towns. Instead it fuels the expansion of industrial megafarms and the depopulation of rural America. It hurts Third World farmers, violates international trade deals andparalyzes our efforts to open foreign markets to the non-agricultural goods and services that make up the remaining 99% of our economy.
And this description is in the first column of a long article on just how construed our Farm Bill really is. Small farmers get next to nothing in help, and are forced out. This says much about our free market system that conservatives like to tout causes competition and keeps everyone in check. Baloney. I’ve been screaming that there is no such thing as a free market system in America any longer as long as we have lobbies and big interest groups throwing millions at Congress. Again, the wealthy rule and find all sorts of loopholes to get rid of the little guy. Some free market system!
For you and me, that means we will continue to be force-fed high fructose corn syrup in everything we eat. Type II Diabetes will continue to rise. The organic industry will continue to struggle. If you’ve ever complained about the high prices of organic, now you know why. The big guys producing the top 5 crops don’t want you buying that stuff. And you won’t at $1.00 per apple. I’ve walked into the organic section of my store more than once with determination to buy what I know is better for me. The prices drive me out. I look for sales instead and go home with half of what I planned on. Example: If you want to buy cranberry juice, and I mean real cranberry juice, no other fruit juices in it, no corn syrup, no additives, full strength, not from concentrate it’s over $7.00 for 32 oz. Thank the big megafarms and our Farm Bill for that. Or then again thank Nancy Pelosi. As a matter of fact, read the article, then contact Pelosi and tell her what you think of her accommodating the same ole farm lobby once again.
Thank goodness I have fruit trees, a vegetable garden, and know how to do good old-fashioned canning. But if our weird weather keeps up, I won’t be able to do that. If we have a water shortage and hot searing sun, I won’t be able to water like it’s needed. I lost most of my fruits this past season when the trees were in bloom and we had a freeze. By fall, the very few small apples I had also had a black, oily residue all over the skins. We’ve yet to determine what it is and where it came from. I’m leaning toward jet fuel and just peeling the skins before I eat the stuff. This is going to get about survival. People who only buy from major stores, who don’t eat healthy anyway aren’t going to notice until it gets really bad. But for people who are health conscious, and raise the things they plan to eat, much like the small, unsubsidized farmer, we know what can happen, and happen fast in a bad way.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1680139,00.html.
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html.
Posted in Africa, Bureau of Land Management, Bush Administration, Conservation, Countries/Continents, Drought, Energy Costs, Environmental Legislation, Environmentalism, Ethanol, Extreme Weather in U.S., Farm Bill, Farm Lobby, Farms/Farming, Federal Government, Food, Food Supply Contamination, Health, Hormones in Food, Industry, Legislators, Meatpacking Industry, Politics, Soaring Temperatures, Time Magazine, Tornadoes, Type II Diabetes, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, U.S. Food Supply, U.S. Weather Patterns, Water Shortage, Weather, Weather/Climate | No Comments »
Monday, December 3rd, 2007
Over the weekend a discussion about prices of natural gas came up. Why is natural gas so high priced? It isn’t a petroleum by-product or anything. And we’re supposed to have plenty of the stuff. Well by time I looked everything up, it turns out we have a natural gas shortage on the way. Production of natural gas has been declining for a while. Hurricane Katrina didn’t help the offshore drilling for natural gas in the gulf either.
What I found while looking to find why natural gas prices are high is that most of our power plants are fueled with natural gas. So when we use electric, natural gas is used in massive amounts by that industry. An article in Rolling Stone about all types of fossil fuels stated:
American natural-gas production is also declining, at five percent a year, despite frenetic new drilling, and disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and the acid-rain problem, the U.S. chose to make gas its first choice for electric-power generation. The result was that just about every power plant built after 1980 has to run on gas. Half the homes in America are heated with gas. To further complicate matters, gas isn’t easy to import. Here in North America, it is distributed through a vast pipeline network. Gas imported from overseas would have to be compressed at minus-260 degrees Fahrenheit in pressurized tanker ships and unloaded (re-gasified) at special terminals, of which few exist in America. Moreover, the first attempts to site new terminals have met furious opposition because they are such ripe targets for terrorism.
Not good. I also caught an article about Conoco Phillips being prepared to fund a new natural gas pipeline off the north slope of Alaska through Canada to us down here. It would cost over 30 billion dollars. But it wasn’t clear the route they plan to take and the environmental impact this pipeline would make. The article made it appear CP wasn’t concerned with government funding for the project, which usually means they can circumvent any major regulations, by the government.
The NRDC had an article particularly about any proposed pipelines for natural gas out of Alaska. Are they on their toes or what? Until everyone gets the details of just how Conoco Phillips plans on building this pipeline and through where, everyone needs to rethink yet another unrenewable fuel.
Despite everything I read, our demands are so high that if the energy source is not renewable on a mass scale, we are just buying ourselves a quick fix not a cure. Read all the articles below. They each give a perspective. I can see that there just may be an alternative in the mix that will keep the environment safe, offer a tremendous service that will give us enough natural gas until we come up with a permanent fix, not to mention a lot of jobs will be created for that pipeline. It’s little too early to tell if this is a good feasible idea.
I know I like to stay warm in the winter, and prefer gas because I live in the country. My mother always said to have a gas stove in the country. You will always have food and warmth if the power fails. We also have a wall unit with no electronics. If the pilot is on, I have heat even without electricity. But I’m hoping that with so many incredible advances I’ve seen and read about, we might not need a pipeline anytime soon. I have to think that maybe by time that pipeline is finished, it could end up being an outmoded energy solution. What I do know is that we better get moving on something we can all live with well into the future.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/rep/chap3.asp.
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/bus?guid=20071130/4750ea50_3ca6_1552620071201-448662628.
Posted in Alaska, Alternative Energy Sources, Arctic Council, BP, Bureau of Land Management, Conoco Phillips, Conservation, Endangered Species, Energy Costs, Energy Infrastructure, Environment and Jobs, Environmentalism, Federal Government, Fossil Fuel, Global Warming, Methods for Lowering Energy Costs, NRDC, National Forest, National Parks and Forests, Natural Gas, Natural Gas Suppliers, Oil Industry, Polar Bears, Pollution, Protecting Wetlands, Protesting Pollution, Public Lands, State Gov't., The Science Channel, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Wildlife | No Comments »
Thursday, July 5th, 2007
Temperatures soared in Las Vegas today.They might break a record. All through the Southwest temperatures are in triple digits. I was in Vegas last year this time when it was 105 degrees. All I could think of was the strain on everything because of the heat. The water usage and power for A/C is what really takes a hit. It’s a shame in a city where the sun consistently beats on the buildings, that those buildings are not solar powered. But Vegas is trying to become more environmentally friendly. Vegas water czar, Patricia Mulroy has issued mandates to conserve water, but is always searching elsewhere to maintain the water supply for the ever growing Vegas population.
When I saw the temperature in Vegas this morning, I started wondering if the plan to procure water for Vegas 300 miles away in the valleys of Nevada and Utah happened yet? The Vegas water authority bought 5 ranches for water already. Five ranches were sacrificed that is. They raised food for Americans, but were sold for a price so Vegas citizens and tourists can get more water. On the one hand Vegas is trying to be more environmentally friendly, but the argument used to get the water is based purely on the economy, which breaks down to money. It was put this way: 90% of Nevada’s water goes to agriculture, which generates 6000 jobs, so Las Vegas utilizes the water for the greatest economic return. So Vegas should get the water. Is this a wise move in the long run?
The ranchers that farm in the valley where the underground springs are threatened, claim that if water is taken from one spot, it disappears at another. One rancher pointed to spots where wildlife, sheep, and horses watered. It dried up when new wells were tapped miles away. A U.S. Geological Survey confirms that the underground water systems in Nevada are interconnected. Vegas water czar Mulroy claims the water Vegas will extract from the underground springs is not water that is currently used by the ranchers. Current is one thing, the future is another. Five ranches growing crops for us are already out of commission for water for Vegas and now Mulroy hopes to “eventually tap 65 billion gallons of rural water a year with a 300-mile-long pipeline expected to cost more than $2 billion. That’s enough water for 50,000 families a year” in Vegas. Read the article about the rancher’s side of the story at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10953190. What about all the American families looking for locally grown food? Since China is not to be trusted for food imports, skepticism about any food imports is growing. Buying up farmland for water seems like a waste.
These are some of the questions that are going to keep coming up as our weather changes. It is a dilemma concerning trade offs. Mulroy and other major investors/developers in Vegas have done much to conserve, read: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10939792, but they fall short when it comes to curbing population growth in that area.What do you think?
I don’t think the problem is about rural versus urban as Mulroy thinks. I think her argument for Vegas is blind to anything but economics. It’s about jobs, about money and growth. She misses the point about global warming crisis. If the temperature continues to increase in the Southwest, in other words, if Mother Nature takes over, there won’t be any people around to sustain an economy anywhere. People will move sooner or later when the heat keeps escalating. And surrounding states that are getting beat to death by nature in other ways, flash floods, tornadoes, fires, and hurricanes, won’t be able to offer the support for neighbors like we saw for Katrina victims
Since Mulroy and businesses in Vegas don’t want to curb the population growth, the ranchers that are threatened ask if this has come down to “Crops or Craps?” I’d like to know if we really mean to sacrifice our food supply for urban sprawl, and entertainment, to include all new the water parks, and amusement places that take up acres and acres of land? Importing food from other countries will become a necessity if we don’t start protecting our farmland. It’s a real revelationto see how interconnected our lives are with farms and farming practices throughout our country isn’t it? Lately, I’ve really learned to value that guy on the tractor in the field.
Posted in Bureau of Land Management, Conservation, Drought, Energy, Extreme Weather in U.S., Farms/Farming, Food, Global Warming, Las Vegas, Methods for Lowering Energy Costs, Morality, Nevada, Politics, Reclaimed Wastewater, Recycling, Soaring Temperatures, State Gov't., U.S. Food Supply, U.S. Weather Patterns, Urban Sprawl, Water Shortage, Weather, Weather/Climate | No Comments »
