by: Lindsey Organ
One of the biggest environmental disasters of our time was, not surprisingly, caused by man. The Aral Sea used to be the fourth largest lake in the world. However, it is now only about 10-20% of its original size. The sea, that is located between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, dried up as the two contributory rivers were rerouted by the Soviet Union in the 1960’s in order to irrigate water thirsty crops like cotton. This had serious impacts on the Aral Sea Basin region. The salinity of the lake has increased to that of more than the ocean, which has killed many species causing large decreases in biodiversity of the area. The fishing industry, that at one time employed more than 60,000 people, is destroyed. The areas of the lake that dried up became a desert polluted with toxic chemicals and salt, which get blown about by dust storms. This has had serious, harmful health effects on people, vegetation, and animals. Also, the large lake mitigated the climate. The summers have become shorter and drier and the winters are longer and colder causing a decrease in the length of the crop growing season.
The Kazakhstan government has borrowed money from the world bank to build dams and fix leaky irrigation systems to try to restore the northern part of the Aral Sea. The water level has increased dramatically and many of the fish species have returned. The rest of the sea continues to shrink and there is little sign of hope for it. Some suggestions for restoration are to redirect large rivers from the north to refill the sea and farm less water-intensive crops. Those ideas are probably not economically viable options so the region most likely will continue to suffer from the loss of the sea.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Hunger
by: Courtney Coleman
The issue with world hunger today is more of a distributive problem than a constraint on the amount of available food. Recently there was a world summit on food security where the Chinese Vice Premier laid out a four-point plan on how to address these issues.
His four points were investing more in agriculture to make it self sufficient, developed countries cutting subsidies and opening markets, creating a world food security safeguard, and global efforts to ensure balanced growth.
I feel these are all valid points, especially the overall stress that this needs to be a global effort. Investing in developed countries to help boost their self-sufficiency is important to help them become more economically stable. It's important for developed counties however to keep in mind the problems in our own system, such as reliance on fertilizers and pesticides, to try to help build more sustainable agriculture elsewhere. Getting rid of subsidies would help show the true value of artificially low priced crops. This combined with removing trade barriers could help developed countries compete in the world market. A food safeguard system would help with the distribution of food to countries when they are in need. If there is a global effort pushing towards all these things, I would also propose that there needs to be global standards for treatment of workers and the environmental to keep countries in check and at the same playing level. This plan definitely has good points, the most important point, making this a global effort, becomes the biggest issue. It is nearly impossible to get all countries to agree to and uphold these standards and efforts.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-11/17/content_8981865.htm
The issue with world hunger today is more of a distributive problem than a constraint on the amount of available food. Recently there was a world summit on food security where the Chinese Vice Premier laid out a four-point plan on how to address these issues.
His four points were investing more in agriculture to make it self sufficient, developed countries cutting subsidies and opening markets, creating a world food security safeguard, and global efforts to ensure balanced growth.
I feel these are all valid points, especially the overall stress that this needs to be a global effort. Investing in developed countries to help boost their self-sufficiency is important to help them become more economically stable. It's important for developed counties however to keep in mind the problems in our own system, such as reliance on fertilizers and pesticides, to try to help build more sustainable agriculture elsewhere. Getting rid of subsidies would help show the true value of artificially low priced crops. This combined with removing trade barriers could help developed countries compete in the world market. A food safeguard system would help with the distribution of food to countries when they are in need. If there is a global effort pushing towards all these things, I would also propose that there needs to be global standards for treatment of workers and the environmental to keep countries in check and at the same playing level. This plan definitely has good points, the most important point, making this a global effort, becomes the biggest issue. It is nearly impossible to get all countries to agree to and uphold these standards and efforts.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-11/17/content_8981865.htm
Monday, November 16, 2009
Addressing the Future: Climate-Caused Human Migration
By Jon Hammond
A recent article in FIELD (Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development) has raised concern regarding international law and the future migratory-displacement of populations as a result of climate change.
http://www.field.org.uk/media/media-release-climate-exiles
Though there is some debate about the causes of climate change, it has become clear that the international community needs to be prepared for the possibility that some small islands and low-lying areas will be underwater sometime during the next century, potentially displacing more than 600 million people. The resulting migratory panic will be disastrous without international assistance. Currently, there is no international framework in place to mitigate this.
Migration necessitates the use of financial resources and community networks in destination countries, which are typically inaccessible to poorer populations. Without international assistance, smuggling networks are often times the only option available to people, forcing them into vulnerable positions that can be manipulated by a lawless authority. The international community needs to institute a system that provides protection and assistance to climate change refugees.
TPS (Temporary Protection Status) is given to populations affected by natural disasters. However, climate change will bring about more subtle and gradual changes that are expected to lead to more permanent displacement than natural disasters. The international definition of ‘refugee’ is premised on the notion of persecution, but does not take into account climate change. Under current international law, climate change refugees receive little to no protection because environmental degradation is not considered a form of persecution- though, perhaps it should be.
The climate will undergo a number of changes in the next hundred years that have the power to be incredibly devastating. Some of these changes include increased desertification, soil erosion, deforestation, rising sea levels, and water salinization. Migration will be one of the most common methods of adaptation that will rapidly exacerbate the situation, unless it is addressed and planned for right now.
See also:
Free PDF- Migration (magazine), Autumn 2009 http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=40&products_id=530
A recent article in FIELD (Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development) has raised concern regarding international law and the future migratory-displacement of populations as a result of climate change.
http://www.field.org.uk/media/media-release-climate-exiles
Though there is some debate about the causes of climate change, it has become clear that the international community needs to be prepared for the possibility that some small islands and low-lying areas will be underwater sometime during the next century, potentially displacing more than 600 million people. The resulting migratory panic will be disastrous without international assistance. Currently, there is no international framework in place to mitigate this.
Migration necessitates the use of financial resources and community networks in destination countries, which are typically inaccessible to poorer populations. Without international assistance, smuggling networks are often times the only option available to people, forcing them into vulnerable positions that can be manipulated by a lawless authority. The international community needs to institute a system that provides protection and assistance to climate change refugees.
TPS (Temporary Protection Status) is given to populations affected by natural disasters. However, climate change will bring about more subtle and gradual changes that are expected to lead to more permanent displacement than natural disasters. The international definition of ‘refugee’ is premised on the notion of persecution, but does not take into account climate change. Under current international law, climate change refugees receive little to no protection because environmental degradation is not considered a form of persecution- though, perhaps it should be.
The climate will undergo a number of changes in the next hundred years that have the power to be incredibly devastating. Some of these changes include increased desertification, soil erosion, deforestation, rising sea levels, and water salinization. Migration will be one of the most common methods of adaptation that will rapidly exacerbate the situation, unless it is addressed and planned for right now.
See also:
Free PDF- Migration (magazine), Autumn 2009 http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=40&products_id=530
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Snake River
by: Steve Urich
One of the most miraculous migrations ever recorded was the salmon migration along the Columbia River Basin before dams were present. This migration used to reach into the upper most reaches of the Columbia River and its tributaries. Currently, these fish rarely make it back to their birth places. The main decrease in Salmon population is thought to be due to four lower Snake River dams; upstream from where the Snake River meets up with the Columbia River on its route out to sea. The Bush administration began devising a plan to tear down the dams along the lower Snake River (which are only used for barge traffic, and aren’t as beneficial as other dams on the Columbia and tributaries), but decided to hold off on action. Since Obama has been in office, he has been pressed to re-assess the situation. Sadly, on September 14 of this year, Obama has only changed the rejected Bush plan minimally. Many advocates want the Salmon population to flourish again, and hope that the northwest’s ‘Local Icon’ can manage its way up to its home, like Red Fish Lake in Idaho. Most people not from the Northwest don’t understand that life revolves around this fish. Most advocates for policy plans are from the northwest or from the areas the fish contribute to. Does the locality to the problem have affect on action taken? Should President Obama re-assess this situation, and fix the declining Salmon population in a more scientific manor; couldn’t this also create new jobs? If the cleaning out of the four lower Snake River dams isn’t the correct answer what might be another solution?
Interesting video on life around salmon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iErooJ4lE3E
One of the most miraculous migrations ever recorded was the salmon migration along the Columbia River Basin before dams were present. This migration used to reach into the upper most reaches of the Columbia River and its tributaries. Currently, these fish rarely make it back to their birth places. The main decrease in Salmon population is thought to be due to four lower Snake River dams; upstream from where the Snake River meets up with the Columbia River on its route out to sea. The Bush administration began devising a plan to tear down the dams along the lower Snake River (which are only used for barge traffic, and aren’t as beneficial as other dams on the Columbia and tributaries), but decided to hold off on action. Since Obama has been in office, he has been pressed to re-assess the situation. Sadly, on September 14 of this year, Obama has only changed the rejected Bush plan minimally. Many advocates want the Salmon population to flourish again, and hope that the northwest’s ‘Local Icon’ can manage its way up to its home, like Red Fish Lake in Idaho. Most people not from the Northwest don’t understand that life revolves around this fish. Most advocates for policy plans are from the northwest or from the areas the fish contribute to. Does the locality to the problem have affect on action taken? Should President Obama re-assess this situation, and fix the declining Salmon population in a more scientific manor; couldn’t this also create new jobs? If the cleaning out of the four lower Snake River dams isn’t the correct answer what might be another solution?
Interesting video on life around salmon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iErooJ4lE3E
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Wildfire Impact and the Human Dynamic
by: Brian Schleckser
In recent years the presence and impact of wildfires (both man-made and natural) has grown in the public eye. This new focus results in some curious study, and follow-up questions. Focusing on the temperate and semi-arid U.S. forest regions, fire is a natural occurrence and important for biological cycles. Current weather trends (past few decades) have produced more el Niño seasons than in the past. This coupled with increased activity on the human/forest interface has resulted in increased intensity and frequency of fires. Fires occurring in long “managed” forests where few if any fires were allowed, are now fueled by decades of saved up fuel, resulting in extreme intensity. These fire dynamics endanger humans and their property living on or near the interface. Increasingly, these fires are occurring away from this area, in more populated areas (see California). This raises some important questions:
What role did recent human policies play in creating this situation?
Is it a useful utilization of taxpayer money to attempt to fight a beast we seem ill-equip to match?
Should we broadly readjust fire suppression strategy and take up alternative proven strategies such as controlled burns?
What rights does man have when living in or near a forest system with regard to fire suppression expectations? (And vise versa?!)
What responsibility does local government have to manage a process which is as natural as a hurricane or tornado?
Resources on fire dynamics, policy and management:
http://www.gac.ca/activities/abstracts/2009_Joint_Assembly/absbook/ja09_B12A.html, http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-05.pdf,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildfire
In recent years the presence and impact of wildfires (both man-made and natural) has grown in the public eye. This new focus results in some curious study, and follow-up questions. Focusing on the temperate and semi-arid U.S. forest regions, fire is a natural occurrence and important for biological cycles. Current weather trends (past few decades) have produced more el Niño seasons than in the past. This coupled with increased activity on the human/forest interface has resulted in increased intensity and frequency of fires. Fires occurring in long “managed” forests where few if any fires were allowed, are now fueled by decades of saved up fuel, resulting in extreme intensity. These fire dynamics endanger humans and their property living on or near the interface. Increasingly, these fires are occurring away from this area, in more populated areas (see California). This raises some important questions:
What role did recent human policies play in creating this situation?
Is it a useful utilization of taxpayer money to attempt to fight a beast we seem ill-equip to match?
Should we broadly readjust fire suppression strategy and take up alternative proven strategies such as controlled burns?
What rights does man have when living in or near a forest system with regard to fire suppression expectations? (And vise versa?!)
What responsibility does local government have to manage a process which is as natural as a hurricane or tornado?
Resources on fire dynamics, policy and management:
http://www.gac.ca/activities/abstracts/2009_Joint_Assembly/absbook/ja09_B12A.html, http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-05.pdf,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildfire
Friday, November 13, 2009
A Form of Governance
by: Chris Burkhardt
A couple of weeks ago I was sitting at a picnic table on campus by the economics building doing a bit of schoolwork. It was a typical nice warm fall day and the sun was shining without a cloud in the sky. I looked up from my studies and something caught my attention. I noticed a regular looking student with a backwards cap on inspecting every single bike on the bike rack across from where I was sitting. He gave a nice tug on each bike to see if they where nicely secured and was performing his inspection with efficiency. The student then proceeded to check the other three bike racks in the vicinity before walking due east down the main path. I sat there for a minute and contemplated on what just happened. Was that student just trying to steal a bike in broad daylight? Was that even a student? He didn’t have a backpack… About a minute or two went by and I decided that I should hop on my skateboard and go follow this guy. As soon as I stepped onto my skateboard a funny feeling came over me and I suddenly began to feel like inspector gadget. Weaving in and out of traffic I spotted my culprit at another bike rack. However, this time he had managed to find a loose one and took off with it heading east again. I trailed the perpetrator for a couple of minutes and I thought maybe he was going to go back to his house and that would lead me to the mother load of bikes that he has been stealing. Then my suspect stopped at the bike rack by the new Atlas building and parked his bike. I kept a good distance as he began to inspect every single bike on that bike rack thoroughly just as he had originally. All of a sudden the culprit was startled as if he had seen a ghost and ran into the Atlas building lost from my site. I then noticed that a police officer had just pulled up next to the bike rack. I decided that it was time to inform the proper authorities of what inspector gadget was up to. I told the cop that there was a suspicious kid checking for unlocked bikes at every bike station and I think he stole that one over there. I also told him that he just ran into the Atlas building. The police officer was very concerned and asked me what he looked like. I new he had a backwards cap on, but for some reason that’s all I could remember. I didn’t want to get the wrong guy in trouble so that’s all I said. I then realized that I had to go turn in a paper and left it into the police officers hands to catch my guy.
I returned to the scene of the crime about 10 minutes later after handing in my paper to find that the cop was gone and so was the bike. I’m not sure if the culprit was caught or not, but at least I tried to create my own governance.
This really annoyed me because I have had my bike stolen from campus before and I didn’t even leave it there unlocked. Someone had clipped my heavy-duty lock one day when I was studying in the library. Please always lock your bike and don’t ever leave it overnight.
A couple of weeks ago I was sitting at a picnic table on campus by the economics building doing a bit of schoolwork. It was a typical nice warm fall day and the sun was shining without a cloud in the sky. I looked up from my studies and something caught my attention. I noticed a regular looking student with a backwards cap on inspecting every single bike on the bike rack across from where I was sitting. He gave a nice tug on each bike to see if they where nicely secured and was performing his inspection with efficiency. The student then proceeded to check the other three bike racks in the vicinity before walking due east down the main path. I sat there for a minute and contemplated on what just happened. Was that student just trying to steal a bike in broad daylight? Was that even a student? He didn’t have a backpack… About a minute or two went by and I decided that I should hop on my skateboard and go follow this guy. As soon as I stepped onto my skateboard a funny feeling came over me and I suddenly began to feel like inspector gadget. Weaving in and out of traffic I spotted my culprit at another bike rack. However, this time he had managed to find a loose one and took off with it heading east again. I trailed the perpetrator for a couple of minutes and I thought maybe he was going to go back to his house and that would lead me to the mother load of bikes that he has been stealing. Then my suspect stopped at the bike rack by the new Atlas building and parked his bike. I kept a good distance as he began to inspect every single bike on that bike rack thoroughly just as he had originally. All of a sudden the culprit was startled as if he had seen a ghost and ran into the Atlas building lost from my site. I then noticed that a police officer had just pulled up next to the bike rack. I decided that it was time to inform the proper authorities of what inspector gadget was up to. I told the cop that there was a suspicious kid checking for unlocked bikes at every bike station and I think he stole that one over there. I also told him that he just ran into the Atlas building. The police officer was very concerned and asked me what he looked like. I new he had a backwards cap on, but for some reason that’s all I could remember. I didn’t want to get the wrong guy in trouble so that’s all I said. I then realized that I had to go turn in a paper and left it into the police officers hands to catch my guy.
I returned to the scene of the crime about 10 minutes later after handing in my paper to find that the cop was gone and so was the bike. I’m not sure if the culprit was caught or not, but at least I tried to create my own governance.
This really annoyed me because I have had my bike stolen from campus before and I didn’t even leave it there unlocked. Someone had clipped my heavy-duty lock one day when I was studying in the library. Please always lock your bike and don’t ever leave it overnight.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Mountain Pine Beetle
by: Gavin Deehan
The Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic that is currently taking place is one of the biggest we have seen. There is much controversy over whether we should be using our resources and taking action to help prevent or at least slow down the current outbreak. It is a hard decision to make be because of course it is only natural to let it take place and let the forest fend for itself. But now we also have to think of all of the people that live in our Rocky Mountains and what we can do to keep it a safe area for them.
So is it better for us to keep the inhabited areas as safe as we can or to let nature take it’s course?
Here are some of the things that can be done to help battle the current outbreak. Spraying the trees properly will help protect them before they are attacked. If fully sprayed to the correct height this will help prevent the beetles from attacking the tree. Removal of dead trees will help protect the area from future fire outbreaks. Proper practice of silviculture to design land will prevent future problems, with trees properly spaced and healthy they will be less likely to be attacked. Also there are pheromones that can be applied to signal beetles that certain trees are already taken. All of these prevention techniques only work and help if put to use the right way.
Whether you think we should take action or we should stay out of it, should some of these techniques be put into place with some sort of enforcement?
The Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic that is currently taking place is one of the biggest we have seen. There is much controversy over whether we should be using our resources and taking action to help prevent or at least slow down the current outbreak. It is a hard decision to make be because of course it is only natural to let it take place and let the forest fend for itself. But now we also have to think of all of the people that live in our Rocky Mountains and what we can do to keep it a safe area for them.
So is it better for us to keep the inhabited areas as safe as we can or to let nature take it’s course?
Here are some of the things that can be done to help battle the current outbreak. Spraying the trees properly will help protect them before they are attacked. If fully sprayed to the correct height this will help prevent the beetles from attacking the tree. Removal of dead trees will help protect the area from future fire outbreaks. Proper practice of silviculture to design land will prevent future problems, with trees properly spaced and healthy they will be less likely to be attacked. Also there are pheromones that can be applied to signal beetles that certain trees are already taken. All of these prevention techniques only work and help if put to use the right way.
Whether you think we should take action or we should stay out of it, should some of these techniques be put into place with some sort of enforcement?
An opportunity from the law school:
Folks, if anyone is interested in writing on this for their assigned blog posting or writing an additional blog posting for credit in place of an absence, the following is taking place this coming Monday:
The Public Interest Student Association at the Law School is hosting a panel on the topic: State Revenue Shortfall and Proposed Budget Cuts. The panel is this coming Monday, November 16, 2009, 5- 6:30PM at the Wolf Law Building room 207.
We are excited about this panel because of our featured panelists:
Todd Saliman, Director of the Governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting
Carol Hedges, Senior Fiscal Analyst at the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute
The Public Interest Student Association at the Law School is hosting a panel on the topic: State Revenue Shortfall and Proposed Budget Cuts. The panel is this coming Monday, November 16, 2009, 5- 6:30PM at the Wolf Law Building room 207.
We are excited about this panel because of our featured panelists:
Todd Saliman, Director of the Governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting
Carol Hedges, Senior Fiscal Analyst at the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Medical Marijuana Laws Need Clarification
by: Will Duff
In November 2000, Coloradans passed amendment 20, which legalized the use of medical marijuana for those with specified illnesses and conditions. Although marijuana for medicinal purposes has been available since 2000, only recently has it began to gain popularity among residents as an alternative to other medicine. The state department has been receiving upwards of 400 medical marijuana applications a day and it is estimated that there are over 100 dispensaries state wide, with more slated to open in the coming months. Taking a look at any local paper would affirm that the medical marijuana industry is booming, with countless ads taken out for new medical marijuana dispensaries opening or doctor offering to help people obtain their medical marijuana licenses.
The Obama administration has recently made public a hands off a approach to medical marijuana in the United States. A far departure from the Bush administration policy which raided medical marijuana growers in several states, Obama has said he does not plan to interfere with medical marijuana users as long as they are operating within the confines of state law. Although Colorado medical marijuana users no longer have to fear repercussions on a federal level, there is still much uncertainty within the state regarding medical marijuana policy as the laws are unclear. The aspect of the law perhaps most unclear is whether dispensaries are legal under state laws. Currently, there is nothing in the Colorado Constitution or statutes regarding dispensaries or grow operations.
While Boulder County DA Stan Garnett has stated that he does not intend to prosecute medical marijuana cases until laws are made more clear. Other counties, such as Weld, Jefferson and El Paso, are prosecuting operators of medical marijuana dispensaries and shutting down grow operations. Many cities, such as Greeley and Broomfield have banned dispensaries outright and others, like Breckenridge, have issued a 120-day moratorium prohibiting new dispensaries from opening until laws can be established.
It is imperative that law-makers and citizens alike take the proper measures to establish laws regarding medical marijuana. Guidelines should be established, such as where dispensaries are allowed to open, limits on number of dispensaries per city and what, if any, permits are needed to operate a dispensary, etc. It is imperative that laws are established so regulations about medical marijuana are more clear cut and people are not getting prosecuted unjustly.
In November 2000, Coloradans passed amendment 20, which legalized the use of medical marijuana for those with specified illnesses and conditions. Although marijuana for medicinal purposes has been available since 2000, only recently has it began to gain popularity among residents as an alternative to other medicine. The state department has been receiving upwards of 400 medical marijuana applications a day and it is estimated that there are over 100 dispensaries state wide, with more slated to open in the coming months. Taking a look at any local paper would affirm that the medical marijuana industry is booming, with countless ads taken out for new medical marijuana dispensaries opening or doctor offering to help people obtain their medical marijuana licenses.
The Obama administration has recently made public a hands off a approach to medical marijuana in the United States. A far departure from the Bush administration policy which raided medical marijuana growers in several states, Obama has said he does not plan to interfere with medical marijuana users as long as they are operating within the confines of state law. Although Colorado medical marijuana users no longer have to fear repercussions on a federal level, there is still much uncertainty within the state regarding medical marijuana policy as the laws are unclear. The aspect of the law perhaps most unclear is whether dispensaries are legal under state laws. Currently, there is nothing in the Colorado Constitution or statutes regarding dispensaries or grow operations.
While Boulder County DA Stan Garnett has stated that he does not intend to prosecute medical marijuana cases until laws are made more clear. Other counties, such as Weld, Jefferson and El Paso, are prosecuting operators of medical marijuana dispensaries and shutting down grow operations. Many cities, such as Greeley and Broomfield have banned dispensaries outright and others, like Breckenridge, have issued a 120-day moratorium prohibiting new dispensaries from opening until laws can be established.
It is imperative that law-makers and citizens alike take the proper measures to establish laws regarding medical marijuana. Guidelines should be established, such as where dispensaries are allowed to open, limits on number of dispensaries per city and what, if any, permits are needed to operate a dispensary, etc. It is imperative that laws are established so regulations about medical marijuana are more clear cut and people are not getting prosecuted unjustly.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Mineral Rights in the Allegheny National Forest
by: Malcolm Conolly
In the Allegheny National Forest located in northwest Pennsylvania the federal government and oil companies are currently fighting over mineral rights. The surface property in the forest is owned by the national government, and the subsurface property or mineral rights are owned by private oil companies. Around 2000 during the spike in oil prices companies began placing more drilling equipment in the Allegheny Forest. Before this time the federal government had no problem with companies drilling in the national forest. Anywhere that an oil company owns subsurface land they can legally access it. In fact it is not uncommon in this part of the state to see an oil drill on a houses front lawn. With the increase in drilling equipment in the national forest the government suddenly changed their view on oil drilling. In April 2009 in an out of court settlement the government decided to enforce the National Environmental Policy Act which makes oil or gas drilling in the forest subject to public judgment. Recently government workers have been arresting the employees of oil companies who are installing drilling equipment in the forest. On June 1, 2009, the Minared Run Oil Co., Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association, Allegheny Forest Alliance and Warren County Government sued the United States District Court in Erie Pennsylvania over the National Forest Services use of the National Environmental Policy Act. This case will have a major impact on the economy of the area. The Allegheny forest accounts for a large percent of the oil used by local refineries. If drilling is banned from the forest then an already economically troubled area would lose its biggest source of income.
In the Allegheny National Forest located in northwest Pennsylvania the federal government and oil companies are currently fighting over mineral rights. The surface property in the forest is owned by the national government, and the subsurface property or mineral rights are owned by private oil companies. Around 2000 during the spike in oil prices companies began placing more drilling equipment in the Allegheny Forest. Before this time the federal government had no problem with companies drilling in the national forest. Anywhere that an oil company owns subsurface land they can legally access it. In fact it is not uncommon in this part of the state to see an oil drill on a houses front lawn. With the increase in drilling equipment in the national forest the government suddenly changed their view on oil drilling. In April 2009 in an out of court settlement the government decided to enforce the National Environmental Policy Act which makes oil or gas drilling in the forest subject to public judgment. Recently government workers have been arresting the employees of oil companies who are installing drilling equipment in the forest. On June 1, 2009, the Minared Run Oil Co., Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association, Allegheny Forest Alliance and Warren County Government sued the United States District Court in Erie Pennsylvania over the National Forest Services use of the National Environmental Policy Act. This case will have a major impact on the economy of the area. The Allegheny forest accounts for a large percent of the oil used by local refineries. If drilling is banned from the forest then an already economically troubled area would lose its biggest source of income.
Coburn, the NSF, and Social Science Research
A very interesting discussion, if you have the patience, here.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Ford Profits
by: Mitch Buthod
This quarter Ford was able to post huge profits even with the current economic slump. They were able to accomplish this by cutting costs by more than $4 billion. Layoffs and increased production efficiency were the key factors in Ford's ability to cut cost this year. They also were the only major U.S. car manufacturer to not receive a bailout from the Federal government.
To learn more about this read the following Economist article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8337876.stm
This quarter Ford was able to post huge profits even with the current economic slump. They were able to accomplish this by cutting costs by more than $4 billion. Layoffs and increased production efficiency were the key factors in Ford's ability to cut cost this year. They also were the only major U.S. car manufacturer to not receive a bailout from the Federal government.
To learn more about this read the following Economist article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8337876.stm
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Mine Cleanup and Good Samaritans
by: Jonathan Nelson
Last month Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado proposed new Good Samaritan law for abandoned mine cleanup. S.1777 Good Samaritan Cleanup of Abandoned Hardrock Mines of 2009 was introduced on Tuesday, October 13. Here is a link to the video of his proposed bill to Congress: http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=video&id=281. I was just doing some web surfing trying to find more info on my policy research topic and found myself at his website watching the video. The proposed bill is different than others because it only addresses specific liability issues and doesn’t dismiss other environmental laws. An issue in the past has been that the proposed bills have attempted to change “too much” in the words of environmentalists and stakeholders on the issue. If the bill becomes law Good Samaritans would be able to apply for a permit to cleanup an abandoned mine. During the permitting process they would have to also submit a detailed plan on remediation which would be reviewed and the permit granted. Another cool thing about the bill is that it allows any equipment or techniques that are required for remediation. This makes it possible for mining companies to potentially go to an abandoned mine and recycle the waste that contributes to acid mine drainage for precious metals leftover by inefficient mining techniques. But you can’t get too excited! The bill was only introduced to Congress. Upon being introduced all bills are then submitted to a committee of senators, this bill has been submitted to the Congressional Committee of Environment and Public Works. If the committee gets around to reviewing the bill they then report it favorably or unfavorably to the Senate or House letting it receive full consideration. However often times some bills never even get considered by the committee they are referred to so they don’t even make it to being considered by the full body: the Senate or the House. Also if the committee has doesn’t have the member of Congress that introduced the bill on it, there is little chance for the stakeholders to give input to the committee when the bill is getting the most important consideration. I was able to find the website for the Senate Committee for Environment and Public Works. The committee is made up of 19 senators, of whom Mark Udall is not one of them. However there are 6 senators from Western states: CA, MT, ID, WY, NM, and OR. All of these states have abandoned mines in them so there is a possibility that these senators have an interest in this new bill. Also Mark Udall’s cousin, Tom Udall (D-NM), is on the committee. He may be the biggest voice for the stakeholders of Good Sam policy. In a 2008 Outside article the Udall family is considered the legacy of Western Conservation dating back to the 1850’s with their great grandfather David King Udall. Here is the link for that article: http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200803/mark-and-tom-udall-1.html
So hopefully with six Western Senators and one member of the Udall family on the senate committee that is reviewing the Good Sam bill, there will be some positive outcome that gets good Samaritans closer to reclaiming western water. Follow this link to look at the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1777
Last month Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado proposed new Good Samaritan law for abandoned mine cleanup. S.1777 Good Samaritan Cleanup of Abandoned Hardrock Mines of 2009 was introduced on Tuesday, October 13. Here is a link to the video of his proposed bill to Congress: http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=video&id=281. I was just doing some web surfing trying to find more info on my policy research topic and found myself at his website watching the video. The proposed bill is different than others because it only addresses specific liability issues and doesn’t dismiss other environmental laws. An issue in the past has been that the proposed bills have attempted to change “too much” in the words of environmentalists and stakeholders on the issue. If the bill becomes law Good Samaritans would be able to apply for a permit to cleanup an abandoned mine. During the permitting process they would have to also submit a detailed plan on remediation which would be reviewed and the permit granted. Another cool thing about the bill is that it allows any equipment or techniques that are required for remediation. This makes it possible for mining companies to potentially go to an abandoned mine and recycle the waste that contributes to acid mine drainage for precious metals leftover by inefficient mining techniques. But you can’t get too excited! The bill was only introduced to Congress. Upon being introduced all bills are then submitted to a committee of senators, this bill has been submitted to the Congressional Committee of Environment and Public Works. If the committee gets around to reviewing the bill they then report it favorably or unfavorably to the Senate or House letting it receive full consideration. However often times some bills never even get considered by the committee they are referred to so they don’t even make it to being considered by the full body: the Senate or the House. Also if the committee has doesn’t have the member of Congress that introduced the bill on it, there is little chance for the stakeholders to give input to the committee when the bill is getting the most important consideration. I was able to find the website for the Senate Committee for Environment and Public Works. The committee is made up of 19 senators, of whom Mark Udall is not one of them. However there are 6 senators from Western states: CA, MT, ID, WY, NM, and OR. All of these states have abandoned mines in them so there is a possibility that these senators have an interest in this new bill. Also Mark Udall’s cousin, Tom Udall (D-NM), is on the committee. He may be the biggest voice for the stakeholders of Good Sam policy. In a 2008 Outside article the Udall family is considered the legacy of Western Conservation dating back to the 1850’s with their great grandfather David King Udall. Here is the link for that article: http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200803/mark-and-tom-udall-1.html
So hopefully with six Western Senators and one member of the Udall family on the senate committee that is reviewing the Good Sam bill, there will be some positive outcome that gets good Samaritans closer to reclaiming western water. Follow this link to look at the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1777
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Decriminalize Marijuana in Breckenridge
by: Stephen Capinski
Breckenridge residents will soon be voting on whether to decriminalize marijuana. Many argue that there are many good reasons for doing so, but at the same time are we showing our children and others that pot is okay? Pot is found to be less addictive then its legal cousins alcohol and tobacco. There is a contradiction in the law that the less harmful marijuana is illegal when the more harmful alcohol is legal. It is rarely, if ever, found to be the substance that accounts for aggressive action such as household abuse, violence, car accidents etc. But it is still not healthy, however; this can be argued about anything. Too much of anything becomes bad, from video games to alcohol.
What Breckenridge residents will be voting on will be the decriminalization of marijuana. This code would allow adults to hold small amounts of marijuana (less then an ounce) for personal use. It will not make the drug more available to children, you will not be allowed to smoke in public, and you won’t get out of stoned driving. You simply will not get busted for possession. The law would still be far stricter then those that apply to alcohol, which allow you to have as much as you would like, and to drink in public.
The last issue is that pot can have a greater “footprint” then alcohol. As the recent pot busts at Arapahoe basin show parents do not want to walk their children through a smoke filled parking lot. So as these small possession tickets become a thing of the past, perhaps we will need to replace them with a “nuisance pot smoke” ticket. This could be similar to alcohols public intoxication ticket.
summitdaily.com/article/20091021/OPINION/910219982/1024/NONE
Breckenridge residents will soon be voting on whether to decriminalize marijuana. Many argue that there are many good reasons for doing so, but at the same time are we showing our children and others that pot is okay? Pot is found to be less addictive then its legal cousins alcohol and tobacco. There is a contradiction in the law that the less harmful marijuana is illegal when the more harmful alcohol is legal. It is rarely, if ever, found to be the substance that accounts for aggressive action such as household abuse, violence, car accidents etc. But it is still not healthy, however; this can be argued about anything. Too much of anything becomes bad, from video games to alcohol.
What Breckenridge residents will be voting on will be the decriminalization of marijuana. This code would allow adults to hold small amounts of marijuana (less then an ounce) for personal use. It will not make the drug more available to children, you will not be allowed to smoke in public, and you won’t get out of stoned driving. You simply will not get busted for possession. The law would still be far stricter then those that apply to alcohol, which allow you to have as much as you would like, and to drink in public.
The last issue is that pot can have a greater “footprint” then alcohol. As the recent pot busts at Arapahoe basin show parents do not want to walk their children through a smoke filled parking lot. So as these small possession tickets become a thing of the past, perhaps we will need to replace them with a “nuisance pot smoke” ticket. This could be similar to alcohols public intoxication ticket.
summitdaily.com/article/20091021/OPINION/910219982/1024/NONE
Friday, November 6, 2009
The Colorado River
by: Brendan Browne
The Colorado is a vital resource to millions of Americans. Human influence, however, is slowly destroying this ecosystem. Little to no water is allocated to Mexico, although the river runs hundreds of miles along its borders. Areas downstream are completely dried up, and in some areas these dry river beds have already been developed. As an environmentalist, I would like to see the area restored to its original state. I realize that this is a huge task, but we can certainly start to reverse our negative impacts.
Dams along the river create a huge problem. They not only block sediment flow, but some of them do not allow fish to swim through and the unnatural flows of water are washing away the beaches that attract so many tourists. The dams are already implemented, but there could be modifications made to them that allow fish to swim upstream as they naturally want to. The government could also coordinate and regulate the flow of water allowed by dams down the river. This would cut down on erosion of the banks and maintain the successful tourism industry in the area. It could also help the populations of the four endangered fish species in the area. If one of those species were to go extinct, it could have devastating effects on the health of the river ecosystem.
Although the Colorado River acts as a border between Mexico and the U.S., very little of the water is given to communities along the river on the Mexican side. The areas near the delta where the water should flow into the Gulf of Mexico are dried up completely. If every Colorado River water rights owner in the U.S. was forced by government action to give up a small percent of this water, we can slowly start to bring life back to the areas downstream. It could also potentially strengthen ties with the Mexican government.
The Colorado is a vital resource to millions of Americans. Human influence, however, is slowly destroying this ecosystem. Little to no water is allocated to Mexico, although the river runs hundreds of miles along its borders. Areas downstream are completely dried up, and in some areas these dry river beds have already been developed. As an environmentalist, I would like to see the area restored to its original state. I realize that this is a huge task, but we can certainly start to reverse our negative impacts.
Dams along the river create a huge problem. They not only block sediment flow, but some of them do not allow fish to swim through and the unnatural flows of water are washing away the beaches that attract so many tourists. The dams are already implemented, but there could be modifications made to them that allow fish to swim upstream as they naturally want to. The government could also coordinate and regulate the flow of water allowed by dams down the river. This would cut down on erosion of the banks and maintain the successful tourism industry in the area. It could also help the populations of the four endangered fish species in the area. If one of those species were to go extinct, it could have devastating effects on the health of the river ecosystem.
Although the Colorado River acts as a border between Mexico and the U.S., very little of the water is given to communities along the river on the Mexican side. The areas near the delta where the water should flow into the Gulf of Mexico are dried up completely. If every Colorado River water rights owner in the U.S. was forced by government action to give up a small percent of this water, we can slowly start to bring life back to the areas downstream. It could also potentially strengthen ties with the Mexican government.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Elections
There has been a lot of punditry in the last couple of days about the elections in New Jersey, Virginia, New York, etc. Perhaps a question is whether you all think these mean something, or whether any kind of interpretation across elections is bound to be inaccurate.
On a related note, the Boulder elections returned three incumbent city council members, defeated proposals to bond for more open space, and extended term limits for the district attorney (among others).
On a related note, the Boulder elections returned three incumbent city council members, defeated proposals to bond for more open space, and extended term limits for the district attorney (among others).
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Moustache as a Public Good
Discussing the nature of different types of goods today in class, we discussed public and private goods, toll/club goods and common pool resources.
At one point in the noon class (section 1), the example of my moustache was given as an example of a toll good. I got thinking about this after class.
I could, presumably, only provide certain individuals the visual enjoyment of my moustache by wearing a ski mask most of the time and only letting certain people see it (maybe this is what Subcomandante Marcos has going on--a moustachioed individual unwilling to show off his stubbly resources to the non-Zapatista), but normally, my moustache is not an excludable good. You all get to enjoy the externality of my brilliantly executed moustachery. Instead, I would call my moustache a public good. You all benefit from my moustache being awesome. The good is non-excludable and non-subtractable.
However, though there is some cost to my moustache (takes me a little while to shave around it in the morning, and I have to clean up after trimming it lest my wife get mad at me), the internalized benefits are still greater than the costs (really helps me get interviews started doing the fieldwork, for one thing).
The endshot is, I would like to encourage all of you who have the proper genetic makeup (generally, a Y chromosome) to get in touch with your inner Karl Marx/Francisco Villa/Prince Albert/John Henry Holliday/Miguel Grau and grow some mutton chops, handlebars, or other soup-straining hirsute headgear.
At one point in the noon class (section 1), the example of my moustache was given as an example of a toll good. I got thinking about this after class.
I could, presumably, only provide certain individuals the visual enjoyment of my moustache by wearing a ski mask most of the time and only letting certain people see it (maybe this is what Subcomandante Marcos has going on--a moustachioed individual unwilling to show off his stubbly resources to the non-Zapatista), but normally, my moustache is not an excludable good. You all get to enjoy the externality of my brilliantly executed moustachery. Instead, I would call my moustache a public good. You all benefit from my moustache being awesome. The good is non-excludable and non-subtractable.
However, though there is some cost to my moustache (takes me a little while to shave around it in the morning, and I have to clean up after trimming it lest my wife get mad at me), the internalized benefits are still greater than the costs (really helps me get interviews started doing the fieldwork, for one thing).
The endshot is, I would like to encourage all of you who have the proper genetic makeup (generally, a Y chromosome) to get in touch with your inner Karl Marx/Francisco Villa/Prince Albert/John Henry Holliday/Miguel Grau and grow some mutton chops, handlebars, or other soup-straining hirsute headgear.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Green house gases tipping point
by: Chandika Maharjan
We reached 455 parts per million CO2 equivalent of green house gases in the atmosphere by 2007 when it was expected to take a decade showed the extent of problem. 455 parts per million is considered a tipping point which means the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that can potentially cause dangerous climate change. We are already at risk. It's not next year or next decade, it's now. The current trajectory of climate change is now much worse than the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) had originally projected in part due to China and India's increasing reliance on coal power. The research shows carbon emissions have grown sharply since 2000, despite growing concerns about climate change. During the 1990s, carbon emissions grew by less than 1% per year. Since 2000, emissions have grown at a rate of 3.5% per year. No part of the world had a decline in emissions from 2000 to 2008. Scientists claim that we are basically looking now at a future climate beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model situations. Number of floods, droughts and storms around the world in 2007 amounted to a climate change "mega disaster”. We are seeing the effects of climate change. This is here and now, this is with us already. Unless we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, we will cause huge and irreversible damage to the earth.
We reached 455 parts per million CO2 equivalent of green house gases in the atmosphere by 2007 when it was expected to take a decade showed the extent of problem. 455 parts per million is considered a tipping point which means the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that can potentially cause dangerous climate change. We are already at risk. It's not next year or next decade, it's now. The current trajectory of climate change is now much worse than the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) had originally projected in part due to China and India's increasing reliance on coal power. The research shows carbon emissions have grown sharply since 2000, despite growing concerns about climate change. During the 1990s, carbon emissions grew by less than 1% per year. Since 2000, emissions have grown at a rate of 3.5% per year. No part of the world had a decline in emissions from 2000 to 2008. Scientists claim that we are basically looking now at a future climate beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model situations. Number of floods, droughts and storms around the world in 2007 amounted to a climate change "mega disaster”. We are seeing the effects of climate change. This is here and now, this is with us already. Unless we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, we will cause huge and irreversible damage to the earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)