You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Environment' tag.
At The Edit, we’ve long been saying that the mountaintop removal means the end of jobs. We don’t advocate mountaintop removal, but we just ask if the workers should receive help finding new careers . Alternative energy plants, perhaps?
This fight between nature and the economy is getting bigger, and the Rural Blog sums up two recent stories (one from the AP, one from the CJ) about the feud.
Vicki Smith of The Associated Press notes that protesters on both sides in West Virginia have been charged with battery…
[edit]
Peter Smith of The Courier-Journal reports from Kentucky: “Beneath Appalachian mountains wreathed in mist, dozens of religious leaders gathered to decry a mining practice they see an as affront to both God and nature … but … at First Baptist Church in Pikeville, a congregation replete with miners and those in coal-related businesses … say they ‘thank God we’ve got the coal.’
Advocacy group Big Wildlife is opposed to Saturday’s bear hunt, and not just because you shouldn’t eat bears. Here’s the group’s press release:
Today the international wildlife advocacy group, Big Wildlife, condemned the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) for approving the state’s first legal hunt of black bears in modern times. The bear hunt, Kentucky’s first bear hunt in 100 years, will take place over the weekend in Harlan, Letcher and Pike counties. Big Wildlife said trophy hunting of bears is scientifically indefensible, unnecessary, and cruel and urged the state to abandon the bear killing program. An estimated 40,000 to 50,000 bears are legally hunted in the U.S. each year while an unknown number are also illegally poached.
”Bear hunting is bad news for bears. Instead of letting trophy hunters turn these magnificent animals into throw rugs by the fireplace, Kentucky officials should provide vigorous protections for bears,” said Brian Vincent, Communications Director with Big Wildlife, an international wildlife advocacy organization based in Williams, Oregon.
Big Wildlife said it opposed bear hunting for a number of reasons:
· Trophy hunting of bears is indiscriminate. While Kentucky officials say the hunt is necessary to “manage” so-called “nuisance” bears, trophy hunting doesn’t target the very few individual bears who may create conflicts. Big Wildlife said rather than pouring limited state resources into administering a new bear hunt, the KDFWR should educate the public about taking simple, non-lethal measures, such as properly securing garbage, to avoid encounters with bears.
· Kentucky, along with other states that permit bear hunting, has failed to assess the impacts of poaching. Illegal killing of bears has increased nationwide, fueled by a booming international market, for bear parts, especially bear gallbladders used in traditional Asian medicine and bear paws, considered a delicacy in soup. Bear gallbladders can go for $5,000 a pound, an enticing price that has spurred bear poaching throughout the US. There are no federal restrictions on selling bear parts in the US. Each state has its own laws regulating the trade. Big Wildlife said legal hunting of bears is especially troubling because it provides cover for “piggy-back” poaching.
· Hunting puts additional pressures on bears, who are facing a host of threats from poaching, habitat fragmentation and destruction, human encroachment into wildlife areas, aggressive government lethal control programs, and climate change.
· Hunting of bears ignores the ecological value of these animals. Bears often scavenge for food, playing an important role in recycling carrion.
“Bears are being squeezed by a growing number of threats from hunting, poaching, deforestation, and human encroachment into wildlife habitat. State wildlife officials should be shutting down hunting of black bears across the US, not opening up new seasons on bears,” Vincent said. “Most people with an ounce of compassion think putting a target on the back of Smokey is cruel and unnecessary,” said Vincent.
Bear season is coming. On Saturday, licensed hunters will be allowed to bag one black bear without using bait, as hunters in other states do. The hunt will stop once ten bears–or five female bears–are killed. It’s the first legal bear hunt in Kentucky in modern times. The hunt is only open in Letcher, Harlan and Pike Counties. Bears are in season because more than 300 of them have wandered across state lines, presumably in search of picnic (pik-uh-nik) baskets.
When I interviewed a Department of Fish and Wildlife spokesperson, I asked what hunters were expected to do with the dead bears. Obviously taxidermy is an option, but so is eating the meat. But if you’re one of the ten hunters to down a black bear, be careful eating it.
There are fewer than 10 cases of trichinosis a year in the United States, and in recent years, bear meat has accounted for almost all of the nonpork cases, according to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Black bear meat is especially dangerous.
As part of a class-action settlement, DuPont is making competitive scholarships available to anyone living within two miles of the company’s west Louisville plant. Applications are due March 15th.
The new endowment fund of $482,863 will provide scholarships to help defray educational expenses in several areas, including undergraduate study at two- and four- year colleges, vocational or technical educational courses, training to help someone attain a certificate or degree, or graduate study. The number of scholarships granted will depend on the number of qualifying applications received, he said, adding that the foundation expects the endowment to grow through investments in the coming years.
People can find out if they are eligible by going online to the foundation website, found here, which includes a map as well as list of eligible addresses. All current and future occupants of the addresses that opted out of the settlement will not be eligible for the scholarship, Stewart said.
I don’t think I’ve used a phone book in the last decade, and I know I’m not alone. For those who prefer Google, this will come as good news. AT&T has moved to stop phone book delivery in Louisville.
AT&T Kentucky has asked state regulators for permission to stop distributing the directory to all its customers in Jefferson and Oldham counties after next April. It says that would help the environment as well as save money, and that many people prefer to look up numbers online anyway.
Last year, the company gave out more than half a million phone books. That’s a lot of paper.
With almost any power generation project, there’s a lot of NIMBY-ing. (Or at least accusations of it).
NIMBY means Not In My Backyard. The idea is that a community favors an idea like a new power plant or grain silo, but opposes having it built–literally or figuratively–in their backyard.
This piece on Boing Boing points out a new trend with NIMBY and wind power. It seems that plans to build wind turbines often face opposition, which planners write of as NIMBY-ing, even though it’s actually good old-fashioned naysaying. People who favor wind power don’t tend to mind having turbines nearby. People who oppose the idea don’t want turbines in their backyard, or anywhere.
In other words, what we call NIMBY is less about what people do or don’t want in their backyards, and more about people in and out of the community using the backyard as a flashpoint for national opposition. If you’re in favor of wind, you’re likely to be in favor of it in your community. If you oppose wind, you’ll oppose it in your community. But the specific location of the wind turbines isn’t really a huge factor in your decisions.
Two years ago, the Parisian (Paris, France, not Paris, KY) government purchased more than 20 thousand bikes. These bikes were made available as part of a low-cost public program to help people get around. Now more than four fifths of those bikes have been damaged beyond use.
Bruno Marzloff, a sociologist who specializes in transportation, said, “One must relate this to other incivilities, and especially the burning of cars,” referring to gangs of immigrant youths burning cars during riots in the suburbs in 2005.
He said he believed there was social revolt behind Vélib’ vandalism, especially for suburban residents, many of them poor immigrants who feel excluded from the glamorous side of Paris.
“It is an outcry, a form of rebellion; this violence is not gratuitous,” Mr. Marzloff said. “There is an element of negligence that means, ‘We don’t have the right to mobility like other people, to get to Paris it’s a huge pain, we don’t have cars, and when we do, it’s too expensive and too far.’ ”
I remember the bike rental from the 2008 Idea Festival. Bikes were available for free and could be used all day by anyone downtown, as long as the bikes were returned by the end of the day. Do you think America’s social mobility would keep a permanent bike rental from suffering the same fate as the French program? Would you use a free bike downtown?
An ordinance is in the works to limit the amount of time motorists can idle their cars in Louisville.
From the C-J:
City officials say Louisville — despite some improvements — is still in violation of ever-tightening federal clean-air regulations.
“An idling ordinance would help with that,” said Bruce Traughber, the city economic development director. “We are required to take action.”
Failing to produce a new enforceable clean-air initiative could trigger a loss of federal highway dollars or prompt the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require more emission cuts from industry, confirmed Lauren Anderson, executive director of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District.
Traughber said city officials have just begun trying to line up support for idling rules, and have only sketched out a draft ordinance, saying it would focus on excessive idling, though he declined to make the draft public or provide many details. However, a local work group that studied the idling issue generally defined excessive as more than five minutes for cars and trucks.
Officials are considering a one-year grace period to get everyone acquainted with the restriction.
Debate in the C-J comments is split (and angrily so in many cases). What do you think?
Not all of the country’s magnificent old trees were lost at the hands of early settlers. The Utne Reader points to this piece on Bruce Kershner, who chronicles the most impressive trees in New York State.
Kershner has found ancient oaks in a grove behind a school in North Syracuse, a 400-year-old tulip tree in Queens, and trees he calls “living skyscrapers” in the 25 acres of old-growth forest at Inwood Hill Park on the northern tip of Manhattan Island.
Where are your favorite trees in Louisville?
We know that pets can destroy your shoes, carpet and furniture, but they’re also apparently hard on the earth.
New Scientist reports that the energy required to feed and care for pets is more than the energy required to operate many vehicles.
It takes 43.3 square metres of land to generate 1 kilogram of chicken per year – far more for beef and lamb – and 13.4 square metres to generate a kilogram of cereals. So that gives him a footprint of 0.84 hectares. For a big dog such as a German shepherd, the figure is 1.1 hectares.
Meanwhile, an SUV – the Vales used a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser in their comparison – driven a modest 10,000 kilometres a year, uses 55.1 gigajoules, which includes the energy required both to fuel and to build it. One hectare of land can produce approximately 135 gigajoules of energy per year, so the Land Cruiser’s eco-footprint is about 0.41 hectares – less than half that of a medium-sized dog.
Now let’s consider how this impact can be offset. Owning a pet is not likely to destroy the environment just yet, but maybe it’s wise to check food labels. Some argue that small changes like that, if done universally, can help restore the environment to a safe, stable condition. Others say it will take dramatic steps like giving up pet ownership (among other things) to fix things.
One thing is for certain, this study is just one piece of science, and it’s not exactly a peer-reviewed journal piece. It would be a bit reactionary to toss out the dogs right now. But if you’re eco-conscious, it would be wise to think about the seemingly benign decisions you make.
