GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS 031204
GSENet
GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{*} SAVE SANDY HOOK FROM GOING COMMERCIAL
{*} MEADOWLANDS: 101 ACRES OF MARSHES PRESERVED
{*} SENATE PANEL GETS AUTO-EMISSIONS MEASURE
{*} DEP OPENS SWEEP OF PATERSON BUSINESSES
{*} NJ TRANSIT OPENS DIRT REMOVAL BIDS
{*} GROUPS CLAIM EPA FAVORING PESTICIDE CORPORATIONS
{*} A YEAR OF EXTREMES PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING
{*} ROAD TO RUIN: HOW AMERICA IS RAVAGING THE PLANET
{*} APPEALS COURT TO CONSIDER ARGUMENTS ON BEAR HUNT
{*} RAISING THE BAR FOR EAST COAST GREENWAY
{*} MONMOUTH COUNTY - SENIOR PLANNER - ENVIRONMENTAL
{*} CAPE MAY WATER SUPPLY HEARING - DEC 8
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Visit Our Website For Complete Calendar, Job Listings,
Links, NewsStand, Library and Much More
http://www.gsenet.org/
* * *
Many thanks to our volunteers: Jerry Cullins, Jeff Hook,
Peter Montague, Paul Neuman, Penny Pollock-Barnes, Phil Reynolds,
and to all you folks out there who contribute in so many ways.
If you have a couple hours a week, and would like to help out,
please email us at mai...@gsenet.org.
* * *
OUR FALL FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN IS UNDER WAY!
TO DONATE, PLEASE VISIT:
http://www.gsenet.org/support/donate.php
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
SAVE SANDY HOOK FROM GOING COMMERCIAL
Date: 031203
From: http://www.ahherald.com/
OLD OAK TRAIL
By Joe Reynolds, Atlantic Highlands Herald, 4 December 2003
Sandy Hook Gateway National Recreation Area in Monmouth County is a
gem along the Jersey Shore. The landscape contains inviting coves,
vast expanses of salt marshes, long beaches, undeveloped woods, and
wide views of lower New York Harbor and the Atlantic Ocean.
Sandy Hook was recognized by the US Fish & Wildlife in a 1997 study
entitled, Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York
Bight Watershed, as being the only undeveloped barrier beach area on
the northern end of the New Jersey coastline north of Island Beach
State Park, located 34 miles to the south. The maritime holly forests
that occur at Sandy Hook only occur at a few other locations in the
mid-Atlantic. Spring migrating hawk counts at Fort Hancock average
nearly 5,000 birds between March and May.
Yet, hawks are not the only birds to be observed. Being situated
along the Atlantic Flyway, Sandy Hook has the largest number of least
terns in the state and is home to a number of other state endangered
and threatened bird species, such as the Black Skimmer, Great Blue
Heron, Osprey, and Piping Plover. New Jersey Audubon in their 1994
study entitled, Raritan Bay Wildlife Habitat Report, identified Sandy
Hook as the premier site on Raritan Bay for migratory birds. They
declared that except for Cape May, there is no other place as ideal as
a vantage-point for observing the phenomenon of migration in New
Jersey.
For a state, though, that prides itself on wonderful public and
natural beaches for swimming, beachcombing, bird watching, fishing,
and other forms of public recreation, only Island Beach State Park in
Ocean County with 3,002 acres and Sandy Hook Gateway National
Recreation Area with approximately 1,665 acres provide the only
extensive public areas along the Jersey Shore for ocean beach
activities free of over-development, commercialism, and advertising.
Yet, in the very near future Sandy Hook may no longer be free of
commercialism. For it seems that our National Park Service (NPS) has
plans to privatize/commercialize the north end of Sandy Hook - the
historic Fort Hancock area.
While I am in favor of restoring the more than 30 historic buildings
that comprise Fort Hancock, I still do not understand why more federal
funds cannot be dedicated to refurbishing our important (yet neglected
and stressed) national treasures. Despite years of enthusiasm for
restoring Fort Hancock by local residents, it has taken decades for
the NPS to bring forth a plan to preserve Fort Hancock.
Now our government leaders in Washington DC have decided that they
should not be held responsible for protecting and restoring our
historic national landmarks. Under the appearance of historic
preservation, they plan to commercialize our public lands. At Sandy
Hook, the NPS wants to award a single, long-term 60-year lease to a
private company. The individual lease would empower Wassel Reality
(a.k.a. Sandy Hook Partners LLC) to develop Fort Hancock into a
commercial, for profit area with retail/commercial uses unconcerned to
the associated impacts from traffic, noise, and litter onto the
natural environment.
What is in fact being proposed by the NPS is the creation of another
town along the already over-crowded and overdeveloped Jersey Shore.
Plans include the development of over a dozen private office buildings
and conference centers, numerous buildings devoted to lodging and food
services, and at least one YMCA recreation area. The plan also calls
for anywhere between 400 to 1,000 additional vehicles to enter the
park on a current bustling and fast-paced singular road - Hartshorne
Drive. Current plans also cite the creation of several educational
facilities, but these accommodations would be a small part of a much
larger development plan.
Despite the outcry from many local residents for the federal
government to realize that the proposed plan by Sandy Hook Partners
LLC is defective and corrupt, and will degrade the environment, the
NPS still plans to go forward. It seems that the federal government is
using Sandy Hook as a model way to restore our national parks,
ultimately placing perhaps our entire national public land system, in
part, into private for profit hands.
While this plan might be fine for some national parks, it would not
be ideal for Sandy Hook. Located at the northern tip of the Jersey
Shore and overlooking New York City (the largest urbanized piece of
coast in the world), Sandy Hook is a narrow, barrier beach peninsula
with innumerable environmentally sensitive areas. There is nothing
subtle or environmentally friendly about adding more traffic, more
noise, more cars, more litter, more nonpoint source pollution to an
already overburdened landscape.
We do not have a lack of retail stores, office space, restaurants, or
resorts along the Jersey Shore. There is simply not a need for more
businesses along our coastline. Any new commercial establishments
should be aimed to existing towns or communities. What the Jersey
Shore has an extreme shortage of is open space and peaceful,
noncommercial landscapes. This is what should not be lost. Our public
lands and national parks belong to the people, not to the highest
bidder.
The purpose is clear. If you care about protecting the Jersey Shore
and our national parks, then please write to your federal senators and
your congressional representative. Every day that passes is another
day closer for the Wassel Reality Development group to privatize
portions of Sandy Hook.
Please tell your federal elected officials in Washington DC that our
parklands are not for sale. We do not need large-scale retail
establishments, unplanned development, or increased traffic, noise, or
litter along the Jersey Shore.
Please urge your federal elected officials to push for the federal
Park Service to organize an independent group made up of local
citizens, public officials, and scholars to conduct a fair and
unbiased study to determine the best way to preserve Fort Hancock that
is harmonious with the character of Sandy Hook. A new plan to preserve
For Hancock might include a mixture of federal, state, and county
funds, which is how some other federal projects are financed, such as
public flood control and beach replenishment projects.
If the NPS moves forward with this 60-year private lease plan, then
conceivably none of our national public parklands will be safe and the
Jersey Shore will sacrifice yet another important noncommercial area.
Below are web site addresses to some federal political leaders for
you to quickly contact:
Senator Jon Corzine
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Congressman Frank Pallone Jr.
Congressman Rush Holt
For further information, please write to the local non-profit group
dedicated to preserving Sandy Hook from becoming commercial: Save
Sandy Hook can be reached at POB 265, Lincroft, NJ 07738.
* * *
j...@ahherald.com
Copyright (c) 1996- 2003 - Allan Dean - All Rights Reserved
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
MEADOWLANDS: 101 ACRES OF MARSHES PRESERVED
Date: 031204
From: http://www.meadowlands.state.nj.us/
MEADOWLARK WETLANDS SECURED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION
IN NEW ROUND OF MARSH ACQUISITION
November 24, 2003
Lyndhurst - Highlighting Governor McGreevey's Smart Growth initiative
to secure environmentally sensitive wetlands throughout the state, the
New Jersey Meadowlands Commissioners today approved the acquisition of
101 acres of marshes for preservation in the Meadowlands District.
Specifically, the acquisition will preserve the 90-acre Meadowlark
marsh in Ridgefield, and 11 acres of wetlands along Berry's Creek in
East Rutherford. The announcement complements the addition of 170
acres of wetlands in Lyndhurst and Kearny that was acquired in
October.
"Today's announcement completes a significant piece of the
Meadowlands' environmental puzzle," said NJMC Chairman Susan Bass
Levin. "In the middle of this densely populated industrial landscape,
we're carving out an environmental haven for all residents to enjoy."
The Meadowlark marsh is a secluded tract located north of Bellman's
Creek, and east of the Hackensack River and New Jersey Turnpike. The
land is visited frequently by feeding ducks including green-winged
teal, and is a popular nesting area for redwing black birds.
The marsh is also home to several freshwater ponds and staghorn sumac
and black cherry trees dot the landscape, providing and important
source of food for a wide variety of birds and mammals.
The land is currently owned by Hartz Mountain Industries of Secaucus.
The NJMC is proposing to purchase the land for $10,200 per acre, for a
total of $914,124.
The Berry's Creek wetland in East Rutherford is currently owned by
Murray Hill Parkway Land Corp. The NJMC is proposing to purchase the
land for $545,366, which includes $122,596 per acre for four upland
acres on the site, and $10,200 per acre for seven acres of wetlands on
the site.
The total purchase for the two sites would total nearly $1.5 million.
"With this acquisition, we will be closer to the vision our Master
Plan puts forth; of redeveloping the district's contaminated sites and
conserving vital wetlands," said NJMC Executive Director Bob Ceberio.
"The Meadowlark plot and Berry's Creek shoreline marsh are both hemmed
in by industrial development. It is good to know that in the middle of
all that economic heavy lifting we can preserve vital wetlands for
future generations."
- - -
The New Jersey Meadowlands Commission, home of the Meadowlands
Environment Center, has created more than a dozen parks and recreation
facilities, including nature preserves, hiking paths, discovery
trails, gardens, wildlife sites, and launching areas for boats and
canoes.
The Commission is empowered with regional planning and zoning
authority to ensure the environmental protection and enhancement of
the Meadowlands District. The Commission's objectives include the
acquisition of open space for permanent preservation, the enhancement
of environmentally sensitive wetland areas, the development of active
and passive recreational opportunities, and the redevelopment of
brownfields properties throughout the region.
* * *
Christopher Gale, Public Information Officer
NJ Meadowlands Commission
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
SENATE PANEL GETS AUTO-EMISSIONS MEASURE
Date: 03 Dec 2003
From: Joe Deckelnick {jde...@optonline.net}
By Luis Puga, Courier-Post Staff, December 3, 2003
Camden - With a bill aimed at lowering automobile emissions up for a
vote this week by a Senate committee, supporters urged legislators on
Tuesday to support its passage.
The so-called clean car legislation would require new cars be fitted
with better gas caps and gas tank seals. It would require that 10
percent of new cars be electric-hybrid by 2006. It would also require
automakers to sell zero-emission cars by 2012.
"We are hopeful that this is the last press conference we have to
have on clean cars," said David Pringle, campaign director of the New
Jersey Environmental Federation. Pringle, along with state Sen. John
Adler, D-Cherry Hill, and representatives from the Sierra Club New
Jersey and New Jersey Public Interest Group, said they feel the
legislation has enough bipartisan support to pass.
However, opponents call the legislation unnecessary.
"Today's cars are 99 percent cleaner than they were in the 1960s,"
said Eron Shosteck, director of communications for the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers.
New Jersey has the worst air quality in the nation, with automobile
emissions accounting for 80 percent of the state's air toxins, said
Pringle.
More than 400,000 state residents suffer from asthma, which is
aggravated by air toxins.
Legislators are considering two bills calling for clean car
legislation. While both have been referred to budget committees, the
Assembly bill has not been scheduled for a vote. The Senate bill has
25 cosponsors and the Assembly bill has 49, giving them a majority in
both chambers.
ASTHMA CONCERNS
Kelly McNicholas, of the Sierra Club New Jersey, said that the
average number of asthma deaths in the state has doubled in the past
two decades.
In Camden County, 27,900 people suffer from asthma, resulting in more
than $21 million in direct medical costs and other costs, she said.
Gloucester County ranks highest in the number of bad air days or
smog, according to Pringle. On those days, Pringle said the level of
ozone proves dangerous for those with weakened respiratory systems.
"I go to soccer games and routinely see children pulling out
respirators and taking a few puffs," said Adler, one of 25 co-sponsors
in the Senate. "We should be allowed to freely go outside and breathe
fresh air."
However, Shosteck said he feels blaming cars is misleading.
"What they are ignoring is that the cars themselves have become very
clean," he said. "In many instances, you have about 90 percent of
emissions coming from cars that are 10 years older." Traffic flow
Shosteck also said idling cars contribute to pollution and that
traffic engineers could do more to improve air quality by keeping
traffic flowing on the New Jersey Turnpike than clean car legislation.
Also, he said consumers simply are not interested in fuel-efficient
vehicles.
"There are 30 different models of cars today that get 30 miles per
gallon or better, but they represent 2 percent of the vehicle market,"
he said.
Pringle said there is a six-month waiting list for the Toyota Prius,
a gas-electric hybrid.
Shosteck also said there was no benefit in choosing California
standards over federal standards, adding that some federal
requirements exceed California's. When asked for an example, he could
not immediately provide one.
Pringle said supporters have been trying to bring clean-car
legislation to New Jersey for more than a decade, starting with the
passage of the federal Clean Air Act in 1990. The act forced states to
choose between federal emission standards or California's stricter
standards rather than each state implementing its own.
California's standards landed that state in court with automakers,
but a settlement was reached when automakers were allowed to count
electric-hybrid cars as part of an overall zero-emission car
requirement.
In part, McNicholas said she believes the auto industry's resistance
in the state is due to the fate of two auto plants in New Jersey and
the legislation's impact on sales in the state.
Ford Motor Company plans to close its Edison truck manufacturing
plant in 2004, while General Motors has come to an agreement with
labor to keep its plant in Linden open until 2007.
"That's not really part of the market we are talking about," said
McNicholas. "They are producing small and light trucks."
If passed, the new standards would reduce smog by 19 percent and air
toxins by 23 percent more than federal standards, according to
Pringle.
He added that if New Jersey passes clean cars legislation, it will
join not just California, but New York and Massachusetts as well. That
means one-quarter of the nation cars will be regulated under the same
emission standards, Pringle said.
* * *
Joe Deckelnick, Central Jersey Organizer
NJ Environmental Federation
1002 Ocean Avenue
Belmar, NJ 07719
732-280-8988 - voice
732-280-0371 - fax
jdeck...@cleanwater.org or Joey...@aol.com
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
DEP OPENS SWEEP OF PATERSON BUSINESSES
Date: 031204
From: http://www.northjersey.com/
By Nate Schweber, Herald News, December 3, 2003
Paterson - State inspectors began checking Paterson businesses for
compliance with environmental laws on Monday, a representative told
more than 20 small-business owners Tuesday morning.
The Department of Environmental Protection will send 150 agents to
perform nearly 1,000 inspections at 600 to 700 Paterson sites "before
the holidays," said Knute Jensen, chief of the DEP's Bureau of
Compliance and Enforcement.
He said inspectors have started going into some of Paterson's larger
manufacturing plants. He estimated that inspectors will have looked
through 30 large businesses by today, though he would not say which
ones. Inspections of small businesses will begin soon.
The DEP has scheduled the inspections since September. Paterson is
the second city to undergo DEP inspections. In December 2002, the
agency inspected 800 facilities in Camden and levied nearly $100,000
in fines, $60,000 of which came from one "major violator," Jensen
said.
On Tuesday morning, representatives from the DEP, the Commerce and
Industry Association of New Jersey, the Environmental Business
Council, and the Hispanic Business Council spoke to 22 business owners
at Passaic County Community College. They stressed that small
businesses should shape up but not panic.
Ky Connor Asral, who works for the DEP's Office of Pollution
Prevention and Permit Coordination, said most violations are "paper
violations" for such offenses as keeping improper records and not
having permits to run certain machinery or store certain chemicals.
Asral said paperwork violations can result in a citation, but usually
"little to nothing" in terms of a fine.
Jensen said inspectors will check for permits for discharges into air
and water and permits for the use of certain chemicals. Inspectors
also will investigate how businesses store hazardous chemicals.
He said the "vast majority" of businesses in violation will receive a
notice stating a time limit - usually 30 to 90 days - to comply with
environmental standards.
Benjamin Alter, an associate principal and vice president of GZA
GeoEnvironmental Inc. who does private environmental inspections and
audits, said businesses should do three things to prepare for
inspectors:
First, business owners should "know their facility" and be able to
account for all chemicals that come and go. Second, businesses should
organize their paperwork, especially permits, records of chemical
purchases, and records of companies hauling away hazardous waste.
Third, business owners should make sure their facility is in order.
"When I do an inspection and people are on top of their housekeeping
and paperwork, I get a favorable first impression and am more
forgiving," Alter said. "When I walk into a facility and it's messy,
nobody knows where any papers are, and there's an oil drip in the
corner, I know I'm going to find a compliance issue somewhere."
Richard G. Dabagian, president of Jersey Printing, a 25-person
business on Pennsylvania Avenue, said he came to the meeting to
"reaffirm that we're OK."
"As far as I know, we're in compliance," he said. "It's things like
this that very well could put small businesses out of business."
Jensen said that the DEP wants to "ensure that all people are equally
protected against environmental harm," and that the department can
"keep everyone on the same competitive plane" by having all companies
comply with the same health standards.
He said Paterson was selected for inspections because DEP information
showed it to have the most people in proportion to the number of
regulated businesses.
The inspections are part of Governor McGreevey's "smart growth"
initiatives, which are aimed at improving residents' quality of life
and making New Jersey more attractive to new residents.
* * *
Email: schw...@northjersey.com
Copyright (c) 2003 North Jersey Media Group Inc.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
NJ TRANSIT OPENS DIRT REMOVAL BIDS
Date: 031204
From: http://www.courierpostonline.com/news/southjersey/
TAINTED SOIL ALONG LIGHT RAIL LINE TO BE TRUCKED TO PA. QUARRY
By Richard Pearsall, Courier-Post Staff, December 3, 2003
Riverside - NJ Transit will dispose of the rest of the tainted dirt
it dumped along its South Jersey light rail line by trucking it to a
quarry in Bucks County, Pa.
Bids opened Tuesday at NJ Transit's South Jersey office here reveal
that the dirt, some 80,000 cubic yards of it, will be taken from East
Camden to the Penn Valley Quarry in Falls Township.
Conti Enterprises submitted the low bid to do the work, $3.8 million,
undercutting the other two bidders by a wide margin.
Conti, based in South Plainfield, is the general contractor that has
done the bulk of construction work on the 34-mile light rail line.
The dirt contains low levels of hazardous substances such as lead,
arsenic and PCBs.
NJ Transit maintains that it poses no environmental threat but agreed
to remove it in June after East Camden residents protested its
presence next to their neighborhood.
Transit hired Agate Construction of Ocean View to move the first
third of the dirt from East Camden, about 40,000 cubic yards, and
another 26,000 cubic yards piled in Roebling, and take it to the Fresh
Kills Landfill in Staten Island, N.Y.
NJ Transit agreed to pay Agate $2.9 million and Interstate Materials
on Staten Island close to $1 million without bidding in order to
demonstrate its commitment to the residents and get the removal
started, NJ Transit said.
It shifted to bids to try to get a better deal, the agency said.
The proposal that the contractors bid on, however, included a
prearranged deal with both the quarry and with a company called
Beneficial Solutions, described by NJ Transit spokeswoman Penny
Bassett Hackett as a "broker."
While Conti has submitted the low bid, Bassett Hackett said Tuesday,
its proposal must still be reviewed and voted on by NJ Transit board
of directors.
Agate bid $5.1 million to do the remainder of the work and a company
called JPC bid $5.5 million.
* * *
Reach Richard Pearsall at (856) 486-2465 or
rpea...@courierpostonline.com
Copyright 2003 Courier-Post.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
GROUPS CLAIM EPA FAVORING PESTICIDE CORPORATIONS
Date: 3 Dec 2003
From: "Peter Montague" {Pe...@rachel.org}
CONSERVATION GROUPS DEMAND EPA STOP USING
ILLEGAL INSIDER CHEMICAL GROUP TO FORGE POLICY
By Ernest Callenbach, U.S. Newswire, Dec. 2, 2003
Washington - Conservation and pesticide watchdog groups sent a letter
demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency stop giving illegal
special access to a group of chemical corporations. Documents obtained
under the Freedom of Information Act and other sources reveal that the
corporate insider group has met regularly with EPA officials in secret
and has urged EPA to weaken regulations that protect endangered
species from pesticides.
The chemical companies are pushing EPA to weaken pesticide safeguards
by cutting expert biologists in the US Fish and Wildlife Service and
NOAA Fisheries out of consultations determining the effects of
pesticides on wildlife. At the companies' urging, EPA has started a
rulemaking to reserve authority over such evaluations to itself.
"EPA is letting the pesticide industry have inside influence over the
fate of endangered species poisoned by toxic pesticides," said Patti
Goldman of Earthjustice, which sent the demand letter on behalf of the
conservation and watchdog groups.
Federal law prohibits the government from using and meeting in secret
with such insider groups. Congress has established good government
standards that prevent secret and one-sided advisory bodies of wealthy
special interests. The Federal Advisory Committee Act prohibits the
federal government from obtaining advice from committees comprised of
only the regulated industry. That act also requires that the meetings
of advisory groups be open to the public.
"EPA has an open door policy to the biggest chemical companies in
America while excluding the rest of us," said Mike Senatore of
Defenders of Wildlife. "That's not right. In America all voices are
supposed to be heard, not just wealthy interests that make campaign
contributions."
In 2000, EPA established this chemical industry group, known as the
FIFRA Endangered Species Task Force, to develop data disclosing the
locations of endangered species. The task force is comprised of 14
agro-chemical companies. It meets regularly with EPA officials in
closed meetings and has no public interest representatives. Over the
past year, the chemical industry task force has shifted its efforts
away from generating data to advocating that EPA circumvent the
Endangered Species Act for pesticide uses that harm federally
protected species. It has become the chief proponent of new pesticide
regulations that would eliminate expert oversight over species
protections. In early 2003, EPA announced its plan to issue such
regulations, and it plans to propose new rules by the end of the year.
"For years, EPA has flouted its obligation to protect endangered
species from pesticides," said Aaron Colangelo of the Natural
Resources Defense Council. "Now that the courts are directing EPA to
comply with its duties, the pesticide industry and the Bush
administration have come up with a new trick for delaying species
protections."
The groups sending the letter today have told EPA they will consider
pursuing legal action if EPA does not commit to bring its actions into
compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of
Wildlife, Washington Toxics Coalition, and Northwest Coalition for
Alternatives to Pesticides, represented by Earthjustice, sent the
demand letter.
The demand letter and a list of the chemical companies comprising the
illegal advisory committee are available at:
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=738
# # #
Rachel's Environment & Health News
Environmental Research Foundation
POB 160
New Brunswick NJ 08903-0160
T: 732-828-9995
F: 732-791-4603
E: e...@rachel.org
W: http://www.rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
A YEAR OF EXTREMES PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING
Date: 3 Dec 2003
From: "Peter Montague" {Pe...@rachel.org}
By Michael McCarthy, Independent (UK), Dec. 3, 2003
As the Kyoto protocol, the world climate change treaty, starts to
crumble because of Russian reluctance to ratify it, evidence is
mounting of the very threat it is designed to counter.
Since January, many of the predicted consequences of a steadily
warming atmosphere have started to come true. In June the World
Meteorological Organisation drew attention to extreme weather events
across the world and in a highly unusual move, linked them to global
warming explicitly.
India, Sri Lanka and the United States have registered record high
temperatures, rainfall and tornadoes this year. There has been an
increasing number of scientific reports of rapidly melting ice in both
the Arctic and the Antarctic, and rapidly melting mountain glaciers.
Continental Europe has seen forest fires like never before, and great
rivers like Italy's Po have been reduced to a trickle.
Britain had its own extreme: on 10 August we registered the first
three-figure Fahrenheit air temperature - 101.3F (38.5C) - in a
reliable record that goes back to 1659.
The 10 hottest years in the global temperature record, which goes
back to 1860, have all now occurred since 1990, with the hottest being
1998, which, according to the Climatic Research Unit of the University
of East Anglia, was probably the hottest year in the northern
hemisphere for 1,000 years.
It is followed in the table by 2002 and then 2001, and it is already
clear that 2003 will also be in contention as one of the hottest years
ever.
In Britain, four of the five hottest years in the Central England
Temperature Record, which goes back almost 350 years, have also
occurred since 1990.
If the evidence of global warming is mounting, how can the treaty
designed to counter it be going down?
The answer lies in its own contradictions. The Kyoto protocol
requires legally binding cuts in greenhouse emissions, yet in some
countries the demand for fossil fuels is so strong that the agreement
would be impossible to fulfil. This is the case in the United States
where four per cent of the world's population spews out nearly a
quarter of the world's total greenhouse emissions.
Led by Bill Clinton's then Vice-President Al Gore - he wrote the
lauded environmental polemicEarth in the Balance- the US delegation at
the Kyoto negotiations in 1997 signed up to what some commentators now
see as a lot more than it could afford.
It agreed that America would, by 2010, cut back its emissions of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to seven per cent below
where they were in 1990.
But thanks to Mr Clinton's dot-com boom, the American economy has
expanded and by 2010 CO2 emissions will have shot up accordingly.
To get back, by 2010, to the level prescribed by the treaty would
mean an emissions cut of more than 30 per cent. Cut your energy use by
a third? Short of turning all Californians out of their cars and onto
bikes, this is simply not possible.
Senior figures in the State Department recognised this at the time,
so in a clever move they found a potential way for the US to meet its
target: so-called "flexible mechanisms" or, in effect, licensed
cheating.
The most important of these was the ability of the US to buy notional
"surplus emission cuts" from countries that had them to spare, as did
Russia after its heavy industry collapsed in the 1990s.
But the US would have to pay through the nose for these tactics and
after the Republicans regained control of the White House under George
W Bush, their analysis was brutal: "Why should we pay a billion
dollars to the Russian mafia to keep a car plant open in Chicago?"
This view, and the fact, strongly resented in Congress, that only
industrialised nations and not developing countries like India and
China, were required to cut emissions under the treaty, led George W
Bush to repudiate it as one of his first major acts of policy.
But in doing so he also deprived the Russians of one of the major
attractions it had for them - the chance to sell their surplus
emission cuts for a great bundle of cash.
Deprived of the possible benefits, the hard-nosed economists around
President Vladimir Putin such as Andrei Illarionov focused on the
treaty's potential drawbacks, and yesterday it was Mr Illarionov who
signalled his country's own withdrawal.
DOOMSDAY FOR THE PROTOCOL
** The Kyoto Protocol sets targets for countries to reduce emissions
of greenhouse gases identified as contributing to global warming.
** 188 nations are attending a 10-day United Nations summit on global
climate in Milan to work on the treaty
** 120 countries, including Britain, have signed the protocol since it
was formulated in Kyoto in 1997.
** 55 countries are required to ratify the pact in order for it to
take effect
** The countries must include the industrialised nations that account
for at least 55 per cent of that group's carbon dioxide emissions in
1990
** To date, the nations that have signed account for only 44.2 per
cent
** The United States, the world's number one polluter, withdrew its 36
per cent stake in 2001
** As Russia accounts for 17.4 per cent - which would allow the group
to exceed the required 55 per cent total - its ratification is an
essential casting vote for the protocol's implementation
** Countries would be able to buy or sell the right to pollute,
depending on its own emissions levels
** As a result, economists have argued that Moscow would stand to gain
from the pact as the collapse of many of its Soviet-era industries
would leave it with billions of pounds-worth of excess emission quotas
to sell
** The first hint that Russia might not commit itself to the treaty
emerged two months ago when President Vladimir Putin stated that a
warmer climate would benefit Russian farming and enable people to save
money on coats in winter
** The EU has passed legislation to permit the trading of emissions to
commence in 2005
# # #
Rachel's Environment & Health News
Environmental Research Foundation
POB 160
New Brunswick NJ 08903-0160
T: 732-828-9995
F: 732-791-4603
E: e...@rachel.org
W: http://www.rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ROAD TO RUIN: HOW AMERICA IS RAVAGING THE PLANET
Date: 4 Nov 2003
From: "NPG" {n...@npg.org}
By Matthew Engel, Guardian (UK), 10/24/03
America produces a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions,
the population has risen by 100 million since 1970 and when an area
three times the size of Britain was recently opened up for mining,
drilling, logging and road building, no one took much notice. What
does the Bush administration do? It ignores all attempts to curb
environmental damage.
On the map of the United States, just below halfway down the east
coast, you can see a series of islets, in the shape of a hooked nose.
These are the Outer Banks, barrier islands - sun-kissed in summer,
storm-tossed in winter - that stretch for 100 miles and more,
protecting the main coastline of the state of North Carolina. They are
built, quite literally, on shifting sands.
Twenty years ago, these were, by all accounts, magical places, hard
to reach and discovered only by the adventurous and discerning. They
are still fairly magical, at least the seemingly endless stretch of
unspoiled beach is. It is the lure of that which causes the traffic
jams on the only two bridges every Saturday throughout the summer. The
narrow strip of land behind the beach, however, has been built up with
enormous holiday homes, costing up to $2m each. And prices rose by 15-
20% (25% for those on the ocean front) in 2002 alone, according to one
agent.
This is what local agents call "a very nice market", and last month
their area had a week of free worldwide publicity. Hurricane Isabel
swept in, washing out much of the islands' only road and picking up
motels from their foundations and tossing them, according to one
report, "like cigarette butts". One island was turned into several
islets, with a whole town, Hatteras Village, being cut off from the
rest of the US - for ever, if nature has its way.
Residents, journalists reported, were in shock. Many scientists were
not. Speaking well before Isabel, Dr Orrin Pilkey, professor emeritus
of geology at Duke University in North Carolina, described the Outer
Banks property boom to me as "a form of societal madness". "I wouldn't
buy a house on the front row of the Outer Banks. Or the second,"
agreed Dr Stephen Leatherman, who is such a connoisseur of American
coastlines that he is known as Dr Beach.
For the market is not the only thing that has been rising round here.
Like other experts, Pilkey expects the Atlantic to inundate the
existing beaches "within two to four generations". Normally, that
would be no problem for the sands, which would simply regroup and re-
form further back. Unfortunately, that is no longer possible: the $2m
houses are in the way. According to Pilkey, the government will either
have to build millions of dollars worth of seawall, which will destroy
the beach anyway, or demolish the houses. "Coastal scientists from
abroad come here and just shake their heads in disbelief," he says.
The madness of the Outer Banks seems like a symptom of, and a
metaphor for, something far broader: the US is in denial about what
is, beyond any question, potentially its most dangerous enemy. While
millions of words have been written every day for the past two years
about the threat from vengeful Islamic terrorists, the threat from a
vengeful Nature has been almost wholly ignored. Yet the likelihood of
multiple attacks in the future is far more certain.
Earlier this year, just before he was fired as environment minister,
Michael Meacher gave a speech in Newcastle, saying: "There is a lot
wrong with our world. But it is not as bad as people think. It is
actually worse." He listed five threats to the survival of the planet:
lack of fresh water, destruction of forest and crop land, global
warming, overuse of natural resources and the continuing rise in the
population. What Meacher could not say, or he would have been booted
out more quickly, was that the US is a world leader in hastening each
of these five crises, bringing its gargantuan appetite to the business
of ravaging the planet. American politicians do not talk this way.
Even Al Gore, supposedly the most committed environmentalist in world
politics, kept quiet about the subject when chasing the presidency in
2000.
Those of us without a degree in climatology can have no sensible
opinion on the truth about climate change, except to sense that the
weather does seem to have become a little weird lately. Yet in America
the subject has become politicized, with rightwing commentators
decrying global warming as "bogus science". They gloated when it
snowed unusually hard in Washington last winter (failing to notice the
absence of snow in Alaska). When the dissident "good news" scientist
Bjorn Lomborg spoke to a conservative Washington thinktank he was
applauded not merely rapturously, but fawningly.
While newspapers report that Kilimanjaro's icecap is melting and
Greenland's glaciers are crumbling, the US government has been telling
its scientific advisers to do more research before it can consider any
action to restrict greenhouse gases; the scientists reported back that
they had done all the research. The attitude of the White House to
global warming was summed up by the online journalist Mickey Kaus as:
"It's not true! It's not true! And we can't do anything about it!"
What terrifies all American politicians, deep down, is that it is true
and that they could do something about it, but at horrendous cost to
American industry and lifestyle.
In the meantime, all American consumers have been asked to do is to
buy Ben & Jerry's One Sweet Whirled ice cream, ensuring that a portion
of Unilever's profits go towards "global warming initiatives". Wow!
Potential Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination have
been testing environmental issues a little in the past few weeks. Some
activists are hopeful that the newly elected Governor Schwarzenegger
of California is genuinely interested. But, in truth, despite the
Soviet-style politicization of science, serious national debate on the
issue ceased years ago.
Of course, nimbyism is alive and well. And, sure, there are localized
battles between greens and their corporate enemies: towns in Alabama
try to resist corporate poisoning; contests go on to preserve the
habitats of everything from the grizzly bear to rare types of fly;
Californians hug trees to stop new housing estates. Sometimes the
greenies win, though they have been losing with increasing frequency,
especially if Washington happens to be involved. These fights, even in
agglomeration, are not the real issue. Day after day across America
the green agenda is being lost - and then, usually, being buried under
concrete.
"We're waging a war on the environment, a very successful one," says
Paul Ehrlich, professor of population studies at Stanford University.
"This nation is devouring itself," according to Phil Clapp of the
National Environmental Trust. These are voices that have almost ceased
to be heard in the US. Yet with each passing day, the gap between the
US and the rest of the planet widens. To take the figure most often
trotted out: Americans contribute a quarter of the world's carbon
dioxide emissions. To meet the seemingly modest Kyoto objective of
reducing emissions to 7% below their 1990 levels by 2012, they would
actually (due to growth) have to cut back by a third. For the Bush
White House, this is not even on the horizon, never mind the agenda.
Why has the leader of the free world opted out? The first reason lies
deep in the national psyche. The old world developed on the basis of a
coalition - uneasy but understood - between humanity and its
surroundings. The settlement of the US was based on conquest, not just
of the indigenous peoples, but also of the terrain. It appears to be,
thus far, one of the great success stories of modern history.
"Remember, this country is built very heavily on the frontier ethic,"
says Clapp. "How America moved west was to exhaust the land and move
on. The original settlers, such as the Jefferson family, moved
westward because families like theirs planted tobacco in tidewater
Virginia and exhausted the soil. My own ancestors did the same in
Indiana."
Americans made crops grow in places that are entirely arid. They
built dams - about 250,000 of them. They built great cities, with
skyscrapers and symphony orchestras, in places that appeared barely
habitable. They shifted rivers, even reversed their flow. "It's the
American belief that with enough hard work and perseverance anything -
be it a force of nature, a country or a disease - can be vanquished,"
says Clapp. "It's a country founded on the idea of no limits. The
essence of environmentalism is that there are indeed limits. It's one
of the reasons environmentalism is a stronger ethic in Europe than in
the US."
There is a second reason: the staggering population growth of the US.
It is approaching 300 million, having gone up from 200 million in
1970, which was around the time President Nixon set up a commission to
consider the issue, the last time any US administration has dared
think about it. A million new legal migrants are coming in every year
(never mind illegals), and the US Census Bureau projections for 2050,
merely half a lifetime away, is 420 million. This is a rate of
increase far beyond anything else in the developed world, and not far
behind Brazil, India, or indeed Mexico.
This issue is political dynamite, although not for quite the same
reasons as in Britain. Almost every political group is split on the
issue, including the far right (torn between overt xenophobes such as
Pat Buchanan and the free marketeers), the labor movement and the
environmentalists. The belief that the US is the best country in the
world is a cornerstone of national self-belief, and many Americans
still, wholeheartedly, want others to share it. They also want cheap
labor to cut the sugar cane, pluck the chickens, pick the oranges, mow
the lawns and make the beds.
But the dynamite is most potent among the Hispanic community, the
group who will probably decide the destiny of future presidential
elections and who do not wish to be told their relatives will not be
allowed in or, if illegal, seriously harassed. "Neither party wants to
say we should change immigration policy," says John Haaga of the
independent Population Reference Bureau. "The phrase being used is
'Hispandering'". Yet extra Americans are not just a problem for the
US: they are, in the eyes of many environmentalists, a problem for the
world because migrants, in a short span of time, take on American
consumption patterns. "Not only don't we have a population policy,"
says Ehrlich, "we don't have a consumption policy either. We are the
most overpopulated country in the world. It's not the number of
people. It's their consumption." Ehrlich may be wrong. It is, though.
somewhat surprising that the federal government's four million
employees do not appear to include anyone charged with even thinking
about this issue.
This brings us to the third factor: the Bush administration, the
first government in modern history which has systematically disavowed
the systems of checks and controls that have governed environmental
policy since it burst into western political consciousness a
generation ago. It would be ludicrous to suggest that Bush is
responsible for what is happening to the American environment. The
crisis is far more deep-seated than that, and the federal government
is too far removed from the minutiae of daily life.
But the Bushies have perfected a technique of announcing regular
edicts (often late on a Friday afternoon) rolling back environmental
control, usually while pretending to do the opposite. Morale among
civil servants at the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington
was already close to rock-bottom even before its moderate leader,
Christine Todd Whitman, finally threw in her hand in May. Gossip round
town was that she had endured two years of private humiliation at the
hands of the White House. Few environmentalists have great hopes for
her announced successor, the governor of Utah, Mike Leavitt.
What is really alarming is the intellectual atmosphere in Washington.
You can attend seminars debunking scientific eco-orthodoxy almost
every week. Early in the year, there was much favorable publicity for
a new work Global Warming and Other Eco-myths, produced by the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, an organization reputedly funded by
multinational corporations. Outside Washington, it can be far nastier.
"I've never threatened anyone in my life," a conservation activist in
Montana complained to the Guardian. "I do know, though, that I have
gotten very ugly threats left on my telephone answering machine over
the past year, and twice had to scour my sidewalk in front of the
building to erase the dead body chalk outlines."
Out in the west, words such as enviro-whackos are popularized by
rightwing radio hosts such as the ex-Watergate conspirator Gordon
Liddy, who passes on to his millions of listeners the message that
global warming is a lie. "I commute in a three-quarter-tonne capacity
Chevrolet Silverado HD," he swanked in his latest book. "Four-wheel
drive, off-road equipped, extended curb pickup truck, powered by a
300hp, overhead valve, turbo supercharged diesel engine with 520lb-
feet of torque...It has lights all over it so everyone can see me
coming and get out of the way. If someone in a little government-
mandated car hits me, it is all over - for him." Fuel economy in
American vehicles hit a 22-year low in 2002.
In this country, green-minded people can't even trust the good guys.
The Nature Conservancy, the US's largest environmental group with a
million members - with a role not unlike Britain's National Trust -
was the subject of an exhaustive exposé in the Washington Post in May,
accusing it of sanctioning deals to build "opulent houses on fragile
grasslands" and drilling for gas under the last breeding ground of the
Attwater's Prairie Chicken, whose numbers have dwindled to just
dozens.
On April 22, 1970 more than 20 million people attended the first-ever
Earth Day. In New York, Fifth Avenue was closed to traffic and 100,000
people attended an ecology fair in Central Park. The Republican
governor of New York wore a Save the Earth button, and Senator John
Tower, another Republican, told an audience of Texan oilmen: "Recent
efforts on the part of the private sector show promise for pollution
abatement and control. Such efforts are in our own best interests..."
So what happened next? The problem for the green movement was not
what went wrong, but what went right. Ehrlich's book, The Population
Bomb, said: "In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines - hundreds
of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any
crash programs embarked on now." The famine never came. And after the
oil crisis came and went, and Americans began to tire of the gloom-
filled, eco-oriented presidency of Jimmy Carter, they turned instead
to Ronald Reagan, who proposed simple solutions of tax cuts and
deregulation and, lo, the world got more cheerful. With doomsday
postponed indefinitely, the politics of the Reagan years have
lingered.
Some activists remain bitter about the Clinton White House, which was
only patchily interested in green issues. "It left a bad taste in the
mouth of the environmental community," says Tim Wirth, a former
senator and one-time Clinton official. "They trimmed their sails over
and over again. The old House speaker, Tip O'Neill, had a very
important political aphorism: 'Yer dance with the person who brung
yer.' They never did." This bitterness was one of the factors that led
to the hefty third-party vote for Ralph Nader in 2000, which proved
disastrous for Al Gore, the inhibited environmentalist.
In the three years since then, Bush has danced like a dervish with
the folks who brung him. Yet, even now, no one dare say out loud that
they are against environmentalism: the political wisdom is that the
subject can be a voting issue among the suburban moms, ferrying the
kids around to baseball practice in their own Chevrolet Silverados.
Instead, the big corporations and their political allies have -
brilliantly - manipulated the forces that the eco-warriors themselves
unleashed and turned them back on their creators. "In the 80s they
took all the techniques of citizen advocacy groups and
professionalized them," explains Phil Clapp. "That's when you saw the
proliferation of lobbyists in Washington. The environmental community
never retooled to meet the challenge. They had developed the
techniques, but were still doing them in a PTA bake-sale kind of way."
Thus every new measure passed to favor business interests and ease up
on pollution regulations is presented in an eco-friendly, sugar-
coated, summer's morning kind of way, such as Clear Skies, the
weakening of the Clean Air Act. The House of Representatives has just
passed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, presented by the president
as an anti-forest fire measure. Opponents say it is simply a gift to
the timber industry that will make it extremely difficult to stop the
felling of old-growth trees. Another technique is to announce, with
great fanfare, initiatives that everyone can applaud, such as a recent
one for hydrogen-based cars. We can expect more of these as November
2004 draws closer. When they are scaled back, or delayed, or dropped,
there is less publicity. It is a habit that runs in the family.
Governor Jeb Bush's grand scheme to save the Florida Everglades was
much applauded; the delay from 2006 to 2016 was little noticed.
Even now the White House does not win all its battles. In the Senate,
where a small group of greenish New England Republicans has a
potential blocking veto, there are moves to compromise on the forests
bill. The New England Republicans were largely responsible for Bush's
inability to push through his plan to allow oil drilling in the
Alaskan wildlife reserve. Occasionally, there is good news: some of
the small dams that have impeded the life-cycle of Pacific salmon and
steelhead trout are being demolished; there are reports of a new
alliance between the old enemies, ranchers and greenies, in New
Mexico; renewable energy is under discussion. But some of their
policies are already having their effect. Carol Browner, Clinton's
head of the EPA, claims the Bush administration has set back the
campaign to cut industrial pollution in ways that will last for
decades.
"This administration has sent a signal to the polluting community,
'You can get away with bad habits'," says Browner. "State governments
in the north-east were much tougher, so the north-eastern power
stations upgraded their emissions standards in the 90s whereas the
mid-west guys, who are their competitors, didn't. Now they're not
enforcing the law."
"So what they're saying to the companies is: 'Don't go early, don't
comply with the law first. The rules might change.' Even a company
that wants to do the right thing has to look at its bottom line. If
they get into a situation like this, they think: 'We spent $1bn to
meet the requirements and our competitors didn't. Yeah, great. We're
not going to do that again.'"
Under Bush, the lack of interest at every level has at last come into
balance. The US is equally unconcerned globally, federally, statewide
and locally. The environmentalists' macro-gloom has been off-beam
before, of course. Perhaps global warming is a myth; perhaps the CEI
is right and there will be a blue revolution in water use to
complement the green revolution. There is probably just as much as
chance that the next big surprise will be a thrilling one - the
arrival of nuclear cold fusion to solve the energy dilemma, say - as a
disaster. Maybe biotechnology, pesticides, natural gas and American
ingenuity and optimism will indeed see everything right. It does seem
like a curiously reckless gamble for the US to be taking, though,
staking the future of the planet on the spin of nature's roulette
wheel.
But it is only a bigger version of the bet being taken by the home-
buyers of North Carolina. In a country supposedly distrustful of
government, the Outer Bankers have remarkable faith in their leaders'
ability to see them seem right. Post-Isabel, a group of residents
there wrote a letter demanding government action so they can protect
their livelihoods and families "without the fear of every hurricane or
nor 'easter cutting us off from the rest of the world". Quite. Who
would imagine that in the 21st century the most powerful empire the
world has ever known could still be threatened by enemies as
pathetically old-fashioned as wind and tide?
Orrin Pilkey thinks it quite possible that sea levels might rise to
the point where the Outer Banks will be a minor detail. "We're not
going to be worried about North Carolina. We're going to be worrying
about Manhattan." Still, macro-catastrophe may never happen. The
micro-catastrophe, however, already has: the US is an aesthetic
disaster area.
If you fly from Washington to Boston, there are now almost no open
spaces below. This is increasingly true in a big U covering both
coasts and the sunbelt. In the south-west, the main growth area,
bungalows spread for miles over what a decade ago was virgin desert.
The population of Arizona increased 40% in the 1990s, that of next-
door Nevada 66%. That's, as Natalie Merchant sang, "...the sprawl that
keeps crawling its way, 'bout a thousand miles a day", which is not
much of an exaggeration.
Every day 5,000 new houses go up in America. Many of these fit the
American appetite for size, however small the plot: "McMansions", as
they are known. The very word suburb is now old-hat. The reality of
life for many people now is the "exurb", which can be dozens of miles
from the city on which it depends. In places such as California,
exurban life is the only affordable option for most young couples and
recent migrants.
These communities are rarely gated but often walled, creating a vague
illusion of security and ensuring that the residents have to drive to
a shop, even if there happens to be one 50 yards away. Naturally, they
have to drive everywhere else. In August it was announced that the
number of cars in the US (1.9 per household) now actually exceeded the
number of drivers (1.75).
In many places - especially those growing the fastest - developers
have to deal only with the little councils in the towns they are
taking over. There are often minimal requirements to provide any kind
of infrastructure, such as sewage or schools, to service these new
communities. The rules for building houses in the computer game Sim
City are stricter than those that apply in most areas of the Sun Belt.
Too late, some parts of the country have concluded that this is
untenable. The buzz-phrase is "smart growth", which means no more than
the kind of forethought before building that has been routine in
Europe for half a century. Even the Environmental Protection Agency is
not above being helpful: its policies for making use of brownfield
sites have seen people moving, improbably, back into the center of
cities such as Pittsburgh.
But where it matters, no one is talking strategy. "In the really
fast-growing states, the pace of development is such that they can
build huge numbers of houses without anyone considering what it means
for the infrastructure," says Marya Morris of the American Planning
Association. In California, more than perhaps any other state, there
is a debate. But while people talk, developers act: a city catering
for up to 70,000 people will soon arise at the foot of the Tehachapi
Mountains. According to the Los Angeles Times, it would effectively
close the gap between Los Angeles and Bakersfield, theoretically 111
miles away. "Southern California is coming over the hill," said one
resident.
Americans still have a presumption of infinite space. But I have made
a curious and mildly embarrassing discovery. In states such as
Maryland and Ohio, the pattern of settlement in supposedly rural areas
is such that it can actually be quite difficult to find a discreet
spot away from housing to stop the car and have a pee. Amid the wide-
open spaces of Texas, it can be worse: the gap between Dallas and Waco
is a 100-mile strip mall. The concepts of townscape and landscape seem
non-existent: there is land that has been developed and land that
hasn't - yet.
And yet. Time and again, around the US, one is struck by the stunning
beauty of the landscape, not in the obvious places, but in corners
that few Americans will have heard of: amazing rivers such as the
Pearl in Louisiana, or the Choptank in Maryland or the Lost River in
West Virginia; the Chocolate Mountains and the San Diego back country
in California; the bits that are left of the Outer Banks...
And equally one is struck by the sheer horrendousness of what man has
done in the century or so since he seriously got to work over here. In
the context of ages, the white man is merely a hotel guest in this
continent: he has smashed the furniture and smeared excrement on the
walls. He appears to be looking forward to his next night's stay with
relish.
Of course, there are still huge tracts of untouched and largely
unpopulated land: in the Great Plains, where people are leaving, in
the mountains, deserts and Arctic tundra. But last spring, in another
of Washington's Friday night announcements, the Department of the
Interior announced - no, whispered - that it was removing more than
200m acres that it owned from "further wilderness study", enabling
those areas to be opened for mining, drilling, logging or road-
building. That's an area three times the size of Britain. The New York
Times did write a trenchant editorial; otherwise the response was
minimal.
Not long ago I went for a walk in the Vallecito Mountains in
California. After a while, I got myself into a position where the
contours of the land blotted out everything and, after the noise of a
plane had died away, there was no sight or sound at all that was not
produced by nature. This lasted about a minute. Then, from somewhere,
a motorcycle roared into earshot.
Sure, there are still places in this vast country where it is
possible to escape, but they get harder and harder to find except for
the fit, the adventurous and those unencumbered by children or jobs.
Most Americans don't live that way. And nowhere now is entirely safe
from being ravaged, sometimes in ways that prejudice the future of the
whole planet. Al-Qaida and the Iraqi bombers have no need to bother.
America is destroying itself.
* * *
(c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
APPEALS COURT TO CONSIDER ARGUMENTS ON BEAR HUNT
Date: 031203
From: http://www.nj.com/newsflash/jersey/
Associated Press, 12/3/03
Trenton - A state appeals panel agreed Wednesday to consider
arguments concerning whether New Jersey's planned black bear hunt
scheduled to begin next week can take place on publicly owned land.
The Appellate Division set no timetable for reaching a decision on
the appeal of a lawsuit filed by Saving Our Resources Today, which
claimed the state failed to take proper steps to allow the hunt on
state parks, forests and other public lands.
The group claimed that while the Division of Fish and Wildlife
approved the hunt, the Division of Parks and Forestry as overseer of
the parks failed to follow required procedures.
Another coalition of groups filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court
seeking to stop the hunt from taking place in the Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation Area near the Pennsylvania border. The group said
hunting there would violate federal environmental laws because no
impact study had been done. A hearing on that matter is scheduled for
Friday.
Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley Campbell said Wednesday
that the agencies took all the proper measures for the hunt and he
expected the courts to rule in the state's favor. Bradley said the
land disputed by the groups is only about 10 percent of the 1 million
acres where the hunt is scheduled to take place.
The commissioner said about 5,800 hunters are expected to be licensed
for the state's first black bear hunt since 1970. The hunt is
scheduled to start Monday and last for six days in the northwestern
part of the state.
Officials said the black bear population was as high as 3,200 and
posed a threat to residents. Campbell said Wednesday that
contraceptive and other measures are being taken to control the bear
population and that no decision had been made on whether the hunt
would be conducted annually.
* * *
(c) 2003 NJ.com. All Rights Reserved.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
RAISING THE BAR FOR EAST COAST GREENWAY
Date: 3 Dec 2003
From: "Dave Lutz" {dave...@treebranch.com}
[Excerpt: posted regularly: http://www.gsenet.org/newsstnd/uod.php]
Urban Outdoors
No. 97 - December 2, 2003
Working for a more Humane New York
RAISING THE BAR FOR EAST COAST GREENWAY
More than ten years ago, when a "spine route" for the East Coast
Greenway (ECG) was established through the Metro NY area, NY Harbor
and the NJ Meadowlands seemed to be formidable obstacles to a
continuous bike/pedestrian trail. The path of least resistance seemed
to be the Staten Island ferry and the then still open-to-pedestrians
Goethals Bridge. Shortly after that decision was made by the ECG
Alliance, the Port Authority of NY/NJ (PA) unceremoniously closed the
Goethals Path "for repairs." No re-open date has since been announced,
but now the PA is talking about replacing the whole bridge with one
with wider automotive lanes and a wider pedestrian path. (The
existing-but-closed path is about three feet wide in places.
At the Alliance's November 8th Annual Meeting in Charleston, SC, both
the New York State and New Jersey delegates reported on positive
developments in their states, including progress on bringing an off-
road trail through the Meadowlands, Newark's urban core and the Arches
rail corridor in Jersey City, and Mayor Bloomberg's commitment to work
for a pedestrian path over the Verrazano Bridge. Along with the
existing trail over the Brooklyn Bridge, Congresswoman Velazquez's
funding requests for greenway work along the Red Hook and Sunset Park
Waterfront and Governor Pataki's strong commitment to building
Brooklyn Bridge Park to fruition, NY State can offer a greenway trail
that requires no boat ride. The Alliance was called to choose between
two excellent proposals. After a lively debate the Alliance decided to
approve both and place them on the official ECG spine. As Charleston
calls itself the "holy city" it would be fair to say that King Solomon
was smiling on that humid Saturday meeting.
For information on participation in the first East Coast Greenway
Alliance tour of the entire Maine to Florida corridor visit
http://www.greenway.org
* * *
Please help support NOSC-FoG and the publication of this newsletter by
contributing $50. Go to our website or
http://www.guidestar.org/partners/networkforgood/donate.jsp?ein=13-
3081501 and join NOSC/FOG today.
URBAN OUTDOORS is the monthly newsletter of Neighborhood Open Space
Coalition and Friends of Gateway. It reports on citywide public space
issues and the work of hundreds of local civic groups that take an
interest in the spaces. To add someone to URBAN OUTDOORS list: visit
the subscription area of http://www.treebranch.net/.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
MONMOUTH COUNTY - SENIOR PLANNER - ENVIRONMENTAL
Date: 3 Dec 2003
From: "Linda Brennen" {lbre...@shore.co.monmouth.nj.us}
The Monmouth County Planning Board seeks a qualified, creative, self-
starter for environmental planning and outreach work. Job duties
include a significant amount of GIS project work, environmental
analysis, participation in regional planning studies, and training and
outreach work. The successful applicant will be responsible for the
preparation of GIS mapping, brochures, planning reports, environmental
assessments, and ecological inventories, and for planning
informational events.
A bachelor's degree from an accredited college with a minimum of 21
semester credit hours in professional planning subjects is mandatory.
A minimum of two years of environmental planning experience is
required. A Master's Degree in Planning may be substituted for one
year of experience, and a valid and current New Jersey Planners
License may be substituted for the educational requirement.
The qualified applicant will have the ability to manage multiple
priorities, excellent written and interpersonal communication skills,
experience working with adults and children, and a strong background
in ecology or a related science field.
Excellent salary and benefits package offered. Send your resume with
a cover letter that outlines your salary requirements and related
experience to:
Sharon Carbone
Monmouth County Department of Personnel
Hall of Records
One East Main Street
Freehold, NJ 07728
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
CAPE MAY WATER SUPPLY HEARING - DEC 8
Date: 3 Dec 2003
From: "rich" {ri...@pinelandsalliance.org}
PUBLIC HEARING
CAPE MAY COUNTY WATER SUPPLY STUDY
NJDEP needs to hear from you that wetlands and aquatic ecosystems
must not be sacrificed at the expense of providing water for future
growth.
The Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) will hold a Public
Hearing on the Scope of Work for the Cape May Water Supply Study. The
hearing will be held on Monday, December 8th, from 7-9 p.m. at the
Cape May County Complex, 4 Moore Road, Cape May Court House.
The Division of Watershed Management (NJDEP) in conjunction with the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed a scope of work as
required by P.L. 2001 chapter 165 (Gibson Bill) to design a
sustainable water supply system for Cape May County's current and
future water supply needs. An appropriation of $2,000,000 was
allocated for this purpose. This hearing will involve a presentation
of the scope of work by the USGS and an opportunity for public
testimony. An electronic copy of the scope of work can be obtained
from the Cape May County planning department by contacting
(609) 465-6875 or igi...@co.cape-may.nj.us.
* * *
Richard G. Bizub
Project Manager for Water
Pinelands Preservation Alliance
114 Hanover Street
Pemberton, NJ 08068
Phone: 609-894-8000
Fax: 609-894-9455
ri...@pinelandsalliance.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Phil Reynolds - Editor - reyn...@gsenet.org
Ivan Kossak - Executive Director - kos...@gsenet.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Back issues of the Garden State EnviroNews are available at
http://www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/11gsn.php
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Garden State EnviroNet, Inc.
19 Boonton Ave, Boonton NJ 07005
Tel: 973-394-1313 - Fax: 973-394-9513
mai...@gsenet.org - http://www.gsenet.org/
EnviroNews mailing lists:
TEXT - subscribe-en...@gselist.org
HTML - subscribe-en...@gselist.org